Talk:Song dynasty

message: It says that this dynasty saw "the first discernment of true north using a compass."  However, though there was a kind of compass invented in this dynasty, that statement is incorrect in two different ways.  First, it was not the first compass used to tell north and south, as crude compasses were first used over a thousand years beforehand (though likely also first invented in China), but those consisted simply of a lodestone on a string or floating in water, and rather than being used for navigation were used for divination or mysticism purposes.  Secondly, they were magnetic compasses, and thus tell the direction of magnetic north, not true north (it would be a lot more accurate if it just said "north" instead of "true north".)  A different kind of compass that tells true north instead of magnetic (the gyrocompass) wasn't invented until the late 19th century and made into practical use until the early 20th (and weren't Chinese inventions either).--108.86.123.251 (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read further in the article, this is clarified and completely justified: "Shen Kuo was the first to discern magnetic declination of true north while experimenting with a compass." This is backed up by sources such as Peter Mohn (2003) cited in this instance. The sinologist Nathan Sivin (1995: p. 22) even discusses this at length. He specifies that Shen Kuo used suspended magnetic needles to discover magnetic declination towards the north pole, with "the improved meridian determined by Shen's [astronomical] measurement of the distance between the pole star and true north". Similar discoveries of magnetic declination were made in Europe by around the mid 15th century as evidenced by sundials from Germany. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Isn’t a compass defined to be an instrument that is used to show cardinal directions? I don’t think non-navigational magnetic devices really count as compasses.Also, I suppose that roughly knowing the direction of magnetic north is a  of true north. It would be equally reasonable to have  in the text instead of  though. — MarkH21talk 08:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, then maybe the phrase "discernment of true north using a compass" should end with "combined with astronomical measurements."—MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate in what it says about compasses 

message: is this dynasty in the "A.D", "B.C" or "C.E" time period? that is information that should be inserted into the sidebar and readings. Ihasabucket8950 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much AD - it begins in 960 AD - I think there's a limit as to how long one needs to go on spelling this out. If in doubt, the dates count up not down. Johnbod (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you for the Clarification. Ihasabucket8950 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit To Be Made 

message: For us dummies, a conversion or explanation of CE would be desirable, or at least a reference to such an explanation. Abairheart (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates used 

message: @kanguole based on WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:PRESERVE. The added sentences can remain, why don't you help phrasing the information in a way that's acceptable and cohesive instead of removing it, which was counter-productive. Merzostin (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, given that the paragraph discusses the number of populations, it fits nicely as another figure based information (Economy and Population were always interconnected) Merzostin (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's poorly written and not a summary of the article. If you want to preserve it, add a better version to the body of the article. And take note that four editors have objected the addition of this poorly written piece of info in the lead.  Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I only did so because it felt lacking, since the majority of the paragraph only talked about population numbers but barely describe the economy of Song Dynasty which is arguably way more important Merzostin (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The problem with copy-and-paste is not so much copyright, which you could have fixed by attributing it in your edit summary, but that you take a piece of text that was written to fit in one context and put it somewhere very different, where it does not fit.  In this case, the Economy of the Song dynasty article is a detailed article on that topic, which is summarized by a 5-paragraph section in this article, alongside many other aspects of the dynasty. This article in turn is summarized in the lead section (which is already on the long side). One would expect that a piece of text taken out of the body of the Economy article would be written at a much greater level of detail than is appropriate for the lead of this overview article. Kanguole 21:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit not remove information