Talk:Great Divergence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merge proposal

I am proposing that this article be merged with Western world, although some sections may have text that can go into other articles. This is a neologism of Samuel Huntington. I don't think it has caught on enough for it to have its own article. The article as it stands is an essay that goes over all of world history in recent centuries, and that is a story that belongs in other articles. I know that editors here have been working hard and have come up with some well written and sourced text, but that does not mean that we have a viable article. The work will not be lost if there is a merger or series of mergers. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Object, this is a notable concept distinct from Western world, per discussion here (and in few other places). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct topic here, which has been studied by several authors, even though "Great Divergence" may not be a broadly accepted term for it, and some of the present content of this article does stray into general European history. Kanguole 15:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this already on this talk page and there was agreement that there is a distinct topic that Huntington named, and Pomeranz popularized with his book of the name. It is now used often in discussions by people that get their kicks out of working on this area. This may be the fad name for now, but it the name being used and for that reason I think an article by this name can be support. I would like to see a firmer definition of the term, but that will come as an improvement instead of deletion. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is possible for reasons of WP:SS. But I appreciate Judith's sentiment. I just think it is a reason for moving, not merging. If we decide that "Great Divergence" is too idiosyncratic under WP:NAME, we can always move it to titles that make the WP:SS dependencies explicit, such as History of Western civilization (modern), Modern history (Western world), Rise of the western colonial empires, etc. We also need to make these WP:SS scope ovelaps explicit by means of {{main}} and {{summary in}} links, and see to it that the content of this article is duly summarized in the relevant WP:SS articles.

Further, this article has issues of {{tone}} and {{essay-entry}}, but they can be addressed once we sorted out the questions of scope and title. --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology, title

I have finally perused google books, and I find that the conventional term to refer to this idea since the 1980s has been "the European miracle". The term "Great Divergence" is both less common and more recent. read

R. Palan, 'The European Miracle of Capital Accumulation', in: Blaut (ed.) 1492: the debate on colonialism, Eurocentrism, and history (1992), ISBN 9780865433700.[1]

I am citing this not for Palan's own opinions but for his summary of the definition and history of discussion on the topic. He points out that the concept had been under discussion since the 19th century (Marx, Capital I.31). He further summarizes a number of views, especially Braudel (1979), Guizot (1985), Hall (1986).

In the light of this, I propose a move to European miracle. Also, I would like to note that the current revision is nowhere even near a coherent overview of the topic of the quality of Palan's. There is next to no information of the history of the academic discourse of the 1970s to 1980s. Historical (pre-WWI, Marx) literature is completely absent. I think we need to sit down with a bunch of articles like Palan's and cover the topic systematically (as opposed to a random brainstorming on loosely related factors).

What should be noted under "terminology" is that one author (Blaut 1993[2] ) claims that "European miracle" is used for a claim of European exceptionalism before 1492. A claim which he immediately goes on to debunk vigorously. I know of no evidence that any defender of pre-modern European exceptionalism used the term "European miracle": but it is important to note that some of the google hits after 1993 will be contaminated by this problem.[3]

As for the question, what was this called before 1981, I suggest "European hegemony", "European dominance" or "European exceptionalism" (the latter term often used pejoratively of alleged ideological positions on the question, stressing that "there was nothing exceptional about Europe before 1492, or indeed before 1700".[4]) Here is an interesting book "Before European Hegemony", covering the period 1250-1350 (the beginning Late Middle Ages) when the "miracle" was not yet visible, but processes that would result in modernity began to accumulate. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I discussed Blaut's framing of the "European miracle" earlier on those pages. I do think it is probably the most widely used title, but if we were to move the article, we would need to add a section discussing Blaut's claims (as in: some thing that the very term is biased, others don't). It would also be helpful to cite some definitions (how various authors define EM and related concepts, such as GD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

right. I am still looking into earlier terminology. I think "European dominance" is the most neutral. ("European hegemony" is also used historically in other contexts, such as Europe vs. USA, Europe vs. Ottoman Turkey or Europe vs. Russia, or hegemony within Europe; this would need disambiguation -- I find it used in our sense in 1940[5]). Here I find "the age of emergence of European dominance", which is pretty much exactly what this article is trying to describe. Here we have

"INTERPRETATIONS OF EUROPEAN DOMINANCE What factors account for the rather sudden rise of Europe to world dominance?"

also 100% on topic. It turns out that it is misleading to google for "European miracle" and/or "Great Divergence", as while these are useful shorthands, they are idiosyncratic, and there have been decades of academic debate on exactly this topic without using either term. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, all things considered, I would opt for a move to "European dominance". You simply get the best results when searching for this term. As Piotrus notes, googling "European miracle" etc. just turns up ideological corners like that of Blaut.

The term itself is of course ambiguous and may in principle also refer to association football or whatever. A "disambiguated" title would be something like "European dominance (modern history). --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and neutral. While at this point I am not ready to support renaming, I am also not objecting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: how about European exceptionalism from here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Effect of government policy

I feel that this is a concept which has not been addressed in the overall article. Government policy played a great role in the great divergence and should be mentioned here (how else do you think that China went from several times the west's per capita income to a fraction?). For example, the change in Chinese policy from Ming laissez faire to Qing interventionism(e.g. prohibtions of mining, etc) had greatly restricted industrial development and coincided with the great divergence. On the other hand, the great divergence coincided with the change from mercantilist interventionism/state monopolies to classical libearlism in the west. I don't have a source on hand for these changes now, but I think this should be a topic worthy of inclusion in the article (perhaps in the ideologies section? On a side note, I don't see how socialism played a role in the great divergence).

On another note, there is a lot of content in the article on the late 1800's. Isn't the great divergence the 18th and early 19th centuries? I'm sure that all historians would agree that by the mid 1800's per capita incomes in the west were several times higher than in China.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert to consensus version

I have reverted back to the version of 2 July 2010, arrived at through collaborative consensus-based processes between several editors; the only changes I have made to that version are formatting. Although the manual of styles asks editors not to change the format of references without conferring with the main editors of an article (so that toes are not unnecessarily trodden on) I’ve tweaked the formatting as there was not one consistent style. I think from now on it would be useful to stick with this style. The separation of bibliography and footnotes is less cluttered and the citations are fairly easy to format once you've done a couple.

Now I've explained the format changes, I should explain why I have reverted the additions by Teeninvestor (talk · contribs). Frankly I am concerned about a user coming here and making sweeping changes to an established article without consulting the authors; of course, no one "owns" an article, but it's polite to ask for their input before changing their work. It's also good practise as you won't be editing against established consensus. This isn't some neglected stub any more. Part of the problem is with the sourcing. For example this edit to another article, closely related to edits here about mining, has been questioned by another editor. In short, the source doesn't support what is being said. . The discussion with the IP shows quite clearly that the addition to the article is not accurately reflecting the source.

I know Teeninvestor will be unhappy about having work he's spent a great deal of time on reverted, but as this is a developed article changes should be discussed before being implemented. So far, the undiscussed edits have potentially introduced incorrect information and, as highlighted above, sourced information was carelessly and accidentally cut. There is also misrepresentation of sources going on here. In this edit here, we see Teeninvestor changing sourced information without adding his own source (therefore putting words into the mouth of Roberts), and again cutting sourced information without gaining consensus for his actions.

