Talk:Military history of China before 1912/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Edits

Since it's not actually a historical battle, I added this phrase: "However, this is primarily a legend based on mythicals characters." Also added coat of plates as an armor variety as depicited in Qin Shi Huang's terracotta army. Intranetusa (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

dispite shoudnt it say? in line 3 in paragraph "ancient china" ", depite the cultural challenge " s/depite/despite Foant

Why is this page protected?

Yea i wonder that too...Foant 21:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that I could not edit this page to fix a spelling mistake. Why are we being locked out? (This remark was inserted on March 17, 2005)

I've unprotected this page since I couldn't find any reason why it was protected in the first place. — Dan | Talk 04:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dunno.. maybe the Chinese government paid wikipedia to protect it to how they think history should be written?????? Just like history written in American text books, it's always the enemy who starts the war.. - Wh1t3 D3@th


Which one? Taiwan (Republic of China) or mainland Communist China (People's Republic of China)? Also, I believe PRC mainland China blocks a lot of content on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China Intranetusa (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)

Forgive the spam, but I'm trying to round up wikipedians with an interest in international military history to help work out some conventions for the names of military units. If you are interested in that sort of thing, please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) and join the discussions on the talk page. — B.Bryant 17:47, 15 April 2005 (UTC)

Firearms

When did Western firearms start to become better than Chinese firearms? What dynasty and century? Zachorious 10:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say Qing. Exact date I'm not sure, but the Ming used firearms extensively against the Qing. Maybe 50-60% of the Ming army was equipped with firearms IIRC. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty, not Qing. Ming Dynasty (1300s-1600s)didn't have cannons, arquebuses or pistols, but by 1475 gunpowder projectile weapons had become the norm in Europe. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

they definately had cannon... and its not like arquebuses, muskets, or pistols could hold there own against light melee infantry, calvary, or well placed cannon, just europe was in love with heavy armor --1698 06:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In the latter part of Ming Dynasty. The Chinese records on the imported Red Clothed Cannon (紅衣大炮 from Portugal clearly stated its superiority. See 明史 or articles related: Xu Guangqi, death of Nurhaci, Yuan Chonghuan etc. --AQu01rius 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have read, the first firearm "guns" were created in China by the mid 1350s (a sort of hand cannon). It then made its way to the Middle East where Middle Easterners made the firearms better. From the Middle East it made its way to Southern Europe where the Europeans became the best firearm crafters in the world until the 1900s. Something like that I think. Zachorious 06:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The first firearm guns were bronze cast guns made during the Song Dynasty 12th-13th century. The Middle East did have excellent gunpowder technology (ie. Great Bombard in the sack of Constantinople). Compared to Europe however, early and mid Ming era guns and cannons are still superior. By the late Ming/early Qing, European gun technology had exceeded China. Intranetusa (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes

We need to deal with stereotypes of Chinese military history on this article... examples include

  1. The One-Million-Peasant Horde
  2. The Fireworks-Not-Guns
  3. The Pacifist Chinaman
  4. The Spear-Wielding Primitive

Anyone up to it? -- Миборовский 03:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. 5. The Yellow Peril Mongol -- Миборовский 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hey can we find some pictorial representations of Chinese soldiers from different periods of history? I think it would really add to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons and military technology

Please clarify in what way Chinese crossbows were superior. For example the strong double-bow arcuballistas were very unhandy compared to the strong arbalests of with steel prods of Europe and the composite prods of the Islamic world. Bronze trigger mechanisms in Chinese crossbows. Other cultures did not have the bronze working ability to make triggers as fine.

Chinese contribution of the formula for gunpowder implies that the complete formula and the use of blackpowder in guns was first developed in China. This is disputed as the Islamic world and Europe have also claims and it is not yet clear who invented GUNPOWDER. What is evident is that saltpetre had its origin in China and mixtures of saltpetre and sulfur were exported for medical purposes. This can be modified to various forms of Black powder or other explosive and incendary mixtures (with naphta in Egyptian grenades during the crusades). The Taiping Rebellion did use muskets and did develop musket tactics. "The Chinese government thus systematically suppressed the development of early modern weapons systems." This has to clarify during what timeframes. Furthermore developments during the Yuan dynasty could be added, such as submarines and torpedos.

"Competition between European powers was far more involved in shock tactics in which speed was discarded for increased protection." Please make it clear of what timeframe you talk. The heavy knights for example did have protection instead of speed. Wandalstouring 09:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism found on this page The line "Legalist thinkers from Shang Yang to Li Si, both Prime Ministers ruling under Chuck Norris, of Qin, " is clearly vandalism. Namely the name Chuck Norris does not belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.142.21 (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

language

The language in this article needs to be cleaned up, I'm going to edit it to fix any grammar problems. Master z0b (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are some silly statements in this article that go beyond simple grammar "china had the most advanced military for the longest time, 200BC to 16th century"? huh? I don't think it's even necessary to add a cite source tag, it's clearly a statement so broad and POV it needs to be taken out. I'm not saying China wasn't advanced, but no country could claim such superiority for such a long time. If that was the case how did the Mongols conquer China? Surely the most advanced military in the world couldn't be conquered by a primitive steppe tribe. Master z0b (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yer,I agree with what you said. However,you should also be aware that advanced military does not guarantee victory in war. There are many other factors such as economics, politics,natural disaster etc.202.36.179.66 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues

There are no inline references. Many of the numbers seem off. The tone just doesn't seem right.

For example:



I've added this template .Pisharov (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is to be revamped

I plan to revamp this article entirely, just like I did to Economic history of China(which end up being split into two articles and reaching 100kb}, under the new name Chinese Army (Pre-1911). It will not be as large as the former article though. If you are interested, look at User:Teeninvestor/Chinese Army (Pre-1911). Suggestions are welcome. I will be taking material from this article. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Teen, one of the fundamantal theme of pre 1911 Chinese military history, is that the control, and command of the Army. Majority of the time, emperor was the Supreme Commander, and only the emperor has the Tiger Tally 兵符. Only during Qing dynasty, Zeng Guofan and Tuanlian had began the loss of the military control of the emperor. Arilang talk 22:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A hufu 虎符, or Tiger Tally, made of bronze with gold inlay, found in the tomb of the King of Nanyue (at Guangzhou), dated 2nd century BCE, during the Western Han era of China. Tiger Tallies were separated into two pieces, one held by the emperor, the other given to a military commander as a symbol of imperial authority and ability to command troops.

Comparison of Japanese samurais, European Knights, Chinese general, nomad tribal chief

Teen, maybe a section on the comparison of the above four:

  1. Japanese samurais is about 忠: loyality
  2. European Knights is about Power and ability, achivement. 忠 is out of the question.
  3. Chinese generals would be about 忠義. 義 is very difficult to translate, because it is not a western concept. The best symbol of 忠義 is Guan Yu 关雲長, or 关公, if you watch Hong Kong gangster movies, you might have seen in every police station, there is a small statue of 关公, and every policemen, including 鬼佬(means English policemen), they all perform the ritual of worshipping in front of 关公.
  4. Nomad tribal chief would be Kill Kill Kill, nothing much. Arilang talk 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

仁義之師 VS 殘暴之師

Teen, throughout Chinese ancient history, quite a few times Han Chinese nearly got wiped out completely: Wu Hu, Mongols, Manchus, and Imperial Japanese Army. So it is important to view history in the correct persective. I mean, Xinhai revolution, Second Sino-Japanese war would be 仁義之師, that means Manchus and Imperial Japan Army would be 殘暴之師. Arilang talk 04:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

孫子兵法

Famous quotes:

  1. 兵者，國之大事，死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也。The openning sentence of 孫子兵法.死生之地,存亡之道 translation:It is the land of live or die, it is the way of survive or perish. By making this statement as the openning sentence, 孫子 gave a warning to all the Kings, Emperors, or military commanders, be careful before you go into war, you may score victory, but at the same time, you may perish in the process.
  2. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善也﹔不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。

Translation:Any army which had won every battles, is not the best Army.(I think what he meant was, if an army had won too many battles, soon it would lose, because the soldiers plus the commander would become too big-headed. 不戰而屈人之兵,善之善者也. Translation: If ever a commander(or Army) can force it's opponent into submission, without going into war, then the commander(or Army) would be the best of the best. Arilang talk 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ming-Kotte War

I would like to include this unique episode in Chinese military history but I don't quite know how to fit it in. Navalinterest (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Items considered essential for a military commander

(1)帥印:The official seal of the Supreme Commander, normally was given to the commander by the Emperor, or the King. If ever the King decided to withdraw the official seal, then the military commander would lose the job, possible his life too. (2)上方宝劍 is another symbol of authority from the King. The function of 上方宝劍 is 先斬後奏: To exceute first, then report to the King. These happened many times in ancient Chinese history.


Throughout Chinese military history, successful military commanders, at the end, mostly were killed by their King or Emperor. This happened again and again. Most famous were 岳飛 of the Southern Song period, and also 林彪 Lin Biao, 贺龍 He Long, 彭德懷 Peng Dehuai. Arilang talk 03:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

On balance

The article seems to place great care at stressing the progressive character of the Chinese military. However, on balance it would be interesting to know why

  • Chinese armies relied so long on chariot warfare,
  • why cavalry, both in its light and heavy version, was introduced so late,
  • the lack of a proper navy for most of its history
  • and the slow development, if not early stagnation, of gunpowder weapons, including the fact that technological impulses after 1500 came almost exclusively from contact with the Western maritime powers and technological transfer of the Jesuits who were entrusted with cannon production. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Chariot warfare was gone post 500 BCE, cavalry was introduced by 300 BCE, while the navy isn't in the scope of this article. Gunpowder weapons developed relatively rapidly until the ascension of the Qing, during which it stagnated. See this quote from Needham about the equipment of a single Chinese battalion:

40 cannon batteries, 3600 thunder-bolt shells, 160 cannons, 200 large and 328 small "grapeshot" cannons, 624 handguns, 300 small grenades, some 6.97 tons of gunpowder and no less than 1,051, 600 bullets, each of 0.8 ounces. Needham remarked that this was "quite some firepower" and the total weight of the weapons were 29.4 tons

Teeninvestor (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chariots were phased out only when cavalry was - slowly - introduced, that is in the 300s BC. At that time, Western Eurasian peoples as far west as Italy were already employing cavalry for centuries, and chariot warfare was a distant memory of the past. China's slowness in adopting gunpowder weapons now is really well attested. Just two randomly picked sources:

