Talk:List of Chinese inventions

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

message: I am a Indonisain, but Sunyi-lin, a professor in Shanghai Jiao Tong University, has posted his contradict             research paper since 2006-02-19. Here is the link:
Study the Extraction of "Autumn Mineral" in Ancient China,                       Sunyi-lin,    (School of Humanities，Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030,China)
Hope anybody take a look. --Zanhsieh (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrinology, isolation of sex and pituitary hormones from urine? 

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

message: Surely there's a better way to align the images? Currently, some sections (such as "L" to "R") have a lot of unused valuable free space on the right hand side. If the images in the preceding heading can't fit into the section (due to the vertical text being shorter than the images), it goes into the next heading. As a result, the images in the new heading follow the same alignment (which results in all that unused free space). Spellcast (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Just do whatever you want to it. Honestly, everyone has a different monitor width, so the article will look different to different folks. The only way to please everyone is to have as few images as possible, so there doesn't appear to be any gaps and there is no overlap with the text.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the simple solution. Alternatively, if the images protrude into the next heading, the protruding images can be aligned horizontally below the accompanying text in the section. So if a group of images can't fit into the section, the interfering images can be moved from the top of the text to below it using the markup seen in WP:PIC#Galleries. But I don't know if having pictures aligned horizontally below the text would be aesthetically pleasing to everyone. Spellcast (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has spoken up here on the talk page since we began this conversation; feel free to test your own suggestion. I'm not against trying new things if it will improve the look of the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image format 

message: Should Sky Lantern be add to this article since the references in the article suggested that Chinese invent it? --LLTimes (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --Zhonghuo (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Sky lantern: According to the popular lore, the military strategist Zhuge Liang invented the Sky Lantern for different uses in warfare and was named after him, Kongming Lantern (). However It is likely that this technological discovery is misattributed because of the Chinese historical practice of attributing great discoveries to significant historical figures rather than to the actual inventors. According to the sinologist and historian of science Joseph Needham, the Chinese experimented with mini-hot air balloons from as early as the 3rd century BC, during the Warring States period, which suggests that the attribution of its invention to Kongming is anachronistic and apocryphal. --LLTimes (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky Lantern? 

message: The term used in this article "premodern" just sounds terrible. I don't think it's a word. At the very least it needs a hyphen (pre-modern). I don't claim to be an expert and it may even me grammatically correct but it's very unstandard. I think the term ancient is much better. Or break it down by era. "premodern" is also troubling as it drifts in time as the modern time changes. One could say premodern Chinese battled the Japanese in World War 2. This needs fixing.12.106.237.2 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that what is modern can be subjective and isnt a very scientific or encyclopedic word to be using, but I TOTALLY disagree on using the hyphen. Its not just wrong, it makes 'pre' into a word rather than a prefix. Also, pre-modern and ancient are totally different. In the West there was a thousand years or more between the two. Mdw0 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a solution for this. The era divisions of Chinese history do not follow, share, or match up with the distinct periods of history found in the West, such as "Late Antiquity," "High Middle Ages," "Renaissance," "Early Modern," etc. Ancient China usually refers to the Shang Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty, and Warring States Period. Then comes the age of Imperial China, which has its periods of interregnum such as the Southern and Northern dynasties and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, but the unified dynastic periods can be divided between Early Imperial China (Qin Dynasty and Han Dynasty), Mid-Imperial China (Sui Dynasty to Yuan Dynasty), and Late Imperial China (Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty). Modern China could be designated as the era beginning with the Republic of China in 1912 and later the People's Republic of China in 1949. Perhaps the article should be split along these lines?--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  that sounds neat! we can make a compilations of them (around three, Ancient, Imperial, and Modern) and make a template. This article is getting too crowded, not to mention walls of images. However we should also make a general main article? describing the four great inventions in it? and other mentions --LLTimes (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you like the idea. Let's see what others have to say. If no one disagrees, perhaps we can reorganize the article along those lines. As for the four great inventions, they already have a separate article (i.e. Four Great Inventions of ancient China).--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I'm late here, that was a great idea. "Premodern" is Eurocentric. It implies that China looks to Europe as the locus of time and history. It is inappropriate for the job. Does European history organize itself according to Chinese conventions? Of course not. Also, the term "Imperial" is kind of loaded. China never colonized the earth outside of Asia. When Europeans unified their nations, they are never called "imperial". It's just called "German Unification" or "Unification of Italy". Why can't the same be said for China?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "premodern Chinese" really?

