Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

China again

Ocanter, I'm surprised how your recantations really aren't. If you get to remove

"This does not necessarily prove that black powder was invented in Europe, however. Roger Bacon does not claim to have invented black powder himself, and his reference to "various parts of the world" implies that black powder was already widespread when he was writing" on the grounds that it is improper synthesis, how is this not improper synthesis on the same grounds:

"While Partington does not state whether Chao Yi's eighteenth-century account of the invention of "modern pyrotechnics" in the twelfth century is accurate" as this is not a conclusion he draws or makes any reference to. Meatwaggon 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm gone for a month and the article has expanded dramatically. It actually looks pretty good now. I have made an edit in the China section in which I deleted the Bacon reference, as it is 1. out of place in this paragraph by breaking up the train of thought, 2. seems to serve merely to doubly and unnecessarily restate Bacon's description, and 3. misleading, as it could be read as a statement that Bacon discovered the recipe. Meatwaggon

Sorry if I broke your train of thought by pointing out that the whole Eurasian land mass was using gunpowder at the time the improved nitrate levels in Chinese gunpowder finally got to the "optimal" levels. It is not unnecessary to know that other cultures were developing gunpowder at the time the Chinese recipes attained the optimal nitrate levels. IMHO, it argues strongly that other cultures were influencing development of gunpowder in China, but I didn't go that far. I just pointed out the facts. I will take "discovered" out, but I disagree that "discovered" means Bacon discovered it independently, or discovered it first. Needham's theory is that he got some Chinese firecrackers and figured out what was inside them, so in that sense, even Needham thinks he "discovered" the recipe. But I see your point. "Discovered" is gone. (ocanter) 171.64.141.176 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have to say, your biases are showing through again. Would you care to elaborate how the fact that other nations were developing gunpowder at the time China attained optimal levels is some kind of evidence that "other cultures were influencing development of gunpowder in China"? Good thing you didn't "go that far", because you would have been shot down instantly. I especially look forward to your response on this one. Meatwaggon 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I already said, Bacon being first to list the recipe is already mentioned a total of '''4 TIMES''' throughout this article, including in the very next paragraph, and your insistence that it be included in this paragraph clearly suggests to me you have other motives, especially as it is unnecessarily redundant here and certainly does break the train of thought of the paragraph, your snide response notwithstanding. Reverting. Meatwaggon

I have deleted one of 171.64.141.148's erroneous attributions by Partington where he claims that Partington does not believe that Chao Yi's reference is historically accurate. If Partington said that, he certainly did not state so his "History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder" on pp 239-240, which is the reference given. I will be happy to revert my edit if someone provides proper citation. Meatwaggon

The proper citation is to the 1960 edition. I just corrected it. And the claim I made, which was quite important, and quite true, was that Partington does not argue that Chao I's 1790 history is accurate. He only mentions the book in passing, in a long catalogue of Chinese books. If P. believed it was accurate, I think he would devote more than two sentences to it. I merely pointed out the lack of an argument by P. in favor of Chao I's historicity because Pericles had previously taken that quote as evidence that the black powder forumula had been discovered and documented by Wei Xing. Look up Wei Hsing of Wei Xing in the index, and you should find the page number for your edition. (ocanter)171.64.141.176 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which page of Partington includes his statement to the effect that he believes that "although Chao I was writing in the late eighteenth century, Chao I's comment refers to seventeenth century fireworks"? It certainly isn't on either page 239 or 240. And while it is true that Partington does not explicitly say whether he does or does not agree with the statement, it is entirely disingenuous of you to state that he does not argue that the reference is accurate, implying that there is a significant degree of doubt. The doubt is actually just with you, simply because you do not want it to be true. If Partington thought it was BS, he would have stated so, and he HAS NOT. At least not on pp 239-240. I'm looking at a text of it front of me. Either that or he would not have even deigned to include it in his book. And I'm not sure that he was as concerned as you to widely and repeatedly machine-gun the mantra that Bacon lists the triple-recipe first. He knew certainly that at the time of Bacon's writing the triple-recipe was already widespread and not confined to Europe, and the existence of such a recipe in Chinese texts prior to Bacon's text certainly would not have surprised him, and it certainly should not surprise anybody now, even you. I do not hold any uncertainty as to why Partington did not devote more than a sentence to it. I do hold some uncertainty as to why you would try to claim that Partington thinks Chao I's statement is a historical revision even though he does not make ANY kind of mention to that effect in the reference you provided (Partington 1960, pp 239-240). Please clarify yourself. Until then, I'm deleting this statement, and adding another after yours to counter and balance your implied negative statement. If you edit that out, I will simply delete the entire section after Chao I's reference. Meatwaggon

