# Talk:Economy of the Song dynasty

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of July 31, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:  Generally meets the WP:MOS, but a few things need work.
The intro needs to have the parenthetical "see also"s removed. Disambiguate paper money if you like, but self-referential expressions like that are not encyclopedic content.
the "world's first money" section should come after both production/employment and "Organization, investment and trade". These basic overviews are important to setting up for an encyclopedic discussion of the money section.
Per WP:GVF and the criteria, neither a featured nor a good article should include the information on memorials to the throne. This is going into excessive detail about an off-topic subject that is only vaguely connected. Not only that, but they aren't that well-written. If their importance is as a meta-analytical tool, then less time should be spent on direct quotations and more on cited historical analysis. Also, the quotations should be block quotes using <blockquote> formatting. This section should be removed forthwith.
2. Factually accurate?:  The articles is accurate and well-sourced.
3. Broad in coverage?:  The article, without the memorials section, is comprehensive and informative without getting off-topic.
4. Neutral point of view?:  The best of the series so far.
5. Article stability?  Yes.
6. Images?:  Properly chosen and placed.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Y Done It looks as if all the improvements have definitely been made. I'll call it good for GA now. Congrats! VanTucky (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty good, but it is missing a few crucial elements that would give the reader a better understanding of the nature of the Song economy.
The vitality and size of the Song economy was partially attributable to the emergence of what Twitchett called "the Fiscal State" in the latter half of the Tang dynasty, this moneterization of the economy and tax payment scheme should be mentioned. The economic growth of the Song dynasty was not merely a result of extensive growth (population increase), but was intensive in nature, characterized by greater specialization and rise in per capita income. Market forces played a greater role in the Song dynasty than in any dynasty which preceded it. 
Foreign trade: You have to mention the state monopoly system of procurement for overseas items and how this was overseen by the Maritime Trade Supervisiorate (提舉市舶司). Non-luxury goods were taxed, while scheduled luxury goods were a government monopoly. This source of income became increasingly more important as the Southern Song had a reduced tax base and could only engage in international through maritime commerce. You have to distinguish between the means of capital formation for overseas ventures, which included private merchants and government funds, from the distribution system, which was regulated and, for certain items, a government monopoly. 
Currency: Adoption of paper currency was spurred by a fiscal crisis, the issuance of money had always been used by the court to correct fiscal imbalances, but the Song's ability to adjust commodity prices through monetary policy had been reduced due to the greater influence of market forces in the economy. Diminishing seigniorage (sp?) and the shortage of coinage compelled the court to issue paper money. 
You should also mention the creation of a commercial book market, as knowledge and information became commercialized and commodified to an unprecedented degree.
Steel & Iron: you mention Hartwell's assertion about total iron output (I think he stated something to the effect that it rivaled that of early industrial England) and use Wagner's article as a source, yet you don't mention that Wagner's article was written with the express purpose of showing how the basis of Hartwell's assumptions were unsubstantiated, and there was no precise way of quantifying iron output based on the tax receipts/quota receipts in the historical record.
The increase in production quotas for Hancheng were not a direct result of Bao Zheng's memorial, the increase occurred due to the establishment of a government mint, situated to take advantage of rich veins of ore that were present in the region (see Wagner, p. 183). Furthermore, Bao's memorial, although implicitly referring to a profit motive, was not concerned with "profits of the industry," he was writing about the unequal burden of the quota and ways of reducing government expenditure to acquire an equivalent amount of iron.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aas217 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 
Some resources: 
Dennis Twitchett, Financial Administration Under the T’ang Dynasty (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1963) (essential for understanding economic aspects of the Tang-Song transition)
Richard von Glahn "Fountain of Fortune"
Billy K. L. So, Prosperity, Region, and Institutions in Maritime China: The South Fukien Pattern, 946–1368 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center, 2000)
cheers,
Aas217 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aas217. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you! It's been over a year. I just completely forgot about all of this. Using your suggestion, I have reread Wagner's article and see clearly your point about the steel and iron industry. I have amended the article to accord with this. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the link to Robert Hartwell is pointing to the wrong Robert Hartwell. 2603:900A:120E:A00:F19C:35F:52AE:2B94 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO, there are many important issues not dealt with. A lot of work still need to be done, without which, one cannot get a wholesome picture of economy in the Song Dynasty
Among them:

