Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economic history of China (pre-1911)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [1].

---

Economic history of China (pre-1911)

Nominator(s): Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Economic history of China (pre-1911)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Economic history of China (pre-1911)/archive2

Over the course of the last 8 months, I have expanded this article from a stub to a GA and have extensively worked on it, adding sources and text. With a successful GA nomination and three copyedits, I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and would be a worthy addition to the list of wikipedia's featured articles.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the uppercase P in Pre-1911 should be lower. If others agree, please do not just change it; let someone knowledgeable get all the pieces in the right place and correct the name on the FAC page at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. In spite of my request not to do so, someone moved the article without correcting the FAC pages. Does anyone have time to fix all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Way too many headers

• At least 15 one-, two-, or three-line paragraphs. Can you either expand or may be, merge and flow them properly

• The lists have long sentences and so theymust be made into prose.

• "See also" looks redundant

• All ALTs are faulty with wikilinks, full similarity to captions and unwanted details like dynasties, painters, painting and other raw material, years, places, war, museum, engineering stuff, useless facts (world's first paper money - was introduced during the Song dynasty), technical words (taotie motif).

• Warring states map has the worst ALT.

Hometech (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed the above issues by converting the lists into prose and pruning the see also section. Another editor is responsible for the alt text(I didn't do most of them) and soon they should be fixed. This article has a very broad subject, so it must address a lot of subjects in each dynasty. Therefore, I believe the number of headers is justified. I've identified and merged many smaller paragraphs as well. Feel free to suggest more changes.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text done now; thanks. As far as I can see there is no alt text anywhere in the article. It needs to be added, as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbax at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added ALT text to every image in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that. The alt text is done now; thanks. pretty good, but with all those images there are some problems that need fixing:

• For File:China 2c.jpg the alt text focuses on irrelevant details (e.g., the colors used on the map). These details should be replaced by the useful info that the map conveys to the reader, e.g., north central China is highlighted and contains several names ranging from YAN on the north cost to YU on the central coast, and then inland on the rivers (or perhaps you can think of a better way of communicating the gist). Please see WP:ALT#Maps.
• For File:Chinese Boddhisattva statue.jpg the alt text says only that the statue is a buddha. A bit more detail should be given about the visual appearance: I noticed that it's the Buddha standing, and that the focus is on his hands, and the alt text should probably mention that. Please see WP:ALT#Essence.
• Similarly, for File:China coin1.JPG the only useful info is "numerous coins", which is too terse. What do the coins look like? Omit the backdrop; that's not important here.
• Similarly, for File:Yuan Dynasty - waterwheels and smelting.png. By the way, its alt text is missing the leading "alt=", which means it isn't working.
• The following phrases are redundant, either with other parts of the alt text or with the caption, and should be be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT#Repetition: "A glazed figurine of a camel and a bearded merchant" (this is the worst case: the alt text conveys no useful info that's not already in the caption), "a painting of two women", "in the foreground", "A painting depicting", "Portrait of", "A drawing of" (actually, it's not a drawing; but just remove the phrase since the caption says what it is), "A painting depicting", "A painting depciting" [sic],
• The following phrases can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability: " signifying its origin from the Kaiyuan era"
• There are two images of banknotes, and they look different, but one cannot tell the differences from the alt text. A bit more detail would help the visually impaired reader know the difference.
• The phrase "A black and white photograph of" isn't that useful and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.

Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made all the changes mentioned by User:Eubulides.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I patched it a bit more to catch most of the remaining gotchas I noticed. However, the alt text for the waterwheel and blast furnace image is still a problem. It still mostly duplicates the caption, and it's not accurate: the workers are not operating the waterwheels or the blast furnace. Suppose you're blind and want to know how they hooked up that waterwheel to that blast furnace: what info would you want to know about that image? Please write that down. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see now that it's been fixed. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: For now, due to the issues raised above. Additionally, the occurence of a reference before punctuation doesn't fill me with confidence about the rest of the article; the "Economy History of China" needs to be in bold. The critical problem with the article is the depth to which it explores so many issues. An Encyclopedia must be able to be both concise and comprehensive. Unfortunately, though the article has a wealth of good content, it tries to cover everything in equal measure. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that the capital P should be lowercase. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