Read the citation I gave you, please. The second line on page 240 says, ". . . 'modern times' (seventeenth century)." In the middle of p. 239, it says, "Chao I, in his Kai Yu Ts'ung K'ao (sixteen volumes, 1790) . . . " Meatwaggon, I don't want to sound condescending, but it is not true that when a serious scholar believes that a very late historical account is not accurate, he simply says, "but this is complete BS!" He expects the reader to be skeptical of all the evidence, and to understand that early scientific historians often tried to trace technology as far back into the past as they could (as they did in Greece with the "Pythagorean" school of mathematics). I ask you again to please stop making threats, and to please look up the citations that have already been given. (ocanter) 171.64.141.176 19:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just wrong. The clarification in parentheses refers to Chao Yi's statement "modern times" NOT Wei Xing's recipe. It is not, as you try to spindoctor, a statement by Partington that Wei Xing's formula is from the 17th century. Was WAS 17th century was the pyrotechnics that were in vogue in "modern times", the origin of which lies with Wei Xing, who died 1164. I will post here the entire quote here so everyone who will know what's up:

"Chao I says Wei Hsing (d. A.D. 1164) invented projectile carriages (p'ao-ch'e) launching "fire-stones" a distance of 400 yards, and in making his fire-drug," saltpetre, sulfur and willow charcoal were employed; "this was the origin of the pyrotechnics in vogue in modern times" (seventeenth century).(24)"

Now that you've clarified what you're talking about, we can clearly see it is just plain misinterpretation for the purpose of discrediting this section of Partington which is directly antithetical to your penchance for mantracizing Bacon's writing as primal. And you still haven't clarified how the fact that gunpowder was widespread while China was perfecting its own formula, is some kind of argument for foreign influence in Chinese gunpowder design. And I find it galling still that you would choose this section to question Partington in such a manner as you have. True, Partington does not explicitly state that he agrees with Chao Yi's statement, but which of the myriad other secondary sources in this article do you so explicitly lay out that the author didn't EXACTLY say that he agreed with someone that he cited??? This is biased POV at its most bare, and your record of posting supports my contention. I'm going to completely edit out your attempt to discredit this quote. Meatwaggon 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Meatwaggon,

There is no call to be uncivil, especially now that Moerou toukon is permanently blocked and his sockmaster on revert parole for the immediate future.

I am upset that you are so clearly biased in your editing that you would be willing to committ such atrocities of logic that it would lead you to misrepresent as you have done above. I look forward to the day when you and others who edit here are more impartial and attentive to keeping a NPOV. Meatwaggon 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Meatwaggon,

I must once again ask you to show greater civility to Ocanter.

JFD 04:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone who said I was stupid and implied I was mentally unstable deserves only the minimal level of civility required by Wikipedia, so I suggest you drop your request as it will not likely be granted. Meatwaggon 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ocanter,

What about when serious scholars say things quite unambiguously?

To whit,

Needham

Without doubt it was in the previous century, around +850, that the early alchemical experiments on the constituents of gunpowder, with its self-contained oxygen, reached their climax in the appearance of the mixture itself. (Needham 1986, p. 7)

Buchanan

With its ninth century AD origins in China, the knowledge of gunpowder emerged from the search by alchemists for the secrets of life, to filter through the channels of Middle Eastern culture, and take root in Europe with consequences that form the context of the studies in this volume. (Buchanan 2006, "Introduction," p. 2)

Note that both excerpts use "gunpowder," not prevarications like "saltpeter-aided combustion".

