Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2012-04-06T20:16:02Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
{{WP Lists|class=FL|importance=}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}

==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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”. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 03:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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!
:::::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 08:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2012-04-06T20:13:54Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
{{WP Lists|class=FL|importance=}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}

==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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 double-standard. 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”. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 03:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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!
:::::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 08:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Yehuling

2011-08-24T20:04:45Z

Gnip: /* Battle of the Badger Mouth */

{{Infobox Military Conflict
|conflict=Part of the [[Mongol-Jin War]]
|part of=[[Mongol invasion of China]]
|caption=All significant conquests and movements of [[Genghis Khan]]. Eastern campaign routes show the Mongol-Jin War.
|date=August--October 1211
|place=[[North China]], [[Zhangjiakou]]
|result=Decisive Mongol victory
|territorial changes=part of North China added to the [[Mongol Empire]]
|combatant1=The [[Mongol Empire]]
|combatant2=The [[Jin Dynasty (1115-1234)|Jin Dynasty]]
|commander1=[[Genghis Khan]] [[Muqali]] [[Jebe]] [[Ogedei]] [[Yelü]] Tuhwa
|commander2=[[Emperor Weishaowang of Jin]] Dujis Qiannu [[Wanyan Jojin]][[Killed in action|†]] [[Wanyan Chenyu]] [[Hersle Whosawho]] [[Wanyan Gauqi]] Ming An Tu Danyear [[Puxian Wannu]]
|strength1=More than 90,000 cavalry
|strength2=350,000 infantry 150,000 Cavalry
|casualties1=Less than 500
|casualties2=Heavy (510,000 men)}}

{{Campaignbox Mongol-Jin War}}
The '''Battle of the Badger Mouth''' was the major decisive battle in the first stage of the [[Mongol-Jin War]].

== Background ==
In 1210, Genghis Khan insulted Weishaowang, the Emperor by publicly stating that he was a coward and unfit to be a leader. Genghis added "The Emperor should be a man from sky like me." Soon, news spread to the Jin Emperor through a Jin officer. The Jin emperor was enraged and ordered the execution of the Mongolian ambasaddor. Tensions between the Jin and the Mongols started to escalate and Genghis Khan declared war with the Jin.

The Mongolian army amassed 90,000 men for the offensive force in the expedition against the Emperor in March 1211. Genghis Khan only maintained a defending force of 2000 guards in Mongolia. This means well over 90% of the available forces in Mongolia at the time was mobilized for this campaign. Before the expedition, Genghis Khan conducted a religious ritual with his troops by praying to Tengri (eternal blue sky) [[Shamanic practice]] along the Kherlen River for victory and made a vow to avenge his ambassador, Ambaghai Khan, who was betrayed by the Tartar and executed by the Jin court.

== Jin's army: composition ==
Jin's army included:

1. '''Border's troops''': they were recently defeated by Mongolia at the Battle of Wusaberg several months before the campaign and had to withdraw to Badger's Mount. Their total strength amounted to 100,000 and were led by 1st Prime Minister [[Du Qiannu]].

2. '''Main troops''': Their strength amounted to 250,000 and chief commander of the army is field marshal Wanyan Chenyu, 2nd Prime Minister and general [[Ming An]]. Most of troops hailed from the capital.

3. '''Reinforcement troops''': Emergency troops from all corners of Jin country, their strength amounting to 150,000 and the commander was vice [[field marshal]] Hersle Whosawho, an ambitious man. He was to defend [[Datong]] with his reinforcements.

== Battle ==
This campaign included a series of 5 battles that took place from August–October 1211:

'''1. Battle of Wusaberg''' (烏沙堡戰役): Happened in May–June.

'''2. Battle of [[Datong]]''' (大同攻防戰): Happened in August and last for 7 days

Genghis Khan ordered his 3 elder sons and general [[Yelü]] Tuhwa. Each of his son commanded 10,000 cavalry. A total strength 30,000 cavalry sieged this city to cover the side line of the Genghis Khan's troop and cut off Jin's reinforcement to capital.

'''3. Badger's Mount Campaign''' (獾兒嘴及野狐嶺戰役): Happened in August.

This pass leads directly to Jin's capital and attacked by Genghis Khan with a commanding force of 60,000.

'''4. Battle of Kweiheberg''' (澮河堡戰役): happened in October and the combat lasted 3 days.

'''5. Mongol army occupies [[Juyongguan]]''' but Jin's 3rd Prime Minister Tu Danyear (徒單鎰)
successfully defended the capital with a commanding force of 20,000, signalling the end of this campaign.

=== Battle of Wusaberg ===
Wusaberg, is located at the present city of [[Ulanqab]]. Through the years, Jin's 1st Prime Minister Dujis Qiannu ordered the construction line of a series of single burgs to oversee the Mongol but the tactic turns out to be faulty, even though these burgs maintain their stability on the border. Wusaberg is one of the largest and most important burgs at the time.

Jebe attacked Wusaberg and achieved no success. He changed his tactics by attacking Wusaberg's reinforcement base. With the fall of the base, Jebe manage to capture Wusaberg. Hearing the news, a senior official of Jin (a rank below Prime Minister) led the troops into retreat from neighbouring 3 countries to Badger's Mount. The retreat provided a golden opportunity for Jebe and soon the 3 countries are captured with ease.

===Badger's Mount Campaign===
Facing the vast Jin forces, Genghis Khan decided to only way of victory is to charge his cavalry directly past the Jin front line and attack their supply camps. Jin forces were surprised by the might of the Mongol cavalry and could not hold the front line. Mongol cavalry commenced to raid the Jin supply camps and killed many resting and unsuspecting Jin soldiers. Jin tried to retreat to support their camps but they can no longer establish central command in the chaos. At the end many Jin soldiers were slaughtered and the survivors retreated in disarray. The bloodlusted Mongol cavalry further gave chase and killed even more Jin soldiers for a hundred [[Li (unit)|Li]].

=== Battle of the Badger Mouth ===

The Jin armies were overconfident in the defensive position of the pass, and its ability to funnel the Mongol army which preferred open steppes for combat. The Jin general deliberately drew Genghis to fight there, withdrawing soldiers from cities for hundreds of miles and stationing them all at Badger's Mouth. This force was the last thing standing between Genghis and the Emperor. In all, there were between 400,000 and 500,000 Jin soldiers assembled to stop the brutal Mongol advance, which had laid waste to everything west of Yanjing(modern Beijing). The idea that the Jin should have attacked the Mongols on the open plains while their horses were grazing is not correct. For one, the whole idea of the Badger's Mouth was to neutralize the Mongol speed on the open plains and the superiority of their composite bows and funnel them within the narrow pass. Second, it would have been impossible to catch the Mongols off guard, as they were nomads who were ready to fight in an instant. The Mongol bows were far superior to Jin crossbows and by then the Mongols had developed the use of armor. Genghis sent men over the peaks surrounding the Pass, which the Jin general thought was impossible, and then attacked the much larger army from both sides. As Genghis attacked the front of the Jin armies in the mouth of the badger, the forces which had scaled the mountain first routed the Jin cavalry from behind and then joined the assault on the main force. It was one of the bloodiest battles in history, and almost every Jin soldier was killed. It is said that bones still lay on the spot 10 years later for 30 miles around.

When the general of the Jin saw what had happened he fled to the Emperor's city, now known as Beijing, where he killed the Emperor and assumed control of the city, whose walls could not be defeated. He did not die on the battlefield. After a four year siege, which saw the residents of Beijing reduced to cannibalism in order to survive, the city finally surrendered and paid a massive tribute to Genghis Khan to make him leave. The general who had fled the battlefield did not survive the siege.

The battle was one of the Mongols' greatest victories. Ten years later, when a [[Taoist]] priest, [[Qiu Chuji|Changchun]], passed through on his way to meet Genghis Khan, the bones of the slain were still visible on the escarpments and the air was very agreeable.<ref>John Man-Genghis Khan, p.107</ref> The Jin was the most powerful empire in Asia primarily until the 12th century. Due to the failure of this campaign, Jin empire begins to crumble and the dynasty was officially destroyed in 1234.

== Aftermath ==
After this battle and campaign, the Jin dynasty lost half of its 950,000 troops. Roughly 10 Jin cities were plundered by the Mongols and Chinggis Khan ordered a tribute of 500 males, 500 virgins and 3000 horses to be taken back to the Mongolian plains.

In spite of the defeat, Jin prioritized conquering the Song dynasty over defending its borders against future Mongol incursions and invasions.

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

{{coord missing|China}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Battle Of The Badger Mouth}}
[[Category:Battles involving the Mongols]]
[[Category:Mongol Empire]]
[[Category:Battles of the Yuan Dynasty]]

[[mn:Хуан Эр Цуйгийн Тулалдаан]]
[[zh:野狐嶺戰役]]

List of wars and battles involving China

2011-08-24T20:02:29Z

Gnip: Battle put under the wrong dynasty. Huang er Tsui was a battle between the Jin and the Mongols, not between the Song and the Mongols

The following is a '''list of Chinese wars and battles''', organized by date. The list is not exhaustive.

== [[Ancient China]] ==
*26th Century BC - [[Battle of Banquan]]
*26th Century BC - [[Battle of Zhuolu]] - The [[Yellow Emperor]] defeats [[Chi You]] and establishes the [[Han Chinese]] nationality.
*1675 BC - [[Battle of Mingtiao]]
*1057 BC – [[Battle of Muyu]]
*1046 BC - [[Battle of Muye]]
*707 BC - [[Battle of Ruge]]-leading to reduced power and significance of Western Zhou
*684 BC - [[Battle of Changshao]]- The state of [[Lu]] defeats the [[Qi (state)]]
*632 BC - [[Battle of Chengpu]] - [[Duke Wen of Jin]] defeats the [[Chu (state)|Chu]] commander [[Ziyu]], in the biggest battle of the [[Spring and Autumn Period|Spring and Autumn period]].
*595 BC - [[Battle of Bi]]
*588 BC - [[Battle of An]]
*575 BC - [[Battle of Yanling]]
*506 BC - [[Battle of Boju]]
*478 BC - [[Battle of Lize]]
*453 BC - [[Battle of Jinyang]]
*353 BC - [[Battle of Guiling]]
*342 BC - [[Battle of Maling]]
*341 BC – [[Battle of Guailing]]
*293 BC - [[Battle of Yique]]
*269 BC - [[Battle of Yanyu]]
*260 BC - [[Battle of Changping]]
*230 BC–221 BC - [[Qin's wars of unification]]

== [[Imperial era of Chinese history|Imperial China]] ==
===[[Qin Dynasty]] (221 BC–207 BC)===
{|
|
*214 BC - [[Qin Campaign against Southern China Territories]]
|
*209 BC - [[Daze Village Uprising]]
|
*207 BC - [[Battle of Julu]]
|
|}

===[[Chu-Han War]] (206-202 BC)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*205 BC - [[Battle of Jingxing]]
|
*203 BC - [[Battle of Wei River]]
|
*202 BC - [[Battle of Gaixia]]
|}

===[[Han Dynasty]] (206 BC-220 AD)===
{|
|- valign=to
*200 BC - [[Battle of Baideng]]
*154 BC - [[Rebellion of the Seven States]]
*[[Sino-Xiongnu War]] (133 BC – AD 89)
**133BC - [[Battle of Mayi]]
**119BC - [[Battle of Mobei]]
**99 BC - [[Battle of Tian Shan]]
**67 BC - [[Battle of Jushi]]
**36 BC - [[Battle of Kang-Chu]]
**36 BC - [[Battle of Zhizhi]]
**36 - [[Battle of Ch'eng-Tu]]
**73 - [[Battle of Yiwulu]]
**89 - [[Battle of Ikh Bayan]]
|
*23 - [[Battle of Kunyang]]
|}

*184 - [[Yellow Turban Rebellion]] - Han forces suppress the [[Yellow Turban]]s
*190 - [[Campaign against Dong Zhuo]] - Guandong Coalition tries to remove [[Dong Zhuo]] from power
**190 - [[Battle of Xingyang (190)|Battle of Xingyang]] - Dong Zhuo defeats Cao Cao
*191 - [[Battle of Yangcheng]] - [[Yuan Shao]] was beaten back by [[Sun Jian]]
*191 - [[Battle of Jieqiao]] - Yuan Shao defeated [[Gongsun Zan]]
*191 - [[Battle of Xiangyang (191)|Battle of Xiangyang]] - Sun Jian was killed by [[Liu Biao]]'s force
*192 - [[Battle of Jieqiao]] - Yuan Shao's infantry repulses a cavalry charge by rival warlord Gongsun Zan.
*193 - [[Battle of Fengqiu]] - [[Cao Cao]] defeats [[Yuan Shu]] multiple times
*194 - [[Battle of Yan Province]] - Cao Cao defeats [[Lü Bu]], prelude to [[Battle of Xiapi]]
*194 - [[Sun Ce's conquests in Jiangdong]] - Foundation of [[Eastern Wu]]
*197 - [[Battle of Wancheng]]- [[Zhang Xiu]]'s army forces Cao Cao to escape from Wancheng.
*198 - [[Battle of Xiapi]]- Lü Bu's forces are defeated by Cao Cao and Liu Bei, resulting in Lü Bu's death.
*199 - [[Battle of Yijing]] - Yuan Shao defeated Gongsun Zan
*199 - [[Campaign against Yuan Shu]] - Han forces defeated Yuan Shu
*200 - [[Battle of Guandu]] - [[Cao Cao]] defeats Yuan Shao's numerically superior army and secures domination of the North China Plain.
*202 - [[Battle of Bowang]] - [[Liu Bei]] fends off the forces of Cao Cao
*208 - [[Battle of Xiakou]] - [[Sun Quan]] defeated [[Huang Zu]]
*208 - [[Battle of Changban]] - Cao Cao's cavalry catches Liu Bei's forces and disperses his army.
*208 - [[Battle to the Southwest of Xiakou]] - Allied forces of Sun Quan and Liu Bei defeated Cao Cao's ground force on the southern shore of the Yangtze River, forcing the latter to retreat to the northern shore of Yangtze River. Prelude to the [[Battle of Red Cliffs]].
*208 - [[Battle of Red Cliffs]] - [[Cao Cao]] is defeated by the allied forces of [[Sun Quan]] and [[Liu Bei]], foreshadowing the triparte of the Three Kingdoms.
*208 - [[Battle of Yiling (208)|Battle of Yiling]] - Sun Quan's force led by [[Zhou Yu]] took Yiling and then fended off [[Cao Ren]]'s reinforcement. Aftermath of the [[Battle of Red Cliffs]].
*209 - [[Battle of Jiangling]] - Cao Ren's force gave up Jiangling after being under siege for more than a year by Zhou Yu's force. Aftermath of the [[Battle of Red Cliffs]]
*211 - [[Battle of Tong Pass (211)|Battle of Tong Pass]] - Cao Cao takes [[Guanzhong]], defeating allied forces led by [[Ma Chao]]
*213 - [[Siege of Jicheng]] - Ma Chao besieges Cao Cao's forces at Jicheng
*213 - [[Battle of Lucheng]] - Ma Chao flees after attempting to crush Yang Fu's rebellion
*214 - [[Liu Bei's takeover of Yi Province]] - Liu Bei's force defeat [[Liu Zhang (warlord)|Liu Zhang]]'s forces
*215 - [[Battle of Baxi]] - [[Zhang He]] flees after being defeated by [[Zhang Fei]]
*215 - [[Battle of Yangping]] - Cao Cao's campaign against [[Zhang Lu (Han Dynasty)|Zhang Lu]] is successful.
*217 - [[Battle of Xiaoyao Ford]] - Cao Cao defends off Sun Quan's attack
*218 - [[Battle of Ruxukou]] - Sun Quan's northern advance was stopped by Cao Cao. Aftermath of the [[Battle of Xiaoyao Ford]]
*219 - [[Battle of Mount Dingjun]] - Liu Bei takes Mt. Dingjun from Wei forces of Cao Cao
*219 - [[Battle of Han River]] - final engagement of [[Hanzhong Campaign]] between Liu Bei and Cao Cao
*219 - [[Battle of Fancheng]]- Cao Cao's forces fend off [[Guan Yu]]'s siege.
*219 - [[Lü Meng's invasion of Jing Province]] - [[Lü Meng]] invades Jing Province. Aftermath of the [[Battle of Fancheng]]

===[[Three Kingdoms]] (220-280 AD)===
*222 - [[Battle of Xiaoting]] - [[Liu Bei]]'s invasion of [[Eastern Wu|Wu]] is repulsed by Sun Quan's commander [[Lu Xun (Three Kingdoms)|Lu Xun]].
*225 - [[Zhuge Liang's Southern Campaign]]- [[Shu Han|Shu]] forces [[Nanman]] to submit.
*227 to 228 - [[Battle of Xincheng]] - [[Sima Yi]] settles [[Meng Da]]'s rebellions
*228 - [[Battle of Tianshui]] - [[Zhuge Liang]] defeated [[Ma Zun]]
*228 - [[Battle of Jieting]] - [[Cao Wei|Wei]] captures Shu's supply base of Jieting.
*228 - [[Battle of Shiting]] - Wu defeats Wei, because of [[Zhou Fang (Three Kingdoms)|Zhou Fang]]'s defection.
*229 - [[Siege of Chencang]]- Wei defeats Shu's siege of Chencang Castle.
*234 - [[Battle of Wuzhang Plains]]- Shu's [[Zhuge Liang]] dies, resulting in Wei victory.
*244 - [[Battle of Xingshi]] - Shu fends off Wei's attack
*247 to 262 - [[Jiang Wei's Northern Expeditions]] - [[Jiang Wei]]'s unsuccessful attempts to attack Wei
**249 - [[Battle of Qucheng]]
**255 - [[Battle of Didao]]
**256 - [[Battle of Duangu]]
*263 - [[Conquest of Shu by Wei]] - Shu falls to Wei.

===[[Jìn Dynasty (265-420)|Jin Dynasty]] (265-420), the [[Southern Dynasties]] (420-587), the [[Sixteen Kingdoms]] (304-439) and the [[Northern Dynasties]] (386-581)===
*280 - [[Conquest of Wu by Jin]] - Wu falls to Jin unifying China.
*291 - [[War of the Eight Princes]]
*304 - [[Wu Hu uprising]]
*354 - [[Huan Wen's expeditions]]
*383 - [[Battle of Fei River]] - [[Fu Jiān]], King of [[Former Qin]] is defeated by the Chinese commander [[Xie An]]. The Nomads' [[Former Qin]] regime collapses shortly thereafter.
*393 - [[Conquest of Western Yan by Later Yan]]
*395 - [[Battle of Canhe Slope]]
*409 - [[Liu Yu's expeditions]]
**409 - [[Conquest of Southern Yan]]
**416 - [[Conquest of Later Qin]]
*439 - [[Conquest of Northern Liang by Northern Wei]]
*528 - [[Battle of Yeh]]
*537 - [[Battle of Shayuan]]

===[[Sui Dynasty]] (581-618)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*598-614 - [[Goguryeo-Sui Wars]]
|
*617 - [[Battle of Huoyi]]
|
*621 - [[Battle of Hulao]]
|}

===[[Tang Dynasty]] (618-917)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*630 - [[Battle of Yinshan]] ([[:zh:阴山之战|阴山之战]])
*640-648 - [[Emperor Taizong's campaign against Xiyu states]]
*645 - [[Siege of Ansi fortress]]
*645-668 [[Goguryeo–Tang Wars]]
*658-659 - Conquest of [[Western Turkic Khaganate]]
|
*663 - [[Battle of Baekgang]]
*660 - Conquest of [[Baekje]]
*670 - [[Battle of Mount Ta-fei]]
*685 - [[Battle of Kao Yu]]
*698 - [[Battle of Tianmenling]]
|
*745-749 - [[Siege of Shibao]]
*751 - [[Battle of Talas]]
*756 - [[Battle of Yongqiu]]
*757 - [[Battle of Suiyang]]
|
*781 - [[Battle of Henshui]]
*817 - [[Conquest of western Huai River]]
*874-884 - [[Huang Chao Rebellion]]
|}

===[[Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period]] (907-960)===
{|
*923 - [[Conquest of Later Liang by Later Tang]]
*925 - [[Conquest of Former Shu by Later Tang]]
*936 - [[Conquest of Later Tang by Later Jin]]
*945 - [[Battle of Ting-Hsien]]
|}

===[[Song Dynasty]] (960-1279)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*964 - [[Conquest of Later Shu by Song]]
*970 - [[Conquest of Southern Han by Song]]
*974 - [[Conquest of Southern Tang by Song]]
*979 - [[Conquest of Northern Han by Song]]
*1048 - [[Battle of Pei-Chou]]
*1129-1141 - [[Yue Fei]]'s campaign against Jin
|
*1161 - [[Battle of Tangdao]]
*1161 - [[Battle of Caishi]]
*1207 - [[Battle of Hsiang-Yang]]
*1273 - [[Battle of Xiangyang]]
*1279 - [[Battle of Yamen]]
|}

=== [[Liao Dynasty]](907-1125) ===
====Liao Dynasty-Song Dynasty War ====
*979 - [[Battle of Gaoliang River]]
*986 - [[Emperor Taizong of Song|Chi go Pass Compaign]]

====Liao Dynasty-Jin Dynasty War (1114-1125)====
*1114 - Battle of True ho dian

===[[Jin Dynasty (1115–1234)]]===
====[[Mongol-Jin Dynasty War]] (1211-1234)====
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1211 - [[Badger's Mount Campaign]]

*1215 - [[Battle of Beijing]]

*1231 - [[Battle of three peaks mount]]
|}

===[[Yuan Dynasty]] (1271-1368)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1274 - [[Mongol invasions of Japan]]

*1288 - [[Battle of Bạch Đằng (1288)|Battle of Bach Dang]]

*1351 - [[Red Turban Rebellion]]

*1359 - [[Red Turbans invasions of Korea]]

*1360 - [[Battle of Yingtian]]

*1363 - [[Battle of Lake Poyang]]
|}

===[[Ming Dynasty]] (1368-1644)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1381 - [[Ming conquest of Yunnan]]
*1300s-1400s - [[Miao Rebellions (Ming Dynasty)]]
*1400s-1500s - [[Ming–Turpan Conflict]]
*1410 - [[Ming–Kotte War]]
*1449 - [[Battle of Tumu Fortress]]
*1521 - [[First Battle of Tamao (1521)]]
*1522 - [[Second Battle of Tamao (1522)]]
*1592-1598 - [[Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea|Seven-Year War]]
**1593 - [[Siege of Pyeongyang (1593)|Siege of Pyeongyang]]
**1597 - [[Siege of Ulsan]]
**1598 - [[Battle of Sacheon (1598)|Battle of Sacheon]]
**1598 - [[Battle of Noryang]]

*1619 - [[Battle of Sarhu]]
*1626 - [[Battle of Ningyuan]]
*1633 - [[Battle of southern Fujian sea (1633)|Battle of the Southern Fujian Sea]]
*1640 - [[Battle of Songjin]]
*1642 - [[Battle of Zhuxianzhen]]
*1642 - [[Battle of Nanyang]]
*1642 - [[Decisive Battles of Henan]]
*1643 - [[Battle of Tongguan County]]
*1644 - [[Battle of Ninwu Pass]]
*1644 - [[Occupied Beijing]]
*1644 - [[Battle of Shanhai Pass]]
*1661 - [[Siege of Fort Zeelandia]]
|}

===[[Qing Dynasty]] (1644-1912)===
{|
|- valign=top
|

*1652-1689 - [[Russian-Manchu border conflicts]]

*1674-1681 - [[Revolt of the Three Feudatories]]

*1683 - [[Battle of Penghu]]

*1690-1757 [[Zunghar Khanate|Oirat-Manchu war]]

*1747-1792 [[Ten Great Campaigns]]

*1796 [[White Lotus Rebellion]]

*[[First Opium War]] (1839-1842)
**1839 - [[Battle of Kowloon]]
**1839 - [[Battle of Chuenpee|First Battle of Chuenpee]]
**1840 - [[Capture of Chusan]]
**1840 - [[Battle of the Barrier]]
**1841 - [[Second Battle of Chuenpee]]
**1841 - [[Battle of the Bogue]]
**1841 - [[Battle of First Bar]]
**1841 - [[Battle of Whampoa]]
**1841 - [[Battle of Canton]]
**1841 - [[Battle of Amoy]]
**1841 - [[Capture of Chusan (1841)]]
**1841 - [[Battle of Chinhai]]
**1842 - [[Battle of Ningpo]]
**1842 - [[Battle of Tsekee]]
**1842 - [[Battle of Chapoo]]
**1842 - [[Battle of Woosung]]
**1842 - [[Battle of Chinkiang]]

*[[Taiping Rebellion]] (1851-1864)
**1850 - [[Jintian Uprising]]
**1852 - [[Battle of Changsha (1852)]]
**1853 - [[Battle of Nanjing (1853)]]
**1854 - [[Battle of Lake Dongting (1854)]]
**1856 - [[First rout the Army Group Jiangnan]]
**1856 - [[Third Battle of Wuhan]]
**1857 - [[Battles of Lake Tai]]
**1858 - [[Battle of Sanhe]]
**1859 - [[Battle of Jiujiang]]
**1860 - [[Second rout the Army Group Jiangnan]]
**1861 - [[Ye Yenlai|Battle of Anqing]]
**1861 - [[Battle of Guanzhong (1861)]]
**1861 - [[Battle of Shanghai (1861)]]
**1862 - [[Battle of Cixi]]
**1863 - [[Determined battle of Northern Jiangsu]]
**1863 - [[Tan SauGuan|Battle of Suzhou]]
**1863 - [[Battle of Changzhou]]
**1864 - [[Third Battle of Nanking]]
**1864 - [[Hubei Pocket]]
**1865 - [[Fujian Pocket]]
**1866 - [[Ending battle of Meizhou]]

*[[Panthay Rebellion]] (1856-1873)

*[[Dungan revolt (1862–1877)|Dungan revolt]] (1862-1877)
**1870 - [[Battle of Ürümqi (1870)]]
*[[Nien Rebellion]] (1864-1869)
**1865 - [[Battle of Gaolozai]]
**1867 - [[Battle of inlon river]]
**1867 - [[Battle of Ganyu]]
**1867 - [[Determined battle of Shouguang]]

*[[Second Opium War]] (1856-1860)
**1856 - [[Battle of the Pearl River Forts|Pearl River Forts]]
**1857 - [[Battle of Fatshan Creek|Fatshan Creek]]
**1858 - [[Battle of Taku Forts (1858)|First Battle of Taku Forts]]
**1859 - [[Battle of Taku Forts (1859)|Second Battle of Taku Forts]]
**1860 - [[Battle of Taku Forts (1860)|Third Battle of Taku Forts]]
**1860 - [[Battle of Palikao]]

*[[Sino-French War]] (August 1884-April 1885)
**1883 - [[Son Tay Campaign]]
**1883 - [[Battle of Paper Bridge]]
**1884 - [[Bac Ninh campaign]]
**1884 - [[Bac Le Ambush]]
**1884 - [[Battle of Fuzhou]]
**1884 - [[Kep Campaign]]
**1884 - [[Keelung Campaign]]
**1885 - [[Lang Son Campaign]]
**1885 - [[Battle of Shipu]]
**1885 - [[Battle of Zhenhai]]
**1885 - [[Siege of Tuyen Quang]]
**1885 - [[Battle of Hoa Moc]]
**1885 - [[Battle of Bang Bo]]
**1885 - [[Battle of Phu Lam Tao]]
**1885 - [[Keelung Campaign]]
**1885 - [[Pescadores Campaign]]
|
*[[First Sino-Japanese War]] (1894-1895)
**1894 - [[Battle of Pungdo]]
**1894 - [[Battle of Seonghwan]]
**1894 - [[Battle of Pyongyang]]
**1894 - [[Battle of Yalu River (1894)]]
**1894 - [[Battle of Jiuliancheng]]
**1894 - [[Battle of Lushunkou]]
**1895 - [[Battle of Weihaiwei]]
**1895 - [[Battle of Yingkou]]
*[[Dungan Revolt (1895)]] (1895-1896)
*[[Boxer Rebellion]] (1899-1901)
**1900 - [[Battle of Taku Forts (1900)|Battle of Taku Forts]]
**1900 - [[Battle of Tientsin]]
**1900 - [[Battle of Shanhaiguan (1900)]]
**1900 - [[Battle of Beicang]]
**1900 - [[Battle of Yangcun]]
**1900 - [[Battle of Yingkou]]
**1900 - [[Battles on Amur River (1900)]]
**1900 - [[Battle of Peking]]
**1900 - [[Seymour Expedition]]
**1900 - [[Siege of the International Legations (Boxer Rebellion)|Siege of the International Legations ]]
*[[Xinhai Revolution]] (1911-1912)
**1911 - [[Wuchang Uprising]]
|}

== Modern China ==
{|
|- valign=top
|
*[[National Protection War]] (1913)
*[[Warlord Era]]
**[[Zhili–Anhui War]] 1920
**[[First Zhili-Fengtian War]] — 1922
**[[Second Zhili-Fengtian War]] — 1924
**[[Anti–Fengtian War]] 1925
|
*[[Northern Expedition (1926–1927)|Northern Expedition]] (1926–1927)
**[[April 12 Incident]] 1927
*[[Sino-Soviet conflict (1929)]]
*[[Central Plains War]] — 1930
*[[Sino-Tibetan War]] (1930-1932)
*[[Kirghiz rebellion]] 1932
*[[Kumul Rebellion]] (1930-1934)
*[[Soviet Invasion of Xinjiang]] 1934
*[[Xinjiang War (1937)]] 1937
*[[Ili Rebellion]] (1946-1949)
|}

===[[Sino-Tibetan War]]===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1932 [[Qinghai – Tibet War]]
|}
===Kuomintang Pacification of Qinghai===
*[[Kuomintang Pacification of Qinghai]]
*1929 - [[Battle of Xiahe]]

===[[Kumul Rebellion]] (1930-1934)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1933 [[Kizil massacre]]
*1933 [[Battle of Aksu]]
*1933 [[Battle of Sekes Tash]]
*1933 [[Battle of Kashgar (1933)]]
*1933 [[First Battle of Urumqi (1933)]]
*1933 [[Battle of Toksun]]
*1934 [[Second Battle of Urumqi (1933–34)]]
*1934 [[Battle of Kashgar (1934)]]
*1934 [[Battle of Yangi Hissar]]
*1934 [[Battle of Yarkand]]
*1934 [[Charkhlik Revolt]]
|}

===[[Soviet Invasion of Xinjiang]] 1934===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1934 [[Battle of Tutung]]
*1934 [[Battle of Dawan Cheng]]
|}

=== First Stage of the [[Chinese Civil War]] (1927-1936) ===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1927-1937 - [[Ten Year's Civil War]]
**1927 - [[Nanchang Uprising]]
**1927 - [[Autumn Harvest Uprising]]
**1927 - [[Guangzhou Uprising]]
**1930 - 1931 [[First Encirclement Campaign]]
**1931 - [[Second Encirclement Campaign]]
|
**1931 - [[Third Encirclement Campaign]]
**1932 - [[Fourth Encirclement Campaign]]
**1933 - 1934 [[Fifth Encirclement Campaign]]
**1934-1936 [[Long March]]
***1935 - Battles at the [[Luding Bridge]]
|}

===[[Second Sino-Japanese War]] (1937-1945)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1931 - [[Mukden Incident]]
*1932 - [[January 28 Incident]]
*1933 - [[Defense of the Great Wall]]
*1937 - [[Marco Polo Bridge Incident]]
*1937 - [[Battle of Beiping-Tianjin]]
*1937 - [[Battle of Shanghai (1937)|Battle of Shanghai]]
*1937 - [[Battle of Pingxingguan]]
*1937 - [[Battle of Taiyuan]]
*1937 - [[Battle of Nanjing]]
*1937 - [[Battle of Xuzhou]]
|
*1938 - [[Battle of Taierzhuang]]
*1938 - [[Battle of Wuhan]]
*1939 - [[Battle of Nanchang]]
*1939 - [[Battle of Suixian-Zaoyang]]
*1939 - [[Battle of Changsha (1939)|Battle of Changsha]]
*1939 - [[Battle of South Guangxi]]
*1939 - [[Battle of Kunlun Pass]]
*1940 - [[Hundred Regiments Offensive]]
*1941 - [[Battle of Shanggao]]
|
*1941 - [[Battle of South Shanxi]]
*1941 - [[Battle of Changsha (1941)|Battle of Changsha]]
*1942 - [[Battle of Changsha (1942)|Battle of Changsha]]
*1943 - [[Battle of West Hubei]]
*1943 - [[Battle of Changde]]
*1944 - [[Battle of Henan-Hunan-Guangxi]]
**1944 - [[Battle of Changsha (1944)|Battle of Changsha]]
**1944 - [[Battle of Guilin-Liuzhou]]
*1944 - [[Battle of Mount Song]]
*1945 - [[Battle of West Henan–North Hubei]]
*1945 - [[Battle of West Hunan]]
*1945 - [[Second Guangxi Campaign]]
|}

