Talk:Military history of China before 1912

WT:MILHIST

People watching this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion about this article at WT:MILHIST#Chinese armies (pre-1911)

Why there? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Because discussions here for the past three months have pretty much been between you and Teeninvestor. I'm hoping that discussing the issue at WT:MILHIST will attract a wider audience. 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article as such is not bad, it only needs someone to tell Teeninvestor to please steer clear of the blatant Chinese POV of "one of the world's most advanced armies", "great victories" and "Barbarian aggressors" etc.. For this, one or two more editors pointing out the same thing will do and we can quickly settle this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but from the above section and as Teeninvestor has been reverting you, he doesn't seem to be listening. I'm not familiar with the subject so will take your word on the article not being too bad, but the section title "special weapons" is straight out of a video game, and I cringed when I read it. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, your edits such as the "military technology systems, such as nomadic cavalry" are ill sourced and do not add to the article. I will not accept something blatantly biased as such, and which are unsourced. Also, you did not source any of your arguments on the spread of iron weapons eastword or anything else. "Special weapons" is used, because it is difficult to find a better title for weapons such as poison gas and flamethrowers. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am astounded that your knowledge of Chinese military history is so shallow, but I will provide the necessary sources in time. However, most of your biased claims are unsourced, either, aren't they? Since now three users have voiced some concern as to the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article, I re-tagged it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The man who calls "nomadic cavalry" a weapons system calls me shallow? I have invited Pericles to give an assessment, since he has access to most of the sources of

the article, which I don't have at this moment. Even if I did, I would not have the time to fix it. However, I warn you to stop insulting other editors and calling them "wargamers"; I can stick a few far nastier labels if I chose to, but it is editor decorum not to do so. I hope you can maintain at least a basic level of respect.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I just now took a look at the present form of the article and read a bit of the discussion here. Did Temple (1986) really call flamethrowers and poison gas bombs "exotic weapons"? That's the exact phrase in quotation marks as found here in the article; "exotic" seems like a strange descriptive word to use in this case. When one thinks "exotic" in terms of the Western perspective of the ancient Chinese arsenal, images such as obscure kung fu weapons (like the chain whip) come to mind, but not flamethrowers and poison gas. I don't actually own Temple's book, which I borrowed from the library long ago for the List of Chinese inventions article. However, I don't mind finding citations for various things which currently are not cited.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored the tags. If the wargamer wants to be treated as a Wikipedia author, he should start to act like one. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you keep on attacking other users, you will be reported to WP:ANI.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for verification

Since the wargamer seems not really well versed in what spirit Wikipedia operates, Wikipedia:Verifiability holds that When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. For the following, I'd like to have a quote:

• Chinese armies were advanced and powerful, especially after the Warring states era.

• This advanced technology was key for the Song army to fend off its barbarian opponents, such as the Khitans, Jur'chens and Mongols.

For the first assertion, Temple (1986) specifically stated on page 248 that: "China's military prowness was not matched by two millenia". Whether you agree with it or not, that is what the source says. Similar statements can be found in many other sources. And as for the importance of gunpowder weapons in defending the Song from barbarian incursions, the Chinese version of Cambridge illustrated history of China states that on page 99 that: "By the 1040's, during the war with the Tanguts, Song military manuals had already instructed commanders to make and manufacture gunpowder weapons for fighting the Tanguts. This later devolved into cannons and muskets" (rough translation).

Temple's source (which I don't have on hand right now), along with Pericles' source about Needham, also affirms the importance of gunpowder weapons to the Song in resisting northern invaders. Historical incidences such as the Battle of Caishi also affirm this. There's overwhelming scholarly consensus on this point, and I don't see why a quote would be needed (would you need a quote to affirm that the Roman Empire collapsed in the 400's?).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If Temple asserts that China's military was unmatched for two millennia, we should explain that it's his opinion. Something along the lines of "according to military historian Robert Temple (or whatever his field is), China's military was unmatched for two millennia". It's an interesting assertion considering the Mongol invasion of China, but if that's Temple's opinion we can include it as long as it's pointed out to be an opinion rather than fact. Please don't bring up the Roman Empire, this article should not try to rehash the speculation that used to be comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was using the collapse of the Roman Empire as an example of scholarly consensus. How's that in anyway bringing up the dispute? Well, I believe that Temple's assertion was specific that China's military technology was unmatched for two millenia. I will add this to the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

About the Mongol invasion of china, the reason the mongols won because they incorporated thousands of Chinese soldiers into their army, and adopted chinese siege technology. They did not use any of their traditional methods of warfare when attacking china. Your assertion about the mongols is totally off the pointДунгане (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that it's been clarified that in the field of military technology China was "unmatched", you may have a point. However, regarding the earlier, more clumsy and less accurate statement that "China's military was unmatched for two millennia" it was certainly germane. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a sweeping claim is still WP:Undue, whether you can source it or not. In reality, it could be nullified by a single other author who claims for the period in question that the military technology of any another army was the best of its time. Shall I dig for that or do you remove the ethnocentric claim on your own accord? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, a statement that says: "According to historian Robert Temple, so and so" is definitely not suspectible to any of your claims, as we have shown it is your opinion. And the fact is, your sources are not exactly the most reliable. Me being ethnocentric? It wasn't long ago that you claimed Romans invented the Tajitu.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let's quote then the exceptional claim of your thrash author. And then I am going to quote assessments of other authors which will contradict this claim. PS: Since, contrary to your edit summary, I am very much engaging in the discussion, I restore the template for the time being. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You had 48 hours to start an ANI and RFC/U, but you did not respond to this discussion. I wouldn't oppose a variety of views on this subject. But it's clear the majority of sources confirm Needham's work.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing. You have done zero in 5 days to deal with this, while starting multiple other disputes. You clearly have nothing to add and are NOT engaged (not to mention your claims have been refuted).Teeninvestor (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibbon

What does Edward Gibbon have to say about Chinese armies in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? As he's not referenced in the article, I was going to move the book into a further reading section, but in the capacity it seems a bit spurious as its main subject isn't Chinese armies. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibbon's here?????Teeninvestor (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not any more. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

pray tell gun powder ma

if westerners were so advanced, why were western powers like the netherlands and russian humiliated and defeated at the hands of chinese armies during the Siege of Fort Zeelandia and Russian–Manchu border conflicts?

Is it because your "superior" western military technology failed to rub off? Дунгане (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a point about the article or are you just trolling? Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have a point, the Chinese forces used cannons and ships to beat the westerners at the two wars i just mentioned, and the fact that they defeated them proves that Gun powder ma's premise of his precious western people being superior gets blown to pieces.

Oh yeah, and Gun powder's ma precious Tibet was defeated handily by the allegedly "inferior" Chinese army in the Sino-Tibetan War.Дунгане (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you are trolling. Thanks for clearing that up. You mentioned nothing about cannons or ships in your initial comment. You're also the first person to mention Tibet. Why did you? And funnily enough I don't see Gun Powder Ma asserting that Western people are superior to the Chinese. If that's what you read into his posts, I suggest you're being rather paranoid. If you have nothing to add to the article, go and find something constructive to do. Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Дунгане, don't try to confirm the stereotype that Wikipedia is only flocked by nerds and singles with no life. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What to do with this claim?

I would like to hear your opinion on whether the following claim below (in bold) should be kept or removed from the article. Its author is User:Teeninvestor, the main contributor to the article, who is currently the object of a RFC/U and has been long defending the quote with teeth and claws:

The military history of China stretches from roughly 2200 BCE to the present day. Chinese armies were advanced and powerful, especially after the Warring States Period. According to historian Robert Temple, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia".

In my view, this is blatant case of a sweeping WP:Exceptional and WP:Undue, irrespective of whether the Temple ref complies to WP:Reliable or not. Temple claims no less than to know that the Chinese possessed for 20 centuries a superior military technology than – brief selection – Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Indians, Romans, Arabs, Franks, Mongols, Spanish, Ottomans, Persians, English, French, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, ect. etc., no matter what defenses these people came up with in their time. Is this believable?

Note I am not having anything against appraisals of limited scope such as that the US today possesses the most advanced army, or the British had long the most powerful navy in the world. These are mostly accepted views, susceptible to a fair degree of validation. But the scope of Temple's boastful claim is beyond good and evil, utterly unprovable, and – like similar claims of Teeinvestor elsewhere – should thus be completely dropped from here. So, keep or remove? Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So we're not allowed to present the opinions of professional historians who have worked for decades on this topic? Looks like someone didn't read wikipedia policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about WP:Cherry. What if I add other author's conflicting views that any one of these peoples, or a number of them, possessed the most advanced military of their time? Or another one's – equally sweeping – view that China's military technology was long stagnant. How would this relate to Temple's claim? One swallow does not make a summer, and what Temple claimed is in fact unprovable and historically outright absurd. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple only happens to be describing the work of the The leading expert and most prolific China scholar in history. That has no credibility whatsoever, right?Teeninvestor (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm down guys, it's only a single sentence. Now, does Temple go on to say why the Chinese military was "unmatched"? That's a sweeping assertion, and although I suspect it is mostly true, I'd be willing to bet that at least one nation came up with a weapon or tactic that was better than the Chinese at some point in those two thousand years. The Mamluks of Egypt were able to use their superior tactics to defeat the Mongols in 1260(?), for instance. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple refers to military technology only, I believe. I certainly agree with you that the dispute is all out of proportion to its seriousness, but User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of POV-pushing in Asia-related articles that has gotten him blocked repeatedly.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What does Temple have to say on the Frankish counterweight trebuchets imported by Muslim engineers of the Mongols which brought down the defenses of the Song – and the effective end of the dynasty – in a matter of days? Cf. Paul E. Chevedden: "Black Camels and Blazing Bolts: The Bolt-Projecting Trebuchet in the Mamluk Army", Mamluk Studies Review Vol. 8/1, 2004, pp.227-277 (232f.). Is this compatible with his hypothesis? PS: For one currently under investigation, you are throwing around pretty much false accusations. Do you happen to have also arguments? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well that's not true, see [1]. Comment on the issue at hand, not the people; it just throws red herrings into the conversation.

It's hard to believe that, for example, Roman legionary armor was inferior to the Chinese.. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please read before posting

Guys, note the claim under dispute is According to historian Robert Temple, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia"; we had made clear that this is Temple's claim only. GPM is in effect declaring that the opinion of a historian who has worked for decades on this topic should not be included in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop with the annoying bolding, please. I don't care what his credentials are; sometimes people make mistakes, and this one could be that he tried to generalize too much. Can you prove that his statement is correct or give supporting evidence? You must provide supporting evidence to back up your position, just like GPM. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, the burden of proof rests on those who make the exceptional claim. So Teeinvestor has to show that the military technology of all these other peoples has been consistently inferior to Chinese one, not me the other way round. But to give some positive evidence of Western military superiority, see the Military Revolution. For the unmatched size and scale of Western cannon technology, see List of largest cannon by caliber. In neither article, Chinese equipment features in the least. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By contrast, the burden of proof relies on you. You have to prove why we should disregard the opinion of a scholar who was the most prolific China scholar in history and a leading expert?. The two articles you mention above do not solve this dispute at all (the fact that gunpowder technology books were systematically burned in China during the Manchu conquest hardly helps).Teeninvestor (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Temple's whole book and this article? Providing a quote:

Joseph Needham noted that a battalion in the fifteenth century Chinese army had up to 40 cannon batteries, 3600 thunder-bolt shells, 160 cannons, 200 large and 328 small "grapeshot" cannons, 624 handguns, 300 small grenades, some 6.97 tons of gunpowder and no less than 1,051, 600 bullets, each of 0.8 ounces. Needham remarked that this was "quite some firepower" and the total weight of the weapons were 29.4 tons.[9]

Teeninvestor (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool quote. How does it prove that China's military technology was unmatched by others over an entire two thousand year period? I appreciate that the Chinese were well ahead in the gunpowder age, but what about before that? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember the dispute is not whether China's military technology was unmatched, but whether we should include this assertion by Robert Temple that it was. Temple also cites other evidence like chinese being able to produce superior-quality cast iron and even steel weapons as well as rapid firing crossbows (with ability to penetrate even iron armor) to support his thesis. He also contrasts this with Rome which was unable to produce much high-quality iron. Although his thesis may not be complete, I believe this is an opinion that should be included, considering the source and the evidence used, which strongly supports his thesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