Moreover, when a source says the "discovery of gunpowder in the 800s" and you change the relevant statement in the article from the "discovery of gunpowder in the 800s" to the "discovery in the ninth century of saltpeter's combustion-enhancing property," that misrepresents the source.

Please take a look at improper synthesis: '"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.'

A: The Oxford English Dictionary defines the English word gunpowder as "An explosive mixture of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal[."]
B: Recipes before Bacon contain adulterants and/or use sources of carbon other than charcoal.
C: Therefore, pre-Bacon saltpeter explosives are not gunpowder.

This, even though Buchanan, for example, is quite willing to say "gunpowder" without qualification in relation to "its ninth century AD origins".

JFD 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing to do is the thing to do anytime anybody says anything: attempt to determine exactly what it means and whether it is true. The quote you just gave from Needham is in fact ambiguous. Interpreted one way (gunpowder=saltpeter+anything), it is probably true. Interpreted another way (gunpowder=black powder), it is probably false. Even accepting his manuscript analysis, which I don't believe has been given sufficient scrutiny, there is no Chinese text from the ninth century that gives a recipe for black powder, or even Needham's "widely defined" gunpowder. In fact, Chao I did say unambiguously that Wei Hsing invented black powder. That doesn't mean it is true.

Can you point out exactly where I claimed in the article that those mixtures were not gunpowder? If I had made that argument in the article, I would like to see where, because I did not mean to make that argument there. In fact, I mentioned several times that I would be fine with changing the terms for pre-black powder explosives to gunpowder, as long as we make clear the composition of those mixtures, which the quote from Kelly does not do, nor do the others I changed. Come to think of it, how about calling all the early Chinese mixtures huo yao? Isn't that the term Needham translates repeatedly as gunpowder, based on the modern meaning of the Chinese term? Also, please recognize that I did not change early "gunpowder" to "saltpeter explosives" in any direct quote. I only only edited other users' use of that term. Different scholars use the term differently, but I don't think we should change our definition every couple lines. If you add a direct quote from Kelly with "gunpowder" in it, I won't change it, but if you paraphrase Kelly, I think it should be consistent with the terminology used elsewhere. I could likewise object, though, that Kelly is misrepresenting the ninth century Taoist source (if there really was one).

The quote from Buchanan above is not ambiguous, but it is imprecise. He is referring to "the knowledge of gunpowder . . . with its origins . . ." I assume he's talking about the accidental oxidization already discussed. It appears he is attempting to give a summary, in one sentence, of the history of gunpowder technology until the time gunpowder appears in Europe. It shouldn't be surprising that it is imprecise and very generalized. BTW, that is an excellent quote from Buchanan. If you don't mind, I would like to add it as a counter to the quote from Hall.

Didn't you already say yourself that Ajram claims the Chinese mixtures were not gunpowder?

Peace, (ocanter)171.64.136.161 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan is not a he; Brenda J. Buchanan is a she. The quotation is taken from an 18 page Introduction, 3 pages of which are endnotes. Any imprecision comes from selecting one sentence from 15 pages of text.Pyrotec 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I just reverted your edit, not because I'm opposed to using Chase's words, but because I am hoping you will give the full quote, so that the terminology is attributed. As long as the reader has all the information, I will be satisfied. Thanks, (ocanter) 171.64.136.161

Thanks for the quote. I hope you agree it's clearer now. Peace, (ocanter)171.64.136.161 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the official policy of "no original research," "we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians."

What this means is that it is not up to you or me to look at recipes (i.e. primary sources) and decide which are gunpowder and which are not (i.e. interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians, that is, us).

