Talk:Science and technology in China/Archive 1

A split
Currently this article focuses mainly on the technological advancement since 1949. Should there be a split between Science and technology in mainland China (after 1949) and Science and technology in China (or ... in ancient China, ..in China before 1949) ? &mdash; Instantnood 11:24, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)
 * This article should be all-encompassing, so it needs much improvement. --Jiang 11:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion they should be split. Or else a cleanup is necessary. &mdash; Instantnood 11:51, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)
 * why should they be split? --Jiang 12:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First it would be weird to talk about compass, paper and printing with Shenzhou V in the same article. Second the current article starts with the backgrounds of the leaders of the communist party, and that's why I suggested a cleanup. &mdash; Instantnood 12:24, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)
 * i prefer a major cleanup. of course the path from compass to shenzhou is much a continum of chinese civilization, but of course they would fall under separate sections.--Jiang 13:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a continuum but this continuum are in several branches in recent history. It's alright if there are under different sections. &mdash; Instantnood 13:36, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to move this page. Moving this page discourages improvement and expansion--Jiang 20:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In what way does it discourage improvement and expanstion? &mdash; Instantnood 19:58, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving this page to [Science and technology in mainland China] still leaves a redirect. People are less likely to add info on ancient/imperial china if the title is such while the redirect leaves nothing really accomplished by the move--Jiang 21:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After moving, this page can serve as a disambiguation to Science and technology in mainland China and History of science and technology in China. &mdash; Instantnood 14:39, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm repeating myself, but the topics are related. If both can fit on this page, then they should, It's the same civilization. Disambigs are necessary for very different topics--Jiang 01:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same here. Many topics can be related to each other. "See also" sections link such articles together. Foreign relations of China currently serves as a disambiguation in the manner I have suggested. &mdash; Instantnood 21:20 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but foreign relations of China deals with a purely political topic that this article does not. That is why this article should not be split. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 03:33, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag added
I came across this page in the course of a discussion of Chinese Four Great Inventions, which was listed on Votes for deletion. Several problems: -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Large portions of this read like text dump of unWikified press releases from the PRC government. I am wondering if this material is a possible copyvio; if it is from an official source it may not be, but it seems to me to require wikification, editing for tone and NPoV, and possible abridgment of detail.
 * The History section, it seems to me, needs to be fronted and vastly expanded.

