Talk:Four Great Inventions of ancient China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Four Great Inventions of ancient China article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Origin of term 2 Gutenburg 3 compass 4 Some points 5 Woodblock printing 6 The Arigato incidence

[edit] Origin of term

Where exactly does this term come from, and how long has it been around?--Pharos 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to know. Most terms have unknown origins. Aranherunar 11:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who coined the term? I have the vague feeling the term must be made in the light of the tremendous later success of the West. Considering that the Chinese never really exploited the potential of three of these inventions, it would curious having the ancients hailing them. Gun Powder Ma 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia article said Joseph Needham coined the term, they didn't have a source for that though. _dk 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost thought so. Pretty transparent attempt to occupy European positions who made the vast bulk of contributions in these fields (save with paper). Ironic also that the term is from a Westerner. That fact and that the term is new is definitely worth the entry. Gun Powder Ma 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Gutenburg

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

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

There has been extensive discussion of this in the page for Printing, and other related pages, and it was eventually decided to retain a short mention of the possible influence, refer to it in hypothetical terms, but to move most of the East Asian material to a new page History of Typography in Eaast Asia. Not all the pertinent content has been moved there yet. Most of the WP people interested in printing & typography are not experts in East Asian technology, and at least in my opinion it would be marvelous if those who are would build up this material, whose importance, both intrinsically or as an analogue (or conceivably a direct influence) is very great.

In view of some of the discussions there, I ask Aranherunar to give us in the talk page there some indication of whatever available direct evidence there is (in western languages).DGG 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] compass

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

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

-intranetusa

Rewritten for clarity. And adjusted to say correctly that

• the compass needle points both north and south. One end is marked as a convention.
• the markings for the wind direction match the Chinese & European nomenclature for the winds.
• The modern mariner's compass has the needle floating on fluid to reduce vibrations.
• The Chinese apparently used a spoon rather than a needle

(all verified in Compass, & can be checked further.) It doesnt seem reasonable to leave the conclusion up to the whim of the last writer, who may or may not be a better judge than the one before him. Give the evidence, and leave the reader to judge what is likely DGG 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC).

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

ImSoCool

[edit] Some points

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

Stop now making reverts. Gun Powder Ma 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodblock printing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Arigato incidence

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

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

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