Talk:Science and technology in the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
This 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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]])? — 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. — 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. — 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. — 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? — 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. — 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. — Instantnood 21:20 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag added

I came across this page in the course of a discussion of Chinese Four Great Inventions, which was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Several problems:

  • 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.

-- Smerdis of Tlön 17:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

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

[edit] Science and technology in China → 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. — Instantnood 18:39, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

    • Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: " 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." ". — Instantnood 18:52, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • By nominating I support moving the article. — 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. — 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. — 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". — 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. — 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. — Instantnood 19:40, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cumbersome to qualify something that does not require qualification. —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. — 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. —ExplorerCDT 22:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright then. There's no common ground for wikipedians to discuss with you. — 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)
  • 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? — 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. — 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. — 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. — Instantnood 13:24 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. BlankVerse ∅ 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. —Lowellian (talk) 09:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Talk%7EScience_and_technology_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_0350.html"