Talk:Ibn al-Haytham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Easter Eggs

It looks like the pipes used in the first paragraph are contrary to WP:EGG, re: Astronomy, Engineering, Mathematics, Mechanics, Medicine, Optics, Ophthalmology, Philosophy, Physics, Psychology, Science. They should be cleared up or the paragraph re-worded. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Islamic Astronomy is not as common as Astronomy. --ManasShaikh (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

? You seem to be agreeing with me that the link leads to a different subject. Maybe my citation of the problem is unclear. The problem is clicking the linked word "Astronomy" takes you to the article Islamic astronomy, not astronomy. That is a link "that require(s) the reader to follow them to understand the term" i.e. it is an easter egg, there is a hidden subtext to the link. Paragraph should be rewritten and hidden pipes removed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because the subcontext is Islamic Astronomy. It makes perfect sense to me. --128.83.131.133 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, again an agreement that the link has a sub-context and therefor should be corrected? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the hidden piped links per WP:EGG. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure, Fountains, that you're not over-reading the notion of easter egg? The link to Astronomy in medieval Islam would not mislead or astonish the user. Isn't this the same principle as categorization, where instead of categorizing someone generally as a "Renaissance humanist" it's preferable to use "German Renaissance humanist" or "Italian Renaissance humanist"? The notion of sub-context seems to address the slipping in of editorial comment (see example of linking "allegation" to "rumor") or hidden diversions. SInce the guidelines on Piped links specifically say that the issue is when a non-intuitive link might "require the reader to follow them to understand the term," how is it diversionary to be taken directly to the more targeted article Astronomy in medieval Islam when the Islamic context is established by the article? (And ironically, the shortcut to Piped links is WP:EGG, which is less than transparent.) Moreover, how likely is it that someone doesn't know what "astronomy" is? If they don't, it's a lexical issue; if someone wants to know more about astronomy as practiced by Alhazen, isn't the more specific article better? Cynwolfe (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a matter of logical sentence structure. If we remove the pipes we get: "(Alhazen) made significant contributions to the principles of optics, as well as to anatomy, Islamic astronomy, Muslim inventions, Islamic mathematics, Islamic medicine, Ophthalmology in medieval Islam, Early Islamic philosophy, Islamic physics, Muslim psychology, visual perception, and to Islamic science in general with his introduction of the scientific method". So we are saying he is only important to the Islamic and Muslim versions of those fields and further saying the "scientific method" only affected "Islamic science"? I don't think so. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi

Iraqis know each other as Iraqis and have done for millenia, ask an Iraqi. I am including the fact that he was Iraqi in the article. Izzedine (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Izzedine, there was no Iraqi nationality at the time. In those days, people were either "Arab" or "Persian", not Iraqis or Iranians. --Kurdo777 (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kurdo777 . I think you may use the category for mentioning that , but the word Iraqi is somewhat misleading in historical sense , because in history we have Arabian Iraq (عراق العرب )and Ajami Iraq (عراق العجم)... So using a new world terminology for a historical entity may seem unfamiliar . I don't want you to get this as an offense against the integrity or legitimacy of modern Iraqi nation , but I think it would be better to change it to a more informative sentence . Thank you , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, It's linked to Iraqi people (The people who born or lived in the land of Iraq) not Iraq as a country. In that page people will know more abour Iraqi people whether if they are Persian, Arab, Assyria.. etc. Thanks for understanding. Mussav (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But your link to Iraqi people makes it absolutely clear that giving link to that page for any person from the region "between two rivers" (as you always try to tell us) living prior to WWI is wrong because the first sentence of that page reads: The Iraqi people are natives or inhabitants of the country of Iraq. There are more serious problems: Is the word Iraqi an Ethnolinguistic designation? You agree that it is indeed not. The situation for some other groups are different fro example "European" is different. I hope it helps.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do You mean this line? The Iraqi people are natives or inhabitants of the country of Iraq which is located primarily in the land between the two rivers Euphrates and Tigris (known since antiquity as "Mesopotamia").? Please define the meaning of "natives of the country of Iraq". Mussav (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but "country of Iraq" is by all means post-WWI. Read also about Arabization of Iraq--Xashaiar (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar... We already discussed this thing many times before, I will let the Iraq’s page speaks of itself. The Iraq’s page does not only include information of Post-WWI, It’s also include information of Ancient Iraq – what is known to the west by the Greek name, Mesopotamia. Mussav (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are misunderstanding the whole issue. 1. This is english wikipedia and hence your 1000-times-repeated argument that "we have always called ourselves Iraqis" does not work here. Note that I am not saying you are wrong. 2. According to WP:POV we have to follow the POV and the accounts of the most respected scholars of the article considered. On Alhazen for example, I have not seen the expression "Iraqi Arab" or "Iraqi Persian" anywhere in their works. Do you agree with this fact? Why aren't you happy with "Persian or Arab"? Take it easy, his birthplace is mentioned and guess what, that place is linked.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Habibi Xashaiar. First of all I didn't say it like the way you just said, I'm saying that we call this land by the name of Iraq since the beginning of Dawn while Mesopotamia is just a Greek name and this is a FACT. I don’t want to be drifted out from the main subject, Izziden linked it with Iraqi People which it’s not wrong at all because it has a rich info about the people of this land. In matter of fact you should be happier than anyone else, Say how? In this article it says that Alhazen was an Arab… but in the Iraqi People’s page, it gives hints that even if the people who were claimed to be Arab, they are actually not Arab and being Arabizied. Mussav (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You see we have solved the problem of ethnicity. This is not what we discuss about. I am just concerned that the page before Izziden's edit was better. The facts speak for themselves. Basra is in what is now Iraq. I am sure the newly invented terms "Iraqi Arab" or "Iraqi Persian" will bring complain. I made all my effort to convince you that the word Iraq should not be there and does not add anything to the article. The page for Basra should do all and much more that a link to the page Iraqi people can do. Up to you.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See also : Persian Iraq , Iraq Etymology.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should report this racism to administrators Mussav. The people originating from Iraq are known as Iraqis, just as pre-Roman, pre-Saxon, pre-Norman Britons are still Britons. Izzedine (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are they ? pre-Roman, pre-Saxon, pre-Norman inhabitants of Britain are Britons? Are Byzantines of Turkey are still Turks? The modern nation-states and historical ethnicities does not necessarily correlate. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing ethnic groups with place names, Iraq signifies a place name, it means "ancient" or "deep rooted" and is very likely derived from Uruk. Iraq is a name of the land and hence the name of the modern country of that land. The Turks invaded Anatolia from central Asia, but modern Turks are still Anatolians. Tell me what makes Ancient Egyptians Egyptian but Ancient Iraqis not Iraqi, you tell me that. Izzedine (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will not be tolerant to comments like "we should report this racism to administrator" and this edit summary. You seem to misunderstand the issue discussed here. I would like to see you stop making such comments. An admin should help you.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. This is an issue of racism and cultural warfare on our country, myself and Mussav are not giving in to you. It is obvious that many want to crush Iraq's name. Alborz Fallah, where is your reply. Izzedine (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well , calm down please .We are friends and all of that is not so important to hurt ourselves .Yes , "Iraq" has been a place name and not an ethnic name .But the place name is not exactly clear : the Iraq-e- Ejam is a place inside the Iranian plateau , the Iraq-e-Arab is some of the parts of today's Iraq , perhaps not including the mountainous northern regions and the western deserts . If you are using Iraqi as a geographical name and not an ethnic and/or national term , that is right ; but the problem is in that the geographical name is not a clear name and may also overlap with the modern nation-state name . As an example , in Fakhruddin 'Iraqi who is a Persian poem of a town near Arak - a part of historic Persian Iraq - , using the name Iraq in it's historical geographical sense,can cause confusion . I think using the geographical aspect of the name Iraq is justifiable when is has been used in the original source or if it has been famous in that way in that time. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dont matter Alhazen was Arab or Persian,it's the same.

