Talk:History of science and technology in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleHistory of science and technology in China was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 22, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 9, 2007.
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject History of Science (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


The Printing Press: Who Made it First?[edit]

The Wiki article on scientific advancement in Korea credits Korea with the first movable type -- i.e. the printing press. I've also seen this in numerous Asian history books. Can anyone confirm who got it first, and then correct it in either of the Wiki articles?

R. Robinson, 22 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.207.72 (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: This has been resolved (distinction made between porcelain and metal movable printing machines).

R. Robinson, 01 February, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.207.72 (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Scientific and technological stagnation" section[edit]

I don't agree with the way it concludes. It's arguing for a point of view that can be said about other philosophies/religions. Xiner (talk, email) 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Needham is the main scholarly source for research on Chinese science, and other views are also represented. Secondly, true science developed in the environment of the Scholastic universities during the Renaissance of the 12th century. The limitations to science from other philosophies/religions occurs in varying degrees and for different reasons, but scholars find it is of particular note as to why the major Chinese technological innovations did not develop into science. --Grimhelm 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's possible to rephrase the section so that it appears less argumentative and more NPOV. The "However..." needs not be there, for example. If we say, "Needham believes, and most scholars agree...Other theories include..." then it'll convey the same message. Xiner (talk, email) 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it would make more sense if we grouped the political and cultural factors together, and had the more recent economic theories come after it. I have changed it accordingly. --Grimhelm 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. :-) --Grimhelm 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There was no mention of the Qing conquest theory. Friendship & Rainbows (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

This article is absolutely not comprehensive enough. The subject is vast. --Ideogram 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a few points that most need expansion? It might give editors a good place to start. Thanks. :-) --Grimhelm 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not really familiar with the subject; I was hoping to learn more from the article. Two things spring to miind: Chinese history is supposed to go back thousands of years, but here we have only the four great inventions and the middle ages; and a lot more can be said about Needham's work. --Ideogram 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
May I recommend a brief summary of Needham's work: Robert Temple: The Genius of Chins ISBN 978-0233002026 [1]. It's popular rather than academic, but it's a nice overview of inventions, and could be a fine strating point for a longer version of this article.--Niels Ø (noe) 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You can also integrate material from Chinese mathematics here, although that article is terribly thin. I'm also interested in discussion of the five elements wood, earth, metal, water, fire; the emphasis on the number five and numerology in general; acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine; Chinese constellations; the list goes on and on.
One of the problems with copying material was the lack of citations. I intentionally left out Chinese mathematics, as the History of Science articles go by the following: "The history of mathematics… [is] covered in other articles. Mathematics is closely related to, but distinct from science (at least in the modern conception). Technology concerns the creative process of designing useful objects and systems, which differs from the search for empirical truth." Acupuncture and medicine are certainly ancient areas that would do well to be included. --Grimhelm 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I would rather include material that was not well cited than no material at all. Your point on mathematics is well-taken. --Ideogram 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional material[edit]

You may want to add material from Book of Silk, Han Dynasty silk comet atlas, and Mawangdui Silk Texts here. Those articles themselves need to be merged, but that's a separate matter. --Ideogram 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

Keep it up! --Ideogram 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) What happened to the Han Dynasty silk comet atlas article, by the way? I saw it briefly and it looked quite substantial, and I can't tell if it was merged somewhere. Also, how far off being a good article would you say it is now (and what other areas should we work on next), considering that it is 17 KB long at this point. --Grimhelm 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That article has been moved to Comets and the swastika motif. It is not really related to China. The primary obstacle to GA is more citations/references. 17 KB is not long, the article could still use expansion. The coverage looks pretty balanced now, I think mainly you just need more depth. --Ideogram 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I know 17 KB isn't that long, but I would have thought that the current inline citations were quite good (although some more would be nice, particularly in the final section); unless you mean copying material from other articles, where the lack of citation is a problem. Is suppose that getting the balance was the hard part, and more depth should be achieveable. --Grimhelm 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to submit it for GA again. It has a pretty good chance of passing. --Ideogram 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added some more on Zhang Heng, and renominated it for GA. Thanks again. --Grimhelm 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I should be thanking you, you are doing all the work. --Ideogram 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Still, you were the one who provided the links to the articles on the early texts and gave direction. :-) --Grimhelm 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a pleasure working with you and I hope we can do so again. --Ideogram 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA[edit]

Note that this GA review was separate from and uncoordinated with the previous one above.

1.

