Talk:Military history of China before 1912/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article re-tagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claim by Teeinvestor:

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

Counter-evidence:

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

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

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

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

Harness systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raepsaet concludes:

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

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

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

I agree with that.

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ship transport is terribly efficient, it still is. We ship oil from Arabia/Iraq around South Africa in tankers to Europe today; rather than transporting it over land. Shipping it over 5 times the distance is economically superior to overland transport, even today. (PS how would Germany ship Polish grain - The distance Polish grain to the Baltic sea is longer overland alone than Poland-Germany, it would be a bit like shipping Mongolian produce to Tibet by ship). Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't overcome my Venice objection. And the difference is more like 10 or 20 times, rather than 5. And this doesn't account for why contemporary Han China had a thriving grain trade that involved overland transport rather than river transport along the Yellow and Yangtze rivers.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Examination of GPM's source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gunpowder weapons

• Concerning your revert, Tillmann actually does:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Your link is dead.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Nevermind computer fail. Still, your link is highly dubious and harly an RS. It's a textual reference to a word for "gun bearer" which might as well have meant other things prior to the invention of guns. If we use this quality of evidence, then there is a far more compelling discovery in the form of Chinese statues from the 12th century depicting hand cannons [1], suggesting that the first guns may have been introduced even at this early date.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This whole mess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving the tag out of sight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: THis whole mess

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

This coming from an editor whose sole fascination with the article Roman Empire seems to be adding information on its level of homosexuality [2] [3] [4] [5], creating new sections such as "literature" and "taxes" where a focus on homosexuality is irrelevant. Although I do not object to your depiction of GunPowderMa, to point this out while playing the same game seems a bit hypocritical.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when I am guilty of including bits of Chinese history into unrelated articles on Roman or European history just to make the latter look sexier, a game which I have seen you, Teeninvestor and the early Pericles playing mutatis mutandis quite routinely, but which is and will remain alien to my approach here. If I don't take you seriously at all, it is because all the while you play wingman here, you've set up nationalistic and glorifying garbage up here: Chinese Muslims armed with swords inflicted massive casualties on the Russian forces armed with machine guns, tanks, and planes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

China developed Gunpowder Rockets before Europeans

China developed Gunpowder Rockets during the Song dynasty.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, Дунгане, if we are to make comparisons, you conveniently skip the epoch from Emperor Gaozu to Emperor Wu's reign where the Xiongnu defeated, overpowered, and forced the Han Dynasty to pay tribute, much like the Hun would do centuries later to the Eastern Roman Empire. You may think the nomads to be "more primitive" as you put it, but in ancient (and by extension medieval) times the mobile nomadic armies of the steppes were a force to be reckoned with.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

use of quotations

While I argued above that the use of quotations is evidence of lack of coherent thought of the quoting editor, there seems to be a push to include quotes in this article.

Therefore I would propose to use only quotes of eminent importance; because all other quotes would be unduly emphasising an unimportant view. Reasons to include quotes are (in my view):

• Verbatim transcripts of important historical documents (e.g. letters from a Ming emperor to his general; or in English the Maga carta)
• Verbatim quotes of high artisic or literary importance (e.g. in English Shakespear would qualify)
• Verbatim quotes of scholars that are generally regarded as leading, or are of eminent importance in the field

Clearly a quote by Temple would not qualify, although Needham might under the 3rd category.

In any case all quotes must comply to WP:MOS on Quotations in giving in text not a footnote proper attribution to the author. Arnoutf (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I must respectfully request you to stop removing quotes from Official Chinese dynastic histories cited from Temple's book. The language is not Temple's, he is quoting official Chinese histories such as the History of the Song Dynasty and Needham. These quotes are valuable to help the reader understand and are from reliable sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Point is that Temple is not considered reliable. It is not particularly constructive how you continue to ignore the consensus on this. Since you will agree that we have been turning in circles here for more than enough time, the whole affair is now delegated to Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't even about Temple. These are quotes from the Standard Histories of China, as well as the official texts of the imperial governments, so their reliability is absolute. The consensus is that Temple is a reliable source. Your false claims about how a "consensus" exists that Temple is unreliable is utterly spurious, and has been rejected by other editors repeatedly: 1 and 2 3, 4. I must request you stop your false claims that a "Consensus" has been reached about how Temple is unreliable; Arnoutf and Pericles have indicated Temple should be used, and the discussion at WP:Verifiability recommended you go to WP:RSN, as that was not the approrpiate forum.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"I can live with Temple if used in moderation" is different to saying Temple should be used. My reading of the situation is that in the perfect world, the article wouldn't contain Temple at all as he's parroting Needham. However, as that may not in all cases be practical, it may be acceptable to use Temple if used with care, although not particularly desirable. Nev1 (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two wikipedia policies that are violated by the inclusion of these quotes.

1. WP:MOS on Quotations as NONE! of the quotes are decently attributed
2. WP:UNDUE there is no rationale whatsoever given anywhere, neither implicit, nor explicit, nor does the narrative of the article demand, nor is there consensus to include quotes in this rather descriptive section of the article.