Page move
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

Science and technology in China &rarr; Science and technology in mainland China
The article deals with scientific and technological development of the PRC since its establishment in 1949, without any coverage of Hong Kong and Macao, which were former European exclaves until 1997/1999, and are now special administrative regions of the PRC with their own governments. The section on history has been moved to a separate article titled History of science and technology in China. &mdash; Instantnood 18:39, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Quoted from Naming conventions (Chinese): " Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China."  ". &mdash; Instantnood 18:52, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * By nominating I support moving the article. &mdash; Instantnood 18:41, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * oppose. if there's anything significant from HK and Macau, then add it. i don't see why not. and what do we do about technology pre-1949? this is overdoing it --Jiang 18:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong and Macao should have separate articles. Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the PRC from 1949 to 1997/1999, and they currently have their own governments, with their own policies and developments in science and technology. &mdash; Instantnood 19:42, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * They can both have separate articles and have mention in this article. However, the mainland is many times larger and dominates. And as you said, "China" has been "mainland China" for much of history. For the ease of use, please dont unnecessarily complicate things. --Jiang 21:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * They are not and should not be covered in this article. As I have mentioned, they have their own policies, and their own path of development. The title of an article has to be accurate to tell the scope of its content. &mdash; Instantnood 22:50, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * The can exist as separate articles. They can be linked to, mentioned, etc. Either theyre important enough for mention, or theyre so insignificant/separate that mention is not necessary. If the move were necessary as you argue, then theyre signficant enough for mention. It's absurd to be forcing ancient/imperial Chinese development into an article with "mainland China" in its title when the term wasnt used until the rise of Communist China. --Jiang 05:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Contents of ancient development are not part of this article. They are not forced to be include in an article with the title "mainland China".  &mdash; Instantnood 12:49, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a continous civilization. it's not necessary to force them off if they fit the same page. if they dont fit, we use summary style, not splitting --Jiang 02:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I fully understand why you oppose a split. Nonetheless it is not really a "continuous civilisation" in present-day context. The 20th century seen a separated development of science and technology in different parts of the region of China, each with different influences and inputs. &mdash; Instantnood 09:35, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needless change to a more confusing term, jguk 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to be accurate, NPOV and encyclopedic. If one wants to know what mainland China is, it's just several clicks to take you to the article about mainland China on Wikipedia. &mdash; Instantnood 19:40, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cumbersome to qualify something that does not require qualification. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "China", "People's Republic of China" and "Mainland China" are not the same, i.e. China ≠ People's Republic of China ≠ Mainland China. &mdash; Instantnood 17:51, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
 * Just like User:Instantnood = Jackass and = someone interrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but User:Instantnood ≠ some nice guy who avoids getting on peoples nerves with his inane bullshit. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright then. There's no common ground for wikipedians to discuss with you. &mdash; Instantnood 09:37, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Curps 20:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ExplorerCDT said, cumbersome ObsidianOrder 20:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree that science and technology in mainland China between 1949 and 1999 should be distinguished from the situation in Hong Kong and Macao during the same time. (Also, continuing from 1999 on forwards, since there still is no homogeneity.) --MarkSweep 00:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This disregards ancient/imperial/republican China.--Jiang
 * There is an article titled History of science and technology in China. The two articles are linked to each other at the "see also" section. &mdash; Instantnood 09:39, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:17, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By all means, add a subsection with reference to HK and Macau, and provide a link to a more detailed article if need be. We dont need different articles just because policies and governments are different.--Huaiwei 14:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In what way is Hong Kong and Macao were part of China before 1997/1999? And how should homogeneity be justifed from 1997/1999 onwards?  &mdash; Instantnood 15:19 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
 * The title of the article dosent seem to have any timeframe built into it. It does not specify that you can only talk about scientific developments in China before the arrival of the colonists, during the era of colonisation, or after the handover alone. In addition, why are you suddenly launching into a question concerning whether HK and Macau are part of China or not in a page on science and tech?--Huaiwei 15:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The current title suggests no time frame, but only content of mainland China after 1949 is included. Science and technological development prior to 1949 are covered by History of science and technology in China. To better reflect its content, the title had already been changed to "..mainland China", but was later moved back by Jiang. Hong Kong and Macao weren't part of China between the time they were colonised and 1997/1999, and share no homogeneity in science and development with mainland China even after 97/99. Naturally they are not covered by the article which focuses on the mainland since the establishment of the PRC. &mdash; Instantnood 19:05 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see that the article only carries material for China after 1949, and only on whats happening under the CCP. But that dosent mean we cannot EXPAND on the article to include the advancement of Chinese science and technology since 5000 years ago, and in all places whereby the Chinese view of science and nature is being practised. In fact, I feel History of science and technology in China should be merged with this page so that we can see a continous flow of information over time periods.--Huaiwei 08:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Being a continuum fails to justify a merger of two articles. If it has to be divided into articles, the establishment of the PRC is a good point to be divided along. Many history articles are linked together by the "see also" section, or by a box (a template) that links to articles of the same series.  &mdash; Instantnood 11:27 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
 * Failing to expand on the article is not justification for splitting the article into multiple parts either.--Huaiwei 11:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not say the article fails to be expanded.  &mdash; Instantnood 13:24 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Blank Verse  &empty;  06:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Much of the article should be about sci/tech within the entire Chinese cultural sphere for centuries before 1949. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 09:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changes
1) Added some history.
 * 1.1) Intend to add more ancient Chinese inventions to the list: paper money, rotor blades that eventually evolved into today's use in helicopters, ballast tanks Dat789 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Changed the first paragraph a bit. It seems rather dated.  Roadrunner

Moved moon project into notable research areas.DavidCowhig 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moon Project.jpg
Image:Moon Project.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Development Section
"In 1900, China had no modern science and technology at all - fewer than 10 people in all of China understood calculus. "

This claim sounds rather dubious, the section should be modified unless a valid references is provided. Wk1989 (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Space station image
Rather than having a mini-edit war over the space station image, I suggest that the parties to this disagreement explain the relative merits of their perspectives on this talk page. Other editors can weigh in with their perspectives, as well. And a decision can be made based on editors' consensus. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * excellent idea, sorry about that, thanks for opening a section.