These types are never pleasant disputes. The article certainly doesn't need the quote. In fact, the entire paragraph it's in isn't necessary. But it's so benign, I'm unsure of what the reasoning for removing the statement would be. It's is a verifiable and notable opinion. So can someone go into a little more detail as to why they think the quote should be removed? I mean, Teeninvestor is right, the article isn't making that claim, it's simply presenting an opinion. Swarm^Talk 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the difference? WP:Undue, WP:Cherry, and WP:Exceptional apply here, all of which make a case for presenting balanced views. If we take the simplistic view of merely presenting an opinion, what would Teeinvestor say if people would start introducing the opinions of Marx, Adam Smith and Hegel that China was the longest time a sclerotic society through and through? I wouldn't add them for their extremity, but according to your reasoning, what could editors keep from presenting their views as "mere opinions", too? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, actually, you have a point. The quote is in the history section, too, which really shouldn't need to discuss any opinions in the matter, which includes presenting claims like this. I don't think the quote is non-credible, but, in the interest of WP:NPOV as well as the links you posted above, I think it should probably be removed. As is, it seems out of place and not necessary. Swarm^Talk 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Because, we know Marx, Smith and Hegel's opinions about China are as important as the the most prolific China scholar in history, right? Obviously only the opinions of the experts in this matter should be given weight. We're not gonna randomly put a quote from any guy on the street in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim does not belong in the lead. Per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of the article. If it's mentioned in the lead, it should be mentioned elsewhere, otherwise it's not a summary. Also the slightly dubious claim of one person should not be given such prominence. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In the midst of this discussion, Teeinvestor has moved the disputed claim right to the lead. What better proof of his unconstructive attitude there can be? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to the lead because User:Swarm suggested moving it out of the history section. Hardly a "provocative move".Teeninvestor (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Move it somewhere else. It does not belong in the lead. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it out. It's overbroad. Its suggestion Chinese tech was, in all cases & all eras, superior is improbable at best. Moreover, I'd far rather see examples by period, contrasted with contemporary examples from other cultures. Also, I'd like it clarified superior military tech, even given China had it, did not equal superior military performance, which seems to be implied, & from what I've read, the manipular legion bested anything the Chinese had: not technology, but superior. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but would military technology also include fortifications? If so, is there anything along the lines of the trace italienne in China? Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not. Chinese walls remained square and high until well into the 19th century. The Chinese also did not know torsion engines, like the Romans, they introduced iron weapons later than everybody else in Eurasia (as late as ca. 500 BC), were still fighting on chariot when most others peoples already had moved to cavalry and their maritime technology was necessarily primitive for the fact that the longest time China did not even have an open water navy. The claim is ludicrous. Why doesn't he simply remove it and we all move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

GPM, your claims are ridiculus. So you know more about ancient China than Someone who spent his whole life researching it? I won't bother to rebut any of your claims above, the article will do that on its own. Frankly, you have not demonstrated any historical knowledge of China at all; I doubt you can name the dynasties. This is coming from an editor who thought that the Romans invented the Taijitu and who has repeatedly shown his anti-China bias and has even been blocked for it. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Trekphiler and GPM. The quote implies superior performance, as well doing so for all eras during the past two millenia. It is also very broad-brush, ignoring individual advances. Besides, do we really need it? Would the article suffer that much without it? Athenean (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was originally inclined to let the statement stand once it had been clarified that it was Temple's view. It's debatable, but it shows it's one person's opinion. However, as this discussion has progressed the claim seems more and more spurious. Currently, I don't think it should be included. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So let me clarify this. Are you guys saying that the opinion of a renowned scholar (note; the article isn't even asserting this, it's presenting the most qualified scholar's opinion) on the military of ancient China should not be represented, because you guys "read about something else contradicting this" and because of GPM's extremely dubious OR above (which is contradicted by almost every credible source, including this article?)? This discussion is a perfect example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What are we going to represent in this article, the dubious and ignorant claims of a few editors here, or the scholarly consensus?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're now interpreting one person's opinion as academic consensus? That's a bit odd. Anyway, the point here is that several users have raised valid objections to the statement that have not been addressed. Does Temple mention fortifications, or the Mongols, or siege weapons? Nev1 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple certainly mentions the Mongols and siege weapons. See for example the gunpowder weapons section. In terms of the Mongols, Temple reveals an interesting fact; the Mongols would have been unable to conquer the Song or the Jin without using Chinese gunpowder technology, which allowed them to easily destroy the walls of many cities. Another factor was the lack of gunpowder weapons for the Chinese. in the battle of Kaifeng, Jin defenders were able to fight off a Mongol siege repeatedly with "thundercrash-bombs" and the Song fortress of Xiangyang, whose fall doomed China to conquest, would not have fallen had the Song garrison not run out of these bombs. I'm not sure about what Temple says about fortifications, but he mentions many impressive architectural feats by the Chinese, including a building made out of cast iron; he also mentions the durability of the Great wall, some portions of which are still standing after being built 2,000 years ago. Remember what Temple is describing is not the work of any scholar, but the most distinguished sinologist of his (and possibly any) time; I believe wikipedia should give him some weight. As to GPM's claims, I will note only that his claim about horses is absurd; Temple notes that China had the most advanced horse transport of its time (having invented collar harnesses), while Rome was forced to depend on Egyptian grain because it couldn't even transport the grain from Northern Italy to the city.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A difficult one. As an aside, on Joseph Needham... Needham is putting forward a particular argument about the Western perspective on Chinese technology, and trying to right a perceived imbalance in the literature. But he is quite subtle about it; in his "Science and Civilisation" series, for example, he notes that "[n]either the the heavily armed Greek hoplite nor the Roman legionary ever had any counterparts in Chinese armies" - he argues that the Chinese didn't develop some of the more extreme variations in military form that the West did, even if they had equivalent technology. As a result, he can make general arguments about Chinese high technology during the period, without having to defend an "unmatched" position in every case, which would be challenging to say the least, as this debate has shown! In terms of the article and the quote, I'd agree it doesn't belong in the lead; I'd be inclined to keep it, however, noting that it is an extreme position, but accompany it with some of the more nuanced quotes from Needham and others. There's some other material in "Science and Civ" that would fit nicely in this article, incidentally. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem for me is that the claim "unmatched for two millennia" is not placed in the context of which two millenia, or even if the period is contigiuous. This is more so given that it is associated with the date 2200 BCE. There are many readings of the statment so its needs clarification. It could be the period 2200 BCE - 200 BCE which would mean that from the middle of the Roman Republic its technology was matched. At the other extreme, since the article reference "pre 1911" the sentences could be interpreted as meaning Chinese technology was ahead from around 88 BCE (Caesar's teenage years) to 1911. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just dropped in due to a note at wp:ver; forgive me if I'm not as versed at the subject. IMHO, if content is disputed, that should raise the bar a bit for sourcing. WP:RS is a context-specific criteria. The statement "unmatched for two millennia" is a statement that the whole rest of the world did not match this technology for two millennia. Requirements for an RS on that statement would include a review of world technology, not just a review of Chinese technology. Possibly you all could start out in an unWikipedian way and decide (before pulling out the rule books) whether y'all would classify this statement as true, false or contested. Clearly there is no consensus that it is "false". But I don't see anyone contesting the veracity of the statement itself. If it's veracity is uncontested, you might just let this slide. If it's veracity is contested then you might look closer at the rule books. If it is contested, you might just rewrite the sentence to say that such is the opinion of Temple rather than writing it as a fact citing him as the source. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that this sweeping statement is extremely open to falsification. Temple claims that a) for a period of 2000 years in comparison to b) the whiole world, China's military technology was unmatched. This means that his claim is proven false as soon as there is a single case to the contrary, a single people which possesssed superior weapons for a period of time within the given frame.

This is all a simple application of Popper's falsification criteria: If someone claims that for two thousand years, all goose on earth were black, this statement can be immediately and thoroughly falsified by showing him a single white goose in the specified time and space frame. Then the claim is false. So should I do this? Should I dig for a statement to the contrary effect? 2, 3, 4, how many unrestrained appraisals of other people's military ingenuity do we need before Temple's opinion is exposed as untenable supposition and accordingly removed? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it is written like a fact, not as a description of a someone's opinion, the rulebook is already with you. To keep the statement in would require a citation to a reliable source, and per the above; this would be based on an analysis of world technology, not just Chinese technology. You don't have to prove the statement wrong, the other person has establish that it is sourced per wp:ver in order to keep it in.

I think that you have also already fulfilled my unwikipedian recommendation, which is basically, don't pull out the rule book unless you also disagree with the veracity of statement. That would require just you contest it, not that you proved your point. This is the spirit of the "contested or likely to be contested" wording, in WP:VER/WP:NOR although structurally those rules do not implement that "spirit". Since I know that Templeton's statement is roughly consistent with a widely held opinion, IMHO it could stay in if the statement becomes that Templeton holds that opinion. Sincs it would then be a statement about Templeton's opinion rather than about their technology being unsurpassed, it becomes sourceable, and also, due to being a widely held opinion, IMHO suitable for inclusion per per WP:NPOV.North8000 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Popper used black swans, not geese as his example. Nevertheless GPM's point is valid.Philg88 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

uh, North8000, that's exactly what it is; a statement of Temple's opinion (and probably Needham's too).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Something like:

Historian Robert Temple expressed the opinion that "China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia".

Although it would be better to find a less overreaching statement of his in this area to quote, which I'm guessing exists. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what we have now, North 8000. I will be getting Temple's book soon to expand the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but the article spans about 4000 yrs, so which 2000 years are we talking about exactly. Is that a continuous period from 1000BCE-1000CE, or is that a cumulative period of for example 2000-700 BCE (when Roman equipment became superior) plus the period from 400 CE (fall of the Roman Empire) - 1100 BCE? Without this information it is plain impossible to judge the claim on its value. Of coure once we have etablished the exact periods the Chinese military technology was superior we have to establish that Robert Temple is indeed a world class specialist on the military technology of each and any relevant warfaring civilization at that time, otherwise he may be a specialist in the Chinese military technology of the day, but lacking sufficient knowledge to make relevant comparisons. Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and another explanation altogehter maybe that Temple is indeed right but was misinterpreted by us. Maybe he intended to say "The Chinese military technology was unmatched in the field for two millenia", which makes the claim much more modest (i.e. limiting it to countries Chinese had armed conflict with). I guess the would fall within the knowledge base of a historian studying chinese history. But in that case we should rephrase the line in a much more modest way. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The span that Temple talks about is roughly the imperial era til the nineteenth century, i believe. that would be from 200 BCE to 1800 CE (roughly).Teeninvestor (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we need a source to make that clear. By the way that would imply that Chinese armor was better than Roman, their siege engines were better than Roman and medieval. Their cavalery outmatched the medieval heavy cavalry, their fleet could take on the Spanish, Dutch and British war fleets at the heights of their power. Their cannons outperformed the best the European could produce until Napoleon, their missile fire (muskets, bow and arrow, cross bow) outperformed everything in Europe. And that is only a summary list highly colored by my own knowledge and W-European pov. Interesing claim, show me the evidence for all. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another remark. Although Robert Temple may have worked for decades on chinese military history, that is nothing special. Most academics work on a relatively small area for a long time. The question however is whether his views are notable. A google search on his name readily gives his homepage [www.robert-temple.com/]. The material there does however little to say his views are at all notable. Also his academic career seems not very notable. So why is this historian chosen over others? That needs to be made clear in the light of the earlier issues regarding WP:cherry cherry picking. Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple is probably better known to many (including me) for his argument that "the Dogon people preserve the tradition of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system" (quoted from his Wikipedia entry). He's very popular with the Chinese official establishment for his recent writing on China as well, however. I'd come back to the point, though, that whilst Temple does reference the well-respected Joseph Needham to support the quote that we're debating, Needham doesn't actually argue that position himself (that I'm aware of). I still think we should retain the Temple quote though, suitably caveated. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He's reflecting the work of Needham, not himself, guys! Please read the quote at the beginning before posting.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You've just said you've not got the book, and I previously queried whether the quote from Temple is accurate. In fact you gave the quote while at the same time saying you didn't have the book to hand. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I had the book when I added this quote when I started this article. Now I don't have it. I'm getting the library to give it to me again, however it will take a while.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I still can't find any reference to Needham himself arguing that Chinese military technology was unmatched for two millennia (but I stand to be corrected - he's written a lot!) Could I propose the following straw man set of words as a possible compromise?

