Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economic history of China (pre-1911)/archive2

Economic history of China (pre-1911)

Nominator(s): Teeninvestor (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I've been working on this article for a year and has expanded it from being a stub to a rather large article. It successfully passed GA during the summer and although it was rejected in it's first FAC in september, many improvements have been made then which addressed the issues of no alt text, dodgy sources, and the problems of the beginning section. With these improvements, I feel justified to nominate this article for FA again, as a christmas gift to wikipedia. Please feel free to comment.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name

• As you said, the article now has alt text. The alt for the Warring States period map should describe what the map is trying to show, not simply the appearance of the map (see WP:ALT#Maps).
  • Speaking of that map, it should not have that name watermark (see WP:IUP#Watermarks, credits, and distortions).
• Many ambiguous links, which include one that points back to the article. Don't let readers trip over them—replace them with more specific ones.
• Ref 3's external link is dead. Also, add titles (at least) to the "[n]"-style external links (e.g., ref 125), and replace Wikisource and other sister-project URLs with, e.g., [[wikisource:zh:揚州十日記|揚州十日記]] (which produces 揚州十日記).

Good luck. --an odd name 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed all the dead links and bad redirects.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I clothed a bare Wikisource URL; check for any others. The map alt is improved (with your slight edit); it still feels like it focuses on the map instead of its content, but I'll leave that for others to decide on. Still has that credit (I hope Yeu Ninje/Yu Ninjie is still around and can remove it and its border). These are, of course, minor things given the large article. :) --an odd name 18:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out to me what you mean by the "credit"? By the way I have checked an dI don't think there are more URL's. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The image says "Drawn by Yu Ninjie." in its lower right. It isn't intrusive (you were wondering what I meant, after all!), but as the tags on the file's page explain, such credit insertion is discouraged by Wikimedia Commons policy in favor of EXIF information. (I guess Commons users wouldn't like arcade games.) --an odd name 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to recheck (again), but I see little difference for the unstruck issues. I think the Warring States alt text could still be better, something like "The Zhou Civilization consisted of state 1, state 2, ... in the north China plain, and scattered areas to the west and south." instead of concentrating on the map appearance; again, see WP:ALT#Maps. I also still see the image credit. --an odd name 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, user:AnOddName, I notified you but then forgot to do the changes. They have been changed now, I promise. The alt text has been changed to:

A terrain map of China highlighting regions mostly in the north China plain near rivers. The map labels "ZHOU CIVILIZATION" and contains about a dozen labels indicating the various states of China, such as YUE on the southern coast, QIN in the western inland regions, YAN on the northern coast, QI on the central oast, WEI, HAN, AND ZHAO in the central plains, LU and SONG in the Eastern plains, and CHU in the Southern inland regions

and the credit removed. Can you give your support now?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I rarely (fully or partially) support large articles, and any I do fully support are ones that I'm really familiar with (certain video games, etc.) and after several read-throughs (deep source checks, last bits of copyediting, etc.); so consider my comments guidance for reviewers (and yourself). Thank you for addressing them, though; good linking and alt text helps make an article verifiable and readable. --an odd name 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article talks about "China's three Golden Ages" but then lists four: Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and Kang-Qian. There is no mention of the Kang-Qian golden age in Google Scholar, so I expect that one's the interloper. (That hyphen should be an endash, by the way; see WP:ENDASH.) Also, please don't capitalize "golden age" in phrases like "Tang golden age". Eubulides (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kang-Qian "golden age" is used by some scholars, but is regarded as a period of economic stagnaton by others (due to the rule of the Manchus). The other three were recognized as golden ages though. Also, endash fixed.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Eubulides, weren't you here around the last time? Can you give this article your support this time?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem; I struck it. I like everything I see in the article now and I have checked the alt text, but I'm afraid I haven't had the time to read the whole article reaally carefully, which is what I need to do before supporting. Eubulides (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

External links and map also fixed.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: WP:LEAD is meant to summarize contents, so why are here so many randomly picked, one-sided quotes put so prominently into place? The assertions that China were the "largest economy", "the highest income per capita", "unrivalled material culture", etc. are each very strong and very debatable assertions. In fact, there is a myriad of differing opinions on the comparative wealth of pre-modern societies. Just one counterexample by a renowned economist (Raymond Goldsmith (1984): An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire“, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 30, no. 3, September, pp. 263-288 (280)):

As the standard of living in Diocletian's time is likely to have been below that of the early Empire expenditures per adult should have been above 200 IU which compares with 370 IU per occupied person in Italy in 1893, 163 IU in Brazil in 1928, 138 IU in China in 1933 and 132 IU in India in 1867/68.