P has been changed to lower case. Also, can you please kindly point out where you find a "reference before punctation"? Cause I can't see it. As for other issues, see above.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been changed now, if you look at the revision of the article prior to my comments you will notice it immediately, I certainly did. That still doesn't address my primary concern (see my last point). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

MasterofHisOwnDomain, this article is actually only about 113Kb, which is very small considering the scope of its subject. For example, the "Ming Dynasty" article which covers just a single Chinese dynasty, has a total size of 141KB, which is larger than this article who covers all Chinese economic history! As for the article covering too much content, this article is after all covering all of Chinese economic history, some 4,000 years, and in order to satisfy FA Criteria about broadth of coverage we must include many things. Effort has already been made(see previous copyedits) to address the salient parts of the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the size of the article, I'm disputing the conciseness and comprihensiveness of the article. For example, from the first header, the economy is not even discussed until the fifth sentence. It discusses the formation of Chinese civilization and then the government system. If I was reading this and wanting to know about the economic history of China, I would expect it to start with the economic history of China and start as it means to go on. A sizeable portion of the content is redundant. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, the first few sentences establish that early China was a feudal system, which is very important for the reader to be put into perspective. Feudalism was an economic more than a political system; it meant that peasants were self-sufficient, didn't produce for the market, and there could be no land exchange with violent force. This lays a very important foundation for the rest of the section, as the economic progress of the era is discussed with this context. In order to discuss the economic history of China(or any other country), other thing such as history, wars(they damage the economy) and government policies have to be discussed as well as they affect the economy. Do you not think that this article covers all the relevant facts about the premodern Chinese economy?Teeninvestor (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: there are lots of content issues to address. For a start, let me summarize here a message I put on the article's talk page on August 10. My points are about the first section on the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties.

• Speaking of the "Xia dynasty" is controversial. Some historians (mostly Chinese) accept its existence, but many don't, and say instead that it's a myth. A good Wikipedia article should mention this controversy instead of presenting one side of it as self-evident. Instead of saying that a Xia site has been found at Erlitou (not "Erli"), the wiki should discuss the economy of the "Erlitou culture" and then say that some historians have identified this site with the possibly mythical Xia dynasty.
• The chariot appeared in archeological records in 1200 BC in the tombs of the Shang kings at Anyang. There is no archeological evidence for the existence of any kind of wheeled vehicle in Shang territory prior to that. Saying that "The first chariots were invented during the Xia dynasty" is complete fantasy. (Incidentally, at least five scholars I've read agree that the Shang adopted the chariot from outside peoples who lived either to the north or northwest of the Shang, so even saying that the chariot was "invented" in such-and-such a dynasty is inaccurate.)
• Agriculture in "Xia," Shang, and Zhou times was based on millet, not rice. Rice dominated the Yangzi River valley, not the Yellow River valley, where "Xia," Shang and Zhou were mostly based.
• Domesticated animals included the dog.
• Even the historians who believe that the "well-field system" (jingtian 井田) existed (another controversy that should be explained) never say that it existed under the "Xia dynasty." They say it existed a thousand years later, under the Western Zhou (ca. 1045-771) and into the Eastern Zhou (771-256 BCE).
• Nobody knows anything specific about the social and economic organization of the "Xia dynasty." Saying that "Xia agriculture relied on a feudal system where the landowner gave 50 mu of land to his serfs in exchange for cultivation of 5 mu of his own land" is far too specific to be based on archeological evidence, the only kind of evidence we have for pre-Shang times.
• It's not completely clear when bronze swords became obsolete, but they were still widely used in the Spring and Autumn period. They were thoroughly replaced by steel weapons at the very end of the Warring States period.

All these errors are fairly basic, and they show (once again) how unreliable "Li and Zheng" are. The Cambridge History of Ancient China provides much better explanations of all the processes described in this page.

The general structure of the article is problematic. The "Feudal-Absolutist-Mercantilist" structure smuggles a strong POV interpretation of economic development into the article without grounding it in reliable sources. Until we can think of a more justifiable structure, we may have to revert to a boring chronological outline that goes dynasty by dynasty.

Madalibi (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

More comments (on references, this time). As a reader, I'm immediately turned off by the claims made in the first lines of the article, and especially by the references that are cited to support these claims. The first six endnotes send the reader to a church website (note 4), 4 magazine articles about recent economic development in China (notes 1, 2, 3, and 6), and one factsheet (note 5).