Agriculture in Song Dynasty
Landlords and tenants
Handicraft Industries
Mining
Textile industry
Shipyard
Houseware
Finance
Foreign trade
Trade with neighbours
Oversea trades
Transportation
Government policy
Taxation system
--Gisling (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What's mean: 

ref 85.^ Guan Luqian, 140-142
ref 86.^ Guan, p143
a book, article or...?  --Jann (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Much admiration to Qiushufang for energetic attention, but I worry about the form and content of many edits. The quote in the section on Economic crops is a good example. First, it does not concern the topic, second, it should be paraphrased, and third it seems to give two authors, one at the end of the quote and another in a note. I could give detailed explanations of other edits. ch (talk)

Could you explain what you found hard to understand about the following quotation in and its relationship to joint stock enterprises, which it is under, given that it refer to these joint investment partnerships as well as describes their operation?
The operation of these joint investment partnerships can be examined in a mathematical problem included in the Mathematical treatise in nine sections (Shu-shu chiu-chang) (1247 ed.) of Ch’in Chiu-shao (c.1202–61). Although the dealings it describes are perhaps more complex than those practiced a century earlier, it essentially deals with a kind of investment and division of profits that for sure would have been made in the twelfth if not also the eleventh century: a four-party partnership that collectively made an investment (of 424,000 strings of cash) in a Chinese trading venture to southeast Asia. Each party’s original investment consisted of precious metals like silver and gold and commodities like salt, paper, and monk certificates (and their accruing tax exemption). Yet the value of their individual investments varied considerably, as much as eightfold. Likewise, each party’s share of the profits varied greatly, evidently in proportion to its overall share in the total investment. While social and family ties may have shaped the circle of potential coinvestors, they affected little, if at all, an investor’s eventual share of the profits, or losses.
The reasons I specified above apply to this quote as well. Direct quotes from books should not be inserted; they need to be paraphrased, as I did with the Ebrey et al. quote above. Tt is not clear whether McDermott and Yoshinobu wrote it or Chafee. It is hard to understand why the quote is in proportion to the article or the section (it's too long). It's hard to understand why a mathematical problem is relevant at all.
Another point is that references to articles in edited volumes should specify the title and author, not just the editor and volume title.  That is, "Chafee, John (2015), The Cambridge History of China 5-2" is not adequate.
Again, I admire your energy and enthusiasm in finding these quotes, but think you should look at other articles to see how these matters are handled.ch (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Which articles would you have me look at to see how quotations are handled? The mathematical problem is relevant because it is the context in which the joint partnership is mentioned and used as an example. You did not paraphrase the content before deleting it.. Even if the citation is not perfect, it should be evident that not all quotations are directly written by the authors or editors of the text in which they appear. Do you also become confused when a quotation cites the name of an author who in turn is citing another author, perhaps centuries old and dead? It seems rather preposterous. Qiushufang (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Most articles in our topical neck of the woods show how to use scholarship without inserting block quotes. You are right that it is appropriate to mention an author's name in the text if the material is controversial. Sometimes it matters that it is somebody's opinion rather than a consensus in the field. But to take an earlier example in the Song Economic History article, I paraphrased a quote from Ebrey et al. and removed their names (the quote was longstanding -- in the first version of the article!). Their textbook represents common knowledge. Likewise with the Stephen West attribution (which also mischaracterized him as an historian).
This is also important because of copyright issues. Lifting and inserting blocks of text can run into trouble even if it is directly attributed. And if block text is appropriate, the reference goes in the note, not in the main text, as is the case of several quotes in the article.
So I followed your suggestion to redo the mathematical quote as an example. This took a little work, such as taking the time to search "Ch'iu" and giving a little explanation. The improved reference template made it clear who wrote the article (it was not Chafee, as in the original reference). I hope you can do the same for the other quotes.
Hope this helps! ch (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello in good faith , I made modifications to that article about the size of the Song Economy; I was reverted by someone who contributed a lot for this article; I put a compromise in good faith then I see a new account who emerge from nowhere and it reversed me ; I have my doubts about the new user who emerged suddenly with 3 contributions only ; my argument is that we can’t describe the Song Economy as the largest in the world because simply we are not able to measure the GDP in that period of times . Second which type of GDP ( monetary or Purchase Power Parity )  ; in conclusion I believe to describe the Song Economy as one of the largest in the world is respectful , responsible, much more plausible and much less controversial. 
I hope we have a healthy interaction and the community decide .
High Regards.
SeriousHist (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Qiushufang (talk)
Hy I wish you contribue here about this subject; Unfortunately looking at your talk page show there is a lot of complaints about your behavior with past articles with accusations of Vandalism; Have you anything to do with Esthertheprofessor (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 08:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 