This means that the ancient Roman Empire (200 IU) actually had a significantly higher living standard as China at the brink of its entry into the industrial age (138 IU). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, how is the article not summarized, eh? What is this, mr. Ma?

By roughly 10,000 BCE, in the Neolithic era, agriculture was practiced in China. Stratified bronze-age cultures, such as Erlitou, emerged by the third millennium BCE. Under the Shang (ca. 1600–1045 BCE) and Zhou (1045–771 BCE), a dependent labor force worked in large-scale foundries and workshops to produce bronzes and silk for the elite. The agricultural surpluses produced by the manorial economy of these dynasties supported these early handicraft industries, as well as urban centers and considerable armies. However, this system began to break up after the collapse of the Western Zhou Dynasty in 771 BCE, which lead to the Spring and Autumn and Warring states eras.

By 500 BCE, Chinese society, economy, and government were rapidly changing. As the feudal system collapsed, much legislative power was transferred to local kings. A merchant class emerged during the Warring States Period, resulting in increased trade. The emperors established an elaborate bureaucracy, using it to wage imperial wars, build large temples, and perform public works projects. This new system rewarded talent over birthright; important positions were no longer occupied solely by nobility. An agricultural revolution, caused by the adoption of new iron tools, led to a large population increase during this period. By 221 BCE, the state of Qin, which embraced reform more than other states, unified China, built the Great Wall, and set consistent standards of government.[5] Although its draconian laws led to its overthrow in 206 BCE, the Qin institutions survived. During the Qin, China became a strong, unified, and centralized empire of self-sufficient farmers and artisans, though limited local autonomy remained.

The Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE) brought additional economic reforms. Paper money, the printing press, the compass, and other technological advances led to communication on a large scale and the widespread circulation of books. The state began to exercise less power, allowing private merchants to prosper. These new technologies and knowledge, coupled with less bureaucratic control of merchants, allowed a large increase in investment and profit. Despite disruptions during the Mongol conquest of 1279, the Ming Dynasty continued the Song's development of the economy. However, when the isolationist Qing Dynasty came into power, China's economic development began to slow. The discovery of America and the wealth of India aided Europe in rapidly developing during the Industrial Revolution as China's economy slowed—an event known as the great divergence. In 1820, China accounted for 33% of the world's GDP, but barely a hundred years later China accounted for only 9%.[6]

.

As for the quotes, if you don't like them, find your own sources. Just cause magazines like the economist and scholars like ebrey don't agree with your POV, doesn't mean they're wrong. Not to mention you forgot all about the massive improvement in agriculture during the Han and later the Song, that made Chinese agricultural technology much more productive than the west until the 18th century. The fact that Roman grain couldn't even be transported from Italy to Rome on land says a lot. But, in any case, what does this have to do with article quality? The introduction is structured as four paragraphs, one to quote some statements about the ancient Chinese economy and three later ones to summarize it's roughly 4,000 year duration. Teeninvestor (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Any of the hyperbolic assertions in the lead, that China was "largest economy", "the highest income per capita", "unrivalled material culture" etc. is not discussed in and thus not supported by the article. Hence, they have no place in the lead. And if it were discussed in the continuous text, you would quickly find out that none of these claims can be maintained in that totality. I am not saying they are outright wrong, but that there is a mountain of scholarly literature to the contrary effect. I gave you one reference to the contrary, I could give many more. Even more importantly, all experts are painful to stress how utmost difficult it is to estimate the economic performance of pre-1800 states, even in the grossest order. But you present a carefully selected bouquet of convenient quotes simply as fundamental facts. Pure POV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the "controversial statements" have been stated as "according to so-and-so", which shows who made the statements and does not present them as fact. In addition, the quotes were not inserted by me; they were there when the article was still a stub. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, they have been removed per request of Gun Powder Ma.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma? You still there?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Teeinvestor, yes I am. :-) And I am still taking issue with the remaining quote. For example, data compiled by the macro-economist Angus Maddison shows the GP per capita in Western Europe to be larger than China's at all points in time, save 1000 AD. And for the supposed flow of inventions westward, do you have examples from post-1350? You might want to carefully check Jesuit China missions#Scientific exchange in that context, too. PS: Ancient China never did printing by the printing press, an invention made by Johannes Gutenberg. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, the invention claimed in question is Movable type, so that will be corrected. Also, per your advice, I will restructure the first paragraph so it would not include any quotes. Anything else?