For these two reasons, which I listed above, I have every reason to remove the quotes. Even more, I have reason to state that re-insertion without solving both issues would be an act of disruptive editing. Arnoutf (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PS @Nev1 indeed I agree with your interpretation. Arnoutf (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are attributed to the source they appear in, Temple's book, but they consist of Temple quoting from the above sources I mentioned (Official histories and Needham). The article also "doesn't demand" correct grammar or nice prose, but these things are necessary for any decent article, as these quotes are. Also, Arnoutf, through reverting me you have reintroduced huge amounts of POV and copyright violations from the other user, which I removed. Please do not reinsert this material. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to put the steps YOU have to do to make the quotes acceptable.

• You read WP:Mos#Quotations (this policy explicitly states that a footnote is NOT sufficient attribution)

1 You follow WP:Mos#Quotations to the letter.

2 You explain why these quotes are not undue (WP:UNDUE.

3 You explain why these quotes is not an indiscriminate amount of information (WP:INDISCRIMINATE).

You get consensus on 2 and 3 here. You follow 1. None is done so far.

(PS missed that I did reenter bad texts, sorry for the reintroductions there) Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the info in Temple's quote in paragraph format. This information about the equipment of a Chinese battalion in the 15th century is quite useful.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the issue whether or not the information is useful try to understand the following: Adding a quote IS NOT THE SAME as adding information. You use a quote if (and only if) the specific wording of the source adds something above and beyond the information. This might be historical significance of the source (as the case of the Chinese histories), this might be a brilliant original insight, this might be literary brilliance. Temple has none of those, so there is no reason to quote Temple. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed these quotes are not from Temple. And I have noted where the quotes come from just before the quotes already (Official military texts of the Song for the first quote, Official history of the Jur'chen Jin for the second quote; I stated the source right before each quote). And obviously the quotes are not indiscriminate information; they describe how two weapons, the crossbow and the thundercrash bomb, were used in ancient Chinese armies.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So you could also add quotes for the use of swords, clubs, daggers, horse, pikes, bow and arrow (if you would this would make it an indiscriminate collection of quotes). But why these specific types of weaponry get the specific quotes? Is it important enough for the article to add (see undue and indiscriminate). (PS attribution is getting better, I would be much happier if you could provide the translator, or refer immediately back to the histories as copying a quote from a quote is not a very strong way of referencing). Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The addition of these quotes is because these are 2 very important weapons and developments, compared to say spears, swords and clubs. Crossbows were the major weapon of Chinese armies for 2500 years and used in the hundreds of thousands; I think it is important for the reader to know its effect. The thundercrash bomb is a new development that was at the time the world's most powerful bomb, and through this quote the reader can see how developed and ubitiquous these weapons were at the time (even repulsing the then strongest army, the Mongols; and remember this wasn't the Chinese using it, but another barbarian people, the Jur'chens). The translator is most likely Needham, considering Temple sourced it all from him.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess clubs, swords and daggers may have been used in the millions. But that is being evil. This is indeed the kind of discussion we need. Personally I think you overdo it with the crossbows, and I even think the other quotes are over the top, but lets get in some other opinions.

The problem with the translation remains a bit though, I guess the translator to be Needham indeed, but guessing is not really a verifiable thing. Arnoutf (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, first of all, although its clear Temple is not a reliable source for grandoise claims like the 2000 year claim above I don't think he's going to go down and randomly misrepresent quotations. The quote is from very renowned Chinese texts that are widely available and I don't think Temple's book would have gotten out of press if even those quotes are misrepresented.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Date for the stirrup in China

Why is the stirrup mentioned in the section for the Qin and Han dynasties? It is my understanding that the stirrup was not used in China until the Jin Dynasty (265-420), according to the archaeological record.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrected.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankish trebuchets

The spread of the trebuchet technology from the Med over the Islamic world to China is central to Chevedden's article (p. 232f.):

In 1242 Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen sent bricolas to the Levant, and soon thereafter (post 1250) the Mamluks incorporated this versatile piece of artillery into their siege arsenal, calling it the 'Frankish or 'European" trebuchet (manjaniq ifranji or manjaniqfiranji). Muslim engineers employed by the Mongols brought the bricola to China, where it was designated the "Muslim" trebuchet (hui-hui pao). Batteries of bricolas (sing. manjaniq firanji) rained destruction on the cities of Fancheng (1272) and Xiangyang (1273), on the Han River in northwest Hubei province, and broke the power of the Song Empire (960–1279).

