![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for article: List of Arab scientists and scholars.
As I explained in my edit summaries, many of the scientists included in the "List of Arab scientists and scholars" are are either not Arab ( Khwarizmi and Karaji) or may not have been Arab (Gaber and Alhazan ). These particular individuals' names should either be omitted or the list should be renamed to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars" to avoid controversy and conflict. -- ManiF 05:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
May I also point out that half of the scientists and scholars in List of Iranian scientists and scholars are actually arab or may have not been persians! For example Geber, Alhazen, Al-Khwarizmi and Al-karkhi. Jidan 06:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
How about we create a new section at this page called "People with disputed ethnicity"? (or something like that) That way, the peopel are still in the article, but they're not listed as definitely being Arabs. -- Khoikhoi 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khoikhoi, most of the scientists and scholars I listed in
List of Arab scientists and scholars are Arabs. And if not, then they are most propably arab. And if not, then they are arab by culture. I have already added a note on the main article that says: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term.
May I also point out that half of the scientists and scholars in List of Iranian scientists and scholars are actually Arab or People with disputed ethnicity. For example Geber, Alhazen, Al-Khwarizmi and Al-karkhi, ...
Jidan 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The Iranian list has nothing to do with this discussion, it's not a "Persians' list", but rather a geographical list with its own definition. Move this page to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars", and I'll help expand it to include Turks, Arabs and Persians. -- ManiF 07:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Rename the article List of Muslim scientists and scholars and include everyone. Otherwise, those figures in question cannot, in good faith, be added to this article. Please vote Support or Oppose below along with a short comment if you are so inclined. SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Done - Renamed -- Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Rename the article List of Muslim scientists and scholars and include everyone. Otherwise, those figures in question cannot, in good faith, be added to this article. Please vote Support or Oppose below along with a short comment if you are so inclined. SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Done - Renamed -- Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this move was unfair. It wasn't even agreed upon by the author of this article - I like the idea of having a "disputed people" section in both articles, but the Iranian editors don't seem to agree with me. However, even if we move the page back, the people of disputed Arab ancestry shouldn't be in the main list - it seems to provoke the Iranian editors. I'm going to request for this page to be moved back until we can actually come to a fair compromise. -- Khoikhoi 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! To avoid these kind of ugly ethnic problems, I have already stated at the very beginning of the article: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term. Unlike the List of Iranian scientists and scholars, which has many ethnic disputed scholars but still didn't mention it. And still, I never edited that list, because I was kind of proud that they included arabs in their list. Wouldn't any american be proud if he sees Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest arabs?? I really don't understand what the problem is! If a user wants more info regarding a particular scholar, he will go to his article and there he will read the dispute about his ethnicity. This is just a List!! I am ofcourse open for any compromise. Jidan 01:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "Arab" is not an ethnical word. It may have been 1400 years ago before the Islamic conquests, but after it and now its definatly not. Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Lybia, and most of the countries that comprise the Arab World, are actually not ethnical Arabs. Even the Arab League, which hosts all 22 Arab countries that stretch from Mauritania in the west to Oman in the east, on its formation in 1946, defined "Arab" as follows:
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
George Sarton, a Belgian-American polymath and historian of science, in his book "Introduction to the History of Science" states:
On 8 June, A.D. 632, the Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Prayers be upon Him) died, having accomplished the marvelous task of uniting the tribes of Arabia into a homogeneous and powerful nation. ...In the interval, Persia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the whole North Africa, Gibraltar and Spain had been submitted to the Islamic State, and a new civilization had been established. The Arabs quickly assimilated the culture and knowledge of the peoples they ruled, while the latter in turn - Persians, Syrians, Copts, Berbers, and others - adopted the Arabic language. The nationality of the Muslim thus became submerged, and the term Arab acquired a linguistic sense rather than a strictly ethnological one.
After clearing this and knowing that at the medivial ages there were was no Nationalities, the List of Arab scientists and scholars shall contain any scholars that lived in arab cities, and produced their work in Arabic. The term "muslim scientist" doesn't sound right. No body calls Isaac Newton a christian scientist, but rather an English scientist. And not all Arab scholars were muslim!.
Jidan 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Jidan, you don't understand anything. You keep saying "I'm proud that arab scientists are on the Iranian list", as if by repeating a lie it makes it a factual truth. Those scientists are From the Iranian Plateau, want it or not, and as such they are Iranian. As for culturaly arab, I don't know what it means because it is well know among scholars that Arabs adopted Persian way of life and not the other way around.Farhad 74.57.247.47 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Jidan, you don't understand anything. You keep saying "I'm proud that arab scientists are on the Iranian list", as if by repeating a lie it makes it a factual truth. Those scientists are From the Iranian Plateau, want it or not, and as such they are Iranian. As for culturaly arab, I don't know what it means because it is well know among scholars that Arabs adopted Persian way of life and not the other way around. Farhad_MI
I agree that speaking arabic doesn't mean you are an Arab. But in a time where there was no defination of nationalities, speaking arabic and living in an arabic city makes you an Arab. People are not classified by their DNA's. Unless of course its mentioned specifically that he was persian. There are many great muslim scientists who were persians. For example Ibn Sina, who spoke and wrote arabic and even had memorized the arabic Koran by the age of 10. Other persian scholars were Al-Biruni, Omar Khayyám.Those mentioned scholars unlike Al-Khwarizmi, Geber, Alhazen , Al-Kharki, lived and prospured in iranian scientific cities which rivaled baghdad, worked for iranian rulers, and wrote in persian. For example,
Those can be defined as persian scholars. Arabic was not the only choice. And baghdad(iraq) was also not the only choice. Al-Khwarizmi, Geber, Alhazen , Al-Karkhi were arabs. For more info regarding those scholars, please ALWAYS read the discussion page and no way only the main article. Because of the large numbers of Iranian users, info regarding his background and ethnicity was instantly deleted by them, although backed by authoritaive neutral authors. Also in good faith, I have also explictily stated at the beginning of the article that: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term..
Until now I have spent 20% of my time in trying to expand the article and 80% in trying to keep it. This is really very frustrating ;-(
Jidan
18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why was the List of Arab scientists and scholars renamed to List of Muslim scientists and scholars, while List of Iranian scientists and scholars was not renamed? Until there is a proper explaintion this should stay as it is. We should than have three lists. Iranian,Arab, and muslim. Jidan 22:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
List of Russians starts with the disclaimer:
Maybe we should put something similar in the begining of this list as well? Alternatively we could put footnotes to the people of disputed ethnicity leading to something like The ethnic background is unlear (see the correponded article for details), but he certainly used Arabic for his works?. In anyway I do not see how putting say Al-Khwarizmi to this list does not prohibit his inclusion to say List of Iranian scientists. abakharev 01:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This sounds very wise to me. I think this will end this silly ethnic crap, which has paralyzed the advance of this article. Now we can concentrate on the expansion of the actual article.
I will add the following disclaimer as suggested by abakharev:
This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World, Islamic Spain ( Al-Andalus), and all those that were under the rule of Arabs. The arabs have ruled a multinational empire, and many people of different nationalities contributed to its culture, to its glory, and to its sorrow. They may be ethnic Persians(like Sibawayh ), Berbers(like ?), Kurds (like ?), Jews (like ?) . Sometimes we don't know their exact ancestry. Sometimes their formal nationality was written down at random or for political or other reasons. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arabs",and "Arabians".
Jidan 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think also the list should contain only arabs. I have removed Sibawayh, although the only thing he was famous for is arabic grammer. Now, Geber is definitive arab:
And Alhazen is sooo arab that even Iraq, the bitter enemy of Iran, printed him in their currency 300px|thumb|The Arab mathematician Ibn Al-Haitham depicted in a 10000 Iraqi Dinar note. and all encyclopedias and scientific articles say that he was Arab:
If Geber and Alhazen are not Arab you can as well label him chinese. Its really interesting what nonsense is sometimes posted in wikipedia.
Now the list is entirly arab.
Regarding Al-Khwarizmi, its very much disputed. He might have been born in Qutrubbull [1] and in Columbia Encyclopedia he is described as arab. And Britannica doesn't mention him as persian.
Samething goes to Al-Karkhi [2].
