Talk:List of Chinese inventions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Length

This page should be much longer than it is.

Aquaculture

Not sure where I can put this in the list of inventions. Thought I'd mention it though. Edson88888 (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion disucssion

Please discuss this issue in the following link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Chinese_inventions

Removed Celestial Globe

That was invented independently in China, but it was first invented by the Greeks -intranetusa (long time ago) Intranetusa 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I put it back to the others section as "discovered separately after other civilizations" is mentioned. --Leo 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "so-called Four Great Inventions" into just "Four Great Inventions"

ImSoCool

Um, why is this page up for deletion?--PericlesofAthens 10:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people abused the deletion policy. I cleaned it up --Leo 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this article

This article (like many lists) would probably be better as a category. Alternatively, it should be called Chinese Inventions or possibly Early Chinese Inventions. It should conentrate on inventions made in China independently of the West or of the Islamic World. It could also usefully indicate which inventions diffused to the West (for example, paper) and which were independently invented in China and elsewhere. It would also be useful if dates could be provided, as this may help those of us who are not experts on the subject to spot items that should not appear. Some of the articles in the History of Technology series might provide a useful model, for exampleRenaissance Technology - though that article is very incomplete at present. Peterkingiron 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have very good points. We simply need more volunteers to do what you have suggested.:-) The concentration concern may be resolved by using different sections for the inventions like it is right now. --Leo 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't spend much time at CfD if you think this would survive as a category, especially without an article! The article needs to be improved, along the lines you suggest. Johnbod 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

football/soccer

I've read on another wiki article saying football/soccer was actually first played in china. Should we add it into the list? 203.54.196.103 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is List of countries who claim to have invented football. No - oh well. Johnbod 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested renaming

This seems to be a list of ancient Chinese inventions rather than Chinese inventions in general. Should it be renamed to reflect that? JoshuaZ 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because many of them now are medieval and early modern.--PericlesofAthens 09:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

China invented everything it seems

I've noticed over the last few months of reading general interest in wiki, that china invented everything on the planet. Including soccer now, apparently. In every case, someone always seems to produce some obscure reference for each chinese innovation, usually written centuries after the fact, by surprise surprise: a Han chinese! Seems more like oral tradition and good old fashioned racial arrogance, you find everywhere else. CJ DUB 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of what constitutes "everything" seems to be pretty narrow. Spare us the spam, if you have a reference then put it up for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.62.146 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted spam by random retard and "teeth" placed in the invention list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.250.27 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but adding teeth is ****ing hilarious! Haha. See, some people know how to be funny when they vandalize a page, and others are just morons with no sense of humor. As to the Chinese inventing "soccer", they really didn't invent the game we know of today, but they did invent cuju football by the 2nd century BC, a game which was very similar. Surprisingly, they also played chuiwan, a game similar to golf that originated in Scotland.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Compass

Shouldn't the compass really fall under the "Other inventions" column? From my own knowledge and the wikipedia article on the compass, there is a strong case that it was simultaneous European/Chinese invention.--Scott 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

no, i think the compass was taken by the europeans. we need a stronger evidence instead of wiki articles, since wikiarticles may not be the best to resolve distrupts of these types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.205.160 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The compas was not taken by the europeans it was independently invented in Europe

Arguments pro independent invention:

• The navigational needle in Europe points invariably north, whereas nearly always south in China.
• The European compass showed from the beginning sixteen basic divisions, not twenty-four as in China.[21]
• The apparent failure of the Arabs to function as possible intermediaries between East and West due to the earlier recorded appearance of the compass in Europe (1190)[18] than in the Muslim world (1232, 1242, or 1282).[19] [20]
• The fact that the European compass rather soon developed from the magnetized needle (1190)[18] into the dry compass (by 1300)[22] may indicate that the prior invention of the needle-and-bowl device was also done independently.

Arguments contra independent invention:

• The temporal priority of the Chinese navigational compass (1117) as opposed to the European (1190).[18]
• The common shape of the early compass as a magnetized needle floating in a bowl of water.[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.201.34 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it was invented in China and diffused via Arab traders, and that is what the compass article says too. I don't think mesoamerican lodestones equal a compass. Yunfeng (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The diffusion theory is Needham's, but it is not proven with solid evidence. It could have been transferred, but it could very well have been invented separately in Europe after the Chinese had already been using it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of this inventions the chinese didnt even do

First of all Matches, it clearly says that it had a predecessor in Egypt which used sulfur, Horse collar because it was in Ancient chaldea, land mine because happened by Rome because it was a mine that romans used to trap humans with spikes, rudder because Egypt used a oar as that was used as rudder, Vaccination because the chinese did Inoculation and edward jenner made first vaccine, bitumious coke and countless others i cannot name because then it would waste time. I am asking that people should not put inventions without solid evidence and that they should note where they get from, and that book that was used as reference can not have True factual evidence (Canu44 07:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

there might be arguements among the inventions, but note on a few things: oars and rudders aren't the same. it's been down in ages that you would use an oar to steer, which in effect would act as a rudder, but again, it's not a rudder. and as for landmines, there would be also disagreement amoung information in the wiki articles. note this: it is known that romans used the traps, but it's not until nearly the first century until romes have a strong, organized army to start using traps of such. so i would put landmines under "other inventions" as it most likely was co-invented. but as for the modern landmine, chinese wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.205.160 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

all i am saying is that some of this inventions shouldnt be here. and that we should proofread this page to make sure no Unsupportive inventions are placed. if we do this then this page wont have to alsmot face deletion again (Canu44 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Funny, all of this is irrelevant now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Inventions

There are a flaw in the list of chinese inventions. Read about the various inventions and you will note that some of them also where invented in other civilisations as well. I recomend that the list of specific items is removed.

The first computer is dated back to 1500 by Wilhelm Schickard. So wheres the proof that china lagged behind Europe in the 1700th ??

Well, I guess it means that by 1700 you can surely tell China lagged behind, but about 1500 there can be arguments. Something that you can say a full scale computer probably are Babbage's machines, which were invented around 1700-1800. Temur 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Still wrong. Greek - democracy. Roman empire - Republic. China lagged behind this in many ways.

The Roman Empire contributed its form of government, which influences various constitutions including those of most European countries and many former European colonies. In the United States, for example, the framers of the Constitution remarked, in creating the Presidency, that they wanted to inaugurate an "Augustan Age." The modern world also inherited legal thinking from Roman law, codified in Late Antiquity. Governing a vast territory, the Romans developed the science of public administration to an extent never before conceived nor necessary, creating an extensive civil service and formalized methods of tax collection. The western world today derives its intellectual history from the Greeks, but it derives its methods of living, ruling and governing from those of the Romans.

Even the modern public schoolsystem is related to the roman empire.

The chinese civilisation is a static civ.

In the early 20th century, before china had much contact with the West, the condition and living standards of most Chinese peasants was not much different as it was 3000 years before. If China never had contact with the West, there is little evidence to suppose that the condition of these peasants would be any better 3000 years from now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.201.34 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So what is your point? I don't think a race between East and West will make anything better. Temur 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the comment that "chinese civilisation is a static civ" is a mind-bogglingly broad-brush statement.

Bathrobe 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the world civilization today is on a wrong path. Capitalism and race for money don't make life much meaningful. Did all these begin from the Greek or Roman civs? Is the mankind happier now than 3000 years ago? Gantuya eng 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don´t lie! Tell the truth! This article is full of nationalistic substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.201.34 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be precise. I could not find anything in this article stating that China discovered democracy before Greece or that they invented Republic before Romans. I can surely tell you that many people (including me) here are strongly against nationalistic bias. Give us specific statements and references against them. Temur 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What made china on the same level as Europe before 1600? How did China fall behind? With what?

If you have more information, please feel free to add into the article. If you are serious, please register and leave your signature in talk pages. Temur 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This person is obviously not serious. A western person complaining about eastern nationalistic substance with really bad English? Come on now. Benjwong 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So because I'm not english, I'm not serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.201.34 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion moved here from Talk:China at this stage

I've discovered this article and found that there are many inventions in the list that I doubt of being Chinese. For example stirrups and calendar. Gantuya eng 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to come up with references to dispute the mention of "Chinese Calendar" here, hence, it is not like listing other major calendars such as Gregorian calendar, Jewish calendar, Islamic calendar and Hindu calendar... You can read references and encyclopedias such as Britannica, I doubt any would argue the Chinese calendar as not being Chinese calendar?--Balthazarduju 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vaccination India or China! This is nationalistic crap all without any real evidence! What has the Chinese contributed with?? Music?? Art?? Perhaps noodles? Yes that’s it! NOODLES!

Is there any explanation for removal of the compass from the Chinese inventions? At school they taught that compass was invented in China. Did it change since then? Gantuya eng 13:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The compas was not taken by the europeans it was independently invented in Europe

Arguments pro independent invention:

• The navigational needle in Europe points invariably north, whereas nearly always south in China.
• The European compass showed from the beginning sixteen basic divisions, not twenty-four as in China.[21]
• The apparent failure of the Arabs to function as possible intermediaries between East and West due to the earlier recorded appearance of the compass in Europe (1190)[18] than in the Muslim world (1232, 1242, or 1282).[19] [20]
• The fact that the European compass rather soon developed from the magnetized needle (1190)[18] into the dry compass (by 1300)[22] may indicate that the prior invention of the needle-and-bowl device was also done independently.

Arguments contra independent invention:

• The temporal priority of the Chinese navigational compass (1117) as opposed to the European (1190).[18]
• The common shape of the early compass as a magnetized needle floating in a bowl of water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of all things to pick on.... Chinese calendar and compass was singled out??? How can I take these seriously other than to accept them as laughable weak vandalism. Benjwong 22:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Benjwong! I understand your argument concerning the compass, but I couldn't understand your revert of my grammatical and stylistical corrections together with what you call "laughable weak vandalism". In the first sentence, the word "great" was repeated, and I felt it would be better to change it with another adjective. I think "significant" is more pin-pointing than "great". I don't claim this is the best replacement, but I hoped someone would find an even better adjective. But I didn't expect it to be reverted in such a wrathful manner. In the second sentence I changed the word to plural. The same word is in plural in the previous sentence and you don't identify that as an error, but when I make it plural, you revert it. Is there any rational explanation? I interpret it as a personal attack. I am not going to participate in your argument about the compass, it's not my expertise. But I would be thankful if someone furthers my grammatical and stylistical corrections instead of reverting them. Gantuya eng 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh that last comment wasn't for you. It was for IP: 194.103.201.34 who deleted the compass. It didn't occur to me until now, that you could have mistakened it. I happened to revert your edit thinking it may not be a necessary grammar change. But the comment is most definitely not related to any of your edits. Please ignore it. Benjwong 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Be sensitive towards the feelings of your peers. Don't bulk revert different edits under the same umbrella. Gantuya eng 02:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. But please understand the sheer volume of vandalism and rants that we deal with daily. Some are dismissed quicker than others. Benjwong 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Paper money originated in two forms: drafts, which are receipts for value held on account, and "bills", which were issued with a promise to convert at a later date.

Money is based on the coming to pre-eminence of some commodity as payment. The oldest monetary basis was for agricultural capital: cattle and grain. In Ancient Mesopotamia, drafts were issued against stored grain as a unit of account. A "drachma" was a weight of grain. Japan's feudal system was based on rice per year – koku.

At the same time, legal codes enforced the payment for injury in a standardized form, usually in precious metals. The development of money then comes from the role of agricultural capital and precious metals having a privileged place in the economy.

Such drafts were used for giro systems of banking as early as Ptolemaic Egypt in the first century BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

BeltDrive The earliest was the flat belt, used with line shafting. It is a simple system of power transmission that was well suited to its time in history. The Industrial Revolution soon demanded more from the system, as flat belt pulleys need to be carefully aligned to prevent the belt from slipping off. The flat belt also tends to slip on the pulley face when heavy loads are applied. In practice, such belts were often given a half-twist before joining the ends (forming a Möbius strip), so that wear was evenly distributed on both sides of the belt.

Round belts are a circular cross section belt designed to run in a pulley with a circular (or near circular) groove. They are for use in low torque situations and may be purchased in various lengths or cut to length and joined, either by a staple, gluing or welding (in the case of polyurethane). The early sewing machines utilized a leather belt, joined either by a metal staple or glued, to great effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannon: History of cannon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Cannon are large tubular firearms designed to fire a heavy projectile over a long distance. They were first used in China and Europe...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ChainDrive: The oldest known application and illustrated depiction of a chain drive date to the written horological treatise of the Song Dynasty Chinese engineer Su Song (1020-1101 AD), who used it to operate the armillary sphere of his astronomical clock tower. An earlier endless drive may have been invented much earlier by the Greek Philon of Byzantium (3rd century BC) in a magazine arcuballista, but it did not transmit power continuously.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of coke as a fuel was pioneered in 17th century England in response to the ever-growing problem of European deforestation. Wood was becoming increasingly scarce and expensive, and coal's fumes, particularly smoke and sulfur compounds, disqualified it from many applications, including cooking and iron smelting. In 1603, Sir Henry Platt suggested that coal might be charred in a manner analogous to the way charcoal is produced from wood. This process was not put into practice, however, until 1642, when coke was used for roasting malt in Derbyshire. Coal cannot be used in brewing, because its sulfurous fumes would impart a foul taste to the resulting beer. Perhaps more significantly, in 1709, Abraham Darby set up a coke-fired blast furnace to produce cast iron. Coke's superior crushing strength allowed blast furnaces to become taller and larger. The ensuing availability of inexpensive iron was one of the factors leading to the Industrial Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mesoamerica

The find of an Olmec hematite artifact, fitted with a sighting mark and found in experiment as fully operational as a compass, has led the American astronomer John Carlson after radiocarbon dating to conclude that "the Olmec may have discovered and used the geomagnetic lodestone compass earlier than 1000 BC".[1] Carlson suggests that the Olmecs may have used such devices for directional orientation of the dwellings of the living and the interments of the dead.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The earliest date for the crossbow is from the 5th century BC,[7] from the Greek world. This was called the gastraphetes, which could store more energy than the Greek bows, and was used in the Siege of Motya in 397 BC. This was a key Carthaginian stronghold in Sicily, as described in the 1st century AD by Heron of Alexandria in his book Belopoeica.[8] This date for the introduction of the crossbow in the Mediterranean is not accepted without doubt because of the temporal difference between writer and event and the lack of other sources stating the same. At least Alexander's siege of Tyre in 332 BC provides reliable sources for the use of these weapons by the Greek besiegers.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, we need to analyze 1 item at a time. Not 15 inventions across multi-cultures and different names all together at once. We need some research capacity on top of the existing articles. Benjwong 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Abacus

The Abacus article gives quite a different impression on where it first appeared, as do most western sources. I even wonder what the rationale is for placing it under "indepently developed" - couldn't it just have been inspired by Muslim or Indian traders? Yaan 12:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The first abacus was almost certainly based on a flat stone covered with sand or dust. Words and letters were drawn in the sand; eventually numbers were added[2] and pebbles used to aid calculations. The Babylonians used this dust abacus as early as 2400 BC.[3] The origin of the counter abacus with strings is obscure, but India, Mesopotamia or Egypt are seen as probable points of origin.[4] China played an essential part in the development and evolution of the abacus.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If I am correct, the person referenced from Encyclopedia Britannica, but the original source may have come from the 1914 transcript "The Beginnings of Libraries" By Ernest Cushing Richardson. The wording is similar that they described sand pebbles. The word Abacus was thrown in, but it sounds more like a description than an actual claim of the invention. Benjwong 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can there be a more concise listing?

