Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 8 July 2010

History B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 21 June 2010. Further details are available here.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Great Divergence was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 23, 2010). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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)

The reference attached to this sentence is unclear. Does it refer to Peterson's introduction (from p1) or Spence's chapter on Kangxi (pp120-183)? Precisely where does it postulate that the Qing prevented industialization? Kanguole 11:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the volume of the Cambridge History of China cited in the article doesn't seem to mention the Great Divergence. That's not to say that the Qing theory isn't relevant – it may be covered in one of the many other volumes or another source entirely – but I would like to know who says it is. If the economic policies of the Quing dynasty played a role in the Great Divergence, wouldn't Pomeranz mention it in his book The Great Divergence?

"I believe that this is actually a topic of heated debate among scholars... 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"." So which is it to be? Is there heated debate (ie: a lot of disagreement) or have scholars reached an agreement? You're contradicting yourself at the moment. Also, reference 6 doesn't support the text it's supposed to. The relevant bit from the Misplaced Pages article is "these scholars claim that although wages paid in grain were equal in Northwest Europe and prosperous parts of Asias such as Southern China, wages paid in silver were substantially lower in Asia". The page referenced from Allen's article mentions no other scholars, grain wages are completely absent, and only European settlements are mentioned. This needs fixing. Teeninvestor, I urge to be more precise in your referencing.

Saying Newcomen invented the steam engine is stretching things a bit. A rudimentary steam engine has been recorded as early as the first century AD; what Newcomen did was refine the steam engine and create something commercially viable. His ODNB entry has him down as inventing the atmospheric steam engine, rather than the steam engine as such. Where did you get your information? Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I am not responsible for the last part of the article. As to the Qing theory, I have substituted the correct citation (I was copying from my econ history article). There is heated debate, but a substantial minority of historians, in China and other countries would probably agree with this theory, so I believe it should be represented. It is not as if I am deleting all other theories (indeed, Qing theory is only 1 sentence, while the others are whole paragraphs), and substituting my own.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this Li and Zheng (2001) reference you've added, and what does it claim? Kanguole 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I also see that the Li/Zheng book has been a problematic source for Economic history of China (pre-1911). According to this analysis, that book is deeply flawed and unreliable as a source. Kanguole 01:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the Qing caused the divergence rests on the assumption that Ming China was on a path that would lead to industrialization, and it is therefore necessary to explain what stopped it. You have provided no evidence that this assumption is supported by scholars in the field. Is there any? I see that User:Madalibi explained this very point to you at some length in February 2009. Kanguole 01:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the Ming and its predecessor was on a path to industrialization (or at least a potential candidate for it), is accepted by scholars. For example, here in the Cambridge history of china Ming dynasty introduction, we find this passage: "The growing importance of the maritime southeast provinces and the centrifugal forces that propelled many of the region's hardy residents into lives abroad preceded Europe's era of mercantile expansion and might have rivaled it." Another quote from the alien regimes volume states that: "Did the dynasties of conquest really represent a major setback in the "natural" development of Chinese society, the Chinese economy, Chinese political institutions, and Chinese culture? Without them, would the pattern of rapid growth and rational organization that had characterized Sung China in the eleventh century have continued? Did they abort what some scholars regard as the emergence of a "modern age" under Sung?" And this is just with Song, a dynasty which preceded the Ming by nearly 100 years. In addition, if you had read the work of Joseph Needham and other sinologists, they routinely made comparisons of Ming and Song to europe at that time; it was in fact stated by Needham and others that Europe's productivity in agriculture did not exceed china until the 17th century, and its iron production did not exceed that of the Song (an earlier dynasty than the Ming) until the 18th. I believe that the idea that China was a potential candidate for industrialization is well accepted; indeed, if otherwise Pomeranz would hardly need to mention in his paper that "the idea that China could have attained the industrial revolution is absurd" if that idea had never emerged in the first place. Later, I will get more sources to prove my point, but I think you understand that point.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Each of these is several assumptions away from someone saying that Ming China was on a path that would lead to industrialization.

1. No connection is made between emigration and industrialization.
2. The alien regimes intro relates to the Song and the Jurchen and Mongols in the 13th century. It implies nothing of the Ming and Manchu four centuries later.
3. There's no reason to assume that high productivity with pre-industrial methods leads to industrialization. The fact that Europe was less productive until it industrialized would seem to argue against that, no? Maybe having something that works well is a disincentive to trying to improve less effective methods.
4. That Pomeranz calls something "absurd" is hardly evidence that it's accepted.

You have inferred your conclusion from these using unstated assumptions. What is needed is people actually saying this about the Ming. Kanguole 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're changing the context, Kanguole. You asked me whether scholars stated that China was a potential source of industrialization. I have just proven that above (see for example the quotes about a "modern age" emerging during the Song and other quotes). As to the citation about the Ming and Manchus, I have already provided a citation, but if you want I can add another citation about the Song instead(which I had shown you above). You also ignored my earlier quote from a volume of the Ming about mercantile expansion. Yes, many scholars do not accept the Qing theory, though enough accept it to at least make it a minority viewpoint worthy of inclusion.

This is off topic, but as to your suggestion that high productivity undermines industrial growth, it is completely absurd; by your logic, then the industrial revolution should have occured in the jungles of central africa, with the lowest productivity and the most "incentive"; industrial revolution happened after a certain amount of capital and advances were made; England's relatively liberal policies allowed accumulation to a point where industrial technology was able to be developed and profitable (which Qing China did not reach).Teeninvestor (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's always been the same question: who are the scholars that accept the theory that the Qing caused the Great Divergence by diverting China from the road towards industrialization? Anyone who holds that must also hold that China was on that road to industrialization during the Ming period. Does anyone say that? The achievements of the Song are not relevant to this question, unless you want to blame the Yuan (or the Ming). I have asked for these scholars several times now. You have given many reasons for your belief, but you have not produced any historians directly addressing either of these questions. Kanguole 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you two be ok with taking a laissez-faire approach to the article for the next month, while the students have a go at it? I think the university project could be greatly beneficial to the article and while the issues raised here have been relevant to the article, I don't think we should get too bogged down here as the article is going to change a lot. I don't want our discussion to adversely affect how the article will develop, or for the students to think that what we're talking about here is of the utmost importance to the article when there may be other issues. After reading the link Piotrus provided, it looks like the students will have a structured approach to writing this and students generally understand the principles of referencing etc and what sources are appropriate. So perhaps the best thing we can do for this article is to take a back seat, shelve WP:BOLD for a while, and help out with tasks such as formatting which are difficult to pick up. Editing for the first time can be daunting, so let's try to avoid putting people off. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. My goal is to have the students involved and discussing on this talk page; hopefully this will benefit everyone (but please remember - they will all be very new to this project, from things like wiki syntax to wikiquette). One of the best things to do in the near future is to suggest what sources you think they should look at. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I agree with your point. I certainly will be leaving the article alone, as I can imagine that the resources available to these students will certainly be superior to what currently exists. As I have said earlier, I welcome the help of all possible editors.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Prices paragraph

The last paragraph of the article is also a concern because it seems to be weighing research papers about a specicialized part of the evidence in this large and complex field. I think the story is that the conventional view is that the divergence had started well before industrialization, Pomeranz and Parthasarathi say the grain purchasing power of wages was about the same around 1800, but Allen, Broadberry and Gupta say silver equivalents support the earlier date. But it would better if some overview book did the synthesis for us. Kanguole 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Educational assignment discussions #1

Heads up

I see this there is some activity on this talk page :) I want to give interested editors heads up that this article may likely become a subject of an educational assignment aiming to expand it and raise to to a Good Article class over the next month or so. This assignment has led to good results in the past, but please note that with the exception of the course supervisor (myself) the new editors who will be working on this article are very new to Misplaced Pages. Any assistance and guidance you can offer to them will be much appreciated, and let's keep this in mind :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor students, over here in the UK university is finishing for the summer soon! Anyway, it would be good for this article to get some attention so good luck to them. Nev1 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome the help of university students in fixing this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Project - Politics/Leadership To-Do List

Hello my group has chosen The Great Divergence for our Global Society Misplaced Pages project. I have the subcategory of 18th Century Politics and Leadership in relation to the Great Divergence. I plan on researching Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Some areas of interest so far: Britain- Kingdom of Great Britain; France - French Revolution; Portugal - Marquis of Pombal; Conflict – Britain and France; Enlightenment Philosophes – Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau. This list will be altered and revised in the upcoming days.

Kro14 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Kro14

Roman To Do List Technology

Hey guys I am going to be researching technological advances of the time period that facilitated the Great Divergence. I'll research military advances especially maritime improvements on behalf of the East. I will also look up any great scientists, engineers, or leaders of the time whose contributions spread technology through the West. As I research, I'm sure I'll find other factors that I'm not considering at the moment. I'm excited to work on this! Any suggestions are welcome, please!

-Roman RomanHarlovic (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To Do List

I am focusing on the subcategory Country Specific Ideologies. The countries we plan on examining include Great Britain, France, Germany. Spain, Italy and Portugal; right now I am in the process of researching these countries and their ideologies during this period. Considering the span of time of the Great Divergence, this will be quite daunting! Of course over the remaining week, more specific plans of execution will emerge. Helgacrane (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be working on my sections on wed. and thurs. (Just been finding info and figuring out what to write) By friday, I plan on having a cleaned up draft by friday afternoon. I plan on focusing on the ideologies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Helgacrane (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Industry/Economics To Do List

I will be working on the industrial and economic advances that have contributed to the Great Divergence. I have already found a couple sources of information, one book and a couple academic publications, but any assistance would be appreciated. Derekl366 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a small outline of how I intend to setup the Industry Section over the next day or 2, afterward I will switch my focus to economics. Most of this will probably change by the time I am finished, I want to divide up the Economics sections some more once I start working on it. Let me know what you think.

• Industry
  • Agriculture
  • Fuel/Resources
  • Trade
  • Textiles
  • Industrial Revolution
• Economics
  • pre-1870
  • post-1870

Derekl366 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am almost done with my section, will add a 'New World' section tonight or tomorrow, and will add some to my section intro. Derekl366 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Time Period?

There seems to be disagreement as to when the Great Divergence took place. While it seems that it started as early as the 16th century, it most notably took off starting in the early 1800's. My topic of technology will chiefly focus on this time period, seeing as this is the period of most noticeable technological advancement.

What time periods are you guys going to focus on for your sections? Does anybody have a problem with me focusing on the 19th century?

-Roman RomanHarlovic (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you can find sources that actually discuss this very issue, and/or clearly state when did the GD take place. If sources disagree on the date, that's fine - just point that out in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I plan on elaborating on the 18th century politics. And I have no problem with you focusing on technology in the 19th century.

Kro14 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Kro14

-I don't think there is a problem with you talking about the 19th century, but I am wondering...does it hurt our page by discussing various centuries? Shouldn't each section be more cohesive? I guess when we keep working on the page it will be more cohesive. Helgacrane (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

All of my sources seem to focus on late 18th century to early 20th century, mostly the 19th. Sure advances had taken place earlier in the 16th century, but I think this time period most represents when Europe actually diverged from the rest of the world. Derekl366 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Overview section needs changing

This is an early comment - I will not be reviewing this article for at least a week or so - but the overview section must be renamed (and likely, rewritten). Encyclopedic articles should not have an overview sections - that is, no overview sections beyond the lead. The lead should only summarize key points that are discussed in the article. So whether the overview is renamed, rewritten or merged into other sections, by the time this article is done, it should have a comprehensive lead - and no section titled "overview". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

- Who wants to write the lead? I realize that thinking about the lead at this point is very premature. I don't have a problem doing it but if someone else would like to create the lead once everyone shows exactly what they are going to focus/write about, then that is fine too. Helgacrane (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking It Down

Ok guys. We're trying to get this article up and running soon so here are the categories we are going to write about.

Roman - technology Lolia - country specific ideologies Derek - industry/economics Kayla - politics/leadership

Does any group member or other editor here on wikipedia have a suggestion for how exactly to order these categories? Do you think these categories are sufficient? Once we write the meat of our sections we can re-order the page, make subsections, and clean it up so it looks good. Anybody out there, let me know your input.

RomanHarlovic (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

-I am not sure how I would like to order these categories. I do think that once everyone figures out the specifics of their own section, what they are going to write, and show each other what they are writing, then we will see if the sections are sufficient and we'll figure out how to order the categories. Helgacrane (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

-OK that sounds good to me. The rough edit of my section is still in the works and will probably be done by the next class on Wednesday. I think we should all try to be done and have our first rough edit posted by this Friday so we have plenty of time to reorder the page and have other wikipedia editors give their input. Sound fair? RomanHarlovic (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

-Yeah I'll try post a solid rough draft by Friday. If not totally complete at least mostly. Kro14 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

-Yes, sounds good. Helgacrane (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is common for a first draft to undergo major changes. I'd highly recommend posting a draft earlier, so I can review it and you can address my comments before the work is then reviewed by the Good Article reviewer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

-Alright, I'm updating my section by adding about a paragraph at a time. Kro14 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

-I'm beginning to wonder if Politics/Leadership actually has a place here. While reading it, I just kept thinking it sounds more like a history lesson than having to do specifically with the Great Divergence. Derekl366 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A history lesson is certainly important, seeing as the Great Divergence/European Miracle/etc. is a historical phenomena (one with lasting consequences for a modern day, certainly). That said, the article should not be a pure historical description, but it should also present a more theoretical explanation as in "why did it happen", drawing from sociological/economic/pol-sci literature. Think about the books we read in class - they mix history with sociology, economics and political science - just like this article should. ---_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

-I know it's mostly just history right now. I planned on starting with about a paragraph of history, my next paragraph is going to link it's significance to the Great Divergence.It'll be updated continually the upcoming days Kro14 (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

-I think it would probably be a good idea to have a section on the effects of democracy on Europe. In my readings it seems that eastern Europeans did not enjoy all of the freedoms held by western Europeans. Derekl366 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstood

Umm, I think the article fundamentally misunderstands/misrepresents Pomeranz' thesis (as exemplified in the review by Clark for example). The whole point is that the "old view" was that Europe pulled away from Asia (China, mostly) in the 16th century - and this view, according to Pomeranz was wrong or at least incomplete. According to Pomeranz and most newer research in economic history, the "Great Divergence" didn't take place until the Industrial Revolution in Britain was underway (if not mostly done with), so we're talking second half of 19th century at least.

