Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

FeydHuxtable's endorsement of the Response

Some of the criticism against Teeninvestor seems valid, he's acknowledged hes made a few minor wording errors, and yes he seems to have a POV on some issues. But he's not unresponsive to collegiate feedback. Teen seems to do a substantial amount of quality editing, and brings multiple quality sources to the table to support his position. While opposition editors seem to be often attacking with hostile rhetoric. Instead of empty criticism, it would be much more constructive if those holding opposing views do their own share of the research, and show a good example by backing up their positions with quality sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Veto, I am afraid. There is a continuing problem with Teeinvestor's fixation on Europe and the West, and his eagerness to subsume the economic development or military prowess of these world regions in – totally unrelated – articles on China: Just a few hours after your endorsement, Teeinvestor has added the following claim at Chinese economic reform:

For centuries, China had been one of the world's largest and most advanced economies, and its per capita incomes probably equalled and exceeded that of Western Europe as recent as the 18th century.

It is notable that Teeinvestor does not cite a source for this far-reaching claim. In fact, and this is crucial, he introduced the claim into the article, even though he is perfectly aware that recent scholarship has come to the opposite conclusion: cf. this table, where Western European GDP per capita exceeds China's in all benchmark times save 1000 AD. And you know what? Teeinvestor introduced the claim against his better knowledge, because his query on talk page and another one here just 48 h ago shows that he was absolutely aware of Maddison's estimate at the time of his edit! Still, he chose to went along with his preconceived view and willfully ignored Maddison's estimate in his expansion of the article on Chinese economic reform.