The listing of "other inventions" is profoundly vague. Why group 4 different categories together? Why even mention things that the chinese received purely from outside sources? There should be a much more complete, well managed list of chinese developments, which I've yet to find- along with how these were transmitted globally, and whether or not places like Europe got them purely from the Chinese.

This really needs the attention of people with some remote expertise, which I guess is somewhat there when Needham's work, which is profoundly rare in private collections was cited- not like the arrogant bigoted ass who was crying about chinese nationalism, yet then went onto say that they only invented noodles.

And besides, why are things like the cannon and porcelain listed under "other inventions"? Who developed these independently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.130.174 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This Article Is Absurd

It needs about 100 fact tags. Hot air balloons? That may be a *claimed* Chinese invention. Alexwoods (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started taking out the patently asinine items in the list, and fact-tagging the questionable ones. Yunfeng (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty ridiculous. Details, references... At least link some things! Cretog8 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to this article? My God, it looked much better about a year ago, and that is sad, since it seems to have gotten progressively worse. I'll see what I can do to remedy this gigantic steaming pile of...well, you know.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take my time with this, though, since I've got other things to do.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A whole new article

That's how you do it, boys and girls, you make a substantial list and you provide a gargantuan amount of citations (well, by now there are only 44, but there will be more references added as more items are added to the list). This article doesn't suck cow balls now! Awesome. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Cretog8 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I try my best.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured List status

I'm shooting for Featured List status for this article. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to further improve the article? I've already added a lead picture, two picture galleries, and colored tables for each invention.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the FLC page, the tables were discouraged and I have deleted them, but I have added tons of new pictures. Enjoy!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really something. I don't know how you were able to research so many items so fast. A featured list of this size is very impressive. Benjwong (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a little help from some unknown friends (non-members) who go simply by their IP addresses. However, I created the vast majority of the entries and provided the vast majority of references.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order

Congrats on the FA. Just wondering if the alphabetalical order is simply for looks. Could the Other Inventions section be better done in chronological order of invention, or would that just become a ugly mess? Just an idea. Congratulations again on the FA in such short time. Iciac (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, but some things are not so easily dated, and some inventions are allotted to a century instead of an exact year. So how would we put the latter into chronological order? The impetus for putting them into alphabetical order was so that people who might be looking for a specific item by name could easily find it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Camera obscura and Jiahu Script

Camera obscura does not need elaboration in the introductory paragraph when it is simply used as a quick example of something the Chinese invented after another civilization already did, like the chain pump. The chain pump certainly didn't need elaboration, didn't it? Also, in regards to the Jiahu symbols, they are not proven beyond a doubt to represent an actual corpus of writing, so why bother to include them and sidetrack this article into a discussion that quite frankly does not have merit?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i didnt look at the talk page, but the camera obscura needs elaboration, because in the camera obscura article it says the chinese DIDNT inventent the camera obscura device itself, have you read the camera obscura article? it didnt say the chinese invented the device.......141.155.152.86 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ah hah, know i see where it said shen kou, but then it qualifies as a device the chinese aquired though contact, and not an independent invention which was previously invented by another —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.152.86 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Through contact? Dude, what are you talking about? That is entirely false, it was not acquired through "contact". I'm the one who brought Shen Kuo up to featured status and have read his writing on the matter; his experiments with camera obscura were entirely NOT externally-influenced. Please, do not edit this article any further until you understand the issues. I'm starting to think you're only here to cause trouble.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism

Why is the neolithic "wine" included in the list as "Chinese" invention? This is like saying the British built Stonehenge. McGovern specifically says "Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historic China". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I wasn't the one who added the passage, but that does seem somewhat anacrhonistic, considering Chinese civilization did not arise until the beginning of Shang in the mid 2nd millennium BC. You might notice, too, that a number of items on here are dated to the Neolithic period.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the ideal opportunity to bring the article again under 100 kb. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest to moved it to List of inventions in China. 116.15.95.30 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the rash of edits in the last 24 hours, it looks like the article has been hijacked by user(s) with a sinophobic slant who are adding a huge amount of extraneous information to sidetrack the article. Let's please keep the article relevant, neutral and accurate. 70.24.168.124 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You might like to vist CHF for a few laughs over his fights with someone else, it been banned once and believe it will again, both in CHF and wiki. 116.15.95.30 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

China History Forum? Who are you referring to specifically? 70.24.168.124 (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here, here, oh and here, enjoy! 116.15.95.30 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think one should be cautious when considering deleting passages dealing with Neolithic China, since the later Neolithic cultures such as Longshan culture, Liangzhu culture, and Erlitou culture can be seen as direct ancestors and contributors to the Chinese culture and civilization forged under the Shang Dynasty. Sure, the "British" did not build Stonehenge; a consolidated English identity did not even exist until long after the conquest of the isle by William I. But look at the taotie designs, bi (jade), and cong (jade) of late Neolithic cultures of China, their use of rammed earth walls and lime-plastered floors, their building of religious altars, their ceramic wares and lacquerwares which closely match the shapes and functions of later bronzes, and their wearing of silk. The Hongshan culture had jade-carved dragons similar to the later Shang and evidence that feng shui was implemented in the layouts of their ceremonial buildings. It all sounds much like early Shang civilization, the only difference being the Shang had improved technology, a more stratified society, and a consolidated kingdom with a central capital.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that the anachronism question has been addressed in any way. A possible solution may be changing the article name to "...in China" and pointing out the anachronism explicitly in the intro, but I am not sure whether this is enough. Perhaps we need some third opinions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your opinion is gonna matter that much for a POV pusher. Main point, You don't go around and delete some hardworks that people had put it in, I wonder what reaction you could get if someone did the same to you, if you think a 100 kb is what a server should hold, be my guest. 116.15.95.30 (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of you (i.e., User:Gun Powder Ma and 116.15.95.30) are mentioning a point that has no merit as of yet. The rule of thumb is an article with 100 KB of prose writing is too big. An article that is overall 100 KB is absolutely fine, since it includes the introductory paragraphs, pictures and picture captions, headings, references, see also, further reading, external links, etc. There is no justification as of yet to trim the article down, since its size at this point is not an issue. Substance is the issue at hand, here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that it wont work that way. Next time some anonymous reverts without further explanation I may feel forced to revert back to the last version before. And if this destructive policay continues, dear anonymous, I will have to contact the admins. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're one to talk! Gun Powder Ma, please look below at how I have debunked your misrepresentation of the sources which you have used in this article to make false claims. What, you thought I didn't have access to JSTOR?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, are you willing to address the question of anachronism or not? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gun Powder Ma, why do you think there is concern of anachronism here? Didn't the lead states specificity on those?? Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when are 'inventions' from Neolithic times, up to 9000 years ago, "Chinese"? So the Peking Man is also Chinese? This is an encyclopedia and not the playgrounds for hyperbolic nationalistic doctrines, isn't it? Next time I am going by be bold, if my suggestions are further ignored. History of China differs in Prehistory and Ancient history, which suggests a upper time limit of 2100 BC (Xia dynasty) for contents here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma, I believes the lead had stated very clear on both of them already, similiar to History of China. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Greeks crossbow

I don't think credits of a text written from 1st century AD can be considered as a inventions of 5th century BC, Ma Jun also credit his invention to Yellow Emperor, and Sima Qian wrote about crossbow for events centuries before as well, Meng Tian also thought to be invention link bush according to him. Sun tzu's text, consider if he did wrote it would had made the evidence trace back to 6th century BC. Yet none of those are written in this article in such a way, because the list here shoudn't had includes all those. 116.15.95.30 (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sinophobic" or not, I don't like the fact that a bunch of his cited material has been deleted without consulting with him about his additions. He did bother to provide citations and references. Now, I completely agree that Heron's 1st century AD text should not be used to irrefutably validate earlier use of crossbows in the Mediterranean world in the parallel manner you've shown with Chinese writers crediting inventions to dubious earlier origins. However, Gun Powder Ma didn't write anything absolutely false and uncited, like "archaeological evidence of Greek crossbows predate Chinese ones" and things along that line.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when did I used the word like "Sinophobic". If you think that his contribs is much better go ahead then and give him your support. He did bother to provide citations and references, like what you did it for him[1]? I am sorry, if you can't stand a non-Amercian guy acting big in front of you, I got have nothing to said, but don't put words into my mouth nor provide a taste of good lesson for me. Do you even use your brain? All citations he provided, used "captualt" and word like "hand-held" crossbow are totally unfounded in the references. As for shown with Chinese writers crediting inventions to dubious earlier origins, which one did you meant? Don't come up with this idea if is it totally unfounded. Plus we don't need a long elaboration about how those account refered, because on the first hand its clear that if the item doesnt appeared first on this list, its gonna be removed. I am not a member of CHF, but regradless of what disagreement you had with him, go solve it over at the CHF, and stop bringing those fucking sentiment to here. 116.15.95.30 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Take a breather and settle down, and please do not insult me or curse at me; it only reflects poorly on your part. Also, I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting the statement of someone above when they said: "Given the rash of edits in the last 24 hours, it looks like the article has been hijacked by user(s) with a sinophobic slant who are adding a huge amount of extraneous information to sidetrack the article." What does Gun Powder Ma's country of origin (i.e. "non-American guy") have anything to do with crossbows? What does "captualt" mean? Why are you questioning my intelligence (i.e. "do you even use your brain?")? You provided perfect examples yourself with Ma Jun in reference to the South Pointing Chariot, so how is that example unfounded? That's actually an excellent example which you used and one that I found appropriate, and now you are accusing me of making the same argument? Bizarre. Now you are truly confusing me. And yes, we do need a long elaboration about these inventions, because some of them do deserve a long elaboration to make a point, despite this being a list article. What does China-History-Forum have to do with the issue of crossbows on Wikipedia? And exactly what "!$@%ing" sentiments are being transmitted from there to here? Your argument is quite incoherent.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If User:Gun Powder Ma is misrepresenting his sources, then I think it would be best to quote word for word on this talk page what is said in those sources so that there will be no ambiguity here. That sounds fair, no?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize that for that part for being rude to you. So I am sorry about that, don't take it into your heart. As for long elaboration, since we're talking about hand-held crossbow, and the Greek evidence doesn't seem to support for a Greek invention (if it does the crossbow section should be removed in any cases), so Its pointless to have a long elaboration on the centuries achievement on Greek side.116.15.95.30 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted; let's move on.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the caliper was removed because it was beyond a doubt proven that the Greeks had earlier calipers from the 6th century BC. But you still see wheelbarrow here, even though there is a hint of a Greek wheelbarrow from the same time period. It is the hint that matters; the Chinese invention of the wheelbarrow stays because it is still proven without a doubt that it existed in China when it did, because of thorough written and even pictoral evidence from murals. I think you could apply the same to the crossbow, since the Greeks may have had a crossbow earlier than the 1st century AD, but it is not solidly proven, whereas we have archaeological evidence and written evidence of Chinese crossbows which predate that by centuries. For example, long before Heron of Alexandria was writing in the 1st century AD, Chao Cuo was writing about crossbow tactics against the Xiongnu in the mid 2nd century BC.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Also, I wasn't quoting you"
Wow, its funny, I didn't know about that, once again it should be a misunderstood I suppose? Correct me if I am wrong?116.15.95.30 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Rudder vs. simple stern oar

User:Gun Powder Ma, I am sorry to say that I defended you earlier above and am now thoroughly disappointed in you. Everything you do here on Wikipedia now is questionable (in regards to egregiously misrepresenting your sources). I thought you were of higher integrity than this, and this is something I will hold you accountable for. And furthermore, I find it funny that this is all a petty jab at List of Chinese inventions.

For anyone who can access JSTOR, look to Plate 1 of this link here. It brings you to:

Harbour and River Boats of Ancient Rome Lionel Casson The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 55, No. 1/2, Parts 1 and 2 (1965), pp. 31-39

From this picture, Gun Powder Ma took the liberty of using a picture of a Roman tugboat that clearly shows a man operating a steering oar, NOT a fixed rudder, at the back of a Roman tugboat. The caption says absolutely nothing about a rudder, which was Gun Powder Ma's sly, non-scholarly-based interpretation of the picture. It reads: "Tugboat on a tomb plaque of Hadriatic date from the Isola Sacra."

That's it.

Just earlier, Gun Powder Ma tried a similar trick in the article for umbrella, by stating the Greeks and Romans had the collapsible umbrella and instead of citing a published source, he chose the route of original research once again and found two tiny, hazy, indistinguishable pictures that clearly did not show anything of a collapsible mechanism. Look here and here. And even if they did (which they don't), Gun Powder Ma assumes he has the authority of a published source to make such a claim; I don't think so, not on my watch, no way.

I rest my case.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Even with this source:

Egyptian Seagoing Ships R. O. Faulkner The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 26, (Feb., 1941), pp. 3-9

Gun Powder Ma managed to misrepresent his source again! The source specifically states that the Egyptian ships of the 6th dynasty used a, quote, "steering-paddle" pivoted on the rudder-post but fixed to the hull of the ship by rope. It says nothing about the actual rudder being used and has this to say:

In most river boats of this period there was but a single steering-paddle fixed right on the stern, hinting at the way in which the true rudder ultimately developed.

