User talk:Smarred Wolet

Smarred Wolet 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Smarred Wolet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi there, thanks for your note at Four Great Inventions of ancient China. Do you have any specific suggestions about how to improve the article? Also, I was wondering, you seem quite familiar with Wikipedia, have you edited under another name before? If I can help with any questions, please let me know. --lk 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have edited under another name before. I love multiculturalism and the diversity of peoples but I am against how one race of peoples (albeit a small Jingoistic minority of them) constantly shoves their 'mighty and world changing' inventions down our throats, its very caveman isn’t it 'my people good, your people bad' I mean I’ve heard of things being said like "China has lead the world in science and technology for the past 1500 years" which is just the stupidest comment ever and it just isn’t called for. The Chinese claim to have invented everything, it gets a bit tiring in my opinion even when things they claim to have invented or discovered are not that much similar to their modern day counterparts(compass, printing press)/or were refined by other cultures which then travelled back to China (gunpowder, paper), as I said before other cultures have had a much bigger influence on the modern world than China i.e. ancient Mediterranean civilisations, the Islamic World and India but they don’t go on about it all the time (I hope they don’t start!). If tomorrow I started a page called 'The Thousand Great Inventions of the Europeans' laden with bigoted statements (like this one is) and quotes out of context, I bet there would be outrage, stupid people would call it racism and call me a Nazi and just general chaos, votes to delete the page, banning me forever (I haven't done it before, its just what I think the response would be!). Therefore what I would like to see on behalf of a the Wikipedia rule of NPOV ideally is to get that page removed (just have the Four Great Inventions mentioned in their corresponding pages) failing that which I know I will, just highlight that the compass now isn’t the same as the compass the Chinese invented, gunpowder was purified by the Arabs, movable type printing was invented independently in Europe and how papermaking was refined in the Islamic World and Europe. If you look at Equal temperament there’s an absurd claim that Western Classical music was started in China, just because trade between China and Europe (via Persia and India) existed it doesn’t mean that everything invented/discovered in Europe which just happened to have been discovered in China before was transmitted via trade, this reminds me of the claim how people thought Egyptians travelled via boat to Central America (before Columbus) and taught them how to make pyramids which just spits in the face of the Mesoamerican civilisations implying they couldn’t have learned how to build pyramids themselves, its all well and exiting but it isn’t true and truth is what Wikipedia should aim at and achieve.

P.S. This is a fairly long rant, sorry if it gives you a headache! Smarred Wolet 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, Bragging and racism shouldn't be on a wikipedia page. My point of view on the page is that: 1. The concept of the 4 inventions exists and is quite important to the Chinese and people who study Chinese history. 2. There are facts that are indisputably true, such as gunpowder and guns were invented in China and were very important in warfare there. So, the concept is notable, the wikipedia page should exist. I see my job is to make it as factual and balanced as possible. The page should report the facts, be balanced, keep to the topic, and not make unreasonable statements. I came on a page that was all about the Gutenberg press, in a page called the 4 inventions of ancient China. I went through the history, retrieved and pieced together what I thought was an OK page. I've been trying to edit so that it reads well, makes sense and is factual. I do keep balance in mind; of course it still needs work, but I'm trying :) --lk 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it to you Eurocentrism is just as bad as Sinocentrism. You claim that '1. The concept of the 4 inventions exists and is quite important to the Chinese and people who study Chinese history. 2. There are facts that are indisputably true, such as gunpowder and guns were invented in China and were very important in warfare there.' I think that the concept of the four inventions exists, but it only came about as a term because of Joseph Needham and wasnt a common expression before then (and neither is now as well to be honest). By this reasoning if I find a simmilar term used by just as significant an author as he and create a Wikipedia article out of that would that be wrong bearing in mind that its reagards more important and significant European contributions? I think there are intrinsic flaws in this article and its is obviously wrong which is fairly apparent but its not something people care about because its about China (a non-European country) so it must be OK. I know it will never be deleted (becuase good, unfortunarly hardly every really prevails). Your second point is debatable I am not an expect on this subject and have never claimed or claim to be but the general idea I have is that Gunpowder travelled to the Islamic world was perfected and used in weaponry and travelled back the Chinese only used fireworks to scare people prior to this. Also I heavily condemn the use of the Francis Bacon quote in that particular context please try and rectify this Francis Bacon wasn't talking about the Chinese in that quote he was talking about the (independently discovered) European inventions.

I cant force you to do the right thing, but I can try and persuade you and make you see that it is wrong and just how obviously wrong it is as I said before you have a modest page called Inventions in the Islamic World whereas you have "History of science and technology in China", "List of Chinese inventions" AND "Four Great Inventions of ancient China". The page is obviously Sinocentric and that is just as bad as being Eurocentric. Smarred Wolet 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should start a page called History of science and technology in the Islamic World? I think that would be interesting. There are already some interesting pages about Ibn Khaldun and other great scientist/philosophers of that era. I've changed the introduction in Four Great Inventions of ancient China to reflect your concerns, but I think the Bacon quote is nice to have, as it shows that people of that time did think that those technologies were important, that it was not just all an invention of Joseph Needham. --lk 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t trying to get at you giving me permission to start a page called History of science and technology in the Islamic World, becuase I dont need your permission or approval. I totally admire their contributions to world also but you’ve completely misunderstood me. The Bacon quote is useful inasmuch as its obvious. Let my try and ‘mathematisise’ it; If A(a quote) celebrates a later and independently discovered use B (B2) which influenced greatly HIS OWN culture immensely then can A also be used in regards to a earlier yet dated form of B (B1) which didn’t influence HIS culture in any great measure and neither did it greatly revolutionise the culture in which it was discovered then is B1 equal to B2 enough to qualify deserving A? Do you now understand the flawed logic? Smarred Wolet 12:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you bring up 'permission', no one on wikipedia needs permission to do anything. I was only expressing my belief that a page on History of science and technology in the Islamic World would be interesting read and useful to have. --lk 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, my first comment sounded rude, I apoligise I was trying to (and failed) being funny... The page would indeed be intresting and useful, but I haven't got much time to start an entire article. Anyway what do you think of what I said after? Smarred Wolet 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I would concede your point if gunpowder, the compass, and printing were independently invented in Europe. For example, pottery was independently invented in East Asia, Middle East and South America, without any cross-transmission of ideas. But, none of these developments would have occurred at the time they did in Europe, if not for the transmission of ideas from Asia. We know that gunpowder was invented in China, developed and refined in the Muslim world and passed on to Europe. The same for the compass. One can argue that Bacon was referring to Gutenberg's printing press when he referred to printing, However, Gutenberg's invention drew on the development of paper and woodblock printing, which had been transmitted to Europe via the Muslim world. --lk 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I start by saying that is quite interesting? I have two quarrels with it though 1) I think there is still some debate as to whether it was independent or diffused, and 2) Was it invented independently in the Muslim world. I accept your point on gunpowder, was it common in Europe that gunpowder was a Chinese discovery (we now know it is) but did they back then, e.g. Mr Bacon? Gutenberg's invention relied on paper and woodblock printing as much as making swords relied on learning how to work iron still doesn't justify the comment (for gunpowder anyway). Smarred Wolet 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Pedophilia article

This edit [[1]] constitutes vandalism. If you do it again, you may be barred from further editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]