China's reponse to light firearms [as opposed to Japan's] offers a revealing contrast. source
After about 1400 Chinese military technology began to stagnate. source

Of course, it needs intellectual honesty in the first place to look for things which might not sit well with one's own views... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Intellectual honesty is what you lack, Gun Powder Ma. I don't need some one who argues that romans invented the taijitu to tell me what intellectual honesty is. As i said, everything you claim is contradicted by reputable scholarly sources. For example, on the point about cavalry, Chinese forces were the first to employ saddles and the stirrup- a technique that was not introduced in Europe until the middle ages. As to light firearms- may I remind you it was the Chinese who invented them (and the fact that the Ming did employ much western gunpowder technlogy readily). Until you show up with reputable sources and stop being a POV warrior, you shouldn't edit this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis and certain obsession with superlatives

I tagged the article because I feel it is another attempt by the main author to establish a nationalistic POV and because I think he misrepresents sources. Samples:

  • China has the longest period of continuous development of military culture of any civilization in world history and had arguably one of the world's most advanced and powerful military for almost 2,000 years until the 18th century.
  • China's armies has had a long history. The military history of China stretches from 2200 BCE to the present day, the longest of any nation in the world. Throughout most of China's existence, the Chinese armies were the most advanced and the most powerful in the world
  • These armies were tasked with the twofold goal of defending China and her subject peoples from foreign aggression, and with expanding China's terroritory and influence across Asia. Comment: China's enemies were "aggressors", while China merely "defended" its frontiers....

This all sounds like a wargamer turned Wikipedia author and the existence a single source, even if it supports the text, which I very much doubt, does not justify such hyperbolic, far-reaching and strong claims. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Gun Powder Ma, your edits are completely POV. I'm willing to work with other editors, but edits such as "despite many defeats" and "reliance upon western military technology (did not become a significant factor until the 19th century" are complete pOv.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you post verbatim the quotes from Temple which you claim support your text? This is good practice at Wikipedia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Jesuits were already in charge of 17th century Chinese foundries on which the late Ming and Manchu dynasty came to rely on heavily: here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

================== More academic sounding article changes I agree with the superlatives... the tone is unacademic :) You need to delete all lines like most powerful etc. Things you might want to note:
- Chinese history and its people were extremely varied. At different periods approaches were different, e.g. there were technologies that were lost, such as the Han Dynasty crossbows, or Shang Dynasty metal working.
- Basically the high points were pre-modern.. I'd say the Song to end of Ming Dynasty, China was relatively militarily weak compare to the Northern nomads who had also begun tech innovations and organization. The high points relatively, were in the Han to T'ang Chinese armies. It was largely
(1) Han Dynasty economy was strong and they were able to recruit massed low-trained yet effective crossbows (which by the way could pierce any metal armor)
(2) the Han and T'ang (who actually were nomads themselves orgiinaly by the way) did employ much cavalry, giving them offensive expansion capabilities against nomads (thus expanding the empire).
(3) Both the Han and T'ang Dynasties combined both strong economics with militaristic traditions.
- Chinese didn't really use gunpowder as much as xbows; it was deemed innacurate and lacked (cost) effectiveness, mostly
#1: Chinese builders dealt with potential cannon weapons by fortifying with mostly sand-like rammed earth (these walls could be *many* meters thicker and higher than any European castle walls.. almost like a very steep hill). When a rocket hit this, it kind of just got stuck in the wall rather than blowing it apart.
(2) crossbow development during the Warring States to T'ang was advanced (and much cheaper), and they were able to pierce any metal armors. So China was able to mass up crossbows at a lower cost. Then again, at the same time, the West has always been to our credit innovative :) it was also just plain put a innovative development with gunpowder weapons to realize their ultimate potential that everyone else missed... though by the way Chinese did theorize many of the tactics realized centuries later.. e.g. Sun Tzu said 2.4k years ago, 'high ground' is such an advantage if anyone could find a way to attack from the sky, that would be the ultimate advantage; thus there actually were experiments using Kites with gunpowder, to fire downward, gut it never materialized.
- chinese metal and steel alloys were also indeed probably the most advanced until the last 400 years; we still don't know how they created some of their steel in early dynasties. One example where a reported contingent of ex-Romans were met in the xinjiang region during one Han compaign vs Parthians (I read this from articles in some PHD stacks at University of Toronto library), in which case Chinese xbows penetrated all the armor and shields of the hoplites.
- Chinese had a *very* thorough official record-keeping for history. Its possible originally several nomadic rulers, not open-minded enough to read up, may have not understood the value for military tradition in the begining —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.154.193 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-added the tag, since the dissens seems to take longer to settle. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sino-French War

No reference to this war here, not seen as a major war involving China ?

_ One quarter of the Chinese fleet destroyed, including all the modernized navy with steamships.

_ Chinese influence over Southern Asia cut at the benefit of another colonial power.

_ Defeat of the new navy paved the way for the Japanese agression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.216.104 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:MILHIST

People watching this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion about this article at WT:MILHIST#Chinese armies (pre-1911)

Why there? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Because discussions here for the past three months have pretty much been between you and Teeninvestor. I'm hoping that discussing the issue at WT:MILHIST will attract a wider audience. 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The article as such is not bad, it only needs someone to tell Teeninvestor to please steer clear of the blatant Chinese POV of "one of the world's most advanced armies", "great victories" and "Barbarian aggressors" etc.. For this, one or two more editors pointing out the same thing will do and we can quickly settle this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you're right, but from the above section and as Teeninvestor has been reverting you, he doesn't seem to be listening. I'm not familiar with the subject so will take your word on the article not being too bad, but the section title "special weapons" is straight out of a video game, and I cringed when I read it. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, your edits such as the "military technology systems, such as nomadic cavalry" are ill sourced and do not add to the article. I will not accept something blatantly biased as such, and which are unsourced. Also, you did not source any of your arguments on the spread of iron weapons eastword or anything else. "Special weapons" is used, because it is difficult to find a better title for weapons such as poison gas and flamethrowers. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I am astounded that your knowledge of Chinese military history is so shallow, but I will provide the necessary sources in time. However, most of your biased claims are unsourced, either, aren't they? Since now three users have voiced some concern as to the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article, I re-tagged it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The man who calls "nomadic cavalry" a weapons system calls me shallow? I have invited Pericles to give an assessment, since he has access to most of the sources of

the article, which I don't have at this moment. Even if I did, I would not have the time to fix it. However, I warn you to stop insulting other editors and calling them "wargamers"; I can stick a few far nastier labels if I chose to, but it is editor decorum not to do so. I hope you can maintain at least a basic level of respect.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I just now took a look at the present form of the article and read a bit of the discussion here. Did Temple (1986) really call flamethrowers and poison gas bombs "exotic weapons"? That's the exact phrase in quotation marks as found here in the article; "exotic" seems like a strange descriptive word to use in this case. When one thinks "exotic" in terms of the Western perspective of the ancient Chinese arsenal, images such as obscure kung fu weapons (like the chain whip) come to mind, but not flamethrowers and poison gas. I don't actually own Temple's book, which I borrowed from the library long ago for the List of Chinese inventions article. However, I don't mind finding citations for various things which currently are not cited.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I restored the tags. If the wargamer wants to be treated as a Wikipedia author, he should start to act like one. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If you keep on attacking other users, you will be reported to WP:ANI.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Gibbon

What does Edward Gibbon have to say about Chinese armies in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? As he's not referenced in the article, I was going to move the book into a further reading section, but in the capacity it seems a bit spurious as its main subject isn't Chinese armies. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibbon's here?????Teeninvestor (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Not any more. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

pray tell gun powder ma

if westerners were so advanced, why were western powers like the netherlands and russian humiliated and defeated at the hands of chinese armies during the Siege of Fort Zeelandia and Russian–Manchu border conflicts?

Is it because your "superior" western military technology failed to rub off? Дунгане (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a point about the article or are you just trolling? Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I do have a point, the Chinese forces used cannons and ships to beat the westerners at the two wars i just mentioned, and the fact that they defeated them proves that Gun powder ma's premise of his precious western people being superior gets blown to pieces.

Oh yeah, and Gun powder's ma precious Tibet was defeated handily by the allegedly "inferior" Chinese army in the Sino-Tibetan War.Дунгане (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you are trolling. Thanks for clearing that up. You mentioned nothing about cannons or ships in your initial comment. You're also the first person to mention Tibet. Why did you? And funnily enough I don't see Gun Powder Ma asserting that Western people are superior to the Chinese. If that's what you read into his posts, I suggest you're being rather paranoid. If you have nothing to add to the article, go and find something constructive to do. Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Дунгане, don't try to confirm the stereotype that Wikipedia is only flocked by nerds and singles with no life. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for verification

Since the wargamer seems not really well versed in what spirit Wikipedia operates, Wikipedia:Verifiability holds that When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. For the following, I'd like to have a quote:

  • Chinese armies were advanced and powerful, especially after the Warring states era.[1]

  • This advanced technology was key for the Song army to fend off its barbarian opponents, such as the Khitans, Jur'chens and Mongols.[2]

