Talk:Four Great Inventions/Archive 1

What is the relevance
There is an article on Chinese inventions and there are articles for all four of the inventions listed here, so what is the purpose of having an article with these four inventions together? Who coined the term in the first place and why is his focus on these four inventions worth noting? Why isn't there an article on the ten great American inventions or the 5 great Brazilian inventions or the 7 great Burmese inventions? Not trying to subtract from the greatness of Chinese civilization but after reading this article it does not add any information not present in articles dedicated to inventions themselves and the concept of four great inventions from China is of dubious origins in the first place. The only unique bit of information in this article is these inventions are particularly celebrated accomplishments of Chinese, but there is no attempt to expound on how they are celebrated or why. It seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is simply add another section to the list of Chinese inventions. 24.60.102.113 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep focus on the topic stated in the title
I'm removing the the section on the printing revolution in the west. It has no place in a page about Chinese inventions. Keep in mind the title of the article, this page should not devolve into a rant about European exceptionalism. lk 11:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of term
Where exactly does this term come from, and how long has it been around?--Pharos 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to know. Most terms have unknown origins. Aranherunar 11:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who coined the term? I have the vague feeling the term must be made in the light of the tremendous later success of the West. Considering that the Chinese never really exploited the potential of three of these inventions, it would curious having the ancients hailing them. Gun Powder Ma 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Wikipedia article said Joseph Needham coined the term, they didn't have a source for that though. _dk 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost thought so. Pretty transparent attempt to occupy European positions who made the vast bulk of contributions in these fields (save with paper). Ironic also that the term is from a Westerner. That fact and that the term is new is definitely worth the entry. Gun Powder Ma 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Needleham had quoted various merchants from the 16th century who claimed printing was invented in China. If this is a conspiracy from China to take European glory, then this attempt would have started 500 years ago. ImSoCool 9:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Gutenburg
"was most likely invented independently of the Chinese by Gutenburg because of the tremendous differences between the systems." This sentence seems to contradict what I have learned all these years from both Chinese and Western sources. I had always known that Gutenburg made an improvement of the Chinese printing system which is brought to Europe via the Arabs, an example of this explanation in Printing Press and Gutenburg. The sentence also seems highly POV. I have edited it to a better sentence (see edit history). If someone can provide a source that backs up this claim, it would be highly appreciated. Thanks. Aranherunar 11:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, having done one of the two theses required for my degree on a related subject (the adoption of technology in developing Europe vs developing China), I can say that it's a little more complicated than just "who invented it". While the Chinese did invent printing before Gutenberg (correct spelling, by the way), including the concept of movable type, there is always the question of how strongly Gutenberg was influenced (if at all) by their prior invention.  In particular, given the nature of the two writing systems (alphabetic vs logographic), movable type was a much bigger revolution from the European point of view, and there would seem to have been enough pressure to invent it regardless of Chinese influence.  Unfortunately, I'm simply unaware of any evidence demonstrating concretely that Gutenberg did or did not copy the idea from the Chinese.  If someone else wants to cite all this, I think it might be an interesting addition, although frankly it seems more relevant in the printing press article.  Because I've written on the topic before, I want to avoid putting any of this in myself so I don't accidentally violate WP:OR.  &mdash;Ryan McDaniel 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been extensive discussion of this in the page for Printing, and other related pages, and it was eventually decided to retain a short mention of the possible influence, refer to it in hypothetical terms, but to move most of the East Asian material to a new page History of Typography in East Asia. Not all the pertinent content has been moved there yet. Most of the WP people interested in printing & typography are not experts in East Asian technology, and at least in my opinion it would be marvelous if those who are would build up this material, whose importance, both intrinsically or as an analogue (or conceivably a direct influence) is very great.
 * In view of some of the discussions there, I ask Aranherunar to give us in the talk page there some indication of whatever available direct evidence there is (in western languages).DGG 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gutenburg's press never made it to China, although later versions of Western press did. This is due to the fact that Gunterburg's press is suitable for printing a language with letters, which is an impossibility for Chinese characters. Is laser or modern printing "derived" from Gutenburg? As much as it's derived from block printing and all other types. Evidence came from various Jesuit missionaries who preferred block printing when printing Chinese Bibles. Linotype and other later types derived from the 19th century did make it to China though.ImSoCool 9:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed Gutenberg's picture. Completely unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Aranherunar must have read only bias sources if the comment about Gutenberg's independent invention contradicts all he read. In almost every way Gutenberg's printing method differed from the Chinese printing. The moveable type he used was made of a different material than the Chinese - the Chinese used a variety of materials (wood, clay, bronze, etc.), practically every material but the "type metal alloy" Gutenberg used, while the West never used the bronze, clay, etc., used by the Chinese. Gutenberg used a mechanical press to imprint the type, while the Chinese rubbed paper by hand. The ink Gutenberg used was different. Gutenberg printed on both sides of the paper, the Chinese on one. The way Gutenberg formed his moveable type was different. The only thing in common between Gutenberg and the Chinese was the general concept of printing, and contrary to popular opinion, the Chinese did not invent the concept of printing. They were merely the first to print text to paper, not surprisely, since the Chinese invented paper. Others long before the Chinese (ancient Crete, for instance) printed images to clay and other materials. Had European moveable type printing been derived from China, then there would have been an early stage of European printing where wood or bronze type was used like the Chinese, printing on one side, etc., and only later switching over to different methods but that is not the case. 66.51.147.97 (talk)DB —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

