699:
next week's issue which says the opposite. Using a single such report would be like using the testimony of only one witness in a trial without cross examination and without further documentary or circumstantial evidence. We don't know who the authors are except for their names or whether they have good qualifications. Scholars who come later have several advantages which compensate for the fact that they were not there. They can read the testimony of conflicting witnesses, use sources (such as documents and archives) which the eyewitnesses did not have access to, and must submit their findings to the judgments of other scholars who have experience in the field. It is true that later scholars have their own points of view, but they have to convince readers who do not share it.
95:
85:
64:
354:
405:
239:
33:
311:
300:
289:
278:
267:
370:
197:
169:
797:] which suggested that the usage of "torpedo" has changed and that in this period it most likely means what we would call a "mine," that is, a static device. I'm not opposed to cutting this reference, but it is in fact a good reading of two sources, not a misreading. I did correct the misreading of the author from "Bret Harte" (!).
704:
Your example of TIME magazine is a good one, but it shows why we cannot rely on such reports. In fact, TIME magazine reports on the state of the
Russian military from the 1950s on down to the 1980s have been shown to be unreliable. I agree that a report is not, as you well put it, "compromised by its
698:
discourages such sources as you mention. It is difficult to tell when a report from the time of the event is actually based on whether the authors "viewed things" which no modern author could see, whether they made it up, whether they misunderstood what they saw, or whether there is an article in the
482:
The lede implies misleadingly that there has always been a "China," even though the article refers to the
Warring States period, when there was no such political entity, only Warring States. So the statements in the first section about armies being tasked with defending and expanding "China" are not
477:
I wanted to consult this article for various reasons, and found much useful material. But it strikes me that while it has been built up through hard work with much weighty material, much of the article was done by piece by piece additions and very much needs to be pruned and reworked. Here are some
749:
It is stated that the Boxer
Rebellion "shattered the western claim that a foreign army could occupy China without opposition from the Chinese". This is biased and inaccurate. There was no claim that foreign armies could occupy China, with or without opposition. The Boxer Rebellion was an attack on
656:
whats wrong with the old magazines like Harper's
Magazine of 1894, Atlantic Monthly, Overland Monthly and royal asiatic society? if TIME magazine, now in 2011 reports on the state of the military of Russia right now, and 100 years later in 2111 someone uses that article as a reference for the
614:
I sympathize with the comments in earlier discussions on this page that some references are only available in university libraries, but after an article is established, it is not a good idea to maintain it with unreliable and (sometimes) unacceptable sources whose attraction is that they are
784:
Not only the Boxer incident is biased. No mention is made of the 1st Opium War (because the chinese navy lost it?). Chinese military prowess is absurdly exaggerated, to the point of rendering historical facts (Unequal
Treaties, European expeditions,...) incomprehensible.
615:
available online. Sometimes we might better serve our readers to delete an article rather than maintain a misleading one. There is too much solid and useful material in this article to have its credibility weakened by the problems I am pointing to.
377:
183:
684:
Good to hear from you after seeing all your good work on a number of pages. We have a lot of interests in common, so I am happy to explain myself. I apologize for seeming picky but there is actually an important principle at
361:
179:
723:
I completely agree with
Wikipolicy that primary sources can be used to supply color or quotes which give a flavor of the times, but not for basic reporting which may or may not have withstood the test of
1120:
1060:
Hello
Wikipedians, I was researching information on the logistics aspect of ancient china. The Equipment and technology section of this article originally contained a lot of , which was
1150:
426:
421:
1140:
690:
The problem is that these sources, especially the magazines. are untested. As a veteran editor, you know that
Wikipolicy calls for Verifiability, not Truth, and discourages
1145:
252:
209:
1135:
1084:
and replaced with citation needed. However, some of the 'information' attributed to Temple still remain, including most of the logistics and chemical weapons section.
1115:
489:
Many of the sources are way out of date when there are recent works which are much more reliable. Putnam Weale is a notoriously unreliable book. See my comments at
141:
1002:
998:
984:
892:
888:
874:
238:
1130:
970:
705:
age," but it is compromised by the fact that it did not have access to archives which show the better information which was classified at the time.
1110:
486:
Inconsistencies strike my eye in many places. For instance, a young reader could not know that An Lushan and An Shi refer to the same rebellion.