For the first assertion, Temple (1986) specifically stated on page 248 that: "China's military prowness was not matched by two millenia". Whether you agree with it or not, that is what the source says. Similar statements can be found in many other sources. And as for the importance of gunpowder weapons in defending the Song from barbarian incursions, the Chinese version of Cambridge illustrated history of China states that on page 99 that: "By the 1040's, during the war with the Tanguts, Song military manuals had already instructed commanders to make and manufacture gunpowder weapons for fighting the Tanguts. This later devolved into cannons and muskets" (rough translation).
Temple's source (which I don't have on hand right now), along with Pericles' source about Needham, also affirms the importance of gunpowder weapons to the Song in resisting northern invaders. Historical incidences such as the Battle of Caishi also affirm this. There's overwhelming scholarly consensus on this point, and I don't see why a quote would be needed (would you need a quote to affirm that the Roman Empire collapsed in the 400's?).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If Temple asserts that China's military was unmatched for two millennia, we should explain that it's his opinion. Something along the lines of "according to military historian Robert Temple (or whatever his field is), China's military was unmatched for two millennia". It's an interesting assertion considering the Mongol invasion of China, but if that's Temple's opinion we can include it as long as it's pointed out to be an opinion rather than fact. Please don't bring up the Roman Empire, this article should not try to rehash the speculation that used to be comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I was using the collapse of the Roman Empire as an example of scholarly consensus. How's that in anyway bringing up the dispute? Well, I believe that Temple's assertion was specific that China's military technology was unmatched for two millenia. I will add this to the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
About the Mongol invasion of china, the reason the mongols won because they incorporated thousands of Chinese soldiers into their army, and adopted chinese siege technology. They did not use any of their traditional methods of warfare when attacking china. Your assertion about the mongols is totally off the pointДунгане (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that it's been clarified that in the field of military technology China was "unmatched", you may have a point. However, regarding the earlier, more clumsy and less accurate statement that "China's military was unmatched for two millennia" it was certainly germane. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Such a sweeping claim is still WP:Undue, whether you can source it or not. In reality, it could be nullified by a single other author who claims for the period in question that the military technology of any another army was the best of its time. Shall I dig for that or do you remove the ethnocentric claim on your own accord? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, a statement that says: "According to historian Robert Temple, so and so" is definitely not suspectible to any of your claims, as we have shown it is your opinion. And the fact is, your sources are not exactly the most reliable. Me being ethnocentric? It wasn't long ago that you claimed Romans invented the Tajitu.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine, let's quote then the exceptional claim of your thrash author. And then I am going to quote assessments of other authors which will contradict this claim. PS: Since, contrary to your edit summary, I am very much engaging in the discussion, I restore the template for the time being. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You had 48 hours to start an ANI and RFC/U, but you did not respond to this discussion. I wouldn't oppose a variety of views on this subject. But it's clear the majority of sources confirm Needham's work.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing. You have done zero in 5 days to deal with this, while starting multiple other disputes. You clearly have nothing to add and are NOT engaged (not to mention your claims have been refuted).Teeninvestor (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What to do with this claim?

I would like to hear your opinion on whether the following claim below (in bold) should be kept or removed from the article. Its author is User:Teeninvestor, the main contributor to the article, who is currently the object of a RFC/U and has been long defending the quote with teeth and claws:

The military history of China stretches from roughly 2200 BCE to the present day. Chinese armies were advanced and powerful, especially after the Warring States Period. According to historian Robert Temple, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia"[1].

In my view, this is blatant case of a sweeping WP:Exceptional and WP:Undue, irrespective of whether the Temple ref complies to WP:Reliable or not. Temple claims no less than to know that the Chinese possessed for 20 centuries a superior military technology than – brief selection – Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Indians, Romans, Arabs, Franks, Mongols, Spanish, Ottomans, Persians, English, French, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, ect. etc., no matter what defenses these people came up with in their time. Is this believable?

Note I am not having anything against appraisals of limited scope such as that the US today possesses the most advanced army, or the British had long the most powerful navy in the world. These are mostly accepted views, susceptible to a fair degree of validation. But the scope of Temple's boastful claim is beyond good and evil, utterly unprovable, and – like similar claims of Teeinvestor elsewhere – should thus be completely dropped from here. So, keep or remove? Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So we're not allowed to present the opinions of professional historians who have worked for decades on this topic? Looks like someone didn't read wikipedia policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's about WP:Cherry. What if I add other author's conflicting views that any one of these peoples, or a number of them, possessed the most advanced military of their time? Or another one's – equally sweeping – view that China's military technology was long stagnant. How would this relate to Temple's claim? One swallow does not make a summer, and what Temple claimed is in fact unprovable and historically outright absurd. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Temple only happens to be describing the work of the The leading expert and most prolific China scholar in history. That has no credibility whatsoever, right?Teeninvestor (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Calm down guys, it's only a single sentence. Now, does Temple go on to say why the Chinese military was "unmatched"? That's a sweeping assertion, and although I suspect it is mostly true, I'd be willing to bet that at least one nation came up with a weapon or tactic that was better than the Chinese at some point in those two thousand years. The Mamluks of Egypt were able to use their superior tactics to defeat the Mongols in 1260(?), for instance. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Temple refers to military technology only, I believe. I certainly agree with you that the dispute is all out of proportion to its seriousness, but User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of POV-pushing in Asia-related articles that has gotten him blocked repeatedly.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
What does Temple have to say on the Frankish counterweight trebuchets imported by Muslim engineers of the Mongols which brought down the defenses of the Song – and the effective end of the dynasty – in a matter of days? Cf. Paul E. Chevedden: "Black Camels and Blazing Bolts: The Bolt-Projecting Trebuchet in the Mamluk Army", Mamluk Studies Review Vol. 8/1, 2004, pp.227-277 (232f.). Is this compatible with his hypothesis? PS: For one currently under investigation, you are throwing around pretty much false accusations. Do you happen to have also arguments? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well that's not true, see [1]. Comment on the issue at hand, not the people; it just throws red herrings into the conversation.
It's hard to believe that, for example, Roman legionary armor was inferior to the Chinese.. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please read before posting

Guys, note the claim under dispute is According to historian Robert Temple, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia"; we had made clear that this is Temple's claim only. GPM is in effect declaring that the opinion of a historian who has worked for decades on this topic should not be included in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop with the annoying bolding, please. I don't care what his credentials are; sometimes people make mistakes, and this one could be that he tried to generalize too much. Can you prove that his statement is correct or give supporting evidence? You must provide supporting evidence to back up your position, just like GPM. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ed, the burden of proof rests on those who make the exceptional claim. So Teeinvestor has to show that the military technology of all these other peoples has been consistently inferior to Chinese one, not me the other way round. But to give some positive evidence of Western military superiority, see the Military Revolution. For the unmatched size and scale of Western cannon technology, see List of largest cannon by caliber. In neither article, Chinese equipment features in the least. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
By contrast, the burden of proof relies on you. You have to prove why we should disregard the opinion of a scholar who was the most prolific China scholar in history and a leading expert?. The two articles you mention above do not solve this dispute at all (the fact that gunpowder technology books were systematically burned in China during the Manchu conquest hardly helps).Teeninvestor (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, Temple's whole book and this article? Providing a quote:

Joseph Needham noted that a battalion in the fifteenth century Chinese army had up to 40 cannon batteries, 3600 thunder-bolt shells, 160 cannons, 200 large and 328 small "grapeshot" cannons, 624 handguns, 300 small grenades, some 6.97 tons of gunpowder and no less than 1,051, 600 bullets, each of 0.8 ounces. Needham remarked that this was "quite some firepower" and the total weight of the weapons were 29.4 tons.[9]