- A History to the Modern World to 1815 by R.R Palmer and Joel Colton ISBN 0-07-04856-X pages 43/44 talked about the equality   between the great civilizations of the period; there was no largest or wealthiest; it was a different time with different types of measures without the presence of a global power . This will only began to change in the age of discoveries and the full integration of a global economy slowly but surely. In addition Song China was unable to defend itself against the northern tribes who established an empire in North China in the 12th century Jin Dynasty or the Mongols who destroyed and occupied Northern China by 1215 then the whole of China Genghis Khan. SeriousHist (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the change after you alerted me to the recent reverts, this is still WP:OR. I will revert you back as I disagree, and the source as well, with the changes. In addition, I have not used socks, and have never done so. Qiushufang (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you please stop trying to impose your point of view and wait for the community to decide after interacting here ; I already in good faith proposed a compromise but you are insisting in making the song economy the most prosperous or wealthy of its era although it is a very controversial statement contradicted by many sources.
High Regards SeriousHist (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Another original important source has been put in the article so please refrain for trying to impose your point of view and wait for a consensus here or a majority of the community; they will decide not me or you ; I have offered a compromise, removed a lot of my materials ; opened a talk page and you are still behaving in a sort of vandalism like your own talk page show ; that’s your last warning; I welcome an intervention before the notification board . SeriousHist (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Combining material of two or more sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by either source is WP:SYNTH and against WP:OR policy. The source added does not mention the Song dynasty or say it was one of the most prosperous economies. Qiushufang (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are continuing your bad faith disrupting behavior; you removed a major source by reverting it many times ( more than 3 with the probable help of sock accounts if verified) ; you are acting as if you own the article; you insist on putting a major information depending on one source only for obvious ideological reasons ; I m giving you a few days to think it over before I launch a procedure of conflict resolution as a first step; for the last time come here and let’s compare your sources and try to find a consensus; I propose we keep the most prosperous by adding according to such source and I add my own source with it conclusion ; do you agree on that SeriousHist (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@SeriousHist I advise you to familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, both of which were in the material you added. No sources added by you mention the Song dynasty. Your original edit also mislead users with expansion of cited pages as though they confirmed thr newly added content when they did not. You have obviously made up your mind that I am using socks so I suggest you report that and refrain from accusations in the future or I will report you for WP:NPA. Qiushufang (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
1- Firsr my source who is a very important source on world history used in many universities around the globe is more credible than your one source study ; my source mentioned China in the 12 th century talking about city with millions of people; steel production , economic power and argue in comparing different civilization then while China have abundant production they have major weaknesses and other like Europe for example have more advantages. I didn’t put my source which clearly say China in 12 th century was a very advanced civilization but its economy was one of many other successes in the world.
- putting my source is an option that I m studying with other user who told me simply to put it ; and your claim will be based on your source.
- again I have my doubts about your link to sock since they appeared when you disappeared; I can’t confirm it but it will get reported ; and they decide if you are innocent or not. What is sure that a suspicious activity occurred and even if it is not you personally; even by proxy it is not allowed 🚫 Meatpuppets are not allowed not only sockpuppets;[High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment.
Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by an influx of single-purpose editors:
Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion.
A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."[4]]. Plus your own talk page is abundant with conflicts with other user complaining of your bad behavior and disruptive editing ; in fact 3/4 of your talk page is about conflict with other editors so we have a pattern here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qiushufang

- I welcome your return to the talk page but I see talking to you is useless ; you always play around to impose your point of view like you own the article.⛔️ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

- I m going on the point of conflict resolution and a lot of users are interacting with me .

- I m letting this for a few days to see where things are going and if other people will come here before proceeding. SeriousHist (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
-These accounts surged from nowhere following your revert specially Esthertheprofessor; anyway I welcome you here and I wished you didn’t wait for my many messages to do it ; I hope we have a good interaction but I will ask for an investigation regarding Esthertheprofessor regardless.SeriousHist (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
First you removed that your assumption is based one one source which is the truth ; second Palmer said p 44 ( Many have asked why China did not generate as Europe , in these centuries the forces that led to the modern scientific and Industrial world, As for treadgold it is only Byzantine figures which I quoted and compare to the revenue of Song China in this article. I made the comparison using two sources. SeriousHist (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
others are complaining of your behavior of reverting them, I m warning ⛔️ you about WP:OWN" ; you are removing everything I put : 1) when I describe you are using one source for your claims which is the truth 2) When I describe European achievements in comparaison to China they are a facts plus you don’t decide on reliability of Palmer 3) The description of Byzantine annual fiscal revenues is simply to compare them to the song revenues inside the song economy article.SeriousHist (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)