===[[Ili Rebellion]] (1946-1949)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1946-1948 [[Pei-ta-shan Incident]]
|}

=== Second Stage of the [[Chinese Civil War]] (1945-1949), post-[[World War II]] era ===
Conflicts in the [[Chinese Civil War]] in the post-[[World War II]] era are listed chronologically by the starting dates.
====1945====
*July 21, 1945 – August 8, 1945 — [[Yetaishan Campaign]]
3rd Quarter of 1945
*August 13, 1945 – August 19, 1945 — [[Southern Jiangsu Campaign]]
*August 13, 1945 – August 16, 1945 — [[Counteroffensive in Eastern Hubei]]
*August 15, 1945 – August 23, 1945 — [[Battle of Baoying]]
*August 16, 1945 – August 19, 1945 — [[Battle of Yongjiazhen]]
*August 17, 1945 – August 27, 1945 — [[Battle of Tianmen]]
*August 17, 1945 – August 25, 1945 — [[Pingyu Campaign]]
*August 17, 1945 – September 11, 1945 — [[Linyi Campaign]]
*August 21, 1945 – August 28, 1945 — [[Battle of wudahao]]
*August 24, 1945 – August 24, 1945 — [[Battle of Wuhe]]
*August 26, 1945 – August 27, 1945 — [[Battle of Yinji]]
*August 26, 1945 – September 22, 1945 — [[Huaiyin-Huai'an Campaign]]
*August 29, 1945 – September 1, 1945 — [[Xinghua Campaign]]
*September 1, 1945 – September 13, 1945 — [[Battle of Dazhongji]]
*September 4, 1945 – September 5, 1945 — [[Battle of Lingbi]]
*September 5, 1945 – September 8, 1945 — [[Zhucheng Campaign]]
*September 5, 1945 – September 22, 1945 — [[Shanghe Campaign]]
*September 6, 1945 – September 9, 1945 — [[Battle of Lishi]]
*September 7, 1945 – September 10, 1945 — [[Pingdu Campaign]]
*September 8, 1945 – September 12, 1945 — [[Taixing Campaign]]
*September 10, 1945 – October 12, 1945 — [[Shangdang Campaign]]
*September 13, 1945 – September 17, 1945 — [[Wuli Campaign]]
*September 18, 1945 – September 18, 1945 — [[Battle of Xiangshuikou]]
*September 21, 1945 – September 21, 1945 — [[Battle of Rugao]]
*September 29, 1945 – November 2, 1945 — [[Weixian-Guangling-Nuanquan Campaign]]
4th Quarter of 1945
*October, 1945 – October, 1945 — [[Battle of Shicun]]
*October 3, 1945 – November 10, 1945 — [[Yancheng Campaign]]
*October 17, 1945 – December 14, 1945 — [[Tongbai Campaign]]
*October 18, 1945 – October 18, 1945 — [[Battle of Houmajia]]
*October 22, 1945 – November 2, 1945 — [[Handan Campaign]]
*October 25, 1945 – November 16, 1945 — [[Battle of the Shanhai Pass]]
*October 26, 1945 – October 30, 1945 — [[Campaign along the Datong-Puzhou Railway]]
*November, 1945 – April, 1947 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northeast China]]
*November 3, 1945 – November 4, 1945 — [[Battle of Jiehezhen]]
*December 19, 1945 – December 21, 1945 — [[Battle of Shaobo]]
*December 19, 1945 – December 26, 1945 — [[Gaoyou-Shaobo Campaign]]
*December 21, 1945 – December 30, 1945 — [[Battle of Tangtou-Guocun]]

====1946====
1st Quarter of 1946
*January 19, 1946 – January 26, 1946 — [[Houma Campaign]]
*March 15, 1946 – March 17, 1946 — [[Battle of Siping]]
2nd Quarter of 1946
*April 10, 1946 – April 15, 1946 — [[Jinjiatun Campaign]]
*April 17, 1946 – May 19, 1946 — [[Campaign to Defend Siping]]
*June 22, 1946 – August 31, 1946 — [[Campaign of the North China Plain Pocket]]
*June 12, 1946 – September 1, 1946 — [[Campaign along the Southern Section of Datong-Puzhou Railway]]
3rd Quarter of 1946
*July 31, 1946 – September 16, 1946 — [[Datong-Jining Campaign]]
**August 10, 1946 – August 22, 1946 — [[Longhai Campaign]]
*August 14, 1946 – September 1, 1946 — [[Datong-Puzhou Campaign]]
*August 21, 1946 – September 22, 1946 — [[Battle of Huaiyin-Huai'an]]
*August 25, 1946 – August, 1946 — [[Battle of Rugao-Huangqiao]]
*September 2, 1946 – September 8, 1946 — [[Dingtao Campaign]]
*September 22, 1946 – September 24, 1946 — [[Linfen-Fushan Campaign]]
4th Quarter of 1946
*October 10, 1946 – October 20, 1946 — [[Battle of Kalgan]]
*November 10, 1946 – November 11, 1946 — [[Battle of Nanluo-Beiluo]]
*November 22, 1946 – January 1, 1947 — [[Lüliang Campaign]]
*December 17, 1946 – April 1, 1947 — [[Linjiang Campaign]]
*December 31, 1946 – January 30, 1947 — [[Battle of Guanzhong (1946–1947)|Battle of Guanzhong]]
*[[Pei-ta-shan Incident]]

====1947====
1st Quarter of 1947
*January 21, 1947 – January 28, 1947 — [[Campaign to the South of Baoding]]
2nd Quarter of 1947
*April 24, 1947 – April 25, 1947 — [[Battle of Niangziguan]]
*April 27, 1947 – April 28, 1947 — [[Battle of Tang'erli]]
*May 13, 1947 – May 16, 1947 — [[Menglianggu Campaign]]
*May 13, 1947 – July 1, 1947 — [[Summer Offensive of 1947 in Northeast China]]
*May 28, 1947 – May 31, 1947 — [[Heshui Campaign]]
*June 11, 1947 – March 13, 1948 — [[Siping Campaign]]
*June 26, 1947 – July 6, 1947 — [[Campaign to the North of Baoding]]
3rd Quarter of 1947
*July 17, 1947 – July 29, 1947 — [[Nanma-Linqu Campaign]]
*August 13, 1947 – August 18, 1947 — [[Meridian Ridge Campaign]]
*September 2, 1947 – September 12, 1947 — [[Campaign to the North of Daqing River]]
*September 14, 1947 – November 5, 1947 — [[Autumn Offensive of 1947 in Northeast China]]
4th Quarter of 1947
*October 2, 1947 – October 10, 1947 — [[Sahe Mountain Campaign]]
*October 29, 1947 – November 25, 1947 — [[Campaign at the Eastern Foothills of Funiu Mountain]]
*December 15, 1947 – March 15, 1948 — [[Winter Offensive of 1947 in Northeast China]]
*December 7, 1947 – December 9, 1947 — [[Battle of Phoenix Peak]]
*December 9, 1947 – June 15, 1948 — [[Western Tai'an Campaign]]
*December 11, 1947 – January, 1948 — [[Counter-Eradication Campaign in Dabieshan]]
*December 20, 1947 – June 1948 — [[Jing Shan-Zhongxiang Campaign]]

====1948====
1st Quarter of 1948
*January 2, 1948 – January 7, 1948 — [[Gongzhutun Campaign]]
*March 7, 1948 – May 18, 1948 — [[Linfen Campaign]]
*March 11, 1948 – March 21, 1948 — [[Zhoucun-Zhangdian Campaign]]
2nd Quarter of 1948
*May 12, 1948 – June 25, 1948 — [[Hebei-Rehe-Chahar Campaign]]
*May 23, 1948 – October 19, 1948 — [[Siege of Changchun]]
*May 29, 1948 – July 18, 1948 — [[Yanzhou Campaign]]
*June 17, 1948 – June 19, 1948 — [[Battle of Shangcai]]
3rd Quarter of 1948
*September 12, 1948 – November 12, 1948 — [[Liaoshen Campaign]]
4th Quarter of 1948
*October 5, 1948 – April 24, 1949 — [[Taiyuan Campaign]]
*October 7, 1948 – October 15, 1948 — [[Battle of Jinzhou]]
*October 10, 1948 – October 15, 1948 — [[Battle of Tashan]]
*November 6, 1948 – January 10, 1949 — [[Huaihai Campaign]]
*November 15, 1948 – January 11, 1949 — [[Battle of Jiulianshan]]
*November 22, 1948 – December 15, 1948 — [[Shuangduiji Campaign]]
*November 29, 1948 – January 31, 1949 — [[Pingjin Campaign]]
*[[Pei-ta-shan Incident]]

====1949====
1st Quarter of 1949
*January 3, 1949 – January 15, 1949 — [[Tianjin Campaign]]
2nd Quarter of 1949
*April, 1949 – June, 1950 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northern China]]
*April, 1949 – June, 1953 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Central and Southern China]]
*May 12, 1949 – June 2, 1949 — [[Shanghai Campaign]]
*May 17, 1949 – June 16, 1949 — [[Xianyang Campaign]]
3rd Quarter of 1949
*August 9, 1949 – August 27, 1949 — [[Lanzhou Campaign]]
*August 9, 1949 – December, 1953 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Eastern China]]
*August 24, 1949 – September, 1951 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Fujian]]
*September 5, 1949 – September 24, 1949 — [[Ningxia Campaign]]
*September 5, 1949 – March, 1950 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Dabieshan]]
4th Quarter of 1949
*October 25, 1949 – October 27, 1949 — [[Battle of Kuningtou]]
*November, 1949 – July, 1953 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northwestern China]]
*November 1, 1949 – November 28, 1949 — [[Campaign to the North of Nanchuan County]]
*November 3, 1949 – November 5, 1949 — [[Battle of Denbu Island]]
*November 17. 1949 – December 1, 1949 — [[Bobai Campaign]]
*December 3, 1949 – December 26, 1949 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Lianyang]]
*December 6, 1949 – December 7, 1949 — [[Battle of Liangjiashui]]
*December 7, 1949 – December 14, 1949 — [[Battle of Lianyang]]
*December 17, 1949 – December 18, 1949 — [[Battle of Jianmenguan]]

====1950====
1st Quarter of 1950
*January, 1950 – June, 1955 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Wuping]]
*January 15, 1950 – May 1951 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Guangxi]]
*January 19, 1950 – January 31, 1950 — [[Battle of Bamianshan]]
*February, 1950 – December 1953 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Southwestern China]]
*February 4, 1950 – December, 1950 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Longquan]]
*February 14, 1950 – February 20, 1950 — [[Battle of Tianquan]]
*March 3, 1950 – March 3, 1950 — [[Battle of Nan'ao Island]]
*March 5, 1950 – May 1, 1950 — [[Landing Operation on Hainan Island]]
*March 29, 1950 – May 7, 1950 — [[Battle of Yiwu]]
2nd Quarter of 1950
*May 11, 1950 – May 11, 1950 — [[Battle of Dongshan Island]]
*May 25, 1950 – August 7, 1950 — [[Wanshan Archipelago Campaign]]
3rd Quarter of 1950
*August 9, 1950 – August 9, 1950 — [[Battle of Nanpéng Island]]
*September, 1950 – January, 1951 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northern Guangdong]]
*September 22, 1950 – November 29, 1950 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in northeastern Guizhou]]
4th Quarter of 1950
*October 15, 1950 – November, 1950 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in the Border Region of Hunan-Hubei-Sichuan]]
*October 15, 1950 – December, 1950 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Western Hunan]]
*December 13, 1950 – February, 1951 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Shiwandashan]]
*December 20, 1950 – February, 1951 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Liuwandashan]]

====1951====
*January 8, 1951 – February, 1951 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Yaoshan]]
*April 15, 1951 – September, 1951, — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Western Guangxi]]

====1952====
*April 11, 1952 – April 15, 1952 — [[Battle of Nanri Island]]
*June 13, 1952 – September 20, 1952 — [[Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Heishui]]
*September 20, 1952 – October 20, 1952 — [[Battle of Nanpēng Archipelago]]

====1953====
*May 29, 1953 – May 29, 1953 — [[Battle of Dalushan Islands]]
*July 16, 1953 – July 18, 1953 — [[Dongshan Island Campaign]]

====1955====
*January 18, 1955 – January 20, 1955 — [[Battle of Yijiangshan Islands]]
*January 19, 1955 – February 26, 1955 — [[Battle of Dachen Archipelago]]

====1960====
*November 14, 1960 – February 9, 1961 — [[Campaign at the China-Burma Border]]

====1950-1958====
*[[Kuomintang Islamic Insurgency in China (1950–1958)]]

===[[Invasion of Tibet (1950)|Invasion of Tibet]] (1950)===
*1959 - [[Lhasa uprising|Lhasa Uprising]]

===[[Korean War]] (1950-1953)===
{|
|- valign=top
|
*1950 - [[Battle of Unsan]]
*1950 - [[Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River]]
*1950 - [[Battle of Chosin Reservoir]]
*1951 - [[Battle of Chipyong-ni]]
*1951 - [[Battle of the Imjin River]]
|
*1952 - [[Battle of White Horse]]
*1952 - [[Battle of Triangle Hill]]
*1953 - [[Battle of Pork Chop Hill]]
*1953 - [[Battle of the Hook]]
*1953 - [[Battle of Kumsong]]
|}

===[[Vietnam War]] (1959-1975)===

===[[Sino-Indian War]] (1962)===

===[[Sino-Soviet border conflict]] (1969)===
*1969 - [[Zhenbao Island]]

===[[Sino-Vietnamese War]] (1979)===
*1974 - [[Battle of Hoang Sa (1974)|Battle of Hoang Sa]]
*1988 - [[Spratly Island Skirmish (1988)|Spratly Island Skirmish]]

[[Category:Battles involving China|*]]
[[Category:Lists of battles|Chinese battles]]
[[Category:Timelines of military conflicts|Chinese battles]]
[[Category:China-related lists|Battles]]

[[de:Liste der Kriege und Schlachten im alten China]]
[[es:Anexo:Batallas de China]]
[[vi:Danh sách trận đánh Trung Quốc]]
[[zh:中国战争列表]]

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T09:37:28Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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 ebe 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 stanard, 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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T08:03:08Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 2:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T07:55:05Z

Gnip:

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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'''. 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 "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? All these you have already admitted as inventions, yet herein lies the double-standard when it comes to those you prefer to do away with. Even without your 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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 2:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T07:52:38Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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'''. 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 "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? All these you have already admitted as inventions, yet herein lies the double-standard when it comes to those you prefer to do away with. Even without your 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. 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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 2:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T04:58:54Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T04:51:27Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. 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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T04:45:44Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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, I don't think so. Things such as the double-pistoned flamethrower, cast iron, and raised map-relief are staying. 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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T04:42:01Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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 both a process AND a machine AND an improvement AND etc... That pretty much excludes 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.
:::::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, I don't think so. Things such as the double-pistoned flamethrower, cast iron, and raised map-relief are staying. 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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T04:39:32Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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'''. Or perhaps you think an improvement has to be something both new AND useful AND a process AND a machine AND an improvement. That pretty much excludes 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.
:::::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, I don't think so. Things such as the double-pistoned flamethrower, cast iron, and raised map-relief are staying. 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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-02T04:32:24Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=19:52, 16 April 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=123283750

|action2=FLC
|action2date=10:11, 5 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chinese inventions
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=223699283

|currentstatus=FL
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|history=yes|class=FL|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology History|class=FA|importance=high|}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Feb 2007–August 2008)
* [[Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (Sept 2008–June 2009)
}}
==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
==Recategorization==

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.205.192.144|71.205.192.144]] ([[User talk: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:

[http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0602/zhongguog.htm 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. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk:Zanhsieh|talk]]) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Error on Section F, Firework ==

Original text:

{{cquote|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:

{{cquote|In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain [[Emperor Xiaozong of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]] (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.}}

Since:
# Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of [[Northern Song]].
# Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in [[:zh:s:武林舊事/卷七|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 of Song|Emperor Xiaozong]]. --[[User:Zanhsieh|Zanhsieh]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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. [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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? --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --[[User:Zhonghuo|Zhonghuo]] ([[User talk: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 [[war]]fare and was named after him, '''Kongming Lantern''' ({{zh|c={{linktext|孔|明|灯}}}})[http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0]. 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. --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk:LLTimes|talk]]) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here [http://books.google.com/books?id=ssO_19TRQ9AC&pg=PA113&ots=vDEuq_hKqc&dq=Kongming+balloon&sig=c3NT-uzoBYhzq203Qofw6XR9MH0#v=onepage&q=Kongming%20balloon&f=false]--[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/12.106.237.2|12.106.237.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 --[[User:LLTimes|LLTimes]] ([[User talk: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]]).--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/113.151.4.122|113.151.4.122]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|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 ? [[User:Mekong mainstream|Mekong mainstream]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 

== silk, silk road ==

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article![[User:Allclintsmail|Allclintsmail]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:B5200|B5200]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a very valid point and [[sericulture]] should certainly be added. As for penjing ...[[User:Philg88|Philg88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.163.10.56|86.163.10.56]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.228.27.182|69.228.27.182]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bienfuxia|Bienfuxia]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== I am puzzled ==

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Wikipedia article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.
:"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. [[User:Philg88|► Philg88 ◄]] [[File:star.png|11px]][[User_talk:Philg88|talk]] 22:36, 16 May 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?

[[User:Bashir Homes|Bashir Homes]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[Special:Contributions/184.45.23.134|184.45.23.134]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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!
::::: [[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F|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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od|10}}[[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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern|history of persistently misrepresenting sources]]. The [[User:PericlesofAthens|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 [[Tibet during the Ming Dynasty|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. [[User:Quigley|Quigley]] ([[User talk: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]]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes "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. [[WP:BOLD|I might actually go ahead and do it myself!]]
:Cheers!
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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!! [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&limit=500&action=history 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441527333&oldid=441439523 outburst in which you capitilized NOT, HOWEVER, and FOR INSTANCE] is similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441110884&oldid=440993908 ip's rant, when the ip capitalized "PRIOR", and claimed the article is "National and ethnic pride run amok"], you also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441153129&oldid=441112949 claimed the article was "national pride run amok"]

::::when the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441102754 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), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&diff=prev&oldid=441195489 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080912061344&limit=500&action=history dozens of entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080811151413&limit=500&action=history and possibly several a hundred edits to this article], in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080706012458&limit=500&action=history he added most of the entries] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&offset=20080615012026&limit=500&action=history 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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?

[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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 [[wikipedia: be bold|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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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.
:::[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 03:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 
:::::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. 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, I don't think so. Things such as the double-pistoned flamethrower, cast iron, and raised map-relief are staying. 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. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

==Article length==
When this list became a Featured List [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&oldid=223699283 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. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:I agree. Wanna trim it down to 2-3 sentences per entry?
:Cheers
:[[User:Aua|Λuα]] ([[User talk:Aua|Operibus anteire]]) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::User:Aua has not addressed the concerns pointed out by User:Gnip above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=441315911&oldid=441281853 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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T23:36:03Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T23:34:36Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T23:31:21Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T19:02:42Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T18:44:55Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T18:42:23Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T18:33:47Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T18:31:05Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T18:29:00Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

User talk:Gnip

2011-08-01T10:46:05Z

Gnip:

<div style="background:white; border:2px DarkOrchid solid; padding:12px;">
==Welcome!==

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome to Wikipedia!]] Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]]{{#if:{{{article|}}}|, especially those to the [[{{{article}}}]] article|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
* [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will automatically produce your name and the date. {{{1|}}}

If you need help, check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

[[User:Neo-Jay|Neo-Jay]] ([[User talk:Neo-Jay|talk]]) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)</div>

==Yes==

I should have kept the fact that he was killed afterwards, didn't I? I can't remember if I did or not. The actual certain event of his death is somewhat hazy in historical records, if I recall reading a while back. Conflicting accounts of how he actually died after he fled Beijing.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
::Of course you should note his final outcome, but leave the info about him fleeing Beijing, I will add to that. It is important. He was forced to flee Beijing because unlike Dorgon and Wu, had had no discipline and authority amongst his rag-tag ranks, who disobeyed his orders and pillaged the city at will. When word came of the approaching standards of Wu Sangui (with Dorgon in the rear, so as to present to the Chinese as if a Chinese general alone was coming to their aid, not realizing the political maneuvering of Dorgon), Li had no choice BUT to flee. He was not in control of Beijing, it was in total chaos. That is worth mentioning. Had he had discipline amongst his ranks he might have had a chance at defending such a paramount position as the capital itself. It is important that readers understand this. Please, do not leave that out, I will expand later with proper sources. This is my second to last week of school, I will be doing MAJOR reconstruction to the Ming article afterwards. Thank you for your help. It is very much needed for such a hefty topic as a three century period of China.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

==Hi again==

With your edits to [[Huolongjing]], we will need more than just the title of the book in that citation you gave about Juan de Mendoca; I'll need actual page numbers for those if you still have the book ''Late Imperial Chinese Armies'' on hand. Thanks.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

==Long time no see!==

Fancy seeing you again! Thanks for providing this quote on my talk page. It should be very useful indeed. I'll find a way to include it in the article. However, it is late, and I am off to bed for now. Cheers.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 06:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

==Response China military history==

I have edited and changed the article somewhat. I am relatively inactive on wikipedia now, so if you have sources please expand the article with them. As to the Manchus' view on gunpowder weapons, see:
<blockquote>It stands to reason that
limiting the use of firearms to a single centralized body of people specially trained and easily controlled,
and keeping the production of weapons under direct state control, could be measures meant as much to
rationalize the deployment of artillery in military campaigns as to prevent the proliferation of a type of
weaponry that might give potential Chinese rebels an edge against the Qing forces.</blockquote>
which is from your source.
The Ming armies relied on gunpowder weapons to a great deal and developed them, while Manchus viewed gunpowder weapons (and new inventions/economic development in general) as a threat to their rule. This was a major reason for China's decline starting from the 17th century onwards.[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:That's all good. By the way, where does Sun Tzu's citation talk about the Tang? I checked the Sui-Tang section, there were no griffith citations. As to the equipment section, I was trying to give the reader an overview of the equipment of the Chinese army in late imperial times (etc., Song onwards), but I guess that didn't work out. Maybe the sections should have different paragraphs dealing with different periods? Anyways, I am busy right now off wiki and can't help, but I welcome help from other editors. If you are really aching to work, there is also [[Economic history of China (pre-1911)]], a GA I wrote, to work on. Thanks for your help![[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

==Huolongjing==

Actually, that picture ''is not'' from the [[Huolongjing]], so it is perhaps misleading to place it in the article, let alone the lead. I'll see if I can find a worthy replacement image.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

==Government of the Han Dynasty ==

Hi Gnip. Are you certain about this? Prof. Gary Lee Todd did not provide any sort of wall plaque describing the artwork, but he did place the image in a page specifically labeled as showing Chinese artwork from its inception up to the end of the Han Dynasty. Could you provide some sort of comparison artworks from the Sui/Tang Dynasties? I've also seen many Han stone reliefs; some reliefs provided on that page by Professor Todd are unquestionably from Han period tomb walls. However, the lack of wear-and-tear and lanky artistic style on the image in question does raise an eyebrow or two, I will admit. I'll need more evidence, though, before I am totally convinced that the images should be removed. Cheers!--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 05:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
::I'm fairly convinced now! Thank you for the excellent links. I will prepare some replacement images for these reliefs by tonight. Cheers.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 19:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

== gunpowder ==

do you have any sources about this?- [[Battle_of_Mohi#Usage_of_Gunpowder_and_Firearms]]. I've read before that Mongols used a type of catapult and/or rockets during their invasion of europe, but I'm not sure what they were called, all it said was that they were of Chinese design.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you mean. I checked the sources and the last one was pretty specific that gunpowder bombs were thrown on catapults. Gunpowder bombs were called "thundercrash bombs" during this era, but I don't know why that should be important. I think I can help better if you clarify what you're trying to do. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 5:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Gnip

2011-08-01T10:45:02Z

Gnip: /* gunpowder */

<div style="background:white; border:2px DarkOrchid solid; padding:12px;">
==Welcome!==

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome to Wikipedia!]] Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]]{{#if:{{{article|}}}|, especially those to the [[{{{article}}}]] article|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
* [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will automatically produce your name and the date. {{{1|}}}

If you need help, check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

[[User:Neo-Jay|Neo-Jay]] ([[User talk:Neo-Jay|talk]]) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)</div>

==Yes==

I should have kept the fact that he was killed afterwards, didn't I? I can't remember if I did or not. The actual certain event of his death is somewhat hazy in historical records, if I recall reading a while back. Conflicting accounts of how he actually died after he fled Beijing.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
::Of course you should note his final outcome, but leave the info about him fleeing Beijing, I will add to that. It is important. He was forced to flee Beijing because unlike Dorgon and Wu, had had no discipline and authority amongst his rag-tag ranks, who disobeyed his orders and pillaged the city at will. When word came of the approaching standards of Wu Sangui (with Dorgon in the rear, so as to present to the Chinese as if a Chinese general alone was coming to their aid, not realizing the political maneuvering of Dorgon), Li had no choice BUT to flee. He was not in control of Beijing, it was in total chaos. That is worth mentioning. Had he had discipline amongst his ranks he might have had a chance at defending such a paramount position as the capital itself. It is important that readers understand this. Please, do not leave that out, I will expand later with proper sources. This is my second to last week of school, I will be doing MAJOR reconstruction to the Ming article afterwards. Thank you for your help. It is very much needed for such a hefty topic as a three century period of China.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

==Hi again==

With your edits to [[Huolongjing]], we will need more than just the title of the book in that citation you gave about Juan de Mendoca; I'll need actual page numbers for those if you still have the book ''Late Imperial Chinese Armies'' on hand. Thanks.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

==Long time no see!==

Fancy seeing you again! Thanks for providing this quote on my talk page. It should be very useful indeed. I'll find a way to include it in the article. However, it is late, and I am off to bed for now. Cheers.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 06:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

==Response China military history==

I have edited and changed the article somewhat. I am relatively inactive on wikipedia now, so if you have sources please expand the article with them. As to the Manchus' view on gunpowder weapons, see:
<blockquote>It stands to reason that
limiting the use of firearms to a single centralized body of people specially trained and easily controlled,
and keeping the production of weapons under direct state control, could be measures meant as much to
rationalize the deployment of artillery in military campaigns as to prevent the proliferation of a type of
weaponry that might give potential Chinese rebels an edge against the Qing forces.</blockquote>
which is from your source.
The Ming armies relied on gunpowder weapons to a great deal and developed them, while Manchus viewed gunpowder weapons (and new inventions/economic development in general) as a threat to their rule. This was a major reason for China's decline starting from the 17th century onwards.[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:That's all good. By the way, where does Sun Tzu's citation talk about the Tang? I checked the Sui-Tang section, there were no griffith citations. As to the equipment section, I was trying to give the reader an overview of the equipment of the Chinese army in late imperial times (etc., Song onwards), but I guess that didn't work out. Maybe the sections should have different paragraphs dealing with different periods? Anyways, I am busy right now off wiki and can't help, but I welcome help from other editors. If you are really aching to work, there is also [[Economic history of China (pre-1911)]], a GA I wrote, to work on. Thanks for your help![[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

==Huolongjing==

Actually, that picture ''is not'' from the [[Huolongjing]], so it is perhaps misleading to place it in the article, let alone the lead. I'll see if I can find a worthy replacement image.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

==Government of the Han Dynasty ==

Hi Gnip. Are you certain about this? Prof. Gary Lee Todd did not provide any sort of wall plaque describing the artwork, but he did place the image in a page specifically labeled as showing Chinese artwork from its inception up to the end of the Han Dynasty. Could you provide some sort of comparison artworks from the Sui/Tang Dynasties? I've also seen many Han stone reliefs; some reliefs provided on that page by Professor Todd are unquestionably from Han period tomb walls. However, the lack of wear-and-tear and lanky artistic style on the image in question does raise an eyebrow or two, I will admit. I'll need more evidence, though, before I am totally convinced that the images should be removed. Cheers!--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 05:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
::I'm fairly convinced now! Thank you for the excellent links. I will prepare some replacement images for these reliefs by tonight. Cheers.--[[User:PericlesofAthens|Pericles of Athens]][[User talk:PericlesofAthens|Talk]] 19:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

== gunpowder ==

do you have any sources about this?- [[Battle_of_Mohi#Usage_of_Gunpowder_and_Firearms]]. I've read before that Mongols used a type of catapult and/or rockets during their invasion of europe, but I'm not sure what they were called, all it said was that they were of Chinese design.[[User:DÜNGÁNÈ|DÜNGÁNÈ]] ([[User talk:DÜNGÁNÈ|talk]]) 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you mean. I checked the sources and the last one was pretty specific that gunpowder grenades were thrown on catapults. Gunpowder grenades were called "thundercrash bombs", but I don't know why that's important. I think I can help better if you clarify what you're trying to do. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 5:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-08-01T10:35:31Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-07-29T10:07:05Z

Gnip:

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-07-29T10:06:38Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-07-29T08:36:57Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-07-29T08:34:30Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-07-29T08:33:20Z

Gnip: /* This article is trash */

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-07-27T17:19:03Z

Gnip:

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

2011-07-27T17:16:33Z

Gnip:

Talk:Plough

2011-07-17T19:29:55Z

Gnip:

{{WPFarm|class=B|importance=high}}
{{talkheader}}

==spelling==
This page uses three different spellings of 'moldboard'.
('mouldboard', 'mold-board'.) Should it be made consistent?
- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 03:51, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Consistency. ==
::"''Consistency is the [[hobgoblin (fairy)|hobgoblin]] of small minds.''"
:::Actually, the saying is "''A ''foolish'' consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds''". ([[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]) I don't think this call for consistency is foolish. You may disagree, but if you mean that you think it is foolish, I wish you would say so. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 05:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Sorry, left the smiley out because I thought starting the next sentence with "''But seriously''" would suffice as a clue. No, I don't think looking for consistency within a single Wikipedia article is "foolish". Whether one should use "moldboard" or "mouldboard" is a question I have no opinion though. Thanks for the corrected quote, though. I would have misremembered it as being one of [[Samuel Johnson]]s in any case, so thank [[ghod]] I didn't attribute it! -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 06:32, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*But seriously, mouldboard may be most standard; according to OED at least. But then OED has the word "mold" merely as a redirect to "mould", so that should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. Do as thou wilt. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
:''mouldboard'' is the British English spelling, and the OED is primarily and originally a dictionary of British English. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]]
*Well according the page histories this article started as '''Plough''' and not '''Plow''' so I will (as per convention) change this article to the British spellings of both words. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
*I believe I introduced at least some of the American spellings. I think it is fine to change them to British. I don't know all the British spellings so it is hard for me to maintain consistency when expanding an article originally written using them. In fact, it has been pointed out to me that the American spellings in and of themselves give me plenty of trouble :-). The American spelling of ''mouldboard'' should be noted though, somewhere; I may add this. [[User:Kat|Kat]] 14:07, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
----
How can we have an article on plows that doesn't mention [[John Deere]]? I detect a British bias here. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:27, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
:And we don't have an article on John Deere either. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:28, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*Bedtime for me, but a quick note in the hope tht some keen Wikkipedian will hop in and take care of this. This page really, really needs (a) stump-jump plough, (b) balance - i.e., discussion of the harm that ploughing does to soil structure as well as of its advantages. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
* The article mentions that the Celts introduced the moldboard plough about 4000BC... is this a typo? There is no reference but it seems to me that 4000BC is quite early, even than the Greeks or China? [[User:JustinLong|JustinLong]] ([[User talk:JustinLong|talk]]) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

== Ransome ==
--[[User:Malcolmcw|Malcolmcw]] 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I notice that the plough section makes no mention of Ransome who's contribution of the eversharp share not to mention his influence on the design of steel ploughs in general is a major lack

== Prehistory ==
[[User:Mencial|Mencial]] 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ¿Is there any more information about the prehistory of the plough? First ploughs, how it extends through the different agricultural civilizations, etc. I know, I am too lazy to do the research.

