Trade route has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 8, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Trade Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Transport: Maritime Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Coal trade route 85.75.253.149 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been awhile since the last good article assessment, I have had another look at the current version and noticed the following:

• Several uncited paragraphs
• The use of large block quotes to recent encyclopedias, creating copyright concerns.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects Maritime Jade Road and Philippine jade culture were deleted in January 2025 (log1, log2); see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine jade culture.

This article still contains a section named § Maritime Jade Road (and has a red-linked, section-top {{main}} link to the deleted redirect). Given some of the content at the Afd which implies the original concept of a maritime jade road might be a case of citogenesis or WP:OR placed by two users, it seemed important to raise this here. Should section Maritime Jade Road be blanked? Pinging Afd discussants: @Toadspike, Bearian, Lenticel, and Chipmunkdavis: and will notify: 143.44.193.226 (talk · contribs) as well.

The § Maritime Jade Road section has four citations, bundled at the end; see notes 83, 84, 85, and 86 in rev. 1270080326.

As an additional concern, note that there are still 20 mainspace inlinks to "Maritime Jade Road" and nine inlinks to "Philippine jade culture":

At a minimum, it seems like the links to the deleted articles should be removed, but the 27 articles should probably also be examined for content that should be removed. I was going to notify a couple of WikiProjects based on analogous article Maritime Silk Road's WikiProjects, until I noticed that it has has over two dozen WikiProjects (!), most of them irrelevant here. I'll notify WP:ECONOMICS, WP:TRANSPORT, and WP:HISTORY, and if others are needed, please let me know. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Effectively we created a merge. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that section should go. It resembles what I remember of the deleted article, and is duplicative of the existing Austronesian maritime trade network section. Thanks for following this up. CMD (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly inclined to either result, so do what you think is best. Bearian (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look to try and find the sources and see what they had. The first is about Taiwanese archaeology, and does not mention jade. The second is a news source that seems to mention the study about the jade trade in a brief mention. The third is a dead link, but I think is mirrored here, another news source repeating Bellwood research and not really on topic. I can't find a copy of the fourth cite, which is the Bellwood paper, but here is a 2007 paper with Bellwood as an author. It discusses the jade trade, but doesn't make many of the claims present in the prose. If someone can find the 2011 paper, I would suggest anything in it be combined with the Austronesian trade subsection, which currently has "including the lingling-o jade network" unsourced. Perhaps the 2007 paper might also support that mention. CMD (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had the Bellwood article with full access through Semantic Scholar after I signed in (free reg) but their pdf link 404'd; maybe you hit that as well. So I started looking around for papers by combinations of the authors, and found this one by Bellwood, Hung, and Iizuka (and 7 others) on a very similar-sounding topic. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Oh, never mind; that seems to be the same document as your "2007 paper" link, via a different url. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement of Jade from Taiwan to the Philippines (and some other places) is a real thing. See, for instance[1]. However, this paper does not characterise the subject as being a "Maritime Jade road"  – this seems to be a rare term at best and WP:OR at worst. I note that Bellwood's book First Islanders has every opportunity to mention a "Jade road", but does not. I don't think there is any reason for Wikipedia to continue with the concept or a "Maritime Jade Road" or anything similar.