And Gun Powder Ma seriously thought he could pass this off as a valid reason to say the Egyptians had the stern-post rudder. Unbelievable.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the case Pericles and presenting the evidence to light. It is indeed quite pathetic when someone's "contributions" only serve to compromise the quality of an outstanding article. 70.24.138.211 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I can't access it through Google Books (although I will look for it in my university library right now), but I have no doubt that Gun Powder Ma also misrepresented the source Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo by Francesco Tiradritti. You better come clean about this first, Gun Powder Ma, because I will access this book and I will get to the bottom of yet another source you supposedly represented accurately.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Through his own citation, I was able to read Mott's article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well after reading some of his or her past edits and posts on CHF, it seems clear that this user has some sort of agenda to debase the contributions of the Chinese. I will be keeping a close watch from now on as this sort of deplorable prejudice has no place on Wikipedia. 70.24.138.211 (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I could care less what his petty personal prejudices are; I am more concerned with the fact that he was completely dishonest in using his sources, has shredded apart his own credibility as an editor here, and, as you put it, compromised this article's quality by loading it with what Penn and Teller would call, well, you know what.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree but clearly his distorted views are causing him to add (misrepresented) junk to this article and I would not be surprised if this sort of behavior was carried out in other articles. 70.24.138.211 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the definition by Mott over at rudder. Mott says explicitly two things: 1. A steering oar can be called a stern mounted rudder (page 2f.). 2. That the Chinese stern mounted rudder was not fixed to the sternpost, that is the ship (p. 92). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sections in alphabetical order

Since some people have been ignoring the first sentence of the "other inventions" section, I took the liberty of clarifying where any and all items are to be inserted into the list by making clear letter sub-sections for all entries to fit under. If someone objects, please raise concerns here, but DO NOT revert my edit until things are discussed here and consensus reached. I think it makes the contents box rather large in the beginning of the article, but to be fair it won't get any larger than that since all the letters in the alphabet are now in place as sub-sections.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Surprise Surprise. It was Gun Power Ma who messed it up most recently. Guess he was too busy getting his point across. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.45.145 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a remnant of one of Gun Powder's edits that made me realize this article needed letter sub-sections.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New material

I added some new entries recently, including equal temperament, Gaussian elimination, Chinese remainder theorem, Cavalieri's principle and the Civil service examinations.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work Pericles! I'm wondering if noodles are a Chinese invention. I was just reading up on it and thought you might know more about it or have books possibly discussing this. "The first written account of noodles is from the East Han Dynasty between AD 25 and 220. In October 2005, the oldest noodles yet discovered were found at the Lajia site (Qijia culture) along the Yellow River in Qinghai, China. The 4,000-year-old noodles appear to have been made from foxtail millet and broomcorn millet.[1]" Nature reported that the world's oldest noodles have been unearthed in China. [3] 70.24.168.206 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is fairly recent, so I was actually unaware of this find. Thanks for finding this, I'll add it to the list.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This part from zither seems relevant: "The earliest known instrument of the zither family is a Chinese guqin found in the tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng dating from 433 BC, featuring tuning pegs, a bridge and goose-like feet." I don't have access to the journal article but maybe you could verify this. [4] Thanks and keep up the good work. 70.24.138.30 (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription either. The article doens't appear to be available on JSTOR, which I do have access to. It's a pity; oh well, something else will pop up that we can use. In the meantime, though go (board game), liubo, xiangqi, and guqin have been added to the list.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added milü, Zu Chongzhi's approximation for pi in the 5th century that was the most accurate in the world.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way is a refinement of PI an invention? I think you have totally lost any concept about what the page is actually about. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This page (and the term "invention" in general) isn't merely about physical technology. Like the other entries dealing with mathematics, I would certainly consider the original formula for pi as an invention, just how I would consider milü an invention, and just how I would consider the discovery of equal temperament an invention. The social construction of the civil service examinations was also a profound invention, yet it isn't classified as a mechanical device. I wouldn't dare say that Socrates' invention of the Socratic Method was not an invention, simply because it is an abstract idea.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also just added Guo Shoujing's calendar, which is pretty much identical with the Gregorian calendar.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the great contributions in the last few days. Apparently there's a new biography on Needham called The Man Who Loved China that lists more than 260 Chinese inventions and discoveries identified by SCC. I'm not sure if there's a complete list of inventions in SCC itself but this might be a good source for uncovering other monumental discoveries and inventions. 76.69.60.67 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) A couple of lists: [5], [6] Many presumably may not be Chinese firsts but maybe I'll try to get my hands on the sources cited to see if they are indeed Chinese inventions.

Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised this wasn't already on the list but fireworks are one of the more well known Chinese inventions. Could you add it to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.67 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's done, thanks for reminding me!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The first list in the link you provided had many errors, if it is assuming they are ALL things which originated in China first, let alone inventions that may have diffused across the Asian continent via China. For example, the paddle-wheel ship was not invented in China until the 8th century, whereas it was previously invented in the Greco-Roman world centuries beforehand.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. I had a hunch that the list may have had erroneous mentions or been overly generous with the inclusions which is why I wanted to check the sources cited before jumping to conclusions. Nevertheless, it still useful in helping to identify legitimate inventions that are missing from this list. 76.69.60.67 (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fishing reel: "The earliest known illustration of a fishing reel is from Chinese paintings and records beginning about 1195 A.D." - trying to find a reliable source for this but no luck so far.
• Playing cards
• Anti-malaria drug / first reference to malaria?
• Mouth organ
• Clockwork
• Crop rotation
• Handguns

SCC should have more details about those inventions.76.69.60.67 (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I not only added a new entry for fishing reel, but I also scanned Image:Angler on a Wintry Lake, by Ma Yuan, 1195.jpg from Joseph Needham's SCC, Volume 4, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the playing cards, not sure. If you look at the second item in the list of "other inventions," that will answer your question about the anti-malarial drug (that entry has been there for a while, surprised you didn't notice). Not sure about the mouth organ. Is clockwork really necessary? I already have escapement and chain drive listed in that regard. Crop rotation, that is associated highly with the seed drill entry already in the article. As for handguns, I think the entry on the hand cannon already in the article is sufficient.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added cuju and chuiwan to the list in regards to more recreational activities, since the only ones I had before weren't physical sports, but board games (i.e. go board game, liubo, and xiangqi).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I particularly like that image. The list above was supposed to be discussed in SCC and I assumed you had access to the series and could look it up. You're completely right about antimalarial, clockwork, crop roation, handguns. I was a bit too hasty in suggesting them. In any case, if you have access to the SCC series maybe you could have a quick scan for the rest. This is becoming quite the definitive list! 70.24.137.80 (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only reason why I was able to scan the picture of the fishing reel is because it was a two-dimensional painting; you are not allowed to scan others' photographs of three-dimensional objects, because they have artistic license to them (since it is their "artistic" interpretation of the object in question). Therefore, only flat textiles and paintings and drawings are allowed to be scanned; if you want a 3-D object, you have to take the picture yourself and upload it! Don't know if you were aware of that. Besides that, all the pictures in Needham's books are in black-and-white; personally, I would rather acquire color photographs to scan; in fact, if I can find a color photograph version of Ma Yuan's painting, then I will upload a new version immediately over the version you see now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I could've been more clear but by "scan" I did not mean digitally scanning images. Instead, I meant quickly glancing over sections in SCC that touch on the inventions I listed above (specifically playing card and mouth organ but also others that you may come upon) so we can keep improving and adding to the list of inventions. I wish I had access to the massive SCC series so I could look this up myself but unfortunately my local library does not seem to have a copy available. 70.24.137.80 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look for them, but I don't own every volume of Needham's work (although I do have about 85% of them, lol). However, I am at work right now, and shouldn't even be typing this! Lol. Oh well, I'm allowed to take lots of breaks anyways (doing encoding for a website). Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found playing cards or any one of the Chinese mouth organs just yet in Needham's work, but I recently expanded the entry on raised-relief map and created a new entry for the surveying tool Jacob's staff.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks for checking and adding new entries to the list. Might be in the 15% of the series you don't have lol. I'm learning a lot everyday about Chinese contributions through this list. I'm also considering purchasing that biography on Needham to have that full list that I can examine further and for some light reading. If I do, I'll post inventions that can be added to this list. Keep up the great work! 70.24.137.80 (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just added field mill (carriage).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added two more items, Mechanical theater, carriage-driven and Puppet theater, waterwheel-powered.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I finally found information for the playing card! I added a new picture too.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Was looking through the list and noticed that a Y invention was still missing. Yo-yo: "The yo-yo is thought to have originated in China, most likely traveling from there to Greece where it is first mentioned in historical records from c.500 B.C. These records describe toys made out of wood, metal, or painted terra cotta (clay). The terra cotta disks were used to ceremonially offer the toys of youth to certain gods when a child came of age—discs of other materials were used for actual play. Philippine historical records indicate that 16th century hunters hiding in trees used a rock tied to a cord up to 20 feet in length to throw at wild animals beneath them—the cord enabling retrieval of the rock after missed attempts. Some have theorized that this was the basis of the yo-yo, but it is more likely that the yo-yo traveled from China not only to Greece, but also to the Philippines.[1]" Hope someone can look into this more deeper and add it to the list. Nirvana888 (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I looked around and so far couldn't find anything substantial in terms of scholarly sources.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I keep reading that it probably originated in China, but that one of its oldest depictions comes from a Greek vase dated c. 500 BC.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Stern mounted rudder

Why did you remove the material? Is the Egyptian stern mounted rudder preceding any Chinese evidence by two thousand years not enough? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Either you're being a smartass or you truly scanned through this page too fast to notice an entire section explaining why your edits have been removed. You intentionally lied with the sources you used and now you're playing coy? I don't trust you worth two cents, pal. Not until you quote WORD FOR WORD what the sources say here, on the talk page. I will also be checking the new sources which you have just added; if the Egyptians had the rudder (NOT simply the steering oar placed at the stern of the ship) then I have certainly come across no scholar who has made this statement. In fact, it would be the discovery of the century that everyone would hear about, because it would trump the Chinese invention by more than a thousand years. Something that big does not go unnoticed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't the one to remove your material. In fact, I fixed your references earlier so they conformed with the citation-and-referencing style chosen for this article, which you have repeatedly ignored (maybe out of spite?).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the definition by Mott over at rudder. Mott says explicitly two things: 1. A steering oar can be called a stern mounted rudder (page 2f.). 2. That the Chinese stern mounted rudder was not fixed to the sternpost, that is the ship (p. 92). I am following the Wiki etiquette and wont address your repeated ad hominem attacks, other than telling you that this page is now under scrutiny (please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you define a steering oar as a rudder, then the source you just recently added by William F. Edgerton (i.e. "Ancient Egyptian Steering Gear") would conform to what you are saying. But I will quote R.O. Faulkner as I have above (a source that you added, by the way):

In most river boats of this period there was but a single steering-paddle fixed right on the stern, hinting at the way in which the true rudder ultimately developed.

Notice the phrase "true rudder" as opposed to the steering paddle (or oar) fixed to the stern. Is R.O. Faulkner disagreeing with Mott about the definition of a rudder?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, are you using Mott's definition of the rudder to justify William F. Edgerton's article and other sources as evidence of the Egyptian rudder? In that case, you would be putting words into Edgerton's mouth, because he never says the Egyptians used the rudder; he says they used the steering oar. So far, it is only Mott who makes the inference about the steering oar being a rudder, correct? In that case, I think using Mott to speak for other sources in your rebuttal of the rudder section (of this article) would be misrepresenting other sources (aside from Mott). In fact, I think you should make it absolutely clear that when Mott says steering oar he is referring to a rudder.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma's writing

I noticed that you're employing Mott's definition of rudder into other works, those who have a different definition other than Mott ones. I am removing it from the article.

DEPOSIT:

However, the ancient Egyptian use of stern-mounted rudders can be traced back to the VI dynasty (2350-2200 BC), predating the Chinese evidence by more than two millenia. The first literary evidence to Egyptian stern mounted rudder comes from Herodot (484-424 BC). By the first half of the 1st century AD, Roman reliefs also depict single stern rudders employed on a fairly wide range of vessels. Since the use of a single rudder from the stern was not a new idea, the inventive element of the Chinese rudder design remains limited to its specific method of attachment, a method which, however, which was not copied by other seafaring peoples who kept each to their own manner of rudder attachment.

Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mott quote

"That the Chinese stern mounted rudder was not fixed to the sternpost, that is the ship." - Gun Powder Ma.

So? The Chinese rudder was still fixed to the stern of the ship via block and tackle or socket-and-jaws; you are merely saying that the later European pintle-and-gudgeon wasn't used. You also neglect to mention one of Mott's greater points: the pintle-and-gudgeon rudder did not supercede the quarter-rudder (i.e. fixed to the sides of ships) until the 13th century AD. And about your statement: "A steering oar can be called a stern mounted rudder", let's examine what Mott says. Page 2-3 of his article:

Concerning rudders mounted on the stern, the locution pintle-and-gudgeon rudder was chosen for the northern European mounting system because it both describes the method of attachment and implies attachment to the sternpost. The technology which eventually replaced the quarter-rudder was the pintle-and-gudgeon system, so that the use of the term is appropriate as well as accurate. The term stern-mounted rudder is too broad a definition. The Chinese for centuries used a rudder mounted on the stern, but they did not utilize pintles and gudgeons, and, in fact, their ships did not have a sternpost to which to attach them. The term could equally apply to a steering oar hung from the stern of a boat. (Mott, pp. 2-3)

He says the the term "stern-mounted rudder" can be equally applied to the concept of a steering oar that is hung from the stern of a boat (like seen in the Egyptian and Roman models), yet you fail to notice here that he does not call the Chinese rudder a "steering oar;" he says "the Chinese for centuries used a rudder mounted on the stern", that is by block and tackle or socket-and-jaws, which was not employed by the Egyptian and Roman steering oars as seen in Edgerton's article noted above.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Needham quote, a steering oar IS NOT a rudder

Apparently Mott, if he truly does classify the steering oar as a "rudder," is ignorant of an old scholarly discussion about the many differences between a steering oar and a rudder, which Needham points out here on pages 627 to 628 of Volume 4, Part 3, Civil Engineering and Nautics in the passage I will quote below:

In the West, the terminology of the successive stages in direction-control presents little difficulty. First there were steering-oars or quarter-paddles, or occasionally stern-sweeps centrally fixed, then came rudder-shaped paddles permanently attached to one of the stern quarters, and lastly the stern-post rudder itself, hung on pintle and gudgeon. When a Lincoln MS of +1263 differentiates tolls between 'navi cum handerother' and 'navi cum helmerother' we can guess pretty well what was meant...

A classical monograph was devoted to the invention of the stern-post rudder by des Noëttes (2). He claimed that because of the weakness of the steering-oar a cardinal limiting factor to nautical development existed before the beginning of the +13th century. Until that turning point the capacity of ships was restricted to about 50 tons. Lack of maneuvrability also kept them slow, and the fact that in heavy weather any kind of steering-oar would inevitably take charge, interfering with the handling of the sails, meant that ships were constrained to keep within the reach of shelter and could not venture to any extent on ocean passages. The chief critic of des Noëttes, la Roërie (1,2) maintained that the stern-post rudder had little or no advantage over the steering-oar, but the consensus of qualified nautical opinion crystallised almost unanimously against him, though des Noëttes, who was admittedly a landsman, often failed to receive the credit which he deserved.

The steering-oar, however, has always remained of value in rapid rivers and narrow landlocked waters, hence its continued in use in China today. To respond to the rudder, a boat must have way on her, must, in other words, be moving relatively to the surrounding water, for otherwise there is no streamline flow to be diverted. But when descending rapids, a boat may be moving at almost the same speed as the water, and in such a case it is highly advantageous to have a long stern-sweep, so long that its effects depends not on streamline flow but on reaction to water resistance, just as in the case of an ordinary oar. The lever, in such a stern-sweep, is much longer on each side of the fulcrum than it is in the rudder. Imparting to the boats stern a strong transverse movement, it can equally be well used for turning the vessel about when stationary in a lake or harbour. We have already seen several examples...of the massive stern-sweeps of Chinese river ships.

Is there anything else that needs to be said about Mott's bogus classification at this point? If so I'd love to hear is, Gun Powder Ma.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "bogus" the way to disqualify other sources? Needham's 40-year-old findings are outdated. Mott's source is far better worked out (a dissertation), more recent (1990s), and he has a maritime knowledge, a trained biochemist like Needham could only dream of. Since Mott explicitly refutes Needham, and has not been explicitly refuted by anybody else on this, Mott represents now the scholarly consensus. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a legitimate response to this passage here. So far you've waved one sentence around as an excuse to say steering oars are rudders, and I've shown an entire three paragraphs from Needham discussing why a steering oar is not a rudder, including the work of two other scholars on the matter.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does have its places on the rudder, however Gun Powder Ma, I just don't get right about your insists over the crossbow. Please reply. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, a steering oar IS NOT a rudder. They are two completely different things with two completely different sets of advantages; one is pristine for rapid narrow passages, while the other is not and is more capabale of handling an ocean- or sea-going vessel. Gun Powder Ma has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and he raises up a total of two sentences from Mott's article to claim a steering oar is a rudder. Pathetic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Other scholars' input

Aside from Mott classifying a steering oar under the umbrella term of a "stern-mounted rudder", I will dedicate this sub-section to scholars (besides Needham, Noëttes, and la Roërie above) who say to the contrary, that China had the rudder long before it was ever seen in Europe (or Egypt for that matter), and that a steering oar IS NOT a rudder. Here's some for starters:

• Page 123 of Leo Block's To Harness the Wind (2003, Naval Institute Press).