compass
Deleted the section that says Europe invented the compass independently, and that China had only simple needles floating in water. This is ridiculous, whoever wrote it. On the history channel, it is evident the Arabs got the idea of the navigational compass from the Chinese, and improved on the design, later introducing it to Europe. Furthermore, the Chinese from early on had magnetically charged compasses in the shape of a metal spoon on a plate of metal inscriptions.

Saying the navigational compass was independently invented is like saying the South Americans independently invented concrete a 1000 years later.

-intranetusa

Rewritten for clarity. And adjusted to say correctly that (all verified in Compass, & can be checked further.) It doesnt seem reasonable to leave the conclusion up to the whim of the last writer, who may or may not be a better judge than the one before him. Give the evidence, and leave the reader to judge what is likely DGG 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
 * the compass needle points both north and south. One end is marked as a convention.
 * the markings for the wind direction match the Chinese & European nomenclature for the winds.
 * The modern mariner's compass has the needle floating on fluid to reduce vibrations.
 * The Chinese apparently used a spoon rather than a needle

Things are getting ridiculous. Mariner's compass invented in Europe and transmitted to China to the 19th century? It's invented in the 12th century in China, archeology itself says it all http://www.primarysource.org/resources/curriculum/ChineseInventions/compass.pdf At the very most, we can only say that the "true" mariners compass came from Europe, but that in itself came to China in the 15th century, not the 19th, four centuries later! Europe had much more contact with China than just that. All modern printing derived from Gutenburg? As much as it derived from stamps, block printing, and later movable type, metal movable type, under which Gutenburg got his ideas from. Somebody's reverting everything here into a "came from Europe", "independently invented in Europe" thing, which can never be proven. As Needham said, there is absolutely no evidence to point either way, except only for the "lack" of evidence to point it the other way.

ImSoCool

Actually, what is ridiculous is the comment above. There is a difference between a "mariner's compass" and a general compass. The mariner's compass has features which chinese compasses did not have until they adopted European designs - The mariner's compass is mounted on a moveable gimbel that compensated for the movement of the ship, the Chinse compass did not have this feature. The mariner's compass used a "windrose" on the dial, the Chinese did not use a windrose on their compass. The Europeans 4th century Portlan charts are marked full of compass bearings, the Chinese maps lack compass bearing directions. European compasses always pointed North, the Chinese always pointed South as the primary direcdtion. DB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you got this idea from. It seems you think all Chinese compasses are the same. You say that Chinese compasses did not have compasses and windroses. One flaw is that this isn't the requirement for a mariner's compass for the former. For the latter, it depends on which definition you're looking at. A second, greater flaw is that Chinese compasses did have those things. In fact, the earliest mention of a mariner's compass was during the Yuan dynasty, and one drawing existed during the Ming dynasty. Your other "example" is about maps and the existence of compass bearings, in which you say that the Chinese never had. The problem is, this has nothing to do with the mariner's compass. Another is that the maps of Zheng He actually did have compass bearings. Your last example is quite funny. You say that Chinese compasses point south while "European compasses always point North". One flaw is that this is not inherent to the definition of a mariner's compass. Another funnier flaw is that if a needle points North on one end, it would automatically point South on the other end. If the Chinese want to use South as the foundation for their compass, so what? unsigned 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.164.191 (talk)