The article appears to take the summarizing of the "old view" found in Clark's review of Pomeranz as THE definition of Great Divergence, whearas in fact that is just a description of a view which the book/definition is debunking. Consider these parts of the review (I'm ignoring here the lack of paraphrasing of this source found in the article, which could constitute a copy vio):

"The prevailing view has been that the West surpassed the East in technological creativity by the time the Portuguese arrived in Macao in 1557. At that point, China and Japan were sophisticated but stagnant economies. The greater technological creativity of the West, home grown, led to Europe’s domination of the world economy."

This is a summary of the "prevailing view".

"In the first part of the book, Pomeranz sets out to show, instead, that at the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the Chinese were just as advanced as the West in matters of per capita consumption, urbanization, life expectancies, markets, institutions, land yields, technological dynamism, and anything else. The divergence so painfully evident between China and the West by 1900 had its origins after the onset of the Industrial Revolution"

This clearly states that the whole point of Pomeranz' book is to argue against this incorrect, "prevailing view" (emphasis mine) that the "Great Divergence" took place in the 16th century.

I'm going to leave it alone for now since it appears to be a work in progress, but the article has these things flipped.radek (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems to raise a question of scope. Is the subject of this article to be Pomeranz's thesis and reaction to it, or the underlying phenomenon and the range of views to which Pomeranz contributed? (According to Frank's review, the term itself was coined by Samuel P. Huntington.) Kanguole 11:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the broader question has a pretty long history; Malthus discussed it. The specific term "Great Divergence" might have very well been coined by Huntington though Frank only mentions him in passing to get some digs in.

The scope of the article should be the general concept with particular reference to Pomeranz's work and the discussion of it by others. Something like "The term Great Divergence refers to the purported increase in the difference between living standards in China and the West. While earlier work, going back to Malthus and other 19th century scholars, saw the origins of this disparity in the 16th century, Pomeranz and other recent authors have argued that..." then it should go on to discuss how these things are measured (differences in life expectancy, caloric intake, etc.) and into more detail of various hypothesis.

This is just a very rough suggestion and obviously some references need to be dug up.radek (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence of your proposed lead is fine, but I would make some changes to the first: "purported" seems unnecessary, living standards seems too narrow a focus (e.g. productivity, technology), and I'd say "the West and the rest of the world" rather than "China and the West". Kanguole 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"the West and the rest of the world" is in fact better; China can be discussed specifically in the body. "Purpoted" - you're probably right, however, the point is to establish that at some point China and Japan (and rest of the world, Latin America too for example) had comparable or even higher standards of living. "Living standards" - this is meant to be a general term and it's probably the case that it is used differently in different subjects; here it's supposed to encompass a variety of measures. Productivity and technology, but also income, consumption, nutrition, life expectancy, etc. If you have a better term in mind that serves the same purpose, then slap it in.radek (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Radek as far as the scope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the existing way the article is written is off. The first line of the article needs to better describe the concept (something along the lines of what radek and Kanguole suggest seems a more accurate description of the idea being discussed.

The way the article read did not do a good job of explaining the way the new theories about the economic disparities between countries have unfolded over the last quarter century (particularly the last decade.) Radek is right that it gives the impression that newer research is disputing Pomeranz when it is Pomeranz's work that disputed the prevailing theory. Since then more work has been done that shows shorting coming in Pomeranz work, and support and expands on previous ideas.

I remove the part that seemed wrong so that the students could have a fresh slate. But I made a subpage with the content so that the students could have access to it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

European miracle

I've just noticed that a month ago, without any apparent discussion, the article on European miracle was redirect here (version prior to redirect). I think that those are two related, but distinct, concepts. Thoughts about the appropriateness of reversing the redirect are appreciated from everyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When I was reading on this and related topics yesterday, I noticed that the European miracle redirect and that Rise of the West was redirected here, too. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

All 3 articles deal with particular books each of which is about broadly the same concept. I'm not sure if redirecting the other two here is the proper approach - although I can see making this the general article and having the other two be about the specific books. If anyone has an idea for a "meta title" that is used for this in literature (I can't think of one off the top of my head) then that could help sort this out.radek (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The books may or may not be notable, the meta concept is. Now, leaving the books aside for a moment (I'd support restoring the articles but making it clear they are book-based), is Great Divergence a good meta title? Or do we need a new one? And no, nothing brilliant comes to my mind at this moment, neither (we could always try an RfC for that). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the meta topic is notable but also wonder if this article name is right. I'm familiar with the general topic because it often background material for discussions. For example, the reasons for differences in Maternal mortality rate and Infant mortality rate by country, reasons for poverty in Appalachia, and many other topics about global sociocultural problems. But the name "Great Divergence" was not familiar to me. I had difficultly finding a clear specific definition of the term "Great Divergence" that was matched this content. So something else might be better, although nothing else comes to mind off the top of my head. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the term is related to the idea of Convergence (economics) (that article needs work) which is the hypothesis that, other things equal, poor countries should grow faster than rich countries and catch up (converge). Pomeranz' title is a play on this concept, applied to a historical context (I'm pretty sure he (or his publisher) consciously picked it thus but I don't have a source for that claim) - which basically says "look, the most important thing that happened historically is not convergence but divergence. Great divergence!". I think for the time being "Great Divergence" is probably the best we can do for a descriptive title for the general phenomenon - though the other books that deal with it should be mentioned in the article as well.

As I mention above, issues like infant mortality, should be addressed in a general discussion of how "living standards" are defined and compared.radek (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If only the term eurocentrism wasn't riddled with negative connotations... James Morris Blaut proposed a term "Eurocentric diffusionism". The term gained some use in literature (). The problem here is several-fold: 1) Blaut refutes a number of previous theories, which he labels as the "Eurocentric diffusionism" theories, but his refutal is not universally accepted, it is just another theory. Thus I am not certain if his "Eurocentric diffusionism" is indeed the correct name for the general concept. 2) While he proposed his own model, AFAIK he doesn't give it any meaningful name. 3) Nonetheless, it appears that literature often associated the "Eurocentric diffusionism" with both his rebuttal and theory ().

On a side note, I fund Blaut argument somewhat illogical: he claims his own theory is not Eurocentric, because it does not attribute any "false" positive qualities to Europe; he also criticized several "environment"-based theories (such as those of Jared Diamond). Then he explains how the rise of Europe (or however we label the phenomenon in question) can be explained by the luck of European positioning (close to America and having good sailing conditions on Atlantic), thus allowing Europeans to get rich on America and thus outrun other civilizations. Let me quote him (p.11): "The Europeans, as it turned out, had one crucial advantage. the America was vastly more accessible to European than to other maritime centers. I argue, therefore, that America was reached first from the mercantile-maritime centers of Europe, rather than from those of other advanced maritime centers, as a function of location, or more precisely, accessibility". If this is not an example of "environmental determinism" (something Blaut criticized Diamond for), what is?

All that said, his book () is probably one of my favorite treatments of the subject (because he does a great job introducing a bunch of other viewpoints, from Weber's to Diamond's). I wish I could squeeze it in as an obligatory reading position in my course (maybe during the next book shuffle; mind you, the course is about globalization in general, and Great Divergence is only one of many fascinating facets of it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. Here's another of my favorite treatment of the subject: . :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article can take two direction: Either we remove the redirects and have this focus on the "Great Divergence" as a fad-ish term used currently to describe a historical sociocultural phenomena that has gotten broad interest among many people over the last decade. Or we can leave the redirects and rename the article with a more general name, and then frame the content more broadly. The "Great Divergence" as described by Pomeranz would get significant coverage because it is being discussed by theorists and researchers, but it would not necessarily be the centerpiece of the article. My biggest concern with keeping the article named "Great Divergence" is that term does not have a clear definition that is used by multiple sources. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that point.) So, if we use GD, then there is going to need to be a introduction that supplies a concrete definition without doing original research. I think that this will be tricky to do because of the debate over the time period, and the western-centric framing of the the concept in most of the literature that I've reviewed. I'm particularly sensitive to this since WP English is an international project and this article is about a global phenomenon. It is doable but I think we need to be extra careful to use the broadest sources we can find, including reaction from non-English speaking literature on this topic. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that given the sources that we have available/accessible right now the first suggestion is better - have it be about "a fad-ish term used currently to describe a historical sociocultural phenomena that has gotten broad interest among many people over the last decade" (though that can't go in the lede like that). Nuances can be covered in the body of the article. I think the concern over lack of multiple sources which use the term is a valid one - the fact stems from the fact that different literatures/scholars simply use their own favorite term for the same phenomenon - though I'm not sure how much can be done about it presently.

The concern with it being too Western-centric is also important. Flo, could you let me know the literature you're looking at? Speaking from an economics perspective my sense of what I've read is that in some ways Pomeranz's view (that the West didn't diverge from Asia until 19th century) is actually less Western-centric then the literature that it challenges (which more or less asserted that West was always ahead or at least since the 16th century) though there are different interpretations even there. It would be nice to get some articles or books from non-Western authors to include in the article.radek (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The old Rise of the West article had little in it, and there is already a separate article The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community, but the old European miracle article had some specific content, which should probably be restored. Kanguole 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we do seem to have a consensus on this, I am being bold and have restored that article, slightly rewritten it and moved to The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

there is an article on the book, and an article on the phenomenon as a whole (this article). I don't object to the separate The European Miracle article, but European miracle should probably still redirect here. --dab (𒁳) 22:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Educational assignment discussions #2

First Draft Technology

Hey guys I just posted my first draft on technology. I cited it but I am still digging up sources to help add information. Please look through it and give me some feedback. Also, if you feel the section should be aesthetically restructured to make it more organized, let me know. I wound up focusing a bunch on economics and labor because they turned out to be hugely important. Also, Derek, the source you linked to us was very helpful. I cited it... it's the citation with the name Pomeranz in it, so no need to double cite it. Let me know as you guys make edits to your sections so I know to read them carefully.RomanHarlovic (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

References

This article has been growing impressively, but if it aims to be a Good Article, it will need page numbers on the references to books (at least). Personally, I find this easier to do from the start, rather than going back and trying to find them again later. Kanguole 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

When adding page numbers, do I add all the pages to the first citation (ex: |page= 210-220,230-240) or is there some way to add page numbers to each citation seperately? Derekl366 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Each citation would typically have its own page numbers. You don't want to repeat the whole book description, but there are a number of ways to handle it. You could give the full details, plus page numbers, at the first citation of a book, and then say something like Pomeranz (2000), p56 for the second and subsequent citations of the same book. Alternatively, some people have a list of books as a separate section called Cited Works or similar, and use the short form for all the citations. There's a lot more detail at WP:CITE. Kanguole 13:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Isn't the scope of this article the late 18th/early 19th centuries? I think it is no exaggeration to say that the Great Divergence had been completed by the late 19th century, as output per capita in the west by 1860's and 1870's were at least several times greater than Qing China. The article's main focus was on the inital divergence, e.g., the surpassing of China by Britain/Holland in the late 18th century to early 19th. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the question about the scope of the article. According to Pomeranz and other research the Great Divergence did not occur until sometime in the 19th century. It is very doubtful if by the 1860's and 1870's per capita income in England (nm rest of Europe) were several times greater than China. They could've very well been lower even then. Most likely they were higher but not by much (some % less than 100%). Keep in mind that while with the onset of the Industrial Revolution (late 18th/early 19th century) technology improved greatly, this didn't translate into increases in per capita incomes until the second half of the 19th century.