First of all thank you for this article.

Persians were very influenced by Semitic peoples(Akkadians,Babylonians,Assyrians,Arameans)and Afroasiatic peoples(Elamites,Kushits)from the time Persians entered middle east about 2500 years ago(whereas Semitic peoples were living in middle east for at least 7000 years)

So Persians form the beginning were adopting Semitic culture(script,architecture,borrowing of huge amount of words and even grammatical features...)

This was the case with Babylonians then Arameans then Arabs.

All these 3 languages were lingua franca of different Persian dynasties.

Even genetics confirm the great influence of Semitic peoples upon Persians as nearly 35%of Persians(ethnic Persians and not Iranians)share the semitic marker haplotype J1&J2.

So let's write Alhazen was middle eastern HUMAN BEING and dont need to make his ethnicity a so realevant matter.

Saygılar.

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Persian Origin

It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions,most Muslim scholars in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs,thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him,al-Farsi and Az-Zajjaj.All of them were of Persian descent and they inven...ted rules of (Arabic) grammar.Great jurists were Persians.Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works.Ibn Khaldun

If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it. محمّد

The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour. Abbasid Caliphate العبّاسيّون

There is no such thing as Pan-Arab peoples (because how can egyptians and babylonians who predated the 'Arabian people' be marginalized under one group of people). Egyptians and Mesopotamians were established civilization thousands of years before Arabs. Secondly, how can you deny the influence Persian/Iranians had on the 'Islamic Golden Age' and the scientific advancements made, especially in regards to archictecture, literature (Arab Grammar?), philosophy, agricultural practices, economics etc.

To be fair, its unjust that Muslims[Arabs] take most of the credit for the achievements made during that era when more than half of the scientists, scholars, intellectuals were of Persian/Iranian origin.(mplicity claims Muslims as Arabs)

~~ditc~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 07:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Alhazen" deprecated: Please cite

I know that various matters related to his name have been discussed here before, but page currently says:
"Latinized: Alhacen or (deprecated) Alhazen)"
Could we please cite a reliable third-party source on the issue of the form "Alhazen" being currently deprecated?
This is likely to be especially confusing to readers as the page itself gives a number of instances of the "Alhazen" form, and Wikipedia search gives some 185 hits for "Alhazen".
Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Alhazen#Book_of_Optics. → Aethralis 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Requisite citation added. This "correct" version of his medieval "nickname" is a fairly recent discovery, so it is only now beginning to find its way into teh secondary literature, let alone the tertiary, quaternary etc. literature that makes up most of the stuff on the web. Wikipedia should be able do better, though. Really it would be much better if the article were entitled "Alhacen," with a redirect from "Alhazen," but I don't know how to set that up. Can some more technically experienced editor fix it please? Treharne (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Risner is also the author of the name variant "Alhazen"; before Risner he was known in the west as Alhacen, which is the correct transcription of the Arabic name."

"in the west", would be where, exactly ? Latin ? Some lithping Cathtillian ?

This is a very dubious assertion. Since when is "Alhacen" a "correct" transcription of an Arabic name into English ? The standard transcription/transliteration for Arabic doesn't include anything for a "C", and with good reason, given the variable nature of "C" in english and other european languages. How is an English speaker supposed to read "Alhacen" ?? Like "Alhaken" ? "Alhaysen" ? "Alhasan" ? or even "Alhajan" ?Eregli bob (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Iraqi"

Please don't label medieval historical figures or places as "Iraqi". During those times, Iraq was just the name of region, not a geopolitical entity, or state. Therefore, that was no "Iraqi" nationality at that time, the region's population were refereed to as Arab, Assyrian, Kurd and Persian. Thanks. --Kurdo777 (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cited sources that refer to him as Iraqi, which was not a nation at the time but an identity for people from the land of Mesopotamia. Numerous people at that time were known as "al-Iraqi". Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I like you as an editor, and you do a great job on these pages. But I am afraid you're completely wrong on this one, trust me. The rational you've given me here is flawed. Someone named "Al-Iraqi" could be a Syrian or Iranian by nationality. Prior to 20th century, Iraq was not a state, it was just a region which falls within different states at different times in history. There are many people from that era who were named after their ancestral cities or regions like "Al-Baghdadi", "Al-Isfahani", or "Al-Sistani", but that does not mean that we refer to their nationality today as Baghdadi, Sistani or Isfahani.... using Iraqi for someone's nationality from that era is no different in this context, expect that there is now a country called Iraq. Bottom line is, there was no Iraqi nationality at that time, and Alhazen did not live in a state called Iraq to be called Iraqi, he was a citizen of Buyid Empire whose nationality was either Arab or Persian. Calling him an Iraqi is historical revisionism, and a fringe theory. Just because something can be cited by sources (web pages, non-specialist sources) it does not mean that it automatically belongs in Wikipedia. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Buyid Empire itself referred to the province as "Iraq". Just because a modern nation calls itself "Iraq", that has nothing to do with the historical sitaution. It does not change the fact that the Mesopotamian province has always been referred to as "Iraq" by both the Caliphate and the Buyid Empire. Besides, I've linked the word "Iraqi" to Iraqi people, not to the nation of Iraq. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your rational that there was a province called Iraq, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nobody is disputing that there was a region called Iraq at that time, but there was no Iraqi nationality. And according to WP:LEAD, only nationality, and in some cases ethnicity, belong in the lad. There is no such a thing as an Iraqi ethnicity, and there was no Iraqi nationality at that time. You're a smart guy, I really don't understand why you're refusing to accept this fact. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jagged 85 / Famousdog debate

The discussion on this page about Alhazen's contribution to psychology received an interesting writeup in the blog, Advances in the History of Psychology, produced at the History and theory of psychology program at York University. The following excerpt seems relevant:

For the professional historian, Jagged 85’s attributions smack of presentism: the imposition of modern epistemic categories and values on the actions of people from the distant past; people who did not share our categories and values and who may well have been up to quite different kinds of projects despite their superficial similarity to our own. There was no discipline of “psychology” in medieval Islamic times, and the individuals cited, whatever their intentions might have been, could not have been aiming to advance such a discipline.

On the other hand, it seems relatively obvious that Jagged 85’s aim, quite laudable in its own right, is to bring about a greater exposure to, and appreciation of, the activities of the great scientists of the medieval Islamic world.... By the same token, few serious historians of science are going to be convinced that the aim of “spreading the word” about, e.g., non-Western science trumps the imperative to carefully situate historical events in their relevant historical contexts, rather than uprooting and distorting them for political ends.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Abdus Salam Reliable Historical Source?

I have removed the citations to Abdus Salam and the claims based on them because Salam, although a reliable source on physics, has no known credentials as a historian. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific method

I wanted to make a note of caution about claims that Ibn al-Haytham or anyone else was the first to use experiments or the scientific method. Philosophers of science define these concepts narrowly sometimes, so what he did might not qualify as scientific method by all definitions. I'm not that familiar with his work and the article does say "perhaps the first", so I'm making a comment in talk instead of editing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maestlin (talk • contribs) 19:51, 14 April 2006

I just came across the following comment on Alhazen's experiments in a review by A. Mark Smith (the editor of the Latin translation of Alhazen) of Sabra's edition and English translation of the Arabic version:

It is equally true that he has recourse to numerous experiments, some quite elaborate. But by modern standards these experiments are negligible in terms both of theoretical scope and of demonstrated effects. Not unexpectedly, in fact, Ibn al-Haytham's experimentalism has far more in common with that of Ptolemy than with that of Pavlov or Skinner. Thus, while Sabra's tendency to 'modernize' Ibn al-Haytham serves to highlight the purported uniqueness and significance (as well as rightness) of his contribution, it also serves to wrench him slightly out of proper historical focus.