128.131.220.102 06:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Under the Umayyads, there WAS a strong distinction made between Arab and Ajam. However, the Abbasids -- whose power base was Greater Khorasan -- fully accepted the Ajam as part of universal ummah. There was intermarriage in Khorasan; there was intermarriage in Baghdad. After the fall of the Abbasids to the Mongols and later, the warfare between Safavids and the Ottomans, Persian and Arab were again distanced. Trying to read that distinction back into the Abbasid period is wrong-headed. How about just a list of Muslim scientists and scholars who wrote in Arabic under Abbasid rule? With a note appended to each one summarizing theories of origin?
Or perhaps just a list of Muslim scholars and scientists from 750 to 1300, grouped by the courts that patronized them, with one list of the ones who wrote in Arabic, a list of the ones who wrote in Persian, and perhaps a short list of the people like Rumi who wrote in both languages? C'mon, think of ways around the problem. Zora 09:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Kharazmi and Karaji are not Arab, they are probably as Arab as a Maya from Tabasco! - kami
Any new entries on the list should follow the following rules:
Please follow these simple rules so that the list stays overlookable and easy to navigate. Thank You Jidan 16:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This redlinked entry, inserted by 69.109.147.3 ( talk · contribs) raises some questions, as follows:
Can someone be Muslim and Jewish at the same time? Is it just a joke/hoax? Thanks, Crum375 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a resource, but is it good? It is well referenced:
Khaleel, Kasem (2000). The Arabian connection: A conspiracy against humanity. Lincolnshire, IL: Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN: 0-911119-70-1.
A neighbor recommended it, and it is available on Amazon. While it does not appear to be biased, it does have a somewhat personal tone, however thoroughly referenced.
He asks the question: "Who originated the modern sciences?" The book purports to answer this question.
Cover bio: "Dr. Kasem Khaleel is a medical writer specializing in health and the history of science. The author of over twelve books, his ten year study in the field of scientific history culminated in the publication of this book."
--Anonymous writer
I don't think English language users of English wikipedia should be subjected to the stupidity and narrowmindedness displayed in the discussions above. If someone wrote in Arabic, they belong on the list, whether they believed in Islam or not, whether they were Bedouin or Tajik or whatever. In the English speaking world Arabic is a cultural category before it is an ethnic one. If the heading to the page is: "This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World and Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) that lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. In some cases, their exact ancestry in unclear. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic" then Al-Farabi belongs here. Let the discussions on background be alluded to, gone into on the individual page, but here make entries which are useful to users of the encyclopedia. RuthieK 14:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the intent of the article was to list the numerous contributions to science, ancient and modern, by scientists of the
Islamic world during the
Islamic Golden Age. If this is acceptable, I would suggest to rephrase the lead to reflect this, and then be possibly a little more inclusive and allow any of the Islamic scientists and philosophers of that era, including
Al Farabi. The title itself can be modified to "Arab and Muslim ..." Comments?
Crum375
13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You are correct; but I see some points that need addressing. First, the
List of Muslim scientists is not time limited to the
Islamic Golden Age, whereas this one seems to be ('up to until the beginning of the modern age' - needs clearer definition). Second, I think there may be a very significant overlap between the 2 lists, which in general is bad - it duplicates work, it is a source for inconsistencies, it confuses readers. Third, if this one is strictly limited to ethnic
Arabs, you'll have a problem in validating ethnicity. If you just read the current
Arab article, it specifically mentions the language as the common denominator: "The Arabs are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa." So clearly this would be problematic. A good WP list depends on well defined inclusion criteria; anything else is prone to problems.
Crum375
13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no clear definition of arab - except they live in arabia. This list clearly states it is for people who contributed to science in arabic in the middle ages. Read the first paragraph of the article!!! People wishing to folow quasi-racial (ethic) definitions can use the other list clearly provided for them RuthieK 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) American Heritage Dictionary: Ar·ab (²r“…b) n. 1. A member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern Africa from the seventh century.
There is a list for your views List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars. It was created because there is a group of people determined not to follow the self-description of the list arab scientists and scholars which includes ALL scientists contributing to science in the arabic cultural world. Some people want a list of arab scientists, following their own definition of arab (not even the usual definition in english). That list is to cater to their wishes, in the hope they will stop blocking, reverting and vandalising entries on the this list RuthieK 10:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey RuthieK, I tried adding to the list Al-Khwarizmi, who was born and lived his whole life in bahgdad, wrote and tought all his work in arabic, was buried in baghdad, but the Iranian Group keept always deleting it, saying that he was persian, which even that is not sure as you can see from his article's discussion. I tried to convince them that an Arab is not a race, just like an american is not a race, and even gave them the "official" defination of Arab as put by the Arab League, which goes like this: "An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples.", i.e. arab is not a race, but rather a cultural and linguistic term, but all this was fruitless. Good Luck!! Jidan 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In connection with the above discussion, I have changed the description of the list. The previous description would be applicable to anyone who wrote in Arabic or lived in an Arab country for a considerable time, including Al-Biruni, Maimonides, Mashallah, or other people who cannot be in any way considered "Arab scholars". Beit Or 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Guys, I think the disclaimer was usefull (especially since it was taken from the List of Russians. There should be some overlap between this list and the other lists. People like Al-Khwarizmi lived all their life in Arabic countries but might be Persian or Turks by blood, others like Ibn Sina might considered to be Arabs but they lived in Uzbekistan and Persia. There were inter-ethnic marraiges, The modern boundaries are different from the old boundaries, etc., etc. We (you) will die arguing instead of editing. Lets have all the lists be maximally inclusive it does not matter that Ibn Sina will be in the lists of Persian, Arabs, Uzbeks, Afghans - you name it. People who like to brag by long lists will brag. Everybody will be happy. It worked that way for quite a while, lets keep it. Alex Bakharev 10:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You can call the Abbasid caliphate, "Arabia", if that makes you feel better, they are just names. Since it was a political entity, ruled by an arab dynasty, which ruled its territory and its citizens under one law(the islamic sharia), and under one language(arabic) .Its capital, baghdad, where most scholars come from, was and still is an arab city. Why would this be different from imperial Russia? I won't discuess Al-Khwarizmi, since he was by culture and ethnicity an arab. But lets take Al-Farabi.He lived his last 40 years in baghdad(an arab city), where all his work was written, and his salary was paid from taxes collected by this arab governement. Its only logical that he should be included in the list of arab scholars. Besides, the disclaimer says clearly:
They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic"....That should be it Jidan 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the disclaimer at the top of the page, because it provides an important explanation to the reader. Further discussion about the exact wording might be appropriate, but some explanation is certainly necessary. Doc Tropics 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue is one of accuracy. The first problem I see here, and there is plenty, is using an anachronistic term like the Arab World, when there was no such thing until the modern, post-French revolution, and in fact post WWII period. And yes, it is in fact unreasonable to assume that anyone with an Arabic-sounding name is automatically Arab, anymore than anyone with an English-sounding name is automatically English. For example, I came upon a reference for one of the disputed scholars, Masha'allah, which notes that he did have a Persian name though his penname was Arabized. Arabization of names was not uncommon at the time. Arabic was the language of science then, just as Greek once was. I don't see a similar list of Greek scholars that includes everyone of notability who spoke or wrote in Greek, or had a Greek or Hellenized name.
As far as I can see, the argument behind this list seems to be: if "the Iranians" have a list, then the Arabs should have one too! And when some scholars are removed by others who feel that their contributions are worthy of mention in their own right and not be subsumed into an arbitrary category such as this, the removal is sometimes explained in terms of some joint Iranian-Israeli conspiracy! This is bordering on the ridiculous and I'm mystified that several attempts at community consensus have simply been dismissed or ignored based on that. — zɪʔɾɪdəʰ · ☥ 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Arab league just repeated what Muhammed, an arab statsman and religious leader, said 1400 years before:
...Being an Arab is not, in any of you, inherited from father or mother but it is only the language that is spoken (Innama Hiya Al-lisan). Jidan 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ali doostzadeh wrote:
1/There used to be many Iranians in iraq until pan-Arabists did their usual ethnic cleansing in the 20th century.
