This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some of the style guidelines are obvious and well known to most. But hey it's nice to be thorough.
-- Universaliss 12:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Entry is off-topic and should be removed: "1207 - 1273 [sociology; poetry; spirituality] Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, one of the best known persian passion poets..." ~~
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
"1600s [flight; rocketry] Turkish scientist Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi took off from Galata tower and flew over the Bosphorus. Lagari Hasan Çelebi, another member of the Celebi family, sent the first manned rocket, using 150 okka (about 300 pounds) of gunpowder as the firing fuel. This is more than two hundred years before similar attempts in Modern Europe and the United States."
were there not chinese experiments in manned rocketry hundreds of years before this?
ah, it turns out that i was thinking about the legend of Wan Hu, which takes place in the 16th century.
Sultan of Misore coud not be an inventor of war rockets. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_Siemienowicz
The text, "1600s [mathematics] The Arabic mathematician Mohammed Baqir Yazdi gave the pair of amicable numbers 9,363,584 and 9,437,056 still many years before Euler's contribution [1]." was copied from http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and the way it reads misses that according to http://amicable.adsl.dk/aliquot/c2/c2_7.txt (this link was taken from the Wikipedia page Amicable_number and as can be seen from http://amicable.homepage.dk/apstat.htm#discoverer ) that single pair is joint discovered by Decartes i.e. it is recorded as Yazdi/Decartes. Euler obviously came later (well he was born later, duh!) and has 59 pairs to his name. Also interestingly that original copied reference, http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html also mentions the pair 17296 and 18416 and also says how these had been mistakenly attributed to Euler, "He also gave the pair of amicable numbers 17296, 18416 which have been attributed to Euler, but we know that these were known earlier than al-Farisi, perhaps even by Thabit ibn Qurra himself." Other sites attribute this to Fermat and not Euler, and would show this as being found by all of al-Banna, Farisi and Fermat. That site linked on the Wikipedia page as reference [1] for the Arabic mathematics at the University of St-Andrews Scotland really has a thing with Euler and that raises issues with its accuracy. I have no idea how to change this other than to say that Yazdi was co-discoverer of that pair with Descartes (1636)...but that doesn't really spin it right now does it ? Ttiotsw 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the section for 965 - 1040 ...has the last sentence as "... Lagrange gave the first known proof in 1771, ... more than 750 years after al-Haytham." There is no evidence that "al-Haytham" found a proof. He just stated the theorem. It even says so in the reference. The "750" year value was copied from http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and reworded. This is very much WP:OR. Please get it right - with these mistakes you make a mockery of both the contributions of ibn al-Haitham and Lagrange to mathematics. Ttiotsw 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Im athiest, so i dont care either way, but shouldn't there also be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish Science as well?
Also, is not science and technology a seperate subject (not neccisarily mutually exclusive) to a religion.
This article would do much better to be "Timeline of Human Science and Technology" or at least "Timeline of Middle-east Science and Technology" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.221.252 ( talk) 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
Not really...this article doesn't pertain to Islam's contributions to science but rather to the contributions to science made by the civilization known by historians as the Islamic civilization. Therefore it doesn't imply that science is mutually exclusive to a religion but highlights the contributions to science made by Islamic civilization. I do however think that a more appropriate title would be "Timeline of Science and Technology in Islamic Civilization". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.17.219 ( talk) 11:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Although a lot of the science described hier is very important, I have my doubts that this is all "Islamic science".
The reasons for my doubts are: Today there is no pure "Islamic science" under the term of what we understand as "physical Science". Science is science, that's it. So science in the Islamic world is just science, not Islamic science. Under the official term "science" there isn't also no Christain science, Jewish science, or whatever.
But, under certain cirumstances we can name it indeed Islamic science:
Conclusion: according to the arguments, and the fact that this site described sciences upto the 20th century, it does not meet the above criteria.
So, I think that the topic name of this page should be changed from "Timeline of Islamic science and technology" to "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world". But I'm not going to change the title for the upcoming two days, first I want to know from someone about why and how of the present title Demophon 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to split this article into two seperate articles, to reduce the size of the article and to make space for more additions. One article can deal with the timeline of Islamic science, and the other with the timeline of Muslim technology. Any comments? Jagged 85 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Great article, but does the title ("Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world") reflect the content? Many of the later entries refer to Muslim scientists who were active (and often born) outside the Islamic world: for example, Pierre Omidyar and Jawed Karim were both born in the West, while Ahmed Zewail, Fazlur Khan, Abdus Salam, etc were all active there.