(The British Journal for the History of Science, 25,3 (1992): 358-9).

This calls for some reconsideration of the article's discussion of Alhazen's scientific method. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Name: move?

It seems the article was moved to its current name "Alhazen" in November 2008, but there has been disagreement since then. Since the article uses mostly "ibn al-Haytham" throughout, and "Alhazen" is deprecated and not used in current scholarly literature (a fact which may not have been known at the time of the last move), I propose moving the article to Ibn al-Haytham. Does anyone agree? Shreevatsa (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Disputed Ethnicity of Alhazen

I looked at the sources which supposedly refer to him as a Persian. Unfortunately, this speculation is mainly based on the premise that his birth place, Basra, happened to be a satrapy of Buyid Persia at that point in time. But this fact alone can't possibly make him an ethnic Persian today. An analogy would be Carl F. Gauss, who is today labeled as a German scientist, although he was born in what was then a realm of the Holy Roman Empire.

Asserting that Alhazen was a descendent of Persians who settled in Iraq (without any credible sources), is as absurd as Arabs claiming that Iranian scholars who lived during ~637-1258 probably had some Arab ancestry just because Iran was under the Arab rule! This logic is flawed. Counter-example: Pythagoras was a Greek while in his lifetime his homeland was under Persian occupation.

In the final analysis, he was born in Iraq as Abu Ali Hasan Ibn al-Haitham. Living all of his life in the Arab world, he was nicknamed Al-Basri and the scholar of Cairo. The most plausible account is that he was an Arab, and by "Arab" I don't mean the Arab Bedouins from Arabia... but, rather, an "Iraqi" who are a mix of indigenous Mesopotamians and later Arab settlers.

Thus, I will remove the Persian claim from the article, unless the proponents of the idea can find a single reliable historical source which makes explicit claims regarding his ethnicity. It's not right if people deliberately edit biographical information on notable people to push their own chauvinistic agendas.

Even Dr. Kaveh Farrokh, the renowned Iranian history expert cites him as an Arab, not a Persian scientist in his article here: http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/farrokh7.htm

No, you can't claim the Persian influence on Iraq as a reference for Alhazen's ethnicity. Otherwise you have to take into consideration the influence of native peoples of Iraq like Assyrians on the Persians as well as the Iranian plateau, AND the later Arab invaders etc etc on Persia for the ethnicity of Persian scientists.

• On a final note, his ethnicity shouldn't be an issue, if he was Arab or Persian it wouldn't add or subtract from his legacy, but in interest of historical accuracy it's important to view facts in their proper context.

--Grinevitski (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the Muslim Golden age, the Abbasid Empire included Basra, Baghdad and most of Iraq and Iran now. There was no Buyid Persia. It was shrunk greatly after the Muslim conquests. Ethnicity was based on the city he was born in and the language he speaks daily. As you can see all his books are written in Arabic and he is called Al Basri because he is from Basra. During that time being labeled as Muslim was more important than an Arab or not! --98.224.243.248 (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The references people cite here for him being Arabs, are unreleiable: they consist mainly of editors´ notes.. I think most people consider him to be Persian, because the majority and most important of the Islamic scholars were Persians. Also he was from a region that was heavily Persian. Arabs had a very minor role in the field of academics. Ibn Khaldun (an Arab), the most important of the muslim historians, wrote:

`Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of non-Arab (Persian) descent... They invented rules of (Arabic) grammar...[64] great jurists were Persians... only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, "If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it"... The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them... as was the case with all crafts... This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana, retained their sedentary culture.´

(Ibn Khaldun´s use of ´Ajam´ can either refer to non-Arabs in general or to Persians in particular.

This quotation of Ibn Khaldun takes the text out of context. A copy of the text is in Google books. It is apparent from a cursory reading that Ibn Khaldun is referring to the situation at the time of the `Abassid dynasty, where scholarly activity flourished well before the time of Alhazen. He notes that after the decline of Persian sedentary culture (he doesn't specify when), "scholarship altogether disappeared among the Persians" but flourished in Cairo. Note that much of Alhazen's active career was spent in Cairo.

This potential for misinterpretation is one of the reasons that Wikipedia policy on original research states that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope that I can clarify this dispute. There is merit in referring to Alhazen as almost any ethnicity/nationality. To begin, Iraqi is not an appropriate designation since Iraq as a state and a national unity did not exist until centuries later (for some reason, other scholars have been referred to as Iraqi, but I guess that in those uncontroversial cases, revisionism is acceptable).

Alhazen may or may not have been Persian. There are no sources showing he was born to a Persian family, so there is no reason to refer to him as a Persian.

Alhazen may or may not have been Arab. Arabs in Iraq today are largely indigenous Semitic people who mingled with Arab immigrants that entered the region at around the same time that Alhazen lived. However, numerous scholars born in Mesopotamia have already been referred to as Arabs, but they are often shown to be born to Arab families (that were most likely not natives). Of the sources cited for the Arab ethnicity of Alhazen: the first is the Columbia encyclopedia, that actually introduces the Andalusian Averroes as a Spanish-Arab and the Persian Biruni as a Central Asian, which are not consistent with any Wikipedia article. The second source is the Britannica, which does not refer to his ethnicity anywhere in the article. I have not found one source that verifies his explicitly Arab ethnicity.

In conclusion, we have a dilemna. There is a group of people - Islamic Golden Age scholars native to Semitic Arabic-speaking regions outside of the Arabian peninsula - who were introduced to Arabic language and culture at about the same time the Persians were. Other Arab scholars born in Basra in this time period have been explicitly shown to be born into Arab families. Now the question is whether we should refer to Alhazen as an Arab or a regional designation such as Mesopotamian. Ultimately, as an act of pragmatism (and perhaps a little revisionism), I would introduce him as an 'Arab polymath' or merely a 'polymath of the Islamic Golden Age'. Kasra (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Even before the rise of Islam, the vast majority of the population of Mesoptamia were Semites and Arab-speaking. Basra and much further North were all already colonised by Christian Arab Tribes such as the Ghassanids and Lakhamids. Persian influence and rule does not in any way mean that the majority of the population was Persian - just as Arab rule over Persia does not make people born in that period like Avicenna Arabs. There is a clear Persian Nationalist agenda by some editors here, especially the disgracefully ignorant and racist comments left by one unnamed user

"Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, "If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it"... The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them... "

There are also marked and very biased attempts to poison the well by editors who are trying to undermine all sources reffering to Islamic Scientists and Scholars as Arab - including in this article before my edit. The source refering to him as Arab is discreditted by being mentioned as "Post-humourous" in the info box, while the many and often larger shortcomings of those refering to him as persian (which are also all published long after his death) are not in any way mentioned. Consiquently, I would like to request more unbiased supervision for this article - by niether Persian, Arab or Muslim editors, as the bias in this field is becoming frankly laughable.

Since there are more sources which refer to him as an Arab, and since they are all more reliable, I believe his Ethnicity should be simply states as an Arab. Other publications by the authors of the two sources also seem to exhibit blind (and at times almost racist) Persian nationalist sentiments. Besides, even if he was born into a Persian family (to which NO PROOF exists), I believe he would have been Arabised, thus Arab in the borader meaning of the term.