I fear that you may have touched on the work of an editor who, for instance, overcites certain points with references that do not support article content. (I take this to be a method of camouflage – anyone checking references is unlikely to find all of them, so they presume the one they cannot find supports the questionable content.) They also pick on any ambiguity in a source to be interpreted to meet their content. Overall, they are responsible for a large amount of overstating of the achievements of Austronesians. This is unfortunate, as the spread of Austronesian-speakers across a huge part of the world is particularly important part of the history of migration, but the moment an editor starts adding fiction to the story, the whole starts to appear questionable. Fortunately the editor in question seems to have voluntarily withdrawn from Wikipedia, but the mess remains. Therefore anywhere that Austronesians are mentioned in this article (and others) needs a careful audit for accuracy and appropriateness. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing the main points you raised (which deserve a response) I particularly appreciate your use of the expression, "movement of Jade from Taiwan to the Philippines" (stressing movement), because I have recently been learning about non-trade mechanisms of movement of objects. This is a bit o/t for this discussion, but I just wanted to throw this in here, as an alternative to the trade paradigm: other possibilities are diplomatic gifts or tribute networks, migration (carrying objects with them), ceremonial transport of religious objects, looting and raiding, incremental exchange via a series of small movements through middlemen, shipwrecks and accidental dispersal (it happens!), copying via local artisans (illusion of trade). Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have recently seen a reinterpretation of an early medieval site in the UK that was thought to demonstrate trade with Constantinople. Then it was realised that some Saxons (if I remember correctly) had served as mercenaries for Constantinople, so the grave goods etc., that were found had not moved due to trade but were the personal possessions of people who had been working overseas and had now returned home. (Other studies at the site provided some confirmation of this conclusion.) Not sure I would easily find a reference on that, but it really hit home as I had a clear recollection of the earlier (and now discredited) interpretation. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the problem editor I have mentioned above has been responsible for at least one case of Wikipedia having an error, that error being copied by someone writing a paper for publication, and then the published paper being available as a reference for Wikipedia to use for the error. Given the high output of the editor concerned, it would not be surprising if there are other instances of that happening. See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 78#Is this a Wikipedia error now appearing as an RS? for this instance of citeogenesis (I had to find the post to remember this bit of jargon). I raised this with the publisher of the journal but they do not seem to have any procedures for dealing with this sort of thing. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtIdRetired, but we have policy (WP:CIRCULAR) that governs it, as well as the procedure to deal with it, namely: Verifiability, which tell us what to do about it:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports^[a] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Citogen is not RS, so if the citogen content is still there, you can either remove the reference and tag it {{cn}}, or just remove both the content and the reference. WP:V is very clear on this point: the WP:BURDEN is not on us to prove that the content is unverifiable, rather it is on the editor who added it to prove that it is. Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with citogenesis is not fixing it, rather it is detecting it in the first place. This instance needed a good level of knowledge of the subject, a deep suspicion of the work of the other editor and a detailed bit of forensic tracking of article versions and re-reading papers supporting both the old article and the paper that used its references. Without all that work we have a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that has conclusions drawn from references, in Wikipedia and repeated in the paper, that do not support those conclusions. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe another way to approach this might be to go through this article (and eventually the other ones) and start by eliminating all the primary sources (or at least, the ones that are not accompanied by secondary sources that portray the majority view), and then remove any content that has no secondary sources supporting it. If we have only primary sources in the form of some journal articles supporting the Maritime jade road terminology, then we should be okay to remove it.

In the meantime, I have been trying to do some forensic tracking of my own, but am only about 1/4 done wit the current task, but you can look at the effort so far at Talk:Trade route/Maritime jade route WP:WikiProject Trade/Maritime jade route. The intention is to complete the list, and maybe convert it to a sortable wikitable at some point. Feel free to contribute there or store any of your tracking notes on that page if they are not already on-wiki someplace, or to link to them from there if they are. Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid talking at cross purposes, the incident of citogenesis that I have described originates from a different editor than the two mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine jade culture. The over-citing and the topic areas are similar across the three editors, but the overall style does not appear the same as the one known to me. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several posts about the Bellwood resource originally at this position were moved during refactoring from here to #Bellwood source below. Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mathglot, for bringing this up again. I have been seriously procrastinating the cleanup of this synth/hoax/promo/whatever it is, since it would require what you are doing here: a serious analysis of the academic literature to determine which parts are verifiable and which are OR. I tried removing some of the boilerplate text at Maritime Silk Road a while ago, but got reverted (diff). If we can address this IP's valid concerns, then we can remove/rewrite the "Maritime Jade Road" content across all the pages where it appears. Toadspike [Talk] 10:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) I agree with the removal of the entries supported with questionable use of the cite sources. I'm not that familiar with this topic so I'll leave it to the others for the actual trimming/ removal. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Asia, the earliest evidence of maritime trade was the Neolithic trade networks of the Austronesian peoples among which is the lingling-o jade industry of the Philippines, Taiwan, southern Vietnam and peninsular Thailand
The paper states that, (1) for the Island of Itbayat, "...most of the lingling-o production was concentrated between 500 B.C. and A.D"; (2) "Available radiocarbon dates for sites in Thailand and Viet Nam indicate that the main period of lingling-o usage was between 300 B.C. and A.D. 100."; (3) "...lingling-o earrings dated to the Early Metal Age".
The Neolithic period in this part of the world ended with the "Metal Age". That transition was c. 500 BCE. So there was no trade in lingling-o jade artefacts in the Neolithic. Therefore this presumably is not earliest evidence of maritime trade [in Asia]. Note that there was earlier trade in jade artefacts made into adzes and other items. The paper states:
"Artifacts of a green variety of jade—including bracelets, adzes and beads—were brought by sea from eastern Taiwan into the Philippines (Batanes, Luzon, Palawan and, possibly, other regions) over a period that lasted about 3,000 years, from about 2000/1500 B.C. to A.D. 1/500."
As an aside, the link to Neolithic is quite useless in explaining the dating in ISEA and Maritime Southeast Asia as that article does not mention it.