• Page 64 to 70 of Vassilios Christides' New Light on the Transmission of Chinese Naval Technology to the Mediterranean World: The Single Rudder (1996, New York: Routledge)

• Page 152 of Leo Suryadinata's Admiral Zheng He & Southeast Asia, Chung Chee Kit's chapter (2005, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies)

• Page 103 to 104 of K.S Tom's Echoes from Old China (1989, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press)

• Page 191 of Paul Johnstone and Sean McGrail's The Sea-craft of Prehistory (1988, New York: Routledge)

• Page 156 of Samuel Adrian Miles Adshead's China in World History: Third Edition (2000, New York: St. Martin's Press)

• Pages 122–123 of Frank Ross' Oracle Bones, Stars, and Wheelbarrows: Ancient Chinese Science and Technology (1982, New York: Houghton Mifflin)

• Page 93 of John Fairbank and Merle Goldman's China: A New History (1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press)

--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That won't help. Evidence to the contrary has to be addressed in the specific sections. This is not a Needham festival, this is an encyclopedia, although you might have failed to notice the difference a long time ago. And if the constant, unilateral reverts by your socket puppets adjutants continue, I am seriously considering about making a request for rethinking the whole statuts of the article. The obsessive behaviour of some becomes has become disgrace to Wikipedia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, I am the one who removed it (see above). Because you said something about definition, and such definition needs to make clear before it reinserted. So cool down and discuss the content not personal. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, Gun Powder Ma. It's called scholarly consensus, a word you just slung around after reading two sentences in Mott's article that you think may refute Needham and others' work. I find it funny that you still don't know the difference between a steering oar and a rudder. In fact, I'd like to hear you explain to me the difference! Bet you can't (and that's a challenge).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a gem by Leo Block in his description (from the book cited above ^) of ancient Phoenicia in the Medterranean world which shows that the steering oar, not the rudder, was used before it was invented by China (Pages 8 to 9):

A single sail tends to turn a vessel in an upwind or downwind direction, and rudder action is required to steer a straight course. A steering oar was used at this time because the rudder had not yet been invented. With a single sail, a frequent movement of the steering oar was required to steer a straight course; this slowed down the vessel because a steering oar (or rudder) course correction acts like a break. The second sail, located forward, could be trimmed to offset the turning tendency of the main sail and minimize the need for course corrections by the steering oar, which would have substantially improved sail performance.

In the book edited by Leo Suryadinata I just showed above, in the chapter by Chung Chee Kit, has another interesting passage about the steering oar and rudder that refutes Mott:

Until the 12th century AD rudders were unknown in the West. Like the compass, it was introduced through contacts with Chinese sailors. On the other hand, the stern rudder that we are so familiar with had been used at least from the Han Dynasty. Early Western ships steered using a "steering oar" or "steering board". These are ineffective for larger vessels, and require a great physical effort to handle. Without the introduction of the stern rudder to Europe, it is unlikely that the great voyages of discovery of Columbus and Diaz could be conducted.

Although I completely disagree with his point about transmission and agree with Mott that the Chinese rudder was not attached in the same way as the Arab rudder (hence no transmission to Europe), he does bring up the essential point that a steering oar is meant for small river vessels, while the true rudder is used for large ships which can easily steer on the pounding sea. Here again, another scholar brings up the fact that a steering oar is not a rudder. And this source isn't "outdated" like Needham or Noëttes' work.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Here is another gem from K.S. Tom's book about the difference between the steering oar and rudder, which I have listed and linked above as well. You really backed the wrong horse this time, Gun Powder Ma.

Ancient water craft were primarily navigated through the use of oars held at an angle in the water, usually at the rear of the vessel. To steer their vessels more effectively, the Chinese invented the stern-post rudder. This rudder, fixed at the center of the stern, pivoted on an axis and could be turned in either direction to steer the vessel. On the evidence of references contained in writings dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, it used to be assumed that the first stern-post rudder was invented sometime in the fifth century. But in 1958, the Academy Sinica and the Kwangtung Provincial Museum jointly excavated several Late Han tombs in the city of Canton. These tombs, dating from the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., contained many clay funerary figures, including an assemblage of beautiful pottery depicting in great detail the central axial stern-post rudder. Since earlier funerary ship models from the Chou dynasty and Early Han all show the use of steering oars, it seems safe to conclude that the stern-post rudder was invented in the 1st century AD. In Europe, the stern-post rudder did not come into use until the end of the twelfth century. By then the Chinese had improved the rudder in several ways...

Then he goes on to talk about the balanced rudder of the 11th century and the fenestrated rudder soon after, both of which were not adopted in the West until the 18th and 19th centuries, respectively. Any questions, Gun Powder Ma?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like quoting anymore, so you can look at Paul Johnstone and Sean McGrail's linked page above for yet another set of scholars who say the steering oar is not a rudder; in fact, the Chinese used the steering oar before they used the rudder. You truly backed yourself into a corner, Gun Powder Ma.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Click on the S.A.M. Adshead link above for yet another scholar who not only says the steering oar is not a rudder, but that it was first invented in China and did not appear in Europe until about 1180.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another source from Frank Ross, who says the steering oar is not a rudder, that the rudder first appeared in China, and that it did not exist in Europe until about 1180.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another source by Fairbank and Goldman, published by Harvard University Press, mind you, which states that the Chinese first invented the rudder while Europe still used the quote "inefficient" steering oar.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mott: Stern mounted rudders and steering oars

Lawrence V. Mott, The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1337: A Technological Tale, Thesis May 1991, Texas A&M University explicitly refutes in his in-depth anaylsis of the rudder Needham's claims about the Chinese invention of rudder. Below, he makes it abundantly clear that

• the concept of mounting a rudder on the stern was long known before it first appeared in China
• that the Chinese version of the stern mounted rudder did not spread to other seafaring cultures.
• that the Egyptian tomb models show a "rudder put at the stern"

It has been argued by Needham (1971:651-52) that the concept of mounting the rudder on the stern came from China and was transmitted to the Arabs by Chinese sailors. He has also suggested that the idea may have been carried to the Baltic by Russian traders (Needham, 1971:651). Concerning this last suggestion, the problem is one of transmission. As was noted in the last chapter, verbal transmission is not very reliable, and the simple idea of mounting a rudder from the stern was not new in itself. With regards to the transmission of the sternpost-mounted rudder to the Indian Ocean, while the concept of mounting the rudder on the stern may have come from Chinese traders, it was so modified and changed that it hardly resembles its origins except in the grossest sense. As noted by Needham (1971:653), Chinese vessels did not have a sternpost to which the rudder could be attached. Instead, it was suspended and held in place by an elaborate system of tackle. The idea of attaching the rudder to the sternpost in a relatively permanent fashion, therefore, must have been an Arab invention independent of the Chinese. Also, whereas the Chinese used tillers, Arab vessels used lines to control the rudder and did not adopt the tiller until the arrival of the Portuguese (Bowen, 1963:304; Ministry of Info, of Oman, 1981:112). This raises the question as to why the Arab sailors did not adopt the more effective tiller and yet borrowed the idea of a stern-mounted rudder. The above shows that the only actual concept which can be claimed to have been transmitted from the Chinese is the idea of a stern-mounted rudder, and not its method of attachment nor the manner in which it was controlled. Since that idea of putting a rudder on the stern can be traced back to the models found in Egyptian tombs, the need to have the concept brought into the Middle East is questionable at best. There is no evidence to support the contention that the sternpost-mounted rudder came from China, and no need to call on exterior sources for its introduction into the Mediterranean. While there is virtually no evidence to suggest that the sternpost-mounted rudder was introduced from China,…

Here, Mott states again explicitly that steering oars can be called stern mounted rudders (p.2f.):

The term stern-mounted rudder is too broad a definition. The Chinese for centuries used a rudder mounted on the stern, but they did not utilize pintles and gudgeons and, in fact, their ships did not have a sternpost to which to attach them. The term could equally apply to a steering oar hung from the stern of a boat.

So, the question is what should the Chinese have invented? You can remove the passage now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder Ma, I noticed that is just Mott that made this defintion, is anymore scholars that support this defintion? Thanks! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Anpersonalaccount, I noticed that is just Needham that made this defintion, is anymore scholars that support this defintion? Thanks! You can go go for the various reviews of Mott's thesis, none of which point critically at the definition. Also note that other languages actually do not make a distinction between a stern mounted steering oar and a stern mounted rudder. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma, I don't like trolling thanks. I am asking a question, so please reply it. Did needham made this defintion? Probably? We should look out for other sources to prove this. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"RUDDER: Part of the steering apparatus of a boat or ship that is fastened outside the hull, usually at the stern." In the following the article also deals with different types of steering oars. SOURCE: rudder.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD .

Needy relies on Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes'research which is today widely regarded as outdated. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Clutching at straws? How does Noëttes being "old" make a steering oar suddenly a rudder? Look at the other sources I posted for God's sake, all of them published in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Show me where Encyclopedia Britannica explicitly states that a steering oar is a rudder. Let me guess, you can't find that! Because it doesn't exist. So what if another article deals with steering oars, how does that suddenly make them a rudder!? You have lost it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gun Powder Ma, thanks for your reply, I will check out the sources you provided - Encyclopædia Britannica, is there any link to it? Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gun Powder Ma, I had found the link to it, its seem that you right about it. But I noticed that Noëttes's research should be left alone and not connecting it to needham, because is not too obvious and is part of Wiki's researching. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is also included in the 2008 edition. The entry "rudder" quite evidently deals with steering oars, hence the term steering oar is widely regarded to be subsumed under rudder - as Mott, whose treatment of the matter far outdoes the clowns Pericles quoted, already made clear. And Needham relies indeed heavily and explicitly on the 1930s research by LeFebvre, as the quoted passage above perfectly shows. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Quite evidently" in your own mind, Gun Powder Ma, if you can't show me a single explicit sentence from any other source besides Mott that says a steering oar is a rudder, then why all of this effort on your part to prop up two sentences by Mott? Needham discussed Noette in one paragraph, and then made his own explanation about the steering oar and rudder. You are truly out of your element today, if not every day. Calling the other authors "clowns" is not a legitimate rebuttal. Can anyone guess who's winning this argument by sheer scholarly consensus? Oh, and Gun Powder Ma, you still haven't responded to my challenge of taking a boat out onto the Pacific Ocean armed only with a steering oar and not a rudder. Oops! I guess you couldn't tell the difference, so you'd wind up using a steering oar anyway. Poor chap, you'd be lost at sea within a day, like just another "Bermuda Triangle" disappearance.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the Encyclopedia Britannica says about needham's and LeFebvre's research? Is there a url link to the Encyclopedia Britannica you provided? Also Gun, discuss the content not personal about this! Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite evidently, Gun Power, you are deliberately trying to push this anti-China agenda our yours into this article. On top of that, your arguments and your single sketchy source hold no merit. I think an admin might have to be called in if you continue to mess up this article in order to push a POV. 70.24.136.76 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses

Since that idea of putting a rudder on the stern can be traced back to the models found in Egyptian tombs, the need to have the concept brought into the Middle East is questionable at best.

Well, since the "scholar" Mott has already called a "steering oar" a "rudder", he can say that the Egyptian idea of mounting any sort of steering system on the stern was a direct ancestor to the development of the rudder in the West. Are you so sure he is not talking about an ancestor to the rudder from Egypt; even Mott himself talks on page 2-3 about the difficulties of etymology for different steering systems. So far this passage you have pulled seems to me more significant in stripping Needham's claim about the transmission of the Chinese rudder via the Arabs, as Mott has justly described here in the differences between the Arab and Chinese steering systems (i.e. one has tackle and no sternpost because the junk ship has no sternpost, let alone a keel, and the Arab rudder lacked the Chinese tiller and instead used lines). In that respect, Mott is right.

I think you better find other scholars who support Mott's "position" (which you've seemed to loosely glean from two sentences, which, quite frankly, doesn't hold a whole lot of water compared to what I'm about to find).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially considering the fact I noted above in regards to Needham's passage about the steering oar being fit only for narrow rapid-water transport. I'd like to see you, Gun Powder Ma, take a boat out onto the Pacific Ocean with no rudder but a steering oar, and tell me how it went! That is if you came back alive.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about nautics knows that a steering oar is not fit for a large vessel meant for seafaring; only a rudder is. K.S. Tom, Needham, Chung, Adshead, Johnstone, McGrail, Ross, and Noëttes make this explicitly clear, which makes those two ambiguous sentences by Mott seem strange indeed, if not taken out of context by Gun Powder Ma.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Now that's real a challenge!

Seems a bit awkward to me that the Mott rebuttal is placed right at the onset of the rudder section. Wouldn't it be better placed at the end? 70.24.137.80 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really. Whether it's placed at the beginning or the end, either way Mott makes a complete fool of himself and goes against scholarly consensus.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Gun Powder. Do we really need to include a fringe view (from a Masters student) that may support a conclusion that is squarely against the scholarly consensus? Unless you can prove that your view is more accepted within academic circles I suggest that the Mott part be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.136.76 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this debate can finally be terminated. See the article rudder for the quote I added by Leo Block about yet another fundamental difference between a steering oar and a rudder (in fact, if you look above, I posted the quote here as well, and included some of the quote in this article).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Gun Powder Ma! Why did you revert all the new additions?! You are degrading the quality of this article all to fulfill your agenda. 70.24.137.80 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear socket puppet misuser, could you explain me why for the fifth time my material was removed? By the likes of you? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. First of all, it was not me who removed your material. Secondly, can you explain why you have repeatedly failed to address Pericles' evidence that you are misrepresenting your sources and yet continue to reinserted your inaccurate material?

Hi, Gun Powder Ma, I am the one who removed it. Would you kindly wait for discussion before making such revert? Anpersonalaccount (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

adding contrary or conflicting evidence for crossbows

How is it contrary or conflicting? Would Gun Powder Ma care to explain it? Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? Why do you revert all the time? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont, however Gun Powder Ma, would you mind stop making the cross out? Maybe you could also express yourself on how are those being contrary or conflicting? Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder Ma, contemporary invention in elsewhere really doesn't needs to be mentions here, also regrading on "A detailed description of the gastraphetes, along with a drawing, is found in Heron's technical treatise Belopoeica" I don't think that Duncan Campbell is prefering to the drawing of Belopoeica, its stated there as (Author's drawing).

DESPOIT:

However, in a cross comparison with a contemporary civilization which created an early crossbow, evidence for Greek handheld crossbows can be regarded roughly contemporanous: according to the inventor Hero of Alexandria (fl. 1st c. AD), who referred to the now lost works of the 3rd century BC engineer Ctesibius, a handheld crossbow, called the gastraphetes (belly shooter), preceded in Greece the invention of mechanical arrow firing catapult (katapeltikon) in 399 BC, as described by the historian Diodorus Siculus. A detailed description of the gastraphetes, along with a drawing, is found in Heron's technical treatise Belopoeica.< Duncan Campbell: Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363, Osprey Publishing, Oxford 2003, ISBN 1841766348, p.4</ref>

Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the "gastraphetes" crossbow, whether it was large or small is merely speculation, since Heron omitted any description of its dimensions, according to Campbell in the picture caption of page 4. Campbell himself speculates that it was roughly a meter in length. Also, should Ctesibius be mentioned? Considering the fact that his work no longer exists, though Heron alleges he was using a faithful copy of Ctesibius' work. The gastraphetes must have been extremely heavy (much heavier than the Chinese crossbow, which could be wielded on horseback), since it had to be set up on a wall or on a portable prop.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PI

How is achieving a refinement of pi an invention? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I've already stated above in response to this exact same question of yours:

This page (and the term "invention" in general) isn't merely about physical technology. Like the other entries dealing with mathematics, I would certainly consider the original formula for pi as an invention, just how I would consider milü an invention, and just how I would consider the discovery of equal temperament an invention. The social construction of the civil service examinations was also a profound invention, yet it isn't classified as a mechanical device. I wouldn't dare say that Socrates' invention of the Socratic Method was not an invention, simply because it is an abstract idea.

