Talk:William Scott Ament

Possible division?
I came across this article and was very impressed. Ament's story is part of the Boxer Rebellion story. But it seems to me that the material on Mark Twain should be a separate article. Do you have plans in this respect? Would anyone object? ch (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have begun the process of dividing the article. I have created a separate Mark Twain China Missionary Indemnities Controversy article, but need to drastically pare the Ament article's section on the Controversy. I will do this very soon. smjwalsh (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good news! I know it's a lot of work, but I think that a separate article will give your contributions more prominence. One possible suggestion, though, would be to include "Boxer" in the title, which would come up when people search. Maybe "Boxer Uprising and Missionary Indemnities"? Then we could put sections in Boxer Uprising and Mark Twain, with "Main Artrcle" links.

OK. I could not locate any standard way of referring to this controversy. Perhaps the best solution would be to rename this article "Mark Twain Boxer Indemnities Controversy". It contains the key terms "Mark Twain" and "Indemnities Controversy" but replaces China Missionary with "Boxer" and thus will attract the attention of those interested in the Boxer Uprising and Its Aftermath. If I knew how to re-title an article, I would do so myself. Can you help?(smjwalsh (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Meanwhile, to show my good faith and make sure that you are not working alone, I will make a stub article for Oberlin Band. This will be no big thing, but at least a start. ch (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can add when I get some more time (smjwalsh (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Puff biography as source?
"Henry D. Porter" is a questionable source - the publisher was an "evangelical" publisher, not one of actual biographies. Porter was likely paid for the work, as he was for Dickinson in 1908. All information in it is likely questionable. Collect (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Porter's bio is no more questionable than other biographies of this period and is too solid to be called a puff piece. Many authors are "paid for the work" (and many more would like to be). Revell was a reputable publisher in its field. To be sure, like all sources, it must be used critically. It's good for biographical facts, the inclusion of letters and testimonials, but not for analysis. Most of all, it is revealing of missionary attitudes and feelings. ch (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a great stretch to say that "all information in it is likely questionable". There is no doubt that Porter's biography is hagiographic in nature (or tending towards a "puff piece"). The proximity of its publication to Ament's death does not allow the mature reflection that is the hallmark of fine scholarship, however Porter knew Ament personally, having served as a medical doctor in China in Beijing and other ABCFM mission areas. He therefore is a primary source, but with an emic perspective. I have used Porter with an extreme hermeneutic of suspicion, primarily in the area of providing biographical and historical information. His primary value is, as suggested above, in providing accurate prosopographic details. Porter had access to the contemporary newspaper accounts, ABCFM records, and Ament's family correspondence. Porter is especially useful in knowing the missionary perspective on the Indemnities Controversy, but he does quote accurately the articles of Twain and other detractors of Ament. Porter's biography is the only full-length treatment of Ament's life and ministry, but the release of the apparently more scholarly and more objective treatment of Larry Clinton Thompson's William Scott Ament and the Boxer Rebellion: Heroism, Hubris and the Ideal Missionary (McFarland & Company, March 2009) should provide a better source for analysis and evaluation.


 * The publisher, while an evangelical Protestant publisher, being founded by the brother-in-law of evangelist Dwight L. Moody was one of the leading publishing houses at the time of the publication of Porter's biography, and was considered highly reputable.(smjwalsh (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Article contains an error.
Though I have just started reading this article. I immediately noticed the error in the Chinese name. The Chinese characters and the transliteration do not match at all! Whoever might be the source, I doubt it makes sense continue reading an article, if the name is written wrong.

emptyhead (Nov 8th 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.63.28 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)