Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moonhawk

I agree that clocks and astrolabes aren't actually Muslim inventions, but merely refinements. Like saying that Ford 'invented' the automobile. That being said, Moonhawk, it's a little unusual to read "The clock is not an Islamic invention" in a list of... Islamic inventions. Should a new section be made for these refinements? Or should it merely be elaborated that, while the device was not invented by Muslims, it was improved by them? These technically wouldn't belong here as they aren't literally 'inventions', but their development should be noted.--C.Logan 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to above: Stop being jealous and give credit where its due —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.105.1 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Inventions by time period

If we can get some kind of consensus, then I think we (?) should list all inventions by time peroid. For example, the Ancient Page could be subdivided into Rome, Greec, China, etc. Also we should note inventions that were widespread versus those that were novelties. For example, "the aqeducts were in use throughout the Roman World, while the steam engine was invented in the Ancient time period by Hesod (? I forget, Greek scientist around AD 100) but was never more than a novelty. This seems like the most logical way to present science and technology, and it gives a much better sense of what has come before, a real timeline for inventions. I know people love their ethnic groups, but scientists are typically not the "mainsteam, normal" types anyway. As soon as ethnic groups are added an article on scientific facts takes on social/political implications.

I know this is a daunting task. We begin with "fire" and end with "gene splicing and viagra." Hmmmm, that's another question. Is viagra an invention? Or is there a medial page? I guess I just stumbled onto something else.

If everbody agrees that the time period idea is the way to go, we could start wth Pre-history (bows, fire, the wheel) and move on. We could just leave the other pages up until the whole thing was done. I know it's a big project, but by the end it would probably be worth it.

(Gunslinger1812 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

There is already a Timeline of historic inventions article on Wikipedia, if that is what you meant. Jagged 85 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

there is too much self praise by the Muslims they have an agenda to promote their religion and will not act reasonably, they have already stated that it's about "their history" in other words their agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protest against islamic imposition (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you there is a greater number of non-Muslims on wikipedia to counter any such Muslim conspiracies that you fear might be going on. At any rate, your edits are no proper way to counter such things as they violate wikipedia guidelines to an even greater extent than your suggested threat. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this "check-and-balance" system is not so effective with articles that end up being edited almost exclusively by a single editor, as is the case here. I've received a few notes about this article before, and I myself have picked through entire sections of questionable content which would cause me to question the intent (or even just the focus) of the contributions here.--C.Logan (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that its not perfect but to suggest that the whole article is hogwash is far fetched. On top of that, the user himself has an obvious bias against Muslims claiming conspiracy theories and prejudices by them and using that as reasoning for his arguments. As for the history of editing, there is more than one editor editing, just that one is more prominent than others but last I checked, if he isn't do something wrong, then he's just being an active wikipedian. If he is doing something(s) wrong and no reverts or discusses his changes with him and instead just suggests to just blow away the whole article, its the people's fault whose responsibility is to check unbalanced editing. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

non spliting

I don't think that should be split into Persian, ottoman, Arabian…invention because of the complex to split it, at that time a Muslim/Persian scientist would go to House of Wisdom in Baghdad to study a certain thing in Arabic for instance, plus according to Islamic "hadeeth" a Muslim should go anywhere in the world seeking for science, shouldn't keep any kind of science to him self and s/he should spread it.

I think the word Islamic refers to a time era in this specific article; I know it might look like of some kind of propaganda for some people but it doesn't look like one to me. However I think the title should be changed to other phrase refers clearly to the invention in during Islamic era.

radiant guy (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

objection

I object to the following passage:

"Most of these inventions were invented in the Middle Ages, particularly during what is known as the "Islamic Golden Age". a closer examination of these successes reveals that they came about because these individuals stepped outside of the Muslim realm. For example, today Muslim scientists and scholars are trained in the West. I claim that Islam is not conducive to the pursuit of rational inquiry, and when Islam asserts itself, it borrows, co-opts and ultimately, when time has passed and memory forgotten, claims that these borrowed and co-opted things were originated by Muslims, not by the native cultures that preceded the Muslims."

For starters, it seems to lie squarely in the realm of original research. Its source is an argumentative article of opinion. Secondly, it is revisionist; ie, it is not the opinion of most scholars or the general public, as far as I am aware. Thirdly, part of it is written in the first person. Fourthly, it is highly derogatory; it attacks a religion and belittles the accomplishments of people which professed it.

The only mention of the highlighted text I see possible is as the opinion of the article's particular author. If there were others with similar conclusions, the dissenting authors and their arguments could be mentioned.

This being said, I will proceed in changing it.

201.242.100.181 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 201.242.100.181 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the text. In addition, by 'article' ("he only mention of the highlighted text I see possible is as the opinion of the article's particular author") I meant magazine article; the one where the the highlighted text was apparently based from.

201.242.100.181 (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) User:Jagged 85 please have the guts to sign your pov pushing

I object to the use of Islamofachistic quotations from Islamic sources highly eddited to produce a psuado history as seen by the Islamic Pov pushers such as User:Jagged 85 quotations from these sources can't be regarded as appropriate Islam: Empire of Faith a b Ahmad Y Hassan Journal of the Islamic Medical Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxyman42 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I object to the dubious text you have injected into the lead section, as I noted in my edit - the lead section now contains text that contains POV text in a first person narrative i.e "I claim that Islam is not conducive to the pursuit of rational inquiry, and when Islam asserts itself, it borrows, co-opts and ultimately, when time has passed and memory forgotten, claims that these borrowed and co-opted things were originated by Muslims, not by the native cultures that preceded the Muslims." - all this just copy pasted from a POV website Frontpage Magazine - which is at odds with wikipedia's core policy of NPOV and could also be a copyvio. Pahari Sahib (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

since when is a quotation a copyvio unless you're pov pushing? when you delete all the dupious Islamic pov pushing sources you might have a point, this article needs a more NPOV source than you, please reframe from inserting your propaganda here

