Talk:Hundred Days' Reform

message: It seems that Seagrave's position dominates the Historical Views section.  Perhaps it should be separated into its own subsection, since it is quite specific and some parts do contrast more common perceptions.  For example, such details as:
"False rumours spread amongst Western press that Cixi had imprisoned Guangxu, but this was not the case."
Are quite debatable, since the Guangxu article itself has an entire section dedicated to his house arrest.
Since it is appearing on the On This Day section of the main page, it would be imperative to look into this matter.  My interest in Chinese history is mostly amateur, so I'm not well-versed enough in this area to say whether Seagrave is really far off from other Sinologists on this issue.
-Kelvinc 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. The confusing thing is whether ALL last three paragraphs can be attributed to Seagrave. If so, this should be made clear, and precise citations provided. It might also be possible that the last two paragraphs are simply the unsourced views of some Wikipedia editor. Will therefore modify the wording to make it sound less POV, before precise citations are provided. Bona fide improvements are welcome.202.20.5.206 06:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seagrave's view

message: The "Differing Interpretations" section is pretty disorganized.  Many statements are reptitious, and others bring up new information about the events mentioned earlier.  All undisputed information from this section should be moved up into the main timeline sections, and duplicative material should be excised.  If no one else takes this on, I'll see what I can do, tomorrow. Mdotley 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization  

message: What is this section? Is someone trying to translate the dynasty name Qing (清朝) into an older Latin-based script as Ching, or what? Somewildthingsgo 06:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: Please see above section on "Apparent plot to unite China, USA, UK and Japan" to see the current discussion.
Because the section is a part of Chinese history, using a non-English source could be unavoidable.If the theory is strange,surprising and uncommon,it is not suitable to put it on the page without discrimination.In this case,the theory has been removed to “differing interpretations”.This way is acceptable to make the readers know their differences.The writer has supplied some English sources to explain that UK and USA governments were unaware and innocent.The section have no relationship with American history.210.60.55.9 (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Can we accept claims made by a non-English source that is highly controversial and unverifiable by editors?

message: Real author Hundred Days' Reform is Sergei Witte. This correspondence is confirmed by the Ministry of Finance of the Empire and the Chinese emperor. Nicholas 2 was a personal friend of the Chinese emperor Guangxu and called Empress Dowager Cixi after 1898 "the whore of the dragon" - Nicholas II hated she. In 1901, he even ordered his troops to immediately executed if caught she. And in 1898 Nicholas proposed to Guangxu to send troops to overthrow the "mutineer whore and her lover." But Guangxu afraid of foreign interference.95.52.113.206 (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real author - Sergei Witte 

message: There's a red-link to Iron hats in the article. I was wondering if this was meant to be "Iron caps", and if so is it the same as Aisin_Gioro#Iron-cap_princes_and_their_descendants? Kiore (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron hats faction?