• Note 1 is an article by an Indian author concerned with "Ensuring China's peaceful rise." Nothing tells me why I should trust this author about the size of the Chinese economy before 1900.
• Note 2 leads to an abstract on "China and the Knowledge Economy" in the 21st century. Same comment as for Note 1.
• Note 3 is an article on modern economic issues that cites The Economist as saying that "China was the largest economy for much of recorded history." The reference is to page 5 of "A Survey of the World Economy - The Real Great Leap Forward," which was published in the Economist in October 2004. If we want to keep this note, we should at least cite the article in the Economist, where the original claim was found. But as with Notes 1 and 2, I see no reason why we should trust the Economist on historical issues.
• Note 4 sends to a site that promotes "the mission of the Worldwide Church of God." Clearly not a reliable source.
• Note 5 refers to a factsheet that cites "Financial Times" (no author, no date) as claiming that China had the largest economy in the world for 18 of the last 20 centuries.
• Note 6 is an editorial in the Financial Times by former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten claiming that China had the largest economy in the world for 18 of the last 20 centuries. This article is clearly the article that is cited so vaguely in note 5. Note 5 is redundant and should be deleted. The claim that China had the largest economy for 18 of the last 20 centuries therefore rests on the sole authority of Chris Patten, who is not a scholar in the field of Chinese economic history and who cites no data or scholarship to support his claim.

In other words, none of these sources is from an authority on the economic history of China. Magazine articles can sometimes be considered as reliable sources (especially in wikis that discuss current affairs), but why rely on current-affairs magazines when writing about 4000 years of Chinese economic history?

I'm ready to accept that China had one of the largest economies on Earth for most of the last 20 centuries. This claim could even be considered common sense. But in my opinion an encyclopedic article cannot rely only on a few magazine articles to claim that China had the largest economy on Earth for most of world history, or that its economy was the largest for 18 of the last 20 centuries (i.e., from 1 CE to 1800 CE). To justify this kind of claim, we need scholarly works on Chinese economic history.

Madalibi (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made several changes addressing Madalibi's concerns. Statements have been added that include the alternative viewpoint that Xia didn't exist, and removed several references to chariots and agriculture during the Xia. As well, mentions to domesticated dogs and millets were included. In addition, I changed absolutist to early imperial era and mercantilist to late imperial era, to address madalibi's concerns. I've also changed largest economy to one of the largest eocnomies per Madalibi's concerns.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments: Thanks for solving some of these problems quickly, teeninvestor! I've crossed out the issues that have been resolved. Here's more on the remaining ones.