And that's the gross problem with his editorial behavior: He is cherry-picking sources according to his China-POV, and in case of disagreement with other editors, instead of providing balanced views, he embarks on a policy of systematically removing POV tags. It is clear to me that many editors have become frustrated with such an uncooperative, biased edit pattern, and unfortunately, the latest example shows that there is no sign that Teeinvestor is willing to change his ways here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Regards, GPM, this source is cited from Pomeranz's source. See Great Divergence. I forgot to put the citation in, but this is sourced directly from Pomeranz's work. Yes, I am aware of Maddison's work, but there is a lot of controversy; if you look at Pomeranz's work, he cites estimates that are exactly the opposite, that Per capita income in China was higher than that of Western Europe. I think I made that clear on the talk page, When I referred to Bairoch's alternative estimates. Attacking me after seeing my comments about possible alternative estimates I have access to is a poor attempt to deceive other readers.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the part as my "view". As I said there, I could add further examples from your articles on Chinese economy, military and the now deleted Rome and Han 'article', but I didn't want to rehash old topics. However, since I've noted your attitude that you only concede points when the proof is presented right under your nose, I may reconsider to bring a few more blatant examples of your attempts at aggrandizing Chinese economic and military history. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Teeinvestor, being Teeinvestor, restored the claim without adding the very opposite view of Angus Maddison, although he is totally aware of the latter. I feel thus vindicated in my criticism of a systematic lack of balance in his edit pattern and added Maddison's view, which reflects the standard view on the matter, to the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I stated specifically on the article that there were alternative estimates to Maddison and then I added them. How can I add Maddison if I don't have the source? If I did, knowing your behaviour, you would probably then accuse me of WP:SYNT.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to revert you. Yes, I fully agree that the whole part on the historic GDP per capita is too long, but that is only an inevitable result of your edit pattern of making aggrandized claims of Chinese excellence in key parts of articles. In this example, you chose to push the minority view of Pomeranz to prominence in the lead. But instead of recognizing this, and modifying - or removing altogether - the part accordingly, you choose to play the transparent little game of trimming the whole part for 'reason of brevity', deliberately deluting Maddison's et al. majority view along the line "some say these, others say that". Who do you actually believe to fool with such kindergarden moves? As long as you continue to play the cheapest tricks out of Sun Tzu's book, you will sail against adverse winds, that's for sure. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. The article is titled Chinese economic reform, not Historical GDP per capita of China. And as I said, Pomeranz is not a minority view; I have just found 2 more sources supporting him (not to mention Needham). We can both find all the sources we want, and write a 150kb article on it, but trimming it to a sentence is best. Maddison is not the only, or even mainstream view on this. For example, according to John M. Hobson, another Cambridge scholar, Chinese manufacturing output was 16 times that of Britain in 1750 (and China was ahead even more in agriculture). There are scholars on all sides; some scholars even think that the Ottoman Empire was ahead of the west (a view that I would agree is absurd) in 1800. The majority clearly believe the divergence happened around 1800. If you have so much energy, add the GDP per capita argument to Great Divergence, where it belongs, and don't edit war over every speck, for gods sake. Also, there's major problems with the silver wages paper, as I have raised on the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I still think any pro China POV on behalf on Teeninvestor is being over exaggerated. Im an almost daily reader of the Financial Times, and it often has articles on the rise of China, where it mentions China is on its way to return to the number one position that it enjoyed in the worlds economic rankings for centuries. There's been claims Teeninvestor makes grandiose claims about Chinas economic track record, but he seems to be inline with the FT. I searched for an example, and by chance the first FT article I looked at cites Maddison, but far from contradicting Teeninvestor it seems to support him! "Angus Maddison, the historian, wrote that for hundreds of years prior to the 19th century China was the world’s largest economy. In 1820, it accounted for 32 per cent of global GDP, compared with Europe’s 26 per cent." FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  The issue isn't a simple matter of an obvious breach of WP:V. There are sources which describe China's economy in such terms, but there are a range of views and cherry picking of sources to exclude other views is not acceptable is it? Nev1 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is correct, but largely irrelevant to the discussion (and never doubted so far) which evolves rather around GDP per capita which is a much more significant economic determinant. The same Maddison, as most others, comes to the conclusion that Western European GDP per capita exceeded that of China (again) since the Early Modern Age, whereas China's larger GDP is only a function of its larger population size. So: China's economy = larger, but Europe's economy = more advanced & wealthier. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I don't think any reasonable scholar will doubt the figures I have put in. Maddison has the lowest estimates for China and yet as you can see above even his figures are quite high. If we take into account Pomeranz's figures and common sense (if GPM is correct, Marco Polo should be decrying China's poverty instead of praising it, as according to GPM per capita income of Europe in 1300, under the black death, is higher than China), these claims are obviously correct.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given you half a dozen recent, peer-reviewed and widely cited references stating that the so-called Great Divergence already began around the Renaissance. Yet you still continue to reproduce only Pomeranz' view in all of Wikipedia. Maddison's estimates for 15th to 18th century China are not "quite high", but in reality roughly correspond to all other extra-European economies which all hovered somewhat about subsistence level. Only the (Western) European economy enjoyed a substantial qualitative growth, that is increase of GDP per capita. What you have been doing in the last days, and still very much do, is pushing Pomeranz coal and colonies made the difference view over a large array of articles, while trying to minimize the standard view of a growing European exceptional development since 1500. This view holds that long before the Industrial Revolution began, Renaissance, Scientific Revolution and the Discovery of the World Sea Lanes by European explorers (key word: Smithian growth) had put European economic development on a different, higher trajectory, away from the traditional constraints of agricultural societies like China and all the rest. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So let me ask you. How come this super-advanced renaissance europe, which had products so much superior to China, couldn't exceed Chinese iron production in 1078 til 1700, and then with a bigger population? How come Europe ran a persistent trade deficit in manufactured goods with ancient, "agarian" China til the industrial revolution? How come Chinese agricultural yields were miles ahead of the west, who didn't even have a seed drill until the 18th century? How come Chinese lifespan and nutrition exceeded all European countries except England by substantial margins even in 1800 when China's GDP per capita had already been declining since 1600? How come Marco Polo was amazed at China under the Mongol despotism, which had probably half the income per capita of Song? By your theory, Marco Polo should have been writing about the immense poverty of China, since Europe was in "Smithian growth", which had put its GDP per capita way ahead of China? Was Polo blind? Navigation is something special, so can I ask you this: how come all of europe's sailing technology came from China? How come Chinese ships were traveling to East Africa and India by the Tang Dynasty? Have you read anything about the technological history of China, GPM? Have you even read European history? Do you know what entail, mercantilism, and Louis XIV did? I suspect if you did, you wouldn't be talking about "Smithian growth" in Europe before the 18th century (except maybe in England). And what's this bollocks about China being an "agarian economy" compared to Europe's "Smithian economy"? 75% of every economy before 1800 was agriculture; Everyone was an agarian economy. I happen to have Adam Smith's wealth of nations on hand and 3/5 of it is about agriculture.

Now, I am not an anti-westerner (I even live there). On the contrary, the west's achievements, especially since the nineteenth century, outstripped China completely and probably contributed more than any other civilization to the uplifting of mankind. Without the west's achievements since the liberal era, we wouldn't even be here to argue in the first place. But we have to look at the facts. Just because the west's achievements in the modern era are great, doesn't mean we should go back and then claim the west was superior in the middle ages or even the dark ages; should we go back and argue Mao was a good thing because of China's current boom? The facts are the facts. let them speak.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unmatched for two millennia"

Exceptional, unprovable claim or not? Keep or remove? Please see Talk:Chinese armies (pre-1911)#What to do with this claim?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus

So far, Teeninvestor has not responded to the diffs where he makes unfair accusations of personal attacks or misinformative edit summaries. It has also been demonstrated that there's a persistent problem with edit warring and so far Teeninvestor has not commented on his own behaviour; you can't blame others for your own actions. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