Pink Princess (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How can you call those authors blinds and racists? Please don't poison the well by putting racism and blindness labels to those who thinks in the way you don't like.--Aliwiki (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the achievements of Arab

Ibn al-Haytham Arab origin. Why ignoring the Arabs. Most scientists say they are either Iranian or if they remember that they are Arabs, Muslims only!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The arabin wolf (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the thousands of words of text above devoted to this, frankly, boring and irrelevant issue. Famousdog (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read part of it because the translation by Google. Do not translate every page. But this is nothing clear most of the achievements attributed to others, such as Indian or Persian or Greek ... etc

--The arabin wolf (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, sorry you're having trouble with the translation. Personally, I think Al-Haytham's ethnic origin, race or religion is irrelevant. He was a great man who did many great things. I think the argument over which group he did/didn't belong to is driven by nationalism or a religio-political desire for reflected glory. Charles Darwin was English, but so was Peter Sutcliffe. What does this say about modern England or White Europeans? Nothing. What does Al-Haytham's ethnic or racial origin have to say about modern Iran/Iraq or modern Arabs/Persians? Nothing. He is often described as an "Islamic" scholar but his religious beliefs have nothing do do with the superb work he did as a scientist (and how can we, a thousand years later, know what he believed, if anything?) It is driven by a crass desire to say "we Muslims/Persians/Arabs/Iraqis/Iranians got there first". As I said above, most of this talk page has been devoted to arguments over this boring and irrelevant issue. This page should concentrate on Al-Haytham's contribution to world knowledge, not which uterus he sprang from or which postcode he lived in. Famousdog (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely said, Famousdog. I've just added the following note to editors, modified from a similar comment at Nicolaus Copernicus," as hidden text:

"NOTE TO EDITORS: Please read the talk page before editing the introductory paragraphs. These paragraphs represent a consensus on how best to present the essential information in the introduction. Other issues are discussed later in the article. Whether nationality should be attributed to Alhazen is in dispute among editors (see the Talk page and its archives)."

Hope this helps a little. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite a number of editors expressing similar views to Famousdog, I still see articles about medieval scientists particularly littered with references to ethnicity and religious affiliation. I think it would've been better if Wikipedia had a policy to restrict such information to the "Life" sections of articles, and not in the introduction. This would've saved editors a lot of fuming about such matters. I'm being optimistic here, but is there a process that we can follow to establish such policy, and what is the chance of it being accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwiqi (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Theology

I've had to virtually strip all wording from the Theology subheading because user Dougweller was forcing me to out of his own hearsay and conjecture. The sources were good for the information presented but Dougweller kept editing them out, so I've left nothing but the quotes of Alhazen himself. Which, understandably, do belong on the Wikipedia page devoted to him. You can see the discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_skepticism#History_section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.21.141 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit because it merely presented quotations from primary sources. Presumably the reader is supposed to infer some point from the text, however that is not the way articles here are written or sourced. It is original research for an editor to select chosen passages to represent the views of a subject. Please explain what point you are trying to add to the article, and briefly mention how that is to be sourced (what does the reliable secondary source say that supports the proposed text?). Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You can click an older revision of the article to see that information which Dougweller forced me to remove. I'm assuming you're familiar with how Wikipedia works? You can click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alhazen&oldid=418019094 And see the original revision which provides the information you're asking for and properly cites from the sources. Dougweller's only grounds for removing it were because he apparently doesn't like Jagged_85. I should point out he saw the article and thought nothing of it the previous two times I attempted to repeat the points in another Wikipedia page (I didn't know I had to attribute it to the original Contributer). After seeing that attempt, he removed the revision which had been there for 3 years with no issues whatsoever. I also strongly protest against your assertion that quotes from Alhazen, widely respected as a major scientist of history, where he's simply expressing his viewpoints regarding scientific inquiry do not belong on his own Wikipedia page, free from any and all interpretation or editorializing. If you wish to start up a new subheading that says "Quotes of Alhazen" or "Skepticism of Alhazen" and put them there, then do as you see fit (although the last of the quotes is clearly talking about strictly theological viewpoints and belongs in that section. But there is something extremely wrong here with the behavior of Dougweller and yourself. It is also original research for an editor to select chosen passages to REMOVE to represent the views of a subject. Please see the older revision which had better descriptors and context for the quotes of Alhazen. I feel they belong, and if you agree, revert to the older, longer revision. Please don't edit or remove content that has been here without issue for 3 years before we reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.21.141 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 March 2011

I see you are familiar with many aspects of Wikipedia (I am not trying to suggest something bad by that), but there are also many aspects that you do not yet fully appreciate. First, an edit to an article has to result in an improvement: it is not satisfactory to argue here that a previous edit had sources (instead, briefly explain how those sources justify the edit). Second, you are quite mistaken about Dougweller's motivation (and we are not supposed to speculate about such matters). Third, my assertion regarding selected quotes is more of a simple statement of fact, regarding the way in which policies are interpreted at Wikipedia—imagine the chaos if editors were free to add quotes that they thought were appropriate: the result would be major original research where editors trawl documents to find some phrase that supports their POV. There is a "sources" wiki for that sort of thing, although I have forgotten its URL at the moment. Your point about established material ("3 years") is good, and generally a good reason would need to be presented before removing such material. In this case, however, a good reason has been presented (WP:Jagged 85 cleanup), and the suitability of the material needs to be considered from scratch. That is, there should be an explanation of what text is wanted, and reasons to justify that text (based on policy—there is a nice overview at WP:5P). Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the cleanup effort regarding Jagged_85 is a concern, it doesn't apply in this case aside from the one sentence I offered to remove. In fact, I went further and took away everything but the quotes. Look very carefully at the edit and the sources. Those quotes are genuine. This is a page about Alhazen. One could argue as to whether the quotes are in their proper place or sections, but that isn't what's being done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alhazen&oldid=417509090 Original

From that, I proposed removing this sentence: Ibn al-Haytham attributed his experimental scientific method and scientific skepticism to his Islamic faith. The Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, for example, places a strong emphasis on empiricism.[102]

Without that sentence, it becomes a statement of Alhazen's accompanied by a short paraphrase of what Alhazen was saying. In fact, since the rest was pretty much repeating the quotes, I even took that out.

I still maintain that removing quotes of Alhazen's which are clearly non-controversial (did either of you in your haste notice two of these quotes are already used in the section regarding his views on Ptolemy?) is original research because it amounts to editorializing by selectively removing content which pretty much belongs on the page by default (people come to this page to find out about his life and views). It's the equivalent of removing parts of someone's biography. That will never make it more objective, only less so.

The shortest quote at the end most definitely reflects Alhazen's views on theology and there can be no doubt it belongs there. The remaining most definitely shows his skepticism in context of his religious/theological views.

It's authentic and you can find the translated quote all over the internet. Here's one example of the full quote: ::::http://www.science20.com/beamlines/metamorphosis_science_not_%C3%A0_la_kafka

You have a page about Alhazen. You have a quote of Alhazen talking about his theological views. You have a section on the page about his views on theology. What's the problem?

Also, I'm not supposed to speculate about his motivations but it is okay to do so about Jagged_85? Right. A quarter of his edits are reversions.

Any Claim of Original Research, Factual inaccuracy, Unpublished synthesis

Please append your justification for any claim of Original Research, Factual inaccuracy, Unpublished synthesis here. The tags have existed since September 2010.

As a start, I propose to delete the disputed names who influenced Alhazen, and who were influenced by Alhazen. So far, it appears that Abū Sahl al-Qūhī and Saccheri are the ones listed. True?

done --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that these are the only disputed names, as I believe it is not disputed that Claudius Ptolemy influenced him, as he wrote Critique of Ptolemy. And since Giambattista della Porta labelled Witelo as 'Alhazen's ape', Witelo is on the list of those influenced, as is Roger Bacon and John Peckham. If you dispute a specific name, I would appreciate a specific tag on that name.