My point is that discussion is essential when dealing with a developed article, and that I am concerned about how sources are being represented. And I am not the only one with those concerns. I strongly suggest that Teeninvestor exercise more caution when editing, adhering to what the sources say, and that he reads the rest of this talk page to aid in his understanding of how the article has developed the way it has. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I find your conduct here impulsive, to say the least. In fact, the IP on the other article confirmed the source of info with the actual text, and I did discuss changes on the talk page previously (see above sections, for example). In addition, the changes were done with multiple sources, not just the cambridge source (as are all the info in the article). This reversion is completely unjustified, unless you can show that all of these edits and sources were malicious (when in fact none of them were). For all your talk of consensus, reverting two days of work by one editor is definitely not consensus. <bold>In fact, so far you have not shown any of my information to be incorrect or badly sourced.</bold> Any reversions should be of specific changes that you find objectionable, not mass reversions. In the edit in which you claimed that I changed sourced information, the only sentence I changed that was not sourced was the lead sentence, which was meant to summarize the paragraph; I doubt that was a sentence directly from the source! As to the Ip's claims, note how he has accepted the editing on mining prohibitions- something that is supported by multiple sources; I can procure nearly a dozen if you wish. In fact, I have contacted another editor who has expert knowledge in this area for his comment on this article- I hope this will help resolve this dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand consensus. The version I reverted to was worked on by several people, and that is what they agreed on. You came here, ignored previous posts on the talk page, and have the gall to call your edits consensus instead. I am not saying your edits were malicious; they don't need to be for me to have concerns about them. The IP doesn't have to be correct on every aspect, but he was right about you misrepresenting sources. Your edit said "Another key factor was the prohibition placed on mining by the Manchus of the Qing Dynasty". The source actually said "Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines", very different from prohibition. I'm sorry your work got reverted, but I have highlighted my concerns above and you have not bothered to address them. I'm afraid you do have form for malhandling sources. And there's the flip side: removing sourced information without gaining consensus to do so first. Also, your blind reversion has cocked up the formatting of the references so they're now all over the place again. Sort it out. I suggest you revert yourself. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I placed all the request in front. It's reasonable to infer that this information should be removed if no one objects. Also, as to the mine prohibition, it is supported by multiple sources, not just the Ch'ing source- the references to mines being prohibited appear more than once throughout the text. This is also supported by other sources. And plus, it's not a good idea to revert 80+ edits just to "revert" one edit.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't even wait a day for responses, so it doesn't seem like you're really interested in forming consensus or getting other people's opinions. If it's supported by other sources, then use them rather than the one which contradicts you. However, since you misrepresented that source, I wonder if the others would actually agree with you. Honestly Teeninvestor, my faith in your ability to accurately represent sources is waning somewhat. I'm sorry a lot of your time and energy was wasted, but that's life. And you've still not bothered to sort out the referencing. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Nev1, you're reverting my edits over two days over one minor edit which is largely supported by the source itself with the exception of one word (prohibition on new mines instead of prohibition on mines). That is a huge violation of consensus. You have the gall to say that the source "contradicted" me, when it states repeatedly and repeatedly that officials prohibited rich individuals from opening new mines. And that's not even counting the other sources and other edits, which you also reverted. I will quote one passage here:

洪雅瓦屋山一带有矿,明代商人曾予以开采,“矿甚盛,遂成巨富”。雍正初有人申请开采,县令卢雅雨不允,理由与皇帝一模一样:“查明季碑文内称地产铜铅, 奸民纠党开矿,扰害乡民,轻惹蛮患”;如今“大利所在,奸民尚趋之若鹜,况生蛮乎”〔8〕?可谓振振有辞。乾隆时期,出于对开矿的经济效益和四川人口已经饱和的考虑,曾经取消矿禁 Note the last two letters in chinese specifically refer to "mining prohibition". Teeninvestor (talk)

I'm afraid you're just not understanding. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I have listed multiple issues above. You continue to struggle representing sources. Again and again you seem to be careless to the point of pushing good faith, and that's not even the full extent of it. As I said, I'm sorry you took so long to make those edits, you clearly put a lot in, but now is the time to discuss them per WP:BRD. Your edits have not yet gained consensus, to claim otherwise is laughable. But to return to the issue of the mines, claiming the re was prohibition is nonsense. Do you understand what prohibition means? The source you initially used, The Cambridge History of China, made no such claim and in fact juxtaposes your claim. You have now provided another source, but I wonder why you didn't use it in the first place? And you have yet to fix the formatting errors you have reintroduced into the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, the only issue you have listed is the mines and formatting, which was your own edit. In addition, I will state the text here:"Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines". The text that it supported was: prohibiting new mines except in exceptional cases. I fail to see how this does not work. Even if there was a minor wording error, it shouldn't take a reversion of 80+ edits to fix it. You need to support yourself if you think the above two texts don't match. You claim to support consensus, but none of the editors who were working on this article have objected, and you yourself have admitted you have no expertise on this matter. I admitted my initial edit may have not included enough details, but the correct course of action was to fix it, not revert it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it then that you, Teeninvestor, are an expert? Excellent. But, since you seem happy to ignore my previous posts, the issues are:

• Misrepresentation of sources. Manifest in the mining issue, but also only including one side of the Qing policies. This problem is reminiscent of Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires so is a recurring problem and probably not limited to examples given.
• Removing sourced material without first gaining consensus. It's been barely 24 hours since you asked your question, and you only asked it because I noticed you'd slyly removed it under pretence of adding new information.
• Editing a well-developed article without consulting either the editors who wrote it or bothering to read the talk page to understand it. Leading to some rather skewed edits.
• Formatting. The least important of these issues, but is it really that hard to remember that references go after punctuation? You have over 6,000 edits, something as basic as that and remembering to include full bibliographic information should not be beyond your competence. And if you actually look at my edit (I can only assume you blind reverted) that sources etc are properly formatted. Trying to shift the blame onto me for that is utter rubbish. The correct course of action was revert per WP:BRD. I suggest you familiarise with it as it describes how much of Wikipedia works. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a broader problem of interpretation of evidence. Where do Myers and Wang say that assorted Qing attempts to restrict private mining "crippled Chinese industrial development"? This is a return of the thesis that early C17 China was heading towards industrialization but this was derailed by the Qing. Teeninvestor has not produced any historians who argue that case (despite repeated requests above), but rather cites various items of evidence (e.g. mining) that he/she believes prove the thesis. Such synthesis does not belong here. Kanguole 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, nowhere does it say on wikipedia that you have to wait 3-4 days in order to make new edits. In fact, you did not follow your own rule in terms of "waiting" multiple days and discussion on the talk page first. Editors are encouraged to make changes and then discuss them. I never said that I am an expert but I happen to poessess several sources on the Qing dynasty and other areas related to this article (mercantilism, classical liberalism, etc). And as to the formatting, I have included a full bibliography with all my articles- but I decided to follow the exisiting formatting on this article; you can hardly blame me for its format. Re:Kanguole, the assertion that Qing policies prohibited industrial development is backed by several sources (see back of paragraph), though the Myers and Wang source dealt with mining only (but was placed at the end of the paragraph along with the sources describing agriculture etc). I have moved it to avoid confusion.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the edits dealing with mines and other parts is a very small portion of the edits; other edits included adding new ideologies that were prevalent around the time of the Great Divergence, European state policies, etc. These edits should not be blindly reverted just because there was an objection to the wording of one edit.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you even been listening to anything I've said? Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing about you. So far, you have not revealed a single instance of where the edits were "skewed" except for the mining instance, and that was a minor wording error. For this you have doubled the size of the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to the version arrived at through consensus did not require days as consensus was implicit. That should be easy to see. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still expected to discuss your edits before the reversion. I for one have left notes before I started editing this article, while you reverted dozens of edits for the wording of one edit without giving as much as a word of discussion beforehand. I gave at least a day's notice, and it is reasonable to infer that my edits would be approved. You have told me to discuss my edits, but did you give me as much as a minute of discussion before your mass reversion (which reverted not only edits about the Qing but also dozens of other unrelated edits)?. To show my good will, I have fixed the formatting. I have a suggestion: I have contacted several other editors about this matter, including one who is an expert in East Asian history. I hope they can resolve the matter.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There were two places where that assertion was seemingly attributed to Myers and Wang – you've changed one of them. Regarding the new references you've added, I have old questions, still unanswered: What is this Li and Zheng (2001) reference you've added, and what does it claim? (According to this analysis, that book is deeply flawed and unreliable as a source.) Does the Peterson reference refer to Peterson's introduction (from p1) or Spence's chapter on Kangxi (pp120–183)? Precisely where does it say that Qing policies "crippled China's industrial development"? Kanguole 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I will quote from Cambridge history of China (many other sources are available):

the period has been disparaged as a time when China’s people were held down and held back by autocratic foreign rulers.