Probably more to add to this. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Section titled "Maritime Jade Road": There is no mention of a "Jade road", "Maritime Jade road" or, even, "road" in Bellwood et al 2011. There are two instances of a "network" being referred to:
"The native peoples of southern Viet Nam are Austronesian speakers, like the Filipinos, and both groups were apparently in close interaction at about 2,000 years ago, when Southeast Asia was part of a huge trade network that linked the Mediterranean, India, Southeast Asia, and southern China."
(Note we are suddenly "years ago" when other dates are BCE/CE – that's a bit of an irritating style characteristic that crops up in this subject area.)
Second occurrence:
"The Taiwan jade network fueled a remarkable period of technological innovation during the first millennium A.D. that led to the manufacture of the lingling-o ear ornaments by Philippine artisans, among whom one must include the native people of Lanyu (who speak a Batanic language and who also once worked jade)."
I don't see these quotes as supporting the basic premise of the section. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another try at the elusive Bellwood-20072011: please could someone try this link from Australian Nat'l Univ. Repository, and if you click the File link at the bottom, it takes you to a Request-a-copy page, and I think someone with better academic cred than me could make a better case in their "Message" field than I could for the request. If that doesn't work or no volunteers, I have a half-filled out WP:RX request on hold, and I could complete that request. Lmk. Mathglot (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a request. Since this looks like it will be processed manually, I suggest filing the RX as well. I have no idea how long this could take. Toadspike [Talk] 15:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. Resource request is here. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have discovered this, but the paper you are trying to track is a book chapter. It is referenced (in another paper that cites it) as:
Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3000 Years of Trade and Long-Distance Interaction
Jan 201130-41
Peter BellwoodHsiao-Chun HungYoshiyuki Iizuka
Bellwood, Peter, Hsiao-chun Hung, and Yoshiyuki Iizuka. "Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3000 Years of Trade and Long-Distance Interaction." In Paths of Origins: The Austronesian Heritage, edited by Purissima Benitez-Johannot, 30-41. Manila, 2011.
I found this at[2]. Ignore if you already know this. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the WorldCat has the complete ToC of the book in which Bellwood is one of the chapters. Just added the book to the RX based on the WorldCat entry; the complete book citation is as follows:

• Aragon, Lorraine V. (2011). Benitez-Johannot, Purissima (ed.). Paths of origins : the Austronesian heritage in the collections of the National Museum of the Philippines, the Museum Nasional Indonesia and the Netherlands Rijksmuseum voor Völkunde. Manila: ArtPostAsia. ISBN 9789719429203. OCLC 1499871777.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subthread above moved to its own subsection "§ Bellwood source" from its original position. Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a pdf of this paper from the Open Research team at the ANU. Since this followed my request for access, I presume that User:Toadspike has also received a copy, having submitted the same request. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just notified that the WP:RX folks have received it, and will be emailing it to me. Mathglot (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I also got a copy, thanks for reminding me to check me email...I really should do that more often. Toadspike [Talk] 09:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I received mine as well via RX. The format is a pdf scanned from a library print copy containing page images, that is, readable as images of text but not searchable. If anyone received a version with searchable text, would appreciate if you could email me one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a searchable pdf copy, but there seems no way to attach a document to the Wikipedia e-mail form. If you still need this, e-mail me and I can reply with the attachment. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; sent. By the way, editors here interested in means of acquisition of hard-to-find resources, may be interested in this initiative and discussion by WMF: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#We want to buy you books. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, but immediately after hitting "send" I did wonder if I can read this document because of the version of Adobe Acrobat that I run, which has more capabilities than the standard product. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have seen
Liu JY. 2023. Intertwined maritime Silk Road and Austronesian routes: A Taiwanese archaeological perspective. Journal of Global History 18: 384–400, doi:10.1017/S1740022823000177[3]
It is relatively recent and discusses Taiwanese jade/nephrite. It also cites other papers for anyone wanting to delve deeply into the subject. There is no mention of a "Jade road" of any kind. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 00:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and although there are plenty of references to "Maritime Silk Road", especially in the last ten years, there aren't enough of "Maritime Jade Road" to meet the minimum threshold required for ngrams to plot them: ngrams link. (Note: searching case-insensitive is no different.) Mathglot (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the disputed inline tag, the date of the colonisation of Madagascar by Austronesian speakers is thought to be c. 5th to 7th century AD. The reference for this is Adelaar, Alexander. "Malagasy Phonological History and Bantu Influence." Oceanic Linguistics, vol. 51 no. 1, 2012, p. 123-159. Project MUSE, https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ol.2012.0003. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section makes some very definite statements in a field of research that is full of contradictions and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the Banana. We know that this important food crop originated in New Guinea, received some genetic modification in Indonesia and then ended up in Africa. What is not know with any certainty is when it arrived in Africa. There is even less to tell us who transported the plant there. The same applies for much of the rest of the translocation mentioned in this section. It might be true, but the evidence for most of it is sketchy, at best.