More generally, disparities in per capita income on the order of "double" "triple" or "x times over" were pretty much unseen until the 20th century. Maybe with some stretch and generous interpretation of available data by the closing years of 19th century. In the pre-industrial world if one economy had per capita income that was 150% of another that was a truly remarkable difference. Now of course the richest economy has something like 30 times + (3000% +) the per capita income of the poorest. That's what makes it a "Great Divergence".radek (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman - summary from reading other group pages

Hey guys I have to post this early because I'm going away this weekend. So from reading through the other groups' stuff I can tell that organizing and citing everything appropriately is going to be difficult. Some books, like the one by Pomeranz, we all used so how should we know what page numbers do cite if we used the book through and through? Also, is citing most of the sentences only necessary for now, during the editing process, or should it stay like that? We should keep close tabs on the other groups and see how they cite things and perhaps learn from them. Other than that, once the groups have posted their information it's definitely going to be beneficial to read it because we may have missed an important concept or convincing fact that they explain in detail. The article looks great so far great job. RomanHarlovic (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Frustrations and questions

I am having problems with my section (why did I volunteer to do this?) I am confused- should I focus on the economic ideology? I am trying to search for info on google books and at my local library but I think I am not using the right search engines or something! And should it be broken down into separate ideologies or would it be better to have a subsection on the general european ideology during the 19th century? Help would be greatly appreciated. Helgacrane (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have to describe all European countries, particularly as their ideologies - and importance - changed through time (for example, with Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands becoming less important, and the British, French and German becoming more important). You may want to merge some into common sections, or organize your sections by years - but if you want, yes, you can have a section about separate countries. Looking at the article as it is now, I am not sure I see a clear reason for your section to be separate from "Eighteenth Century Politics and Leadership" section. Perhaps the two of you working on those sections could work together, merging your findings. After all, per the definition of imperialism (for example), politics and economy are very connected, and splitting discussions of - let's say - British politics and economy into two separate sections may not be optimal. PS. Regarding using the search engines, my suggestion is to ask your groupmates what terms are they using - perhaps this will help. Also, see some sources mentioned in discussions above (Blaut's book, for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine having you help out on economics, I have my hands pretty full with industry as it is. Derekl366 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think focusing on the economic aspect would be great, especially since industry and economics are big topics. I noticed alot of information on that subject in my reading. I know derek sent an email out a couple days that might be useful for you. Kro14 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will try a different approach. Instead of by country I will discuss the changes in ideology through time. (I started looking through Blaut's book as well.) I will definitely ask more questions/ make comments throughout the day. Thanks! Helgacrane (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick- Group Comments

Hey guys, just commenting on your article. It looks good. Looks like you guys definitely did your homework. I am sure you guys planned on doing so but I would add some pictures to help make the page not look so bland. But other than that it looks like you have good information and the layout is good. Good luck with the rest of your page! Prg22 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but the only things I can really think of that fit this article are pictures of Europe or pictures of trade routes. Can I post a map type picture from a website if I cite it, or do I need permission? http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds/ch4/maps.htm looks like it has a few decent trade maps. Derekl366 (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

what is going on here?

what's with the empty sections? If this is a work in progress, use a WP:Workpage. Don't leave half-finished things in live articles like that. --dab (𒁳) 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a work in progres, the subject of a university group project. Empty sections might not be useful to the reader, but the article has grown a lot recently. How about putting the notice below on the article? It would be preferable to leave out empty sections for now as it looks a bit untidy, but they're not doing any harm and serve as reminders for what needs to be done. Nev1 (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. Empty sections will be filled soon and major work should be complete in several days.

If this project is going to be on a scale of days or weeks rather than hours, how about using a workpage? Seriously, just create Talk:Great Divergence/Workpage and lay out your project there. Or write the text offline and upload it once it is done? I am glad somebody is working on this article, and of course it is permissible to update articles incrementally and on the go, but in this case you should work on one section at a time.

It is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages articles' tables of content to remind editors what they were still going to write about. Tocs are for the benefit of the readers, indicating what sort of information they will find in the article. Empty sections amount to giving the reader The Finger, especially readers on mobile devices. Editors' notes to self belong in userspace.

There are also WP:MOS issues which I am not going to bother about as long as this is in a state of flux. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Calm down bachmann, it is not tantamount to "giving the reader The Finger". Of all Misplaced Pages's many and well documented problems, a temporarily empty section is probably one of those readers care least about. The rewrite is taking place of the course of several days, as the template says; further details of the project are explained further up the page.

To the editors of the page: as bachmann says empty sections aren't particularly helpful to the reader, but I appreciate including them in the article may help remind you what needs to be done. If you add <!-- --> around them, they won't be visible to the reader but can been seen when the editing window is open. It's easier to see how these "hidden comments" work practice, so there's one after this sentence to show you how to do it (just press edit to see it). I think this might help address bachmann's concern. Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Julia - Group Comments

I think you guys are really well on your way with this topic! Good job! I think more could be added to the Impacts of Trade section, although it does seem like it may be tough to find sources for this specific section. I guess one suggestion could be to discuss as different trading methods came along, how this impacted/increased the divergence. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Kayla - Group Summary

Hey everyone. I have to do this a bit early today, it's my sister's graduation/party. Anywho, I read over the core countries page and I thought it was very well cited and organized. They also added a picture, which may be something we could do. I'll look at some pictures later. I may also add some more to my article depending on how busy my day is. Overall looks great!! Kro14 (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sergey - Comment

Great job guys! Looks like you have all the information you need on the topic and you really go in-depth in your article. The only thing is, I, like many others, don't like to read, and there's a lot of reading in your article, so I would trim it down a little. But then again, i'm really lazy. Sav12 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Angie's Comment

Group 3, let me just say that your site is quite lovely. Not only do I feel well informed, but dag-nabbit, I really enjoyed myself reading it. As far as what Sergey says, I think we may all conclude that he is a bit of a sloth. (Sorry, Sergey. Also, I'm just kidding.) BUT, if you did want to add a little love to your site, perhaps you could add some pictures. The thing is with wikipedia, if you don't want to read something you don't have to - you can just use the contents to figure out what you want to read and click away! Good job and I think your article will definitely get a "Good Status." Hope you've all still managed to enjoy your weekend. See you monday!AngGor (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lolia- Group Comment and Other Things

Hi! I just finished looking over the Peripherial countries article. Though Roman and Derek looked at the article as well, I thought I should write a mini summary. The article is still under construction but so far it is quite organized and will be a strong article once completed! As for our article, I am working on my section. What we have so far is really strong and I certainly don't want to screw up our chances of getting a good article!! Great job everyone and enjoy your weekend! Helgacrane (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that these comments were made on June 5th NOT the 6th.Helgacrane (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Derek - Summary/Comment

The Periphery countries group seems to have a well organized article, but seems to be missing any pictures. I cannot really think of anything the group did that is valuable for us though (the assignment asks this). Derekl366 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lou - Summary/Comment

This article looks really great but the following statement taken from the page seems to have someting missing. What does it matter if a mine is wet or dry as far as ventilation is concerned? "Also, due to regional climate, European coal mines were wetter than the arid Chinese mines. Water could easily be pumped out of European mines using steam engines, but ventilating Chinese mines to prevent explosions was much more difficult." Naboc1 (talk)

Hey Lou, sorry that may have been a bit confusing. Basically, Chinese mines are dry and therefore subject to buildups of explosive gases unlike wet mines. So mining is more dangerous and difficult in China. It's easy to pump water out, but it's hard to ventilate dry air. RomanHarlovic (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic comments on the GA process

I was looking at our deadlines and by tomorrow, June 7, we have to submit our article for good article submission. One section is still missing from the article so we can't do anything until it's done. We could submit our article tonight or early tomorrow morning.What does everyone think? I have class tomorrow morning, so i can only submit it tonight. If you want to wait, are there any volunteers for submitting it tomorrow? Kro14 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

- Apologies all around. I have been working on the project on word since I didn't want to cause a problem for readers. I am slowly transferring what I am doing and will be done tonight.Helgacrane (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not properly read through the article, but a few things jump out that need to be sorted out before a GA nomination: not all citations have page numbers; the source for the last part of the Importance of Technological Advances to Divergence isn't clear (it's likely you'll also be asked for sources for the third and fourth paragraphs of the Possible Efficiency Influencing Factors section); and the lead needs expanding. The lead needs to summarise the article in a few paragraphs. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nev1 makes good points - if you don't fix those things before the GA review, they reviewer will ask you to. I'll also post a more detailed review myself later today. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

wth? It is part of your project to get Misplaced Pages "GA" status?? This is just wrong in so many ways... First of all, "GA" is a completely idiosyncratic project that doesn't actually say anything about article quality, just about compliance with Misplaced Pages style guidelines. Second, it will be almost impossible to control this, because other editors may decide to interfere with your editing, dragging you into disputes that you cannot possibly resolve by 7 June just because you have a deadline. Misplaced Pages articles are written with the understanding that "there is no deadline". --dab (𒁳) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think GA ensures a certain level of quality, I suggest you reread the Good Article criteria. Amongst the criteria are that an article must be well-written, "factually accurate and verifiable", and "broad in its coverage". Sound like more than style of substance to me. This is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of the GA process, but I think you're doing it a disservice. As for other editors getting involved and disrupting the project, you'll see that the new editors have taken the lead and at the same time sought advice and input from others. It's worked. The job of established editors will be to ensure that the article complies with the manual of style which can be intimidating and overly complex to even those of us who've been on Misplaced Pages for a long time. Even if a reviewer makes changes it's usually minor copy editing and the main editors are expected to respond to any comments. The only potential hitch I foresee is the backlog at GAN, but I'm sure a couple of reviewrs can be asked to prioritise reviews for these articles since there's a deadline. I really don't see what the problem is. The 7th June deadline is to submit the article to WP:GAN, not having the article passed, there appears to be two or three weeks for that. It's all explained here. Nev1 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the intention behind GA. I am talking about how it is implemented in real life. I don't have a quarrel with people trying to get the "GA" seal of approval. This is a personal choice. Some of the hoops they make you jump through are plain silly, and most of the time your "reviewers" don't have the first idea of the topic and wouldn't recognize a "good article" if it was in front of them. This is a problem with editors' expertise, and there is nothing we can do about it, we have to work with what we get, but we have to recognize the problem. One of the corollaries of recognizing it is a very disenchanted view indeed of the "GA" process. I have seen "GAs" that were next to worthless, and I have seen excellent articles written by actual experts that were denied "GA" status by clerks with no notion of the topic because the author wouldn't jump to attention and fiddle with their footnotes and images until the GA bureaucracy was happy.

You are right that this isn't the place to discuss GA, and you have my blessing if you decide it works for you, but if I am doing it a "disservice", it is because of my considered opinion that it is doing the project a disservice.

To comment on this article as it stands, it is far removed from giving a complete overview of the topic as it focusses on the 19th century almost exclusively, while the article topic is really about developments that took place in the 17th and 18th century. The 19th century saw the completion of the "Great Divergence", but the actual "diverging" was initiated during the Early Modern period, and ultimately in the 16th century Reformation. Thus, while I think the content in this article is fair, I also think it fails to address much of the article scope. --dab (𒁳) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Having articles reviewed by non-experts is the bane of Misplaced Pages, but for the foreseeable future a necessity as we're all amateurs working in our spare time. I'm happy to admit that this article isn't a subject I know much about, but from having watched the discussions during the writing process it seems that there isn't really agreement in the sources as to when the Great Divergence began. But then I need to give the article a proper read through before I comment I depth. Are there any sources you can suggest? Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not pretend to be an expert in this topic, but I resent your claim that "we're all amateurs". I have contributed to plenty of topics in which I do have professional expertise, and I know many expert editors who do the same. Any glance at our articles on advanced physics will show you that the most valuable content we have is not "written by amateurs". We welcome amateurs, and they are Misplaced Pages's secret of success because they do all the maintenance work actual experts cannot be bothered with worrying about, but you should never underestimate the importance of experts for Misplaced Pages. See also Misplaced Pages:Expert retention, Misplaced Pages:Expert rebellion. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Grow up bachmann, your comments are becoming fatuous; taking offence at an off-hand generalisation is ludicrous. I never said Misplaced Pages was better off run by amateurs. Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"grow up" indeed, "Nev1". If you think I was being "fatuous" about what you yourself choose to describe as "off-hand generalisations", I don't know what to call pompous trivialities like Having articles reviewed by non-experts is the bane of Misplaced Pages, but for the foreseeable future a necessity --dab (𒁳) 20:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Peace, my friends, peace. Let's sip down some WP:TEA and refocus our discussion, shall we? If I may suggest, the best thing to do now is to help review the article and to point out what can be fixed. I know that some of you prefer to fix problems themselves, but hopefully this time just reviewing and pointing out problems will results in them being fixed by others (students), which will also help educate new editors in how this project works. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dab, if you have comments about the GA process, I suggest talk:GA. If you have comments about this assignment, I suggest my talk page or talk of WP:SUP. And yes, you are right that there are still quite a few things to be fixed. I'll be posting my own review later today, and I am sure the GA reviewer will have more things to say. Fortunately, there are two weeks assigned for the review process, this is usually enough for editors (students) to fix them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

off-topic? This page is positively spammed by an educational assignment in a bid to make GA, and you are telling me, in patronizing tones, to desist from either discussing GA or the assignment?

I am not attacking anyone, Piotrus, I am merely pointing out what I see as problems. So WP:TEA to you, too. --dab (𒁳) 19:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not telling you to desist, on the contrary, your participation is welcome. But we should keep on subject (which is - discuss how to improve this article). What I am telling you is that if you have issues with GA process in general, the place to discuss it is Talk:GA(N). This talk page is a place to discuss this article (Great Divergence), not the GA process. This is also not the place to discuss this type of an assignment in general (educational assignments in general are discussed at talk of WP:SUP).

