Talk:List of Chinese inventions

Martial arts

Can martial arts be categorized as inventions? Even the list of English inventions talked about sport and boxing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_inventions_and_discoveries#Sport I believe that a full list of Chinese martial arts thus deserve a spot on this page. Although the Chinese list would be incredibly long, so we could possible just provide a link to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_martial_arts

If you are talking about the innovation of practicing and using martial arts itself, as far as I understand that is first recognized to have originated the whereabouts of Northern India around 200BC and spread to neighboring civilization. If you wanted to include particular and popular martial arts forms that originated in China, that would be acceptable at the risk of exacerbating the article's length further, but I think new forms of martial arts need to include some significant invention / innovation / discovery applied to their form that can be cited that did not exist before and enhanced their utility; simply rearranging moves and relabeling cannot be considered a novel invention, because for this list to be most useful there needs to be some standards as to what can be truly considered new or an improvement to an invention. I think strictly artistic contributions without much other utility should deserve their own article because otherwise the article runs the risk of having a rather low standard as to what is considered an invention.

Recategorization

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.192.144 (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Endocrinology, isolation of sex and pituitary hormones from urine?

I am a Indonisain, but Sunyi-lin, a professor in Shanghai Jiao Tong University, has posted his contradict research paper since 2006-02-19. Here is the link:

Study the Extraction of "Autumn Mineral" in Ancient China, Sunyi-lin, (School of Humanities，Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030,China)

Hope anybody take a look. --Zanhsieh (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Error on Section F, Firework

Original text:

“ In 1110, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain Emperor Huizong (r. 1100–1125) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke. ”

Should be:

“ In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain Emperor Xiaozong (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke. ”

Since:

1. Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of Northern Song.
2. Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in 武林舊事卷七：「淳熙十年八月十八日，上詣德壽宮恭請兩殿往浙江亭觀潮。……管軍官於江面分佈五陣，乘騎弄旗，標槍舞刀，如履平地，點放五色煙炮滿江，及煙收炮息，則諸盡藏，不見一隻。……」. "淳熙" is the name era of Emperor Xiaozong. --Zanhsieh (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Image format

Surely there's a better way to align the images? Currently, some sections (such as "L" to "R") have a lot of unused valuable free space on the right hand side. If the images in the preceding heading can't fit into the section (due to the vertical text being shorter than the images), it goes into the next heading. As a result, the images in the new heading follow the same alignment (which results in all that unused free space). Spellcast (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Just do whatever you want to it. Honestly, everyone has a different monitor width, so the article will look different to different folks. The only way to please everyone is to have as few images as possible, so there doesn't appear to be any gaps and there is no overlap with the text.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be the simple solution. Alternatively, if the images protrude into the next heading, the protruding images can be aligned horizontally below the accompanying text in the section. So if a group of images can't fit into the section, the interfering images can be moved from the top of the text to below it using the markup seen in WP:PIC#Galleries. But I don't know if having pictures aligned horizontally below the text would be aesthetically pleasing to everyone. Spellcast (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has spoken up here on the talk page since we began this conversation; feel free to test your own suggestion. I'm not against trying new things if it will improve the look of the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sky Lantern?

Should Sky Lantern be add to this article since the references in the article suggested that Chinese invent it? --LLTimes (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --Zhonghuo (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

* Sky lantern: According to the popular lore, the military strategist Zhuge Liang invented the Sky Lantern for different uses in warfare and was named after him, Kongming Lantern (Chinese: 孔明灯)[1]. However It is likely that this technological discovery is misattributed because of the Chinese historical practice of attributing great discoveries to significant historical figures rather than to the actual inventors. According to the sinologist and historian of science Joseph Needham, the Chinese experimented with mini-hot air balloons from as early as the 3rd century BC, during the Warring States period, which suggests that the attribution of its invention to Kongming is anachronistic and apocryphal. --LLTimes (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [2]--LLTimes (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"premodern Chinese" really?

The term used in this article "premodern" just sounds terrible. I don't think it's a word. At the very least it needs a hyphen (pre-modern). I don't claim to be an expert and it may even me grammatically correct but it's very unstandard. I think the term ancient is much better. Or break it down by era. "premodern" is also troubling as it drifts in time as the modern time changes. One could say premodern Chinese battled the Japanese in World War 2. This needs fixing.12.106.237.2 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what is modern can be subjective and isnt a very scientific or encyclopedic word to be using, but I TOTALLY disagree on using the hyphen. Its not just wrong, it makes 'pre' into a word rather than a prefix. Also, pre-modern and ancient are totally different. In the West there was a thousand years or more between the two. Mdw0 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There might be a solution for this. The era divisions of Chinese history do not follow, share, or match up with the distinct periods of history found in the West, such as "Late Antiquity," "High Middle Ages," "Renaissance," "Early Modern," etc. Ancient China usually refers to the Shang Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty, and Warring States Period. Then comes the age of Imperial China, which has its periods of interregnum such as the Southern and Northern dynasties and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, but the unified dynastic periods can be divided between Early Imperial China (Qin Dynasty and Han Dynasty), Mid-Imperial China (Sui Dynasty to Yuan Dynasty), and Late Imperial China (Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty). Modern China could be designated as the era beginning with the Republic of China in 1912 and later the People's Republic of China in 1949. Perhaps the article should be split along these lines?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

that sounds neat! we can make a compilations of them (around three, Ancient, Imperial, and Modern) and make a template. This article is getting too crowded, not to mention walls of images. However we should also make a general main article? describing the four great inventions in it? and other mentions --LLTimes (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the idea. Let's see what others have to say. If no one disagrees, perhaps we can reorganize the article along those lines. As for the four great inventions, they already have a separate article (i.e. Four Great Inventions of ancient China).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm late here, that was a great idea. "Premodern" is Eurocentric. It implies that China looks to Europe as the locus of time and history. It is inappropriate for the job. Does European history organize itself according to Chinese conventions? Of course not. Also, the term "Imperial" is kind of loaded. China never colonized the earth outside of Asia. When Europeans unified their nations, they are never called "imperial". It's just called "German Unification" or "Unification of Italy". Why can't the same be said for China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Chinese continue to invent things

The article is misnamed at least for this reason. List of _antique_ Chinese inventions would be a slightly better name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.151.4.122 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

'I'm pretty sure' dont cut it. Get yourself a valid reference and you can add as many recent inventions as you like. Mdw0 ([[User

talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 02:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the umbrella ?

Im pretty sure that China also invented the umbrella ! Should we add the umbrella to the article ? Mekong mainstream (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

'I'm pretty sure' dont cut it. Get yourself a valid reference and you can add whatever you like. Mdw0 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jade burial suit and other "inventions"

How is a "Jade burial suit" an invention, and why is it noteworthy? Ok, so its expensive/lavish, but aside from that? Chinese armour on the other hand is an actual noteworthy invention.

It's not. Some people have extremely broad ideas of what constitutes an invention, such as minor changes in design, constitution or even colour. Mdw0 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't class half the entries here as inventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.221.197.106 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly entries like the Chinese zodiac can go. That one is perhaps going a bit too far with the concept of invention, particularly original inventions and even abstract concepts like a zodiac. However, saying "half" the entries are not inventions sounds to me like a blanket claim that needs sourcing to prove otherwise for every individual entry (or just plain common sense applied to each entry). --Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

silk, silk road

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article!Allclintsmail (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That should be considered as Globalization, since the Silk Road connected Asia, Middle East, and Africa far earlier than the European/American version of globalization (which basically added the profits of the Atlantic Slave Trade to pre-existing Asian trade routes). The Silk Road was not a neighborhood trade route. It's connecting of hemispheric trade deserves to be acknowledged as early globalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Penjing?

Is penjing worthy of being added to this? I think it is but being a penjing/bonsai enthusiast I'm a little biased. B5200 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that penjing would count as an invention, same goes for silk in the previous section. Semantically at least they are "discoveries" rather than inventions - e.g. you cannot say somebody "invented" fire. Philg88 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the Chinese obviously did not invent the soft fiber produced naturally by bombyx mori, but they certainly invented sericulture, the process of making silk.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a very valid point and sericulture should certainly be added. As for penjing ...Philg88 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Be unbold?

If someone finds a good source that shows an invention was not developed in China, what is NOT required is an extended preamble indicating a prevailing invention in a different place. What is required is deletion of the item claimed to be Chinese, until such time as a source is found which places invention of the item in China. This article is long enough without additional items that were obviously invented elsewhere. Mdw0 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; if there is a reliable source which claims that fermented beverages existed in the Near East thousands of years before they existed in China, then you were by no means out of line in deleting the material.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the claims made in the article but there is way too much information. Just name the discovery or invention with a line or two detailing it, not a whole paragragh.If someone could please cut this article down because its become quite a hassle trying to read through it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.10.56 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy, sure. But so is China's tradition of invention. This has to be one of the finest examples of a Wikipedia article I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of "Lamian"

I'm really confused as to why this is here. Surely, by definition, La mian is handmade. These are clearly just normal instant noodles. Anyone know how this got here? Bienfuxia (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Needham refs

I find it strange that nearly all the references to Needham's Science and Civilisation in China are given as 1986 whereas they actually range from 1959 to 1987. I'm well aware that few individuals can afford to own the original C.U.P. version but I'd like to put in the original dates. I believe the pagination of the Taiwan reprint follows the original so it won't make any difference. Can anyone confirm this please? Chris55 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many images

On my 1920 x 1080, there are big white spaces as images continue on the right. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe too much details?

I looked around the other pages regarding inventions and/or discoveries made by various groups of people. Although this Chinese page is quite informative, I think it might be more than necessary. At the most, maybe 2-3 brief sentences describing the invention with the link should be sufficient.

The other thing I want to address is on the other list of inventions made by other groups, they contained quite a lot that are culture-specific like food, literature and art works. Some of them do include inventions made independently from others along with inventions made through collaboration with different groups of people. I notice there are some here but not that much. Should the list be expanded to include them as well? Or not?

This might be slightly complicated, but do you all also want to include inventions made by Chinese nationals outside of Chinese territory?

Bashir Homes (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)May 31, 2011

You are definitely right. We need to shorten every entry into a couple of sentences, just like with the rest of invention lists. We also need to do some cleaning since I noticed some claims were actually wrong.

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is trash

The respectable scholarly tradition requires poise and critical examination PRIOR to making assertions. I am fairly confident that sufficient numbers of inventions of Chinese origin are verifiable such that an article may be justified without the listing of many things that are not inventions and without listing many things that are not properly considered Chinese inventions. It would appear that the motivations of those contributing to this article include aspects that are detrimental to intellectual honesty. I feel the subject deserves a good article. National and ethnic pride run amok has diminished respect rather than strengthened it.184.45.23.134 (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

did you see the message at the top of this talk page? This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Do you have references which prove your point? name some things on here that "are not inventions". Or did you come here to make personal attacks on contributors?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

the article goes by its references, which generally should be reliable sources. I don't see anyone's personal opinions inserted into this article, what's your point?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

IP might have a point here; there is no need to attack them. The problem with this article is that it's a case of national pride run amok. There are many claims here that might have skipped the radar and we need to review this objectively. By the strict standards under which List of inventions in medieval Islam, we can do something similar here if we can show that some claims are wrong/outdated/have since proven to be false.