message: The article is misnamed at least for this reason. List of _antique_ Chinese inventions would be a slightly better name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.151.4.122 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 'I'm pretty sure' dont cut it. Get yourself a valid reference and you can add as many recent inventions as you like. Mdw0 ([[User 
talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 02:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm pretty sure the Chinese continue to invent things 

message: Im pretty sure that China also invented the umbrella ! Should we add the umbrella to the article ? Mekong mainstream (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 'I'm pretty sure' dont cut it. Get yourself a valid reference and you can add whatever you like. Mdw0 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the umbrella ? 

message: How is a "Jade burial suit" an invention, and why is it noteworthy? Ok, so its expensive/lavish, but aside from that? Chinese armour on the other hand is an actual noteworthy invention.
::It's not. Some people have extremely broad ideas of what constitutes an invention, such as minor changes in design, constitution or even colour. Mdw0 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly entries like the Chinese zodiac can go. That one is perhaps going a bit too far with the concept of invention, particularly original inventions and even abstract concepts like a zodiac. However, saying "half" the entries are not inventions sounds to me like a blanket claim that needs sourcing to prove otherwise for every individual entry (or just plain common sense applied to each entry). --Pericles of AthensTalk 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jade burial suit and other "inventions" 

message: I see nothing regarding SILK in this article!Allclintsmail (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be considered as Globalization, since the Silk Road connected Asia, Middle East, and Africa far earlier than the European/American version of globalization (which basically added the profits of the Atlantic Slave Trade to pre-existing Asian trade routes). The Silk Road was not a neighborhood trade route. It's connecting of hemispheric trade deserves to be acknowledged as early globalization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  silk, silk road 

message: Is penjing worthy of being added to this?  I think it is but being a penjing/bonsai enthusiast I'm a little biased. B5200 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that penjing would count as an invention, same goes for silk in the previous section. Semantically at least they are "discoveries" rather than inventions - e.g. you cannot say somebody "invented" fire. Philg88 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the Chinese obviously did not invent the soft fiber produced naturally by bombyx mori, but they certainly invented sericulture, the process of making silk.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very valid point and sericulture should certainly be added. As for penjing ...Philg88 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penjing? 

message: If someone finds a good source that shows an invention was not developed in China, what is NOT required is an extended preamble indicating a prevailing invention in a different place. What is required is deletion of the item claimed to be Chinese, until such time as a source is found which places invention of the item in China. This article is long enough without additional items that were obviously invented elsewhere. Mdw0 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; if there is a reliable source which claims that fermented beverages existed in the Near East thousands of years before they existed in China, then you were by no means out of line in deleting the material.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: How can those four inventions be considered "significant". And more importantly, the Chinese did not invent paper. Paper was invented by the Egyptians. Same goes for printing. The Chinese did not invent printing!
99.231.172.215 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Chinese had just invented four things, we wouldn't have an issue with the length of the list. As it is, it's pretty clear that the Chinese did invent a lot. "Significant" may be something of a weasel word so I've removed it from the opening sentence. Starting with "This list of Chinese inventions details the inventions made by China" is poor writing, and a synoptic statement along the lines of "China has been the source of many significant inventions" is more interesting. As for printing not being invented in China, you're going to need to present some reliable sources backing up your position. The same goes for paper; I imagine there has been some discussion over the technicalities regarding paper and papyrus. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Reply to 99.231.172.215) As if "many significant inventions" only applies to just those four inventions. Also, quite the inconsistency and double-standard you have there. I'm referring to your dislike of using "significant" here in this article, while all for it at the Italian , Japanese , and most notably Indian  list articles. So where does this anti-China style of editting--here and other articles--came from...? That was rhetorical. --Cold Season (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, the user just got blocked for evasion... --Cold Season (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The point, I think, is the use of the term 'significant' means a poor quality opening. It's a poor word to use because it requires a second qualifier to explain how its significant, and how significant it is. No lead sentence should use it. 210.7.132.79 (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 99.231.172.215's motivation, as Cold Season points out, seems to have been marginalise Chinese inventions while emphasising others. But something good has come out of this as "significant" has been removed from the opening sentence. Fortunately it's also been removed from the Italy and India lists after 99.231.172.215 added it. Nev1 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of many significant inventions?? 