If you see any problems with this article, then of course it is right to point them out here. As I see it, the only post in this thread after the first three that discusses this article (instead of making some off topic comments about Good Article process in general) is your post from 15:22, 6 June 2010. I'd suggest moving it to its own section, as it is on topic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss the GA process, as I have made abundantly clear. I also have no wish to discuss school projects in general. The only reason I am editing this page is to discuss what this school project is doing to this article. Alright? And I maintain that this talkpage is the proper place for that. I have suggested in best faith that the best move in this case would be the creation of a WP:Workpage. Apparently, nobody bothered to even consider the suggestion, instead I find myself being told to grow up and similar niceties. --dab (𒁳) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The essay you cite is an argument for the use of subpages, certainly, but (fortunately) it is not a policy. I was never in favour of any edits outside the mainspace, although there are, admittedly, times where such editing makes sense. I don't believe that educational projects usually fall into that category. While they are on a deadline, in experience (I've been doing this for years and have seen quite a few articles improved by such assignments to GA class), there would be no benefit in doing so in a workspace. By working in the mainspace, student-editors are able to interact with the interested community (which is unlikely to care about workspaces). As student-editors are in the end just new editors, I see no reason to treat them as a second class citizens and tell them they can edit only in a workspace. Sure, they will make errors - just like any new editors will. Further, content added to the article in mainspace is much more likely to be seen, commented on and improved then content in a workspace, which, in worst cases, can be just forgotten and lost. If you can tell me how would the Misplaced Pages project and the students benefit from working in the workspace instead of here, do let me know. As far as I can see, working here allows them to interact with other editors, and benefit from their comments and edits, and those editors in turn can monitor the students progress on a page they are familiar with, instead of having to care about some workspace. PS. I do agree that the main article should never have some empty headings, strange to do lists, and such, and I support removal of such unfinished content - but per Misplaced Pages:Workpages: "It is also common practice to place material removed from the live article to the article talkpage." In almost all cases, instead of having a workshop page, the discussion page can be used instead (again, the discussion page will be watched by editors watching the article, when a workspace is less likely to). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review by Piotrus

Here are some early comments on the article, those issues should be fixed before the Good Article nomination is submitted (otherwise the Good Article reviewer will simply have to repeat them):

Subject:

• The lead mentions who coined "European miracle", but not who coined "Great Divergence". Per discussions above, it should also mention other alternative terms (such as Blaut's "Eurocentric diffusionism").
• When discussing the "Eighteenth Century Politics and Leadership", you should cover the most notable European countries (I'd expect to see a brief discussions of Portugal, the Netherlands and Russia), but also the notable countries outside Europe (at the very least, China, and some notes on the Ottoman Empire and Japan would probably be very helpful).
• When making any argument or description, please keep in mind that you should tie it to the Great Divergence. So, for example, if you chose to write a short section on Japan, it should not be a "general history of Japan around the time of Great Divergence", but "how the Great Divergence affected Japan and whether Japan was or wasn't part of the diverging world" (and so on))

Technical:

• The lead should always only summarize information present in the article; it should never contain information that is not repeated (usually in more details) in the main body (see WP:LEAD)
• Each sentence, unless it contains uncontroversial, generally known information ("Earth orbits the Sun") should contain an inline reference. There are multiple sentences and even some full paragraphs that are not referenced. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
• When citing sources, in particular books, exact page numbers are needed. There are some book sources cited that are missing a page number.
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) and Misplaced Pages:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.
• Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon . is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.</ref>.,</ref>,,
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. On that note, please read the article carefully, there are some spelling mistakes (for example, in the section "Trade", at least once the word "counties" is used where "countries" should have been used).

Lastly, when you address those concerns, please make a note here. Also, there is a number of valid points and suggestions made by other editors in the discussion above, please reply to them when addressing them (you are allowed to disagree with such suggestions, but if you do, please explain there why you chose not to heed them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can go back into my section on technology and cite the sentences based on what book they came from tonight. However, finding the page numbers for each source for each sentence will be a bit more difficult and I may need some time for that beyond just tonight and tomorrow (I think that's really the main thing I need to do, the content is solid). Furthermore, I think some of my sentences were deductions that don't really come from a true source. Like my sentence on workers with better nutrition being more efficient. This seems logical, but I don't know that it came right out of a book. Should I just remove sentences like that? Piotr, could our group talk about some of this stuff in class tomorrow and submit the article for GA evaluation tomorrow night? When you say by Monday, do you mean Monday night or by midnight today? Sorry for the confusion. RomanHarlovic (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Monday night. We can certainly talk. You should try to cite each sentence with a source, if you have observations that go beyond what is in the source, this may be a good topic for our blog (and extra credit), but not for wiki (per the WP:NOR policy). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am editing my section on Politics and Leadership, adding in some of the countries mentioned with less history and more effects/results. Thanks for responding so fast to my concern earlier. Kro14 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am slowly transferring my subsection. It will be titled Ideologies. I have: Laissez-faire, Socialism, Materialism, Nationalism, and Imperialism. Do you think I should includ science? Helgacrane (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the content. See also concepts such as rationalism - and of course consider what term is used by the sources you are reading. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I did read about rationalism in my source, but they didn't define it, just described it. Helgacrane (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I just added page numbers to my references. However, because I cited every sentence, the list of references at the bottom of the page is now enormous. This doesn't seem right. Am I on track here or does something need to be formatted differently? RomanHarlovic (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can share identical references (including page nos.) with ref name. Kanguole 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed 'the' from my section's title, and fixed some grammatical and style issues. Derekl366 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

-Fixing grammatical, spelling and style issues. Fixing Imperialism section.Helgacrane (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just put our article up for Good article nomination. Of course you're all welcome to still make changes. I just wanted to do it earlier in case I had to ask a question on how to do it. Kro14 (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is fine and actually makes sense. I am still tinkering with my section. This question is opened to everyone, but do you think imperialism is a social or economic ideology? Or both?Helgacrane (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good question funny that you ask it. My friend is a history major at a liberal arts university and his final for a US history class consisted of that question (social vs. economic). It is both, but he had to pick a side and he argued social. For the purposes of our article, I'd probably consider it both. Economic = monetary interests. Social = missionary work, country's reputations as superpowers. RomanHarlovic (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Divergence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the start of a review up shortly. It's great to see WP being used in so many class projects, including this one. Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, 2-3 paragraphs is appropriate, per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, but should not include any original information that is not present in the body.
   • In places, this reads a lot more like a school essay than an encyclopedia article. For example, in the Possible Efficiency Influencing Factors section, you say "These factors are outlined below." Don't say it, just do it! Also, tie the topic (geography, agriculture, etc) into the paragraph, don't do "geography - discussion".
   • Section headers need some work. All words in section headers should be lowercase except for the first word and any proper nouns. So, "Technological Factors Leading to Divergence " should be "Technological factors leading to divergence", while "Meaning of French Revolution" is correct.
   • The first sentence of the Ideologies section goes back to the school essay feel. It really says nothing, and doesn't really even give a good introduction to the topic. Instead, give a brief introduction (at least 3 to 4 sentences) on what this topic is. Why are ideologies important to the great divergence? How do they relate to each other?
   • The first sentence of the Eighteenth Century Politics and Leadership section is the same way, although slightly better because it gives a feeling (although vague) of why politics were important to the GD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Is there a reason that the ref name feature is not being used in many cases? I see that some references use it, but it could be utilized to combine many more, especially all of the Feenstra refs, as well as a few others.
   • If a reference is used to cite multiple successive sentences, you can just put one reference at the end of the set of sentences. So, if sentences 1, 2, and 3 are all referenced to cite x, just put the reference at the end of sentence three. If each sentence is referenced to a different source, or if sentences 1 and 3 are to the same source but sentence 2 is to a separate source, then you need a ref at the end of each sentence, to show which idea came from which source.
   • Your teacher has noted a few places where page number are needed. While this is not a specific requirement for GA status, it is part of the policy of verifiability.
   • I've added a citation needed tag, accompanied by hidden text that can be removed once the issue is addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • I'm left with a few questions about the specific term "Great Divergence". Who coined the term? How widespread is its use? Are there any synonyms for it, other than "European miracle"?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Are there no more images that could be appropriately used in this article? At the moment, at 28 kb and only one photo, the appearance is of a major wall of text. While images are not required for GA status, and so this issue won't hold up the GA promotion, it would be nice to have the text broken up a bit more with some images that match the topics discussed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a decent start on this topic. There is a bit more work needed, however, before it is of GA status. Above are my initial comments, which does not include a thorough prose review. Once these issues are addressed (or mostly addressed) I will do a more thorough read-through of the prose. Please let me know if you have any questions - I am watching this page so I will see your comments as they appear. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks a ton for reviewing our article. I'm in charge of the technology section and I just went back and fixed some things that you mentioned. If you still find some formatting problems with it, just let me know. Personally I'm a bit shaky on the format for referencing and stuff like that. Otherwise just let me know of any content issues you run into when you review the prose. Thanks, RomanHarlovic (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over our article. My section is politics and leadership; I recently changed the title to lowercase like you mentioned. I'm going to work on my section's overview today.I wanted to add a picture however I couldn't find one that direclty related my topic and the Great Divergence. Again thanks. Kro14 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing our article. I am responsible for the Ideologies section and will work on giving a significant introduction to my section. Thanks!Helgacrane (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All the section titles should now be capitalized properly, I have also coalesced duplicate citations and removed extra unnecessary citations for neighboring sentences. The only citation problem remaining are for 2 Perry sources that do not have page numbers. Kayla, could you please fill those in or post them here and I'll fill it in if you are uncomfortable with citations?

The next thing we need to work on is the lead and figuring out who coined the term 'Great Divergence'. Derekl366 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey i just did the page numbers and when i checked back a minute later they were deleted for some reason. If you wouldn't mind doing it Derek, I would greatly appreciate it. The first paragraph under france pg 251-256 and the second paragraph (napoleon) 264-270. Kro14 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked the editor who reverted you to explain his edit; I think he made an error reverting you - your edit seems correct. I think you can restore your edit without waiting for his response. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. He did write me back, he said my edits were marked as vandalism. It's all fixed now and all my page numbers are up and correct, thanks to Derek's help. Kro14 (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Just to support claim. I did make a comment to his talkpage. His statement above is true. Mr. R00t 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It looks like some progress is being made, which is good. The section intros and the overall article introduction are some of the more major issues, however, and they have yet to be addressed, so I haven't really started the full prose review. However, I have taken a slightly closer look at it, and continue to find more and more aspects of non-encyclopedic writing. For example, take the first paragraph of the Technology section (my comments interspersed in red):

Beginning in the early 1800s, economic prosperity skyrocketed (Is skyrocketed in the source? If not, it is rather unencyclopedic, try "increased significantly" or something similiar.) due to improvements in technological efficiency. This communication (What communication? We were just alking about technological efficiency.) was facilitated largely by the advent of new technologies including the railroad, steamboat/steam engine, and coal as a fuel source. These innovations accelerated the Great Divergence, elevating Europe and the United States to high economic standing relative to the other world regions. (All other world regions? Or just the East (I'm assuming meaning Asia?) as discussed in the rest of the paragraph?) Though these inventions were founded in the West, the Eastern countries still employed their uses in trade and transportation. So, a disparity arises. (This switches to the present tense, when everything else is in past tense.) Both the Western and Eastern countries had access to the same technology, yet the West benefited more from its presence. In other words, technology was readily available to all countries,(The beginning of this sentence doesn't need to be here. Try just "...benefited more from its presence due to a difference in use between the two areas.") but its use differed between the East and the West. The concept of comparative use-efficiency levels can be used to help corroborate the West's progression ahead of the East. (Don't say what can be used, just say it is used.)

I know that each editor to the article is responsible for a section, and so it may look like I'm "picking on" one particular editor. I'm really not trying to do that, as this form is something that continues through most of the article. Overall there is a need for more specificity, proper tenses and less essay-ish writing. I also know that this sounds a bit harsh and down-putting, but I promise that it's not! I think this article has great potential, and should be able to make GA status with just a bit more polishing. Also, I have done a bit of formatting on your comments above to make them easier to read - I hope this is OK with everyone. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the technology section and I just went in and made the changes you suggested and a few more elsewhere where the language was not quite encyclopedic. For instance, I had said "tons of farmers" but now I realize that's not professional so I changed it to "a high number of." I think the section is now cleaned up quite well and is solid content-wise. Thanks for the input. RomanHarlovic (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Learning how to write in a more professional manner is a useful skill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in charge of politics and leadership and I elaborated on the section overview. I looked online and have had no luck on finding the person who coined the term the Great Divergence. Did anyone else have any luck? Kro14 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Frank's review, the term was coined by Samuel P. Huntington. Kanguole 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This source here also says it was Huntington, just read the first few sentences, http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/pomeranz.html So at this point I think my section is complete. We're nearing the deadline, does everything look to be in order with all of our sections? I'd hate to get feedback just before the deadline. 130.49.11.198 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to discuss that in the article. I will also be leaving some copyediting tags in the article if necessary later today. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Piotrus, I'm afraid I must disagree with some of your tags. It was my understanding that in many places one reference at the end of a paragraph covered the entire paragraph. In some of these places, you have asked for separate references in two or three different places in a paragraph, which, if my understanding about the current referencing situation is correct, would result in the same reference being repeated even more times than it already is, which is unnecessary. Also, just because a paragraph is unreferenced doesn't mean it needs a reference - material that is not likely to be challenged does not need a reference, and IMO all obviously uncited material in the article (barring the newly added intros, which I haven't reviewed yet) meet this standard. If you are challenging the material, it is of course a different story, but just because it's there doesn't mean it needs to be referenced. Also, as a note to the students, the lead of the article still needs to be expanded, and this is a problem that has lingered from the start of this review. Please rectify this soon! Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove some of those tags, you of course can; I will however make a case for why they should stay. It is our assumption that those references "at the end of a paragraph" are for the entire paragraph. But is it really true? And what of the readers who don't know how this article was created? Can they be sure, without looking at its history, that a controversial/interesting fact in the middle of a paragraph, before the referenced sentence, is from the same ref and not from a different one? If a sentence is referenced, it can be safely assumed it is from the end-of-the-sentence ref. If only a paragraph is referenced, it is much more difficult to be sure that all other sentences in it are, in fact, referenced. I, personally, never assume that an unreferenced sentence is referenced by the ref that comes later - and hence I am a strong support of "ref every sentence unless it contains uncontroversial common knowledge claims" interpretation of WP:V and WP:CITE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Further review

It looks like this is getting closer. However, a few more comments have come up as I have continued to read further into the article:

• Piotrus is correct that the lead is now too many paragraphs. Shorten it to just two or three paragraphs, or condense the shorter paragraphs until there are only two or three. Also, paragraph four is a direct copy of the intro to the section on politics and leadership. The paragraph in the lead should be a summary of the whole section, while the intro to the section should show how all of these countries were tied together and why these particular countries mattered enough to be separated out.
• There really needs to be some sort of an "etymology" section or similar. It should discuss what is now being talked about in the merge discussion on the talk page - who the term was created by and when, what other terms are used for the same phenomenon, the book by the same name, etc. Who made the term popular, how often/widely is it used, is it still in style now or did it get left behind with the 20th century, etc. The rest of the article is a good history lesson, but there needs to be a section that ties it all together.
• Here are some possible images to include:

• A good overall map showing where geographically this article is discussing
• Maybe use this to illustrate the industrial revolution? Maybe use this to illustrate the industrial revolution?
• Possibly use to illustrate the France subsection?
• An 1800s example of nationalistic art, maybe use to illustrate the ideologies section?