204:
174:
151:
954:
820:
213:
639:
860:
1125:
751:
836:
1088:
980:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
870:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
503:
117:
695:
607:
591:
495:
Wikipolicy surely calls for giving precedence to
English language sources. References to Li and Zheng Yin. (Chinese) (2001).
1045:
935:
44:
459:
108:
69:
116:
related articles on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
971:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200051/http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9781403983138
1001:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
891:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
438:
657:
history of the Russian military, the information would still be largely valid, its not compromised by its age.
643:
1036:
962:
926:
828:
755:
208:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
618:
Again, despite my critical comments, I very much appreciate the work which a group has put into this page!
1092:
958:
824:
974:
772:
I've replaced the offending sentence with some background and a quote showing what Smith actually wrote.
1020:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1008:
910:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
898:
767:
711:
50:
961:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
861:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111029093856/http://www.fathom.com/feature/122228/3090_paddlesteamer.html
827:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
750:
foreigners and foreign embassies, and from the foreigners perspective was purely a defensive operation.
662:
518:
Charles Bell is listed as 1992, but it is a 1992 reprint of an earlier and, here, not appropriate work.
512:
Arthur Smith was a great observer, but should be used for color and detail, not basic factual coverage.
478:
thoughts from an outsider with experience both in Knowledge and in the scholarship of Chinese history:
1096:
1064:. Going further back, a large part of this article in its current form was written by a single author
1050:
940:
806:
778:
759:
738:
666:
647:
627:
575:
And how can an article on this topic be taken seriously without even listing the volumes in Needham's
635:
490:
837:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151012222623/http://www.atarn.org/training/chinese_archery_bckgrnd.htm
535:
Here are strong recent works which should be used. I will add them to the list of further readings:
32:
676:
658:
1073:
848:
444:
442:
1005:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
895:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1021:
911:
864:
691:
604:
588:
500:
84:
63:
17:
840:
440:
404:
353:
1028:
918:
524:
Carter was a brave piece of work in 1955, but has been superseded by the Needham volume.
987:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
877:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
509:
Harper's Magazine of 1894, Atlantic Monthly, Overland Monthly: not serious references.
1027:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
917:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
483:
consistent. I propose to cut this section, which does not add information in any case.
1104:
802:
734:
623:
854:
1080:
by the same user and the same source a year later. Most of the stuff citing Temple
773:
100:
994:
884:
993:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
883:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
90:
1068:. Furthermore, the section on Chemical Weapons and Logistics cites the book
555:
The Pursuit of Power : Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000
798:
730:
619:
1087:
tl;dr: Needs better sources in Chemical weapons and Logistics sections
562:
China's Use of Military Force: Beyond the Great Wall and the Long March
1070:'The Genius of China: 3,000 years of science, discovery and invention'
975:
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9781403983138
546:
Edward L. Dreyer,Frank Algerton Kierman,John King Fairbank, et al.,
369:
196:
168:
113:
521:
Hugh Baker is an estimable scholar, but his work is on Hong Kong.
491:
Talk:Boxer Rebellion#Notes on Sources and Proposed Edits in Notes
718:, which claims to be an eyewitness account but is probably not.
794:
445:
398:
26:
569:
Harmony and War: Confucian Culture and Chinese Power Politics
865:
http://www.fathom.com/feature/122228/3090_paddlesteamer.html
368:
352:
237:
965:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
831:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
841:
http://www.atarn.org/training/chinese_archery_bckgrnd.htm
564:(Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
583:
Joseph Needham, Ping-YĂź Ho, Wang Ling and Gwei-Djen Lu.
1081:
1077:
1069:
1065:
1061:
550:(Cambridge, Mass.,: Harvard University Press, 1974).
793:
There was a discussion of these infernal devices at
250:
This article has been checked against the following
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
997:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
887:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
527:The Royal Asiatic Society article is old, likewise
335:
249:
1121:B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
855:http://home.comcast.net/~light123/guns/handmg.htm
632:There is very little mention of the Opium wars.
543:(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).
983:This message was posted before February 2018.
873:This message was posted before February 2018.
557:(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).
696:Knowledge:No_Original_Research#primary source
571:(New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
453:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1151:Chinese military history task force articles
603:. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.
587:. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986.