According to GPM, adding a criticism section on an article who confidently declares that "Roman Britain's GDP per capita is equal to US" is edit warring. I have nothing else to say.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That only addresses one of the above three issues (and not even that one fully). Have you no comment on accusations of personal attacks and edit summaries? Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I did not attack him; merely mentioning his history of edit warring is not equivalent to questioning another editor's "mental capabilities". Some of my edit summaries are incomplete, however I promise to be more thorough in the future.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

At least we're making progress with the edit summaries. But I didn't say you were attacking people, I was referring to the links given in the RfC ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). You seem to have a habit of taking criticism of your work as a personal attack. Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Uuh, where did I write that "Roman Britain's GDP per capita is equal to US" *confused* ?! You are dreaming up things. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite much heat being generated above, I would appreciate a response from Teeninvestor on the issues that have been highlighted in this section. Nev1 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused? Look at Maddison's estimates They claim that in 1 CE the native American tribes' per capita income was equal to Roman Britain! Since you added them, you must have endorsed them. As to the claim that I take criticism of my work as personal attacks, click on several of your links, such as link 4, and look at GPM's comments, and you will find the word wargamer.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The fourth link is you accusing Pmanderson of making personal attacks. Do you seriously think each and everyone of those accusations was valid? Nev1 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the third link. As to the fourth link, Pmanderson made many rude comments; declaring that he should not have wasted his time with "violating the vanity of this adolescent", for instance, but I don't think this is part of the dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism interpreted as attack

The above shows to me that Teenivnestor is interpreting criticism of his article work as personal attack. In some cases, the chronology is confused, for example Gun Powder Ma has called Teeninvestor a wargamer but Teeninvestor accused him of making personal attacks before that. In order to make things clear I will provide entire quotes below along with the links as Teeninvestor does not seem to have bothered reading them fully. For each situation, I want to know explicitly where the personal attack is in the eyes of Teeninvestor, with a dff if there is something I have missed.

1. On Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires (previously TalkComparison between Roman and Han Empires) Flamarande (talk · contribs) commented that "And how about the military? "Discipline and training were strict; the Romans punished minor infractions by death." That's utter nonsense and only shows that the author knows precious little about the Roman military (but nevertheless somehow wants to make a comparison between the Roman military and the Chinese military)." Teeninvestor responded with "Flamarande is strange, not checking my other sources and being very difficult with this article(which he has a prejudice against), making ad hominem attacks on numerous users(don't know anything, etc...)".
2. On, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) Gun Powder Ma said "Teeinvestor. I replied more fully here. In a nutshell, you did not refer to Scheidel in your 'article' and you do not seem to understand what Scheidel is actually doing in his work. What he does, is trying to fill in gaps in our knowledge of mainly ancient Rome by taking a look at developments in Han China. In doing this, he concentrates on monetary, population and to a lesser extent political issues. This is very meticulious work where only very cautiously certain working hypotheses of limited scope can be worked out. He is not in the least making a full scale virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies and culture as you did. Your 'article' totally deviates from his work and has frankly nothing to do with it except on the most superficial level". Teeninvestor responds with "Your destructive personal attacks are most discouraging. You refer to "Virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies and culture". I ask you: Where is it? Where is it? You have not yet presented a single example of what you have said except your boisterous bias. Ignoring your personal attacks and attempts to distract the issue, I ask you: Do you not admit that there are scholarly sources on this topic, which is also a topic of scholarly interst?. You haven't answered this question, because there are scholarly sources on this notable topic, which you have failed to acknowledge, either because of ignorance or bias."
3. The following is closely related to the above and happened almost concurrently. The following statement by Gun Powder Ma is referred to above when he said "I have replied more fully here" (I only copied over the text, not the link). He said "Papers which you did not even bother to consult for this 'article' for one full year, and, frankly, don't quite seem to understand. When Scheidel endeavours to compare certain aspects of both empires, he does not do it for establishing a who is better, greater and more advanced of the two as you did. That wargame mindset is something he is not at all interested in. He does it rather to fill in gaps of our knowledge of each empire, namely the Roman. For example, there is a problem with the late Republican population count. So Scheidel takes a look across Asia to see whether the missing figures could be filled in with corresponding Han numbers. Might not turn out correct, but at least worth a try. Scheidel's account is 95-99% reasoning, and 1-5% - very cautious - conclusion. The conclusion, being preliminary, is not so important to him, it is the how to come to the conclusion which is valuable from a scholarly viewpoint. But your 'article' is all about how to let best Roman and Han armies virtually clash and who would prevail in this fantasy scenario. This has nothing to do with Scheidel's intention. It's a perversion of the whole thrust and intent of Scheidel's work, so please stop to refer to him". Gun Powder Ma is saying that he thinks the source has been misrepresented, and I calling it a personal attack is disingenuous. Teeninvestor however interprets it as precisely that.
4. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) Teeninvestor accused Pmanderson of making personal attacks. By the time Teeninvestor makes the accusation Pmanderson had made a lot of posts to the AfD. However, I would like to know where in this debate (the version of Teeninvestor's accusation) the attack is? In the above section, Teeninvestor complains that Pmanderson said he had wasted his time with "violating the vanity of this adolescent", yet this occurred at 22:36 (UTC) 24 December 2009, after Teeninvestor accused him of attacks at 13:45 (UTC) 24 December 2009.
5. At Talk:Chinese armies (pre-1911) Teeninvestor accused Gun Powder Ma of calling him a wargemer: "The man who calls "nomadic cavalry" a weapons system calls me shallow?I have invited Pericles to give an assessment, since he has access to most of the sources of the article, which I don't have at this moment nor do I have the time to do so. However, I warn you to stop insulting other editors and calling them "wargamers"; I can stick a few far nastier labels if I chose to, but it is editor decorum not to do so. I hope you can maintain at least a basic level of respect". While it cannot be denied that Gun Powder Ma has called Teeninvestor a wargamer in the past (a stale issue) a quick search of the version of the talk page Teeninvestor commented on will show that the last use of the term was on 18 January 2010. Accusing Gun Powder Ma of attacks like that poisoned the well of discussion and deflected from the issues Gun Powder Ma was actually raising.
6. At Talk:Great Divergence Kanguole (talk · contribs) made the brief comment that "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)". This is a criticism of Teeninvestor's use and interpretation of sources rather than Teeninvestor himself. Yet that is not how Teeninvestor felt, as he expressed himself: "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".