Some points
Stop now making reverts. Gun Powder Ma 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof lies with the more extraordinary claim, that is in this case that Gutenberg learnt his techniques from Chinese printing
 * All incidence of Chinese compasses before 1044 are speculative and non-proven. See peer-reviewed sources at compass, also The History of Electromagnetic Theory
 * The other variants of Chinese compasses (e.g. mounted with a thread) are irrelevant, since they played no role whatsoever in navigation
 * Practically all modern movable type printing comes genealogically from Gutenberg (That is as true as all modern paper comes genealogically from China). Chinese printing by rubbing died practically completely out (other than used by artists). It is ironic that all posters who polemise against this fact are actually doing it by using techniques which stand in Gutenberg's tradition...

Woodblock printing
A source from 1935 with no pages given...fine. The subsection here is obviously to give a counter-opinion on Needham's claim above. It is not to repeat the arguments from elsewhere all over again. That means speculation of some individual authors should given there, if at all, but not here room.

In this particular case, the user even used a source which at History of typography in East Asia takes an exactly opposite viewpoint (see footnote [2]):


 * Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China has a chapter that suggests that "European block printers must not only have seen Chinese samples, but perhaps had been taught by missionaries or others who had learned these un-European methods from Chinese printers during their residence in China." But historians of the Western prints themselves see no need for such a connection, as they see a clear progression from patterns to images, both printed on cloth, then to images printed on paper, when it became widely available in Europe in about 1400.[2] 

Also, both Britannica 2006 and Encarta do not say a word about such a transmission, but rather stress an independent invention. Hence, I reverted. Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not read the article properly. As you should know, I do not at all believe in the transmission of moveable type printing to the West, but the Chinese invention of woodblock printing cannot be taken away from them, as the previous (& current version) implies (by omitting all mention of it. Hind remains a standard work on the subject, but this could be referenced from many other sources. I will rephrase the section to remove any possible ambiguity, although I think the previous version was perfectly clear to any reader without a POV.   Johnbod 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read the quoted properly and now it is your job to explain why we should trust such a source and what warrants its inclusion despite being as contradictory as one can be, because otherwise it is mine to revert your unqualified edits. Also, I think Britannica 2006 and Encarta are a better judge stick as to what is a standard work and what no than your opinion, and I do not think I am alone in that view. Britannica 2006 and Encarta do not, again, show any sign of sharing Hind's opinion. Gun Powder Ma 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Do you really think by adding two words over at History of typography in East Asia the matter is settled and the integrity of your source reestablished? Please quote here directly and extensively from your 1935 source (with pages given). Gun Powder Ma 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The integrity of the source was never in question. Quote what? Johnbod 01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is, your belated insertions make all the difference between transmission or not transmission. Please quote from your source the relevant parts. Gun Powder Ma 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw what are you actually doing? Do you think it is relevant to include here a likely transmission of printing patterns on cloth, even if it were true, in an article on GREAT inventions? It goes without saying that the major concern is with printing texts on paper. Gun Powder Ma 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly goes without being said in your version. Printing patterns on cloth is printing, and was clearly in the West, and no doubt in the East, a precursor of printing text on paper. So yes, I think it deserves mention. Johnbod 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is technically part of printing, printing on cloth cannot be called a great invention. But printing texts is, as all experts agree. So no, I do not think a mention of printing on cloth is worth mentioning. Gun Powder Ma 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added more recent references. You have clearly misunderstood the Britannica material, which refers to the transition from printing on cloth to printing on paper & is entirely in accordance with Hind. Your quote says nothing about the origin of printing on cloth. I perfectluy agree that printing on cloth is less significant than printing text on paper, but the "printing" at the top of the article is not specified. As always you are anxious to remove any & all references to Chinese inventions. Johnbod 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now it is. Thanks for your hint and that we agree that the matter is of minor importance. Gun Powder Ma 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for your 'source'. It is not the reader who misunderstoods, it is your crap reference which you are trying to uphold. Gun Powder Ma 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you think your source is saying? That there was no printing on textiles before printing on paper? The NGA 2006 catalogue is certainly a source for contradicting that. Or like most non-specialist historians (or jounalists, I should probably say), do they just ignore printing on cloth altogether?  Don't you ever care about getting things right? Johnbod 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For someone who first posts clearly contradictory statements, then changes the indirect quotes to fit his POV, and finally refuses to disclose the exact wording of his sources, you have comical value. Gun Powder Ma 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Laugh away. What is my POV exactly? Johnbod 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually world oldest printed books were discovered from Korea, not China. This prove printing wasn't just Chinese invention.--Korsentry 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)