Teeninvestor (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool quote. How does it prove that China's military technology was unmatched by others over an entire two thousand year period? I appreciate that the Chinese were well ahead in the gunpowder age, but what about before that? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember the dispute is not whether China's military technology was unmatched, but whether we should include this assertion by Robert Temple that it was. Temple also cites other evidence like chinese being able to produce superior-quality cast iron and even steel weapons as well as rapid firing crossbows (with ability to penetrate even iron armor) to support his thesis. He also contrasts this with Rome which was unable to produce much high-quality iron. Although his thesis may not be complete, I believe this is an opinion that should be included, considering the source and the evidence used, which strongly supports his thesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
These types are never pleasant disputes. The article certainly doesn't need the quote. In fact, the entire paragraph it's in isn't necessary. But it's so benign, I'm unsure of what the reasoning for removing the statement would be. It's is a verifiable and notable opinion. So can someone go into a little more detail as to why they think the quote should be removed? I mean, Teeninvestor is right, the article isn't making that claim, it's simply presenting an opinion. SwarmTalk 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Where is the difference? WP:Undue, WP:Cherry, and WP:Exceptional apply here, all of which make a case for presenting balanced views. If we take the simplistic view of merely presenting an opinion, what would Teeinvestor say if people would start introducing the opinions of Marx, Adam Smith and Hegel that China was the longest time a sclerotic society through and through? I wouldn't add them for their extremity, but according to your reasoning, what could editors keep from presenting their views as "mere opinions", too? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, actually, you have a point. The quote is in the history section, too, which really shouldn't need to discuss any opinions in the matter, which includes presenting claims like this. I don't think the quote is non-credible, but, in the interest of WP:NPOV as well as the links you posted above, I think it should probably be removed. As is, it seems out of place and not necessary. SwarmTalk 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Because, we know Marx, Smith and Hegel's opinions about China are as important as the the most prolific China scholar in history, right? Obviously only the opinions of the experts in this matter should be given weight. We're not gonna randomly put a quote from any guy on the street in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim does not belong in the lead. Per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of the article. If it's mentioned in the lead, it should be mentioned elsewhere, otherwise it's not a summary. Also the slightly dubious claim of one person should not be given such prominence. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In the midst of this discussion, Teeinvestor has moved the disputed claim right to the lead. What better proof of his unconstructive attitude there can be? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved it to the lead because User:Swarm suggested moving it out of the history section. Hardly a "provocative move".Teeninvestor (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Move it somewhere else. It does not belong in the lead. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Take it out. It's overbroad. Its suggestion Chinese tech was, in all cases & all eras, superior is improbable at best. Moreover, I'd far rather see examples by period, contrasted with contemporary examples from other cultures. Also, I'd like it clarified superior military tech, even given China had it, did not equal superior military performance, which seems to be implied, & from what I've read, the manipular legion bested anything the Chinese had: not technology, but superior. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, but would military technology also include fortifications? If so, is there anything along the lines of the trace italienne in China? Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously not. Chinese walls remained square and high until well into the 19th century. The Chinese also did not know torsion engines, like the Romans, they introduced iron weapons later than everybody else in Eurasia (as late as ca. 500 BC), were still fighting on chariot when most others peoples already had moved to cavalry and their maritime technology was necessarily primitive for the fact that the longest time China did not even have an open water navy. The claim is ludicrous. Why doesn't he simply remove it and we all move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
GPM, your claims are ridiculus. So you know more about ancient China than Someone who spent his whole life researching it? I won't bother to rebut any of your claims above, the article will do that on its own. Frankly, you have not demonstrated any historical knowledge of China at all; I doubt you can name the dynasties. This is coming from an editor who thought that the Romans invented the Taijitu and who has repeatedly shown his anti-China bias and has even been blocked for it. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Trekphiler and GPM. The quote implies superior performance, as well doing so for all eras during the past two millenia. It is also very broad-brush, ignoring individual advances. Besides, do we really need it? Would the article suffer that much without it? Athenean (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I was originally inclined to let the statement stand once it had been clarified that it was Temple's view. It's debatable, but it shows it's one person's opinion. However, as this discussion has progressed the claim seems more and more spurious. Currently, I don't think it should be included. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So let me clarify this. Are you guys saying that the opinion of a renowned scholar (note; the article isn't even asserting this, it's presenting the most qualified scholar's opinion) on the military of ancient China should not be represented, because you guys "read about something else contradicting this" and because of GPM's extremely dubious OR above (which is contradicted by almost every credible source, including this article?)? This discussion is a perfect example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What are we going to represent in this article, the dubious and ignorant claims of a few editors here, or the scholarly consensus?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're now interpreting one person's opinion as academic consensus? That's a bit odd. Anyway, the point here is that several users have raised valid objections to the statement that have not been addressed. Does Temple mention fortifications, or the Mongols, or siege weapons? Nev1 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Temple certainly mentions the Mongols and siege weapons. See for example the gunpowder weapons section. In terms of the Mongols, Temple reveals an interesting fact; the Mongols would have been unable to conquer the Song or the Jin without using Chinese gunpowder technology, which allowed them to easily destroy the walls of many cities. Another factor was the lack of gunpowder weapons for the Chinese. in the battle of Kaifeng, Jin defenders were able to fight off a Mongol siege repeatedly with "thundercrash-bombs" and the Song fortress of Xiangyang, whose fall doomed China to conquest, would not have fallen had the Song garrison not run out of these bombs. I'm not sure about what Temple says about fortifications, but he mentions many impressive architectural feats by the Chinese, including a building made out of cast iron; he also mentions the durability of the Great wall, some portions of which are still standing after being built 2,000 years ago. Remember what Temple is describing is not the work of any scholar, but the most distinguished sinologist of his (and possibly any) time; I believe wikipedia should give him some weight. As to GPM's claims, I will note only that his claim about horses is absurd; Temple notes that China had the most advanced horse transport of its time (having invented collar harnesses), while Rome was forced to depend on Egyptian grain because it couldn't even transport the grain from Northern Italy to the city.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A difficult one. As an aside, on Joseph Needham... Needham is putting forward a particular argument about the Western perspective on Chinese technology, and trying to right a perceived imbalance in the literature. But he is quite subtle about it; in his "Science and Civilisation" series, for example, he notes that "[n]either the the heavily armed Greek hoplite nor the Roman legionary ever had any counterparts in Chinese armies" - he argues that the Chinese didn't develop some of the more extreme variations in military form that the West did, even if they had equivalent technology. As a result, he can make general arguments about Chinese high technology during the period, without having to defend an "unmatched" position in every case, which would be challenging to say the least, as this debate has shown! In terms of the article and the quote, I'd agree it doesn't belong in the lead; I'd be inclined to keep it, however, noting that it is an extreme position, but accompany it with some of the more nuanced quotes from Needham and others. There's some other material in "Science and Civ" that would fit nicely in this article, incidentally. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem for me is that the claim "unmatched for two millennia" is not placed in the context of which two millenia, or even if the period is contigiuous. This is more so given that it is associated with the date 2200 BCE. There are many readings of the statment so its needs clarification. It could be the period 2200 BCE - 200 BCE which would mean that from the middle of the Roman Republic its technology was matched. At the other extreme, since the article reference "pre 1911" the sentences could be interpreted as meaning Chinese technology was ahead from around 88 BCE (Caesar's teenage years) to 1911. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Just dropped in due to a note at wp:ver; forgive me if I'm not as versed at the subject. IMHO, if content is disputed, that should raise the bar a bit for sourcing. WP:RS is a context-specific criteria. The statement "unmatched for two millennia" is a statement that the whole rest of the world did not match this technology for two millennia. Requirements for an RS on that statement would include a review of world technology, not just a review of Chinese technology. Possibly you all could start out in an unWikipedian way and decide (before pulling out the rule books) whether y'all would classify this statement as true, false or contested. Clearly there is no consensus that it is "false". But I don't see anyone contesting the veracity of the statement itself. If it's veracity is uncontested, you might just let this slide. If it's veracity is contested then you might look closer at the rule books. If it is contested, you might just rewrite the sentence to say that such is the opinion of Temple rather than writing it as a fact citing him as the source. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My point is that this sweeping statement is extremely open to falsification. Temple claims that a) for a period of 2000 years in comparison to b) the whiole world, China's military technology was unmatched. This means that his claim is proven false as soon as there is a single case to the contrary, a single people which possesssed superior weapons for a period of time within the given frame.
This is all a simple application of Popper's falsification criteria: If someone claims that for two thousand years, all goose on earth were black, this statement can be immediately and thoroughly falsified by showing him a single white goose in the specified time and space frame. Then the claim is false. So should I do this? Should I dig for a statement to the contrary effect? 2, 3, 4, how many unrestrained appraisals of other people's military ingenuity do we need before Temple's opinion is exposed as untenable supposition and accordingly removed? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Since it is written like a fact, not as a description of a someone's opinion, the rulebook is already with you. To keep the statement in would require a citation to a reliable source, and per the above; this would be based on an analysis of world technology, not just Chinese technology. You don't have to prove the statement wrong, the other person has establish that it is sourced per wp:ver in order to keep it in.
I think that you have also already fulfilled my unwikipedian recommendation, which is basically, don't pull out the rule book unless you also disagree with the veracity of statement. That would require just you contest it, not that you proved your point. This is the spirit of the "contested or likely to be contested" wording, in WP:VER/WP:NOR although structurally those rules do not implement that "spirit". Since I know that Templeton's statement is roughly consistent with a widely held opinion, IMHO it could stay in if the statement becomes that Templeton holds that opinion. Sincs it would then be a statement about Templeton's opinion rather than about their technology being unsurpassed, it becomes sourceable, and also, due to being a widely held opinion, IMHO suitable for inclusion per per WP:NPOV.North8000 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Popper used black swans, not geese as his example. Nevertheless GPM's point is valid.Philg88 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
uh, North8000, that's exactly what it is; a statement of Temple's opinion (and probably Needham's too).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Something like:
Historian Robert Temple expressed the opinion that "China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia".
Although it would be better to find a less overreaching statement of his in this area to quote, which I'm guessing exists. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what we have now, North 8000. I will be getting Temple's book soon to expand the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but the article spans about 4000 yrs, so which 2000 years are we talking about exactly. Is that a continuous period from 1000BCE-1000CE, or is that a cumulative period of for example 2000-700 BCE (when Roman equipment became superior) plus the period from 400 CE (fall of the Roman Empire) - 1100 BCE? Without this information it is plain impossible to judge the claim on its value. Of coure once we have etablished the exact periods the Chinese military technology was superior we have to establish that Robert Temple is indeed a world class specialist on the military technology of each and any relevant warfaring civilization at that time, otherwise he may be a specialist in the Chinese military technology of the day, but lacking sufficient knowledge to make relevant comparisons. Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and another explanation altogehter maybe that Temple is indeed right but was misinterpreted by us. Maybe he intended to say "The Chinese military technology was unmatched in the field for two millenia", which makes the claim much more modest (i.e. limiting it to countries Chinese had armed conflict with). I guess the would fall within the knowledge base of a historian studying chinese history. But in that case we should rephrase the line in a much more modest way. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The span that Temple talks about is roughly the imperial era til the nineteenth century, i believe. that would be from 200 BCE to 1800 CE (roughly).Teeninvestor (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well we need a source to make that clear. By the way that would imply that Chinese armor was better than Roman, their siege engines were better than Roman and medieval. Their cavalery outmatched the medieval heavy cavalry, their fleet could take on the Spanish, Dutch and British war fleets at the heights of their power. Their cannons outperformed the best the European could produce until Napoleon, their missile fire (muskets, bow and arrow, cross bow) outperformed everything in Europe. And that is only a summary list highly colored by my own knowledge and W-European pov. Interesing claim, show me the evidence for all. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another remark. Although Robert Temple may have worked for decades on chinese military history, that is nothing special. Most academics work on a relatively small area for a long time. The question however is whether his views are notable. A google search on his name readily gives his homepage [www.robert-temple.com/]. The material there does however little to say his views are at all notable. Also his academic career seems not very notable. So why is this historian chosen over others? That needs to be made clear in the light of the earlier issues regarding WP:cherry cherry picking. Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple is probably better known to many (including me) for his argument that "the Dogon people preserve the tradition of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system" (quoted from his Wikipedia entry). He's very popular with the Chinese official establishment for his recent writing on China as well, however. I'd come back to the point, though, that whilst Temple does reference the well-respected Joseph Needham to support the quote that we're debating, Needham doesn't actually argue that position himself (that I'm aware of). I still think we should retain the Temple quote though, suitably caveated. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
He's reflecting the work of Needham, not himself, guys! Please read the quote at the beginning before posting.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You've just said you've not got the book, and I previously queried whether the quote from Temple is accurate. In fact you gave the quote while at the same time saying you didn't have the book to hand. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I had the book when I added this quote when I started this article. Now I don't have it. I'm getting the library to give it to me again, however it will take a while.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I still can't find any reference to Needham himself arguing that Chinese military technology was unmatched for two millennia (but I stand to be corrected - he's written a lot!) Could I propose the following straw man set of words as a possible compromise?
"Early Western scholars tended to underestimate the levels of Chinese military technology during this period, influenced in part by a "very slight knowledge of Oriental sources, especially those in Chinese",[3] and the availability of archaeological evidence at the time. Post-war work led by the academic Joseph Needham resulted in the Science and Civilisation in China sequence of publications, highlighting that in some areas, Chinese military technology exceeded that of international peers during the period.[4] In his recent popular reinterpretation of this research, writer Robert Temple has gone further to argue that China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia".[1]"
Hchc2009 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hchc2009. I think your suggestion has a lot of merit. I would like to have some clarification on a few words though. "Early Western scholars" - this is a bit ambiguous as you could list people as early as Aristotle among the early western scholars. I guess you mean something like "Nineteenth and early twentieth century Wester scholars".
"In some areas" I can live with this, but it would be best if we could specify in which (but if we can't I wouldn't mind)
"during the period". Period is rather vague, this could be anything between the afternoon of 23 July 237 CE, or the whole 4000 yrs that this article cover. I guess we are talking about the 300 BCE-1700BE period (which would link to the 2000 yrs mentioned by Temple). Can we be more specific about the period?
After mentioning all this I really do not see the necessity for adding Temple to the section, as his analysis seems merely speculation based on the much higher standard work of Needham, so I think with this section in place we can remove Temple altogether without changing the content (and I would suggest to do so because of WP:undue.
Also I did not realise this was indeed Robert K. G. Temple who is involved in fringe theories, so to be honest I would treat anything written by him with suspicion, he may be a good and convincing writer, but I do not think we should consider him as a leading academic in the field. Arnoutf (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I can dig up the finer details on the Needham side on Sunday if need be (I'm off now for a day or so); I think Needham notes that the Chinese gunpowder weapons were better at most times, as initially was the early China trebuchet, but on the other hand the Chinese weren't so advanced with fire weapons as some other nations, and the later Arabic adaptation of the trebuchet was better than the Chinese one, etc. etc. - we could pull these out easily enough I suspect. I agree with you about the need to pin down the period being referred to and name the relevant scholars.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
"2, 3, 4, how many unrestrained appraisals of other people's military ingenuity do we need" Which is much the argument I tried to make. As it stands, it appears every single instance of Chinese tech was superior at every single point in time. If China hadn't conceived the torsion seige engine, I suggest, we've already falsified the claim. More to the point, I find this relies too much "appeal to authority". Forget whether Temple is a genius, or a nut, or in between. Show some examples, provide the sources, & let the reader decide how good the Chinese were. (BTW, Chinese naval tech was better in 1492 than anything in Europe; compartmentalization, rudders, bamboo sails, & 1000 ton ships Columbus couldn't have dreamed of....) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And that is indeed one of the problems, I readily believe the Chinese ships being far superior in 1492, but were they still superior in 1792 (which is the time of Nelson's ship of the line)? That is after all the size of the claim! Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Even this claim can just as easily be discounted: Portolan maps, the true mariner's compass, the Jacob staff, the lateen sail, the fully hinged stern-mounted rudder, caravel planking, even largely the keel (which junks do not have), all were unknown to the Chinese until introduced by European sailors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad we agree there, Trekphiler. Whatever Temple's authority, and as an ufologist, it is as slim as that of the user who likes to extensively quote him, his grandiose claim can be falsified in a zillion ways. Let's start:
  • Greco-Roman torsion catapult: unknown to Chinese --> Chinese instance of military inferiority in antiquity (500 BC-500 AD)
  • Frankish counterweight trebuchet: used by Mongols, reduced Song cities to rubble and put an end to the whole dynasty --> Chinese instance of military inferiority in High Middle Ages (ca. 1280)
  • Military Revolution (matchlock, flintlock, bombard, field artillery, trace italienne, etc.) in comparison to ineffective, small and cumbersome Chinese gunpowder weapons --> Chinese instance of military inferiority in Early Modern Age (1500-)
Temple's claim has been falsified for three benchmark times in antiquity, Middle Ages and the Modern Age, Q.E.D. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, we're going to listen to your OR and ignore Needham. As I said, have you even read a single book about Chinese military history? And I have to repeat it a billion times, but Temple is the summarizer. The work comes from Needham. This is a perfect example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; just because you allegedly "disproved" something with your OR doesn't mean anything. And no, the battle of Xiangyang is a lot more complex than that, and crossbows were more complex than any torsion machine. I'm sorry, but we're not going to remove an assertion because some editor allegedly "disproved" something Needham worked on for dozens of years. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In summarising nuance often gets lost. That is why we need the original phrases of Needham not the popularised summary by Temple. As long as the Temple summary stays up that is the only thing we have, and I think GPM has shown that the specific statement by Temple is an overinterpretation. That maybe either because nuance got lost, or because Needham was wrong. But we need Needham for that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
PS Needham worked for decades on Chinese history, not on comparing Historical Chinese military technology to the military technologies of all other contemporary civilisations. Actually only 2 out of 25 volumes in the Needham series (<10%) are about military technology. Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Each volume is several hundred pages, Arnoutf, more than enough to triple or quadruple the size of this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The point is that you repeatedly claim that the authors have been working for decades on the topic of Chinese military science. But Needhams project (running for about 50 yrs) has dedicated only 2 out 25 of it publications to military science. So the actual time spent is probably in proportion; or so not more than at maximum 10 years full time work on military science ; how much of that was spent on comparative studies is not clear but it will be much less. Arnoutf (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but Temple's claim is too broad-brush and easily falsifiable. It implies that China's military technology was unmatched by anyone, anywhere, for a full two millennia. Yet it is trivial to come up with counter examples. Moreover, what does Temple know about other cultures' military technologies? Nothing. Such a claim should only come from a respected expert on the history of warfare, e.g. John Keegan. It seems like a classic sensationalist claim solely designed to garner attention onto itself and the subject. Considering that Temple is a popularizer and not a scholar, this is to be expected. Athenean (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert K. G. Temple: Fringe or not?