. I believe this is a phrase that clearly supports the text that Qing policies did hamper Chinese development. Whether this development, if not hampered, would havve led to a European-style industrial revolution is unknown, but we must acknowledge that this possibility exists. You will notice that in this article, the only thing that is stated is that Chinese policy shifted from laissez faire during Ming to Qing's interventionism; this is no more controversial than stating US government policy shifted from laissez faire pre-1929 to Hoover/Roosevelt-style new deal interventionism. Li and Zheng's source was criticized for being available only in China, however it is quite clear that the same problem would apply to say, a book only available in England.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your quote comes from the first paragraph of Peterson's introduction to volume 9:

"In the grand sweep of more than three thousand years of Chinese history, the period from roughly 1680 to 1780 has been celebrated as a prosperous age. From other perspectives, the period has been disparaged as a time when China's people were held down and held back by autocratic foreign rulers. Such dichotomies reveal that the possibilities remain open for both positive and negative assessments of the period of Chinese history from the founding of the Ch'ing dynasty to the end of the Ch'ien-lung emperor's life in 1799." (ISBN 9780521243346, p1)

The author is setting the scene with a range of statements of unknown provenance. He is not himself arguing the case in whose support you have enlisted him. Nor is evidence of Qing maladministration the same as saying that Qing policies contributed to the Great Divergence by preventing a hypothetical Chinese industrial revolution. You acknowledge that the latter is speculative – in fact it seems devoid of scholarly support. You have produced no historians saying that early C17 China was on track for industrialization but was derailed by the Qing. Without that, Qing policies are no more relevant to an article on the Great Divergence than Roosevelt's.

The Li/Zheng book has been criticized for basic errors (more examples: [6][7]). The limited availability of the book does also present a verification issue, as it would for a book available only in England, especially when there is a huge global literature on Chinese history. Kanguole 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that I am tryintg to prove that early C17 China was on track for industrialization but was derailed by the Qing. This I have not done in the article. What I have done is given an overview of Qing China's policies, just like there are overviews of government policies of Britain, France, and Spain. You're arguing against a strawman here. You will notice that nowhere in the article does it say "Qing China was prevented from having an industrial revolution by so and so policies, etc". Government policies are a very important factor in the Great Divergence (What would have happened had England had a ban on coal mining, just like the Qing?), as it is in all economic events, and deserves to be covered (would you leave out the New Deal in the Great Depression article?). The only thing stated in the article is that Qing policies hampered industrial development, which is backed up by several sources (and should be easy to see; if you ban mining, there isn't going to be much industry). As for the Li and Zheng source, I can assure you that plenty of sources available only in certain countries are used in Chinese history articles; to get rid of all sources because they are available only in Chinese would likely cripple efforts to cover articles in this area.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're not arguing that Qing policies (which started from C17) prevented China from achieving industrialization, then those polices have no relevance to an article on the Great Divergence. You do however say that these policies "crippled China's industrial development", which, in the context of a discussion of the Great Divergence, certainly suggests the same thing. Please supply some of these sources that support your wording and implicit assertion that this relates to the Great Divergence. Whatever inferences you or I might make about mining have no place here.

And there should be no need to rely on Li and Zheng, which has been shown to be deeply flawed, when so much literature on the subject is available. Kanguole 13:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? You do realize there is a whole section on national policies in this article (of which I was not the progenitor), covering the policies of all the nations (as they were a factor during the Great Divergence)? This article covers all the aspects of the great divergence, including the changes, policies instituted, etc). Is the policies of Qing China less relevant to the Great Divergence than the policies, of say, Habsburg Spain or Post-1688 England? Certainly government policies played a great role in the Great Divergence, and should be covered in the article. I admit that Qing policies preventing China from achieving industrialization is my personal view, but this is not the view I am trying to impose in the article; my main goal is give an overview of Qing policies, along with the policies of other European nations (which I have also worked on). If you want to remove all mention of all government policies during the Great Divergence, that is a view I suspect will have little support. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Kanguole provided the whole quote from the Cambridge History of China and it demonstrates a more balanced view of Qing policies, you seem to be cherry picking bits of sources to back up your point of view. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There were quite a few governments at the time, and they presumably all had policies, but not all of them were factors in the Great Divergence. Spain I won't defend, but of course post-1688 England is highly relevant. You have yet to supply sources describing Qing policies as a factor in the Great Divergence. Kanguole 14:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The policies of the major countries involved are relevant. Almost all comparisons done during the Great Divergence are between China and England, so Chinese policies during this period would be at least as relevant as the former, unless you are prepared to admit that English policies are not relevant to the debate. Also, rememeber that this article is titled Great Divergence, not Causes of the Great Divergence, and gives an overview of what was happening at the time and the factors involved. Response to Nev1 above, no one doubts that there was economic growth between 1680 and 1780, but most would agree this was not the result of Qing policies, but rather recovery from war. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The policies of a country are relevant to an article on the Great Divergence if those policies were a factor in the Great Divergence. In fact to discuss a nation's policies in this article is to make an implicit claim that they were such a factor, and saying things like "crippled China's industrial development" goes considerably further. You have yet to provide sources to that effect in relation to Qing policies. Kanguole 14:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the policies of all countries affected their economies in the Great Divergence. For example, France's ban on Calicoes certainly affected the textile industry, a key participant in the industrial revolution. However, claiming a country's policies was a factor in the great divergence is different from claiming a country's policy caused the Great Divergence, which is what you were accusing me of. (Different people may interpet data differently; for example, some keynesians might think that Qing's interventionism actually helped it). In order to cover the topic, it is necessary to outline the policies of the major countries involved, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? As to the "crippled industrial development" assertion, I have already provided Li and Zheng's source, as well as the cambridge source mentioning that views of Qing policies "holding back" china exist. More sources certainly exist, and I will add them to this article (One source, citation 18, already support this assertion by noting that if Qing had allowed commercial development of mines, the "commercial economy" would have been more developed).Teeninvestor (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitary break

OK, it seems we're not going to get sources establishing that Qing policies were a factor in the Great Divergence, and therefore relevant to this article (Li/Zheng is unreliable and unavailable, and the other sources given don't say this). The Qing policy sections are just Manchu-bashing and insinuation. I am against the addition of this material. Kanguole 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Kanguole, you asked for info about whether Qing's policies crippled industrial development. I have responded with several sources confirming this citation, and you end up changing the topic. Can you show me a source that English policies were a factor in the Great Divergence? Of course they were (If English kings had say instituted a planned economy, things might have been a little different?). The same goes for Chinese policies as well. Unless you want to remove all mention and governments and their policies from this article, you are not being logical. Li and Zheng is still a reliable source, as the "errors" pointed out during the FA process were minor errors relating to dynasties 4000 years ago, which hardly any textbook can be accurate about.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did ask you to justify that statement, and you haven't done that either. Kanguole 15:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanguole, see citation 18, Li and zheng, 2 more I have recently added to that effect (and the bolded statement at the end of my last comment!)! There are four sources stating emphatically that Qing policies crippled industrial development and hampered capitalism (do you really need a source to see how banning mines can hamper industry? WP:COMMON). I'm beginning to wonder if you read anything I have said. Kanguole, do you really think I can't get sources showing that Qing policies were a major factor in the Great Divergence? This is a view held by many Chinese language sources. I just didn't think it was relevant, as the article's circumstances would have warranted the inclusion of Chinese policies in any case. If you push me into doing so, I can add multiple citations to that effect. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

More Chinese text from a source supporting the position that Ch'ing policies hampered development: 清政府试图通过“闭关政策”，对内加固自身的统治，对外进行民族“自卫”。这种政策作为一种消极防御的手段，随着西方资本主义对外侵略的日益迫近和愈加狂暴，曾起到过一定的民族自卫作用。但它更大的影响是对近代中国社会的前进和发展起到了严重的阻碍作用，它使中国长期处于与世隔绝的状态，严重阻碍国内商品经济和资本主义萌芽的发展，使经济、文化、科技等方面日益落后于西方； Teeninvestor (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you translate the quote please? Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My translation:

"The Qing government, through its "closed door policy", tried to secure its internal rule and defend its interests aboard. As a passive policy, this was temporarily successful as a means of national self defense in resisting the encroachments of western capitalism. However, it's greater effect was to act as a great obstacle to the development of Chinese society; it caused China to be isolated from the world for long periods, and seriously hampered the development of an internal commercial economy and capitalism, causing China to fall behind the west all areas, economic, cultural and scientific."