message: George Ho has voiced his opinion that the article requires subsections because it is too long, and has backed this up by giving each entry its how section. I removed the tag at the head of the article because the list already has plenty of sections, as can be seen in the table of contents. The format of the TOC means that George's changes are not showing up, meaning they're having no impact on the article. Assuming the TOC was swapped for the more common style found in articles, a section for each entry would make the TOC unmanageably long. I think the article's current format as of 11 May 2012, that is before George started editing it, is the way to proceed. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did make changes for people who would easily edit one thing, such as one invention or another invention, rather than two or all. I like the current TOC as it is, as Nev1 pointed out, because it is convenient to navigate. However, take an example from List of The Price Is Right pricing games. --George Ho (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's more than one way to skin a cat, but having spent some time trimming the article I didn't find having multiple entries in the edit window rather than one too arduous. The impression I got from your initial edit summary was that ease of navigation was the primary reason; as it appears to be ease of editing I'm less concerned. I'm not sure there's that much to be gained by giving each entry its own subsection, but its not a major issue. Nev1 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: May I go ahead changing more then? --George Ho (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to hear from PericlesofAthens who compiled the article, but if you think it's a worthwhile change I don't object. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: George, readers are more important than editors. Editors must suffer minor inconvenience for the sake of reader convenience. Anyone who seriously struggles with editing a section that has two or three items in it really isnt up to doing a proper edit in the first place. However, I think George's style is worth discussing on its own merits. It looks good, but it has a big problem with multiple white gaps created by the images. If George is going to continue with this style, images must appear on both sides of the article, left and right. Mdw0 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsections

message: I've removed the following entries because they don't count as inventions:
*Calendar year at 365.2425 days: Moved into the Chinese calendar article.
*Deficiency diseases, correction by proper diet: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
*Diabetes, recognition and treatment of: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
*Endocrinology, isolation of sex and pituitary hormones from urine: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
*Heterosis in rice: Not an invention. Moved into the discoveries list.
*Alligator drum: Minor innovation. Not really an invention. Split into the Alligator drum article.
*Archaeology, catalogues and epigraphy: Not an invention. Split into the History of Chinese archaeology article.
I've also added a few entries. Comments on my cleanup of the article are welcome.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed entries 

message: Should there be a controversy section on historical inventions? I note that there are several inventions that are claimed by other nationalities? If it causes an edit war - then perhaps it's better avoided. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I should probably clarify, but there are some historians that regard papyrus as paper used by the Greeks? Maybe a section is needed to clarify why it's not considered paper? NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The list already includes any competing claims by other nationalities, which is one of the reasons why the list is so long. A separate section would be redundant and against WP:CRITICISM. Paper is the only exception because it doesn't describe the Egyptian invention of papyrus or the difference between papyrus and paper. Papyrus is a "lamination of plants" while paper is "manufactured from fibres whose properties have been changed by maceration or disintegration." I encourage you to add it and I believe that it would help to improve the article.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