Everyone likes to have verifiable sources, but national pride can stand in the way. In any case, I will hopefully come back with more concrete examples.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 10:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Ip address is one person. What you did is basically copied the Ip's accusation word for word. Claiming this article is "national pride run amok", is basically claiming that this article was mainly edited by ethnic Chinese users aiming to inflate the article due to national pride. this violates WP:No personal attacks, since you are insinuating that since users are ethnic chinese (which you have not proved, so far I've checked the history, and no editor has been advertising his ethnicity), that their edits are unreliable, without even citing a single example taken from the article to show whats wrong with it.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is considered a personal attack. Not only is it a form of personal attack, the ip address has not proved the ethnic affiliations of the people who edited this article. Not only that, he did not cite a single example of the alleged "not inventions" in the article. Before attacking the content, point out whats wrong with it, like a specific paragraph.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

List of inventions in medieval Islam doesn't have a particularly high standard. As you know, the reason why there is a presumption against the material on that article is because its main contributor has a history of persistently misrepresenting sources. The main contributor to this article, who promoted this article to featured list status, is by contrast not Chinese. In fact, he often battles Chinese puffery: his contribution history will show strong criticisms of Gavin Menzies, Chinese historical claims to Tibet, etc. As DÜNGÁNÈ said, it is only useful to discuss specific alleged falsifications, and to provide proper references while doing so. 184.45.23.134 and Aua's broad attack on this article and the ethnicities of its contributors is not helpful, especially when all of the entries on this list are apparently linked to high-quality sources. Quigley (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a dick, but you see, them can be used to refer one person when you don't know their gender (I usually wouldn't care since I am most careless with grammar, but you were asking for this).

I actually have no national/ethnic/personal interests in either list, either positive or negative. I wouldn't trim down a list because I have an axe to grind, that's not how I roll. I do, however, still believe in the romantic notion that we should have comprehensive, accurate lists.

How do I know this list is "national pride run amok?"

1. Almost all other lists are just that: lists! This one though has a paragraph attached to each invention, which makes me think the Chinese are just trying to get as long a list as they possibly can. I am reminded here of a quote from the movie Taken: "This is no time for dick measuring!"

2. Well, I do have better things to do in life than to stalk people who edit this list and try to speculate on their origin. But I know that Quigley, for instance, is not the most non-Chinese name out there.

For now, I would recommend trimming all fluff and making this more readable. I might actually go ahead and do it myself!

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at some of the other invention lists. They usually have a short paragraph detailing the nature of the item. I think your second point is showing that your being a dick might not be deliberate, just careless - you're saying Quigley sounds 'Chinesey' to you so this article's no good because its nationalistic. Top logic workin' there!! Mdw0 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It can be frustrating sometimes to talk with ESL people, so let me state this in the simplest of terms: "Quigley sounds 'Chinesey' to you so this article's no good because its nationalistic" is NOT what I said. What I said was that I have no interest in figuring out who's of Chinese origin here. HOWEVER, I can tell quite a few editors here are. FOR INSTANCE, just looking at the name of a random editor lends support to the theory. I can go and track whomever contributed to this page, analyze their contribution pattern, and maybe even geolocate all the IP addresses, but I have better things to do in life.

Back to the main point, show me another list with the same level of detail, or show me another list where the average number of words per entry is even close to the Chinese list. In case you do (and I suspect you will), let me know how many lists you had to go through before finding it, and whether most other lists are like the Chinese one.

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Aua, your insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated if you keep it up. I took a look at the edit history, not once did User:Quigley ever edit this article. Not only that, Wikipedia is blocked in China, so you will not be able to find an ip address tracing to China. I only spotted one Chinese username (User:小樗) in the past 500 edits on this article, and the only thing he did was to RV vandals twice.

If you bothered to look up the name Quigley, it says that it is a surname of English and Irish origin

Your recent outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE is similar to the ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok", you also claimed the article was "national pride run amok"

when the same ip address showed up at "Talk:Four Great Inventions of ancient China", and claimed that the phaistos disc was a result of woodblock printing (which is original research), Aua then shows up and explains what the ip address is talking about. You showed up on both talk pages after the ip and made similar statements.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If Aua had taken a look at the edit history for this article, Aua would have seen for a span of 2000 edits, the User:PericlesofAthens was responsible for making dozens of entries and possibly several a hundred edits to this article, in fact he added most of the entries and was responsible for nearly the entire article User:PericlesofAthens openly advertises his ethnicity as an American of european descent on his user page. I see no evidence to doubt that. The majority of the article was created by him, not by ethnic Chinese users.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ri) Dude, if you are trying to imply I'm a racist southerner from Louisiana, then I'm afraid you are wrong. If anything, the racist southerner from Louisiana would call me an elitist liberal East Coast White sell-out. I still stand by the fact that this is "national pride run amok," and plan to do some trimming.

Second, like I said before, I will not speculate on the national origin of anyone. That said, just because WP is blocked in China does not mean Chinese immigrants from elsewhere are not contributing. Additionally, you might have people from Taiwan, (possibly? If PRC firewalls don't apply there) HK, etc. But I don't care to speculate.

Here is what I care about: the product. I have no bias against the Chinese; heck I'm dating a Chinese-American. All I wanna do is make this more readable and more accessible and there is nothing stopping me from massively cutting details. This is just letting people know that there is a tag at the top of that article for a reason and I plan to do something about it.

Here is the main issue which you have failed miserably to address since you care more about attacking people than about the article: what other innovation list makes such excessive use of details?

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for pouring fuel on the fire - I coudn't resist using a perpetrator's own language as a retort. You DID say Quigley, for instance, is not the most non-Chinese name out there' as part of your reasoning that this article is 'national pride run amok.' When that fact was presented to you, the backtracking was at record speed, which I found quite amusing. Oh, and I'm not sure who the ESL remark was targetted at, but I'd put my English skills against yours any day of the week. Please note I am not accusing you of anything except displaying a single instance of poor logic, which is not a hanging offence - no reflection on your personality. I sympathise with your observation that these national lists attract nationalists and sometimes the tone can go a bit far, but compared to some such lists (check the Indian one!) its quite tame. If you see any instances of over-the-top flag-waiving language, please be bold and get rid of it. As far as excessive detail goes, we're talking about an issue of style here, not substance, and not an especially significant one. The paragraphs in this article are only a little bigger than in the lists of Indian, Australian, and Dutch inventions but if you want to rewrite some of the items, be my guest. Mdw0 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll address the "backtracking" first. The same post that mentioned Quiqley, also had: "I do have better things to do in life than...to speculate on their origin." Then, as a passing example, I said Quiqley (in my mind it was Quiq Ley) didn't sound very non-Chinese (as opposed to saying it sounded Chinese). The ESL part is there because people here don't seem to comprehend the very simple English I'm using (though now I can see how someone can turn racist in the face of this much frustration).

The post below also brings up the same issue of length, which shall be tackled. The article seriously needs some trimming which I'll get to do soon once I free up some time.

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The main contributor of this article is PericlesofAthens. He's not a "Chinese Nationalist" as he is neither Chinese nor a Nationalist. I've worked with him before and I can say that he only puts down information which can be verified. I don't think pointing fingers at people for being either Chinese or nationalist is the most constructive thing to do. Gnip (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see how you might lose track of the multiple negatives you use, but if you say "Quiq Ley didn't sound very non-Chinese" then you are saying 100% that Quigley sounds Chinese. There is no qualification, no evasion possible here. There is nothing 'as opposed to' - it is the same thing. Again, just a failure of logic, or possibly a failure to express yourself logically in English. But I get what you mean. Rather than the length of legitimate articles. I've got bigger problems with some of the items that are not inventions, or are so trivial as to warrant exclusion. For instance, 1- A raised relief map is not an invention, it is simply a map with some out-of-scale hills and mountains on it. 2- A vertical axial rudder is still a rudder, invented by the Egyptians, not the Chinese. 3- Making a previously invented item out of a new material is innovation, not a new invention. Innovation uses a much lower level of creativity than original invention. A suspension bridge using slightly different materials is an innovation, not an invention. 4- Steel made from cast iron through oxygenation is not the invention. This should be changed to indicate it is the technological process that was invented - decarburization, and the previous method from Anatolia removed. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Mdw0 (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Mdw0. It's apparent that Aua had a problem with the page being edited by "Chinese" or "ESL" people, even though the main contributor of the article is neither. However his accusations about Quigly or others being Chinese or not is not relevant to the discussion. Whether "Quigley sounds Chinese" or not shouldn't matter, that's the point. Wiki puts emphasis on sources to back up the information, it's not about the nationality of the editor. From the dictionary, an invention is, and I quote: "a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship." For points one, three, and four, I believe improved steel, improved maps, improved bridges, etc... would count as inventions. Just because the Wright Brothers invented the plane doesn't mean that Whittle didn't invent the jet. As long as Whittle doesn't claim to invent planes in general things should be fine. As for point two, the idea that the Egyptians invented the rudder came from Mott, who defines a "steering oar" as a rudder. I think you'll find that most historians disagree with this definition. Go look at Archive 1 in this discussion, where Gun Powder Ma and Pericles had a huge argument over it. What matters is the sources. If enough historians of legitimate reputation says so-and-so was invented, then that's what is going to be put down. Perhaps the article is too long and should be summarized into a list, but that is as far as it could go. Gnip (talk) 3:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point - I believe I have taken enough shots at Aua over his weak statements about the legitimacy of other editors and it was time to move on to discussing fixing the article. As for your dictionary quote, as a Wikipedia editor and someone who just made a statement about the legitimacy of sources, you should at least be able to quote WHICH dictionary. Not all dictionary definitions are very useful, especially when they introduce subjective ideas such as 'recognition.' Who does the recognising of genius? The definition does, however, illustrate my point about an item here needing to "not exist previously" and be a "unique process, ...distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill." As per this definition, small or trivial improvement to an already existing item, which is only useful in specific scenarios such as a raised relief map is NOT an invention. As per this definition, using slightly different materials to make a minor improvement to an already existing item such as a suspension bridge is NOT an invention. These two need to be removed - if these are examples of inventions, then every change from Mark 1 to Mark 2, or from 1.0 to 1.1 to 1.2 is a new invention. As for the other two, if you want to say the Egyptian rudder was only a precursor and not a real rudder, then the line should be written to say so clearly, not obfuscated to appease those who may disagree. It is the process of steel making that is the invention, not the better quality steel itself and the section should be rewritten to highlight this. These four examples were just those that I found after a cursory glance - there are others that fail the definition of invention, such as the animal zodiac, the cast iron bomb, the contour canal, the double-piston flamethrower and the fully stone open-spandrel segmental arch bridge. These non-inventions look ridiculous next to important breakthroughs as the crank handle and the banknote. They are padding, and the article would be better off without them. Mdw0 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't "missed the point", then you surely wouldn't mind me pointing out that PericlesOfAthens, who was neither Chinese nor a Nationalist, was the main contributor to the article. That was my original statement, yes? Anyway, If you want a "source" for what defines an "invention", let's try Britannica: "An invention is the act of bringing ideas or objects together in a novel way to create something that did not exist before." Your idea that certain things are "non-inventions" simply because they improved on other things just doesn't match up with the definition. Something that is an improvement of a prior invention is still an invention, because it's still something that never existed before. The steamboat is not a "non-invention" just because boats existed. The musket is not a "non-invention" just because guns existed. The jet is not a "non-invention" just because planes existed. It's not up to us to decide whether the improvement is minor. If valid historic articles labeled something as an invention, then there's nothing much we can say about that, despite personal preferences. If you want to stop the appeasement policy and edit out the Egyptian rudder, you are welcome to change it yourself. Right now I'm not feeling up for an edit war(which is the most likely thing to happen if I do change it), thank you very much. Gnip (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So you don't like your original definition because it illustrated my point better than yours and you've ditched that one for Britannica, which is not a dictionary. This one still says an invention has to be a creative process which is novel - meaning new, not minor or trivial - and didn't exist before. Minor improvement of things that existed before is NOT novel, lacks the creative genius of true invention and does NOT create something that didn't exist before. Obviously a major improvement would be a more significant creation, and may possibly be classed as an invention, but not every little change or improvement counts. To counter your examples, a musket made out of a different type of wood is not the invention of a new type of gun. A jet painted in titanium paint is not a new jet. Australia II that won the America's Cup had wings on its keel that did NOT make it a new type of boat or a new invention. See? I can think up extreme examples to illustrate my point just as you did, but none of yours relate to the article, but my examples of minor and trivial changes from the article - the animal zodiac (seriously, as if having only animal designs contributes to the astronomy), the cast iron bomb (as opposed to bombs made out of other kinds of metal), the contour canal (a canal that goes around a contour but is otherwise the same as a regular canal), the double-piston flamethrower (which came very soon after the single-piston flamethrower, funnily enough) and the fully stone open-spandrel segmental arch bridge (versus the not quite fully stone arch bridge which only used one span) - should be deleted. These are, at best, examples of minor innovations, not inventions. Certainly not in the same way that paper or land mines are inventions. There is a degree of significance necessary, otherwise every new recipe, every new piece of art or music and every new design is an invention. Not every theatrical mechanical automaton is its own separate invention either, whether its a monkey or a mountain or powered by a waterwheel or powered by a carriage wheel - these examples from the article should be consolidated. Then of course we necessarily come to what the sources are saying about the nature of invention. I gather that you're saying if the source fails to mention the item is an invention under the Britannica's definition then the section should be deleted? Well, if you say so, but don't come back whinging that half the list is gone... Mdw0 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mdw0, if you even read the definition, then you would realize that it's no different from the original one. The original definition supports me all the more, as it specifically states "a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship." An original improvement from the previous invention IS something new, and is also something that "didn't exist before". Your supposed non-inventions is still an invention. A raised relief map isn't something as "minor" as a musket made out of different kinds of wood. A continuous flame-thrower is as different from a "spurting" flamethrower as a machine gun is from a one-shot musket. It's not merely something as "minor" as a jet plane painted differently, as you would put it. No one said that the animal zodiac "contributed to astronomy", but it's an invention because someone invented something original. Chess or chopsticks didn't contribute to technology either, but it's still an invention. Britannica also supports my case here. It may not seem like it to you because you only read part of the definition that would exclude things to your preference, but failed to read the entire definition. Both definitions of an "invention" listed qualifies an "invention" to be something "new" and "didn't exist before". Ergo things like the continuous flame-thrower, being an improvement from the previous spurting flamethrower, is an invention as it never existed before. Your "extreme" examples such as painting a jet with a new type of paint comes nowhere close to the existing complexities mentioned here. I would also appreciate it if you actually READ the page instead of just nitpicking. The cast iron bomb you mentioned is just the invention of a more modern gunpowder grenade in general, as opposed the previous bombs made of ceramic containers. This is a huge improvement. I say you're trying too hard to come up with excuses. To actually compare the improvements of a 3-D map from a 2-D map or the improved processes of iron-making with something to the degree of a musket "made out of different types of wood"... what are you trying to get at? By your logic a double-pistoned flamethrower, which could now unleash a continuous jet of flame unlike previous flamethrowers that only gave spurts of flame (similar to how machine guns gives a continuous hail of bullets while previous guns do not), is as significantly different as two flamethrowers with different types of paint (as per your analogy to jets with titanium paint). By your logic, cast iron bombs which has much more explosive force than ceramic ones, is as significantly different as two ceramic bombs with different types of ceramic (as per your analogy of muskets being made out of different types of wood). Using that same analogy a 2-D map is as significantly different from a 3-D raised map relief as another 2-D map drawn on a different type of paper. And for your information, new types of muskets ARE inventions. The British "invented" the Brown Bess musket, despite the fact that muskets in general existed before. The only inventiosn that merits mention for deletion you have mentioned so far is the stone segmental arched bridge and the contour canal. But for everything else... not even close. You also failed to address my most important point, which is that historians labeled these things as inventions. That is the main criteria for wikipedia. It's called "sources". What you're doing is called "original research", so what your opinions say about "non-inventions" holds absolutely no weight. It's not supported as per wiki rules. Gnip (talk) 1:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not me who is ignoring the whole definition, but yourself. When you read a dictionary you need to take the section as a whole. You can't just pick out a single word and use your POV to decide that's the only word that's important and say any improvement, no matter how trivial, is an invention because its NOT. The definitions say that the improvement must make the item into something new compared to its current version, and that the improvement must be the product of special creative application, not minor, not trivial. You seem to think everything is an invention. I've had to resort to using extreme examples because you want to ignore those very clear exceptions. Any definition will describe invention as a more rigorous, more creative a process over and above normal engineering, innovation or design, so clearly anything that is minor or trivial is not an invention - lets at least agree on that, please. The problem is that a dictionary will never say EXACTLY how much more - hence our debate. Obviously your interpretation of an invention is a lot more inclusive than mine - but I would consider that the difference between two or three single pistoned flamethrowers next to each other shooting continuous flame at a target and one double pistoned one is trivial. The Brown Bess musket is just a slightly different design made by a different gun manufacturer that became popular which then sparked copies. Its no more different to other muskets than similar cars made by GM and Ford. Small differences in design are not new inventions. Do you seriously want to claim that Boeing's 787 is an invention, compared to the Airbus A30? Placed in the context of technological development over the whole of history, the difference is indefensibly minor.