Also, are we certain that all the entries are Muslim? For example, Jawed Karim's mother was a German woman called Christine, while Lotfi Zadeh is listed online as having a Jewish Russian mother. The problem is that most scientists don't write about their religious views (Abdus Salam being a notable exception). Without sources, even Pierre Omidyar could potentially be a Christian or Zorastrian. Udzu ( talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
In June 2007 Demophon made a reasoned argument for a change of title for this article. Then in March 2008 Udzu changed it back again , but I'm not sure I folow his reasons for this. Can we have a debate?
I suggest "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world" is the better title. We dont talk about Christian science or Atheistic science so why have an Islamic science. As User:Udzu says , little is known of the beliefs of the scientists mentioned here. The Islamic world is a cultural entity under which science operated for centuries. I propose changing it back again to "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world" . Lumos3 ( talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the article be split into two parts: Timeline of classical Islamic science and engineering and Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. The reason why I think this would be more appropriate is because the classical period deals almost exclusively with the Islamic world, whereas the modern period deals with Muslim scientists and engineers from both within and outside the Islamic world. Furthermore, it would help reduce the length of the article, without having to sacrifice any content. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
here are some third party sources
this article cites a large number of self published sources which are not reliable. The claims that are true are confirmed. Misleading claims should be explained or deleted. J8079s ( talk) 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
J8079s ( talk) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
from the source cited; "To compensate this relative "failure", Taqī al-Dīn evokes in his book Kitāb Nūr an important discovery that was never mentioned before. This regards an instrument that makes the objects located far away appear closer to the observer. He says: "I made a crystal (billawr) that has two lenses displaying in details the objects from long distances. When they look from one of its edges, people can see the sail of the ship in far. My instrument is similar to that of ancient Greeks which had made and placed on the Tower of Alexandria" [13].
Taqī al-Dīn's assertion evokes no less than a kind of spectacles, the instrument that had beginning from 1609 the tremendous fortune we know of, when Galileo directed it to the skies and used it as a telescope. As he describes it, Taqi al-Din's instrument helps to see the objects in detail by bringing them very close. In addition, he stated that he wrote an article explaining the way of making and using this instrument. Yet, there is confusion concerning a part of his explanation, when he claims that his apparatus has similar properties to one used by ancient Greeks in Alexandria penthouse. Obviously, this derives from the tales and narrations that surrounded this mysterious monument, like burning mirrors.
At any rate, this is a topic that needs to be investigated carefully, to state whether such an invention was really made in Ottoman lands, if Taqi al-Din's instrument attracted the attention of his contemporaries, and most of all, if it was transmitted in a way or another to Western Europe by the end of the 16th century. According to the known and available information, spectacles were used in Europe at the beginning of the 17th century. It was in this context that Galileo used them in astronomical investigation from the summer of 1609. Now, Taqī al-Dīn's book had been written nearly 30-35 years before. What conclusions could be drawn from these dates? Only a thorough research in the original archives can attain a conclusion. What we can state for the moment is that this is an area of research worth a deep investigation, and that it may reveal some hidden secrets." J8079s ( talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
<ref name=Topdemir>{{cite book|first=Hüseyin Gazi|last=Topdemir|title=Takîyüddîn'in Optik Kitabi|publisher=Ministry of Culture Press, [[Ankara]]|year=1999}} ([[cf.]] {{cite web|author=Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir|title=Taqi al-Din ibn Ma‘ruf and the Science of Optics: The Nature of Light and the Mechanism of Vision|publisher=FSTC Limited|url=http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=951|date=30 June 2008|accessdate=2008-07-04}})</ref>{{Failed verification|date=November 2008}}''
these are reliable third party sources that you can access at google books
Claims of "first" need citations "first recorded" is different than "invented" improvements are not invention (but they are still important). Please lets do some reading and improve the article. Until its resolved lets keep the tags. J8079s ( talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
A source that merely repeats a claim is insufficient. Reliable 3rd party sources are available there is no need for self published sources or quote farms J8079s ( talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