• I don't think the Xia issue has been solved yet. The article still poses the Xia as having existed for sure (see lead paragraph), and says that Erlitou may have been a Xia site. The point should be instead that there were organized polities before the Shang, that traditional Chinese historiography claims that this period was dominated by the Xia dynasty, and that some modern historians accept this identification, but that many also doubt it and claim that the "Xia dynasty" is mythical.
• How about replacing the "Feudal Era" with the "Pre-imperial Era" to match the new sections on the "Early Imperial" and "Late Imperial" eras? "Feudalism" is a huge can of worms. Most Chinese historians call "feudal" everything from the Western Zhou (1045-771 BCE) to the Qing (1644-1912)! They use "feudal" to refer to a mode of production. Some Western historians like Derk Bodde have instead argued that the Western Zhou had a political system akin to that of feudalism in medieval Europe. Most Chinese historians call the Xia a "primitive society" and the Shang a "slave society," not feudal societies. Western historians usually ignore these vague terms altogether. Because of this, I would say get rid of the name "feudal" in the section title and be very careful how you use it in the text.
• For the reason just outlined, a statement like "Early China had a feudal society similar to that of Europe in the Middle Ages" is far too vague. Bodde made this point about the political system of the Western Zhou, not about its economic system. "Early China" could refer to any time until the Han. The wiki cites Chinese historians who use the term "feudal" in an economic sense, yet defines "feudalism" in political terms with lords and vassals.
• For the article to be comprehensive, it should probably address the Chinese argument (inspired by Marxism) that the Shang was a "slave society." Many Chinese historians disagree with this characterization, and so do most Western historians, who agree that there were slaves in Shang times, but that productive activities did not rely on them for the most part.
• Another point that could deserve mention is that the Shang already traded with distant regions to their north and northwest (we know that from objects found in tombs).
• "Jintian" (the well-field system) should be Jingtian throughout. The "well-field system" would be even better, since this is English Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica has a brief article on the "well-field system" that explains the basics of what we know about it. This could be one more source for our wiki.
• The reader should be reminded that the Jingtian system may not have existed at all. As the Encyclopedia Britannica claims, the well-field system was first mentioned in the works of Mencius (4th century BCE) as an ideal production system. Some evidence from bronze inscriptions supports its existence, but the jingtian system shouldn't be given so much presence in this wiki without at least a mention of its contested existence.
• A mistake should be corrected: the character tian 田 did not appear under the Zhou, but under the Shang. It is attested in oracle bones.
• I just realized that the whole Xia-Shang-Zhou section is organized by themes. It goes back and forth in time as new topics are addressed. This can be very confusing. I think this section would be clearer if it were re-organized into three parts: "pre-Shang" (with discussion of the possible existence of the Xia), "Shang," and "Western Zhou." This arrangement would make all the above issues easier to discuss. The Xia would be explained in one place instead of four. You could discuss Shang "slavery" and distant trade, as well as its bronze and silk "industries" together. The section on the Zhou would then address the possible beginning of the "well-field system," the growth of cities, etc. Recurrent themes like cities and millet-centered agriculture would also belong to the section's introductory paragraph. What do you think?
• Finally, watch out for typos and incomplete words when adding text! I see a "whta" that should be "what" and a "How" that should be "However" (or should disappear altogether). "Millet" is capitalized in the middle of a sentence, and so is "Alcohol" a little below. Another typo: "recirds" (should be "records").

Ok, I'll stop here for tonight! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all of the issues above except for seperating the section into three sections. The reason for not doing so is that there si so little material in the entire section(it is the smallest section), that seperating it would cause three sections with little to no content, and massive repetition. Three seperate sections were tried before(See about 4 months ago) but it didn't work out too well. I also fixed note 5 and 3 as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job with the structure. The section on the Warring States should now be placed under the "Pre-imperial era." One possible issue with the new content: Hao was a capital of the Western Zhou. There may have been a Shang capital of the same name, but I don't know about it. Teen: could you insert the character for Hao in the text so that we can judge (or correct the pinyin if necessary)? And why keep relying on "Li and Zheng" - who have been proven wrong countless times - when you can use the Cambridge History of Ancient China on Google Books? Try keyword searches (well-field, millet, slaves, etc.) and you'll get all the references you need! More comments later. Madalibi (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a detail: the claim (now deleted) that the character tian 田 originated in the Zhou period was referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 98" (see here, for example). Now the correct claim that this character originated in the Shang is referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 63" (note 14). If Li and Zheng are making such contradictory claims, then I have lost the little remaining trust I had in Li and Zheng. If the mistake is from an editor, then I don't know what to think... Madalibi (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on references to the Cambridge History of China. All the references to "Twitchett et al." (six different volumes of the Cambridge History of China) should be changed to the names of individual authors. Ebrey, Walthall and Palais (2006) is collectively authored, so we can just say "Ebrey et al." But the Cambridge Histories are made of individual articles by distinct authors. Twitchett is the general editor of the series, not the author of the statements that this wiki is citing. For a good example of how a reference should be made, see "Atwell 1998" and "Ebrey 1986" in the bibliography. Madalibi (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I may be wrong about this, but weren't cowry shells first used as currency in the Western Zhou dynasty rather than the Shang? As I said, I'm not sure, but we would need a reference (not from Li and Zheng, please) to support the claim that cowries were used as currency (not just decorations) in Shang times. Madalibi (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To address all of the above claims:

• I've replaced Jintian everywhere with "Well-field".

Great! This looks much better.

• The early Shang capital in question is actually pronounced Bo in Pinyin, so I've changed that.

Point cleared, then.

• The claim about the origin of the character Tian has been removed entirely. The original reference in Li and Zheng shows that the character originated during the Zhou, but I moved it without adding a reference. I've decided to remove the claim entirely.

Removing it was probably the right decision. This claim was not important anyway.