This is bad. I always thought of Robert K. G. Temple as a polemical and one-sided author, but I didn't know that he was that close to WP:Fringe. Teeinvestor has in fact used his 'book' quite intensively to buttress his claims of Chinese excellence and European backwardness, 4 times in Economic history of China (pre-1911) alone:

  • Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader

  • Cast iron was invented in China during the 4th century BCE, but was not adopted by the West for 1,700 years

  • Its strength allowed the Chinese to develop weapons superior in quality to the iron weapons used by other nations

  • These innovations in China's agriculture increased efficiency at least ten times, and possibly thirty times in comparison to its western counterparts

I don't have much experience with this guideline, should we take this to Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

my suggestion would be to drop Temple and use Needham or other mainstream Sinologists instead. Arnoutf (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
100% of the content of the book comes from Needham. So in effect we're already using his work. GPM, if you want to dispute Needham's credibility and claim your estimates are better, you're free to do so; don't use Temple as a banner.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that Temple is coloured by the Dogon book (which was I believe his interpretation of others work - their work has since been questioned). Temple may be reliable on China, he may be very good at summarizing Needham's work, what is needed is an assessment of Temple as RS on China. I don't think that because he has held/reported a fringe theory it necessarily counts against him in an entirely different area. Conan Doyle backed the Cottingley Fairies but was also a qualified Doctor and knew a fair bit about the law. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
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. Arnoutf (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Summarizing and then exaggerating. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That is always a risk if you accept summaries of original sources, although I am not certain this is the case here. What I keep finding problematic though is that Temple is not known as a sinologist, so why would his book be mentioned. Also I am not sure whether it is completely up to date, as the quote refers to a 1985 edition. Arnoutf (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Guys, Temple is here summarizing the work of Joseph Needham; nearly all his assertions are based on Needham's data, so in effect we can treat this as a popular summary of Needham's work. And it's absurd to think that Temple's work on Dorgons or whatever has any relation to this work; here he is merely a summarizer of Needham (And he was a summarizer in the Dogon case too). As to Needham, not including his info in a China history article is like not including Hawking's work in a quantum physics article.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And that last claim lacks substance. Stephen Hawking did contribute significant original ideas to quantum physics himself. And indeed no quote of Hawking is included in the Quantum physics article. Temple on the other hand is a mere populariser; and is more like Bill Bryson with A Short History of Nearly Everything. So with no quote of Hawking in the Quantum physics article, while he is clearly a superior contributor to that field than Temple in this, why would we mention Temple? Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe because quantum physics is a bad place for quotes?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this article as well, but you did not address that Hawkings work is several leagues above that of Temple making your comparison rather inappropriate (note that YOU raised this as comparison). Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm comparing Needham and Hawking, not Temple and Hawking, in terms of their importance to their respective fields. Obviously Hawking's work is miles above Temple.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then we clearly have no problem, we use Needham and drop Temple. Arnoutf (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That's kinda the thing, 100% of the content of the book comes from Needham. So in effect we're already using his work.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
So why do we need to mention the name Temple at all, if there is no original idea by him? Arnoutf (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, Wikipedia's editing rules that state you must identify the author?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes they do, in the reference, they do not demand author names being mentioned in the text. Unless you want to quote the author, but why would we want to quote a summariser? Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously he doesn't have to mentioned in the text, but he has to be mentioned in the sources section.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham quote

Teeinvestor, could you give us the Needham quote you are constantly referring to? There are now more than one user who would like to see that now. Right now, Temple's opinion is as isolated and unsupported by other authors as a castaway in the midst of the Atlantic Ocean. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh; I will repeat; 100% of the content of the book comes from Needham. So in effect we're already using his work. Temple is only a summarizer.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
So we don't want a quote by the summariser I guess. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Mentioned that Temple is summarizing Needham.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Needham on Temple's summary:

Joseph Needham says in his Foreward, "It is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of my Science and Civilization in China, published by the Cambridge University Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press."