We are dealing with History. We need quotes. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 22:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
doesnt anyone want to help? J8079s ( talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also here: http://www.farlang.com/gemstones/radcliffe-stockholm-papyrus/page_001 The recipes especially for cleaning and making pearls leads me to question the reliability of the citation J8079s ( talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are the tags placed on the page? I have revereted them owing to the lack of explanation. The sources seem fine to me and they are based on good sources. Please stop including false tags. They are not needed. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
here is an easy one: 794 - [industry, technology] The first paper mills are created in Baghdad, marking the beginning of the paper industry.[40] This is probably true but the source cited: http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=329 does not give a date. J8079s ( talk) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the validity of sources for the recent entries on this list, specifically the ones covering 1900 to the present day. It seems that a large number of those entries are either unsourced or use only self-published sources. Additionally, in our current globalised world it doesn't seem to make sense to talk about Islamic, or Western, or Chinese, or any other kind of science and engineering. Big projects are invariably multiresearcher - what percentage of coinventors have to be Muslim before it can be considered Islamic science? How do we define "Muslim scientist"? Born in a majority Muslim area? To a Muslim family? Converted to the faith? Before or after the invention? It seems like a perennial thorn and just not possible to reconcile with Wikipedia's original research and neutral point of view policies.
Please note that I'm not talking about the entries before 1900 (or even, arguably, before 1945). Before then, science and engineering were separate and nationalistic/cultural. But I think that this article would stand better as a historically focused one rather than going through to the present day. Orpheus ( talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more I think it needs a complete rewrite. I'm going to have a bash at it, and I'd appreciate any suggestions or criticisms that the community has. I'll list my objectives here, and I welcome any additions or modifications. These are off the top of my head - I'll probably end up making lots of modifications myself...
As I said above, suggestions welcome here or on my talk page (probably a better venue for discussing the last entry) and I'll endeavour to create a list of (or perhaps archive on a talk subpage) the content I end up removing during the rewrite. Orpheus ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Some additions to some of the points, have not been explained why they were added in. Faro0485 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC).
Now why has the following been removed without discussion?
- 610 - 632 [empiricism, theology] The Qur'an, which was revealed during this time, emphasized the use of empirical observation and reason. [1] [2] [3] [4] original research? It has been claimed that the Qur'an also contains knowledge that was far ahead of its time (see Qur'an and science and Islam and science for the debate on this topic).
- 610 - 632 [astrology] Several hadiths attributed to Muhammad show that he was generally opposed to astrology as well as superstition in general. An example of this is when an eclipse occurred during his son Ibrahim ibn Muhammad's death, and rumours began spreading about this being God's personal condolence. Muhammad is said to have replied: "An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being." [5] unreliable source?
- 610 - 632 [medicine] Muhammad is reported to have made the following statements on early Islamic medicine: "There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its treatment"; [6] "Make use of medical treatment, for Allah has not made a disease without appointing a remedy for it, with the exception of one disease, namely old age"; [7] "Allah has sent down both the disease and the cure, and He has appointed a cure for every disease, so treat yourselves medically"; [8] "The one who sent down the disease sent down the remedy." [9] The belief that there is a cure for every disease encouraged Muslims at the time to seek out a remedy for every disease known to them.
- 610 - 632 [medicine, pathology] Early ideas on contagion can be traced back to several hadiths attributed to Muhammad, who is said to have understood the contagious nature of leprosy, mange, and sexually transmitted disease. [10] dubious – discuss These early ideas on contagion arose from the generally sympathetic attitude of Muslim physicians towards lepers (who were often seen in a negative light in other ancient and medieval societies) which can be traced back through hadiths attributed to Muhammad and to the following advice given in the Qur'an: "There is no fault in the blind, and there is no fault in the lame, and there is no fault in the sick." [11] dubious – discuss
Faro0485 ( talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
References
( cf. C. A. Qadir (1990), Philosophy and Science in the lslumic World, Routledge, London)"Observe nature and reflect over it."