In the Book of Optics talk page states that the Arabic is backward; can someone please verify that any of the Arabic on this page is actually written in the right-to-left direction?

--Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub and rework

For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 762 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd: 164 edits). The article has been tagged for half a year. The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. For this reason I restored contents to the last pre-Jagged85 version, that is 29 April 2006, with some modifications. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a [insult redacted Fences&Windows 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)]. There is literally no other way to explain your action. You removed extremely informative and verified quotes of Alhazen... the man's own words describing his life and philosophy for no reason at all other than to censor the information. This is why Wikipedia went from being compared to Britannica in its day to becoming a complete joke today. Mentioning the name "Wikipedia" in any academic setting is a surefire way to get laughed out of the place, thanks to editors like you. You even left more uncited claims in here by reverting to this edit. The things Jagged85 put in were mostly removed, the only thing left were the literal quotes of Alhazen, which were verified, the original research was removed, the quotes remained. Please re-read that sentence several times so you can [insult redacted Fences&Windows 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)] before you vandalize articles under the pretense of editing. You didn't even bother to raise any specific objections because you knew you had none, you just reverted the entire thing. Issues did not remain, just the tags at the top of the article remained. Jagged85's last contributions were long ago, but they had all been modified by numerous editors since who fixed everything. I'm restoring the last edit. This is MY edit, not Jagged85. Jagged85 is gone. Do you understand? Do you want me to spell it out for you in simpler language? The original research of Jagged85 and all of his ACTUAL contributions were REMOVED. The only thing remained in much of the article were LITERAL QUOTES of Alhazen. I dare you to justify the idea that quotes of Alhazen do not belong on his article and offer no useful information to a person seeking to know more about Alhazen. If you have an objection with anything on this page, please quote the relevant section, the cited source, then show us YOUR research and YOUR verification which PROVES that the source is misused because NO original research is left, the article has been stripped to a barebones version of the man's life from sources without any interpretation on the part of any editor This article is under Dispute and should NOT be edited or reverted to a previous edit WITHOUT PRIOR DISCUSSION IN HERE and should not be altered in whole because you'll lose the work of countless editors along with the one you're seeking to root out. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhoc82 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How can it be your work when you only registered today (on Apr 18, 2011 17:40:24)? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Adhoc82 was claiming that any or all of the information he restored was originally added by him. I read his assertion "This is MY edit, not Jagged 85" as simply accepting responsibility for this edit. This did nothing more than restore the version of the article which existed immediately prior to your reinstatement of the last pre-Jaggedized version, and remove the Multiple issues template from it. But Adhoc82's assertion that "The original research of Jagged85 and all of his ACTUAL contributions were REMOVED" appears to be a flagrant falsehood. On running my eye over the version of the article he restored I was easily able to spot numerous Jaggedisms remaining in that version. Here is one very obvious one.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I misunderstood Adhoc82's assertion. But I agree with David that the contents he restored appear Jaggedized beyond repair on mere sight. The overemphasis of Alhazen's "scientific method" in the section of the same name is one case in point, but there were many more 'recentistic' claims. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alhazen's relevance

I was going to add it, but hidden text warned me to come to the talk page first!

It seems that Alhazen was a big player - not just in optics - but in evolving the scientific method itself to care more about systematic observation. I am not sure anyone disagrees? I only just encountered this historical figure. But the info seems good, and so I think he deserves, in the lead paragraph, at least mention that "Alhazen was one of the earliest pioneers of the modern scientific method: he was adamant that abstract theories needed to be systematically tested, and that the inferences that follow should be carefully criticized." Thoughts?-Tesseract²(talk) 04:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good to avoid hyperbole... I don't have it handy, but G.E.R. Lloyd makes a point about scientific method in ancient science/medicine. Without multiple sources, I'd tone down the superlatives and qualifications somewhat: "earliest", "modern", "adamant", "systematically tested"... practicing the careful critique of inferences, but certainly not originating the practice. There seems to be a question of branding and marketing (Baconian method) not just discovery... for some purposes, the necessity of trial and error may have been no less obvious to the ancients, but their expectations about what would suffice and what could be achieved should have differed (to say nothing of what would even be considered relevant to questions of science). I'm just saying it's very easy to read-into a source... but surely the article should say something about it.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent blanking

For reasons that are mysterious, some editor has recently blanked the large majority of this article, which was well cited and reasonably well written. There is a comment here on talk page that claims this is part of "reworking" which seems patently untrue--it appears to be simple vandalism looking through the history. In any case, the way to address potential cleanup issues of an important article is not by deletion of the vast majority of well-cited information, but rather by discussing specific and narrow issues that may exist here on talk (or by directly making modest changes to article itself). Memories of lost time (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking slightly more at this talk page, it appears that a user called "Gun Powder Ma" has some sort of animosity towards a user called "Jagged 85". There seem to be some suggestions on some admin pages—perhaps plausible, I haven't looked carefully enough to judge one way or the other—that some edits by Jagged 85 are of poor quality (but the latter seems to have done substantial editing from those descriptions). It further appears that in retaliation for these allegedly bad edits on different articles, Gun Powder Ma has simply blanked contributions by Jagged 85 to this article.

This editing behavior is so very wrong, on so very many levels! This article is slightly rambling in structure, but mostly contains useful, relevant, and well-cited details about its subject. Blanking is NOT cleanup ... let's improve Wikipedia, not erase it. Memories of lost time (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you feeld the need to open for your ad hominem a new section, discussion of the cleanup is in any case at Talk:Alhazen#Stub and rework. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about some old personal vendetta of yours that I know nothing about. If you'd like to help cleanup this article, I would appreciate the help. The language looks a little sloppy at some points, but it is not acceptable to remove the large majority of well-cited content because of some personal feelings about some editor who apparently used to work here. Memories of lost time (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that you might think this is yet another war between two small groups of editors who oppose each other with typical Internet zeal. However, your comments about a vendetta are mistaken in this case. It is always possible an exception will be found, and examining the edits made by Jagged 85 to this article may show them to be excellent. However, it is known that in many other articles Jagged has introduced distortions, exaggerations, and outright fabrications (much of the evidence is available at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). The edits by Jagged are particularly troubling because often a plausible and hard-to-access source is given, yet when people have inspected the source they have found that it does not verify the text. Further, the incorrect information added by Jagged has been mirrored to hundreds of websites. It would be better for Wikipedia to have gaps in its coverage (missing information), rather than provide apparently sourced yet false claims (incorrect information)—sometimes erasing text is improving Wikipedia. There are many editors who have been involved in the cleanup, or who have commented at various discussions, but the amount of cleanup work required is vast, so it may appear that Gun Powder Ma is here acting alone. However, that is not correct and the cleanup of Jagged's distortions has involved quite a large group of editors (many of whom, such as myself, haven't yet done much actual article work, but who have considered the issues and discussed how to proceed). It's good that you are working to improve this article, but please be very careful of claims in the old text, and do not assume that plausible references do in fact support the text. The only "personal feelings" involved here are a concern for the integrity of Wikipedia. I have added the Misuse of sources section below to assist seeing Jagged's contributions to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistency in name of bio subject

On a genuine editing point, there is inconsistent use of the name of the bio subject here. At points he is referred to as Alhazan, at others as al-Haytham, and perhaps other variants that I miss in a quick examination. I'm not really sure what the best policy is here--I tend to think that following the article title, i.e. "Alhazan" is the most consistent thing. But I'm open to other ideas, or especially from experts in Arabic orthography and naming conventions. Memories of lost time (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup4. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