And in case you think im lying, heres the google translation (not very good):

Qing government tried to "closed door" policy, strengthening its own internal rule in foreign national "self-defense." Such a policy as a means of passive defense, with the Western capitalist aggression and the impending and increasingly violent, have played a certain role in national defense. But a greater impact on modern Chinese society forward and played a serious impediment to its long period of isolation of the Chinese state, a serious impediment to economic and domestic goods Emergence of Capitalism in the development of the economy, culture, and science and technology increasingly behind the West

Closed door policy refers to Qing restrictions on foreign trade.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That school textbook[8] is a very poor source, but even there you are being selective. The section before your quote blames restrictive policies of the Ming for retarding Chinese economic development. (Indeed it seems to regard the Ming and Qing as of a piece with all the "feudal" dynasties.) But that wouldn't fit your narrative that everything went sour when the foreign Manchus took over. Kanguole 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This source states earlier unequivocably that the Ming deregulated its foreign trade, particularly in the sixteenth century. And this is also confirmed by all other sources which I have used (see for example Cambridge history of China). Indeed cambridge history of China (and other sources) laud Ming for its laissez faire policies. Qing's restrictive role, on the other hand, is confirmed by multiple other sources. I have replaced this source with another more credible source. The consensus (at least from Chinese-language sources) is overwhelming that Qing policies heavily restricted commercial development, to which Ming's policies were far more receptive. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"...this is also confirmed by all other sources which I have used". So why use a school text book at all? It should be pretty obvious that a school textbook is an inadequate source for an encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have been a little quick in adding sources. I have replaced it with another more credible source. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Water transport as a proposed reason

Article proposes that the number of good seaports and inland ports was a factor, but then it says immediately "but this is a difficult argument to make". Not good style. Either we leave out or we balance one view with another. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mining

The mentions of mining in China are confusing. The comparison of "wet" and "arid" mines is unconvincing. Are we comparing like with like? Salt mines with salt mines, lead mines with lead mines etc? And if we are, isn't the geology of North America, UK and China varied enough to mean that the water table is an problem in some areas, not in others? But then comes the big statement: that mining was banned in China anyway. If this is true, then it should be discussed in more detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you are over generalizing, but what you said is basically true. Mining was permitted under earlier dynasties, but the Qing dynasty, which ruled over China during this period, placed a prohibition on new mines except in exceptional circumstances. This greatly hampered the development of new mines.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the relevant passage and have summarised it in the article, fairly I hope. I'm now looking at Pomeranz, who discusses the relationship between the iron and coal industries in some detail. He doesn't seem to be properly represented either. I can now make sense of the point about wet and dry conditions though: it is just about coal mines and the argument is that the British had to develop steam engines to pump water out of mines while in China ventilation systems were more important, but even if the ventilation technology had advanced further it would not have given the across-the-board advantages that steam engines did. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just seen your amendments to my summary. You seem to be adding a POV-slant by using "Manchu" rather than the "Qing dynasty" of the original, and the "exceptional circumstances" isn't in the original either. It would be good if some more people could look at the text, easily findable in Google Books, and help us to reflect it correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Common usage in China is "Manchu Dynasty" (see 1st paragraph of Qing dynasty article) which signifies the dynasty's external origin. The invasion is usually referred to as the "Manchu invasion" as the Qing Dynasty was not proclaimed until 1644 and some histories don't date it as the "legitimate dynasty" until 1662. I wasn't aware that there was any POV to that. I added rare cases because other sources states unequivocably that mining was banned except in very rare cases (of course "usually" banning opening new mines is also equivalent to it), and because this way the text is consistent in referring ot the prohibition.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Common usage in China is in Chinese. Here we have to follow English usage, and the source says Qing dynasty, which is perfectly encyclopedic. Restricting the opening of new mines isn't the same as banning mining. If you have other sources that make stronger statements then could you present them here or add them to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I already have. See the Chinese source I have added next to the Cambridge source, which specifically uses 矿禁 which means "mine prohibition" exactly. In addition, the text states that new mines were banned except in rare cases, not all mines (some old Ming mines were allowed to operate).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I made my edits on the basis of my reading of the article, not the discussion on this talk page. Now having read the threads above, I am sure that you are deliberately trying to push a particular line and are prepared to misrepresent sources to do so. That isn't acceptable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You can say what you want, but the fact is no one has yet been able to spot errors (other than wording) in my edits, unless you are prepared to argue that 矿禁 does not mean mining prohibition.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that Li and Zheng say that mining was prohibited. From the English translation of the title of their book it is an overview of all of Chinese history, not an economic history of the 18th century. I shall try to find out if it is a standard history of China, but even if it is, works on Chinese economic history must take precedence. If there turns out to be a real divergence of scholarly views then both sides must be presented. I doubt it though. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Li and Zheng, but several other papers as well See for example citation 18. There are multiple sources avilable in Chinese that say this; it is an indisputable fact.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an indisputable fact if the Cambridge history says something different. And what the Cambridge history says makes sense. Completely banning mining is a very different thing from making it difficult to open new mines. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the prohibition on new mines except in rare cases. I have never held the view that mining itself was prohibited, and you will notice that it is not reflected in the article as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That source[9] is referring to a ban on mining in frontier areas of Sichuan province, to avoid friction with non-Han peoples in the area, is it not? Kanguole 07:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it also refers to an overall mining ban, not just in Sichuan province (the overall policy of 矿禁 or mining ban). And this is confirmed by other sources (I have recently added 2 sources that I thought were added but evidently forgot). Overall two facts are confirmed- that Qing did prohibit new mines except in rare cases, and these prohibitions were not in place in earlier dynasties.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That this was an empire-wide policy comes from your other sources, rather than this one, right? Kanguole 12:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This one refers to an empire-wide prohibition as well. For example, the source refers to this: 。雍正初有人申请开采,县令卢雅雨不允,理由与皇帝一模一样:“查明季碑文内称地产铜铅,奸民纠党开矿,扰害乡民,轻惹蛮患”;如今“大利所在,奸民尚趋之若鹜,况生蛮乎”〔8〕

Which shows that the officials were not allowing mines to open, whether in areas of "barbarian living" or not. In addition, the paper refers to an overall mining ban (矿禁) not specific to Sichuan (which is also shown in the other sources, including cambridge). Other sources show this even more clearly: For example: 基于对“矿害”的深刻认识，清代政府和民间均采用了“矿禁”的举措，以期消“矿害”、兴“矿利”。 Another example: “清初鉴于明代竟言矿利，中使四出，暴敛病民。”并且“若有碍禁山封水，民田庐墓及聚众扰民，或岁歉各踊，辄用封禁。”iS)于是在清朝统治集团内部围绕着继续禁矿或允准并鼓励开矿为中心，曾进行历时半个多世纪的政策论战，终于在乾隆以后采纳了开放矿禁的做法，“天地间自然之利，但与民共之，不当以无用弃之。要在地方官处置得宜，不致生事而。 This shows that there was a strict prohibition on new mines/ mining in general before Qianlong, while afterwards it was relaxed somewhat (but later reinstatd by Jiaqing, as other sources show). Teeninvestor (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So your interpretation of the phrase 矿禁 in this source as referring to an overall mining ban is based on your other sources. Kanguole 12:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Kanguole, 矿禁 translated into Chinese (a language I'm sure you're familiar) IS an overall mining ban. This is confirmed by all other sources, as well as WP:COMMON.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a mining ban, but the term doesn't specify its geographical extent. Kanguole 12:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Chinese language, 矿禁 refers to an overall mining ban when it comes to history, just like Hai Jin, refers to an overall maritime ban, such as one that was imposed under the early Ming and most of Qing. In common usage, this term is used to refer to an overall ban.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

European policies

I feel that too much time and citations have been spent on Qing's policies(which are admittedly only a small part of the article). Has anyone any info to add on the policies of individual European countries? (on a side note, can anyone quote from the source that shows that wages in China was much lower than the west? I remember mutliple sources that contradict that data. Apparently silver wages was used, but this did not take into account the higher purchasing power of silver in the east).Teeninvestor (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith wrote at length about the restrictive effects of the Poor Law in England. Primary source, though. European political economists assumed that wages of "common labour" in the 18th century and much of the 19th would not be much above subsistence level. Where do you want to go from there? The literature is extensive. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to see the data in the citations supporting the assertion that wages were much higher in Europe than in China. This seems counterintuitive to me, considering that agricultural and industrial productivity in Europe did not exceed that of China in some cases until the 18th century (per Needham, but other sources also support this). The "vast difference" stated by authors probably reflect a differnce in the purchasing power of silver (Ming's silver stock was estimated to have doubled from its foreign trade); however this is my personal opinion and I would like to see the relevant data.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This idea has been cited to Pomeranz, without page numbers, but appears to be a misrepresentation of his case. Google Books doesn't allow me access to a number of the pages in in Pomeranz where "wage" appears, but on page 51 I find the following:

But even if we grant provisionally the argument that western European wages were higher than any Asian ones, there are problems with inferring that this stimulated the technological changes of the Industrial Revolution.