But, seriously, the claim that western Europe had a higher GDP per capita than China at all times is beyond stupidity. No one can seriously doubt that Chinese agricultural techniques were vastly superior to that of Europe until the 18th century (See the work of Needham for that). Also, Angus Maddison has only two estimates (1 CE and 1000 CE)for periods before 1500, so saying that his measurements indicate China's GDP per capita was lower than Europe's "except for 1000" says very little(Maddison also believed India had a population of 150 million in 1000; care to take that up?). In addition, what about this passage from the article on Maddison's book ("Among other things, it confirms Adam Smith's view that China and India were at a higher or comparable level with Europe from the 1st century til late 18th century, but also static whereas Europe was fast progressing. It also shows them recovering lost ground from the 1950s, and documents the much faster rise of Japan and East Asia and the economic shrinkage of Russia in the 1990s.")However, I do not see how this relates to the article's FAC.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment No offense, as you've done an amazing job, but this is an encyclopedia, not a novel. At about 100,000 bytes of prose, this really needs to be significantly trimmed or split. I'm usually one to advocate a merge, but this is 44 pages of text. I would love to review this, but hardly anyone can handle that much. Reywas92^Talk 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I too would love to cut it down, but usually FA's are this size because of the requirements need to be fulfilled(have to cover all of the topic) and the scope of the topic (the economic history of the oldest continous civilization on Earth!). See for example Ming Dynasty and Han Dynasty, which are FA's about the same size as this one but covering just the affairs of one dynasty, while this one covers the affairs of an entire country.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that you are trying to cover the full scope of your subject in a single article. This could easily be three articles, covering repectively the pre-imperial, early imperial and late imperial periods. These articles would be of reasonable length and much more reviewable. I have a brief comment on sources, below Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty did not pass FAC at its current size; it has grown considerably post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources query: The formatting of online sources is inadequate. Refs 124, 203 and 234 give no indication of title, publisher or access date. As a matter of interest I followed up on 124, dealing with the 27% of world GDP claim. The source is an article in the Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, quoting comments made by the Mayor of Shanghai in a speech to some policy forum in 1997. I can't help feeling that more scholarly sources should be used to back up statements made in the article. The mayor in question may or may not have expertise in this field, and I don't think it should be assumed that he has. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the source about the Mayor in question and added adequate publisher information on the third source, on potatos. As to your belief that the article should be split, my belief is that the coverage of Economic history of China would be way too troublesome- We would have three "premodern articles" and one modern article, not to mention the mess that is [[Economic history of the People's Republic of China". The titles would have to titled something like "Economic history of premodern China (pre-221 BCE)", Economic history of premodern China (221 BCE-960 CE), etc.., and you can easily see how confusing it could be for the reader, especially one who has no knowledge of Chinese history and would have to navigate through five articles! A similar mistake was made in "Late 2000's recession" in which the article was split into several branches, and now it is extremely difficult to navigate. In addition, may I state that although this article is 135kb, it is actually similar in size to the featured articles Han Dynasty and Ming Dynasty, both of which just cover a single dynasty.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck to you, but Featured Topics exist precisely for when a subject needs a clutch of articles to do it justice. The dynasty articles would be harder to split as they deal with single dynasties, but this article deals with the concept of an "economy" which does not have to be considered as a unity. Anyway, the fact that other very long articles exist is not in itself a justification. I believe you have a better chance of getting featured status via a topic...but the decision is yours. Brianboulton (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've considered that previously (see archives of talk page), but I've come to the conclusion that splitting it would result in too much confusion for the reader- there would be several "premodern" articles, and one modern article. The article is long, I acknowledge that; however, it has a "reasonable" length, similar to many FA's already listed.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on reducing the size of the article- the article's length has already been reduced by about 10 percent. The prose size currently is definitely below 100KB (the upper limit), and possibly 80 KB.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support It is extremely difficult to present thousands of years of history in one single article, and user Teeninvestor's courage and determination is to be congratulated. This article deserves to become a featured article. Arilang ^talk 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a support declaration? (For that matter, do you mean "deserves"? The candidacy is still active!) --an odd name 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 213 (Information ..) lacks a last access date and the publisher and authorship information is run into the link title.
• Is current ref 208 (Wang Shochu) a book? Also, is it in Chinese? If it's in a non-English language, needs to be noted in the ref. If it's a book needs page numbers and the title italicised.
• The Fairbank title China a New History lacks publisher information

