Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 13

Stop this time-wasting edit-waring
Hi Vtria 08, you have difficulties in this article with three block-quotes from the Encyclopedia Britannica 2008. The first two are quite reasonable in what they say; but the same information is available elsewhere, so why continue to force the inclusion of these quotes when the same "quotation" can be found elsewhere. The third quotation (if it is taken in context) makes a claim that is not fully supported elsewhere. I have stated that above; and if it had not been removed by another editor, I would have copy edited it. You also appear to be having similar problems trying to enforce the inclusion of Encyclopedia Britannica 2008 information into Tea; but I have no judgement either way on tea. This to me suggests that it is not particularly helpful trying to force certain Encyclopedia Britannica 2008 quotations into wikipedia. Note: quite a few articles do include (in some cases, consist solely of) out of Copyright Encyclopedia Britannica content. The 2008 edition is not out of Copyright, so you also run the risk of copyright challenges. You are welcome to contribute to wikpedia, but the use of Encyclopedia Britannica 2008 as a source of information, particularly in the case of Gunpowder and the History of gunpowder will lead to problems - some of the information appears unreliable. P.S. I have not read Encyclopedia Britannica 2008, I am relying the the care (accuracy and precision, if you prefer) that you have taken in selecting extracts and quotations. Whilst I don't support the language that Meatwaggon uses above, he does appear to have the integrity of the Gunpowder and History of gunpowder articles to heart. P.S.S. If Meatwaggon is to be tarred with edit-warring in this article, at the present time, you are also at fault. Stop trying to enforce the inclusion of Encyclopedia Britannica 2008, there are better sources - they are already in the two articles, use them with accuracy and precision.Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have other sources too. But what I don't have is the guarantee that someone will not just revert them. I have two books here that I was consulting while reading about gunpowder history, but none of that matters as Meatwaggon just deletes the whole thing. If I place those books here then he'll do the same to them as well. Vtria 08 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * I did not even push those lines in the beginning. The quotes only existed when Meatwaggon deleted material from the 'Islam' section. On Wiki anyone can just press the 'undo' button without having once contributed productively to the article in question. Vtria 08 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * I have taken the appropriate care in selecting extracts and quotations. I can also produce screen shots here if you wish. Vtria 08 (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * I have held discussions in the past with Meatwaggon, over references such as Partington where page numbers are quoted by both sides; and checked. Bacon may have discovered or re-discovered gunpowder; but no other source would give Bacon preference for the discovery of gunpowder over China and/or India; if Encyclopedia Britannica is making those claims then it is not a reliable source. There is genuine uncertainty whether China and India independently discovered gunpowder, or whether the invention spread from China to India and then Europe, but quoting Encyclopedia Britannica is not a creadable means of placing the information in this article.Pyrotec (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with not 'quoting Encyclopedia Britannica' I'm relieved to see Democratic discourse taking place. If Meatwaggon would have just talked then things would have turned out differently. If we don't quote Encyclopedia Britannica then can we revert to the 'pre-quotes' state? With only the 'Islam' section beginning using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source, and not necessarily as a quote.
 * Vtria 08 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * Vtria, I have been talking to you this whole time, you just have been trying to ignore what I'm saying. In fact I was the one who initiated the dialogue, not you (scroll up to the top of the page).  Your response, as you can see, was that I was being unfriendly to ask you to discuss changes before posting them. So please, stop this farce about wanting 'democratic discourse' and trying to give yourself the appearance of being the reasonable one.


