User talk:Jagged 85
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|
|
[edit] Review of Muzaffar Iqbal's Science & Islam
I thought you might be interested to have a look at Robert Irwin's review of Muzzaffar Iqbal's book Science * Islam in the Jan 25 issue of TLS (pp. 8-9). Iqbal is a strident defender of Islamic science, against the perhaps overly-pessimistic claims of blowhards like Steven Wienberg. Irwin, I think, strikes just about the right balance between the two. You might find it an interesting piece. 76.69.140.17 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History of Psychology
I have made your contributions to the history of psychology entry, and their aftermath, the topic of a blog entry at http://ahp.yorku.ca/?p=299. I thought that you might want to read it (and peraps leave a comment of your own, if you wish). Christopherdgreen (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Polymath
Hi. I noticed you added Mohammed as a polymath. While I tend to agree with you that he was, by long convention to avoid POV fights and edit warring, (believe me, there was a lot of argument about including/excluding people prior to this, which was all subjective and rather unpleasant) the article only includes figures described by RS as a "polymath". Do you have a reference for Mohammed being a polymath? If not, the inclusion should be removed, or perhaps "commented out" until one is found. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- jagged, I'm repeating Dweller's request here. We need a reliable source calling Mohammad a "polymath". It is OR to conclude ourselves that he was one. I'm putting the fact tag back in. Please find a source for this if you can. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
 Issue XXII (December 2007) |
||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: |
|
|
||
|
||
Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:
Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-particpants alike are very welcome and appreciated. |
||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Asian pride
An editor has nominated Asian pride, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian pride (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
- It appears I did break the 3RR rule, and it is my fault for not being careful, so I don't really see any point making excuses for my own carelessness. But I do have one question: Arrow704 also reverted my edits four times, so how can it be that only I get blocked and he doesn't? Jagged 85 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Byzantine-Arab Wars template
Please donot remove red links. They are there to show the reader the number of battles. They may not have articles, but that is something that you and I as editors should remedy with time, not simply delete them.
respectfully
Tourskin (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Muslim psychology
I'm doing new page patrol at the moment and just wanted to say what a pleasure to come across your article. So many of the new pages are either vandalism, advertising or experimentation that it was a real treat to come across a fully-formed, well-illustrated, properly referenced article. Thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 |
The Special Barnstar | |
| For making a new page patroller's day with a proper article! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
 |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| I came across your new article Muslim psychology entirely by chance, but I'm very impressed by the quality of work you've produced, especially given its size. Well done. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC) |
- No problem. I also nominated your article to feature on the "Did you know..." section. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alphonse de Lamartine
You cited his quote to www.cyberistan.org on Muhammad, and when that produced quite an uproar you simply stated that the reference was directly to his book. Have you verified that the book makes the statement you claim? Arrow740 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Polymath
Please see this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- A polymath "is a person with encyclopedic, broad, or varied knowledge or learning." Arrow740 (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question about Kaukab ali Mirza's book on Ja'far al Sadiq
While trying to track down who it was who added the citation to the above book to the article on Heliocentrism I noticed that you seem to have put in an enormous effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Islamic astronomy. Congratulations on all your great work.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that Ali Mirza's book doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I have voiced my concerns on the Ja'far al Sadiq talk page and, in more detail, on the Heliocentrism talk page. Nevertheless, while Ali Mirza's book itself shouldn't be considered reliable (in my opinion), the French thesis on which it's supposedly based may well be. As I indicate on the Heliocentrism talk page I have tried to track down this thesis without any success. I therefore have a question for you. Does Ali Mirza give a traceable citation to this thesis in his book? If so, could you please post it?
