Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 5

Encyclopedia. Saltpeter explosive --> gunpowder

Someone took a quote from dictionary.com's enyclopedia and changed the words gunpowder to "saltpeter explosive."

Here is the original quote from the encyclopedia:

"The Chinese used gunpowder explosives in warfare in 904 A.D., as incendiary projectiles called "flying fires." (These were invented during the Tang Dynasty and were originally used for fireworks.) The use of gunpowder explosives was soon expanded to explosive grenades hurled from catapults. The third step was to use these mixtures as propellants. The first such use was recorded in 1132 in experiments with mortars consisting of bamboo tubes. Mortars with metal tubes (made of iron or bronze) first appeared in the wars (1268-1279) between the Mongols and the Song Dynasty.[5]"

I changed words "saltpeter explosives" back into "gunpowder". Now it's the way it was stated originally.

User:intranetusa 21:39, 10 May 2007 (EST)intranetusa

I changed it. I did that because those early recipes are actually not gunpowder. They include a million ingredients other than the three identified above. They were not as powerful or as explosive as gunpowder. I explained all this below, but I'll explain it again. We defined, on this page, gunpowder to be a certain mixture. That is in fact the way that term is used. However, historians such as Joseph Needham commonly extend the definition to include mixtures that were not gunpowder, according to our definition. Needham did this in part because he was translating Chinese terms which originally applied to low-power saltpetre incendiaries, but later became applied to gunpowder, but also in part because of his desire, which he admitted quite openly, to show that Chinese people were not intellectually inferior to Europeans. Dictionary.com is following simply Needham's terminology. It is merely semantic distinction, but it an important one that needs to be made, so that readers will understand the different between gunpowder and "a big sticky mess," which is what Needham himself calls the first bomb recipes. Look at the recipes in the Needham volume I cited. If you can find one that matches the definition we gave at the start of this article, please feel free to call it gunpowder. Ocanter 17:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, that "dictionary.com encyclodpedia" article is a cached version of this page! You're citing yourself. Ocanter 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you granted yourself the authority to define what gunpowder was and is and elevated this definition above what authorities greater than yourself have defined it in the past. Thus I could define any random term on any Wiki page differently than the conventional or authoritative and then edit the page according to my own new standard. Yeah. No. You will not be allowed this. Sorry. Fact is, the "saltpeter mixtures" you so fervently wish to deny as being gunpowder is in fact defined to be exactly thus by noted historians of more illustrious caliber than yourself. In fact, black powder recipes developed from the 13th century onwards also continued evolving until the 17th century, and I don't see you denying that the 13th century recipes were legitimate "black powder" recipes. Gunpowder recipes have had an evolutionary history since the earliest saltpeter mixtures concocted by Taoist priests, and for you to arbitarily deny the earliest forms of this substance as being gunpowder while other more noted people affirm it, shows your obvious negative bias against and unspoken desire to deny the Chinese the honor of first invention. Your edits are being reverted. Meatwaggon 02:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful criticism. The reason we don't call the earliest explosives "gunpowder" is not because they were eventually abandoned. It is because they were not gunpowder. Look at the definition at the top of this article. Then look at the recipes for early Chinese gunpowder. They are not the same thing. Therefore we cannot, according to our own definition, call them gunpowder. Please try to be constructive, instead of just reverting. Honestly, I don't mind if you want to call them "early gunpowder," but please try to be clear about the actual mixtures you're describing, so readers can see for themselves the state of the technology and its development. Peace, Ocanter 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A definition which you yourself and/or others here have decided to use, not a definition which has been given by noted historians. Needham certainly recognized the historical evolutionary continuity from the earliest gunpowder recipes to the modern forms used today, which is why he reasonably termed the earliest mixtures gunpowder. When I have more time, I will change the top definition to be more in line with what has been the historical definition of gunpowder rather than your narrower definition which refers only the most modern forms, so that there should be no further confusion on the issue. Cheers. Meatwaggon 02:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective; this nacsant account's very limited contribs can be seen here. The account also has a history of disruption and incivility ([1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... practically the entire list of the contribs.). I thought that I should highlight that it is especially notable in the present context when the other editor is the very civil and well respected Ocanter. Regards,

