Jump to content

Talk:Gunpowder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Syncategoremata (talk | contribs) at 04:46, 6 July 2010 (→‎Requested move: Oppose.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Islamic world

I have checked a number of your sources, and they do not support your claims.

Berthelot & Duval

The earliest Arabic manuscripts with gunpowder recipes are two undated manuscripts, but one of them (the al-Karshuni manuscript) was dated by Berthelot and Duval to be from the ninth to the eleventh century

— Berthelot, and Duval,.p XII,.
The Karshuni MS was published in Syriac script, with a translation into French by Duval. The Karshuni Arabic text was converted into Arabic script in Aleppo by the Rev. Father Barsum on the request of the author of this paper. The Arabic text in Arabic script is still in MS form.
I checked this citation, and there is no mention of poudre à canon ("gunpowder") or poudre noire ("black powder"). (For the sake of thoroughness, I also tried "poudre à gonne".)
Renaud & Favé

Potassium Nitrate was known to Arab chemists, and was described many times. The earliest description is by Khalid ibn Yazid (635-704)

— Renaud et Favé: “Du Feu Grégeois, des Feux de guerre et de la Poudre chez les Arabes, les Persans et les Chinois”
in: “Journal Asiatique”- 1849, XIV, pp.257-327
I checked Renaud & Favé, and could not find support for this claim.
George Sarton

Muslims went beyond the use of the impractical ore material, and began purifying it. Science historian, George Sarton, states that Muslims were the first to purify saltpeter. He also shows that black slave labor was used in purifying saltpeter in Basra, Iraq and that those slaves rebelled in (869).

— George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science volume 2. p.569.
What follows is the entire text of p. 569 of volume 2 of Introduction to the History of Science by George Sarton:

XIII. Jahrh. (Diss., Berlin 1907). Martin Grabmann: Forschungen uber die lateinischen Aristoteles-Ubersetzungen des XIII. Jahrh. (Beitr. zur Gesch. der Philos. des Mittelalters, 17, 5, 297 p., Munster 1916; important; completing Jourdain). Lynn Thorndike: The Latin pseudo-Aristotle and medieval occult science (Journal of English and Germanic philology, 21, 229-258, 122; Isis, 5, 214). Martin Grabmann: Mittelalterliche lateinische Aristotelesubersetzungen und Aristoteleskommentare in Handschriften spanischer Bibliotheken (Sitzungsber. der bayer. Akad., 120 p., Munchen 1928; Isis, 13, 205). Alexandre Birkenmajer: Le role joue par les medecins et les naturalistes dans la reception d'Aristote aux XIIe et XIIIe siecles (La Pologne au VIe Congres international des sciences historiques, Oslo 1928; 15 p., Warsaw 1930; Isis, 15, 272).
F. Picavet: La science experimentale au XIIIe siecle (Le Moyen Age, 241-248, 1894; a propos of Berthelot's work). Ludwig Keller: Die Anfange der Renaissance und die Kulturgesellschaften des Humanismus im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert (Comenius Gesellschaft, vol. 11, 2, 30 p., Berlin 1903). George von Hertling: Wissenschaftliche Richtungen und philosophische Probleme des 13. Jahrhunderts (Festrede, Akad. der Wissensch., 37 p., Munchen 1910).

— George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, volume 2, p. 569
As anyone can see, there is no mention of Muslims, saltpeter or its purification, or a revolt of black slaves in Basra in 869.
Sigrid Hunke

Gunpowder was possibly invented by Muslims

— "Gunpowder." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008. check
Sigrid Hunke, Allahs Sonne über dem Abendland 1967. Stutgart, pp. 36-37.
Let us ignore for the moment that your hyperlink leads, not to the "Gunpowder" entry in the Encyclopædia Britannica as you purport, but to the "black powder" subsection of its "explosive" article, which devotes more words to the Berthold Schwarz and Roger Bacon hypotheses than to the Arabs.
As for your other source, pp. 36–37 of Allahs Sonne über dem Abendland by Sigrid Hunke opens with the words "schosse durch die Sprengkraft des Pulvers zu treiben, ebenfalls in China zuerst gedacht worden ist".
JFD (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Berthelot & Duval

the first part of what you quoted "The earliest Arabic manuscripts with gunpowder recipes are two undated manuscripts" is not cited, the Berthelot & Duval's source was for what was after the comma ie. "but one of them (the al-Karshuni manuscript) was dated by Berthelot and Duval to be from the ninth to the eleventh century" and this was also cited by Ahmed Y al-Hasan check

Your citation ("Berthelot, and Duval,.p XII") doesn't mention this al-Karshuni manuscript either.
Have you actually read Berthelot & Duval, MARVEL? If not, then why are you citing it?
Renaud & Favé

the source contains what i cited and the very same information was also cited by Ahmed Y al-Hasan check i think you should search well my refrences, and anyway the time phase between Khaled and Jaber is fringe.