Sufficient to say this was endorsed fully by Needham.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully? I hear a lot of revervations in the phrase "It is, in its own way, a brilliant destillation". In British English such a phrase (especially because of the phrase 'in its own way') means something like, "well it is not exactly a summary and it takes some liberties with what I have been trying to say but nevertheless it a rather good overview of" Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Further exceptional claims by Teeinvestor

Note that Teeinvestor has a history of making grandiose and hollow claims of Chinese excellence. Just two out of a sizable and growing collection of exceptional claims:

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

GPM, you've claimed before that Africa had a higher GDP per capita than China in 1 CE (and equal to France); that Finland was wealthier than China in 1700, that Roman Britain's GDP per capita was equal to the native americans, and that the Taijitu was invented by Romans. I have no comment.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
See Taijitu and see List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita. These sourced articles tend to support GPM's claims, counterintuitive as they may seem. Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that Maddison's estimates are one out of a dozen? See the criticism section please. If some academic published a paper saying that Africa's GDP per capita is higher than US now, would you put that in? If GPM is correct, Marco polo should be denigrating the Chinese about their poverty, as the feudal lords and priests of Europe were obviously ten or a hundred times richer! The Taijitu one is just absurd; some neanderthal might have painted a black half-circle on a white rock, doesn't mean they invented the taijitu.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes but Maddisons estimate seems to carry mainstream support at the moment. And no the Chinese top one promille may have been much richer than the Europeans of the day. Polo was talking to the lords, who typically belong to the top of the wealth piramid. To compare their wealth to the Europeans you have to correct for dissimilarities in the wealth distribution. I.e. if Europe was more egalitarian at that date it stands to reason the Chinese lords were richter than the European lords, but if at the same time the European middles classes and peasantry were richer this would cancel out in the statistics. Also any such differences would be incredibly enlarged by differences in total population, as the top 1% of a large country tends to be richer than the top 1% of a comparable smaller country. Simple statistics. And of course the name and spiritual meaning of taijitu is Chinese, but the symbol itself is much older. The article on Taiitu is on the symbol which carries the Chinese name by lack of a better name. There are historical sources naming the use of the symbol to early European usage, but indeed if we dig up neanderthal, or early asian Homo Erectus sites with the symbol we will happily add that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the mainstream is divided on this one. Paul Bairoch, another economic historian, provided estimates that Chinese GDP per capita was in excess of the west until 1800, and his estimates are supported by Kenneth Pomeranz and John M. Hobson, just to pull 2 scholars off the top. And as to Polo, I want to note to you that at the time of Polo's estimates, China had just been conquered and devastated thoroughly by the Mongols- its GDP per capita was probably half of that of the previous Song Dynasty; and yet Polo mentions explicitly the abundant wealth, use of coal, etc, of cities such as Hangzhou and Bianjing which had just recently been devastated. That alone shows something. If anything, China's distribution of wealth was probably more equal than Europe, as China had gotten rid of the parasitical feudal aristocracy as early as 400 BCE. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And Venice was a republic in Polo's time. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about Europe as a whole, Arnoutf.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, by about 1250 Europe had collapsed in very many extremely small basically indepdent fiefdoms of which the republic of Venice was one of the richest and most powerful. However, Polo encountered a state in China where a huge country was ruled by a central government, that consequently had also vastly more resources than any single fiefdom in Europe at the time. It is a bit like the economic power of the USA compared to that of Luxembourg. While the GDP per capita of Luxembourg maybe higher, the governmental buildings of the US are far more impressive. Arnoutf (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Marco Polo mentioned explicitly that China was much much wealthier than any other country he was in, including Venice; considering he was visiting it during a time in which China's GDp per capita was extremely low thanks to Mongol invasions, I'd say that's a big difference. I think it's beyond question that China's GDP per capita was higher than Europe at least until 1500, and probably til 1800, considering the evidence on this matter. It is universally agreed by academics that Chinese agriculture was ahead of Europe til 1800, and since agriculture made up 80% of all premodern economies (at least), this pretty much settles the matter.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
OR, anyone? Athenean (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, synthesis I would say, and so is my argument. And thus both strains of reasoning are equally non acceptable. Arnoutf (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

So far, I see 6 editors explicitly in favor of removing Temple's claim(myself, Gun Powder Ma, Nev1, Arnoutf, Swarm, Trekphiler), only Teeninvestor explicitly for keeping it, with Hchc2009 in favor of a very very hedged version, North8000 in favor of a less sweeping version (in other words, weakly against) and yet another user, Ed, skeptical of the claim though not he has not explicitly said he is in favor of removing it. To me, 6-1 seems like a consensus. However, this case may be right for an RfC. Athenean (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter for debating. This view is a view expressed by the most prolific China scholar on the topic; we're not going to remove it because of the guesses and OR of a bunch of editors whose combined knowledge on the Chinese military is less than one-thousandth of Needham. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it seems like the only reason this sensationalist piece of PEACOCKery is still in the article is your incredible persistence. I don't see any other editors in favor of keeping it. When its six editors against one, we have a consensus. And if I were you, I wouldn't edit-war against the consensus, ESPECIALLY seeing how you are the subject of an RfC/U. Athenean (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Seven actually - I want to see such a sweeping generalisation binned too. Philg88 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, a quote, especially one by Temple is completely out of place. Arnoutf (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Eight actually. As written it is obviously false. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More of Temple

Please let me point out that more dubious claims of unchecked superiority by this Temple can also be found at Economic history of China (pre-1911), such as:

  • Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader
  • These techniques spread rapidly, but with the exception of the use of animals, they were limited to China until the European Agricultural Revolution of the 18th century
  • Cast iron was invented in China during the 4th century BCE, but was not adopted by the West for 1,700 years
  • Its strength allowed the Chinese to develop weapons superior in quality to the iron weapons used by other nations

Not much of this is, in this unrestrained way of putting it, correct. Cast iron, for example, appears in Europe since the Early Middle Ages actually, around 500 AD (Giannichedda, Enrico (2007): "Metal production in Late Antiquity", in Technology in Transition AD 300-650 L. Lavan E.Zanini & A. Sarantis Brill, eds., Leiden; p. 200; ). What should we do with these claims? I feel a more Wikipedia-wide solution is required. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right! So we're going to remove claims from the most prolific China scholar who probably knows more about Chinese technology than all of the editors here combined because of your own OR? How about no. And I find your claim that Europe made an advance into Cast iron right after the disastorus fall of the Roman Empire extremely dubious; in any case, the case that cast iron was established in China centuries before Europe is well established. You have a history of grossly exaggerating Roman era iron production (see Talk:Roman metallurgy)

Whether the claim of 2000 years' technological superiority is endorsed by Needham I do not know. But the information on cast iron, seed drill, etc is definitely fully endorsed by Needham (see list of Chinese inventions) To remove this information is a travesty.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not removing claims from Needham only from the UFO believer who summarises him.
Cast iron is hardly rocket science. Medieval Europe was actually better in mechanics than the Romans (plough, mills, etc). Cast irons use in weapons is extremely limited as it is very brittle. A cannon is good use, a sword will shatter. Arnoutf (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Needham says in his Foreward, "It is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of my Science and Civilization in China, published by the Cambridge University Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press."

Sufficiently to say that Needham fully embraced the work of Temple in this matter and that it is indeed an WP:RS, unless someone here shows that Needham is wrong.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand English AT ALL?? "in its own way" means "not as I would have done it but ok I won't spoil his book". That is something else entirely from fully embracing, which would have carried a statement like "I could not have said it better myself". You claim about "fully embracing" is based on wishful thinking and not acceptable.
NO NOBODY SUGGESTS NEEDHAM IS WRONG. BRING HIM IN, BUT LEAVE THE UFO LOVER OUT OF IT!! Try to read WP:COMPETENCE because it seems that either you are not competent (but acting in good faith) or you are deliberately disruptive. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's why Needham called it a "brilliant distillation", cause he hated it and thought every claim was false. It isn't my English skills who are in question here, Arnoutf.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As I explained above. It is probably something like "In its own way"->"Not as I would have done it" "brilliant destillation -> "but pretty good". But that is not the same as "fully embraced". If you make that claim show me a quote by Needham saying "I fully embrace this work" otherwise it is your own interpretation and pretty useless. Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Temple's book has been praised by multiple reviews, as well as Needham himself, who wrote the foreword for it. If Needham hated it and was against it, as you claim, why would he bother to write the foreword for it? Even if he didn't "fully embrace" it, he obviously endorsed it! As to the argument that we should only use Needham, why don't we use only CERN records on the Large Hadron Collider? Why don't we get a wikipedia editor into the CERN institute to ask for the millions of pages of direct records to interpet what the collider is doing? Needham's work is 25 volumes and hardly accessible; that's why Temple's book was published, as a summary of Needham's work. Arguing against Temple's book as "unreliable" is equivalen to arguing against Needham Teeninvestor (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Temples book is obviously a good effort at making Needhams work accessible for the larger public. But in briging back 25 volumes to a single book you loose a lot of subtleties and nuance. Our discussion is mainly about the subtleties and nuance.
Also the CERN analogy is flawed; reading the data of CERN would be like reading the Chinese texts and looking at the Chinese artefacts that Needham used. Reading Needham would be like reading (e.g.) Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer, Nobel laureates from CERN. Arnoutf (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another summary

This is all about adding a quote by Temple in the article.

  • Everyone involved, including Teeninvestor agrees a quote is not needed.
  • Temple is not Needham, at least according to everyone but one. Teeninvestor remains upholding the claim that by removing the quote from Temple we automatically disregard Needham.
  • Temple himself is not an established scholar. His academic past is highly dubious, and he has not contributed major original ideas.
  • The claim as written by Temple is too large, 2000 years superiority in military technology is just impossible. We all agree that on average the Chinese military technology was of high standard and possibly on average even best of the world for a significant part of its history, but the plain claim by Temple (not Needham!) implies that Chinese military technology was on all domains better than all other mil tech, for the whole 2000 yrs. Counterexamples have given evidence this is untrue.

The Temple claim has to go, and a more modest version based on Needham or other sources needs to be put in place. That this has not happened is because Teeninvestor has blocked all attempts to get to an agreement. Arnoutf (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote from Needham:

Joseph Needham says in his Foreward, "It is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of my Science and Civilization in China, published by the Cambridge University Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press."