• Alhazen: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127

Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is potentially helpful. I have clicked on a number of these diffs, and none I've seen, so far, seem problematic. But I will click on each of the 127 diffs and evaluate if any seem to make unreasonable claims (and then if they are still in article, of course). Most really do just seem like minor wording issues and the like, and few anything potentially contentious... but that's just from a few random ones so far. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... as a suggested procedure, I will boldface any diff that I find might be problematic; and I welcome anyone else to do so. That gives us something concrete to discuss, I think; and it rules out lots of definitely-mundane edits. Obviously, past boldfacing, relevant edits could be needed. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reformatted the output from the script since the original did not wrap in some browsers. I intend using this format for any other articles needing this summary—please let me know if it has a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Year of death/age

The info box cites EB as Alhazen living 965-1040 CE. However, a book source used in the lead gives his age at death as 76, implying 1042 as year of death. I don't have access to that book, but it feels like we should be consistent, in any case. Or if we can't be consistent because sources aren't, have a phrase like "sources place his death between 1040 and 1042." Memories of lost time (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In most of sources I have see 1038, 1039 and 1040. But not 1042. Have alook to google books.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Is a Neuro-scientist Being Cited As a Source on the History of the Scientific Method

This seems to be a relic of an earlier editor using dubious sources to back up dubious POV claims.

Did Rosanna Gorini carry out a survey in which she asked historians of science who they thought was "the Pioneer of the scientific method" and publish her results in a peer reviewed journal devoted to the history of scinece? I suspect not as such question although simply phrased do not have a simple answer. if there is such as thing as the "scientific method" then it developed incrementally over a very long period of time. If we are going to name names, I would suggest starting with Aristotle, particularly with his observational study of chick embryos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.193.180 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this has not been responded to, I have removed the claim in question. While it may be true, the source given is clearly not sufficient - if it is true that "the majority of historians" are of this opinion, then it should be relatively easy to find sources from the actual historians. I also added a couple of citation tags for other sentences in the section that make strong but unsourced claims. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit under discussion is one of a number discussed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup. Deletion seems appropriate. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking up the reported misquotation

This section is disputed:

"Alhazen developed rigorous experimental methods of controlled scientific testing to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures.[citation needed] Other historians of science place his experiments in the tradition of Ptolemy and see in such interpretations a "tendency to 'modernize' Alhazen ... [which] serves to wrench him slightly out of proper historical focus."[52]"

First of all

The second sentence is improperly made to refer to the first. However, the source article by Mark Smith does not refer to "scientific testing to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures", but to what he thinks is a "somewhat presentist bias in his [A.I. Sabra's] evaluation of both the scientific implications and historical context of Ibn al-haytham's work". Mark Smith exemplifies his point by adressing Sabra's claim that "'with the addition of measurement Book III would have been indistinguishable in character from a modern book in experimental psychology" and states that "Ibn al-Haytham's experimentalism has far more in common with that of Ptolemy than with that of Pavlov or Skinner [both 20th century experimental psychologists]"

Second,

"Other historians of science place his experiments in the tradition of Ptolemy". Does this part have a source? Mark Smith does NOT, as far as I can se by reading his article, place al-Haytham in the tradition of Ptolemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edvin1984 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked Smith's review in BJHS and found this passage at p. 359:

"Not unexpectedly, in fact, Ibn al-Haytham's experimentalism has far more in common with that of Ptolemy than with that of Pavlov or Skinner. Thus, while Sabra's tendency to 'modernize' Ibn al-Haytham serves to highlight the purported uniqueness and significance (as well as rightness) of his contribution, it also serves to wrench him slightly out of proper historical focus - which presumably accounts for Sabra's offhanded and, I think, fundamentally wrongheaded dismissal of Aristotle as a key source for the 'Optics' (cf. vol. 2, p. 85)."

The reference clearly places Ibh al-Haytham's experiments in the tradition of Ptolemy. Support for the earlier sentence regarding Alhazen's "rigorous experimental methods" should be sought in Sabra or other sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not "clearly places Ibh al-Haytham's experiments in the tradition of Ptolemy" - that's your own words. Smith is making a comparison between scientists, not placing them in particular traditions.

The issue still remains - it's an out of context quotation that is not adressing the first sentence - as the reader is made to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edvin1984 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Smith clearly states that Ibn al-Haytham's experimentalism has much in common with that of Ptolemy. That clearly places him in the tradition of Ptolemy (which is not the same as saying he was directly influenced by Ptolemy). Rather than beat a dead horse, I'll change the text to come closer to Smith's exact wording. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Edvin1984's concerns. The statement by Mark Smith compares Ibn al-Haytham to Ptolemy and Pavlov and Skinner. To mention just Ptolemy and ignore the other two rather misrepresents what Mark Smith was saying. I'm also not sure why we're omitting the concept of "experimental psychology" (which seems to be the context of the extract shown above). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

He was a Persian

There is no proof that implies Alhazen was an Arab. But there is many evidence that said Alhazen was a Persian. Irak belonged to IRAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.68.159 (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

NOT PERSIAN!

He was clearly.., Arabian from Basra in Iraq. Arabs and Persians knew this for centuries, and know the user above has come to tell us that he was Persian!, i know that people might have a bad view of Arabs but stop stealing their history, shame on everybody who steals the other people's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.152.151 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup4. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

• Alhazen: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127

Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is potentially helpful. I have clicked on a number of these diffs, and none I've seen, so far, seem problematic. But I will click on each of the 127 diffs and evaluate if any seem to make unreasonable claims (and then if they are still in article, of course). Most really do just seem like minor wording issues and the like, and few anything potentially contentious... but that's just from a few random ones so far. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... as a suggested procedure, I will boldface any diff that I find might be problematic; and I welcome anyone else to do so. That gives us something concrete to discuss, I think; and it rules out lots of definitely-mundane edits. Obviously, past boldfacing, relevant edits could be needed. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reformatted the output from the script since the original did not wrap in some browsers. I intend using this format for any other articles needing this summary—please let me know if it has a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Verify "The Dissolution of the Solid Celestial Spheres"

Hi, could anyone point me in the direction of a copy of: The Dissolution of the Solid Celestial Spheres", Journal of the History of Ideas 46 (1): 13–31, doi:10.2307/2709773, ISSN 0022-5037". Or just check it themselves. The sentences:

"Alhazen was the first to discover that the celestial spheres do not consist of solid matter. He also discovered that the heavens are less dense than the air. These views were later repeated by Witelo and had a significant influence on the Copernican and Tychonic systems of astronomy."

sound very Jagged_85 to me. The best I've been able to find is this: [1], where the article is cited with regard to the text "it was Christoper Rothmann who made the critical break with the tradition of solid spheres." --Merlinme (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR has it[2], I've requested it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen; 965-ca. 1040) did declare that "the body of heaven differs ... from the air." But that famous Islamic physicist and astronomer held that the difference was "in fineness," with "the body of air being denser than the body of heaven," which is "finer than the body of air."

al-Haytham and Witelo "maintained, then, that heaven is less dense than air, and therefore that heaven does not consist of solid matter, a view erroneously imputed to them by Brahe."

"Unless a better qualified competitor is put forward, Rothmann, rather than Brahe, is to be credited with dissolving the solid celestial spheres. Who first solidified them is a historical problem to be investigated on another occasion, and perhaps by another student of the history of astronomical ideas." Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that Resource Request thing, it looks great, will definitely ask there in future. Anyway, is that literally all that it says about al-Haytham? If so, it scarcely seems to support "first to discover that the celestial spheres do not consist of solid matter". Or the rest of the paragraph, for that matter. Shall I just delete it? --Merlinme (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but if you enable your email I can send it to you. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What did Ibn al-Haytham do?