"Early Western scholars tended to underestimate the levels of Chinese military technology during this period, influenced in part by a "very slight knowledge of Oriental sources, especially those in Chinese", and the availability of archaeological evidence at the time. Post-war work led by the academic Joseph Needham resulted in the Science and Civilisation in China sequence of publications, highlighting that in some areas, Chinese military technology exceeded that of international peers during the period. In his recent popular reinterpretation of this research, writer Robert Temple has gone further to argue that China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia"."

Hchc2009 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009. I think your suggestion has a lot of merit. I would like to have some clarification on a few words though. "Early Western scholars" - this is a bit ambiguous as you could list people as early as Aristotle among the early western scholars. I guess you mean something like "Nineteenth and early twentieth century Wester scholars".

"In some areas" I can live with this, but it would be best if we could specify in which (but if we can't I wouldn't mind)

"during the period". Period is rather vague, this could be anything between the afternoon of 23 July 237 CE, or the whole 4000 yrs that this article cover. I guess we are talking about the 300 BCE-1700BE period (which would link to the 2000 yrs mentioned by Temple). Can we be more specific about the period?

After mentioning all this I really do not see the necessity for adding Temple to the section, as his analysis seems merely speculation based on the much higher standard work of Needham, so I think with this section in place we can remove Temple altogether without changing the content (and I would suggest to do so because of WP:undue.

Also I did not realise this was indeed Robert K. G. Temple who is involved in fringe theories, so to be honest I would treat anything written by him with suspicion, he may be a good and convincing writer, but I do not think we should consider him as a leading academic in the field. Arnoutf (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can dig up the finer details on the Needham side on Sunday if need be (I'm off now for a day or so); I think Needham notes that the Chinese gunpowder weapons were better at most times, as initially was the early China trebuchet, but on the other hand the Chinese weren't so advanced with fire weapons as some other nations, and the later Arabic adaptation of the trebuchet was better than the Chinese one, etc. etc. - we could pull these out easily enough I suspect. I agree with you about the need to pin down the period being referred to and name the relevant scholars.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"2, 3, 4, how many unrestrained appraisals of other people's military ingenuity do we need" Which is much the argument I tried to make. As it stands, it appears every single instance of Chinese tech was superior at every single point in time. If China hadn't conceived the torsion seige engine, I suggest, we've already falsified the claim. More to the point, I find this relies too much "appeal to authority". Forget whether Temple is a genius, or a nut, or in between. Show some examples, provide the sources, & let the reader decide how good the Chinese were. (BTW, Chinese naval tech was better in 1492 than anything in Europe; compartmentalization, rudders, bamboo sails, & 1000 ton ships Columbus couldn't have dreamed of....) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And that is indeed one of the problems, I readily believe the Chinese ships being far superior in 1492, but were they still superior in 1792 (which is the time of Nelson's ship of the line)? That is after all the size of the claim! Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Even this claim can just as easily be discounted: Portolan maps, the true mariner's compass, the Jacob staff, the lateen sail, the fully hinged stern-mounted rudder, caravel planking, even largely the keel (which junks do not have), all were unknown to the Chinese until introduced by European sailors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad we agree there, Trekphiler. Whatever Temple's authority, and as an ufologist, it is as slim as that of the user who likes to extensively quote him, his grandiose claim can be falsified in a zillion ways. Let's start:

• Greco-Roman torsion catapult: unknown to Chinese --> Chinese instance of military inferiority in antiquity (500 BC-500 AD)
• Frankish counterweight trebuchet: used by Mongols, reduced Song cities to rubble and put an end to the whole dynasty --> Chinese instance of military inferiority in High Middle Ages (ca. 1280)
• Military Revolution (matchlock, flintlock, bombard, field artillery, trace italienne, etc.) in comparison to ineffective, small and cumbersome Chinese gunpowder weapons --> Chinese instance of military inferiority in Early Modern Age (1500-)

Temple's claim has been falsified for three benchmark times in antiquity, Middle Ages and the Modern Age, Q.E.D. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, we're going to listen to your OR and ignore Needham. As I said, have you even read a single book about Chinese military history? And I have to repeat it a billion times, but Temple is the summarizer. The work comes from Needham. This is a perfect example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; just because you allegedly "disproved" something with your OR doesn't mean anything. And no, the battle of Xiangyang is a lot more complex than that, and crossbows were more complex than any torsion machine. I'm sorry, but we're not going to remove an assertion because some editor allegedly "disproved" something Needham worked on for dozens of years. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In summarising nuance often gets lost. That is why we need the original phrases of Needham not the popularised summary by Temple. As long as the Temple summary stays up that is the only thing we have, and I think GPM has shown that the specific statement by Temple is an overinterpretation. That maybe either because nuance got lost, or because Needham was wrong. But we need Needham for that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

PS Needham worked for decades on Chinese history, not on comparing Historical Chinese military technology to the military technologies of all other contemporary civilisations. Actually only 2 out of 25 volumes in the Needham series (<10%) are about military technology. Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Each volume is several hundred pages, Arnoutf, more than enough to triple or quadruple the size of this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you repeatedly claim that the authors have been working for decades on the topic of Chinese military science. But Needhams project (running for about 50 yrs) has dedicated only 2 out 25 of it publications to military science. So the actual time spent is probably in proportion; or so not more than at maximum 10 years full time work on military science ; how much of that was spent on comparative studies is not clear but it will be much less. Arnoutf (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but Temple's claim is too broad-brush and easily falsifiable. It implies that China's military technology was unmatched by anyone, anywhere, for a full two millennia. Yet it is trivial to come up with counter examples. Moreover, what does Temple know about other cultures' military technologies? Nothing. Such a claim should only come from a respected expert on the history of warfare, e.g. John Keegan. It seems like a classic sensationalist claim solely designed to garner attention onto itself and the subject. Considering that Temple is a popularizer and not a scholar, this is to be expected. Athenean (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert K. G. Temple: Fringe or not?

This is bad. I always thought of Robert K. G. Temple as a polemical and one-sided author, but I didn't know that he was that close to WP:Fringe. Teeinvestor has in fact used his 'book' quite intensively to buttress his claims of Chinese excellence and European backwardness, 4 times in Economic history of China (pre-1911) alone:

• Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader

• Cast iron was invented in China during the 4th century BCE, but was not adopted by the West for 1,700 years

• Its strength allowed the Chinese to develop weapons superior in quality to the iron weapons used by other nations

• These innovations in China's agriculture increased efficiency at least ten times, and possibly thirty times in comparison to its western counterparts

I don't have much experience with this guideline, should we take this to Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

my suggestion would be to drop Temple and use Needham or other mainstream Sinologists instead. Arnoutf (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

100% of the content of the book comes from Needham. So in effect we're already using his work. GPM, if you want to dispute Needham's credibility and claim your estimates are better, you're free to do so; don't use Temple as a banner.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Temple is coloured by the Dogon book (which was I believe his interpretation of others work - their work has since been questioned). Temple may be reliable on China, he may be very good at summarizing Needham's work, what is needed is an assessment of Temple as RS on China. I don't think that because he has held/reported a fringe theory it necessarily counts against him in an entirely different area. Conan Doyle backed the Cottingley Fairies but was also a qualified Doctor and knew a fair bit about the law. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But if he is merely good at summarising others work (both in the Dogon book and apparently in his book on China) that does not make him an expert on these topics. And for that reason alone I would prefer to have true expert sources over someone summarising. Arnoutf (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing and then exaggerating. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is always a risk if you accept summaries of original sources, although I am not certain this is the case here. What I keep finding problematic though is that Temple is not known as a sinologist, so why would his book be mentioned. Also I am not sure whether it is completely up to date, as the quote refers to a 1985 edition. Arnoutf (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, Temple is here summarizing the work of Joseph Needham; nearly all his assertions are based on Needham's data, so in effect we can treat this as a popular summary of Needham's work. And it's absurd to think that Temple's work on Dorgons or whatever has any relation to this work; here he is merely a summarizer of Needham (And he was a summarizer in the Dogon case too). As to Needham, not including his info in a China history article is like not including Hawking's work in a quantum physics article.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And that last claim lacks substance. Stephen Hawking did contribute significant original ideas to quantum physics himself. And indeed no quote of Hawking is included in the Quantum physics article. Temple on the other hand is a mere populariser; and is more like Bill Bryson with A Short History of Nearly Everything. So with no quote of Hawking in the Quantum physics article, while he is clearly a superior contributor to that field than Temple in this, why would we mention Temple? Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because quantum physics is a bad place for quotes?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this article as well, but you did not address that Hawkings work is several leagues above that of Temple making your comparison rather inappropriate (note that YOU raised this as comparison). Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm comparing Needham and Hawking, not Temple and Hawking, in terms of their importance to their respective fields. Obviously Hawking's work is miles above Temple.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then we clearly have no problem, we use Needham and drop Temple. Arnoutf (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's kinda the thing, 100% of the content of the book comes from Needham. So in effect we're already using his work.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So why do we need to mention the name Temple at all, if there is no original idea by him? Arnoutf (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Wikipedia's editing rules that state you must identify the author?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do, in the reference, they do not demand author names being mentioned in the text. Unless you want to quote the author, but why would we want to quote a summariser? Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously he doesn't have to mentioned in the text, but he has to be mentioned in the sources section.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham quote

Teeinvestor, could you give us the Needham quote you are constantly referring to? There are now more than one user who would like to see that now. Right now, Temple's opinion is as isolated and unsupported by other authors as a castaway in the midst of the Atlantic Ocean. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh; I will repeat; 100% of the content of the book comes from Needham. So in effect we're already using his work. Temple is only a summarizer.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So we don't want a quote by the summariser I guess. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned that Temple is summarizing Needham.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham on Temple's summary:

Joseph Needham says in his Foreward, "It is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of my Science and Civilization in China, published by the Cambridge University Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press."

