Look people expect proof when you make that kind of statement. You have provided none besides wikipedia. Teachers fail students who use wikipedia as a source.
Until you do your provide solid proof your arguments will be pointless.
I think the engine issue is well established now (license product). The 30mm, 76mm and 100mm main guns too (unless it is just coincidence that the chinese have developed a 30mm gatling and a 76mm that look exactly like their russian navy counterparts - much more so than Type 730 CIWS looks like Goalkeeper! - or their french counterparts in the case of the 100mm). Not even beginning to discus HQ7 and other SAMs.
I have provided other sources than wiki, and these include sinodefence and bot also Sipri, but you can look at FAS and other sites as well .
You dismiss sinodefence because it is behind in numbers of 054a, eventhough it actually supports your case for the Sea Eagle. So, you are very selective in what you accept as webevidence, depending on the point you are trying to make.
It is just silly to deny the use of foreign inputs.
The Shivalik and KDII obviously use foreign parts because its well published.
So is the licensing of the diesels to Shaanxi : see MAN website below for example
In 1988, MAN in collaboration with MTU-Friedrichshafen took over S.E.M.T. Pielstick, which then became part of MAN B&W Diesel Group.
S.E.M.T. Pielstick
and as indicated before Shaanxi is one of their licensees for the particular engine in question.
Meanwhile, following your line, the Indian Bharat RAWL may be anything but a licensed version of the Dutch Signaal (now Thales) LW08: we can't judge by appearance and have no way of knowing if the insides aren't totally different.