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

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

message: Special thanks are in order for User:Doug Weller, for his fine contributions in excising questionable material from the article, added by another user who has now been indefinitely banned (for copyright violations of non-free content). Every single entry that he added should be checked thoroughly to make sure that he used reliable sources in each and every case. It has already been demonstrated that this particular user, User talk:Backendgaming, has denigrated the quality of this article by introducing entries containing citations from blogs and novels (lol). Obviously those are not acceptable sources. In fact, anything not published by a university press, museum press, scholarly journal, or university (i.e. ".edu") web page should be looked at with a high degree of scrutiny, even news articles from otherwise reputable online newspapers and such. I simply cannot babysit this page every day in perpetuity to ensure its quality, but it certainly needs to return to the state that it was in when I had it passed as a Featured list article back in 2008. To that end Doug Weller is doing a fine job. Keep up the good work sir! In fact, I will award you with a barnstar shortly for your diligent efforts in improving the quality of this article. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 17:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I just wish I'd spent more time on it earlier. He's left a mess behind in other articles having over 20,000 edits. Diannaa cleaned up a lot but no one has the time to check them all. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a frightening thought. He doesn't seem to have contributed anything of value and, I know it is Wiki policy to assume good faith, but I think his sole purpose here was to purposely introduce spurious claims in an act of subtle, stealthy vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Sneaky vandalism). I will take a look at a previous stable version of the article and compare it with the current one, to see which edits of his should still be removed if necessary. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Special thanks to Doug Weller

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

message: I think we should It's this one. It needs some cleanup, I can quickly see the use of media which I think is hardly ever acceptable for history or archaeology. We could restore anything obviously correct. The important thing is not to make this article all-inclusive but accurate. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a dramatic move, but probably necessary given all the questionable additions over the years. I'm not opposed to it, but I will say we've done a good job thus far removing questionable stuff from the article already. Perhaps totally restoring a previous version won't be necessary if we just keep up the pace. Pericles of AthensTalk 09:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a good plan to at least refer to the last clean version (prior to the addition of dubious sources and wholesale copypasting. Actiually I see nothing wrong in principle with outright reversion, per Doug's link - it's certainly easier to check material that's been added since, than to subtract the same material - but there may be some caveats (see below). Haploidavey (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of going back then rebuilding with anything obviously ok. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That would offer the benefit of a methodical rebuilding, from the bottom up. If it's not reliably sourced, it's not used. For me, at any rate, that's much, much easier than sifting through accumulated debris, and not quite knowing what's debris and what's not. Haploidavey (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's restore the last clean version as suggested above 

message: Recently, Haploidavey, you removed the bit about the ancient Greek gastraphetes, a large crossbow that required a prop to fire and was basically a handheld artillery piece. Obviously this was rather different from the smaller, more compact handheld Chinese crossbow that more resembled the later medieval European crossbow. However, I don't think it is entirely clear from archaeology and textual information that the Chinese crossbow necessarily preceded that of the Greek gastraphetes, hence why it was mentioned. They were used roughly at the same time. It's hard to judge which one came first, exactly. I also kept that information to avoid an edit war with another user, which I don't think is a problem anymore, but it could potentially start another one. Pericles of AthensTalk 09:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff I removed was added some time after the (your) original. In effect, I reverted to what seemed, and read, as a clean version. I'm not sure how, or even if, the list should accomodate uncertain claims; I've been unable to find sources that compare or discuss the relative merits of each. I suppose we could resort to a cautionary note, or an Item (uncertain) format, but that seems an open invitation to partisan activities! Haploidavey (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Crossbows, Chinese and Greek

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

message: Divide into sub and they are featured list.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Four Great Inventions Pre-Shang Shang and later Modern (1912-present)2001:EE0:4141:19F3:9515:8C4A:2128:6561 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. This reads like some sort of note from a serial killer. Are we supposed to decipher something from this? Or is this just a mental exercise of yours, using the talk page as your personal sandbox? Pericles of AthensTalk 13:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divide 

message: Nhatminh01 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divide List of Pre-Shang inventions (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, ..., Z) 