I have made a request for a non Islamic pusher to look at this article in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests please avoid your pov pushing untill it is looked at by a non pov pusher Oxyman42 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the so called sources are extremely suspect on this article and the article needs looking over with a view to removeing all pov claims form dubious sources Oxyman42 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am glad that you are seeking assistance - but I object to being called an Islamic POV pusher edits like this do not help - seems to me to be straight out of conservapedia. Pahari Sahib (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

reply: surely a way of trying to balance a debate is to include opinions from both sides? There are about 100 quotations from dubious Islamic sites, or quotations carefully selected and taken out of context to support an argument. I added that (single) quotation after several others were deleted by pov pushers such as "many of them (the inventions) had direct implications for Fiqh related issues"

this quotation was supplied by a Muslim when it suited the point he was trying to make but deleted it when I added it to the article as it did not support the pov agenda"In English we use the word “Islam” with two distinct meanings, and the distinction is often blurred and lost and gives rise to considerable confusion. In the one sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christianity; that is to say, a religion in the strict sense of the word: a system of belief and worship. In the other sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christendom; that is to say, a civilization shaped and defined by a religion, but containing many elements apart from and even hostile to that religion, yet arising within that civilization."Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong

Any edit which goes against the pov pushing agenda is deleted by someone from WP:ISLAM which is unlike a normal Wikiproject as it is a group of pov pushers intent of pushing their views rather then improving wikipedia Oxyman42 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not a member of WP:ISLAM, but you should at least try and follow WP:MOS and cite it correctly - and not overload the lead section with your POV. Pahari Sahib (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a wikiproject just to monitor the stuff coming from WP:ISLAM, I did try and cite it correctly, but every time I try and add something here it is reverted by pov pushers from WP:ISLAM. the whole article at present amounts to one big pov push from WP:ISLAM and it is somewhat beyond one person to check 150 odd quotations to see if they are correct Oxyman42 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Front Page is obviously not a reliable source for this. And I'm sure some sources and claims from this problematic article must be pruned but degenerating into non-authoritative sources is not the answer. And, if you have problems with editors I advise you bring them up at the proper locations rather than insulting a whole Wiki project which has had many good editors. These are obviously very political issues which is why so many editors leave working on Islam related articles because there is no end to POV pushers from either side. But, we combat that by dealing with individual editors and trying to make articles better... not by citing poor sources to add "balance". gren グレン 11:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

While understanding that Oxyman42 is looking to put some objective balance into the article, the edit under question is inappropriate, misplaced and poorly presented. The article should be restored to [[1]] SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article as suggested.

Pahari Sahib 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

General comment on appropriateness of scope

A general comment, partially echoing some earlier statements ...

I wonder about the appropriateness of the scope of this article. In general the article is a stretch in that it is almost a "list article" which often is not a good article. Still in this case an article about the contributions of a significant group I think meets the appropriateness criteria, barely. But this article is trying to tie the contributions of all Muslims throughout the Eastern hemisphere through all history. These are very disparate cultures with their own histories and the contributions many of them have made often have more to do with their neighbors, who are not necessarily Muslim, than they do with the rest of the Muslim world.

I would propose that an article about the inventions of the Muslim Golden Age around the Mediterranean is an appropriate article since these cultures clearly had a lot of interconnection and can be seen, to some degree, a cohesive ethnic group (and I say that not in the sense that their weren't different ethnicities but in the sense that they all saw themselves as having a lot in common and were fairly tight-knit for much of that period). And clearly this culture made important contributions to the world during that period. But I think trying to keep it as broad as it is makes no more sense than having a broad article about the contributions of the Greeks which includes the accomplishments of people from Greektown in Chicago. In other words, it is trying to tie together too many things with a very thin thread (which essentially means that it is a POV article trying to push an agenda).

Just my opinion ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed this would be an article about the medieval period, but it seems to be about anything scientific and Muslim. I agree, the Muslim Golden Age or something like that.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to move a quantity of informations such as enhancements of inventions to a new article like Science in the Medieval Islamic world. These informations are historically valuable while not very appropriate to be called "Inventions". Snn77 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Constructed or Invented? & Used or Invented?

I think some of the submissions are misleading. For example under "Clock Technology" no where does it say they invented the technology. They may have constructed these devices but it doesnt mean they invented them. (Someone could just as well have constructed a chariot but it doesnt mean they invented it)

Theres a number of articles about items being used but just because something is used it doesnt make it an invention.

Bill 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the sort of thing I'm excising from this article. Check my edits. Frotz (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

chemical technology

It's clear that the modern discipline of chemistry came to the West by way of Arab scholars who preserved the ancient art of alchemy. It cannot be said that Arab scholars invented alchemy. The very word "alchemy" alludes to this. It means "the art of the land of Khem". "Khem" is the ancient name of Egypt and the Egyptian word for "black". A lot of Arab alchemic terminology persists to the present day, but this does not imply that any of it was invented by said Arabs. This is particularly true of assertions of the invention of crucibles and calicination: both of which are intrinsic to smelting and the manufacture of lime. These demonstrably existed before Islam appeared. Frotz (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking sorely needed

This article is very much in need of fact-checking. Over the past couple weeks I've been checking the facts on the assertions made in this article. I find that a tremendous number of them predate Islam. This seems to be the product of scholars not checking their facts or else having POV-pushing agendas. Is anyone interested in helping with this? Frotz (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I must warn you that an attempt to put facts here may lead to you been called a conservapedia reading conservative. I have tried to put things right in the past but these efforts are quickly undone by organized members of WP:ISLAM. They even object to using a quote supllied by them if it goes against their agenda. Oxyman42 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally what I've been doing is cross-checking assertions in this article with other articles. Things that contradict otherwise well-known facts are deleted. I deleted all cites from one author who was shown to practice dubious and sloppy scholarship. I got most of the glaringly obvious ones already. Let's just dive in and take on the POV-pushers when the time comes. So far, they haven't complained about anything I've removed from here. Frotz (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

advice

Possibly a way to proceed on this is to not just list the inventions, but to say a little more, making clear the role.-- if you avoid disputes on exactly what to call it. A definite way not to proceed with this article or any other is to make comments about the motives of other editors. DGG (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If as is the case here there is an organized group of POV pushers I don't see how it can be avoided Oxyman42 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested inventions

