Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 10

Article is a mess
Wow. It appears that in the last four months this article has managed to generate itself seven pages' worth of discussion around the single issue of who invented the stuff. No wonder the article is a complete mess. I'd argue that we're placing undue weight on this issue to the detriment of the rest of the article.

Tempted to spin this off into a history of gunpowder article. The talk page archives could be shifted over there; it's not like they're in any particular chronological order right now anyway. Chris Cunningham 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a great deal of material in the history section that belongs more at gunpowder warfare and/or history of firearms. But first things first, right now we're in the middle of bringing the article into compliance with the "no original research" policy and making sure that sources actually verify the statements for which they're cited. JFD 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with spinning the history off into a history of gunpowder article, especially if you intend to add more information to this article on the use, chemistry, etc. of propellants. I don't think the historical issue will be settled to JFD's satisfaction by the strict application of the cited policies (and he is the most reasonable of those who advocate his POV). (ocanter) 171.64.141.148 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsurprisingly, I'm highly confident that it will be, but that's neither here nor there. JFD 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the split, but I think JFD is right to try and bring the article under compliance first, otherwise managing the revision history will get to be too much of a headache.
 * But yeah, it seems to me that even after the article is repaired, the history section will most likely be a bit on the long side for the main article... --Jaysweet 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To: PericlesofAthens You added much of the material in the history section. Might I ask you to remove material which overlaps with gunpowder warfare/history of firearms or which more appropriately belongs in those articles? JFD 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For my part, I would like to see it stay. It is useful information to have on hand, even if the history section is getting very long. (ocanter) 171.64.141.148 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is true, I edited China, India, Islam, and Europe. I very well could transfer most of this stuff to Gunpowder warfare, but I support the split of this article into a new History of gunpowder. If most of this stuff is going to be placed in a new split article, I don't really see the need for placing all the same stuff in Gunpowder warfare, which has a lot of different information, like thick walls of polygonal-shaped fortification types that better resist cannon fire.--PericlesofAthens 08:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I may as well take this opportunity to clarify my position and clearly state that I would prefer that the history of gunpowder article not be split off and that excess material be transferred to gunpowder warfare/history of firearms instead. JFD 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating a rough (very rough) proposal for the history section below. All it is is the current history section with material removed where the article got too abstruse and esoteric. I haven't really done anything to, as Jaysweet put it, "bring the article under compliance" so that would still have to be done. At this point it's only useful to ask others if they agree with the removal of the more abstruse and esoteric paragraphs. JFD 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's do this. The long version is preserved in the page history; for now, the more succinct version would make the article read considerably better. Chris Cunningham 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK with me. (ocanter) Ocanter 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have condensed the lede, Definition, Principle of action, Composition, and Characteristics and use sections into something much more succinct. JFD 04:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you aren't going to move this stuff into a split history article on gunpowder, then why hasn't all of the information in the former history section of this article been moved to Gunpowder warfare where it belongs? If no one takes the liberty, I'll do it in the next few days. It's kind of sad to see that cool quote I added to the article now gone.--PericlesofAthens 05:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Below is the "cool quote" to which Pericles refers. (Or a version of it at any rate.)
 * In favor of re-inserting it is that it's drily funny and has contemporary relevance. In opposition is that the history section is much tighter now and Pericles' "cool quote" would disrupt the narrative flow. What does everyone else think? JFD 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In favor of re-inserting it is that it's drily funny and has contemporary relevance. In opposition is that the history section is much tighter now and Pericles' "cool quote" would disrupt the narrative flow. What does everyone else think? JFD 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that this anecdote reveals anything other than that gunpowder is dangerous. I don't really think we need a long quotation to this effect. Chris Cunningham 12:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it back in, not under history, but under disadvantages of blackpowder where it talks about how easily black powder is ignited and how the US Dept of Transportation has classified it as a Class A High Explosive as a result (even though black powder is not a high explosive at all). JFD 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Meatwaggon
The sources i have provided are considerable they are from well known specialized and scientific web sites and those web sites cite the source, i have copied the source and provided the website that cited it, so the whole thing is scientific, check those websites and if you have and problem whith their content just tell me: so dont remove any cited information and if you have any other sources just add them Tinglepal 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * History of Science and Technology
 * Muslim Heritage
 * IslamOnline (Arabic) IslamOnline article translated by Google into English note that the translation is not perfect and the word "defender" in the translated pages means "cannon".
 * IslamSet IslamSet article translated by Google into English

Article was a mess, now a disaster area
I thought the whole rationale in shifting the focus away from early history was so that we could add more information on the technology itself. I don't see much new technical information, but the history stuff has been gutted, dumbed down, and crammed to the bottom. I can't believe I am the only person who came to this article because he wanted to know the history of gunpowder rather than the fact that the optimal percentage of sulfur by weight is 11.85%. (On whose authority we know this we can only guess; no citation is given.)