That is precisely what I am saying. We should simply present the words of these scholars, properly attributed, making it obvious that these are the words of those scholars. And when we use words such as gunpowder, black powder, and saltpeter, we should be clear, unambiguous, and precise. Sometimes we may have a need to quote authors who are speaking imprecisely, as Buchanan is, above. In those cases, we should simply attribute the statement fully, rather than repeating it blindly. Your WP policy would apply to this case if I had written in the article, "Although Needham, Buchanan, and others routinely refer to these early mixtures as gunpowder, they are not really gunpowder but early saltpeter explosives of less than optimal formulation." That would be improper synthesis. I am not doing that. I am simply attempting to make it as clear as possible, in each case, what technology we are talking about.

To say that the consensus of experts is that gunpowder was used as such in ninth century China, on the grounds that "some have burnt their faces," with honey and realgar, etc., is to speak very imprecisely. To understand a consensus of experts, you have to understand the terms they are using. It is certainly a consensus of experts that there were recipes for explosives that contained saltpeter in eleventh century China. It is not the consensus that they had black powder. So if we say that the consensus is that they had gunpowder, we are bound to mislead people. The quote you added was extremely helpful. It shows us precisely where Chase was coming from, with his "trebuchets"--he is using Western European terminology extremely loosely, to try to show a link for Western technology back to ancient China. It is important that Chase's view be represented, and it is important that the reader see where he is coming from. (ocanter)171.64.141.148 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So when Needham, Buchanan, etc. refer to "9th century gunpowder," you and I don't get to impose a narrower definition of gunpowder and say, "What they're actually talking about is saltpeter explosive, not gunpowder."

I'm not imposing a definition, and I did not say in the article that it was not gunpowder. I refrained from doing that, as the policy prescribes. (ocanter)171.64.141.148 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And no, you actually can't object that Kelly misrepresents the ninth century Taoist source.

Can too! Can too! j/k 171.64.141.148 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you can find a reliable secondary source that accuses Kelly of misrepresentation, you can cite that, but you can't object that Kelly is misrepresenting the ninth century Taoist source when that objection originates with you, because that violates the official policy of "no original research".

I would have to do that if I were actually saying that he is misrepresenting the source. He's just speaking carelessly, and perhaps, pandering to his audience. Again, someone has to actually say these things in the article before you can attempt to apply these polices. 171.64.141.148 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As to whether there really is a ninth century Taoist source for gunpowder, well, Chase makes reference to it too.

The first reference to gunpowder is probably a passage in the Zhenyuan miaodao yaolüe, a Daoist text that is tentatively dated to the mid-800s. (Chase 2003, p. 31)

I'm almost tempted to go look it up, but I know what I will find: more "flying and dancing reactions," etc. By citing this guy, you are highlighting the need to use more precise terminology than many scholars have employed in the past. 171.64.141.148 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[excerpted page removed]

Dude, why didn't you stop with this?

The first reference to gunpowder is probably a passage in the Zhenyuan miaodao yaolüe, a Daoist text that is tentatively dated to the mid-800s.

That is the only relevant statement in the whole quote. The lack of a proper citation is telling. What precise passage does he argue is "probably a reference to gunpowder"? Let him give the citation, the translation, his definition of gunpowder, and an argument for why it is "probably" a reference to said substance. This is absolutely nothing. Also, his ignorance of European chemistry is pretty discouraging. I haven't got to Partington's detailed discussion of ancient Europe, but he seems to believe that Greece, Rome, and Egypt (at least Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt) knew of saltpeter as a fertiliser, if not as a weapon. I'll have more on that on a couple weeks, but please consider looking for a better source on controversial dates for Chinese technology. This Chase guy just sounds worse and worse, the more you quote him. Ocanter 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Which brings me to my next point, which is that when multiple, up-to-date, reliable sources (Buchanan 2006, Chase 2003, Kelly 2004) agree on a particular point—in this case the emergence of gunpowder in 9th century China—then it ceases to be merely "Needham's POV" alone (even if it originates with him) but becomes, in the words of WP:ATTFAQ, a consensus of experts.

Even Bhattacharya, though he undoubtedly disagrees with that consensus, acknowledges its predominance.