It's been a a few months since I've edited this article, but I'm surprised to find how many inventions were removed on the speculative grounds that the editor thinks they may have been invented in ancient times (without citing any sources), even though many of the inventions that were removed were clearly referenced to reliable sources. As such, I intend to restore these inventions in a seperate "Contested inventions" category, which basically lists inventions which have been claimed by other civilizations, similar to the "Other inventions" section of the List of Chinese inventions. If some editors can cite reliable sources which suggest some of the technologies were invented in other civilizations, then they can move those entries to the "Contested inventions" section and explain it there. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Other inventions" section that you refer and link to states clearly that those "Things often misunderstood or rumored to be invented by the Chinese:" I suspect that you will omit such a necessary caveat if it goes against your agenda, this observation is based on your past edits Oxyman42 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The inventions I removed are fairly obvious to casual students of history, physics, chemistry, and alchemy. Here's a small sampling:

• Using cotton to staunch wounds. Since all sorts of wooly substances were used as bandages, it's most certain that someone used the fruit of a cotton plant for the same purpose.
• Attempts to fly. The Greek myth of Icarus makes it clear that the ancients thought of this. Are we to believe that NOBODY until the 10th century tried to fly?
• Numerous things listed as inventions of the Islamic world are directly contradicted WITH CITES in the very articles the listings reference. Did anyone think to take the small effort to go that short distance and check?
• Are we to believe that no physician before the advent of Islam thought of cutting into live patients? Similarly, as soon as the saw was invented, shouldn't someone have thought of using one to cut off diseased limbs?
• Do we really need examples for inventions in the 20th century and beyond? Shouldn't this article be limited to Islam's Golden Age?
• Numerous alchemic devices and techniques are listed as Islamic inventions, when they are crucial in one form or another to the preparation and working of copper, bronze, brass, and other metals. Are we to believe that metallurgy began no earlier than the 7th century?
• Cobs are bricks made of mud mixed with straw. This stuff is mentioned in the Book of Exodus, depending on who you ask (it might have been adobe), and is commonly found in stone-age excavations.

Frotz (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Post Afd 2 modifications

It appears the second Afd has closed, because apparently POV can be corrected by editing [2]. I do not understand this closure reason at all (and have requested clarification [3]), because per the Afd nomination reason and my subsequent comments, it is the very premise of the article through its title which is what violates the neutral point of view principle. However, if this article is to be kept despite the many delete votes, and the masses of criticism on this talk page, the very minimimum I believe that needs to happen to avoid further challenges to this article is:

• Change the title
• Write a comprehensive and accurate lead to establish exactly why this manufactured correlation is notable (and not from a POV, but reflecting accurate third party opinions that think it is so)
• Give a proper account of the various civilisations that have contributed, and not just say 'islam/a muslim done it'. There is a wide gulf between these civilisations and societies.
• Convert it to a timeline based list, not a meaningless grouping by subject
• Massively copyedit for POV and accuracy

MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that the same people that argued for this article to be kept on various grounds are happy to allow this article to remain with it's POV pushing agenda Oxyman42 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Three-masted merchant vessel

Muslim sailors were responsible for introducing the large three-masted merchant vessels to the Mediterranean Sea.

Ancient Roman ships were known to have large three-masted cargo vessels.

This section should be deleted as it seems that someone has provided a link disproving the claim anyhow at the moment it contradicts itself, I would do it myself but have already been lectured about editing this article so shall wait for someone else to do it Oxyman42 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That someone was me. I'm trying to sort out things that really were invented in the Islamic Golden Age from those things commonly-mistaken as being Islamic in origin. Jagged 85 has a valid point in separating the two. Another thing that needs to be done is to drastically cut down on the number of enhancements and variations of inventions. For instance, the assorted entries having to with variants of the astrolabe and armillary spheres must be removed. Both were known to the ancient Greeks. Listing enhancements to them here is inconsequential. Frotz (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with things commonly-mistaken as being Islamic in origin haveing their own clearly defined section as they will probably appear in the main text if not, whatJagged 85 seemed to propose was a kind of speculation section, which would go against wikipedia being an encyclopedia. I agree that the title of the page contains the word invention therefore developments are not really appropriate here, my advice is remove them again I shall wait for others to delete them as I have been warned Oxyman42 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by a "speculation section". Frotz (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant a "Contested inventions" section where you can only speculate who invented the inventions mentioned, an encyclopedia is supposed to deal with facts, If we cannot be sure where the inventions came from here is not really the place to put it Oxyman42 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On/off switch

The on/off switch, an important feedback control principle, was invented by Muslim engineers between the 9th and 12th centuries, and it was employed in a variety of automata and water clocks. The mechanism later had an influence on the development of the electric on/off switch which appeared in the 1950s. weater or not a Muslim invented the on/off switch (unlikely) it is just speculation to say it had "influence on the development of the electric on/off switch" if not complete rubbish Oxyman42 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Explosive gunpowder" what other kind of gunpowder is there? I'm guessing that the explosive kind was better then the non explosive kind Oxyman42 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The on/off switch is likely predated by the Romans and Greeks. The Roman Senate had a habit of stopping the water clock when time was about to run out. Greek automata would need some way to be started and stopped. Gunpowder doesn't explode unless it's confined. The section on "explosive gunpowder" probably refers to the optimum ratio of saltpetre to charcoal to sulphur. If the Chinese were smart enough to invent the stuff, I'm quite sure they were smart enough to tinker with the ratios. Therefore inventing explosive powder in this article is bunk. Frotz (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find your sources to provide evidence then fine, you seem to think the Greeks and Romans made everything. And you keep deleting good sources. Please stop this. At the very least discuss it here first. Provide sources. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"If you can find your sources to provide evidence then fine" most of the pro islamic stuff on this page is so called sourced by pro Islamic material which is neither an adequate source or a credible reference, not good sources. no need to ask you to stop as your religious zeal is totally in control of your actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.222.64 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What "pro-Islamic material"? Nearly all the sources used on this page are from secular sources. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all? means not all right and define "secular sources" clearly sources like "100 islamic inventions" are not sitting on the fence regards who's side they are on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.218.84 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

better scholarship needed

Instead of cut and paste lets check our sources and explain what we mean.