Peace, Ocanter 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not checked myself, but if you take an equation such as 10 KNO3 + 3 S + 8 C → 2 K2CO3 + 3 K2SO4 + 6 CO2 + 5 N2 and use the appropriate molecular masses, the left hand side of the equation can be expressed as percentages by weight.Pyrotec 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the history section was that it was rambling, contradictory and weighted heavily in favour of a single source. Cutting it down is (or should be) a temporary measure which keeps people reading the article (as opposed to giving up halfway through). The article isn't exactly FA status right now, but it's at least paced a bit better and ripe for future development. It's only been four days anyway. Chris Cunningham 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say that it is still rambling, still contradictory, and still weighted heavily in favor of a single author (and the many authors who have simply popularized his work). The only difference is that now most of the actual historical information is gone. Ocanter 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ^Most of the info on China was actually moved to Gunpowder warfare, but sadly much of the informative stuff on the Islamic world, India, and Europe has still been purged.--PericlesofAthens 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The stuff on the Islamic world has been moved to gunpowder warfare, but it's has been broken up by century, because the Ottoman section at gunpowder warfare is organized that way; the stuff on the Safavids was also added to its respective section.
 * The stuff on India is in the history of gunpowder. Some of the Indian stuff belongs more in gunpowder warfare, because it deals with weapons and battles, but there isn't a section devoted to India there the India section there is devoted specifically to the Mughal Empire.
 * The stuff on Europe is either still here (but now found in the manufacturing section) or now at history of gunpowder.
 * I have, however, found Pericles' beloved "cool quote" a permanent home at history of gunpowder.
 * JFD 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that depends on what is meant by history and the aim of the article. The article appeared to be a history of the development of pro-gunpowder and gunpowder by China, with possibly some help by the Arabs and India. Full stop. There is at least another 500 years, or so, of development in Europe and about 200 years in the USA. Militarily gunpowder (blackpowder) was obsolete almost 100 years ago, however it was still being used 20 years ago and work was going on then to find "drop-in" replacements. There are still military specifications for gunpowder (blackpowder), so it is presumably still being used. Pyrotec 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Personally, I'm only interested in the last 200 years or so of history; other people may be interested in the medieaval history; and others in the Chinese (and others') invention of pro-gunpowder and gunpowder. The article needs to accommodate all these views. Pyrotec 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am coming to the opinion that Thumperward's initial impulse—to spin off a history of gunpowder article—was the correct one.
 * As it stands the "Manufacture" section is effectively a continuation of the history section.
 * A separate article is the only way to accommodate the material Pyrotec indicates he wishes to add, the already abundant output of Pericles' research, and Ocanter's desire to give as many POVs as possible an exhaustively detailed hearing.
 * JFD 21:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As the article currently exists, then yes, as JFD surmises, the Manufacture section will be expanded as time permits to cover say the last 200 years of history from a European (+ UK) and USA perspective. The Manufacturing technology section would then cover how gunpowder was made in industrial quantities; and how this changed over time. In possibly one of these sections, we could state that the need for large guns lead to the development of prismatic powders; but only give an introduction and use the {main article} link. Pyrotec 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was of the same consensus to create a history of gunpowder article, but I think much of that information can be moved into Gunpowder warfare. The funny thing is, all of the cited information in that article is on China, since all the Chinese info was pretty much moved there (and no one provided proper citations to the material of other areas and subjects already there previously). I think purged info from this article on the history of gunpowder in Europe and the Islamic world should be moved into that article.


 * The info on the Islamic world is, in fact, already there but not all in one place. The info on Europe is either here or at history of gunpowder, though a fair bit of it does belong more at gunpowder warfare. JFD 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, this article is a mess. Wikipedia is not really considered a reliable source for history, biographies etc. but the present setup reads like a propoganda piece for the communist party of China. - Colin 220.225.18.36 11:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ^Hold on Comrade Colin, I'm opening up my Little Red Book that Mao Zedong gave to me, just to make sure your statement aligns with Mao Zedong Thought; if not, your nuts could be put in a blender manufactured by the government. Seriously, though, what does the credible history of medieval Chinese gunpowder warfare have to do with the present-day Reds in the Chinese Communist Party? After all, the members of the CCP weren't the first to experiment with it, but some of their far off ancestors certainly did. And you totally dismissed the possibility that this could be a propaganda piece from Taiwan or Singapore (lots of Chinese there), or even that Godless Chinese hell-hole known as San Francisco. So, what is it you suggest we do? Delete all the info on China? Omit information that is excessive (which I can't see, really, since the history section is so short now). I'm not the one who recently edited the article to the way it is, I was actually happier when info on every other region was presented fairly. But I do like the article's short and to the point manner, where most of the info on gunpowder history should be located in the article on Gunpowder warfare, or a new article created on the History of gunpowder.--PericlesofAthens 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! I was not expecting a new article on the History of gunpowder! I was expecting that link to show up red. Lol. Nice work User:Eiorgiomugini and JFD, one step ahead of me apparently.--PericlesofAthens 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added the link to the History of gunpowder in the history section of the article.--PericlesofAthens 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)