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

message: As it tends to happen with articles on Wikipedia, the quality of this article declined since it was first nominated as a featured list. However, much (but not all) of the issues with this article are associated with the work of a certain user. 
After combing through his edits carefully, it became obvious that many of his edits were clearly plagiarized from other Wikipedia articles without attribution, which is a violation of Wikipedia's guideliness. I noticed this because I recognized paragraphs lifted from articles that User:PericlesofAthens, User:Yprpyqp, User:Underbar dk, User:Madalibi, and other established editors interested in Chinese history. These are editors that I've worked with before, so I'm familiar with their writing styles and citation preferences. The problem is that User:Backendgaming also plagiarizes from poorly written articles cobbled together from random sources on Google. This explains his seemingly inconsistent citation style.
Of his "original" edits, he struggled to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. Sometimes, his claims were accurate yet poorly cited. At other times, the sources were reliable yet misinterpreted. In many cases, his additions were neither factual nor verifiable.
Looking on the bright side, this does make the article easier to clean up. The entries that he contributed to this list can be roughly grouped into five categories: 1) Those that were plagiarized. 2) His original contributions. 4) Duplicates of existing entries. 5) Cultural "inventions" specific to China that would never have met the list's criteria for inclusion.
The entries that are classified as 4 or 5 are the easiest to fix. Any entry in category 5 should simply be removed. Regarding category 4, User:Backendgaming had an irritating habit of adding multiple entries that essentially describe the same invention. For example, consider the rocket propellant entry. The propellant in question is gunpowder and we already have a well-researched entry on gunpowder that was mostly written by User:PericlesofAthens. The solution would be to discard the rocket propellant entry in favor of the gunpowder entry. 
Category 1 is a little trickier to deal with, but not by much. If the content was directly copy-and-pasted from a high-quality article that has already gone through the review process, e.g. the featured Science and technology of the Song dynasty, we can assume that the content isn't problematic. If the content was taken from a badly written article, then we'll need to fix it accordingly.'
Those in Category 2 would require looking up academic sources to verify the claims, but fortunately, the entries that fit this category are in the minority. As someone who does research at a university and is familiar with the relevant academic literature, verifying or debunking those claims made in the article should be easy given my access to the sources.
I have compiled a list of entries that were added by User:Backendgaming. Some of these have already been deleted, but I've generated the entirety of his additions for completeness. I will also keep a tally of the entries that remain to be fixed.
Inventions specific to China's material culture (24/24 entries checked and verified):
*Alligator drum: Previously removed.
*Baguenaudier: Previously removed.
*Bamboo and wooden slips: Removed
*Bambooworking: Previously removed.
*Baoding balls: Previously removed.
*Dao (sword): Removed.
*Dragon boats: Removed.
*Dragon kiln: Removed.
*Facekini: Removed.
*Fermented bean curd: Removed.
*Fu (tally): Removed.
*Hukou system: Removed.
*Incense clocks: Removed.
*Jadeworking: Removed.
*Kang bed-stove
*Kau cim Already removed.
*Lamian: Already removed.
*Mandarin square: Removed.
*Mantou kiln: Removed.
*Meat analogue: Removed.
*Ritual bronzemaking: Removed.
*Seal Removed.
*Stinky tofu: Already removed.
*Tianchi basins: Removed.
*Xiaochi: Removed.
*Tributary systems: Already removed.
*Night market: Removed.
Other entries (11/66 entries checked and verified):
*Artillery: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same content as cannon.
*Biological pest control: Plagiarized from Biological pest control without attribution. Originally written by User:Entomologger with revisions by User:Chiswick Chap. This content has already gone through the GA review process (link to the reviewed version on April 2017). As a precaution, I've also double-checked and verified that the claims accurately represent the sources. 
*Bintie: Removed. According to p. 268 in Wagner 2008, Chinese primary sources from the 6th and 7th century attribute the origin of bin iron to Persia or Afghanistan. The character bin is likely transcribed from a foreign language, possibly Persian or Sanskrit.
*Brick, fired
*Bombard
*Borehole drilling
*Brandy: Already removed.
*Breeching strap
*Brine mining
*Cannon: Plagiarized from cannon without attribution. Original text contributed by User:Yprpyqp and myself. Sources are reliable and claims have been verified.
*Cast coinage
*Counting rods
*Diabolo
*Deepwater drilling
*Explosives: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "exploding bomb" entry.
*Field artillery: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "cannon" entry.
*Fire arrow
*Fire cracker
*Food steamer
*Fuses
*Gas cylinder
*Gas lighting
*Gnomon Removed. It's strange that this is included under "gnomon" rather than "sundial" because a gnomon is just the part of the sundial that casts a shadow to indicate the time. In any case, from the sources that I've read on the history of the sundials, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the invention of the sundial because it hinges on speculations regarding whether certain megalithic structures were used for timekeeping. 
*Grid referencing
*Hand fan
*Handgun
*Hygrometer
*Irrigation system
*Keel
*Kerosene
*Louche
*Map scaling
*Movable sail: Already removed and I agree with the deletion. It's not clear what a "movable sail" means in this context (is there such as a thing as an immovable sail?), but there's little evidence that the sail was a Chinese invention. 
*Multiple rocket launcher: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "rocket launcher" entry.
*Oil lamp
*Oil refining
*Parachute
*Percussive drilling
*Petroleum as fuel
*Pipeline transport
*Pudding process
*Quern stone
*Raincoat
*Rammed earth
*Rocket boosters
*Rocket propellant: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "gunpowder" entry.
*Row cropping
*Salt mining
*Salt well
*Snap fastener
*Snow gauge
*Solid-propellant rocket
*Squatting-tiger fire trebuchet: Plagiarized from User:Underbar dk. Also, an incredibly obscure variant of a weapon.
*Stinkpot
*Sunglasses
*Two-stage rocket: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "multistage rocket" entry.
*Umbrella
*War wagon
*Water clock
*Water compartments: Removed as duplicate. Covers the same topic as the "bulkhead partition" entry.
*Weeding rake
*Weighing scale
*Well drilling
*Well-field system
*Wheelchair
*Wrought iron
Furthermore, there are also entries that were removed in other cleanup attempts over the past year. These should be judged independently on their own merits, so I've listed them here for separate consideration (/7):
* Beer
* Churn drill
* Merit system
* Nail polish
* Noodle
* Underwater salvage operation
* Xuan paper
I plan on finishing this task within the next few weeks. I'll also make comments about whether we should keep and discard each entry based on what I find through reliable academic sources.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 06:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for all your hard work here and your due diligence! I fully support the moves to remove certain items listed above, especially the double entries masked by different wording. We obviously don't need two separate entries about gunpowder. The fact that these were all added by a sockpuppet account means they should just be viewed as highly suspect and removed anyway. I think this cleanup job will ultimately negate the necessity for this FL article to be delisted or to revert back to the stable version in June 2013, the rather drastic option I offered as a solution. Again, many thanks! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, what's with citation #600 "ftp"? It is shown in red as an error message. Did we remove something we shouldn't have somehow? That should please be taken care of if it was just a simple editor's mistake. Thanks. Pericles of AthensTalk 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Are you finished? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the article 

