![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've taken a crack at expanding this and added some of the early history of the cannons, but there's still lots of stuff missing. If anybody has any information about the history of these cannons and their adoption in Korea, that would be much appreciated. For example, when were they first adopted in Korea? Imjin War? Later? How were they used? Also, the article needs references for the technical details of the design -- I don't know where the stuff currently in the infobox comes from, and in fact I think the term hongyipao probably refers to a category of weapons with varying stats. Thanks. Difference engine ( talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hongyi pao from Dutch of English ships?
Some sources say the Portuguese dredged up the cannons from a Dutch ship at Macau. Others say it was an English ship. The Unicorn, an Egnlish merchant ship, was sunken near Macau and the Portuguese dredged up sakers (cannon) from the ships and apparently sold those around 1620. There were in 1626 Battle of Ningyuan 11 sakers 21:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit war began on 11 June between myself and an anonymous user with the IP address of 198.46.126.2 resulted in temporary blocks on both of us.
The following is a list of my reasons for reverting his changes and my problems with the way in which he conducted editing on this page:
1. Aside from the additional material contributed, anon. directly removed content with citations including author name, title, publication date, and publisher information without providing a valid reason for doing so. He seems to take particular problem with the effectiveness of the "composite metal cannons" which are described in the section "Chinese improvements". His sources also do not refute the material which he removed. For example http://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/pdf-files/Hoskins-MA2004.pdf which says nothing about the effectiveness of Chinese composite metal cannons.
2. In addition to removing properly cited content without refutation, anon. replaced it with a link to an article written in 1861 archived on the NY Times website. Aside from the age of the article and the fact that it lists no author (not entirely surprising as this was written in 1861), the link itself takes you to a pay gated site, which requires the user to subscribe for a fee to view additional pages.
3. Anon. adjusted the range parameter without explanation. As far as I know, none of the sources he used had any information on Chinese cannons, so I'm not sure where he got that info.
3. Original research and highly biased contributions. For example one of his additions was this unreferenced statement: "In metallurgy, Europe had since medieval times led in metal craftsmanship (e.g. machine, instrument, clock, and gun making)." Also "However, by the early these cannon were already far inferior to the West's." None of his sources, whether implicitly or explicitly contained any info on China, Chinese technology, Chinese weapons, or Chinese cannons.
4. When confronted in the edit summary with these problems anon. willfully remained ignorant. For example in pointing out his pay gated article, he retorted that the original citation used was also pay gated since it was a book. Anon. had no response to other questions about the validity of his sources other than that they were valid without providing any other reason.
5. The creation of multiple different accounts to provide additional support for his edits. Nova1Nova1, Sosa97, and 66hester as well as IP address 108.35.224.118 are all recently created accounts with no history other than contributions supporting 198.46.126.2.
198.46.126.2's history of contributions is also highly suspect. His talk page history prior to the past two days contained seven warnings of edit warring, and two blocks, now three for disrupting pages Trebuchet, Hongyipao, Harpy Eagle, RSM-56 Bulava, and also Crossbow on his alts 66hester and Nova1Nova1.
198.46.126.2's behavior on Trebuchet is even more obviously trollish in nature. Anon. changed pre-existing statistics for the siege weapons listed to figures with an 100% increase of their original value. The same behavior of willfully ignoring questions in the edit summary as well as removing pre-existing material was also prevalent.
In short, 198.46.126.2 seems like a clear cut troll to me. However, if after his block period, he would like to dispute or challenge the content with relevant and properly cited material, I encourage him to come to the talk page and discuss how he thinks the wikipage might be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiushufang ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted a section doubly referring to scholar Huang Yi-long again, as I warned editors not to restore it without discussing, and I'm disappointed that someone took it upon themselves to simply restore the section with all its obvious problems. In case it's not obvious to anyone else reviewing this page, the article cannot have two back-to-back paragraphs both quoting the scholar in different ways. I'm fine with picking one or the other, but this section has clearly been in dispute for some time. This topic is well outside my area of expertise (I'm a pacifist Canadian accountant, though I appreciate metalworking arts and traditional weaponsmithing in particular) so I'm expecting that editors more closely involved with the topic will discuss here and decide on what should be included in the article. Please do so. Any edit warring in the article will result in blocks, probably long ones. Courtesy ping recent significant contributors: Qiushufang Underbar dk Imminent 77 Denver20 Denisarona. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've taken a crack at expanding this and added some of the early history of the cannons, but there's still lots of stuff missing. If anybody has any information about the history of these cannons and their adoption in Korea, that would be much appreciated. For example, when were they first adopted in Korea? Imjin War? Later? How were they used? Also, the article needs references for the technical details of the design -- I don't know where the stuff currently in the infobox comes from, and in fact I think the term hongyipao probably refers to a category of weapons with varying stats. Thanks. Difference engine ( talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hongyi pao from Dutch of English ships?
