Talk:Four Great Inventions

message: I'm not sure why this was absent, but I added the information on movable type printing. All of the information I used are located in the wiki-linked articles for Shen Kuo, Bi Sheng, Wang Zhen, and Hua Sui.--PericlesofAthens 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invention of Movable type printing, Ceramic, Wooden, and Metal forms

message: I just added further information on gunpowder in the lead for the 'Historical Debate' section. Have a look.--PericlesofAthens 15:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gunpowder

message: I can't believe this egregious vandalism by 74.172.15.138 has gone by unnoticed by everyone since February 12. It is now April 2. Shameful. I just put this page on my watch list to monitor further vandalism. This article is quite a pathetic mess, and quite honestly, I don't feel like taking the time to clean it up and restoring it, simply to humor myself by waiting and seeing just how long it will take another editor to realize that this article has been 'kaput' since February 12. Again, I am shocked that I am the first to notice this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dude, vandalism from hell

message: It seems that the Bacon quote is a magnet for edit disputes.  It's gone back and forth several times over the past 2 years.  I think we should have a debate about it and decide how and if it should be included in the article: lk (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support The quote is clearly relevant in that it shows the effect that these inventions had.  It does not matter whether Bacon knew about their Chinese origins, or even if they were independently invented in Europe, the quote illustrates the effect these technologies had on the medieval world. lk (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis Bacon Quote 

message: Since this is the basis of the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, lots of references should be available to expand it past Needham. 
70.55.200.185 (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beijing Olympics opening ceremony 

message: This article should cover the history of the designation.  I'm told Needham was the originator of the recognition of these as a big four.  That fact needs to be documented and put in the article.  Similarly, if the Bacon quote is in the article, but doesn't reflect a recognition by him that they came somehow from China, that should be mentioned.  Mark Foskey (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the classification 

message: This is misleading. These are known as the Four Great Inventions in Chinese, and the article should probably be called Four Great Inventions (China), seeing as out of the four, only one (paper) was actually made in Chinese antiquity, while the other three date to the medieval period. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but might as well request it to be moved to Four Great Inventions, since it already redirects to this article. Cold Season (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I have just requested it to be moved to "Four Great Inventions" as uncontroversial here... in case someone objects. Cold Season (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "ancient" China

message: Checking the quotes in the footnotes, I found that they did not refer to "four" inventions, nor did any of them call the inventions "great." I adjusted the text to reflect this, and made other adjustments to the lede. In light of this finding, I'm not sure that the rest of the article is useful. Perhaps it should be merged into List of Chinese inventions, though I do not feel strongly enough about it to start the process. ch (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to Origins section 

message: I haven't been able to track down anything in Needham yet, the earliest mention I can find of the four inventions is in this book:
Oriental and occidental culture : an interpretation, by Maurice Parmelee (1882-1969), Published: London : Williams and Norgate, 1929. On page 80 he writes: "China played an important part in four inventions which had a large share in the making of modern civilization—namely, paper, printing, gunpowder, and the compass."  There is also a Chinese book by Ning Huang from 1954 which is titled  中國四大發明 (Zhongguo si da fa ming, Four great inventions of China)., I haven't been able to locate any more information about this book.  LK (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: 1:Houfeng seismograph,it was invented by Zhang Heng for measuring directions of earthquakes.
2:The Celestial Globe,it was useful for the astronomical development in China.
3:Shenzhou V,It was China's first manned spacecraft in 2003 and was sucessfully laubnched.
4:The Three Gorges project:It is the largest water control project in the world.It benefits the region in terms of flood control,power generation and transport.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.247.131.154 (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Four Great Inventions of China 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Four Great Inventions. 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/20070409061805/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26519.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26519.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828042215/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26504.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26504.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018032458/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26514.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26514.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825000639/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26509.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26509.htm
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) 22:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Four Great Inventions. 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/20071106073725/http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/newsletters_11.php to http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/newsletters_11.php
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) 22:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi! Reference number 17 is listed as "Kreutz, p. 373", but this is the only place in the entire article/source list that mentions the name "Kreutz". How am I supposed to know which book/publication this is referring to? Could anyone please add the appropriate source to the source list? Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to have come from this edit. I've fixed it. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! Thank you so much! Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just WP:WikiGnomeing. See also the History of the compass article. Cheers. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference error 

message: Why is there no discussion about the political relevance of this topic? It is clear that the “Four Great Inventions” is a politically sensitive topic in a way that some random list of US or European inventions would never be. That context should form a greater part of the article, otherwise people will ask why it exists (as I see people have).
there are reports from China of government actions against those who question these inventions and their importance: https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3024372/chinese-teacher-suspended-belittling-great-inventions-online
(I’m posting a link to SCMP since it is widely regarded as very aligned with the CCP, and thus can’t be accused of having an anti-China stance. It’s a story that illustrates the political relevance of this topic; not somehow canonical.) 61.69.234.196 (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Relevance  

message: A fake quote attributed to Karl Marx and contradicted by Marx's own writings has been removed after a screenshot of it was posted to X (formerly Twitter) citing this quote as an argument against Wikipedia: "some of the worst source work I've ever seen on virtually all its pages that are primarily historical/political rather than scientific/mathematic." (see below link). A general review of content accuracy and source verification is in order.
https://twitter.com/realerjoetalley/status/1759718926328508569 RightQuark (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it pretty worrisome that you've essentially cited X for a claim? Remsense诉 07:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not too worried about incorrect claims on a Talk page, more worried about the content of the actual article. RightQuark (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article as an argument for WP unreliability 

message: somebody pointed out the iffy sourcing of the Marx Quote and claimed it was fabricated but it looks like the original quote (now seemingly removed) can be found here:
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1861/economic/ch35.htm
Not sure if anyone wants to address that. Including the quote seemed unnecessary in the article, but it wasn't fake and can be cited properly. 2600:1702:5B52:850:7816:9FF:E85D:AC5F (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to post this, as I also wasn't sure why @RightQuark reached the conclusion that it was a "fake Marx quote". Remsense诉 07:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone on twitter said so and nobody else bothered to check sources 2600:1702:5B52:850:7816:9FF:E85D:AC5F (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all, I did check the sources which initially appeared to support the argument on X. Given the virality, I withdrew the poorly-sourced line in the article with the intent of researching further before validating/invalidating the claim. You've beaten me to the answer and you should take pride in that. Cheers. RightQuark (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We've all been there, cheers! Remsense诉 08:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx Quote  

message: I feel like this has mostly content on how to make gunpowder, and not a lot on where it was made and what major military victories it was use in. This could just be me, but if it is possible I would like more context about what I mentioned to be added. 
(The reason I am not editing it myself is because I currently I do not have experience.) 
Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article feels like a stub