message: Why should tea be classified as a Chinese invention if the area where it was first consumed, Yunnan, became Chinese only several millennia later? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. It is only speculated that the ancient people of Yunnan drank it first for medicinal purposes, but the earliest confirmed physical evidence of it used as a drink comes from the tomb of Emperor Jing of Han from the 2nd century BC, while a book by Western Han poet Wang Bao in 59 BC provides the earliest known record of it being boiled as a beverage. There's nothing wrong with retaining the entry on tea. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pericles of Athens makes a compelling argument. Wang Boa's article "A Contract with a Child Servant" is the earliest writing documenting the use of tea as a beverage. I support not changing the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tea 

message: What is that exactly? I noticed there is no other language version and probably for a reason: Isn't every canal a contour canal in that its water follows a gradient that is defined by the topography? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not every canal does this and many involve significant engineering work beforehand such as leveling soil, building tunnels, or even canal locks. I'm not even sure what the complaint is here, other than that you are not a native speaker of English and this is an unfamiliar phrase to you. The source cited for this is hardly spurious either: Day, Lance and Ian McNeil. (1996). Biographical Dictionary of the History of Technology. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06042-7. While some of your complaints resemble legitimate concerns, this one in particular seems humorously tangential to your overall argument about the quality of this article having been diminished. Since you were the one who championed the effort to have this article delisted per WP:FAR, please try to bring up only very serious items that contain duplicate entries or dubious unreliable sources. Thanks. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contour canal 