• As you can see, you don't have to have images that are directly connected to the Great Divergence, as long as they are connected to other ideas that you are describing. Use these if you wish, or take them as examples and find even better ones!

• I've begun to go through the article and copyedit. Please take a look at the edits I have made so far and see what you can do to the rest of the article. Each student should look at the article as a whole, rather than just their section, and see what they can do to improve the flow and coherance. I shall be back tomorrow to complete more work. I apologize for the slow pace on this review in recent days - real life has become rather busy and so I'm squeezing this in when I can :) Dana boomer (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Nice map, but must also include North Africa - Moors, Berbers, Aegyptians - the whole Mediterranean soup. Perhaps the African side of Red Sea too. East of Borschov (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• the article is seeing good progress, but it is nowhere near stability. We are just beginning to address questions of title and scope overlaps, and if I know anything about the nature of article development, the distribution of material will keep shifting around significantly over the next months. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are great! Condensing the beginning paragraphs to only 2 or 3 is proving difficult for me. I condensed it to 4 and that flows very well. When I linked it to 3 the paragraph seemed to run on inexorably and it looked clunky and gross on the screen. If anybody has a better way of linking them, go for it, though you may need to trim down on the content so the intro doesn't run on. I feel that it flows with 4 paragraphs, though. Let me know if this absolutely has to change. Also, where should we place the etymology section? At the very end to tie it together? It also seems to be a hard topic to tackle with all the debate around appropriate terms to use. Maybe just by outlining that debate the section will serve its purpose. It's kind of late to be starting a whole new section (the class ended this past Wednesday). Piotr, is it ok that this is going on for extended time like this? RomanHarlovic (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can delay the final grade till tomorrow. Keep up the good job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Piotr and Dana and Group, OK, I just added an etymology section to the end of the article outlining the terms used and the debate over them and the time period. I did not cite it, the citations however should be the same as those used in the first sentences (I'm more comfortable letting whoever cited those sentences in the first place, I think it was Kayla, cite the etymology section). I'm starting a new set of courses today, so I will not really be able to continue editing heavily. RomanHarlovic (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Everytime I go to do a final prose review on this article, more issues seem to pop up. The latest is the ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding coverage and naming. Dbachmann (dab) has done the research that I should have done at the beginning and cogently explained the feeling that I have been having - that this article focuses too much on the general history surrounding the divergence and too little on the term itself. This article is about the term, not the history of the world during the approximate period of the industrial revolution, and the term (as well as the term "European miracle"), as well as the myths and misconceptions surrounding it, appear to have been widely discussed in sources that were never even brought up here. Dbachmann puts it well when he says the current article feels like "a random brainstorming on loosely related factors" rather than a systematic discussion of the academic literature on this topic. While GAs of course do not need to meet the "comprehensive" criteria of featured articles, they do need to be "broad", and at this point I don't think this article meets this criteria. There is also the fact that the article still doesn't feel coherant - it feels more like what it is: an article that was put together in chunks by students who only focused on their own section and who do not appear to be working together to tie it into a continuing narrative. While the students have definitely improved the coverage of this topic on Misplaced Pages, I still don't feel comfortable moving this article to GA status. I realize that the grading period is coming up soon, and students are moving on to other coursework, and so this will affect the amount of work done on the article. If any or all of the students still wish to continue working on the article, I am more than willing to keep the review open. However, I think it might take a concerted effort to bring this article back onto the topic of the term, rather than the surrounding history and politics, and I want to know that there is someone willing to make this effort before I continue to put effort into reviewing the article. I don't mean to sound rude or pushy by saying this - instead I'm trying to simply give my feelings on the current state of the article. Now, before I move too far into the realm of TLDR, comments from anyone else? Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think this was a more difficult subject then those that my previous / other student groups have usually worked on; in fact I think this subject would be more suited to be developed by a grad rather than an undergrad course. As I'll be grading the student's work tomorrow, I don't expect this article will be GA by then (as I agree with Dana's points); on the other hand I think the students did a good job expanding the article within the limited scope of the summer course (so for my students reading this: I do think you did a good job, and the grade will reflect this - but any final efforts you can put into the article tomorrow wouldn't go amiss! Also, if any of you do in fact plan on working on this project after the course ends, please let Dana know). PS. Dana - do you think this article is closer to a C or B class now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably closer to B-class. It is relatively well developed and sourced, it just doesn't really have GA quality quite yet. I'm headed off to bed now, so will see and respond to further comments in the morning. Dana boomer (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) As there is still quite a bit of work that needed, I am going to close the review now as not promoted. I want to emphasize that the students who worked on this did a wonderful job of improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of this topic, and I hope they return to edit this or another article some day! Please let me know if any of you have further questions, Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

-Hello, I am responsible for the Ideologies section. I added a better introduction and fixed the other parts mentioned. Should I add more to the introduction? Thanks. Helgacrane (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Great Divergence Lead

-I thought we can use this space to discuss the lead. I understand that Kayla has worked on the lead so far but I do think that perhaps we should all contribute to it. I have a night class and a take home final to work on tonight but I am willing to write down something here and everyone can tell me if it helps or not and then we can build on it. (Not sure if this is the correct space though) Does anyone want to do this approach or should we designate someone else to help Kayla as well. Roman you said you would write? I am not sure if you or Derek volunteered. Helgacrane (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

-I also have another final to study for for tomorrow. But if I have some free time i'll work on teh lead. Which basically from what i got from class today should just summarize the article. I'll just look at everyone's section overview and base it off that. Kro14 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

-Ok. I understand you have finals and thought I could try to help with the lead (my final is due on friday.) But since you seem to feel comfortable with continuing the work on the lead then I will drop it. Good luck on your finals! Helgacrane (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll write a summary of my own section and post it to the lead section. Kayla, if later on you could then integrate it with whatever else is there that would be great. I think we should all sort of summarize our own sections then post that to the lead. After all, we each know our individual section best. 130.49.11.198 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That last post was from me, Roman, sorry it didn't tag right. 130.49.11.198 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

-Roman, wikipedia may have logged you out, since your user name is a number. I started another paragraph in the overview, right now it's just my section and I added some links to it. I'll work on tomorrow more Kro14 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

-Hey it's Roman. So, the lead looks good right now but in case Dana wants a more inclusive view of each section, here is the summary of my section in quotes. "Technological advances in railroads, steamboats, mining, and agriculture were embraced to a higher degree in the West than the East during the Great Divergence. High wages in the West caused businesses to focus efforts on engineering labor-saving machinery, while the East continued to rely on their sources of cheap labor. This economic pressure on the West caused them to refine their processes, leading to a heightened global standing relative to countries of the East." Kayla, you can dissect that however you want or not use it at all, whatever is deemed appropriate by Piotr or Dana. 130.49.11.198 (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead is going in the right direction. The key thing to keep in mind is that the lead should summarize the article (and should not introduce any new info). Also, don't forget to cite key claims - I've added a bunch of citation requested tags to the second and third sections (first one was improved nicely, good job). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the citation issues. And added more internal links. Is there anything else I should do to improve my section?Helgacrane (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

-I fixed up the lead a bit. Thank you Roman for summarizing your section for me, it helped greatly. I'm working on a couple sentences for the other two sections. Kro14 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This might be helpful for you when you write the ideology section: materialism illustrated a shift towards the secular; nationalism fostered personal and collective identity; socialism showed the desire to change the power/social dynamics in society; laissez-faire is the economic ideology used during the the idustrial revolution; imperialism is an economic/social ideology that fostered the expansion of empires for economic gain and used dubious methods to justify the expansion of empires. Hope that is helpful. Helgacrane (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll definately be using that. Kro14 (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Everyone, I've finished working on the lead, adding several citations and internal links. If you want to make any changes to your individual section go for it. Read through it please and make any necessary changes. Thanks Kro14 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I read over it thoroughly and I like it (it's very indicative of what's actually in the article). I corrected a few spelling mistakes but that's all. -Roman 130.49.11.198 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, I'd just suggest you merge some paragraphs to get 3-4 paragraphs, which is usually seen as better than 6 you have. In particular, the second para currently consists only of one sentence. PS. Also, it would be nice to add an image to the lead (perhaps a map). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys I tried and for the life of me I can't seem to find a map that outlines the Eastern and Western countries distinctly. Any ideas on what kind of a map to use for our pic? Should we use something else entirely, or just a basic global map? -Roman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.11.198 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Western World has a many pictures that you might fit your description, Roman. Thanks to Itsmejudith for posting about the merger below, or I wouldn't have seen them. Derekl366 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm good page I found this map http://en.wikipedia.org/File:V%C3%A4steuropa-karta.png Look good for posting in the first section with a little caption? Does anybody know how to add pics? (I admittedly, yet pathetically, don't know how to do it yet). -Roman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.11.198 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roman. You should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_help_desk/Archive_2 to learn how to post pictures. Helgacrane (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys I just went in and fixed the lead to be only four paragraphs. I combined the sections on industrialization and technology and incorporated that one sentence paragraph into the first paragraph. I still can't get my picture to upload, it says the file type is wrong though it's just a .png file. Can anybody that absolutely knows how to do this get it done now? The pic I was thinking about is here at http://en.wikipedia.org/File:V%C3%A4steuropa-karta.png but I'd be willing to use another picture totally unrelated to this one, it doesn't have to be a map, if one of you can find it. Other than that, I think the article is pretty much done and ready to be approved. Piotr, are we still running on time with this? RomanHarlovic (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Hi Roman I will see if I can upload the picture. Helgacrane (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I did it. Now I have a question for the group: should we have a blurb for the picture? Should we just leave it as it is? Helgacrane (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As you can see your picture has been changed (not by me). Does everyone like this new one?Helgacrane (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I am going to the library tomorrow so I will try to contribute some info. How would everyone like to deal with this? Just provide contributions and go from there? -Lolia Helgacrane (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job with the picture Lolia, the way it got changed is still good with me. Contributing what info? I thought the article was at the completion stage. RomanHarlovic (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah I thought so too but if you look at the Further Review section you see that the reviewer thinks we need an etymology section. That section is also where I got some of the new pictures we now have for our article! Helgacrane (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just added an etymology section to the end of the article outlining the terms used and the debate over them and the time period. I did not cite it, the citations however should be the same as those used in the first sentences (I'm more comfortable letting whoever cited those sentences in the first place, I think it was Kayla, cite the etymology section). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanHarlovic (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Kayla. I do agree that we should let her cite the section. Is our deadline tomorrow? When exactly is it?Helgacrane (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In about ~12h. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

-Roman I cited the etymology section. Did you get the email I sent to everyone? We should just look over the entire article and note/fix the overall tone. Helgacrane (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked out the article and I like how it flows. Specifically, I think our mini-intros to each section are solid. I know the article won't make GA status, too much debate on the content and we are a bit heavy on the historical side of things, but I think it's a very well developed case. Thanks guys. RomanHarlovic (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You did a good job. I hope you enjoyed the project, and I hope to see you around! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the subject: I cannot find references that prove that 1) Eric Jones coined the term European Miracle (I found a ref that he popularized it), nor that Kenneth Pomeranz popularized the term Great Divergence (that he published a book with such a title is proven, of course, but that doesn't translate into having popularized the term - just as we couldn't say that Marx popularized the term "capital", for example, without a ref stating that - just confirming he wrote Das Kapital is not enough). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that this article be merged with Western world, although some sections may have text that can go into other articles. This is a neologism of Samuel Huntington. I don't think it has caught on enough for it to have its own article. The article as it stands is an essay that goes over all of world history in recent centuries, and that is a story that belongs in other articles. I know that editors here have been working hard and have come up with some well written and sourced text, but that does not mean that we have a viable article. The work will not be lost if there is a merger or series of mergers. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Object, this is a notable concept distinct from Western world, per discussion here (and in few other places). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct topic here, which has been studied by several authors, even though "Great Divergence" may not be a broadly accepted term for it, and some of the present content of this article does stray into general European history. Kanguole 15:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this already on this talk page and there was agreement that there is a distinct topic that Huntington named, and Pomeranz popularized with his book of the name. It is now used often in discussions by people that get their kicks out of working on this area. This may be the fad name for now, but it the name being used and for that reason I think an article by this name can be support. I would like to see a firmer definition of the term, but that will come as an improvement instead of deletion. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is possible for reasons of WP:SS. But I appreciate Judith's sentiment. I just think it is a reason for moving, not merging. If we decide that "Great Divergence" is too idiosyncratic under WP:NAME, we can always move it to titles that make the WP:SS dependencies explicit, such as History of Western civilization (modern), Modern history (Western world), Rise of the western colonial empires, etc. We also need to make these WP:SS scope ovelaps explicit by means of {{main}} and {{summary in}} links, and see to it that the content of this article is duly summarized in the relevant WP:SS articles.