• After sacrificing my breakfast, I was able to change all the references to individual essays.

Do a keyword search for "Twitchett" and you'll find there are still a lot out there. Each original essay should be noted in the bibliography so that each reference can remain in the form "author (year), page number." I know this is grueling work, but this is how FA reviews often turn out. ;) At the end of it, the article will be really great, so keep up with it!

• I've added a new reference showing cowries were introduced during the Zhou.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good find! I can also add a reference to an article in the Cambridge History of China if you want. Madalibi (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason some titles are in there is because they are the "introduction" to the entire volume so part of the encyclopedia. I will not add "introduction" to the sources section but I will change the references to mention they are the introduction section.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. All references referred to either intro or essay. Have all your concerns been addressed, Madalibi?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teen,

• There are still a few mistakes in the references. "Hebert Franke" should be "Herbert" throughout. The complete reference to CHC articles (including introductions) should all appear in the bibliography and referred to as "Twitchett and Mote (1988), 4" in the notes, so that all inline citations can be in the same format. In the bibliography, only book titles should be italicized; article titles should be put between quotation marks. Check Ebrey (1986) in the bibliography to see how it's done.
• As for content, I still have plenty of issues! The first section (the one we've been working on) still looks messy and patchy. The wiki discusses the Xia dynasty and the well-field system as if they existed, and then we hear that they may not have existed. The two statements should be integrated better. You modified What the first section said about the feudal economy has been modified, but the lead paragraphs still use that term as vaguely as before as if the Xia, Shang and Zhou were all "feudal." I also agree with MasterofHisOwnDomain that the article tends to give more info about politics and war than on the economy. (And I'll talk about the Qing dynasty later.)
• I've prepared a well-referenced new draft of the Xia-Shang-Zhou section that is chronological but not repetitive, focuses on the economy, and does not rely on Li and Zheng at all. Tell me what you think, and let's see if we can integrate it into our wiki. I have replaced the original text with the new draft and then reverted it back to the original version. You can look here to see what the new version looks like when it's integrated into our wiki. If you like the new draft, you can always revert back to that version and go on from there.
• I went through Dieter Kuhn's volume on "Textile Technology" in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (it's Volume 5:IX) and found no trace of the "spinning machine" mentioned in the wiki and referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 67" (note 20). Kuhn is the foremost Western historian of Chinese textiles. He says clearly and repeatedly that Shang workshops used spindle-whorls operated by hand and mentions no controversy concerning this issue. The spindle wheel was only invented in the late Spring and Autumn period but it was also hand-operated. The earliest evidence for treadle-operated spinning wheels (some kind of "spinning machine") is from stone reliefs of the Han dynasty. So Li and Zheng are wrong again.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished fixing all the refs and adding all the references to individual articles; Should have no more problems with refs. I've adopted your version of the Xia Shang Zhou section. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—overlinking. And here are a few other issues.

• Could you drop the first sentence?
• "Until the 18th century, China enjoyed the highest material living standards on Earth."—Do we trust Ebrey as the sole source for such a major claim? Does it depend on how material living standards are measured? I'm not saying it's wrong; but I'm wobbly on it.
• Why is "Europe" linked? Doesn't the subsequent link suffice? And the article on "Europe" is hardly focused on this context, is it?
• Links to "iron", etc, are inappropriate (possibly "jade" might be linked, but not other common materials); unless there's a very focused section of the currency article you could link to, why at all? (And there it is linked again further down ...). Why is "bureaucracy" linked? Please audit throughout for this, so the high-value links are optimised in visual appearance. Too much choice and the readers will click nothing, believe me. GDP—readers should know it, but if you think not, link to a specific section of that article, or a daughter article. Do we really need "Xia dynasty" linked twice in two sections?

Please let me know when the link audit has been done, and I'll return to do more substantive reviewing. Tony (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do we need "being"? "Large cities were being built during the Shang period."

I've reduced the number of links in the lead and some other sections. It seems that the overlinking only exists in a few sections. In other sections there is no overlinking. As to Ebrey's claim, note this article did not endorse it; it mainly signalled that ebrey had made such a claim.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, but it's right up there in the structural "theme" of the article, second sentence. It gives great weight to the claim. To what extent to Ebrey provide supporting evidence or reasoning? Tony (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it, thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose This paragraph needs reworking:

  The Zhou developed the well-field system for agriculture, where eight peasants cultivated nine plots of land and the central, communally cultivated plot belonged to the lord. However, some historians question its existence.