No, MARVEL, Ahmad Y al-Hassan does not cite Renaud & Favé in support of the claim that Khalid ibn Yazid knew of potassium nitrate in the 7th century (check).
As with Berthelot & Duval, it is clear that you are citing Renaud & Favé when you have not actually read Renaud & Favé.
George Sarton

that page is clearly a refrences page and its was written in Deutsch, so can i ask you to look in the same page in the English edition!

That is the English edition, which is why Sarton's personal notes are in English ("important; completing Jourdain", "a propos of Berthelot's work").
If you had bothered to read just a little more closely, you would realize that Sarton gives the titles of German sources in German, French sources in French (Le role joue par les medecins et les naturalistes dans la reception d'Aristote aux XIIe et XIIIe siecles, La science experimentale au XIIIe siecle) and English sources in English (The Latin pseudo-Aristotle and medieval occult science).
And it's a references page because that is the citation you gave ("George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science volume 2. p.569").
Sigrid Hunke and Britannica

britannica clearly states that their evidence that the invention could have been done by the Arabs and Encyclopedia Britannica is an academic and acceptable source and it can not be dismissed, when it comes to Hunke i will read the full sentense and give you the exact portion when i have access to the book--MARVEL (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia Britannica is not accurate in respect of some of the claims that you have used for gunpowder. Any statements that Roger Bacon for instance, discovered/invented gunpowder are not credible.Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica article you cite is not its "Gunpowder" entry, as you like to pretend, but its "explosive" article (no pun intended).
It was written by Norman Gardner Johnson who, as Meatwaggon points out above, was Industry Manager of DuPont's Explosives Department in the 1960s and holds patents which date to 1942 and 1943 (and possibly 1937).
Britannica also clearly states:

Chinese alchemists discovered the recipe for what became known as black powder in the 9th century AD....The Chinese used the substance in rockets, in pyrotechnic projectors much like Roman candles, in crude cannon, and, according to some sources, in bombs thrown by mechanical artillery. This transpired long before gunpowder was known in the West, but development in China stagnated. The development of black powder as a tactically significant weapon was left to the Europeans, who probably acquired it from the Mongols in the 13th century (though diffusion through the Arab Muslim world is also a possibility).

This was written by John F. Guilmartin, Jr., who is currently a professor of military history (check). JFD (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that in your enthusiasm you are making some assertions that may not be entirely correct. I am willing to accept that the Arabs had a very good knowledge of what we now call chemistry; and that this knowledge came to the west from the Middle Ages, onwards. I also accept that they had access to the necessary ingredients. However, I do not think that you can make a direct claim that saltpetre (as known by the Arabs at that time) is the same as potassium nitrate, as it is known today. There is a lot of discussion as to whether the "saltpetre" used in the earliest gunpowders was a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrates or even calcium nitrate (lime saltpetre). To try and claim that the saltpetre used in the Middle Ages is directly the same as pure potassium nitrate is not possible. Various words, such as natrium are used - it is not necessary to "prove" that it is pure potassium nitrate and I don't think that it is possible to be so.
The problem, at the moment, is that the gunpowder article does not correctly state the contribution that the Arabs made to its development; and the additions that you are trying to force upon us do not appear to be credible when the sources are examined by other editors, such as JFD. I happen to like the paper by Ahmed Y al-Hasan [[1]]. It basically states that the Arabs formed a vital link in the chain of knowledge/discovery/transfer from its appearance in China to its appearance in Europe. You are trying to make what appears to be an entirety different claim - independent discovery by the Arabs.Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

al-Hassan

What follows is a side-by-side comparison of Wikipedia material and the relevant passage from the cited source:

Wikipedia al-Hassan
Hasan al-Rammah's Al-furusiyyah wa al-manasib al-harbiyya (The Book of Military Horsemanship and Ingenious War Devices), written in the 1270s, includes the first gunpowder recipes to approach the ideal composition for explosive gunpowder used in modern times (75% saltpetre (KNO3), 10% sulfur, 15% carbon), such as the tayyar "rocket" (75 parts saltpetre, 8 sulfur, and 15 carbon, by weight) and the tayyar buruq "lightning rocket" (74 parts saltpetre, 10 sulfur, 15 carbon). It is reported by Hall that most authorities regard 75 percent potassium nitrate, 10 percent sulphur, and 15 percent carbon to be the best recipe. Al-Rammah’s median composition for 17 rockets is 75 nitrates, 9.06 sulphur and 15.94 carbon which is almost identical with the reported best recipe.
Explosive hand cannons were first used by the Mamluks to repel the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260. We have seen above that portable cannon were used by the Mamluks in 1260 in the battle of `Ayn Jalut.

Wikipedia identifies these as "firsts" yet the cited source does not.
JFD (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Wikipedia identifies those as "first to approach the ideal composition"; not as "firsts." Which is true. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Ideal composition from a chemical perspective does not necessarily mean best composition from a weapon view point, e.g. in 1380 equal parts of all three were used, by 1410 the proportions were 3: saltpetre, 2: charcoal, 2: sulfur; and in 1546, 23 compositions were used. 4:1:1 for cannon powder and 48:8:7 and 18:8:2 for muskets. Quoted in 1857, the UK typically used a 75:10:12 mixture, but France and Belgium used 75:12.5:12.5; Russia 73.78:13.59:12.64; Spain 76.47:10.78:12.75; USA 76:14:10. The idea composition was determined in the 1880s, so you know the answer, knowing the answer you are merely quoting near matches.Pyrotec (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused Pyrotec. Are you addressing my comment or JFD's one? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments mostly apply to JFD, but I'm not sure was point Wiki me up® is trying to make in the "which is true question". The accepted transmission of the knowledge of gunpowder was: China, India and/or Arabs, though the Crusaders to Europe. Both of the quoted links are in general agreement on this point. Gunpowder can still be gunpowder without having to be a 75:10:15 mixture; in fact since the development of smokeless powder a sulfur-less gunpowder Gunpowder#Sulfur-free gunpowder has been (is) used as a priming composition. I'm not trying to argue than a mixture of 29.5 charcoal and 70.5 saltpetre developed in the middle ages is gunpowder, but in the last 100 years it could be sulphur-free gunpowder. Knowing that the ideal answer is 75:10:12 does not provide a go-on go test on what was gunpowder and what was not gunpowder over the last 500 to 1000 years.Pyrotec (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Which is true"... What I could read via the links I provided is that there's an accepted transmission of the knowledge (chinese, mongols, indians/persians, arabs, europe). Also, Robert Elgood in Firearms of the Islamic World states that al-Rammah was the first to have a clear description. The other reference states that "pure salpetre was produced as a result of careful separation and purification of salts, a process which was first described by al-Rammah." I was discussing the "first" and not the "ideal". I'd support removing the "ideal" and replace it by something like "modern." -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I wanted to raise is whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to identify certain things as "firsts" when the source cited for such claims does not. JFD (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've ordered a copy of al Hassan's book, it looked interested and I found a cheap copy a week ago in the USA, but it takes up to three weeks to get here by surface mail. I think that the Islamic (Arab) contribution does need to be expanded, but so far most edits (edit wars) have been devoted to proving that they invented it independently of China and/or before China; and no mention of the "chemistry" of the raw materials, etc, has been provided. I also agree that claiming "first" without cited evidence is not on; however, there is another related problem, e.g. different (reputably) sources providing conflicting views. The UK, unlike some countries, does not have a natural source of saltpetre, but it 1536 we appear to have bought the know how of how to make it synthetically. Most of our saltpetre came from the British East India Company and our sulfur came from countries with volcanic sources; which is why Buchanan calls it an "International Technology".Pyrotec (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a copy of: al-Hassan, Ahmad Y. and Hill, Donald R. (1986) Islamic Technology: An illustrated history. Paris: UNESCO & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Although al-Hassan has written a newer book in 2002, which is referenced above. The 1986 version supports the accepted tradition: gunpowder was developed "in China and moved slowly to Muslim lands and thence to Europe" (page 106). I will read it in more detail - it is a good read. Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This source contradicts the article; Partington, James Riddick; Hall, Bert S. (1999). A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-5954-9. The website of al Hassan is not a reliable third party source. See page 190 at google books J8079s (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown brown

I have removed the following text from the article:

"[[Brown brown]] is a form of powdered cocaine, cut with gunpowder. Commonly given to child soldiers in West African armed conflicts, the gunpowder causes irritation of the bowels, which increases aggression.<ref name="IHT.com February 19"> {{cite news | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/14/america/web.0113soldier.nytMAG.php?page=3 | title=The Making, and Unmaking, of a Child Soldier | publisher=International Herald Tribune | accessdate=2007-02-19 }}</ref>"

The reason being, that unless child soldiers in Africa are shooting at each other with muskets, the "gunpowder" going into brown brown would be smokeless powder, such as the SSNF 50 contained in 7.62x39mm AK-47 rounds, and not gunpowder as described in this article.