Your most important point is that sources need to say someting was invented as per the Britannica definition, or some other agreed definition - yes, I get it, and I did mention that I get it previously. The problem is we'd need to agree on a definition and how to apply it before we can fairly judge whether the the sources follow it. I'd be happy if you can agree that a source will need to specify the invention as significant creative development beyond normal skill or redesign. The 4 or 5 sources I saw regarding the Brown Bess don't mention the word invention at all. So far the only one applying this ridiculously broad definition is you - and in "speech marks" as though you're not sure if its the correct or even a sensible term to use in that context. Most sources mentioning ancient technological firsts prior to patents merely say that something was discovered or developed or became common in an area as opposed to actual invention, so that should make deletion of some of these items a lot easier - unless of course you want to turn around and try to claim that development or improvement is the same thing as invention. I think my most important point is that when you apply a definiton of invention that is too inclusive, you end up with a bloated article like the one we have now, and the really important and impressive genuine inventions get lost in the clutter. Its better to lean towards too strict than too lenient, because strictness improves the overall quality of the entries. Mdw0 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary says, as quoted before "a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship.". Ergo, I CAN simply focus on that one single word improvement, as long as if it's new and useful. Or perhaps you think an improvement has to be something that is both a process AND a machine AND an improvement AND etc... That might as well exclude everything on the planet. This isn't how the English language works. You yourself said that the improvement must not be something "minor or trivial", yet I'm not seeing those words in the definition. What's minor or trivial is decided by the historians as far as wikipedia is concerned, not by you. So no, I'm not the one reading the definition wrong. You can't read what only what's convenient. Even by your definition, much of what you listed would count as inventions. Chances are you just don't know about it and toss them aside as trivial, as judging by your question about flamethrowers.