 * You have no guarantee that someone won’t revert your posts. They are subject to close scrutiny just like anything else that people post on Wikipedia.  Or do you believe yourself to be special in some way?  If you post something that agrees with the academic consensus, or even that represents a significant minority of the academic consensus, and doesn’t clearly go against the well-sourced evidence already presented here, no one including me, can do anything about it other than agree to its inclusion.  And in fact I would welcome any positive, academically rigorous contributions to this article.  On the other hand, you have not posted anything remotely resembling even a significant minority of academic consensus, not to mention the factual claims in your quote flat out disagree with the established academic sources already present in the article, to speak nothing of overall viewpoints.  If you actually have those books that you claimed, go ahead and post screenshots of relevant sections that support your views and let us have a look for ourselves.  This would go far to bolster your claims, which as of now amount to a hill of beans.  And no, you may not revert to any pre-quote state for your Britannica source until you independently support it with other academic sources.  Meatwaggon (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * that what i thaught even rewriting the whole article and removing most of materials you objected at is not enough for you and you threaten to revert my edits when you come back this is not away of discussion this is POV pushing and quality reduction of the article and if you reverted my edits i will work to get "a good" history of gunpowder among chinese and discuss your 1044 document authentacy etc--MARVEL (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Meatwaggon why have you reverted my edit?
i have added important information and cited them all, can i know why have you reverted my edits *and why you insist on the sentence "Islamic world did not acquire knowledge of gunpowder until the 13th century"*, tell me if you have a good reason--MARVEL (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, where to begin. There are so many things to say.  First of all, your very first claim, "Gunpowder was propably invented by Muslims", has absolutely NO direct support from any of your sources and is a conclusion YOU made, not your sources.  Even if such a claim were made by any source you provided, they would not likely stand up to rigorous academic scrutiny especially since the established academic consensus does not support your unsubstantiated claim of gunpowder being invented in the Muslim world.
 * Second, your Needham citation is patently incorrect. Did you even read this source before you pasted it???  Page 432 of Volume 5:7 (The Gunpowder Epic) does not contain any references to saltpeter whatsoever.  I had to scan throughout the index to find Needham's references to Muslim knowledge of saltpeter.  These are found on pages 42, 95, 107-8, and 347-50.  Page 42 lists Ibn al-Baytar (or al-Baithar) approx. 1240 AD as the first Muslim author to mention potassium nitrate.  Page 95 describes the ideal conditions found in Arabia, India, and China for the formation and deposition of potassium nitrate, in contrast to Europe.  Page 107-8 confirms that the Arabs knew of potassium nitrate as thalj al-Sin, Chinese snow (NOT Chinese "ore") during the early decades of the 13th century, and did not know of its use in gunpowder until the later decades of the 13th century, around the same time this knowledge arrived Europe.  Page 347-50 describes Arab and European gunpowder recipes, which seem to appear in their literature at the maximum explosive concentration of potassium nitrate de novo, without any mention of prior experimentation (such as has been amply documented in Chinese literature) which suggests that they arrived to those regions already relatively fully developed.In short, not only does Needham, one of the pillars of academic research in this area, not describe anything you are trying to claim, he flatly and fully contradicts essentially all of your claims, especially about gunpowder, potassium nitrate, and Chinese use of gunpowder, which I'll get into next.
 * Third, your next sources Sarton and Khaleel (if you even cited them accurately) are patently incorrect if they in fact claim that Chinese gunpowder recipes did not have the explosive force necessary for use in weaponry. In this very same Wikipedia article, as well as in the History of Gunpowder article, there is ample and exhaustive documentation of the Chinese use of gunpowder in explosive weaponry long before the Arabs and Europe describe anything similar.  There is mention made of several Chinese gunpowder recipes which approach the maximum explosive potential of gunpowder in the literature, as well as mentioned by Needham in the Gunpowder Epic, before the Arab and European sources document theirs.  Also, Hasan al-Rammah Najm al-Din al-Ahdab, another of the earliest Muslim authors mentioning gunpowder (in the 13th century), makes extensive mention of "Chinese flowers" (fireworks) and "Chinese arrows" (fire lances), as well as repeating in his own recipes the characteristic and peculiar Chinese predilection for adding arsenic sulfide, lacquer and camphor in their gunpowder recipes (p. 41).  This is again in direct contradition to your claim of a Muslim invention of gunpowder.
 * Fourth, your source Berthelot and Duval ascribe a 10th century claim for the Arab knowledge of saltpeter, NOT gunpowder, and yet in this article you have changed their claim to that of gunpowder. Why?