Moerou toukon 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that, having utterly lost your battle in the Papermaking thread to largely or completely delete all references to Chinese papermaking, you now post here to slander me for preventing your own clearly biased POV from prevailing. How little of you. But actually I think the end result of the Papermaking page in its present form, a form which you fruitlessly fought to prevent, is a better testimony against you than anything I could say here. I invite anyone interested in these topics to review your history of editing in the Papermaking thread and judge for themselves your numerous attempts to edit war your bias into the page. It was only through the efforts of a professional librarian (DGG) who actually had all the sources in hand, that finally put you down and set things straight at last. As my editing history is clear, I must say that your editing tendencies are even more clear. And please don't be a sore loser and go to other pages to gripe about your losses. It is more revealing about yourself than about me. Cheers. Meatwaggon 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What he's trying to say and more can be found here. In case incivility and disruptive conduct continues I'll have to avail all administrative avenues made available on this platform. I cannot be more specific or assertive. Moerou toukon 09:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing you would threaten administrative action when you yourself have have been guilty of incivility and disruptive content. I would welcome your appeal to administration, especially as it would highlight your own edit warring and slander. I cannot be more specific or assertive. Meatwaggon 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Moerou. I still say we should stick with the OED definition, but if we decide to follow Needham, we should just be very careful about our semantics. Ocanter 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stick with OED as well; it's scholarly rigour is true to the highest standards of this encylopedia's policy of WP:ATT. My best wishes, Moerou toukon 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I second Moerou's motion, and I can't agree enough that we need to keep discussion civil here. I think Needham's point of view may deserve some further attention, though, as Pyro also seemed to be advocating. Do you guys think maybe this article should contain a discussion of the different definitions of gunpowder, and a history section that basically comprehends the earliest saltpeter mixtures ("proto-gunpowder," per Needham) to the latest propellants? I think it should have detailed information on the development of pre-black-powder mixtures (which it already does), with some more information, if possible, from Muslim sources, and then a general discussion of the advances in technology from Bacon onwards, with links to the WP pages on black powder, smokeless powder, cordite, etc. It would make most sense to me to put such content in this article, and to address Needham's POV in more depth, although I don't think we should impose Needham's POV on the whole article. Ocanter 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with most, if not all, of your suggestions, however my preference would be to keep it to proto-gunpowder and gunpowder-type compositions. I don't like the USA definition very much, where smokeless powders (nitro-based powders) are included. Having made that point, the military also used sulphurless gunpowders: a 77% saltpetre 23% charcoal mixture, in priming compositions, because sulphur caused corrosion, so I would like to bend my own suggestion by including sulphurless gunpowder.Pyrotec 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If the purpose of merge is to improve the article, I don't think it would do it very well, as both articles had been growth into some length, and could separated into different articles on their own. So some of you here might had already agreed with the merge for both articles, and some of us might had not, if I remembered correctly there's been a few attempt for such merge in the past, though received without much responses. I am sure a straw poll could be draw to work on this, and not just merged the articles based upon a few definitions. Eiorgiomugini 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone be so kind and summarize the options we have? Merge, disambiguation and what more? At the moment, the history sections f several articles relating to gunpowder are totally confusing, because different editors go by different definitions of gunpowder. IMO we have to distinguish as good as we can between

• low nitrate 'black powder' (burning and explosive mixtures)
• black powder
• smokeless powder Gun Powder Ma 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Except that I consider low nitrate black powder to be black powder. I don't think that anything that is not black powder is black powder, however. Even Needham reserves that term for the modern recipe, a little tidbit of graphite (extra pure carbon) notwithstanding. Ocanter 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Blackpowder

Both myself and Eiorgiomugini have identified various good points in the Blackpowder article as well as some poor points - particularly poor referencing (and in my case, found direct copying of text from unacknowledged sources). We have both made attempts to improve that article. Today I was intending to layout a new framework with the aim of doubling, or more, the size of that article; covering ancient history, and from a western viewpoint its production and use from Medieval times through to the 1960s when the UK ceased manufacturing it commercially. However, Gunpowder, this article, already covers the same topic area. My proposal is to merge the two articles into Gunpowder and make the Blackpowder article a redirect page. I would like, also, to aim to double the size of the combined article. Pyrotec 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note of clarification. My knowledge only extends to a western view point; both articles include the prehistory of gunpowder and add information from Arab and Chinese sources. These should also be expanded article, but it is something that I am not able to do myself.Pyrotec 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

