This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OccultZone (talk | contribs) at 05:56, 17 January 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:56, 17 January 2015 by OccultZone (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Xharm, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Xharm! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Misplaced Pages; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
Chinese Century
I have reverted your recent edit because the source doesn't contain anything about the period, there isn't any source that would state China as the largest economy of the world other than the 14th, 15th and 19th century. India and China were the biggest economies prior to 19th century, that's why I added that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like you already contradicted yourself, when you said it was only the 17th century. And then you claim it doesn't list the date at all, which is clearly false. Looks like you have an agenda to push in favor of India. Xharm (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Check and game somewhere else. You can also also stop edit warring, or you will be blocked if you continued making edits without consensus. Also why you are adding "China" on Indian Century when we can also say same thing for other countries like Russia, Brazil, who are also assumed to be future superpower by a number of writers? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're doing the same thing. The fact that you're adding India on Chinese Century, but not wanting to do the same thing on Indian Century suggests that you have an agenda to push. Two countries can't hold one spot at the same time. The cited source published by the World Bank also says "For a long part of history, China was the largest and most advanced economy in the world." It also specifies a "large part of the last two millennia". This is also about Chinese Century and Indian Century, nothing to do with potential superpowers, so your argument is mute and doesn't hold up. Xharm (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do we care about your original research and unreliable source? Check List of regions by past GDP (PPP) India seems to be at top until 1400. At least from 1 - 1000, India was the biggest economy, What is more concerning is that you are gaming the system by misrepresenting the source I had added to the article. Would you find any other country that was biggest economy for last 2 millennium other than China and India? Yet you can find at least 4 nations that are considered to be superpower or biggest economies in the future. If you don't know about these subjects you can better care about your limitations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You can also remove that whole sentence from Chinese Century if you want to, because China didn't hold biggest position of largest economy for last 2 millennium, but only for 3 (14th, 15th and 19th) centuries. Adding it along with India may lead others to think that China "may" have held the position of biggest economy all the time in the past. Pinging NeilN and Arnoutf to see what they thinks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- How is it original research if it's stated in the source, published by the World Bank? I'd rather state explicitly from the source, which says "for a large part of the last two millenia". The article is also about China, not India. You are nitpicking your unreliable sources and misrepresenting it. You also need to stop your personal attacks, because it's not helping you. The source says "for a large part", not "forever". Even the National Power Index supports this. You need to stop POV-pushing, this has nothing to do with potential superpowers. Xharm (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- World Bank is not a reliable source for the information where you can already find a lot better sources. You cannot state something incorrect about China, just because "article is also about China not India". I have provided you the leading research on this subject. Those that you have named are not as qualified. You are making fairytale objections. You may want to remove that whole sentence from Chinese Century, due to the reasons that I have highlighted above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of a decision that the World Bank, a subsidiary of the United Nations was not considered a reliable source. The sources you nitpicked are also just as unreliable then, which you are misrepresenting. Again, it's not saying it was "always" the largest economy, just for a large part, which is backed up by multiple sources. You are also canvassing. Xharm (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- That means everything that UN says is the final word? You must be kidding. You are the one misrepresenting sources, when you claim that this source doesn't support India and China as the biggest economy of the past. Inviting other editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, without making a one sided notification is not canvassing. You can stop making these fairytale objections when you have nothing more to offer that can be productive and so far you haven't either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're the one making fairytale objections. How about stop your personal attacks and try backing up your statement about how the United Nations is unreliable? Your source also says nothing about the Chinese or Indian Century. This is also about Centuries, not potential superpowers so you are indeed canvassing. Xharm (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then consider proving them with the diffs, rather than just trolling. They are not specialized in judging past economies, nor they have made any detailed description about it. is much about the superpower status and not just the biggest economy. That's how propagating the assumed future of China in Indian Century becomes WP:UNDUE. Because your sources says "nothing" about Indian Century or Chinese Century, it makes you look hypocritical at best, because your objection to every other source is that they "don't mention Indian or Chinese century", yet your sources doesn't mention either. These subjects falls under the same roof. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're the one making fairytale objections. How about stop your personal attacks and try backing up your statement about how the United Nations is unreliable? Your source also says nothing about the Chinese or Indian Century. This is also about Centuries, not potential superpowers so you are indeed canvassing. Xharm (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- That means everything that UN says is the final word? You must be kidding. You are the one misrepresenting sources, when you claim that this source doesn't support India and China as the biggest economy of the past. Inviting other editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, without making a one sided notification is not canvassing. You can stop making these fairytale objections when you have nothing more to offer that can be productive and so far you haven't either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of a decision that the World Bank, a subsidiary of the United Nations was not considered a reliable source. The sources you nitpicked are also just as unreliable then, which you are misrepresenting. Again, it's not saying it was "always" the largest economy, just for a large part, which is backed up by multiple sources. You are also canvassing. Xharm (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- World Bank is not a reliable source for the information where you can already find a lot better sources. You cannot state something incorrect about China, just because "article is also about China not India". I have provided you the leading research on this subject. Those that you have named are not as qualified. You are making fairytale objections. You may want to remove that whole sentence from Chinese Century, due to the reasons that I have highlighted above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- How is it original research if it's stated in the source, published by the World Bank? I'd rather state explicitly from the source, which says "for a large part of the last two millenia". The article is also about China, not India. You are nitpicking your unreliable sources and misrepresenting it. You also need to stop your personal attacks, because it's not helping you. The source says "for a large part", not "forever". Even the National Power Index supports this. You need to stop POV-pushing, this has nothing to do with potential superpowers. Xharm (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're doing the same thing. The fact that you're adding India on Chinese Century, but not wanting to do the same thing on Indian Century suggests that you have an agenda to push. Two countries can't hold one spot at the same time. The cited source published by the World Bank also says "For a long part of history, China was the largest and most advanced economy in the world." It also specifies a "large part of the last two millennia". This is also about Chinese Century and Indian Century, nothing to do with potential superpowers, so your argument is mute and doesn't hold up. Xharm (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Check and game somewhere else. You can also also stop edit warring, or you will be blocked if you continued making edits without consensus. Also why you are adding "China" on Indian Century when we can also say same thing for other countries like Russia, Brazil, who are also assumed to be future superpower by a number of writers? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why I was pinged but if we're discussing the leads of the two articles, WP:LEAD is useful: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." If the China-India comparison is detailed in the bodies (without synthesis), the leads could mention it. Otherwise, leave it out. --NeilN 05:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mostly because of your contributions to Potential superpowers. I would have also pinged Antiochus the Great, however, he's not active for more than a week. You are right about the guideline, it can be removed unless it has been described in the article, so far it hasn't been. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)