Talk:Song Dynasty

PICTURE

The picture of the 'trebuchet' is actually the drum-odometer described beneath the trebuchet section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.250.47 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MAP

Please kindly be noted that Chinese never ruled Taiwan during the Song dynasty, so Taiwan should not be colored as part of it on map. The first Chinese administrative body was installed on ths island only after Manchurians conquered the Zheng Clan in 1683. ashinakhan 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And you don't think the Zheng clan was Chinese? --Nlu (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't deliberately conflate ethnicity and political rule. Mainlander, right?--203.70.89.231 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you'd think so indicates how people who think like you view people who don't agree with you politically to all be enemies. --Nlu (talk)

---

Did the Southern Song themselves admit to being tributaries of the Jurchen? john k 05:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That line ("Because Chinese diplomatic theory did not recognize relations between equal states, the Southern Song was technically a tributary state of the northern dynasty") doesn't seem to make sense to me either. In other words, how does the conclusion follow from the first part? It needs more support; until then, I'm going to delete it. TresÁrboles 04:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GDP

From a standard of living perspective, the GDP per capita Chinese under the Song Dynasty was about $600 in today's dollars. Western Europe had slowly declined from this level in 1 AD to $400 by 1000 AD. Western Europe started to become slightly wealthier than a stagnant China by 1300. By 1800, Western European GDP/capita reached three times that of a China entering a period of decline. And by 1900, the gap expanded to an eight-fold difference. During the height of Communism in the 1960s, GDP/capita in Europe was 16 times as great -- a trend that began to reverse sharply in the 1980s under China's open policy.

Isn't the indicated section a bit off the subject? --24.42.130.57 22:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Why are the shihao all refered to as "too tedious"? That seems a trite excuse for laziness. Or did the emperors themselves find their names thus, and then never allow their selection? --Baixue 9 December 2005

White gap

Why is there a white gap next to the Song in the History of China table?--Countakeshi 07:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see one. Can you try a different browser and see if same thing still happens? (I use Safari.) --Nlu (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I just got rid of it.--Countakeshi 07:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the whole thing and I'm quite disappointed that Yue Fei (岳飛) wasn't mentioned at all. There should be at least one reference to this icon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.249.39 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Apparently you didn't read hard enough. He's mentioned in the "Southern Song" sub-section of History in this article, and he is discussed at some length in History of the Song Dynasty. Is Yue Fei all you care about? Put things into a bigger 319-year perspective here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Song Duzong

I'm confused why an article is not created for this emperor. Surely we don't want gaps in the chain. --CharlieHuang 18:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Create it then. That's what Wikipedia's for. Jesus Christ, people.--203.70.89.231 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Founder?

was the founder really who is named in the article or was it Zhao Kuangyin?

Zhao Kuangyin and Taizu of Song are the same person. --Nlu (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

where did this info come from?

"Accompanying this was the beginnings of what one might term the Chinese industrial revolution. For example the historian Robert Hartwell has estimated that per capita iron output rose sixfold between 806 and 1078, such that, by 1078 China was producing 125,000 "

i can not find this anywere else, where did it come from? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trekkie711 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Try www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/SongAdmin/SongAdmin.pdf. --Gwern (contribs) 05:48 7 December 2006 (GMT)

population comparison

The article states: "For example it has been estimated that Hangzhou had more than 400,000 inhabitants by 1200: far larger than any European city;" But Constantinople#The_Komnenoi_1081-1185 states that estimates of Constantinople's population range from 100,000 to 500,000.

Accidential deletion

I accidently deleted information as I was trying add more. Can anyone who knows how please restore the information I accidently deleted without deleting my additions? ludahai 魯大海 02:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Status?

After editing the section for "China's First Standing Navy" and adding tons of art pics, this article is looking very, very good. In fact, I think so highly of it now that I think I'll request to have it as a featured article. Anyone object?