India

Someone keeps reediting the beginning sentences of the article stating that "Gunpowder was developed in far eastern countries, notably in India and China, for display at religious festivals. Unless someone specifically quotes a source in which India is said to deserve mention as co-inventors of gunpowder along with China (a claim which I don't think anyone has seen in other sources), I will continue to edit the sentence to state that "Gunpowder was developed in far eastern countries, notably in China initially and later in India". Meatwaggon 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not me, but I do suggest you read the article by Asitesh Bhattacharya, entitled Gunpowder and its Application in Ancient India. The paper was first given in Lisbon in 1998 and now forms Chapter 2 in Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: A Technological History. Editor Brenda J Buchanan. Various sources are given, including Partington and H.M. Elliott. Pyrotec 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pryo, do you have a citation to the actual article by Elliot? I noted he is only cited by way of Bhattacharya at the present. For my part, I will say that any statement that begins "Gunpowder was developed in . . ." is bound to be a gross generalization, and is probably motivated by chauvinism. We should just present the facts here, and let the reader decide were "gunpowder was developed." All the facts, taken together with the most authoritative definition of the term, still place gunpowder (not some sticky ball of flaming crap) no earlier than the twelfth centry, and no further east than England. That is the cold hard truth about "gunpowder," folks. But rather than incite Orientalists to acts of chauvinism, I am proposing that we simply present as much information as possible, and make our conclusions as cautious as possible. I think that is best. Ocanter 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Indian stuff is cool. Thanks, whoever added it. I hope you don't mind I rephrased some of it. I really appreciate it, and it is definitely valuable information. Let me know if you don't like any of it. We can change it around if you want. I just thought some of the conclusions were a bit abrupt. There was no historical source for the use of firecrackers in Dawali rituals, for example. The modern source was referring to the modern ritual. And of course, the translation of the Sanskrit word for "rocket" is problematic. I hope you like the way I rephrased it. Peace, Ocanter 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, figures such as Needham have been mentioned as well. Most of the citations do not deal with Orientalists and are actually written by people who have written on artillery history including Asitesh Bhattacharya, entitled Gunpowder and its Application in Ancient India. The paper was first given in Lisbon in 1998 and now forms Chapter 2 in Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: A Technological History The problem with the rephrasing is the mixup in chronology including one line reading Early fireworks were developed in China and India, when it was explicitely India and China. Best Wishes, Moerou toukon

Having said that, your rephrasing in language has remained intact and I've only restored wikilinks and chronology. Moerou toukon 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually added the Needham citations myself, some of them. I asked for a citation to the Elliot paper. I would still like to see one. Your remarks about chronological order don't make sense to me, but if you prefer "India and China" to "China and India," please feel free to change it to "India and China." Keep in mind that the order of objects of a single preposition does not, in English, determine any chronological order for their relation to the main verb in the sentence. Personally, I like the idea of Hindu gunpowder, and I find the documentary evidence interesting, but I am not convinced that the ancient Hindus had saltpetre or gunpowder or fireworks. It's just not there in the sources. Someone translated "vana" as "rocket." Great! Someone else can come along and translate "toxa" as "intercontinental ballistic missile" to prove that Mycenaean Greeks had long-range nukes. The Indian stuff is cool, but it was going way beyond the evidence and making unwarranted conclusions. Ocanter 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually most of is it literally translated from Sanskrit and it literally translates into firearms. I have further citations for more mentions but the section was getting very lengthy so I stopped adding them. India and China is true to the attributed content rather than a change, which in any case is minor. Thanks and my best wishes, Moerou toukon 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it is more consistent, but I actually don't see any evidence yet for early Indian fireworks. There is only the secondary source, a chemistry book that does not focus on history. It's extremely weak. I'm hoping somebody will come up with a better source for it. There seem to be references in the secondary literature to Hindu "medical books." Those would be nice to see cited. Of course you can find words in Sanskrit that are cognate with modern Indian words for weapons. That doesn't prove that they were the same weapon. Similarly, Needham explains how the Chinese terms that originally applied to traction trebuchets were later applied to counterweight trebuchets, and then to cannons. It doesn't mean they had cannons in 500 BC! It just means that the meaning of the word changed to apply to the newer military technology. I changed the order back, but now I'm having second thoughts. The thing is, the "chronological order" implies that we know the chronology. We don't. So unless we explain the basis of the theory before citing the ancient evidence, we will mislead people. It's partly a matter of style that I've come to understand is part of English composition practice, which is not followed everywhere. Change it back if you want. But see if you can see what I'm saying about style; we need to state what theory the evidence is supporting before we just start citing the Ramayana. Peace, Ocanter 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The citation for Elliott, taken from Bhattacharya, is: H.M. Elliott, The history of India as told by its own Historians. The posthumous papers of the late Sir H.M. Elliot. J. Dawson (Editor). Sandhurst, 1867; Reprinted Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1990), see appendix to Vol 6 (1875). It appears to have digitised, or part digitised, I tracked down this reference on google - [9] Best regards. Pyrotec 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the present revision and am basically fine with it. The books (Bhattacharya, Asitesh (2006). "Gunpowder and its Applications in Ancient India". Chapter 2 in: Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: a technological history. Brenda J. Buchanan (Editor). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-5259-9, Military History of British India, 1607-1947 By Harbans Singh Bhatia. Published 1977. Deep & Deep Publications. 256 pages, The Evolution of the Artillery in India: From the Battle of Plassey (1757) to the Revolt of 1857 By Romesh C. Butalia. Published 1998. Allied Publishers. ISBN 8170238722 and The Chemistry of Fireworks By Michael S. Russell Contributor Royal Society of Chemistry. Published 2000. Royal Society of Chemistry. Science. ISBN 0854045988 ) do an admirable job and are good enough. I don't see the need of editing/expanding the present version at all. My best regards, Moerou toukon 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for the information on the Indian stuff. Peace, Ocanter 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Elliott's books are on sale in the USA, in paperback, so I've just put an order on Amazon and they've estimated 2 to 3 weeks delivery to the UK. Gunpowder appears in Appendix A to Volume VI.Pyrotec 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Biochemists