 * You have either intentionally misled the reader with what your sources truly claim about Arab knowledge of saltpeter and gunpowder, or you have been grossly negligent in following up and reading your sources to confirm what they say. In either case, your addition to this Wikipedia article does not stand up to scrutiny and will be promptly reverted. If you continue to revert this article without massively updating and changing/expanding your sources, I will make the administration aware of your attempts at edit warring and ask them to block your access to this article.  Cheers, Meatwaggon (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When i visited this discussion page for the first time and saw your previous discussions i knew that was coming, i had the first idea that whatever proof i will bring you will not accept anything -and i hope im wrong-, lets discuss the points one by one "1-There are so many things to say. First of all, your very first claim, 'Gunpowder was propably invented by Muslims', has absolutely NO direct support from any of your sources and is a conclusion YOU made, not your sources. Even if such a claim were made by any source you provided, they would not likely stand up to rigorous academic scrutiny especially since the established academic consensus does not support your unsubstantiated claim of gunpowder being invented in the Muslim world" Answer: if you know the least about the discussions over gunpowder history then you will know that i wasnt the first to say that actually their are scholars who determined bluntly that gunpowder originated in the Islamic World for example Sigrid Hunke, Gustave Le Bon and Dr. Ahmed Fanjari.others said that at least gunpowders three ingredints were known by Arabs or Europeans. And you can not remove cited sentences that you dont like this is called reduction of the article quality, if some source indicated that muslims invented gunpowder it should be mentioned.


 * You did not bring any kind of proof here. If it was actually "proof" I would have to accept it no argument.  What you brought was spindoctored nationalistic pseudo-facts which don't seek out the truth as it is, but rather the version of 'truth' that you desire.  Secondly, if your vaunted sources Sigird Hunke, Gustave Le Bon and Ahmed Fanjari actually had credible things to say about the origins of gunpowder, I suspect you would have posted them already.  Where are they?  And the "Others" link that you provided does nothing more than confirm yet again that gunpowder was invented in China and diffused to the Arabs and Europeans.  Why don't you try reading your own sources for once?  And I simply can't believe that you think I am stupid enough to be fooled by your parlor tricks about knowledge of gunpowder ingredients.  Here you once again try the same old tiresome and intellectually dishonest trick of equating knowledge of individual gunpowder ingredients to actual knowledge of gunpowder itself.  These are NOT the same thing, no matter how you try to spindoctor your sources.  And I can certainly remove cited sources which are clearly dubious and do not meet the reliable sources criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Meatwaggon (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "2-Second, your Needham citation is patently incorrect. Did you even read this source before you pasted it??? Page 432 of Volume 5:7 (The Gunpowder Epic) does not contain any references to saltpeter whatsoever. I had to scan throughout the index to find Needham's references to Muslim knowledge of saltpeter. These are found on pages 42, 95, 107-8, and 347-50. Page 42 lists Ibn al-Baytar (or al-Baithar) approx. 1240 AD as the first Muslim author to mention potassium nitrate. Page 95 describes the ideal conditions found in Arabia, India, and China for the formation and deposition of potassium nitrate, in contrast to Europe. Page 107-8 confirms that the Arabs knew of potassium nitrate as thalj al-Sin, Chinese snow (NOT Chinese 'ore') during the early decades of the 13th century, and did not know of its use in gunpowder until the later decades of the 13th century, around the same time this knowledge arrived Europe. Page 347-50 describes Arab and European gunpowder recipes, which seem to appear in their literature at the maximum explosive concentration of potassium nitrate de novo, without any mention of prior experimentation (such as has been amply documented in Chinese literature) which suggests that they arrived to those regions already relatively fully developed.In short, not only does Needham, one of the pillars of academic research in this area, not describe anything you are trying to claim, he flatly and fully contradicts essentially all of your claims, especially about gunpowder, potassium nitrate, and Chinese use of gunpowder, which I'll get into next." Answer:my citation of Needham is correct you might have another print of the book and the print i cited goes under "Alchemy and Chemistry" not "The Gunpowder Epic", and you can see that my citation is compatiple with google books version. and lets say that Needham is completely ignorant of the use of saltpeter in the Arab World for example the well known Arab scientist