2/At least till the mongol era, one can safely say a good portion of Iraq was Iranian. Going back to the Sassanid era, Arabs were definitely a minority. There is still 25% Iranians in Iraq, mainly Kurds.
1/Usual ethnic cleansing!!!???
The was no ethnic cleansing done by Arabs in history and surely not in the 20 th century
2/Iraq was and is still a semite majority country,genetic tests had proven that there are more Semites in Iran than Aryans.
When Iranians came to middle-east 2700 years ago they were very few nomadic warriors who only imposed their language upon semite peoples which was inhabtating Iraq 4000-4500 years before the coming of Iranians.
I think it rather should be:"one can safely say that a good portion of Iran is genetically and culturally[religion,alphabet,language,music]not Iranian but Semite and Semite Arab.
There is still 65-70% non Persians in Iran mainly Turk,Kurd and Arabs.
Humanbyrace ( talk) 10:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Humanbyrace ( talk) 10:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I just found the discussions here but there are too many to wade through. I did notice there was a suggestion to change this to one of Muslim scholars rather than Arab. Can't tell what came of that, but I think it's more appropriate. I am removing Egyptians from this page because it claims to be "a list of scientists and scholars of Arab origin." That's just not accurate. Please see discussion I had with Jidan on my talk page. — zɪʔɾɪdəʰ · ☥ 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
41.237.99.185 ( talk) 10:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Alhazen And Gaber Are Arabs 100% Aaaaaaaa142538 ( talk) 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Al khwarizmi wasn't Arab or Persian Aaaaaaaa142538 ( talk) 17:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What exactly (which names) made this list's accuracy disputed or made it based on original research ? -- Lanov 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Jidan, you think, on this basis, whoever speaks Arabic is Arab? Gutsarin 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the page because of the edit war. The issue appears to be inclusion of Ibn Farnas, Abu Kamil, Al Fazari, and Ibn Yunus, although from the summary notes the dispute appears to be about Fazari. Please discuss. >Radiant< 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It would seem the issue is wether or not you are trying to define "Arab" as a ethnic or culural group. If you wish to define it as a cultural group then, by definition, any person from an Arabic speaking nation or area is an Arab. If you wish to define it along ethnic terms then only members of the Semitic people in and around Arabia would be included. IMO only the ethnic group should be included, otherwise you are going to have to not only clump several African and notably "un-Arab" peoples into the list you are also going to have to determine when these Arabic speaking regions first became "Arab". This is only going to spark more debate and would make this List even more conflict prone than it already is. Just my two cents. NeoFreak 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Link did not include an apostrophe before the i, leading it nowhere. Fixed this.-- Aeranis 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
before i start the history lesson i wanna say as one of the friends said earlier, An Arab its like An American, a people who bron in the arabian land and his language is arabic, even if they wasn't arab by race if u wanna consider arab as a race.
you have to know that there is an arab race of one arabic country that called Yemen, the arabs originally started on that country not like everybody think (i mean its not saudi arabia), in thousand of years before islam, christianity, and jewdism the Yemeni people are travling to many countries in the world for trade, espcially a group of people in Yemen called 'Hadrami, this people consider one of the best business people in the world, they are the people who sent Islam to Indonesia and malaysia plus another Asian and African countries, also in some parts of Europe. Imegration was very big from this country in the begning for the countries that has semetice groups such as arabs, of course those languages has a lot of arabic vocabulary, then after they mixed with them new generations looks alike because they all are semetice race, these group of people add more arabic words to their language because they had lack of vocabulary, also they accepted the arabic words coz they found the language itself looks tipcally like arabic, then those group of people sparades in a lot of other places and so on, also in Yemen there was a great disaster of Yemen that called Marib Dam, so more Yemeni imigretions started, even today in Iran itself, they use the Arabic alphabet in their language, plus that more of 40% of persian language has arabic vocabulary, after that another era of arab-persian problem during the eimpre of Persia, when arab had a big war with the Persian empire that called Battle of Thi Qar, the arab at that time wasn't muslims yet.
also i want to say that all (not even most) the poeple that their names started with AL are arabs.
also all of the Ahl al-Bayt, are arabs, and iranian are saying that they are persian untill today!! well i will accept that they are Iranian people today coz they born and lived in Iran, but ethnically are not Persian. — Abdullah Alkendy ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
i hope that i help as much as i can because i got these info from an old people who are already dead. — Abdullah Alkendy ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
26-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I inserted missing topic headers & trimmed the bot-signed notes. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
26-Oct-2008: The format guidelines for adding entries to the list are described under the topic (above) titled: Entries Format for the List of Arab scientists and scholars. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The article Brethren of Purity does not say they were Arab. So why they are listed here? Please explain.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The word "Arab" is used ambigiously and clearly refers to different groups at different times. Unfortunately, English has not developed a wording analogue to Greek (Hellenic) / Hellenistic for the Arabs.
The definition of the Arab League mentioned here earlier is quite frankly horrible, notwithstanding that the Arab League in 1946, when it defined the word "Arab", included few if any democratic leaders.
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
I kindly ask: who defines whether a person's aspirations are "in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arab speaking peoples"? Does this mean that a person speaking Arabic, living in an Arabic speaking country, but who for some reason has happened to be in conflict with the majority of Arab speaking peoples (for instance by converting to another religion, something that is punishable in many such countries) is not an Arab anymore? For crying out loud.
Muslim scientist is not a good term either, though it is featured on Wikipedia as well. Yet again - and this is also inconsequent - people like Hunayn ibn Ishaq, a well-renowned 9th century translator, would not be included there because he was a Christian. There was a certain pressure in Muslim societies to embrace the faith of Islam, if you wanted to reach the pinnacles of society - the term "Muslim scientist" goes into highly speculative details of whatever denomination a person held publicly and what he thought privately.
The same pressure was present in Christian societies, but the idea that Galileo Galilei or Charles Darwin would be labelled "Christian scientists" (they were certainly both members of churches throughout their lives) would be ludicrous. The same actually goes for medieval scholars in Christian countries - for instance Paul of Aegina who was a Greek Christian in the 7th century AD. The latter category Christian Scientists does not even exist - it is redirected to an obscure 19th century church. If Wikipedia finds it relevant to list all the scientists who (at least formally) believed in the Quran, why are not the scientists who paid at least lip-service to the Bible mentioned as well?
Now to the point: most of the scientists referred to here and on the Muslim scholar page should be transferred to a page called something like "(Arab) Caliphate civilisation scientists and scholars". Because that's what it's about. Most of these scholars were Arabs, but a sizeable minority belong to "arabized" people: Persians, Jews, Kurds, Greeks etc, who wrote in Arabic. Most of them were Muslims, but a sizeable minority were only formally so, or belonged to other religious groups. The likely ethnically Arab scholars who predate the Caliphate should be moved to another site, perhaps called "Pre-Islamic Arab scholars". Sponsianus ( talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys are double spacing the list of entries in your list of Arab scholars so that it looks like theres more names. Do you guys have to constantly live in the shadow of Persians? I mean I constantly see Arab critics to academically sourced Persian scholars in Iranian wiki pages, and it's really sad I mean the other day I found out from a friend who lived in Jordon that they taught students in his school that Ibn Sina was an Arab...Whatever you guys have to prove to yourselves only makes a mockery of intelligent, reasonable minded Arabs who know a good source from a fabricated one.
The wikiarticle about Persian scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_scientists
Includes many non Persian scientists(such as Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Turk,Uzbek,Jew,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...)
But the scientists included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
ARE ALL ARAB since their mother tongue,name,surname and origin was ARAB(or SEMITE for someones)living under ARAB states
Humanbyrace ( talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The wikiarticle about Persian scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_scientists
Includes many non Persian scientists(such as Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Turk,Uzbek,Jew,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...) Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Azari,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...) are all considered Iranic !!!
But the scientists included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
ARE ALL ARAB since their mother tongue,name,surname and origin was ARAB(or SEMITE for someones)living under ARAB states
Humanbyrace ( talk) 09:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Answer to mr Ali doostzadeh
Ali doostzadeh wrote:
1/There used to be many Iranians in iraq until pan-Arabists did their usual ethnic cleansing in the 20th century.