Joseph Needham was both a biochemist and a historian. His work cited, A History of Science and Civilisation in China is not a work of biochemistry. It is a work of history. In addition, he is the only biochemist cited here. E's rephrasing, "Biochemists like Joseph Needham," makes it sound as if there are two camps, historians and biochemists, and Needham, writing as a biochemist, uses peculiar terminology. The opposite is true. Needham, as a biochemist, retired from teaching, so that he could write a history of science and civilisation in China. Needham, writing as a historian, has introduced a certain terminology that has been followed by other historians. It has not been followed (nor has it not been followed by other biochemists), because biochemists, writing as such, do not write histories of gunpowder. Ocanter 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v2=1&ti=1,1&SEQ=20070410153618&Search%5FArg=science%20and%20civilisation%20in%20china&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=17156&SID=2

Subjects: Science--China--History. Technology--China--History. Science and civilization. China--Civilization.

You'll notice it does not say Subject: biochemistry. That's because there is nothing in the book about biochemistry, except inasmuch as it relates to the early history of Chinese science. A quick glance at any of the thousands of pages in Needham's book will show you this, however, as will a LOC search.

Needham has published what is probably the most influential Western work yet on the history of Chinese science. You can't say he's not a historian.

Ocanter 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Still no discussion from Eiorgiomugini; he just keeps reverting without discussing any of this here. I don't think anybody can really deny that Joseph Needham is a historian. Third opinion, anybody? Ocanter 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, E, "per cite" doesn't mean anything. You mean "per se," which is Latin for "in and of himself." Joseph Needham is not a historian "per se;" he is a historian by virtue of the fact that he has written what is probably the most important Western work on the history of science in China. I'm not sure what greater qualification one needs to call himself a historian. Ironically, in this case he is not writing as a biochemist per se, id est, he is not writing a work of biochemistry. Latina mala, mens mala. Still waiting for some discussion, probably not going to get it. Would somebody who knows what a historian is please provide a third opinion, so we can settle this? Ocanter 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Chirp . . . chirp . . . chirp . . . Ocanter 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I have a copy of Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 in front of me. It's authors are listed as: Joseph Needham, sometime Master of Gonville and Caius college, Cambridge, Director of the East Asian History of Science Library, Cambridge, Honorary Professor of Academia Sinica. In collaboration with: Ho Ping-Yu (Ho Peng Yoke) Ph.D., Professor of Chinese in the University of Hongkong. Lu Gwei-Djen, Ph.D. Fellow of Robinson College Cambridge, Associate Director of the East Asian History of Science Library. and Wang Ling, Ph.D. Emeritus Professorial Fellow, Department of Far Eastern History, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. They all seem to be historians to me. Also (page xxxii) Needham adds that the volume was reviewed by the former Deputy Keeper of the Armouries at H.M. Tower of London and that some experimental trials of gunpowders containing different nitrate percentages were carried out at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment, Fort Halstead. So that suggests that present day (well 1980s) explosives experts reviewed it.Pyrotec 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)\