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wang Shicou is a first-hand primary account of the massacre, and it being written in Chinese has been noted. Ref 213 have been fixed(last access date added). Where is the "China a new history" source? I can't find it.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairbank is in the bibliography/list of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved(Fairbank title added). Anything else?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose and Speedy close. Ill-sourced tendentious embarassment. I pass over the lead, which has been duly criticized by others. The very first actual section contains: With the collapse of the Western Zhou Dynasty, however, this system began to collapse and was replaced by a more vibrant and free economy of self-sufficient farmers and artisans by the Warring States Era. This transformation was completed when the State of Qin unified China in 221 BCE, ushering in the imperial era of Chinese history. This is one conjecture about the collapse of the Zhou for which we have very few documents, all of them chiefly interested in the politics of a manorial elite. No source is given, of any kind, for this eminently challengeable assertion - a WP:V violation; it should not be claimed at all, in Wikipedia's voice, unless it were consensus of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the most widely backed up citations in the article. If you would read more of the article, there are at least several dozen citations talking about the collapse of the feudal system at the end of the Eastern Zhou(the copyeditor got it wrong), from multiple sources, from either encyclopedia of China history to Cambridge history of China to others. The only reason I didn't cite it earlier was because there were already many many citations in the rest of the article documenting this fact. For your preference, I could literally add ten citations to support that sentence. I have added two to show already the consensus.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The "collapse of the Eastern Zhou" is at least widely acknowledged to refer to something that actually occurred. But that's not what the article text said, is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, a more correct term would be the "end" of the Eastern Zhou, since the Zhou Dynasty had virtually ceased to exist by 771 BCE, though the dynasty itself lasted de jure until the 3rd century BCE. What the article says, and all the sources agree on, is that the feudal system began to break down by the end of the Spring & Autumn Era and by the time of the Qin Dynasty, it had largely ended. This is something that all my sources agree on. The part under consideration is reproduced here, as follows:

By the end of the Spring and Autumns period, however, this system began to collapse and was replaced by a more vibrant and free economy of self-sufficient farmers and artisans by the Warring States Era. This transformation was completed when the State of Qin unified China in 221 BCE, ushering in the imperial era of Chinese history

.

Teeninvestor (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This revised version is at least not talking ahistoric nonsense. "Vibrant and free", however, is WP:PEACOCK, and "self-sufficient" is largely meaningless. What were they before, depending on the handouts of feudal lords? (and if the vassals weren't self-sufficient, where were the feudal lords getting the handouts? Direct from Heaven?)

Use of feudal for any state outside Europe (and its direct dependencies) is an ill-defined and semi-literate abuse of language.

8*The Zhou dynasty defeated the Shang around 1045 BCE and took control of the Wei and Yellow River valleys that the Shang had dominated. This is exactly like providing dates for Romulus or the Trojan war; it can be done, and has been done far too often; but it is reifying mythology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the sources say. A section from the "Cambridge history of China" is reproduced below:

In the opinion of this writer, parallels with European

feudalism are sufficiently close to justify use of the term during the first four or five centuries of the Chou period. Thereafter, however, it must be applied in an increasingly restricted sense to describe only the vestiges of feudal conditions persisting in varying degrees within the major principalities. These, by the beginning of the Warring States period, had become

completely independent nation-states.