Sufficient to say this was endorsed fully by Needham.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully? I hear a lot of revervations in the phrase "It is, in its own way, a brilliant destillation". In British English such a phrase (especially because of the phrase 'in its own way') means something like, "well it is not exactly a summary and it takes some liberties with what I have been trying to say but nevertheless it a rather good overview of" Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Further exceptional claims by Teeinvestor

Note that Teeinvestor has a history of making grandiose and hollow claims of Chinese excellence. Just two out of a sizable and growing collection of exceptional claims:

• Chinese economic reform
• Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

GPM, you've claimed before that Africa had a higher GDP per capita than China in 1 CE (and equal to France); that Finland was wealthier than China in 1700, that Roman Britain's GDP per capita was equal to the native americans, and that the Taijitu was invented by Romans. I have no comment.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See Taijitu and see List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita. These sourced articles tend to support GPM's claims, counterintuitive as they may seem. Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that Maddison's estimates are one out of a dozen? See the criticism section please. If some academic published a paper saying that Africa's GDP per capita is higher than US now, would you put that in? If GPM is correct, Marco polo should be denigrating the Chinese about their poverty, as the feudal lords and priests of Europe were obviously ten or a hundred times richer! The Taijitu one is just absurd; some neanderthal might have painted a black half-circle on a white rock, doesn't mean they invented the taijitu.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Maddisons estimate seems to carry mainstream support at the moment. And no the Chinese top one promille may have been much richer than the Europeans of the day. Polo was talking to the lords, who typically belong to the top of the wealth piramid. To compare their wealth to the Europeans you have to correct for dissimilarities in the wealth distribution. I.e. if Europe was more egalitarian at that date it stands to reason the Chinese lords were richter than the European lords, but if at the same time the European middles classes and peasantry were richer this would cancel out in the statistics. Also any such differences would be incredibly enlarged by differences in total population, as the top 1% of a large country tends to be richer than the top 1% of a comparable smaller country. Simple statistics. And of course the name and spiritual meaning of taijitu is Chinese, but the symbol itself is much older. The article on Taiitu is on the symbol which carries the Chinese name by lack of a better name. There are historical sources naming the use of the symbol to early European usage, but indeed if we dig up neanderthal, or early asian Homo Erectus sites with the symbol we will happily add that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the mainstream is divided on this one. Paul Bairoch, another economic historian, provided estimates that Chinese GDP per capita was in excess of the west until 1800, and his estimates are supported by Kenneth Pomeranz and John M. Hobson, just to pull 2 scholars off the top. And as to Polo, I want to note to you that at the time of Polo's estimates, China had just been conquered and devastated thoroughly by the Mongols- its GDP per capita was probably half of that of the previous Song Dynasty; and yet Polo mentions explicitly the abundant wealth, use of coal, etc, of cities such as Hangzhou and Bianjing which had just recently been devastated. That alone shows something. If anything, China's distribution of wealth was probably more equal than Europe, as China had gotten rid of the parasitical feudal aristocracy as early as 400 BCE. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And Venice was a republic in Polo's time. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about Europe as a whole, Arnoutf.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, by about 1250 Europe had collapsed in very many extremely small basically indepdent fiefdoms of which the republic of Venice was one of the richest and most powerful. However, Polo encountered a state in China where a huge country was ruled by a central government, that consequently had also vastly more resources than any single fiefdom in Europe at the time. It is a bit like the economic power of the USA compared to that of Luxembourg. While the GDP per capita of Luxembourg maybe higher, the governmental buildings of the US are far more impressive. Arnoutf (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Marco Polo mentioned explicitly that China was much much wealthier than any other country he was in, including Venice; considering he was visiting it during a time in which China's GDp per capita was extremely low thanks to Mongol invasions, I'd say that's a big difference. I think it's beyond question that China's GDP per capita was higher than Europe at least until 1500, and probably til 1800, considering the evidence on this matter. It is universally agreed by academics that Chinese agriculture was ahead of Europe til 1800, and since agriculture made up 80% of all premodern economies (at least), this pretty much settles the matter.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OR, anyone? Athenean (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, synthesis I would say, and so is my argument. And thus both strains of reasoning are equally non acceptable. Arnoutf (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

So far, I see 6 editors explicitly in favor of removing Temple's claim(myself, Gun Powder Ma, Nev1, Arnoutf, Swarm, Trekphiler), only Teeninvestor explicitly for keeping it, with Hchc2009 in favor of a very very hedged version, North8000 in favor of a less sweeping version (in other words, weakly against) and yet another user, Ed, skeptical of the claim though not he has not explicitly said he is in favor of removing it. To me, 6-1 seems like a consensus. However, this case may be right for an RfC. Athenean (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter for debating. This view is a view expressed by the most prolific China scholar on the topic; we're not going to remove it because of the guesses and OR of a bunch of editors whose combined knowledge on the Chinese military is less than one-thousandth of Needham. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like the only reason this sensationalist piece of PEACOCKery is still in the article is your incredible persistence. I don't see any other editors in favor of keeping it. When its six editors against one, we have a consensus. And if I were you, I wouldn't edit-war against the consensus, ESPECIALLY seeing how you are the subject of an RfC/U. Athenean (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Seven actually - I want to see such a sweeping generalisation binned too. Philg88 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a quote, especially one by Temple is completely out of place. Arnoutf (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Eight actually. As written it is obviously false. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More of Temple

Please let me point out that more dubious claims of unchecked superiority by this Temple can also be found at Economic history of China (pre-1911), such as:

• Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader
• These techniques spread rapidly, but with the exception of the use of animals, they were limited to China until the European Agricultural Revolution of the 18th century
• Cast iron was invented in China during the 4th century BCE, but was not adopted by the West for 1,700 years
• Its strength allowed the Chinese to develop weapons superior in quality to the iron weapons used by other nations

Not much of this is, in this unrestrained way of putting it, correct. Cast iron, for example, appears in Europe since the Early Middle Ages actually, around 500 AD (Giannichedda, Enrico (2007): "Metal production in Late Antiquity", in Technology in Transition AD 300-650 L. Lavan E.Zanini & A. Sarantis Brill, eds., Leiden; p. 200; ). What should we do with these claims? I feel a more Wikipedia-wide solution is required. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right! So we're going to remove claims from the most prolific China scholar who probably knows more about Chinese technology than all of the editors here combined because of your own OR? How about no. And I find your claim that Europe made an advance into Cast iron right after the disastorus fall of the Roman Empire extremely dubious; in any case, the case that cast iron was established in China centuries before Europe is well established. You have a history of grossly exaggerating Roman era iron production (see Talk:Roman metallurgy)

Whether the claim of 2000 years' technological superiority is endorsed by Needham I do not know. But the information on cast iron, seed drill, etc is definitely fully endorsed by Needham (see list of Chinese inventions) To remove this information is a travesty.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not removing claims from Needham only from the UFO believer who summarises him.

Cast iron is hardly rocket science. Medieval Europe was actually better in mechanics than the Romans (plough, mills, etc). Cast irons use in weapons is extremely limited as it is very brittle. A cannon is good use, a sword will shatter. Arnoutf (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Needham says in his Foreward, "It is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of my Science and Civilization in China, published by the Cambridge University Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press."

Sufficiently to say that Needham fully embraced the work of Temple in this matter and that it is indeed an WP:RS, unless someone here shows that Needham is wrong.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand English AT ALL?? "in its own way" means "not as I would have done it but ok I won't spoil his book". That is something else entirely from fully embracing, which would have carried a statement like "I could not have said it better myself". You claim about "fully embracing" is based on wishful thinking and not acceptable.
NO NOBODY SUGGESTS NEEDHAM IS WRONG. BRING HIM IN, BUT LEAVE THE UFO LOVER OUT OF IT!! Try to read WP:COMPETENCE because it seems that either you are not competent (but acting in good faith) or you are deliberately disruptive. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's why Needham called it a "brilliant distillation", cause he hated it and thought every claim was false. It isn't my English skills who are in question here, Arnoutf.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above. It is probably something like "In its own way"->"Not as I would have done it" "brilliant destillation -> "but pretty good". But that is not the same as "fully embraced". If you make that claim show me a quote by Needham saying "I fully embrace this work" otherwise it is your own interpretation and pretty useless. Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple's book has been praised by multiple reviews, as well as Needham himself, who wrote the foreword for it. If Needham hated it and was against it, as you claim, why would he bother to write the foreword for it? Even if he didn't "fully embrace" it, he obviously endorsed it! As to the argument that we should only use Needham, why don't we use only CERN records on the Large Hadron Collider? Why don't we get a wikipedia editor into the CERN institute to ask for the millions of pages of direct records to interpet what the collider is doing? Needham's work is 25 volumes and hardly accessible; that's why Temple's book was published, as a summary of Needham's work. Arguing against Temple's book as "unreliable" is equivalen to arguing against Needham Teeninvestor (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Temples book is obviously a good effort at making Needhams work accessible for the larger public. But in briging back 25 volumes to a single book you loose a lot of subtleties and nuance. Our discussion is mainly about the subtleties and nuance.

Also the CERN analogy is flawed; reading the data of CERN would be like reading the Chinese texts and looking at the Chinese artefacts that Needham used. Reading Needham would be like reading (e.g.) Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer, Nobel laureates from CERN. Arnoutf (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another summary

This is all about adding a quote by Temple in the article.

• Everyone involved, including Teeninvestor agrees a quote is not needed.
• Temple is not Needham, at least according to everyone but one. Teeninvestor remains upholding the claim that by removing the quote from Temple we automatically disregard Needham.
• Temple himself is not an established scholar. His academic past is highly dubious, and he has not contributed major original ideas.
• The claim as written by Temple is too large, 2000 years superiority in military technology is just impossible. We all agree that on average the Chinese military technology was of high standard and possibly on average even best of the world for a significant part of its history, but the plain claim by Temple (not Needham!) implies that Chinese military technology was on all domains better than all other mil tech, for the whole 2000 yrs. Counterexamples have given evidence this is untrue.

The Temple claim has to go, and a more modest version based on Needham or other sources needs to be put in place. That this has not happened is because Teeninvestor has blocked all attempts to get to an agreement. Arnoutf (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote from Needham:

Joseph Needham says in his Foreward, "It is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of my Science and Civilization in China, published by the Cambridge University Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press."

Sufficiently to say that Needham fully approved of the work of Temple in this matter and that it is indeed an WP:RS, unless someone here shows that Needham is wrong. The claim IS based on Needham. Also, When did I agree the quote was not needed? It appears that you're lying to gain an advantage. Suffice to say that I will leave this article for now, but I will be expanding it using Temple and Needham's sources in a week.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You are soundig like a broken grammophone, repeating your flawed interpretation of Needhams text in a foreword.

And about the quote... to quote you: "Obviously he doesn't have to mentioned in the text, but he has to be mentioned in the sources section.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)" Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attacks have been noted, Arnoutf; I warn you that questioning any editor's competence is wrong. Temple obviously doesn't need to be mentioned; the question is whether if his claim should be included. (Teeninvestor)

Noting an obvious trend of repeating a flawed statement is hardly a personal attack. And if questioning any editors compentence is wrong why do you question our competence in wanting to kick out Temple. But as you seem to read everything we say in a way you want to there is no use arguing such a minor point. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why use Temple at all? You've been at pains to remind everyone that he's regurgitating Needham, so much so that you've conflated the two people and interpret a criticism of Temple as a criticism of Needham. As Needham's work is so influential, why bother with a summariser? Why not cut out the middle man and reference Needham himself? Nev1 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nev1, that is exactly what I have been trying to argue for a long time now. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we use only CERN records on the Large Hadron Collider? Why don't we get a wikipedia editor into the CERN institute to steal the millions of pages of direct records to interpet what the collider is doing? Needham's work is 25 volumes and hardly accessible; that's why Temple's book was published, as a summary of Needham's work. Arguing against Temple's book as "unreliable" is equivalen to arguing against Needham. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Arguing against Temple's book as "unreliable" is equivalen to arguing against Needham" say you and you alone. And even so, I would not mind taking in some obvious statements from Temple, only the rather grand claim you quoted is shown to be false and therefore not the claim we should take into the aricle. We could use that section by temple to write something like "Between XXX and XXX Chinese military technology was at an extremely high level, and in many areas belonged to the most advanced in the world (ref - Temple)" which is a much more modest claim, but one that is indeed not outright contradicted by the evidence of Gun Powder Ma. We do not want to deny that China was great, we do not even want to contradict Needhams mission to make the west aware of this greatness. But we also do not want an easily refuted claim in this article. Temples quote is just that, and easily refuted claim. Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was just the claim, I wouldn't have cared much. I frankly think that 80kb of discussion on this is a waste. But the effort here is now trying to discredit all of Needham's work; for example, above GPM is claiming that he is going to have a "Wikipedia-wide" cleansing of these "claims". He has contested well-known and settled arguments such as the invention of cast iron, seed drill, etc. This is unacceptable and a disgrace to wikipedia if such well known facts are removed; it would be as if Newton's theory of gravity was contested.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

1) It always was mainly the claim. That is why everyone is getting that annoyed because it is taking so long. The claim/quote has to go.