Alright, who else had a citations that he is a historian, please provided one, or otherwise this would be a waste of time for discussion. Eiorgiomugini 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess LOC goes by IP address, not cookies. It's a lame site, sorry. I'll try to find a more citable catalog site. But you can look up the title yourself and see that it is under the history subject heading. Ocanter 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for your citation by the way in that cases, hope it would not be your the so called historian by virtue. Eiorgiomugini 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Gunpowder

Can I suggest that this war over whether Needham was a historian or a biologist, or both, is stopped. It is relevant.

Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 (1986 edition), Page 108.

The word 'gunpowder', widely defined, should include all mixtures of saltpetre, sulphur and carbonaceous material; but any composition not containing charcoal, as for example those which incorporated honey, may be termed 'proto-gunpowder'. Our word gunpowder arises from the fact that Europe knew it only for cannon or hand-guns. In China, however prototype mixtures were known to alchemists, physicians and perhaps fireworks technicians, for their deflagrative properties, some time before they began to be used as weapons. Hence the chinese name for gunpowder, huo yao, literally 'fire-chemical' or 'fire drug'. One also has to note that although a couple of centuries of the earlier stage of proto-gunpowder occurred in China, it never appeared in Europe at all - this in itself is an argument of some weight for diffusion from Asia.

The Contents of Volume 5, Part 7, Military Technology is:

• (3) Ancestry (I): Incendiary Warfare
• (4) Naphtha, Greek Fire, and petrol flame-throwers
• (5) Ancestry (II): The recognition and purification of saltpetre
• (6) Proto-gunpowder and gunpowder
• (i) The earliest alchemical tentatives and experiments
• (ii) The Sung formulae.
• (7) ----

It seems to me that Needham's definition of gunpowder is similar to modern day - but the composition is not necessarily constrained by proportions.

So I suggest that those of you that know more about this topic remove conflicting comments from the article, otherwise I will.Pyrotec 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No comments at all. But well, if he could be more comprehended with the other with some urbanity and less hostile towards people (i.e such as me), I don't mind the compromise actually. I don't think someone else could tolerated that. Obviously, he can't show some respects to other, so why should other did the same for him. Eiorgiomugini 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pyro. I apologize for the bickering, Eiorgio. I tried to explain above that what Pyro just quoted is in fact Needham's position. However, it betrays Needham's quite openly stated intent to show an advanced state of early Chinese technology. I don't think we should just follow Needham uncritically. His terminology shows that he knows he is attempting to redefine the term gunpowder to include the early Chinese mixtures, which are (or were then) not normally called gunpowder: "The word 'gunpowder', widely defined, should include . . ." He's defining what it "should include," not what it does inlude. The reason he's changing the definition is so he can argue that the early stuff was the same stuff, just maybe not quite the ideal formula yet. I think the more reasonable view is that it was different stuff, but also very cool. I think that Needham's view is a little chauvinistic. It appears to me (and this is a question Needham should really have explored better in the first few volumes) that the Chinese chemistry/alchemy/whatever was different from European and Islamic science/alchemy/whatever at that stage in some fundamental ways. I don't know enough about it to draw broad conclusions, but it just looks to me like identifying and refining the active ingredients was not something they were really trying to do. I think they must have had a completely different tack, and that led to different, but technologically very cool results. I think Needham is imposing, with his charts of percentages, a modern Western viewpoint on the "development of gunpowder." But ultimately, if we're clear and avoid oversimplifications, I don't think it matters which definition we use. Ocanter 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some minor comment, the definition of needham should be included in the article as a part of his citation which formed the article itself or relied on it. Full quote is possible to be included in the article for his POV. Eiorgiomugini 12:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues

The author spends the first part of the article saying how illegal reloading is, yet never mentiones that it is legal in all 50 states and Canada. Theronpatrick 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Theron