On page 54 he says "So even here the 'high wage/necessity argument faces problems'. So I agree with you: we need to source this idea properly or take it out. Clearly, from Pomeranz, some scholars have argued it. His reasoned dismissal should be given for balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I shall add that to the article. I was always a bit suspicious of the high wage thesis, considering the work of needham on relative agricultural productivities.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Needham's work on this may not be relevant to the debate. Agricultural productivity does not have to be reflected in wage levels. Pomeranz is saying that those who want to use wages as an argument distinguish agricultural and industrial wage levels in Europe, i.e. an industrial labour force could be attracted by offering wages higher than those in agriculture. Arguments in English classical political economy, Malthus and Ricardo in particular, Smith to a lesser extent, depend on an assumption that wages will tend to fall to mere subsistence level. (See Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers for a good summary.) This was after the "agricultural revolution" in England (which increased agricultural productivity). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Classical economics (the economics of smith and others), although it advocated a sound laissez faire policy, had many errors (such as the labor theory of value), and it is not unreasonable to think that the "subsistence wages" thesis was also false. However, one thing we can agree on is that Pomeranz' novel does not support the "high wages" thesis, regardless of whether there were actually higher wages or not (and whether or not Needham's work is irrelevant; you will notice I have not added them to the article). I personally believe in the productivity theory of wages, but I don't see wages in any way are relevant to the article, as no reliable source exists on wages for the various nations.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So we're agreed that Pomeranz needs to be reflected properly. The wage argument clearly is important because Pomeranz bothers to argue against it. Here is a more recent book that, from its description on Amazon, is wedded to the high wage thesis: Allen, The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective.

Why did the industrial revolution take place in eighteenth-century Britain and not elsewhere in Europe or Asia? In this convincing new account Robert Allen argues that the British industrial revolution was a successful response to the global economy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He shows that in Britain wages were high and capital and energy cheap in comparison to other countries in Europe and Asia. As a result, the breakthrough technologies of the industrial revolution - the steam engine, the cotton mill, and the substitution of coal for wood in metal production - were uniquely profitable to invent and use in Britain. The high wage economy of pre-industrial Britain also fostered industrial development since more people could afford schooling and apprenticeships. It was only when British engineers made these new technologies more cost-effective during the nineteenth century that the industrial revolution would spread around the world.

A reliable source, whether we agree with its argument or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I have added the source. However, do you have the page number? I don't have it right now and cant find the page number for that quote.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that was from the publishers' description of the book on Amazon and shouldn't be added. The book isn't searchable in Google Books. I have ordered it and when it arrives can look at it properly and add info with page numbers. Unless someone else has it to hand, then it can't go in yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. When it arrives, can you also look at the effects section, and cite some concrete data on the effects of the Great Divergence (curiously not covered very well in the article?)? for example, industrial growth, GDP per capita data, etc. This is very important, and not covered at all well currently.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Qing policies

The section on Qing policies (and similar references elsewhere in the article), insinuate by their presence that these policies were somehow a contributing factor to the Great Divergence. That is not the scholarly consensus. These sections are then used to present a wholly negative view of the Qing contrasted with a rosy view of their predecessors (the Ming), and to claim effects on the economic trajectory of China. The actual history is a great deal more complicated than that, and often points in a different direction, as User:Madalibi patiently tried to explain to Teeninvestor last year. We can argue the detail of mining restrictions and follow Teeninvestor from source to increasingly inaccessible source, but the underlying problem is the lack of relevance of these sections, and the agenda they promote, to this article. Kanguole 08:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources that state unequivocably that certain policies crippled the industrial development of a nation that is universally acknowledged to be a standard comparison point in the Great Divergence (see Pomeranz, and other sources) definitely have as much relevance in the article, as say, a section on English policies (unless you believe government policies did not affect great divergence one iota). Just because the info is not to a certain user's liking, does not mean that their importance should be undermined. The consensus (at least from Chinese-language sources) is overwhelming that Qing policies heavily restricted commercial development, to which Ming's policies were far more receptive, and it should be obvious that this is as relevant to the Great Divergence, as say, Spain's inflow of bullion and Louis XIV's mercantilist policies. Kanguole accuses me of "promoting an agenda", when I have only given an overview of Qing (and other nations)' policies; it seems to me that it is him who is trying to remove all references to China in this article, through his own agenda.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been demonstrated that on more than one occasion you have cherry picked bits of sources to support your point of view. Casting aspersions on Kanguole won't distract from that fact. Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the Chinese economy is often used as a point of comparison, and this article would benefit from a comparison of European and Chinese economies, provided it was based on reliable secondary sources that did that comparison, rather than assembled from pieces of evidence on both sides. Fortunately, some such sources are available.

It is the focus on Qing polices that is not relevant. I do indeed maintain that there is no scholarly consensus that Qing policies affected the Great Divergence. No prominent historians arguing that position have been produced. There should be no need to resort to sources of limited availability, which other editors cannot check, when there are so many high quality sources available.

Your account of Qing policies is simplistic and skewed by your argument. It does not accurately summarize the available high quality sources. If it were balanced, its irrelevance to this article would be clear. Kanguole 23:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Government policies did influence the Great Divergence; this is a position that many (if not most) scholars hold. Since China and England are the two most often compared economies, the governmental policies of these two countries must also be considered and presented in this article. Spain, say, is much less used as a comparison point in the Great Divergence, yet there is a section on its policies; why not China?

This is even more important when we consider that Chinese-language sources widely assert Qing policies did affect the Great Divergence through crippling Chinese development, as I have shown with multiple sources above (Kanguole is completely wrong when he states there is no scholarly view that Qing policies affected the Great Divergence. as shown by multiple sources). Kanguole is being illogical when he claims "if it was balanced, the irrelevance would be clear"; he is in effect saying, "if Qing policies were somehow different and irrelevant to the article, they would be irrelevant" (a claim that is irrelevant in itself). Kanguole claims that I am using sources that are highly limited; a highly fallacious position, since most of my sources are available on the web. He also claims my account of Qing policies is "skewed"' a claim that is also wrong, it has been proven conclusively that all policies attributed to the Qing in this article are in fact Qing's policies, a position again supported by multiple sources. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it is that there seem to be no English-language sources saying that Qing policies affected the Great Divergence through crippling Chinese development? Kanguole 21:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? Scholarship in this area has developed only recently, and many scholars are not aware of specific Qing policies taken. There probably are English sources that assert this, however, they are much more limited and hard to find than Chinese-language sources. It is reasonable for a wider variety of views to be had when the subject is one's own culture, rather than judging another culture. For example, there is a great amount of American literature that talks about the differences between classical liberal democrats and protectionist republicans in the 19th century, yet virtually no Chinese (or zulu or Russian or Urdu or Bulgarian) sources on this subject.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the most reliable secondary sources in Chinese dealing with the Great Divergence? Kanguole 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're a scholar, I doubt you would know that (what is the most reliable secondary source dealing with the American war between the states?). All I can say is that there is a great deal of literature in China on why China failed to develop capitalism (e.g. Great Divergence), and a great deal of argument on that too. The view that Qing's policies caused it is a major one, though other views too exist.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, what are some of the reliable secondary sources in Chinese dealing with the Great Divergence? Kanguole 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be looking them up. There are quite a few works dealing with the Great Divergence or "roots of capitalism" problem as it is known in China. If you look at the textbook site, there are up to ten scholars mentioned who are dealing with this (with very varied theories).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that this material (which for some reason you've put in twice) should be omitted until the sources are available to base it on. Kanguole 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already included several sources which support the Qing policies and their effect on the Great Divergence explicitly, and they are reliable sources. Why should this valuable information be omitted?Teeninvestor (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We have seen several examples of your misuse of sources above. This material is not information; it is a POV that you have inserted into this article (in two places). Kanguole 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanguole, information is defined as "something that conveys knowledge". The insertion about Qing policies insert knowledge. Why this information is required is seen above. By launching personal attacks on me based on wording errors and the like is a violation of WP:AGF, and does not prove in any way why this info should be removed.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to obfuscate the issue with false claims of personal attacks. Kanguole has done nothing of the sort. On the other hand, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that you've misrepresented sources to fit your own point of view. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This material is not information; it is a hatchet job. You have made no attempt to give a balanced account of the Qing economy or Qing policies, as may be seen from a quick comparison with any of the standard works on the subject (such as the Cambridge History you cited). You select the most negative portions of an indiscriminate collection of sources, ignoring the rest, and even those you do not report accurately. From this assemblage of black marks, you synthesize your thesis that Qing policy prevented China from experiencing what occurred in Europe, and thus should be covered in this article as a sort of negative Great Divergence. Kanguole 00:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanguole, my account of Qing's policies is exactly in sychronyzation with the Cambridge view, and the policies described are all the policies that were widely carried out. Can you can find any passage in the Cambridge history of China that contradicts what is in the article? In fact, Cambridge history of China explicitly states that Qing dynasty shifted to interventionist policies . You claim all I am doing is a "hatchet job". Can you find a single source that contradicts what I have said (e.g. Qing had no mining restrictions, no maritime restrictions, and it was not interventionist); for all your claims about Qing, you have never stated anything to the contrary, and yet claim that I "haven't given a balcanced account". This is as absurd as someone objecting to the New Deal being called interventionist, and claiming there is no balanced account of the New Deal. Also note I have never "synthesized" that Qing's policies were what hampered (I never stated that "China would have had industrial revolution without Qing) China's development; it is explicitly stated in my sources!Teeninvestor (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, you may actually be right that Chinese historians put blame on the Qing rulers, but you need to help us work together on this. Histories of China written in China in Chinese are harder to verify for those of us who don't speak Chinese, but they can be reliable sources. What you need to do, before adding more to the article, is to find a textbook that is regarded as authoritative. What book would definitely be on the reading list for someone taking a master's degree in Economic History in a major university? We could use such a book, and there are people around who will help translate passages. If its perspective is different from that of the Cambridge history then we should present both views. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I'm on the lookout for more sources, but as most of my sources are from the internet, it will take a while to find more sources. In the meanwhile, several sources are already available to support the assertions in the article, though most do not mention the subject in as much detail as we would like. Regarding the Cambridge history of China, it is neutral on the effects of Qing's policies (it does not cover them at all, merely describing them), but it does describe them as intervenionist, and helps provide a list of them (e.g. mining restrictions, maritime restrictions, restrictions of numbers of merchants, grain only policy, etc), which I have used in this article. However, several academic sources that can be considered reliable which support the assertion that Qing policies hampered China's development are already in the article, they include:

1. Gao and Feng. (2003). "Comparisons of Chinese and Japanese policies towards foreign commerce." Qinghua University Press

and to a lesser extent:

1. Ji, Jianghong et al. (2005). (Chinese) Encyclopedia of China History Vol 3. Beijing publishing house. ISBN 7900321543.
2. Li, Bo and Zheng Yin. (Chinese) (2001). 5000 years of Chinese history. Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp. ISBN 7-204-04420-7. (Kanguole has disputed this one).

Academically, the best subject covered academically is the effect of the Qing's Hai Jin, which is widely acknowledged to have severely hampered development. I will try to search this on google books and come up with more sources. Teeninvestor (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a new source. This source, a general history of China, also has a section dealing with this entire problem (why China did not develop capitalism), a variety of theories exist, including the Qing theory. There are now 4 sources supporting this assertion.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I also got myself a copy of Pomeranz's book.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For a history article, we need to use the best quality history texts, and the ones you've cited don't seem to be the best available. We need something that is a) by an expert or experts in the field, i.e. economic history rather than just history, b) recent, c) well reviewed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanguole was not the only person to question the use of Li and Zheng. Their book was pretty thoroughly rubbished here. I think using them as a source in this article is a very poor idea. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Li and Zheng's book is unreliable as a source for the Great Divergence because they contained errors about dynasties 4000 years ago? So other textbooks are perfect in describing the Xia and Shang? I doubt it. Madalibi's main criticism of the book was that it accepted the traditional histiographic account of the "Three Dynasties", not that it was compltely unreliable throughout. Histiographic errors in treating ancient eras of history are very common, even among the most scholarly books, such as the Cambridge history of ancient China.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because if a general history book is making significant errors then it is not a good enough source. That the errors picked up on during the FAC were about a period 4,000 years ago as opposed to the early modern period is immaterial. It shows sloppiness on the part of the authors and poor editorial control. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, very few sources on the era of the three dynasties (or any remotely ancient civilization) can be completely free of errors. And Madalibi's criticism wasn't even based on the presence of major errors. His criticism was that the book described the pre-Shang culture of China as the Xia Dynasty, something Madalibi thought was not supported by a large number of academics.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

True, ancient histories of many cultures are uncertain. It's quite easy for an author to get round this by explaining the uncertainty and presenting the varies interpretations of the period. That Li and Zheng could not manage this good practise sends immediate alarm bells about their quality. My statement that their book should not be used in the article still stands. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a period is called "Xia Dynasty" instead of "Pre-Shang cultures" does not impact the accuracy of the facts recorded. To the extent there are differences, it is merely a difference in naming and histiographic practices across two countries.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As you well know the problems raised in the FAC went beyond mere naming conventions. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of sources available: Currently there are a total of four sources supporting the assertion, two of which are academic books, and two general histories.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusion of two views

Gao's source seems to fit itsmejudith's criteria. However, I will note that what this article states is not "China would be capitalist if Manchus had not invaded", but rather "Some believe China's economic development was hampered by Manchu policies", a view that is much easier to prove, and which is supported by multiple sources (indeed almost all). Kanguole seems to confuse the two views and think the former view is the one expressed (when its not).

however, even the former view has some supporters. Even in Pomeranz's book, he tries to refute the view that:

"that certain Asian societies were headed toward an industrial breakthrough until Manchu or British invaders crushed the “sprouts of capitalism.”"

If even the first, admittedly shaky, view is supported by some, the latter view is probably even more prevalent, and it is, as shown by the plethora of sources available. However, even if both views are wrong, Qing's policies are still relevant to the article; as an economy who is a standard comparison point in the Great Divergence, the policies of Qing, whether encouraging or suppressing the economy, are both relevant. The evidence seems to be for the latter, however.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gao and Feng explore the differing responses of China and Japan to the arrival of industrialized Western powers, a period in which the Chinese response is universally considered poor. But that is not the same as connecting Qing policies in the 18th century with the Great Divergence. As Madalibi pointed out, there is a problem of projecting the weakness of the latter stages of Qing rule back onto the period of the height of their power.

It is certainly easy to prove that "Some believe China's economic development was hampered by Manchu policies", since you do, but what matters is whether historians believe that, and whether they make a connection with the Great Divergence. Kanguole 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The prevalence of sources certainly show that historians believe in the second view (and some in the first view, though this is far rarer). For example, in Gao's source, it is explicitly said that Qing policies (focusing mainly on the "Hai JIn"), rather than the late Qing period had damaged Chinese development and hampered it. The focus of this book is actually on the early Qing period (e.g. the period of Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong), when the Qing government poessessed the ability to enforce its maritime restrictions (unlike the later Qing). In addition to Gao's book, another paper also supports this view.

Teeninvestor (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Government policies sections

There were two sections on government policies, which I have combined. The text is still there, except for one heading and one sentence. Indeed the repetition is clearer now. Kanguole 16:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Source questioned

Note One of the sources used to support the statement that Qing policies crippled China's industry may not be worth using. Per discussion of the article Literary Inquisition here and here I do not think the source is of a high enough quality for this article. Nev1 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is published by a university press and has so far be shown to be accurate. How's it "not worth using"?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The conversation going on between our talk pages led me to believe that the source had ignored inquisitions before the Qing dynasty, however I now think it may have been a case of misunderstanding what the source said. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why China?

I am not sure why China should be included in the article at all. The topic is about how the first economies, invariably European countries, managed to break away from the inherent constraints imposed by an agricultural mode of production common to all mankind, and how they initiated real long-term economic growth for the first time in history. Real economic growth means substantial increase of GDP per capita, as opposed to mere extensive growth by a growing population size which had characterized the Chinese experience since 1300. The article is not about why China continued to follow the old path dependency as anyone else outside Europe. So why should the Chinese economy be singled out from all agrarian societies to be included here? It's GDP per capita had not risen since the 1300s as shown by Angus Maddison. China did not play a role in the historical process of the Industrial Revolution at all, its case seems only squeezed in here by the personal predilection of the main author.