2) Temple may have summarised Needham, but may have lost a lot of the subleties in doing so. The remaining claims by Temple may be somewhat overpretentious, and it is those claims by Temple Gun Powder Ma is arguing against. Nobody has a problem with Needham but Needham is not Temple. Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether the claim of 2000 years' technological superiority is endorsed by Needham I do not know. But the information on cast iron, seed drill, etc is definitely fully endorsed by Needham. To remove this information is a travesty.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"a travesty" Please don't overreact. Also Needham was a good scholar, but even great scholars are sometimes wrong. Furthermore reappreciation of European early middle ages (not as dark as often assumed) has increased over the last decades. So it is quite possible that the earlier European cast iron technology was only dated/reported after Needhams texts. Note that the Temple book is already from the early 1980's so about 25 yrs old. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Chinese inventions disagrees. Also I have yet to see a reliable source on this matter (the claims about agriculture are so absurd as to not be worth mentioning). Even if cast iron was introduced in 500 CE (highly dubious; Rome just fell, and half the population just died), it is still 900 years after China, so Temple's claims remain intact.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham's claim I guess you mean. And the modern view on European middle ages does say that it was indeed the drop in population (and therewith workforce) put European mechanical engineering in the focus. "Why build a mill if you have plenty of slaves?" Arnoutf (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that serfdom replaced slavery? The destruction that was caused by the Roman Empire's fall was horrendous (and this is not counting the destruction wrought under the totalitarian emperors after the 3rd century). The entire economy reverted to a natural economy, with money falling out of use and everyone turning to self-sufficient production. Europe would not recover for centuries. Hardly a time for advances in the iron industry! Teeninvestor (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent archaeological work has shed new light on the character of European urbanism after the fall of the Roman Empire, casting doubt on previous assumptions about the "Dark Ages". Without wishing to get off topic, my point is that your analogies are not based on a knowledge so I suggest you drop them, and if you insist on arguing you stick to the subject at hand. Nev1 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) And here you revert to the now outdated classical view of the "dark ages". Yes there was serfdom but that was not the same as slavery (although the difference is subtle to some extent). Yes there was a lot of poverty. Yes there was the need for self sufficient production in smaller communities. But a lot went on as well. The actual "dark" period may have not lasted very long at all. By the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire about 500 CE(the Eastern Roman Empire lasted untill 1453 and kept in contact with Europe througout it existence) the Franks had already established as strong state in central/western Europe; and soon reestablished some kind of central governance in much of Western Europe. Charlemagne (800 CE) saw himself as the logical successor of the Roman Emperiors and even before his day there was a lot of contact within Europe. Agreed some of the Roman inventions like concrete (and underwater hardening concrete) were made impossible because that required logistics getting the right chemicals at the right place. But locally producable stuff like water and windmills (using wooden gears) were huge advances as was the mouldboard plough. The introduction of the arabic numerals including negative numbers and the zero also brought Europe further than the Roman in the early middle ages already. By the high middle ages Europe had adopted blast furnaces.

While Needham rightfully argues that we should not underestimate the Chinese from our Western point of view, the other way around we should also not underestimate the early European culture, this realisation is relatively recent in mainstream history. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Text suggestion

Getting back to the discussion. It is all about this section, and even worse it is only about the underlined sentence.

“ In their various campaigns, the Chinese armies employed a variety of equipment in the different arms of the army. Most of this equipment was very advanced for its day and helped the Chinese win victories over their opponents. According to historian Robert Temple in his summary of Joseph Needham's work, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia". ”

My suggestion would be to rephrase the text and add some more context (for which Temple can be used) but leave the quote itself out:

“ In their various campaigns, the Chinese armies through the ages, employed a variety of equipment in the different arms of the army. For a large part of its history, Chinese armies had access to some of the most advanced military technology of its day, which helped the Chinese win victories over their opponents. ”

What do you think? Arnoutf (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe the consensus is clear: remove the Temple quote altogether. It would be much more instructive if, instead of making untenable categorical claims, the whole technology claim is rather embedded into the context: Like: Chinese crossbow technology was instrumental in keeping the mounted archers on which the nomad armies relied upon at bay. This makes much more vivd and concrete reading instead of this generalizing peackockery. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think introducing that they used advanced technology is a good and relevant introduction to the overview of examples given in the sections below. That is why I suggest an opening like above. but let's wait for the others opinions. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Arnoutf's current compromise is pretty good. I don't know about others, but I endorse it.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me. Philg88 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me North8000 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds much better. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mongol premise falls to pieces, Gun powder ma and the other guy

Your premise of the mongols falls to pieces when i point out the Mongol invasion of Europe, when the European armies with their "Frankish trebuchets" fell apart in the face of Mongol invaders in the space of a year, like in their invasion of (1241–1242).

Yet somehow the Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty took over 30 years, and not only that, It took thousands of Chinese defectors who brought over segmenets of the Song's superior navy to the Mongols to assist in their invasion.

Its well document that ethnic Chinese gave the Mongols the military technology to complete the conquest, for example, building the mongol navy which assisted the Mongol conquest of song.

Allegedly the western europeans had superior technolgy to china, according to gun powder ma. Yet the western Holy roman empire army in poland fell apart in the face of the mongol invaders, and China managed to stand them off for 30 years.Дунгане (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is your point, a trebuchet is specialised siege equipment, the mongols were not in cities and not involved in sieges. Actually a modern nuclear attack submarine would also be pretty useless to the mongol cavalry, but to call its technology inferior...... Also not that the mongols did not last 2000 yrs, and the claim is that the chinese were superior on all military technologies for a full 2000 yrs. Arnoutf (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok for you, if I tell you I don't even waste my time with your fancy interpretations, Дунгане? It has nothing to do with the topic, but since you have asked: Northern China was effectively overrun by the Mongols as early as 1215, when the Jurchen had to evacuate their capital to central China. What the rest of China saved for a time was that the Mongols eventually turned their attention to the west, following their natural habitate of the Eurasian steppe – a logical and natural strategic choice for a cavalry army which lives off grass fodder. Unless you can convincingly argue that the invention of the steppe grasslands was another ingenious Chinese contribution to deflect the Mongol onslaught, I'd say you pretty much you adorned the Song military with borrowed plumes. They waited anxiously at home until the Mongols decided to return to finish them off. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, GPM, to correct your history a little, the Mongols were attacking Song by the 1230's and were repeatedly repulsed; not until Wang Jian surrendered Sichuan did they begin to lose. As for the Jin, that's no surprise; the Jin were universally hated by both the Mongols and the Chinese who they oppressed, and the dynasty toppled as soon as its military inferiority was obvious. And no, North China did not fall to the Mongols until 1234, when Kaifeng was captured. For details, see Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty and Mongol-Jin War The other editor is essentially correct about the essential role of Song defectors to the Mongol conquest, however; Wang Jian surrendered an entire province, huge supplies of gunpowder bombs without which your "Frankish trebuchets" would have been useless, and a good deal of ships.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

People this strain is going nowhere. Military successes depend on many factors. Numbers, motivation of troops, leadership, tactics and strategy, terrain, logistics..... and military technology. We are talking exclusively about the last here, however any real life campaigns will mix in all others. Arnoutf (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What this does prove is that Gun powder ma knows nothing about mongol military history. He doesn't even know when the first mongol attack on song started, and made his own outlandish claims on how the mongols didnt bother attacking song while on their western campaign. THe fact is that western european armies were desicively routed by mongols. many sources say Mongke Khan, a mongol ruler, was killed by song trebucvhets or cannon. the western europeans never killed a mongol military leaderДунгане (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So what? This does not say anything, you are just putting coincidences together and act like it is a logical argument. It is not. By the way you are again overinterpreting. Western European armies decisively routed, that definitely should includes he famous rout of Irish, English, Welsh and Scottish armies by Mongols, when did this happen according to you? Arnoutf (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys, prior to the destruction of the Song Dynasty and its replacement by the Yuan, logically the Mongols were not the Chinese so whatever Kublai and his buddies did or did not do to is irrelevant here. Philg88 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Gun powder ma is the one grouping western europe as a group, not me. He claims that since one western european state came up with something advanced all westerners are more advanced than China. Since he groups them together, I can point out that the Mongols routing the German and polish armies of the holy roman empire applies to all of western europe.Дунгане (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does Gun Powder Ma claim that? Can you provide a diff? Nev1 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And agin you are clearly misunderstanding the whole discussion on falsifiability above. If the claim is that Chinese technology is superior this claims to be superior over anything anywhere on the planet. So we only need one single counterexample to disprove the claim. To prove the claim however we need evidence of all technologies compared to all other civilisations (not only all European countries, but also all native nations of Africa, the Americas and Polynesia). Such is the basic idea about providing evidence. Assymmetric, yes, but the one making the claim is the one having the hardest time (and none of us made a claim that all western weapons/nations were superior to chinese), so fair - yes. Arnoutf (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. This is basic logic. 80 kb for trying to communicate basic logic... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone in the above has asked for examples of when foreign navies were defeated by Chinese navies.

Someone in the above has asked for examples of when foreign navies were defeated by Chinese navies.

At the Second Battle of Tamao (1522), the portuguese may have been using superior cannon, but their navy failed against "inferior" chinese cannon. The chinese knocked out two of their ships and drove them out of tamao.

The Dutch navy was defeated at Siege of Fort Zeelandia by a chinese force using Chinese cannon technology. Even though it was reported that Koxinga's cannons were less effective than dutch cannon [2], but the dutch were defeated and outmatched.

at the Battle of Taku Forts (1859), the chinese "inferior" land artillery blasted apart British and French ships , sank 3 british ships, and grounded another 3, defeating the British navy. Дунгане (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So you basically agree the Chinese won because of larger numbers or better strategy and agree that their technology was inferior (especially in the second example where you explicitly state the canons were less effective). But again this goes against all above. The claim is the Chinese had superior technology for 2000 years. Strategy and larger numbers of troops are howevernot technology.

But that is still not the point. Even if the Chinese had superior technology for 1950 years in 9 out of ten types of technologies the claim is still false. We do not need example of Chinese superiority to support the claim, instead we only need one single example of Chinese inferior techology to falsify it. This has all been explained above in a lot of detail. Arnoutf (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

er... what about the first and second opium wars? Were the British routed? Philg88 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a dumb outsider, why don't ya'll just tone down that over-reaching and obviously false "superior in every way to everybody for 2000 years" statement, and then leave the revised statement in. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That is basically what everybody is trying to say. But we cannot do that if we keep the quote by Temple. But indeed a statement that Chinese mil tech was of a high level should be in. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that it needs 80 kb of discussion before this most certainly over-reaching and obviously false "superior in every way to everybody for 2000 years" statement could be removed. I feel this total out resistance as if one's life is on stake is problematic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Chromium

Gun Powder Ma claims Chinese technology was inferior in every single way to europeans. I have just added (with Western sources) information on How the Qin dynasty over 2,000 years ago was able to plate metal swords with chromium oxide.

Westerners didnt even know how to use chromium oxide until the 1700s. The Roman Empire didnt know squat on how to do it.