Some sources say the Portuguese dredged up the cannons from a Dutch ship at Macau. Others say it was an English ship. The Unicorn, an Egnlish merchant ship, was sunken near Macau and the Portuguese dredged up sakers (cannon) from the ships and apparently sold those around 1620. There were in 1626 Battle of Ningyuan 11 sakers 21:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit war began on 11 June between myself and an anonymous user with the IP address of 198.46.126.2 resulted in temporary blocks on both of us.
The following is a list of my reasons for reverting his changes and my problems with the way in which he conducted editing on this page:
1. Aside from the additional material contributed, anon. directly removed content with citations including author name, title, publication date, and publisher information without providing a valid reason for doing so. He seems to take particular problem with the effectiveness of the "composite metal cannons" which are described in the section "Chinese improvements". His sources also do not refute the material which he removed. For example http://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/pdf-files/Hoskins-MA2004.pdf which says nothing about the effectiveness of Chinese composite metal cannons.
2. In addition to removing properly cited content without refutation, anon. replaced it with a link to an article written in 1861 archived on the NY Times website. Aside from the age of the article and the fact that it lists no author (not entirely surprising as this was written in 1861), the link itself takes you to a pay gated site, which requires the user to subscribe for a fee to view additional pages.
3. Anon. adjusted the range parameter without explanation. As far as I know, none of the sources he used had any information on Chinese cannons, so I'm not sure where he got that info.
3. Original research and highly biased contributions. For example one of his additions was this unreferenced statement: "In metallurgy, Europe had since medieval times led in metal craftsmanship (e.g. machine, instrument, clock, and gun making)." Also "However, by the early these cannon were already far inferior to the West's." None of his sources, whether implicitly or explicitly contained any info on China, Chinese technology, Chinese weapons, or Chinese cannons.
4. When confronted in the edit summary with these problems anon. willfully remained ignorant. For example in pointing out his pay gated article, he retorted that the original citation used was also pay gated since it was a book. Anon. had no response to other questions about the validity of his sources other than that they were valid without providing any other reason.
5. The creation of multiple different accounts to provide additional support for his edits. Nova1Nova1, Sosa97, and 66hester as well as IP address 108.35.224.118 are all recently created accounts with no history other than contributions supporting 198.46.126.2.
198.46.126.2's history of contributions is also highly suspect. His talk page history prior to the past two days contained seven warnings of edit warring, and two blocks, now three for disrupting pages Trebuchet, Hongyipao, Harpy Eagle, RSM-56 Bulava, and also Crossbow on his alts 66hester and Nova1Nova1.
198.46.126.2's behavior on Trebuchet is even more obviously trollish in nature. Anon. changed pre-existing statistics for the siege weapons listed to figures with an 100% increase of their original value. The same behavior of willfully ignoring questions in the edit summary as well as removing pre-existing material was also prevalent.
In short, 198.46.126.2 seems like a clear cut troll to me. However, if after his block period, he would like to dispute or challenge the content with relevant and properly cited material, I encourage him to come to the talk page and discuss how he thinks the wikipage might be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiushufang ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted a section doubly referring to scholar Huang Yi-long again, as I warned editors not to restore it without discussing, and I'm disappointed that someone took it upon themselves to simply restore the section with all its obvious problems. In case it's not obvious to anyone else reviewing this page, the article cannot have two back-to-back paragraphs both quoting the scholar in different ways. I'm fine with picking one or the other, but this section has clearly been in dispute for some time. This topic is well outside my area of expertise (I'm a pacifist Canadian accountant, though I appreciate metalworking arts and traditional weaponsmithing in particular) so I'm expecting that editors more closely involved with the topic will discuss here and decide on what should be included in the article. Please do so. Any edit warring in the article will result in blocks, probably long ones. Courtesy ping recent significant contributors: Qiushufang Underbar dk Imminent 77 Denver20 Denisarona. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)