2/At least till the mongol era, one can safely say a good portion of Iraq was Iranian. Going back to the Sassanid era, Arabs were definitely a minority. There is still 25% Iranians in Iraq, mainly Kurds.
1/Usual ethnic cleansing!!!???
The was no ethnic cleansing done by Arabs in history and surely not in the 20 th century
there have been so many ethnic cleansing is sudan,morroco, iraq,... done by arabs !!!
2/Iraq was and is still a semite majority country,genetic tests had proven that there are more Semites in Iran than Aryans.
When Iranians came to middle-east 2700 years ago they were very few nomadic warriors who only imposed their language upon semite peoples which was inhabtating Iraq 4000-4500 years before the coming of Iranians. 2700 years ago? if aryan immigration be true and not myth, it happened 7000 years ago !!!
I think it rather should be:"one can safely say that a good portion of Iran is genetically and culturally[religion,alphabet,language,music]not Iranian but Semite and Semite Arab. religion,alphabet,language (somehow) and specially music of so-called semetics are heavily influenced by Iranians.
There is still 65-70% non Persians in Iran mainly Turk,Kurd and Arabs. kurds are Iranic, arabs of Iran are either immigrants or refugees,azaris also are Iranic but they speak an old version of turkic ottoman language.
Humanbyrace ( talk) 10:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
from 5 known members , 3 of them mentioned below were not obviously arab. ابوسلیمان محمد بن معشر بُستی ,ابوالحسن علی بن هارون زنجانی،
ابواحمد مهرجانی)نهرجوری)،
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irakischer_Maler_von_1287_001.jpg —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.166.197.66 (
talk)
23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we delete the "this section is empty tags", along with the section headers? That would seem to make sense to me, as it would lead to a cleaner, more reader-friendly list, and the tags seem to yield little benefit and much cost in terms of distraction -- what sayeth consensus?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The intro sez ... lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. It isn't quite clear when that is; Modern history says Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.... So 20th century people are definitely too modern. 19th C too, I'd say; and even 18th C is dubious William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
"scientists and scholars" is quite vague. To take a specific case, what about philosophers such as Ahmad Bilal Yousaf? William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Aṭlas, sorry but your reasons for the deletions are not Valid. Regarding the Moorish scholars, half of them are clearly ethnic Arabs who belonged to known Arab tribes like for example, Al-Bakri ( Banu Bakr), Al-Ghafiqi ( Ghafiq), Ibn Jubayr ( Banu Kinanah), Ibn al-Kattani ( Madh'hij), Ibn Malik ( Tayy), Ibn al-Wafid ( Banu Lakhm), and others. So there is no argument over such names to begin with. As for the rest whose biography or ethnicity is not clear, they also belongs in the article as mentioned in the disclaimer at the beginning.
And I don't see what is your problem with the Muslim Egyptian and Syrian scholars exactly?
Finally, regarding the unrelated scholars(islamic scolares and historians) they surely falls under the category of "scholars" which is within the scope of this list. The same type of scholars have been listed in articles like List of Turkic scholars and List of Iranian scientists and scholars as well. So why single this article out? Either delete them there too, or keep them listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasfras17 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Frasfras17 ( talk) 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Here we go. Zakariya is Arab by origin, it's not the first time you deliberately disrupted Arab related pages, Al-Kindi, Mubariz al-Din Muhammad and now this page? (All have one similarity, your versions were removed) I think I am getting tired of this unconstructive patterns, it just need a serious admin intervention if it continued (And a history CV of pages you edited all the way until an admin intervention who reverted your versions, just to make them in the spotlight that it is your usual behavior of crusading Arab articles). Your page would be certainly reverted, like your other disruptive edits. Let me remind you once again: Your OR or what you consider applicable to be Arab or whatnot doesn't matter. I will leave you to comprehend that simple fact. Nabataeus ( talk) 00:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, you are very selective when you use Wikipedia :
« it's not the first time you deliberately disrupted Arab related pages, Al-Kindi, Mubariz al-Din Muhammad and now this page? (All have one similarity, your versions were removed)«
I perfectly agree with the version about Mubariz which states that he was of « distant Arab origin » and not « Arab » like you wanted to write in the article (this version goes even further than the one i proposed because it includes the word « distant »...). And, of course, you do not speak about articles like Ismail al-Jazari, Muzaffarids or Abdullah Ansari you tried to vandalize by Arabizing them (these articles have also one similarity : YOUR versions were removed), but do not feel humiliated, because Wikipedia is not about winning. More, Frasfras tried to state that Zakariya al-Qazwini was an Arab, but LouisAragon reverted him... Stating that Qazwini was an Arab is not a problem for me if you provide a reliable source saying so. But if you can’t, i will revert your edit...
« it is your usual behavior of crusading Arab articles »
Crusades mainly occured against Turkish dynasties and, in a much lower level, Iranian dynasties, but only some Arabs like you complain about it.. quite a funny behavior...
I’m not « crusading » against anyone, i’m only trying to improve (modestly) Wikipedia and when i find a reliable souurce for an Arab claim, i include it, like i did here, but i have not found a single edit from you supporting another people than Arabs...
Anyway, we’re not here to speak about you or me... but do not forget what i told you, provide a reliable source stating that Qazwini was an Arab and NOT only « Arab origin » to include him in your Arab list (if only the origin matters, then you, me, and anybody else on this planet is an Ethiopian !).
« I think I am getting tired »
Yeah, you're right to be tired because I always fight POV pushers like you until they're tired...
Farawahar ( talk) 07:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the time you took to find some sources stating Zakarya was Arab, therefore, his name can remain in the Arab list (and on the Persian list).
« Huh, how ironic. The problem was not about paraphrasing, but rather your inaccurate shoving of the word Persian in front of his page. Therefore it was removed by an admin. You could just change the wording in the article couldn't you? But it doesn't correspond with your initial POV it appears. »
As you can check, no amin intervention here : Mubariz al-Din Muhammad. Do you know why ? Because since i’m not a nationalist like you AND someone found a reliable source stating that Mubariz was of distant Arab origin, not like you who first tried to state he was an Arab using a Venezuelan economist as « referenced informations » on this topic, (LMAO!), there was just no need of an admin there ...
« I am flexible to any opinion »
Yeah, you’re flexible when you can not do otherwise (just like in the Al-Jazari article...).
« In front of you, Khawaja page, I corrected the reference citation that state Persian »
The source about Ansari was mine, you did not add it, you just corrected the regerence style (and you could not remove it because it’s reliable...).
« Advice: Do not consider me your antagonist. »
All nationalists are my antagonists, do you know why ? Just because nationalism means war (unlike patriotism). Since seemingly you need to advise everybody, i will tell you 3 things :
1) Keep your « advices » for yourself.
2) I’m Ms nobody, but if i had an advice for you, it would be :
contribute to Wikipedia honestly, not like you did until now, like a POV editor, and you should not hear about me anymore, but if you’re here to fight against others, blatantly trying to Arabize Wikipedia just as if it was a battleground, then trust me, i’ll be there to make you « tired » of fighting again ...
3) i’m an Iranian woman with Polish ancestry and living with an Iranian man. Being of Polish ancestry does not make me Polish, i consider myself Iranian (or strongly Iranized), AND, i know it's hard to accept for a nationalist, but yes, we are all Ethiopians at the origin, even you and even me with my blond hair and my green eyes.
I think we’re done now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farawahar ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
What a ranting filled with multiple accusative statements and mixed with deliberate dishonesty. It lack any intellectual input. You take the morale ground, but that was your edit in AL-Kindi [18]. An epitome example of mendacious individual. Forget it, emotions are leaking from your keyboard, it prevent comprehension. I will leave it there. Have a nice day angry woman! Nabataeus ( talk) 15:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ho ho ho, since i told you i’m a woman, my emotions are leaking from my keyboard ... so shabby... As to my “deliberate dishonesty”, i let other users see here about you, always the first to give lessons but the last one to apply them ... My contribution to Al kindi article was reliable, since the experienced user Kansas Besr said, tertiary sources are reliables, but i will deal with this issue elsewhere. Farawahar ( talk) 17:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for article: List of Arab scientists and scholars.