The allegedly "inferior" Chinese meturllagy according to Gun Powder Ma shouldnt have been able to come up with something 2000 years before westerners did.Дунгане (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try to understand. What Gun Powder Ma argues is that "Chinese technology was NOT SUPERIOR in every single way to europeans". If you do not see that that is something else entirely from what you claim GPM is saying you should perhaps stop with this per WP:COMPETENCE. Arnoutf (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by Teeninvestor

So it seems that Teeninvestor's agreement to abide by the compromise wording proposed by Arnoutf was a deceptive move and done in bad faith. Today, he carried out his earlier threat of adding an entire paragraph from Temple [3], including the disputed wording that everyone here had agreed to keep out (and using yet again a deceitful edit summary). This has now crossed the line deep into WP:DIS territory. The way I see it, this is ground for a ban. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

From the editor who's been blocked 3 times for repeated edit warring? The newest addition is a more neutral quote from Temple detailing his view of the Chinese "military-industrial" complex, part of a huge revamping of the article. I view it as a more neutral invocation of the original quote, and certainly worthy of mention considering the huge scale of armarants factories during the Han and Song, many of which were private.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor. This is about your behaviour, not Atheneans. We do not want a quote from Temple, not any. You don't need it to make the point (as I showed in the compromise) also in the anglo-saxon culture, unnecessary quotes indicate that the writer lacks insight on the topic to integrate the material into a fluent, reader friendly storyline. (written after below but in direct response to TI above, and yes another edit conflict) Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(Postscript) a rereading of Temple's book indicated the origin of the book was in fact backed by Needham and he provided the materials as well as actually approaching Temple for him to make the work. In other words, this book was actually to some extent the product and idea of Needham, rather than Temple himself. Thus, there should be no question about its reliability.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I am not one for demanding harsh action ever as I still tend to believe in good faith. I do however admit that I am extremely disappointed by Teeninvestors actions and fully support any reversions and other actions following his recent edits likely as well. I would like to have a response by Teeninvestor why he did this while he was well aware that there is a vast majority opposing verbatim quotes from Temple. Arnoutf (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the quote is clearly referring to expertise in terms of production. It comes from a discussion on Chinese weapon production, as the context can be seen. It would be false to equate it with Temple's earlier quote. And a rereading of Temple's book indicated the origin of the book was in fact backed by Needham and he provided the materials as well as prodding Temple to finish the book.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To the editor who is about to be blocked indef for repeated disruption: You figured you'd re-add the material that everyone agreed should be kept out when no one was watching? Unfortunately for you, it didn't work. There is nothing "more neutral" about the quote you addded, it is the same quote we all agreed should be kept out. If you proceed to edit-war over it again, I will go directly to WP:AN where I will propose you be community banned. And I would bet good money that it would stick. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In general I think we should be extremely careful with quotes, to quote ;-) a few opinions on quotes: Ralph Waldo Emerson "I hate quotation. Tell me what you know."(1849) or a similar statement by a (to me unknown) philosopher "He who quotes others lacks the ability to think for himself." Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply and summary

The fact is that firstly I did not violate my agreeemnt, as the quote was regarding expertise in weapons production, not overall technology as the first quote was. Secondly, new information about the reliability of Temple's book is available. It appears that Needham provided the materials for Temple's book as well as assisting him in making the book; indeed, it appears that it was actually Needham who approached Temple to make a summary of this work. In addition, the book has won numerous awards and reviews 1. In light of this information, there should be no doubt about the book's reliability. There appears on this board an irrational tendency to attack Temple's credibility, in light of the information now available, this should not be the case. Quotations from the book are useful in describing the effect of numerous weapons; for example, the quote on the Jin use of cast iron bombs.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You raise basically two points (correct me if I miss one). Neiter of which supports inclusion of quotes.

1. "should be no doubt about the book's reliability. " - So ok, we allow it as a reference, as we did before.
   
2. "Quotations from the book are useful in describing the effect of numerous weapons" This is not as obvious as you make it appear it is. You can describe the effect yourself if needed (and use Temple as reference). This would give a much smoother reading. Of course if it is too much detail to describe these yourself then the quote is also unduly detailed. In either case, the quote is not needed and therefore should probably not be used. Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say that the recent expansion of the article based on the fringe author Temple and his extreme views concerning the level of Chinese miltary technology fully warrant the resoration of the tags. It is as if one week of discussion was for nothing, so here we start again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attempts to decry Temple as a "fringe author" show a great misunderstanding of the research available. Needham provided the materials for Temple's book as well as assisting him in making the book; indeed, it appears that it was actually Needham who prodded Temple to make a summary of this work. In addition, the book has won numerous awards and reviews 1. In light of this information, there should be no doubt about the book's reliability. It is used on several FA's such as List of Chinese inventions, for gods sake. Non-temple sources also give largely the same description of weaponry at Technology of the Song Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty (Temple's book is used there as well). For heaven's sake this guy is a professor at multiple universities and his work has been repeatedly awarded and used on multiple wikipedia FA's, as well as being endorsed and based on the leading sinologist of the 20th century. What are you trying to prove? that somehow 50 years of research by sinologists is wrong?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, GPM just doesn't like the strong, opinionated language used by Temple. I've cited Temple's book, which has its uses in summarizing and simplifying Needham's tomes, but keep in mind that many of Temple's opinions are not expressed by Needham (at least not explicitly). For example, I cannot find the claim anywhere in Needham's volumes that China had an uninterrupted superiority in all weapons technology for two millenniums (i.e. roughly 200 BC to 1800 AD). The claim is absurd when one considers basic innovations such as the flintlock (invented by a Frenchman) which replaced the matchlock firearm. As for China's level of weapons production being the greatest, that can be argued given China's enormous size and the extent of its early iron industry, but it shouldn't be included unless there is specific data comparisons with other world powers throughout this epoch of history. Otherwise the claim just sort of falls flat and is incomplete.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

However, GunPowderMa, I view tags placed at the very beginning of the article to be misleading, as the vast majority of the article's cited content has not been contested here on the talk page. If you are to add any tags at all, place them in specific sections where you see problems and issues. That seems entirely more helpful.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, PoA. Temple is only a journo-type writer who attempts to summarize Needham's work (which itself is to no small amount opinionated and outdated). He himself has no qualification as sinologist and I found his book to be full of errors and exaggerations actually.

Section tags? I'd love to use them, but since Temple is all over the place now, the contested contents now comprises many sections. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, reliable and competent scholars such as Ebrey and Griffith are used quite a bit by Teeninvestor, although reliance on Temple does become heavy towards the end of the article. Although you seem to think Temple is a frothing-at-the-mouth loony, much of his work does fall in line with mainstream sinology. However, some material in Temple's book should be heavily scrutinized and even discounted. For example, his passage on endocrinology (derived from Needham) is riddled with errors which have been proven false by Chinese scientists nonetheless (such as Liu Guangding 劉廣定). Furthermore, heavyweights in sinology like Nathan Sivin have disagreed with Needham and Temple on this issue after reviewing recent lab experiments with human hormones conducted since the 1980s.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ebrey is way way too short on this matter (or any matter) and can only be used as a supplement. Although I have my doubts about Temple on some of the claims on endocrinology, I believe his work on gunpowder bombs is completely mainstream in sinology, as Pericles can testify.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol! You're probably thinking of Ebrey's more generic works like "Cambridge Illustrated History of China" which summarizes vast swaths of history in a small written space. I was thinking more of Ebrey's in-depth research for which she is better known, such as Ebrey, Patricia (1974), "Estate and Family Management in the Later Han as Seen in the Monthly Instructions for the Four Classes of People", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17 (2): 173–205.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I admit I was too hasty in introducing this quote. I thought as the quote related to Chinese superiority in methods of weapon production, it was not involved with the earlier quote about technology. Now that I have thought about it, it seems too similar ot the previous quote. I apologize for any mishaps this could have caused. I promise not to make another edit like this without prior discussion again.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: I have also posted this to User talk:Arnoutf and User talk:Athenean.

Ok, thanks, that sounds good. Can you extend your offer to discuss large changes to all quotes, as it are the quotes rather than the content that spark the controversy. Arnoutf (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I will, except in the case of Temple quoting Chinese dynastic histories and other texts, as I feel they're verbatim quotes and don't really matter.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of cast iron bombs...13th, not 10th century!

Hello Teeninvestor. In the section "Bombs, grenades, and mines", you've written that cast iron shell casings for gunpowder bombs were an innovation of the 10th century (before your discussion of Jin-era shrapnel bombs). You use Temple (1986: p. 234) as your citation here, but what does Temple say exactly about this issue? Needham (1986: SSC Volume 5.7, p. 170-174) explicitly writes that cast iron shell casings for gunpowder bombs were an invention of the 13th century (late 12th century at the earliest, see p. 345), but certainly not the 10th century! There were of course earlier and weaker forms of casing, as seen in the Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD. The cast iron shell casing is significant in that it proves a "high-nitrate gunpowder mixture had been reached at last, since nothing less would have burst the iron casing," as Needham put it (p. 170). Needham argues that in the 11th century, the nitrate content in Chinese gunpowder solutions at maximum reached about 50 percent, as opposed to the mid 14th century (i.e. around the time when the Huolongjing was compiled) when nitrate content reached roughly 90 percent. Please amend this part; I believe either Temple made a goof or you made an honest mistake.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pericles. I've reviewed it and it appears that cast-iron bombs were introduced in the 13th century, not the 10th century. Temple mentions specifically that the 10th century bombs were covered in paper and bamboo and that the cast iron bombs were introduced in the 13th century.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm still combing through your article; I'll let you know if I spot anything else. In the meantime, however, I plan on taking some notes for Marian reforms, which I will rewrite this summer. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have time dig up some information on Chinese military organization. The current section on that is a mess (mostly because of me) compared to the equipment section.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm at the library right now and would probably have access to numerous sources on the matter. However, I'm knee-deep in books on ancient Roman military history at the moment. In fact, I have nine such books sitting by my desk right now! I'll check the library catalog and see if they have anything useful. At home, I have various books on general Chinese history, culture, economics, biographies of emperors, etc. but only a single Needham volume which focuses specifically on warfare (particularly gunpowder weapons, not on unit organization). I'll be coming to the library often, so don't worry, I can certainly dig something up. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is confusing: "Early Chinese armies were composed of infantry and charioteers, with imperial Chinese armies numbering hundreds of thousands of men." I don't quite see the comparison being made here. The first half of the sentence, focusing on early Chinese armies (i.e. Shang, Zhou, Warring States eras), mentions types of soldiers, which is then compared to later imperial Chinese armies (i.e. Qin, Han, all the way to Qing) where only the size of armies are mentioned. Its safe to assume that early dynastic armies were significantly smaller than those of the Imperial age; I think a better comparison would be to discuss types of soldiers. For example "Early Chinese armies were composed of infantry and charioteers, while later armies replaced chariots with cavalry." Or something like that...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand the inclusion of the legendary Xia Dynasty in this article. Although it is included in every traditional Chinese historical source covering China's beginnings, there is in fact no archaeological evidence to prove the existence of a "Xia" dynasty preceding the Shang. There is only solid evidence for the Shang Dynasty, when the Chinese writing system was invented and the names of Shang kings were inscribed on oracle bones. Plus the multitude of royal tombs left by the Shang which hold extensive luxury goods, weaponry, and even chariots. The discovery of palace-like foundations which preceded the Shang does not prove the existence of a "Xia" dynasty, since these structures have been associated with the Erlitou neolithic (and early bronze age) culture of prehistoric China.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Both above errors fixed. The focus of the history section is trying to compare how Chinese armies were organized. My original focus was something like this:

• Early armies- poorly organized, small, peasant levies,
• Qin & Han- switch to professional, volunteer army
• Six Dynasties- nomadic cavalry in north, hereditary buqu levies in south, etc
• Tang- Fubing followed by switch to volunteer army
• Song- huge, but badly managed bureaucratic army
• Yuan- Mongol cavalry dominated
• Ming- better managed volunteer army, gunpowder weapons, etc
• Qing- cavalry army, decline.

I hope more details can be provided though.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an appropriate outline; for the Qin and Han periods, feel free to look at the sources I used for the military section of my article Government of the Han Dynasty, such as Hucker (1975), Bielenstein (1980), Crespigny (2007), and Chang (2007). If you know where my sandbox pages are located, I still have extensive notes from these authors.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you link me? Also, to have to consult the huge volumes of Cambridge history of China on this would be truly unfortunate for me, as I'm working on trying to get 2 other articles promoted to GA or FA right now. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Article re-tagged

For a more general discussion of the underlying problem with Robert Temple, please see Hiding the amateur behind the authority.