The Brown Bess was described as an invention by Michael Lee Lanning, in "The American Revolution". So no, the "only one applying this ridiculously broad definition" is not me. Anyway, even if the Brown Bess wasn't an invention, the matchlock, the wheel lock, the flintlock, or the percussion cap surely was. The invention of the double-pistoned flamethrower was similar as the improvement lies in the firing mechanism. The fact that you ask how it's different from two single-piston flamethrowers working in conjunction tells me you're not familiar with the weapon. That's like asking what's the difference between two single-shot rifles and a Gatling gun. No wonder you toss the words "minor and trivial" around so much. I guarantee you the double-pistoned flamethrower is no more two flamethrowers working in conjunction as a Gatling gun is two rifles working in conjunction. Perhaps the killing power would be the same(if that's what you mean), but it's really beside the point. So I don't know why you're so insistent labeling things as non-inventions if you're not familiar with the objects at hand. My "speech marks" is used to quote the dictionary and the words of fellow wikipedians. I hope you're not going to resort to attacking my syntax as a serious argument. Anyway, I already agreed to shorten the article to a list, and I also conceded two of your non-inventions as true non-inventions. However, to compare the difference between a 3-D map and a 2-D map with the difference between the Boeing to the Airbus? Unless the two has a significant improvement in some way (wing design, improved engine, etc...), I don't think so. Things such as the double-pistoned flamethrower, cast iron, and raised map-relief are staying. Apparently, saying that these are inventions makes you accuse me of thinking that "everything is an invention". By that logic every historian used as a source to make the article suffers from "thinking everything is an invention". With such academic consensus, it's arrogant to think that they are wrong rather than you. And, I insist that actual research be done on what the improvement actually is this time around before simply assuming it's insignificant and deleting it with a shrug. You can shorten them to a list if you want, but I have to draw the line somewhere. I would much rather prefer separating it into three articles by time period; "Ancient", "Medieval", and "Modern". People have worked hard on this, it would be a shame to simply delete it all as much information on time period, archeological discovery, and inventors would be lost. It equates to punishing wikipedians for contributing too much. Gnip (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What I said regarding definitions was you cant simply focus on the one word 'improvement' by itself as though the rest doesn't exist. That definition says an improvement can be an invention but ONLY if the result 'did not exist previously' AND 'is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship.' Its not enough that it did not exist previously, it ALSO needs the creative genius component. The bit disregarding ordinary mechanical skill is the part that disregards minor or trivial improvement which does not require unique intuition or genius. I can see why you're having trouble with this, since you obviously need some advice on how to read dictionary definitions. My reasoning with the flamethrowers goes to the act of invention. If you look at multiple single-piston flamethrowers working, it does not take a leap of creative genius to apply a double piston to it, especially since double-pistons already existed. All it requires is a bit of progressive thinking - not genius, and a bit of basic engineering - which precludes this improvement from being classed as an invention according to the definition. Automatic firearms are different in that the mechanism needed to be invented that would allow automatic firing. Have you got a quote from your Lanning source or should I just take your word for it? Most of those other gun sections you mentioned could be considered inventions, but they were all around in various forms in more basic muskets before the Brown Bess became popular, weren't they? I don't really have that many serious arguments - only that the definition of an invention isn't standardised which has allowed some very trivial items to creep into the list to its detriment. In some ways I get the impression that you might be starting to understand my point about the difference between design and invention and degrees of significance of invention. Even if we don't necessarily agree on the relevance or importance of some particular items, the fact that you've acknowledged that at least couple of items in the list don't qualify as inventions means my point has been made. I agree the splits in the article are poor, but you cant apply the term Medieval to China - I learned this a while ago while trying to apply Cuju to an article abot Medieval ball games. The Middle Ages were exclusively a period of European history, and it doesnt relate to anything in Chinese history at all. Its a useful concept for naming that broad peiod between the ancient and the modern, but unfortunately it enforces a Eurocentric viewpoint because it assumes that the splits which occurred in Europe occurred in the rest of the world at the same time. I think its a bit of a stretch to say information would be 'lost' when most of these items have their own individual articles where more detailed information is more appropriate. Also, I think Wikipedians are aware that lists need to be brief, and in general are a lot less precious about their work being edited than you might think. Mdw0 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just going back to original research. Again, it is NOT up to you to decide which inventions require "unique" intuition or genius. That sounds like original research. Originality is something we can prove. What constitutes "creativity" or "genius" or "intuition" is not. This is where the academic world decides, not you. I've stated this before, historians believed these things were inventions in their own right. It seems you have a habit of judging for yourself the validity of certain requirements. That may be well and fine in your personal life, but in wiki it is not up to you. I repeat, it is not up for you to decide. I don't like doing this, but I don't think this concept is getting through. Again, it's not up for you to decide. Scholarly consensus weighs much more heavily than individual opinion, especially for you who didn't even know the properties of the supposed "non-inventions" you were so vehemently against. I was against the segmental arched bridge because the source used was outdated and Needham was proven wrong by more recent research, and in a way is original research by itself. It has nothing to do with your overly conservative views, which by the same logic would exclude all but the first guns from being inventions. Yet despite that, you admit the matchlock/flintlock "could be an invention", yet would deny the double-piston flamethrower as an invention simply because it combines the double-piston concept with the flamethrower. Yet, does not the matchlock only combine the concept of the crossbow trigger with a burning match? And isn't the flintlock just to combine the concept of the matchlock with flint/spring? And is not the rudder just built on the concept of the steering oar? Is not printing built on the concept of ink, paper, and stamping? You have already admitted the former three as inventions, yet herein lies the double-standard when it comes to those you prefer to do away with. Even without the double-standard, this still has absolutely no place in wikipedia, unless you can somehow prove your opinion by academic consensus. Unfortunately for you, they say the exact opposite of your opinion. I understand your exclusion principle on inventions perfectly. The point is that the academic world disagrees with you, that's the problem(plus the double-standard). As for not using the "Middle" ages to define Chinese history, are you here for the sake of arguing by itself? I gave "Medieval" merely as an example for segmentation. True, it is not the best term to define Chinese history, but other authors use it. For example, David Graff titled his book "Medieval Chinese Warfare". If you don't like it why don't you come up with a better word rather than nitpick on specific word choice? It's hardly productive. Which is why I suspect you would only carry out another argument even if I did give the quote from Lanning. Gnip (talk) 2:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I advised that medieval is a Eurocentric term - that is a fact that you can easily research for yourself. I too found it frustrating that there was not a similar term for the rest of the world. Graff and his publishers were obviously unconcerned or ignorant of this. Of course inventions are based on former technology, but there is a degree of difference in which some items exhibit the results of creative invention and others mere engineering or design skills. Obviously you exercise a different standard. You consider some things to be inventions where I don't. You see genius where I don't. That's not a double-standard, just a different standard. My views aren't conservative, they are proportional. If your focus is narrow - only on the history of early guns, then improvements can be more significant. However, when you look across the whole of history, there needs to be a judgement call as to what goes in and what doesn't. That leads me to your constant silly accusations of original research, which makes me wonder if you even know what OR is. Original research is the inclusion in the article of unattributed information. If I were to insert a paragraph describing what an invention is and how important is has to be to make the list, that WOULD be OR. We discuss here on the talk page the relative merits of the information in the article. Whenever an editor includes information, they make a judgement call on how to summarise and present the information gleaned from the source, using a standard whereby the editor will judge the relevance or otherwise of the information. All editors do this. That judgement call is not OR. When you come across someone with a different viewpoint with a different standard, that is not OR either. They merely have a different understanding of the definiton of the article's scope. An editor of this broad list can't be swayed every time some academic promotes their own importance by describing their subject in glowing terms to a small group of acolytes. In short, it shouldn't be surprising that academics describe their own subject as more important, more significant than it actually is. They are not writing this article, and have no responsibility to its quality. As editors of this list, we do. You are also assuming that every reference here correctly describes the item as a Chinese invention, rather than a discovery or development or improvement. I challenge that assumption, especially on some of the more obviously weaker items, which is why I've been rigorous in asking you for clear examples. I don't seek to tear up this article, I seek to have a more critical eye go over it, judging not just by referencing standards, but for relevance. Mdw0 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I myself had already stated that Medieval "was not the best term" for Chinese history, what the problem is is nitpicking about it even though you yourself say that there is no "similar term for the rest of the world". It is not me who "exercised" a different standard. It is you who said a double-piston flamethrower is not an invention because a "double-piston" existed. But at the same time you say trigger mechanims such as the matchlock was an invention, even though the slow-burning match existed. Such double-standards has popped up not just once, but repeatedly, and you conveniently fail to address the point by waving it off as a matter of proportion without describing how one is more disproportionate than the other. So far, you have not presented any sources AT ALL. You only used two definitions that I provided, mixed with a hefty POV on what you consider as significant or not-significant. What you are doing is combining your own interpretation of a definition I provided with aboslutely no source at all. As of far, you have presented zero opposing views from the academic consensus besides those of yourself. Granted, not all authors are right. But you do not have the authority to challenge them by presenting your own opinions. If you don't like it, then feel free to present sources that challenges what they say. And by sources, I don't mean yourself. Sure, perhaps you do know better than the academic world, despite not knowing the difference between two Byzantine flamethrowers and one double-piston flamethrower. Who are they to judge, yeah? This is wikipedia, so we follow wikipedia's rules on what to include. If you want to make a list of Chinese inventions that you yourself judge as true inventions, then you should make a website yourself. I neither want nor could stop you. What not to do is use wikipedia as your own personal website. I have already given you the option to condense things to a list, yet I'm not seeing any changes on your part. The title is "List of Chinese Inventions" after all. On the other hand, deleting things outright, despite the opposition of scholarly consensus and based on your personal interpretations of "genius". That's what, a synthesis of your personal opinion with a source? Smells like OR. It's real funny how you argue symantics. You accuse me of using the best definition to suit my purposes (which I did not), yet you would go so far as to pick the one definition that requires "genius", which perhaps is the hardest to fullfill out of all the definitions out there. Then you set a limit for what genius is, yet that goalpost seem to shift from invention to invention as it suits you. Plus, the definition says "unique intuition OR genius", yet you focus on the genius part. As by your logic, "so-and-so" is not complicated at all, so it must not require any genius! Yet by that definition the matchlock and the rudder didn't require any genius either, so why do you think they are inventions whereas others are not? Oh wait, you mean they are inventions because of "proportion", right? Yet people have been using the slow burning match to ignite handguns for a hundred years before the matchlock. The steering oar has been used for even longer for steering ships, much like the rudder. Yet on the other hand the double-piston was used to blow air, it wasn't used to spill out fire. So which has the biggest proportionate change? Again, this is double standard. Perhaps you should do some background reading. Gnip (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What I wanted was for the criteria of relevance to be applied to each item by editors. Some will be commonly agreed to that they are relevant. Some will be commonly agreed to that they are not relevant. Some will be more contentious, and the defenders of those items will need to defend tham, as you have. This is not wrong, and its certainly not OR, it is the kind of debate that makes a better article. The nature of invention IS a matter of proportion. You can call it a double-standard if you like, but the definitions clearly examine proportion. As I said, I would consider the mental requirements for some of the listed improvements to be common and fairly obvious, and others to be more complicated, thereby distinguishing between invention and mere engineering. That's also what the definitions do. I propose to examine the sources quoted, and if they only mention improvements made or first appearing or development and don't clearly indicate the items are inventions, then by any standard they are subject to deletion. I focussed on genuis in an effort to show you that proportion matters - that mere improvement does not equal invention, although applying the unique intuition/genius definition is problematic too - what exactly is unique intuition, what exactly is genius? What those terms DO indicate is that the creative process involved in an invention has to involve more than commonplace thinking or skill. I understand that you consider the difference between the flamethrowers to be of that superior calibre, and your defence of its sophistication as an invention would be enough to have me concede that it be left in the list and focus on others, despite my opinion to the contrary. Having seen replicas of both of these items working is probably why I'm contemptuous about the mental leap between the two - I never said I was unfamiliar with the inventions, that was your assumption. The reason why I said that the other gun mechanisms could be considered inventions, and why I rate their development as being more sophisticated, is that they involved a new mechanism that required inspiration and then development. I don't consider the changing of a single-piston spitting fire to a double-piston mechanism doing longer spits (continuous stream is not correct, especially for the earlier models) to involve any unique intuition, let alone genius. Its certainly not the same calibre of invention as the original by the Greeks. By comparison, the Chinese development doesn't require anything like like the same creative process. Its seriously borderline as an invention. But I suppose borderline can mean its in or out, and considering you want it in so badly I can concede its inclusion. Although I think its a bit odd for you to say that you dont "exercise" a different standard of inclusion than I do - I would've thought that's the reason for your disagreement. You can call advice to use a correct word nitpicking if you like, but the fact remains that 'medieval' is a term that only correctly applies to European history, and a specific time period at that, so trying to use it for other places doesn't work, so there needs to be a rethink on improving the splits in the article. Maybe use the broader splits that they use in the History of China article - Ancient, Imperial and Modern, but this wouldn't change the list much. The best reorganisation, but obviously involving more work would be to make a completely chronological list by century. Mdw0 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So I've waited almost a year, but still see no change. Did you discuss all this with me just for the sake of it? Now let us go back into Wikipedia’s ball-field. According to what Wikipedia defines as OR, it says, and I quote: “Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.’’’ What the semantic argument does is “interpret” what qualified as genius from a US patent law (primary source) on the definition of “invention”, and then synthesized it on one’s personal interpretations of certain (non)inventions. On the other hand, sources such as Garret(secondary source) labeled things such as the continuous flamethrower as an invention. So I think we should stick to what the author has to say, so I agree with how we will now resolve this: If the author says it’s an “invention”, “invented”, etc… then we will keep it on the list. If no source of authority used those words, it’s out. That sounds fair. I doubt there will be any changes though, as this pagefull of discussion boiled down to not even the deletion of a single word. The problem the rule tries to prevent is when people apply double standards. The rule instead lays a basic framework that tried to have a standardized standard, at least in our case. For example, you say that the continuous flamethrower is not an “invention” because the Chinese already has the double-piston pump, which made this non-invention as too “obvious”. So this means that if the Chinese did not have the double-piston pump, then the flamethrower would be an invention, as the insight would not be obvious. As such, if Hungary, who did not have the double-piston pump, invented the continuous flamethrower of the same design, then it would be an invention because it requires “genius” from a society without double-piston pumps. This basically means if the Chinese invented it, it’s not an invention. Yet if someone else of the same time period produced the exact same thing, it is an invention. Therein lays the double-standard problem with “genius”. Gnip (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it could be said that I'm more inclined to perform major edits with support rather than opposition. If it takes so much effort to establish a basic point or principle then there's little energy or inclination to defend the details of edits. However, the principle of genius is also combined with the historical record, and it doesnt matter if your society has never seen it before, if its invented earlier elsewhere, then their claim beats yours. The process is still invention, but our list has a worldwide field. Mdw0 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of these chinese inventions were either found or just mentioned in text in china. It seems odd to count that as inventing it. Reading the list it as if the Chinese invented everything in the world. Pots ,pans ,forks, compass and even domestication of animals.I understand te chinese HAVE invted thousands of things but this artical just seems way off with proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.233.131 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont think its unreasonable to extend a slightly less rigorous test for ancient items, so long as its mentioned that evidence is for first use rather than the more rigorous patenting used in modern times. Mdw0 (talk)

Article length

When this list became a Featured List in July 2008 it weighed in at just under 10,000 words. Hefty, but not unmanageable. Now the article is nearly 25,000 words long. It is a bloated specimen and if it appeared at WP:FLC in its current state I'm not sure it would pass. Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This still needs to be addressed. Nev1 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?

Cheers

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. User:Aua claimed ethnic Chinese were inflating the article

As Gnip pointed out, the main contributor to this article, who created most of the entries and brought it to featured status, was User:PericlesofAthens, who is not a Chinese. Neither I, nor Quigley have contributed a single word to this article at all, and I have not mentioned my ethnicity.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to shorten the entries, please do it yourself and stop dragging on this conversation/thread.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Pericles of Athens here (the main contributor, that is). I'm an American Peace Corps volunteer serving in the Kyrgyz Republic at the moment, so I unfortunately don't have the time to monitor this article or partake in any serious effort to reduce its size. Here in Talas Province, a secure, stable internet connection is hard to come by, even in the capital. Since I'm literally paying by the megabyte for this wireless service, I will try to make this brief. The semantics over the definition of the word invention aside, entries can certainly be shortened, but only in a logical, methodical approach. Cutting out huge swaths of material without some forethought and discussion on the talk page is not acceptable. For example, whenever there is evidence for a similar invention created earlier in the Greco-Roman world or elsewhere, such a thing is mentioned in its appropriate entry. Even for the sake of summarizing, simplifying, and condensing, it would be unwise to remove such items since it has the potential to cause an edit war. Sometimes an attempt to fix something, no matter how well-intentioned, just makes it worse. And as for Aua's concern that this article is a work of Chinese nationalism run amok, when I expanded this list long ago I wasn't working under the assumption that it should conform to some standard shared by other invention list articles. In fact, if memory serves, there weren't many of them around at the time! I think my expansion of this article inspired more than a few other editors to create and expand other list articles. Regardless, its current gargantuan size has become a problem. I just hope some common sense is applied to the trimmings. I leave that work to you gentlemen, because I've got bigger fish to fry with my new adventurous job here in the (developing) Third World. "Adios, amigos" to all those ESL folks out there. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Can someone please fix inline citation #326? An error has occurred for one reason or another with the reference tags. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a diplomatic, well-balanced, lighthearted response that addresses the points raised. I tip my hat to you, sir.