— Qur'an
It is disputed by Dietrich Lohrmann, the reference added to the windmill wiki article. But I don't know German, do you? [3] Faro0485 ( talk) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a lot of the crap. Reformatted it. Feel free to start the real cleanup work. Hell, do we even really need this article? Oh man it was painful, took a lot of time! Anyone want to comment on my work!? -- kittyKAY4 ( talk) 06:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to Kitty's message, while I appreciate the formatting changes you've made to the article, I had a problem with the large amount of sourced content you were removing, and it seems some of it was even by accident? I thought it would be best to just restore all the sourced content and then start again, section by section. I'll be more than willing to help shorten each entry into a more concise summary format. Also, try to be civil with your discussions and edit summaries. Getting frustrated and swearing all the time isn't going to help anyone here. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 02:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
1970s "rope-a-dope technique" What????
Faro0485 (
talk)
07:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Reference 316 and 317 links are broken. Faro0485 ( talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the entry on an HIV cure. Search reveals that the supposed cure was found by a religeous/political leader with no scientific background, has not undergone any independent verification, and is religeous/herbal in nature rather than medical. It does not belong in an article on science until there is some scientific basis/evidence. Dialectric ( talk) 12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't hadith science the prelude to the scientific method, shouldn't that be included? Faro0485 ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric ( talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 346 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd. 46 edits). The article has been tagged for almost two years. The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. For this reason I reverted contents to the last pre-Jagged85 version, that is 01 December 2006, with some modifications. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the section because there only was a dumb statement not backed by a credible source. UnbiasedNeutral ( talk) 02:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted what appears at first glance to be a decently-sourced addition. I've done this because the source is not available to me and the history of that anon contributor (plus a related one) make me very suspicious that this is another incarnation of a prolific pov-pushing sock. I realise that this runs counter to WP:AGF but that policy is not a suicide pact and the problems caused by the sock are both deeply engrained and common. Please can someone check the source and provide a relevant quotation from it. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 02:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just done a load of clean up. And yet I found that so much of this is a copyvio of http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/
Probably I could get the offending stuff out. But the history - the attribution... the humanity!
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
07:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC).
Avicenna, Al-Haytham (alhazen) for example. Al-tusi, al-nafisi, al-razi (rhazes), it's a list shockingly lacking in the biggest names. 135.23.132.58 ( talk) 07:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some of the style guidelines are obvious and well known to most. But hey it's nice to be thorough.
-- Universaliss 12:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Entry is off-topic and should be removed: "1207 - 1273 [sociology; poetry; spirituality] Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, one of the best known persian passion poets..." ~~
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
"1600s [flight; rocketry] Turkish scientist Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi took off from Galata tower and flew over the Bosphorus. Lagari Hasan Çelebi, another member of the Celebi family, sent the first manned rocket, using 150 okka (about 300 pounds) of gunpowder as the firing fuel. This is more than two hundred years before similar attempts in Modern Europe and the United States."
were there not chinese experiments in manned rocketry hundreds of years before this?
ah, it turns out that i was thinking about the legend of Wan Hu, which takes place in the 16th century.
Sultan of Misore coud not be an inventor of war rockets. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_Siemienowicz
The text, "1600s [mathematics] The Arabic mathematician Mohammed Baqir Yazdi gave the pair of amicable numbers 9,363,584 and 9,437,056 still many years before Euler's contribution [1]." was copied from http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and the way it reads misses that according to http://amicable.adsl.dk/aliquot/c2/c2_7.txt (this link was taken from the Wikipedia page Amicable_number and as can be seen from http://amicable.homepage.dk/apstat.htm#discoverer ) that single pair is joint discovered by Decartes i.e. it is recorded as Yazdi/Decartes. Euler obviously came later (well he was born later, duh!) and has 59 pairs to his name. Also interestingly that original copied reference, http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html also mentions the pair 17296 and 18416 and also says how these had been mistakenly attributed to Euler, "He also gave the pair of amicable numbers 17296, 18416 which have been attributed to Euler, but we know that these were known earlier than al-Farisi, perhaps even by Thabit ibn Qurra himself." Other sites attribute this to Fermat and not Euler, and would show this as being found by all of al-Banna, Farisi and Fermat. That site linked on the Wikipedia page as reference [1] for the Arabic mathematics at the University of St-Andrews Scotland really has a thing with Euler and that raises issues with its accuracy. I have no idea how to change this other than to say that Yazdi was co-discoverer of that pair with Descartes (1636)...but that doesn't really spin it right now does it ? Ttiotsw 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the section for 965 - 1040 ...has the last sentence as "... Lagrange gave the first known proof in 1771, ... more than 750 years after al-Haytham." There is no evidence that "al-Haytham" found a proof. He just stated the theorem. It even says so in the reference. The "750" year value was copied from http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and reworded. This is very much WP:OR. Please get it right - with these mistakes you make a mockery of both the contributions of ibn al-Haitham and Lagrange to mathematics. Ttiotsw 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Im athiest, so i dont care either way, but shouldn't there also be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish Science as well?
