Talk:Silk Road/Archives/2016

Length

There is a discrepancy in the intro and the infobox as to the length of the route. An editor has been changing the intro -- without explanation -- and has been reverted a couple of times. But it appears they are simply making the intro consistent with the infobox. Is there a source for either of these distances? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This issue remains unresolved and continues to cause confusion. A quick Google search turns up different values, so a more focused search of sources needs to be done. I'm tagging the number stated in the intro. The number in the infobox cannot be tagged without breaking the format; it should probably be removed until a proper source is located, but I will leave it for now. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday has added a citation and removed the tag regarding the extent of the routes. But the cite is simply to an issue of a periodical with no further detail, and the text is not available on-line. Does this refer to a specific article in that journal? Who is the author? How is the length calculated? Does the source support the number in the intro or in the infobox? This does not appear to be an adequate source for this number. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a mistake in copying the url probably, but I agree, the source could be better. I've had a quick look and found a few that put the figure between 9,000-10,000 km

• sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTnquSx5DKAhVB2RQKHUwhDCY4ChDoAQheMAk This link should enable you to see the original quote from Asia Today
• The Spirit of Creativity: Basic Mechanisms of Creative Achievements says 10,000 km
• Everyone's History: A Reader-Friendly World History of War, Bravery, Slavery says 6,000 miles or 9,600 km
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Clothing Through World History: Prehistory to 1500CE says 6,000 miles
• The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History, Volume 2 says nearly 6,000 miles
• The Rise of the Chinese Empire: Frontier, Immigration, & Empire in Han China, 130 B.C says something like 6,000 miles

-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)

This simply reiterates the problem I pointed out above. There are numerous different numbers raised, and all these sources are generalized and do not appear to be scholarly measures. Do these numbers simply refer to the length from the eastern-most point to the western-most? Do they attempt to include the off-shoots? The article still contains conflicting numbers in the intro and infobox, which is why I added the tag in the first place, and none of these sources appear to provide a definitive answer. We could propose a consensus around the 6,000 mile figure, but it would remain rather arbitrary without better sourcing, and it would be nice if more than two editors would engage in this discussion. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For now, in the absence of better sources, I would go with the Rise of the Chinese Empire ref provided above – a decent looking book which lists its sources (though I can't access the 'notes' section). It gives a distance of "something like 6,000 miles" (and 4,200 miles as the crow flies) extending from Ch'ang-an to Tyre. I don't think that distance refers to all the off-shoots, but either way, some clarification, perhaps as a footnote, would be helpful. As far as the infobox goes, I tried changing it and confused both myself and the software. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the distance from the lede and the infobox, it is misleading to have a number provided without the necessary clarification. As you point out, there are a number ways you can measure the distance, also the route may have varied in extent in different eras, and do we include the sea routes.. etc etc? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I support removal. I thought about doing it myself but didn't want to without some support. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Era format

Yesterday an IP user changed the era style to CE/BCE, which was reverted per WP:ERA. The era style was initially set as BC/AD for consistency, but without any further logic, at a time before era policies were well established. Given the locations and time frame this page deals with, the CE/BCE format makes better sense. I propose re-instituting that style instead of the existing BC/AD format. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I find both formats in use on the page, at times in the same paragraph. The trade routes initially developed between China, India, and Persia centuries before the spread of Christianity. In a later significant period the routes were administered by the Mongols, who were tolerant of various religions, though were primarily Muslims or Buddhists themselves. The neutral BCE/CE format would be preferable for all these reasons. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex. Disagree. Per WP:ERA, BCE/CE being "neutral" doesn't justify a change; the reason we need WP:ERA is because neither is "neutral". The page had a few BCE/CE, but BC/AD was used 4:1. If we settle on anything based on current state, that would have to be BC/AD. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA does not require retaining the original format simply because that was used first. After stating that "Either convention may be appropriate," the next paragraph states:

• "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change."