==Moved from [[Talk:Mouldboard Plough]]==
===Merge===
{{Discussion top}}
The result was '''merge''' into DESTINATION PAGE. -- [[User:Nazgul533|Nazgul533]] [[user_talk:nazgul533|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Nazgul533|contribs]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
*There is absolutely no reason to have this as an article separate from [[Plough]], and this one is also miscapitalized in the first place. Merge it, and create a redirect from the lowercase "p" version as well to the Plough article. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
*Why wouldn't it be a seperate article? It is a distinct kind of plough that was developed, therefor warranting it's own individual article. It should not be merged, but only linked with the plough article. 01:36, 20 June 2006 [[User:24.176.81.236]]
*It could be confusing for people with limited knowlege about ploughing, therefor it should be merged. They'll search for a plough, not minding details what kind of plough it is. In Africa 90% of all ploughing is done by mouldboard ploughs. 16:14, 11 July 2006 [[User:Joevilliers]]
* Exactly. I am reading up on plows and techniques, and this one singular article threw me. The basic definitions and technical explanation are duplicative of the "Plough" entry. The remainder is all why it is so horrible, contains no references, reads as biased, and incorporates no information on when and where it is appropriate, which it is in many cases. Reading other articles online from progressive organic agricultural sites clearly shows conflicts with the singularly negative (and strangely past tense) write-up. I think this entire entry is useless at best, false at least. 17:36, 26 October 2006 [[User:66.195.232.121]]
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Just added a section on a typical Appalachian plow ==

I used the British spelling for consistency. I think I have a picture of a hillside plow (one I took years ago), and will include it if possible. [[User:Taosein|Soltera]] 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Dating ==
Would it be possible to have some dates for the development of the earlier type of plough? I realise this might be inexact and geographically dependent, but a guide would be very helpful. Cheers. [[User:Fluoronaut|fluoronaut]] 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== images ==

need more images

- old illustrations
- photographs of museum artifacts —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/68.33.71.53|68.33.71.53]] ([[User talk:68.33.71.53|talk]]) 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

image of two furrow horse drawn plow is actually tractor drawn the controls point towards the front —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.104.242.34|137.104.242.34]] ([[User talk:137.104.242.34|talk]]) 12:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 

==Video==
[[File:Ploughing.ogg|150px|Bullock-drawn plough: A farmer ploughing a field using a bullock-drawn plough in [[Sholavandan]]]]
Please use the video in the article at an appropriate place. -- [[User:Sundar|Sundar]] \[[User talk:Sundar|talk]] \[[Special:Contributions/Sundar|contribs]] 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:Please see comment on this video in [[Talk:Ard (plough)]] – it is not a plough but some kind of harrow. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Une(Japanese) rather than ridge between furrow(s) ==
Hi, all. There is a word "une(Japanese)" correspond to [[Ridge and furrow|ridge]] which is between [[plow]]ed [[furrow]]s, cultivating [[Welsh onion]] or [[Scallion]] for example.
See:[[:Image:Une(Japanese)(ridge)- between plowed furrows.JPG]]
/media/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Une%28Japanese%29%28ridge%29-_between_plowed_furrows.JPG
Is any word like "Une" rather than to call "ridge between furrow(s)"? Thanks in adavance.--[[User:Namazu-tron|Namazu-tron]] 08:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:That's what is called ridging (British) or [[hilling]] (American). It is dealt with in the [[Plough#Ridging plough|ridging plough]] section. It's quite different from [[ridge and furrow]], whose ridges are several metres apart. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Chinese Pre-History - moved from article ==

The following recently-added text was removed to the talk page for a variety of reasons, mainly that it cuts across several of the other chronological sections already in place and may or may not introduce duplicated information. The poor formatting, POV statements and inconsistent use of 'plow' (rather than plough) mean that its (unmodified) inclusion noticably degrades the article. The information may be worth merging with the existing text, but requires someone more knowledgeable to do so.

:-------------PRE-HISTORY OF THE PLOUGH---------------

:the Han Chinese plow is simple, light (can be carried by one person on the shoulder), and efficient because it uses the moldboard and a curved bar to put all the forces at the slant surface. This kind of plow was already used in Han dynasty (BCE).

:The Dutch learned about the Chinese plow while trading in Asia in the 17th century (i.e. at least 1700 years later). The technology was passed on to Yorkshire in England. Thomas Jefferson learned about this plow when he was traveling in France. It is also the first time he saw oxen used in plowing. Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling.

:After many improvements, the plow finally took shape in 1876, a hundred years after US became a nation. To date, John Deere uses basically the same principle on the plows.

:References:

:Science and Civilization in China
:By Joseph Needham, Ling, Wang, Ling Wang

:Cyclopedia of American Agriculture
:By Liberty Hyde Bailey. p. 387

[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:: "Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling." Really? Even after the invention of the [[horse collar]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== More dates would be helpful to the time impaired ==
Many of the events are reported without a date context...would increase the value of the article by 2000 times..[[User:Primacag|Avram Primack]] ([[User talk:Primacag|talk]]) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC).02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Disc plough . Chisel plough . Scarifer . Planter ==

*1.? Corrections needed ? The green John Deere tractor in the photo appears to be pulling a plough with a set of discs at the front and chisel plough tines at the rear . Correct me if I'm wrong .
:Only relatively small,light implements are usually attached to the '''3-point linkage''' .
:As the John Deere photo shows, larger implements are self-supporting and attached to the drawbar [towbar] .

2. A primary advantage of '''disc''' ploughs is their ability to cut through trash such as wheat stubble which would choke other ploughs .
However, they are often [not always] a pain/cumbersome to use .

* 3.'''Chisel , mouldboard & disc''' ploughs break the soil into large clods . Chisel ploughs the deepest .
*4.A '''scarifier''' has a large number of tines which operate at a shallow depth.
:It breaks the large clods up so the seed will be in good contact with the soil .
*5.The '''planter''' usually has a large number of tines, similar to a
:scarifer . It performs a similar function to the scarifier as well
: as planting .

*6. A typical ploughing sequence would be
**[1] mouldboard/disc/chisel plough
**[2] scarifier
**[3] planter .

*7. The cutting edge of the tines is often faced with tungsten carbide or a similar work-hardening material as they wear surprisingly quickly . Wear rate depends upon soil type .

*8.There is a large variety of plough types , and how each type
: is used varies greatly . The above is only an illustration .

*9.The two major reasons for ploughing are to kill weeds and to
: prepare the seedbed . All other reasons are secondary . Usually .

* 10.The discussion statement " '''horses are physically inferior to Oxen in pulling '''" invites comment .
Compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox . Which do you think
would be the strongest ?
I have never used oxen as draught animals, but know someone who
has . In his experience , oxen are much slower, but
will not give up as easily if difficulties [eg bogged ] arise .

* 11. References .
I've ploughed/planted using the above implements, and seen/assisted
a few more in operation including horsedrawn .
I don't claim to be an expert . I do claim to be a primary source .

20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

:All very interesting – can you incorporate some into the article? We do really need references from a [[WP:Reliable sources|secondary source]] though.

:Not sure what you're saying about oxen and horses... When you say "compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox", what do you mean? They are much the same size... My understanding is that horses work faster, but oxen pull better against a solid load. Historically, of course, oxen were used in much larger numbers – in southern England teams of eight were normal (even when these were relatively large modern [[Sussex cattle|Sussex]]es), while two or three draught horses might be common. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

::reply to above
:: Thanks for your interesting comments .
:: Draught Horse Size .
:: Any draught horse I've seen is much bigger than any ox I've seen . And I've never seen a really big draught horse . I suggest you sit on a draught horse one day . You'll never forget it .
::Draught horse team size in Australia varied from 1 up to about 12 - I think - perhaps more - in the broadacre areas such as Western Australia . The big teams were quite big . Must have been a handful .
::Your understanding of horse vs ox performance is consistent with mine . I've been told that a horse is much better until difficulties arise - the load gets stuck or bogged . Then the horses will give up more quickly, whilst the oxen will continue to pull [with a bit of encouragement] . Yes, the horse is significantly faster .Typically horses were used for ploughing in Australia and oxen were used for timbergetting . The last team of oxen used for timbergetting ceased work about 10 years ago - in the Dorrigo area .
::Of course, other factors influence whether horses or oxen were used . Price and availability . If you only have oxen [ or horses ] that's what you use .
::Secondary Sources.
::I would be quite happy to be proven wrong here.
::Cultivation methods and implements do vary a lot - the same implement is often used in very different ways in different areas . I've used a planter to scarify .
::I've seen some documentation of agricultural practices which I'm dubious about . The problem is that the person documenting is not the person doing .
::Documentation is useful if you know nothing, but it only tells half the story .
::Incorporate some into the article .
::I'm lazy . I'll think about it .
::Actually, plenty of people know more about ploughing than I do . However, I'm pleased if I have helped anyone .
::203.101.231.244 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I do know how big a large draught horse is (and I've even driven some on occasion). However, a large ox is pretty big too... I think large draught horses ''are'' probably larger than most oxen, but not as much as you might think – horses have much longer legs in proportion, so a horse is a good bit taller than an ox of the same weight. An ox is also built more for pushing, as that's something cattle do naturally. If you're used to seeing "ordinary" cattle close up, it's worth bearing in mind that a fully grown ox (castrated male) as used for draught will be significantly bigger than a cow or entire bull – probably an extra hand or two in height, and heavier about the shoulders than a cow. As an example, I have a [[Welsh Cob]] of about 14.5 hands, who probably weighs around 400 kg; I also have a [[British White]] steer of about 4 years old; he's around the same height but must weigh something like 600 kg (sadly he's neither psychologically suited nor trained to draught – the cob is both).

:::I think you're right that the source of traction is always what's available – and also what's convenient and affordable. Oxen have the advantage that they don't need high-grade feed – a horse can't work its hardest if it only has rough grazing and no hard feed, but an ox will work quite well under those conditions (and you can eat it afterwards...). The change from oxen to horses in the UK coincided with [[enclosure]] – the change from subsistence farming (with animals fed largely from common grazing) to cash farming. Cash farmers can afford to buy or grow grain for horse feed, in the expectation of paying for it with increased profits; subsistence farmers cannot afford to use their family's food for mere traction, when their oxen can fuel themselves for free off the common.

:::By the way, talk page layout and wiki markup... You might find it best to stick to colons (::) to inset your comments – they don't mix with equals signs. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) – like this: [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Parts of a Plough ==

There's an excellent illustration of a mouldboard plough here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aratro_g1.jpg, it would be nice to include it if someone knew what the parts were called in English —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.133.139.19|89.133.139.19]] ([[User talk:89.133.139.19|talk]]) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 

== Plough manufacturers ==

The [[Kverneland]] article says that the Norwegian company is the largest manufacturer of ploughing equipment. I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template there. Bigger than [[John Deere]]? This article does not mention any current plough manufacturers at all. Shouldn't there be at least some links to some of the bigger ones, such as [[New Holland]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

: New Holland does produce plughs? Can you give me a link. -- [[Special:Contributions/87.144.91.236|87.144.91.236]] ([[User talk:87.144.91.236|talk]]) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Ploughwright ==

I see ploughwright redirects to this page. I *think* that a ploughwright was a person who made or repaired metal ploughs, but there does not appear to be an explanation of the occupation of ploughwright on this page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might add some text about ploughwrights, otherwise the redirect is a little unhelpful. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.178.143.116|81.178.143.116]] ([[User talk:81.178.143.116|talk]]) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 

==Etymology==
I'm writing a Swedish version of a plough article for our Wikipedia and find a great deal of information in your article that I'm using. Got a little confused though when reading the Etymology sect. It seems to me that it is a bit contradictory. Does the word come from the Slavic or the Latin languages?
[[User: jd6420|jd6420]] 2011-04-15 20:04 (CEST)

:: Here's what Merriam-Webster Collegiate says ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow]]): "Middle English, from Old English ''plōh'' hide of land; akin to Old High German ''pfluog'' plow. First Known Use: 12th century." No idea without researching if other dictionaries disagree. HTH. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::PS: Check out [[wikt:plough#Etymology]] also. HTH×2. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thanks. Found some answers in a Swedish dictionary that essentially agrees with what you say. If I understand it correctly, there seems to be two traces; one Latin and one Gothic/Longobard/Ratic. (I did register to the English Wiki, wonder why I'm still red?) [[User jd6420|jd64209]] 2011-04-16 10:08]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jd6420|Jd6420]] ([[User talk:Jd6420|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jd6420|contribs]])  

== Confusing definition ==

The article starts out with:

:The plough (play /ˈplaʊ/; American spelling: plow) is a tool used in farming for initial ''cultivation'' of soil in preparation for sowing seed or planting.

where the word "ciltivation" is linked to the main article by the same name.

Does this refer to cultivation as a synonym for agriculture in general? That doesn't seem to work in the context of this article. The meaning of cultivation in this sense is too broad for the specific purpose of a plow. Shouldn't the word "cultivation" be replaced with "tillage"? My understanding is that "tilling" is plowing then cultivating. Then plowing would be the first step in tilling the soil with cultivation being the second step. [[User:Rsduhamel|Rsduhamel]] ([[User talk:Rsduhamel|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

== Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough ==

Gun Powder Ma based his claim that "The earliest iron ploughshares date from around 1000 BC in the [[Ancient Near East]]" from this source:

Greek and Roman Technology, by White:

"From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia) through the detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

I believe is a misreading of the sources. The author could very well be talking about the earliest plough in general, to the earliest plough with a "detachable and replaceable share". This may not necessarily be iron. This is especially so when he says that a plough with "no protection" is "suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia". This is why I made the changes.

[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:First, it is a bit rich to accuse me wrongly in the edit history of misrepresenting sources when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plough&action=historysubmit&diff=439320828&oldid=438530186 ''you'' removed a perfectly sourced references] on the Roman mouldboard which you obviously only claimed to have checked, but not have done so. So here it is to remove all doubts:

<blockquote>Like moldboards, these "ears" probably helped turn the soil. Bronze models of such ards with turning boards are known from Britain and Germany, and complete wooden ards have been recovered from the peat deposits of Northern Europe, though generally lacking the aures, which appear to have been more common in the south.

Pliny (RN 18.48) refers to an invention that was recent at the time he wrote (the mid-first century A.D.), the addition of two small wheels, implying that the plow was becoming heavier. From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the
later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:That alone should suffice to pull the tooth that the use of moldboard was something peculiar to ancient China - it wasn't, it was also used, at least in Europe. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Second, could you please quote from the Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered? [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Third, contrary to your interpretation, White it absolutely straightforward that the detachable and replaceable share which appeared in Babylonia was of iron ("...detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East)". However, what led me to reconsider is that in the sentence above he speaks of "Ridging boards to be to be a Roman invention", and this seems to be the key invention, not whether the board was made of iron or wood. In any case, I changed the phrasing somewhat to leave room for both interpretations, wood or iron, and you are most certainly welcome to ask for a third opinion on what I believe is overall a clear matter: moldboard plows were known and used in antiquity outside China. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

::First of all, I only consented on your edit because of the interpretations of "heavy" and because I thought you implied iron. That has nothing to do with reading the source. If you want to beat a dead horse, then here is what I consider your own "faulty" interpretations. I edited it out but since you insist to continue with something that I was willing to concede with, here is my original statement:

He[Gun Powder Ma] then claims that "The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in Roman Britain." The statement is based on the following.

Greek and Roman Agriculture, by Margaritis, Evi M. and Martin J.:
"From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The mouldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch."-pg 166

At most the author states in pg 166 that the addition of "two small wheels" implied that the plough was "becoming heavier". The author later implies the absence of heavy mouldboard ploughs in the very next paragraph:"Little, if any, metal was used in the construction of an ard-in line with the wood-based technology of farmers in general. Metal was scarce and conserved, used only where a durable cutting edge was absolutely necessary. Even then, obsidian flakes often provided a more accessible material for a sharp edge in areas with the appropriate geology, blades of obsidian being inserted both in threshing sleds and sickle mounts. The heavy investment in metal seen in the later plough was simply not within the resources of the great majority of classical-period farmers. Indeed, the need for it only arose beyond the limits of the Mediterranean region, where the soils were heavier."

Interpreting a "mouldboard plough" with a "heavy blade" as a "heavy moldboard plough" is really stretching it.

So your use of the source is misrepresentative. Your entire reply is an reiteration of the problems I am addressing. You also tried to cover up that fault by misrepresenting my statements. I never said that Rome didn't have a "moldboard plough", only that they didn't have a "heavy moldboard plough".'' Your source is still misused, whatever your claim of having read it. As for White, reiterating his quote(which could be interpreted multiple ways, as I have shown) hardly gives credence to your claim. As I have already given his full quote: "From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from ''no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia)'' through the detachable and replaceable share, ''first of wood'', later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

Giving half the quote and then saying that it could "only" be interpreted one way is hardly accurate. Perhaps you shouldn't use selective quoting to further your claims. Other users have found you misrepresenting sources as well, have they not? So who is the one who haven't read the source?

Now you say that the first "wood or iron" ploughshare came from 1000 BCE Mesopotamia and 500 BC China, in your attempt to cover up your mistake on Mesopotamia (all the while blaming it on me). This is despite the fact that even though the source specifically states "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles"-pg 11. I don't see how you could have misinterpreted that into "wood or iron".
[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 5:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Please ask yourself how often you've now used the word "imply", try to cut the interpretative crap and address the reference as it is. Again, it couldn't hardly be more straightforward:

:<blockquote>From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The '''moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels,''' makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:And below:
:<blockquote>Three iron implements that recur on Romano-British sites of the late third and fourth centuries A.D. are the long harvesting scythe, the coulter, and the '''asymmetrical plowshare''' (Rees 1979). All three can be linked to the intensification of cereal production, and the latter two to the''' moldboard plow, designed to cut deep into the soil and invert the furrow''' (figure 7.4; Jones 1981).</blockquote>

:In fact, the entire section is titled: MEADOWS, GARDENS, AND '''MOLDBOARD PLOWS'''
:I honestly don't know why you attach so much importance to the ''heaviness'' of the moldboard plow. The weight is absolutely secondary. The main technical difference lies between the ard which scratches the earth and the moldboard plow which turns it. Whether the moldboard itself was of iron and more heavy or of wood and less heavy is secondary; the question of material is secondary, what counts is the ''design''. Both my references squarely state that moldboard plows existed in ancient Europe. Now do you agree to that or not? And please don't forget to cite from Greenberger or it got to be removed. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Secondary to whom? Are you really going to stick to arguing about something I didn't even disagree with? I have already stated, and I repeat
::1) That the moldboard plow was used in Rome
::2) That the issue was the "heavy moldboard plow" and the use of "iron ploughshares" for white. If the "heavy" or "iron" parts were secondary then, considering that they are not confirmed by the given sources, why even put it there? I dropped my former claim as "heavy" is a relative term. Despite the absence of your source confirming the existence of "heavy moldboard ploughs", I was willing to let that go. Yet for reasons unknown you keep bringing it up.

::What you are doing is using a straw-man argument, arguing in favor of things I never denied. So instead of misinterpreting the author you misinterpret me. Sadly I'm not surprised. Besides that, I don't think you're reading me. I have already given the quote from Greenberger. It seems I must repeat it: "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles" -pg 11. These were so heavy that "it was injuring the horses and oxen" until a new breast harness was developed. Now I don't even know why you need me to give these quotes. I'm sure you could find it on your own. Your threat to delete it is funny. If you couldn't find the source to "verify" it, though I'm sure you could, you're going to delete it? I don't think that's how wikipedia works. I also see that you're asking for the "Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered", which was about "iron plowshares", not "heavy moldboard iron ploughs". Yet you edited the article in which "heavy moldboard iron ploughs" had to be verified by Greensberger, despite that this particular claim is also bolstered by another source. That's very tricky of you.
::Anyways, if it's such a big deal, then why are you so insistent on preventing me on correcting such a "secondary" misrepresentations of the authors? I'm sure you won't mind these minor corrections, won't you? By all means, if you do find sources that say there were iron plows in Mesopotamia during 1000 BC, you're welcome to do so. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised, as iron was introduced in the region a couple hundred years before that. However, the use of sources must be accurate. Even if you're saying the truth, the source has to back up that statement. That's all I'm saying. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::So, please quote sources which attach the same importance to the heaviness of the moldboard plow as you do. I've given you enough refs now which make clear that it was the design, not the material, which made the difference. Actually, there are also ards which were made of iron. This leads me to the second point. Yes, White is ambiguous about whether these Mesopotamian plows around 1000 BC were made of iron or wood. As you know, the Iron Age began in Mesopotomia at least half a millennium earlier than in China, so there is nothing intrinsically unlikely about iron plows appearing in Babylonia at this time along with all the other iron tools and implements. Still, we can setttle for something like "either iron or wood" or whatever. As for Greenberger's quote, nowhere does he talk about ''moldboard'' plows, "V-shaped piece" could refer just as well to simple ards, so I guess we have to adjust the quote in the text accordingly, if that's all he says about it. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 13:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Gun Powder Ma, I was the one who revealed that the quote was misrepresented, so I gave the the actual quote in order to settle things correctly. Thanks for finally admiting that. However, I was not the one who put in the information that China had "heavy iron moldboards", nor was Greenberger the only source used. I don't know why you insist about Greenberger's quote about the lack of moldboard plows when you could so easily find out for yourself that he actually did. For example, and I quote: "The earliest iron plow found dates from about 500s BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles. By the third century BC, when iron tools were made using improved casting methods, the plowshare called the kuan (the moldboard plow) came into use and rapidly spread over the next two centuries.... [descriptions of the kuan]...." -pg 11
::::I'm sure you can easily find this out for yourself. Your threat to delete the section on the bases that I couldn't give the quote is uncalled for. I'm not the one who put the information there, so you shouldn't be asking me in the first place. You should be asking PericlesofAthens, someone whom I trust as being credible with his use of sources. Plus, considering that the section is sourced by not just Greenberger's book, but also by Wang ZhongShu's book, means that discrediting Greenberger as misrepresented would only warrant deleting his source, not the entire information about Chinese ploughs! Me actually providing quotes from Greenberger is going above and beyond normal expectations for wikipedians. I have done this thrice now. I don't see why you keep asking for the same quote again and again. No, I don't have Wang ZhongShu's book available. I can't prove what he said or did not say either way. I caught you misrepresenting the source because, unfortunately for you, I actually DO have the same sources you had used. That's what gives me the right if not the obligation to delete it, because I can PROVE that the sources were misrepresented. If you want to delete the section about Chinese ploughs, it's YOUR job to provide the quotations from not just Greenberger, but also from Wang ZhongShu. If you are so adamant on deleting it, then go find the source. I'm not going to do it for you.
::::It's funny how you emphasize that you will delete the section about Chinese ploughs on the basis of Greenberger, while ignoring Wang ShongShu's citations altogether. Chances are, that source is no more available to you than it is to me. You want to delete the section, yet you can't prove the citations were misrepresented. So you use me as an excuse. You give me the duty to "verify" the sources, even though you know full well I didn't put the information there in the first place, which decreases my chance of knowing what the books said. I sense ulterior motives. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Plough

2011-07-17T19:20:35Z

Gnip: /* Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough */

{{WPFarm|class=B|importance=high}}
{{talkheader}}

==spelling==
This page uses three different spellings of 'moldboard'.
('mouldboard', 'mold-board'.) Should it be made consistent?
- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 03:51, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Consistency. ==
::"''Consistency is the [[hobgoblin (fairy)|hobgoblin]] of small minds.''"
:::Actually, the saying is "''A ''foolish'' consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds''". ([[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]) I don't think this call for consistency is foolish. You may disagree, but if you mean that you think it is foolish, I wish you would say so. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 05:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Sorry, left the smiley out because I thought starting the next sentence with "''But seriously''" would suffice as a clue. No, I don't think looking for consistency within a single Wikipedia article is "foolish". Whether one should use "moldboard" or "mouldboard" is a question I have no opinion though. Thanks for the corrected quote, though. I would have misremembered it as being one of [[Samuel Johnson]]s in any case, so thank [[ghod]] I didn't attribute it! -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 06:32, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*But seriously, mouldboard may be most standard; according to OED at least. But then OED has the word "mold" merely as a redirect to "mould", so that should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. Do as thou wilt. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
:''mouldboard'' is the British English spelling, and the OED is primarily and originally a dictionary of British English. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]]
*Well according the page histories this article started as '''Plough''' and not '''Plow''' so I will (as per convention) change this article to the British spellings of both words. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
*I believe I introduced at least some of the American spellings. I think it is fine to change them to British. I don't know all the British spellings so it is hard for me to maintain consistency when expanding an article originally written using them. In fact, it has been pointed out to me that the American spellings in and of themselves give me plenty of trouble :-). The American spelling of ''mouldboard'' should be noted though, somewhere; I may add this. [[User:Kat|Kat]] 14:07, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
----
How can we have an article on plows that doesn't mention [[John Deere]]? I detect a British bias here. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:27, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
:And we don't have an article on John Deere either. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:28, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*Bedtime for me, but a quick note in the hope tht some keen Wikkipedian will hop in and take care of this. This page really, really needs (a) stump-jump plough, (b) balance - i.e., discussion of the harm that ploughing does to soil structure as well as of its advantages. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
* The article mentions that the Celts introduced the moldboard plough about 4000BC... is this a typo? There is no reference but it seems to me that 4000BC is quite early, even than the Greeks or China? [[User:JustinLong|JustinLong]] ([[User talk:JustinLong|talk]]) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

== Ransome ==
--[[User:Malcolmcw|Malcolmcw]] 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I notice that the plough section makes no mention of Ransome who's contribution of the eversharp share not to mention his influence on the design of steel ploughs in general is a major lack

== Prehistory ==
[[User:Mencial|Mencial]] 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ¿Is there any more information about the prehistory of the plough? First ploughs, how it extends through the different agricultural civilizations, etc. I know, I am too lazy to do the research.

==Moved from [[Talk:Mouldboard Plough]]==
===Merge===
{{Discussion top}}
The result was '''merge''' into DESTINATION PAGE. -- [[User:Nazgul533|Nazgul533]] [[user_talk:nazgul533|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Nazgul533|contribs]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
*There is absolutely no reason to have this as an article separate from [[Plough]], and this one is also miscapitalized in the first place. Merge it, and create a redirect from the lowercase "p" version as well to the Plough article. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
*Why wouldn't it be a seperate article? It is a distinct kind of plough that was developed, therefor warranting it's own individual article. It should not be merged, but only linked with the plough article. 01:36, 20 June 2006 [[User:24.176.81.236]]
*It could be confusing for people with limited knowlege about ploughing, therefor it should be merged. They'll search for a plough, not minding details what kind of plough it is. In Africa 90% of all ploughing is done by mouldboard ploughs. 16:14, 11 July 2006 [[User:Joevilliers]]
* Exactly. I am reading up on plows and techniques, and this one singular article threw me. The basic definitions and technical explanation are duplicative of the "Plough" entry. The remainder is all why it is so horrible, contains no references, reads as biased, and incorporates no information on when and where it is appropriate, which it is in many cases. Reading other articles online from progressive organic agricultural sites clearly shows conflicts with the singularly negative (and strangely past tense) write-up. I think this entire entry is useless at best, false at least. 17:36, 26 October 2006 [[User:66.195.232.121]]
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Just added a section on a typical Appalachian plow ==

I used the British spelling for consistency. I think I have a picture of a hillside plow (one I took years ago), and will include it if possible. [[User:Taosein|Soltera]] 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Dating ==
Would it be possible to have some dates for the development of the earlier type of plough? I realise this might be inexact and geographically dependent, but a guide would be very helpful. Cheers. [[User:Fluoronaut|fluoronaut]] 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== images ==

need more images

- old illustrations
- photographs of museum artifacts —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/68.33.71.53|68.33.71.53]] ([[User talk:68.33.71.53|talk]]) 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

image of two furrow horse drawn plow is actually tractor drawn the controls point towards the front —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.104.242.34|137.104.242.34]] ([[User talk:137.104.242.34|talk]]) 12:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 

==Video==
[[File:Ploughing.ogg|150px|Bullock-drawn plough: A farmer ploughing a field using a bullock-drawn plough in [[Sholavandan]]]]
Please use the video in the article at an appropriate place. -- [[User:Sundar|Sundar]] \[[User talk:Sundar|talk]] \[[Special:Contributions/Sundar|contribs]] 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:Please see comment on this video in [[Talk:Ard (plough)]] – it is not a plough but some kind of harrow. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Une(Japanese) rather than ridge between furrow(s) ==
Hi, all. There is a word "une(Japanese)" correspond to [[Ridge and furrow|ridge]] which is between [[plow]]ed [[furrow]]s, cultivating [[Welsh onion]] or [[Scallion]] for example.
See:[[:Image:Une(Japanese)(ridge)- between plowed furrows.JPG]]
/media/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Une%28Japanese%29%28ridge%29-_between_plowed_furrows.JPG
Is any word like "Une" rather than to call "ridge between furrow(s)"? Thanks in adavance.--[[User:Namazu-tron|Namazu-tron]] 08:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:That's what is called ridging (British) or [[hilling]] (American). It is dealt with in the [[Plough#Ridging plough|ridging plough]] section. It's quite different from [[ridge and furrow]], whose ridges are several metres apart. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Chinese Pre-History - moved from article ==

The following recently-added text was removed to the talk page for a variety of reasons, mainly that it cuts across several of the other chronological sections already in place and may or may not introduce duplicated information. The poor formatting, POV statements and inconsistent use of 'plow' (rather than plough) mean that its (unmodified) inclusion noticably degrades the article. The information may be worth merging with the existing text, but requires someone more knowledgeable to do so.

:-------------PRE-HISTORY OF THE PLOUGH---------------

:the Han Chinese plow is simple, light (can be carried by one person on the shoulder), and efficient because it uses the moldboard and a curved bar to put all the forces at the slant surface. This kind of plow was already used in Han dynasty (BCE).

:The Dutch learned about the Chinese plow while trading in Asia in the 17th century (i.e. at least 1700 years later). The technology was passed on to Yorkshire in England. Thomas Jefferson learned about this plow when he was traveling in France. It is also the first time he saw oxen used in plowing. Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling.

:After many improvements, the plow finally took shape in 1876, a hundred years after US became a nation. To date, John Deere uses basically the same principle on the plows.

:References:

:Science and Civilization in China
:By Joseph Needham, Ling, Wang, Ling Wang

:Cyclopedia of American Agriculture
:By Liberty Hyde Bailey. p. 387

[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:: "Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling." Really? Even after the invention of the [[horse collar]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== More dates would be helpful to the time impaired ==
Many of the events are reported without a date context...would increase the value of the article by 2000 times..[[User:Primacag|Avram Primack]] ([[User talk:Primacag|talk]]) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC).02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Disc plough . Chisel plough . Scarifer . Planter ==

*1.? Corrections needed ? The green John Deere tractor in the photo appears to be pulling a plough with a set of discs at the front and chisel plough tines at the rear . Correct me if I'm wrong .
:Only relatively small,light implements are usually attached to the '''3-point linkage''' .
:As the John Deere photo shows, larger implements are self-supporting and attached to the drawbar [towbar] .

2. A primary advantage of '''disc''' ploughs is their ability to cut through trash such as wheat stubble which would choke other ploughs .
However, they are often [not always] a pain/cumbersome to use .

* 3.'''Chisel , mouldboard & disc''' ploughs break the soil into large clods . Chisel ploughs the deepest .
*4.A '''scarifier''' has a large number of tines which operate at a shallow depth.
:It breaks the large clods up so the seed will be in good contact with the soil .
*5.The '''planter''' usually has a large number of tines, similar to a
:scarifer . It performs a similar function to the scarifier as well
: as planting .

*6. A typical ploughing sequence would be
**[1] mouldboard/disc/chisel plough
**[2] scarifier
**[3] planter .

*7. The cutting edge of the tines is often faced with tungsten carbide or a similar work-hardening material as they wear surprisingly quickly . Wear rate depends upon soil type .

*8.There is a large variety of plough types , and how each type
: is used varies greatly . The above is only an illustration .

*9.The two major reasons for ploughing are to kill weeds and to
: prepare the seedbed . All other reasons are secondary . Usually .

* 10.The discussion statement " '''horses are physically inferior to Oxen in pulling '''" invites comment .
Compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox . Which do you think
would be the strongest ?
I have never used oxen as draught animals, but know someone who
has . In his experience , oxen are much slower, but
will not give up as easily if difficulties [eg bogged ] arise .

* 11. References .
I've ploughed/planted using the above implements, and seen/assisted
a few more in operation including horsedrawn .
I don't claim to be an expert . I do claim to be a primary source .

20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

:All very interesting – can you incorporate some into the article? We do really need references from a [[WP:Reliable sources|secondary source]] though.