Also, is not science and technology a seperate subject (not neccisarily mutually exclusive) to a religion.
This article would do much better to be "Timeline of Human Science and Technology" or at least "Timeline of Middle-east Science and Technology" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.221.252 ( talk) 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
Not really...this article doesn't pertain to Islam's contributions to science but rather to the contributions to science made by the civilization known by historians as the Islamic civilization. Therefore it doesn't imply that science is mutually exclusive to a religion but highlights the contributions to science made by Islamic civilization. I do however think that a more appropriate title would be "Timeline of Science and Technology in Islamic Civilization". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.17.219 ( talk) 11:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Although a lot of the science described hier is very important, I have my doubts that this is all "Islamic science".
The reasons for my doubts are: Today there is no pure "Islamic science" under the term of what we understand as "physical Science". Science is science, that's it. So science in the Islamic world is just science, not Islamic science. Under the official term "science" there isn't also no Christain science, Jewish science, or whatever.
But, under certain cirumstances we can name it indeed Islamic science:
Conclusion: according to the arguments, and the fact that this site described sciences upto the 20th century, it does not meet the above criteria.
So, I think that the topic name of this page should be changed from "Timeline of Islamic science and technology" to "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world". But I'm not going to change the title for the upcoming two days, first I want to know from someone about why and how of the present title Demophon 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to split this article into two seperate articles, to reduce the size of the article and to make space for more additions. One article can deal with the timeline of Islamic science, and the other with the timeline of Muslim technology. Any comments? Jagged 85 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Great article, but does the title ("Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world") reflect the content? Many of the later entries refer to Muslim scientists who were active (and often born) outside the Islamic world: for example, Pierre Omidyar and Jawed Karim were both born in the West, while Ahmed Zewail, Fazlur Khan, Abdus Salam, etc were all active there.
Also, are we certain that all the entries are Muslim? For example, Jawed Karim's mother was a German woman called Christine, while Lotfi Zadeh is listed online as having a Jewish Russian mother. The problem is that most scientists don't write about their religious views (Abdus Salam being a notable exception). Without sources, even Pierre Omidyar could potentially be a Christian or Zorastrian. Udzu ( talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
In June 2007 Demophon made a reasoned argument for a change of title for this article. Then in March 2008 Udzu changed it back again , but I'm not sure I folow his reasons for this. Can we have a debate?
I suggest "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world" is the better title. We dont talk about Christian science or Atheistic science so why have an Islamic science. As User:Udzu says , little is known of the beliefs of the scientists mentioned here. The Islamic world is a cultural entity under which science operated for centuries. I propose changing it back again to "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world" . Lumos3 ( talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the article be split into two parts: Timeline of classical Islamic science and engineering and Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. The reason why I think this would be more appropriate is because the classical period deals almost exclusively with the Islamic world, whereas the modern period deals with Muslim scientists and engineers from both within and outside the Islamic world. Furthermore, it would help reduce the length of the article, without having to sacrifice any content. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
here are some third party sources
this article cites a large number of self published sources which are not reliable. The claims that are true are confirmed. Misleading claims should be explained or deleted. J8079s ( talk) 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
J8079s ( talk) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
from the source cited; "To compensate this relative "failure", Taqī al-Dīn evokes in his book Kitāb Nūr an important discovery that was never mentioned before. This regards an instrument that makes the objects located far away appear closer to the observer. He says: "I made a crystal (billawr) that has two lenses displaying in details the objects from long distances. When they look from one of its edges, people can see the sail of the ship in far. My instrument is similar to that of ancient Greeks which had made and placed on the Tower of Alexandria" [13].
