The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese inventions[edit]

List_of_Chinese_inventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

The List of Chinese inventions article has not only become a source for ethnocentric propoganda but also has evolved into a reference guide for the ethnocentric enthusiasts who use the article as a source to create "ancient history" sections and mention China at the very beginings of the articles which, if dealt with completely, will also have mentions of ancient Greece, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia etc. prior to China in most cases.

Articles such as these are being used as a guide for polluting perfectly good articles such as restaurants with propoganda such as this (see details here).

In this version, I tried to assemble a list of inventions that were generally thought to have been championed by the Chinese people. The result was a quick response and reverts which were knee jerk to the extent of repeating Chinese calendar, Acupuncture, Chinese calendar, Chinese food and Chinese clothing in the same article.

Kindly delete as a severest violation of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT policies has been done here, with an intention to make claims such as "China is said to be the source of some of the world's great inventions" when most of it had already been done in ancient Greece, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia etc if you take a look into the wikilinks of the inventions in question.

Regards, Moerou toukon 15:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prob is that these users follow the work of Joseph Needham who, beside being certainly a great researcher and scholar, was unfortunately also quite obsessed with establishing technological 'firsts' for China. For example, a Chinese guy jumping down a wall with two parasols constituted for Needham "the invention of the parachute" by the Chinese. With that mindset now a few users roam Wiki and try to put China on top of every list. A few weeks ago the introducing phrase was even that "China is said to be the source of many of the world's great inventions"... Regards Gun Powder Ma 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the inventions, i.e. the content, in the list were initiated by civilizations other than China. The list is not only based on incorrect content of claims of inventions when they were already invented by the Greeks, Mesopotamians and the Egyptians etc. but also serves as a guide for propoganda as mentioned in the section above. I have tried to correct that but the ethnocentric bias resultes in complete reversions, even repititions. During the short time I have spent on this encyclopedia I have yet to come across an article as misleading, incorrect and unencyclopedic as this. I can assure you this; "content" such as this will never find it's way into respected sources such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, another encyclopedia which I hold in high regards.
Moerou toukon 13:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod's ethnocentric and disruptive conduct can be gauged here. Moerou toukon 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. LionheartX 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've never edited it Johnbod 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, you gave two totally contradictory viewpoints with reference to one and the same source (from 1935...):

Contra diffusion:History of typography in East Asia :But historians of the Western prints themselves see no need for such a connection, as they see a clear progression from patterns to images, both printed on cloth, then to images printed on paper, when it became widely available in Europe in about 1400.[1] Text and images printed together only appear some sixty years later, after metal movable type [2]

Pro diffusion:Four Great Inventions of ancient China :Woodblock printing, initially for textiles, reached Europe by the 14th century or before, via the Islamic world, and by around 1400 was being used on paper for old master prints and playing cards.[3]

That IS a contradiction, hence your second edit was correctly reverted. Gun Powder Ma 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction as I have explained there; here is not the place. Johnbod 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Kindly read the statement that I've made in the opening lines for answers. The article actually claims to have invented restaurants. Have you come across a List of Chinese inventions on Brtittanica? Why take up precious space when the excellent History of science and technology in China article will do the job admirably in all events. Moerou toukon 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm surprised you regard that article as excellent; on a first reading it also seems to contain dubious Needham-type statements. It also references the List we are discussing as a main article. Just because an article is in dispute is not an argument for deletion. Johnbod 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Invention of China does not deserve an entry into an encyclopedia nor is most of the content on the list an invention of China. Even if I assume the best faith the mere existence of such an article will be one step further into turning WP into a soapbox. I tried searching Brittanica for List of Chinese inventions and found out that they don't carry articles such as these. Ethnocentric chauvinism is one thing we should best leave at home when we start typing on Wikipedia. Moerou toukon 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is you logic? Brittanica misses a lot of knowledge