:Not sure what you're saying about oxen and horses... When you say "compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox", what do you mean? They are much the same size... My understanding is that horses work faster, but oxen pull better against a solid load. Historically, of course, oxen were used in much larger numbers – in southern England teams of eight were normal (even when these were relatively large modern [[Sussex cattle|Sussex]]es), while two or three draught horses might be common. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

::reply to above
:: Thanks for your interesting comments .
:: Draught Horse Size .
:: Any draught horse I've seen is much bigger than any ox I've seen . And I've never seen a really big draught horse . I suggest you sit on a draught horse one day . You'll never forget it .
::Draught horse team size in Australia varied from 1 up to about 12 - I think - perhaps more - in the broadacre areas such as Western Australia . The big teams were quite big . Must have been a handful .
::Your understanding of horse vs ox performance is consistent with mine . I've been told that a horse is much better until difficulties arise - the load gets stuck or bogged . Then the horses will give up more quickly, whilst the oxen will continue to pull [with a bit of encouragement] . Yes, the horse is significantly faster .Typically horses were used for ploughing in Australia and oxen were used for timbergetting . The last team of oxen used for timbergetting ceased work about 10 years ago - in the Dorrigo area .
::Of course, other factors influence whether horses or oxen were used . Price and availability . If you only have oxen [ or horses ] that's what you use .
::Secondary Sources.
::I would be quite happy to be proven wrong here.
::Cultivation methods and implements do vary a lot - the same implement is often used in very different ways in different areas . I've used a planter to scarify .
::I've seen some documentation of agricultural practices which I'm dubious about . The problem is that the person documenting is not the person doing .
::Documentation is useful if you know nothing, but it only tells half the story .
::Incorporate some into the article .
::I'm lazy . I'll think about it .
::Actually, plenty of people know more about ploughing than I do . However, I'm pleased if I have helped anyone .
::203.101.231.244 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I do know how big a large draught horse is (and I've even driven some on occasion). However, a large ox is pretty big too... I think large draught horses ''are'' probably larger than most oxen, but not as much as you might think – horses have much longer legs in proportion, so a horse is a good bit taller than an ox of the same weight. An ox is also built more for pushing, as that's something cattle do naturally. If you're used to seeing "ordinary" cattle close up, it's worth bearing in mind that a fully grown ox (castrated male) as used for draught will be significantly bigger than a cow or entire bull – probably an extra hand or two in height, and heavier about the shoulders than a cow. As an example, I have a [[Welsh Cob]] of about 14.5 hands, who probably weighs around 400 kg; I also have a [[British White]] steer of about 4 years old; he's around the same height but must weigh something like 600 kg (sadly he's neither psychologically suited nor trained to draught – the cob is both).

:::I think you're right that the source of traction is always what's available – and also what's convenient and affordable. Oxen have the advantage that they don't need high-grade feed – a horse can't work its hardest if it only has rough grazing and no hard feed, but an ox will work quite well under those conditions (and you can eat it afterwards...). The change from oxen to horses in the UK coincided with [[enclosure]] – the change from subsistence farming (with animals fed largely from common grazing) to cash farming. Cash farmers can afford to buy or grow grain for horse feed, in the expectation of paying for it with increased profits; subsistence farmers cannot afford to use their family's food for mere traction, when their oxen can fuel themselves for free off the common.

:::By the way, talk page layout and wiki markup... You might find it best to stick to colons (::) to inset your comments – they don't mix with equals signs. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) – like this: [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Parts of a Plough ==

There's an excellent illustration of a mouldboard plough here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aratro_g1.jpg, it would be nice to include it if someone knew what the parts were called in English —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.133.139.19|89.133.139.19]] ([[User talk:89.133.139.19|talk]]) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 

== Plough manufacturers ==

The [[Kverneland]] article says that the Norwegian company is the largest manufacturer of ploughing equipment. I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template there. Bigger than [[John Deere]]? This article does not mention any current plough manufacturers at all. Shouldn't there be at least some links to some of the bigger ones, such as [[New Holland]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

: New Holland does produce plughs? Can you give me a link. -- [[Special:Contributions/87.144.91.236|87.144.91.236]] ([[User talk:87.144.91.236|talk]]) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Ploughwright ==

I see ploughwright redirects to this page. I *think* that a ploughwright was a person who made or repaired metal ploughs, but there does not appear to be an explanation of the occupation of ploughwright on this page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might add some text about ploughwrights, otherwise the redirect is a little unhelpful. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.178.143.116|81.178.143.116]] ([[User talk:81.178.143.116|talk]]) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 

==Etymology==
I'm writing a Swedish version of a plough article for our Wikipedia and find a great deal of information in your article that I'm using. Got a little confused though when reading the Etymology sect. It seems to me that it is a bit contradictory. Does the word come from the Slavic or the Latin languages?
[[User: jd6420|jd6420]] 2011-04-15 20:04 (CEST)

:: Here's what Merriam-Webster Collegiate says ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow]]): "Middle English, from Old English ''plōh'' hide of land; akin to Old High German ''pfluog'' plow. First Known Use: 12th century." No idea without researching if other dictionaries disagree. HTH. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::PS: Check out [[wikt:plough#Etymology]] also. HTH×2. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thanks. Found some answers in a Swedish dictionary that essentially agrees with what you say. If I understand it correctly, there seems to be two traces; one Latin and one Gothic/Longobard/Ratic. (I did register to the English Wiki, wonder why I'm still red?) [[User jd6420|jd64209]] 2011-04-16 10:08]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jd6420|Jd6420]] ([[User talk:Jd6420|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jd6420|contribs]])  

== Confusing definition ==

The article starts out with:

:The plough (play /ˈplaʊ/; American spelling: plow) is a tool used in farming for initial ''cultivation'' of soil in preparation for sowing seed or planting.

where the word "ciltivation" is linked to the main article by the same name.

Does this refer to cultivation as a synonym for agriculture in general? That doesn't seem to work in the context of this article. The meaning of cultivation in this sense is too broad for the specific purpose of a plow. Shouldn't the word "cultivation" be replaced with "tillage"? My understanding is that "tilling" is plowing then cultivating. Then plowing would be the first step in tilling the soil with cultivation being the second step. [[User:Rsduhamel|Rsduhamel]] ([[User talk:Rsduhamel|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

== Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough ==

Gun Powder Ma based his claim that "The earliest iron ploughshares date from around 1000 BC in the [[Ancient Near East]]" from this source:

Greek and Roman Technology, by White:

"From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia) through the detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

I believe is a misreading of the sources. The author could very well be talking about the earliest plough in general, to the earliest plough with a "detachable and replaceable share". This may not necessarily be iron. This is especially so when he says that a plough with "no protection" is "suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia". This is why I made the changes.

[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:First, it is a bit rich to accuse me wrongly in the edit history of misrepresenting sources when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plough&action=historysubmit&diff=439320828&oldid=438530186 ''you'' removed a perfectly sourced references] on the Roman mouldboard which you obviously only claimed to have checked, but not have done so. So here it is to remove all doubts:

<blockquote>Like moldboards, these "ears" probably helped turn the soil. Bronze models of such ards with turning boards are known from Britain and Germany, and complete wooden ards have been recovered from the peat deposits of Northern Europe, though generally lacking the aures, which appear to have been more common in the south.

Pliny (RN 18.48) refers to an invention that was recent at the time he wrote (the mid-first century A.D.), the addition of two small wheels, implying that the plow was becoming heavier. From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the
later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:That alone should suffice to pull the tooth that the use of moldboard was something peculiar to ancient China - it wasn't, it was also used, at least in Europe. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Second, could you please quote from the Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered? [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Third, contrary to your interpretation, White it absolutely straightforward that the detachable and replaceable share which appeared in Babylonia was of iron ("...detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East)". However, what led me to reconsider is that in the sentence above he speaks of "Ridging boards to be to be a Roman invention", and this seems to be the key invention, not whether the board was made of iron or wood. In any case, I changed the phrasing somewhat to leave room for both interpretations, wood or iron, and you are most certainly welcome to ask for a third opinion on what I believe is overall a clear matter: moldboard plows were known and used in antiquity outside China. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

::First of all, I only consented on your edit because of the interpretations of "heavy" and because I thought you implied iron. That has nothing to do with reading the source. If you want to beat a dead horse, then here is what I consider your own "faulty" interpretations. I edited it out but since you insist to continue with something that I was willing to concede with, here is my original statement:

He[Gun Powder Ma] then claims that "The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in Roman Britain." The statement is based on the following.

Greek and Roman Agriculture, by Margaritis, Evi M. and Martin J.:
"From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The mouldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch."-pg 166

At most the author states in pg 166 that the addition of "two small wheels" implied that the plough was "becoming heavier". The author later implies the absence of heavy mouldboard ploughs in the very next paragraph:"Little, if any, metal was used in the construction of an ard-in line with the wood-based technology of farmers in general. Metal was scarce and conserved, used only where a durable cutting edge was absolutely necessary. Even then, obsidian flakes often provided a more accessible material for a sharp edge in areas with the appropriate geology, blades of obsidian being inserted both in threshing sleds and sickle mounts. The heavy investment in metal seen in the later plough was simply not within the resources of the great majority of classical-period farmers. Indeed, the need for it only arose beyond the limits of the Mediterranean region, where the soils were heavier."

Interpreting a "mouldboard plough" with a "heavy blade" as a "heavy moldboard plough" is really stretching it.

So your use of the source is misrepresentative. Your entire reply is an reiteration of the problems I am addressing. You also tried to cover up that fault by misrepresenting my statements. I never said that Rome didn't have a "moldboard plough", only that they didn't have a "heavy moldboard plough".'' Your source is still misused, whatever your claim of having read it. As for White, reiterating his quote(which could be interpreted multiple ways, as I have shown) hardly gives credence to your claim. As I have already given his full quote: "From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from ''no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia)'' through the detachable and replaceable share, ''first of wood'', later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

Giving half the quote and then saying that it could "only" be interpreted one way is hardly accurate. Perhaps you shouldn't use selective quoting to further your claims. Other users have found you misrepresenting sources as well, have they not? So who is the one who haven't read the source?

Now you say that the first "wood or iron" ploughshare came from 1000 BCE Mesopotamia and 500 BC China, in your attempt to cover up your mistake on Mesopotamia (all the while blaming it on me). This is despite the fact that even though the source specifically states "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles"-pg 11. I don't see how you could have misinterpreted that into "wood or iron".
[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 5:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Please ask yourself how often you've now used the word "imply", try to cut the interpretative crap and address the reference as it is. Again, it couldn't hardly be more straightforward:

:<blockquote>From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The '''moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels,''' makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:And below:
:<blockquote>Three iron implements that recur on Romano-British sites of the late third and fourth centuries A.D. are the long harvesting scythe, the coulter, and the '''asymmetrical plowshare''' (Rees 1979). All three can be linked to the intensification of cereal production, and the latter two to the''' moldboard plow, designed to cut deep into the soil and invert the furrow''' (figure 7.4; Jones 1981).</blockquote>

:In fact, the entire section is titled: MEADOWS, GARDENS, AND '''MOLDBOARD PLOWS'''
:I honestly don't know why you attach so much importance to the ''heaviness'' of the moldboard plow. The weight is absolutely secondary. The main technical difference lies between the ard which scratches the earth and the moldboard plow which turns it. Whether the moldboard itself was of iron and more heavy or of wood and less heavy is secondary; the question of material is secondary, what counts is the ''design''. Both my references squarely state that moldboard plows existed in ancient Europe. Now do you agree to that or not? And please don't forget to cite from Greenberger or it got to be removed. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Secondary to whom? Are you really going to stick to arguing about something I didn't even disagree with? I have already stated, and I repeat
::1) That the moldboard plow was used in Rome
::2) That the issue was the "heavy moldboard plow" and the use of "iron ploughshares" for white. If the "heavy" or "iron" parts were secondary then, considering that they are not confirmed by the given sources, why even put it there? I dropped my former claim as "heavy" is a relative term. Despite the absence of your source confirming the existence of "heavy moldboard ploughs", I was willing to let that go. Yet for reasons unknown you keep bringing it up.

::What you are doing is using a straw-man argument, arguing in favor of things I never denied. So instead of misinterpreting the author you misinterpret me. Sadly I'm not surprised. Besides that, I don't think you're reading me. I have already given the quote from Greenberger. It seems I must repeat it: "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles" -pg 11. These were so heavy that "it was injuring the horses and oxen" until a new breast harness was developed. Now I don't even know why you need me to give these quotes. I'm sure you could find it on your own. Your threat to delete it is funny. If you couldn't find the source to "verify" it, though I'm sure you could, you're going to delete it? I don't think that's how wikipedia works. I also see that you're asking for the "Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered", which was about "iron plowshares", not "heavy moldboard iron ploughs". Yet you edited the article in which "heavy moldboard iron ploughs" had to be verified by Greensberger, despite that this particular claim is also bolstered by another source. That's very tricky of you.
::Anyways, if it's such a big deal, then why are you so insistent on preventing me on correcting such a "secondary" misrepresentations of the authors? I'm sure you won't mind these minor corrections, won't you? By all means, if you do find sources that say there were iron plows in Mesopotamia during 1000 BC, you're welcome to do so. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised, as iron was introduced in the region a couple hundred years before that. However, the use of sources must be accurate. Even if you're saying the truth, the source has to back up that statement. That's all I'm saying. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::So, please quote sources which attach the same importance to the heaviness of the moldboard plow as you do. I've given you enough refs now which make clear that it was the design, not the material, which made the difference. Actually, there are also ards which were made of iron. This leads me to the second point. Yes, White is ambiguous about whether these Mesopotamian plows around 1000 BC were made of iron or wood. As you know, the Iron Age began in Mesopotomia at least half a millennium earlier than in China, so there is nothing intrinsically unlikely about iron plows appearing in Babylonia at this time along with all the other iron tools and implements. Still, we can setttle for something like "either iron or wood" or whatever. As for Greenberger's quote, nowhere does he talk about ''moldboard'' plows, "V-shaped piece" could refer just as well to simple ards, so I guess we have to adjust the quote in the text accordingly, if that's all he says about it. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 13:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Gun Powder Ma, I was the one who revealed that the quote was misrepresented, so I gave the the actual quote in order to settle things correctly. Thanks for finally admiting that. However, I was not the one who put in the information that China had "heavy iron moldboards", nor was Greenberger the only source used. I don't know why you insist about Greenberger's quote about the lack of moldboard plows when you could so easily find out for yourself that he actually did. For example, and I quote: "The earliest iron plow found dates from about 500s BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles. By the third century BC, when iron tools were made using improved casting methods, the plowshare called the kuan (the moldboard plow) came into use and rapidly spread over the next two centuries.... [descriptions of the kuan]...." -pg 11
::::I'm sure you can easily find this out for yourself. Your threat to delete the section on the bases that I couldn't give the quote is uncalled for. I'm not the one who put the information there, so you shouldn't be asking me in the first place. You should be asking PericlesofAthens, someone whom I trust as being credible with his use of sources. Plus, considering that the section is sourced by not just Greenberger's book, but also by Wang ZhongShu's book, means that discrediting Greenberger as misrepresented would only warrant deleting his source, not the entire information about Chinese ploughs! Me actually providing quotes from Greenberger is going above and beyond normal expectations for wikipedians. I have done this thrice now. I don't see why you keep asking for the same quote again and again. No, I don't have Wang ZhongShu's book available. I can't prove what he said or did not say either way. I caught you misrepresenting the source because, unfortunately for you, I actually DO have the same sources you had used. That's what gives me the right if not the obligation to delete it, because I can PROVE that the sources were misrepresented. If you want to delete the section about Chinese ploughs, it's YOUR job to provide the quotations from not just Greenberger, but also from Wang ZhongShu. If you are so adamant on deleting it, then go find the source. I'm not going to do it for you. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Plough

2011-07-17T19:15:15Z

Gnip: Already gave verification, thrice. I didn't put the information tthere, go ask the person who actually did instead of using me as an excuse to delete information

{{redirect|Plow|the Canadian soldier|Edward Chester Plow}}
{{redirect|Plowman|the surname|Plowman (surname)}}
{{redirect|Furrow}}
{{Other uses}}

[[File:Farmer plowing.jpg|thumb|250px|The traditional way: a farmer works the land with horses and plough]]
[[File:Plough.JPG|thumb|250px|A plough in action in South Africa. This plough has five non-reversible mouldboards. The fifth, empty furrow on the left will be filled by the first furrow of the next pass.]]
[[File:Ploughmen Fac simile of a Miniature in a very ancient Anglo Saxon Manuscript published by Shaw with legend God Spede ye Plough and send us Korne enow.png|right|thumb|250px|Ploughing with [[Cattle#Ox|oxen]]. A miniature from an early-sixteenth-century [[manuscript]] of the [[Middle English]] poem ''God Spede ye Plough'', held at the [[British Museum]]]]

The '''plough''' or '''plow''' (see [[Differences between American and British spellings|spelling differences]]; {{IPAc-en|icon|ˈ|p|l|aʊ}}) is a [[tool]] used in [[farming]] for initial [[Tillage|cultivation]] of [[soil]] in preparation for sowing seed or planting. It has been a basic instrument for most of recorded history, and represents one of the major advances in [[agriculture]]. The primary purpose of ploughing is to turn over the upper layer of the soil, bringing fresh nutrients to the surface, while burying weeds and the remains of previous crops, allowing them to break down. It also aerates the soil, and allows it to hold moisture better. In modern use, a ploughed field is typically left to dry out, and is then [[Harrow (tool)|harrow]]ed before planting.

Ploughs were initially pulled by [[ox]]en, and later in many areas by [[horse]]s (generally [[draft horse|draught horse]]s) and [[mule]]s. In [[industrialized|industrialised]] countries, the first mechanical means of pulling a plough used [[steam engine|steam]]-powered ([[ploughing engine]]s or [[steam tractor]]s), but these were gradually superseded by [[internal combustion engine|internal-combustion]]-powered [[tractor]]s. In the past two [[decade]]s plough use has reduced in some areas (where soil damage and erosion are problems), in favour of shallower ploughing and other less invasive [[tillage]] techniques.

Ploughs are even used under the sea, for the [[pipe-and-cable-laying plough|laying of cables]], as well as preparing the earth for [[side-scan sonar]]{{Citation needed|date=November 2007}} in a process used in [[oil exploration]].

== Etymology ==
In English, as in other [[Germanic languages]], the plough was traditionally known by other names, e.g. [[Old English]] ''sulh'', [[Old High German]] ''medela'', ''geiza'', or ''huohili'', and [[Old Norse]] ''arðr'', all presumably referring to the scratch plough.

The current word ''plough'' also comes from English, but it appears relatively late (it is absent from [[Gothic language|Gothic]]), and is thought to be a loanword from one of the north [[Italic languages]]. In these it had different meanings: in [[Raetic]] ''plaumorati'' (Pliny), and in [[Latin language|Latin]] ''plaustrum'' "wagon, cart", ''plōstrum, plōstellum'' "cart", and ''plōxenum, plōximum'' "cart box".<ref>C.T. Onions, ed., ''Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology'', s.v. "plough" (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).</ref><ref>''Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language'', s.v. "plow" (NY: Gramercy Books, 1996).</ref>

[[File:19th_century_knowledge_primitive_tools_digging_stick_katta.jpg|thumb|right|75px|An aboriginese digging stick]]
The name "plough" originates from the [[Proto-Germanic language|Proto-Germanic]] *''plōguz'' ~ *''plōgaz''. According to a questionable etymology,<ref name=orel>Orel, Vladimir (2003). ''A Handbook of Germanic Etymology''. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. s.v. "*plōȝuz".</ref> the root of that word comes from the [[Proto-Indo-European language|PIE]] stem *''blōkó-'', in which case it would be cognate to [[Armenian language|Armenian]] ''pelem'' "to dig" and [[Welsh language|Welsh]] ''bwlch'' "crack". *''Plōguz'' could actually be borrowed from the [[Proto-Slavic language|Proto-Slavic]] *''plōgu'' "plough", which gave ''plugǔ'' in [[Old Slavonic language|Old Slavonic]].<ref name=orel/><ref>Martynov, Viktor Vladimirovich (1983). ''Язык в пространстве и времени [Language in Time and Space]'' (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka. pp. 24–25.</ref>

== History of the plough ==
[[File:Maler der Grabkammer des Sennudem 001.jpg|thumb|left|180px|Ancient Egyptian plough, circa 1200 B.C.]]
[[File:Xianning-fields-9731.jpg|thumb|right|Ploughing with [[Domestic water buffalo|buffalo]] in [[Hubei]], China]]

=== Hoeing ===
{{Main|Hoe-farming}}
When agriculture was first developed, simple hand-held [[digging stick]]s or [[Hoe (tool)|hoe]]s would have been used in highly fertile areas, such as the banks of the [[Nile]] where the annual flood rejuvenates the soil, to create furrows wherein seeds could be sown. To grow crops regularly in less fertile areas, the soil must be turned to bring nutrients to the surface.

=== Scratch plough ===
{{Main|Ard (plough)}}
The domestication of [[ox]]en in [[Mesopotamia]] and by its contemporary [[Indus valley civilization]], perhaps as early as the 6th millennium BC, provided mankind with the pulling power necessary to develop the plough. The very earliest plough was the simple ''scratch-plough'', or ''[[Ard (plough)|ard]]'', which consists of a frame holding a vertical wooden stick that was dragged through the topsoil (still used in many parts of the world). It breaks up a strip of land directly along the ploughed path, which can then be planted. Because this form of plough leaves a strip of undisturbed earth between the rows, fields are often cross-ploughed at 90 degree angles, and this tends to lead to squarish fields<ref>Lynn White, Jr., ''Medieval Technology and Social Change'' (Oxford: University Press, 1962), p. 42.</ref> In the archaeology of northern Europe, such squarish fields are referred to as "[[Celtic fields]]".

=== Crooked ploughs ===
{{Main|Aratrum}}
The Greeks apparently introduced the next major advance in plough design; the crooked plough, which angled the cutting surface forward, leading to the name. The cutting surface was often faced with bronze or (later) iron. Metal was expensive, so in times of war it was melted down or forged to make weapons—or the reverse in more peaceful times. This is presumably the origin of the expression found in the Bible "beat your [[swords to ploughshares]]".

=== Mouldboard plough ===
[[File:Child and ox ploughing, Laos (1).jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Water buffalo]] used for ploughing in [[Si Phan Don]], [[Laos]].]]

A major advance in plough design was the ''mouldboard plough'' (American spelling: ''moldboard plow''), which aided the cutting blade. The ''coulter'', ''knife'' or ''skeith'' cuts vertically into the ground just ahead of the ''share'' (or ''frog'') a wedge-shaped surface to the front and bottom of the ''mouldboard'' with the landside of the frame supporting the below-ground components. The upper parts of the frame carries (from the front) the coupling for the motive power (horses), the coulter and the landside frame. Depending on the size of the implement, and the number of furrows it is designed to plough at one time, there is a wheel or wheels positioned to support the frame. In the case of a single-furrow plough there is only one wheel at the front and handles at the rear for the ploughman to steer and manoeuvre it.

When dragged through a field the coulter cuts down into the soil and the share cuts horizontally from the previous furrow to the vertical cut. This releases a rectangular strip of sod that is then lifted by the share and carried by the mouldboard up and over, so that the strip of sod (slice of the [[topsoil]]) that is being cut lifts and rolls over as the plough moves forward, dropping back to the ground upside down into the furrow and onto the turned soil from the previous run down the field. Each gap in the ground where the soil has been lifted and moved across (usually to the right) is called a ''furrow''. The sod that has been lifted from it rests at about a 45 degree angle in the next-door furrow and lies up the back of the sod from the previous run.

In this way, a series of ploughing runs down a field leaves a row of sods that lie partly in the furrows and partly on the ground lifted earlier. Visually, across the rows, there is the land (unploughed part) on the left, a furrow (half the width of the removed strip of soil) and the removed strip almost upside-down lying on about half of the previous strip of inverted soil, and so on across the field. Each layer of soil and the gutter it came from forms the classic furrow.

The mouldboard plough greatly reduced the amount of time needed to prepare a field, and as a consequence, allowed a farmer to work a larger area of land. In addition, the resulting pattern of low (under the mouldboard) and high (beside it) ridges in the soil forms water channels, allowing the soil to drain. In areas where snow buildup is an issue, this allows the soil to be planted earlier as the snow runoff is drained away more quickly.

[[File:Mouldboard plough.JPG|right|thumb|180px|<center>A reconstruction of a mould board plough.]]
Parts of a mouldboard plough:
There are 5 major parts of a mouldboard plough
#Mouldboard
#Share
#Landside
#Frog
#Tailpiece

A ''runner'' extending from behind the share to the rear of the plough controls the direction of the plough, because it is held against the bottom land-side corner of the new furrow being formed. The holding force is the weight of the sod, as it is raised and rotated, on the curved surface of the mouldboard. Because of this runner, the mouldboard plough is harder to turn around than the scratch plough, and its introduction brought about a change in the shape of fields—from mostly square fields into longer rectangular "strips" (hence the introduction of the [[furlong]]).

An advance on the basic design was the ''iron{{Dubious|date=July 2011}} ploughshare'', a replaceable horizontal cutting surface mounted on the tip of the share., a replaceable horizontal cutting surface mounted on the tip of the share. The earliest ploughs with a detachable and replaceable share date from around 1000 BC in the [[Ancient Near East]],<ref>White, K. D. (1984): ''Greek and Roman Technology'', London: Thames and Hudson, p. 59</ref>{{Dubious|date=July 2011}} and the earliest iron ploughshares from ca. 500 BC in [[China]].<ref name="greenberger 2006 11-12">Robert Greenberger, ''The Technology of Ancient China'' (New York: Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2006), pp. 11-12.</ref>{{Dubious|date=July 2011}} Early mouldboards were basically wedges that sat inside the cut formed by the coulter, turning over the soil to the side. The ploughshare spread the cut horizontally below the surface, so when the mouldboard lifted it, a wider area of soil was turned over. Mouldboards are known in Britain from the late 6th century<ref>Hill and Kucharski 1990</ref> on.

=== Loy ploughing ===
{{main|Loy (spade)}}
Loy ploughing was a form of manual ploughing which took place in [[Ireland]] on very small farms or on very hilly ground, where horses couldn't work or where farmers couldn't afford them.<ref name= WE2>{{citeweb|url=http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2009/03/03/36691-castlepollard-venue-to-host-westmeath-ploughing-finals/print|title=Castlepollard venue to host Westmeath ploughing finals|publisher=''Westmeath Examiner''|author=Paul Hughes|date=03/03/2011|accessdate=01/06/2011}}</ref> It was used up until the 1960s in poorer land.<ref name=Tribune>{{citeweb|url=http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/sep/27/the-plough-and-the-stars/|publisher=''The Tribune''|title=The plough and the stars
|date=27/09/09|accessdate=01/06/2011}}</ref> This suited the moist climate of Ireland as the trenches formed by turning in the sods providing drainage. It also allowed the growing of potatoes in bogs as well as on mountain slopes where no other cultivation could take place.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.faminemuseum.com/the-famine-potato/|title=The Famine Potato|publisher=''St Mary's Famine History Museum''|accessdate=01/06/2011}}</ref>

=== Heavy ploughs ===
[[File:ChineseIronPlow1637.jpg|thumb|180px|right|Chinese iron plough with curved mouldboard, 1637.]]
In the basic mouldboard plough the depth of the cut is adjusted by lifting against the runner in the furrow, which limited the weight of the plough to what the ploughman could easily lift. This limited the construction to a small amount of wood (although metal edges were possible). These ploughs were fairly fragile, and were not suitable for breaking up the heavier soils of northern Europe. The introduction of wheels to replace the runner allowed the weight of the plough to increase, and in turn allowed the use of a much larger mouldboard faced in metal. These ''heavy ploughs'' led to greater food production and eventually a significant population increase around 600 AD. {{Citation needed|date=April 2011}}

Before the [[Han Dynasty]] (202 BC–220 AD), Chinese ploughs were made almost entirely of wood, spare the iron blade of the ploughshare. By the Han period, the entire ploughshare was made of [[cast iron]]; these are the first known heavy moldboard iron ploughs.<ref>Wang Zhongshu, trans. by K.C. Chang and Collaborators, ''Han Civilization'' (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982).</ref><ref name="greenberger 2006 11-12"/>

The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in [[Roman Britain]].<ref>Margaritis, Evi; Jones, Martin K.: "Greek and Roman Agriculture", in: [[John Peter Oleson|Oleson, John Peter]] (ed.): ''The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World'', Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-518731-1, pp. 158–174 (166, 170)</ref> The first indisputable appearance after the Roman period is from 643, in a northern Italian document.<ref>White, ''Medieval Technology'', p. 50</ref> Old words connected with the heavy plough and its use appear in [[Slavic languages|Slavic]], suggesting possible early use in this region.<ref>White, ''Medieval Technology'', pp. 49f</ref> The general adoption of the mouldboard plough in [[Europe]] appears to have accompanied the adoption of the [[three-field system]] in the later eighth and early ninth centuries, leading to an improvement of the agricultural productivity per unit of land in northern Europe.<ref>White, ''Medieval Technology'', pp. 69-78</ref>

Research by the French historian [[Marc Bloch]] in medieval French agricultural history showed the existence of names for two different ploughs, "the ''araire'' was wheel-less and had to be dragged across the fields, while the ''charrue'' was mounted on wheels".<ref>Marc Bloch, ''French Rural History'', translated by Janet Sondheimer (Berkeley: University Press, 1966), p.50</ref>

=== Improved designs ===
[[File:A champion ploughman from The Powerhouse Museum Collection.jpg|180px|thumb|'A Champion ploughman', from [[Australia]], circa 1900]]
[[File:Pair of wheels with metal spokes and tyres near Dordrecht, Eastern Cape.jpg|thumb|180px|left|A pair of metal wheels from a plough on a farm near [[Dordrecht, Eastern Cape]].]]

The basic plough with coulter, ploughshare and mouldboard remained in use for a millennium. Major changes in design did not become common until the [[Age of Enlightenment]], when there was rapid progress in design. [[Joseph Foljambe]] in [[Rotherham]], [[England]], in 1730 used new shapes as the basis for the [[Rotherham plough]], which also covered the mouldboard with iron.<ref>[http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/ploughhistory.htm A Brief History of The Plough]</ref> Unlike the heavy plough, the Rotherham (or Rotherham swing) plough consisted entirely of the coulter, mouldboard and handles. It was much lighter than conventional designs and became very popular in England. It may have been the first plough to be widely built in factories.

[[James Small (inventor)|James Small]] further improved the design. Using mathematical methods he experimented with various designs until he arrived at a shape cast from a single piece of iron, the ''Scots plough''. A single-piece cast iron plough was also developed and patented by [[Charles Newbold]] in the United States. This was again improved on by Jethro Wood, a blacksmith of Scipio, New York, who made a three-part Scots Plough that allowed a broken piece to be replaced. In 1837 [[John Deere (inventor)|John Deere]] introduced the first [[steel]] plough; it was so much stronger than iron designs that it was able to work the soil in areas of the US that had previously been considered unsuitable for farming. Improvements on this followed developments in metallurgy; steel coulters and shares with softer iron mouldboards to prevent breakage, the [[chilled plough]] which is an early example of [[Case hardening|surface-hardened]] steel,<ref>[http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldeere.htm John Deere (1804–1886)]</ref> and eventually the face of the mouldboard grew strong enough to dispense with the coulter.

=== Single-sided ploughing ===
[[File:Ploughing match from The Powerhouse Museum Collection.jpg|thumb|right|Single-sided ploughing in a ploughing match.]]

The first mouldboard ploughs could only turn the soil over in one direction ([[Convention (norm)|convention]]ally always to the right), as dictated by the shape of the mouldboard, and so the field had to be ploughed in long strips, or ''lands''. The plough was usually worked clockwise around each land, ploughing the long sides and being dragged across the short sides without ploughing. The length of the strip was limited by the distance oxen (or later horses) could comfortably work without a rest, and their width by the distance the plough could conveniently be dragged. These distances determined the traditional size of the strips: a [[furlong]], (or "furrow's length", {{convert|220|yd}}) by a [[Chain (length)|chain]] ({{convert|22|yd}})—an area of one acre (about 0.4 hectares); this is the origin of the [[acre]]. The one-sided action gradually moved soil from the sides to the centre line of the strip. If the strip was in the same place each year, the soil built up into a ridge, creating the [[ridge and furrow]] topography still seen in some ancient fields.

=== Turnwrest plough ===
The turnwrest plough allows ploughing to be done to either side. The mouldboard is removable, turning to the right for one furrow, then being moved to the other side of the plough to turn to the left (the coulter and ploughshare are fixed). In this way adjacent furrows can be ploughed in opposite directions, allowing ploughing to proceed continuously along the field and thus avoiding the ridge and furrow topography.

=== Reversible plough ===
[[File:Vendeplog.jpg|thumb|A four-furrow reversible plough.]]

The reversible plough has two mouldboard ploughs mounted back-to-back, one turning to the right, the other to the left. While one is working the land, the other is carried upside-down in the air. At the end of each row, the paired ploughs are turned over, so the other can be used. This returns along the next furrow, again working the field in a consistent direction.