Sufficiently to say that Needham fully approved of the work of Temple in this matter and that it is indeed an WP:RS, unless someone here shows that Needham is wrong. The claim IS based on Needham. Also, When did I agree the quote was not needed? It appears that you're lying to gain an advantage. Suffice to say that I will leave this article for now, but I will be expanding it using Temple and Needham's sources in a week.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You are soundig like a broken grammophone, repeating your flawed interpretation of Needhams text in a foreword.
And about the quote... to quote you: "Obviously he doesn't have to mentioned in the text, but he has to be mentioned in the sources section.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)" Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Your personal attacks have been noted, Arnoutf; I warn you that questioning any editor's competence is wrong. Temple obviously doesn't need to be mentioned; the question is whether if his claim should be included. (Teeninvestor)
Noting an obvious trend of repeating a flawed statement is hardly a personal attack. And if questioning any editors compentence is wrong why do you question our competence in wanting to kick out Temple. But as you seem to read everything we say in a way you want to there is no use arguing such a minor point. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Why use Temple at all? You've been at pains to remind everyone that he's regurgitating Needham, so much so that you've conflated the two people and interpret a criticism of Temple as a criticism of Needham. As Needham's work is so influential, why bother with a summariser? Why not cut out the middle man and reference Needham himself? Nev1 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Nev1, that is exactly what I have been trying to argue for a long time now. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we use only CERN records on the Large Hadron Collider? Why don't we get a wikipedia editor into the CERN institute to steal the millions of pages of direct records to interpet what the collider is doing? Needham's work is 25 volumes and hardly accessible; that's why Temple's book was published, as a summary of Needham's work. Arguing against Temple's book as "unreliable" is equivalen to arguing against Needham. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"Arguing against Temple's book as "unreliable" is equivalen to arguing against Needham" say you and you alone. And even so, I would not mind taking in some obvious statements from Temple, only the rather grand claim you quoted is shown to be false and therefore not the claim we should take into the aricle. We could use that section by temple to write something like "Between XXX and XXX Chinese military technology was at an extremely high level, and in many areas belonged to the most advanced in the world (ref - Temple)" which is a much more modest claim, but one that is indeed not outright contradicted by the evidence of Gun Powder Ma. We do not want to deny that China was great, we do not even want to contradict Needhams mission to make the west aware of this greatness. But we also do not want an easily refuted claim in this article. Temples quote is just that, and easily refuted claim. Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If it was just the claim, I wouldn't have cared much. I frankly think that 80kb of discussion on this is a waste. But the effort here is now trying to discredit all of Needham's work; for example, above GPM is claiming that he is going to have a "Wikipedia-wide" cleansing of these "claims". He has contested well-known and settled arguments such as the invention of cast iron, seed drill, etc. This is unacceptable and a disgrace to wikipedia if such well known facts are removed; it would be as if Newton's theory of gravity was contested.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1) It always was mainly the claim. That is why everyone is getting that annoyed because it is taking so long. The claim/quote has to go.
2) Temple may have summarised Needham, but may have lost a lot of the subleties in doing so. The remaining claims by Temple may be somewhat overpretentious, and it is those claims by Temple Gun Powder Ma is arguing against. Nobody has a problem with Needham but Needham is not Temple. Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Whether the claim of 2000 years' technological superiority is endorsed by Needham I do not know. But the information on cast iron, seed drill, etc is definitely fully endorsed by Needham. To remove this information is a travesty.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"a travesty" Please don't overreact. Also Needham was a good scholar, but even great scholars are sometimes wrong. Furthermore reappreciation of European early middle ages (not as dark as often assumed) has increased over the last decades. So it is quite possible that the earlier European cast iron technology was only dated/reported after Needhams texts. Note that the Temple book is already from the early 1980's so about 25 yrs old. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
List of Chinese inventions disagrees. Also I have yet to see a reliable source on this matter (the claims about agriculture are so absurd as to not be worth mentioning). Even if cast iron was introduced in 500 CE (highly dubious; Rome just fell, and half the population just died), it is still 900 years after China, so Temple's claims remain intact.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Needham's claim I guess you mean. And the modern view on European middle ages does say that it was indeed the drop in population (and therewith workforce) put European mechanical engineering in the focus. "Why build a mill if you have plenty of slaves?" Arnoutf (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You do know that serfdom replaced slavery? The destruction that was caused by the Roman Empire's fall was horrendous (and this is not counting the destruction wrought under the totalitarian emperors after the 3rd century). The entire economy reverted to a natural economy, with money falling out of use and everyone turning to self-sufficient production. Europe would not recover for centuries. Hardly a time for advances in the iron industry! Teeninvestor (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Recent archaeological work has shed new light on the character of European urbanism after the fall of the Roman Empire, casting doubt on previous assumptions about the "Dark Ages". Without wishing to get off topic, my point is that your analogies are not based on a knowledge so I suggest you drop them, and if you insist on arguing you stick to the subject at hand. Nev1 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


(EC) And here you revert to the now outdated classical view of the "dark ages". Yes there was serfdom but that was not the same as slavery (although the difference is subtle to some extent). Yes there was a lot of poverty. Yes there was the need for self sufficient production in smaller communities. But a lot went on as well. The actual "dark" period may have not lasted very long at all. By the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire about 500 CE(the Eastern Roman Empire lasted untill 1453 and kept in contact with Europe througout it existence) the Franks had already established as strong state in central/western Europe; and soon reestablished some kind of central governance in much of Western Europe. Charlemagne (800 CE) saw himself as the logical successor of the Roman Emperiors and even before his day there was a lot of contact within Europe. Agreed some of the Roman inventions like concrete (and underwater hardening concrete) were made impossible because that required logistics getting the right chemicals at the right place. But locally producable stuff like water and windmills (using wooden gears) were huge advances as was the mouldboard plough. The introduction of the arabic numerals including negative numbers and the zero also brought Europe further than the Roman in the early middle ages already. By the high middle ages Europe had adopted blast furnaces.
While Needham rightfully argues that we should not underestimate the Chinese from our Western point of view, the other way around we should also not underestimate the early European culture, this realisation is relatively recent in mainstream history. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Text suggestion

Getting back to the discussion. It is all about this section, and even worse it is only about the underlined sentence.

My suggestion would be to rephrase the text and add some more context (for which Temple can be used) but leave the quote itself out:

What do you think? Arnoutf (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe the consensus is clear: remove the Temple quote altogether. It would be much more instructive if, instead of making untenable categorical claims, the whole technology claim is rather embedded into the context: Like: Chinese crossbow technology was instrumental in keeping the mounted archers on which the nomad armies relied upon at bay. This makes much more vivd and concrete reading instead of this generalizing peackockery. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think introducing that they used advanced technology is a good and relevant introduction to the overview of examples given in the sections below. That is why I suggest an opening like above. but let's wait for the others opinions. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Arnoutf's current compromise is pretty good. I don't know about others, but I endorse it.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea to me. Philg88 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me North8000 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds much better. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mongol premise falls to pieces, Gun powder ma and the other guy

Your premise of the mongols falls to pieces when i point out the Mongol invasion of Europe, when the European armies with their "Frankish trebuchets" fell apart in the face of Mongol invaders in the space of a year, like in their invasion of (1241–1242).

Yet somehow the Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty took over 30 years, and not only that, It took thousands of Chinese defectors who brought over segmenets of the Song's superior navy to the Mongols to assist in their invasion.

Its well document that ethnic Chinese gave the Mongols the military technology to complete the conquest, for example, building the mongol navy which assisted the Mongol conquest of song.

Allegedly the western europeans had superior technolgy to china, according to gun powder ma. Yet the western Holy roman empire army in poland fell apart in the face of the mongol invaders, and China managed to stand them off for 30 years.Дунгане (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is your point, a trebuchet is specialised siege equipment, the mongols were not in cities and not involved in sieges. Actually a modern nuclear attack submarine would also be pretty useless to the mongol cavalry, but to call its technology inferior...... Also not that the mongols did not last 2000 yrs, and the claim is that the chinese were superior on all military technologies for a full 2000 yrs. Arnoutf (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it ok for you, if I tell you I don't even waste my time with your fancy interpretations, Дунгане? It has nothing to do with the topic, but since you have asked: Northern China was effectively overrun by the Mongols as early as 1215, when the Jurchen had to evacuate their capital to central China. What the rest of China saved for a time was that the Mongols eventually turned their attention to the west, following their natural habitate of the Eurasian steppe – a logical and natural strategic choice for a cavalry army which lives off grass fodder. Unless you can convincingly argue that the invention of the steppe grasslands was another ingenious Chinese contribution to deflect the Mongol onslaught, I'd say you pretty much you adorned the Song military with borrowed plumes. They waited anxiously at home until the Mongols decided to return to finish them off. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, GPM, to correct your history a little, the Mongols were attacking Song by the 1230's and were repeatedly repulsed; not until Wang Jian surrendered Sichuan did they begin to lose. As for the Jin, that's no surprise; the Jin were universally hated by both the Mongols and the Chinese who they oppressed, and the dynasty toppled as soon as its military inferiority was obvious. And no, North China did not fall to the Mongols until 1234, when Kaifeng was captured. For details, see Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty and Mongol-Jin War The other editor is essentially correct about the essential role of Song defectors to the Mongol conquest, however; Wang Jian surrendered an entire province, huge supplies of gunpowder bombs without which your "Frankish trebuchets" would have been useless, and a good deal of ships.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

People this strain is going nowhere. Military successes depend on many factors. Numbers, motivation of troops, leadership, tactics and strategy, terrain, logistics..... and military technology. We are talking exclusively about the last here, however any real life campaigns will mix in all others. Arnoutf (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What this does prove is that Gun powder ma knows nothing about mongol military history. He doesn't even know when the first mongol attack on song started, and made his own outlandish claims on how the mongols didnt bother attacking song while on their western campaign. THe fact is that western european armies were desicively routed by mongols. many sources say Mongke Khan, a mongol ruler, was killed by song trebucvhets or cannon. the western europeans never killed a mongol military leaderДунгане (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So what? This does not say anything, you are just putting coincidences together and act like it is a logical argument. It is not. By the way you are again overinterpreting. Western European armies decisively routed, that definitely should includes he famous rout of Irish, English, Welsh and Scottish armies by Mongols, when did this happen according to you? Arnoutf (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Come on guys, prior to the destruction of the Song Dynasty and its replacement by the Yuan, logically the Mongols were not the Chinese so whatever Kublai and his buddies did or did not do to is irrelevant here. Philg88 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Gun powder ma is the one grouping western europe as a group, not me. He claims that since one western european state came up with something advanced all westerners are more advanced than China. Since he groups them together, I can point out that the Mongols routing the German and polish armies of the holy roman empire applies to all of western europe.Дунгане (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Where does Gun Powder Ma claim that? Can you provide a diff? Nev1 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
And agin you are clearly misunderstanding the whole discussion on falsifiability above. If the claim is that Chinese technology is superior this claims to be superior over anything anywhere on the planet. So we only need one single counterexample to disprove the claim. To prove the claim however we need evidence of all technologies compared to all other civilisations (not only all European countries, but also all native nations of Africa, the Americas and Polynesia). Such is the basic idea about providing evidence. Assymmetric, yes, but the one making the claim is the one having the hardest time (and none of us made a claim that all western weapons/nations were superior to chinese), so fair - yes. Arnoutf (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. This is basic logic. 80 kb for trying to communicate basic logic... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone in the above has asked for examples of when foreign navies were defeated by Chinese navies.

Someone in the above has asked for examples of when foreign navies were defeated by Chinese navies.

At the Second Battle of Tamao (1522), the portuguese may have been using superior cannon, but their navy failed against "inferior" chinese cannon. The chinese knocked out two of their ships and drove them out of tamao.