 * Actually there is a clay artifact in Crete that predates the Asian printing that has symbols that are best explained as the result of woodblock printing.184.45.23.134 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IP is referring to Phaistos Disc in case you are wondering.
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Arigato incidence
My main problem with the current round of Euro-African-centric edits is merely the poor spelling, coupled with the fact that the disputed material is already covered in its own section below with no need for a one-line comment that borders on snide. If you can provide material that gives greater evidence of papermaking beginning in Egypt and spreading to Asia, please do so. DareonClearwater 11:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Arigato1 has a history of these sorts of potentially contentious reversions, with little or no discussion of them on the talk, and with somewhat less than civil edit summaries. It's my view that this article discusses the history of the claims without necessarily asserting they are correct, so adding alleged on the inventions may not really be needed. I'd revert. Arigato has been blocked in the past for similar incidents. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. DareonClearwater 09:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note
The whole concept and premise behind Needham's 'Four Great Inventions' and this thread seem rather trivial and silly to me.

Yes, all four inventions/discoveries that are mentioned are great and influential to global society, but it's a simplistic waste of time to target just these four and speak of nothing else, as if nothing else the Chinese have done and invented matters. Putting so much spotlight and emphasis on these four (in my opinion) makes one lose sight of everything else the Chinese actually invented during the phases of their traditional, dynastic history.

In essence, I think this thread is one large distraction from many other legitimate Chinese inventions, while printing and the compass were developments of Europe and China separately, at different times.

There is a good amount of evidence and hint that gunpowder was diffused to Europe via the Arabs who had acquired the knowldedge of its composition from the Chinese (especially since it was the Arabs who diffused the knowledge of Greek Fire to the Chinese in the 10th century). Or gunpowder could have been diffused by Eurasian contacts spanning the Eurasian world during the Mongol conquests.

Out of all of these, papermaking seems to be the Chinese invention that directly affected the entire world without a doubt. But this is only one way to measure importance and significance of an invention from traditional China. Although the tradition of the automobile was not spawned from the directional, mechanical South Pointing Chariot, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was the first machine in to employ the differential gear. The Chinese innovation of the escapement mechanism for clockworks predated those found in Europe, yet the European model of the mechanical clock was diffused throughout the world, not the Chinese one.--PericlesofAthens 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel that way, I hope you will keep an eye on Papermaking, where I spent half of yesterday battling to overturn the removal of all reference to Chinese papermaking in the history section - it's more or less ok now, but may need watching. Johnbod 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look here for what happened. I would also suggest taking a look here for viewing a conclusive summary. Johnbod seems to think of The Chinese people had applied it to a species of bank notes as early as the tenth century. Still, this operation was expensive and also so insufficient, that the art of printing cannot be said to have been yet discovered lines as unpalatable, while the truth is that Paper was used commonly in Europe and Chinese paper and printing were expensive and insufficient. Look into the contribs; you'll see that I introduced the citations in that article while John was busy engaging in edit warring, sockpuppetery and enough incivility to effectively get punished by administrative action. Saying things like I spent half of yesterday battling to overturn the removal of all reference to Chinese papermaking in the history section further highlights the disruptive conduct of the nationalist user. Regards, Moerou toukon 11:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all in the history, and the talk page. Please elaborate upon, or remove, your accusation of sockpuppetry. Johnbod 12:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, knock it off you two. To clear up the issue on Chinese use of banknotes and the transition from copper coinage to paper printed money, refer to this article here:


 * Economy of Song Dynasty


 * That ought to clear at least that part up.--PericlesofAthens 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've provided a summary here and It was I who introduced Papermaking has traditionally been traced to about AD 105, when Cai Lun, an official attached to the Imperial court of China, created a sheet of paper using mulberry and other bast fibres along with fishnets, old rags, and hemp waste in the papermaking article using Brittanica and yet Johnbod falsely claims that he  spent half of yesterday battling to overturn the removal of all reference to Chinese papermaking in the history section.