As I explained in my edit summaries, many of the scientists included in the "List of Arab scientists and scholars" are are either not Arab ( Khwarizmi and Karaji) or may not have been Arab (Gaber and Alhazan ). These particular individuals' names should either be omitted or the list should be renamed to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars" to avoid controversy and conflict. -- ManiF 05:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
May I also point out that half of the scientists and scholars in List of Iranian scientists and scholars are actually arab or may have not been persians! For example Geber, Alhazen, Al-Khwarizmi and Al-karkhi. Jidan 06:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
How about we create a new section at this page called "People with disputed ethnicity"? (or something like that) That way, the peopel are still in the article, but they're not listed as definitely being Arabs. -- Khoikhoi 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khoikhoi, most of the scientists and scholars I listed in
List of Arab scientists and scholars are Arabs. And if not, then they are most propably arab. And if not, then they are arab by culture. I have already added a note on the main article that says: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term.
May I also point out that half of the scientists and scholars in List of Iranian scientists and scholars are actually Arab or People with disputed ethnicity. For example Geber, Alhazen, Al-Khwarizmi and Al-karkhi, ...
Jidan 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The Iranian list has nothing to do with this discussion, it's not a "Persians' list", but rather a geographical list with its own definition. Move this page to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars", and I'll help expand it to include Turks, Arabs and Persians. -- ManiF 07:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Rename the article List of Muslim scientists and scholars and include everyone. Otherwise, those figures in question cannot, in good faith, be added to this article. Please vote Support or Oppose below along with a short comment if you are so inclined. SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Done - Renamed -- Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Rename the article List of Muslim scientists and scholars and include everyone. Otherwise, those figures in question cannot, in good faith, be added to this article. Please vote Support or Oppose below along with a short comment if you are so inclined. SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Done - Renamed -- Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this move was unfair. It wasn't even agreed upon by the author of this article - I like the idea of having a "disputed people" section in both articles, but the Iranian editors don't seem to agree with me. However, even if we move the page back, the people of disputed Arab ancestry shouldn't be in the main list - it seems to provoke the Iranian editors. I'm going to request for this page to be moved back until we can actually come to a fair compromise. -- Khoikhoi 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! To avoid these kind of ugly ethnic problems, I have already stated at the very beginning of the article: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term. Unlike the List of Iranian scientists and scholars, which has many ethnic disputed scholars but still didn't mention it. And still, I never edited that list, because I was kind of proud that they included arabs in their list. Wouldn't any american be proud if he sees Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest arabs?? I really don't understand what the problem is! If a user wants more info regarding a particular scholar, he will go to his article and there he will read the dispute about his ethnicity. This is just a List!! I am ofcourse open for any compromise. Jidan 01:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "Arab" is not an ethnical word. It may have been 1400 years ago before the Islamic conquests, but after it and now its definatly not. Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Lybia, and most of the countries that comprise the Arab World, are actually not ethnical Arabs. Even the Arab League, which hosts all 22 Arab countries that stretch from Mauritania in the west to Oman in the east, on its formation in 1946, defined "Arab" as follows:
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
George Sarton, a Belgian-American polymath and historian of science, in his book "Introduction to the History of Science" states:
On 8 June, A.D. 632, the Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Prayers be upon Him) died, having accomplished the marvelous task of uniting the tribes of Arabia into a homogeneous and powerful nation. ...In the interval, Persia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the whole North Africa, Gibraltar and Spain had been submitted to the Islamic State, and a new civilization had been established. The Arabs quickly assimilated the culture and knowledge of the peoples they ruled, while the latter in turn - Persians, Syrians, Copts, Berbers, and others - adopted the Arabic language. The nationality of the Muslim thus became submerged, and the term Arab acquired a linguistic sense rather than a strictly ethnological one.
After clearing this and knowing that at the medivial ages there were was no Nationalities, the List of Arab scientists and scholars shall contain any scholars that lived in arab cities, and produced their work in Arabic. The term "muslim scientist" doesn't sound right. No body calls Isaac Newton a christian scientist, but rather an English scientist. And not all Arab scholars were muslim!.
Jidan 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Jidan, you don't understand anything. You keep saying "I'm proud that arab scientists are on the Iranian list", as if by repeating a lie it makes it a factual truth. Those scientists are From the Iranian Plateau, want it or not, and as such they are Iranian. As for culturaly arab, I don't know what it means because it is well know among scholars that Arabs adopted Persian way of life and not the other way around.Farhad 74.57.247.47 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Jidan, you don't understand anything. You keep saying "I'm proud that arab scientists are on the Iranian list", as if by repeating a lie it makes it a factual truth. Those scientists are From the Iranian Plateau, want it or not, and as such they are Iranian. As for culturaly arab, I don't know what it means because it is well know among scholars that Arabs adopted Persian way of life and not the other way around. Farhad_MI
I agree that speaking arabic doesn't mean you are an Arab. But in a time where there was no defination of nationalities, speaking arabic and living in an arabic city makes you an Arab. People are not classified by their DNA's. Unless of course its mentioned specifically that he was persian. There are many great muslim scientists who were persians. For example Ibn Sina, who spoke and wrote arabic and even had memorized the arabic Koran by the age of 10. Other persian scholars were Al-Biruni, Omar Khayyám.Those mentioned scholars unlike Al-Khwarizmi, Geber, Alhazen , Al-Kharki, lived and prospured in iranian scientific cities which rivaled baghdad, worked for iranian rulers, and wrote in persian. For example,
Those can be defined as persian scholars. Arabic was not the only choice. And baghdad(iraq) was also not the only choice. Al-Khwarizmi, Geber, Alhazen , Al-Karkhi were arabs. For more info regarding those scholars, please ALWAYS read the discussion page and no way only the main article. Because of the large numbers of Iranian users, info regarding his background and ethnicity was instantly deleted by them, although backed by authoritaive neutral authors. Also in good faith, I have also explictily stated at the beginning of the article that: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term..
Until now I have spent 20% of my time in trying to expand the article and 80% in trying to keep it. This is really very frustrating ;-(
Jidan
18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why was the List of Arab scientists and scholars renamed to List of Muslim scientists and scholars, while List of Iranian scientists and scholars was not renamed? Until there is a proper explaintion this should stay as it is. We should than have three lists. Iranian,Arab, and muslim. Jidan 22:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
List of Russians starts with the disclaimer:
Maybe we should put something similar in the begining of this list as well? Alternatively we could put footnotes to the people of disputed ethnicity leading to something like The ethnic background is unlear (see the correponded article for details), but he certainly used Arabic for his works?. In anyway I do not see how putting say Al-Khwarizmi to this list does not prohibit his inclusion to say List of Iranian scientists. abakharev 01:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This sounds very wise to me. I think this will end this silly ethnic crap, which has paralyzed the advance of this article. Now we can concentrate on the expansion of the actual article.
I will add the following disclaimer as suggested by abakharev:
This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World, Islamic Spain ( Al-Andalus), and all those that were under the rule of Arabs. The arabs have ruled a multinational empire, and many people of different nationalities contributed to its culture, to its glory, and to its sorrow. They may be ethnic Persians(like Sibawayh ), Berbers(like ?), Kurds (like ?), Jews (like ?) . Sometimes we don't know their exact ancestry. Sometimes their formal nationality was written down at random or for political or other reasons. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arabs",and "Arabians".
Jidan 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think also the list should contain only arabs. I have removed Sibawayh, although the only thing he was famous for is arabic grammer. Now, Geber is definitive arab:
And Alhazen is sooo arab that even Iraq, the bitter enemy of Iran, printed him in their currency 300px|thumb|The Arab mathematician Ibn Al-Haitham depicted in a 10000 Iraqi Dinar note. and all encyclopedias and scientific articles say that he was Arab:
If Geber and Alhazen are not Arab you can as well label him chinese. Its really interesting what nonsense is sometimes posted in wikipedia.
Now the list is entirly arab.
Regarding Al-Khwarizmi, its very much disputed. He might have been born in Qutrubbull [1] and in Columbia Encyclopedia he is described as arab. And Britannica doesn't mention him as persian.
Samething goes to Al-Karkhi [2].