Good luck with the Peace Corps. I myself considered volunteering (and still do, actually).

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I trust that appropriate discretion will be used when excising the excess and leaving important information as is. I'm sure a lot of content can even be removed simply by rewording lengthy sentences into shorter, more concise statements. And please know that the Peace Corps always has an open door to potential recruits, yet the application process is no walk in the park. Good luck to you as well, in whatever path you choose. Cheers and beers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although an article discussion page isn't exactly the proper venue for it, I just want to applaud Nev1's gallant efforts in his recent rewording of prose and careful removal of text in this list article. Bravo, sir! It's looking better already (as far as Wiki's preference for summarization and condensing material is concerned).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Letting me know I'm not ruining the article is definitely appropriate for the talk page! I wasn't sure who was still active around here so didn't explain my approach, but now seems like a good time to do so. I'm going through each entry and removing any information that isn't integral to understanding the invention. In some cases this means details which aren't necessary to understanding the invention, for instance here stating the year was enough without going into detail about the exact day. It does mean some interesting details will be removed, but the articles is still 242kb.

As I don't have the sources I'm not looking to contest individual entries, but if Mdw0 challenges some as they did here where it appears to be an independent development of something very similar I'm not inclined to argue. However, I did remove the wheelbarrow, but that's because the entry seemed to contradict itself saying "There is evidence that wheelbarrows ... existed in ancient Greece by the late 5th century BC ... while their use in Western Han (202 BC–9 AD) China by the 1st century BC is attested to by written evidence". For the most part I have tried to avoid removing entire entries, though I do wonder whether domesticating the goldfish is technically an invention. Nev1 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe domesticating goldfish, or any species of fish for that matter, belongs under List of Chinese discoveries. I'm still not sure about keeping or scrapping the wheelbarrow. Our Wiki editor "Gun Powder Ma" presented a scholarly source discussing an ancient Greek reference to a "one-wheeler" vehicle, the author in question musing that it was a wheelbarrow. If true, it almost certainly wasn't a direct ancestor to the wheelbarrow used in medieval Europe, given the long absence of it between these two periods. Since there's at least once source claiming the wheelbarrow for ancient Greece, it was perhaps a prudent move to remove the item, Nev1. Good work!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Kindly proof read this article

Can the administrator proof read the article. I know for a fact that many of the inventions mentioned in this article were made elsewhere. I simply cannot believe how such malicious misinformation is accepted as fact by the administrator. Good Lord! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.172.215 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Source of many significant inventions??

How can those four inventions be considered "significant". And more importantly, the Chinese did not invent paper. Paper was invented by the Egyptians. Same goes for printing. The Chinese did not invent printing!

99.231.172.215 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If the Chinese had just invented four things, we wouldn't have an issue with the length of the list. As it is, it's pretty clear that the Chinese did invent a lot. "Significant" may be something of a weasel word so I've removed it from the opening sentence. Starting with "This list of Chinese inventions details the inventions made by China" is poor writing, and a synoptic statement along the lines of "China has been the source of many significant inventions" is more interesting. As for printing not being invented in China, you're going to need to present some reliable sources backing up your position. The same goes for paper; I imagine there has been some discussion over the technicalities regarding paper and papyrus. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to 99.231.172.215) As if "many significant inventions" only applies to just those four inventions. Also, quite the inconsistency and double-standard you have there. I'm referring to your dislike of using "significant" here in this article, while all for it at the Italian [3], Japanese [4], and most notably Indian [5] list articles. So where does this anti-China style of editting--here and other articles--came from...? That was rhetorical. --Cold Season (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, the user just got blocked for evasion... --Cold Season (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The point, I think, is the use of the term 'significant' means a poor quality opening. It's a poor word to use because it requires a second qualifier to explain how its significant, and how significant it is. No lead sentence should use it. 210.7.132.79 (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

99.231.172.215's motivation, as Cold Season points out, seems to have been marginalise Chinese inventions while emphasising others. But something good has come out of this as "significant" has been removed from the opening sentence. Fortunately it's also been removed from the Italy and India lists after 99.231.172.215 added it. Nev1 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Subsections

George Ho has voiced his opinion that the article requires subsections because it is too long, and has backed this up by giving each entry its how section. I removed the tag at the head of the article because the list already has plenty of sections, as can be seen in the table of contents. The format of the TOC means that George's changes are not showing up, meaning they're having no impact on the article. Assuming the TOC was swapped for the more common style found in articles, a section for each entry would make the TOC unmanageably long. I think the article's current format as of 11 May 2012, that is before George started editing it, is the way to proceed. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I did make changes for people who would easily edit one thing, such as one invention or another invention, rather than two or all. I like the current TOC as it is, as Nev1 pointed out, because it is convenient to navigate. However, take an example from List of The Price Is Right pricing games. --George Ho (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well there's more than one way to skin a cat, but having spent some time trimming the article I didn't find having multiple entries in the edit window rather than one too arduous. The impression I got from your initial edit summary was that ease of navigation was the primary reason; as it appears to be ease of editing I'm less concerned. I'm not sure there's that much to be gained by giving each entry its own subsection, but its not a major issue. Nev1 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

May I go ahead changing more then? --George Ho (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from PericlesofAthens who compiled the article, but if you think it's a worthwhile change I don't object. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

George, readers are more important than editors. Editors must suffer minor inconvenience for the sake of reader convenience. Anyone who seriously struggles with editing a section that has two or three items in it really isnt up to doing a proper edit in the first place. However, I think George's style is worth discussing on its own merits. It looks good, but it has a big problem with multiple white gaps created by the images. If George is going to continue with this style, images must appear on both sides of the article, left and right. Mdw0 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern Invention false data

Electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic pipe

Was not first invented in 2003. Psychologist in the United States have used Electronic Pipe for smoking tobacco as early as 1938. Featured in Experimental Foundations of General Psychology by Willard L. Valentine Revised Edition Copyright 1938, 1941, p. 147. And cited to Psychology in Business and Industry by John Gamewell Jenkins, p. 138.

I recommend removing this entry in the modern section as it implies first to invent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Done.

Thanks for bring it up. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15

57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed entries

I've removed the following entries because they don't count as inventions:

• Calendar year at 365.2425 days: Moved into the Chinese calendar article.
• Deficiency diseases, correction by proper diet: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
• Diabetes, recognition and treatment of: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
• Endocrinology, isolation of sex and pituitary hormones from urine: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
• Heterosis in rice: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
• Alligator drum: Minor innovation. Not really an invention. Split into the Alligator drum article.
• Archaeology, catalogues and epigraphy: Not an invention. Split into the History of Chinese archaeology article.

I've also added a few entries. Comments on my cleanup of the article are welcome.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Should there be a controversy section on historical inventions? I note that there are several inventions that are claimed by other nationalities? If it causes an edit war - then perhaps it's better avoided. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I should probably clarify, but there are some historians that regard papyrus as paper used by the Greeks? Maybe a section is needed to clarify why it's not considered paper? NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The list already includes any competing claims by other nationalities, which is one of the reasons why the list is so long. A separate section would be redundant and against WP:CRITICISM. Paper is the only exception because it doesn't describe the Egyptian invention of papyrus or the difference between papyrus and paper. Papyrus is a "lamination of plants" while paper is "manufactured from fibres whose properties have been changed by maceration or disintegration." I encourage you to add it and I believe that it would help to improve the article.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing discoveries

Well, this is an invention list. It's kinda up there in the title, you know. I removed Mapping of initial anti-aging formula because it really isn't an invention. The mapping process itself is not something new. If you disagree, I'd be interested in your perspective. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

These footnotes are hopeless.

Only a few even have the title of the work to be referenced. It is impossible to use these notes to confirm anything, and makes me concerned about its status as a featured list. Deleting items in the article that are improperly referenced would decimate it. Truly hopeless, and indicative of a list which is less an examination of technology and its history, and more about patriotic flag-waving.Mdw0 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. Thank you.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I agree with you about the flag-waving. The reference's title can be found though.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Aua is right, and I agree with both of his comments. Ethnocentric biases must be removed from all of the invention lists. There is an unfortunate effort on the non-European lists to diminish the contributions of European scientists and inventors. The so-called "systematic bias" excuse has often been used to push an anti-European and anti-Western POV. I have personally reverted many of these nationalist edits, and the list must be carefully scrutinized so that it remains neutral. Aua is also correct that the footnotes are not the problem. The article uses shortened footnotes and the reference titles can be found in the Bibliography, which is in compliance with the Manual of Style.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see that. Seems overly complicated to have a double-list, especially when the number of references is so large. It would be shorter to just have complete referencing in the footnotes - but that's just an opinion. Also, I find that its the people most guilty of a systemically biased outlook that respond adversely to even the very idea of such a bias, let alone exhibiting it in Wikipedia - again, not relevant here, just an opinion. What I think is relevant to the article is a more rigorous and exclusive viewpoint, resulting in the elimination of things that are not inventions, such as barefoot doctors, or synthesis of bovine insulin, as the enforcement of a practice that is not new cannot be an invention. Non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing for Down's Syndrome is not an invention because the original invention was invasive, and you can't just add on an unimportant previso and call it an invention. Same with anti-ship ballistic missile. Its not the first ballistic missile, its not the first explosive to hot a ship. This is not an invention, its a minor innovation. Such items make the list a joke, belittling the genuine inventions.Mdw0 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:RS should be used as a guideline for this list and other invention lists. A notable invention should either have its own article (meaning that it passes WP:N) or a section or paragraph in the linked article that discusses it. If the linked article doesn't even mention the invention, then the "invention" is likely too marginal to count as an actual invention. If it isn't found elsewhere on Wikipedia, then at the very least multiple reliable sources must cover the invention. Using this as a guideline, anti-ship ballistic missile barely meets the definition of an invention while "Turning Urine Samples into Brain Cells" does not and should be trimmed. This requirement removes the nationalist junk that is commonly found on "ethnic" invention lists.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:N is pretty clear in saying 'Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article,' so we really can't use that to make the invention lists more exclusive. WP:RS for invention lists aren't any different to any other article. Basically if its not backed up properly it can be deleted. So its still up to an individual editor to determine how valid their additions or deletions are. Deciding on the nature of an invention for the purposes of our lists is a major task for the Wikiproject Invention Mdw0 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as a quick side note and I generally agree with you guys, you should check out this absolutely insane list which makes it look like Europe had very little to do with scientific progress and everything happened in China. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given up on that article. Its already been rewritten from scratch once. Too many editors think that 'historic' means 'from history' rather than 'especially notable'. The only reason that article seems Sinocentric is because there are lots of things from China early on. This reflects reality. There is nothing in the list more recent than 1500. If you think there are historic inventions from Europe that are missing, put them in.Mdw0 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Insulting to Chinese people???

If I were a 中国人 I would be pretty annoyed with this list.

In all fairness, it's horrible....yes, most things listed here are inventions, many are not though, more like different materials used for the same device invented elsewhere...but thats not even important.

My point is that many of these inventions are akin to having an entry in Americas (or british or whomevers) list of stuff describing how the fork was invented there or shoelaces or curtains or doors or walls or some other nondescript item. It makes China out to be pretty petty, almost like they are cluthing at straws, thats what I got from this article.