--PericlesofAthens 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Population question

As an editor who knows very little about this topic, I have trouble following this bit from the opening:

Between the 10th and 11th centuries, the population of China doubled in size. This growth came about through expanded rice cultivation in central and southern China, along with the production of abundant food surpluses. Within its borders, the Northern Song Dynasty had a population of some 100 million people.

The Northern Song is defined just below as lasting from 960–1127.. so I can't quite tell if the population figure of 100 million is before or after the population doubling. I reordered the sentences for some hoped for clarity, but it is still not quite clear, I think. Pfly 08:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits Pfly! And yes, during the Northern Song (actually starting from the early 10th century), the population did rise from 50 million to 100 million.--PericlesofAthens 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

High quality prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the Manual of Style. There are some issues here.

• • Like in the past articles, Needham's volumes need to have titles.
  • This sentance from the lead During the Song Dynasty, China's northern borders were threatened by the Khitans of the Liao Dynasty, the Tanguts of the Western Xia Dynasty, and the Jurchens of the Jin dynasty. must be moved or rewritten. It feels out of place in the context of the paragraph. Perhaps mentions that the Song dynasty as whole was constantly threatened from outside its borders to add some context which is sorely lacking in the lead
• Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations

Good references, but they can be improved. I am a believer that each paragraph must have at least one reference (with the exception of the lead). There are some paragraphs that do not have any references.

• • 1st in founding of the song
  • 1st in partisans, and factions...
  • 1st and 3rd in 'From Northern Song...
  • 1st, 4th and 5th (the 4th and 5th paragraphs are too short as it stands, and should probably me merged) in Mongol invasion...
• There is appropriate broadness of coverage of the topic

I have some issues here, they are disccused below.

• • The history section is too long. I would suggest cutting it down by a significant amount and spinning off a seperate article called History of the Song Dynasty
  • Normally length would not always be an issue here, but this article is already long as it is, and doesn't adequatly dedicate enough to the Society, culture, economy, and technology section. Ideally, the history section and the 'Society, culture... sections' should be roughly the same size. This can't always be achived but as it stands now, the history section comprises about 75% of the article, compared the 25% for the second part. The percentage should be no less than 60/40, in my opinion. The article is about the dynasty after all, and not just the history. Here are some suggestions on how to remdy this:
    • Printing should be expanded beyond one sentance, and perhaps even made into a section of its own. Consider discussing Bi Sheng and movable type printing (you can probably incorporate some of the text from the technology article), multi-colour printing (which began in 1107), as well as the social effects of printing on China. Printing contributed to the popularaziation of the examination system, as well as the rise of neo-confucianism.
    • I would also suggest spinning off gunpowder into its own section, as it was an extremely important innovation of the Song dynasty. You could probably just incorporate much of what has already been written in the Song technology article.
    • The architecture section merits a bit of expansion that can use text from the architecture article
    • Expand the economy section beyond just one paragraph. I would dedicate one paragraph to each of the following (all of which are written in the economy article), paper money, the Needham question, and trade
    • Neo-Confucianism should have its own section due to its prominence in this period, and its important during subsequent Chinese dynasties.
    • Finally, expand the culture section to incorporate more from the culture article
• It is written from a neutral point of view.

It is.

• It has not been the subject of recent editwars (check the history)

No edit wars

• If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines

There is a problem with the licensing of the Liao Dynasty Guanyin. This image should probably be replaced. The rest of the images are good.

I looked at the image's talk page and it appears as though this issue has been resolved.Zeus1234 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it is a good article, but it still needs some work to achieve GA status. I will put it on hold for the time being to see if any work can be done to fix the deficits I have mentioned. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Zeus1234 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the spinoff articles about the Song dynasty, I am confident these changes can be easily applied, and would strongly recommend you also spin off a history article to make the history section here not as long.Zeus1234 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing that I should add. As there is now more emphasis on Song social history, the lead should also reflect this and incorporate more information about social history.Zeus1234 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed something else in the current revision that should be addressed. The new history section should be subdivided into two sections, Northern Song and Southern Song, as these were two distinct periods in the history of the dynasty.Zeus1234 03:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there are further image-related problems. --Iamunknown 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Such as?Zeus1234 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alive Date

