Talk:Great Wall of China hoax

remove picture?[edit]

i dont really see any need to put that picture up. consider to remove it? Sandakanboy 14:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that Wilber had a key role in the Denver hoax, and since he's a little known figure today, the song sheet clarifies that he was once a Denver personality of some standing. I've rewritten both the caption and the body copy to further strengthen the connections. Pepso 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hoax: another hoax[edit]

There's not a single chinese historical source that makes relation with the hoax and the rebellion. To double-check, I've spent an hour to look up the origin of the boxer, and the rebellion, but still no information about it. In fact, the rebellion intensfied in March, 1899 when german made a big invasion in Shangdong. At that time, the hoax were even not invented. --- Yau 2 May, 2006

Yau, your rewrite is a huge improvement! Pepso 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads very much like it was lifted straight from a book. I'm not sure how I'd go about making it sound more encyclopedic and less like someone else's words, though. POV phrases like " was an incredible faked newspaper story" and "they ran over to a fine Denver hotel" should probably be avoided. The article shouldn't have a Conclusions section. It should probably have a list of references. And anything that is word for word from The Fabulous Rogues ought to be re-written. — Asbestos | Talk 08:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification on the article, let me address a few things. This article is definitely NOT copied from the source I cited. I have re-worded everything, but I will make one last specific check just to make sure nothing gives the appearance of 'word for word' appearance in my source. If there seems to be a conflict, I will correct it. Actually, the source did not even list this as the "Great Wall of China hoax", as the title of this article is my invention (maybe another title would fit better?). I created the introduction, the headings, and added some historical information not even in the original source, including adding information about China in the late 19th century. The only thing taken directly are the reporters quotes, which of course one cannot reword. Feel free to grammatically correct what doesn't make sense. Thank you. LibraryLion

Comment Some aspects of this hoax story may also be a hoax, notably the Boxer Rebellion part. The Museum of Hoaxes states that the Denver songwriter Harry Lee Wilber (1875-1946) evidently embellished the tale in 1939 when he wrote an article about it for the North American Review. [ http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/wallchina.html ]

I believe the only way one could prove the hoax had any impact on the Boxer Rebellion is one would have to research the historical interviews with the Boxer's themselves. Information that would determine if the Boxer's were even aware to the hoaxed story, and if they were, if it played any part at all in helping spur them to rebellion. Two book sources have been cited in this article, for the one I used, I don't know how much historical research the author did. Perhaps there is very little or no information on this subject, but some detailed research would the conclusive way to prove if the story had any impact. (As a sidenote, I do thank Asbestos for apologizing for the plagiarism accusation.) --LibraryLion 20:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rojas quote[edit]

I have no idea what that quote from Rojas is supposed to mean. The Great Wall referred to in both the original hoax and the second hoax is the same Great Wall. It's also the actual Great Wall. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]