1141:Asian military history task force articles
953:I have just modified one external link on
633:
599:Joseph Needham and Krzysztof Gawlikowski.
499:Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp.
470:Suggestions for Building on a Strong Start
332:
246:
163:
58:
1146:B-Class Chinese military history articles
819:I have just modified 2 external links on
601:Military Technology : Missiles and Sieges
585:Military Technology : The Gunpowder Epic
202:This article is within the scope of the
1136:B-Class Asian military history articles
1056:Information of Questionable Reliability
165:
60:
30:
1116:High-importance China-related articles
946:External links modified (January 2018)
463:when more than 5 sections are present.
222:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history
212:. To use this banner, please see the
955:Military history of China before 1911
821:Military history of China before 1911
225:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
106:This article is within the scope of
694:. This is the very good reason why
378:Chinese military history task force
49:It is of interest to the following
541:Military Culture in Imperial China
25:
1131:B-Class military history articles
957:. Please take a moment to review
823:. Please take a moment to review
577:Science and Civilisation in China
515:Le Coq of 1928 is not up to date.
457:may be automatically archived by
362:Asian military history task force
403:
309:
298:
287:
276:
265:
195:
167:
93:
83:
62:
31:
146:This article has been rated as
1111:B-Class China-related articles
729:I hope this clarifies things.
497:5000 years of Chinese history.
18:Talk:Chinese armies (pre-1911)
1:
941:21:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
120:and see a list of open tasks.
1051:06:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
716:Discreet Letters from Peking
648:03:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
205:Military history WikiProject
1072:by pseudoscientific writer
126:Knowledge:WikiProject China
1167:
1126:WikiProject China articles
1014:(last update: 5 June 2024)
950:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
904:(last update: 5 June 2024)
816:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
807:06:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
779:09:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
760:21:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
270:Referencing and citation:
152:project's importance scale
129:Template:WikiProject China
739:02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
667:02:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
628:03:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
376:
360:
331:
228:military history articles
190:
145:
78:
57:
710:An excellent example is
1097:19:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
812:External links modified
553:William Hardy McNeill,
548:Chinese Ways in Warfare
529:Formosa Under the Dutch
336:Associated task forces:
281:Coverage and accuracy:
460:Lowercase sigmabot III
373:
357:
314:Supporting materials:
242:
132:China-related articles
39:This article is rated
506:. should be replaced.
372:
356:
241:
995:regular verification
885:regular verification
1082:was removed in 2010
1076:. This section was
985:After February 2018
875:After February 2018
303:Grammar and style:
256:for B-class status:
1074:Robert K.G. Temple
1039:InternetArchiveBot
990:InternetArchiveBot
929:InternetArchiveBot
880:InternetArchiveBot
374:
358:
243:
210:list of open tasks
45:content assessment
1015:
905:
795:Torpedo Talk Page
789:Electric torpeoes
692:Original Research
650:
638:comment added by
539:Nicola Di Cosmo,
467:
466:
432:
431:
395:
394:
391:
390:
387:
386:
383:
382:
327:
326:
214:full instructions
162:
161:
158:
157:
109:WikiProject China
16:(Redirected from
1158:
1049:
1040:
1013:
1012:
991:
939:
930:
903:
902:
881:
852:
776:
771:
567:Yuan-Kang Wang,
560:Andrew Scobell,
462:
446:
418:
417:
407:
399:
343:
333:
317:
313:
312:
306:
302:
301:
295:
291:
290:
284:
280:
279:
273:
269:
268:
247:
230:
229:
226:
223:
220:
219:Military history
199:
192:
191:
186:
175:Military history
171:
164:
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
96:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1101:
1100:
1062:removed in 2017
1058:
1043:
1038:
1006:
999:have permission
989:
963:this simple FaQ
948:
933:
928:
896:
889:have permission
879:
846:
829:this simple FaQ
814:
791:
774:
765:
747:
472:
458:
447:
441:
412:
341:
315:
310:
304:
299:
293:
288:
282:
277:
271:
266:
227:
224:
221:
218:
217:
177:
148:High-importance
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
94:
92:
73:Highâimportance
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1164:
1162:
1154:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1103:
1102:
1057:
1054:
1033:
1032:
1025:
978:
977:
969:Added archive
947:
944:
923:
922:
915:
868:
867:
859:Added archive
857:
843:
835:Added archive
813:
810:
790:
787:
782:
781:
746:
743:
742:
741:
726:
725:
720:
719:
707:
706:
701:
700:
687:
686:
681:
680:
672:
671:
670:
669:
640:81.152.184.236
612:
611:
610:9780521327275.