This is unfortunately a pattern of behaviour, and the most recent example I am aware of is from 8 July (the accusation of Kanguole). The above section also leads me to believe that Teenivnestor is oblivious to the problem. My hope is that by laying out the quotes above and asking him to pick the personal attack out of the line up he will think about his actions and whether such behaviour is acceptable on a project which aims for a collaborative atmosphere to improve articles.

I believe part of the problem here is Teeninvestor's understanding of what a personal attack is. Chambers Dictionary gives the following as the definition of ad hominem: "1 appealing to one's audience's prejudices rather than their reason. 2 attacking one's opponent's character rather than their argument". Ad hominem is of course not the only type of personal attack, but no interpretation of WP:NPA validates the accusations linked above. In the examples, nowhere do people attack Teeninvestor before he accuses them of such. Criticism of one's work is not the same as criticism of one's self. Although people can get attached to what they write – believe me, I understand that all too well – criticism of work should not be conflated with a personal attack. The two are very different, and to confuse them makes a collaborative environment very difficult to foster. It breaks down the collaborative principle that Wikipedia is based on. Teeninvestor clearly feels passionately about what he writes, and perhaps that is part of the problem.

It is worth noting that while Gun Powder Ma and Pmanderson have made cutting marks towards Teeninvestor, they were after he accused them of making personal attacks. Making such accusations is going to rub someone up the wrong way, and in these two cases proved to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. This hypersensitivity towards criticism makes working with Teeninvestor difficult. On a closing note, I think it is interesting that when taking the second definition of ad hominem given by Chambers, many of Teeninvestor's accusation of personal attacks actually verge on ad hominem themselves. They serve to avoid the issue at hand and discredit the accused by portraying them as malicious. Nev1 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Restatement

I would have wanted to endorse and adopt Nev1's analytical strategy in this section. This step-by-step approach helped me to clarify my understanding of the nested problem set. The sentences are demonstrably constructive, helpful, and plain. The paragraphs illustrate effective writing. I would like to see this section's text re-positioned on the main page under the heading "View by certifier Nev1." This will give others the opportunity to join me in endorsing the problem-solving approach and conclusions. --Tenmei (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Well, I can't say much. It does seem that Nev1 is partially correct on this issue. I would like to say, however, that when I referred to GPM and Pmanderson's attacks, I was referring to much earlier incidents of interaction with these editors, which were not exactly in the positive vein, though that time is too far back to actually pick these incidents out. And that impression did stick. However, Nev1 is right that constantly raising these issues do not help resolve disputes, and I will try to avoid doing so in the future. However, I will note that most of the examples is from the AFD of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, an extremely contentious AFD which frankly I still don't think was closed well (I'm not sure what happened with the Kanguole edit).Teeninvestor (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Olive branch petition

As part of my attempt to resolve the problems at this RFC, I have made an olive branch petition to GPM. I hope he will accept this petition as a precursor to collaborative editing; if he does not this does not bode well for future work with him.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing statements once they've been endorsed

