Talk:Zhang Heng

Major Editing
Please revise new article, recently updated. Sometimes1must 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes i had permission, they require a source cite added and i did that. Sometimes1must 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you are doing. Why did you delete a major portion of the article? Why didn't you discuss this in Talk before you deleted a mjor portion of the article? Please explain.
 * Thanks--Ling.Nut 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes1must's "article" violated copyright. The new article would not be able to be edited, therefore its invalid. 24.12.8.97 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just made some minor edits, additions, and corrections (including the armillary sphere, since he was not the first in China to invent this, but the first to invent the hydraulic-powered one more than a century later). I will contribute more later and use sources of Joseph Needham to beef up this article a bit, since it is nearly a stub at the moment.

--PericlesofAthens 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After my latest edits, the article looks much better now, agree? As promised, I also added the reference of Joseph Needham.

--PericlesofAthens 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation Errors
Needham's translation of Ling Xian (靈憲) is in many ways inaccurate. His major mistake is saying that "an-xu" (闇虛) means a lunar eclipse, while it actually refers to the shadow (lit. "dark void"). This is more clearly stated in a quotation in "Treatise on Astronomy Part 2" in Book of Sui (《隋書·天文志中》): "Zhang Heng said: '[There is a place] in opposition to the sun. It is as big as the sun. Sunlight doesn't illuminate it. It's called an-xu. When an-xu meets the moon, the moon is eclipsed. When it encounters a star, the star is missing.'" (張衡云：「對日之衝，其大如日，日光不照，謂之闇虛. 闇虛逢月則月食，值星則星亡. 」)

So the last sentence of the excerpt from Ling Xian (「在星星微，月過則食」) should be translated as "When it is on a star, the star is hidden. The moon is eclipsed when goes through it." The whole paragraph says nothing about occultations or solar eclipses.

There are other minor mistakes in Needham's translation. I suggest we find a better translation to replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 十七世纪 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

GA failed
Again, you need more sources than Needham. --Ideogram 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed that problem a bit with more sources.--PericlesofAthens 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Suggestions
The complaints I am voicing here are pretty much the same as in the last article (Su Song) There are several problems with the prose in a few sections.
 * You need to indicate the name of the volumes in addition to the number for the Needham references.
 * There are too many parentheses all around the article. The use of parantheses should be minimized and worked into the prose. When it comes to Chinese translations of terms, many of them can simply be removed.
 * You are mixing Wade-Giles and Pinyin romanization. The majority of the article is in Pinyin, but you must convert the Wade-Giles into Pinyin before the article is passed. If you need assistance in this regard please let me know, as I can help convert the stuff.Zeus1234
 * Update: I fully indicated the names of the Needham volumes, limited the amount of parentheses while rewording info into prose, and the only Wade-giles translations left are in Needham's direct quotes, which should not be reworded.--PericlesofAthens 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
I've just drastically improved the image situation with this article; I think the new pictures fit splendidly. Anyone else have a comment on what could possibly be added?-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page news
Another day, another featured article. Thanks to all who lended a hand in bringing this article to featured status!-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This page could still use some protection. Benjwong (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Polymath
Why is he only "considered a polymath by some scholars"? Are there any scholars who don't consider him one? If this isn't a point of controversy then I don't see why it needs to be mentioned at all. --Heron (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not come across a scholar who disputes him being a polymath; yet I was only able to find a few scholars he deemed him so with an explicit mentioning of the word "polymath". Hence I stated that there are "some" scholars and did not insert my own assumption that there is some universal consensus, which I have no proof of. If you can find a scholar who says "most" or "all" sinologists consider him a polymath, have at it hoss! Lol.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 14:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

what is this?
"Here we can see how important the exemplary function of the primitive scientific structure is. In order to use the Euclidean system of geometry as a model for the development of astronomical theory, Ptolemy first had to select hypotheses which could serve as axioms. He naturally regarded circular motion as fundamental and then used the circular motion of deferents and epicycles in his earth-centered theory. Although Zhang Heng understood that the sun, moon and planets move in circles, he lacked a model for a logically structured theory and so could not establish a corresponding astronomical theory. Chinese astronomy was most interested in extracting the algebraic features of planetary motion (that is, the length of the cyclic periods) to establish astronomical theories. Thus astronomy was reduced to arithmetic operations, extracting common multiples and divisors from the observed cyclic motions of the heavenly bodies"

i have no idea what this means, and i would invite anyone out there who is able to provide explanation, to do so. Decora (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As this is an (overlong) quote from a reference source it should be precised rather than quoted direct I believe. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 10:02, Saturday February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Zhang Heng. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080307094906/http://www.edp.ust.hk:80/previous/math/history/3/3_7.htm to http://www.edp.ust.hk/previous/math/history/3/3_7.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070203203308/http://www.chinaculture.org:80/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-08/18/content_71970.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-08/18/content_71970.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080602080333/http://earthquake.usgs.gov:80/learning/topics/seismology/history/part04.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/seismology/history/part04.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Needham (1959), Volume 3
There are references pointing to non-existing bibliography. I am talking about Needham (1959). There is no source from that year of publication although there it is a Volume 3 of Needham's work.

There should be someone with the book of 1986 to check this.--Hienafant (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have fixed the problem, since I own that edition of Needham's book and, for that matter, am the one who (largely) wrote this article. Thanks for pointing this out! Pericles of Athens  Talk 11:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)