• A Short History of Chemistry Partington ISBN 0486659771
• Story of Alchemy and Early Chemistry Stillman ISBN 0766132307
• Creation of Fire: Chemistry's Lively History from Alchemy to the Atomic Age Cobb ISBN 073820594X
• Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries Lucas ISBN 0766151417
• From Alchemy to Chemistry Read ISBN 0486286908
• The Dictionary of Alchemy Fernando ISBN 1843336189
• Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry: Papers from Ambix Debus ISBN 0954648412
• The Chemical Tree; A History of Chemistry Brock ISBN 0393302685
• Alchemy Holmyard ISBN 0486262987
• A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Partington ISBN 0801859549
• Glasss: a World History Macfarlane and Martin ISBN 0226500284
• Sasanian and Post-Sasnian Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass Whitehouse and Brill ISBN 0872901580
• A Short History of the Art of Distillation from the Beginnings Up to the Death of Cellier Blumenthal Forbs ISBN 9004006176J8079s (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a real interest should do some work to improve the article.J8079s (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to put the tags back upJ8079s (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Trebuchet

This article ascribes the counterweight trebuchet as an invention of the Islamic Golden Age, citing Mardi bin Ali al-Tarsusi (actually block copying text from the article on him, which occurs in several places). But as the article Trebuchet makes clear (although I cannot find an English version of cited text myself, nor is one cited), Tarsusi ascribed the invention as being made outside the Islamic world entirely. While nothing about the text in this article about trebuchets is wrong, its appearance in the list appears incorrect; this article is limited on its face to "inventions [which] were developed in the medieval Islamic world."

However, as a relatively new user, I don't want to just up and delete it, in case someone else has a different view?

Ibn Zakariyā (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and wholly deleted the section, for the reasons outlined above; also the paragraph above about gunpowder, for the same reason (it correctly stated within the paragraph that gunpowder was not developed in the medieval Islamic world.

Ibn Zakariyā (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Al-Tarsusi does not say it was invented outside the Islamic world. All he claimed is that "Trebuchets are machines invented by unbelieving devils", which tells us nothing about where it was made, or whether he was referring to the counterweight trebuchet or just trebuchets in general. All we do know is that the earliest clear evidence for the counterweight trebuchet is from the Islamic world. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on specific inventions

I've just restored some of the inventions removed yesterday, and added more references as support. However, I didn't restore all of them, as there were some I agreed shouldn't be on the list. To avoid any edit wars, it would be helpful if users who have issues with some of the inventions listed in the article to comment on those specific examples here before removing them from the article itself. Jagged 85 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the inclusion of Kerosene. I've done a little research, and it seems that the only source which attributes the discovery of Kerosene to "Muslims" is the very biased source which is listed (whose explicit purpose is to rewrite everything we know about history with a pro-Islam slant), which happens to be published by a publishing house which produces (besides alternative remedy books) exclusively Muslim spirituality books [4] and what appears to be a 9/11 conspiracy theory book [5] which purports to reveal who the "real terrorists" are. I'm not buying it, and I doubt the majority of scholarship does either, or else we wouldn't need to turn to Dr. Ajram for our magical history lesson.

Unfortunately, it seems the author has a problem understanding the difference between an "invention" and "study into a field". I can learn how to melt lead or iron, but that doesn't mean I've invented smelting. I'm going to look into this whole thing, but I'm a little concerned that this heavily-used source is nothing but a bad synthesis of half-facts and conclusion-jumps.--C.Logan 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point on whether Dr. Ajram's claims are credible, but I have now included another source giving more details on kerosene and its inventor. I think I might start looking for other sources to use instead of Ajram's one. Jagged 85 03:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being mindful of my concerns with using reliable sources; I appreciate your consideration in this respect.--C.Logan 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of camera in camera obscura

Having the word "camera obscura" coming from "qamara" sounds goofy - "camera" is a perfectly legitimate Latin word (the root of "chambre" in French, "camera" in Italian, and "Comrade" in Rus- ah, I mean, English). "qamara" itself was certainly borrowed from Latin. Jérôme Plût (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted that. Camera (as a word) comes from latin (classic) and greek and predates Islam. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gristmills

I'm using Wikipedia details here for consistency within Wikipedia. Gristmills have been used in Europe and areas from 2nd century BC and the peak of design e.g. Barbegal aqueduct and mill was used from 1st - 3rd century AD. Then Muslim_Agricultural_Revolution#Industrial_milling claims that "The first gristmills were invented by Muslim engineers in the Islamic world,"...which clearly cannot be true. Is the issue "geared" gristmills or use of trip-hammers ?. Trip hammer were used in China e.g. read Water_Wheel#Ancient_China before Islam. This needs verifying. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Industrial mills

It claims here that a "A variety of industrial mills were first invented in the Islamic world, including fulling mills, gristmills, hullers, paper mills, sawmills, stamp mills, steel mills, sugar mills, and windmills.". This is clearly a dubious claim (see also copy in Watermill#Islamic_world. Fulling makes no mention of Islam and the Romans fulled cloth (idea pre-dates Islam) but not clear if mechanised first in middle east. Gristmills clearly pre-date Islam (see above). Mechanised hullers are uncertain. Paper mills are used first in Baghdad. Sawmills are uncertain - Sawmill#History says nothing. Stamp mills - uncertain but a paper mill is a stamp mill of sorts. Steel mills - uncertain. Sugar#Cane_sugar_outside_Asia says it clearer what happened with sugar and the description is "Arab entrepreneurs" rather than "Islamic world" which is what is claimed here. windmills first used. The mix of invention and adaption and no references make "first invented" an untrustworthy claim. To keep all those technologies in the wording "first invented" should be changed to just "used". Ttiotsw (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lateen Sail

An article by I.C. Campbell from 1995 (http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/journals/jwh/jwh061p001.pdf): "The Latin Sail in World History", convincingly demonstrates that 1) The Lateen Sail was used in the mediterranean late antiquity (2-4th century AD, Aegean sea) 2)There is no evidence of the lateen sail used in the Indian ocean before the 15th century, which makes the idea that the lateen was translated from the indian ocean to the mediterranean in the 9th century, when it first appears in medieval sources, difficult to uphold. 3)The first builders and sailors of the mediterranean muslim fleets of the period the lateen appears were local christian subjects of muslim rulers, not muslims themselves.