--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your definition is OR, plain and simple. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma, I am thinking it is fine to include it to the bullet. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. How can PI be invented?
• 2. Even if the term is fitting (which is not), then PI was 'invented' in a scientific manner by Archimedes, who first made a mathematical calculation.
• 3. If we term any new calculation of PI an 'invention', then dozens of people have invented PI over time. The inclusion is, sorry, non-sensical. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma, in that cases it would be a dozen of people invented over the time, and the PI here are one of them! Plus you should discussed this earlier. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The invention is the best rational approximation of π with a denominator of four digits or less, Gun Powder Ma. Do you really have nothing else better to do than argue over pi? Considering how you removed that entry without consensus on your side and got into a revert edit war with anpersonalaccount (once again).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on pages 144 to 145 of Robert K. G. Temple's book Genius of China (1986), the "refined value of pi" is listed and described as just one of many inventions. So at least one scholar considers it an "invention".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy %$@!ing rusted metal, Batman!

Dude, read the entry for "Mechanical cup-bearers and wine-pourers on automatic-traveling boats"! OMFG. Elite. Period. I'm glad I'm finding all of this obscure crazy shit.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Look for the other entries I recently added on mechanics, including automatic opening doors and the wine server shaped as an artificial mountain with a lake.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only does this article have 395 citations, I just counted 156 references used. That's incredible. I don't want this article to become too much bigger, but there's just so many inventions left to cover! Damn you Chinese for being so clever. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WOWOW! Some really jaw-dropping, fascinating stuff. I suppose once the article gets too big we can consider and try to include the more significant inventions. But once again, I'm thoroughly impressed. This article has really come a long way in a short period of time. 70.24.136.76 (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see the new playing cards entry, by the way? Since you asked to have it added.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure did. Nice picture too. 70.24.136.76 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I've added pinhole camera, free reed aerophone, gimbal, maglev wind power generators, military strategy treatise, and zoetrope. Good stuff.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added the match, gas cylinder and natural gas as fuel.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just recently added entries for circadian rhythm, deficiency diseases, and diabetes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added negative numbers, decimal fractions, and the use of thyroid hormones to cure goiter.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Another update: I just added leeboard and tofu.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Come and go, Gun Powder Ma

Hey, Gun Powder Ma, if you don't reply the questions that people put forwarded, as you seems to came in and left without discussion with others and inserted your materials, if that is so your edits will be removed. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he certainly will have nothing else to say about a steering oar being a rudder, will you now Gun Powder Ma? I don't really mind his edits to crossbow, since the Greeks (at least by the age of Roman domination) did possess the crossbow fairly early, early enough to raise questions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that the two of you have reverted out each of my sourced additions so far? On what grounds? You behave as if you own the article. You make explicitly a bold claim for worlds first inventions in all cases, and therefore the inclusion of material to the contrary is not only perfectly acceptable, because outright necessary as there is a mountain of scholarship which contradicts Needhams 30-40 year old findings on which much of the article rests. Please stop your disruptive behaviour now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma, I think we should also discuss on the content than personal! I dont know what you are saying, but the page shown that you neither failed to follow the content or discuss the matter with others and simply left. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. On second thought, actually I didn't reverted your additions, I simply moved them here, so please don't remove info like you did here Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All of this sounds pretty vague, Gun Powder Ma, are we talking specifically about the rudder now? Because I think Leo Block's book (2003) just tore Mott's definition of a steering oar as a rudder a "new one", if you know what I mean. Block's description is also in line with Needham and Noettes; sometimes, Gun Powder Ma, you can't beat a golden oldie.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mott has been useful in one major regard though: he dismantled Needham's jumpy speculation about the spread of the idea of the stern rudder from the Chinese; since the Arab, European, and Chinese systems of attachment were so incredibly different, transmission of a Chinese rudder across the Arab world to Europe quite frankly doesn't make sense. Then again, Needham never asserts direct links in these cases, he always speculates (perhaps too much speculation for his own good, since the evidence is not there).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As of now, there are 111 citations from Needham's sources out of a total of 408 citations, roughly a fourth of the cited material in this article. Although that is certainly a lion's share, Needham's work was rather extensive (in VII volumes with multiple books or "parts" for each), and 3/4 of this entire article represents scholarly sources other than Needham's volumes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder Ma, you did not return for discuss! This is my last words, Gun Powder Ma, since you failed to discuss matters before making editing, you have misrepresent your source twice, relying on fringe definition to support your inclusion, that's more than enough the reason for me to revert it, just a note for you! Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma inclusion been removed

Hello, Gun Powder Ma since you failed to response others in this discussion board, your inclusion has been removed, because we do not know what those are suppose to mean unless you could explain yourself.

DEPOSIT:

Lawrence V. Mott, who defines a steering oar as a rudder, states the ancient Egyptian use of stern-mounted rudders can be traced back to the 6th dynasty (2350-2200 BC), predating the Chinese evidence by more than two millenia. By the first half of the 1st century AD, Roman reliefs also depict single stern rudders employed on a fairly wide range of vessels. Mott states that the method of attachment for rudders in the Arab, Chinese, and European worlds differed from each other, leading him to doubt the spread of the Chinese system of attachment by socket-and-jaws or block and tackle (versus European pintle-and-gudgeon invented by c. 1180 AD).

Anpersonalaccount (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, what are you doing? Most of that isn't even Gun Powder Ma's writing. The Chinese having block and tackle or socket-and-jaws rudder attachment and the Europeans having a pintle-and-gudgeon rudder attachment is entirely correct. Mott is justified in stating that. Gun Powder Ma writes that the Romans had "rudders" because Gun Powder Ma (like Mott in an entire whopping two sentences) defines a steering oar as a rudder, which happens to be absolutely false, ask anyone who is an expert in nautical history and technology. I'm at least adding back the description about the methods of attachment.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude, thanks for the clarification, I wonder why Gun Powder Ma failed to explain himself on that one. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder Ma, why are you changing the source again to Liu Han: “Northern Dynasties Tomb Figures of Armored Horse and Rider”, do you even have the pdf? Because it is obviously from Dien's citation. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What datas do we missed over rudder or crossbow?

Hello, please stop reverting again, please, we will be blocked!

I am curious when Gun Powder Ma said his edit was regularly removed, I wanna says is that the 4 citiations he used for Mott's defintion came from other works and on Roman sterm rudder is the same, namely William F. Edgerton (1927), R. O. Faulkner (1941), Francesco Tiradritti (1999), Mohamed Ata (2007), Lionel Casson (1965) and Tilmann Bechert (1982), see [7] [8] [9] [10]. The same is crossbow, the only thing that missed there is the mentions of Belopoeica's drawing and Ctesibius. As I see crossbow had already mentions over Ancient Greek technology, so I think it would be much better to expand it at over there! Also I found a source for crossbow drawing from The Bow in Culture, Music and Surgery, AS Craftsman's Tool and Weapon, it says:

Richard Kinseher

The oldest preserved drawings of crossbows in Europe can be found in the Bible of Haimo of Auxerre (around 840 A.D.). The pictures show bows with tapered ends, fit into the stock. The stock has a groove to guide the arrow and a lever-type trigger. Unfortunately the catch of notch is not recognizable very exact.

Since the drawing already appeared on 1st century edition of Belopoeica, why is there another oldest drawing in a bible? Earlier I ask "I don't think that Duncan Campbell is prefering to the drawing of Belopoeica" Becuase its stated there as (Author's drawing). Thank you Anpersonalaccount (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Heron's Belopoeica had a drawing of a gastraphetes crossbow; didn't it just offer a written description?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that was what I thought! Is all written at the caption and not the page paragraph. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seem that there's more than one listed as (Author's drawing), on page 4, page 6, page 8 and page 39. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Plus, consider the worn-and-torn nature of the centuries-old papyrus scrolls that Heron would have written on; there certainly wouldn't be illustrations as detailed as this from a 1st century book.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, hope tht satisfy everybody, since error had been pointed out, Lol. I think the problem -- happened to be on the word "Author's drawing" which Gun Powder Ma took it as an original MS drawing. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some contents at gastraphetes relevant for the history of the crossbow as portrayed in this article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a vote to retain or rename the article

Neolithic issue

I think what Gun Powder Ma says has merit. However, I think the later Neolithic cultures and a handful of bronze age cultures preceding the Shang Dynasty can be directly tied with the Shang, and that items such as lacquer are still significant even though it dates the earliest known lacquer (shards) to the Hemudu culture (earliest well-preserved items are argued to come from the Lower Xiajiadian culture or as late as the Western Zhou Dynasty). I'd like to see what the consensus here is, so in regards to renaming this article "List of inventions in China", implying that Neolithic items may or may not be included in the near future, please provide your vote in bullet form (i.e. " * ") below, with either Support or Oppose.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the article's name should be retained, but that only late Neolithic and early Bronze Age culture inventions should be included in this article, since they can be directly tied with the Chinese civilization of the Shang and Zhou dynasties. That means conditionally scrapping the following entries: "Urn, pottery burial", "Salt, use of", "Rice, cultivation of", "Oar, rowing", "Millet, cultivation of", "Fermented beverage", "Drum, alligator hide", and "Coffin, rectangular wooden", but only these items.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Ever since your addition over the lead, I believe those are somehow indicated already. Those scrapping would be equivalent to censorship. But I think moving it to List of Inventions in China would be much better, since "Chinese" only existed from about 200 BC or later. I believe List of Indian inventions share the similiar problems too. There's another way to solve it, that is creating two sections for pre and post-Shang items. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"There's another way to solve it, that is creating two sections for pre and post-Shang items." <-- That's a great idea! I Support that idea completely.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Same to me as well, I am thinking this is much better like several China-related articles such as History of China. Alphabetical order would or would not be retain for these sections, but I think if we could retain the alphabetical order it would be much better. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We should keep it in alphabetical order. We'll see how everyone will vote, but I like this idea so much (of explicitly splitting Neolithic and post Shang age inventions) that I will transform the article now according to this standard. Of course, everything can be changed if necessary, but for now I think you have come up with the best possible idea.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey PericlesofAthens, take a look at edition here, how is it? Thank you Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that all the pictures that should be in pre-Shang are located back in the post-Shang sub-section. Besides that one little problem, I wouldn't be opposed to such an organization.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I don't think TOC8 support two dozen of alphabetical orders, the second TOC8 one keep finding its route to the top. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Pre/post-Shang sections. This also allows the reader to have some sense of the chronology of the early/late inventions. I wonder what would be the equivalent of Shang (start of civilization) in India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.139.57 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think you get me wrong, I was saying there are items similarly invented before Indus civilization over the List of Indian inventions. But that does not implied both articles should had the same timeline. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Pre-Xia sections, including Neolithic cultures sections. Shang should be definitely in, Pre-Xia sections (before about 2000-2500 BC) definitely out. The point is the artcile has no title to prejudice a historical definition which collides the common definition of China. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there is no common definition of China just about everyway, you name it one and it can be simply dismissed it with another reason. Also there is nothing for the entries here belongs to the sections between Xia-Shang 2000-1500 BC either. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• OPPOSE The title "list of inventions in China", is unclear from a grammatical point of view. This would imply that the inventions are IN China, but not necessarily FROM China. The main problem with the move would be the effect on users. An average user with little in-depth knowledge of Chinese pre-history would be most likely to search for "Chinese Inventions" when looking for this information. Wikipedia is here to educate such readers, not as a think tank. --Brideshead (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points; I see now how that title would be ambiguous.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose As above, I think "list of inventions in China" sounds ungrammatical, and is ambiguous. However, I think the pre-Shang section needs to make clear that it is ambiguous whether the pre-Shang peoples should be considered 'Chinese'. lk (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find in terms of a scholar/scholars discussing Han Chinese civilization and identity.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agreed it need to make clear, however I think similiar should had been done on Shang and later section, because I seriously doubt both Shang and Zhou should be technically considered as Chinese. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment As a side note, before the 1500's, no one would have considered themselves 'Chinese', (referring probably to the Chin Dynasty; 221 - 206 BC). Instead, they would have considered themselves and their ancestors inhabitants of Chung Kuo, the middle country. In that sense, even pre-Shang peoples may have considered themselves inhabitants of Chung Kuo. lk (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be more like 1800's for the timeline, but let leave this debate alone, because is gonna be very long, overall this isn't really a discussion board for this. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the idea of Zhongguo 中國 was obviously believed in the Shang and Zhou, who were surrounded by nothing but nomadic peoples lacking a sedentary tradition like the Shang and Zhou people (spare some tribes to the far south and southwest). Yet it is legitimate to say that the Han Chinese cultural identity did not even coalesce until the Western Han Dynasty. Before then, as most of you here probably know, the people of "China" were (and to a large extent still are) divided regionally by linguistics and dialects, systems of writing, social and religious customs, cooking and food varieties, etc. The people of Warring States Chu did not consider themselves the same people as the people of Warring States Qin. Heck, even during the Western Han Dynasty, with the eastern half of the empire ruled by semi-autonomous kingdoms, people still did not think entirely in terms of "Han Chinese" identity; at least for the nobility, who held true to the old noble traditions of when their regions were inedependent states. This is all so loaded that it becomes difficult to carve up this article into relevant sections. We could easily separate everything as "before Han Dynasty" and "Han Dynasty and after" considering the facts of Han ethnic identity I noted above.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole long post above actually says what I already mentioned, but even Han was not really used as like "Han Chinese" during Han Dynasty or so. Overall, I think is rather unnecessary to have such concept. For that I totally agreed on Brideshead, because Wikipedia isn't really built for the minority semi-experts but majority lay-readers. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it is best to keep it simple.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that both in time and geographically, what is 'Chinese' is hard to define. And that anything pre-Waring States is arguably not Chinese, but where to draw the line? I would lean on being inclusive, with a note explaining a bit about the issues. On a totally unrelated note, until the 1800s or so most 'Han Chinese' actually referred to themselves as 'Tang people', not 'Han'. lk (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Another good point; even overseas Chinese enclaves and communities in premodern times were referred to as "Tang", like as "Tang people street" and such. Question is, where to include something like this in the article, if anywhere? I think since "Chinese" is hard to define, this article shouldn't have to shoulder the responsibility of giving an in-depth analysis on the history of "Chinese" ethnic identity. There's already a mountain of material to cover as it is.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be mentioned on this page at all, just mentioned it to point out the ambiguousness (is that a word?) of the term 'Chinese'. I stick with my original view, be inclusive, but note the ambiguity about whether the pre-Shang peoples should be considered 'Chinese'. (And if it ever comes up, same goes for geography and ethnicity, Mongolians, Manchurians, etc....) lk (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I already mentioned above, both sections Shang and later and pre-Shang shared the similarly issue on this ambiguousness term. I suggesting it to be done over the lead, since we already have articles to deal with that. I think we could exclude the Mongolian and Manchu term (e.g. this beg the question when exactly these identities were formed as we're dealing here). Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Inventions versus Discoveries issue

If you look at the section below, user Mr. Vernon has brought up an interesting point. In regards to renaming this article, since some items on the list can be considered invented "ideas", "discoveries", and "concepts" rather than actual physical things (such as climate change, sunspots, and observation of comet tails pointing away from the sun), should this article be renamed "List of Chinese inventions and discoveries"? Something to ponder.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that; I just created List of Chinese discoveries.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Solar Wind is an invention?