Another thing that raises my suspicions on this section is the presence of overciting. For instance ...It continued up to historic times, later becoming the Maritime Silk Road. which is followed with five references. I am familiar with four of these and struggle to see how they support much of the content back to the previous references given. I will check out the fifth reference, but would not be surprised if it did not fill any gaps of support. I should add that I am familiar with the WP:OVERCITE strategies of the editor who put this section together. It is generally a sign that something is wrong.

It is a big hill to climb to demolish some of the claims made here, especially since there were some real and very significant achievements by Austronesian seafarers. However, overclaiming those achievements does them no favours. If anyone else wanted to chip in with checking any of this material, I would be very grateful. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing whether the refs support the content is certainly a minimum bar, but not the only bar. Overcite may also attempt to imply majority view where the citations are actually WP:UNDUE or WP:CHERRYPICKED. So even if all five directly support the assertion(s) in the article, that is still not enough unless it can be shown that they are representative of the majority view on the topic. This can be a little tricky, as failure to find refs that debunk it do not necessarily mean that the claim is majority view, just because a handful of refs can be found for it; most geophysicists never address the question of whether the Earth is flat.

My impression^{[better source needed]} examining the terminology on the web and in books and journals, is that the term is exceedingly rare in reliable sources, and also that most or all web-based sources can be discarded as citogenesis. However, my mind is not made up on either of these points, and in fact I am not trying to make up my mind as yet. I am concentrating for the moment on developing a subpage as a repository for whatever data or evidence that will help decide this. It will take me some days to complete this; contributions are welcome, of course. This repository was previously a subpage of this Talk page, but as it affects dozens of articles, a centralized venue makes a lot more sense. I have moved it to a subpage of (formerly inactive) WikiProject:Trade, and it can now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trade/Maritime jade route. Once that page stabilizes, I will try to contribute to analysis and interpretation, but I want to see the big picture, first. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it is the whole section that I am questioning. Yes, Austronesian speakers were involved in much of the maritime activity in the region, but despite their prominence they were not the only ones. Particularly early westward activity has been attributed to others in ISEA and there was a part played in that by those travelling from west to east. For a critical view, see [4]. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting there are ongoing talkpage discussions on the veracity of some of the article's information. CMD (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged this sentence in § Austronesian maritime trade network for clarification:

Long-distance maritime trade network in the Indian Ocean also had run by the Austronesian peoples of Island Southeast Asia.^[52][51]

"Had run by"? Like the train skipping the milk run stops on the express route? Obviously not; but what? Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intention is "was run by". However, such a statement is a clear example of cherry-picking, in this case, from within the reference given.

The cited source is chapter 3 Austronesian Shipping in the Indian Ocean: From Outrigger Boats to Trading Ships, by Pierre-Yves Manguin in Early Exchange between Africa and the Wider Indian Ocean World (pp 85-122).

The preceding chapter paints an entirely different picture than that conveyed in the article: Origins of Southeast Asian Shipping and Maritime Communication Across the Indian Ocean by Waruno Mahdi (pp 48-84). Mahdi makes clear that there was a lot of maritime travel across the Island Southeast Asia region long before the Austronesians existed. We already know about the settlement of Australia; he also lists the "migration into Near Oceania proceeded with a 130–150 km crossing from New Ireland to the North Solomons by 28,000 BP (Wickler and Spriggs 1988: 703–704; Gosden 1992: 55; Broodbank 2006: 205–206)". With a primary role in linguistics, we should pay attention to Mahdi pointing out that "...there does not appear to be a unique original Austronesian word for “boat.”" (p49)

Austronesians did play a part in trade across and out of ISEA, but the most prominent part of that is later than the Wikipedia article implies. The settlement of Madagascar in the seventh century AD is indicative of when that network reached right across the Indian Ocean. Mahdi's thesis is that Austronesians arrived (c. 2200BC) in an area which already had effective maritime technology and probably had already established trade links to India ("...earliest maritime communication along the north coast of the Indian Ocean too was probably performed by Negritos." p 49). Austronesians must have played their part in the development of that technology, but they were not there in the early phases. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]