128.131.220.102 06:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Under the Umayyads, there WAS a strong distinction made between Arab and Ajam. However, the Abbasids -- whose power base was Greater Khorasan -- fully accepted the Ajam as part of universal ummah. There was intermarriage in Khorasan; there was intermarriage in Baghdad. After the fall of the Abbasids to the Mongols and later, the warfare between Safavids and the Ottomans, Persian and Arab were again distanced. Trying to read that distinction back into the Abbasid period is wrong-headed. How about just a list of Muslim scientists and scholars who wrote in Arabic under Abbasid rule? With a note appended to each one summarizing theories of origin?
Or perhaps just a list of Muslim scholars and scientists from 750 to 1300, grouped by the courts that patronized them, with one list of the ones who wrote in Arabic, a list of the ones who wrote in Persian, and perhaps a short list of the people like Rumi who wrote in both languages? C'mon, think of ways around the problem. Zora 09:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Kharazmi and Karaji are not Arab, they are probably as Arab as a Maya from Tabasco! - kami
Any new entries on the list should follow the following rules:
Please follow these simple rules so that the list stays overlookable and easy to navigate. Thank You Jidan 16:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This redlinked entry, inserted by 69.109.147.3 ( talk · contribs) raises some questions, as follows:
Can someone be Muslim and Jewish at the same time? Is it just a joke/hoax? Thanks, Crum375 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a resource, but is it good? It is well referenced:
Khaleel, Kasem (2000). The Arabian connection: A conspiracy against humanity. Lincolnshire, IL: Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN: 0-911119-70-1.
A neighbor recommended it, and it is available on Amazon. While it does not appear to be biased, it does have a somewhat personal tone, however thoroughly referenced.
He asks the question: "Who originated the modern sciences?" The book purports to answer this question.
Cover bio: "Dr. Kasem Khaleel is a medical writer specializing in health and the history of science. The author of over twelve books, his ten year study in the field of scientific history culminated in the publication of this book."
--Anonymous writer
I don't think English language users of English wikipedia should be subjected to the stupidity and narrowmindedness displayed in the discussions above. If someone wrote in Arabic, they belong on the list, whether they believed in Islam or not, whether they were Bedouin or Tajik or whatever. In the English speaking world Arabic is a cultural category before it is an ethnic one. If the heading to the page is: "This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World and Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) that lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. In some cases, their exact ancestry in unclear. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic" then Al-Farabi belongs here. Let the discussions on background be alluded to, gone into on the individual page, but here make entries which are useful to users of the encyclopedia. RuthieK 14:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the intent of the article was to list the numerous contributions to science, ancient and modern, by scientists of the
Islamic world during the
Islamic Golden Age. If this is acceptable, I would suggest to rephrase the lead to reflect this, and then be possibly a little more inclusive and allow any of the Islamic scientists and philosophers of that era, including
Al Farabi. The title itself can be modified to "Arab and Muslim ..." Comments?
Crum375
13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You are correct; but I see some points that need addressing. First, the
List of Muslim scientists is not time limited to the
Islamic Golden Age, whereas this one seems to be ('up to until the beginning of the modern age' - needs clearer definition). Second, I think there may be a very significant overlap between the 2 lists, which in general is bad - it duplicates work, it is a source for inconsistencies, it confuses readers. Third, if this one is strictly limited to ethnic
Arabs, you'll have a problem in validating ethnicity. If you just read the current
Arab article, it specifically mentions the language as the common denominator: "The Arabs are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa." So clearly this would be problematic. A good WP list depends on well defined inclusion criteria; anything else is prone to problems.
Crum375
13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no clear definition of arab - except they live in arabia. This list clearly states it is for people who contributed to science in arabic in the middle ages. Read the first paragraph of the article!!! People wishing to folow quasi-racial (ethic) definitions can use the other list clearly provided for them RuthieK 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) American Heritage Dictionary: Ar·ab (²r“…b) n. 1. A member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern Africa from the seventh century.
There is a list for your views List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars. It was created because there is a group of people determined not to follow the self-description of the list arab scientists and scholars which includes ALL scientists contributing to science in the arabic cultural world. Some people want a list of arab scientists, following their own definition of arab (not even the usual definition in english). That list is to cater to their wishes, in the hope they will stop blocking, reverting and vandalising entries on the this list RuthieK 10:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey RuthieK, I tried adding to the list Al-Khwarizmi, who was born and lived his whole life in bahgdad, wrote and tought all his work in arabic, was buried in baghdad, but the Iranian Group keept always deleting it, saying that he was persian, which even that is not sure as you can see from his article's discussion. I tried to convince them that an Arab is not a race, just like an american is not a race, and even gave them the "official" defination of Arab as put by the Arab League, which goes like this: "An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples.", i.e. arab is not a race, but rather a cultural and linguistic term, but all this was fruitless. Good Luck!! Jidan 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In connection with the above discussion, I have changed the description of the list. The previous description would be applicable to anyone who wrote in Arabic or lived in an Arab country for a considerable time, including Al-Biruni, Maimonides, Mashallah, or other people who cannot be in any way considered "Arab scholars". Beit Or 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Guys, I think the disclaimer was usefull (especially since it was taken from the List of Russians. There should be some overlap between this list and the other lists. People like Al-Khwarizmi lived all their life in Arabic countries but might be Persian or Turks by blood, others like Ibn Sina might considered to be Arabs but they lived in Uzbekistan and Persia. There were inter-ethnic marraiges, The modern boundaries are different from the old boundaries, etc., etc. We (you) will die arguing instead of editing. Lets have all the lists be maximally inclusive it does not matter that Ibn Sina will be in the lists of Persian, Arabs, Uzbeks, Afghans - you name it. People who like to brag by long lists will brag. Everybody will be happy. It worked that way for quite a while, lets keep it. Alex Bakharev 10:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You can call the Abbasid caliphate, "Arabia", if that makes you feel better, they are just names. Since it was a political entity, ruled by an arab dynasty, which ruled its territory and its citizens under one law(the islamic sharia), and under one language(arabic) .Its capital, baghdad, where most scholars come from, was and still is an arab city. Why would this be different from imperial Russia? I won't discuess Al-Khwarizmi, since he was by culture and ethnicity an arab. But lets take Al-Farabi.He lived his last 40 years in baghdad(an arab city), where all his work was written, and his salary was paid from taxes collected by this arab governement. Its only logical that he should be included in the list of arab scholars. Besides, the disclaimer says clearly:
They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic"....That should be it Jidan 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the disclaimer at the top of the page, because it provides an important explanation to the reader. Further discussion about the exact wording might be appropriate, but some explanation is certainly necessary. Doc Tropics 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue is one of accuracy. The first problem I see here, and there is plenty, is using an anachronistic term like the Arab World, when there was no such thing until the modern, post-French revolution, and in fact post WWII period. And yes, it is in fact unreasonable to assume that anyone with an Arabic-sounding name is automatically Arab, anymore than anyone with an English-sounding name is automatically English. For example, I came upon a reference for one of the disputed scholars, Masha'allah, which notes that he did have a Persian name though his penname was Arabized. Arabization of names was not uncommon at the time. Arabic was the language of science then, just as Greek once was. I don't see a similar list of Greek scholars that includes everyone of notability who spoke or wrote in Greek, or had a Greek or Hellenized name.
As far as I can see, the argument behind this list seems to be: if "the Iranians" have a list, then the Arabs should have one too! And when some scholars are removed by others who feel that their contributions are worthy of mention in their own right and not be subsumed into an arbitrary category such as this, the removal is sometimes explained in terms of some joint Iranian-Israeli conspiracy! This is bordering on the ridiculous and I'm mystified that several attempts at community consensus have simply been dismissed or ignored based on that. — zɪʔɾɪdəʰ · ☥ 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Arab league just repeated what Muhammed, an arab statsman and religious leader, said 1400 years before:
...Being an Arab is not, in any of you, inherited from father or mother but it is only the language that is spoken (Innama Hiya Al-lisan). Jidan 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ali doostzadeh wrote:
1/There used to be many Iranians in iraq until pan-Arabists did their usual ethnic cleansing in the 20th century.