After the massive expansion of the article solely relying on Robert Temple's exaggerated views and claims, the same author who has just been found by a number of editors to be at best problematic and at worst practically WP:Fringe, I feel there is no choice but to retag the whole article:

• WP:Peacock
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:UNDUE

Please note that another unilateral removal of the tag without prior discussion will amount to a case of edit-warring. I made some changes to point editors who are not so familiar with the subject to the unbalanced nature of many views propagated here. More will follow in time. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't overdo it. Temple has his weaknesses, but in this specific work he is NOT defending a fringe theory but that of a well respected mainstream sinologist (Needham). Arnoutf (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Then use Needham instead. It cannot be the case that, whenever there comes criticism towards Temple, he hides behind Needham. If Temple only summarizes Needham, it is good editorial practice to go for the original source, not the one who purports to be the summarizer. I want see for all of Temple's claims now the original passage by Needham. If Teeinvestor is so sure that Temple accurately reflects Needham, this should be no problem, and actually strengthen his position a lot. See emerging consensus that exactly this needs to be done.
2. Needham can be shown to be wrong in many aspects, so neither he nor Temple should be used in specific contexts. See #Harness systems below.
3. Temple demonstrably summarizes Needham wrongly, for example in the case of the Byzantine flamethrower: While Temple maintains that is was the "first true flamethrower" on the grounds that it was capable of emitting a continous stream of fire, Needham nowhere claims something to that extent. In fact, Needham writes:

“…and if the ‘siphon’ pump gave forth a continuous jet, as most probably it did, that was assuredly accomplished rather by a combination of two cylinders in a Ctesibian force pump system of true Graeco-Roman style.” (Joseph Needham: „Science and Civilisation in China“,Cambridge University Press, 1974, Vol. 7, ISBN 0521303583, p.84)

This means that the very same criteria also applied to the older Byzantine flamethrower, effectively making it the first "true" flamethrower. I repeat my request that all of Temple's assertions have to be counterchecked with the original source. Teeinvestor should give the page numbers and I volunteer to look it up and post it here, if necessary. Please no excuses for not delivering, show us the real Needham. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

GPM, you put a claim that Europe invented the cannon before China right next to a picture of a chinese cannon from a date far in advance of Europe. I wonder what that says for wikipedia's and your credibility. And no, discussions of 16th century European armies do not belong in the lead. And I think you misinterpeted Needham; on List of Chinese inventions, Needham is specifically used to back up the assertion that the Chinese invented the flamethrower; you might want to check with Pericles on that one. And no, GPM, not everyone has access to Needham's volumes; they're 25 volumes and several hundred dollars.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try to keep the assumption of good faith alive. I agree that non-Chinese comparisons do not belong in the lead (incl 16th cent European ones). But Teeninvestor, a lot of this debate is about whether Temple sometimes overinterpreted Needham, and that seems likely. Of course we do not expect you to buy a copy of Needham, but it might be well worth it to make a list of concerns, locate a library near you that has Needham and spend an afternoon checking in Needham. Arnoutf (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham is barely available at university libraries, let alone regular libraries (indeed only temple is available at the latter).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham's work is available in any larger English-language library. You have all the time in the world to look him up, but there is an [[emerging consensus that this needs to be done. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, first, in my last edit I did not place anything in the lead. Second, it is important to understand that any edit of mine which introduces non-Chinese material is a direct consequence of Teeinvestor making an overreaching claim which involves the non-Chinese world. In this case:

Claim by Teeinvestor:

After the Qing Dynasty, China began to lose its lead in gunpowder weapons to the west, partially because of the Manchus' policies of suppressing gunpowder technology.

Counter-evidence:

However, many authors assume that European powers had assumed the global lead in gunpowder warfare by the time of the Western Military Revolution (16th century), while others date this reversal to as early as 1360.

So, TI, by claiming that until 1911 (!) the Qing had the lead in gunpowder weapons, is actually the first to bring the West into the equation, not any other editor. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously no ones claiming that. The text is clear that after the Qing (as in rise of the Qing) gunpowder weapon usage in China started to decline massively. This is well documented. Oh ya, and i live in a city with a million inhabitants in North America, and Needham is not available at the local library. He's not available widely, I'll tell you that.Teeninvestor (talk)

My university library has every single Needham volume, and I personally own a majority of them. However, I do not own a critical volume on military technology (missiles and sieges), but a trip to the library can clear things up. Can this wait though? I'm trying to pursue a rewrite of the article Marian reforms at the moment.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Harness systems

Another unnecessary comparison by Teeinvestor. This is a number two cases of #Article re-tagged, meaning both Needham and Temple are wrong:

By contrast, historian Robert Temple notes that contemporary Rome was unable even to transport grain from Northern Italy to Rome and had to depend on ship-carried Egyptian grain, due to a lack of a good harness

Apart from being unnecessary, this is also a totally outdated view relying on Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes (died 1936). Since des Noëttes, the efficiency of the Roman harness has been credibly restored by classicists for decades. ROMAN TRACTION SYSTEMS:

What is amazing, however, is that this officer's view of harness systems in the Ancient World persisted with little or no critical evaluation for almost half a century. Men who were considered scholars in the field accepted this work without ever asking themselves if there were any flaws in the methodology or the conclusions. More importantly, did this obscure Commandant have the qualifications necessary to interpret correctly the iconography that he was using as support for his work? As the result of later experiments and scholarly work, we know that he did not. But we still need to understand why the errors in his work have endured for so long. There is no doubt that World War II and the chaos of the early post war years ended the opportunity to analyze thoughtfully his work. The 1960's and 1970's were the years in which his ideas became entrenched, more in the mind of Medievalists such as White than in the minds of classicists who were the first to see the flaws in his methodology. So the demolitions of Lefebvre des Noëttes' theories about Roman Harness are to be found in the writings of classicists and archaeologists who, equipped with new tools and new discoveries, demonstrated the fallacy of the 1924/1931 work.

Or Raepsaet, Georges: "Land Transport, Part 2. Riding, Harnesses, and Vehicles", in: Oleson, John Peter (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-518731-1, pp. 580–605:

A conceptual dichotomy in the history of the Western world was proposed by Lefebvre des Noettes (1931): the classical cultures were "blocked" by a defective system of harnessing animals, while those of the medieval period liberated themselves and brought progress through the use of the horse collar. This approach was taken up and passed on in the "primitivist" vision of ancient culture in Marxist thought, manifested in particular in the early 1960s by Moses Finley (1965) and post-Finleyan minimalists-whose arguments have been dissected and refuted by Greene (1990, 1994, 2000).

The technological value of the innovation has been contested, exclusively on the basis of iconographical evidence, by Lefebvre des Noettes for the same reasons as the alleged strangulation of the harnessed draft animal. The discussion has now been completely revised, following the discovery of a complete and well-preserved single yoke, along with portions of the harness, in a second-century Roman well in Bade-Wurtemberg (Raepsaet 2002: 266-67). These artifacts spawned an experimental research project led by the University of Brussels.

These statistics have often been considered, following the lead of Lefebvre des Noettes, as a decisive proof of the inefficiency of ancient harnessing technique. <However,> it has been shown above that heavy transport of ten tons or even more was, if not commonplace, at least perfectly feasible and had been accomplished already in archaic Greece.

Raepsaet concludes:

The Greek and Roman cultures had at their disposal a technical capacity for land transport that was real and varied, even innovative, inscribing its own rhythms and inflections on the long-term patterns of preindustrial societies.

So Temple who summarizes Needham who in turn follows Lefebvre des Noettes about the Roman harness is outdated by 70 years! Why is such antiquarian stuff not removed here? Only because it is convenient in putting the Roman technological level into a bad light vis-a-vis the Chinese? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In summary you say that Needham/Temple (published 1986) maybe a specialist on historical China, but he is not on modern views on European history (sic), a history plagued by long lasting dominance of faulty analyses which has only been recently corrected.

I agree with that.

Teeninvestor, I think Gun Powder Ma has a point in arguing that the comparison China-Europe is flawed by lacking (up to date) expertise of European history. He makes some compelling points showing the Needham and Temple sources are outdated in these comparisons and therefore no longer reliable sources on that specific issue. (just like ancient sources on astronomy - earth is center of universe are no longer reliable sources).

I would suggest that we accept 'comparisons between European and Chinese technology published in the last 15 years in a reliable source, as reliable and up-to-date. That should cover enough time, while we have the modern view on European history accounted for. Other comparisons maybe reliable as well but I would suggest to discuss these and achieve consensus first.

Does that sound reasonably? Arnoutf (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Horse chest harness is still listed on List of Chinese inventions. You might have to talk to Pericles for that one. I don't know about you, but it appears to be a well known fact that Rome did rely heavily on North African grain; this cannot be explained if grain could be transported easily from North Italy. You still haven't show that trace or collar harnesses were in use in Rome and Greece. All you've shown that was transport of grain was "feasible"; currently building a bridge across the Taiwan strait is feasible, definitely not commonplace. The fact is that GPM hasn't shown that the Romans have been using trace or other improved harnesses, leaving Temple's work intact. Arnoutf, your proposal is reasonable, but GPM is using very outdated sources; see for example his claim that cannons were invented in 1326 in Europe, while right next to him is a cannon in China dated 1288. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

If GPM can show that a modern source by a reputed scholar, published after Needham's work (roughly 1990's), has shown definitively that the Romans had the horse chest or collar harness, I will remove the comparison from Temple. If not, not. Fair?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not fair, because you are not the referee here (the continuing problem of WP:Own) and miss the point which is that the Greeks and Romans did possess harnesses as efficient as any in the ancient world. Their traction system were able to pull loads which were far in the excess of 100 t, see List of ancient monoliths, which is evidence enough. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not my point. Ancient Egyptians were able to pull much huger loads (with human labor too). Modern times we can build a bridge over straits. The question is whether this technology was widespread enough to lower transportation costs. if the romans had 2000 horses sure they could pull 100 tons, but it would be tremendously inefficient. And the evidence here supports Temple, because even the Roman government (which had very deep coffers), preferred to get ships full of grain to Rome over the sea 2,000 km away then from northern italy 200km away. That says a lot about the costs of land transportation; Temple's point was that in China land transportation was a lot easier due to better harnesses, not that Romans couldnt pull anyting above 10 tons; as of now his point still stands.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in the least. The problem is that you judge scholarly views which you clearly have not read yourself, nor even were aware that they existed until today. The Raepsaet article describes at length and in detail the respectable capacities and performances of ancient traction systems, of carriages, heavy transport, overland transport of ships. Obviously, I can't reproduce whole tables here, but the whole discussion is hold in the tone of a reappraisal of Greek and Roman harness systems. There is no one hint that these were inferior to any contemporary harness system, including the Chinese. in Fact, Temple's view which is des Noëttes' view has been long completely rejected: Raepsaet, G. 1982. "Attelages antiques dans le Nord de la Gaule: Les systemes de traction par equides," Trierer Zeitschrift 45: 215-73 (248):

Dans l'état actuel de la recherche, - comme cela vient d'être démontré également à propos du gouvernail d'étambot et de la "faiblesse" de la navigation antique -la "théorie" de Lefebvre des Noëttes ne peut plus être retenue, ni dans ses fondements, ni dans ses implications socioéconomiques. Il n'est pas raisonnable de parler de "déficience" à propos du transport routier - et maritime - qui, là où le contexte économique et l'infrastructure l'y invitaient, a connu une ampleur certaine et répondu aux besoins de ses utilisateurs. Les formes d' "industrialisation" connues en Gaule, tels les centres de production de sigillée ou la meunerie de Barbegal, sont tributaires de l'efficacité des transports.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. You can transport 1000 tons or even 10,000 tons using human labor alone and pulling. The key thing here is the efficiency of the horse harness; how much was the horse able to pull? This is a vital question as horses were the only transport available to even wealthy commonesrs, and the capacity they could pull is essential to how much things can be transported. Obviously the state, living off everyone else's resources, can pull tons of stuff everywhere (maybe that's why most of your buildings are temples and other stuff), but this has no effect on everyday life; for example, the egyptians were able to pull thousands of tons of stuff, but they didn't even have horses! The question I'm asking you is very simple; was one Roman horse capable of pulling as much as a Chinese horse using the advanced chest harness? I want an explicit source saying that. You keep on mentioning the French guy but Temple's point was not that Romans couldn't transport 10 tons or more, but that Romans could not transport economically (costs were way too high).Vague comparisons ("no indications that Roman horses are inferior") are not enough at all. Now it is possible that Roman horses did pull as much because the technology might have been lost through the dark ages, but considering Roman history (you still haven't explained Temple's example of Egyptian grain) this is heavily doubtful. I'm not disputing that Romans were able to transport large quantities of stuff over land; but I dispute that this was economical for them, in contrast with Han China which saw the beginnings of the long distance grain trade.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is actually very clear and there is no need trying to relativize or explain away the long-standing scholarly consensus on the efficiency of the Roman horse harness. Raepsaet explicitly went on record to say it was economical by pre-modern standards, and that the Roman all-weather road system which were the veins of land transport was second to none is common knowledge, too.