JFD 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The "particular point" still has to be construed by us correctly, and stated by us precisely. The only way to do that is to keep the terminology clear. Sprinkling "gunpowder" all over will not help. If we are going to redefine the term that way, it may still be possible to write precise statements, but it will require a great deal of work to explain what each kind of "gunpowder" is. If you don't like seeing "saltpeter explosives" all over China, how do you think I feel about seeing, "gunpowder in its ultimate form," or "black powder, without any additional ingredients," all over the Europe? I have made these consessive edits myself, because I wanted to be fair, to refrain from using the term gunpowder imprecisely, and ultimately, to provide the reader with more information. I'm just asking you do the same. Peace, (ocanter) 171.64.141.148 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, JFD, do you actually object to my edit of the Chase citation? I was hoping we would both be happy with it. (ocanter)171.64.136.161 17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know there was such a policy as "no original research," I haven't quite thought this out completely yet, but I think will mean that ALOT of ocanter's recent posting will have be reverted and his methodology nullified, no? Meatwaggon 04:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Use of the stricter definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary, however, leaves the precise question of the time and place of gunpowder's invention open.

This is an example of improper synthesis. The text draws on the OED definition to state that the question of gunpowder's invention is open instead of citing reliable sources on the subject.

I see what you are saying here, JFD. However, I would ask you first to recognize that this is in fact a logical inference, even if the authors cited so far have respectfully declined to point it out explicitly, quite possibly out of sympathy for Needham's desire to see the scientific history of China studied more thoroughly, second, that you consider that the policy you cited is violated also in the Europe section, by an editor who argued, without citation, that the fact that Bacon wrote down the earliest recipe for black powder does not prove that he invented it, or that it was invented in Europe, and finally, that you give me a couple weeks to review the literature before inserting the terminology of Needham and his followers (which, I admit, are numerous) back into the early China discussion. I am in the process of carefully reading Partington, who mainly follows Needham on China, but who reviews the European and Arabic materials very carefully and with great scrutiny. I am also hoping to have a chance to review the dreaded "nineteenth century" works you have disparaged so strongly here. From these, I intend mainly to discuss how the European words for "gunpowder" have been used prior to Needham's work, which of course has been very influential. Ocanter 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Ocanter, the importance you place on the importance on the lack of adulterants in Bacon is your personal idiosyncrasy, one that it is not reflected in any source you have cited so far.

I did not add that language about "adulterants." The Chinese chemists did not view them as "adulterants." Needham does. However, I have sited two reliable sources, the OED and American Heritage, which illustrate that the definition itself depends on the lack of adulterants. Also, please see the OED examples for an adequate illustration that the English word gunpowder always referred to black powder until other propellants were invented, and that the application of the term to the earlier Chinese recipes has always been fraught with difficulties. I have not stated in the article, "The lack of adulterants in Bacon's recipe is important." Personally, I think the European recipe is extremely important. I think it shows a more thorough understanding of chemical principles and big step toward modern chemistry. But I didn't say that in the article, and I'm not going to, unless I am forced to that conclusion after a more thorough review of the literature. Incidentally, I am finding other European sources, roughly contemporary with Bacon, and still centuries ahead of the earliest Chinese recipes, for black powder. Ocanter 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Kelly has to say on the subject of Bacon:

The story has long circulated that Bacon left behind a formula for gunpowder. It's said that he recognized the danger of the invention and so recorded the information only as an anagram, a code that remained unbroken for centuries. This is the stuff of legend and that's exactly what it turns out to be. The letter containing the alleged formula cannot be definitely attributed to Bacon, and the coded "formula" is open to any number of interpretations. Bacon does hold the distinction of having set down the first written reference to gunpowder in Europe. It came in the works he prepared for the Pope around 1267—and which Clement died without reading. Bacon wrote of "a child's toy of sound and fire made in various parts of the world with powder of saltpetre, sulphur and charcoal of hazelwood." (Kelly 2004, pp. 24–25)

If you want the article to say that Roger Bacon invented black powder, then cite a reliable source which says so, instead of trying to imply it in ways which violate "no original research".