Jabir ibn Hayyan (722-815) have invented nitric acid he synthesized it from Potassium Nitrate (saltpeter) also many later muslim scientists used saltpeter for many reasons from chemistry (al-Razi, Jabir, Khaled ibn Yazid) to medicine (Ibn Sina and Zahrawi) and freezing water (Ibn Bakhtawayh) and many others. There is no concrete evidence that gunpowder was known in china and the taoist experiment cited does not contain a key element of gunpowder 'charcoal' and it does not mention an explosive nature of gunpowder but rather it shows that there was a fire when taoists tried to make magic alexir and that does not proof they know any actual use of gunpowder. and the name thalj al-sin does not proof that muslims knew it from china as there are other names for example (Yemeni alum) and Armenian buraq ... Needham says in the same page the Arabs got it from "Mountains" in central asia (ie. ore)......also the strange addatives sulfide, lacquer and camphor does not mean muslims took them from china the opposite can be correct. another issue Bertholt and Duval ascribed a 10th century knowledge of GUNPOWDER check here and please be respective and dont throw your accusations again a dont appreciate what you said about me and dont make it personal . I will later change the article and improve it further ... any other thing you want to say just tell me now--MARVEL (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find your arguments astonishing, especially when you are citing Needham himself and yet have the gall to state that "there is no concrete evidence that gunpowder was known in china". Did you even read the Gunpowder Epic?  If not, what makes you think you have the knowledge to come here and make changes that reflect an inexcusable ignorance of the voluminous body of evidence about the history of gunpowder?  And why do you say "and lets say that Needham is completely ignorant of the use of saltpeter in the Arab World"?  Did I not just cite several sources which state Needham's references to Arab knowledge of saltpeter?  Did you yourself not just cite Needham's Alchemy and Chemsitry where he clearly demonstrates a vast knowledge of Muslim chemical knowledge?  By the way, your Google link is conveniently missing page 432.  And if the Arabs independently knew of saltpeter by the 8th century as you claim (you have yet to prove anybody else also claims this), why did they call it "Chinese snow"?  Why did the earliest Muslim gunpowder recipes reflect the Chinese recipes, especially certain unique ingredients like camphor, lacquer (which is ubiquitious in China), and arsenic?  Why is there absolutely no tradition of gunpowder experimentation like there is amply documented in Chinese literature?  Why did Muslim authors refer to gunpowder products as Chinese products (e.g. "Chinese snow", "Chinese arrows", etc.)?  Do you ever read Chinese sources refering to gunpowder as "Arab arrows" or "Arab snow"?  Of course not.  Chinese refer to gunpowder as huoyao ("fire medicine"), which clearly reflects its deep ancestry as an alchemical product originally intended for something else.  All you have is claims that the Muslims knew the ingredients for gunpowder, but your sources can take you no further than that.  You yourself have taken the unsubstantiated and illogical next step of equating knowledge of ingredients to knowledge of the substance gunpowder itself.  You can make believe and concoct fantasies all you want, but do it somewhere else.  Wikipedia is (at least nominally) about the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of spindoctored nationalistic pseudo-facts.  Please read WP:reliable sources before you post anything that will likely get deleted again.  Meatwaggon (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * i know you as a chinese want to proof the gunpowder was invented by your ppl, i find no problem with that and i will rewrite the islamic section over and remove anything related to china because weakening the chinese claim will not make the islamic one stronger and i hope we come to consensus on this point, concerning the 8th century claim i havent cited it because i had already given details of it the synthesis of Nitric acid is a very enough evidence you can seach google and find 1000's of results concerning the procedure of Jabir and you can also look here to know the early use of muslims to saltpeter. i had enough of empty talk with you and if you revert my edits further i will request your block for vandalism discuss first--MARVEL (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you as a Muslim want to prove that gunpowder was invented by your people. Unfortunately for you, it has already been well documented that gunpowder was invented by the Chinese, so there is nothing for me to prove.  The synthesis of nitric acid or the purification of potassium nitrate is certainly an Arab invention.  Unfortunatley for you, NEITHER process is a prerequisite for gunpowder production.  I don't know where you got this thinking from but this is simply WRONG.  The Chinese were making explosive gunpowder weaponry without using the Arab process, so clearly this is not necessary.  