596:
595:
594:9780521303583.
573:
572:
565:
558:
551:
544:
533:
532:
525:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
493:
487:
484:
471:
468:
465:
464:
452:
449:
448:
443:
439:
437:
434:
433:
430:
429:
424:
414:
413:
408:
402:
393:
392:
389:
388:
385:
384:
381:
380:
375:
365:
364:
359:
349:
348:
346:
344:
338:
337:
329:
328:
325:
324:
322:
320:
319:
318:
307:
296:
285:
274:
260:
259:
257:
244:
234:
233:
231:
200:
188:
187:
172:
160:
159:
156:
155:
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1163:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1106:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1010:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
986:
981:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
964:
960:
956:
951:
945:
943:
942:
937:
932:
931:
920:
916:
913:
909:
908:
907:
900:
894:
890:
886:
882:
876:
871:
866:
862:
858:
856:
850:
844:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
830:
826:
822:
817:
811:
809:
808:
804:
800:
796:
788:
786:
780:
777:
769:
768:101.98.175.68
764:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
752:101.98.175.68
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:
703:
702:
697:
693:
689:
688:
683:
682:
678:
674:
673:
668:
664:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
649:
645:
641:
637:
630:
629:
625:
621:
616:
609:
606:
602:
598:
597:
593:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
578:
570:
566:
563:
559:
556:
552:
549:
545:
542:
538:
537:
536:
530:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
504:7-204-04420-7
502:
498:
494:
492:
488:
485:
481:
480:
479:
475:
469:
461:
456:
451:
450:
436:
435:
428:
425:
423:
420:
419:
416:
415:
411:
406:
401:
400:
397:
379:
371:
367:
366:
363:
355:
351:
350:
347:
345:
340:
339:
334:
330:
323:
321:
316:criterion met
308:
305:criterion met
297:
294:criterion met
286:
283:criterion met
275:
272:criterion met
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
255:
254:
248:
245:
240:
236:
235:
232:
215:
211:
207:
206:
201:
198:
194:
193:
189:
185:
181:
176:
173:
170:
166:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
1089:76.175.1.167
1086:
1059:
1037:
1034:
1009:source check
988:
982:
979:
952:
949:
927:
924:
899:source check
878:
872:
869:
818:
815:
792:
783:
748:
715:
634:â Preceding
631:
617:
613:
600:
584:
576:
574:
568:
561:
554:
547:
540:
534:
528:
496:
476:
473:
454:
409:
396:
251:
203:
147:
107:
101:China portal
51:WikiProjects
1078:expanded on
712:Putnam Weal
474:Friends --
292:Structure:
1105:Categories
1046:Report bug
936:Report bug
608:052132727X
592:0521303583
1029:this tool
1022:this tool
919:this tool
912:this tool
849:dead link
427:Archive 2
422:Archive 1
1035:Cheers.â
925:Cheers.â
775:Philg88
636:unsigned
410:Archives
253:criteria
1066:in 2009
959:my edit
853:tag to
825:my edit
677:DĂNGĂNĂ
659:DĂNGĂNĂ
455:20 days
184:Chinese
150:on the
41:B-class
845:Added
685:stake.
47:scale.
724:time.
180:Asian
123:China
114:China
70:China
1093:talk
803:talk
756:talk
735:talk
663:talk
644:talk
624:talk
605:ISBN
589:ISBN
501:ISBN
142:High
1003:RfC
973:to
893:RfC
863:to
839:to
745:POV
714:'s
675:Hi
1107::
1095:)
1016:.
1011:}}
1007:{{
906:.
901:}}
897:{{
851:}}
847:{{
805:)
799:ch
758:)
737:)
731:ch
665:)
646:)
626:)
620:ch
579:?
342:/
182:/
178::
1091:(
1048:)
1044:(
1031:.
1024:.
938:)
934:(
921:.
914:.
801:(
770::
766:@
754:(
733:(
679::
661:(
642:(
622:(
531:.
216:.
154:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