I'm glad you posted this. I read this elsewhere, and I thought, "Man, this guy is a nut." I forgot it was Kelly. First of all, he takes this argument completely from Needham, without giving proper citation. Needham wrote this in the Gunpowder Epic. I don't have it in front of me, but look up Bacon in the index, and you'll find it. However, he confuses Needham's argument by failing to give the title of the work Needham was referring to, the Epistolae to the Pope that comes from late manuscripts, and which Needham feels was an inscrupulous attempt to edit Bacon's known works into a letter. On my opinion, Needham argues this on insufficient grounds, but at any rate, it is ironic that Kelly employs Needham's argument here, because Needham's accusation about the Epistolae could more confidently be applied to Kelly's own work, which here lifts freely from Needham's book without citation.

The real problem with this passage, though, is that it is a glaring contradiction. He attempts to characterize as "the stuff of legend" the notion that Bacon left behind a formula for gunpowder. Then he gives Bacon's formula for gunpowder, and even says that he sent it to the Pope in 1267. Did he sudenly forget what he'd lifted from Needham one paragraph previously? He sounds like a senile 7th-grade chemistry teacher. Even if the Epistola is fake, for which we only have Needham's skepticism of the manuscripts to argue from, no one is disputing that the dating of the later works is wrong. I haven't read Kelly's book, but honestly, it sounds like he's just trying to dumb down Needham and pretend that he came up with Needham's arguments, some of which are rather poorly argued by Needham himself.

And please understand, I am not arguing that Roger Bacon invented gunpowder. The emphasis on Bacon that you perceive is only to show that saltpeter was used everywhere from China to England at the time the modern formula takes form, at least in the extant documents. At this point, the only theory explicitly stated in the article about who invented modern gunpowder is that it was invented in China and diffused westward. I have not made any argument about it myself, although I did say that adopting the OED definition, and without an older source than Bacon, we must leave the question open. Come to think of it, though, Bert Hall does clearly state, in Redwood's quote, that the name of no nation or individual can be attached to it. I could easily reword that statement to make it appropriate to cite Hall on it. Ocanter 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While you are not arguing that Roger Bacon himself invented the triple-recipe, the way in which you have tried to insert Bacon (and the fact that he has the first uncontested reference to the triple-recipe) into almost every crack and crevice of this article indicates your intention to insinuate that the final recipe orginated in Europe before it did elsewhere, however superficial that may be on a close reading. In support of this contention is the fact that you tried to imply that the existence of gunpowder outside China while it was evolving its own recipes is evidence that there was foreign influence (i.e. European influence) in China's gunpowder development rather than the other way around. Key to this is Bacon, which if you can fight to keep as earliest, allows you at least to insinuate, if not state directly, that Europe was first to discover the final recipe and diffused it to China. This POV has shaped your entire approach to this article and has caused the majority of the other contributors to this article much unnecessary headache, re-editing and, at least on my part, redoubled vigilance in watching this article's edits closely. As for Hall, he is certainly no Partington or Needham, and if you feel unfettered to question Needham's NPOV, I could do the same to Hall, especially as none of the other authors we have come across so far make such grandiosely inclusive statements as he. Meatwaggon 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to "simply present the words of scholars," then where Needham or Buchanan or Chase use the word "gunpowder," so should we, rather than misrepresenting them by using prevarications like "saltpeter explosives" instead.

I agree that that terminology is awkward, but I was just trying to compromise. I think the current Chase edit is a good example of a better approach. Ocanter 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In a passage which starts with the words "Without doubt" you somehow manage to find ambiguity. The "ambiguity" and "imprecision" you point to are aspects of your interpretation, not of the original text.

Yes, whenever a historian starts a passage with, "Without doubt," it's a good indication that there will be a good amount of ambiguity, and ironically, doubt. Ocanter 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What's misleading is your idiosyncratic terminology which you insist this article use, and which differs from how Needham, Buchanan, Chase & co. use them.

Hm. I agree it's a problem, but Chase's terminology is even more problematic. Will you please give me a couple weeks to read Partington? It's really a great book. I really recommend it, if you haven't read it yet. Ocanter 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This Chase guy just sounds worse and worse, the more you quote him.