And you need to stop using the term "ore" since you have yet to cite a reliable source which differentiates saltpeter ore from something else, if even there is such a thing as "saltpeter ore".  BTW, one of your sources is that infamous Britannica gunpowder article which has already been discussed in this talk page and categorically rejected for contradicting established academic evidence without itself citing any of its own reliable academic sources.  If you didn't know already, the author of that article is a white collar worker in the DuPont chemical department, who has absolutely no academic credentials to write such a piece.  An infamous sockpuppeteer tried to strong-arm this very same Britannica citation into this gunpowder, and he failed to win a consensus to keep this citation among the gunpowder article's editors.  Try reading this page before you post articles like that in the future.  I'm currently at work, but you can certainly look forward to many of your edits being reverted when I get back, especially the Britannica citation. And BTW, why do you keep talking about Muslims and saltpeter???  Why do you keep trying to doing the same dishonest spindoctoring again and again as if people are somehow going to eventually be fooled by this, even after I pointed this out to you TWICE now?  One last time: Muslim knowledge of saltpeter is not the same as Muslim knowledge of gunpowder.  Please get that into your head.  Meatwaggon (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * that what i thaught even rewriting the whole article and removing most of materials you objected at is not enough for you and you threaten to revert my edits when you come back this is not away of discussion this is POV pushing and quality reduction of the article and if you reverted my edits i will work to get "a good" history of gunpowder among chinese and discuss your 1044 document authentacy etc--MARVEL (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your Muslim edits are being modified. Here is why.  Your Britannica source has already been thoroughly discredited on this very talk page.  Your Hunke source p. 36-37 specifically mentions the use of gunpowder in Muslim battles in the 14th and 15th centuries, which does not at all add to your thesis that Muslims might have invented gunpowder.  So the first sentence goes.  Your references to potassium "ore" are being removed since that is a term you are using, and you have yet to show any other source refers to either potassium nitrate or saltpeter as "ore" in contradistinction to a more purified form.  Your Berthelot and Duval reference is going to be qualified, since even the very source you cite states that their dating is dubious.  Your statement that gunpowder ingredients were used in the 10th century is grossly misleading and will be cut, as you are obviously trying to imply that this means actual gunpowder was being used.  Not only that, unfortunately for you I have a copy of Partington's "A History Of Greek Fire and Gunpowder" in my possession and pp. 194-195 does not mention ANY Muslim references to gunpowder or gunpowder components being used in the 10th century.  The historical dates mentioned on those pages are 1536-1623, 1340, 1382, 1770, 1836, 1326, 1332-1406, 1377, 1366, 1360, 1442, 1411-69, 1355-1418, 1376, 1366, and 1389-90.  Do you get the picture?  We are definitely in the wrong centuries for you as far as Partington is concerned here.  I provided ALL the dates on those two pages to demonstrate to other readers that you are misrepresenting what Partington says.  Next, you attempt another misrepresentation of Partington (which will also be cut) when you insert a sentence claiming gunpowder was used in 1168, which you include just before a second run-on sentence which correctly cites p. 228 stating "Peter, Bishop of Leon, report the use of cannon in Seville in 1248".  This is a gross display of intellectual dishonesty, as Partington never even mentions the date 1168, neither on p. 228 nor on p. 190 where footnote 6 originates.  I am very disappointed in your edits, as you have demonstrated time and again your overt and intentional willingness to take these excessive liberties with your sources to push your own POV.  Don't assume you can make random claims here and pretend or hope that nobody will check on your sources.  Meatwaggon (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1-Encylopedia Britannia is a WP:reliable sources and you cannot discredit it and you cannot discredit any source that you dont like something in it thats firt, secondly can you give me the hunke source and show us all what it said literally?, then the word 'ore' means any thing that is takin from nature as is ex. ore petroleum can you just tell people that there is no diference between ore petroleum and that is refined, or you just tell your car that there is no diference! anyways even removing the word ore doesnt mean that they actually bought it from china as Needham states that muslims got it from mountain in central and west asia also there are other names indicating other counties "yemen, armenia, Assis (near antioch). we come to the Partington issue yet again we might have a version issue is there is a mention of "incenerary tubes" in the pages you