One last thing, there is no way in hell that hang gliding was invented in China 2k years ago, nor did they have aerodynamically designed wings, I dont really care what Needham has to say on that subject to be honest, that would have changed the world similar to the way gunpowder did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.221.197.106 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have issues with a specific item, raise it here. Otherwise I don't see the point of this section. Modern hang gliding? That is not found in the article at all. You're obviously referring to the Man-lifting kite, which is not the same thing. The latter was apparently used for a brief time in China (during the Northern and Southern dynasties period) as a form of execution because it was assumed they weren't meant to work safely. That's a far cry from claiming the Chinese invented hang gliding in ancient times.

As for the escapement mechanism, it was indeed applied to a liquid-driven mechanical washstand by the Greek inventor Philo of Byzantium in the 3rd century BC. However, the Greeks, as far as we know, never applied its use to mechanical clocks, which has been its most common application. This was done, with hydraulic power, by the Chinese, beginning with Yi Xing for his waterwheel-powered armillary sphere in the 8th century AD and again by Su Song in the 11th century AD for his astronomical clock tower. It was Europeans of the 14th century who were the first to apply the escapement mechanism to a purely mechanical clock, instead of relying on the power of rushing water. Perhaps that point should be made clear in this article, but that's hardly grounds for removing the entire section. Aside from these issues, if you have problems with others, bring them up with specific points. A general blanket criticism of the article as being biased isn't helpful unless you address specific points. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And for aerodynamic wings on a specific rocket described in the 14th century during the early Ming Dynasty, that's quite an achievement for the century, but this is hardly unbelievable or wildly out of place. These rockets were still fairly primitive compared to anything in modern times. I do hope that in your mind you're not placing this in the same league as the first long-range ballistic missile, the V-2 rocket innovated in Nazi Germany. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have since edited the section on the escapement mechanism to make it a bit more clear. As it stood before, though, it already explained that Su Song's escapement employed hydraulic power with waterwheels. It was an escapement nonetheless, even without the weight-drive of pure mechanical clocks invented in Europe three centuries later. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I do have issues with many items, giving you three specific examples, it's not my concern if you fail to see the point of this section. It most certainly is not a far cry from claiming the Chinese invented Hang Gliding...picture a hang glider.....do you have it in your head? Now picture a kite capable of lifting the weight of a person....ta da....I'd prefer not to hold your hand like this. The Chinese invented neither the escapmemt mechanism or the mechanical clock, so I was very right to delete it. With regards to the rocket, I did not picture a V2 rocket as the V2 rocket did not have wings, but comment withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.221.197.106 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

True hang gliders did not exist until about the last quarter of the 19th century and they were used for sport, their design being far more practical for that purpose than a kite that was specifically meant to send men to their death (i.e. the ancient Chinese version). If you find a source that contradicts the source used in the article, then please, present it as a counterpoint. Otherwise a talk page is not to be used for a general discussion containing our opinions about the validity of a claim. The only thing that matters on Wikipedia is what the sources say. Sometimes sources contradict each other, which is natural in academia when there are items that produce contentious historical debate. In that case all views are presented so long as they are relevant and come from reliable sources. As for your opinion that the Chinese did not have an escapement mechanism, the source used in this article clearly explains that instead of utilizing the swinging pendulum operating with a toothed gear wheel like in the purely mechanical clock developed in medieval Europe, Su Song's astronomical clock employed a giant vertical waterwheel to achieve the same thing. Think of the waterwheel, timed to rotate by the falling of water from scoops, as being simply a larger representation of the metal gear wheel being slowly rotated by hooks connected to the swinging pendulum in the European model. Of course the European version is far more practical due to its ability to miniaturize the process, but the concept is still the same. In a way this reminds me of the fact that the Chinese invented their own unique version of movable type printing, but not the actual printing press of Johannes Gutenberg, which utilized the old Greco-Roman screw press that was nonexistent in Chinese technology and, combined with the fact that the Latin alphabet is by leaps and bounds easier to handle than the Chinese written character system, was far more efficient than the Chinese model as well. In either case, this is what the source says about the escapement and that's what really matters, not our personal opinions. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.177.146 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Two basic problems. One is the age of the sources. I see that one source is 71 years old. Even some of the material from Joseph Needham and his Science and Civilization project is obsolete. And in particular Robert Temple is not a reliable source. "In a review of The Genius of China Peter Golas wrote that " Temple is not very good at qualifying. He seizes with, unabashed enthusiasm on any Chinese advance that might be seen to prefigure a later development in the west. In doing so, he all too often overstates or misstates the facts." Golas also notes that Temple relies almost exclusively on the work of Joseph Needham and the Science and Civilisation in China, ignoring later research which has made some of the texts Temple used obsolete. In the Beijing Review Needham himself criticized the book writing that it had "some mistakes ... and various statements that I would like to have seen expressed rather differently"." Doug Weller talk 13:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Doug Weller for pointing to an important problem, one that will plague many articles. Temple is indeed not to be trusted without further checking. On the other hand, it would be even more helpful to tag specific points where you find questionable material. Labeling the entire article is misleading to readers and unfair to the majority of the sources, which are quite good enough.

The Template:Unreliable sources, in fact, advises "Consider tagging any specific statements with potentially unreliable sources with before tagging the whole article with this template." That is, we should use Template:Unreliable source?, which suggests "This tag is intended to be used when a statement is sourced but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement. Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question."

I'm also afraid that "age of sources" is not in itself an objection. I don't see old sources rejected in WP:Reliable Source. Some are great, some aren't. If you are concerned, it would be far more helpful to remove the Temple material that is unreliable. Since the guidelines say that the tag should be used if it is "questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement," it seems OK to leave Temple for statements that are not questionable.

You would be doing a great service if you removed the bad stuff sourced from Temple and I hope you can find time to do so! All the best.ch (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Age of sources should be considered an issue for certain types of subjects, and indeed is specifically mentioned at WP:RSMED#Use up-to-date evidence. In science, archaeology and history new discoveries overturn old ideas, a point which my quote from Golas makes. I may bring this up at Talk:IRS. I'll try to find time to deal with Temple. Thanks very much for your reply. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Raised at Talk:IRS#Should there be a section "Use up-to-date evidence"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a headache. Just a few thoughts: A well-intentioned but non-specialist editor can easily be taken in by a work like Temple's, which contains both useful summaries and blather. Even a generally reliable source can, as you well point out, be outdated by new arguments or new evidence on a particular point. I certainly agree that "up-to-date" evidence should be respected, but there's a danger of WP:UNDUE. Sometimes new evidence must wait to be evaluated. One example is at Talk:Zhou Enlai#Book claim of zhou enlai's homosexuality.

You seem well qualified to make judgments for this article and I would back your judgment if it is questioned, but it will be hard to formulate a general policy. There is reliable scholarship on Chinese history that is 100 or more years old, though little that is unique or that could not be replaced with more recent work. So I suppose there would be no loss if we avoid problems and recommend more recent synthetic works as more reliable.ch (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that very new evidence can be a problem. I'm often concerned when editors use newspaper reports of new archaeology findings without waiting for either the official report or, even more important sometimes, discussion of the report. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why it's usually wise just to stick to academic sources, published by university presses that properly vet their material before publication. In either case, Temple should probably be removed, but Needham? Yes, some of his assumptions and conclusions have been overturned with newly surfaced evidence over the past few decades, but that hardly accounts for most of his findings and research that are still upheld by the academic community, particularly in the realm of sinology. A blanket statement that Needham's works are no longer to be trusted is rather hyperbolic, when his conclusions should be tackled on an individual basis, case by case, because some will be outdated, but the vast majority will not be. This will take a considerable amount of research on the part of us editors, though. Unfortunately I no longer have the time or patience to do that on Wikipedia. Hopefully someone else will come along and address this fully in the near future. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to announce that Robert Temple and all his questionable statements have been excised and removed from this article. I became impatient, seeing how there were so many attributed to him, that I just simply removed entire sections without bothering to find sources that corroborated with him. I regret one decision in hindsight, the removal of the natural gas as fuel, so I will add that back into the article with a more reliable source. Needham may even be used for that, unless you can find a source that refutes him on the matter. Needham is to be trusted in any case unless you can find a source that contradicts him. Temple on the other hand is way too unwieldy, but that's no longer our concern, because he's been booted out the building! Hooray! Lol. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I added back natural gas as a fuel, but someone should look into chemical warfare and see about reintroducing that entry, because I think the Chinese have a good claim to it. In either case, Robert Temple is gone and I have thus removed the tag at the top of the article. If anyone wants to refute Needham, do so on an individual case-by-case basis, because he is still a reliable source (by Cambridge University Press for that matter), despite being somewhat dated. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Four great new inventions

They weren't all invented in China so don't belong here.[6] - if you can find a source for dockless bikes, that can be added as an invention. Text such as "China has once again demonstrated its ability to change the world." is completely unencyclopedic. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Special thanks to Doug Weller

Special thanks are in order for User:Doug Weller, for his fine contributions in excising questionable material from the article, added by another user who has now been indefinitely banned (for copyright violations of non-free content). Every single entry that he added should be checked thoroughly to make sure that he used reliable sources in each and every case. It has already been demonstrated that this particular user, User talk:Backendgaming, has denigrated the quality of this article by introducing entries containing citations from blogs and novels (lol). Obviously those are not acceptable sources. In fact, anything not published by a university press, museum press, scholarly journal, or university (i.e. ".edu") web page should be looked at with a high degree of scrutiny, even news articles from otherwise reputable online newspapers and such. I simply cannot babysit this page every day in perpetuity to ensure its quality, but it certainly needs to return to the state that it was in when I had it passed as a Featured list article back in 2008. To that end Doug Weller is doing a fine job. Keep up the good work sir! In fact, I will award you with a barnstar shortly for your diligent efforts in improving the quality of this article. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wish I'd spent more time on it earlier. He's left a mess behind in other articles having over 20,000 edits. Diannaa cleaned up a lot but no one has the time to check them all. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a frightening thought. He doesn't seem to have contributed anything of value and, I know it is Wiki policy to assume good faith, but I think his sole purpose here was to purposely introduce spurious claims in an act of subtle, stealthy vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Sneaky vandalism). I will take a look at a previous stable version of the article and compare it with the current one, to see which edits of his should still be removed if necessary. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dates of sources

These are particularly important for prehistory. Archaeological discoveries are made very day, and what might have been the earliest X 20 years ago might not be the earliest anymore. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Bambooworking

I was about to edit this entry, mainly to condense its several repetitions into more encyclopedic form, but started wondering if it qualified for inclusion. Can it be called an "invention!? Surely it's just a series of widespread techniques applicable to a wide range of materials (rendering into fibre, carving, cutting, bending and whatnot) but in this case, using bamboo, wild or cultivated, as raw material. It seems to have been added by User talk:Backendgaming, as a partial copypaste from Bambooworking. Haploidavey (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. You certainly have my blessing. It doesn't really qualify as a significant or noteworthy invention, despite its widespread use and application in architecture, furniture, and arts and crafts. Specific types of architecture, furniture, or arts and crafts are noteworthy, but not the raw material used in making them. If it's just copy-pasting from another Wiki article, all the more reason to delete it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help restore this article in some way, princeps. Removed. Haploidavey (talk)

Let's restore the last clean version as suggested above

I think we should It's this one. It needs some cleanup, I can quickly see the use of media which I think is hardly ever acceptable for history or archaeology. We could restore anything obviously correct. The important thing is not to make this article all-inclusive but accurate. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a dramatic move, but probably necessary given all the questionable additions over the years. I'm not opposed to it, but I will say we've done a good job thus far removing questionable stuff from the article already. Perhaps totally restoring a previous version won't be necessary if we just keep up the pace. Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems a good plan to at least refer to the last clean version (prior to the addition of dubious sources and wholesale copypasting. Actiually I see nothing wrong in principle with outright reversion, per Doug's link - it's certainly easier to check material that's been added since, than to subtract the same material - but there may be some caveats (see below). Haploidavey (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of going back then rebuilding with anything obviously ok. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That would offer the benefit of a methodical rebuilding, from the bottom up. If it's not reliably sourced, it's not used. For me, at any rate, that's much, much easier than sifting through accumulated debris, and not quite knowing what's debris and what's not. Haploidavey (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Crossbows, Chinese and Greek

Recently, Haploidavey, you removed the bit about the ancient Greek gastraphetes, a large crossbow that required a prop to fire and was basically a handheld artillery piece. Obviously this was rather different from the smaller, more compact handheld Chinese crossbow that more resembled the later medieval European crossbow. However, I don't think it is entirely clear from archaeology and textual information that the Chinese crossbow necessarily preceded that of the Greek gastraphetes, hence why it was mentioned. They were used roughly at the same time. It's hard to judge which one came first, exactly. I also kept that information to avoid an edit war with another user, which I don't think is a problem anymore, but it could potentially start another one. Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The stuff I removed was added some time after the (your) original. In effect, I reverted to what seemed, and read, as a clean version. I'm not sure how, or even if, the list should accomodate uncertain claims; I've been unable to find sources that compare or discuss the relative merits of each. I suppose we could resort to a cautionary note, or an Item (uncertain) format, but that seems an open invitation to partisan activities! Haploidavey (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Single-Mode Fiber?