Is it really necessary to list the date when they are alive? for example: Tong Guan (1054-1126 AD) Su Shi (1037-1101 AD) Wang Anshi (1021-1086 AD)

Would it be better off if the date was deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.135.38 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is very important, especially since the Song Dynasty encompassed several different generations over more than 300 years. For example, you can see that the Neo-Confucian philosopher Cheng Yi (1033-1107) clearly lived before and influenced the philosopher Zhu Xi (1130-1200), and were not contemporaries in any sense. If the Song Dynasty was only 10 years long, yeah, I could see what you're saying. But the Song Dynasty encompassed 4 different centuries (of the Christian era).--PericlesofAthens 08:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agreed it is useful in some cases to list the date, such as the reign of the emperor. However, I felt adding date to every single important official considerably decreased the readability of the article, making it more difficult for the reader enjoy the article. If the reader really want to find out when the person in question is alive couldn't they accomplish same thing by clicking on the link and read their biography? For example, in the article for Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) there is no date appended to every single individual mentioned in the article. Forsake for readability, the dates should be deleted unless it is absolutely needed for the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.135.38 (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Lead

This article is currently around 20,000 characters, so the lead should be 2 to 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. Cliff smith 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The conventional long name of the infobox

唐朝正式國號為「唐」，而非「大唐」。元朝是中國史上第一個把「大」字加入正式國號的朝代。參見明朝人朱國禎《涌幢小品》卷二「國號」條：「國號上加大字，始於胡元，我朝因之。……其言大漢、大唐、大宋者，乃臣子及外夷尊稱之詞。」 [1]. Same as Tang Dynasty, it explained that Song Dynasty's native name is "Song" but not "Great Song" or "The Song Dynasty" --Lmmnhn 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image overlapping text

When I made the images default size, one of them now overlaps the text and I can't seem to fix it. [[Image:Wood Bodhisattva 2.jpg|thumb|right|A seated wooden [[Bodhisattva]] statue, [[Jin Dynasty, 1115-1234|Jin Dynasty]] (1115–1234).]]. Very sorry to do that and sorry I cannot figure out how to fix it. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, it looks like user:Balthazarduju fixed that.--PericlesofAthens 08:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

It bothers me that you have great detail about the social life (festival, clubs, games etc.) in the lead, but none of it is mentioned in the article. Could some the the last paragraph in the lead be wittled down and put under Society? Sincerely, Mattisse 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I will put that down there now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

disambig

The following need disambig:
clepsydra
date
grid
Luohan
pavilion
postal service
transparent
Randomblue (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed every one.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another occurrence of Luohan and pavilion still need disambig. Also, pharmaceutical links to 'pharmaceutical company', which should maybe be corrected. Randomblue (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Anything else?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Things I'm not sure about/suggestions:
The Jurchen -> the Jurchens
Xian -> Xi'an
gunpowder is linked 4 times, maybe a bit too much for such a basic notion
Shen Kuo is linked 6 times
pagoda tower -> pagoda
Randomblue (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, one other thing, the picture descriptions which aren't proper sentences (i.e. no verb) should not have a dot at the end. Randomblue (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Population the article states that the population doubled between the 10th and 11th centuries. no time passed between these two centuries: one ended and another began. is the meaning that DURING these two centuries, ie, over two hundred years, the population doubled then the article should be changed. Daiyounger (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Turk Bayan

I think M.Rossabi thinks the baarin was turkic clan. For me, I don't believe it , however, most nomads had common features. But scholars usually claim that they are one of Mongol clans of Alanghuo.--Enerelt (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Salt Monopoly?

This is an important topic. I thought the paragraph was useful, though perhaps too long for this article. Maybe there should be a full version of the paragraph moved to Economy of the Song Dynasty even though the significance is as much political, as shown in the references to Wang Anshi's reforms in the Society of the Song Dynasty article.