I detailed the reasons specific to the content why the BCE/CE style is appropriate. I sought consensus on the talk page and there was no objection after ten days. So please, can you state why the BC/AD format is appropriate for this article? That is the standard. Not which one was used first. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The reasons given are not anything like sufficient; they just imply that AD is anti-religious, when the same is said of CE. No comments does not equal consensus, as evident here. ERA specifically does requires status quo without consensus. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What implies that "AD is anti-religious"? The BC/AD format clearly references Christianity. For the reasons stated above this is inappropriate for a page primarily on east and central Asia. These are "reasons specific to its content," as stated in the policy, and this is a common justification for using CE styling on such pages outside the Christian sphere (for instance, China, India). You have given no content-related reason for returning to the BC/AD. It would rather appear that you are simply expressing "[a] personal or categorical preference," which the policy specifically states "is not justification" for which style to use. At best you are proposing a purely arbitrary setting without rationale, and WP:ERA does not require that. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The format was improperly changed on part of the page with these two uneplained, undiscussed edits (1, 2), once again introducing inconsistency in the style. I am undoing them. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually feel that BCE/CE should be preferable in the abstract. I think that the use of Latin Anno Domini 'Year of our lord' and Before Christ is a pretty narrow world view, and compelling readers to use it is not neutral. This particular article is especially problematical as that geographically it spans at least at least six of the major religious areas.

I wasn't paying attention to the existing format, and am also unfamiliar with the general WP:MOS on the subject. In the absence of a direction that we shouldn't change it (assuming it was "BC/AD" I would say that the change is particularly plausible here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Adam Smith

The following quote from The Wealth of Nations has no place in this article; not only is it unrelated to the Silk Road, it also does not offer any information about 18th century China, or even about 18th century European views of China; Smith had never visited China and his 'China' is a polemical construct used to promote an ideological point. Whatever travelers' tales he may have used to construct his 'China' are not directly cited. Therefore it has been removed from the article.RandomCritic (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In the 18th century, Adam Smith declared that China had been one of the most prosperous nations in the world, but that it had remained stagnant for a long time and its wages always were low and the lower classes were particularly poor:

China has long been one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous countries in the world. It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation, industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms as travellers in the present time describe them. It had perhaps, even long before his time, acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its laws and institutions permits it to acquire.

— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

Black Market...?

Hey guys, I know that you want to travel and

know about the silk road, but do kids searching this for their homework really need to see a link to the silk road, online black market? That's what the disambiguation page is for. Honestly, the silk road is such a big topic that you KNOW you're on the right page when you're searching for it. I'd argue that the disambiguation link shouldn't even be there. But linking to the black market is just stupid.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.18.77 (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 

I object to the black market 'silk road' being referenced in this article. It's simply of no relevance to the subject. Copying and abusing a name doesn't earn a reference in a so called encyclopedia, any more than me dressing up as Elvis earns me a grammy.

WP:Censor. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. There is no link to the on line black market. There is only a link to Silk Road (marketplace), which is a wikipedia article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Silk Road/Archives/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has a lot of good info. Now it just needs inline references. --Danaman5 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sogdian detail

The disputed edit goes into excessive detail on hair and eye color characteristics and history of the Sogdians, which is not relevant to the transmission of Buddhism along the Silk Road. We cannot go into minute detail about every people found along the route, or even in this section; they have their own dedicated pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will parse down on the details but retain the citations and some of the links, which are entirely relevant to this article, considering how the Sogdians were largely responsible for spreading Buddhism and specifically converting the Uyghurs to Buddhism (to say nothing of their converting the Uyghurs to Manichaeism and Nestorian Christianity, and on top of all that providing them with a base writing system for their alphabet). Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now removed most of the detail and context of that argument by moving it into the citations. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The same objection applies, however, to your addition of this material to the pages Chinese Buddhism and Buddhism in Central Asia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I followed the same model in those articles as the one here (seeing how those articles aren't focused on ethnic groups), although for articles like Sogdia it is entirely relevant to keep all of the explanatory details in the image description, not in the footnotes. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)