=== Riding and multiple-furrow ploughs ===
[[File:OldPlow2006-05-21.JPG|thumb|[[Horse]]-drawn, two-furrow plough.]]

Early steel ploughs, like those for thousands of years prior, were ''walking ploughs'', directed by the ploughman holding onto handles on either side of the plough. The steel ploughs were so much easier to draw through the soil that the constant adjustments of the blade to react to roots or clods was no longer necessary, as the plough could easily cut through them. Consequently it was not long after that the first ''riding ploughs'' appeared. On these, wheels kept the plough at an adjustable level above the ground, while the ploughman sat on a seat where he would have earlier walked. Direction was now controlled mostly through the draught team, with levers allowing fine adjustments. This led very quickly to riding ploughs with multiple mouldboards, dramatically increasing ploughing performance.

A single draught horse can normally pull a single-furrow plough in clean light soil, but in heavier soils two horses are needed, one walking on the land and one in the furrow. For ploughs with two or more furrows more than two horses are needed and, usually, one or more horses have to walk on the loose ploughed sod—and that makes hard going for them, and the horse treads the newly ploughed land down. It is usual to rest such horses every half hour for about ten minutes.

Heavy volcanic loam soils, such as are found in New Zealand, require the use of four heavy [[Draft horse|draught horse]]s to pull a double-furrow plough. Where paddocks are more square than long-rectangular it is more economical to have horses four wide in harness than two-by-two ahead, thus one horse is always on the ploughed land (the sod). The limits of strength and endurance of horses made greater than two-furrow ploughs uneconomic to use on one farm.{{Citation needed|date=October 2008}}

Amish farmers tend to use a team of about seven horses or mules when spring ploughing and as Amish farmers often help each other plough, teams are sometimes changed at noon. Using this method about {{convert|10|acre|m2}} can be ploughed per day in light soils and about {{convert|2|acre|m2}} in heavy soils.{{Citation needed|date=October 2008}}

=== Steam ploughing ===
[[File:Heißdampf-Kipppflug.jpg|thumb|A [[Germany|German]] balance plough. The left-turning set of shares have just completed a pass, and the right-turning shares are about to enter the ground to return across the field.]]
[[File:Dampfseilpflug-Lokomotive - Ottomeyer - Museumsdorf Cloppenburg.jpg|thumb|[[Ploughing engine]] ''Heumar'', made by the [[Ottomayer]] company (Germany), used in pairs with a balance plough. Built 1929, 220 PS, 21 tons.]]

The advent of the mobile [[steam engine]] allowed steam power to be applied to ploughing from about 1850. In [[Europe]], soil conditions were often too soft to support the weight of heavy [[traction engine]]s. Instead, counterbalanced, wheeled ploughs, known as ''balance ploughs'', were drawn by cables across the fields by pairs of [[ploughing engine]]s which worked along opposite field edges. The balance plough had two sets of ploughs facing each other, arranged so when one was in the ground, the other set was lifted into the air. When pulled in one direction the trailing ploughs were lowered onto the ground by the tension on the cable. When the plough reached the edge of the field, the opposite cable was pulled by the other engine, and the plough tilted (balanced), putting the other set of shares into the ground, and the plough worked back across the field.

One set of ploughs was right-handed, and the other left-handed, allowing continuous ploughing along the field, as with the [[#Turnwrest plough|turnwrest]] and [[#Reversible plough|reversible plough]]s. The man credited with the invention of the ploughing engine and the associated balance plough, in the mid nineteenth century, was [[John Fowler (agricultural engineer)|John Fowler]], an English agricultural engineer and inventor.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}}

In America the firm soil of the Plains allowed direct pulling with [[steam tractor]]s, such as the big [[Case Corporation|Case]], Reeves or [[Sawyer Massey]] breaking engines. Gang ploughs of up to fourteen bottoms were used. Often these big ploughs were used in regiments of engines, so that in a single field there might be ten steam tractors each drawing a plough. In this way hundreds of acres could be turned over in a day. Only steam engines had the power to draw the big units. When [[internal combustion engine]]s appeared, they had neither the strength nor the ruggedness compared to the big steam tractors. Only by reducing the number of shares could the work be completed.

=== Stump-jump plough ===
[[File:Disc ploughs from The Powerhouse Museum Collection.jpg|left|thumb|[[Disc plough]]s in Australia, circa 1900]]

The [[Stump-jump plough]] was an Australian invention of the 1870s, designed to cope with the breaking up of new farming land, that contains many tree stumps and rocks that would be very expensive to remove. The plough uses a moveable weight to hold the ploughshare in position. When a tree stump or other obstruction such as a rock is encountered, the ploughshare is thrown upwards, clear of the obstacle, to avoid breaking the plough's harness or linkage; ploughing can be continued when the weight is returned to the earth after the obstacle is passed.

A simpler system, developed later, uses a concave disc (or a pair of them) set at a large angle to the direction of progress, that uses the concave shape to hold the disc into the soil—unless something hard strikes the circumference of the disk, causing it to roll up and over the obstruction. As the arrangement is dragged forward, the sharp edge of the disc cuts the soil, and the concave surface of the rotating disc lifts and throws the soil to the side. It doesn't make as good a job as the mouldboard plough (but this is not considered a disadvantage, because it helps fight the wind erosion), but it does lift and break up the soil. See [[disc harrow]].

=== Modern ploughs ===
[[File:WWILandArmyPoster.jpg|thumb|150px|left|A British woman ploughing on a [[World War I]] recruitment poster for the [[Women's Land Army]].]]

Modern ploughs are usually multiple reversible ploughs, mounted on a [[tractor]] via a [[three-point hitch|three-point linkage]]. These commonly have between two and as many as seven mouldboards—and ''semi-mounted'' ploughs (the lifting of which is supplemented by a wheel about half-way along their length) can have as many as eighteen mouldboards. The hydraulic system of the tractor is used to lift and reverse the implement, as well as to adjust furrow width and depth. The ploughman still has to set the draughting linkage from the tractor so that the plough is carried at the proper angle in the soil. This angle and depth can be controlled automatically by modern tractors. As a complement to the rear plough a two or three mouldboards-plough can be mounted on the front of the tractor if it is equipped with front three-point linkage.

== Specialist ploughs ==
=== Chisel plough ===
The ''chisel plough'' is a common tool to get deep tillage (prepared land) with limited soil disruption. The main function of this plough is to loosen and aerate the [[soil]]s while leaving crop residue at the top of the soil. This plough can be used to reduce the effects of [[soil compaction|compaction]] and to help break up [[plowpan|ploughpan]] and [[hardpan]]. Unlike many other ploughs the chisel will not invert or turn the soil. This characteristic has made it a useful addition to [[no-till farming|no-till]] and low-till farming practices which attempt to maximise the [[soil erosion|erosion]]-prevention benefits of keeping organic matter and farming residues present on the soil surface through the year. Because of these attributes, the use of a chisel plough is considered by some to be more [[Sustainable agriculture|sustainable]] than other types of plough, such as the [[#Mouldboard plough|mouldboard plough]].

[[File:JDTractor chisel-plough.jpg|thumb|right|A modern [[Deere & Company|John Deere]] 8110 Farm Tractor using a chisel plough.]]
[[File:Bigham Brother Tomato Tiller.JPG|thumb|Bigham Brother Tomato Tiller]]

The chisel plough is typically set to run up to a depth of eight to twelve inches (200 to 300 mm). However some models may run much deeper. Each of the individual ploughs, or shanks, are typically set from nine inches (229 mm) to twelve inches (305 mm) apart. Such a plough can encounter significant soil drag, consequently a [[tractor]] of sufficient [[Motive power|power]] and good traction is required. When planning to plough with a chisel plough it is important to bear in mind that 10 to 15 [[horsepower]] (7 to 11 [[watt#Kilowatt|kW]]) per shank will be required.

[[Cultivator]]s are often similar in form to chisel ploughs, but their goals are different. Cultivator teeth work near the surface, usually for weed control, whereas chisel plough shanks work deep beneath the surface. Consequently, cultivating also takes much less power per shank than does chisel ploughing.

=== Ridging plough ===
A ridging plough is used for crops, such as [[potato]]es or [[scallion]]s, which are grown buried in ridges of soil using a technique called ''ridging'' or ''[[hilling]]''. A ridging plough has two mouldboards facing away from each other, cutting a deep furrow on each pass, with high ridges either side. The same plough may be used to split the ridges to harvest the crop.

=== Scottish hand plough ===
A variety of ridge plough, notable in that the blade points towards the operator. This is for use solely by human effort rather than animal or machine assistance. As such it is pulled backwards by the operator, requiring great physical effort. Particularly used for second breaking of ground, and for potato planting. Found in Shetland, some western crofts and more rarely Central Scotland. The tool epitomises a small-holding too small or poor to merit use of animals.

=== Mole plough ===
{{Main|Subsoiler}}
The ''mole plough'' or ''subsoiler'' allows underdrainage to be installed without trenches, or it breaks up deep impermeable soil layers which impede drainage. It is a very deep plough, with a torpedo-shaped or wedge-shaped tip, and a narrow blade connecting this to the body. When dragged through the ground, it leaves a channel deep under the ground, and this acts as a drain. Modern mole ploughs may also bury a flexible perforated plastic drain pipe as they go, making a more permanent drain—or they may be used to lay pipes for water supply or other purposes.

=== Advantages of the mouldboard plough ===
Mouldboard ploughing, in cold and temperate climates, no deeper than 20 cm, aerates the soil by loosening it. It incorporates crop residues, solid manures, limestone and commercial fertilizers along with some oxygen. By doing so, it reduces nitrogen losses by volatilization, accelerates mineralization and increases short-term nitrogen availability for transformation of organic matter into humus. It erases wheel tracks and ruts caused by harvesting equipment. It controls many perennial weeds and pushes back the growth of other weeds until the following spring. It accelerates soil warming and water evaporation in spring because of the lesser quantity of residues on the soil surface. It facilitates seeding with a lighter seeder. It controls many enemies of crops ([[slugs]], [[crane flies]], seedcorn maggots-bean seed flies, borers). It increases the number of "soil-eating" earthworms (endogea) but is detrimental to vertical-dwelling earthworms (anecic).

=== Disadvantages of the mouldboard plough ===
Over-ploughing can lead to the formation of [[hardpan]]. Typically farmers break up hardpan up with a [[subsoiler]], which acts as a long, sharp knife to slice through the hardened layer of soil deep below the surface. [[Soil erosion]] due to improper land and plough utilization is possible. [[Contour plowing|Contour ploughing]] mitigates soil erosion by ploughing across a slope, along elevation lines. Alternatives to ploughing, such as the [[no till method]], have the potential to actually build soil levels and humus, and may be suitable to smaller, more intensively cultivated plots, and to farming on poor, shallow or degraded soils which will only be further damaged by ploughing.

== Plough parts ==
[[File:Old plough schema.svg|thumb|275px|Image of a contemporary plough]]
The picture to the right illustrates the following parts of a plough (numbering matches parts on the image):
# Frame
# Three point attach
# Height regulator
# Knife or [[coulter]]
# Chisel
# [[Plowshare|Share]], also called the ploughshare
# Mouldboard
# Plough shaft
Other portions include the frog, runner, landside, shin, trashboard and handles.

On modern ploughs and some older ploughs, the mouldboard is separate from the share and runner, allowing these parts to be replaced without replacing the mouldboard. Abrasion eventually destroys all parts of a plough that contact the soil.

== See also ==
{{Wiktionary}}
* [[Aratrum]]—Ancient Greek and Roman plough
* [[Ard (plough)]]—Scratch plough
* [[Boustrephedon]] ([[Greek language|Greek]]: "ox-turning")—An ancient way of writing, each line being read in the opposite direction like reversible ploughing.
* [[Foot plough]]
* [[Headland (agriculture)]]
* [[History of agriculture]]
* [[Museum of Scottish Country Life]]
* [[Railroad plough]]
* [[Ridge and furrow]]
* [[Snowplow|Snowplough]]
* [[Sokha]]—Old Russian scratch-plough
* [[Whippletree (mechanism)|Whippletree]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist}}

== References ==
* "Early Medieval Ploughing at Whithorn and the Chronology of Plough Pebbles", Hill, P. and Kucharski, K. in ''Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society'', Vol. LXV, 1990, pp 73–83.

== Further reading ==
* ''Nanchinadu: Harbinger of Rice and Plough Culture in the Ancient World'' by Dr. V. Sankaran Nair

== External links ==
{{commons}}
* [http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/h/plough.htm The Rotherham Plough]—''the first commercially successful iron plough''
* [http://www.deere.com/en_US/compinfo/history/index.html History of the steel plough]—''as developed by John Deere in the US''
* [http://www.antiquefarmtools.info/ Breast Ploughs and other antique hand farm tools]

{{Types of tools}}

[[Category:Farming tools]]
[[Category:History of agriculture]]
[[Category:Agricultural machinery]]

[[ar:محراث]]
[[an:Aladro]]
[[ast:Llabiegu]]
[[gn:Yvymbovoha]]
[[ay:Arma]]
[[az:Kotan]]
[[bn:হাল]]
[[zh-min-nan:Lôe]]
[[ba:Һабан]]
[[be:Плуг]]
[[be-x-old:Плуг]]
[[bs:Plug]]
[[br:Arar]]
[[bg:Плуг]]
[[ca:Arada]]
[[cs:Pluh]]
[[cy:Aradr]]
[[da:Plov]]
[[de:Pflug]]
[[et:Ader]]
[[el:Άροτρο]]
[[es:Arado (agricultura)]]
[[eo:Plugilo]]
[[eu:Golde]]
[[fa:گاوآهن]]
[[fr:Charrue]]
[[ga:Céachta]]
[[gl:Arado]]
[[ko:쟁기]]
[[hi:हल]]
[[hr:Plug]]
[[io:Plugilo]]
[[id:Bajak]]
[[is:Plógur]]
[[it:Aratro]]
[[he:מחרשה]]
[[jv:Waluku]]
[[pam:Sarul]]
[[sw:Plau]]
[[la:Aratrum]]
[[lv:Arkls]]
[[lb:Plou]]
[[lt:Plūgas]]
[[hu:Eke]]
[[ml:കലപ്പ]]
[[nl:Ploeg (werktuig)]]
[[ja:プラウ]]
[[no:Plog]]
[[nn:Plog]]
[[nrm:Tchéthue]]
[[pnb:ہل]]
[[pl:Pług]]
[[pt:Arada (agricultura)]]
[[ro:Plug]]
[[qu:T'aklla]]
[[ru:Плуг]]
[[rue:Плуг]]
[[sco:Pleuch]]
[[stq:Plouch]]
[[sq:Parmenda]]
[[scn:Aratu]]
[[simple:Plow]]
[[sk:Pluh]]
[[sl:Plug]]
[[sr:Плуг]]
[[sh:Plug]]
[[fi:Kyntö]]
[[sv:Plog]]
[[ta:ஏர்]]
[[te:నాగలి]]
[[th:การไถนา]]
[[tr:Saban]]
[[uk:Плуг]]
[[ur:ہل]]
[[vi:Cày]]
[[wa:Tcherowe]]
[[war:Arado]]
[[bat-smg:Plūgs]]
[[zh:犁]]

Talk:Plough

2011-07-17T19:11:44Z

Gnip:

{{WPFarm|class=B|importance=high}}
{{talkheader}}

==spelling==
This page uses three different spellings of 'moldboard'.
('mouldboard', 'mold-board'.) Should it be made consistent?
- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 03:51, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Consistency. ==
::"''Consistency is the [[hobgoblin (fairy)|hobgoblin]] of small minds.''"
:::Actually, the saying is "''A ''foolish'' consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds''". ([[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]) I don't think this call for consistency is foolish. You may disagree, but if you mean that you think it is foolish, I wish you would say so. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 05:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Sorry, left the smiley out because I thought starting the next sentence with "''But seriously''" would suffice as a clue. No, I don't think looking for consistency within a single Wikipedia article is "foolish". Whether one should use "moldboard" or "mouldboard" is a question I have no opinion though. Thanks for the corrected quote, though. I would have misremembered it as being one of [[Samuel Johnson]]s in any case, so thank [[ghod]] I didn't attribute it! -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 06:32, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*But seriously, mouldboard may be most standard; according to OED at least. But then OED has the word "mold" merely as a redirect to "mould", so that should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. Do as thou wilt. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
:''mouldboard'' is the British English spelling, and the OED is primarily and originally a dictionary of British English. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]]
*Well according the page histories this article started as '''Plough''' and not '''Plow''' so I will (as per convention) change this article to the British spellings of both words. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
*I believe I introduced at least some of the American spellings. I think it is fine to change them to British. I don't know all the British spellings so it is hard for me to maintain consistency when expanding an article originally written using them. In fact, it has been pointed out to me that the American spellings in and of themselves give me plenty of trouble :-). The American spelling of ''mouldboard'' should be noted though, somewhere; I may add this. [[User:Kat|Kat]] 14:07, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
----
How can we have an article on plows that doesn't mention [[John Deere]]? I detect a British bias here. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:27, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
:And we don't have an article on John Deere either. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:28, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*Bedtime for me, but a quick note in the hope tht some keen Wikkipedian will hop in and take care of this. This page really, really needs (a) stump-jump plough, (b) balance - i.e., discussion of the harm that ploughing does to soil structure as well as of its advantages. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
* The article mentions that the Celts introduced the moldboard plough about 4000BC... is this a typo? There is no reference but it seems to me that 4000BC is quite early, even than the Greeks or China? [[User:JustinLong|JustinLong]] ([[User talk:JustinLong|talk]]) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

== Ransome ==
--[[User:Malcolmcw|Malcolmcw]] 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I notice that the plough section makes no mention of Ransome who's contribution of the eversharp share not to mention his influence on the design of steel ploughs in general is a major lack

== Prehistory ==
[[User:Mencial|Mencial]] 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ¿Is there any more information about the prehistory of the plough? First ploughs, how it extends through the different agricultural civilizations, etc. I know, I am too lazy to do the research.

==Moved from [[Talk:Mouldboard Plough]]==
===Merge===
{{Discussion top}}
The result was '''merge''' into DESTINATION PAGE. -- [[User:Nazgul533|Nazgul533]] [[user_talk:nazgul533|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Nazgul533|contribs]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
*There is absolutely no reason to have this as an article separate from [[Plough]], and this one is also miscapitalized in the first place. Merge it, and create a redirect from the lowercase "p" version as well to the Plough article. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
*Why wouldn't it be a seperate article? It is a distinct kind of plough that was developed, therefor warranting it's own individual article. It should not be merged, but only linked with the plough article. 01:36, 20 June 2006 [[User:24.176.81.236]]
*It could be confusing for people with limited knowlege about ploughing, therefor it should be merged. They'll search for a plough, not minding details what kind of plough it is. In Africa 90% of all ploughing is done by mouldboard ploughs. 16:14, 11 July 2006 [[User:Joevilliers]]
* Exactly. I am reading up on plows and techniques, and this one singular article threw me. The basic definitions and technical explanation are duplicative of the "Plough" entry. The remainder is all why it is so horrible, contains no references, reads as biased, and incorporates no information on when and where it is appropriate, which it is in many cases. Reading other articles online from progressive organic agricultural sites clearly shows conflicts with the singularly negative (and strangely past tense) write-up. I think this entire entry is useless at best, false at least. 17:36, 26 October 2006 [[User:66.195.232.121]]
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Just added a section on a typical Appalachian plow ==

I used the British spelling for consistency. I think I have a picture of a hillside plow (one I took years ago), and will include it if possible. [[User:Taosein|Soltera]] 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Dating ==
Would it be possible to have some dates for the development of the earlier type of plough? I realise this might be inexact and geographically dependent, but a guide would be very helpful. Cheers. [[User:Fluoronaut|fluoronaut]] 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== images ==

need more images

- old illustrations
- photographs of museum artifacts —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/68.33.71.53|68.33.71.53]] ([[User talk:68.33.71.53|talk]]) 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

image of two furrow horse drawn plow is actually tractor drawn the controls point towards the front —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.104.242.34|137.104.242.34]] ([[User talk:137.104.242.34|talk]]) 12:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 

==Video==
[[File:Ploughing.ogg|150px|Bullock-drawn plough: A farmer ploughing a field using a bullock-drawn plough in [[Sholavandan]]]]
Please use the video in the article at an appropriate place. -- [[User:Sundar|Sundar]] \[[User talk:Sundar|talk]] \[[Special:Contributions/Sundar|contribs]] 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:Please see comment on this video in [[Talk:Ard (plough)]] – it is not a plough but some kind of harrow. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Une(Japanese) rather than ridge between furrow(s) ==
Hi, all. There is a word "une(Japanese)" correspond to [[Ridge and furrow|ridge]] which is between [[plow]]ed [[furrow]]s, cultivating [[Welsh onion]] or [[Scallion]] for example.
See:[[:Image:Une(Japanese)(ridge)- between plowed furrows.JPG]]
/media/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Une%28Japanese%29%28ridge%29-_between_plowed_furrows.JPG
Is any word like "Une" rather than to call "ridge between furrow(s)"? Thanks in adavance.--[[User:Namazu-tron|Namazu-tron]] 08:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:That's what is called ridging (British) or [[hilling]] (American). It is dealt with in the [[Plough#Ridging plough|ridging plough]] section. It's quite different from [[ridge and furrow]], whose ridges are several metres apart. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Chinese Pre-History - moved from article ==

The following recently-added text was removed to the talk page for a variety of reasons, mainly that it cuts across several of the other chronological sections already in place and may or may not introduce duplicated information. The poor formatting, POV statements and inconsistent use of 'plow' (rather than plough) mean that its (unmodified) inclusion noticably degrades the article. The information may be worth merging with the existing text, but requires someone more knowledgeable to do so.

:-------------PRE-HISTORY OF THE PLOUGH---------------

:the Han Chinese plow is simple, light (can be carried by one person on the shoulder), and efficient because it uses the moldboard and a curved bar to put all the forces at the slant surface. This kind of plow was already used in Han dynasty (BCE).

:The Dutch learned about the Chinese plow while trading in Asia in the 17th century (i.e. at least 1700 years later). The technology was passed on to Yorkshire in England. Thomas Jefferson learned about this plow when he was traveling in France. It is also the first time he saw oxen used in plowing. Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling.

:After many improvements, the plow finally took shape in 1876, a hundred years after US became a nation. To date, John Deere uses basically the same principle on the plows.

:References:

:Science and Civilization in China
:By Joseph Needham, Ling, Wang, Ling Wang

:Cyclopedia of American Agriculture
:By Liberty Hyde Bailey. p. 387

[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:: "Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling." Really? Even after the invention of the [[horse collar]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== More dates would be helpful to the time impaired ==
Many of the events are reported without a date context...would increase the value of the article by 2000 times..[[User:Primacag|Avram Primack]] ([[User talk:Primacag|talk]]) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC).02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Disc plough . Chisel plough . Scarifer . Planter ==

*1.? Corrections needed ? The green John Deere tractor in the photo appears to be pulling a plough with a set of discs at the front and chisel plough tines at the rear . Correct me if I'm wrong .
:Only relatively small,light implements are usually attached to the '''3-point linkage''' .
:As the John Deere photo shows, larger implements are self-supporting and attached to the drawbar [towbar] .

2. A primary advantage of '''disc''' ploughs is their ability to cut through trash such as wheat stubble which would choke other ploughs .
However, they are often [not always] a pain/cumbersome to use .

* 3.'''Chisel , mouldboard & disc''' ploughs break the soil into large clods . Chisel ploughs the deepest .
*4.A '''scarifier''' has a large number of tines which operate at a shallow depth.
:It breaks the large clods up so the seed will be in good contact with the soil .
*5.The '''planter''' usually has a large number of tines, similar to a
:scarifer . It performs a similar function to the scarifier as well
: as planting .

*6. A typical ploughing sequence would be
**[1] mouldboard/disc/chisel plough
**[2] scarifier
**[3] planter .

*7. The cutting edge of the tines is often faced with tungsten carbide or a similar work-hardening material as they wear surprisingly quickly . Wear rate depends upon soil type .

*8.There is a large variety of plough types , and how each type
: is used varies greatly . The above is only an illustration .

*9.The two major reasons for ploughing are to kill weeds and to
: prepare the seedbed . All other reasons are secondary . Usually .

* 10.The discussion statement " '''horses are physically inferior to Oxen in pulling '''" invites comment .
Compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox . Which do you think
would be the strongest ?
I have never used oxen as draught animals, but know someone who
has . In his experience , oxen are much slower, but
will not give up as easily if difficulties [eg bogged ] arise .

* 11. References .
I've ploughed/planted using the above implements, and seen/assisted
a few more in operation including horsedrawn .
I don't claim to be an expert . I do claim to be a primary source .

20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

:All very interesting – can you incorporate some into the article? We do really need references from a [[WP:Reliable sources|secondary source]] though.

:Not sure what you're saying about oxen and horses... When you say "compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox", what do you mean? They are much the same size... My understanding is that horses work faster, but oxen pull better against a solid load. Historically, of course, oxen were used in much larger numbers – in southern England teams of eight were normal (even when these were relatively large modern [[Sussex cattle|Sussex]]es), while two or three draught horses might be common. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

::reply to above
:: Thanks for your interesting comments .
:: Draught Horse Size .
:: Any draught horse I've seen is much bigger than any ox I've seen . And I've never seen a really big draught horse . I suggest you sit on a draught horse one day . You'll never forget it .
::Draught horse team size in Australia varied from 1 up to about 12 - I think - perhaps more - in the broadacre areas such as Western Australia . The big teams were quite big . Must have been a handful .
::Your understanding of horse vs ox performance is consistent with mine . I've been told that a horse is much better until difficulties arise - the load gets stuck or bogged . Then the horses will give up more quickly, whilst the oxen will continue to pull [with a bit of encouragement] . Yes, the horse is significantly faster .Typically horses were used for ploughing in Australia and oxen were used for timbergetting . The last team of oxen used for timbergetting ceased work about 10 years ago - in the Dorrigo area .
::Of course, other factors influence whether horses or oxen were used . Price and availability . If you only have oxen [ or horses ] that's what you use .
::Secondary Sources.
::I would be quite happy to be proven wrong here.
::Cultivation methods and implements do vary a lot - the same implement is often used in very different ways in different areas . I've used a planter to scarify .
::I've seen some documentation of agricultural practices which I'm dubious about . The problem is that the person documenting is not the person doing .
::Documentation is useful if you know nothing, but it only tells half the story .
::Incorporate some into the article .
::I'm lazy . I'll think about it .
::Actually, plenty of people know more about ploughing than I do . However, I'm pleased if I have helped anyone .
::203.101.231.244 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I do know how big a large draught horse is (and I've even driven some on occasion). However, a large ox is pretty big too... I think large draught horses ''are'' probably larger than most oxen, but not as much as you might think – horses have much longer legs in proportion, so a horse is a good bit taller than an ox of the same weight. An ox is also built more for pushing, as that's something cattle do naturally. If you're used to seeing "ordinary" cattle close up, it's worth bearing in mind that a fully grown ox (castrated male) as used for draught will be significantly bigger than a cow or entire bull – probably an extra hand or two in height, and heavier about the shoulders than a cow. As an example, I have a [[Welsh Cob]] of about 14.5 hands, who probably weighs around 400 kg; I also have a [[British White]] steer of about 4 years old; he's around the same height but must weigh something like 600 kg (sadly he's neither psychologically suited nor trained to draught – the cob is both).

:::I think you're right that the source of traction is always what's available – and also what's convenient and affordable. Oxen have the advantage that they don't need high-grade feed – a horse can't work its hardest if it only has rough grazing and no hard feed, but an ox will work quite well under those conditions (and you can eat it afterwards...). The change from oxen to horses in the UK coincided with [[enclosure]] – the change from subsistence farming (with animals fed largely from common grazing) to cash farming. Cash farmers can afford to buy or grow grain for horse feed, in the expectation of paying for it with increased profits; subsistence farmers cannot afford to use their family's food for mere traction, when their oxen can fuel themselves for free off the common.

:::By the way, talk page layout and wiki markup... You might find it best to stick to colons (::) to inset your comments – they don't mix with equals signs. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) – like this: [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Parts of a Plough ==

There's an excellent illustration of a mouldboard plough here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aratro_g1.jpg, it would be nice to include it if someone knew what the parts were called in English —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.133.139.19|89.133.139.19]] ([[User talk:89.133.139.19|talk]]) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 

== Plough manufacturers ==

The [[Kverneland]] article says that the Norwegian company is the largest manufacturer of ploughing equipment. I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template there. Bigger than [[John Deere]]? This article does not mention any current plough manufacturers at all. Shouldn't there be at least some links to some of the bigger ones, such as [[New Holland]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

: New Holland does produce plughs? Can you give me a link. -- [[Special:Contributions/87.144.91.236|87.144.91.236]] ([[User talk:87.144.91.236|talk]]) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Ploughwright ==

I see ploughwright redirects to this page. I *think* that a ploughwright was a person who made or repaired metal ploughs, but there does not appear to be an explanation of the occupation of ploughwright on this page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might add some text about ploughwrights, otherwise the redirect is a little unhelpful. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.178.143.116|81.178.143.116]] ([[User talk:81.178.143.116|talk]]) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 

==Etymology==
I'm writing a Swedish version of a plough article for our Wikipedia and find a great deal of information in your article that I'm using. Got a little confused though when reading the Etymology sect. It seems to me that it is a bit contradictory. Does the word come from the Slavic or the Latin languages?
[[User: jd6420|jd6420]] 2011-04-15 20:04 (CEST)

:: Here's what Merriam-Webster Collegiate says ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow]]): "Middle English, from Old English ''plōh'' hide of land; akin to Old High German ''pfluog'' plow. First Known Use: 12th century." No idea without researching if other dictionaries disagree. HTH. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::PS: Check out [[wikt:plough#Etymology]] also. HTH×2. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thanks. Found some answers in a Swedish dictionary that essentially agrees with what you say. If I understand it correctly, there seems to be two traces; one Latin and one Gothic/Longobard/Ratic. (I did register to the English Wiki, wonder why I'm still red?) [[User jd6420|jd64209]] 2011-04-16 10:08]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jd6420|Jd6420]] ([[User talk:Jd6420|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jd6420|contribs]])  

== Confusing definition ==

The article starts out with:

:The plough (play /ˈplaʊ/; American spelling: plow) is a tool used in farming for initial ''cultivation'' of soil in preparation for sowing seed or planting.

where the word "ciltivation" is linked to the main article by the same name.

Does this refer to cultivation as a synonym for agriculture in general? That doesn't seem to work in the context of this article. The meaning of cultivation in this sense is too broad for the specific purpose of a plow. Shouldn't the word "cultivation" be replaced with "tillage"? My understanding is that "tilling" is plowing then cultivating. Then plowing would be the first step in tilling the soil with cultivation being the second step. [[User:Rsduhamel|Rsduhamel]] ([[User talk:Rsduhamel|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

== Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough ==

Gun Powder Ma based his claim that "The earliest iron ploughshares date from around 1000 BC in the [[Ancient Near East]]" from this source:

Greek and Roman Technology, by White:

"From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia) through the detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

I believe is a misreading of the sources. The author could very well be talking about the earliest plough in general, to the earliest plough with a "detachable and replaceable share". This may not necessarily be iron. This is especially so when he says that a plough with "no protection" is "suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia". This is why I made the changes.

[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:First, it is a bit rich to accuse me wrongly in the edit history of misrepresenting sources when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plough&action=historysubmit&diff=439320828&oldid=438530186 ''you'' removed a perfectly sourced references] on the Roman mouldboard which you obviously only claimed to have checked, but not have done so. So here it is to remove all doubts:

<blockquote>Like moldboards, these "ears" probably helped turn the soil. Bronze models of such ards with turning boards are known from Britain and Germany, and complete wooden ards have been recovered from the peat deposits of Northern Europe, though generally lacking the aures, which appear to have been more common in the south.

Pliny (RN 18.48) refers to an invention that was recent at the time he wrote (the mid-first century A.D.), the addition of two small wheels, implying that the plow was becoming heavier. From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the
later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:That alone should suffice to pull the tooth that the use of moldboard was something peculiar to ancient China - it wasn't, it was also used, at least in Europe. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Second, could you please quote from the Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered? [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Third, contrary to your interpretation, White it absolutely straightforward that the detachable and replaceable share which appeared in Babylonia was of iron ("...detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East)". However, what led me to reconsider is that in the sentence above he speaks of "Ridging boards to be to be a Roman invention", and this seems to be the key invention, not whether the board was made of iron or wood. In any case, I changed the phrasing somewhat to leave room for both interpretations, wood or iron, and you are most certainly welcome to ask for a third opinion on what I believe is overall a clear matter: moldboard plows were known and used in antiquity outside China. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

::First of all, I only consented on your edit because of the interpretations of "heavy" and because I thought you implied iron. That has nothing to do with reading the source. If you want to beat a dead horse, then here is what I consider your own "faulty" interpretations. I edited it out but since you insist to continue with something that I was willing to concede with, here is my original statement:

He[Gun Powder Ma] then claims that "The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in Roman Britain." The statement is based on the following.