The reference to brown brown probably belongs somewhere, but I'm not sure where, so have preserved it here. -Kieran (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation?

There's a problem with the way this article and the smokeless powder article are structured. In popular usage, gunpowder is used to refer to black powder and smokeless powder without distinguishing between the two, or without even knowing that there is a distinction. Right now, the lede of this article starts providing details about black powder without mentioning the difference until the body of the article. A reader who doesn't know the difference might read the lede and think he's learned something about what makes modern guns work, but be misinformed. Perhaps it's the reader's fault for not knowing what he "should know" but an encyclopedia is for the purpose of informing people who don't already know everything, so we shouldn't punish non experts who start on this page without knowing the distinction. The history of the article and the talk page give ample evidence of this problem, including the brown brown section above.

There are several ways I can think of doing this:

1) Adding a disambiguation page, and having a little italic comment at the top saying "this article is about the traditional type of gunpowder, often known as black powder. For other uses, including the modern alternative used in virtually all modern firearms, see gunpowder (disambiguation)"

2) Skip the disambig page, and re-write the lede to include description of the difference between the two, and send people right to smokeless powder rather than through a disambig page.

3) Move the content of this page to a new page titled either "gunpowder (black powder) or "black powder", and create a new article titled gunpowder that would explain the different uses of the word and the different types, and maybe have a history of the different types, and of course refer the reader to the two main articles.

I like 3 best, 2 second best, and 1 least (but it's still better than how it is now). Because 3) seems like it would certainly ruffle some feathers, I certainly don't want to do that without hearing what other people think. What do you think? Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were for a long time separate articles on gunpowder and black powder and I suggested that they be merged; but, as they were worked on by different groups of editors, neither wanted them merged. Merger happened. The last thing we need now is re-creation of separate articles. I'm not convinced that the "gunpowder" in brown brown is Gunpowder - which is black. I suspect that brown brown contains smokeless powder. I'm not even convinced that it should appear as part of gunpowder, or even smokeless powder; it does not add to the value of gunpowder (or smokeless powder) - it merely adds credibility to the brown brown article. There was a "proper" substance called "brown prismatic powder" - the relevant article is Brown powder - and that needs to go in, not brown brown.Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the history lesson. It sounds like the problem that I am pointing out may have developed in the process of the merge. And it sounds like my option 3) (back to separate pages) would be a bad idea for the reasons you mention. Any objection to my options 1) or 2)?
I cited the brown brown example not because I think it belongs in this article (or smokeless powder), but because it's a recent example of the confusion many people have about what gunpowder means, and I think the current lede does not help that situation.
Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the article Blackpowder is a link to Gunpowder#Black powder which goes directly to Gunpowder, but see also | first 500 links - there is Gun powder and Black powder, to mention only two articles that link back here. I'd prefer option 1) or 2). WP:Lead states that the lead is an introduction and a summary of what's in the article. So going for the option 2) route, we already have

The term "black powder" was coined in the late 19th century to distinguish prior gunpowder formulations from the new smokeless powders and semi-smokeless powders. (Semi-smokeless powders featured bulk volume properties that approximated black powder in terms of chamber pressure when used in firearms, but had significantly reduced amounts of smoke and combustion products; they ranged in color from brownish tan to yellow to white. Most of the bulk semi-smokeless powders ceased to be manufactured in the 1920's.

So a summary of that could be put into the the lead. Alternatively, the use of Option 1), e.g. having some words in italic at the top saying something like "the term gunpowder may rather loosely mean Gunpowder or Smokeless powder" would also address the problem in the short term. I don't have a strong preference between 1) or 2), but I'm not keen on 3).Pyrotec (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is not a bad idea, it should include a link to Gunpowder tea aswell. /Jonas 130.243.240.244 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Volume/weight

It should be clarified wether the "recipe" is given by volume or by weight. There's a big difference. In chemistry it is usually by weight. 83.251.57.154 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article should specify. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julian S. Hatcher, Hatchers Notebook, Military Service Publishing Company, 1947. Chapter XIII Notes on Gunpowder, page 303. "The average composition of black powder is, saltpeter 75 parts by weight, sulphur 10 parts and charcoal 15 parts." Naaman Brown (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Uses?

