| Revision as of 00:30, 16 May 2010 editKanguole (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers39,395 edits →Qing theory← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:29, 18 May 2010 edit undoTeeninvestor (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,552 edits →Qing theoryNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| ::You seem to be proceeding from an assumption that China was on a path that would lead to industrialization, and the question is what stopped it. I don't think there is any scholarly consensus for that position. ] 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | ::You seem to be proceeding from an assumption that China was on a path that would lead to industrialization, and the question is what stopped it. I don't think there is any scholarly consensus for that position. ] 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::I believe that this is actually a topic of heated debate among scholars. It was generally agreed that prior to roughly the 17th century, Incomes and wealth in China exceeded that of Europe. During the ] and ], there was strong economic progress and growth, and it is considered a mystery why they did not develop an industrial revolution. This was a topic explored by prominent sinologists such as ], so I doubt it would be a position that would have no "scholarly consensus".] (]) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:29, 18 May 2010
 Archives | ||||
Index
|
||||
Why the China?
Maybe this article should talk less about China, and more about the great divergence. China's lack of growth is its own subject. The Great Divergence presumably should discuss things like the industrial revolution, modern economic growth, and the lack of growth in undeveloped nations. China should not dominate. —Preceding comment added by User:SushiK3 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. The High Level Equilibrium Trap addresses China's stagnation, not the Great Divergence. The Manchu section, besides being off-topic, is not reliably sourced. I propose to remove these and the China paragraph in the introduction. Kanguole 09:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
To repeat the question, why is there all this material about China in this article? Isn't this article supposed to be about the divergence of the West? Kanguole 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the material on the Great Divergence seem to focus on China (which was roughly ahead of the west until the 17th century). I believe that a specific section on why each civilization diverged from the west is useful for this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- But that's the wrong way round: these other civilizations didn't diverge; they stayed relatively still while the West diverged. China is used as a reference point because it was static at a high level, but it is not the subject.
- This article suffers from synthesis and speculation. There's a temptation for it to become a speculative comparison of the development of the West and China, or to be side-tracked into theories of Chinese economic history, which are both off-topic here and are best addressed in existing articles.
- Elvin does at least make a comparison with Europe, though only in passing as his main focus is on China. The Manchu section however is speculation, has no connection with the topic, and is apparently unsourced. Kanguole 23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove specifics - China
Remove focus on China! CantorFriedman (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Qing theory
Teeninvestor has re-added a sentence on the Qing between two relating to European development. That belongs in an article on Chinese history, not here. Kanguole 23:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- This article relates to the reasons for the Great Divergence, and this theory deserves to be considered as at least one. No one doubts the development of Europe; yet the stagnation of China after roughly 1500 also deserves an explanation. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, it was Europe that diverged, not China. China is a benchmark against which Europe is measured, but it was not itself involved in the divergence.
- You seem to be proceeding from an assumption that China was on a path that would lead to industrialization, and the question is what stopped it. I don't think there is any scholarly consensus for that position. Kanguole 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that this is actually a topic of heated debate among scholars. It was generally agreed that prior to roughly the 17th century, Incomes and wealth in China exceeded that of Europe. During the Song Dynasty and Ming Dynasty, there was strong economic progress and growth, and it is considered a mystery why they did not develop an industrial revolution. This was a topic explored by prominent sinologists such as Joseph Needham, so I doubt it would be a position that would have no "scholarly consensus".Teeninvestor (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)