 * My problem with Johnbod is his ultra nationalistic and incivil approach towards Wikipedia. Meatwaggon seems to be an account built for the purposes similar to Johnbod's intentions. If it does not look suspicious to anyone then I'll stand corrected. As for the esaclation in situation, I spent half of yesterday battling to overturn the removal of all reference to Chinese papermaking in the history section does not help. Especially given that I had procured Brittanica citations for the point of view that Johnbod was trying to push so serevly and without any proper citations. The removal of sourced text was done by Johnbod, the text incidently is superficially critical of early processes related to papermaking. I could have produced multiple reliable sources critical of early papermaking processes in various countries but I refrained as Johnbod clearly does not find any critisism favorable and I do not edit with intent to target an individual in lesser or greater degree.


 * I'll sit papermaking out. Demoralization and tension such as this I neither need not appreciate. I have Wikiproject:Shinto to worry about and would not like to engage in emotionally draining battles on wikipedia. This message will convey to Johnbod that he can edit as he wishes on papermaking and I would like this to be my last interaction with him. I would further ask for civility and refraining from false accusations and boasts of winning battles.


 * Regards, Moerou toukon 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The diffs don't lie:, ,   Johnbod 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? I remove unsourced content, sourced using Xinhua, sourced using Xinhua and replace the same assertion using a Brittanica citation and this is how it gets misrepresented? It should have been your job to produce credible citations instead of your incivility and shoddy citations. I produce citations for your assertion and you claim that you have won a battle? Moerou toukon 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on (once again), I don't understand. How is Johnbod an ultra-nationalist again? Lol. I am confused. Perhaps uncivil, but an ultra-nationalist? Somehow I don't see that; enlighten me.--PericlesofAthens 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what Toukon is trying to say is that he finds it incredible that more than one person could possibly think his POV is so biased as to warrant severe correction. He bases his assinine claim that I am a specific account set up to edit war by 1. my recent arrival and 2. my similar POV to Johnbod.  Both of which are true, actually.  Unfortunately for his ego, I am a separate individual (I'm pretty sure the admins can verify this if Toukon is foolish and eager enough to find out), and his attempt to sideline me by claiming I am a bot is ultimately futile and incidentally discredits none of my points, which were based on both logic and evidence.  The final word is of course found in the Papermaking page itself.  Toukon's extreme anti-China bias and his biased POV contributions/deletions of this page have been negated by the facts of history, and the page in its current form is certainly more historical than when his own preferences dominated that page.  The facts have finally spoken for themselves.  Cheers.  Meatwaggon 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, although we (and everyone else in the world) agreed on the issue on Papermaking, Meatwaggon's edits to the only other pages we have both edited - Printing press and Movable type - do not agree with my own position on those issues, as stated many times on the talk-pages of them, Johannes Gutenberg etc. Johnbod 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Meatwaggon seems to be an account built for the purposes similar to Johnbod's intentions. If it does not look suspicious to anyone then I'll stand corrected. The combined effort to earse every bit of critisism from early Chinese processes was the chief reason for that assumption.
 * Moerou toukon 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, so now it's an account created for purposes "similar" to Johnbod's intentions. Were you not just a few days ago accusing me of being Johnbod himself, as another mouthpiece to speak his mind?  You already stand corrected on a number of issues, and if you continue to violate Wiki standards of civility by baselessly accusing me of being a sock, I will certainly refer your account to the admins for evaluation.  Cheers.  Meatwaggon 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too - I'm still looking to have your remarks struck through. Johnbod 01:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moerou toukon
Checkuser has identified Moerou toukon as a likely sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies, who has a history of POV-pushing, suspect citations, edit-warring, personal attacks and, now, sockpuppetry. JFD 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I did wonder, especially as he was so free with accusations himself! Johnbod 12:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Moerou toukon has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. JFD 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Historical debate section has to be changed or to be removed
Gutenberg alone takes atleast 1/4 of the article, although he is neither especially ancient, nor extraordinary Chinese. Let alone the passage "It should be pointed out that Joseph Needham's attribution of the compass, printing and gunpowder to the Chinese is not universally accepted by scholars, and may represent an oversimplification: in several cases, the technologies which left China (floating magnetic needle, low potassium nitrate black powder) were in an embryonic state." - it reads as a lecture by a white supremacist. What are the 'scolars'? It is pretty obvious that low pressure potassium nitrate is not an atomic bomb and that the waterbucket + needle compass is not as precise as the latest high resolution GPS device.84.167.205.204 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly possible for an editor to honestly disagree with Needham without being a "white supremacist". If you're going to engage in such characterizations, be prepared to back them up with copious evidence. JFD 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the article is unbalanced at present, and much of the content has been added by editors with a strong POV against excessive Chinese claims. Ideally the top part could be expanded, and the article baLANCED that way. Johnbod 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While certain facts in the section are cited and correct, the debate about whether similar later inventions are more significant compare with the earlier invention is totally unsourced, and appears to be just irrelevant personal opinions of some editors. Please present some reliable source about any such debate or this section indeed needs to be deleted.Wiki Pokemon (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, so consider it done. Any notation of just "who" contributed "more" to technology, be it East or West, would be removed from this section by me personally. Wiki should only focus on the facts..Gnip (talk) 9:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The section on the 'Four great inventions' has to be changed or to be removed