Greek and Roman Agriculture, by Margaritis, Evi M. and Martin J.:
"From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The mouldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch."-pg 166

At most the author states in pg 166 that the addition of "two small wheels" implied that the plough was "becoming heavier". The author later implies the absence of heavy mouldboard ploughs in the very next paragraph:"Little, if any, metal was used in the construction of an ard-in line with the wood-based technology of farmers in general. Metal was scarce and conserved, used only where a durable cutting edge was absolutely necessary. Even then, obsidian flakes often provided a more accessible material for a sharp edge in areas with the appropriate geology, blades of obsidian being inserted both in threshing sleds and sickle mounts. The heavy investment in metal seen in the later plough was simply not within the resources of the great majority of classical-period farmers. Indeed, the need for it only arose beyond the limits of the Mediterranean region, where the soils were heavier."

Interpreting a "mouldboard plough" with a "heavy blade" as a "heavy moldboard plough" is really stretching it.

So your use of the source is misrepresentative. Your entire reply is an reiteration of the problems I am addressing. You also tried to cover up that fault by misrepresenting my statements. I never said that Rome didn't have a "moldboard plough", only that they didn't have a "heavy moldboard plough".'' Your source is still misused, whatever your claim of having read it. As for White, reiterating his quote(which could be interpreted multiple ways, as I have shown) hardly gives credence to your claim. As I have already given his full quote: "From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from ''no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia)'' through the detachable and replaceable share, ''first of wood'', later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

Giving half the quote and then saying that it could "only" be interpreted one way is hardly accurate. Perhaps you shouldn't use selective quoting to further your claims. Other users have found you misrepresenting sources as well, have they not? So who is the one who haven't read the source?

Now you say that the first "wood or iron" ploughshare came from 1000 BCE Mesopotamia and 500 BC China, in your attempt to cover up your mistake on Mesopotamia (all the while blaming it on me). This is despite the fact that even though the source specifically states "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles"-pg 11. I don't see how you could have misinterpreted that into "wood or iron".
[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 5:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Please ask yourself how often you've now used the word "imply", try to cut the interpretative crap and address the reference as it is. Again, it couldn't hardly be more straightforward:

:<blockquote>From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The '''moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels,''' makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:And below:
:<blockquote>Three iron implements that recur on Romano-British sites of the late third and fourth centuries A.D. are the long harvesting scythe, the coulter, and the '''asymmetrical plowshare''' (Rees 1979). All three can be linked to the intensification of cereal production, and the latter two to the''' moldboard plow, designed to cut deep into the soil and invert the furrow''' (figure 7.4; Jones 1981).</blockquote>

:In fact, the entire section is titled: MEADOWS, GARDENS, AND '''MOLDBOARD PLOWS'''
:I honestly don't know why you attach so much importance to the ''heaviness'' of the moldboard plow. The weight is absolutely secondary. The main technical difference lies between the ard which scratches the earth and the moldboard plow which turns it. Whether the moldboard itself was of iron and more heavy or of wood and less heavy is secondary; the question of material is secondary, what counts is the ''design''. Both my references squarely state that moldboard plows existed in ancient Europe. Now do you agree to that or not? And please don't forget to cite from Greenberger or it got to be removed. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Secondary to whom? Are you really going to stick to arguing about something I didn't even disagree with? I have already stated, and I repeat
::1) That the moldboard plow was used in Rome
::2) That the issue was the "heavy moldboard plow" and the use of "iron ploughshares" for white. If the "heavy" or "iron" parts were secondary then, considering that they are not confirmed by the given sources, why even put it there? I dropped my former claim as "heavy" is a relative term. Despite the absence of your source confirming the existence of "heavy moldboard ploughs", I was willing to let that go. Yet for reasons unknown you keep bringing it up.

::What you are doing is using a straw-man argument, arguing in favor of things I never denied. So instead of misinterpreting the author you misinterpret me. Sadly I'm not surprised. Besides that, I don't think you're reading me. I have already given the quote from Greenberger. It seems I must repeat it: "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles" -pg 11. These were so heavy that "it was injuring the horses and oxen" until a new breast harness was developed. Now I don't even know why you need me to give these quotes. I'm sure you could find it on your own. Your threat to delete it is funny. If you couldn't find the source to "verify" it, though I'm sure you could, you're going to delete it? I don't think that's how wikipedia works. I also see that you're asking for the "Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered", which was about "iron plowshares", not "heavy moldboard iron ploughs". Yet you edited the article in which "heavy moldboard iron ploughs" had to be verified by Greensberger, despite that this particular claim is also bolstered by another source. That's very tricky of you.
::Anyways, if it's such a big deal, then why are you so insistent on preventing me on correcting such a "secondary" misrepresentations of the authors? I'm sure you won't mind these minor corrections, won't you? By all means, if you do find sources that say there were iron plows in Mesopotamia during 1000 BC, you're welcome to do so. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised, as iron was introduced in the region a couple hundred years before that. However, the use of sources must be accurate. Even if you're saying the truth, the source has to back up that statement. That's all I'm saying. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::So, please quote sources which attach the same importance to the heaviness of the moldboard plow as you do. I've given you enough refs now which make clear that it was the design, not the material, which made the difference. Actually, there are also ards which were made of iron. This leads me to the second point. Yes, White is ambiguous about whether these Mesopotamian plows around 1000 BC were made of iron or wood. As you know, the Iron Age began in Mesopotomia at least half a millennium earlier than in China, so there is nothing intrinsically unlikely about iron plows appearing in Babylonia at this time along with all the other iron tools and implements. Still, we can setttle for something like "either iron or wood" or whatever. As for Greenberger's quote, nowhere does he talk about ''moldboard'' plows, "V-shaped piece" could refer just as well to simple ards, so I guess we have to adjust the quote in the text accordingly, if that's all he says about it. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 13:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Gun Powder Ma, I was the one who revealed that the quote was misrepresented, so I gave the the actual quote in order to settle things correctly. Thanks for finally admiting that. However, I was not the one who put in the information that China had "heavy iron moldboards", nor was Greenberger the only source used. I don't know why you insist about Greenberger's quote about the lack of moldboard plows when you could so easily find out for yourself that he actually did. For example, and I quote: "The earliest iron plow found dates from about 500s BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles. By the third century BC, when iron tools were made using improved casting methods, the plowshare called the kuan (the moldboard plow) came into use and rapidly spread over the next two centuries.... [descriptions of the kuan]...." -pg 11
::::I'm sure you can easily find this out for yourself. Your threat to delete the section on the bases that I couldn't give the quote is uncalled for. I'm not the one who put the information there, so you shouldn't be asking me in the first place. You should be asking PericlesofAthens, someone whom I trust as being credible with his use of sources. Plus, considering that the section is sourced by not just Greensberger's book, but also by Wang ZhongShu's book, means that discrediting Greensberger as misrepresented would only warrant deleting his source, not the entire information about Chinese ploughs! Me actually providing quotes from Greensberger is going above and beyond normal expectations for wikipedians. I have done this thrice now. I don't see why you keep asking for the same quote again and again. No, I don't have Wang ZhongShu's book available. I caught you misrepresenting the source because, unfortunately for you, I actually DO have the same sources you had used. That's what gives me the right to delete it, because I can PROVE that the sources were misrepresented. If you want to delete the section about Chinese ploughs, it's YOUR job to provide the quotations from not just Greensberger, but also from Wang ZhongShu. If you are so adamant on deleting it, then go find the source. I'm not going to do it for you. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Hydaspes

2011-07-16T02:50:30Z

Gnip: Not really what the sources say. Possible vandalism.

{{Infobox Military Conflict
|image=[[Image:The phalanx attacking the centre in the battle of the Hydaspes by Andre Castaigne (1898-1899).jpg|250px]]
|caption=A painting by [[Andre Castaigne]] depicting the [[phalanx formation|phalanx]] attacking the centre during the Battle of the Hydaspes
|conflict='''Battle of the Hydaspes'''|partof=the [[Wars of Alexander the Great]]
|date=May [[326 BC]]
|place= [[Punjab (Pakistan)|Punjab]], modern-day [[Pakistan]], near the [[Jhelum River|Hydaspes River]]).
|result=Decisive Macedonian victory.<ref>Fuller, pg 198 {{quote|"While the battle raged, Craterus forced his way over the Haranpur ford. When he saw that Alexander was winning a brilliant victory he pressed on and, as his men were fresh, took over the pursuit."}}</ref><ref>Fuller, pg 181 {{quote|"Among the many battles fought by invaders who entered the plains of India from the north-west, the first recorded in history is the battle of the Hydaspes, and in [[David George Hogarth|Hogarth's]] opinion, when coupled with the crossing of the river, together they 'rank among the most brilliant operations in warfare'."}}</ref>
|territory=Alexander controls Punjab.
|combatant1=[[Macedon|Macedonian Empire]] [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] allies [[Achaemenid Empire|Persian]] allies [[History of India|Indian]] allies
|combatant2=[[Pauravas|Paurava]]
|commander1=[[Alexander the Great]], [[Craterus]], unlisted others|
|commander2=[[King Porus]], unknown others|
|strength1=34,000 [[infantry]], 7,000 [[cavalry]].<ref>According to Arrian [http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book5a.asp 5.14], 6,000 foot and 5,000 horse were under Alexander's command in the battle.</ref><ref>Fuller estimates a further 2,000 cavalry under Craterus' command.</ref>
|strength2=20,000,<ref name=Plutarch621>Plutarch 62.1:
 {{quote|"But this last combat with Porus took off the edge of the [[Ancient Macedonians|Macedonian]]s' courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but twenty thousand foot and two thousand horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, too, which they were told was thirty-two furlongs broad and a fathom deep, and the banks on the further side covered with multitudes of enemies."}}</ref> 30,000<ref name="Arrian 5.15">Arrian, [http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book5a.asp 5.15]</ref> or 50,000<ref name="Diodorus 17.87.2">Diodorus, [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D17%3Achapter%3D87%3Asection%3D2 17.87.2]</ref> [[infantry]], 2,000 <ref name=Plutarch621/> - 4,000<ref name="Arrian 5.15" /> [[cavalry]], 200,<ref name="Arrian 5.15" /> 130<ref name="Diodorus 17.87.2"/> ("likeliest" according to Green),<ref>Green, [http://books.google.com/books?id=ouf47It6_wgC&pg=PA553 p. 553]</ref> or 85<ref>Curtius 8.13.6; Metz Epitome 54 (following Curtius)</ref> [[war elephant]]s, 1,000 [[chariot]]s.<ref name=Plutarch605>Plutarch 60.5</ref>
|casualties1= 80<ref name="Arrian 5.18">Arrian, [http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book5b.asp 5.18]</ref> - 700<ref name="Diodorus 17.89.3">Diodorus [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D17%3Achapter%3D89%3Asection%3D3 17.89.3]</ref><ref name = "Fuller 199"> According to Fuller, pg 199, "Diodorus' figures appear more realistic."</ref> infantry, 230<ref name="Arrian 5.18" /> - 280<ref name="Diodorus 17.89.3" /> cavalry killed.
|casualties2=12,000 killed and 9,000 captured,<ref name="Diodorus 17.89.1-2">Diodorus [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D17%3Achapter%3D89%3Asection%3D1 17.89.1-2]</ref> or 23,000 killed,<ref name="Arrian 5.18" /> including elephants and chariots.|
}}
{{Campaignbox Wars of Alexander the Great}}
{{Campaignbox Alexander's Indian campaign}}

The '''Battle of the Hydaspes River''' was fought by [[Alexander the Great]] in [[326 BC]] against the Hindu king [[King Porus|Porus]] (Pururava in [[Sanskrit]]) on the banks of [[Hydaspes]] River (the [[Jhelum River|Jhelum]]) in the [[Punjab region]] near [[Bhera]] now in [[Pakistan]]. The kingdom of [[Pauravas|Paurava]] of [[King Porus]] was situated in the part of Punjab which is now part of modern day [[Pakistan]] ([[Punjab (Pakistan)|Pakistani Punjab]]). The Hydaspes was the last major and most costly battle fought by Alexander.<ref>Peter Connolly. ''Greece and Rome At War''. Macdonald Phoebus Ltd, 1981, p. 66</ref> King Porus and his men put up a fierce resistance against the invading Macedonian army which won the admiration and respect of Alexander.<ref>Fuller, p. 198.</ref>

Although victorious, Alexander's exhausted army mutinied soon after, when he made plans to cross river Hyphasis, and refused to go further into [[Indian subcontinent|India]]. After some short, yet victorious campaigns against Indian clans residing along the Indus, securing his rule and founding cities that would serve as outposts and trade centers, Alexander would return to [[Babylon]].

==Location==
The battle took place on the east bank of the Hydaspes River (now called the river [[Jhelum River|Jhelum]], a tributary of the river [[Sindhu|Indus]]) in what is now the Punjab province of [[Pakistan]]. Later, Alexander founded a city on the site of the battle, which he called [[Nicaea (Punjab)|Nicaea]]; as long as this city has not been discovered, any attempt to find the ancient battle site is doomed, because the landscape has changed considerably. For the moment, the most plausible location is just south of the city of Jhelum, where the ancient main road crossed the river, and where a Buddhist source indeed mentions a city that may be Nicaea. The identification of the battle site near modern [[Jalalpur Sharif|Jalalpur]]/Haranpur is certainly erroneous, as the river, in the ancient times, meandered far from these cities.<ref>P.H.L. Eggermont, ''Alexander's campaign in Southern Punjab'' (1993).</ref>

==Background==
After Alexander defeated the last of the [[Achaemenid Empire]]'s forces under [[Bessus]] and [[Spitamenes]] in [[328 BC]], he began a new campaign to further extend his empire towards India [[327 BC]]. Alexander's army is estimated at about 41,000 or 46,000, although larger numbers<ref name=Harbottle> Harbottle estimates as high as 135,000 soldiers in total.</ref> have been proposed, due to unnumbered Asiatic contingents that seem to have accompanied his main force.

The main train went into modern day Pakistan through the [[Khyber Pass]], but a smaller force under the personal command of Alexander went through the northern route, taking the fortress of [[Aornos]] (modern day Pir-Sar, Pakistan) on the way, a place of high mythological significance to the Greeks, as, according to legend, Herakles had failed to occupy it, when he had campaigned to India. In early spring of the next year, he combined his forces and allied with [[Taxiles]] (also Ambhi), the King of [[Taxila]], against his neighbor, the King of [[Hydaspes]].

==Motives==
Alexander had to subdue King Porus in order to keep marching east. To leave such a strong opponent at his flanks would endanger any further exploit. He could also not afford to show any sign of weakness if he wanted to keep the loyalty of the already subdued Indian princes. Porus had to defend his kingdom and chose the perfect spot to check Alexander's advance. Although he lost the battle, he became the most successful recorded opponent of Alexander.

==Pre Battle Maneuvers==
[[Image:Battle hydaspes crossing.gif|left|thumb|200px|Alexander's crossing of the Hydaspes River.]]

Porus drew up on the south bank of the [[Jhelum River]], and was set to repel any crossings. The [[Jhelum River]] was deep and fast enough that any opposed crossing would probably doom the entire attacking force. Alexander knew that a direct crossing had little chances of success and thus tried to find alternative fords. He moved his mounted troops up and down the river bank each night, Porus shadowing him. Eventually, Alexander used a suitable crossing, about 27 km (17 miles) upstream of his camp. His plan was a classic pincer maneuver. He left his general Craterus behind with most of the army, while he crossed the river upstream with a strong contingent, consisting, according to Arrian of 6,000 foot and 5,000 horse, though it is probable that it was larger. Craterus was to ford the river and attack if Porus faced Alexander with all his troops, but to hold his position if Porus faced Alexander with only a part of his army.

Alexander quietly moved his part of the army upstream and then traversed the river in utmost secrecy. He mistakenly landed on an island, but soon crossed to the other side. Porus perceived his opponent's maneuver and sent a small cavalry and chariot force under his son to fight off Alexander, hoping that he would be able to prevent his crossing. Alexander had already passed, and easily routed his opponent, the chariots in particular being impeded by the mud near the shore of the river, with Porus' son among the dead. Porus understood that Alexander had crossed to his side of the river and hasted to face him with the best part of his army, leaving behind a small detachment to disrupt the landing of Craterus' force, should he try to cross the river.

==Battle==
When Porus reached the point where Alexander's army was arrayed, he deployed his forces and commenced the attack. The Indians were poised with cavalry on both flanks, their center being comprised by infantry with elephants towering among or before them in equal intervals. The elephants caused much harm to the Macedonian phalanx, but were eventually repulsed by the dense pikes of the phallangitai, wreaking much havoc upon their own lines.

[[Image:Battle hydaspes combined at.gif|right|thumb|250px|Combined attack of cavalry and infantry.]]

Alexander started the battle by sending horse archers to shower the Indian left cavalry wing. Then, he led the charge against the weakened Indian wing. The rest of the Indian cavalry galloped to their hard pressed kinsmen but at this moment, Coenus's cavalry contingent appeared on the Indian rear. The Indians tried to form a double phalanx, but the necessary complicated maneuvers brought even more confusion into their ranks making it easier for the Macedonian horse to conquer. The remaining Indian cavalry fled among the elephants for protection, but the beasts were already out of control and would soon retreat exhausted from the field, leaving the rest of Porus's army encircled by the Macedonian horse and phalanx. At this time, the phallangitai locked their shields and advanced upon the confused enemy. Porus, after putting up a brave fight, surrendered and the battle was finally over. According to Justin,<ref>Justin, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, 12.8</ref> during the battle, Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. Alexander fell off his horse in the ensuing duel, his bodyguards carrying him off and capturing Porus.

According to Arrian, Macedonian losses amounted to 310.<ref name="Arrian 5.18" /> However the military historian [[J.F.C. Fuller]] sees as "more realistic" the figure given by Diodorus of about 1,000,<ref name="Diodorus 17.89.3" /><ref>Fuller, p. 199</ref> a large number for a victor, yet not improbable, considering the partial success of the Indian war elephants. Indian losses amounted to 23,000 according to Arrian, 12,000 dead and over 9,000 men captured according to Diodorus.<ref name="Diodorus 17.89.1-2"/> The last two numbers are remarkably close, if it is assumed that Arrian added any prisoners to the total Indian casualties.
Historian Peter Green supports that Macedonian casualties might have mounted to 4.000 men, mainly phallangites,<ref>Green 1974</ref> but his claims are not supported by the sources.

==Aftermath==
[[Image:Le Brun, Alexander and Porus.jpg|thumb|right|A painting by [[Charles Le Brun]] depicting Alexander and Porus during the Battle of the Hydaspes.]]

The bravery, war skills and princely attitude of [[King Porus|Porus]] much impressed Alexander, who allowed him to rule Hydaspes in Alexander's name. Wounded in his shoulder, standing at over 1.8 m (6 feet) tall, he was asked by Alexander how he wished to be treated. "Treat me, O Alexander, like a king" Porus responded.<ref>Rogers, p.200</ref> Alexander would indeed treat him like a king, allowing him to retain his kingship. The Macedonian regent founded two cities, one at the spot of the battle called Nicaea (Greek for Victory) in commemoration of his success and one on the other side of the Hydaspes called [[Alexandria Bucephalus]], to honor his faithful steed, which died soon after this battle. In [[326 BC]], the army of [[Alexander the Great]] approached the boundaries of the [[Magadha]]. His army, exhausted from the continuous campaigning and frightened at the prospect of facing yet another gigantic Indian army, demanded that they should return to the west. This happened at the [[Beas River|Hyphasis]] (modern [[Beas River|Beas]]), the exact spot being believed to be at 'Kathgarh' in Indora tehsil of Himachal Pardesh with nearest rail head at Pathankot, Punjab). Alexander finally gave in and turned south, along the Indus, securing the banks of the river as the borders of his empire.

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==
===Modern===
*[[J. F. C. Fuller|Fuller, John]] (1960). ''The Generalship of Alexander the Great. New Jersey: De Capo Press''. ISBN 978-0306803710
*[[Peter Green (historian)|Green, Peter]] (1974). ''Alexander of Macedon: A Historical Biography''. ISBN 978-0520071667
*Harbottle, Thomas Benfield (1906). ''Dictionary of Battles''. New York.
*Rogers, Guy (2004). ''Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness. New York: Random House''.

===Ancient===
*[[Diodorus Siculus]] (90-30 BC). ''Bibliotheca Historica''.
*[[Quintus Curtius Rufus]] (60-70 AD). ''Historiae Alexandri Magni''.
*[[Plutarch]] (75 AD). ''[http://www.siu.edu/~dfll/classics/Civ2004/alia/alexander.pdf The Life of Alexander the Great], [[Parallel Lives]]''.
*[[Arrian]] (early 2nd c. AD).
*Metz Epitome.

==External links==
*[http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jhelum/hydaspes.html Hydaspes (Jhelum)]
*[http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-hydaspes-river-326-bc.htm Battle of Hydaspes River animated battle map] by Jonathan Webb

{{coord missing|Pakistan}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hydaspes, Battle Of The}}
[[Category:Battles of Alexander the Great|Hydaspes River]]
[[Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms|Hydaspes River]]
[[Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia]]
[[Category:Ancient India]]
[[Category:326 BC]]
[[Category:History of South Asia]]
[[Category:History of Pakistan]]

{{Link FA|fi}}

[[ar:معركة هيداسبس]]
[[bs:Bitka kod Hidaspa]]
[[bg:Битка при Хидасп]]
[[ca:Batalla del riu Hidaspes]]
[[cs:Bitva u Hydaspés]]
[[de:Schlacht am Hydaspes]]
[[es:Batalla del Hidaspes]]
[[fr:Bataille de l'Hydaspe]]
[[ko:히다스페스 전투]]
[[hr:Bitka kod Hidaspa]]
[[id:Pertempuran Sungai Hydaspes]]
[[it:Battaglia dell'Idaspe]]
[[he:קרב הידספס]]
[[mk:Битка кај Хидасп]]
[[ml:ഹൈഡാസ്പസ് യുദ്ധം]]
[[ms:Pertempuran Sungai Hydaspes]]
[[nl:Slag bij de Hydaspes]]
[[ja:ヒュダスペス河畔の戦い]]
[[no:Slaget ved Hydaspeselven]]
[[pl:Bitwa nad rzeką Hydaspes]]
[[pt:Batalha de Hidaspes]]
[[ru:Битва на Гидаспе]]
[[sr:Битка на Хидаспу]]
[[sh:Bitka na Hidaspu]]
[[fi:Hydaspesjoen taistelu]]
[[sv:Slaget vid Hydaspes]]
[[vi:Trận sông Hydaspes]]
[[zh:希達斯皮斯河戰役]]

Talk:Plough

2011-07-15T05:17:10Z

Gnip: /* Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough */

Talk:Plough

2011-07-15T03:28:56Z

Gnip:

{{WPFarm|class=B|importance=high}}
{{talkheader}}

==spelling==
This page uses three different spellings of 'moldboard'.
('mouldboard', 'mold-board'.) Should it be made consistent?
- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 03:51, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Consistency. ==
::"''Consistency is the [[hobgoblin (fairy)|hobgoblin]] of small minds.''"
:::Actually, the saying is "''A ''foolish'' consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds''". ([[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]) I don't think this call for consistency is foolish. You may disagree, but if you mean that you think it is foolish, I wish you would say so. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 05:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Sorry, left the smiley out because I thought starting the next sentence with "''But seriously''" would suffice as a clue. No, I don't think looking for consistency within a single Wikipedia article is "foolish". Whether one should use "moldboard" or "mouldboard" is a question I have no opinion though. Thanks for the corrected quote, though. I would have misremembered it as being one of [[Samuel Johnson]]s in any case, so thank [[ghod]] I didn't attribute it! -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 06:32, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*But seriously, mouldboard may be most standard; according to OED at least. But then OED has the word "mold" merely as a redirect to "mould", so that should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. Do as thou wilt. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
:''mouldboard'' is the British English spelling, and the OED is primarily and originally a dictionary of British English. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]]
*Well according the page histories this article started as '''Plough''' and not '''Plow''' so I will (as per convention) change this article to the British spellings of both words. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
*I believe I introduced at least some of the American spellings. I think it is fine to change them to British. I don't know all the British spellings so it is hard for me to maintain consistency when expanding an article originally written using them. In fact, it has been pointed out to me that the American spellings in and of themselves give me plenty of trouble :-). The American spelling of ''mouldboard'' should be noted though, somewhere; I may add this. [[User:Kat|Kat]] 14:07, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
----
How can we have an article on plows that doesn't mention [[John Deere]]? I detect a British bias here. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:27, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
:And we don't have an article on John Deere either. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:28, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*Bedtime for me, but a quick note in the hope tht some keen Wikkipedian will hop in and take care of this. This page really, really needs (a) stump-jump plough, (b) balance - i.e., discussion of the harm that ploughing does to soil structure as well as of its advantages. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
* The article mentions that the Celts introduced the moldboard plough about 4000BC... is this a typo? There is no reference but it seems to me that 4000BC is quite early, even than the Greeks or China? [[User:JustinLong|JustinLong]] ([[User talk:JustinLong|talk]]) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

== Ransome ==
--[[User:Malcolmcw|Malcolmcw]] 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I notice that the plough section makes no mention of Ransome who's contribution of the eversharp share not to mention his influence on the design of steel ploughs in general is a major lack

== Prehistory ==
[[User:Mencial|Mencial]] 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ¿Is there any more information about the prehistory of the plough? First ploughs, how it extends through the different agricultural civilizations, etc. I know, I am too lazy to do the research.

==Moved from [[Talk:Mouldboard Plough]]==
===Merge===
{{Discussion top}}
The result was '''merge''' into DESTINATION PAGE. -- [[User:Nazgul533|Nazgul533]] [[user_talk:nazgul533|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Nazgul533|contribs]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
*There is absolutely no reason to have this as an article separate from [[Plough]], and this one is also miscapitalized in the first place. Merge it, and create a redirect from the lowercase "p" version as well to the Plough article. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
*Why wouldn't it be a seperate article? It is a distinct kind of plough that was developed, therefor warranting it's own individual article. It should not be merged, but only linked with the plough article. 01:36, 20 June 2006 [[User:24.176.81.236]]
*It could be confusing for people with limited knowlege about ploughing, therefor it should be merged. They'll search for a plough, not minding details what kind of plough it is. In Africa 90% of all ploughing is done by mouldboard ploughs. 16:14, 11 July 2006 [[User:Joevilliers]]
* Exactly. I am reading up on plows and techniques, and this one singular article threw me. The basic definitions and technical explanation are duplicative of the "Plough" entry. The remainder is all why it is so horrible, contains no references, reads as biased, and incorporates no information on when and where it is appropriate, which it is in many cases. Reading other articles online from progressive organic agricultural sites clearly shows conflicts with the singularly negative (and strangely past tense) write-up. I think this entire entry is useless at best, false at least. 17:36, 26 October 2006 [[User:66.195.232.121]]
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Just added a section on a typical Appalachian plow ==

I used the British spelling for consistency. I think I have a picture of a hillside plow (one I took years ago), and will include it if possible. [[User:Taosein|Soltera]] 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Dating ==
Would it be possible to have some dates for the development of the earlier type of plough? I realise this might be inexact and geographically dependent, but a guide would be very helpful. Cheers. [[User:Fluoronaut|fluoronaut]] 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== images ==

need more images

- old illustrations
- photographs of museum artifacts —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/68.33.71.53|68.33.71.53]] ([[User talk:68.33.71.53|talk]]) 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

image of two furrow horse drawn plow is actually tractor drawn the controls point towards the front —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.104.242.34|137.104.242.34]] ([[User talk:137.104.242.34|talk]]) 12:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 

==Video==
[[File:Ploughing.ogg|150px|Bullock-drawn plough: A farmer ploughing a field using a bullock-drawn plough in [[Sholavandan]]]]
Please use the video in the article at an appropriate place. -- [[User:Sundar|Sundar]] \[[User talk:Sundar|talk]] \[[Special:Contributions/Sundar|contribs]] 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:Please see comment on this video in [[Talk:Ard (plough)]] – it is not a plough but some kind of harrow. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Une(Japanese) rather than ridge between furrow(s) ==
Hi, all. There is a word "une(Japanese)" correspond to [[Ridge and furrow|ridge]] which is between [[plow]]ed [[furrow]]s, cultivating [[Welsh onion]] or [[Scallion]] for example.
See:[[:Image:Une(Japanese)(ridge)- between plowed furrows.JPG]]
/media/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Une%28Japanese%29%28ridge%29-_between_plowed_furrows.JPG
Is any word like "Une" rather than to call "ridge between furrow(s)"? Thanks in adavance.--[[User:Namazu-tron|Namazu-tron]] 08:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:That's what is called ridging (British) or [[hilling]] (American). It is dealt with in the [[Plough#Ridging plough|ridging plough]] section. It's quite different from [[ridge and furrow]], whose ridges are several metres apart. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Chinese Pre-History - moved from article ==

The following recently-added text was removed to the talk page for a variety of reasons, mainly that it cuts across several of the other chronological sections already in place and may or may not introduce duplicated information. The poor formatting, POV statements and inconsistent use of 'plow' (rather than plough) mean that its (unmodified) inclusion noticably degrades the article. The information may be worth merging with the existing text, but requires someone more knowledgeable to do so.

:-------------PRE-HISTORY OF THE PLOUGH---------------

:the Han Chinese plow is simple, light (can be carried by one person on the shoulder), and efficient because it uses the moldboard and a curved bar to put all the forces at the slant surface. This kind of plow was already used in Han dynasty (BCE).

:The Dutch learned about the Chinese plow while trading in Asia in the 17th century (i.e. at least 1700 years later). The technology was passed on to Yorkshire in England. Thomas Jefferson learned about this plow when he was traveling in France. It is also the first time he saw oxen used in plowing. Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling.

:After many improvements, the plow finally took shape in 1876, a hundred years after US became a nation. To date, John Deere uses basically the same principle on the plows.

:References:

:Science and Civilization in China
:By Joseph Needham, Ling, Wang, Ling Wang

:Cyclopedia of American Agriculture
:By Liberty Hyde Bailey. p. 387

[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:: "Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling." Really? Even after the invention of the [[horse collar]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== More dates would be helpful to the time impaired ==
Many of the events are reported without a date context...would increase the value of the article by 2000 times..[[User:Primacag|Avram Primack]] ([[User talk:Primacag|talk]]) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC).02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Disc plough . Chisel plough . Scarifer . Planter ==

*1.? Corrections needed ? The green John Deere tractor in the photo appears to be pulling a plough with a set of discs at the front and chisel plough tines at the rear . Correct me if I'm wrong .
:Only relatively small,light implements are usually attached to the '''3-point linkage''' .
:As the John Deere photo shows, larger implements are self-supporting and attached to the drawbar [towbar] .

2. A primary advantage of '''disc''' ploughs is their ability to cut through trash such as wheat stubble which would choke other ploughs .
However, they are often [not always] a pain/cumbersome to use .

* 3.'''Chisel , mouldboard & disc''' ploughs break the soil into large clods . Chisel ploughs the deepest .
*4.A '''scarifier''' has a large number of tines which operate at a shallow depth.
:It breaks the large clods up so the seed will be in good contact with the soil .
*5.The '''planter''' usually has a large number of tines, similar to a
:scarifer . It performs a similar function to the scarifier as well
: as planting .

*6. A typical ploughing sequence would be
**[1] mouldboard/disc/chisel plough
**[2] scarifier
**[3] planter .

*7. The cutting edge of the tines is often faced with tungsten carbide or a similar work-hardening material as they wear surprisingly quickly . Wear rate depends upon soil type .

*8.There is a large variety of plough types , and how each type
: is used varies greatly . The above is only an illustration .

*9.The two major reasons for ploughing are to kill weeds and to
: prepare the seedbed . All other reasons are secondary . Usually .

* 10.The discussion statement " '''horses are physically inferior to Oxen in pulling '''" invites comment .
Compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox . Which do you think
would be the strongest ?
I have never used oxen as draught animals, but know someone who
has . In his experience , oxen are much slower, but
will not give up as easily if difficulties [eg bogged ] arise .

* 11. References .
I've ploughed/planted using the above implements, and seen/assisted
a few more in operation including horsedrawn .
I don't claim to be an expert . I do claim to be a primary source .