Ocanter,

The fact remains that a scholarly press saw fit to publish Chase. Your opinion of Chase is, with all due respect, utterly irrelevant unless you can cite a reliable source which shares it.

I would ask you first to recognize that this is in fact a logical inference, even if the authors cited so far have respectfully declined to point it out explicitly

Ocanter,

The whole point of the "no original research" policy is to exclude inferences not explicitly supported by citations. That's even listed as one of the "characteristics of problem editors".

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors

Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.

The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources.

Unless you can cite a reliable source which does, in fact, point it out explicitly, it has to go.

give me a couple weeks to review the literature before inserting the terminology of Needham and his followers (which, I admit, are numerous) back into the early China discussion.

Needham's followers are numerous because his POV is the prevailing academic consensus on this issue.

I am in the process of carefully reading Partington, who mainly follows Needham on China, but who reviews the European and Arabic materials very carefully and with great scrutiny. I am also hoping to have a chance to review the dreaded "nineteenth century" works you have disparaged so strongly here.

I would ask you to read some recent literature as well so you can get an idea of where the "dust" of academic consensus has settled in the years since the topic was upended by the publication of Partington and Needham's works. Buchanan's 1996 and 2006 volumes would be a good place to start.

the only theory explicitly stated in the article about who invented modern gunpowder is that it was invented in China and diffused westward. I have not made any argument about it myself, although I did say that adopting the OED definition, and without an older source than Bacon, we must leave the question open.

Again with the unsupported inferences.

Come to think of it, though, Bert Hall does clearly state, in Redwood's quote, that the name of no nation or individual can be attached to it.

Hall also clearly states that:

Gunpowder proper seems to have first appeared in 1044 AD in China
— Hall in Partington [1960] (1999), p. xix

So it looks like Hall wasn't so clear about "no nation or individual" after all.
One might even say that there's an "imprecision" or "ambiguity" in Hall's thinking that quoting only his statement about "no nation or individual" fails to capture.
Unless of course Hall suddenly forgot what he wrote 2 pages previously.
JFD 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the statement to which you objected. I will revisit that section when I have a chance to finish Partington and the rest. I also removed the disclaimer about Bacon, on the same grounds. I'm hoping Partington will shed some light on 1044-1267. The rest I stand by. (ocanter) 171.64.141.148 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Partington [1960] (1999, pp. 239–240)

Chao I says Wei Hsing (d. A.D. 1164) invented projectile carriages (p'ao-ch'ê) 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" (seventeenth century).

This is what the relevant passage of Partington citing Wei Hsing says and that's all it says.
The passage does not justify pointing out that Wei Hsing predated Bacon, or casting aspersions on the veracity of Chao I.
JFD 01:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, this is an issue for which we can and ought to be citing recent scholarly research, not a 17th century attribution and a secondhand one at that. JFD 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Meatwaggon 03:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it late eighteenth century? Partington gives a date of 1790. His reference to the seventeenth century was, as I saw it, a reference to the technology itself. But my edition does not have a full bibliographic record for Chao I. Does Needham give a date for him? 171.64.137.174 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Needham writes:

Chinese historians around 1800 were accustomed to say that this battle of +1161 was the first in which gunpowder was used—but now we know that it went back at least two centuries earlier. See, for example, Chao I's Kai Yu Tshung Khao, ch. 30, and Liang Chang-Chu's Lang Chi Tshung Than, ch. 5. (Needham 1986, p. 166)

JFD 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Without some more scrutiny of this from Needham, I would say that this does more to make Needham look incredible than to make Chao I look credible. Anyway, Needham does not say specifically here that the actual formula Chao I gives is historically correct, only that he believes "gunpowder" was actually employed by Wei Hsing. Can you post the relevant sections from ch. 30 and ch. 5? Thanks, Ocanter 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor does Needham say that Chao I is not correct. And I'm afraid I can't post the relevant sections from chs. 30 and 5 because Needham does not provide the originals. JFD 19:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)