Talk:Boxer Protocol/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)