Talk:Hand cannon

message: I'm going to begin reformatting this article is accordance with the Military History Wikiproject's style guide. I'd welcome any help or advice. JWAbrams (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting

message: GONNE, which can be used interchangably with GUNNE, is not a seperate class or type of firearm, both are simply  middle english spelling variations of the word GUN.  The article should be reduced to an etymological reference in the main article of the history of firearms.
:If you have valid sources to back up your claim, then go ahead and recommend a merge or deletion, or if you think this article is salvageable, edit it appropriately (meaning: in the body of the article).  Placing a sweeping statement of fact about the subject at the top of and separate from the article, especially one that purports to overrule the entire article, does not follow Wikipedia's standards. Mbarbier 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, good question.  I'll look into it.Mbarbier 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Page has been moved.  There's a hell of a long list of pages that pointed to the old page that should probably be checked over time and any necessary corrections made on.  Whether you're up to such a tedious task is your call.  Thanks for cooperating, though.Mbarbier 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply an alternate spelling 

message: Terry Pratchett is great, and I happen to think his writing will stand the test of time.  But now that this isn't an article on "gonne" ... . --151.203.45.53 00:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "in fiction"? 

message: In an early part of the movie, the main character uses this. I'm not goot at editing Wiki, so if someone could write this in, that would be cool.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.42.248 (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in "Desperado" film 

message: The source tagged is not reliable. Compare it to here; A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Partington  pg 190 (view it at google books).J8079s (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reffering to the self published web site of Hassan but the problem is larger ( see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 he has 34 edits on this page. this paragraph
The earliest surviving documentary evidence for the use of hand cannons are from several Arabic manuscripts dated to the 14th century. (Part 4 and Part 5) Ahmad Y. al-Hassan argues that these are based on earlier originals and that they report hand cannons being used at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 by the Mamluks against the invading Mongols. He refers to it as "the first cannon in history" with gunpowder formulae which were almost identical with the ideal composition for explosive gunpowder.Ahmad Y Hassan, Gunpowder Composition for Rockets and Cannon in Arabic Military Treatises In Thirteenth and Fourteenth CenturiesAhmad Y Hassan, Technology Transfer in the Chemical Industries Iqtidar Alam Khan argues that it was invading Mongols who introduced gunpowder to the Islamic world. and cites Mamluk antagonism towards early gun-armed men in their infantry as an example of how gunpowder weapons were not always met with open acceptance in the Middle East..
 is "fringe theory" (its really a "pissing match" over who was first). the article needs to be balanced, mostly by expansion. Partington is a good source and could be used to show a case for all the theories (mostly on the history of gunpowder but the history of the hand-cannon is in there too). A lot of history is not in the article. Its on my list of things to do but I'm frying other fish.J8079s (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-published web site  

message: There is bias apparent in comments like this:
"The Arabs, Chinese and Mongols all have a claim, as do the Europeans, albeit fraudulent.."
So, all historians who have thought that the hand cannon was invented in Europe were fraudulent?
While the introduction grudgingly admits that there is a European claim for the invention of the hand cannon, only the Arab and Chinese claims are given any credence. The basis for a European claim is not even discussed.  Hadding (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-European Bias

message: Why are references 1 and 2 unreliable? Faro0485 (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The reference in the box (Chase 2003) effectively states that the Indians acquired knowledge of hand cannons directly or indirectly from the Europeans. Is this guy delusionary? Has he ever looked on a map? This was centuries before Portuguese seafarers and the Suez canal and centuries after Buddhism came to China on well frequented trade routes. Please delete this nonsense. 89.247.67.98 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What a fascinating subject! the first google I found () shows that this is a subject worth pursuing. But not by me, I fear... Nick Michael (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a joke...

message: The article seems to need reformatting, particularly the origins section; too many people with their own agendas and biases have written in here while attempting to sound as unbiased as they can. As an example:
" Ahmad Y. al-Hassan argues that these are based on earlier originals and that they report hand cannons being used at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 by the Mamluks against the invading Mongols. Although predated by archaeological findings in Manchuria,[2] Hassan refers to it as "the first cannon in history""
I'm not certain why we are quoting these statements from al-Hassan while in the same sentence as indicating that these statements are false?  
Perhaps it would be better to leave this out of the section?  The idea of an encyclopedia is to summarize everything that is known about a subject, not to insert an agenda.  IF the statements are untrue, then are they significant enough to be included in an article? I don't think that they merit inclusion myself.
One can leave detailed discussion of the origin of firearms for that article.
Therefore- Since the earliest extant and verified references to the HAND CANNON originate in China, that is more or less exactly what ought to be said, rather than "So this is the hand cannon, most people say it came from China, but there's also this Arab guy who thinks he invented it but incidentally he's wrong."
Ironlion45 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs some Cleaning up

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hand cannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408122032/http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/powder_frameset.html to http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/powder_frameset.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recently changed the lede image to one that is high quality and informative of what the weapon is, though the image created in 1874.   has reverted this, preferring one that is contemporary with the weapon, though of low resolution, not focused on the subject, inaccurate in its depiction, damaged (projectile is missing), and duplicates an image already in the Gallery. 
I'm all for contemporary images where possible, but not at the cost of failing to inform the reader.  The lede image of an article has the purpose of clearly and immediately identifying the subject; the current image is so poor as to not only fails to help identify the subject in any way, but for any reader new to the subject, will like mislead them on what the subject is -- a gross failure for any encyclopedia.
Comments?  --A D Monroe III(talk)  18:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: After two weeks with no other proposal or objection, I've replaced the lede image with the proposed informative but non-contemporary image, and moved the old non-informative but contemporary image to the Gallery.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  14:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BRD]]: Should lede image contemporary or informative? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello,
I have removed the photograph of the object "HandBombardWesternEurope1390-1400" from the "Europe" section. The object is dated to the early 15th century, but is now considered a fake, probably made in the 19th century. The source of this information is the person in charge of the Musée de l'Armée's ancient artillery collections.
It would be interesting to replace this object. MarineMuséeArmée (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting an object