User talk:Descartespascal

February 2024
Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Song dynasty, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your source does not support the claims added to the article at all—it's just a passage about John IV through Andronicus IV trying to fight Ottoman Turks and Bulgarians and such. I've read this Treadgold book, there's barely a mention of China throughout the whole thing. What happened? Remsense 诉  07:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * First hello to you
 * Hy on page 775 the fiscal revenues in gold of the Byzantine Empire are mentioned : 40 tons of gold equivalent to 800 tons of silver’s meaning the double of China fiscal revenues under the Song ; second the use of golden coins was the most important monetary unit of the period like the dollar today .Descartespascal (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So, this is a good example of what we call improper synthesis, a form of original research, which not allowed on Wikipedia. I recommend taking a look at the pages I've linked, it explains better than I can: basically, you have taken a passage about the Byzantine revenue in gold written in a Byzantine history book, and have synthesized this with numerous other unstated claims, possibly from other reasonable sources, but you've come up with the synthesis Most sources pointed to the European West as the most wealthy region specially with its use of golden coins who dominated international transactions—which is not close to anything any of your sources actually say, especially the one you've supplied. Claims need to be directly supported by sources, to make a claim like this, a source would need to directly state that the European West was the most wealthy region.
 * Even if you did have this, it may even have undue weight in an article about Song China. But it needs to actually be supported by sources before we can even get to that point.
 * Cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia. Remsense  诉  08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you I appreciate the lessons, while I know a lot of stuff I don’t know all Wikipedia Rules. So here can I talk for example about a comparison without presenting a synthesis also can I mention that gold was the money used for international transactions and linking it to Byzantine money who was the gold standard money of the period.
 * Because the Song article does mention Europe and it seems there is a wall of China around the article for any other opinion presented. Descartespascal (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would still have to be justified in the context of the passage, as well as its conclusions. In general, it would not be appropriate to have passages of a significant length that focus on the Byzantine Empire in an article about Song China, unless the two are directly interacting. The reverse would also be true.
 * Moreover, it still seems that the purpose would be to provide a "counterpoint" to the existing evidence and claims directly made about the Song economy. This seems like "comparing apples and oranges", or implying a scholarly debate where one has not been proven to exist—see also the undue weight page I've linked earlier.
 * Unfortunately, we can only state the opinions of scholars—you've accidentally made Warren Treadgold out to have an opinion he does not actually profess. Remsense  诉  08:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok 👍🏻 thank will reflect on this and come back to you to learn and present something. Descartespascal (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Best of luck! Have fun. Remsense  诉  09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)