  • First of all, it's many historians - the history of the Zhou (before the Warring States) is a handful of primary documents, eked out with the assertions of Chinese historians from centuries later. This should be acknowledged; one would think from the tone here that we were talking about the Ptolemies or the Hanoverians, on whose economies we have actual records.
  • Fixing this should also make the writing better; this is not how to deal with conflicts in the sources: To assert X existed, tell its history and then acknowledge that its existence is open to doubt is the wrong order; complare William Tell.
• People who use feudalism outside of its proper context in Europe should be required to read Sir Moses Finley on its unhappy extension. It is a token for almost any pre-capitalist society, and therefore meaningless; I have even seen it used of the upper-class capitalist agriculture of the Elizabethans - and of the capitalism of nineteenth century China. Using it for the appanages of the Han is a characteristic abuse; appanages can be made, as in Bourbon Spain, in a kingdom long past feudalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the viewpoint of this article is that the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming Dynasties were decidedly NOT feudal. As you can see, this article does not adopt a marxist viewpoint, the only ignorant viewpoint under which the advanced market economies of the Chinese dynasties can be called "feudalism".Teeninvestor (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You will observe that I am citing the objections to "feudalism" as a term-of-all-work by an eminent classical historian, who happens to be a Marxist. The passage that caught my eye is

The founder of the Han Dynasty, Liu Bang, briefly reinstated feudalism during his reign. Under the belief that the Qin's fall was partially caused by disregarding traditional feudalism, he gave several kingdoms to his relatives.

This will not do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You aren't very familiar with Chinese, aren't you? The relevant character in Chinese is Fengjian (封建) which translates to "feudalism". This was the system carried out by Liu Bang who then gave his sons kingdoms, and this is what they called it. Of course, the economic system was not restored; but this is "feudalism" in a very narrow political context, in that the king gives land to his "vassals"(In this case his sons). Of course narrow meaning of Fengjian can be translated as "giving land" but the general translation has just been "feudalism". Appanages would be more like the "thousand-household marquess" in later times, which only gave income; the kingdoms given by Liu Bang actually conferred onto the princes military and other powers, and would not be well described as "Appanages".Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to know Chinese. I know English, in which this is an ignorant abuse of language (so is appanage, which (unless explained otherwise) is a grant of territory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• But this has a far more serious problem; it abounds with sentences like Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader, which are monuments of national vanity. This is meaningless; if it had a meaning it would be doubtful of the Warring States, which overlap the Gupta Maurya Empire, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Archimedes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

reply

• Alright. To reflect consensus, the second paragraph has been modified completely to reflect the rewritten section that Madalibi wrote a day ago.
• Regarding the claim that Agriculutral and military achievements made China a world technolgoical leader, first of all, I didn't write that, it was copyedited into that position and two, that was actually mentioned, I'm going to add two citations for it. This statement was made in a source I had. The reason for this claim was the advances made in agriculture and cast iron during the warring states, such as Steel tools, hoes, Agricultural rotation, etc... that made agriculture and iron production in China much more than elsewhere. Also, its pretty ironic that you mention the Gupta Empire as overlapping the warring states, considering they were founded five centuries after the warring states had ended.
• Regarding the Han-era "Appandages"(分封) in Chinese, the paragraph has been revamped to reflect the views on this page. Because of unsuitable terms like appandages and others, the section has simply been titled "decentralized administration of early Han"(which is what it was).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies; I should not have typed from memory, out of my field; take what glory you can in picking on the error, now fixed.
  • I don't care who wrote it. We are evaluating the article, not the nominator - which should be more remembered around here. But it is a public embarrassment; we are an encyclopedia, not a Chamber of Commerce pamphlet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• The new second paragraph is an improvement; but the distinction between the Xia(not supported by written evidence) and the Shang (which are) seems dubious. Is this an effort to claim that only some of the Classic of History counts? Is it an enthusiastic reading of oracle bones? In either case, such discussion is off-topic here; try "supported/not supported by archaeological evidence", which is uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Just to clarify a little bit: we know that Anyang belonged to the Shang dynasty because the oracle bones that were found there describe in great detail the activities of Shang kings who were mentioned by name in the part of Sima Qian's Shiji (91 BCE) that discusses Shang history. The key point is that oracle bones allowed to match archeological evidence with the received historical tradition. Before about 1200 BCE, no written evidence of any kind allows to identify archeological sites with named polities, and this is why the existence of the Xia dynasty is only hypothetical. I agree that Teeninvestor's addition was unclear, but "archaeological evidence" is also too vague, because pure archaeological evidence is not sufficient to identify a dynasty by name.