Based on reliable resources, Haytham started out as a writer. After that he started his academic life during the Greek golden age, when books based on philosophy, geometry, mathematics, medics, and ... were being translated from Greek to Arabic and it was from then that the the Muslim world started to develop, produce and initiate science. During the final years of his life he dedicated his time to controlling the Nile's floods. He followed the Nile to its beginning and figured out that at the root of the river the Egyptians had built many buildings and there was no way to control the water. After this he began to write many books based on his researches. Many say that he has written the most books in this era of his life. Ibn al-Heytham died a very glorious death and lived a very majestic life. Ibn al-Heytham dedicated his life mostly to improving Optical science in which he created the first telescope and wrote the laws of lenses that later on Galileo copied and named after himself. His improvents in optics helped improved Geometry, َAstronomy, and many other sciences. We owe Ibn al-Heytham for many of the scientificall sciences that we have now adays that are based on Optics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.144.163.217 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Name - Alhazen or Ibn al-Haytham?

I'm surprised this hasn't already been discussed. The man's name was NOT Alhazen. He is known in the original Arabic sources (as well as by himself) as Ibn al-Haytham. Alhazen was a Latin corruption of his name when his works were translated in Europe centuries later. The same dillemma is seen with other Muslim scholars such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). We really should be referring to these men by their actual names. Khateeb88 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it the relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Historically in Europe he was referred to as Alhazen/Alhacen, and a lot of English language reliable sources refer to him as such. However modern reliable sources are much more likely to refer to him as Ibn al-Haytham. For example the 1911 Britannica article is for Alhazen, whereas the current britannica.com article uses Ibn al-Haytham.

If you think the article should be renamed (with a redirect for Alhazen) then it would be helpful in building consensus if you could show that it is the more common form in reliable sources in English. A quick google search shows more hits for al-Haytham than Alhazen (interestingly this is not true for Avicenna/ Ibn Sina), but this can only give an indication. The most important thing is what English language, reliable sources use.--Merlinme (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Library of Congress list of authorities for authors' names gives the following for Alhazen:

Personal name heading: Alhazen, 965-1039

Variant(s): Ḥasan ibn Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, 965-1039

Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, 965-1039

Ibn al-Haytham, al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥusayn, 965-1039

Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Haytham, 965-1039

Alhāzin, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, 965-1039

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan Alhāzin, 965-1039

Ibn al-Haytham, Ḥasan ibn Ḥasan, 965-1039

Ibn al-Hayt̲am, 965-1039

Alhacen, 965-1039

ابن الهيثم

ابن الهيثم، الحسن

ابن الهيثم، الحسن بن الحسن

ابن الهيثم، الحسن بن الحسين، ‪965-1039‬

ابن الهيثم، ‪1039-965‬

ابن الهيثم، 965-1039

ابن هيثم

الحازن

الحسن

الحسن بن الهيثم

الحسن، 965-1039

الهزن

حسن بن الهيثم

The nub of this entry is that the LOC prefers Alhazen. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A further check shows that Alhazen (or Alhazenus) is the preferred form for the national libraries of the US, Sweden, Portugal, Vatican, Poland, Israel, Czech Republic, Australia, and Norway. Ibn al-Haytham (variously spelled) is preferred by the national libraries of France, Germany, and Switzerland. Alhazen dominates the English language sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure it's as clear-cut as that. I've searched for Alhazen in English at the British Library online catalogue, which is 8 hits if you ignore the 2 Tamerlane references: [3] , Alhacen in English which is 11 hits ignoring Tamerlane: [4] and al-Haytham in English is 13 hits ignoring Tamerlane: [5].

What's even more interesting is that if you look at the searches for Alhazen and Alhacen, the majority of the items returned actually have a title of al-Haytham, but have clearly also been tagged with the Latinized form. For example, for the 11 Alhacen hits, there are only four titles with Alhacen in the name, six using al-Haytham, one using al-Haitham. For the Alhazen search, none of the titles use Alhazen, some using Alhacen, some using al-Haytham.

Similarly if I search at Amazon.com for Alhazen, I get 91 hits, a significant number of which seem to say something like "al-Haytham, called Alhazen in the West". Alhacen gets 21 results. If I search for al-Haytham I get 487 results.

If we look at the titles of works cited in the article, Sabra uses al-Haytham, Mark Smith uses Alhacen, Aaen-Stockdale uses al-Haytham, Bettany uses al-Haytham, El-Bizri uses Alhazen and al-Haytham in different articles (al-Haytham in the most recent), Bouali et al use al-Haytham, Deek uses al-Haitham, Falco uses al-Haytham, Encarta uses Alhazen, Howard uses Alhazen, Langerman uses al Haytham, Lindberg uses Alhazen, Britannica uses al-Haytham, Marshall uses Alhazen, Omar uses al-Haytham, John Smith uses al-Haytham, Topdemir uses al-Haytham, Verma uses Al-Hazen, Vernet uses al-Haytham, Weisstein uses Alhazen, Steffens uses Al-Haytham. So I make that 14 authros who use al-Haytham or variants, 7 who use Alhazen or variants, and one who uses both.

I think in general there is a tendency in newer sources to use al-Haytham, especially those who consider him in a muslim context, and older sources tend to use Alhazen, especially in the context of medieval European thought.

Based on that very rough survey of the sources, I would have thought there's at least a possible case to be made that more sources use al-Haytham than Alhazen/Alhacen, and particularly that the more recent sources tend to use al-Haytham.--Merlinme (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone else reach any conclusions on this? The original poster has not been back, and although I think there is at least a case to be made that the name should be changed, I don't really feel strongly enough about it to push for it. --Merlinme (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Search on google show about 403,000 results for keyword ibn haytham not to mention search for ibn haytham in arabic on google.

Search on google show about 400,000 results for keyword Alhazen

I think it really doesn't matter Alhazen or ibn haytham but as ibn haytham is also a correct translation from Arabic it should be used. If douche is most frequently used to refer to the ibn haytham in English-language reliable sources that wouldn't make his name a douche. Thanks 187.87.43.166 (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wade's Natural History of Vision almost treats them as different authors; "Alhazen" refers to the Latin translations which were available in the medieval and Renaissance period, al-Haytham is the historical figure and Arabic writer of a far larger body of work than was translated into Latin as Alhazen. For example, Wade usually refers to al-Haytham, but he several times refers to Alhazen (1572), the influential Risner translation. --Merlinme (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Inverted image in Alhazen's visual theory?

The present text says "His understanding of pinhole projection from his experiments appears to have influenced his consideration of image inversion in the eye." citing Gul A. Russell, "Emergence of Physiological Optics", p. 689, in (Morelon & Rashed 1996). I do not have access to Russell's work but the article as it stands seems to misinterpret Alhazen's theory of vision. Since the discussion of image inversion was originally added by Jagged 85, I'm especially suspicious.

Both Lindberg and, more recently, Smith maintain that the image was formed on the surface of the lens and that it was not inverted. Smith ("What is the History of Medieval Optics Really About?", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 148, N0. 2, June 2004: 180-194) notes that in Alhacen's model the image "is channeled in proper, upright order into the hollow optic nerve at the back of the eye" (p. 186). Smith further contrasts Alhacen with Kepler: "Kepler’s retinal image is upside down. Yet we see things rightside up, a fact the Alhacenian account takes into full consideration" (p. 192).