The listing of single-mode fiber seems odd. Single-mode fiber was invented at Corning in 1970, 11 years before Huang Hongjia published on coupling wave theory in 1981. Jordan Mendelson (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Divide

Divide into sub and they are featured list. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Four Great Inventions Pre-Shang Shang and later Modern (1912-present)2001:EE0:4141:19F3:9515:8C4A:2128:6561 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL. This reads like some sort of note from a serial killer. Are we supposed to decipher something from this? Or is this just a mental exercise of yours, using the talk page as your personal sandbox? Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Divide List of Pre-Shang inventions (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, ..., Z)

Nhatminh01 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Chinese inventions

I have nominated List of Chinese inventions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

As it tends to happen with articles on Wikipedia, the quality of this article declined since it was first nominated as a featured list. However, much (but not all) of the issues with this article are associated with the work of a certain user.

After combing through his edits carefully, it became obvious that many of his edits were clearly plagiarized from other Wikipedia articles without attribution, which is a violation of Wikipedia's guideliness. I noticed this because I recognized paragraphs lifted from articles that User:PericlesofAthens, User:Yprpyqp, User:Underbar dk, User:Madalibi, and other established editors interested in Chinese history. These are editors that I've worked with before, so I'm familiar with their writing styles and citation preferences. The problem is that User:Backendgaming also plagiarizes from poorly written articles cobbled together from random sources on Google. This explains his seemingly inconsistent citation style.

Of his "original" edits, he struggled to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. Sometimes, his claims were accurate yet poorly cited. At other times, the sources were reliable yet misinterpreted. In many cases, his additions were neither factual nor verifiable.

Looking on the bright side, this does make the article easier to clean up. The entries that he contributed to this list can be roughly grouped into five categories: 1) Those that were plagiarized. 2) His original contributions. 4) Duplicates of existing entries. 5) Cultural "inventions" specific to China that would never have met the list's criteria for inclusion.

The entries that are classified as 4 or 5 are the easiest to fix. Any entry in category 5 should simply be removed. Regarding category 4, User:Backendgaming had an irritating habit of adding multiple entries that essentially describe the same invention. For example, consider the rocket propellant entry. The propellant in question is gunpowder and we already have a well-researched entry on gunpowder that was mostly written by User:PericlesofAthens. The solution would be to discard the rocket propellant entry in favor of the gunpowder entry.

Category 1 is a little trickier to deal with, but not by much. If the content was directly copy-and-pasted from a high-quality article that has already gone through the review process, e.g. the featured Science and technology of the Song dynasty, we can assume that the content isn't problematic. If the content was taken from a badly written article, then we'll need to fix it accordingly.'

Those in Category 2 would require looking up academic sources to verify the claims, but fortunately, the entries that fit this category are in the minority. As someone who does research at a university and is familiar with the relevant academic literature, verifying or debunking those claims made in the article should be easy given my access to the sources.

I have compiled a list of entries that were added by User:Backendgaming. Some of these have already been deleted, but I've generated the entirety of his additions for completeness. I will also keep a tally of the entries that remain to be fixed.

Inventions specific to China's material culture (24/24 entries checked and verified):

• Alligator drum: Previously removed.
• Baguenaudier: Previously removed.
• Bamboo and wooden slips: Removed
• Bambooworking: Previously removed.
• Baoding balls: Previously removed.
• Dao (sword): Removed.
• Dragon boats: Removed.
• Dragon kiln: Removed.
• Facekini: Removed.
• Fermented bean curd: Removed.
• Fu (tally): Removed.
• Hukou system: Removed.
• Incense clocks: Removed.
• Jadeworking: Removed.
• Kang bed-stove
• Kau cim Already removed.
• Lamian: Already removed.
• Mandarin square: Removed.
• Mantou kiln: Removed.
• Meat analogue: Removed.
• Ritual bronzemaking: Removed.
• Seal Removed.
• Stinky tofu: Already removed.
• Tianchi basins: Removed.
• Xiaochi: Removed.
• Tributary systems: Already removed.
• Night market: Removed.

Other entries (11/66 entries checked and verified):

• Artillery: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same content as cannon.
• Biological pest control: Plagiarized from Biological pest control without attribution. Originally written by User:Entomologger with revisions by User:Chiswick Chap. This content has already gone through the GA review process (link to the reviewed version on April 2017). As a precaution, I've also double-checked and verified that the claims accurately represent the sources.
• Bintie: Removed. According to p. 268 in Wagner 2008, Chinese primary sources from the 6th and 7th century attribute the origin of bin iron to Persia or Afghanistan. The character bin is likely transcribed from a foreign language, possibly Persian or Sanskrit.
• Brick, fired
• Bombard
• Borehole drilling
• Brandy: Already removed.
• Breeching strap
• Brine mining
• Cannon: Plagiarized from cannon without attribution. Original text contributed by User:Yprpyqp and myself. Sources are reliable and claims have been verified.
• Cast coinage
• Counting rods
• Diabolo
• Deepwater drilling
• Explosives: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "exploding bomb" entry.
• Field artillery: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "cannon" entry.
• Fire arrow
• Fire cracker
• Food steamer
• Fuses
• Gas cylinder
• Gas lighting
• Gnomon Removed. It's strange that this is included under "gnomon" rather than "sundial" because a gnomon is just the part of the sundial that casts a shadow to indicate the time. In any case, from the sources that I've read on the history of the sundials, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the invention of the sundial because it hinges on speculations regarding whether certain megalithic structures were used for timekeeping.
• Grid referencing
• Hand fan
• Handgun
• Hygrometer
• Irrigation system
• Keel
• Kerosene
• Louche
• Map scaling
• Movable sail: Already removed and I agree with the deletion. It's not clear what a "movable sail" means in this context (is there such as a thing as an immovable sail?), but there's little evidence that the sail was a Chinese invention.
• Multiple rocket launcher: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "rocket launcher" entry.
• Oil lamp
• Oil refining
• Parachute
• Percussive drilling
• Petroleum as fuel
• Pipeline transport
• Pudding process
• Quern stone
• Raincoat
• Rammed earth
• Rocket boosters
• Rocket propellant: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "gunpowder" entry.
• Row cropping
• Salt mining
• Salt well
• Snap fastener
• Snow gauge
• Solid-propellant rocket
• Squatting-tiger fire trebuchet: Plagiarized from User:Underbar dk. Also, an incredibly obscure variant of a weapon.
• Stinkpot
• Sunglasses
• Two-stage rocket: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "multistage rocket" entry.
• Umbrella
• War wagon
• Water clock
• Water compartments: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "bulkhead partition" entry.
• Weeding rake
• Weighing scale
• Well drilling
• Well-field system
• Wheelchair
• Wrought iron

Furthermore, there are also entries that were removed in other cleanup attempts over the past year. These should be judged independently on their own merits, so I've listed them here for separate consideration (/7):

• Beer
• Churn drill
• Merit system
• Nail polish
• Noodle
• Underwater salvage operation
• Xuan paper

I plan on finishing this task within the next few weeks. I'll also make comments about whether we should keep and discard each entry based on what I find through reliable academic sources.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 06:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Khanate General: thanks for all your hard work here and your due diligence! I fully support the moves to remove certain items listed above, especially the double entries masked by different wording. We obviously don't need two separate entries about gunpowder. The fact that these were all added by a sockpuppet account means they should just be viewed as highly suspect and removed anyway. I think this cleanup job will ultimately negate the necessity for this FL article to be delisted or to revert back to the stable version in June 2013, the rather drastic option I offered as a solution. Again, many thanks! Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what's with citation #600 "ftp"? It is shown in red as an error message. Did we remove something we shouldn't have somehow? That should please be taken care of if it was just a simple editor's mistake. Thanks. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Are you finished? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Notification: Ongoing review processes for removal of featured list status here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Cannon, Hand cannon, Hand gun, Bombard

Tripled entry, all three refer to the same weapon, the Heilongjiang hand cannon. Also, why is the bombard listed separately from a hand cannon? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gun Powder Ma: Hello. The 13th century Chinese/Jurchen/Mongol bronze hand cannon and handgun can be consolidated into one entry, yes, but not with cannon, which is not a handheld weapon but refers to the much larger wheeled siege artillery piece that appeared on the battlefield in China, Europe, and the Middle East at roughly the same time, i.e. the first half of the 14th century. Contrarily, the hand cannon was purely an anti-personnel weapon used to target individual soldiers on the field (very inaccurately at that, more of an intimidation factor than anything else) and was not large or powerful enough to be useful as a piece of siege tech. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pericles of Athens: Hi. And the entry on the "bombard"? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gun Powder Ma: the bombard is a type of cannon, yes, so perhaps it can be consolidated into one post, seeing how a hand cannon is a type of handgun, just as a bombard is a type of cannon. In each of these cases they were the earliest prototype versions of either a handgun or cannon. Alternatively, you could keep the "bombard" entry name while writing "see cannon" there, while moving the entirety of the textual body itself over to the entry on the cannon. In fact, I'll just do that right now. It's a sensible solution. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pericles of Athens: Problem is that the term bombard designates a large type of cannon, proper artillery so-to-say, while the supposed "bombard" in that Buddhist cave temple is a light hand-held weapon (if it is this at all), that is a handgun. You can't classify the piece as both artillery and handheld. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Here a quite widely cited scholarly source that states that bombards were large calibre artillery and a type of weapon originating in Europe (Kay Douglas Smith, Robert Douglas Smith, Kelly DeVries: The Artillery of the Dukes of Burgundy, 1363-1477, 2005, ISBN 9781843831624, p. 204):

Bombards are, perhaps, the easiest of all medieval gunpowder weapons to identify and recognise. They were the largest of the available types of gunpowder artillery, both in their weight and their bore, ranging in size from the relatively small to huge monsters weighing in excess of 20 tonnes, though most were in the range of 5-10 tonnes. Bombards first appear in the Burgundian registers in 1412 and are relatively common until the middle of the century when references to them decrease quite drastically. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Bombard" has been removed from the list but kept as a link in the passage for "cannon" where it belongs. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tea

Why should tea be classified as a Chinese invention if the area where it was first consumed, Yunnan, became Chinese only several millennia later? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. It is only speculated that the ancient people of Yunnan drank it first for medicinal purposes, but the earliest confirmed physical evidence of it used as a drink comes from the tomb of Emperor Jing of Han from the 2nd century BC, while a book by Western Han poet Wang Bao in 59 BC provides the earliest known record of it being boiled as a beverage. There's nothing wrong with retaining the entry on tea. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pericles of Athens makes a compelling argument. Wang Boa's article "A Contract with a Child Servant" is the earliest writing documenting the use of tea as a beverage. I support not changing the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Contour canal

