Talk:Taiyuan massacre

=To do=

Integration of quotations, addition of prose
What I'd like to do is, as Brian0324 (IIRC) mentions create some flow through the article and also use the accounts of the actual massacre to create a rough time-line (with disputed figures for deaths etc.) from the declaration of Empress Dowager Cixi to the orders of Hsu Yuen to round up the missionaries and then on to the main dates for the murders and for those fleeing to Hankow, etc.. Finishing then with the return of Dr Edwards et al. the following year and probably with a mention of the University being set up.

Most of the "missionaries visiting" section will probably be removed to an article on "Missions in Shan-si" or possibly a private page on if it's not deemed notable enough.

We'll need to be careful to keep proper separation with the Boxer Rebellion pages, hopefully the controversial issues as to why the Boxers kicked-off will be dealt with there. Though some of the texts by missionaries in Taiyuan do impinge on this issue, for example one NYTimes article (1915, I think) claim that Chinese missionaries disobeyed local customs and stayed within sight of the military gunboats - clearly false for the Taiyuan crowd who were many days journey from the main treaty ports and faced issues of becoming too integrated: such as intermarriage, excessive study of local religion. Anyway, I digress, this is better in the Boxer page. Pbhj (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Original Research
This article shows the dangers of Original Research, which says that articles should NOT be based on documents. See: Reliable Sources, and Primary and Secondary Sources The rule is:
 * rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

This article also illustrates the problems of Neutral Point of View.

I added Roger Thompson's article, which is a fascinating account of the horrors of the massacre, but points out that the widely published reports at the time were based on rumor and second hand accounts. There were no eye-witness reports. Thompson goes on to show that the accounts published at the time drew from the established genre of martyrology, often word for word from accounts of earlier massacres. Clearly a massacre took place, but we cannot trust the accounts from that time as to the details or who was responsible. Nat Brandt's book is good work, but does not use Chinese sources and needs to be read alongside Thompson. ch (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Chop
I have hacked back the article to remove quotes and POV to make it look like a Wiki article with summaries of info from reliable sources. Victuallers (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)