| Revision as of 19:31, 20 July 2010 editTeeninvestor (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,552 edits →FeydHuxtable's endorsement of the Response← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:15, 21 July 2010 edit undoGun Powder Ma (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,796 edits exceptional claim or notNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :::::I had to . Yes, I fully agree that the whole part on the historic GDP per capita is too long, but that is only an inevitable result of your edit pattern of making aggrandized claims of Chinese excellence in key parts of articles. In this example, you chose to push the minority view of Pomeranz to prominence in the lead. But instead of recognizing this, and modifying - or removing altogether - the part accordingly, you choose to play the transparent little game of trimming the whole part for 'reason of brevity', deliberately deluting Maddison's et al. majority view along the line "some say these, others say that". Who do you actually believe to fool with such kindergarden moves? As long as you continue to play the cheapest tricks out of Sun Tzu's book, you will sail against adverse winds, that's for sure. ] (]) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | :::::I had to . Yes, I fully agree that the whole part on the historic GDP per capita is too long, but that is only an inevitable result of your edit pattern of making aggrandized claims of Chinese excellence in key parts of articles. In this example, you chose to push the minority view of Pomeranz to prominence in the lead. But instead of recognizing this, and modifying - or removing altogether - the part accordingly, you choose to play the transparent little game of trimming the whole part for 'reason of brevity', deliberately deluting Maddison's et al. majority view along the line "some say these, others say that". Who do you actually believe to fool with such kindergarden moves? As long as you continue to play the cheapest tricks out of Sun Tzu's book, you will sail against adverse winds, that's for sure. ] (]) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::That's not the point. The article is titled ], not ]. And as I said, Pomeranz is not a minority view; I have just found 2 more sources supporting him (not to mention Needham). We can both find all the sources we want, and write a 150kb article on it, but trimming it to a sentence is best. <b> Maddison is not the only, or even mainstream view on this</b>. For example, according to John M. Hobson, another Cambridge scholar, Chinese manufacturing output was 16 times that of Britain in 1750 (and China was ahead even more in agriculture). There are scholars on all sides; some scholars even think that the Ottoman Empire was ahead of the west (a view that I would agree is absurd) in 1800. The majority clearly believe the divergence happened around 1800. If you have so much energy, add the GDP per capita argument to ], where it belongs, and don't edit war over every speck, for gods sake. Also, there's major problems with the silver wages paper, as I have raised on the talk page.] (]) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | ::::::That's not the point. The article is titled ], not ]. And as I said, Pomeranz is not a minority view; I have just found 2 more sources supporting him (not to mention Needham). We can both find all the sources we want, and write a 150kb article on it, but trimming it to a sentence is best. <b> Maddison is not the only, or even mainstream view on this</b>. For example, according to John M. Hobson, another Cambridge scholar, Chinese manufacturing output was 16 times that of Britain in 1750 (and China was ahead even more in agriculture). There are scholars on all sides; some scholars even think that the Ottoman Empire was ahead of the west (a view that I would agree is absurd) in 1800. The majority clearly believe the divergence happened around 1800. If you have so much energy, add the GDP per capita argument to ], where it belongs, and don't edit war over every speck, for gods sake. Also, there's major problems with the silver wages paper, as I have raised on the talk page.] (]) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == "Unmatched for two millennia" == | |||
| Exceptional, unprovable claim or not? Keep or remove? Please see ]. ] (]) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:15, 21 July 2010
FeydHuxtable's endorsement of the Response
Some of the criticism against Teeninvestor seems valid, he's acknowledged hes made a few minor wording errors, and yes he seems to have a POV on some issues. But he's not unresponsive to collegiate feedback. Teen seems to do a substantial amount of quality editing, and brings multiple quality sources to the table to support his position. While opposition editors seem to be often attacking with hostile rhetoric. Instead of empty criticism, it would be much more constructive if those holding opposing views do their own share of the research, and show a good example by backing up their positions with quality sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Veto, I am afraid. There is a continuing problem with Teeinvestor's fixation on Europe and the West, and his eagerness to subsume the economic development or military prowess of these world regions in – totally unrelated – articles on China: Just a few hours after your endorsement, Teeinvestor has added the following claim at Chinese economic reform:
For centuries, China had been one of the world's largest and most advanced economies, and its per capita incomes probably equalled and exceeded that of Western Europe as recent as the 18th century.