Therefore, I restored the original version which has been removed by the edit-warrior whose edit summary gives away that he has not even read the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GPM's interpretation here. The claim that the muslims created the spice and silk transported on the Silk road, as they were the connections to Europe would be equally wrong. Arnoutf (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the Chinese invented the traction trebuchet (powered by many men) hundreds of years before it appeared anywhere else, it is quite clear that the more devastating counterweight trebuchet (operated instead with a giant counter-balancing weight) was an invention of European origin, as Chevedden summarizes here briefly.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

List of objections

List your objections to this article and suggestions how to deal with them, so the neutrality debate can be resolved.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is too long
• The article as a whole is at 57 kB probably longer than can be comfortably read in one go. (Wikipedia:Article size recommends to start considering splitting of section from about 40kB)
• The "Equipment and technology" is a problematic section with regard to NPOV because
  • Comparisons between Chinese and other cultures are made. Such comparisons:
    • Should be made within Wikipedia with the utmost case not to make original synthesis
    • Should use the most modern insights of experts that cover both sides of the comparison. As European early medieval history studies have had a renaissance in the last 20 year, any comparison we quote should be written after 1990.
    • Quotes should be used with great care. In any case a translated quote should refer to the exact section/paragraph/verse of the original non-translated text as well as the translated source, and give the name of the translator.
    • Quotes should be used as illustration of an argument that is in itself neutral, a quote can never be an argument that some paragraph should support a certain POV.
    • Implicit claims (the Chinese were the best in the world) and synthesis should not be used at any cost. (WP:SYNTH shows some examples of implicit syntesis). Implicit claims can be very persuasive but are by definition almost never verifiable. Arnoutf (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Three points that stick out straight away are 1) the absence of the Sino-French War and 2) the command section is superficial 3) the Major battles and campaigns section is just a see also section by another name. If those battles and campaigns are actually major they should be mentioned in the main body of the article. That said, mentioning particular battles should be done carefully. As there will be a huge number with Wikipedia articles, I think only particularly well known battles should be mentioned and those used to illustrate a particular point (eg: earliest use of gunpowder or something). The mention of "The Ming Dynasty Imperial Navy defeated a Portuguese fleet led by Martim Affonso in 1522 at the Battle of Tamao. The Chinese destroyed one vessel by targeting its gunpowder magazine, and captured another Portuguese ship" seems like unnecessary detail for a single battle when the importance isn't explained. If the article were to mention every battle in which a vessel was destroyed it would become unmanageable. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed the major battles section. I believe the part about Tamao was inserted by GPM and another editor during an edit war. The history section is meant more about the history of organization rather than the actual battles. What's wrong with the command section.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Дунгане, but it's better gone. The only time frames given for the command section are 771 BC–479 BCE and the Tang Dynasty. I'd be surprised if the command structure of Chinese armies remained constant from 2,200 BC to 1911. The article's title is "military history of China (pre-1911). that means it should be about the military history, not just the history of its organisation. Organisation is of course important and should be discussed, but that's not the title. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I modelled the article on Byzantine army so forgive me if that happened. I felt that the individual campaigns should be covered in the history articles of the various dynasties.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

When the title was "Chinese armies (pre-1911)" it wasn't such a problem, but with the current title readers will be expecting more on the history of events as opposed to organisational changes. Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Chinese armies (pre-1911)" was a better name after all.

I think campaigns and battles would be too detailed indeed and I agree with Teeninvestor this information maybe better suited for the dyasty articles. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality tag is for the article's relienace on Temple. Temple needs to be replaced with a reliable source such as Needham. You know that Teen, so don't play dumb. PS: I did not insert the insignificant part on Tamao. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat my view on Temple. Temple can be used for non-controversial claims (i.e. those modest statements that have multiple sources and are unlikely to raise any protest). For more controversial statements Temple is not enough of a leading original thinker in the field, and additionally his work is too old. So I do not go as far as GPM, but do agree Temple should be used with utmost caution. Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well now Temple is being used for very common claims, like the Chinese development of gunpowder weapons amd crossbows, which hardly anyone would disagree on.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, your view was

• as recently as 09:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC) : my suggestion would be to drop Temple and use Needham or other mainstream Sinologists instead.
• And: But if he is merely good at summarising others work (both in the Dogon book and apparently in his book on China) that does not make him an expert on these topics. And for that reason alone I would prefer to have true expert sources over someone summarising 11:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I take you by your word. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@Gun Power Ma. Teeninvestor did make a reasonable case that Needham is not always easily accessible, for that reason I have reconsidered to some extent. Therefore for those claim that would not be controversial but needs references anyway I would not object to Temple. In this case I would suggest to use Temple similar to a primary source, ok for undisputed facts, out of bounds for any analysis. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently established consensus is not to use Temple. Besides, Wikipedia holds no stipulation I am aware of that fringe authors should be continued to be used just because reliable authors are unavailable to a certain editor. And frankly, TI lives in an English-speaking city of one million, and I have seen most of Needham's volumes more than once even in non-English language libraries. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(A) That is your interpretation of the conclusion of the noticeboard. (B) Why fight about using Temple for simple facts (TI made the case that Needham did not object to Temples popurisation effort, so the simple facts shoud be ok). Pragmatics are sometimes ok if the outcome would not change anyway if referring to Needham or another sinologist. (C) Of course either Temple or Needham is no expert on European history thus any comparative history from either should be discarded, but in this case Needham is as unreliable as Temple, which makes the focus on Temple moot. Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(A) That's not my interpretation, that is the clear consensus. Read the votes in bold which I summarized at the bottom: 12 (!) users have voted Temple as "unreliable source" respectively "don't use Temple". You were, apart from Teeninvestor, the only one arguing for keeping Temple "for simple facts".

(B) Simple uncontroversial facts can be simply gotten from other sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)