Further, this article has issues of {{tone}} and {{essay-entry}}, but they can be addressed once we sorted out the questions of scope and title. --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology, title

I have finally perused google books, and I find that the conventional term to refer to this idea since the 1980s has been "the European miracle". The term "Great Divergence" is both less common and more recent. read

R. Palan, 'The European Miracle of Capital Accumulation', in: Blaut (ed.) 1492: the debate on colonialism, Eurocentrism, and history (1992), ISBN 9780865433700.

I am citing this not for Palan's own opinions but for his summary of the definition and history of discussion on the topic. He points out that the concept had been under discussion since the 19th century (Marx, Capital I.31). He further summarizes a number of views, especially Braudel (1979), Guizot (1985), Hall (1986).

In the light of this, I propose a move to European miracle. Also, I would like to note that the current revision is nowhere even near a coherent overview of the topic of the quality of Palan's. There is next to no information of the history of the academic discourse of the 1970s to 1980s. Historical (pre-WWI, Marx) literature is completely absent. I think we need to sit down with a bunch of articles like Palan's and cover the topic systematically (as opposed to a random brainstorming on loosely related factors).

What should be noted under "terminology" is that one author (Blaut 1993 ) claims that "European miracle" is used for a claim of European exceptionalism before 1492. A claim which he immediately goes on to debunk vigorously. I know of no evidence that any defender of pre-modern European exceptionalism used the term "European miracle": but it is important to note that some of the google hits after 1993 will be contaminated by this problem.

As for the question, what was this called before 1981, I suggest "European hegemony", "European dominance" or "European exceptionalism" (the latter term often used pejoratively of alleged ideological positions on the question, stressing that "there was nothing exceptional about Europe before 1492, or indeed before 1700".) Here is an interesting book "Before European Hegemony", covering the period 1250-1350 (the beginning Late Middle Ages) when the "miracle" was not yet visible, but processes that would result in modernity began to accumulate. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I discussed Blaut's framing of the "European miracle" earlier on those pages. I do think it is probably the most widely used title, but if we were to move the article, we would need to add a section discussing Blaut's claims (as in: some thing that the very term is biased, others don't). It would also be helpful to cite some definitions (how various authors define EM and related concepts, such as GD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

right. I am still looking into earlier terminology. I think "European dominance" is the most neutral. ("European hegemony" is also used historically in other contexts, such as Europe vs. USA, Europe vs. Ottoman Turkey or Europe vs. Russia, or hegemony within Europe; this would need disambiguation -- I find it used in our sense in 1940). Here I find "the age of emergence of European dominance", which is pretty much exactly what this article is trying to describe. Here we have

"INTERPRETATIONS OF EUROPEAN DOMINANCE What factors account for the rather sudden rise of Europe to world dominance?"

also 100% on topic. It turns out that it is misleading to google for "European miracle" and/or "Great Divergence", as while these are useful shorthands, they are idiosyncratic, and there have been decades of academic debate on exactly this topic without using either term. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, all things considered, I would opt for a move to "European dominance". You simply get the best results when searching for this term. As Piotrus notes, googling "European miracle" etc. just turns up ideological corners like that of Blaut.

The term itself is of course ambiguous and may in principle also refer to association football or whatever. A "disambiguated" title would be something like "European dominance (modern history). --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and neutral. While at this point I am not ready to support renaming, I am also not objecting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: how about European exceptionalism from here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Effect of government policy

I feel that this is a concept which has not been addressed in the overall article. Government policy played a great role in the great divergence and should be mentioned here (how else do you think that China went from several times the west's per capita income to a fraction?). For example, the change in Chinese policy from Ming laissez faire to Qing interventionism(e.g. prohibtions of mining, etc) had greatly restricted industrial development and coincided with the great divergence. On the other hand, the great divergence coincided with the change from mercantilist interventionism/state monopolies to classical libearlism in the west. I don't have a source on hand for these changes now, but I think this should be a topic worthy of inclusion in the article (perhaps in the ideologies section? On a side note, I don't see how socialism played a role in the great divergence).

On another note, there is a lot of content in the article on the late 1800's. Isn't the great divergence the 18th and early 19th centuries? I'm sure that all historians would agree that by the mid 1800's per capita incomes in the west were several times higher than in China.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert to consensus version

I have reverted back to the version of 2 July 2010, arrived at through collaborative consensus-based processes between several editors; the only changes I have made to that version are formatting. Although the manual of styles asks editors not to change the format of references without conferring with the main editors of an article (so that toes are not unnecessarily trodden on) I’ve tweaked the formatting as there was not one consistent style. I think from now on it would be useful to stick with this style. The separation of bibliography and footnotes is less cluttered and the citations are fairly easy to format once you've done a couple.

Now I've explained the format changes, I should explain why I have reverted the additions by Teeninvestor (talk · contribs). Frankly I am concerned about a user coming here and making sweeping changes to an established article without consulting the authors; of course, no one "owns" an article, but it's polite to ask for their input before changing their work. It's also good practise as you won't be editing against established consensus. This isn't some neglected stub any more. Part of the problem is with the sourcing. For example this edit to another article, closely related to edits here about mining, has been questioned by another editor. In short, the source doesn't support what is being said. . The discussion with the IP shows quite clearly that the addition to the article is not accurately reflecting the source.

I know Teeninvestor will be unhappy about having work he's spent a great deal of time on reverted, but as this is a developed article changes should be discussed before being implemented. So far, the undiscussed edits have potentially introduced incorrect information and, as highlighted above, sourced information was carelessly and accidentally cut. There is also misrepresentation of sources going on here. In this edit here, we see Teeninvestor changing sourced information without adding his own source (therefore putting words into the mouth of Roberts), and again cutting sourced information without gaining consensus for his actions.

My point is that discussion is essential when dealing with a developed article, and that I am concerned about how sources are being represented. And I am not the only one with those concerns. I strongly suggest that Teeninvestor exercise more caution when editing, adhering to what the sources say, and that he reads the rest of this talk page to aid in his understanding of how the article has developed the way it has. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I find your conduct here impulsive, to say the least. In fact, the IP on the other article confirmed the source of info with the actual text, and I did discuss changes on the talk page previously (see above sections, for example). In addition, the changes were done with multiple sources, not just the cambridge source (as are all the info in the article). This reversion is completely unjustified, unless you can show that all of these edits and sources were malicious (when in fact none of them were). For all your talk of consensus, reverting two days of work by one editor is definitely not consensus. <bold>In fact, so far you have not shown any of my information to be incorrect or badly sourced.</bold> Any reversions should be of specific changes that you find objectionable, not mass reversions. In the edit in which you claimed that I changed sourced information, the only sentence I changed that was not sourced was the lead sentence, which was meant to summarize the paragraph; I doubt that was a sentence directly from the source! As to the Ip's claims, note how he has accepted the editing on mining prohibitions- something that is supported by multiple sources; I can procure nearly a dozen if you wish. In fact, I have contacted another editor who has expert knowledge in this area for his comment on this article- I hope this will help resolve this dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand consensus. The version I reverted to was worked on by several people, and that is what they agreed on. You came here, ignored previous posts on the talk page, and have the gall to call your edits consensus instead. I am not saying your edits were malicious; they don't need to be for me to have concerns about them. The IP doesn't have to be correct on every aspect, but he was right about you misrepresenting sources. Your edit said "Another key factor was the prohibition placed on mining by the Manchus of the Qing Dynasty". The source actually said "Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines", very different from prohibition. I'm sorry your work got reverted, but I have highlighted my concerns above and you have not bothered to address them. I'm afraid you do have form for malhandling sources. And there's the flip side: removing sourced information without gaining consensus to do so first. Also, your blind reversion has cocked up the formatting of the references so they're now all over the place again. Sort it out. I suggest you revert yourself. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I placed all the request in front. It's reasonable to infer that this information should be removed if no one objects. Also, as to the mine prohibition, it is supported by multiple sources, not just the Ch'ing source- the references to mines being prohibited appear more than once throughout the text. This is also supported by other sources. And plus, it's not a good idea to revert 80+ edits just to "revert" one edit.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't even wait a day for responses, so it doesn't seem like you're really interested in forming consensus or getting other people's opinions. If it's supported by other sources, then use them rather than the one which contradicts you. However, since you misrepresented that source, I wonder if the others would actually agree with you. Honestly Teeninvestor, my faith in your ability to accurately represent sources is waning somewhat. I'm sorry a lot of your time and energy was wasted, but that's life. And you've still not bothered to sort out the referencing. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Nev1, you're reverting my edits over two days over one minor edit which is largely supported by the source itself with the exception of one word (prohibition on new mines instead of prohibition on mines). That is a huge violation of consensus. You have the gall to say that the source "contradicted" me, when it states repeatedly and repeatedly that officials prohibited rich individuals from opening new mines. And that's not even counting the other sources and other edits, which you also reverted. I will quote one passage here:

洪雅瓦屋山一带有矿,明代商人曾予以开采,“矿甚盛,遂成巨富”。雍正初有人申请开采,县令卢雅雨不允,理由与皇帝一模一样:“查明季碑文内称地产铜铅, 奸民纠党开矿,扰害乡民,轻惹蛮患”;如今“大利所在,奸民尚趋之若鹜,况生蛮乎”〔8〕?可谓振振有辞。乾隆时期,出于对开矿的经济效益和四川人口已经饱和的考虑,曾经取消矿禁 Note the last two letters in chinese specifically refer to "mining prohibition". Teeninvestor (talk)

I'm afraid you're just not understanding. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I have listed multiple issues above. You continue to struggle representing sources. Again and again you seem to be careless to the point of pushing good faith, and that's not even the full extent of it. As I said, I'm sorry you took so long to make those edits, you clearly put a lot in, but now is the time to discuss them per WP:BRD. Your edits have not yet gained consensus, to claim otherwise is laughable. But to return to the issue of the mines, claiming the re was prohibition is nonsense. Do you understand what prohibition means? The source you initially used, The Cambridge History of China, made no such claim and in fact juxtaposes your claim. You have now provided another source, but I wonder why you didn't use it in the first place? And you have yet to fix the formatting errors you have reintroduced into the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, the only issue you have listed is the mines and formatting, which was your own edit. In addition, I will state the text here:"Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines". The text that it supported was: prohibiting new mines except in exceptional cases. I fail to see how this does not work. Even if there was a minor wording error, it shouldn't take a reversion of 80+ edits to fix it. You need to support yourself if you think the above two texts don't match. You claim to support consensus, but none of the editors who were working on this article have objected, and you yourself have admitted you have no expertise on this matter. I admitted my initial edit may have not included enough details, but the correct course of action was to fix it, not revert it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it then that you, Teeninvestor, are an expert? Excellent. But, since you seem happy to ignore my previous posts, the issues are:

• Misrepresentation of sources. Manifest in the mining issue, but also only including one side of the Qing policies. This problem is reminiscent of Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires so is a recurring problem and probably not limited to examples given.
• Removing sourced material without first gaining consensus. It's been barely 24 hours since you asked your question, and you only asked it because I noticed you'd slyly removed it under pretence of adding new information.
• Editing a well-developed article without consulting either the editors who wrote it or bothering to read the talk page to understand it. Leading to some rather skewed edits.
• Formatting. The least important of these issues, but is it really that hard to remember that references go after punctuation? You have over 6,000 edits, something as basic as that and remembering to include full bibliographic information should not be beyond your competence. And if you actually look at my edit (I can only assume you blind reverted) that sources etc are properly formatted. Trying to shift the blame onto me for that is utter rubbish. The correct course of action was revert per WP:BRD. I suggest you familiarise with it as it describes how much of Misplaced Pages works. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a broader problem of interpretation of evidence. Where do Myers and Wang say that assorted Qing attempts to restrict private mining "crippled Chinese industrial development"? This is a return of the thesis that early C17 China was heading towards industrialization but this was derailed by the Qing. Teeninvestor has not produced any historians who argue that case (despite repeated requests above), but rather cites various items of evidence (e.g. mining) that he/she believes prove the thesis. Such synthesis does not belong here. Kanguole 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, nowhere does it say on wikipedia that you have to wait 3-4 days in order to make new edits. In fact, you did not follow your own rule in terms of "waiting" multiple days and discussion on the talk page first. Editors are encouraged to make changes and then discuss them. I never said that I am an expert but I happen to poessess several sources on the Qing dynasty and other areas related to this article (mercantilism, classical liberalism, etc). And as to the formatting, I have included a full bibliography with all my articles- but I decided to follow the exisiting formatting on this article; you can hardly blame me for its format. Re:Kanguole, the assertion that Qing policies prohibited industrial development is backed by several sources (see back of paragraph), though the Myers and Wang source dealt with mining only (but was placed at the end of the paragraph along with the sources describing agriculture etc). I have moved it to avoid confusion.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the edits dealing with mines and other parts is a very small portion of the edits; other edits included adding new ideologies that were prevalent around the time of the Great Divergence, European state policies, etc. These edits should not be blindly reverted just because there was an objection to the wording of one edit.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you even been listening to anything I've said? Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing about you. So far, you have not revealed a single instance of where the edits were "skewed" except for the mining instance, and that was a minor wording error. For this you have doubled the size of the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to the version arrived at through consensus did not require days as consensus was implicit. That should be easy to see. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still expected to discuss your edits before the reversion. I for one have left notes before I started editing this article, while you reverted dozens of edits for the wording of one edit without giving as much as a word of discussion beforehand. I gave at least a day's notice, and it is reasonable to infer that my edits would be approved. You have told me to discuss my edits, but did you give me as much as a minute of discussion before your mass reversion (which reverted not only edits about the Qing but also dozens of other unrelated edits)?. To show my good will, I have fixed the formatting. I have a suggestion: I have contacted several other editors about this matter, including one who is an expert in East Asian history. I hope they can resolve the matter.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There were two places where that assertion was seemingly attributed to Myers and Wang – you've changed one of them. Regarding the new references you've added, I have old questions, still unanswered: What is this Li and Zheng (2001) reference you've added, and what does it claim? (According to this analysis, that book is deeply flawed and unreliable as a source.) Does the Peterson reference refer to Peterson's introduction (from p1) or Spence's chapter on Kangxi (pp120–183)? Precisely where does it say that Qing policies "crippled China's industrial development"? Kanguole 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I will quote from Cambridge history of China (many other sources are available):

the period has been disparaged as a time when China’s people were held down and held back by autocratic foreign rulers.