official picture is here


 * The section begins with "The Chinese space program is a major source of national pride." I had been thinking that the overall 'big picture' of the subject that the editor who put the image into the article in the first place was trying to convey, was best served by the image similar to the image on the Chinese government website. which, despite it's many flaws, is still on their website and provokes the emotions and intent of the program quite well I think. Penyulap  ☏  11:05, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is more important then emotions. Your source image doesn't match any of the descriptions given of the space station and it is clearly an edited image of old ISS concept art. The two main modules are Zvezda and Zarya. You can the see the American solar arrays reflecting a shadow on the station. Zvezda's antenna is being used as a robotic arm. The Shenzhou spacecrafts depicted do not have solar arrays. Your source image is at least six years old and the design from your source image has not been seen in another image. As far as I know your "official image" cannot be seen on the Chinese version of their website. CSME has since posted more recent images that match their descriptions.Image 1Image 2.--Craigboy (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as the CMSE is showing the image prominently on its English website, which is what most of the world will see, it is difficult to argue that it is incorrect or unofficial. For clarification we could add that there are also other depictions. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would only agree if we threw all other information that we know about the program out the window. The design for CSS that has been consistently shown by CSME in illustrations(1), 3D renderings(123456), movies(1) and models (1) is not that of the source image. We've even seen images of the three modules that make of CSS, the Core Module(1), Lab Module 1 (1) and Lab Module 2(1).--Craigboy (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * why can't the encyclopaedia document that the Chinese government made a mistake ? there is no policy against that, ok, so we can't make fun of the image, but we can point out whatever is wrong with it. hey, what happened to saying they said there were 2 docking ports on the T-1 ? Penyulap  ☏  16:04, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you re-phrase that?--Craigboy (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. As stated earlier, the CMSE is still showing this image prominently so it is hard to argue that it is incorrect or unofficial. 2. It is an ongoing project not to be completed for many years where things may change in the future. All drawings and images are preliminary. 3. Penyulap's picture is IMO aesthetically superior. 4. We can clarify in the caption that there exists newer depictions that differ but that this is still what is shown prominently on the English CMSE webpage. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And what do you have to say in regards to all the evidence that I have posted (most of which was created by CMSE) that says the source image is inaccurate and how I've pointed out that the "design" really doesn't make any sense (it shows Zvezda's antenna being used as a robotic arm).--Craigboy (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * my thinking is to document all of their changing portrayals, like with freedom, there is a '89 a '90 a 92, and so on, they should all be included I think. Penyulap  ☏  17:20, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how this "design" was shown once and never described, it's probably not historically significant.--Craigboy (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that one time they did show it was like 6 or 7 years long though, don't you think that is significant ? Penyulap  ☏  02:13, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for developing and airing your views here. Lots of important considerations, not the least of which is accuracy. Perhaps for starters, an accurate, date-specified caption can be added to the image that is currently in the article. Beyond that, does anyone know whether (or how) a more recent and up-to-date public domain might be sourced? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I created this image.--Craigboy (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If Craigboy has a source for the statement "at least six years old" we could add that. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the image should be used but here's my source.--Craigboy (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I support labelling the image as 6 years old, or any number of years, as well as inaccurate, and whatever else Craigboy likes, on the basis that it is not controversial as a description. The idea that an image should be discarded, rather than be kept to say 'this is an artists impression of the early 21st century concept of the css according to the csme' is precisely what would prevent an up-to-date image being made. I can show you 50 concept pictures of the American stations from the 70's 80's and 90's, none of which were built, all of which have historic value as concept images. There is a place for historic images, rather than just the latest up to date images, and there is just no way I'll do every illustration for every changing concept of the CSS over the next 10 years when each will last 6 months before deletion. Craigboy can continue to abuse copyright policy, as with OPSEK, as a dubious alternative, what do I care ? I actually love the picture there, I said so too on his talkpage and stand by it. The Russians and Chinese will never give us free photos, so prepare for poor illustrations. Penyulap  ☏  13:37, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how I'm abusing copyright policy.--Craigboy (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've claimed that it cannot be replaced with a free image, when I'm living proof that any idiot with a computer can draw a free replacement. Penyulap  ☏  13:55, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * "You've claimed that it cannot be replaced with a free image" Where did I claim that?--Craigboy (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * here Penyulap  ☏  14:47, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I said "This is no free alternative available." "This" is a typo, I meant to say there is no free alternative available. Which is true. I don't see how that is abusing "copyright policy", posting images under fair-use when no free images are available is a common practice.--Craigboy (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I think abusing is maybe too strong a word anyhow, and besides, I go along supporting it's use anyhow, so I'm just as bad. I just thought that where you can draw one yourself and publish it free, that would count as a free alternative. I've been too lazy to look it up or ask so I don't really know, I guess we can ask at the help desk or something. Hey how about the teahouse, there's fun right there, I'll pretend to be a new editor like mir does all the time, lolz, how about it ? Penyulap  ☏  15:56, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