Comment: I am against deleting under the condition that the article is somehow closely monitored. Otherwise, I am for deletion, since it is better to have no article than a platform voicing the opinions of a single scholar, and since there is already a qualitative History of science and technology in China. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This item does not seem to have been listed properly, and does not appear on the normal AfD deletions list (should be April 6). Johnbod 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it should be in cat T (science and technology) not S (society-related), which I have changed. Johnbod 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You logic is obviously flawed. We didn't have anything like wikipedia before, so we should delete the whole wikipedia? Some people have no sense of innovation at all. Even worse, they want to delete anything new. Ridiculous!--Leo 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hardly that. They are, rightly or wrong, in Needham & many other sources. Johnbod 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
while true, compling such list could be considered OR, IMO (Don't get me wrong, I am a chinese). SYSS Mouse 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; most of these inventions are shared by various civilizations including Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia. Claiming exclusive Chinese inventions is a violation of WP:OR and WP:Undue. Moerou toukon 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The details of the diffusion of each invention, and the possibility of multiple independent or partially independent inventors, is almost always complicated, and there are brief (and usually very controversial) discussions in the WP articles for each. Some eds. here --and some people outside--take a position in favor of a great many different inventions coming from a particular national or racial group, and some denying that most of them do. I cannot really understand either position. DGG 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the parachute, explain to me exactly which item/items on that list need removal. As far as I can see, the Chinese were able to dabble in many of those inventions as original makers and innovators. If there is a feeling of sino-centrism because of the vague description of background for each invention (leaving one with the blind assumption that each was wholly invented in China and no where else), then maybe someone should add another section at the bottom giving various descriptions for the bullet points. I already added some info to the bullet listings themselves, to make things more clear. And another thing, it is no surprise that restaurants in at least somewhat of an early modern sense would have been an innovation of the Song Dynasty. For God's sake, read the article on Society of Song Dynasty, very impressive stuff that we now know about Hangzhou during the period.--PericlesofAthens 10:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article will not be found in any respectable logbook of knowledge. I can create a List of Japanese inventions but I doubt that such an article deserves an encyclopedic entry. Secondly, the List of Chinese inventions title is misleading as it would lead one to assume that China's entire chronology has been presented here instead of the Sino-centric Han chauvinists claiming technological advancement of Imperial China. Also, the inventions mentioned here were made earlier by ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, Mesopotamia etc. in most cases. Why not have a List of achievements of ancient Greece, List of inventions of Mesopotamia and List of early Egyptian inventions as well then? and why not mention those lists on Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia:WikiProject Iraq, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt and Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece as well? Where does this ethnic chauvinism end and how does it aid us in the making of an encyclopedia? Moerou toukon 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: An article of anybody's interest could make a way into wikipeda. There are so many articles about individual movies, video games, movie/porn stars....... none of them could ever be found in any respectable logbook of knowledge. But so what? Even your voice here could never have a chance to be presented in any respectable books. Why don't you keep silent then? But the spirit of wikipedia is opening and tolerate. You can argue the facts of an article. You can dislike or hate the piece of information in one article. But you could never argue the merit of a particular article and to judge if it "deserves" of anything. I have seen enough people interested in this article. Deleting anypage only if somebody dislikes it is ridiculous. Keeping the respectable stuffs in mind is a good habit,but using it as a boundary of doing things is anti-innovation and self-confined. --Leo 18:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that would be pretty cool to have lists for Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Japan, South and Central America, Rome, England, etc. Only problem is, does anyone feel like creating all of those articles? That's a bit of work. I think in that case (and in the case of a professional encyclopedia), you are right, it is better that this article is deleted, since the articles on individual inventions themselves should have descriptions about Chinese origin in their history sections anyway.--PericlesofAthens 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep : Chinese people invented something. So give them a list. What is wrong with that? You can argue with the accuracy and reliability of certain items listed. But deleting the whole article ? It is purely a jealous to me . No Way! --Leo 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of wikipedia is not to delete something if it is not perfect, but incrementally improve it by volunteers during the time . Nothing would exist base on your logic. --Leo 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a collection of opinions, there is a factual basis and explanation for each item listed. What if someone made bullet points (or footnotes) below describing why each item is listed? Would that help?--PericlesofAthens 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be referenced, certainly Johnbod 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the policy discouraging a list page? It would be pretty dumb to restrict the format to delivery knowledge. List is an effective way to share knowledge in fact. Even if there is a such policy. The fact is that there are already thousands of articles beginning with "list of ...". Deleting them all? --Leo 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a collection of opinions, the AfD tag has been removed from the page and these tags have been attached to the article : 1) All discussion including deleting request MUST go to the discussion page. Polluting the main article during discussion is again the NPOV view of Wikipedia. 2) This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it. Kindly take that into account; the article in this form violates more WP policies then any other I've come across. Moerou toukon 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this deletion request?When should this deletion request be closed? I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure and found a 5-day time frame for discussion before closure. It seems we have had enough opinions in this page and enough votes already. Should we try to make a decision and close this request? Here is the voting result so far: 

Delete: by 6 persons
---------------------
Moerou toukon 
iridescenti
SYSS Mouse
Acalamari 
Pavel Vozenilek 
Gun Powder Ma 
---------------------
Keep: by 7 persons
PericlesofAthens 
LionheartX 
Liao
Johnbod 
Peterkingiron 
Hong Qi Gong
DGG

Both sides have enough people to treat this as a draw, if the keeping side is not winning. My understanding for AFD is that this article should be judged to keep, at least based on "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to keep. " --Leo 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping this article, but Leo, why don't you just let the AfD run its course and let the admins handle the conclusion of the AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am following the AfD policy right now. When are the admins supposed to handle the conclusion? What should we do it no admins are aware of this discussion? It passed the 5-day window already. --Leo 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ An Introduction to a History of Woodcut, Arthur M. Hind,p , Houghton Mifflin Co. 1935 (in USA), reprinted Dover Publications, 1963 ISBN 0-486-20952-0
  2. ^ Master E.S., Alan Shestack, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1967
  3. ^ An Introduction to a History of Woodcut, Arthur M. Hind, Houghton Mifflin Co. 1935 (in USA), reprinted Dover Publications, 1963 ISBN: 0-486-20952-0
More