Talk:Boxer Protocol

Name

I wonder if the name "Boxer Protocol" is more popular than the "Treaty of 1901". If so, should we move the title to Boxer Protocol?Mababa

• "Boxer Protocol" may be more popular, particularly because westerners (like myself) have trouble remembering and pronouncing Chinese words. Treaties are always named for the location at which they are signed. The page of peace treaties at [1] calls this the "Xinchou Treaty (辛丑条约)". I think this page should be named "Xinchou Treaty" (or the current romanised version of Xinchou) and redirects made from "Boxer Protocol" and "Peace Agreement between the Great Powers and China" (which is the subtitle). Legal agreements are always given their official name on wikipedia I think.

There are other issues arising out of this for example an image caption reads "Signature page of the Boxer rebellion settlement" this is rather perverse, as a government wouldn't be signing for a rebellion against itself, you could say "Boxer Uprising" or better still "Signature page of the Xinchou Treaty".

Disagree. According to the source (archived here) the treaty is known as the "Xinchou Treaty" (辛丑条约) in China (or Chinese language). But in English Wikipedia the common English name should be used instead. Indeed, the source also said it is more commonly known as "Boxer Protocol" or "Peace Agreement between the Great Powers and China", and that "The full name of the protocol is: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Netherland, Russia, Spain, United States and China — Final Protocol for the Settlement of the Disturbances of 1900, reflecting its nature as a diplomatic protocol rather than a peace treaty at the time of signature". So it is more accurately a diplomatic protocol instead of a peace treaty, which is why it is commonly called the "Boxer Protocol" instead of "Boxer Treaty" in English (and "Final Protocol" instead of "Final Treaty"). --Wengier (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Langfang

Where is Lang-fang 郎坊? Could this be the historical name to Langfang 廊坊? Benjwong 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Conditions of the treaty

The treaty conditions concerning the navigability of Peiho and Whangpoo rivers should be mentioned. Also I'd be interested to know how the edicts posted about membership of anti-foreign societies were "enumerating the punishments inflicted on the guilty"? Lastly was the 5% tariff paid to the Chinese as import duty (my skim reading suggested this) or was it a tax by the other signatories?

Following treaties

Perhaps mention the San Francisco Peace Treaty as it overrode the Xinchou Treaty (1901). Pbhj (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Remittance Hi, I added a notice about the remittance of 98% of the indenmity. I will provide a reference source (a book which I think is available in electronic form for quick browsing) in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.136.163 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about deleting the remittance section, but I finally found what seems to be a reputable source verifying the 98% figure.Erik-the-red (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

One of these two statements is false or inaccurate:

1. "The Chinese paid the indemnity in gold on a rising scale with a 4% interest charge until the debt was amortized on December 31, 1940. After 39 years, the amount was almost 1 billion taels (precisely 982,238,150).",
2. "The following government, the Republic of China, managed to persuade all the countries to remit 98% of the total indemnity."

Mazarin07 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Money was not repaid, only the conditions revoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.132.211 (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Imperial Decree on events leading up to the signing of the Boxer Protocol be merged into Boxer Protocol. This (lengthily named) article deals with the events leading up to the Boxer Protocol, and INTENSELY overlaps Boxer Protocol. It is an excellent contribution and most of the text should live on, but it's a fork, it needs to join its parent! People looking for this good info about the Qing dynasty leading up to the crisis will never find it in this fledgling (recently brought up from stub status) article out in the wilderness hidden behind this weirdly long and unwieldy article title (a fork symptom). Please join me integrating and merging. NickDupree (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I oppose to the merging, the reason being that there still are quite a number of Imperial Decrees to be added later on, and these decrees got nothing to do with the Boxer Protocol. Arilang ^talk 09:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You're strengthening my argument. Imperial decrees that "got nothing to do with the Boxer Protocol" should go into a separate article, never in an article called Imperial Decree on events leading up to the signing of the Boxer Protocol. Decrees leading up to the Boxer Protocol should be added to Boxer Protocol not left languishing in some obscure content fork with a 10-word-long title that most readers will never find. Again, this article is a content fork. --NickDupree (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the outcome here? I thought that there was a consensus to merge the three articles. Should NickDupree simply go ahead with this good idea? ch (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Imperial Decree on events leading up to the signing of the Boxer Protocol be merged into Boxer Protocol?