menioned dated from? i wait for an answer. it is possible that gunpowder compositions might have been known independently in india, or the islamic world it is the mater of facts you like them or not, and there is possibility that chinese never knew the correct formulla of gunpowder and its composition of those three elements till the 14's century and chinese might not have knew the explosive nature till that same time. Lastly you have accused me with "gross displaying and intellectual dishonesty" that is a result either from your blindness or you have intentions to make arguments over nonesence, just read the page again and the passage is clearly cited by the saudi aramco source, one last thing i want all my refrences chicked coz im not the one who is mis-citing Cocroft i hope you got the picture ;) --MARVEL (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * MARVEL,
 * As I point out below, the Encyclopædia Britannica also says:
 * JFD (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Britannica doesnt give dates of the uses of gunpowder nor tell us wheather the chinese use preceded that of other nations--195.39.138.145 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Britannica addresses all of your objections in the opening sentence of the above excerpt: "Chinese alchemists discovered the recipe for what became known as black powder in the 9th century AD"
 * JFD (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What precisely in Cocroft is being misquoted? I have copies of Cocroft and will check them.Pyrotec (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * the gunpowder recipe known in chinese sources contained many impurities and incombustible components it was the arabs or the europeans those discovered that only the three ingredients were nessisary for effective gunpowder, and i wish to know about chinese original sources over gunpowder. Cocroft citation were corrected by Pyrotec beyond the chinese cuttings--MARVEL (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * MARVEL, the sudden appearance of gunpowder in Arabic and European sources, in effective formulations and without extraneous ingredients, after Chinese documentation of experimentation with composition and ingredients spanning literally centuries, is evidence for Chinese invention of gunpowder and against independent invention by Arabs or Europeans. JFD (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, though he argues against it, al-Hassan acknowledges that the prevailing consensus is that Arabs learned of saltpeter in the 13th century: "The general notion that saltpetre was not known till the thirteenth century in Arabic alchemy and chemistry is reflected in other works on the history of chemistry." MARVEL, your editing on this article has been a series of gross violations of undue weight. JFD (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

POV on both sides
Instead of warring why not read the chapters by: There are, respectively chapters 2 and 3, in Buchanan, Brenda J. (2006). Gunpowder: The History of an International Technology - papers presented at the 22nd International Symposium of ICOHTEC. Do either of you "experts" give papers at the two ICOHTEC symposia on the history of gunpowder, or are you claiming expertise that you don't have?Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jixing Pan (Research Professor, Institute for the History of National Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing). "The origin of Rockets in China".
 * Iqtidar Alam Khan (retired Professor of Medieval Indian History in the Centre of Advanced Study in History, Aligarh Muslim University) "The role of the Mongols in the introduction of gunpowder and Firearms in South Asia".
 * That's interesting to lump me in with the nationalist Muslim, but I fail to see how either of those articles is detrimental to the established consensus that I'm trying to keep in this article FFS. I haven't mentioned that I'm an "expert" at this point, but I suppose you claim that title for yourself. :PMeatwaggon (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

?Pyrotec i would appreciate it more if you suggested reading those two sources you provided and if there is some one who obviously pushing POV he will be mr Meatwaggon--MARVEL (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The prevailing consensus is that something like "gunpowder" originated in China; moved to Arab/Muslim nations; and in the middle ages came to Europe via the Crusades. There is a thought that Muslim nations might have independently discovered gunpowder, but there is no definite proof for or against. However, there is a lot of fine detail on top of that, which I have not yet read in depth; but I do have the sources. My interest is mostly Europe; and I don't claim to be an expert, but I have seen numerous unverifiable statements added (and removed) to the Gunpowder and History of Gunpowder articles, including the "fact" (which is wrong) that Roger Bacon discovered gunpowder.18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That certainly seems to be the position of Buchanan and Guilmartin, among others.


 * JFD (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)