 * This article distorts the historical perspective by citing various thinkers like Bacon and Marx in a Chinese context which they never had in mind. In contrast, these men were refering to European developments which had a global impact. They did not refer to primitive needle and bowl compasses, rudimentary guns or printing by hand rubbing. They refered to the advanced technologies which sparked the gunpowder and printing revolution, and the age of exploration, all of which were European developments. Therefore, the section below to counter the POV reinterpretation above. Changes in the section below should correspond to a change in the section above. Gun Powder Ma 02:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If it were removed, it would rather destroy the point of the article, or is this what you want? Johnbod 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Every invention started simpler than its improvements, cool out. Technology does not change at one specific time period from "rudimentary" to "advanced". Bacon and Marx, when talking of inventions, meant exactly that. It sums everything up, they never stated "15th century gunpowder" weapons or other whatnot. There is no "counter of POV", that is a "a versus b" thinking. To say that the age of exploration was sparked by "European achievements"(as well as Asian, Muslim, etc...") is very versus indeed. It's too 2-D and not 3-D ImSoCool


 * The Marx and Bacon quotes are clearly placed in a wrong, misleading context here and hence represent anachronisms. Specifically in case of Marx, it becomes obvious that he refers to the European course of events. ("printing press", ""compass discovered the world market and founded the colonies"). Regards Gun Powder Ma 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's irrelevant. The fact that gunpowder was relatively underdeveloped (in comparison to modern forms) at its inception (imagine that), doesn't change the fact that the discovery of gunpowder in China had global impact including its use today. It's possible that Marx wouldn't have written about it if not for those alchemist who spent hundreds of years experimenting. Your perspective is akin to dismissing the first computers on grounds that they were slow, or inefficient, or took up entire rooms, etc. and then placing emphasis of many "modern computers" being OEMed by Hon Hai, developed by Sony, and going out of your way to mention that many of the engineers or scientists are East Asian. i.e egregious "racialized" bias that's totally without the contemporary context, which is fairly crucial to history. Arguing that Arabs or Europeans invented black powder (or whichever basic component alteration that people feel like singling out) and creating a whole wiki about the subject would be similar to suggesting that binary, lateral improvements like a new version of Windows or increasing MoBo speed by 200 MHz are revolutionary developments. That's not even brushing on the obvious, which is that the Chinese were experimenting with various formulas long before gunpowder was transferred to the Arabs. A single incidence of a ratio being written down doesn't so far eclipse common sense that it warrants pages upon pages of discussion. If there's someone putting on a facade of internationalism and nonpartisanship to push an ethnocentric agenda, it's not Needham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)