Should we just delete the citation of Russel or just add Smith as a corrective? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll give a fuller response in a second, but I would note that you've done some thing very strange to the page. See the list of references which has appeared below Theory of Vision. Is it because you've used a different citation style? Please could you fix. --Merlinme (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the ref. The citation template insisted on having http:// at the beginning of a URL entry.

What are your thoughts on Russell? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The exact Russell text is: "The originality of this experiment lies in Ibn al-Haytham's use of not just one but a number of lamps providing spatially separated multiple sources of light by means of which he could determine with exactitude the correspondence as well as the inversion of the projection across a horizontal meridian. Repeating from the horizontal to all other meridians would have been both an obvious and a logical progression. There is no doubt that Ibn al-Hytham was able to conceptualize clearly the essential principles of pinhole projection from such an experiment. His subsequent consideration of image inversion in the eye suggests that at some point such a generalization was made by Ibn al-Haytham". Russell has a reference here, which is unfortunately not in the preview, but I should be able to get it if necessary.

Now, I am in no way an expert on the history of theories of vision; personally I thought there was some support here for the suggestion that Alhazen did at least consider image inversion in the eye. However the reference to inversion is in passing. It is also noticeable that in by far the best and most comprehensive explanation I have been able to find of what Alhazen actually said, Lindberg only mentions inversion in passing; I can't be bothered to type it all out (from pages 80-81 of Theories of Vision), but the gist of it is that Alhazen's scheme required refraction before the perpendicular lines reached an apex, because otherwise the image would be a single point (losing the correspondence of different points on the object to different points on the eye); if the ray went beyond the apex, then you would have inversion; Alhazen avoids both reaching a point and creating an inverted image by refracting the perpendicular lines as they move between the glacial and vitreous humours.

This does seem to strongly suggest that Alhazen did consider inversion in the eye, but only as something to be avoided! He thought that after refraction, the image would not be inverted. So if you wish to clarify the article along those lines, that's fine by me. --Merlinme (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

rebuild

I would like to help fix this page. My bibliography:

• Iqbal, Muzaffar. "Is Islamic Science Possible?" Islam & Science 6, no. 2 (2008): 93+. http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-191907688.
• Lindberg, David C. "21: The Western Reception of Arabic Optics." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and RÉgis Morelon, 716-27. Vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/108315698.

• Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/89703425.

• Netton, Ian Richard. Islam, Christianity and Tradition: A Comparative Exploration. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. http://www.questia.com/read/118238459.
• Rashed, Roshdi. "19: Geometrical Optics." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and RÉgis Morelon, 643-71. Vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/108315625.
• Russell, GÜl A. "20: The Emergence of Physiological Optics." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and RÉgis Morelon, 672-715. Vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/108315654.
• Saliba, George. "3: Arabic Planetary Theories After the Eleventh Century Ad." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and Regis Morelon, 58-127. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/104098973.

• "Artisans and Mathematicians in Medieval Islam." The Journal of the American Oriental Society 119, no. 4 (1999): 637. http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-62658420.

• Smith, A. Mark. "What Is the History of Medieval Optics Really About?1." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 148, no. 2 (2004): 180+. http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-708127391.
• Wade, Nicholas J., and Michael T. Swanston. Visual Perception: An Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Psychology Press, 2001. http://www.questia.com/read/108802776.

.*Theory of vision

In short, he integrated the three theoretical strands in optics that had until then been dominant but distinct-Aristotle's observations and philosophical stance, Euclid's mathematical treatment in terms of ray diagrams, and the physiological approach of Galen (c. 130-200), the great anatomist of antiquity. (from wade and swanston holds true with other sources)

The two most important treatments of optics between Euclid and Kepler were by Ptolemy (c. 100-170) and Ibn al-Haytham (c. 965-1039), who is more widely known by his latinized name of Alhazen. The Optics of Ptolemy is both experimental and psychological, dealing with colour as well as space (also from wade/swanston)

I'm going to post this now I see other problems.J8079s (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to work on improving the article, as opposed to just confirming that the material added by Jagged_85 is supported by the sources he used, that would be great. It has the potential to be a good article, there's plenty of material here, and Alhazen is an important figure in the history of science, notably for the work on optics and his emphasis on experimentation. The parts which I would particularly like help with are a) the mathematical stuff; I'm not a mathematician, and I find it hard to judge the accuracy of this and also the notablity of it; b) the range of sources used. One of the hardest issues to resolve with Jagged_85's edits are when he uses perfectly decent sources, quoted more or less correctly, but he's quoted so much of a fringe view (or one side of an academic debate) that the effect is to unbalance the article. If you can provide more perspective on the broader academic view of Alhazen that would be much appreciated. --Merlinme (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are doing a great job. I don't know which sources you can access directly. I can cut and paste anything you might need from the above. I would like to help more but I work very slowly. Keep up the good work. J8079s (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I personally enjoy verifying and clarifying the medieval science sources, but I am aware that there are large chunks here I don't understand well, and I'm also aware that I have limited amounts of time to verify the article in comparison to the large number of deeply misleading statements which Jagged_85 left littered all over these articles. If you have time to spare in verifying the article, or just in making it a more coherent and sensible whole, any knowledge and help you can provide will be much appreciated. --Merlinme (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup4. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

• Alhazen: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127

Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is potentially helpful. I have clicked on a number of these diffs, and none I've seen, so far, seem problematic. But I will click on each of the 127 diffs and evaluate if any seem to make unreasonable claims (and then if they are still in article, of course). Most really do just seem like minor wording issues and the like, and few anything potentially contentious... but that's just from a few random ones so far. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... as a suggested procedure, I will boldface any diff that I find might be problematic; and I welcome anyone else to do so. That gives us something concrete to discuss, I think; and it rules out lots of definitely-mundane edits. Obviously, past boldfacing, relevant edits could be needed. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reformatted the output from the script since the original did not wrap in some browsers. I intend using this format for any other articles needing this summary—please let me know if it has a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Irritating, I thought the bot would realise that this has been re-added, clearly not. Anyway I assume this "bump" post will keep this thread alive. Having been through the article and eliminated the worst and easiest to check issues, I'm now working my way back through the diffs. I'm now on diff 106. --Merlinme (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have my Questia membership and a bit of time, so here's hoping I can get this finished off in the fairly near future. --Merlinme (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Working backwards, now on diff 94. --Merlinme (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just completed 93, which was a bit of a monster. I've deleted a lot of unnecessary over-referencing; at some point it might become possible to see at a glance the relevant reliable sources. --Merlinme (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Now on diff 84. --Merlinme (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Now on diff 79. --Merlinme (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Now on diff 69. --Merlinme (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with biography

"Ibn Abi Usaybi'a delves deep into the propositions of his contemporary, the geometrician 'Alam al-Din ibn Abi al-Qasim al-HanafF^ (1178/9- 1251). However, as they are drawn from the geometrician's own reading of al-Qiftf s biography, it really adds nothing new. He goes on to say that Ibn al-Haytham lived at first in Basra and the surrounding area, that he was appointed as a minister, that he wanted to devote himself to science, since he was attracted to medieval vertu and to wisdom, that he then feigned madness to divest himself of his ministerial responsibilities, and that he finally left for Cairo and settled in the neighbourhood of al-Azhar Mosque. This version is as close as it possibly could be to al-Qiftfs version, with the exception that, most probably as a result of an unreliable memory, 'Alam al-Din transposes the Basra years and what al-Qifti says are the Cairo years, and on top of that makes Ibn al-Haytham into a minister."[6]. Ibn al-Haytham and Analytical Mathematics: A History of Arabic Sciences and Mathematics Volume 2 by Roshdi Rashed, which looks like an excellent source. I added 'Minister' but maybe that needs to be qualified. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)