Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Dubiouser and Dubiouser

There is a conflict of information, and a dubious claim in the article made by Ocanter in his edits of April 20, 2007. In the invention and diffusion of gunpowder technology section that states Roger Bacon was the first to write of a pure gunpowder solution (i.e. sulphur, saltpetre, and charcoal, no other added or substituting material components), it cites its source as page 108 of Needham's Volume 5 Part 7 of his Science and Civilization in China series. I can tell you with absolute certainty (as I own the book and am staring at that page right now) that this claim is false; no where on this page does it say Bacon was the first. The other inline citation used was for the Encyclopedia Britannica edition printed in 1771, obviously two centuries before Needham's books were even written, and obviously no longer a credible source of information (although Ocanter took the liberty of using it twice to assert that Roger Bacon was the first).

Please do not accuse me of doing things that I did not do. I did not cite the Britannica. Someone else put that in. I cited Needham. Needham covers nearly every Chinese recipe for saltpeter explosives, and he does not give one for pure black powder that antedates Bacon. The first recipe for black powder given by him is Bacon's. So even though he does not say, "The earliest extant recipe for black powder was Bacon's," he is clearly relying on our ability to understand this from the fact that he is unable to produce an earlier recipe, even though he surveys virtually every ancient Chinese source. So perhaps it is incorrect to cite Needham for the claim, "The earliest pure black powder recipe was given by Bacon," but it is certainly fair to cite Needham when claiming, "The earliest black powder recipe given by Needham is Roger Bacon's." The fact is that Bacon's formula is common knowledge, and it would just be outta sight if you would actually look this stuff up yourself. Scour Needham, or Partington, or whomever, and see if you can find an earlier recipe for pure black powder. Dude, that would be sick. 171.64.136.161 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That passage from Needham does not claim Bacon was the first, but that is the earliest recipe given by Needham for pure black powder. Where is an earlier one? You have to remember that Needham is advocating the view that Chinese had a black powder recipe, but he doesn't have one in the literature, so he's trying to explain away Bacon. The citation to Needham is valid. It merely cites the fact that he published a formula for black powder. Look at Needham's attempt to explain it away: "He probably got his hands on some Chinese fireworks!" Ocanter 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in regards to the conflict of information, there is already a statement in the same section that Wei Xing (who died in 1164) of China created a gunpowder formula by using a strict formula of sulphur, saltpetre, and willow charcoal, which is classified as vine charcoal, and which predates Bacon by roughly a hundred years.--PericlesofAthens 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Partington is misquoted here. Someone please give me the ancient source for this, in published translation, please. I'm willing to bet this is not a black powder recipe. Pericles? How's the war going? How about the direct quote from Partington, with his citation to the ancient source, and his bibliographic record as well? That would be so ginormously awesome. Ocanter 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this, even the Europe section of this article shows that Roger Bacon only knew of the pure form of gunpowder by 1267, which is clearly more than a hundred years after Wei Xing died in China.--PericlesofAthens 00:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of this, unless anyone can bring (in sufficient time) sources to contradict Needham and the written formula of Wei Xing, I will be deleting these dubious statements from the article.--PericlesofAthens 00:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no written formula of Wei Xing given here. We only have the secondary source given, Partington, and there's no direct quote, anyway. I smell sulphur, or something. Can you actually look up this recipe? I want to see what you have. I gave a direct quote from Bacon. Any words from Wei Xing, or do we have to rely on you and Partington? Ocanter 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, thanks for changing the title of this section, very cute of you.

Secondly, about my wife, Xanthippus and Paralus may speak highly of the days when their mother was around, but I've got Aspasia to kick around now (I mean, the first marriage was bad, but what could go wrong now? Not even a plague could stop me! Lol).

Thirdly, Partington. I found this information from his book using Google Scholar, which does not allow you to read much, but it had this much to say (in Wade-Giles):

Chao Yi says Wei Hsing (d. 1164) invented projectile carriages (p'ao-che) launching "fire-stones" a distance of 400 yards, and in making his 'fire-drug', saltpetre, sulphur, and willow charcoal were employed; "this was the origin of the pyrotechnics in vogue in modern times."

Pages 239 and 240 of A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder. Here, Partington says that these ingredients "were employed", and apparently lists no others. I will try to find out more about Wei Xing in the meantime, as there is a great possibility that he could have included other components into the mixture besides saltpetre, sulphur and willow charcoal, which are the only ingredients that Partington points out.--PericlesofAthens 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have taken off the dubious tags in the invention and diffusion of gunpowder technology section, and instead of Roger Bacon writing the pure form of gunpowder in 1234 (which he did not), I have corrected the year to 1267 (which is correct).--PericlesofAthens 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for my impolite response, and thank you for giving the quote from Partington. I've ordered Partington on interlibrary loan, and it should be here fairly soon. Now I'm curious who Chao Yi was. Is that all it says?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Luru Vopo Vir Can Utriet could be anything other than a code for charcoal, or at least an allusion to the fact that he does not want to publish the recipe. But it is strange that no one has "cracked" the code yet, if we know what it's supposed to say. Anyway, I'll go with 1267; that's fine with me.

Thanks for adding the stuff on Islam, if that was your work, as well as the other stuff. It would be nice if you (or whoever added it) would move the paragraph that begins, "By the time the Song Dynasty," down from the "invention and diffusion" section to the "China" section. After all, it applies entirely to China, and it offers some rather specific information. I thought originally that the "invention and diffusion" heading would simply contain a summary and clarification of the two historical perspectives that have caused so much controversey here. I think the details you offered from Needham are good, BTW, but I think they would fit better under "China."