I'm unsure of the etiquette regarding this, but I would expect that once a statement has been endorsed it should not be changed, or at least if it is significantly altered those who previously endorsed it should be notified. FeydHuxtable endorsed this version of Teeninvestor's response, but it has since significantly changed. Does FeydHuxtable still endorse the response? Nev1 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Nev1, GPM changed his statement multiple times and I don't see you removing your endorsement. you questioning the others' endorsements of it. I shortened the statement and reorganized it to add several sections to respond to outside views, changes, etc.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a simple reason for that Teenivnestor: I haven't signed my endorsement of it (the reason for that is not that I disagree, it's just that I felt it unnecessary, but I may do so anyway). Think before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it. There's no hypocrisy here and I suggest you strike that comment immediately. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you strike your clear personal attack above. Such language is unacceptable.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with what I said ANI is that way and WQA is over there. Nev1 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, since the first person other than Gun Powder Ma endorsed his summary, the original statement has not been changed significantly. Additions were made in the form of a postscript, which seems like a good idea. The one change in the original statemetn was to strike a resolved issue. That way it's clear that while people endorse his original statement, the later material is different. I raised the issue here in the interest of transparency and honesty. I suspect FeydHextable will continue to endorse your summary, but if it was me I would want to be informed of changes to the original statement so I was aware of what I was signing off on. Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this RFC/U is anyway pretty much in flux and there is a lot of additional material now – Athenean's outside view keeps best track of it – which some of the original endorsements did not take account of. This is very different to the only other RFC/U I took part in which was a pretty static afair, since all main parties largely refrained from making controversial edits. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Handling of sources

Responding to this comment by Teeninvestor (tiresome emphasis in original):

I vehemently deny misrepresenting any sources whatsoever; I admit to have made some wording errors, but this was subsequently cleaned up.

When a reader sees a citation at the end of a sentence, they are entitled to expect that the sentence faithfully reflects the cited material. Several of the problems involve selective, inaccurate and slanted summaries of passages too long for convenient presentation, but here are a few localized examples:

Teeninvestor's text	Text of cited source
The Manchu regime [...] prohibited mining completely.[7]	Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines, fearing an unruly labor force, but they allowed mines to operate in poor areas to provide employment. (ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6, p609)
Another key factor was the prohibition placed on mining by the Manchus of the Qing Dynasty after they completed their conquest of China in the mid-1600's, which crippled Chinese industrial development.[8]	[the above sentence about new mines, but none of the interpretation or significance attached in the article text]
[on Talk page] 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.[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 978-0-521-24334-6, p1)
heavy industries declined after the founding of the Qing Dynasty.[10]	We still know very little about what happened to iron production in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, though the same study suggests (based on very slight evidence) that it declined. (ISBN 978-0-691-09010-8, p63)
[on Talk page] In terms of academic, the Consensus is that the Qing were much more interventionist than the Ming; this is stated explicitly by the Cambrige history of China, who calls Ming a "Government that by modern and premodern standards taxed very lightly and left its wealth in the hands of the people" and the Qing "interventionist".[11]	[Ming approximately as quoted, but the word "interventionist" does not appear in the relevant volume (ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6)]

If you think these "wording errors" are insignificant, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of encyclopedia editing. Moreover your errors are always in the same direction.