.

That's an opinion; as would be evident to a more careful reader, this is a minority opinion which this author is willing to defend - not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An opinion that is shared by all scholarly sources on Chinese history. I can reproduce ten more quotations on this if necessary in Chinese, English, and perhaps other languages. You would be hard pressed to find a single author that didn't, call the Zhou system feudalism.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a downright falsehood. Any article written by someone who believes it will be a public embarrassment, as this one is. Please let's keep it off the front page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Downright falsehood? Do you want me to reproduce tons of quotations now? Even read the Zhou Dynasty article???? Even that says what it is, feudalism. If you don't know anything about your topic, don't talk..Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you. On any such question, especially after decades of immersion in ideology, there will be tons of quotations on both sides, even if the tonnages are unequal. Actually reading books on feudalism, from Marc Bloch onward, might improve your cocksureness; looking for disconfirmation would be the responsible thing to do. I will be pleasantly surprised by either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As to self-sufficient, the term is used to refer to the farmers producing only for their own subsistence, rather than for the market, which was the case during the later Song Dynasty and Ming Dynasty. When you referred to "vibrant and free", did you notice there was a "more" in front of it(in comparison to the feudal period).

That's not what self-sufficient means. Strongly oppose articles written in neologisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Second oppose debolded; also, please sort and correctly thread the commentary above so it is apparent who wrote/signed what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is what "self-sufficient" means:

Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy. On a large scale, a totally self-sufficient economy that does not trade with the outside world is called an autarky.

Peasant farmers during this period produced for their own consumption(e.g., they make shoes instead of buying it and eat what they produce), rather than sell to the market. That would be the definition of "self-sufficiency". Later farmers, on the other hand, who produced cash crops like cotton were not "self-sufficient"(you can't eat it).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the OED 's first definition: Sufficient in or for oneself (itself) without aid or support from outside; able to supply one's needs oneself. As they go on to say, it is [n]ot now used of persons.

The current meaning is Of persons, groups, or nations: able to provide enough of a commodity (as food, oil) to supply one's own needs, without obtaining goods from elsewhere; self-reliant, self-supporting, independent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "self-sufficiency" used in the article is standard throughout Economic history. If you read 19th cenutry treatises on economics, they are already talking about the difference between the "Natural or self-sufficient" and "market economy". Generally, the peasantry produced for its own needs and what little exchange did occur was through bartar. The land was divided into thousands of small farms which produced for its own consumption. This is in total contrast to the later economy of the Song, Ming and Qing, in which farmers worked as tenants on large estates to produce cash crops such as tea and cotton for sale on the market.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, in fact, read several of the standard eighteenth and nineteenth century works on economics; but I would not use their vocabulary in writing an encyclopedia article in the twenty-first - unless it was on Smith or Mill or Ricardo and I had defined their use of the term first. Neither is true here. This article is not ready for prime time, and Teeninvestor's unwillingness to listen to his fellow editors ensures it will remain as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Me not listening to my fellow editors? Look at yourself, pmanderson. You've made an entire page of comments for a date of 1045 BCE that had "by traditional dating" in front of it and tryng to change the meaning of "self-sufficiency"? Who's not listening here? In the two FAC's you haven't provided a single piece of actionable advice, instead moaning over the meaning of words like feudal and self-sufficiency. You don't even understand the topic; if you're not going to provide any constructive advice, why are you here?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My actionable advice is to take out all non-consensus statements, which will be nearly everything before the Burning of the Books (if that happened). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not defined by you, Pmanderson, but by the sources. I'm sorry if the scholars and academics who spent their life researching their subject don't agree with you, that's just too bad. And no, that's not actionable advice. That's rambling.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The date of 1045 BCE is the traditional date for the fall of the Shang Dynasty. Perhaps traditional date should be added.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it should be removed, as should the implication that the "traditional history" of China is factual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, pmanderson, if the traditional history of China is not factual, then no history written before 1800 is. If the traditional history of China was regarded as unfactual, can you please explain to me where and when the Great wall and Great canal came from? In fact, historians have precise dates for every event in Chinese history up to 841 BCE. The doubt that the event occured in 1045 BCE is why the word "around" was put near it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