The Chinese certainly didn't invent the Solar Wind (unless you think they also invented the Sun.) Why is this listed as an invention?

If you want to list discoveries, have a separate Chinese Discoveries article, or change the name of this one. But it's not correct to list the solar wind as an "invention." --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; but how to rename this passage? "Comet tails always point away from the sun" sounds too loaded.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some other items, such as climate change and sunspots, maybe this article could benefit from being renamed "List of Chinese inventions and discoveries". What do others think?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This also begs the question: is an "invention" merely a physical object or physical concept which is invented, or can you also invent an idea? Notice the ambiguity of the title of this article, which is not "List of technologies originated in China" and such.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition of invention here says: "An invention is a new form, composition of matter, device, or process." An invention doesn't have to be technological (examples would be new forms of music, art, etc. as listed in the Wikipedia article.) A discovery is finding something that already exists. Personally, I think you'd be better off having two articles, as there is a big difference between "discovery" and "invention", and combining the two doesn't serve much of a purpose other than confusion. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I think I will create a new article now for a number of items on this list then.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading it! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well now you can: look at List of Chinese discoveries. I guess the splitting off of this material was bound to happen sooner or later.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo-yo

Does yo-yo have to be listed in this article? Yo-Yo#History -60.242.157.200 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked around for some decent scholarly sources that might say something about the yo-yo, and found nothing really substantial. Maybe if I come across a source that is worthy, I will add the yo-yo. Apparently, the Greeks have a strong competing claim.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats Pericles of Athens, this article owns!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.50.13 (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy of a number of claims

Concerning the explicit claim that "The list below contains these and other inventions which first appeared in China", I find a number of inventions contentious on different grounds:

• 1. Why is material from Pre-historic China, that is from the time when China was not China, included under the lemma List of Chinese inventions"? Does this article accepts limits to the concept of China? If not, then the lemma should be changed to "List of inventions from what is China today". If so, then please give reliable sources which extend the definition of China to the various Pre-Shang neolithic cultures. Please discuss this material with the editors of China and History of China, so that we do have a common definition here.
• 2. For a number of items, inluding crossbows and trip hammers there is contemporanous evidence in other parts of the world? Why is the material constantly removed by the same two 'contributors'? I do not post the sources here, as the sourced material can be found at the respective articles.
• 3: Please give authors who cite (and give reason for) defining a refinement of PI as an invention. Since there were in history several dozens mathematicians calculating ever more precise PI, does that mean that PI has several dozens inventors? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please look over the discussion above. We have material from Pre-historic China over the History of China as well. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from crossbow which had been discussed above, I don't see how contemporanous evidence of trip hammer in elsewhere was being removed. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to aviod any confusion, the sourced material which can be found at the respective articles were in fact added recently by Gun Powder Ma (see [11] [12] [13]). Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. I would like to have some quotes from scientific sources which make a point of linking these inventions specifically to "the Chinese", instead of teh common view that these were Neolithic, pre-Chinese cultures. Because if these proto-Chinese inventions were indeed Chinese, why is the Chinese intellectual discourse so modest and speaks only of 5000 years of China's history, and not of 7000 or 9000 years?
• 2.a.Trip hammer has been removed by you on 11 August 2008.
• 2.b. Crossbow. The claim is that the Chinese invented first the crossbow, hand-held. However, the Greek gastraphetes has been defined by six authors as a "hand-held crossbow". Since three further authors date the gastraphetes before 421 BC, that is at the time when also the first Chinese crossbow-like weapons appeared, the relevant passage has to be rephrased accordingly.

A few English language quotes: That the gastraphetes was a hand-held crossbow:

• The non-torsion catapult, or gastraphetes ("bellybow": see fig. I), invented by engineers in the employ of Dionysios of Syracuse in 399 B.C., was similar in principle to a Mediaeval crossbow. The propulsive power was provided by a laminate bow mounted horizontally on a long wooden stock. The earliest catapults were probably small enough to be hand-held.

Josiah Ober: Early Artillery Towers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 91, No. 4. (1987), S. 569-604 (569)

• Artillery was invented at Syracuse in 399 B.C. in the form of the gastraphetes, a mechanised version of the hand-bow, which followed the same basic lines as the later crossbow.

M.J.T. Lewis: When was Biton?, Mnemosyne, Vol. 52, No. 2 (1999), pp. 159-168 (159)

Heron also describes the crossbow, which he calls the gastraphetes or "belly weapon." Other writers called it the cheirobalista or manuballista, "hand catapult." The crossbow might be defined as a small portable flexion dart thrower.

L. Sprague de Camp: Master Gunner Apollonios, Technology and Culture, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1961), pp. 240-244 (241)

That is was invented before 421 BC:

• Hans Michael Schellenberg: “Diodor von Sizilien 14,42,1 und die Erfindung der Artillerie im Mittelmeerraum“, Frankfurter Elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde, Vol. 3 (2006), pp.14-23 (18f.)
• Duncan Campbell: Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363, Osprey Publishing, Oxford 2003, ISBN 1841766348, p.3ff.
• Peter Kingsley: Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1995, p.150ff. (dates Zorphyros to the late 5th c. BC)

2.c. rudder: That a steering oar is rudder is explicitly stated by:

• Lawrence V. Mott, The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1337: A Technological Tale, Thesis May 1991, Texas A&M University, p.84, 95f.
• Timothy J. Runyan: “Review of The Development of the Rudder: A Technological Tale“, Speculum, Vol. 74, No. 4, (1999), pp. 1096-1098 (1098)
• rudder.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD
• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology: rudder †steering oar OE.; steering-gear mounted in a boat or ship

3.You did not address my question in what way a refinement of PI comlies with the definition that "An invention is a new form, composition of matter, device, or process"?

Please do not remove the tag again until these matters are resolved. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma, we have this dicussion before over the pre-historic materials, and is still on-going, I believe PericlesofAthens had provide this source for the PI. As for Rudder, Crossbow, Trip Hammers, its all been discussed above, you need to look over to the talks! (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think you have misunderstood over the term prehistory and history itself, there were never such a long course of history in China (9000 / 7000 / 5000), and this is explicitly stated under the History of China. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I did so. Thanks that you address the specific points - underpinned with multiple sources - I made above. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, I had noticed that you're repeating your questions on this discussion board over the time, plus you had never join in the discussion at all earlier nor provide an anwser to all PericlesofAthens's posts here. In fact this whole long post by you was the same repeating question and sources over time! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not true, but what I noticed is that you only recently registered a few days at Wikipedia to undo my edits. Are you also active at other pages? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, please address to the questions put forward by me and PericlesofAthens's posts above. As for crossbow, yes, I do know about 421 BC invention, but that's based on Heron's texts. Also I don't think that this can be taken as contemporanous evidence at all. I do think that, as stated long ago here, contemporary invention in elsewhere really doesn't needs to be mentions here. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2.a.Trip hammer has been removed by you on 11 August 2008.

I removed this because you removed huge chunk of sourced material on PI from the article, thus I reverted it (which included your additions at the same time). That's why! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Who says that it must be "contemporanous evidence"? Excavating crossbow bolts 2000 years later, the method on which the Chinese claim rests, is neither contemporanous evidence, and rests on the interpretation of archaeologists. The authenticity of Heron's account, who relied on Ctesibius, is not disputed by modern scholarship. If you do not believe his account, do so by giving scientific sources which say so, not by POV criteria. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, would you mind to toned down a little. I know what you said, but so far I am not saying Heron's account is being dispute, I am saying these ain't contemporanous evidence at all for the claim of 421 invention! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed gimbal, as Sarton, G.: A History of Science, The Norton Library, Vol. 2., 1970: p.343-350 describes an even earlier example by Philo of Byzantium (280-220 BC). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be rational. I removed the claim, because there are older gimbals than that. By that method I merely followed the method Pericles established when he removed caliper one week ago. Your attempt at discrediting my changes as "vandalism" are disgusting. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma, I already told you to discuss the content not personal, now you're making personal attack. I don't know if you know this but Philo's evidence on gimbal is being disputed, it is mentioned under Needham volume. So I think the gimbal here still can be keep. Thanks. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant source? Because I have two sources here giving squarely teh credit to Philo of Byzantium. You can insert Needham's claim and add a template for the time being. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will, but I do not have the sources right now, would you please don't remove anything first? Thank you Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone believes some of the article's content is problematic, then it's quite alright to add a tag like {{totallydisputed}} or {{unbalanced}}. Unless there is some malicious purpose behind the addition of these tags (which there isn't), then they shouldn't be removed. Stick to discussion here, instead of reverting each other on the article. If you guys continue to revert each other, you may be blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nishkid64, to be more clearer, Gun Powder Ma is actually adding more than 4 tags once at a time! He talks about the outdated research (see LeFebvre on above discussion) which used here, while he is in fact using it himself over the article at the same time! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the whole questions (over this section) he raised has been dealed with in the past, and he had been silent about it, or simply ignored it! So I think the tagging is not suited at all. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright Gun Powder Ma, I found the sources about gimbal from Needham on page 231 which you previously asked:

Joseph Needham:

Was the invention an Alexandrian one? The 56th chapter of the Pneumatica of Phion of Byzantium (c. -220) describes an ink-well enclosed in a prismatic box with a hole in each face, any one of which could be used since he ring-suspension within would keep the ink-well the right way up. The statement ends by saying that the design follows an old Jewish pattern for incense-burners. This in itself is suspicious, for it does not sound quite the kind of remark which one of the earlier Alexandrians would have made; moreover, the whole passage is found only in the Arabic MS, translated by Carra de Vaux and not in the Latin MSS, translated by Schmidt and de Rochas d' Aiglun. Furthermore, the description seems out of place among so many devoted purely to pneumatic devices. Sarton, therefore, cautions (footnote f. (I), vol. i, p. 195. Drachmann (2), pp 67ff., strongly concurs.) that it may be an interpolation of later Arabic compilers, perhaps as late as the +13th century.

Sorry for that it took days. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gimbal (I want a quote from Sarton)

I removed gimbal, as Sarton, G.: A History of Science, The Norton Library, Vol. 2., 1970: p.343-350 describes an even earlier example by Philo of Byzantium (280-220 BC). Gun Powder Ma

Can you provide a decent quotation please? I do not see this article over at JSTOR from 1970, although I do see a George Sarton article "A History of Science" from the year 1919. Also, Robert Temple's Genius of China, published first in 1986, says the Chinese first invented the gimbal.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you in turn provide a decent qutation from Needham's refutation of the Greek claim? Temple only relied on Needham and is FULL of errors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Needham even mentions the Greeks using a gimbal, but I could have a look. Hold on. In the meantime, please provide a quotation to validate the claim for Philo of Byzantium.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can SEE here, Temple only relied on Needham, how do we know that? Even if is Needham', I don't see how we should simply dismissed it. Yet again this is often the way how he argue over a point. And in fact he failed to discuss the matters on content other than personal like the post he replied below. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Temple summarized Needham's research for a wider public, he did not do extensively research himself. The problem is that your edits are not only disruptive, but also disinformed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, I did not made the edits, if you noticed it was not me that added Gimbal over the article. I don't know if Temple summarized on Needham's research, but so far this is pure guess, and even if its truth, we can't simply dismissed published sources like this. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he condensed the research, but in many ways he upgraded many outdated claims by Needham. For example, look to my recent edits for the mechanical driving belt; it was not the 11th century, as Needham claimed, it was the 1st century BC.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact is not just about Temple, if you look over the article rudder [14], what he is doing was dragging all independent scholars (including LeFebvre' research previously he posted) to Needham! Which is very dispute. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AH! I found it. Here is what Needham says of Philo of Byzantium (page 236 of Volume 4, Part 2):

To sum up, therefore, we are faced in this instance with a situation we shall encounter again, in which conclusions as to the origins of an invention are rendered a little difficult by the dubious authenticity of the first European reference. If we adopt the cautious view and regard the gimbals of Philon of Byzantium as a late Arabic interpolation, then the credit is Ting Huan's (or Fang Feng's), and it is not unlikely that the role of the Arabs was to transmit the device from further east. This seems plausible in any case on account of the Thang reference from the +7th to the +10th century. But the gimbal suspension was already in Europe by the 9th. The mention of the Jews in the Philon passage may indeed possibly imply that the apparatus was transmitted westwards through Jewish rather than Arab circles.

Needham speculates that it was a "late Arab interpolation" in their interpretation of Philo's ancient texts. Now this is interesting. Has this been solved by Sarton?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I provided my end of the bargain. It's time for you to cough yours up and show us the goods, Gun Powder Ma.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Needham has been known to speculate a lot as long as it serves his (sinocentric) viewpoints, as you may have noticed. So, we can make a note that he at least accepts that Philo describes a true gimbal.

The Arabic interpolation referred only to a specific part of Philo's works, and even here this view has been recently refuted. Andrew Wilson: „Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy”, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol 92. (2002), pp. 1-32 (7):

Michael Lewis' recent study, Millstone and Hammer, argues that many of these new devices were invented in the mid-third century B.C., probably at Alexandria. Evidence for this comes from the Pneumatics of Philo of Byzantium, a work surviving only in Arabic translation. Philo visited Alexandria around the middle of the third century B.C., and evidently met Ctesibius, but his Pneumatics seems to date from a little later, perhaps the 230s B.C., after he had left Alexandria. The Arabic versions of the Pneumatics seem also to include material excerpted from Philo's lost Hydragogia or his Mechanics. Many of the sections dealing with water-lifting devices, water-powered automata, and even mentioning water-mills, have tended to be rejected by modern scholars as Arabic intrusions, on no better grounds than that the ancient world was not thought capable of such inventions at that date. Lewis in fact demonstrates that the letter sequences used to number details on the illustrations show that the relevant chapters are translations of the Greek and not Arabic intrusions; they lack the Arabic letter waw, used for the numeral 6 in new Arabic works, and many include yy translating the Greek 1, which is not used in letter series in Greek works after the time of Christ. According to chapters which on the evidence of their illustration letter sequences can be regarded as Greek, 'Philo seems to know of the bucket chain, overshot wheel, and perhaps the noria and the saqiya drive'. But in a section whose authenticity has never been questioned, Philo....