Yes, these infelicities were later cleaned up, but only because other editors went to the considerable effort of painstakingly checking your cited sources. Whenever such problems are pointed out, your customary response is to say your claims are supported by multiple other sources, and to add a few new citations of varying quality for other editors to check. At best this is careless creation of messes, leaving it to others to take the effort of cleaning up after you. That is a wholly inappropriate way to treat other editors. Kanguole 11:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In your above statements you have misrepresented the sources I have used; a great deal of the claims do not come from Myers and Wang, which was used to source Qing's policies, not the effects. They are sourced from numerous other sources, available on the web. Even so, to claim that this is "misrepresentation" of sources is absurd. Ch'ing's prohibition on new mines is well known; this is cited by scholars from Xu to Pomeranz. I may have forgotten new while adding (keep in mind I was revamping the entire article), but this is not a "deliberate misrepresentation of sources", as you claim. And as to the consensus of Qing interventionism, all sources I have consulted that address the subject agree that Qing is much more interventionist than the Ming; Myers and Wang does not address this subject, yet you claim to use them to support your thesis? You also forgot to mention that Myers and Wang explicitly said that Qing intervened numerous times in the market economy and that they "understood the usefulness of monopoly power" (I suspect Louis XIV would have agreed). Indeed I challenge you to find a single source that believes Qing is more laissez faire than the Ming (you might as well try to find a source that Stalin is a liberal). And as to the claim about heavy industries, note I also added in "suggest" in front, to reflect the varying nature of the data. Keep in mind all historical studies are based on scampy data, including the estimates of Maddison, Allen, etc, yet they are the best we can find.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In each case I have quoted the work you were citing for your words at the time, as anyone can verify from the diffs I have given. You accuse me of misrepresentation, which is only fair I suppose, but do you have any evidence for that claim? By the way, when you put something in quotes, like "deliberate misrepresentation of sources", you are implying that someone used those exact words. Kanguole 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your accusation of misrepresntation of sources can only stand up if Myers and Wang was the only source I was using, which is patently not the case. In fact, multiple sources were used to back up the assertion, and you've only checked one source that was used marginally and which did not say what you wanted; hardly a case of "source misrepresentation". These accusations are themselves misrepresenations. As any diffs can show, I used multiple, high-quality sources to back up all my assertions, including the Qing theory. Myers and Wang was at best a source I used to outline Qing's policies. I acknowledge that the heavy industries does not fit this case, but i believe in that case Pomeranz did support the given assertion; the question is how much he supports it.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And your own interpetation of Myers and Wang is heavily skewed. You ignore their numerous and repeated statements that Qing intervened into the economy frequently and often installed monopolies (understanding the "advantages" of monopoly power) and instead focus on a few very vague statements about reducing the tax burden (from when? The war era or the Late Ming) and the abolition of labor conscription (despite the fact that overwhelming evidence shows that this was done decades earlier under Zhang Juzheng). Any reasonable interpetation would state that the Qing was interventionist (especially when we contrast this with Cambridge history's volume on Ming). If we go through the policies of Mao, and notice that he allowed for a year peasants to farm a tiny private garden, does that justify jumping and going: "Ah Hah! There's no scholarly consensus on whether Mao was a champion of free enterprise or not! You're misrepresenting your sources!"Teeninvestor (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in rehashing the whole content dispute here. As for the sources, we appear to be talking about two different things. I was talking about citations in the text. As the above diffs show, in each case the text had a single citation; in each case it remained that way until another editor checked the original and complained that it did not match the text. You seem to be talking about the sources on which you based your account. It is puzzling that you didn't cite your actual sources in the first place, if they were reliable. Kanguole 00:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. That's pretty significant evidence of poor behavior. BigK HeX (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor regarding an issue with which User:Teeninvestor may have been involved. Thank you. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Given the Unfounded accusations of personal attacks which are addressed in the RFC/U, I invite other users to comment on Teeninvestor's Wikiquette alert against me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

You are invited to take part in the discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor's account of ANI discussion

How dare you put words in my mouth! I never "declared them completely unworkable and irrelevant"! I find this a blatant example of WP:GAME. The recorded restriction has not been modified. Toddst1 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Errr.... exactly what words were "put in your mouth"? I see a summarization of "the community" and a description of your inaction ... nothing about your "words." BigK HeX (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a technical matter (someone forgot to update). It's pretty clear from the ANI discussion that your restriction was unworkable. And that's assuming your block and resulting restriction was even justified in teh first place, which I dispute below.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)That's because he was caught misrepresenting the truth and changed his tune after I commented. That should edit should not have been changed, rather struck through and rephrased. Toddst1 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.. I see. Thanks for the link to the original text. A bit of irony in this situation, since this RfC is partially about the accusation that Teeninvestor misrepresents sources. BigK HeX (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I was copyediting my post afterwards? And that's a crime now? And for the record, there has not yet been a single instance in which I was shown to have misrepresented any sources whatsoever except for minor grammar errors.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

End of RFC/U

How and when can we bring the RFC/U to an end? I have requested Nev1, who started the process, to give a time frame, since I feel that we now have to move to a permanent solution. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should give it a maximum of another week, to allow users who commented on ANI, but not here to appropriately put their views.--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing#Closing certified disputes. It has been 30 days since the RfC/U was opened; I'd suggest rather than spending a voluminous amount of time trying to come to a summary that everyone agrees on, it may be wise to move to the next step (if required). If participants want more time to comment though, that's acceptable, but bear in mind that such time may be better spent in doing something that has a greater chance of resolving the dispute (if this step has not managed to resolve the dispute so far). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Since 1. and 3. certainly aren't the case, this would be "mediation or arbitration", wouldn't it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, closing 1 would have been the case because it's been 30 days so it's closed as if it's closed due to inactivity. After it's closed like that, should a party find problems continuing, they can escalate to AN/ANI, arbitration, or the next appropriate step to deal with the issue, but note that if this is a conduct rather than content issue, then obviously mediation would not be it. As the problem was recurring (and went to ANI previously), and has now resulted in a second block, which is quite lengthy, it removes one of the parties from the dispute - thereby dissolving the dispute at this time. Accordingly, closing 2 applies and that's how I've closed it. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actions at Roman metallurgy

I believe that Teeninvestor's actions at Roman metallurgy, summarized in Haploidavey's view, starkly illustrate the problems.

