Talk:Taiping Rebellion

Adding the U.S. and U.K. on the Taiping Side of the Info Box for (1854)

Hi everyone. I thought I would ask here first. Do you think we can add the U.S. and U.K. on the Taiping Side of the Info Box. Turns out they briefly teamed up with the Taiping Small Swords society in the Battle of Muddy Flat.

I can add it myself, but I do not want to step on any toes. (I briefly, but foolishly added what I thought was the Taiping flag to the infobox and didn't ask anyone, and I do not wish to make the same mistake twice. I apologize for the lack of thoughtfulness and wiki etiquette Mea Culpa.)

Also I was wondering if we can add a paragraph or two mentioning the Muddy Flat and short French Taiping war of 1854 in the Relationship with the Western powers section.

Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is for key facts at a glance. Given the size and scope of the conflict as a whole, I wouldn't consider those events to be key facts. Remsense ‥ 论 16:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can we at least make mention of it in the Relationship with the Western powers section. I do believe it is a good illustration of the complex nature between Western Taiping relations at the very least. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually are you sure we should not add the U.S. and U.K. to the info Box?

I asked around a double checked and there is a precedent for including both nations. After all the U.S. played minor rolls in the Second Opium War, Shimonoseki campaign, Egyptian Expedition (1882), and especially the Greek Civil War, but they are both mentioned in the infobox.

Moreover Spain saw a very brief action in the War of 1812 and they are in the info box too.

And adding to what I said earlier the Battle of Muddy Flat paved the way for more direct military involvement by both the British and by extension in the overall siege of the Old City the French who attacked the Taiping only a few months later.

And in the the Western Powers section of the article the Battle played a direct part in to the creations of the Shanghai Municipal Council, the Shanghai Municipal Police, the Chinese Maritime Customs Service, the Yangtze Patrol, which all were created in 1854. It also was a key event that led to the eventual 1863 merging of many of all of Shanghai's foreign concessions except France into the Shanghai International Settlement.

What do you think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would repeat what I said earlier, pretty much word for word. Other articles often misuse and overstuff the infobox as a personal research spreadsheet for editors who lose sight of its intended purpose and best design principles. Someday, I'll have fixed them all. See World War II, Second Punic War, and Thirty Years' War for what I think are great examples of parsimonious infoboxes that serve their purpose well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

OK that makes a bit more sense. But then what about the Western powers section?

Also asking for my own benefit, especially for future article "The infobox is for key facts at a glance" I checked the Help:Infobox page and it did use the words "at a glance" and "important facts", but it failed to clarify what may be considered important facts. For example some wikiprojects or individuals may hold some facts to be more important than others. Is this the common consensus of wikipedians or is there disagreement on interpretation.

For example I actually miss the minor allied section in WWII the minor powers may be minor in power, but there involvement is not unimportant, in fact collectively I would say the argument could be made that their involvement was extremely important military and as people everyone is important and should be represented. In my line of research I also found this section helpful for referencing. And as for the "at a glance" perspective it never took me that long to read an info box even the old WWII one. Moreover, there are (see more) sections on info boxes to give people more options.

But I do agree with you on the Thirty Years' War as far as I can tell. Can't really speak much to the Second Punic War war to be honest. I have only a general working knowledge of the period. My speciality is more modern history, except for a few specific areas in medieval and ancient history. I do want to read more about those periods though.

Is there a third option we are overlooking perhaps? (Not just talking about the Taiping Rebellion, it could be the WWII box too as an example) Maybe a secondary infobox bellow the primary one, or some other secondary templates below the info box that serve a similar function? What do you think?

Again Thanks for all the clarification by the way this is helping me to understand the wiki community Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't need secondary infoboxes, one is surely enough. And, like Remsense said, let's keep it brief and pertinent. Gawaon (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As to what's a "key fact": on average, readers often spend very little time glancing at an article. (If everyone read every article all the way through, infoboxes would have very little utility as prose generally better presents such information integrated and reinforced with context.) Key facts are largely those almost any person looking at the article would like to know—really, Thirty Years' War is also overstuffed if more focused than most, given all the minor polities and commanders listed. Since we're considering the process, it's important to understand that overstuffing makes it much harder for a quick glance to result in retaining that most important information: I use the specific phrase "key facts at a glance" for a reason. In concrete terms: if a fact requires a footnote to explain some context or distinction from other items, or if it is in any way controversial, then it is almost always better to omit.

Another concrete exercise: what is the shortest answer you can give to the question "What happened in the Taiping Rebellion?" Chances are, you only need to name the Qing dynasty and the Taiping as sovereign states in that briefest one-sentence answer. If you are passionate about a topic, the corresponding infobox is not designed for you, and should likely feel a bit simple to you really. It's also not the place to "give an underappreciated aspect its due" or what have you: if we feel our favorite facts aren't given the attention they deserve in sources, we will smile and mirror that misweighting in the article generally, and in the summary of the lead and the summary of a summary that is the infobox.Remsense ‥ 论 06:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Very well. What about the Western powers section? Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon@Remsense And thank you both. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, I don't see a problem with mentioning it there. Anyway, you don't need anyone's permission to edit :) Gawaon (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

" Anyway, you don't need anyone's permission to edit :)" True. But I also want to be respectful of other Wikipedians thoughts and opinions, regarding content and presentation. Many people work hard and care about the content of wikipedia too, and the Taiping Rebellion is a very important story in Chinese and world history.

Thanks (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)