Taqī al-Dīn's assertion evokes no less than a kind of spectacles, the instrument that had beginning from 1609 the tremendous fortune we know of, when Galileo directed it to the skies and used it as a telescope. As he describes it, Taqi al-Din's instrument helps to see the objects in detail by bringing them very close. In addition, he stated that he wrote an article explaining the way of making and using this instrument. Yet, there is confusion concerning a part of his explanation, when he claims that his apparatus has similar properties to one used by ancient Greeks in Alexandria penthouse. Obviously, this derives from the tales and narrations that surrounded this mysterious monument, like burning mirrors.
At any rate, this is a topic that needs to be investigated carefully, to state whether such an invention was really made in Ottoman lands, if Taqi al-Din's instrument attracted the attention of his contemporaries, and most of all, if it was transmitted in a way or another to Western Europe by the end of the 16th century. According to the known and available information, spectacles were used in Europe at the beginning of the 17th century. It was in this context that Galileo used them in astronomical investigation from the summer of 1609. Now, Taqī al-Dīn's book had been written nearly 30-35 years before. What conclusions could be drawn from these dates? Only a thorough research in the original archives can attain a conclusion. What we can state for the moment is that this is an area of research worth a deep investigation, and that it may reveal some hidden secrets." J8079s ( talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
<ref name=Topdemir>{{cite book|first=Hüseyin Gazi|last=Topdemir|title=Takîyüddîn'in Optik Kitabi|publisher=Ministry of Culture Press, [[Ankara]]|year=1999}} ([[cf.]] {{cite web|author=Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir|title=Taqi al-Din ibn Ma‘ruf and the Science of Optics: The Nature of Light and the Mechanism of Vision|publisher=FSTC Limited|url=http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=951|date=30 June 2008|accessdate=2008-07-04}})</ref>{{Failed verification|date=November 2008}}''
these are reliable third party sources that you can access at google books
Claims of "first" need citations "first recorded" is different than "invented" improvements are not invention (but they are still important). Please lets do some reading and improve the article. Until its resolved lets keep the tags. J8079s ( talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
A source that merely repeats a claim is insufficient. Reliable 3rd party sources are available there is no need for self published sources or quote farms J8079s ( talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
We are dealing with History. We need quotes. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 22:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
doesnt anyone want to help? J8079s ( talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also here: http://www.farlang.com/gemstones/radcliffe-stockholm-papyrus/page_001 The recipes especially for cleaning and making pearls leads me to question the reliability of the citation J8079s ( talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are the tags placed on the page? I have revereted them owing to the lack of explanation. The sources seem fine to me and they are based on good sources. Please stop including false tags. They are not needed. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
here is an easy one: 794 - [industry, technology] The first paper mills are created in Baghdad, marking the beginning of the paper industry.[40] This is probably true but the source cited: http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=329 does not give a date. J8079s ( talk) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the validity of sources for the recent entries on this list, specifically the ones covering 1900 to the present day. It seems that a large number of those entries are either unsourced or use only self-published sources. Additionally, in our current globalised world it doesn't seem to make sense to talk about Islamic, or Western, or Chinese, or any other kind of science and engineering. Big projects are invariably multiresearcher - what percentage of coinventors have to be Muslim before it can be considered Islamic science? How do we define "Muslim scientist"? Born in a majority Muslim area? To a Muslim family? Converted to the faith? Before or after the invention? It seems like a perennial thorn and just not possible to reconcile with Wikipedia's original research and neutral point of view policies.
Please note that I'm not talking about the entries before 1900 (or even, arguably, before 1945). Before then, science and engineering were separate and nationalistic/cultural. But I think that this article would stand better as a historically focused one rather than going through to the present day. Orpheus ( talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more I think it needs a complete rewrite. I'm going to have a bash at it, and I'd appreciate any suggestions or criticisms that the community has. I'll list my objectives here, and I welcome any additions or modifications. These are off the top of my head - I'll probably end up making lots of modifications myself...
As I said above, suggestions welcome here or on my talk page (probably a better venue for discussing the last entry) and I'll endeavour to create a list of (or perhaps archive on a talk subpage) the content I end up removing during the rewrite. Orpheus ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Some additions to some of the points, have not been explained why they were added in. Faro0485 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC).
Now why has the following been removed without discussion?