  • (a) Prose is straightforward, and follows an easily understandable chronologic format.
  • (b) Again, chronological structure, grouped by era. The lead is there and looks good.
  • (c) Looks good in relation to standards. I fixed one header myself, but nothing serious.
  • (d) Plenty of active links to explain terms.

2.

  • (a) References are here and cited.
  • (b) Some citations are not in the right format. Look at the section "Scientific and technological stagnation" and change the two bare links into proper cite format.
  • (c) Sources seem to be from reliable sources.
  • (d) No original research, has quotes from experts.

3.

  • (a) I would prefer a bit more about the early Chinese philosophy of science. Right now it is a little unclear as to how the basic Chinese view of science spurred invention. Still has enough info to go on, in my opinion.
  • (b) Very focused, no deviations.

4.

  • (a) Several viewpoints are represented without bias.
  • (b) No undue assertion of viewpoints.

5. Seems stable, good crew working on it.

6.

  • (a) Good tagging and captions.
  • (b) Images present.
  • (c) All images seem to be public domain.

In summary:

  • 1. Pass
  • 2. Pass minus
  • 3. Pass minus
  • 4. Pass
  • 5. Pass
  • 6. Pass

Overall: Pass

Nice work. Please consider the citation and comprehensiveness issues I raised above. --Danaman5 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Ideogram 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both. :-) --Grimhelm 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New info[edit]

I just added new cited information for Ma Jun and his South Pointing Chariot. I also expanded upon the achievements of Shen Kuo and Su Song.--PericlesofAthens 02:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

14th to 15th century gap[edit]

There seems to be a gap of information about what was going on tech-wise 14th and 15th century, even if nothing was going on there should be some note of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Rules about pictures on Wikipedia that should be uncontroversial:

  • Don't use fixed image sizes. Different users have different resolutions. The MediaWiki software scales pictures for anonymous users when sizes are not specified, and logged in users can set a preference.
  • Alternate image placement between left and right. This is recommended in the Manual of Style.
  • Don't place two pictures so close that the text gets sandwiched in the middle. Also recommended in the Manual of Style.

More personal preferences:

  • Don't use too many pictures. One per section is sufficient. This also avoids the problem of sandwiching mentioned above.
  • Keep pictures relevant. For example, the picture on the pudding process of smelting has nothing to do with "Scientific and technological stagnation".
  • Avoid pictures with extreme aspect ratios like the paper money picture. Pictures are sized by width which looks bad when the aspect ratio is extreme.

--slashem (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New material[edit]

It should be noted that User:Jagged 85 has recently added a bunch of new material under the Middle Ages section of this article that I had originally wrote for Science in the Middle Ages. Just to clear up any confusion if someone stumbles across repeated materials here or elsewhere. I would like to state for the record, though, that I prefer paraphrasing of others' work instead of wholesale copying of material from one article to the next.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Science and Technology of China in Chronological Order[edit]

Could the editors here please merge anything important from this article and redirect it to this location? It would be better if the author was directed to this article for his contributions. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Period divide and name[edit]

Why there is a part named Middle Ages? China has no period and no term Middle Ages. Does it use European experience, European way and Europe standard to divide and name Chinese history? -Znzznz (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, here is an appeal to include Mohist logic in the history of science in China. The link includes some watchlists which might be useful for this article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I should mention that in the links on Mohist logic given above, they mention that one of the threads which was cut short 2400 years ago, during the Qin burning of books and burying of scholars was the integrated development of modal logic and Mohist logic. The loss of something that coud very well have taken thousands of years to develop (given that modal logic was discovered only in the Western world in the last 800 years, and that few people work on this, even in the previous century) may have had catastrophic effects for the entire globe, as evidenced by the severe imbalance and instability of values we see today. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Indian writing?[edit]

Removed "Needham notes that writing was well established in Indian culture 3500 years ago." It's a great sentence, but what's it doing here? Hanfresco (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Worse, it's completely wrong. There is no evidence for writing in the 2nd millennium BC in India, not even proto-writing. Had writing been "well established" in the Vedic period, there should be at least some tangible evidence – but there are only highly implausible fringe speculations attempting to derive Brahmi from the Indus symbols. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Peiping union medical college, department of biochemistry[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=VFgXAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA395#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of science and technology in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of science and technology in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Gap of History of Science and technology in Ancient China[edit]

The article starts from the Warring States period, but on the right hand side we can see the ancient China started way earlier than that. May I ask why these early days were not included? Are they not categorized as a part of Chinese history? Are there not enough reliable sources to be found? Or are there not enough contents that can be viewed as "Science" or "technology"? Thank you. Shikele (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)