if the traditional history of China is not factual, then no history written before 1800 is. Tacitus? Guiccardini? Sarpi? Gibbon? The Han Annals? Most of Sima Qian? If you don't know or recognize the difference between these and the Western Zhou, study historiography at length before any more helpful contributions, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, you just said the "traditional history" of China is not factual. That includes the Han Shu(not the Han annals as you described them). Also, as for the date of 1045 BCE, that was a date that was computed using the Shiji Sima Qian. Yes, I do recognize the difference between Western Zhou and Han records, but these dates were actually records from the Han period and plus, the word "around" is just before it, if you didn't notice.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice around. It seems inadequate for "within a century either way, if this event ever happened at all". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you think the Shang Dynasty was never overthrown? Also, notice three words at the beginning By traditional dating . As to the reliability of the Zhou records, note that written records have already been present for hundreds of years by the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty. This would make the date more accurate, then say, the founding of the Shang.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Heavens give me patience; anyone who would cite oracle bones, surviving without history or context, as "written records" is attempting to fool himself, not his fellow editors.

What never existed (or cannot be reliably stated to exist), like the Shang as a universal dynasty, cannot have been overthrown. I also disbelieve in the Xia and the Yellow Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Shang surely did exist, though their domain was smaller than the Zhou. If you think the Shang did not exist, then you are going against between several decades of archaeological evidence. As to the Xia and the Yellow Emperor, it is debatable whether they existed (Though there are archaeological evidence pointing to the Xia's existence, see Erlitou culture), but that is apparently not the topic under discussion. Look, pmanderson, if the date on the founding of the Zhou Dynasty has to be removed, then all dates for any state founded before 500 BCE would have to be also.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Shang of legend are surely reflections of the archaeological culture. Whether that culture had a single dynasty, and whether that dynasty claimed universal rule, are unknowable without a time machine. Whether (if they existed) they were defeated close enough to 1045 BC to justify the precision of the number might be hard to determine with a time machine. If Teeninventor has one, he is wasting his time here. If he does not, he is wasting ours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you neglected the fact the oracle bones had this little thing called writing on them, and this sort of helps archaeologists and historians determine the specific facts of that period such as if the Shang dynasty fell around 1045 BCE. Besides, what has this to do with the article, whose main focus is on Economic history, and only mentioned this fact in passing? What does this have to do with whether the article should be an FA?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor hasn't done anything so untoward as reading this writing, clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If he had, he would have observed that these are oracles, not a narrative history. If he were a competent editor, he would not insist on mentioning traditionalist fantasies "in passing". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to respond to this snide personal attack.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose with about 70 sub-subsections, many of which being only one paragraph long, and with zero graphs/table to show some historic variation for a quick glimpse of somebody not well aware of the subject, I feel that this article is very poorly structured. Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article's broad topic and FA requirements to cover the entire scope of the topic, it is very difficult to shorten what's left of the article (which is about 50% of its former size). The non presence of graphs/tables is because such graphs and tables to measure ancient economic activity is simply not available. You can't find any graphs or tables on Economy of the Han Dynasty and Economy of the Byzantine Empire, either.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even try to look? FA criteria says among other things that the text is engaging. Right now, with 70 subsubsections I have no idea what is where and is definitely not engaging. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Maddison's research is very controversial and not exactly universally accepted. Secondly, I doubt the spreadsheet can be put into the article. Thirdly, to cover the entire topic of the article requires quite a few subsections; the number of subsections currently is about one-half of the former total, after three or four copyedits!Teeninvestor (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And a spreadsheet can be used to create a graph! As for the latter, just look at this example:

• subsubsection title: Strict property laws
• subsection text:Qin property laws were strict, in order to maintain respect for private property. The law sentenced persons who had damaged others' property, even as little as taking leaves from a fruit tree, to 30 days' hard labor.

You are willing to say that this is a proper subsection? The easiest is to remove the 80% or so of the sub-subsections and merge them into proper subsections. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me identify some possible candidates? Thanks. I will try to cut down the number of subsections by half.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)