The Wiki article also points this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateen

I removed the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.182.91 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Noticed we're not supposed to do that. Added it with some modifications. Suggest removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.182.91 (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

College

Wouldn't Plato's Academy or the Lyceum be an earlier manifestation of the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.180.176 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Juiced soft drink

This article is a joke. Good example are “Juiced soft drink, Sherbet, and Sharab”. Sources? An article about Sherbet, published in the Saudi Aramco World magazine (this magazine is free publication published by the Saudi Aramco oil company) The second one is from www.1001inventions.com (Posted by person called Nosheen on February 27, 2006 02:58 PM, as his personal contribution to the site.)--N Jordan (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Aviation

his attempt was successful he only hurt himself landing

Too long

The article at present is 184 KB long. I will propose to split it into several specialized articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to split the article into two articles, one dealing with the classical period and the other with the modern period, like what I've recently done with the Timeline of Islamic science and engineering article. Jagged 85 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone is looking for a definitive list of inventions in the Islamic world, they shouldn't have to waste time searching around in several different articles to find what they need to know. What I would propose is a cutting down on the descriptions of each passage (for each invention) and create separate articles for each overhead section (so that the elaboration on each passage will not be lost but simply transferred to several articles). To me, that would be the only acceptable way to split the article into several others--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be split, and the current individual lists should be replaced by some coherent summarizing text, while the lists themselves are moved to list-of articles. Regarding search: a definite total list could be constructed by including all those list-of articles into one specialized total list-of article. This way the material becomes easier to edit, overview, maintain and search all-in-one and everyone will become happy and live in eternal bliss ever after... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain: including. If we have an article List of islamic petrochemical inventions and one List of mathematical inventions we can create one total list-of article composed of those individual articles, this way:

{{List of islamic petrochemical inventions}}

{{List of islamic mathematical inventions}}

{{List of islamic astronomical inventions}}

etc. This way the individual lists are called as wikipedia "templates". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

change title/ elminate duplications

"Innovations" more accurately describes the items on this list. multiple listings of the same "discovery" should be eliminated.J8079s (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Innovations" would be too broad in scope, as it would include all scientific and philosophical innovations as well. The article would become too large if all kinds of innovations were included. Jagged 85 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA

I hate to say it like this but Jagged is a Muslim propagandist. Science should go by time period, region, widespread use vs. novelty, and nothing more; it's the only way not to be biased or to allow someone to spread religious propaganda on an encyclopedia website. The Ancient stuff is more or less done already, but these Medieval Muslim pages should be deleted, and again sorry to say it, but Jegged should be banned from this website. He's using it, plain and simple, for his own propaganda. You wouldn't let a Creationist write the page on Creationism, would you?

Gunslinger1812

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 

For the hundredth time already, this article is not defined by religion, but by a geopolitical region known as medieval Islam. The quote at the top of the article already explains this clearly. And if you want to insult me, go to my talk page and do it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Jagged 85 displays a continuous and preditable one-sidedness in most of his articles. Jagged includes in his Muslim innovation series Christian Hungarian engineers as much as Soviet engineers and Muslim atheists. The whole category "Muslim xyz" seems to rest on shaken foundations. I also agree that if all users were going by his sens of truthfulness in writing articles, Wikipedia would be a place immediately to leave. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Really because I don't. You seem to have an agenda for personally attacking his work. You repeatedly vandalise articles that have anything to do with Islam claiming the sources are "not correct". Please stop this or I will open a request for comment on your behaviour. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To gunpowder and gunslinger: You are confusing the "Islamic religion" with the "Islamic civilization". It is unfortunate that these two very different things have the same first word in their name. If you don't know the difference, then you probably should not be working on articles about them. Your attitude towards Jagged is completely inappropriate. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To CharlesGillingham: The problem those two, as well as I, have with this distinction of the two terms Islamic civilization and Islamic religion is that no such thing exists for any other civilization. There is clearly a Christian civilization that dominated Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire and for a long time thereafter. Much astronomy and science was supported by the church. But I have looked and have found no article anywhere on Wikipedia about Christian science or Christian inventions. No one would consider writing such an article. Certainly, there is the weasly excuse of referring to "Islamic civilization," but civilizations did exist prior to the invasions of Islam, and in fact most of the "Islamic" scholars, even when they were actual Muslims, drew from pre-Islamic writings and works. The problem I have here is the very premise of qualifying these things as "Islamic" in the first place, and deflecting that criticism with the rebuttal that we are talking about civilization doesn't get around the criticism. No other civilization is referred to by its religion, and even where scientists like Isaac Newton had an overt religious inspiration for their discoveries, they and their discoveries are not referred to as "Christian" discoveries. In other words, the use of the adjective Islamic is biased and non-neutral, regardless of Bernard Lewis says.KartoumHero (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

A large number of the inventions in this article are given a history which contradicts (wholly or in part) the history in the wikipedia article on those inventions. See, e.g., rudder, gunpowder, distillation, guitar, sundial, astrolabe. The common element seems to be that many of these inventions were developed by different people in different parts of the world over thousands of years, sometimes independently and sometimes based upon a partial or complete understanding of the device's history. It is therefore rather artificial to point to one element in the path of the device's development and say that this was the moment when the device was invented - yet that is the approach taken in much of this article. A great deal of work would be required to go through the article methodically.

I should add that this is generally not the case with the theoretical/mathematical items in the article - in most cases it is clear that the discoveries in question originated in medieval Islam. However I would query whether these are "inventions" in the ordinary meaning of the term. LeContexte (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Geomantic computer

Geomantic instrument, Egypt or Syria, 1241-1242 CE, made by Muhammad ibn Khutlukh al Mawsuli. British Museum.