The Dutch navy was defeated at Siege of Fort Zeelandia by a chinese force using Chinese cannon technology. Even though it was reported that Koxinga's cannons were less effective than dutch cannon [2], but the dutch were defeated and outmatched.

at the Battle of Taku Forts (1859), the chinese "inferior" land artillery blasted apart British and French ships , sank 3 british ships, and grounded another 3, defeating the British navy. Дунгане (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So you basically agree the Chinese won because of larger numbers or better strategy and agree that their technology was inferior (especially in the second example where you explicitly state the canons were less effective). But again this goes against all above. The claim is the Chinese had superior technology for 2000 years. Strategy and larger numbers of troops are howevernot technology.
But that is still not the point. Even if the Chinese had superior technology for 1950 years in 9 out of ten types of technologies the claim is still false. We do not need example of Chinese superiority to support the claim, instead we only need one single example of Chinese inferior techology to falsify it. This has all been explained above in a lot of detail. Arnoutf (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
er... what about the first and second opium wars? Were the British routed? Philg88 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as a dumb outsider, why don't ya'll just tone down that over-reaching and obviously false "superior in every way to everybody for 2000 years" statement, and then leave the revised statement in. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That is basically what everybody is trying to say. But we cannot do that if we keep the quote by Temple. But indeed a statement that Chinese mil tech was of a high level should be in. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe that it needs 80 kb of discussion before this most certainly over-reaching and obviously false "superior in every way to everybody for 2000 years" statement could be removed. I feel this total out resistance as if one's life is on stake is problematic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Chromium

Gun Powder Ma claims Chinese technology was inferior in every single way to europeans. I have just added (with Western sources) information on How the Qin dynasty over 2,000 years ago was able to plate metal swords with chromium oxide.
Westerners didnt even know how to use chromium oxide until the 1700s. The Roman Empire didnt know squat on how to do it.
The allegedly "inferior" Chinese meturllagy according to Gun Powder Ma shouldnt have been able to come up with something 2000 years before westerners did.Дунгане (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try to understand. What Gun Powder Ma argues is that "Chinese technology was NOT SUPERIOR in every single way to europeans". If you do not see that that is something else entirely from what you claim GPM is saying you should perhaps stop with this per WP:COMPETENCE. Arnoutf (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by Teeninvestor

So it seems that Teeninvestor's agreement to abide by the compromise wording proposed by Arnoutf was a deceptive move and done in bad faith. Today, he carried out his earlier threat of adding an entire paragraph from Temple [3], including the disputed wording that everyone here had agreed to keep out (and using yet again a deceitful edit summary). This has now crossed the line deep into WP:DIS territory. The way I see it, this is ground for a ban. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

From the editor who's been blocked 3 times for repeated edit warring? The newest addition is a more neutral quote from Temple detailing his view of the Chinese "military-industrial" complex, part of a huge revamping of the article. I view it as a more neutral invocation of the original quote, and certainly worthy of mention considering the huge scale of armarants factories during the Han and Song, many of which were private.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
@Teeninvestor. This is about your behaviour, not Atheneans. We do not want a quote from Temple, not any. You don't need it to make the point (as I showed in the compromise) also in the anglo-saxon culture, unnecessary quotes indicate that the writer lacks insight on the topic to integrate the material into a fluent, reader friendly storyline. (written after below but in direct response to TI above, and yes another edit conflict) Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(Postscript) a rereading of Temple's book indicated the origin of the book was in fact backed by Needham and he provided the materials as well as actually approaching Temple for him to make the work. In other words, this book was actually to some extent the product and idea of Needham, rather than Temple himself. Thus, there should be no question about its reliability.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Personally, I am not one for demanding harsh action ever as I still tend to believe in good faith. I do however admit that I am extremely disappointed by Teeninvestors actions and fully support any reversions and other actions following his recent edits likely as well. I would like to have a response by Teeninvestor why he did this while he was well aware that there is a vast majority opposing verbatim quotes from Temple. Arnoutf (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The wording of the quote is clearly referring to expertise in terms of production. It comes from a discussion on Chinese weapon production, as the context can be seen. It would be false to equate it with Temple's earlier quote. And a rereading of Temple's book indicated the origin of the book was in fact backed by Needham and he provided the materials as well as prodding Temple to finish the book.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
To the editor who is about to be blocked indef for repeated disruption: You figured you'd re-add the material that everyone agreed should be kept out when no one was watching? Unfortunately for you, it didn't work. There is nothing "more neutral" about the quote you addded, it is the same quote we all agreed should be kept out. If you proceed to edit-war over it again, I will go directly to WP:AN where I will propose you be community banned. And I would bet good money that it would stick. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In general I think we should be extremely careful with quotes, to quote ;-) a few opinions on quotes: Ralph Waldo Emerson "I hate quotation. Tell me what you know."(1849) or a similar statement by a (to me unknown) philosopher "He who quotes others lacks the ability to think for himself." Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply and summary

The fact is that firstly I did not violate my agreeemnt, as the quote was regarding expertise in weapons production, not overall technology as the first quote was. Secondly, new information about the reliability of Temple's book is available. It appears that Needham provided the materials for Temple's book as well as assisting him in making the book; indeed, it appears that it was actually Needham who approached Temple to make a summary of this work. In addition, the book has won numerous awards and reviews 1. In light of this information, there should be no doubt about the book's reliability. There appears on this board an irrational tendency to attack Temple's credibility, in light of the information now available, this should not be the case. Quotations from the book are useful in describing the effect of numerous weapons; for example, the quote on the Jin use of cast iron bombs.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You raise basically two points (correct me if I miss one). Neiter of which supports inclusion of quotes.

  1. "should be no doubt about the book's reliability. " - So ok, we allow it as a reference, as we did before.
  2. "Quotations from the book are useful in describing the effect of numerous weapons" This is not as obvious as you make it appear it is. You can describe the effect yourself if needed (and use Temple as reference). This would give a much smoother reading. Of course if it is too much detail to describe these yourself then the quote is also unduly detailed. In either case, the quote is not needed and therefore should probably not be used. Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Needless to say that the recent expansion of the article based on the fringe author Temple and his extreme views concerning the level of Chinese miltary technology fully warrant the resoration of the tags. It is as if one week of discussion was for nothing, so here we start again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Your attempts to decry Temple as a "fringe author" show a great misunderstanding of the research available. Needham provided the materials for Temple's book as well as assisting him in making the book; indeed, it appears that it was actually Needham who prodded Temple to make a summary of this work. In addition, the book has won numerous awards and reviews 1. In light of this information, there should be no doubt about the book's reliability. It is used on several FA's such as List of Chinese inventions, for gods sake. Non-temple sources also give largely the same description of weaponry at Technology of the Song Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty (Temple's book is used there as well). For heaven's sake this guy is a professor at multiple universities and his work has been repeatedly awarded and used on multiple wikipedia FA's, as well as being endorsed and based on the leading sinologist of the 20th century. What are you trying to prove? that somehow 50 years of research by sinologists is wrong?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, GPM just doesn't like the strong, opinionated language used by Temple. I've cited Temple's book, which has its uses in summarizing and simplifying Needham's tomes, but keep in mind that many of Temple's opinions are not expressed by Needham (at least not explicitly). For example, I cannot find the claim anywhere in Needham's volumes that China had an uninterrupted superiority in all weapons technology for two millenniums (i.e. roughly 200 BC to 1800 AD). The claim is absurd when one considers basic innovations such as the flintlock (invented by a Frenchman) which replaced the matchlock firearm. As for China's level of weapons production being the greatest, that can be argued given China's enormous size and the extent of its early iron industry, but it shouldn't be included unless there is specific data comparisons with other world powers throughout this epoch of history. Otherwise the claim just sort of falls flat and is incomplete.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
However, GunPowderMa, I view tags placed at the very beginning of the article to be misleading, as the vast majority of the article's cited content has not been contested here on the talk page. If you are to add any tags at all, place them in specific sections where you see problems and issues. That seems entirely more helpful.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, PoA. Temple is only a journo-type writer who attempts to summarize Needham's work (which itself is to no small amount opinionated and outdated). He himself has no qualification as sinologist and I found his book to be full of errors and exaggerations actually.
Section tags? I'd love to use them, but since Temple is all over the place now, the contested contents now comprises many sections. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, reliable and competent scholars such as Ebrey and Griffith are used quite a bit by Teeninvestor, although reliance on Temple does become heavy towards the end of the article. Although you seem to think Temple is a frothing-at-the-mouth loony, much of his work does fall in line with mainstream sinology. However, some material in Temple's book should be heavily scrutinized and even discounted. For example, his passage on endocrinology (derived from Needham) is riddled with errors which have been proven false by Chinese scientists nonetheless (such as Liu Guangding 劉廣定). Furthermore, heavyweights in sinology like Nathan Sivin have disagreed with Needham and Temple on this issue after reviewing recent lab experiments with human hormones conducted since the 1980s.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ebrey is way way too short on this matter (or any matter) and can only be used as a supplement. Although I have my doubts about Temple on some of the claims on endocrinology, I believe his work on gunpowder bombs is completely mainstream in sinology, as Pericles can testify.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol! You're probably thinking of Ebrey's more generic works like "Cambridge Illustrated History of China" which summarizes vast swaths of history in a small written space. I was thinking more of Ebrey's in-depth research for which she is better known, such as Ebrey, Patricia (1974), "Estate and Family Management in the Later Han as Seen in the Monthly Instructions for the Four Classes of People", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17 (2): 173–205.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I admit I was too hasty in introducing this quote. I thought as the quote related to Chinese superiority in methods of weapon production, it was not involved with the earlier quote about technology. Now that I have thought about it, it seems too similar ot the previous quote. I apologize for any mishaps this could have caused. I promise not to make another edit like this without prior discussion again.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: I have also posted this to User talk:Arnoutf and User talk:Athenean.
Ok, thanks, that sounds good. Can you extend your offer to discuss large changes to all quotes, as it are the quotes rather than the content that spark the controversy. Arnoutf (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I will, except in the case of Temple quoting Chinese dynastic histories and other texts, as I feel they're verbatim quotes and don't really matter.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e Temple (1986), 248 Cite error: The named reference "Temple 248" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ji et al (2005), Vol 2, 84
  3. ^ Vilinbakhov and Kholmovskaia, cited by Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 7., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1986) pg.64.
  4. ^ See for example Needham, 1986.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_history_of_China_before_1912/Archive_1&oldid=1176096575"