Long after the start of this RFC, he deletes a well-referenced figure for Roman iron production, and then edit wars[12][13] to keep it out, claiming consensus. He does not offer an alternative figure, or any sources dealing with ancient Rome, but presents two arguments against the figure (full discussion here):

1. In his (and intranetusa's) opinion, the methodology used by the cited source is flawed.[14]
2. The figure is doubtful by comparison with cited figures for the Chinese Han and Song dynasties, because an authority on Han metallurgy (Wagner) says Han methods were more advanced than Roman methods.[15]

The first is original research, while the second is synthesis (and assumes that more advanced methods imply higher levels of production). This is basic policy, and yet after detailed explanations from Haploidavey and Cynwolfe he still claims his sourcing was appropriate.[16][17] If he cannot understand the problem after nearly 2 years of editing, he seems unlikely to fix it. Kanguole 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Kanguole is very fair to present the basis for Teeninvestor's questioning of the figure; I regard this as reasonable grounds for doubt to be expressed on the talk page, but not to change the figure in the article. Teen's attempt to apply this reasoning to the article in order to advance a position or draw a conclusion is a clear example of synthesis. Teen also demonstrated that he was operating out of a fundamental ignorance of Roman culture — it's no crime not to know something, but it isn't OK to delete sourced material because it doesn't conform to your own preconceptions based on your lack of knowledge. The synthesis policy is frequently abused, and misapplied to editors who are using sources that complement each other. This, however, is a case study of why it exists. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point

Cynwolfe's diff agrees with the thrust of Kanguole's argument, but she does not address the final sentence. In other circumstances, this closing comment might be construed as a courtesy coda; and indeed, that may have been Kanguole's intent. Both are sober, careful critics; and they address a signficant editing issue. However, their narrow focal point misses the core of the problem at hand.

For absolute clarity, I repeat the sentence which mis-reads the core issue:

"If he cannot understand the problem after nearly 2 years of editing, he seems unlikely to fix it."

Both Cynwolfe and Kanguole seem to preceive this as a matter of misunderstanding, a mistake, an error in judgement. No -- they are quite wrong; and Teeninvestor's conduct in this RfC has convinced me that such conventional generosity is misplaced. In the ivory tower theoretical construct which I do share with Cynwolfe and Kanguole, the answers to just two simple questions are entirely incompatible:

• Does anyone doubt that Teeninvestor does learn from experience?

Answer: No.

• Does anyone assert that Teeninvestor's edits and Teeninvestor's conduct and Teeninvestor's short-term tactics or long-term strategies are evidence of noteworthy inattention?

Answer. No.

The fact of the matter is that Teeninvestor's strategy and tactics are deliberate, thoughtful, meaningful and considered. Teeninvestor has learned that the very strategies and tactics Cynwolfe explains and Kanguole deplores are effective, practical and workable in our Wikipedia environment.

Teeninvestor has been ill-served by the community which has endorsed and encouraged a persisting metastasis in one teachable moment after another.

Who can blame Teeninvestor for correctly acknowledging the wiki-reality in which he finds himself? This is the lesson learned in the School of Hard Knocks. It is underscored by Offriorob's straw man "logic" at the currently open AN/I thread. Since this RfC began, Teeninvestor's edit history shows no engagement with the "desired outcome." This is made explicit in Teeninvestor's recent diffs, arguing that I believe I am not at fault and that the backstory is that I was involved in a dispute with another editor ... and became concerned about said editor's personal attacks.

In short, Teeninvestor "gets it" very well indeed. This is the way to "win."