Detail.

Detail.

Quite a surprising feat of technology at the British Museum: a geomantic computer-like instrument, made in Egypt or Syria in 1241-1242 CE, by Muhammad ibn Khutlukh al Mawsuli. According to the museum notice, this instrument was used for the purpose of divination, to answer questions such as "Will this person be a suitable husband?" or "Will I succeed in business?". When turning the dials, random designs of dots would appear, which were then interpreted. A poem is writen at the back of the instrument, praising its virtues: "I am the silent speaker... the judicious one hides his secret thoughts, but I disclose them as if hearts were created as my parts." The manufacturing skills involved are quite amazing for the period. Feel free to insert this info into the article. PHG (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It rather deserves its own article like the Antikythera mechanism, because the usage of that Geomantic instrument is not clear. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also maybe related to Book of Ingenious Devices. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Emilie Savage-Smith and Marion Smith discussed this at length; it's clear that this is a table used to replace the old sand-and-tray method of geomancy. These aren't "random designs of dots" but a system of sixteen dot figures (see Geomantic figures). Unlike the Antikythera Mechanism, this machine's use is readily apparent. An article devoted to this, however, would be greatly appreciated. Tascil (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Things the Muslims did not invent

The paper mill predates the Islamic Golden Age. Hydropower to run the mill may be an Islamic innovation, but this should be listed under "uses of hydropower"; the way it is now, we are implying that the paper mill was invented by Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Article problems (X-2009)

• Scope. It is not clear what spatial and temporal extent this article is meant to cover. The lead claims that it is meant to cover the period from the Caliphate to the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires, but this cannot be right as it means that e.g. 1921 Istanbul would be medieval, an absurdity. Hodgson does not use the word "medieval" in his work The Venture of Islam, but he identifies the "middle Islamic period" as being from 945-1503 (p. 96, ISBN 0-226-34678-1; before is the Caliphal Period, afterwards is the Period of Gunpowder Empires.) The temporal scope in Medieval Islamic Civilization: an Encyclopedia (ISBN 0415966914, p. xii) is given as roughly from the 6th through 17th centuries.
• Bogus inventions. This list has suffered persistently from editing where various things used during this period have been indiscriminately inserted without checking to see whether they are new or whether they existed before. I have removed a large number (over 30) of non-inventions of this sort, but more have appeared as new material has been added. For example, the spur, just added, is not of medieval Arabic origin, as claimed, as it was used by the Celts in the late Iron Age (ISBN 9004072330, p. 115.) For another example, there is no claim in the source given that the "steel helmet", just added, first appeared in medieval Islam. These are two arbitrary examples but there are sure to be many more.
• Bogus sources.
      (1) For example, the account of a rocket flight given here is taken from Evliya Çelebi's Seyahatname, which is not a reliable source as it contains many tall tales and fictional material (pp. 153 ff., ISBN 9004137157).
      (2) For another example, the source [6], from an advocacy site, states incorrectly that all clocks were water clocks prior to the 16th century, and seems to imply that spring-powered clocks were not known prior to 1556, which is also incorrect.
      (3) The article also cites potted histories of the world and newspaper articles which claim that the alembic, distillation, filtration, and sublimation were invented at this time. Actually, these all existed earlier during the Hellenistic period (see A short history of chemistry, Partington, 3rd ed., Courier Dover, 1989, ISBN 0486659771, pp. 23–24.)
      (4) The children's book Islam and Science, Medicine, and Technology (Rosen, 2009, ISBN 1435850661) is cited on Al-Jazari's piston pump. A quote from this source reads (p. 41): "A crankshaft is a wheel that sets several crank pins into motion. The wheel's motion is circular, but the pins move back and forth in a straight line". This is nonsensical in two ways: (1) a crankshaft is a shaft, not a wheel; (2) crank pins move around and around in a circle, not back and forth in a straight line.
• Original research; misreading of sources. For example, the entry on the "elephant clock" states that it contains the earliest example of a closed-loop system in a mechanism. This claim does not appear in the source and is not correct as closed-loop systems appeared already in Hero's Pneumatica (ISBN 026213067X, pp. 20-21.)
• No criterion for novelty or significance of inventions. In a way, this is the most important problem, as with a stringent criterion for notability of an invention, the list could perhaps be maintained with sufficient work, but without it it will grow without bound as new material is spammed in.

Spacepotato (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This article will be forever tagged

• until it is defined what "invented" actually means in the context here and
• unless some users change their way of selective perception of attributing an invention to the "Muslims" at all costs. The recent incorrect addition of Dardanelles Gun is a case in point: although the article on the gun explicitly states that the screw-connected super guns were earlier known in medieval Europe and the technology was very likely imported into the Ottoman Empire, the gun was still included here.

The only solution is to radically delete all contents which cannot verify that a) this was invention and b) this invention can be attributed to islamic engineers. That means, entries such as the "Canal watermill" which are introduced as inventions on the flimsy basis that they "were located on the main canals of valley-floor irrigation systems" are to be removed as lacking both in criteria a) and b). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Dardanelles Gun was included as a one-off—that is, the claim is that this particular piece of bronze was made in the medieval Islamic world, even if the gun type is not new—although this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an invention.

I agree with your main point however. To spell it out in tedious detail, for something to be a verifiable part of a list of inventions in medieval Islam, we need to have five criteria satisfied:

1. It must be clearly stated what the thing is, whether it's a new type of device, a new process, a new substance, or a specific item (a one-off.) If before there were only red widgets and now there are green widgets, the invention must be given as the "green widget", not the "widget".
2. It must have appeared in medieval Islam.
3. The sources must prove that criterion 2 is satisfied.
4. It must not have appeared earlier outside of medieval Islam. (This criterion could conceivably be weakened in the case of independent invention.)
5. The sources must prove that criterion 4 is satisfied.