There is a deep methodological flaw in China's inclusion. The Industrial Revolution was a singularly event in history, one which only happened once, and at one place. So when you ask why the global gap suddenly widened between rich and poor after 1750, you turn your attention to what the rich now did differently, not why the other economies continued their traditional (agricultural) mode of production they had been following since ages. This is exactly what you can expect them to do given the singular character of the IR. For their development you can turn, e.g., to agrarian society. I don't see how the article can ever aspire to become again GA candidate, if it refuses to concentrate on the topic at hand. The inclusion of China is suggesting that there too could have happened an Industrial Revolution if not for this and that reason which, of course, never materialized. This is dangerously close to contrafactual or alternate history, WP:OR and WP:SYN, a bit of all actually; it is not encyclopedic, that is factual. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I've made the same argument a few times above. There is a case for reporting a comparison between European and Chinese economies at the time by Pomeranz or similar, but that's not what's being done here. As you say, the relevance of the discussion of Qing governance rests on the implicit assumption that China would have industrialized if those nasty Manchus had not prevented it. That is more than close to counterfactual history and synthesis. Kanguole 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that China is used as a standard comparison point in almost all treatises dealing with the Great Divergence (in fact, when referring to the "east" all texts are more or less using China) means that it should be included in the article, just like why England should be included. All scholarly texts on the Great Divergence include China as a comparison point and many explicitly mention that it is very similar in terms of GDP per capita to preindustrial England (some areas, anyways). GPM seems to think that all "pre-industrial" societies were made from the same mold; nothing is farther from the truth; there were vast differences in wealth, growth, etc between societies such as Ottoman Empire, Ming China, and Japan (Pomeranz asserts Chinese living standards were comparable and cites many figures such as life expectancy, calorie consumption to show to show they probably exceeded western Europe, a claim he does not make for entities such as say, the Ottoman Empire). And as to GPM's assertion that China's GDP per capita did not grow at all after the 1300's- a most absurd assertion. Yes, that is what Maddison says; but his estimates are just one out of dozens; it has been documented that the use of new crops, new agricultural tools, etc, continued and in fact accelerated during the Ming; do you think this had no effect on GDP per capita? Considering the improvements of agricultural technology throughout Chinese history, it would be absurd to think GDP per capita was stagnant; Neehdam documented vast increases in productivity on the magnitude of four or five due to iron tools and other improvements.Indeed, other economich historians have estimated that per capita income in China as a whole (not just Jiangnan) was higher than Western Europe (this is noted by Pomeranz). And this is not taking into account the fact that Maddison's estimates, are quite dubious, for example, he asserts that Rome who had agricultural technology far behind that of the Song or the Han had higher GDP per capita then both of them (it appears he just calculated the subsistence level and assumed Han China was at that level)! Maddison also believes Chinese GDP per capita was a fraction that of England in the 1700's, a view Pomeranz would dispute; Maddison also believes Finland had a higher GDP per capita than China; I guess all that division of labor is for nothing, eh? Attempts to measure pre-1900 GDP per capita data is as of current very inaccurate, to say the least. Also, by your logic, then none of the European nations other than Britain should be included (the only part of Europe that experienced very high growth was England and the low countries; France and Spain, for example, were more or less stagnant (and may have declined) since the 17th century thanks to mercantilist policies, and arguably did not contribute much to the industrial revolution. Kanguole asks why we should include Qing policies? why should we include English policies then? because government policies were an influential factor during the Great Divergence, and needs to be listed for at least the major economies (e.g. China and England) that are used as the point of comparison. If we are going to have a section on national policies, at least these two have to be included. And this is not taking into account that scholarly views exist that China could have had an industrial revolution without the Manchus (though a minority and not represented in this article).Teeninvestor (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I will also quote Pomeranz to prove my point about China being a standard point of Comparison:

First of all, it is China, more than any other place, that has served as the

“other” for the modern West’s stories about itself, from Smith and Malthus to

Marx and Weber. Thus, two crucial aims of this book are to see how differentChinese development looks once we free it from its role as the presumed opposite of Europe and to see how different European history looks once we see the similarities between its economy and one with which it has most often been contrasted.

This can show the importance of treating China as a comparison point during the Great Divergence.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And I will respond to accusations of Synthesis, OR and sources with these quotes:

WP:SOURCE states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; I think the sources I use fit that description. and as to your accusations of synthesis, the definition of synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". This has not happened here; all my sources explicitly state what they're used to support, so theres no way they can be synthesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, by all means let's report on those comparisons by Pomeranz and others, but let's not synthesize our own.

Your attempt to claim some sort of parallel between England and China in the Great Divergence is just weird (as is the idea of grouping France with China). Qing policies were not a factor in the Great Divergence, simply because there is no serious claim that they were a factor in the non-industrialization of China. Kanguole 17:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh* Read the sources. Please show one instance in which my claim was a synthesis of the sources involved, before you fire your mouth off about Synthesis. I haven't claimed a parallel between China and England; I've shown that they are the two standard comparative economies, and any article on the Great Divergence must cover both to have any credibility (unless you think all previous scholarship on this is useless). So are you saying remove all other European countries besides England from the national policies section? (Your claim that any government's policy being a "non-factor" in industrialization is weird; I'm sure Louis XIV's textile ban had no effect on France!)In fact, even Pomeranz specifically mentions that coal mining were "hampered, at least intermittently, by inconsistent government policies" (Qing's mining ban anyone? Ming had free mining). He also mentions Qing restrictions on the capital of mines. Interestingly enough, Pomeranz seems to think that the Song, whose heavy industries were in the north, had a good shot at industrialization because the proximity of coal mines. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your misuse of sources is already well documented on this page. The synthesis begins with the implication that Qing policies are somehow relevant to the Great Divergence.

And I didn't say that no government's policies were a factor in industrialization – I said the Qing government's policies weren't. (Those two statements are different.) Kanguole 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point is contradicted by multiple academic sources. Even Pomeranz, who doesn't agree with this alternate thesis, notes the effects of Qing policies (though he attributes other factors as the major ones, such as discovery of new world, etc, which is curiously not mentioned because so much energy has to be wasted on the obstinacy of one user).So somehow English policies are to be mentioned, but the other major comparative economy, China, there should be a lid on government policies? What blind bias here, Kanguole! I will quote Pomeranz on this: "In the eighteenth century, when the government decided to encourage coal in this area with the explicit goal of alleviating the Yangzi Delta’s fuel shortage, it also chose to give the mining licenses to poor and unemployed people, who mostly dug small, shallow mines."Teeninvestor (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In what way were Qing policies a factor in non-industrialization, in Pomeranz's view?

I've answered the England/China question several times above. Kanguole 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pomeranz states that Qing restricted the coal industry through allowing only the poor to open mines (and other restrictions); however, he views this as a minor factor (he believes Mongol invasions were the major factor in causing China's coal industry to decline, and the decline of heavy industries during the Qing. Nevertheless, I have provided multiple sources which assert specifically that Qing policies hampered development and were a factor in the Great Divergence. You have not answered the England/China question; we have two major comparative economies here; you are suggesting that we shall mention all of England's policies (not all of which were positive) and for the other all we can do is treat it as if government did not exist and China had anarcho-capitalism. That is unacceptable (Indeed Pomeranz specifically included a section on government policies and their effects on the Great Divergence).Teeninvestor (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

North America

Pomeranz mentions the discovery of North America as a huge factor in the Great Divergence for giving Europeans a huge supply of land and new crops. Why is this not included in the article???Teeninvestor (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Coal deposits

I have provisionally reverted the following: "Another explanation is that while Europe's economic heartland (England) was also coincidentally blessed with large coal deposits, China's economic core (the Yangtze delta) was located far away from major coal deposits in the Northwestern regions of China, making transportation difficult." What precisely does Pomeranz say? I don't recall Lancashire being England's economic heartland before the Industrial Revolution, so I think there may be a misunderstanding of the source here. Nev1 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pomeranz's statement was that England as a whole was blessed with large coal deposits. E.g. Coal deposits were much closer to the industrial core (London, etc) than was the case for China (Northwest and Yangtze very far apart). Then Pomeranz lists a series of ways in which he demonstrates how coal was not used effectively in China (barbarian invasions devastating, shift to the south, government restrictions), etc.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This wording is just as poor. You can simply state that England was the economic heartland of Europe immediately before the Industrial Revolution. Even with a basic knowledge of history you should no that it wasn't that simple. London wasn't even the main place where the Industrial Revolution took place. Lancashire and Derbyshire were far more important in the development, but were hardly economic centres before. So what it boils down to is England and China both had coal, but China didn't get round to using it? Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's more or less what Pomeranz said. His main point was the most economically developed part of Europe (England) happened to be close to coal mines and didn't have any restrictions, while China experienced a series of factors which caused it to not use as much coal.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More or less? Quote please. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On European and Chinese coal deposits.