. I believe this is a phrase that clearly supports the text that Qing policies did hamper Chinese development. Whether this development, if not hampered, would havve led to a European-style industrial revolution is unknown, but we must acknowledge that this possibility exists. You will notice that in this article, the only thing that is stated is that Chinese policy shifted from laissez faire during Ming to Qing's interventionism; this is no more controversial than stating US government policy shifted from laissez faire pre-1929 to Hoover/Roosevelt-style new deal interventionism. Li and Zheng's source was criticized for being available only in China, however it is quite clear that the same problem would apply to say, a book only available in England.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your quote comes from the first paragraph of Peterson's introduction to volume 9:

"In the grand sweep of more than three thousand years of Chinese history, the period from roughly 1680 to 1780 has been celebrated as a prosperous age. From other perspectives, the period has been disparaged as a time when China's people were held down and held back by autocratic foreign rulers. Such dichotomies reveal that the possibilities remain open for both positive and negative assessments of the period of Chinese history from the founding of the Ch'ing dynasty to the end of the Ch'ien-lung emperor's life in 1799." (ISBN 9780521243346, p1)

The author is setting the scene with a range of statements of unknown provenance. He is not himself arguing the case in whose support you have enlisted him. Nor is evidence of Qing maladministration the same as saying that Qing policies contributed to the Great Divergence by preventing a hypothetical Chinese industrial revolution. You acknowledge that the latter is speculative – in fact it seems devoid of scholarly support. You have produced no historians saying that early C17 China was on track for industrialization but was derailed by the Qing. Without that, Qing policies are no more relevant to an article on the Great Divergence than Roosevelt's.

The Li/Zheng book has been criticized for basic errors (more examples: ). The limited availability of the book does also present a verification issue, as it would for a book available only in England, especially when there is a huge global literature on Chinese history. Kanguole 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that I am tryintg to prove that early C17 China was on track for industrialization but was derailed by the Qing. This I have not done in the article. What I have done is given an overview of Qing China's policies, just like there are overviews of government policies of Britain, France, and Spain. You're arguing against a strawman here. You will notice that nowhere in the article does it say "Qing China was prevented from having an industrial revolution by so and so policies, etc". Government policies are a very important factor in the Great Divergence (What would have happened had England had a ban on coal mining, just like the Qing?), as it is in all economic events, and deserves to be covered (would you leave out the New Deal in the Great Depression article?). The only thing stated in the article is that Qing policies hampered industrial development, which is backed up by several sources (and should be easy to see; if you ban mining, there isn't going to be much industry). As for the Li and Zheng source, I can assure you that plenty of sources available only in certain countries are used in Chinese history articles; to get rid of all sources because they are available only in Chinese would likely cripple efforts to cover articles in this area.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're not arguing that Qing policies (which started from C17) prevented China from achieving industrialization, then those polices have no relevance to an article on the Great Divergence. You do however say that these policies "crippled China's industrial development", which, in the context of a discussion of the Great Divergence, certainly suggests the same thing. Please supply some of these sources that support your wording and implicit assertion that this relates to the Great Divergence. Whatever inferences you or I might make about mining have no place here.

And there should be no need to rely on Li and Zheng, which has been shown to be deeply flawed, when so much literature on the subject is available. Kanguole 13:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? You do realize there is a whole section on national policies in this article (of which I was not the progenitor), covering the policies of all the nations (as they were a factor during the Great Divergence)? This article covers all the aspects of the great divergence, including the changes, policies instituted, etc). Is the policies of Qing China less relevant to the Great Divergence than the policies, of say, Habsburg Spain or Post-1688 England? Certainly government policies played a great role in the Great Divergence, and should be covered in the article. I admit that Qing policies preventing China from achieving industrialization is my personal view, but this is not the view I am trying to impose in the article; my main goal is give an overview of Qing policies, along with the policies of other European nations (which I have also worked on). If you want to remove all mention of all government policies during the Great Divergence, that is a view I suspect will have little support. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Kanguole provided the whole quote from the Cambridge History of China and it demonstrates a more balanced view of Qing policies, you seem to be cherry picking bits of sources to back up your point of view. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There were quite a few governments at the time, and they presumably all had policies, but not all of them were factors in the Great Divergence. Spain I won't defend, but of course post-1688 England is highly relevant. You have yet to supply sources describing Qing policies as a factor in the Great Divergence. Kanguole 14:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The policies of the major countries involved are relevant. Almost all comparisons done during the Great Divergence are between China and England, so Chinese policies during this period would be at least as relevant as the former, unless you are prepared to admit that English policies are not relevant to the debate. Also, rememeber that this article is titled Great Divergence, not Causes of the Great Divergence, and gives an overview of what was happening at the time and the factors involved. Response to Nev1 above, no one doubts that there was economic growth between 1680 and 1780, but most would agree this was not the result of Qing policies, but rather recovery from war. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The policies of a country are relevant to an article on the Great Divergence if those policies were a factor in the Great Divergence. In fact to discuss a nation's policies in this article is to make an implicit claim that they were such a factor, and saying things like "crippled China's industrial development" goes considerably further. You have yet to provide sources to that effect in relation to Qing policies. Kanguole 14:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the policies of all countries affected their economies in the Great Divergence. For example, France's ban on Calicoes certainly affected the textile industry, a key participant in the industrial revolution. However, claiming a country's policies was a factor in the great divergence is different from claiming a country's policy caused the Great Divergence, which is what you were accusing me of. (Different people may interpet data differently; for example, some keynesians might think that Qing's interventionism actually helped it). In order to cover the topic, it is necessary to outline the policies of the major countries involved, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? As to the "crippled industrial development" assertion, I have already provided Li and Zheng's source, as well as the cambridge source mentioning that views of Qing policies "holding back" china exist. More sources certainly exist, and I will add them to this article (One source, citation 18, already support this assertion by noting that if Qing had allowed commercial development of mines, the "commercial economy" would have been more developed).Teeninvestor (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitary break

OK, it seems we're not going to get sources establishing that Qing policies were a factor in the Great Divergence, and therefore relevant to this article (Li/Zheng is unreliable and unavailable, and the other sources given don't say this). The Qing policy sections are just Manchu-bashing and insinuation. I am against the addition of this material. Kanguole 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Kanguole, you asked for info about whether Qing's policies crippled industrial development. I have responded with several sources confirming this citation, and you end up changing the topic. Can you show me a source that English policies were a factor in the Great Divergence? Of course they were (If English kings had say instituted a planned economy, things might have been a little different?). The same goes for Chinese policies as well. Unless you want to remove all mention and governments and their policies from this article, you are not being logical. Li and Zheng is still a reliable source, as the "errors" pointed out during the FA process were minor errors relating to dynasties 4000 years ago, which hardly any textbook can be accurate about.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did ask you to justify that statement, and you haven't done that either. Kanguole 15:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanguole, see citation 18, Li and zheng, 2 more I have recently added to that effect (and the bolded statement at the end of my last comment!)! There are four sources stating emphatically that Qing policies crippled industrial development and hampered capitalism (do you really need a source to see how banning mines can hamper industry? WP:COMMON). I'm beginning to wonder if you read anything I have said. Kanguole, do you really think I can't get sources showing that Qing policies were a major factor in the Great Divergence? This is a view held by many Chinese language sources. I just didn't think it was relevant, as the article's circumstances would have warranted the inclusion of Chinese policies in any case. If you push me into doing so, I can add multiple citations to that effect. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

More Chinese text from a source supporting the position that Ch'ing policies hampered development: 清政府试图通过“闭关政策”，对内加固自身的统治，对外进行民族“自卫”。这种政策作为一种消极防御的手段，随着西方资本主义对外侵略的日益迫近和愈加狂暴，曾起到过一定的民族自卫作用。但它更大的影响是对近代中国社会的前进和发展起到了严重的阻碍作用，它使中国长期处于与世隔绝的状态，严重阻碍国内商品经济和资本主义萌芽的发展，使经济、文化、科技等方面日益落后于西方； Teeninvestor (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you translate the quote please? Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My translation:

"The Qing government, through its "closed door policy", tried to secure its internal rule and defend its interests aboard. As a passive policy, this was temporarily successful as a means of national self defense in resisting the encroachments of western capitalism. However, it's greater effect was to act as a great obstacle to the development of Chinese society; it caused China to be isolated from the world for long periods, and seriously hampered the development of an internal commercial economy and capitalism, causing China to fall behind the west all areas, economic, cultural and scientific."

And in case you think im lying, heres the google translation (not very good):

Qing government tried to "closed door" policy, strengthening its own internal rule in foreign national "self-defense." Such a policy as a means of passive defense, with the Western capitalist aggression and the impending and increasingly violent, have played a certain role in national defense. But a greater impact on modern Chinese society forward and played a serious impediment to its long period of isolation of the Chinese state, a serious impediment to economic and domestic goods Emergence of Capitalism in the development of the economy, culture, and science and technology increasingly behind the West

Closed door policy refers to Qing restrictions on foreign trade.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That school textbook is a very poor source, but even there you are being selective. The section before your quote blames restrictive policies of the Ming for retarding Chinese economic development. (Indeed it seems to regard the Ming and Qing as of a piece with all the "feudal" dynasties.) But that wouldn't fit your narrative that everything went sour when the foreign Manchus took over. Kanguole 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This source states earlier unequivocably that the Ming deregulated its foreign trade, particularly in the sixteenth century. And this is also confirmed by all other sources which I have used (see for example Cambridge history of China). Indeed cambridge history of China (and other sources) laud Ming for its laissez faire policies. Qing's restrictive role, on the other hand, is confirmed by multiple other sources. I have replaced this source with another more credible source. The consensus (at least from Chinese-language sources) is overwhelming that Qing policies heavily restricted commercial development, to which Ming's policies were far more receptive. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"...this is also confirmed by all other sources which I have used". So why use a school text book at all? It should be pretty obvious that a school textbook is an inadequate source for an encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have been a little quick in adding sources. I have replaced it with another more credible source. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Water transport as a proposed reason

Article proposes that the number of good seaports and inland ports was a factor, but then it says immediately "but this is a difficult argument to make". Not good style. Either we leave out or we balance one view with another. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mining