- It is notable that Teeinvestor does not cite a source for this far-reaching claim. In fact, and this is crucial, he introduced the claim into the article, even though he is perfectly aware that recent scholarship has come to the opposite conclusion: cf. this table, where Western European GDP per capita exceeds China's in all benchmark times save 1000 AD. And you know what? Teeinvestor introduced the claim against his better knowledge, because his query on talk page and another one here just 48 h ago shows that he was absolutely aware of Maddison's estimate at the time of his edit! Still, he chose to went along with his preconceived view and willfully ignored Maddison's estimate in his expansion of the article on Chinese economic reform.
- And that's the gross problem with his editorial behavior: He is cherry-picking sources according to his China-POV, and in case of disagreement with other editors, instead of providing balanced views, he embarks on a policy of systematically removing POV tags. It is clear to me that many editors have become frustrated with such an uncooperative, biased edit pattern, and unfortunately, the latest example shows that there is no sign that Teeinvestor is willing to change his ways here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Regards, GPM, this source is cited from Pomeranz's source. See Great Divergence. I forgot to put the citation in, but this is sourced directly from Pomeranz's work. Yes, I am aware of Maddison's work, but there is a lot of controversy; if you look at Pomeranz's work, he cites estimates that are exactly the opposite, that Per capita income in China was higher than that of Western Europe. I think I made that clear on the talk page, When I referred to Bairoch's alternative estimates. Attacking me after seeing my comments about possible alternative estimates I have access to is a poor attempt to deceive other readers.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added the part as my "view". As I said there, I could add further examples from your articles on Chinese economy, military and the now deleted Rome and Han 'article', but I didn't want to rehash old topics. However, since I've noted your attitude that you only concede points when the proof is presented right under your nose, I may reconsider to bring a few more blatant examples of your attempts at aggrandizing Chinese economic and military history. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- PS: Teeinvestor, being Teeinvestor, restored the claim without adding the very opposite view of Angus Maddison, although he is totally aware of the latter. I feel thus vindicated in my criticism of a systematic lack of balance in his edit pattern and added Maddison's view, which reflects the standard view on the matter, to the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I stated specifically on the article that there were alternative estimates to Maddison and then I added them. How can I add Maddison if I don't have the source? If I did, knowing your behaviour, you would probably then accuse me of WP:SYNT.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I had to revert you. Yes, I fully agree that the whole part on the historic GDP per capita is too long, but that is only an inevitable result of your edit pattern of making aggrandized claims of Chinese excellence in key parts of articles. In this example, you chose to push the minority view of Pomeranz to prominence in the lead. But instead of recognizing this, and modifying - or removing altogether - the part accordingly, you choose to play the transparent little game of trimming the whole part for 'reason of brevity', deliberately deluting Maddison's et al. majority view along the line "some say these, others say that". Who do you actually believe to fool with such kindergarden moves? As long as you continue to play the cheapest tricks out of Sun Tzu's book, you will sail against adverse winds, that's for sure. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's not the point. The article is titled Chinese economic reform, not Historical GDP per capita of China. And as I said, Pomeranz is not a minority view; I have just found 2 more sources supporting him (not to mention Needham). We can both find all the sources we want, and write a 150kb article on it, but trimming it to a sentence is best. Maddison is not the only, or even mainstream view on this. For example, according to John M. Hobson, another Cambridge scholar, Chinese manufacturing output was 16 times that of Britain in 1750 (and China was ahead even more in agriculture). There are scholars on all sides; some scholars even think that the Ottoman Empire was ahead of the west (a view that I would agree is absurd) in 1800. The majority clearly believe the divergence happened around 1800. If you have so much energy, add the GDP per capita argument to Great Divergence, where it belongs, and don't edit war over every speck, for gods sake. Also, there's major problems with the silver wages paper, as I have raised on the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I had to revert you. Yes, I fully agree that the whole part on the historic GDP per capita is too long, but that is only an inevitable result of your edit pattern of making aggrandized claims of Chinese excellence in key parts of articles. In this example, you chose to push the minority view of Pomeranz to prominence in the lead. But instead of recognizing this, and modifying - or removing altogether - the part accordingly, you choose to play the transparent little game of trimming the whole part for 'reason of brevity', deliberately deluting Maddison's et al. majority view along the line "some say these, others say that". Who do you actually believe to fool with such kindergarden moves? As long as you continue to play the cheapest tricks out of Sun Tzu's book, you will sail against adverse winds, that's for sure. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"Unmatched for two millennia"
Exceptional, unprovable claim or not? Keep or remove? Please see Talk:Chinese armies (pre-1911)#What to do with this claim?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)