- 610 - 632 [empiricism, theology] The Qur'an, which was revealed during this time, emphasized the use of empirical observation and reason. [1] [2] [3] [4] original research? It has been claimed that the Qur'an also contains knowledge that was far ahead of its time (see Qur'an and science and Islam and science for the debate on this topic).
- 610 - 632 [astrology] Several hadiths attributed to Muhammad show that he was generally opposed to astrology as well as superstition in general. An example of this is when an eclipse occurred during his son Ibrahim ibn Muhammad's death, and rumours began spreading about this being God's personal condolence. Muhammad is said to have replied: "An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being." [5] unreliable source?
- 610 - 632 [medicine] Muhammad is reported to have made the following statements on early Islamic medicine: "There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its treatment"; [6] "Make use of medical treatment, for Allah has not made a disease without appointing a remedy for it, with the exception of one disease, namely old age"; [7] "Allah has sent down both the disease and the cure, and He has appointed a cure for every disease, so treat yourselves medically"; [8] "The one who sent down the disease sent down the remedy." [9] The belief that there is a cure for every disease encouraged Muslims at the time to seek out a remedy for every disease known to them.
- 610 - 632 [medicine, pathology] Early ideas on contagion can be traced back to several hadiths attributed to Muhammad, who is said to have understood the contagious nature of leprosy, mange, and sexually transmitted disease. [10] dubious – discuss These early ideas on contagion arose from the generally sympathetic attitude of Muslim physicians towards lepers (who were often seen in a negative light in other ancient and medieval societies) which can be traced back through hadiths attributed to Muhammad and to the following advice given in the Qur'an: "There is no fault in the blind, and there is no fault in the lame, and there is no fault in the sick." [11] dubious – discuss
Faro0485 ( talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
References
( cf. C. A. Qadir (1990), Philosophy and Science in the lslumic World, Routledge, London)"Observe nature and reflect over it."
— Qur'an
It is disputed by Dietrich Lohrmann, the reference added to the windmill wiki article. But I don't know German, do you? [3] Faro0485 ( talk) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a lot of the crap. Reformatted it. Feel free to start the real cleanup work. Hell, do we even really need this article? Oh man it was painful, took a lot of time! Anyone want to comment on my work!? -- kittyKAY4 ( talk) 06:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to Kitty's message, while I appreciate the formatting changes you've made to the article, I had a problem with the large amount of sourced content you were removing, and it seems some of it was even by accident? I thought it would be best to just restore all the sourced content and then start again, section by section. I'll be more than willing to help shorten each entry into a more concise summary format. Also, try to be civil with your discussions and edit summaries. Getting frustrated and swearing all the time isn't going to help anyone here. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 02:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
1970s "rope-a-dope technique" What????
Faro0485 (
talk)
07:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Reference 316 and 317 links are broken. Faro0485 ( talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the entry on an HIV cure. Search reveals that the supposed cure was found by a religeous/political leader with no scientific background, has not undergone any independent verification, and is religeous/herbal in nature rather than medical. It does not belong in an article on science until there is some scientific basis/evidence. Dialectric ( talk) 12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't hadith science the prelude to the scientific method, shouldn't that be included? Faro0485 ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric ( talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 346 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd. 46 edits). The article has been tagged for almost two years. The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. For this reason I reverted contents to the last pre-Jagged85 version, that is 01 December 2006, with some modifications. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the section because there only was a dumb statement not backed by a credible source. UnbiasedNeutral ( talk) 02:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted what appears at first glance to be a decently-sourced addition. I've done this because the source is not available to me and the history of that anon contributor (plus a related one) make me very suspicious that this is another incarnation of a prolific pov-pushing sock. I realise that this runs counter to WP:AGF but that policy is not a suicide pact and the problems caused by the sock are both deeply engrained and common. Please can someone check the source and provide a relevant quotation from it. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 02:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just done a load of clean up. And yet I found that so much of this is a copyvio of http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/
Probably I could get the offending stuff out. But the history - the attribution... the humanity!
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
07:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC).
Avicenna, Al-Haytham (alhazen) for example. Al-tusi, al-nafisi, al-razi (rhazes), it's a list shockingly lacking in the biggest names. 135.23.132.58 ( talk) 07:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)