20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

:All very interesting – can you incorporate some into the article? We do really need references from a [[WP:Reliable sources|secondary source]] though.

:Not sure what you're saying about oxen and horses... When you say "compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox", what do you mean? They are much the same size... My understanding is that horses work faster, but oxen pull better against a solid load. Historically, of course, oxen were used in much larger numbers – in southern England teams of eight were normal (even when these were relatively large modern [[Sussex cattle|Sussex]]es), while two or three draught horses might be common. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

::reply to above
:: Thanks for your interesting comments .
:: Draught Horse Size .
:: Any draught horse I've seen is much bigger than any ox I've seen . And I've never seen a really big draught horse . I suggest you sit on a draught horse one day . You'll never forget it .
::Draught horse team size in Australia varied from 1 up to about 12 - I think - perhaps more - in the broadacre areas such as Western Australia . The big teams were quite big . Must have been a handful .
::Your understanding of horse vs ox performance is consistent with mine . I've been told that a horse is much better until difficulties arise - the load gets stuck or bogged . Then the horses will give up more quickly, whilst the oxen will continue to pull [with a bit of encouragement] . Yes, the horse is significantly faster .Typically horses were used for ploughing in Australia and oxen were used for timbergetting . The last team of oxen used for timbergetting ceased work about 10 years ago - in the Dorrigo area .
::Of course, other factors influence whether horses or oxen were used . Price and availability . If you only have oxen [ or horses ] that's what you use .
::Secondary Sources.
::I would be quite happy to be proven wrong here.
::Cultivation methods and implements do vary a lot - the same implement is often used in very different ways in different areas . I've used a planter to scarify .
::I've seen some documentation of agricultural practices which I'm dubious about . The problem is that the person documenting is not the person doing .
::Documentation is useful if you know nothing, but it only tells half the story .
::Incorporate some into the article .
::I'm lazy . I'll think about it .
::Actually, plenty of people know more about ploughing than I do . However, I'm pleased if I have helped anyone .
::203.101.231.244 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I do know how big a large draught horse is (and I've even driven some on occasion). However, a large ox is pretty big too... I think large draught horses ''are'' probably larger than most oxen, but not as much as you might think – horses have much longer legs in proportion, so a horse is a good bit taller than an ox of the same weight. An ox is also built more for pushing, as that's something cattle do naturally. If you're used to seeing "ordinary" cattle close up, it's worth bearing in mind that a fully grown ox (castrated male) as used for draught will be significantly bigger than a cow or entire bull – probably an extra hand or two in height, and heavier about the shoulders than a cow. As an example, I have a [[Welsh Cob]] of about 14.5 hands, who probably weighs around 400 kg; I also have a [[British White]] steer of about 4 years old; he's around the same height but must weigh something like 600 kg (sadly he's neither psychologically suited nor trained to draught – the cob is both).

:::I think you're right that the source of traction is always what's available – and also what's convenient and affordable. Oxen have the advantage that they don't need high-grade feed – a horse can't work its hardest if it only has rough grazing and no hard feed, but an ox will work quite well under those conditions (and you can eat it afterwards...). The change from oxen to horses in the UK coincided with [[enclosure]] – the change from subsistence farming (with animals fed largely from common grazing) to cash farming. Cash farmers can afford to buy or grow grain for horse feed, in the expectation of paying for it with increased profits; subsistence farmers cannot afford to use their family's food for mere traction, when their oxen can fuel themselves for free off the common.

:::By the way, talk page layout and wiki markup... You might find it best to stick to colons (::) to inset your comments – they don't mix with equals signs. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) – like this: [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Parts of a Plough ==

There's an excellent illustration of a mouldboard plough here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aratro_g1.jpg, it would be nice to include it if someone knew what the parts were called in English —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.133.139.19|89.133.139.19]] ([[User talk:89.133.139.19|talk]]) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 

== Plough manufacturers ==

The [[Kverneland]] article says that the Norwegian company is the largest manufacturer of ploughing equipment. I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template there. Bigger than [[John Deere]]? This article does not mention any current plough manufacturers at all. Shouldn't there be at least some links to some of the bigger ones, such as [[New Holland]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

: New Holland does produce plughs? Can you give me a link. -- [[Special:Contributions/87.144.91.236|87.144.91.236]] ([[User talk:87.144.91.236|talk]]) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Ploughwright ==

I see ploughwright redirects to this page. I *think* that a ploughwright was a person who made or repaired metal ploughs, but there does not appear to be an explanation of the occupation of ploughwright on this page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might add some text about ploughwrights, otherwise the redirect is a little unhelpful. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.178.143.116|81.178.143.116]] ([[User talk:81.178.143.116|talk]]) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 

==Etymology==
I'm writing a Swedish version of a plough article for our Wikipedia and find a great deal of information in your article that I'm using. Got a little confused though when reading the Etymology sect. It seems to me that it is a bit contradictory. Does the word come from the Slavic or the Latin languages?
[[User: jd6420|jd6420]] 2011-04-15 20:04 (CEST)

:: Here's what Merriam-Webster Collegiate says ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow]]): "Middle English, from Old English ''plōh'' hide of land; akin to Old High German ''pfluog'' plow. First Known Use: 12th century." No idea without researching if other dictionaries disagree. HTH. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::PS: Check out [[wikt:plough#Etymology]] also. HTH×2. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thanks. Found some answers in a Swedish dictionary that essentially agrees with what you say. If I understand it correctly, there seems to be two traces; one Latin and one Gothic/Longobard/Ratic. (I did register to the English Wiki, wonder why I'm still red?) [[User jd6420|jd64209]] 2011-04-16 10:08]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jd6420|Jd6420]] ([[User talk:Jd6420|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jd6420|contribs]])  

== Confusing definition ==

The article starts out with:

:The plough (play /ˈplaʊ/; American spelling: plow) is a tool used in farming for initial ''cultivation'' of soil in preparation for sowing seed or planting.

where the word "ciltivation" is linked to the main article by the same name.

Does this refer to cultivation as a synonym for agriculture in general? That doesn't seem to work in the context of this article. The meaning of cultivation in this sense is too broad for the specific purpose of a plow. Shouldn't the word "cultivation" be replaced with "tillage"? My understanding is that "tilling" is plowing then cultivating. Then plowing would be the first step in tilling the soil with cultivation being the second step. [[User:Rsduhamel|Rsduhamel]] ([[User talk:Rsduhamel|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

== Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough ==

Gun Powder Ma based his claim that "The earliest iron ploughshares date from around 1000 BC in the [[Ancient Near East]]" from this source:

Greek and Roman Technology, by White:

"From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia) through the detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

I believe is a misreading of the sources. The author could very well be talking about the earliest plough in general, to the earliest plough with a "detachable and replaceable share". This may not necessarily be iron. This is especially so when he says that a plough with "no protection" is "suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia". This is why I made the changes.

[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:First, it is a bit rich to accuse me wrongly in the edit history of misrepresenting sources when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plough&action=historysubmit&diff=439320828&oldid=438530186 ''you'' removed a perfectly sourced references] on the Roman mouldboard which you obviously only claimed to have checked, but not have done so. So here it is to remove all doubts:

<blockquote>Like moldboards, these "ears" probably helped turn the soil. Bronze models of such ards with turning boards are known from Britain and Germany, and complete wooden ards have been recovered from the peat deposits of Northern Europe, though generally lacking the aures, which appear to have been more common in the south.

Pliny (RN 18.48) refers to an invention that was recent at the time he wrote (the mid-first century A.D.), the addition of two small wheels, implying that the plow was becoming heavier. From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the
later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:That alone should suffice to pull the tooth that the use of moldboard was something peculiar to ancient China - it wasn't, it was also used, at least in Europe. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Second, could you please quote from the Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered? [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Third, contrary to your interpretation, White it absolutely straightforward that the detachable and replaceable share which appeared in Babylonia was of iron ("...detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East)". However, what led me to reconsider is that in the sentence above he speaks of "Ridging boards to be to be a Roman invention", and this seems to be the key invention, not whether the board was made of iron or wood. In any case, I changed the phrasing somewhat to leave room for both interpretations, wood or iron, and you are most certainly welcome to ask for a third opinion on what I believe is overall a clear matter: moldboard plows were known and used in antiquity outside China. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

::First of all, I only consented on your edit because of the interpretations of "heavy" and because I thought you implied iron. That has nothing to do with reading the source. If you want to beat a dead horse, then here is what I consider your own "faulty" interpretations. I edited it out but since you insist to continue with something that I was willing to concede with, here is my original statement:

He[Gun Powder Ma] then claims that "The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in Roman Britain." The statement is based on the following.

Greek and Roman Agriculture, by Margaritis, Evi M. and Martin J.:
"From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The mouldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch."-pg 166

At most the author states in pg 166 that the addition of "two small wheels" implied that the plough was "becoming heavier". The author later implies the absence of heavy mouldboard ploughs in the very next paragraph:"Little, if any, metal was used in the construction of an ard-in line with the wood-based technology of farmers in general. Metal was scarce and conserved, used only where a durable cutting edge was absolutely necessary. Even then, obsidian flakes often provided a more accessible material for a sharp edge in areas with the appropriate geology, blades of obsidian being inserted both in threshing sleds and sickle mounts. The heavy investment in metal seen in the later plough was simply not within the resources of the great majority of classical-period farmers. Indeed, the need for it only arose beyond the limits of the Mediterranean region, where the soils were heavier."

Interpreting a "mouldboard plough" with a "heavy blade" as a "heavy moldboard plough" is really stretching it.

So your use of the source is misrepresentative. Your entire reply is an reiteration of the problems I am addressing. You also tried to cover up that fault by misrepresenting my statements. I never said that Rome didn't have a "moldboard plough", only that they didn't have a "heavy moldboard plough".'' Your source is still misused, whatever your claim of having read it. As for White, reiterating his quote(which could be interpreted multiple ways, as I have shown) hardly gives credence to your claim. As I have already given his full quote: "From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from ''no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia)'' through the detachable and replaceable share, ''first of wood'', later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

Giving half the quote and then saying that it could "only" be interpreted one way is hardly accurate. Perhaps you shouldn't use selective quoting to further your claims. Other users have found you misrepresenting sources as well, have they not? So who is the one who haven't read the source?

Now you say that the first "wood or iron" ploughshare came from 1000 BCE Mesopotamia and 500 BC China, in your attempt to cover up your mistake on Mesopotamia (all the while blaming it on me). This is despite the fact that even though the source specifically states "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles"-pg 11. I don't see how you could have misinterpreted that into "wood or iron".
[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 5:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Please ask yourself how often you've now used the word "imply", try to cut the interpretative crap and address the reference as it is. Again, it couldn't hardly be more straightforward:

:<blockquote>From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The '''moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels,''' makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:And below:
:<blockquote>Three iron implements that recur on Romano-British sites of the late third and fourth centuries A.D. are the long harvesting scythe, the coulter, and the '''asymmetrical plowshare''' (Rees 1979). All three can be linked to the intensification of cereal production, and the latter two to the''' moldboard plow, designed to cut deep into the soil and invert the furrow''' (figure 7.4; Jones 1981).</blockquote>

:In fact, the entire section is titled: MEADOWS, GARDENS, AND '''MOLDBOARD PLOWS'''
:I honestly don't know why you attach so much importance to the ''heaviness'' of the moldboard plow. The weight is absolutely secondary. The main technical difference lies between the ard which scratches the earth and the moldboard plow which turns it. Whether the moldboard itself was of iron and more heavy or of wood and less heavy is secondary; the question of material is secondary, what counts is the ''design''. Both my references squarely state that moldboard plows existed in ancient Europe. Now do you agree to that or not? And please don't forget to cite from Greenberger or it got to be removed. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

: Secondary to whom? Are you really going to stick to arguing about something I didn't even disagree with? I have already stated, and I repeat
1) That the moldboard plow was used in Europe
2) That the issue was the "heavy moldboard plow" and the use of "iron ploughshares" for white. If the "heavy" or "iron" parts were secondary then, considering that they are not confirmed by the given sources, why even put it there? I dropped my former claim as "heavy" is a relative term. Despite the absence of your source confirming the existence of "heavy moldboard ploughs", I was willing to let that go. Yet for reasons unknown you keep bringing it up.

What you are doing is using a straw-man argument, arguing in favor of things I never denied. So instead of misinterpreting the author you misinterpret me. Sadly I'm not surprised. Besides that, I don't think you're reading me. I have already given the quote from Greenberger. It seems I must repeat it: "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles" -pg 11. These were so heavy that "it was injuring the horses and oxen" until a new breast harness was developed. Now I don't even know why you need me to give these quotes. I'm sure you could find it on your own. Your threat to delete it is funny. If you couldn't "verify" it, though I'm sure you could, you're going to delete it? I don't think that's how it works. Anyways, if it's such a big deal, then why are you so insistent on preventing me on correcting such a "secondary" misrepresentations of the authors? I'm sure you won't mind these minor corrections, won't you? By all means, if you do find sources that say there were iron plows in Mesopotamia during 1000 BC, you're welcome to do so. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised, as iron was introduced in the region a couple hundred years before that. However, the use of sources must be accurate. Even if you're saying the truth, the source has to back up that statement. That's all I'm saying. [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Plough

2011-07-14T23:33:10Z

Gnip: /* Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough */

Talk:Plough

2011-07-14T23:15:55Z

Gnip: /* Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough */

{{WPFarm|class=B|importance=high}}
{{talkheader}}

==spelling==
This page uses three different spellings of 'moldboard'.
('mouldboard', 'mold-board'.) Should it be made consistent?
- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 03:51, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Consistency. ==
::"''Consistency is the [[hobgoblin (fairy)|hobgoblin]] of small minds.''"
:::Actually, the saying is "''A ''foolish'' consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds''". ([[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]) I don't think this call for consistency is foolish. You may disagree, but if you mean that you think it is foolish, I wish you would say so. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 05:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:Sorry, left the smiley out because I thought starting the next sentence with "''But seriously''" would suffice as a clue. No, I don't think looking for consistency within a single Wikipedia article is "foolish". Whether one should use "moldboard" or "mouldboard" is a question I have no opinion though. Thanks for the corrected quote, though. I would have misremembered it as being one of [[Samuel Johnson]]s in any case, so thank [[ghod]] I didn't attribute it! -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 06:32, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*But seriously, mouldboard may be most standard; according to OED at least. But then OED has the word "mold" merely as a redirect to "mould", so that should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. Do as thou wilt. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
:''mouldboard'' is the British English spelling, and the OED is primarily and originally a dictionary of British English. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]]
*Well according the page histories this article started as '''Plough''' and not '''Plow''' so I will (as per convention) change this article to the British spellings of both words. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
*I believe I introduced at least some of the American spellings. I think it is fine to change them to British. I don't know all the British spellings so it is hard for me to maintain consistency when expanding an article originally written using them. In fact, it has been pointed out to me that the American spellings in and of themselves give me plenty of trouble :-). The American spelling of ''mouldboard'' should be noted though, somewhere; I may add this. [[User:Kat|Kat]] 14:07, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
----
How can we have an article on plows that doesn't mention [[John Deere]]? I detect a British bias here. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:27, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
:And we don't have an article on John Deere either. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:28, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
*Bedtime for me, but a quick note in the hope tht some keen Wikkipedian will hop in and take care of this. This page really, really needs (a) stump-jump plough, (b) balance - i.e., discussion of the harm that ploughing does to soil structure as well as of its advantages. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
* The article mentions that the Celts introduced the moldboard plough about 4000BC... is this a typo? There is no reference but it seems to me that 4000BC is quite early, even than the Greeks or China? [[User:JustinLong|JustinLong]] ([[User talk:JustinLong|talk]]) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

== Ransome ==
--[[User:Malcolmcw|Malcolmcw]] 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I notice that the plough section makes no mention of Ransome who's contribution of the eversharp share not to mention his influence on the design of steel ploughs in general is a major lack

== Prehistory ==
[[User:Mencial|Mencial]] 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ¿Is there any more information about the prehistory of the plough? First ploughs, how it extends through the different agricultural civilizations, etc. I know, I am too lazy to do the research.

==Moved from [[Talk:Mouldboard Plough]]==
===Merge===
{{Discussion top}}
The result was '''merge''' into DESTINATION PAGE. -- [[User:Nazgul533|Nazgul533]] [[user_talk:nazgul533|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Nazgul533|contribs]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
*There is absolutely no reason to have this as an article separate from [[Plough]], and this one is also miscapitalized in the first place. Merge it, and create a redirect from the lowercase "p" version as well to the Plough article. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
*Why wouldn't it be a seperate article? It is a distinct kind of plough that was developed, therefor warranting it's own individual article. It should not be merged, but only linked with the plough article. 01:36, 20 June 2006 [[User:24.176.81.236]]
*It could be confusing for people with limited knowlege about ploughing, therefor it should be merged. They'll search for a plough, not minding details what kind of plough it is. In Africa 90% of all ploughing is done by mouldboard ploughs. 16:14, 11 July 2006 [[User:Joevilliers]]
* Exactly. I am reading up on plows and techniques, and this one singular article threw me. The basic definitions and technical explanation are duplicative of the "Plough" entry. The remainder is all why it is so horrible, contains no references, reads as biased, and incorporates no information on when and where it is appropriate, which it is in many cases. Reading other articles online from progressive organic agricultural sites clearly shows conflicts with the singularly negative (and strangely past tense) write-up. I think this entire entry is useless at best, false at least. 17:36, 26 October 2006 [[User:66.195.232.121]]
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Just added a section on a typical Appalachian plow ==

I used the British spelling for consistency. I think I have a picture of a hillside plow (one I took years ago), and will include it if possible. [[User:Taosein|Soltera]] 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Dating ==
Would it be possible to have some dates for the development of the earlier type of plough? I realise this might be inexact and geographically dependent, but a guide would be very helpful. Cheers. [[User:Fluoronaut|fluoronaut]] 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== images ==

need more images

- old illustrations
- photographs of museum artifacts —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/68.33.71.53|68.33.71.53]] ([[User talk:68.33.71.53|talk]]) 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

image of two furrow horse drawn plow is actually tractor drawn the controls point towards the front —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.104.242.34|137.104.242.34]] ([[User talk:137.104.242.34|talk]]) 12:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 

==Video==
[[File:Ploughing.ogg|150px|Bullock-drawn plough: A farmer ploughing a field using a bullock-drawn plough in [[Sholavandan]]]]
Please use the video in the article at an appropriate place. -- [[User:Sundar|Sundar]] \[[User talk:Sundar|talk]] \[[Special:Contributions/Sundar|contribs]] 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:Please see comment on this video in [[Talk:Ard (plough)]] – it is not a plough but some kind of harrow. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Une(Japanese) rather than ridge between furrow(s) ==
Hi, all. There is a word "une(Japanese)" correspond to [[Ridge and furrow|ridge]] which is between [[plow]]ed [[furrow]]s, cultivating [[Welsh onion]] or [[Scallion]] for example.
See:[[:Image:Une(Japanese)(ridge)- between plowed furrows.JPG]]
/media/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Une%28Japanese%29%28ridge%29-_between_plowed_furrows.JPG
Is any word like "Une" rather than to call "ridge between furrow(s)"? Thanks in adavance.--[[User:Namazu-tron|Namazu-tron]] 08:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:That's what is called ridging (British) or [[hilling]] (American). It is dealt with in the [[Plough#Ridging plough|ridging plough]] section. It's quite different from [[ridge and furrow]], whose ridges are several metres apart. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Chinese Pre-History - moved from article ==

The following recently-added text was removed to the talk page for a variety of reasons, mainly that it cuts across several of the other chronological sections already in place and may or may not introduce duplicated information. The poor formatting, POV statements and inconsistent use of 'plow' (rather than plough) mean that its (unmodified) inclusion noticably degrades the article. The information may be worth merging with the existing text, but requires someone more knowledgeable to do so.

:-------------PRE-HISTORY OF THE PLOUGH---------------

:the Han Chinese plow is simple, light (can be carried by one person on the shoulder), and efficient because it uses the moldboard and a curved bar to put all the forces at the slant surface. This kind of plow was already used in Han dynasty (BCE).

:The Dutch learned about the Chinese plow while trading in Asia in the 17th century (i.e. at least 1700 years later). The technology was passed on to Yorkshire in England. Thomas Jefferson learned about this plow when he was traveling in France. It is also the first time he saw oxen used in plowing. Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling.

:After many improvements, the plow finally took shape in 1876, a hundred years after US became a nation. To date, John Deere uses basically the same principle on the plows.

:References:

:Science and Civilization in China
:By Joseph Needham, Ling, Wang, Ling Wang

:Cyclopedia of American Agriculture
:By Liberty Hyde Bailey. p. 387

[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:: "Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling." Really? Even after the invention of the [[horse collar]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== More dates would be helpful to the time impaired ==
Many of the events are reported without a date context...would increase the value of the article by 2000 times..[[User:Primacag|Avram Primack]] ([[User talk:Primacag|talk]]) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC).02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Disc plough . Chisel plough . Scarifer . Planter ==

*1.? Corrections needed ? The green John Deere tractor in the photo appears to be pulling a plough with a set of discs at the front and chisel plough tines at the rear . Correct me if I'm wrong .
:Only relatively small,light implements are usually attached to the '''3-point linkage''' .
:As the John Deere photo shows, larger implements are self-supporting and attached to the drawbar [towbar] .

2. A primary advantage of '''disc''' ploughs is their ability to cut through trash such as wheat stubble which would choke other ploughs .
However, they are often [not always] a pain/cumbersome to use .

* 3.'''Chisel , mouldboard & disc''' ploughs break the soil into large clods . Chisel ploughs the deepest .
*4.A '''scarifier''' has a large number of tines which operate at a shallow depth.
:It breaks the large clods up so the seed will be in good contact with the soil .
*5.The '''planter''' usually has a large number of tines, similar to a
:scarifer . It performs a similar function to the scarifier as well
: as planting .

*6. A typical ploughing sequence would be
**[1] mouldboard/disc/chisel plough
**[2] scarifier
**[3] planter .

*7. The cutting edge of the tines is often faced with tungsten carbide or a similar work-hardening material as they wear surprisingly quickly . Wear rate depends upon soil type .

*8.There is a large variety of plough types , and how each type
: is used varies greatly . The above is only an illustration .

*9.The two major reasons for ploughing are to kill weeds and to
: prepare the seedbed . All other reasons are secondary . Usually .

* 10.The discussion statement " '''horses are physically inferior to Oxen in pulling '''" invites comment .
Compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox . Which do you think
would be the strongest ?
I have never used oxen as draught animals, but know someone who
has . In his experience , oxen are much slower, but
will not give up as easily if difficulties [eg bogged ] arise .

* 11. References .
I've ploughed/planted using the above implements, and seen/assisted
a few more in operation including horsedrawn .
I don't claim to be an expert . I do claim to be a primary source .

20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

:All very interesting – can you incorporate some into the article? We do really need references from a [[WP:Reliable sources|secondary source]] though.

:Not sure what you're saying about oxen and horses... When you say "compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox", what do you mean? They are much the same size... My understanding is that horses work faster, but oxen pull better against a solid load. Historically, of course, oxen were used in much larger numbers – in southern England teams of eight were normal (even when these were relatively large modern [[Sussex cattle|Sussex]]es), while two or three draught horses might be common. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

::reply to above
:: Thanks for your interesting comments .
:: Draught Horse Size .
:: Any draught horse I've seen is much bigger than any ox I've seen . And I've never seen a really big draught horse . I suggest you sit on a draught horse one day . You'll never forget it .
::Draught horse team size in Australia varied from 1 up to about 12 - I think - perhaps more - in the broadacre areas such as Western Australia . The big teams were quite big . Must have been a handful .
::Your understanding of horse vs ox performance is consistent with mine . I've been told that a horse is much better until difficulties arise - the load gets stuck or bogged . Then the horses will give up more quickly, whilst the oxen will continue to pull [with a bit of encouragement] . Yes, the horse is significantly faster .Typically horses were used for ploughing in Australia and oxen were used for timbergetting . The last team of oxen used for timbergetting ceased work about 10 years ago - in the Dorrigo area .
::Of course, other factors influence whether horses or oxen were used . Price and availability . If you only have oxen [ or horses ] that's what you use .
::Secondary Sources.
::I would be quite happy to be proven wrong here.
::Cultivation methods and implements do vary a lot - the same implement is often used in very different ways in different areas . I've used a planter to scarify .
::I've seen some documentation of agricultural practices which I'm dubious about . The problem is that the person documenting is not the person doing .
::Documentation is useful if you know nothing, but it only tells half the story .
::Incorporate some into the article .
::I'm lazy . I'll think about it .
::Actually, plenty of people know more about ploughing than I do . However, I'm pleased if I have helped anyone .
::203.101.231.244 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I do know how big a large draught horse is (and I've even driven some on occasion). However, a large ox is pretty big too... I think large draught horses ''are'' probably larger than most oxen, but not as much as you might think – horses have much longer legs in proportion, so a horse is a good bit taller than an ox of the same weight. An ox is also built more for pushing, as that's something cattle do naturally. If you're used to seeing "ordinary" cattle close up, it's worth bearing in mind that a fully grown ox (castrated male) as used for draught will be significantly bigger than a cow or entire bull – probably an extra hand or two in height, and heavier about the shoulders than a cow. As an example, I have a [[Welsh Cob]] of about 14.5 hands, who probably weighs around 400 kg; I also have a [[British White]] steer of about 4 years old; he's around the same height but must weigh something like 600 kg (sadly he's neither psychologically suited nor trained to draught – the cob is both).

:::I think you're right that the source of traction is always what's available – and also what's convenient and affordable. Oxen have the advantage that they don't need high-grade feed – a horse can't work its hardest if it only has rough grazing and no hard feed, but an ox will work quite well under those conditions (and you can eat it afterwards...). The change from oxen to horses in the UK coincided with [[enclosure]] – the change from subsistence farming (with animals fed largely from common grazing) to cash farming. Cash farmers can afford to buy or grow grain for horse feed, in the expectation of paying for it with increased profits; subsistence farmers cannot afford to use their family's food for mere traction, when their oxen can fuel themselves for free off the common.

:::By the way, talk page layout and wiki markup... You might find it best to stick to colons (::) to inset your comments – they don't mix with equals signs. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) – like this: [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Parts of a Plough ==

There's an excellent illustration of a mouldboard plough here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aratro_g1.jpg, it would be nice to include it if someone knew what the parts were called in English —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.133.139.19|89.133.139.19]] ([[User talk:89.133.139.19|talk]]) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 

== Plough manufacturers ==

The [[Kverneland]] article says that the Norwegian company is the largest manufacturer of ploughing equipment. I added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template there. Bigger than [[John Deere]]? This article does not mention any current plough manufacturers at all. Shouldn't there be at least some links to some of the bigger ones, such as [[New Holland]]?--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8]] ([[User talk:Dthomsen8|talk]]) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

: New Holland does produce plughs? Can you give me a link. -- [[Special:Contributions/87.144.91.236|87.144.91.236]] ([[User talk:87.144.91.236|talk]]) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Ploughwright ==

I see ploughwright redirects to this page. I *think* that a ploughwright was a person who made or repaired metal ploughs, but there does not appear to be an explanation of the occupation of ploughwright on this page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might add some text about ploughwrights, otherwise the redirect is a little unhelpful. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.178.143.116|81.178.143.116]] ([[User talk:81.178.143.116|talk]]) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 

==Etymology==
I'm writing a Swedish version of a plough article for our Wikipedia and find a great deal of information in your article that I'm using. Got a little confused though when reading the Etymology sect. It seems to me that it is a bit contradictory. Does the word come from the Slavic or the Latin languages?
[[User: jd6420|jd6420]] 2011-04-15 20:04 (CEST)

:: Here's what Merriam-Webster Collegiate says ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plow]]): "Middle English, from Old English ''plōh'' hide of land; akin to Old High German ''pfluog'' plow. First Known Use: 12th century." No idea without researching if other dictionaries disagree. HTH. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::PS: Check out [[wikt:plough#Etymology]] also. HTH×2. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thanks. Found some answers in a Swedish dictionary that essentially agrees with what you say. If I understand it correctly, there seems to be two traces; one Latin and one Gothic/Longobard/Ratic. (I did register to the English Wiki, wonder why I'm still red?) [[User jd6420|jd64209]] 2011-04-16 10:08]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jd6420|Jd6420]] ([[User talk:Jd6420|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jd6420|contribs]])  

== Confusing definition ==

The article starts out with:

:The plough (play /ˈplaʊ/; American spelling: plow) is a tool used in farming for initial ''cultivation'' of soil in preparation for sowing seed or planting.

where the word "ciltivation" is linked to the main article by the same name.

Does this refer to cultivation as a synonym for agriculture in general? That doesn't seem to work in the context of this article. The meaning of cultivation in this sense is too broad for the specific purpose of a plow. Shouldn't the word "cultivation" be replaced with "tillage"? My understanding is that "tilling" is plowing then cultivating. Then plowing would be the first step in tilling the soil with cultivation being the second step. [[User:Rsduhamel|Rsduhamel]] ([[User talk:Rsduhamel|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

== Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough ==

Gun Powder Ma based his claim that "The earliest iron ploughshares date from around 1000 BC in the [[Ancient Near East]]" from this source:

Greek and Roman Technology, by White:

"From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia) through the detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

I believe is a misreading of the sources. The author could very well be talking about the earliest plough in general, to the earliest plough with a "detachable and replaceable share". This may not necessarily be iron. This is especially so when he says that a plough with "no protection" is "suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia". This is why I made the changes.

[[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:First, it is a bit rich to accuse me wrongly in the edit history of misrepresenting sources when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plough&action=historysubmit&diff=439320828&oldid=438530186 ''you'' removed a perfectly sourced references] on the Roman mouldboard which you obviously only claimed to have checked, but not have done so. So here it is to remove all doubts:

<blockquote>Like moldboards, these "ears" probably helped turn the soil. Bronze models of such ards with turning boards are known from Britain and Germany, and complete wooden ards have been recovered from the peat deposits of Northern Europe, though generally lacking the aures, which appear to have been more common in the south.

Pliny (RN 18.48) refers to an invention that was recent at the time he wrote (the mid-first century A.D.), the addition of two small wheels, implying that the plow was becoming heavier. From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the
later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).</blockquote>

:That alone should suffice to pull the tooth that the use of moldboard was something peculiar to ancient China - it wasn't, it was also used, at least in Europe. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Second, could you please quote from the Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered? [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Third, contrary to your interpretation, White it absolutely straightforward that the detachable and replaceable share which appeared in Babylonia was of iron ("...detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East)". However, what led me to reconsider is that in the sentence above he speaks of "Ridging boards to be to be a Roman invention", and this seems to be the key invention, not whether the board was made of iron or wood. In any case, I changed the phrasing somewhat to leave room for both interpretations, wood or iron, and you are most certainly welcome to ask for a third opinion on what I believe is overall a clear matter: moldboard plows were known and used in antiquity outside China. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

::First of all, I only consented on your edit because of the interpretations of "heavy" and because I thought you implied iron. That has nothing to do with reading the source. If you want to beat a dead horse, then here is what I consider your own "faulty" interpretations. I edited it out but since you insist to continue with something that I was willing to concede with, here is my original statement:

He[Gun Powder Ma] then claims that "The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in Roman Britain." The statement is based on the following.

Greek and Roman Agriculture, by Margaritis, Evi M. and Martin J.:
"From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The mouldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch."-pg 166

At most the author states in pg 166 that the addition of "two small wheels" implied that the plough was "becoming heavier". The author later implies the absence of heavy mouldboard ploughs in the very next paragraph:"Little, if any, metal was used in the construction of an ard-in line with the wood-based technology of farmers in general. Metal was scarce and conserved, used only where a durable cutting edge was absolutely necessary. Even then, obsidian flakes often provided a more accessible material for a sharp edge in areas with the appropriate geology, blades of obsidian being inserted both in threshing sleds and sickle mounts. The heavy investment in metal seen in the later plough was simply not within the resources of the great majority of classical-period farmers. Indeed, the need for it only arose beyond the limits of the Mediterranean region, where the soils were heavier."

Interpreting a "mouldboard plough" with a "heavy blade" as a "heavy moldboard plough" is really stretching it.