2/At least till the mongol era, one can safely say a good portion of Iraq was Iranian. Going back to the Sassanid era, Arabs were definitely a minority. There is still 25% Iranians in Iraq, mainly Kurds.
1/Usual ethnic cleansing!!!???
The was no ethnic cleansing done by Arabs in history and surely not in the 20 th century
2/Iraq was and is still a semite majority country,genetic tests had proven that there are more Semites in Iran than Aryans.
When Iranians came to middle-east 2700 years ago they were very few nomadic warriors who only imposed their language upon semite peoples which was inhabtating Iraq 4000-4500 years before the coming of Iranians.
I think it rather should be:"one can safely say that a good portion of Iran is genetically and culturally[religion,alphabet,language,music]not Iranian but Semite and Semite Arab.
There is still 65-70% non Persians in Iran mainly Turk,Kurd and Arabs.
Humanbyrace ( talk) 10:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Humanbyrace ( talk) 10:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I just found the discussions here but there are too many to wade through. I did notice there was a suggestion to change this to one of Muslim scholars rather than Arab. Can't tell what came of that, but I think it's more appropriate. I am removing Egyptians from this page because it claims to be "a list of scientists and scholars of Arab origin." That's just not accurate. Please see discussion I had with Jidan on my talk page. — zɪʔɾɪdəʰ · ☥ 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
41.237.99.185 ( talk) 10:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Alhazen And Gaber Are Arabs 100% Aaaaaaaa142538 ( talk) 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Al khwarizmi wasn't Arab or Persian Aaaaaaaa142538 ( talk) 17:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What exactly (which names) made this list's accuracy disputed or made it based on original research ? -- Lanov 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Jidan, you think, on this basis, whoever speaks Arabic is Arab? Gutsarin 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the page because of the edit war. The issue appears to be inclusion of Ibn Farnas, Abu Kamil, Al Fazari, and Ibn Yunus, although from the summary notes the dispute appears to be about Fazari. Please discuss. >Radiant< 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It would seem the issue is wether or not you are trying to define "Arab" as a ethnic or culural group. If you wish to define it as a cultural group then, by definition, any person from an Arabic speaking nation or area is an Arab. If you wish to define it along ethnic terms then only members of the Semitic people in and around Arabia would be included. IMO only the ethnic group should be included, otherwise you are going to have to not only clump several African and notably "un-Arab" peoples into the list you are also going to have to determine when these Arabic speaking regions first became "Arab". This is only going to spark more debate and would make this List even more conflict prone than it already is. Just my two cents. NeoFreak 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Link did not include an apostrophe before the i, leading it nowhere. Fixed this.-- Aeranis 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
before i start the history lesson i wanna say as one of the friends said earlier, An Arab its like An American, a people who bron in the arabian land and his language is arabic, even if they wasn't arab by race if u wanna consider arab as a race.
you have to know that there is an arab race of one arabic country that called Yemen, the arabs originally started on that country not like everybody think (i mean its not saudi arabia), in thousand of years before islam, christianity, and jewdism the Yemeni people are travling to many countries in the world for trade, espcially a group of people in Yemen called 'Hadrami, this people consider one of the best business people in the world, they are the people who sent Islam to Indonesia and malaysia plus another Asian and African countries, also in some parts of Europe. Imegration was very big from this country in the begning for the countries that has semetice groups such as arabs, of course those languages has a lot of arabic vocabulary, then after they mixed with them new generations looks alike because they all are semetice race, these group of people add more arabic words to their language because they had lack of vocabulary, also they accepted the arabic words coz they found the language itself looks tipcally like arabic, then those group of people sparades in a lot of other places and so on, also in Yemen there was a great disaster of Yemen that called Marib Dam, so more Yemeni imigretions started, even today in Iran itself, they use the Arabic alphabet in their language, plus that more of 40% of persian language has arabic vocabulary, after that another era of arab-persian problem during the eimpre of Persia, when arab had a big war with the Persian empire that called Battle of Thi Qar, the arab at that time wasn't muslims yet.
also i want to say that all (not even most) the poeple that their names started with AL are arabs.
also all of the Ahl al-Bayt, are arabs, and iranian are saying that they are persian untill today!! well i will accept that they are Iranian people today coz they born and lived in Iran, but ethnically are not Persian. — Abdullah Alkendy ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
i hope that i help as much as i can because i got these info from an old people who are already dead. — Abdullah Alkendy ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
26-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I inserted missing topic headers & trimmed the bot-signed notes. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
26-Oct-2008: The format guidelines for adding entries to the list are described under the topic (above) titled: Entries Format for the List of Arab scientists and scholars. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The article Brethren of Purity does not say they were Arab. So why they are listed here? Please explain.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The word "Arab" is used ambigiously and clearly refers to different groups at different times. Unfortunately, English has not developed a wording analogue to Greek (Hellenic) / Hellenistic for the Arabs.
The definition of the Arab League mentioned here earlier is quite frankly horrible, notwithstanding that the Arab League in 1946, when it defined the word "Arab", included few if any democratic leaders.
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
I kindly ask: who defines whether a person's aspirations are "in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arab speaking peoples"? Does this mean that a person speaking Arabic, living in an Arabic speaking country, but who for some reason has happened to be in conflict with the majority of Arab speaking peoples (for instance by converting to another religion, something that is punishable in many such countries) is not an Arab anymore? For crying out loud.
Muslim scientist is not a good term either, though it is featured on Wikipedia as well. Yet again - and this is also inconsequent - people like Hunayn ibn Ishaq, a well-renowned 9th century translator, would not be included there because he was a Christian. There was a certain pressure in Muslim societies to embrace the faith of Islam, if you wanted to reach the pinnacles of society - the term "Muslim scientist" goes into highly speculative details of whatever denomination a person held publicly and what he thought privately.
The same pressure was present in Christian societies, but the idea that Galileo Galilei or Charles Darwin would be labelled "Christian scientists" (they were certainly both members of churches throughout their lives) would be ludicrous. The same actually goes for medieval scholars in Christian countries - for instance Paul of Aegina who was a Greek Christian in the 7th century AD. The latter category Christian Scientists does not even exist - it is redirected to an obscure 19th century church. If Wikipedia finds it relevant to list all the scientists who (at least formally) believed in the Quran, why are not the scientists who paid at least lip-service to the Bible mentioned as well?
Now to the point: most of the scientists referred to here and on the Muslim scholar page should be transferred to a page called something like "(Arab) Caliphate civilisation scientists and scholars". Because that's what it's about. Most of these scholars were Arabs, but a sizeable minority belong to "arabized" people: Persians, Jews, Kurds, Greeks etc, who wrote in Arabic. Most of them were Muslims, but a sizeable minority were only formally so, or belonged to other religious groups. The likely ethnically Arab scholars who predate the Caliphate should be moved to another site, perhaps called "Pre-Islamic Arab scholars". Sponsianus ( talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys are double spacing the list of entries in your list of Arab scholars so that it looks like theres more names. Do you guys have to constantly live in the shadow of Persians? I mean I constantly see Arab critics to academically sourced Persian scholars in Iranian wiki pages, and it's really sad I mean the other day I found out from a friend who lived in Jordon that they taught students in his school that Ibn Sina was an Arab...Whatever you guys have to prove to yourselves only makes a mockery of intelligent, reasonable minded Arabs who know a good source from a fabricated one.
The wikiarticle about Persian scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_scientists
Includes many non Persian scientists(such as Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Turk,Uzbek,Jew,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...)
But the scientists included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
ARE ALL ARAB since their mother tongue,name,surname and origin was ARAB(or SEMITE for someones)living under ARAB states
Humanbyrace ( talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The wikiarticle about Persian scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_scientists
Includes many non Persian scientists(such as Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Turk,Uzbek,Jew,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...) Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Azari,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...) are all considered Iranic !!!
But the scientists included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
ARE ALL ARAB since their mother tongue,name,surname and origin was ARAB(or SEMITE for someones)living under ARAB states
Humanbyrace ( talk) 09:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Answer to mr Ali doostzadeh
Ali doostzadeh wrote:
1/There used to be many Iranians in iraq until pan-Arabists did their usual ethnic cleansing in the 20th century.