Gunpowder has been used as a rocket propellant for centuries, mostly for fireworks, but more recently by model rocket hobbyists. I've read that rocket propellant uses a different mixture, but there's no mention of this in the article. The article focuses almost exclusively on gunpowder's role in firearms (which, granted, was once its major use), but makes little mention of other uses, and no mention of modern use of gunpowder. This shouldn't be an article about "gunpowder for firearms," it should be about gunpowder. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "gunpowder" that this article talks about has essentially been obsolete since the Second World War (or 1960s) depending on your point of view; but it is still used by enactment societies recreating old battles and in display fireworks. What is (erroneously) called gunpowder for modern firearms is described in Smokeless powder (and also Cordite, Ballistite and, historically, Poudre B). There is also an article on modern gunpowder (old definition) substitutes here - Black powder substitute.Pyrotec (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I believe that's wrong. Black powder is still used as a rocket propellant by model rocket hobbyists. (I can tell by the sulfur smell.) The smoke trail helps track the rocket. Second, it's irrelevant. Black powder was used as a propellant for rockets and fireworks for a long time. My point is not that it has other uses today. It has always had other uses. It's not just used for guns. I'm curious about how the mixture varies when using it as a propellant, and this article doesn't provide a clue. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood the question. It's obsolete for military rockets, but yes it is still used for fireworks and in some countries it may be used by model rocket hobbyists. I don't think the proportions of the ingredients are different; it think it is a case of selecting a suitable grain size or a blend of grain sizes, and a suitable packing density, to provide the correct burning characteristics, and for the weight of the "payload". I guess the answer is that the people with that type of knowledge have not added it to the article. If you have a reference(s), by all means add it (them) to the article, or add it (them) to this talkpage.Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For propellant use, grain size isn't an issue, because it's all one big grain. Cracks in the block of fuel are a problem because they cause the propellant to burn too fast. I read somewhere that a different mixture works better for rocket fuel, because you want it to burn much more slowly. If I find a good reference, I'll add something. Also, if it used to be used for military rockets, that's also worth mentioning, even if that was hundreds of years ago. I don't know anything about that. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image in this "gunpowder" article shows smokeless powder (grey). Shouldn't that image be used in the "black powder substitutes" page, and an image of actual black traditional gunpowder be used in this article? Why bother showing the smokeless powder image at all, when there is a separate article for that topic? 98.218.179.239 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully agree with you.Pyrotec (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