Say hi to Aspasia and the kids for me. Peace, Ocanter 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bacon was writing in code; that is mentioned in many books.Pyrotec 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Needham doesn't buy that. I'm not sure I do, exactly, either. I suspect he (or a scribe) was just deliberately garbling something. N. also thinks the Epistola was fake. I think he's in the minority, but his view has been taken up by others. Good to see you back, btw. 171.64.141.148 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I clarified both Chao I/Partington and Needham. 171.64.141.148 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Europe

Although I've been focusing mostly on China, the section on Europe is still in somewhat bad shape, and I have made some recent improvements to beef up that section. After all, it was Europe that took off with the invention of gunpowder weapons and surpassed the gunpowder weapons found in other parts of the world.--PericlesofAthens 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added two new pics as well, a Turkish cannon and a Spanish cannon.--PericlesofAthens 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was intending to expand both the United Kingdom section and the USA section, but as I have an MSc Exam on 4th June 2007, I will not be doing any work on Gunpowder before then (well apart from Rvv). Once that is out of the way I will have a look at Elliott, Partington and Needham.Pyrotec 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

False or mis-referencing?

I have corrected one apparently false reference in respect of India. The editor who added it claimed that it was written by Buchanan (2006) and that it specifically referred to Bhatticharya. The words quoted do appear in Buchanan, on page 5, I manage to find them despite the reference given. It does not refer to Bhatticharya. For those that wish to look it up, it refers to India. The paragraph in question has an endnote 14 which refers to Needham, Partington (1960) and Pacey (1990).Pyrotec 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

due weight

According to the principle of due weight, "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties...Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." JFD 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how that applies to the India section. We are not representing the view that Hindus invented gunpowder "as if it deserved as much attention as the majority view." We are merely including Wilson's statement that their incendiary technology, and of course the possibility that they were using saltpeter, of "great historical interest." Wilson here is not even taking what would be a minority view, let alone a view held by a "tiny" minority, namely that Hindus had gunpowder very early. He is taking the very moderate view that the question is "interesting." It is interesting. It's only not interesting if you just want to read "who invented it," then shut the book. There's a lot more to the story than that, which I think is what I've been saying all along. Our disagreement here seems to be whether Wilson's modest presentation of evidence in favor of the possibility should be presented with any positive weight at all, or if instead it should be presented with negative weight, tipping the scale against it, if you will, with your little disparaging comments, like "as early as 1902 . . ." That's over 50 years later! It took 50 years for anyone to question this remark of Wilson's, and you're saying it's "as early as" 1902? It is not our job to discourage people from believing something. We just have to present the research with a neutral POV.

It's as if you're trying to give negative weight to the idea that the evidence is even interesting. There is no undue weight in my edit. There is undue negative weight in yours. If anybody has undue positive weight here, it is China. People keep reinserting duplicated information, each time dumbing it down and adding confusion, apparently not realizing that a Chinese name can be transliterated more than one way. The "claims of Indian invention" heading isn't fair; that's not even the theory we're presenting. It's more fair under "Islam," but there at least you produced one author who is advocating such a view. It would be quite fair under "China," since Needham and his followers are actually advocating that view, though without any evidence (for black powder, I mean). I like your edits in general, but I don't see why you are so bent on poo-pooing this body of research. Honestly, the evidence in its own light should lead anyone to conclude what I think we both agree on, that it's an interesting possibility, but one without any strong evidence. 171.64.141.148 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ocanter,

The medicine article mentions the theory of the four humours once, in passing, despite the fact that it was the dominant paradigm of Western medicine for a period of over two thousand years that ended only a couple of centuries ago.

The optics article doesn't mention luminiferous aether at all even though it was the leading model for the propagation of light for almost two hundred years.

To devote to them anything more than the most perfunctory modicum of attention—or sometimes even including them at all—would run afoul of undue weight.

There's a reason why Bhattacharya has to rely almost entirely on 19th century sources.
Ajram likewise depends on Reinaud and Favé's 1845 History of Artillery.

Ocanter, I put it to you that, if we must present such minority views (and I'm not sure that we do), then neutral POV requires that we inform the reader of the extent (or lack thereof) to which they are held and that they may be based on outdated research.

JFD 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ajram

Ajram likewise depends on Reinaud and Favé's 1845 History of Artillery.

Does anyone else find Ajram's claim just a bit too obnoxious and unfounded as well? Considering that (archeologically speaking) both the oldest metal barrel gun and the oldest metal barrel bombard are found from early Yuan Dynasty China (1288 AD and 1298 AD respectively). Can anyone elaborate on the evidence that Ajram shows (of course, evidence that's a bit more updated than using Ajram's source from 1845). Plus, I have already presented cited information that completely contradicts Ajram's claim that the Chinese never used blackpowder for warfare. Hogwash.--PericlesofAthens 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The earliest Chinese black powder in this article is still from the seventeenth century. Also, you're making the same mistake many have made before you, assuming that guns imply black powder, and even this is assuming the dating of the guns is correct. We don't know what the charge was they stuffed in those guns, or how effective it was. I would personally like to see Ajram's argument spelled out better. (ocanter) 171.64.141.148 18:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)