2/At least till the mongol era, one can safely say a good portion of Iraq was Iranian. Going back to the Sassanid era, Arabs were definitely a minority. There is still 25% Iranians in Iraq, mainly Kurds.
1/Usual ethnic cleansing!!!???
The was no ethnic cleansing done by Arabs in history and surely not in the 20 th century
there have been so many ethnic cleansing is sudan,morroco, iraq,... done by arabs !!!
2/Iraq was and is still a semite majority country,genetic tests had proven that there are more Semites in Iran than Aryans.
When Iranians came to middle-east 2700 years ago they were very few nomadic warriors who only imposed their language upon semite peoples which was inhabtating Iraq 4000-4500 years before the coming of Iranians. 2700 years ago? if aryan immigration be true and not myth, it happened 7000 years ago !!!
I think it rather should be:"one can safely say that a good portion of Iran is genetically and culturally[religion,alphabet,language,music]not Iranian but Semite and Semite Arab. religion,alphabet,language (somehow) and specially music of so-called semetics are heavily influenced by Iranians.
There is still 65-70% non Persians in Iran mainly Turk,Kurd and Arabs. kurds are Iranic, arabs of Iran are either immigrants or refugees,azaris also are Iranic but they speak an old version of turkic ottoman language.
Humanbyrace ( talk) 10:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
from 5 known members , 3 of them mentioned below were not obviously arab. ابوسلیمان محمد بن معشر بُستی ,ابوالحسن علی بن هارون زنجانی،
ابواحمد مهرجانی)نهرجوری)،
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irakischer_Maler_von_1287_001.jpg —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.166.197.66 (
talk)
23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we delete the "this section is empty tags", along with the section headers? That would seem to make sense to me, as it would lead to a cleaner, more reader-friendly list, and the tags seem to yield little benefit and much cost in terms of distraction -- what sayeth consensus?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The intro sez ... lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. It isn't quite clear when that is; Modern history says Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.... So 20th century people are definitely too modern. 19th C too, I'd say; and even 18th C is dubious William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
"scientists and scholars" is quite vague. To take a specific case, what about philosophers such as Ahmad Bilal Yousaf? William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Aṭlas, sorry but your reasons for the deletions are not Valid. Regarding the Moorish scholars, half of them are clearly ethnic Arabs who belonged to known Arab tribes like for example, Al-Bakri ( Banu Bakr), Al-Ghafiqi ( Ghafiq), Ibn Jubayr ( Banu Kinanah), Ibn al-Kattani ( Madh'hij), Ibn Malik ( Tayy), Ibn al-Wafid ( Banu Lakhm), and others. So there is no argument over such names to begin with. As for the rest whose biography or ethnicity is not clear, they also belongs in the article as mentioned in the disclaimer at the beginning.
And I don't see what is your problem with the Muslim Egyptian and Syrian scholars exactly?
Finally, regarding the unrelated scholars(islamic scolares and historians) they surely falls under the category of "scholars" which is within the scope of this list. The same type of scholars have been listed in articles like List of Turkic scholars and List of Iranian scientists and scholars as well. So why single this article out? Either delete them there too, or keep them listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasfras17 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Frasfras17 ( talk) 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Here we go. Zakariya is Arab by origin, it's not the first time you deliberately disrupted Arab related pages, Al-Kindi, Mubariz al-Din Muhammad and now this page? (All have one similarity, your versions were removed) I think I am getting tired of this unconstructive patterns, it just need a serious admin intervention if it continued (And a history CV of pages you edited all the way until an admin intervention who reverted your versions, just to make them in the spotlight that it is your usual behavior of crusading Arab articles). Your page would be certainly reverted, like your other disruptive edits. Let me remind you once again: Your OR or what you consider applicable to be Arab or whatnot doesn't matter. I will leave you to comprehend that simple fact. Nabataeus ( talk) 00:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, you are very selective when you use Wikipedia :
« it's not the first time you deliberately disrupted Arab related pages, Al-Kindi, Mubariz al-Din Muhammad and now this page? (All have one similarity, your versions were removed)«
I perfectly agree with the version about Mubariz which states that he was of « distant Arab origin » and not « Arab » like you wanted to write in the article (this version goes even further than the one i proposed because it includes the word « distant »...). And, of course, you do not speak about articles like Ismail al-Jazari, Muzaffarids or Abdullah Ansari you tried to vandalize by Arabizing them (these articles have also one similarity : YOUR versions were removed), but do not feel humiliated, because Wikipedia is not about winning. More, Frasfras tried to state that Zakariya al-Qazwini was an Arab, but LouisAragon reverted him... Stating that Qazwini was an Arab is not a problem for me if you provide a reliable source saying so. But if you can’t, i will revert your edit...
« it is your usual behavior of crusading Arab articles »
Crusades mainly occured against Turkish dynasties and, in a much lower level, Iranian dynasties, but only some Arabs like you complain about it.. quite a funny behavior...
I’m not « crusading » against anyone, i’m only trying to improve (modestly) Wikipedia and when i find a reliable souurce for an Arab claim, i include it, like i did here, but i have not found a single edit from you supporting another people than Arabs...
Anyway, we’re not here to speak about you or me... but do not forget what i told you, provide a reliable source stating that Qazwini was an Arab and NOT only « Arab origin » to include him in your Arab list (if only the origin matters, then you, me, and anybody else on this planet is an Ethiopian !).
« I think I am getting tired »
Yeah, you're right to be tired because I always fight POV pushers like you until they're tired...
Farawahar ( talk) 07:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the time you took to find some sources stating Zakarya was Arab, therefore, his name can remain in the Arab list (and on the Persian list).
« Huh, how ironic. The problem was not about paraphrasing, but rather your inaccurate shoving of the word Persian in front of his page. Therefore it was removed by an admin. You could just change the wording in the article couldn't you? But it doesn't correspond with your initial POV it appears. »
As you can check, no amin intervention here : Mubariz al-Din Muhammad. Do you know why ? Because since i’m not a nationalist like you AND someone found a reliable source stating that Mubariz was of distant Arab origin, not like you who first tried to state he was an Arab using a Venezuelan economist as « referenced informations » on this topic, (LMAO!), there was just no need of an admin there ...
« I am flexible to any opinion »
Yeah, you’re flexible when you can not do otherwise (just like in the Al-Jazari article...).
« In front of you, Khawaja page, I corrected the reference citation that state Persian »
The source about Ansari was mine, you did not add it, you just corrected the regerence style (and you could not remove it because it’s reliable...).
« Advice: Do not consider me your antagonist. »
All nationalists are my antagonists, do you know why ? Just because nationalism means war (unlike patriotism). Since seemingly you need to advise everybody, i will tell you 3 things :
1) Keep your « advices » for yourself.
2) I’m Ms nobody, but if i had an advice for you, it would be :
contribute to Wikipedia honestly, not like you did until now, like a POV editor, and you should not hear about me anymore, but if you’re here to fight against others, blatantly trying to Arabize Wikipedia just as if it was a battleground, then trust me, i’ll be there to make you « tired » of fighting again ...
3) i’m an Iranian woman with Polish ancestry and living with an Iranian man. Being of Polish ancestry does not make me Polish, i consider myself Iranian (or strongly Iranized), AND, i know it's hard to accept for a nationalist, but yes, we are all Ethiopians at the origin, even you and even me with my blond hair and my green eyes.
I think we’re done now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farawahar ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
What a ranting filled with multiple accusative statements and mixed with deliberate dishonesty. It lack any intellectual input. You take the morale ground, but that was your edit in AL-Kindi [18]. An epitome example of mendacious individual. Forget it, emotions are leaking from your keyboard, it prevent comprehension. I will leave it there. Have a nice day angry woman! Nabataeus ( talk) 15:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ho ho ho, since i told you i’m a woman, my emotions are leaking from my keyboard ... so shabby... As to my “deliberate dishonesty”, i let other users see here about you, always the first to give lessons but the last one to apply them ... My contribution to Al kindi article was reliable, since the experienced user Kansas Besr said, tertiary sources are reliables, but i will deal with this issue elsewhere. Farawahar ( talk) 17:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)