So should we ask to BZsupershot5to pare down the paragraph rather than delete it completely? There are references to the Salt Monopoly in the Tang Dynasty article and an article on the salt commission. A Wikipedia search "Salt Monopoly" got me a number of hits.

Time is not hanging heavy on my hands, but if nobody else starts one in a couple weeks, I might just establish a Salt Monopoly (China) stub in order to get the ball rolling. ch (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The first chief concern here should not be adding content or creating new articles, but gathering a list of credible sources that someone (maybe me) will gather, read, and research in order to take notes and then write a comprehensive paragraph or two in Economy of the Song Dynasty which summarizes all the material. This is the most scholarly and professional approach, while at the same time takes into consideration the article's existing size and size constraints (see WP:SIZE). I checked my university library catalogue and found nothing useful in regards to Song-era monopolized industries, let alone salt. I checked journal articles at JSTOR, and although that database seems to have some decent sources on Ming and Qing era salt production and administration, there are no articles which specifically tackle the Song-era salt industry. If my university library and JSTOR don't have any valuable information to offer, good luck to anyone else.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think is impprtnt topic too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.32.186 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Aritc Circle Suck Ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.221.65 (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Northern Song likely typo, please confirm

I made [edit] because "martial status" was very likely a typo for "marital status." Can you confirm if this is historically correct? If wikt:martial was in fact intended, perhaps it would be clearer to say something like "military position." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrevan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fixed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Only a Northern Song

George Harrison's song was about the Song Dynasty, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.20.192 (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. Still, since Northern Song redirects to a section of this page, I wonder whether there should be a disambiguation link at the top of the section, to dab Only a Northern Song and Northern Songs:

For other uses, see Northern Song (disambiguation).

Or is this overkill? — sjorford++ 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done to all the editors who worked on this excellent article. Eusebeus (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was mostly little ole me. Lol. This is one of my older ones, actually. My newer featured articles are perhaps written to a higher standard. Anyways, thanks for taking an interest in this one. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I love Chinese History, so I owe a debt of interest to your work on this article. Any plans to do the Three Kingdoms? I wouldn't mind giving it a go myself. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Echoed, a good article. SGGH ^ping! 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Coinage

Northern Song coin (聖宋元寶).

Northern Song Chinese coin (聖宋元寶). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Digital Gazetteer of the Song Dynasty

This database tracking demographic and political geographic change during the Song era is (finally) being publicly released (please take a look over at http://songgis.ucmercedlibrary.info for release notes and details), and I'd be happy to license any of the visualizations created, or create new visualizations based on the underlying data, for this or other Song-related wikipedia articles. You can get ahold of me on my user page or by looking up my contact information. Elijahmeeks (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal // Royal House infobox

The infobox shown over on the right in this section was removed by Lonelydarksky:

House of Sòng

Country	China
Ancestral house	—
Titles	Emperor of China
Founder	Emperor Tàizǔ
Final sovereign	Emperor Bǐng
Founding	960
Deposition	1279: Mongol conquest

The justification provided in the edit summary being that the edit was made by a suspected sockpuppet. Now, I don't know if this editor is a sock or not, or, in fact, anything about the situation, but this seems to be a genuinely constructive edit. Has there been some discussion elsewhere about the use of this infobox in articles on the dynasties of Imperial China that has rejected the use of this infobox? If not, I would advocate restoring this (though probably not in the same exact same place) to the article; the information it contains is accurate (though the link for deposition should be to Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty and not straight to Yuan Dynasty). siafu (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The sockpuppet has been confirmed (see here). The banned user, Yongle the Great, has been repeatedly attempting to evade the ban by sockpuppetry. All his edits, regardless of whether they're constructive or not, should be reverted per WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. I've no objections to restoring the removed information, provided that it's not done by a sockpuppet of the banned user. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Area significant digits

I cannot figure out how to edit the box titled "Song" at the right of the page, but the areas (especially the last one, where 2,000,000 sq km is converted to 772,204 sq mi) have a ridiculously high number of significant digits. 140.247.12.169 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)