Ship transfer, like from Egypt to Rome, was still preferred by the Romans because it was the most economical means of transport of all. Why? Because with land transport you need to feed the beast of burden, too, until the point (=distance) is reached where all beast of burden only carry fodder for themselves, to keep the caravan going, without transporting additional cargo. Cf. Engels, Donald W.: Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, University of California Press, Los Angeles 1978, ISBN 0-520-04272-7, who offers detailed analysis of this basic law. Therefore, land transport from Northern Italy was uneconomical and would remain so until the motorized age. This is simple logistics, which I however don't expect your Robert 'The Fringe' Temple to grasp in the slightest.

However, what is less clear is why you choose to expand the article with Temple, instead of replacing him by Needham. When can we expect you to start with it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense GPM. As my information below from the examination of your source show, Chinese horse transport was 2 to 3 times as efficient as Roman horse transport. This you have not refuted and until you provide a quote I will consider myself right on this issue, as any reasonable editor would do. As to ship transport, it was a lot more efficient than land transport, but not that efficient. Distance from North Italy to Rome is 200km. DIstance from Egypt to Rome is something like ten to twenty times that number. Unless ship transport is that much more efficient, than Rome should be fed from Northern Italy, assuming the transportation costs are the same. This is a highly dubious thesis and I don't think any academic would support that contention. And your claims about a lack of an overland grain trade is Completely false; 18th century China (albeit much more advanced than Rome), had a thriving overland grain trade between Beijing and Manchuria (if your point was correct, it should be easier to bring rice from guangzhou, lol), and France and Germany were also supplied with Polish and Hungarian grain (if your thesis was correct, this should not happen). Both of these trades involve distances longer than between North Italy and Rome. From this we can see that Overland grain trade is economical if you have the right technologies; such as the chinese did. Also another question; if the problem with sea transport, wouldn't it be more efficient for the Romans to bring grain from Northern Italy to say Venice and then ship it to Rome, rather than transport it 3000km away from the Nile? According to your thesis, this should be correct; but they did not do so, a clear proof of Temple's point. And no, it is hard to get access to Needham; that's why I use temple.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Examination of GPM's source

(Postscript) I've examined GPM's source. It appears that Romans had a harness largely strapped to the back of the horse, and this was an improvement over the throat harness, but still not nearly as efficient as the chest harness. I will quote the source here:

J. Spruytte is his 1977 experiment already demonstrated that using the dorsal yoke, loads heavier than 1,500 Roman pounds could be hauled14.

This is a maximum weight of only about 500 kg per horse (about double Temple's estimates, so already a great increase). Even assuming a 50% increase over this limit is the average load (Highly unlikely), we have 750 kg per horse. A Chinese horse wearing the chest harness could pull 1.5 tons. That's a difference of two, even considering the most favorable circumstances for your case, GPM. I think Temple's case holds, even given this new information.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(Postscript) My examinations have been proven correct by the scholarship on this issue. I will quote the source again:

Therefore based on the above evidence it appears that the actual load limit in Roman Imperial Times seems to have been about 1 to 1 ½ metric ton for one team of equids. Heavier loads probably used tandem hitches.

Assuming the most favorable case, 2 horses per team, this means that 1 horse could pull 500 to 750 kg, exactly the limits I set above. This contrasts with the Chinese horse which could pull 1.5 tons. Temple's case stands corrected; a Chinese horse could pull 2 to 3 times that of a contemporary Roman horse.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent discussion. Whatever the outcome, certainly the article horse collar needs to be updated with the modern experiments and archaeological finds which refute the claims by Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes about the ineffective (but apparently nonexistent) throat-and-girth harness?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are nonsense, check out Raepsaet (2008) for realistic ones. Whatever Spruytte 1977 experimented with, it was still based on des Nöettes's erroneous asaumptions (which were only clearly disproven in the 1980s) and has nothing to do with Roman harnesses as they actually were. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yo, these are figures from your own source. So now you're rejecting numbers from your own source, GPM? That's heavily biased. So GPM, even your source has proven Temple's point. Pericles, the throat harness was used, but apparently it was improved upon by the Romans.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder weapons

• Concerning your revert, Tillmann actually does:

The perhaps most important result of the development since 1360 has been that Europe left behind, with the introduction of the second generation of gunpowder weapons, its master China and took over the lead in the fire arms sector. The European peoples were on their way to the Military Revolution.

• Concerning your revert, do you have additional date for the 1288 claim? Because my source is Lynn White, the most important Anglo-Saxon medievalist of the 1950s to 1970s and every bit as renowned as Needham in his field:

These were important for the future: some sixty years after Chinese gunpowder became known in Europe as an incendiary, the ingenious Franks harnessed its expanding gases in a metal tube to shoot a projectile and thus created the cannon. The cannon first appears in 1326 at Florence. At that time communication between Italy and China was intense. Our earliest evidence of the cannon in China is of 1332.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the picture in the cannons and gun section. Tha's all I have to say. And you accuse me of using ancient sources. There's a cannon that has been excavated from 1288, noted by Needham, Temple and all sinologists. What else can I say? Also, the Huolongjing of the 15th century might disagree with you, considering there are images of flintlock musketeers in there, making Ming's gunpowder developments at least contemporary with Europe; I have read European military history, and most European soldiers were still carrying pikes as late as the Thirty years war; this casts doubt on your claim.

Teeninvestor (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gun Poweder Ma, just like (per your argument) Needham is probably not sufficiently specialised in European history to make the comparisons stick, you should also accept that Lynn White is probably not not sufficiently specialised in Chinese history to be an authorative source on Chinese weapons. The argument goes both ways. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

White cites L. C. Goodrich, an internationally renowened sinologist, for this view. And there is earlier literary evidence for handgonnes in Europe, from around 1281. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Your link is dead.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Nevermind computer fail. Still, your link is highly dubious and harly an RS. It's a textual reference to a word for "gun bearer" which might as well have meant other things prior to the invention of guns. If we use this quality of evidence, then there is a far more compelling discovery in the form of Chinese statues from the 12th century depicting hand cannons [4], suggesting that the first guns may have been introduced even at this early date.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This 'compelling evidence' is in fact only a Buddhist wind demon holding a bellow as the guide in the cave himself states. I'll add later the comments on this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The scholars refer definitively to it as an "early bombard". That's evidence enough for me. your source consists of a reference in a book 400 years ago to a book 300 years before that time. Obscure enough?Teeninvestor (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This whole mess

In my view much of the endless debate comes down on a debate between Teeninvestor and Gun Powder Ma whose civilisation was more advanced.

These comparisons and being better seem rather irrelevant. Were the Europeans "better" than the native Americans because they could conquer (and indeed destroy) them? European and far Chinese history have involved with only moderate contact. Comparisons are often irrelevant. For example who in Europe cares that the Chinese beat them to the invention of the Dagger-axe.

While such comparisons MAY be illustrative for the readers, if we have two editors who defend opposing POV's this becomes actually harmful for the article.

The Chinese was a great civilisation for much of its history; and Needhams work has done much good to give them their rightful position. BUT the early European civilisation was a much bigger civilisation than 19th and early 20th century sources has credited it; and modern historians are still stuggling to them their rightful position.

Can we please stop fighint about whose civilisation is better and try to make this a better article and encyclopedia. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view as everyone, but clearly you do not possess the full picture. As it stands, Teeinvestor is presently quarreling with a number of editors on a number of topics on a number of articles. In the process, he has breached WP codes of good editorial behaviour multiple times: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Outside view by User:Athenean This is not only my view, but that of many as can be deduced from the number of users who endorse Athenean's summary. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That issue is very complex (and probably wont reflect good on anyone), and is unrelated to here. Responding to Arnoutf, so far I have simply taken what the source said and put it into the article. GPM here is trying to insert something completely unrelated to Chinese military technology into the article to prove that European nations were somehow superior. This evidence is very dubious at best, and similar discussions have been made in other China-related articles, without avail or evidence.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving the tag out of sight

Teeinvestor, could you please move the tag back to where I put it and where it belongs? What you have been doing in the last 24 h is to move the tag from the top consecutively to second and then third order sections:

1. From top to 2nd order
2. From 2nd to 3rd order

As you are perfectly aware, the dispute is not limited to the narrow question of logistics, but to your reliance on Temple which you have used all over the article, mainly under Equipment and technology. Community consensus is that Temple needs to be replaced with Needham, so the tag obviously needs to remain where Temple is cited most. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to logistics because it seems to the main crux of the dispute. You have not responded to the gunpowder weapons section for days, and new evidence (from Temple and Needham) shows that cannons were invented in China far before Europe (the 1288 cannon is only a sample; production facilities and prototypes must have been set up much longer before), so the true date is probably several decades, if not a century, in advance. The main point seems to be around the logistics section (which I have also replied to, but you have not replied). You claim Temple needs to be replaced; but so far you have not shown in any way that he has misrepresented Needham in these matters, or is wrong. Indeed, his book is fully endorsed by Needham and Pericles has already stated his views on this matter belongs to mainstream sinology (as the other science articles can show), and his book has won many awards; therefore, he is a reliable source.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Community consensus is that Temple needs to be replaced with Needham. Since your rationale for keeping Temple in the first place was that he was merely the summarizer of the great Needham, I am sure you cannot disagree with that decision. Since I assume that Temple, the meticulous scholar you say he is, is careful to cite Needham for his each of his many claims, this should be no great research task for you. Take your time, we are in no hurry, and thanks for putting the tag back to its rightful place. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM, you asked at wikipedia:verifiability; you need to move it to WP:RSN to get any sort of consensus. User:Arnoutf and Pericles have already stated above that although some of Temple's work is radical, most of it (such as the military part) is mainstream sinology. You should be aware of this (see List of Chinese inventions), Do you really expect me or any other editor to get all 16 volumes of Needham with 1200 pages each and go through it to find reference for every claim? Why do you think Needham asked and encouraged Temple to complete this? I shall say this again; I live in a western city of a million inhabitants, and the library system does not have Needham. As devoted to wikipedia as I am, I am not about to spend $5000 to get sources, lol.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pericles has already volunteered to help you out a bit with the Needham volumes, if he finds time to do so, and from Arnoutf I have not yet read a remark to the effect that he prefers Temple overs Needham if the latter is availaible. And Needham is availaible in any self-respecting sinologist library, especially in a one million city in the largest national economy of the world. If you need any help, I will gladly help you tracking down the closest library to your home which has Needham on its shelves.

What's so difficult for you? You note Temple's dozen claims and his references (page and volume number) to Needham and then you take a stroll to the library looking it up and making notes. Hardly rocket science, that's what millions of students do day after day with ease. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can live with Temple if used in moderation, and with care. Quotes by Temple seem completely over the top in any case as quotes should be reserved to present verbatim reflections of original ideas (be it political speaches, literary achievement or scholarly brilliance) and Temple cannot be accused of presenting more than a decent summary. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: THis whole mess

if you take a look at gunpowder ma's edit history and blocks, you will find he is consistently pushing an anti chinese agenda to try to make western europe look superior. Asking him to be objective is pretty useless.Дунгане (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

China developed Gunpowder Rockets before Europeans

China developed Gunpowder Rockets during the Song dynasty.

Europeans didn't know squat about rockets, until the Mongols passed along the technology VIA the Islamic world.

The British only got military rockets after they COPIED the rockets used by Tipu Sultan of India during the 1700s, from which they developed the Congreve Rocket.

The fact is, European militaries have been trounced many times by more primitive peoples. In fact, many historians say that it was after the Chinese Han dynasty defeated the Xiongnu, that the Xiongnu fled westward to Europe and became the Huns, which decisively defeated the European Roman Empire army and forced the Romans to pay tribute.

The Tang dynasty Korean general Gao Xianzhi launched campaigns with chinese armies as far as Afghanistan, and had a grip on its northern part for several years. On the other hand, when the British invaded Afghanistan three times with modern technology in the 1800s they were desively defeated and routed by tribes with primitive weapons.Дунгане (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And do you have any point that will actually improve the article. As you phrase it above it more or less a statement along the lines of "My gun if bigger than yours" Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)