message: The entire entry is problematic. Why are things that date as far back as eight to ten millennia into the past declared as "Chinese" inventions? Does that mean that the Dutch invented the dugout because the oldest evidence from 10,000 years ago is from modern-day Netherlands? Note that the inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilisation are listed separately from the List of Indian inventions and discoveries, although the Indus Valley Civilisation is temporally much closer to later Indian culture than the Neolithic cultures of China to later Chinese culture. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something to be said against removing the entire section as OR? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured you would suggest something that extreme, a pattern that I'm sensing with your suggestions (a radical proposal considering virtually everything in that section is fairly well-cited with reliable academic sources, not someone's personal blog). That being said, I've chosen to simply move pre-Shang, Neolithic and prehistoric stuff over to a new sister article: List of inventions and discoveries of Neolithic China. It took a lot of effort, but all of that material is now excised from the article, with handy links provided to the new one. I have also removed the sources cited at the bottom in the references section that once pertained to that section but are no longer found anywhere else in the article. To me this represents a huge improvement to the article, which should soon warrant the lifting of any tags that claim this article suffers from WP:OR issues. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Shang 

message: This article dates the introduction of the Babylonian zodiac to "between −408 and −397 and probably within a very few years of −400" BC. 
Francesca Rochberg, Professor of History at the University of California, dates its introduction even a bit earlier (The Heavenly Writing.
Divination, horoscopy, and astronomy in Mesopotamian culture, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 130): 
Since the Babylonian zodiac also uses twelve animal signs and only slightly differs in some names (cf. Rochberg, p. XXV), the Babyonians should be credited with its invention. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really close, possible 5th but likely also not by the 4th century BC, yet I've decided just to remove the claim for the Chinese. I'm not sure if Rochberg's hypothesis for dating these tablets is widely accepted in scholarly consensus, but you've at least brought two sources to the table here and that's good enough for now, I suppose. I might add it back later after a bit of research to see if the Chinese texts can be dated further back than the 4th century BC. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal zodiac 

message: Acupuncture was already practised in the 4th millennium BC in Europe, notably on Ötzi, but possibly also on other mummified bodies (cf. here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unlike the Animal Zodiac thing, which was a legit point given the hard evidence of Babylonian tablets, this is just mostly a silly claim, or as The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine (p. 610) rightfully says, a "speculative" one without very solid evidence. Scholarly consensus is not on your side here. As far as I know most scholarship has not moved on this issue, and thus the entry for acupuncture will stay in this article until overwhelming evidence is presented in trustworthy academic sources that any Neolithic cultures practiced it. Scholars even view Needham's hypotheses of acupuncture going back to Bronze Age China with great skepticism, with no firm physical evidence for it until the Han dynasty, with maybe textual evidence going back to the Warring States Period. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm starting to wonder if I should re-nominate this article for FA status if this is the sort of fringe theory stuff you have used as the basis for delisting the article. Again, many of your concerns are legitimate, and I'm addressing them one by one, but I feel as though people were persuaded to delist the article based on your advocacy of ideas that aren't even widely accepted in academic consensus. You should be far more cautious and careful about that in the future, especially given the dramatic act of delisting an enormous complex article that simply needed some tweaking here and there (the biggest change being the removal of prehistoric/Neolithic stuff, which is at least one of your more reasonable proposals ala the Indus Valley Civilization comparison to India). Pericles of AthensTalk 02:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acupuncture 