It is not cynical for me to state this plainly. Rather, it is simply a practical recognition of what wiki-reality teaches. --Tenmei (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this illustrates some but not all of the dimensions of TI's disruption. I feel we have spent far too much time on this matter and frankly at this point, I believe the project would be better off without him. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My interactions with Teeninvestor have been rather inauspicious, but (based only on a cursory review of this RFCU and a few months of very distant observation of Great Divergence) I'm not sure that he's beyond the point of redemption. I was getting a pretty extensive list of Teeninvestor's edits to Great Divergence in my watchlist, but as I don't actually interact there, I am not the one dealing with him on a constant basis. I see a bit of tendentiousness in his edits though, and if he is not indef'ed, then I think a lengthy 3+ month topic ban is certainly in order, to keep him from making edits regarding the productivity of any nation, especially with regard to government economic policies and industrial output, construed very broadly and under pain of indef block). Moreoever, he seems to have an ongoing issue with sources. I think that it would be more than appropriate to institute a long-term (9+ months) sanction on Teeninvestor's use of sources, and require that he quote 2 full paragraphs of source text and present them on the talk page at least 48 hours before incorporating any text into articles. If he would be willing to agree to terms like these, I think he could learn how to overcome the more glaring deficiencies in his current editing style. If there aren't significant sanctions, then I'm not confident that the disruptive behavior will be modified significantly enough to end the WP:BATTLEGROUND that's been created. BigK HeX (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei has invited me to make another comment in response to his. I can comment only narrowly on what I saw Teeninvestor do. In the case of Roman metallurgy, Teen persisted against properly sourced material to an extent that suggests POV pushing and perhaps game-playing; he attempted to impose his knowledge of one topic on another topic for which he lacked knowledge. But Talk:Roman metallurgy is only one element in the picture of Teen's behavior. I've read some of the case against Teen that Tenmei has prepared carefully (which I judge on its own merits, as I don't know anything about Tenmei otherwise), and am familiar with the tactics described. Therefore, in addition to my narrow awareness of Teen's editing on a single article, this RfC concerns me as part of a looming problem on WP. Tenmei seems to understand the nature of this problem. BigK HeX presents well thought-out remedies, though they seem to require a great deal of oversight to implement. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh ... I should add to the proposal for source sanctions, that he should be completely barred from removing any sourced material from articles for the duration of the sanction, since that also seems to be a heavily contentious area. BigK HeX (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Entangled in the complicated patchwork of temporary sanctions that got him blocked twice, Teeninvestor has hardly "won". I disagree that Teeninvestor's late behavior has been calculatedly diabolical: I saw some sincere change in him during the latter part of this RFC. See where he has said he would stop editing ancient China/Europe articles and focus on modern articles about Libertarianism and the modern Chinese economic reform, and after that he did! Later on he proposed that he be able to edit select ancient articles with 1RR. That suggestion was never implemented, and he didn't push it.

This dispute is at its core about specific claims about comparative ancient Chinese/European history. If a clear topic ban on that topic was imposed as many others have suggested, he could edit productively on modern articles like Chinese economic history (not touching the ancient part, perhaps) without tripping the convoluted interaction ban that got him blocked. Quigley (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My own confidence in Teeninvestor's capacity to grasp basic editing principles was severely undermined by this self-justifying response to criticism of his editing at Roman metallurgy. It was posted some seven hours after the promises he gave to Off2riorob and Patar knight. Haploidavey (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The diff cited by Haploidavey preceding also contains a reductio ad absurdum tactic that makes it difficult to hold a reasonable discussion: I wonder what will the expert think when he goes to wikipedia and it claims that movable type was insignificant or that Rome had more advanced iron technology than 1700 Europe. As far as I know, the Roman metallurgy article never made such a claim. Exaggeration and a wounded air at this point in the discussion is troubling, because Teeninvestor had already been advised that the way to counter the well-sourced Roman statistics was to provide sources that give alternate figures. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei, I don't believe it is necessary to speculate on Teenvestor's thinking. The point is that that his responses on ANI cited by Haploidavey and myself show him either unable or unwilling to relate to basic editing principles—it doesn't matter which, but it does vitiate any promises for the future that he makes. Kanguole 09:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside (since this is news for me, too): The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World from which I was quoting the Roman numbers was awarded the 2009 Ferguson Prize "for outstanding and original reference work that will support future scholarship in the history of technology" of the Society for the History of Technology (which also publishes the preeminent academic journal in the field, Technology and Culture). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei asked me to comment here. I think that Tenmei's broader point is that the way Wikipedia handles editing disputes has trained Teeninvestor to behave the way he does. I don't disagree. But nothing that is done in this instance will change what i see as a dysfunctional culture (though the "dysfunctionality" is, perhaps, embedded into the "anyone can edit" mindset). Keeping the focus narrow, I believe it's best to 86 people like Teeninvestor. Their edits when unchecked degrade content; when addressed, eat up better editor's time, lead to drawn out and inconclusive RFCs, and more capable editors being seen as "part of the problem." My advice is to remove him from the project -- but this is something that no RFC does. Of course, that he's currently on a 3 week block for his innapropriate interactions with other editors (and will probably end up indeffed on the same basis) while he got a free pass on so-called "good faith" edits that degraded content (the ultimate goal here, supposedly) is par for the course. I care far less for name-calling, interaction bans, etc... than what happens to content. But Wikipedia writ large does not agree.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My involvement in this RfC/U is peripheral at most, as I have not edited any of the articles in question and, at this stage, don't have more than a passing interest in them other than WP:GNOME maintenance....and that seems to be covered by the other interested parties. As I stated in my "outside view", I cannot judge a person's intentions; I can only observe and comment on actions. There is no question that there was ongoing disruption with foundations in Teeninvestor's reliance on questionable WP:FRINGE sources and WP:NPOV-pushing. With the three-week ban enacted, though, further discussion of the matter by myself is both redundant and moot.

One final observation deserves mention: this was a no-win situation for most parties involved, IMO. it's not the first protracted edit war Wikipedia has encountered, and undoubtedly won't be the last. My hope is that other editors won't require such sanctions as have been made necessary in this instance. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)