There was no United Kingdom in the 13th century, so how could gunpowder have been produced in it? Furthermore the substitution of the term "British Isles" with "Britain" conflicts with the fact that the other places listed are geographical regions. I would also suggest replacing "The Crown" with "the English Crown", since a Scottish Crown also existed at the time, which is not the one intended. ðarkuncoll 21:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section is a "work in progress". You are correct that there was no United Kingdom in the 13th century, so the 13th century references refer to the respective Kingdoms of England and Scotland. However, gunpowder was made in Ireland (near Cork) upto the early 20th Century (1920s), in Wales upto (possibly) the early 1930s, in England upto the the mid 1940s and in Scotland upto about 1976. It is lunacy have seperate sections covering the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It makes for more sense to have a single section called the "United Kingdom", but to make it clear, that at the begining we are refering to the separate Kingdoms of England and Scotland; and that prior to the formation of the Irish Republic, what we now know as southern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom (of Great Britian and Ireland). Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"British Isles" covers all that precisely and succinctly, yet an editor recently removed it. ðarkuncoll 21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"United Kingdom" also covers it, and more accurately, since Ireland was part of the UK at that time. --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to read the British Isles article to verify that it included Ireland (north & south) - it does. Apparently, "the term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland". I intend to include a discussion in this section, sometime, of Ballincollig Royal Gunpowder Mills; which at the time were in United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland / British Isles. I don't have any strong views as to whether "UK" or British Isles be used as the section title. No doubt that will start further edit wars. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UK was established in 1801, and most of Ireland left in 1922. To use the term when discussing anything prior to 1801, or to southern Ireland after 1922, is simply wrong. British Isles, as a geographical term, avoids all such political considerations. ðarkuncoll 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles also covers the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. Was gunpowder produced there too? If not, then "Great Britain and Ireland" would be far more accurate. --HighKing (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete rubbish, HK, and you know it. Was it produced in Co. Kerry (for example)? If not, then to say "Ireland" is wrong too by your logic. ðarkuncoll 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the more clear open close cases. There is every reason to say British isles, and NO justification for its removal at all. Complete rubbish is what came to my mind too. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this discussion has no relevance whatsoever to gunpowder, merely "PC" gone made. Pyrotec (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally, and this is just one of a very large number of articles that the editor in question has disrupted by forcing a discussion completely irrelevant to the subject matter. ðarkuncoll 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well ive changed the title back to British Isles, putting the UK there just makes no sense at all. Not sure if its best to say England where it does now or if that should be changed back to British Isles, i dont have strong feelings on that change, but the title change highking made was clearly incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The disruption caused by the desire of HK to eliminate British Isles is preposterous. Yes, it is PC gone mad. Who ever heard of the UK being used in the context of the 1300s. Has this article been changed back? If not, I'll do so now. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. It's been changed. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stated above the prior to 1801, the separate kingdoms should be used. Initially I'm only talking about the Kingdom of England in the 13th Century, I've not researched the Kingdom of Scotland yet. In the 19th century County Cork only had gunpowder mills because the UK was concerned about fighting the Napoleonic Wars and more domestic capacity was needed - and that needed water power. Pyrotec (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops sorry, whilst the change i made (changing UK title back to British Isles) as it was originally put, i though that was the edit HighKing made, thats who i meant when i put about POV in the edit summary, not you Pyrotec, sorry. Title should stay British Isles, it makes clear and logical sense to use and Highkings attempts to change it to Britain were totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder article contradicting

This gunpowder article is contradicting with history of gunpowder article. This says that Europeans or Germanic people invented gun powder and the history article says that gunpowder was invented in China and transported to Europe. There is no evidence of gunpowder in other countries except China. Read the article and please stop inserting pro-Western, European bias into the article without any source. It looks childish. 97.124.252.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Lord of War reference

The “Other uses” section says:

The film Lord of War alludes to African civil wars of the twentieth-century, such as the Angola War and its cheap drug mixture of cocaine and gunpowder, taken by snorting like a snuff.

But from the time period depicted in the period (and from the weapons shown in the film), it seems highly unlikely that the gunpowder used there would be the black powder described in the rest of the article. The example should be deleted or at least amended with a note of this fact. bogdanb (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing procedure

I happen to have a book from the 1800's that gives a detailed, step-by-step process on the manufacturing on gunpowder. I wanted to check to see if this was ok to post in the article, or whether it would be too much. Can anyone tell me? Thanks. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds, I'll just assume that this is a yes... Watersoftheoasis (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a great addition as a section with a good summary. What's the name of the book? --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is "Ordinance and Gunnery" by Captain James G. Benton of the Ordinance Department of West Point. The book was first printed in 1859. There is a whole chapter on gunpowder, and within the chapter, the process of manufacturing gunpowder is described in detail. Considering this is an older book, how detailed should I describe the process based from the book? Watersoftheoasis (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Gunpowder → Black powder — "Gunpowder" is an ambiguous term that can refer both to historical potassium nitrate gunpowder ("black powder") and modern nitrocellulose gunpowder ("smokeless powder"). In practice, it is probably most often used in modern English to refer to the modern formulation, but in any case, reserving this title for the historical formulation is not correct. It's better to have a version of the disambiguation page here at "Gunpowder" instead, bearing in mind that the dabpage can be rewritten to emphasize the current first listed item over the others. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME and current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the traditional form of black powder, smokeless powder is smokeless powder or nitrocellulose. If you're going for generalities, cordite is also called gunpowder. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you search for a gunpowder formula, it's almost always the traditional black powder, so obviously not smokeless. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gunpowder is the mixture of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal (as per the OED's definition) and I've always assumed that any other propellants and explosives would be "smokeless powder" or "cordite" or whatever, never gunpowder. But apparently in some fields (forensics for example) "gunpowder" is used as a general term to cover all propellants, though even then the others are usually called "smokeless gunpowder". So it may strictly be ambiguous, but in common usage it's a synonym for "black powder" and thus a WP:Hatnote would be all that is required here? –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunpowder&oldid=371971995"