message: The excavated tunic of Tutankhamun (c. 1342 – c. 1325 BC) has chain stitches, predating the oldest cited Chinese example (Paul T. Nicholson, Ian Shaw: "Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology", Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 9780521452571, p. 280). Note that Mary Schoeser, the cited source, is not concerned with claiming global priority for the Chinese but makes her remark rather in the limited context of her discussion of Chinese (silk) clothing. 
This is a recurring problem with this list: it ignores cultural and geographical context and inflates limited claims to global absolutes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, removed given the earlier example from Ancient Egypt, as we inch closer to removing those tags at the top of the article. Also, I couldn't disagree more with your perception about this article, the problems of which I think you're exaggerating when it comes to claims of innovation in a global context. It's certainly no different from other invention list articles such as List of English inventions and discoveries and List of Italian inventions and discoveries. For whatever reason you have decided that List of Chinese inventions is far more egregious than these other examples when it's literally presented in the same format. While you're certainly free to hold this opinion, it's irrelevant at best, so let's stay focused on the specific items that you have actual concrete evidence to refute with scholarly sources. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chain stitch 

message: Its first use is claimed for the Han era but this is a weak claim. The sole source refers to Abourashed 2003, a pharmacological article that is not much concerned with historical accuracy. This is what Abourashed writes (p. 703):
I cannot see how Abourashed credits any specific culture with Ephedrine's first use. Going by his choice of words, Indian and Roman use could predate that in China. The fact that he attributes a role to a mythical Chinese ruler should be an immediate red flag to treat his historical synopis as reliable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I have removed this post, which I did not personally add but was the addition of some other editor long after my successful FAC. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and yes, it seems ancient Romans or Indians could have been using it around the same time or earlier as the Han dynasty Chinese. Inching ever closer to removing those tags! Pericles of AthensTalk 02:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ephedrine 

message: A priori an unlikely claim given how ubiquitous the practice is and how ephemeral evidence of any kind for its earliest use must be. And the only source cited truly lives up to expectations. Stoddart claims on the given page that "few details of the rites have survived" (plausible), but that the Hindus adopted incense from the Chinese (interesting) and the Egyptians in turn from "Hindu traders" at the time of the "11th dynasty" (wow), which he dates wrong by 1500 years (never mind). Then he goes on more to give more impossibly precise details (but he knows). Worthy of Erich von Däniken and unintentionally funny. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, unsurprisingly, not an entry that I had personally added, but am happy to remove. You're right, the origins of incense are far too murky to speak in such absolutes and the author, despite being published by the Cambridge University Press, made a number of glaring errors that put his other claims into question. That is not a small error, either, that's a colossal one that betrays a huge ignorance of the timeline of entire civilizations. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incense 

message: This entry take a free license to embellish things. What Loewe (1968) actually writes on p. 194 is that drills may have penetrated over 600 metres" and that "it is possible that the fires lighted below the pans were fed on natural gas, brought from the mine by the same conveyance". The entry, however, treats his conjecture as a fact. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a case where both artistic and archaeological evidence strongly suggest that natural gas was indeed used as fuel for salt production and that borehole drilling did in fact reach such depths, but yes, per Loewe's wording, I have softened the language there to stress that this is still hypothetical and not yet fully or exhaustively confirmed with corroborative textual evidence. With that done, I have addressed every single one of your concerns listed here. If you have any other outstanding concerns let them be known with specific details, because I will now remove the OR tags from the top of the article. I may even re-nominate this for FAC, but in the meantime it looks decent enough. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural gas as a fuel 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They haven't been deleted for some reason yet and it has already been a few months. History of AsiaWant to talk? 16:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This is an article for INVENTIONS.  China did not invent the space station; full stop.  A simple glance at the talk page history demonstrates that there's already a history of inflated claims and puffery, and that spurious additions -- lacking well-attested reliable sources to an invention's unique provenance in China -- should be removed.  To suggest that this is a unique invention because it is named "Tiangong space station" is bizarre at best; that would be rather like asserting that some nation invented the automobile just because there was some cosmetic feature not before slapped on one.   Ravenswing      11:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since space stations are presently such massive, bespoke things, I could almost see an argument for some claim involving Tiangong if a newly invented technology or device was used first on it. But no argument of the sort is currently being made. Remsense留 23:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd certainly have raised no objection to a standalone entry for any such newly invented technology/device, and certainly were such an invention first employed on a Tiangong station, obviously such an entry would reasonably mention it.  As you say, no such assertion has been made.  As far as space stations go, there were nine launched and manned before the first of the Tiangong stations.   Ravenswing      06:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space station