What is that exactly? I noticed there is no other language version and probably for a reason: Isn't every canal a contour canal in that its water follows a gradient that is defined by the topography? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, not every canal does this and many involve significant engineering work beforehand such as leveling soil, building tunnels, or even canal locks. I'm not even sure what the complaint is here, other than that you are not a native speaker of English and this is an unfamiliar phrase to you. The source cited for this is hardly spurious either: Day, Lance and Ian McNeil. (1996). Biographical Dictionary of the History of Technology. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06042-7. While some of your complaints resemble legitimate concerns, this one in particular seems humorously tangential to your overall argument about the quality of this article having been diminished. Since you were the one who championed the effort to have this article delisted per WP:FAR, please try to bring up only very serious items that contain duplicate entries or dubious unreliable sources. Thanks. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Shang

The entire entry is problematic. Why are things that date as far back as eight to ten millennia into the past declared as "Chinese" inventions? Does that mean that the Dutch invented the dugout because the oldest evidence from 10,000 years ago is from modern-day Netherlands? Note that the inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilisation are listed separately from the List of Indian inventions and discoveries, although the Indus Valley Civilisation is temporally much closer to later Indian culture than the Neolithic cultures of China to later Chinese culture. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there something to be said against removing the entire section as OR? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I figured you would suggest something that extreme, a pattern that I'm sensing with your suggestions (a radical proposal considering virtually everything in that section is fairly well-cited with reliable academic sources, not someone's personal blog). That being said, I've chosen to simply move pre-Shang, Neolithic and prehistoric stuff over to a new sister article: List of inventions and discoveries of Neolithic China. It took a lot of effort, but all of that material is now excised from the article, with handy links provided to the new one. I have also removed the sources cited at the bottom in the references section that once pertained to that section but are no longer found anywhere else in the article. To me this represents a huge improvement to the article, which should soon warrant the lifting of any tags that claim this article suffers from WP:OR issues. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Animal zodiac

This article dates the introduction of the Babylonian zodiac to "between −408 and −397 and probably within a very few years of −400" BC.

Francesca Rochberg, Professor of History at the University of California, dates its introduction even a bit earlier (The Heavenly Writing. Divination, horoscopy, and astronomy in Mesopotamian culture, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 130):

The earliest direct evidence for the existence of the zodiac comes from fifth-century astronomical diary texts (e.g., No. −453 iv 2 and upper edge 2–3, No. −440 rev. 3, and No. −418:5, 10, rev. 8 and 14) and horoscopes (BH 1 and 2, both dated 410 b.c.), in which positions of the planets are cited with terminology used with respect to zodiacal signs as opposed to zodiacal constellations. The existence of the zodiac in this period is also indirectly supported by Seleucid astronomical texts that deal with phenomena of the Achaemenid period. The oldest of these relates longitudes of conjunctions of the sun and moon, computed by a schematic method, with solar eclipses. The phenomena computed in these texts can be dated with relative certainty to 475 b.c., although the writing of the tablets was certainly much later. Another text that uses the zodiac together with astronomical phenomena, dated to circa. 431 b.c., lists phenomena for Venus and Mars plus a column containing values of “column,” the purpose of which is to take into account the influence of the moon’s variable velocity.

Since the Babylonian zodiac also uses twelve animal signs and only slightly differs in some names (cf. Rochberg, p. XXV), the Babyonians should be credited with its invention. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's really close, possible 5th but likely also not by the 4th century BC, yet I've decided just to remove the claim for the Chinese. I'm not sure if Rochberg's hypothesis for dating these tablets is widely accepted in scholarly consensus, but you've at least brought two sources to the table here and that's good enough for now, I suppose. I might add it back later after a bit of research to see if the Chinese texts can be dated further back than the 4th century BC. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Acupuncture was already practised in the 4th millennium BC in Europe, notably on Ötzi, but possibly also on other mummified bodies (cf. here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No, unlike the Animal Zodiac thing, which was a legit point given the hard evidence of Babylonian tablets, this is just mostly a silly claim, or as The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine (p. 610) rightfully says, a "speculative" one without very solid evidence. Scholarly consensus is not on your side here. As far as I know most scholarship has not moved on this issue, and thus the entry for acupuncture will stay in this article until overwhelming evidence is presented in trustworthy academic sources that any Neolithic cultures practiced it. Scholars even view Needham's hypotheses of acupuncture going back to Bronze Age China with great skepticism, with no firm physical evidence for it until the Han dynasty, with maybe textual evidence going back to the Warring States Period. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm starting to wonder if I should re-nominate this article for FA status if this is the sort of fringe theory stuff you have used as the basis for delisting the article. Again, many of your concerns are legitimate, and I'm addressing them one by one, but I feel as though people were persuaded to delist the article based on your advocacy of ideas that aren't even widely accepted in academic consensus. You should be far more cautious and careful about that in the future, especially given the dramatic act of delisting an enormous complex article that simply needed some tweaking here and there (the biggest change being the removal of prehistoric/Neolithic stuff, which is at least one of your more reasonable proposals ala the Indus Valley Civilization comparison to India). Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Chain stitch

The excavated tunic of Tutankhamun (c. 1342 – c. 1325 BC) has chain stitches, predating the oldest cited Chinese example (Paul T. Nicholson, Ian Shaw: "Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology", Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 9780521452571, p. 280). Note that Mary Schoeser, the cited source, is not concerned with claiming global priority for the Chinese but makes her remark rather in the limited context of her discussion of Chinese (silk) clothing.

This is a recurring problem with this list: it ignores cultural and geographical context and inflates limited claims to global absolutes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, removed given the earlier example from Ancient Egypt, as we inch closer to removing those tags at the top of the article. Also, I couldn't disagree more with your perception about this article, the problems of which I think you're exaggerating when it comes to claims of innovation in a global context. It's certainly no different from other invention list articles such as List of English inventions and discoveries and List of Italian inventions and discoveries. For whatever reason you have decided that List of Chinese inventions is far more egregious than these other examples when it's literally presented in the same format. While you're certainly free to hold this opinion, it's irrelevant at best, so let's stay focused on the specific items that you have actual concrete evidence to refute with scholarly sources. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ephedrine

Its first use is claimed for the Han era but this is a weak claim. The sole source refers to Abourashed 2003, a pharmacological article that is not much concerned with historical accuracy. This is what Abourashed writes (p. 703):

A member of family Ephedraceae, Ephedra sinicais the primary species that has been used in China for more than 5000 years and is still being used in Ephedra preparations and extracts all around the world. Although originally examined by Emperor Shen Nung (ca. 3200 BC), the use of ma huang as a stimulant and as an antiasthmatic was not documented until the time of the ancient Chinese Han Dynasty (ca. 207 BC–220 AD). Ephedra gerardiana has been similarly employed in Indian folk medicine since old times. Even during the time of the Roman Empire, Ephedrawas well known and described until it was eventually dropped from medieval European literature.

I cannot see how Abourashed credits any specific culture with Ephedrine's first use. Going by his choice of words, Indian and Roman use could predate that in China. The fact that he attributes a role to a mythical Chinese ruler should be an immediate red flag to treat his historical synopis as reliable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I have removed this post, which I did not personally add but was the addition of some other editor long after my successful FAC. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and yes, it seems ancient Romans or Indians could have been using it around the same time or earlier as the Han dynasty Chinese. Inching ever closer to removing those tags! Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Incense

A priori an unlikely claim given how ubiquitous the practice is and how ephemeral evidence of any kind for its earliest use must be. And the only source cited truly lives up to expectations. Stoddart claims on the given page that "few details of the rites have survived" (plausible), but that the Hindus adopted incense from the Chinese (interesting) and the Egyptians in turn from "Hindu traders" at the time of the "11th dynasty" (wow), which he dates wrong by 1500 years (never mind). Then he goes on more to give more impossibly precise details (but he knows). Worthy of Erich von Däniken and unintentionally funny. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, unsurprisingly, not an entry that I had personally added, but am happy to remove. You're right, the origins of incense are far too murky to speak in such absolutes and the author, despite being published by the Cambridge University Press, made a number of glaring errors that put his other claims into question. That is not a small error, either, that's a colossal one that betrays a huge ignorance of the timeline of entire civilizations. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Natural gas as a fuel

This entry take a free license to embellish things. What Loewe (1968) actually writes on p. 194 is that drills may have penetrated over 600 metres" and that "it is possible that the fires lighted below the pans were fed on natural gas, brought from the mine by the same conveyance". The entry, however, treats his conjecture as a fact. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a case where both artistic and archaeological evidence strongly suggest that natural gas was indeed used as fuel for salt production and that borehole drilling did in fact reach such depths, but yes, per Loewe's wording, I have softened the language there to stress that this is still hypothetical and not yet fully or exhaustively confirmed with corroborative textual evidence. With that done, I have addressed every single one of your concerns listed here. If you have any other outstanding concerns let them be known with specific details, because I will now remove the OR tags from the top of the article. I may even re-nominate this for FAC, but in the meantime it looks decent enough. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Crank and Connecting Rod

I tried to add the "Crank and Connecting Rod" into this article but it was deleted. I don't see the problem with the source I've provided.

Source title: International Symposium on History of Machines and Mechanisms

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media

Pg 249 of the book says:

"From the above discussion, the crank and connecting-rod mechanism featured with eccentric lug was adopted for a long period of time in ancient Chinese blasting apparatus, textile machinery and agricultural machinery, and its appearance was no later than the Western Han Dynasty. It was first applied in manually operated quern and long, and the gradually evolved into different crank connecting-rod devices, used in the inter-conversion of rotary and reciprocating (rectilinear) motion in specific situations".

In page 245 the author shows a Chinese waterwheel operating a crank and connecting rod to blast air for a furnace (from the Nong Shu).

In page 241 the author showed treadle spinning wheels (from the Nong Shu) that operated through a crank and connecting rod.

In page 239 it showed a water-driven flour-sifter driven by "a connecting rod and an eccentric lug" (from the shui ji mian luo).

In page 237 and 240 the author showed crank and connecting rods in a fascimile of a Han dynasty stone relief, as well as a Han dynasty model of a quern using the crank and connecting rod.

The author says in page 237:

"The eccentric lug is actually a crank, also a kind of crank-and connecting rod mechanism. So far as we know, the eccentric lug system of manually operated quern and long in the Han Dynasty was the earliest crank mechanism in China; it was also the earliest application of the crank and connecting rod in the world"

'--ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 11:55, 4 April, 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Fire lance.jpg
• Oldest depiction of rocket arrows.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

They haven't been deleted for some reason yet and it has already been a few months. History of Asia^{Want to talk?} 16:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Oldest depiction of rocket arrows.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fire lance.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Space station

This is an article for INVENTIONS. China did not invent the space station; full stop. A simple glance at the talk page history demonstrates that there's already a history of inflated claims and puffery, and that spurious additions -- lacking well-attested reliable sources to an invention's unique provenance in China -- should be removed. To suggest that this is a unique invention because it is named "Tiangong space station" is bizarre at best; that would be rather like asserting that some nation invented the automobile just because there was some cosmetic feature not before slapped on one. Ravenswing 11:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Since space stations are presently such massive, bespoke things, I could almost see an argument for some claim involving Tiangong if a newly invented technology or device was used first on it. But no argument of the sort is currently being made. Remsense留 23:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd certainly have raised no objection to a standalone entry for any such newly invented technology/device, and certainly were such an invention first employed on a Tiangong station, obviously such an entry would reasonably mention it. As you say, no such assertion has been made. As far as space stations go, there were nine launched and manned before the first of the Tiangong stations. Ravenswing 06:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)