Failure to use criteria 4 and 5 has caused many problems. Criterion 1 has been a bit of a problem as well. We should also avoid dubious sources such as newspaper articles, potted histories of the world, children's books, videos of the "History Channel", and advocacy websites and journals. Spacepotato (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed references to the unreliable Terzioglu source discussed on my talk page. Dialectric Dialectric (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More bogus inventions

• Shampoo. Sake Dean Mahomet's "shampooing" salons offered therapeutic massage (called "shampooing", from the Hindi champi, head massage.) This was not a practice he developed himself, however, as it already existed in India at the time. "Shampooing" came to mean hair-wash only after his death. (The travels of Dean Mahomet: an eighteenth-Century journey through India, Sake Deen Mahomet and Michael Herbert Fisher, University of California Press, 1997, ISBN 0520207173, pp. 148, 149, 155, 156, 197.) Since this was not an invention, I have removed it from the article. Spacepotato (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Ship mill dam. This is based on the following quote: "In about 1183 Ibn Jubayr saw the ship-mills across the River Khabur, `forming, as it were, a dam'." (p. 166, A history of engineering in classical and medieval times, Donald Hill, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 0415152917.) I removed this because, obviously, it's not really a dam. Ibn Jubayr just means that he saw a large number of mills, so that it gave the appearance of a dam. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicative entries

• Steam-powered and self-rotating spit and smoke jack: Smoke-jacks are powered by smoke. Taqi al-Din's device was steam-powered, and therefore not a smoke-jack. The remaining claims in this entry were redundant with the entry above, "Steam turbine, impulse". I removed this. Spacepotato (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move this to Inventions in the Muslim world

This new title is more accurate, and doesn't imply any POV's.--Sefringle 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Beit Or 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. There is no such thing as a "Muslim invention," anymore than there are "Christian inventions," "Shinto inventions," etc.Proabivouac 22:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Wow... I was actually pondering whether or not I should propose this change a day ago, for all of the above stated reasons. Kudos for beating me to it.--C.Logan 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of boldness, and as it seems that the voting here has died out after 4-0, I've changed the title to the above proposed.--C.Logan 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the article be renamed to Inventions of the Muslim Golden Age as suggested by User:DougWeller on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC) This way it will cover the fact that these inventions were in a specific time period and it will also give credit that these inventions where done within the Islamic Empire. It is ok to give credit and name these inventions Islamic or Muslim because the Islamic Empire and Islamic beliefs paved the way and made it possible for these inventions to take place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.9.27 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think it would be a fairly good idea if we split the article into Arab inventions, Persian inventions, Berber inventions, Turkish inventions, etc. This would help reduce the size of the article, but there are certain issues we should take into consideration first. Many of these inventions are shared between these cultures, as they were all working within the same scholarly tradition, or were often migrating from each of these regions. For example, Persians and Turks in the Arab world, Arabs in Persia or Turkey, or Arabs and Berbers in Spain, etc. This scholarly tradition they followed is often called the "Islamic" culture by most scholars, in much the same way the "Hellenistic" culture refers to Greek, Egyptian, Syrian and Babylonian cultures working in the Hellenic tradition. If we did split this article into more specific cultures, we would end up having to copy and paste much of the same information into several articles (eg. al-Jazari was an Arab working in a Turkish state, Geber or Alhacen could be claimed by Arabs or Persians, Abbas Ibn Firnas could be claimed by Arabs or Berbers, etc.).

Personally, I think a better idea would be to name the article either Muslim technology or Technology in the Muslim world or Medieval Muslim technology instead, in much the same way Medieval technology covers medieval Christian European technology. A third option would be to leave the title as it is. Either way is fine with me.

Jagged 85 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you on the talk page. We want to avoid calling inventions "Muslim," because inventions don't have a religion.Proabivouac 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a better idea may be to split the article into inventions by field (e.g. medical, military and mechanical). This would not have the issue of "Persians and Turks in the Arab world" or vice-versa to it. Vice regent 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've also been thinking of doing recently, which is why I was adding links to the Alchemy (Islam), Islamic astronomy and Islamic medicine articles. I am intending for those articles to cover the chemical, astronomical and medical technologies respectively in more detail, with only brief descriptions or listings for them in this article. This should reduce the size of the article and allow more space to be used for other technologies. Jagged 85 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do inventions have a religion, culture or nationality?

As already suggested, they don't. But they don't have a "culture" or "nationality" either. Therefore splitting the article into Persian inventions (for example) would be inappropriate.

I also suggest that the titles of the following articles be modified:

• Canadian inventions
• English inventions and discoveries
• Scottish inventions and discoveries
• List of Chinese inventions
• Northern Irish inventions and discoveries
• Dutch inventions and discoveries

Vice regent 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the point of this article is that these inventions were made in societies where Islam was the prominent religion. The term Islamic society in and of itself is a problem obviously because many things shape a society besides its religion and there is a huge variety among Islamic societies and has sparked debate in the studies of religion and history. One solution to this problem has been the idea to use the term Islamicate, e.g. Islamicate art. This term is used to refer to things in a society where Islam is the dominate religion but are not directly related to the religion itself. Maybe the page should use this term and be named something like Medieval Islamicate Inventions? Just an idea, I don't think the term solves all the problems either, but at the moment its the best idea I have. DruidODurham (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The term Islam means civilisation. Hence why the name shouldn't be changed. Relgion did play a massive part in inspiring the scientists and the Western societies called them "Islamic" because of this. Let's stick top the real world here as I can already see the renaming convention is irrelevant and borders on WP:POV. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all psychotic. Almost none of these things are any more an "Islamic" invention or discovery than the Internet was a Christian one. Just because a development came out of a country where a particular religion was dominant at the time doesn't mean that development has anything to do with the religion. This really isn't complicated. Stances apart from this are definitely not NPOV. StealthCopyEditor (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Vice Regent, that all the above should be changed to "Inventions in..." and I will actively support a group rename nomination. This specific case is perhaps different, since it stands as a fact that sciences were flourishing all over the Islamic lands of the Middle Ages. Debresser (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