In a strictly technological sense, then, this central technology

of the Industrial Revolution could have been developed outside of Europe, too; thus we can never say definitively why it was in fact developed first in Europe. We can, however, identify some reasons why Europe—more specifically Britain—was a particularly likely site for the series of linked developments in coal and steam central to the Industrial Revolution. And when we compare England to the Yangzi Delta—where similar incentives existed to relieve pressure on the local wood supply, and where advanced technology and a highly commercialized economy were also present—Europe’s advantage rested as much on geographic accident as on overall levels of technical skill and much more than on any (probably nonexistent) advantage in the market

efficiency of the economy as a whole.

On China:

We now know that, contrary to what was once thought, iron-mining and

iron-working did recover from the Mongol invasion. New centers of production arose in Guangdong, Fujian, Yunnan, and Hunan, and there was some recovery of production in the northwest as well. Total output reached a new high of at least 45,000 tons by 1600, and there were some new developments in production techniques.136 Huang Qichen’s study, which has shown us this post-Mongol revival of iron production, says very little about fuel, but it is striking that all the new centers of production—which he estimates had over 70 percent of iron production—were far from coal sources, leading one to suspect that this iron was largely made with wood and charcoal fuel.137We still know very little about what happened to iron production in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, though this same study suggests (based on very slight evidence) that it declined.138 If it did—or even if it just failed to keep growing—a shift away from reliance on fossil fuel as a result of the post-

Mongol relocation might well have been quite fateful.

.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's quite different from the nonsense about economic cores. And the quotes don't actually specify what the accidents of geography were. Can you find a more relevant passage? Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting. Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a passage to know that England has many coal mines??? Now on the difficulty of getting coal to the Yangtze (where all the industry was):

The eighteenth-century Lower Yangzi region—China’s richest region, and one of its most deforested—stretched its supplies by trading along riverine and coastal routes for wood and beancake fertilizer. (The fertilizer allowed peopleto burn grasses and crop residues for fuel that would otherwise have had to be

returned to the soil.) Though such trade-based palliatives did not rule out simultaneous experimentation with fossil fuels—the two coexisted elsewhere and could easily have done so in the Lower Yangzi without leaving many traces in the documents—it was hardly likely that coal in particular would have attracted much attention from the Lower Yangzi’s artisans and entrepreneurs: there was little coal either in the region itself or in places easily accessible to its traders. China’s nine southern provinces have just 1.8 percent of contemporary China’s coal reserves, and its eleven eastern provinces 8 percent; by contrast, the northwestern province of Shanxi plus Inner Mongolia have 61.4 percent.139 Although the returns to linking those northwestern coal deposits with the

Yangzi Delta seem so huge in retrospect that it is tempting to imagine some people making an enormous effort to do so, it is not clear what that could have been; and most of the returns to such a project that we can now imagine, given what we know about the uses of coal, were invisible ex ante.

Teeninvestor (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No Teeninvestor, I do not require a reference for there being coal in England, I asked for a quote backing up your claim that the position of coal deposits affected the Great Divergence. This is because, to be brutally honest, your track record of accurately representing what sources have said is abysmal. This has been further demonstrated – as if the back tracking you have done on this talk page on several occasions is not proof enough – by a complete lack of anything approaching the assertion that England was the economic heartland of Europe. You are missing the point so often and without fail I am beginning to wonder if you are doing it deliberately. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the source Nev1. That's all I have to say. Why would Pomeranz refer to England as the "economic core" of Europe if that's not what he meant? To be honest, I've beginning to wonder if you're deliberately trying delay tactics here; have you even looked at Pomeranz's book? The whole point of the book is the distance of coal deposits affected the Great Divergence!. And you claim I misrepresent sources? A few wording errors does not constitute misrepresentation.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the quotes you have given refer to England as the economic core of Europe. Nev1 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why Pomeranz constantly compares England and Jiangnan. You know, he has so much spare time, he's going to pick a random part of Europe that's not developed at all to compare to Asian core regions to prove his thesis. If you're going to continually ignore Pomeranz and all scholarly work on this topic, no progress on this article is going to be made.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary Teeninvestor, I am not disregarding the work of Pomeranz at all. I am questioning your understanding of it. To blithely call England the "economic core of Europe" is an interesting claim that so far you have not bothered providing a reference for. So far you have avoided the issue. If you continue to misunderstand the sources, then your edits will hardly help the article. Nev1 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. Pomeranz refers to the cores of Western Europe, Japan, and China. According to our gifted geologist Nev1 above, England is not part of western Europe. The person misrepresenting Pomeranz here is not me.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So not only do you misunderstand sources, but you try to push words in my mouth. What I am saying, and have been throughout this conversation, is that you have not shown that England was the economic core of Europe. There was a lot more to Europe than Britain. Britain pinched the Jacquard loom from France, and IIRC some other inventions that were adapted by the British came from the Berlin Academy. In the early 18th century, Italy had some rather advanced machines for using water powerthat John Lombe stole. Saying that England was the economic core of Europe needs a source. Nev1 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. You mean geographer, not geologist. Nev1 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo for geographer. I misunderstand sources? You've been attacking me the whole time for stating Pomeranz's thesis that coal mines was located in England, part of the Wetern European core, while Chinese coal mines were further from the south, the Chinese economic core. I can only conclude from this that you think England is not part of western Europe. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Logic- England had coal mines- England part of western European core- Western European core close to coal mines. How simple can this get? But Nev1 fails to understand it.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said in the article though, is it. I'll quote you: "Another explanation is that while Europe's economic heartland (England)...". Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Pomeranz uses England because it has the coal mines, but its clear that his thesis is that the core is Western Europe, not just England (why else would I put French and Prussian data in the article). I don't see how you can fail to understand that. I used England in the article because it is the region that has the coal mines, but I've since edited it. The two areas that are most often compared are the Lower Yangtze and England, since England was also the richest part of western Europe.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be painfully clear that the original wording you used implied that England and nowhere else was the sole economic core of England Europe. When you do that – either through incomprehension of the source or poor writing – you are not accurately representing sources. Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

England was the economic core of England? That should be fairly obvious. I suspect this is a case of the bad writing you accuse me of.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Touché. More haste as less speed, eh? Anyway, as you obviously understood what I meant would you care to address the point or are you satisfied with dodging again? Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think my point is pretty clear here. I was representing Pomeranz's point about mines and their distances from the economic cores, and how this impacted the Great Divergence. I used Europe (England) in order to specify where the coal mines was; although it had some problems, it was later rectified.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Water power

(ec) Also, does he say anything about water courses? As anyone who knows anything about the Industrial Revolution could tell you, many mills were located alongside rivers for various reasons. Early mills, such as Cromford Mill in Derbyshire, were water-powered. Part of the reason for the take over of steam power in mills was that water powerful could be unreliable. Yet a water supply was still required for the engines and transport. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Water-powered factories were in use in China as well. The main focus of Pomeranz is on coal and why is it not used. Here he mentions government policies as a minor factor.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Great Divergence is about more than coal. What about the factory system? That was developed in the Derwent Valley while water was still the main power source. Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pomeranz focuses exclusively on coal. But I would guess that large-scale private enterprises were prevalent in China, even during the Qing, under which heavy industries declined. There are records in the town of Jingde, a centre of porcelain production, suggesting that up to 100,000 laborers may have been employed in porcelain factories.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the factory system. It has nothing to do with private or public enterprise. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to large-scale factories employing day wage labor. If you count state-owned enterprises who worked in this fashion than Roman galley slaves or Greek shield factories may have started the factory system.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That confirms it. Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)