This section of the article addresses developments over a half-century, from 1970-2020. In this context, as long as it is accurately documented, even a 'dated' image should be okay, in my opinion. I appreciate the accuracy of the line drawing; aesthetically, I can see the value of the 'dated' artist's conception. Which quality is more important here? On another note, let's try to keep this neutral and non-personal, okay? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern is that the source image was never even a design.--Craigboy (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but how would you describe it ? It is not a design, but what is it ?
 * When you find the answer to that question, you'll find a great way to label the image. Penyulap  ☏  11:23, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * This is off topic but didn't you plan to make corrections to your picture awhile back?--Craigboy (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not off topic at all, I did fix the background when I changed to a brighter monitor, I had an omg moment when saw how messy the background was on the new monitor. I have an image with the docking module attached I can upload in a jiffy, but it does look rather lopsided, so I've taken a page out of your book there, poetic licence they call it, I would think in this article it wouldn't be as good, so I didn't want to upload it, but in the css history section (we don't even have one) it would be ok. What kinds of corrections do you mean / want ? Penyulap  ☏  01:26, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically all I want is the three modules with their correct basic shape, solar panels and docking ports. It doesn't have be too fancy but you can make it be if you want to.--Craigboy (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a fair and proper proposal, and although at the moment I am, as you can see from my contribs, doing 100 things at once on this wikipedia alone, I want to draw a few images, or the CSS, OPSEK in stages of progression, and that old proposed 20 module that would have been on the nadir port of the ros, forward of nauka, I can't recall its name.
 * I do wonder however, what will happen as the design progresses and changes, like if I drew an image today to the best of my ability, and tomorrow they announce 5 modules, what would you do with the image ? Assuming I draw another, with 5 modules, what happens to the 3 module version ? Penyulap  ☏  23:58, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * If that does happen we'd at least be able to confidently say it was a previous design (since it has been consistently shown in different mediums for several years and described relatively in-depth)--Craigboy (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it worthwhile keeping the old images on display in the article as well as the new images ? Penyulap  ☏  00:39, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify?--Craigboy (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "evolution of the Chinese space station design" section kind of thing, the changing configurations of the station concept according to the csme. that kind of thing ? Penyulap  ☏  01:15, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like that might might be useful.--Craigboy (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * aww come on, that's half a yes, 'might be', well for half a yes, I'll make you half and image :)


 * History is either something we want, or something we don't Penyulap  ☏  02:29, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you know on the subject of docking the arriving spacecraft to the antenna, on the Chinese pic, I noticed the other day and again today, and I am sure you must already have seen it, how NASA docks the soyuz to the ISS back to front, that is, by the engines, and not at the docking ports of the ros, but halfway down the side of the modules ? I think drawing better than these clowns will be a pushover. NASA official pics on NASA gov website, Soyuz and progress ships docked tail-first, amidships. Chinese dock one to the antenna. I could totally lose it, upload a complete joke, and people would be like, hmmm, that's a pretty good drawing, not that I ever would of course, you know that better than anyone. I think it goes to show that the google streetview idea, crazy as it sounded at that time, was precisely what everyone in the world needs. To be able to look at the ISS and have some clue what is what, same as we can. Well, it can be done, but just not here I guess. Penyulap  ☏  05:34, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * "I noticed the other day and again today, and I am sure you must already have seen it, how NASA docks the soyuz to the ISS back to front, that is, by the engines, and not at the docking ports of the ros, but halfway down the side of the modules ? I think drawing better than these clowns will be a pushover. NASA official pics on NASA gov website, Soyuz and progress ships docked tail-first, amidships." I don't understand what you're saying.--Craigboy (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, please discard that, I believe now the anomaly is created by the difference in interpretation of the files downloaded from the government website, when they are loaded into different 3D imaging software. Penyulap  ☏  02:10, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)