So your use of the source is misrepresentative. Your entire reply is an reiteration of the problems I am addressing. You also tried to cover up that fault by misrepresenting my statements. I never said that Rome didn't have a "moldboard plough", only that they didn't have a "heavy moldboard plough".'' Your source is still misused, whatever your claim of having read it. As for White, reiterating his quote(which could be interpreted multiple ways, as I have shown) hardly gives credence to your claim. As I have already given his full quote: "From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from ''no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia)'' through the detachable and replaceable share, ''first of wood'', later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

Giving half the quote and then saying that it could "only" be interpreted one way is hardly accurate. Perhaps you shouldn't use selective quoting to further your claims. Other users have found you misrepresenting sources as well, have they not? So who is the one who haven't read the source? [[User:Gnip|Gnip]] ([[User talk:Gnip|talk]]) 5:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Plough

2011-07-14T22:50:14Z

Gnip:

{{redirect|Plow|the Canadian soldier|Edward Chester Plow}}
{{redirect|Plowman|the surname|Plowman (surname)}}
{{redirect|Furrow}}
{{Other uses}}

[[File:Farmer plowing.jpg|thumb|250px|The traditional way: a farmer works the land with horses and plough]]
[[File:Plough.JPG|thumb|250px|A plough in action in South Africa. This plough has five non-reversible mouldboards. The fifth, empty furrow on the left will be filled by the first furrow of the next pass.]]
[[File:Ploughmen Fac simile of a Miniature in a very ancient Anglo Saxon Manuscript published by Shaw with legend God Spede ye Plough and send us Korne enow.png|right|thumb|250px|Ploughing with [[Cattle#Ox|oxen]]. A miniature from an early-sixteenth-century [[manuscript]] of the [[Middle English]] poem ''God Spede ye Plough'', held at the [[British Museum]]]]

The '''plough''' or '''plow''' (see [[Differences between American and British spellings|spelling differences]]; {{IPAc-en|icon|ˈ|p|l|aʊ}}) is a [[tool]] used in [[farming]] for initial [[Tillage|cultivation]] of [[soil]] in preparation for sowing seed or planting. It has been a basic instrument for most of recorded history, and represents one of the major advances in [[agriculture]]. The primary purpose of ploughing is to turn over the upper layer of the soil, bringing fresh nutrients to the surface, while burying weeds and the remains of previous crops, allowing them to break down. It also aerates the soil, and allows it to hold moisture better. In modern use, a ploughed field is typically left to dry out, and is then [[Harrow (tool)|harrow]]ed before planting.

Ploughs were initially pulled by [[ox]]en, and later in many areas by [[horse]]s (generally [[draft horse|draught horse]]s) and [[mule]]s. In [[industrialized|industrialised]] countries, the first mechanical means of pulling a plough used [[steam engine|steam]]-powered ([[ploughing engine]]s or [[steam tractor]]s), but these were gradually superseded by [[internal combustion engine|internal-combustion]]-powered [[tractor]]s. In the past two [[decade]]s plough use has reduced in some areas (where soil damage and erosion are problems), in favour of shallower ploughing and other less invasive [[tillage]] techniques.

Ploughs are even used under the sea, for the [[pipe-and-cable-laying plough|laying of cables]], as well as preparing the earth for [[side-scan sonar]]{{Citation needed|date=November 2007}} in a process used in [[oil exploration]].

== Etymology ==
In English, as in other [[Germanic languages]], the plough was traditionally known by other names, e.g. [[Old English]] ''sulh'', [[Old High German]] ''medela'', ''geiza'', or ''huohili'', and [[Old Norse]] ''arðr'', all presumably referring to the scratch plough.

The current word ''plough'' also comes from English, but it appears relatively late (it is absent from [[Gothic language|Gothic]]), and is thought to be a loanword from one of the north [[Italic languages]]. In these it had different meanings: in [[Raetic]] ''plaumorati'' (Pliny), and in [[Latin language|Latin]] ''plaustrum'' "wagon, cart", ''plōstrum, plōstellum'' "cart", and ''plōxenum, plōximum'' "cart box".<ref>C.T. Onions, ed., ''Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology'', s.v. "plough" (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).</ref><ref>''Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language'', s.v. "plow" (NY: Gramercy Books, 1996).</ref>

[[File:19th_century_knowledge_primitive_tools_digging_stick_katta.jpg|thumb|right|75px|An aboriginese digging stick]]
The name "plough" originates from the [[Proto-Germanic language|Proto-Germanic]] *''plōguz'' ~ *''plōgaz''. According to a questionable etymology,<ref name=orel>Orel, Vladimir (2003). ''A Handbook of Germanic Etymology''. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. s.v. "*plōȝuz".</ref> the root of that word comes from the [[Proto-Indo-European language|PIE]] stem *''blōkó-'', in which case it would be cognate to [[Armenian language|Armenian]] ''pelem'' "to dig" and [[Welsh language|Welsh]] ''bwlch'' "crack". *''Plōguz'' could actually be borrowed from the [[Proto-Slavic language|Proto-Slavic]] *''plōgu'' "plough", which gave ''plugǔ'' in [[Old Slavonic language|Old Slavonic]].<ref name=orel/><ref>Martynov, Viktor Vladimirovich (1983). ''Язык в пространстве и времени [Language in Time and Space]'' (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka. pp. 24–25.</ref>

== History of the plough ==
[[File:Maler der Grabkammer des Sennudem 001.jpg|thumb|left|180px|Ancient Egyptian plough, circa 1200 B.C.]]
[[File:Xianning-fields-9731.jpg|thumb|right|Ploughing with [[Domestic water buffalo|buffalo]] in [[Hubei]], China]]

=== Hoeing ===
{{Main|Hoe-farming}}
When agriculture was first developed, simple hand-held [[digging stick]]s or [[Hoe (tool)|hoe]]s would have been used in highly fertile areas, such as the banks of the [[Nile]] where the annual flood rejuvenates the soil, to create furrows wherein seeds could be sown. To grow crops regularly in less fertile areas, the soil must be turned to bring nutrients to the surface.

=== Scratch plough ===
{{Main|Ard (plough)}}
The domestication of [[ox]]en in [[Mesopotamia]] and by its contemporary [[Indus valley civilization]], perhaps as early as the 6th millennium BC, provided mankind with the pulling power necessary to develop the plough. The very earliest plough was the simple ''scratch-plough'', or ''[[Ard (plough)|ard]]'', which consists of a frame holding a vertical wooden stick that was dragged through the topsoil (still used in many parts of the world). It breaks up a strip of land directly along the ploughed path, which can then be planted. Because this form of plough leaves a strip of undisturbed earth between the rows, fields are often cross-ploughed at 90 degree angles, and this tends to lead to squarish fields<ref>Lynn White, Jr., ''Medieval Technology and Social Change'' (Oxford: University Press, 1962), p. 42.</ref> In the archaeology of northern Europe, such squarish fields are referred to as "[[Celtic fields]]".

=== Crooked ploughs ===
{{Main|Aratrum}}
The Greeks apparently introduced the next major advance in plough design; the crooked plough, which angled the cutting surface forward, leading to the name. The cutting surface was often faced with bronze or (later) iron. Metal was expensive, so in times of war it was melted down or forged to make weapons—or the reverse in more peaceful times. This is presumably the origin of the expression found in the Bible "beat your [[swords to ploughshares]]".

=== Mouldboard plough ===
[[File:Child and ox ploughing, Laos (1).jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Water buffalo]] used for ploughing in [[Si Phan Don]], [[Laos]].]]

A major advance in plough design was the ''mouldboard plough'' (American spelling: ''moldboard plow''), which aided the cutting blade. The ''coulter'', ''knife'' or ''skeith'' cuts vertically into the ground just ahead of the ''share'' (or ''frog'') a wedge-shaped surface to the front and bottom of the ''mouldboard'' with the landside of the frame supporting the below-ground components. The upper parts of the frame carries (from the front) the coupling for the motive power (horses), the coulter and the landside frame. Depending on the size of the implement, and the number of furrows it is designed to plough at one time, there is a wheel or wheels positioned to support the frame. In the case of a single-furrow plough there is only one wheel at the front and handles at the rear for the ploughman to steer and manoeuvre it.

When dragged through a field the coulter cuts down into the soil and the share cuts horizontally from the previous furrow to the vertical cut. This releases a rectangular strip of sod that is then lifted by the share and carried by the mouldboard up and over, so that the strip of sod (slice of the [[topsoil]]) that is being cut lifts and rolls over as the plough moves forward, dropping back to the ground upside down into the furrow and onto the turned soil from the previous run down the field. Each gap in the ground where the soil has been lifted and moved across (usually to the right) is called a ''furrow''. The sod that has been lifted from it rests at about a 45 degree angle in the next-door furrow and lies up the back of the sod from the previous run.

In this way, a series of ploughing runs down a field leaves a row of sods that lie partly in the furrows and partly on the ground lifted earlier. Visually, across the rows, there is the land (unploughed part) on the left, a furrow (half the width of the removed strip of soil) and the removed strip almost upside-down lying on about half of the previous strip of inverted soil, and so on across the field. Each layer of soil and the gutter it came from forms the classic furrow.

The mouldboard plough greatly reduced the amount of time needed to prepare a field, and as a consequence, allowed a farmer to work a larger area of land. In addition, the resulting pattern of low (under the mouldboard) and high (beside it) ridges in the soil forms water channels, allowing the soil to drain. In areas where snow buildup is an issue, this allows the soil to be planted earlier as the snow runoff is drained away more quickly.

[[File:Mouldboard plough.JPG|right|thumb|180px|<center>A reconstruction of a mould board plough.]]
Parts of a mouldboard plough:
There are 5 major parts of a mouldboard plough
#Mouldboard
#Share
#Landside
#Frog
#Tailpiece

A ''runner'' extending from behind the share to the rear of the plough controls the direction of the plough, because it is held against the bottom land-side corner of the new furrow being formed. The holding force is the weight of the sod, as it is raised and rotated, on the curved surface of the mouldboard. Because of this runner, the mouldboard plough is harder to turn around than the scratch plough, and its introduction brought about a change in the shape of fields—from mostly square fields into longer rectangular "strips" (hence the introduction of the [[furlong]]).

An advance on the basic design was the ''iron ploughshare'', a replaceable horizontal cutting surface mounted on the tip of the share., a replaceable horizontal cutting surface mounted on the tip of the share. The earliest ploughs with a detachable and replaceable share date from around 1000 BC in the [[Ancient Near East]],<ref>White, K. D. (1984): ''Greek and Roman Technology'', London: Thames and Hudson, p. 59</ref>{{Dubious|date=July 2011}} and the earliest iron ploughshares from ca. 500 BC in [[China]].<ref name="greenberger 2006 11-12">Robert Greenberger, ''The Technology of Ancient China'' (New York: Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2006), pp. 11-12.</ref>{{Dubious|date=July 2011}} Early mouldboards were basically wedges that sat inside the cut formed by the coulter, turning over the soil to the side. The ploughshare spread the cut horizontally below the surface, so when the mouldboard lifted it, a wider area of soil was turned over. Mouldboards are known in Britain from the late 6th century<ref>Hill and Kucharski 1990</ref> on.

=== Loy ploughing ===
{{main|Loy (spade)}}
Loy ploughing was a form of manual ploughing which took place in [[Ireland]] on very small farms or on very hilly ground, where horses couldn't work or where farmers couldn't afford them.<ref name= WE2>{{citeweb|url=http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2009/03/03/36691-castlepollard-venue-to-host-westmeath-ploughing-finals/print|title=Castlepollard venue to host Westmeath ploughing finals|publisher=''Westmeath Examiner''|author=Paul Hughes|date=03/03/2011|accessdate=01/06/2011}}</ref> It was used up until the 1960s in poorer land.<ref name=Tribune>{{citeweb|url=http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/sep/27/the-plough-and-the-stars/|publisher=''The Tribune''|title=The plough and the stars
|date=27/09/09|accessdate=01/06/2011}}</ref> This suited the moist climate of Ireland as the trenches formed by turning in the sods providing drainage. It also allowed the growing of potatoes in bogs as well as on mountain slopes where no other cultivation could take place.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.faminemuseum.com/the-famine-potato/|title=The Famine Potato|publisher=''St Mary's Famine History Museum''|accessdate=01/06/2011}}</ref>

=== Heavy ploughs ===
[[File:ChineseIronPlow1637.jpg|thumb|180px|right|Chinese iron plough with curved mouldboard, 1637.]]
In the basic mouldboard plough the depth of the cut is adjusted by lifting against the runner in the furrow, which limited the weight of the plough to what the ploughman could easily lift. This limited the construction to a small amount of wood (although metal edges were possible). These ploughs were fairly fragile, and were not suitable for breaking up the heavier soils of northern Europe. The introduction of wheels to replace the runner allowed the weight of the plough to increase, and in turn allowed the use of a much larger mouldboard faced in metal. These ''heavy ploughs'' led to greater food production and eventually a significant population increase around 600 AD. {{Citation needed|date=April 2011}}

Before the [[Han Dynasty]] (202 BC–220 AD), Chinese ploughs were made almost entirely of wood, spare the iron blade of the ploughshare. By the Han period, the entire ploughshare was made of [[cast iron]]; these are the first known heavy moldboard iron ploughs.<ref>Wang Zhongshu, trans. by K.C. Chang and Collaborators, ''Han Civilization'' (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982).</ref><ref name="greenberger 2006 11-12"/>

The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in [[Roman Britain]].<ref>Margaritis, Evi; Jones, Martin K.: "Greek and Roman Agriculture", in: [[John Peter Oleson|Oleson, John Peter]] (ed.): ''The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World'', Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-518731-1, pp. 158–174 (166, 170)</ref> The first indisputable appearance after the Roman period is from 643, in a northern Italian document.<ref>White, ''Medieval Technology'', p. 50</ref> Old words connected with the heavy plough and its use appear in [[Slavic languages|Slavic]], suggesting possible early use in this region.<ref>White, ''Medieval Technology'', pp. 49f</ref> The general adoption of the mouldboard plough in [[Europe]] appears to have accompanied the adoption of the [[three-field system]] in the later eighth and early ninth centuries, leading to an improvement of the agricultural productivity per unit of land in northern Europe.<ref>White, ''Medieval Technology'', pp. 69-78</ref>

Research by the French historian [[Marc Bloch]] in medieval French agricultural history showed the existence of names for two different ploughs, "the ''araire'' was wheel-less and had to be dragged across the fields, while the ''charrue'' was mounted on wheels".<ref>Marc Bloch, ''French Rural History'', translated by Janet Sondheimer (Berkeley: University Press, 1966), p.50</ref>

=== Improved designs ===
[[File:A champion ploughman from The Powerhouse Museum Collection.jpg|180px|thumb|'A Champion ploughman', from [[Australia]], circa 1900]]
[[File:Pair of wheels with metal spokes and tyres near Dordrecht, Eastern Cape.jpg|thumb|180px|left|A pair of metal wheels from a plough on a farm near [[Dordrecht, Eastern Cape]].]]

The basic plough with coulter, ploughshare and mouldboard remained in use for a millennium. Major changes in design did not become common until the [[Age of Enlightenment]], when there was rapid progress in design. [[Joseph Foljambe]] in [[Rotherham]], [[England]], in 1730 used new shapes as the basis for the [[Rotherham plough]], which also covered the mouldboard with iron.<ref>[http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/ploughhistory.htm A Brief History of The Plough]</ref> Unlike the heavy plough, the Rotherham (or Rotherham swing) plough consisted entirely of the coulter, mouldboard and handles. It was much lighter than conventional designs and became very popular in England. It may have been the first plough to be widely built in factories.

[[James Small (inventor)|James Small]] further improved the design. Using mathematical methods he experimented with various designs until he arrived at a shape cast from a single piece of iron, the ''Scots plough''. A single-piece cast iron plough was also developed and patented by [[Charles Newbold]] in the United States. This was again improved on by Jethro Wood, a blacksmith of Scipio, New York, who made a three-part Scots Plough that allowed a broken piece to be replaced. In 1837 [[John Deere (inventor)|John Deere]] introduced the first [[steel]] plough; it was so much stronger than iron designs that it was able to work the soil in areas of the US that had previously been considered unsuitable for farming. Improvements on this followed developments in metallurgy; steel coulters and shares with softer iron mouldboards to prevent breakage, the [[chilled plough]] which is an early example of [[Case hardening|surface-hardened]] steel,<ref>[http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldeere.htm John Deere (1804–1886)]</ref> and eventually the face of the mouldboard grew strong enough to dispense with the coulter.

=== Single-sided ploughing ===
[[File:Ploughing match from The Powerhouse Museum Collection.jpg|thumb|right|Single-sided ploughing in a ploughing match.]]

The first mouldboard ploughs could only turn the soil over in one direction ([[Convention (norm)|convention]]ally always to the right), as dictated by the shape of the mouldboard, and so the field had to be ploughed in long strips, or ''lands''. The plough was usually worked clockwise around each land, ploughing the long sides and being dragged across the short sides without ploughing. The length of the strip was limited by the distance oxen (or later horses) could comfortably work without a rest, and their width by the distance the plough could conveniently be dragged. These distances determined the traditional size of the strips: a [[furlong]], (or "furrow's length", {{convert|220|yd}}) by a [[Chain (length)|chain]] ({{convert|22|yd}})—an area of one acre (about 0.4 hectares); this is the origin of the [[acre]]. The one-sided action gradually moved soil from the sides to the centre line of the strip. If the strip was in the same place each year, the soil built up into a ridge, creating the [[ridge and furrow]] topography still seen in some ancient fields.

=== Turnwrest plough ===
The turnwrest plough allows ploughing to be done to either side. The mouldboard is removable, turning to the right for one furrow, then being moved to the other side of the plough to turn to the left (the coulter and ploughshare are fixed). In this way adjacent furrows can be ploughed in opposite directions, allowing ploughing to proceed continuously along the field and thus avoiding the ridge and furrow topography.

=== Reversible plough ===
[[File:Vendeplog.jpg|thumb|A four-furrow reversible plough.]]

The reversible plough has two mouldboard ploughs mounted back-to-back, one turning to the right, the other to the left. While one is working the land, the other is carried upside-down in the air. At the end of each row, the paired ploughs are turned over, so the other can be used. This returns along the next furrow, again working the field in a consistent direction.

=== Riding and multiple-furrow ploughs ===
[[File:OldPlow2006-05-21.JPG|thumb|[[Horse]]-drawn, two-furrow plough.]]

Early steel ploughs, like those for thousands of years prior, were ''walking ploughs'', directed by the ploughman holding onto handles on either side of the plough. The steel ploughs were so much easier to draw through the soil that the constant adjustments of the blade to react to roots or clods was no longer necessary, as the plough could easily cut through them. Consequently it was not long after that the first ''riding ploughs'' appeared. On these, wheels kept the plough at an adjustable level above the ground, while the ploughman sat on a seat where he would have earlier walked. Direction was now controlled mostly through the draught team, with levers allowing fine adjustments. This led very quickly to riding ploughs with multiple mouldboards, dramatically increasing ploughing performance.

A single draught horse can normally pull a single-furrow plough in clean light soil, but in heavier soils two horses are needed, one walking on the land and one in the furrow. For ploughs with two or more furrows more than two horses are needed and, usually, one or more horses have to walk on the loose ploughed sod—and that makes hard going for them, and the horse treads the newly ploughed land down. It is usual to rest such horses every half hour for about ten minutes.

Heavy volcanic loam soils, such as are found in New Zealand, require the use of four heavy [[Draft horse|draught horse]]s to pull a double-furrow plough. Where paddocks are more square than long-rectangular it is more economical to have horses four wide in harness than two-by-two ahead, thus one horse is always on the ploughed land (the sod). The limits of strength and endurance of horses made greater than two-furrow ploughs uneconomic to use on one farm.{{Citation needed|date=October 2008}}

Amish farmers tend to use a team of about seven horses or mules when spring ploughing and as Amish farmers often help each other plough, teams are sometimes changed at noon. Using this method about {{convert|10|acre|m2}} can be ploughed per day in light soils and about {{convert|2|acre|m2}} in heavy soils.{{Citation needed|date=October 2008}}

=== Steam ploughing ===
[[File:Heißdampf-Kipppflug.jpg|thumb|A [[Germany|German]] balance plough. The left-turning set of shares have just completed a pass, and the right-turning shares are about to enter the ground to return across the field.]]
[[File:Dampfseilpflug-Lokomotive - Ottomeyer - Museumsdorf Cloppenburg.jpg|thumb|[[Ploughing engine]] ''Heumar'', made by the [[Ottomayer]] company (Germany), used in pairs with a balance plough. Built 1929, 220 PS, 21 tons.]]

The advent of the mobile [[steam engine]] allowed steam power to be applied to ploughing from about 1850. In [[Europe]], soil conditions were often too soft to support the weight of heavy [[traction engine]]s. Instead, counterbalanced, wheeled ploughs, known as ''balance ploughs'', were drawn by cables across the fields by pairs of [[ploughing engine]]s which worked along opposite field edges. The balance plough had two sets of ploughs facing each other, arranged so when one was in the ground, the other set was lifted into the air. When pulled in one direction the trailing ploughs were lowered onto the ground by the tension on the cable. When the plough reached the edge of the field, the opposite cable was pulled by the other engine, and the plough tilted (balanced), putting the other set of shares into the ground, and the plough worked back across the field.

One set of ploughs was right-handed, and the other left-handed, allowing continuous ploughing along the field, as with the [[#Turnwrest plough|turnwrest]] and [[#Reversible plough|reversible plough]]s. The man credited with the invention of the ploughing engine and the associated balance plough, in the mid nineteenth century, was [[John Fowler (agricultural engineer)|John Fowler]], an English agricultural engineer and inventor.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}}

In America the firm soil of the Plains allowed direct pulling with [[steam tractor]]s, such as the big [[Case Corporation|Case]], Reeves or [[Sawyer Massey]] breaking engines. Gang ploughs of up to fourteen bottoms were used. Often these big ploughs were used in regiments of engines, so that in a single field there might be ten steam tractors each drawing a plough. In this way hundreds of acres could be turned over in a day. Only steam engines had the power to draw the big units. When [[internal combustion engine]]s appeared, they had neither the strength nor the ruggedness compared to the big steam tractors. Only by reducing the number of shares could the work be completed.

=== Stump-jump plough ===
[[File:Disc ploughs from The Powerhouse Museum Collection.jpg|left|thumb|[[Disc plough]]s in Australia, circa 1900]]

The [[Stump-jump plough]] was an Australian invention of the 1870s, designed to cope with the breaking up of new farming land, that contains many tree stumps and rocks that would be very expensive to remove. The plough uses a moveable weight to hold the ploughshare in position. When a tree stump or other obstruction such as a rock is encountered, the ploughshare is thrown upwards, clear of the obstacle, to avoid breaking the plough's harness or linkage; ploughing can be continued when the weight is returned to the earth after the obstacle is passed.

A simpler system, developed later, uses a concave disc (or a pair of them) set at a large angle to the direction of progress, that uses the concave shape to hold the disc into the soil—unless something hard strikes the circumference of the disk, causing it to roll up and over the obstruction. As the arrangement is dragged forward, the sharp edge of the disc cuts the soil, and the concave surface of the rotating disc lifts and throws the soil to the side. It doesn't make as good a job as the mouldboard plough (but this is not considered a disadvantage, because it helps fight the wind erosion), but it does lift and break up the soil. See [[disc harrow]].

=== Modern ploughs ===
[[File:WWILandArmyPoster.jpg|thumb|150px|left|A British woman ploughing on a [[World War I]] recruitment poster for the [[Women's Land Army]].]]

Modern ploughs are usually multiple reversible ploughs, mounted on a [[tractor]] via a [[three-point hitch|three-point linkage]]. These commonly have between two and as many as seven mouldboards—and ''semi-mounted'' ploughs (the lifting of which is supplemented by a wheel about half-way along their length) can have as many as eighteen mouldboards. The hydraulic system of the tractor is used to lift and reverse the implement, as well as to adjust furrow width and depth. The ploughman still has to set the draughting linkage from the tractor so that the plough is carried at the proper angle in the soil. This angle and depth can be controlled automatically by modern tractors. As a complement to the rear plough a two or three mouldboards-plough can be mounted on the front of the tractor if it is equipped with front three-point linkage.

== Specialist ploughs ==
=== Chisel plough ===
The ''chisel plough'' is a common tool to get deep tillage (prepared land) with limited soil disruption. The main function of this plough is to loosen and aerate the [[soil]]s while leaving crop residue at the top of the soil. This plough can be used to reduce the effects of [[soil compaction|compaction]] and to help break up [[plowpan|ploughpan]] and [[hardpan]]. Unlike many other ploughs the chisel will not invert or turn the soil. This characteristic has made it a useful addition to [[no-till farming|no-till]] and low-till farming practices which attempt to maximise the [[soil erosion|erosion]]-prevention benefits of keeping organic matter and farming residues present on the soil surface through the year. Because of these attributes, the use of a chisel plough is considered by some to be more [[Sustainable agriculture|sustainable]] than other types of plough, such as the [[#Mouldboard plough|mouldboard plough]].

[[File:JDTractor chisel-plough.jpg|thumb|right|A modern [[Deere & Company|John Deere]] 8110 Farm Tractor using a chisel plough.]]
[[File:Bigham Brother Tomato Tiller.JPG|thumb|Bigham Brother Tomato Tiller]]

The chisel plough is typically set to run up to a depth of eight to twelve inches (200 to 300 mm). However some models may run much deeper. Each of the individual ploughs, or shanks, are typically set from nine inches (229 mm) to twelve inches (305 mm) apart. Such a plough can encounter significant soil drag, consequently a [[tractor]] of sufficient [[Motive power|power]] and good traction is required. When planning to plough with a chisel plough it is important to bear in mind that 10 to 15 [[horsepower]] (7 to 11 [[watt#Kilowatt|kW]]) per shank will be required.

[[Cultivator]]s are often similar in form to chisel ploughs, but their goals are different. Cultivator teeth work near the surface, usually for weed control, whereas chisel plough shanks work deep beneath the surface. Consequently, cultivating also takes much less power per shank than does chisel ploughing.

=== Ridging plough ===
A ridging plough is used for crops, such as [[potato]]es or [[scallion]]s, which are grown buried in ridges of soil using a technique called ''ridging'' or ''[[hilling]]''. A ridging plough has two mouldboards facing away from each other, cutting a deep furrow on each pass, with high ridges either side. The same plough may be used to split the ridges to harvest the crop.

=== Scottish hand plough ===
A variety of ridge plough, notable in that the blade points towards the operator. This is for use solely by human effort rather than animal or machine assistance. As such it is pulled backwards by the operator, requiring great physical effort. Particularly used for second breaking of ground, and for potato planting. Found in Shetland, some western crofts and more rarely Central Scotland. The tool epitomises a small-holding too small or poor to merit use of animals.

=== Mole plough ===
{{Main|Subsoiler}}
The ''mole plough'' or ''subsoiler'' allows underdrainage to be installed without trenches, or it breaks up deep impermeable soil layers which impede drainage. It is a very deep plough, with a torpedo-shaped or wedge-shaped tip, and a narrow blade connecting this to the body. When dragged through the ground, it leaves a channel deep under the ground, and this acts as a drain. Modern mole ploughs may also bury a flexible perforated plastic drain pipe as they go, making a more permanent drain—or they may be used to lay pipes for water supply or other purposes.

=== Advantages of the mouldboard plough ===
Mouldboard ploughing, in cold and temperate climates, no deeper than 20 cm, aerates the soil by loosening it. It incorporates crop residues, solid manures, limestone and commercial fertilizers along with some oxygen. By doing so, it reduces nitrogen losses by volatilization, accelerates mineralization and increases short-term nitrogen availability for transformation of organic matter into humus. It erases wheel tracks and ruts caused by harvesting equipment. It controls many perennial weeds and pushes back the growth of other weeds until the following spring. It accelerates soil warming and water evaporation in spring because of the lesser quantity of residues on the soil surface. It facilitates seeding with a lighter seeder. It controls many enemies of crops ([[slugs]], [[crane flies]], seedcorn maggots-bean seed flies, borers). It increases the number of "soil-eating" earthworms (endogea) but is detrimental to vertical-dwelling earthworms (anecic).

=== Disadvantages of the mouldboard plough ===
Over-ploughing can lead to the formation of [[hardpan]]. Typically farmers break up hardpan up with a [[subsoiler]], which acts as a long, sharp knife to slice through the hardened layer of soil deep below the surface. [[Soil erosion]] due to improper land and plough utilization is possible. [[Contour plowing|Contour ploughing]] mitigates soil erosion by ploughing across a slope, along elevation lines. Alternatives to ploughing, such as the [[no till method]], have the potential to actually build soil levels and humus, and may be suitable to smaller, more intensively cultivated plots, and to farming on poor, shallow or degraded soils which will only be further damaged by ploughing.

== Plough parts ==
[[File:Old plough schema.svg|thumb|275px|Image of a contemporary plough]]
The picture to the right illustrates the following parts of a plough (numbering matches parts on the image):
# Frame
# Three point attach
# Height regulator
# Knife or [[coulter]]
# Chisel
# [[Plowshare|Share]], also called the ploughshare
# Mouldboard
# Plough shaft
Other portions include the frog, runner, landside, shin, trashboard and handles.

On modern ploughs and some older ploughs, the mouldboard is separate from the share and runner, allowing these parts to be replaced without replacing the mouldboard. Abrasion eventually destroys all parts of a plough that contact the soil.

== See also ==
{{Wiktionary}}
* [[Aratrum]]—Ancient Greek and Roman plough
* [[Ard (plough)]]—Scratch plough
* [[Boustrephedon]] ([[Greek language|Greek]]: "ox-turning")—An ancient way of writing, each line being read in the opposite direction like reversible ploughing.
* [[Foot plough]]
* [[Headland (agriculture)]]
* [[History of agriculture]]
* [[Museum of Scottish Country Life]]
* [[Railroad plough]]
* [[Ridge and furrow]]
* [[Snowplow|Snowplough]]
* [[Sokha]]—Old Russian scratch-plough
* [[Whippletree (mechanism)|Whippletree]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist}}

== References ==
* "Early Medieval Ploughing at Whithorn and the Chronology of Plough Pebbles", Hill, P. and Kucharski, K. in ''Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society'', Vol. LXV, 1990, pp 73–83.

== Further reading ==
* ''Nanchinadu: Harbinger of Rice and Plough Culture in the Ancient World'' by Dr. V. Sankaran Nair

== External links ==
{{commons}}
* [http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/h/plough.htm The Rotherham Plough]—''the first commercially successful iron plough''
* [http://www.deere.com/en_US/compinfo/history/index.html History of the steel plough]—''as developed by John Deere in the US''
* [http://www.antiquefarmtools.info/ Breast Ploughs and other antique hand farm tools]

{{Types of tools}}

[[Category:Farming tools]]
[[Category:History of agriculture]]
[[Category:Agricultural machinery]]

[[ar:محراث]]
[[an:Aladro]]
[[ast:Llabiegu]]
[[gn:Yvymbovoha]]
[[ay:Arma]]
[[az:Kotan]]
[[bn:হাল]]
[[zh-min-nan:Lôe]]
[[ba:Һабан]]
[[be:Плуг]]
[[be-x-old:Плуг]]
[[bs:Plug]]
[[br:Arar]]
[[bg:Плуг]]
[[ca:Arada]]
[[cs:Pluh]]
[[cy:Aradr]]
[[da:Plov]]
[[de:Pflug]]
[[et:Ader]]
[[el:Άροτρο]]
[[es:Arado (agricultura)]]
[[eo:Plugilo]]
[[eu:Golde]]
[[fa:گاوآهن]]
[[fr:Charrue]]
[[ga:Céachta]]
[[gl:Arado]]
[[ko:쟁기]]
[[hi:हल]]
[[hr:Plug]]
[[io:Plugilo]]
[[id:Bajak]]
[[is:Plógur]]
[[it:Aratro]]
[[he:מחרשה]]
[[jv:Waluku]]
[[pam:Sarul]]
[[sw:Plau]]
[[la:Aratrum]]
[[lv:Arkls]]
[[lb:Plou]]
[[lt:Plūgas]]
[[hu:Eke]]
[[ml:കലപ്പ]]
[[nl:Ploeg (werktuig)]]
[[ja:プラウ]]
[[no:Plog]]
[[nn:Plog]]
[[nrm:Tchéthue]]
[[pnb:ہل]]
[[pl:Pług]]
[[pt:Arada (agricultura)]]
[[ro:Plug]]
[[qu:T'aklla]]
[[ru:Плуг]]
[[rue:Плуг]]
[[sco:Pleuch]]
[[stq:Plouch]]
[[sq:Parmenda]]
[[scn:Aratu]]
[[simple:Plow]]
[[sk:Pluh]]
[[sl:Plug]]
[[sr:Плуг]]
[[sh:Plug]]
[[fi:Kyntö]]
[[sv:Plog]]
[[ta:ஏர்]]
[[te:నాగలి]]
[[th:การไถนา]]
[[tr:Saban]]
[[uk:Плуг]]
[[ur:ہل]]
[[vi:Cày]]
[[wa:Tcherowe]]
[[war:Arado]]
[[bat-smg:Plūgs]]
[[zh:犁]]