It seems there are multiple (as much as 4 or 5) listings of the same exact thing under different categories, probably added only to make the article longer. Also, many of the sources seem questionable at best, but then again, it's wikipedia where anything goes as long as it's printed and "PC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.218.244 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of political correctness is getting a little stale, not only because is that not the motivation of the editors (remember, assume good faith is a rule here), but also because asserting that some scientific and technological innovations originated outside of Europe is really quite politically incorrect, given the resistance from some quarters. That said though, I agree, the article does need improvement. If you can specifically point out examples of repetition, and/or iffy sources, please do so, but a vague condemnation of the article is not constructive. thanks Maxkbennett (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

77.109.218.244 is completely correct. Furthermore, parts from this article are repeated in related articles. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, specific are examples required. I don't know why I need to repeat this. Second, if parts of this article (or any article) are repeated in related articles, that is OK, as long as it is relevant to the topic at hand. If the exact phrasing is identical then someone my want to fix that, but that is a nit pick.Maxkbennett (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Max, you ask for examples. Why don't you look for them yourself? Two people have by now stated that they are to be found. Appearently we don't want to engage in the hard work ourselves, isn't that obvious? Debresser (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I have to say that it does not speak well of you, seeing as you are happy to make accusations of political correctness, but the moment that some actually work is requested of you it is all excuses and cop-outs. In any case I have not seen the repetition myself so as far as I am concerned it is not real until you find it. (or does that make me PC?)Maxkbennett (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done some serious cleanup to this article, as its history shows. Presently I am not well, which makes extensive editing hard for me. Also, I prefer not to meddle with this article, so that nobody should accuse me of a spearheading a Jewish campaign to diminish the importance of Islam's contributions to the world. Are these arguments enough to persuade you of my better intentions? Debresser (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I never questioned your intentions, sorry if it sounded like that, but if you are capable of leaving vague condemnations of the article on the talk page, you should be capable of citing exactly what your concern is. After scanning the article a little more closely, I found a single repetition (restaurant, which was a "see above" deal). I do admit I very well may have missed something, particularly in some of the more technical subjects of which I am largely ignorant. So ball is in your court, either man up or drop the issue, this sort of behavior is, at best, royally unhelpful. Maxkbennett (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Listing of possible inventions

The recent restoration by Jagged of material pointing at the "possible invention of the papermill" calls for some clarification. Can we include such material here or do we need to draw a line somewhere between hypothesis and fact? Does the inclusion of "possible" cases not give WP:Undue weight under the heading of a list of inventions? In this particular case, while it is definitely possible that Muslim paper-makers were the first to use such mills, this was at the same time possibly definitely not the case (see paper mill) and this wide grey area also exist for many other technological items whose history we do not know well enough. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Compass rose

I made a small mistake, File:WInd Rose Aguiar.png is indeed a 32-point compass rose. However, Tibbetts does not credit the Arabs, or anyone else, with its invention: "The Arabs had a compass rose of 32 points and their normal method of indicating these points used the rising and setting of 15 prominent star groups together with the Pole star to indicate the pole. Other groups were also occasionally used by the Arabs in this way." (p.105f.) C'est tout, so clearly WP:OR. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source - Muslimheritage.com

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) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find that source listed, though. Have you removed them?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed almost all of them from this article, and generally replaced the citation with a 'citation needed' tag. There may be one or two citations I missed. Dialectric (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently standing article problem templates

The previously included 13 problem-with-article templates [7] constituted overtagging. We need to use a set of templates that represents the current, unresolved disputes. The problem here is that users tend to tag the article and leave, so the templates are not removed when the dispute is resolved. Often users don't even post comments on the talk page. I looked through the talk page and gather that the unresolved disputes are:

• that it may be too long
• that its citations need checking
• that it may contain a synthesis of unverified ideas

If someone has a better template for the third, that's fine. I see no reason these templates should remain:

• original research
• self-published
• disputed

I see no accusations of original research or self-published sources, and I see no current dispute about the factual accuracy.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC) There are obvious issues with this article. A plethora of templates won't make that any clearer, and will just clutter the article. I think the current three templates reflect the current, unresolved disputes. Thoughts?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. I reinstate the templates until these issues are solved. If there is a need to curtail the template, please take away the most recent ones and not those which point at the most important and long-standing issues. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hand Cannon

I have noticed that this invention is listed on both this article and list of Chinese inventions. Considering the problems outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and the strong textual and archaelogical evidence presented in favour of the latter, I have removed this claim from the article. List of Chinese inventions is an FA and has multiple, academic sources backing up its assertion, while this article has many known POV problems and backs its assertion up with sources of very poor quality (a history channel video and a website). This contrasts with the multiple high quality sources backing up the Chinese assertion. Thus, I feel compelled to remove it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I have checked the history of science and technology website, and there is no claim that the islamic world were the first to invent the hand cannon. This appears to be another case of source misrepresentation that has plagued this article. I advise all editors to check any fact sourced to that source rigorously and remove them as required.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have further removed gunpowder cartridge and explosive gunpowder from the claims list. The latter claim is sourced to a youtube video (clearly unreliable) and the former claim is sourced to the same website above, which does not state that the islamic world was the first to invent "gunpowder cartridges". Indeed, the only section in which that is mentioned is here:

St. Petersburgh MS., p. 159, Illustration of the faris (knight) who frightens the horses of the enemy and the two foot soldiers accompanying him. On the right, the foot soldier is carrying a hand-held midfa` (cannon), and on the left the soldier is carrying a sprinkling club. The mounted knight carries a lance to which gunpowder cartridges are attached. The three men and the horse wear also fireproof clothing to which gunpowder cartridges are attached.

Clearly no claim of invention. In fact, the website clearly states that the islamic world was a transmitter of gunpowder technology from China to the west. In no way does it claim these inventions for the islamic world itself. Indeed the "explosive gunpowder" claim is clearly absurd, as cast-iron gunpowder bombs were being used as earlier as the Later Liang.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Chop tari maaaaaa kiiiiiiiii chotttttt

Bhdk

Hjuhhhh

J

H Hjjjk😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳bbb E

S D D D D

D D D D D D S

Sd D D D D S S S S S

S

S S 103.174.34.227 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)