The mentions of mining in China are confusing. The comparison of "wet" and "arid" mines is unconvincing. Are we comparing like with like? Salt mines with salt mines, lead mines with lead mines etc? And if we are, isn't the geology of North America, UK and China varied enough to mean that the water table is an problem in some areas, not in others? But then comes the big statement: that mining was banned in China anyway. If this is true, then it should be discussed in more detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you are over generalizing, but what you said is basically true. Mining was permitted under earlier dynasties, but the Qing dynasty, which ruled over China during this period, placed a prohibition on new mines except in exceptional circumstances. This greatly hampered the development of new mines.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the relevant passage and have summarised it in the article, fairly I hope. I'm now looking at Pomeranz, who discusses the relationship between the iron and coal industries in some detail. He doesn't seem to be properly represented either. I can now make sense of the point about wet and dry conditions though: it is just about coal mines and the argument is that the British had to develop steam engines to pump water out of mines while in China ventilation systems were more important, but even if the ventilation technology had advanced further it would not have given the across-the-board advantages that steam engines did. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just seen your amendments to my summary. You seem to be adding a POV-slant by using "Manchu" rather than the "Qing dynasty" of the original, and the "exceptional circumstances" isn't in the original either. It would be good if some more people could look at the text, easily findable in Google Books, and help us to reflect it correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Common usage in China is "Manchu Dynasty" (see 1st paragraph of Qing dynasty article) which signifies the dynasty's external origin. The invasion is usually referred to as the "Manchu invasion" as the Qing Dynasty was not proclaimed until 1644 and some histories don't date it as the "legitimate dynasty" until 1662. I wasn't aware that there was any POV to that. I added rare cases because other sources states unequivocably that mining was banned except in very rare cases (of course "usually" banning opening new mines is also equivalent to it), and because this way the text is consistent in referring ot the prohibition.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Common usage in China is in Chinese. Here we have to follow English usage, and the source says Qing dynasty, which is perfectly encyclopedic. Restricting the opening of new mines isn't the same as banning mining. If you have other sources that make stronger statements then could you present them here or add them to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I already have. See the Chinese source I have added next to the Cambridge source, which specifically uses 矿禁 which means "mine prohibition" exactly. In addition, the text states that new mines were banned except in rare cases, not all mines (some old Ming mines were allowed to operate).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I made my edits on the basis of my reading of the article, not the discussion on this talk page. Now having read the threads above, I am sure that you are deliberately trying to push a particular line and are prepared to misrepresent sources to do so. That isn't acceptable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You can say what you want, but the fact is no one has yet been able to spot errors (other than wording) in my edits, unless you are prepared to argue that 矿禁 does not mean mining prohibition.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that Li and Zheng say that mining was prohibited. From the English translation of the title of their book it is an overview of all of Chinese history, not an economic history of the 18th century. I shall try to find out if it is a standard history of China, but even if it is, works on Chinese economic history must take precedence. If there turns out to be a real divergence of scholarly views then both sides must be presented. I doubt it though. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Li and Zheng, but several other papers as well See for example citation 18. There are multiple sources avilable in Chinese that say this; it is an indisputable fact.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an indisputable fact if the Cambridge history says something different. And what the Cambridge history says makes sense. Completely banning mining is a very different thing from making it difficult to open new mines. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the prohibition on new mines except in rare cases. I have never held the view that mining itself was prohibited, and you will notice that it is not reflected in the article as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That source is referring to a ban on mining in frontier areas of Sichuan province, to avoid friction with non-Han peoples in the area, is it not? Kanguole 07:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it also refers to an overall mining ban, not just in Sichuan province (the overall policy of 矿禁 or mining ban). And this is confirmed by other sources (I have recently added 2 sources that I thought were added but evidently forgot). Overall two facts are confirmed- that Qing did prohibit new mines except in rare cases, and these prohibitions were not in place in earlier dynasties.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That this was an empire-wide policy comes from your other sources, rather than this one, right? Kanguole 12:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This one refers to an empire-wide prohibition as well. For example, the source refers to this: 。雍正初有人申请开采,县令卢雅雨不允,理由与皇帝一模一样:“查明季碑文内称地产铜铅,奸民纠党开矿,扰害乡民,轻惹蛮患”;如今“大利所在,奸民尚趋之若鹜,况生蛮乎”〔8〕

Which shows that the officials were not allowing mines to open, whether in areas of "barbarian living" or not. In addition, the paper refers to an overall mining ban (矿禁) not specific to Sichuan (which is also shown in the other sources, including cambridge). Other sources show this even more clearly: For example: 基于对“矿害”的深刻认识，清代政府和民间均采用了“矿禁”的举措，以期消“矿害”、兴“矿利”。 Another example: “清初鉴于明代竟言矿利，中使四出，暴敛病民。”并且“若有碍禁山封水，民田庐墓及聚众扰民，或岁歉各踊，辄用封禁。”iS)于是在清朝统治集团内部围绕着继续禁矿或允准并鼓励开矿为中心，曾进行历时半个多世纪的政策论战，终于在乾隆以后采纳了开放矿禁的做法，“天地间自然之利，但与民共之，不当以无用弃之。要在地方官处置得宜，不致生事而。 This shows that there was a strict prohibition on new mines/ mining in general before Qianlong, while afterwards it was relaxed somewhat (but later reinstatd by Jiaqing, as other sources show). Teeninvestor (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So your interpretation of the phrase 矿禁 in this source as referring to an overall mining ban is based on your other sources. Kanguole 12:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Kanguole, 矿禁 translated into Chinese (a language I'm sure you're familiar) IS an overall mining ban. This is confirmed by all other sources, as well as WP:COMMON.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a mining ban, but the term doesn't specify its geographical extent. Kanguole 12:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Chinese language, 矿禁 refers to an overall mining ban when it comes to history, just like Hai Jin, refers to an overall maritime ban, such as one that was imposed under the early Ming and most of Qing. In common usage, this term is used to refer to an overall ban.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

European policies

I feel that too much time and citations have been spent on Qing's policies(which are admittedly only a small part of the article). Has anyone any info to add on the policies of individual European countries? (on a side note, can anyone quote from the source that shows that wages in China was much lower than the west? I remember mutliple sources that contradict that data. Apparently silver wages was used, but this did not take into account the higher purchasing power of silver in the east).Teeninvestor (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith wrote at length about the restrictive effects of the Poor Law in England. Primary source, though. European political economists assumed that wages of "common labour" in the 18th century and much of the 19th would not be much above subsistence level. Where do you want to go from there? The literature is extensive. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to see the data in the citations supporting the assertion that wages were much higher in Europe than in China. This seems counterintuitive to me, considering that agricultural and industrial productivity in Europe did not exceed that of China in some cases until the 18th century (per Needham, but other sources also support this). The "vast difference" stated by authors probably reflect a differnce in the purchasing power of silver (Ming's silver stock was estimated to have doubled from its foreign trade); however this is my personal opinion and I would like to see the relevant data.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This idea has been cited to Pomeranz, without page numbers, but appears to be a misrepresentation of his case. Google Books doesn't allow me access to a number of the pages in in Pomeranz where "wage" appears, but on page 51 I find the following:

But even if we grant provisionally the argument that western European wages were higher than any Asian ones, there are problems with inferring that this stimulated the technological changes of the Industrial Revolution.

On page 54 he says "So even here the 'high wage/necessity argument faces problems'. So I agree with you: we need to source this idea properly or take it out. Clearly, from Pomeranz, some scholars have argued it. His reasoned dismissal should be given for balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I shall add that to the article. I was always a bit suspicious of the high wage thesis, considering the work of needham on relative agricultural productivities.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham's work on this may not be relevant to the debate. Agricultural productivity does not have to be reflected in wage levels. Pomeranz is saying that those who want to use wages as an argument distinguish agricultural and industrial wage levels in Europe, i.e. an industrial labour force could be attracted by offering wages higher than those in agriculture. Arguments in English classical political economy, Malthus and Ricardo in particular, Smith to a lesser extent, depend on an assumption that wages will tend to fall to mere subsistence level. (See Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers for a good summary.) This was after the "agricultural revolution" in England (which increased agricultural productivity). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Classical economics (the economics of smith and others), although it advocated a sound laissez faire policy, had many errors (such as the labor theory of value), and it is not unreasonable to think that the "subsistence wages" thesis was also false. However, one thing we can agree on is that Pomeranz' novel does not support the "high wages" thesis, regardless of whether there were actually higher wages or not (and whether or not Needham's work is irrelevant; you will notice I have not added them to the article). I personally believe in the productivity theory of wages, but I don't see wages in any way are relevant to the article, as no reliable source exists on wages for the various nations.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So we're agreed that Pomeranz needs to be reflected properly. The wage argument clearly is important because Pomeranz bothers to argue against it. Here is a more recent book that, from its description on Amazon, is wedded to the high wage thesis: Allen, The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective.

Why did the industrial revolution take place in eighteenth-century Britain and not elsewhere in Europe or Asia? In this convincing new account Robert Allen argues that the British industrial revolution was a successful response to the global economy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He shows that in Britain wages were high and capital and energy cheap in comparison to other countries in Europe and Asia. As a result, the breakthrough technologies of the industrial revolution - the steam engine, the cotton mill, and the substitution of coal for wood in metal production - were uniquely profitable to invent and use in Britain. The high wage economy of pre-industrial Britain also fostered industrial development since more people could afford schooling and apprenticeships. It was only when British engineers made these new technologies more cost-effective during the nineteenth century that the industrial revolution would spread around the world.

A reliable source, whether we agree with its argument or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I have added the source. However, do you have the page number? I don't have it right now and cant find the page number for that quote.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that was from the publishers' description of the book on Amazon and shouldn't be added. The book isn't searchable in Google Books. I have ordered it and when it arrives can look at it properly and add info with page numbers. Unless someone else has it to hand, then it can't go in yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. When it arrives, can you also look at the effects section, and cite some concrete data on the effects of the Great Divergence (curiously not covered very well in the article?)? for example, industrial growth, GDP per capita data, etc. This is very important, and not covered at all well currently.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Qing policies

The section on Qing policies (and similar references elsewhere in the article), insinuate by their presence that these policies were somehow a contributing factor to the Great Divergence. That is not the scholarly consensus. These sections are then used to present a wholly negative view of the Qing contrasted with a rosy view of their predecessors (the Ming), and to claim effects on the economic trajectory of China. The actual history is a great deal more complicated than that, and often points in a different direction, as User:Madalibi patiently tried to explain to Teeninvestor last year. We can argue the detail of mining restrictions and follow Teeninvestor from source to increasingly inaccessible source, but the underlying problem is the lack of relevance of these sections, and the agenda they promote, to this article. Kanguole 08:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources that state unequivocably that certain policies crippled the industrial development of a nation that is universally acknowledged to be a standard comparison point in the Great Divergence (see Pomeranz, and other sources) definitely have as much relevance in the article, as say, a section on English policies (unless you believe government policies did not affect great divergence one iota). Just because the info is not to a certain user's liking, does not mean that their importance should be undermined. The consensus (at least from Chinese-language sources) is overwhelming that Qing policies heavily restricted commercial development, to which Ming's policies were far more receptive, and it should be obvious that this is as relevant to the Great Divergence, as say, Spain's inflow of bullion and Louis XIV's mercantilist policies. Kanguole accuses me of "promoting an agenda", when I have only given an overview of Qing (and other nations)' policies; it seems to me that it is him who is trying to remove all references to China in this article, through his own agenda.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been demonstrated that on more than one occasion you have cherry picked bits of sources to support your point of view. Casting aspersions on Kanguole won't distract from that fact. Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the Chinese economy is often used as a point of comparison, and this article would benefit from a comparison of European and Chinese economies, provided it was based on reliable secondary sources that did that comparison, rather than assembled from pieces of evidence on both sides. Fortunately, some such sources are available.

It is the focus on Qing polices that is not relevant. I do indeed maintain that there is no scholarly consensus that Qing policies affected the Great Divergence. No prominent historians arguing that position have been produced. There should be no need to resort to sources of limited availability, which other editors cannot check, when there are so many high quality sources available.

Your account of Qing policies is simplistic and skewed by your argument. It does not accurately summarize the available high quality sources. If it were balanced, its irrelevance to this article would be clear. Kanguole 23:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Government policies did influence the Great Divergence; this is a position that many (if not most) scholars hold. Since China and England are the two most often compared economies, the governmental policies of these two countries must also be considered and presented in this article. Spain, say, is much less used as a comparison point in the Great Divergence, yet there is a section on its policies; why not China?

This is even more important when we consider that Chinese-language sources widely assert Qing policies did affect the Great Divergence through crippling Chinese development, as I have shown with multiple sources above (Kanguole is completely wrong when he states there is no scholarly view that Qing policies affected the Great Divergence. as shown by multiple sources). Kanguole is being illogical when he claims "if it was balanced, the irrelevance would be clear"; he is in effect saying, "if Qing policies were somehow different and irrelevant to the article, they would be irrelevant" (a claim that is irrelevant in itself). Kanguole claims that I am using sources that are highly limited; a highly fallacious position, since most of my sources are available on the web. He also claims my account of Qing policies is "skewed"' a claim that is also wrong, it has been proven conclusively that all policies attributed to the Qing in this article are in fact Qing's policies, a position again supported by multiple sources. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it is that there seem to be no English-language sources saying that Qing policies affected the Great Divergence through crippling Chinese development? Kanguole 21:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? Scholarship in this area has developed only recently, and many scholars are not aware of specific Qing policies taken. There probably are English sources that assert this, however, they are much more limited and hard to find than Chinese-language sources. It is reasonable for a wider variety of views to be had when the subject is one's own culture, rather than judging another culture. For example, there is a great amount of American literature that talks about the differences between classical liberal democrats and protectionist republicans in the 19th century, yet virtually no Chinese (or zulu or Russian or Urdu or Bulgarian) sources on this subject.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the most reliable secondary sources in Chinese dealing with the Great Divergence? Kanguole 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're a scholar, I doubt you would know that (what is the most reliable secondary source dealing with the American war between the states?). All I can say is that there is a great deal of literature in China on why China failed to develop capitalism (e.g. Great Divergence), and a great deal of argument on that too. The view that Qing's policies caused it is a major one, though other views too exist.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, what are some of the reliable secondary sources in Chinese dealing with the Great Divergence? Kanguole 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be looking them up. There are quite a few works dealing with the Great Divergence or "roots of capitalism" problem as it is known in China. If you look at the textbook site, there are up to ten scholars mentioned who are dealing with this (with very varied theories).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that this material (which for some reason you've put in twice) should be omitted until the sources are available to base it on. Kanguole 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already included several sources which support the Qing policies and their effect on the Great Divergence explicitly, and they are reliable sources. Why should this valuable information be omitted?Teeninvestor (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We have seen several examples of your misuse of sources above. This material is not information; it is a POV that you have inserted into this article (in two places). Kanguole 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• B-Class history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Misplaced Pages articles as assignments
• Former good article nominees