The (lengthily named) Imperial Decree on events leading up to the signing of the Boxer Protocol article deals with the events leading up to the Boxer Protocol, and INTENSELY overlaps Boxer Protocol. In terms of topic overlap, you seldom find a better example. It is an excellent contribution and most of the text should live on, but it's a fork, it needs to join its parent! People looking for this good info about the Qing dynasty leading up to the crisis will never find it in this fledgling (recently brought up from stub status) article out in the wilderness hidden behind this weirdly long and unwieldy article title (a fork symptom). NickDupree (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Objection - (1) Boxer Protocol is not an isolated event, however,it was the final event, after major events such as Boxer rebellion, Eight-Nation Alliance, plus many other events. The "Imperial Decrees" article is an article on all those decrees alone, that means this article focus on "Imperial Decrees", not on Boxer Protocol. That said, how about I move the name to: 1901 Imperial Decrees? My argument is, that article can be a standalone article without any mention of "Boxer Protocol" on the title, because the topic is "Imperial Decrees".

(2) The decree article deals with primary source, Boxer Protocol deals with secondary source, we need to be careful when we are dealing with primary source, if not, most of the content will be lost, because of primary source.

Arilang ^talk 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• A side note, you couldn't rename it 1901 Imperial Decrees without immediately creating a disambiguation problem. 1901 Imperial Decrees could refer to Imperial Japan, Imperial Russia, Imperial Germany, even Imperial Britain. --NickDupree (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge, unless sources treat as distinct - I've read both articles, and indeed it looks like the Decree article could be merged into the Protocol article: I think the readers of the encyclopedia would benefit. The only reason not to merge them is if there are secondary sources that treat the Decrees as an isolated topic (I have not yet looked for any). If there are a few secondary sources devoted to the topic of the decrees, then that would suggest that it is appropriate to not merge them. But in the absence of such sources, they should be merged. The burden is on the "not merge" editors to provide sources (articles in journals, chapters in books, etc) that are dedicated to the Decrees. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If we have reach consensus to merge, then I shall withdraw my objection. However, please make sure the full content stays, as it is primary source, the use of it in article is somehow restrictive. See:Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Arilang ^talk 05:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge: The Imperial Decree on the Boxer Protocol is not given distinct enough treatment in its article to be separate. Merging the Decree article into the Protocol article would help the Boxer Protocol article, and it would also bring more eyes to the improvement to the Decree content such that it eventually may be forked out when fully developed. Quigley (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. I think you can simply be WP:BOLD on this one. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• I just added Imperial Decree of declaration of war against foreign powers to the merger proposal. I don't know how much of it is usable, so I just made the proposal instead of redirecting it myself. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• RfC can be wrapped up now - RfCs are supposed to run about 30 days. That period has elapsed, so editors are free to carry out the actions indicated by the consensus above. --Noleander (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical books

Tong Tekong, scholar, historian and university lecturer, Hou Yijie, scholar, historian and writer of university text books, Wang Shuzhen, history books writer, and Jin Manluo, and their books cover 10 to 70 years of Manchu Empire history, and yet, none of their books were being cited in all the Boxer Protocol related articles. Put it this way, their books cover many important historical topics, and Yihetuan is just part of them. Discussion is open now. Arilang ^talk 03:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an important point!

These are indeed worthy scholars and richly documented books. However, a Wikipedia article is aimed at the general reader. Wikipedia strong policy WP:NOENG calls for English language works whenever possible, and this is a good policy. The goal is to produce a readable and reliable article, not to enter every possible source. Another objection is that if we make an exception to Wikipedia policy for these esteemed scholars, then where would we stop? There are dozens of equally worthy scholars writing in Chinese, Japanese, Russian, French, German, and... well, the list goes on. There are more than enough good sources to write this article so let's concentrate our precious time on that. ch (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dong fuxiang muslims

Influence of dong fuxiang and his muslim army on the boxer protocol sparing his life- his army surrounded xi'an while the imperial government was in session there-

http://books.google.com/books?id=iWxKQejMtlMC&dq=diana+preston+napoleon&q=Moslem#v=snippet&q=Moslem&f=false

Seyeednu (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

By 1938, 652.37 million taels had been paid

I marked this dubious as it is much more than the original. Plus many of these debts were forgiven. If true needs explanation.Tuntable (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boxer Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023161302/http://history.cultural-china.com/en/47History11546.html to http://history.cultural-china.com/en/47History11546.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)