Teeninvestor's new sentence in the lead paragraph came from materials that I added to the Neolithic-to-Zhou section. PmAnderson: could you read the relevant passage (first sentence of this section) and let me know if you find it clear? If not, I will reword it.

In any case, I don't think the lead paragraph should mention the controversy over the Xia and Shang, because these are not issues in economic history. The Shang can be mentioned as a matter of course, and the Xia can wait until the first section before we mention them.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Two pieces of advice, which - if thoroughly acted on - might change my mind:
  • Read WP:PEACOCK until it sinks through.
  • Have the piece reviewed by a monoglot English-speaker - preferably two, one that knows Chinese history and one that doesn't. Most of our intended audience does not speak Chinese, and failure in idiom and meaning "justified" by Chinese usage are soleicisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also, you wrote:

But this has a far more serious problem; it abounds with sentences like Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader, , which are monuments of national vanity.

This I find very troubling. In placing statements in this article, I am simply reflecting the consensus of the myriad of scholarly sources I have found in this issue. There is nothing "vain" or "nationalistic" about this. This is telling it like it is. If a nation had advanced agricultural techniques, this is a fact relevant to the economic history of the nation and you would note it in the article. There is nothing POV about this any more than saying American astronauts landed on the moon(unless you are a moon landing conspiratorist). So are you arguing that whenever I mention from my sources that the Chinese were the first to invent a technique, I should write immediately afterwards "But they were filthy barbarians who didn't know any thing, and were 2000 years behind Europeans in all other aspects?" Cause this seems to be the basis of the above argument. And as to your comment about evaluating the article- you are right. We are here to decide whether this article is FA-quality, Not to impose our own historical views about either whether Liu Bang's system was feudalism or the warring states were advanced. That's for scholarly sources to decide..Teeninvestor (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Read WP:PEACOCK. There is no need (and it is less convincing) to make such claims at all. Talk about cast iron by all means; but don't make airy vague statements about technological supremacy; they are less informative, and will be read as nationalist puffery and dismissed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• And as another point of detail. Anybody who claims to know whether the population of the Roman Empire was more or less than 58 millions is making assertions without evidence (we don't have Augustus' census), possibly through not consulting more than one actual work on demography. It may well have been somewhere in that range; but where is pure conjecture. (One conjecture, sourced in our article on the Empire, is 88 millions.) The way to deal with this is not to mention the subject, and let the interested reader make his own conclusion; it's off-topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• That particular claim is made by Ebrey in her book Cambridge illustrated history of China. I've noticed a pattern of questioning sourced facts in the article that the particular user doesn't agree with; this is completely off topic. We're here to discuss whether the article is FA-quality, not whether Erlitou was Xia or Han was more populous than Rome. As to your assertion that making claims of technological superiority is "national vanity", it has every relevance. This article needs to give information to the reader about the premodern Chinese economy, and this includes its technology compared to other contemporary economies. Would you consider that saying "the Us has been a technological leader in the world since the 19th century"(which is a statement I quote in full from the USA article), a peacock term?Teeninvestor (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So? I am sure that if you read classicists on China, you would find equal slipshodness - and I hope you would point them out when they crept into our articles on Syria and the silk trade. Part of writing an FA is knowing what sources are reliable for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you consider that saying "the US has been a technological leader in the world since the 19th century" a peacock term? Yes, and I have no doubt it was written by a guileless patriot just trying to explain things, too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• So you are absolutely that no reader, ever, would need to know that about the productivity of different techniques contemporary nations produced? Guess we better remove all mention of GDP from wikipedia then- they are peacock terms. We should also remove any references to large economy, or huge economy as they are peacock terms too. Finally , skyscrapers are not "Tall"; that is a peacock term as well, I guess. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.