If the Greek priority is further questioned, I would like to have a more recent source which addresses the general reevaluation of Philon's works. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But that quotation does not specifically address the gimbal. Is the gimbal featured in the part of his text that is proven by Lewis to be authentically ancient Greek? And not a later Arab interpolation. That is what you need to find, Gun Powder Ma, in order to rightfully delete gimbal from this article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Only the Pneumatics from above was derived from an Arabic source, and as such contentious. the other works come either from Greek or Latin source or are lost (such as the harbour treatise). See Philo of Byzantium. If you feel like 50-year-old research by your uncle still warrants an entry in an encyclopdia, do so by providing up to date research. Even Needy says "If we adopt the cautious view...", so there is hardly any reason here to trumpet a Chinese invention. Btw Sarton's is a book from 1970. I gave you the pages, look it up, if you are interested in the truth. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder, I think we should discuss the content and not personal! Those comment are not necessary at all! Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously being disputed, this was why I suggest the Gimbal to be keep under the article with mentions of Greek over the bullet, kinda like rudder. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Gun Powder Ma, you cited "Andrew Wilson: „Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy”, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol 92. (2002), pp. 1-32", not Sarton's article! Have you EVEN READ HIS article?!?! Do you even have access to it? Please, please tell me you have and you do (respectively). Otherwise, how could you be unable to quote it?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, we're all waiting Gun Powder...any day now would suffice.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I answered you on my talk page, and your attempt to shift the credit for the invention of the gimbal to the Chinese by ignoring squarely Needy's qualification is another sad case of intellectual dishonesty. I will provide you the quote in time, since Philon's work is unfortunately not online yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore Needham's discussion of Philon at all; he mentioned Philo in the second to last paragraph of the last page of a fifteen page discussion (starting on page 228). If anything, Needham shoved Philo to the back of the line, which I didn't bother getting to, since I stopped after reading about 10 pages of the same thing over and over (i.e., after tons of examples).

And furthermore, I KNEW IT! I had a hunch you didn't read Sarton's article. You call me intellectually dishonest? That's funny. Considering the fact your itchy trigger-finger deleted gimbal at the drop of a hat when you merely suspected that it was invented by Philo. It only proves quite well why you are here, doesn't it?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I found Sarton's book

I took the liberty of going to the library to find the truth of the matter, and although it was translated by the Arabs much later, and the Greek version no longer exists, Sarton does in fact assert the gimbal was first invented by Philon for an ink pot. Although Gun Powder Ma did not consult the source himself, he did bring it to light, which I thank him for. Here is the quotation from pages 349 to 350 of Sarton's book (1959 original, not 1970):

One of the most curious items in the Philonian collection of apparatus and gadgets is an octagonal inkpot which has an opening on each side; one can turn it around, put one's pen in any hole and have it inked. This is made possible because the inkpot itself inside of its octagonal house is hung in gimbals. Philon invented what we now call the Cardan's suspension as applied to the ship's compass and barometer, or anything that must keep the same position in spite of outside motions. Girolamo Cardano (1501–1576) may have reinvented that clever trick, but Philon had invented it eighteen centuries before. The gimbals were known to the Chinese as early as the Han Dynasty and they were described also in the Mappae clavicula (VIII-2). The first description of a compass suspended in gimbals occurs in a Spanish book by martin Chaves, Breve compendio de la esfera y de la arte de navigar.

These Chinese, medieval, and sixteenth-century rediscoveries may be independent, or objects mounted in gimbals may have passed from hand to hand. The tradition might very well have been (as so many technical traditions are) manual instead of literary. We do not expect the men of Han to have heard of Philon, but some real gimbals may have reached them, as objects of virtue or curiosity.

On page 347, Sarton writes of the Arab-translated Pneumatica, which the gimbals appeared:

The most interesting of Philon's genuine writings is the Pneumaticas, whose influence was considerable. Out of 65 chapters in the Arabic text, only 16 exist in the Latin text, and it has been argued that the Arabic text contained Arabic interpolations. It is difficult to hold that the medieval Latin text is closer to the Greek original, because it was derived from an Arabic translation, as is proved by the basmala at the beginning. Arabic interpolations are possible, because the Arabic writers were fascinated by this subject, but the substance was already available in Greek, and we may safely assume that the Arabic version represents essentially the ancient original.

So Needham assumes one thing, and Sarton assumes another. Somewhere in between is the truth, but that is not for this article or us amateurs to decide. I will keep gimbals here but include Sarton's input on equal footing with Needham, since neither of the two are entirely correct or incorrect in their assumptions (they are, after all, assumptions).

• Sarton, George. (1959). A History of Science: Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C. New York: The Norton Library, Norton & Company Inc. SBN 393005267.

That should wrap this discussion up.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the date of the Arabic version on page 349:

It is possible that the Arabic translation (edited by Carra de Vaux in 1902) was preceded by Armenian and Persian versions which are lost. The translator is not named and this suggests that he belonged to the early period of Arabic translators, the age of Caliph al-Ma'mūn (IX-1).

That is all.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Arab Interpolation vs. Authenticity

True, it is not up for us to decide who is right, but certainly we have an obligation to stress which author represents current scholarship. I will look up in time Lewis' stance on the Arab interpolations from 1997. If that view has not been contradicted by someone else in the meantime, there is no reason to serve the reader Needham's 50 year old assumptions on par with modern research, is it? Thx for looking into the matter. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, finding one more scholar does not equal scholarly consensus, it just equals one more scholar's view. Adding Lewis is fine, but disregarding Needham is not, especially since I know you won't make a concerted effort to find scholars who might disagree with Lewis.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

John Peter Oleson provides a good description of the scholarly debate (i.e. of those who support/reject partial Arab interpolation) in his work published in 1984. It's a work which is 24 years of age, but still more recent than Sarton and Needham, and shows the debate is still going on. Let's see what Lewis has to say.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, Needham works were at least published in the 1980s, it shouldn't be consider as a 50 year old assumptions, that's nothing compare with what you had previously offered here. There is every reason to serve the reader with his research. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me to the exact page? "Gimbal" give no hits. Lewis has long reacted to Oleson's qualms:

What, are you unable to open the link? Page 234.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Three quibbles arise. 0. is hampered in dealing with the beginnings of the technology by his doubts about Philo's Pneumatica, which survives only in Arabic. Being more convinced (for reasons too long to rehearse here) of its authenticity, I would prefer to see Philo's machines, including some which 0. completely rejects, brought more firmly into the discussion." (Review in The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 76 (1986), pp. 2298)
• He is supported in that by Sarton, and explicitly by Andrew Wilson. So far Lewis and Wilson have the last word. Come up with more recent research which tackles Lewis foundings of the Greek letters in the Pneumatics. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I'm on it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As late as 2004, Lucio Russo and Silvio Levy write on page 76 of The Forgotten Revolution]:

Unfortunately, no work of Strato or Ctesibius has survived. Apart from some indirect references, our knowledge of this ancient science is based essentially on the Pneumatica of Philo of Byzantium, who continued Ctesibius' investigations, and on the homonymous and much later work by Heron (first century A.D.). The work that bears Philo's name is represented by an Arabic text in 65 chapters, describing as many devices, and by Latin manuscripts. The latter match the first 21 chapters of the Arabic text, albeit with notable omissions; it is reasonable to assume that this material was written by Philo, though our texts are very corrupt. By contrast, the part we have only in Arabic must be a compilation from heterogenous sources, because it is highly uneven in terms of technical sophistication and subject matter."

In other words, since some devices show far more "technical sophistication" than others, Russo and Levy suspect that the Arab translators mixed and added materials with Philo's original to make a hybrid text which is not 100% authentic to Philo's original.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Milu (refinement of pi)

What Zu created was an invention. He invented a process, specifically an algorithm, for reaching a solution that was the most accurate value for pi with a denominator of up to four digits. Case closed. Quit arguing about this item, it will not be removed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wake up. Wiki is not your blog, you are in no position to dictate what comes into the article and what not. I want a quote which specifically calls the found algorithm an "invention" in no unsure terms. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not your POV playground. As you said yourself above, a process is considered an invention. An algorithm is considered a process (unless of course, you do not understand what an algorithm is). Zu's invention was an algorithm. Is this too hard for you to understand?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the source from which you draw the assertion that that particular refinement of PI was an invention. Is that too hard for you to provide? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Determining an algorithm to define pi is a process. Among its many definitions, an invention can mean a new process. Could you give me a quick summary (I'd rather not read the entire discussion above) why you're arguing this point? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On page 101, Needham discusses how Zhao Yuchin (fl. 1300) verified Zu's value of pi "by the continued use of inscribed polygons with up to 16,384 sides, confirmed that Tsu's value was very accurate." The Free Dictionary defines an algorithm as "A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps." Zu's continued use of inscribed polygons with up to 16,384 sides was a "step-by-step problem-solving procedure." Needham doesn't explicitly state it was an "invention" because he doesn't have to; I'm sure he, like anyone else, would have assumed his readers would understand that an algorithm is a process, and that a process is an invention.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So most of these mathematician were inventors, too? Needham does not say explicitly that is was an "invention", and we know that he would be very quick to do that, if he saw any grounds. You know what? Try to contact J J O'Connor and E F Robertson from that page on PI and ask them about their opinion whether Zu's value of pi outright qualifies as an invention or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are all inventors, if every single one created a new algorithm to reach a better approximation of pi.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, you're now offering your own commentary as to why Needham might not have explicitly mentioned "inventor" in his works. This amounts to original research. You'll need a better argument than that to contest Zu's determination of pi. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But Needham did not call it an "invention", which is the main point, if we accept that the burden of proof lies with those who make the invention claim, not those who oppose this view. But you know what. I am trying to contact the two above the next few days. When they reply, I will post the email conversation here in public. Alright? ;-) Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, does the two authors mentioned above actualy published their thought about this? I don't see how email could used as citation. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

@GunPowderMa: Um, ok? What exactly does that prove? That you are obsessed with pi and are intent on doing your own original research?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the funniest thing about all of this is that you still don't know what an algorithm is; otherwise, this conversation wouldn't even exist.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pericles, stick to this dispute instead of commenting on Gun Powder Ma's intelligence. From WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tsu Chung-Chih did not invent a new method, but just had greater stamina in employing Archimedes' "general method", hence this was not an invention.

The first rigorous mathematical calculation of the value of π was due to Archimedes of Syracuse (ca. 250 BC), who used a geometrical scheme based on inscribed and circumscribed polygons to obtain the bounds 310 71 < π < 31 7 , or in other words 3.1408 . . . < π < 3.1428 . . . [11]. No one was able to improve on Archimedes’ method for many centuries, although a number of persons used this general method to obtain more accurate approximations. For example, the astronomer Ptolemy, who lived in Alexandria in 150 AD, used the value 3 17 120 = 3.141666 . . ., and the fifth century Chinese mathematician Tsu Chung- Chih used a variation of Archimedes’ method to compute π correct to seven digits, a level not obtained in Europe until the 1500s

David H. Bailey, Jonathan M. Borwein, Peter B. Borwein, Simon Plouffe: “The Quest for Pi”, Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1997), pp. 50–57 (50f.) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Crossbow

Alright, Gun Powder Ma, the Greeks had a handheld crossbow, but the earliest surviving literary description of it comes from the 1st century AD, long after China, and there is no archaeological evidence for the gastraphetes crossbow, unlike the Chinese crossbow. Furthermore, Campbell (as I've already noted in the article) states that the gastraphetes would have been quite large and bulky, thus necessitating a prop to keep it up. Hardly sounds like the light-weight handheld crossbow seen in medieval Europe, let alone the light-weight Chinese handheld crossbow of antiquity. You can include your little sources which speculate here and there about 5th century BC origins, but the fact remains (and should remain explicitly clear): there is no literary evidence in the West until the 1st century AD, and certainly no archaeological evidence that early. Period.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your view is clear POV and does not reflect the published scholarship. Please stick to that: Above are half a dozen scholars which say expressis verbis that

• A. the gastraphetes was a crossbow
• B. it was a hand-held weapon (Campbell also says this verbatim in the caption below the drawing of the gastraphetes on p.5-6)

None of them adopts your personal view that the gastraphetes should be dated to the 1st century AD, because it was first mentioned then. Instead, all scholars go with Heron and assume a date of invention prior to 399 BC or 421 BC. If you disagree with that conclusion, do so with published sources, not your POV criteria. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they all put full faith in Heron (which seems a little strange, don't you think? Why no suspicion or doubt or questioning?), but that still does not change the fact that his material is the oldest surviving from the West which describes a crossbow; hence, I don't mind you adding speculation on origins, as long as the former is mentioned.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, there is a consistent on refering sources in the list over here, and since it is are relying on Hero's texts, the date should be clear. So why are we relying the different standards and treatment for Heron? Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It says here in the caption below the drawing of the gastraphetes on page 4:

Duncan Campbell

Heron drew his desciption of the gastraphetes from the work of Ctesibius, who worked in Alexandria around 275 BC. Unfortunately, Heron omits all measurements, but as a hand weapon the gastraphetes was probably slightly shorter than a metre. (Author's drawing).

And this does not exactly relfect what he says from the main text on page 4:

With the bow at full draw, the weapon could be lifted into a firing position. This must usually have involved propping it on a wall, given the weight and bulk of the machine; otherwise, the archer would have required a portable prop, similar to those used by musketeers in the 17th century.

On the whole, it is estimated to be an oversized hand-held weapon. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I corresponded with Duncan, and he said the prop is not to be found in Heron, but was his suggestion, because Heron said the gastraphetes was large. We have no reached a point in the discussion, when you no longer can simply refute half a dozen sources which call the gastraphetes a "hand-held crossbow", including Duncan himself in his Osprey book. You either change that crossbow section now accordingly, or it is going to be changed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, I am not sure I used to be threated. But as I already said, crossbow section here in fact dealing mainly on the Chinese crossbow, and I believe there are edits makes by you that go by the way into crossbow article, so Heron shouldn't be the focus point here. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He should not be the focus here at all, but you should get your facts right and not reintroduce wrong statements for weeks in the article. Fact is that a single author suggests that the gastraphetes rested on a prop, and that all authors agree it was a hand-held crossbow. It is nonsense to claim the Chinese crossbow was a true one, while the gastraphetes some kind of hybrid or whatever. Actually, in a strict sense, neither deserves the title, since the term "crossbow" refers to the medieval European weapon. So either, you do not use the term at all in connection with Chin. 'crossbows', or with both the Greek and Chin. variant. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, I am not the one who introduce prop into the article. I not disputing it was not a hand held weapon. As for the term crossbow, actually in all books (not necessary even scholarly ones) it does refer to Chinese crossbow and sometimes even gastraphetes, it is not limited to medieval European weapon nowadays anymore. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Trip Hammer

Since the Roman invention of the trip hammer is seemingly simultaneous with the Chinese (i.e. 1st century AD), simply mentioning both will suffice. Since there is no clear answer as to who had it first, the model already in place in this article seems to be the most sufficient. There is nothing wrong with adding trip hammer to the list of original Roman achievements in Roman articles, so long as the competing claim in China is mentioned like it is here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

D'accord. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudder vs. Steering oar

Not only have I collected a litany of scholars who say a steering oar is not a rudder and that the latter first appeared in China by the 1st century AD, but the quote I provided by Leo Block (2003) has totally and utterly destroyed Mott's ambiguous classification (in a whopping two sentences given by Mott I might add; yeah, he gave a real "expert" opinion in that amount of space). In other words, a steering oar IS NOT a rudder, for the umpteenth time. For anyone not familiar with what I'm talking about, look to the sections above on this talk page or simply visit the page on the rudder.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have any problems with including Mott's bizarre and unfounded two-sentence fringe theory in this article (as seen very clearly in the passage for rudder here in this article), but if you think I am being "unbalanced" (that's your choice of tag) by simply citing scholars who disagree with Mott (and you), then you need to pick up a dictionary and find out what "unbalanced" means.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And if this Timothy J. Runyan (a reviewer of Mott's article) is just as oblivious as to what a rudder or a steering oar is, then sure, tack him on to the list of one scholar (Mott) who supports the position that a steering oar is a rudder (a lot of good that will do). Oh, and by the way, isn't that kind of like saying a horse-drawn cart performs like a Ferrari? Well, since you still haven't figured out the difference between the two, I guess you couldn't really gauge that.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since you cited a reviewer of Mott's article, what does this Timothy J Runyan actually have to say about Mott's vof the steering oar as a rudder? Quote please?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A little less agitation, a little more substance please. Your addition of French sources (LeFebvres), although you do evidently not speak French, did not help your credibility. Mott is a perfectly solid source, a very positively reviewed dissertation which treats exclusively the history of the rudder. Who could ask for more? The current article does not reflect properly that

• Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary classify a steering oar as a rudder (do YOU have the authority to contradict their encyclopedian entries?)
• Mott and his reviewers who classify a steering oar as a rudder and explicitly refutes the Chinese claim on the basis that the different Eurpean, Arab and Chinese rudder system are actually incomparable (and thus nonsense to maintain a Chinese priority of "the rudder")
• other Western languages such as French, Spanish and German which actually do not differ between a stern mounted steering oar and a stern mounted rudder (making your view an Anglicism, if at all, anyway)

Speaking in technical terms: The Roman and Egyptian steering gear are stern-mounted, and they both have a tiller. This means that their stern-mounted rudders were median and axial. The only thing which they had apparently not (though there are some border cases) was a vertical attachment. So, my proposal is: We credit the Chinese with the invention of the median, axial AND vertical rudder. To credit them wholesale with the invention of THE rudder is nonsense, for the reason alone that the quarter RUDDER was known by then all over the world for over 2000 years. Start to do your homework here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're so confident about these sources agreeing with Mott, then why don't you add quotes from these sources like you have for Mott, hmmmmm??? That would perhaps put us all at ease about your claims; even then, it still wouldn't change the fact that many disagree with Mott. Period.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, how many online dictionaries do we need for streeing oar to be rudder? It seem that this defintion should be expand over the main article than here. With this saying, I am suggesting rudder to change its name here, but excluding the wholesale addition of defintion over it. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sea-craft of Prehistory, p.191: McGrail defines the junk rudder as "median, vertical, and axial". The only new element was the verticality, since the Roman and Egyptian stern mounted rudder were also median (in a line with the keel), and axial (turning around its axis through the use of a tiller which the Egyptians had invented as far back as the 3rd millenium, see rudder for sources). hence, by exclusion, only the vertical element was new in junks, since earlier stern mounted rudders were mostly oblique attached to the ship hull. This gives the Chinese the credit for a stern-mounted rudder, vertical, axial, median. Nothing more, nothing less. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, I agreed with vertical axial rudder as define under The Sea-craft of Prehistory, Stern-mounted rudder, vertical, axial, median is rather too long and that's is based upon Mott's definition isn't it? Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it ok for you when I am waiting for the other user, who provides at least sources, while you only do the reverts here (nice division of labour btw)? In the meanwhile you can explain why would like a short defintion rather than a correct definition? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is this another ad hominem attack again? And for your information, I am not the one who makes the reverts, it was you actually! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma says:

This gives the Chinese the credit for a stern-mounted rudder, vertical, axial, median. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is your interpretation of McGrail's text; on that very same page he states that the Chinese tackle rudder preceded the European pintle-and-gudgeon rudder by a millennium, stressing the fact that Europe had no form of rudder until roughly a thousand years later. Try next time to cite a source which does not fully contradict you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma says:

Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary classify a steering oar as a rudder (do YOU have the authority to contradict their encyclopedian entries?

No (I do not represent a published source), but Block, Adshead, Tom, Fairbank, Goldman, Needham, Noëttes, etc. certainly do have the authority to contradict an encyclopedia. In fact, how are we so sure they are contradicting Britannica and Oxford to begin with? Considering how you've continually failed to provide us with a quote from either of them (did you really consult them)? I want to see in no ambiguous terms how they say a steering oar is a rudder. I also want to see what Timothy J. Runyan says in his review of Mott's article, right here, right now, right on this talk page, and if you can't provide quotes from sources you allegedly consulted, then everything you claim is thrown into suspicion. So far both of us have provided quotes here on the talk page in a fair manner, but with this issue on the rudder, all you've been able to show are two sentences by Mott. That's not very convincing, and thus far you have not shown any source which would refute Leo Block's assessment that a steering oar requires frequent movement for course correction which acts like a break (thus making it less efficient to operate while also slowing the vessel down) whereas a true rudder is not burdened by this at all, and does not require the forward sail on a two-sail vessel to be trimmed in order to aid in course correction. Face it, unless you show us a source which claims a steering oar is capable of doing what a rudder can, you are left flapping in the breeze with nothing to wear but Mott's two sentences.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think vertical axial rudder is O.K, though stern-mounted rudder, vertical, axial, median maybe more informative but is long, or should we need a poll on this? Which is the best thing, SINCE the term is disputed. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Block was of no use to me, since you quote him totally out of context, just to get the spin to the Chinese rudder. I mean, the brief passage does not even tell the reader whether the "steering oar" was mounted on the quarters or the stern. Actually, it could only be quarter rudders, since I am not aware of any stern mounted steering gear with the Phoenicians. So, what you actually trying to do is, proving by reference to a quarter rudder the difference between a stern-mounted rudder and steering oar. I am sorry, but you have to count me out on that. It does not make sense.

I am starting to give you sources, when you come around and realize that the difference between "rudder" and "steering oar" is only an English one anyway. And even here I have given two super respectable sources to show that rudders can mean steering gears. You insist on Chinese priority of the rudder, although it has been by now abundantly clear that teh different rudder types had little more in common than being mounted on the stern.

To address the brevity thing: you could also go with vertical stern-mounted rudder, I think. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, how about those quotes? Hmm...I don't see any yet. I wonder where they are? Seriously, I'm starting to think you really didn't consult those encyclopedias.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This bullet naming should have been changed to ocean-going rudder, honestly the term that's having now stern-mounted rudder, vertical, axial ae not very clear for most of the readers. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for those quotes, Gun Powder Ma...you can't expect me to take you seriously when you can't even substantiate your claims with evidence.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Escapement

The essence of my addition to escapement:

Both techniques used escapements, but these have only the name in common. The Chinese one worked intermittently; the European, in discrete but continuous beats. Both systems used gravity as the prime mover, but the action was very different. In the mechanical clock, the falling weight exerted a continuous and even force on the train, which the escapement alternately held back and released at a rhythm constrained by the controller. Ingeniously, the very force that turned the scape wheel then slowed it and pushed it part of the way back . . . In other words, a unidirectional force produced a self-reversing action— about one step back for three steps forward. In the Chinese timekeeper, however, the force exerted varied, the weight in each successive bucket building until sufficient to tip the release and lift the stop that held the wheel in place. This allowed the wheel to turn some ten degrees and bring the next bucket under the stream of water while the stop fell back . . . In the Chinese clock, then unidirectional force produced unidirectional motion.(David Landes: “Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World”, rev. and enlarged edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2000, ISBN 0674002822, p.18f.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Powder Ma (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 August 2008

Interesting. That was a good find.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not. Needham loved to blow Chinese contributions out of proportion, as several authors have explicitly said so, so you always find level-headed scholars who held his sinocentristic claims at bay. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not particularly with the escapement; here is what Needham says of Su Song's escapement on page 462 of Volume 4, Part 2:

The whole design is strangely reminiscent of the familiar anchor escapement of the late +17th century, since the driving-wheel is also a scape-wheel and the 'pallets' are inserted alternatively at two points on its circumference separated by 90° or less, rather than the 180° of the crown-wheel. Although the solution of the problem by chain and linkwork has a certain medieval cumbrousness, the operation is elegant and the performance accurate to an unexpected degree. It certainly far exceeded the inventive capacity of contemporary Europe, that other culture-area where a purely mechanical escapement would later appear. In the Chinese water-wheel linkwork device the action of the arrest and release is brought about not by mechanical oscillation but by the force of gravity exerted periodically as a continuous steady flow of liquid fills containers of limited size. This type of escapement had remained quite unknown to historians of technology until the elucidation of Su Sung's text. Its peculiar interest lies in the fact that it constitutes an intermediate stage or 'missing link' between the time-measuring properties of liquid flow and those of mechanical oscillation. It thus unites, under the significant sign of the millwright's art, the clepsydra and the mechanical clock in one continuous line of evolution.

The Chinese never created a purely mechanical clock, thus their "evolution" was nipped in the bud. As written in the following 12th century, though, clocks still had "revolving and snapping springs" which operated clock jack figurines to sound gongs (striking clock) as in Su Song's clock. So some mechanical expertise continued to live on.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Magnet

On what grounds was the compass reference by Li Shu-hua removed? The newer research does not contradict Li Shu-hua's observation. In fact, it stresses his point, since the wording demonstartes that the passage does NOT contain a reference to a magnet.

• "However, it should be pointed out that in the Louen-heng text, on which Tchang Yin-lin and Wang Tchen-touo based their hypothesis, there is no explicit mention of a magnet." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Original text (180): "On peut remarquer que dans le texte du Louen-heng il n'y a pas de mention explicite d'aimant. Pour arriver au résultat ci-dessus indiqué, on est oblige de poser quelques hypotheses." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Twas not I who removed this. Anpersonalaccount maybe? In any case, I remember restoring a citation from him in the picture caption to the right.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder Ma, how could a word like magnet appeared over in the ancient texts by the way? The word magnet, which according to this article came from Greek word "magnesian stone". Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he means the Chinese word (i.e., 攝石) for magnet? In any case, we should not expect Wang Chong to have truly understood what magnetism was; he simply described the effects of the geomancy ladle and bowl.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we shall look out sources on this. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just added and replaced the old source with a better ones! Lol Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me what lead you to simply remove a scholarly view from a peer-reviewed scientific journal such as Isis? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gun Powder Ma, because magnet did appeared in the texts, and that contradict Li Shu-hua's observation as you said above. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Li Shua states "there is no explicit mention of a magnet", hence it contradicts what you claim above. Without further sources, it is not up to you to decide which opinion is correct. What are doing actually at Wikipedia? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder Ma, why are you questioning my edits anyway? I said the texts did have mention of magnet, even Needham said this, I don't know what Li Shua-hua trying to said, but that's a dated research. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not know the passage, you cannot even read French, but find the passage "out-dated". Please provide then scholarly quotes who explicitly refute Li Shua's opinion outdated, because I find little reason to held Needham's linguistic abilities to hold higher than that of a native Chinese speaker. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not know the passage even more, worst is that you actually think you could read French. Li Shua-hua also said magnet was made in Guiguzi (see compass). I don't need to provide quote that refute Li Shua-hua are dated, because it is dated to 1954, please use common sense! And what you find about Needham's abilities doesn't meant a thing at all! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite Wang Chong's description of the ladle pointing south when on the bowl, I think what Li Shu-hua is saying is that this does not necessarily prove that magnetism was involved, since Wang Chong did not actually explicitly mention the Chinese phrase for "magnet". Therefore, Li Shu-hua shouldn't be constantly removed from the article; what he says is in fact correct, Wang Chong does not say "magnet", although he does describe what magnetism will essentially do, which is the next best thing.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Urm actually no, the texts did have mentions of 磁石, which is still uses to refer magnet and magnetite nowadays, not just how magnetism work. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, since you, Gun Powder Ma, have already consulted this source, what is Li Shu-hua's reasoning as to why Wang Chong's description should not be considered a description of magnetism?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the source said there is no mention of a magnet, which I believe must have a reason, although it may had omitted it. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just found out that Li Shu-hua, p. 176 also cited Lun Heng saying "A lodestone attracts a needle", this phrase actually came from ch. 47 (including another 3 on the same ch.), maybe he don't consider 磁石 as a technical term for magnet but lodestone/magnesian stone. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I changed it to includes both opinions. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Open-spandrel segmental arch bridge

The problem is, Pericles, that you have no idea what an open-spandrel is. When Temple wrote the pyramids were a cube, you would ask for a published source saying otherwise, even though it only needs a glance to tell otherwise. The pic shows evidently that each single spandrel of the bridge is filled, not a single one is open, hence either Temple was wrong or you just misrepresent him, probably something of both as so often. Your stance is absurd, and I am running a bit out of patience with such intransingence now...Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, how could you judge a single spandrel of the bridge by looking into the photo, are you offering your POV here? Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Temple says on page 69:

A conceptual breakthrough occurred when a Chinese engineer was the first to realize that an arch did not have to be a semi-circle. A bridge could be built which was based not on the traditional semi-circular arch but on what is known as a segmental arch. The way to envisage this is to imagine a gigantic circle embedded in the ground, of which only the tip shows above ground level. This tip is a segment of a circle, and the arch it forms is a segmental arch. Such an arch forms the central arch of the bridge in Plate 43 (i.e., he shows the Zhaozhou Bridge). Bridges built in this way take less material and are stronger than ones built as semi-circular arches.

He then goes on to describe the Zhaozhou Bridge, of course. On the picture caption of the next page (70), he shows the Lugou Bridge and writes:

The so-called 'Marco Polo Bridge' just west of Peking (Beijing), spanning the Yung-ting river. It is China's greatest segmental arch bridge, built in 1189 and consisting of a succession of eleven segmental arches with a total span of 700 feet.

On page 71 he writes again:

The greatest segmental arch bridge in China is the famous 'Marco Polo Bridge', often so named because Polo described it at length. Just west of Peking (Beijing), it is often visited by tourists. It crosses the Yung-ting river at the small town of Lu-kou-ch'iao, and is 700 feet in length, consisting of a series of eleven segmental arches extending one after the another across the river, each with an average span of 62 feet. It was built in 1189 and is still heavily used by modern truck and buss traffic. Marco Polo though this bridge 'the finest in the world'. He was delighted by the elaborate carved balustrade, consisting of 283 marble lion heads, all different, and he enthused about how ten mounted men could ride abreast across it without the slightest inconvenience. This bridge may be seen in Plate 44.

So, Gun Powder Ma, this is how I "misrepresent" my sources so often. I will amend the passage in the article to say simply "segmental arch" bridge in regards to Lugou; by the way, I simply said that Zhaozhou "influenced" the design of the Lugou Bridge, not that the Luguou Bridge is "open" instead of "filled". It is you who are "misrepresenting" me, and it is I who should be losing patience.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent the sources because you do not seemt to understand them when you go on paraphrasing books in your lap into helpless Wikipedia. Now this is really not a complicated case. You credit the Chinese with the open-spandrel segmental arch bridge (not the segmental arch bridge which was invented by the Romans), but yet you proceed to write that the closed-spandrel Lugou bridge was "influenced" by this design, which just does not fit, whatever quotes taken out of context you try to amass behind statements. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Diophantus

I removed sources for Diophantus who had active as early as 150 BC, wikipedia has his article, so it is better to mentioned it over there in regard of his life. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is strange; 150 BC? If we can't even tell which century he lived in, how could we be so sure he didn't live until after the 3rd century AD either (i.e., up until the 5th century when he is mentioned, of course)?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe even the mentions of him in 5th century is disputes or fake as well. All we know 150 BC-500 AD is when he supposed to be lived. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

150 BC to 350 BC, in fact. Btw I find it interesting that the two of you insist so strongly on Heron's "contemporary" evidence, while you are quick to date a book which from 263 AD to the second century BC. Nice double standard, which helps you to face up the Indian and Greek evidence which may well be earlier than the Chinese... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you pay attention to anything? Evidence for the full book title of the Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art goes back to 179 AD. Try again.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Liu Hui commented on the Nine Chapters in 263; he did not write the text. In contrast to the Indian manuscript and the ambiguous dating of Diophantus, at least we know Liu Hui was a man of the Wei Dynasty in the 3rd century AD.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)