On further investigation I have found that you were also responsible for posting the citation to an article "Light and Disease" in a journal called The Minister in the article on Ja'far al-Sadiq. I have been unable to find any details at all about this publication, and am therefore also concerned about its use as a source on Wikipedia. Could you please let me know who the publisher of the journal is, or if you no longer have the issue you cited I'd be grateful if you could at least let me know where you obtained your copy of it. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the reference. It's not a thesis, it's an article in the proceedings of a conference (the Colloque de Strasbourg). Unfortunately, there is no library anywhere near me (in Australia) which holds a copy of those proceedings, and Worldcat tells me that the only ones listed in its database which do hold a copy are in Europe and Canada. I'm afraid I don't have time to pursue this any further. In any case, the article contains only 11 pages, while Ali Mirza's book contains 275 (according to its entry in the New York University library's catalogue). So even if some of the material in the book does come from this article, there must still be a huge amount that doesn't.
- You should be made aware of one of Wikipedia's guidelines on the citing of sources. This says that when you cite sources they should be ones you have checked personally. I acknowledge that you did in fact try to indicate that you were citing The Minister indirectly, via the islamonline web site, but it was not at all clear (at least not to me) that that is what you were doing; and in the case of Ali Mirza's book you gave no indication at all that your information had come from anywhere other than the book itself (simply placing a link to a website in the external links section of the page doesn't constitute such an indication, in my opinion).
- —David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Muslim psychology
Salam Alaykum,
Thanks for your wonderful article. Do you agree to nominate it as a GA article.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ibn al-Haytham
Salam Alaykum.
The picture in not necessary for Good Article. At present I'm too busy and working on Day of Ashura. I'll tell you my idea about these two articles next week, God willing.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Muslim psychology DYK
 |
On 19 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muslim psychology, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cholesterol
I noticed your addition to cholesterol, crediting Avicenna with hypothesising the existence of cholesterol. I find this highly doubtful, and have removed it pending further clarification. Without for a moment wanting to downplay Avicenna's phenomenal contributions to medicine, I don't think we should make claims that amount to a simple anachronism. You have provided a citation from an article that clearly deals primarily with Avicenna's neurological contributions, rather than a direct reference to his own writings. No other source I could find makes this connection. On a separate note, cholesterol being "the cause of blood pressure" needs revision - perhaps you mean hypertension? JFW | T@lk 09:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Branster
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your great efforts in Islamic astronomy which led to making a GA article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
Please pay attention to Talk:Islamic astronomy#New efforts in Moon sighting.
Unfortunately I'm too busy now and can't check Ibn Heytham as well as Islamic psychology. Excuse me.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You have the chance that I didn't review it;-) --Seyyed(t-c) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Darn, I wanted to do this. :( Oh well, I think you deserve more than one barnstar.
 |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For editing Islamic astronomy to GA status, I award you this barnstar. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Muslim scholars task force
Can you make this task force more active. Can you invite other wikipedians like who work on the history of science to participate in this task force.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inventions in the Islamic world
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Inventions in the Islamic world, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Salam, I'm not active at present, but I would be happy to help you if you had such problems. God bless you. Just put a comment on my talk page. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Islamic astronomy
Salam Alaykum,
I added two section in that article. Please check it. Furthermore I put a comment on the talk page which relates to "Muslim's participation in western astronomy". I think Science and technology aren't neutral they are the result of especial culture, religion and philosophy. Thus each civilization has its own astronomy i.e. we have western, Islamic, Chinese and several other astronomies. Therefor we can't consider Muslim's participation in western astronomy as Islamic astronomy. I really believe that we have different sciences. Each civilization has its own science. Of course there are similarities between them but none of them is neutral. I don't have postmodern attitude but I don't believe in positivism too.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is it good to use past tense for some parts like "an special science had been formed specifically for moon sighting."--Seyyed(t-c) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfD nomination of History of modern India
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] From the WikiProject Islam
 |
The WikiProject of Islam Medal | |
| Congratulations! You have been selected as the best participants of the month as the general consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam indicates. On the behalf of the members of the WikiProject, I hereby award you this barnstar as an appreciation of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia during the last month (We probably have to create a special barnstar for this). Be happy!! (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] == Common Law ==
In your contribution to the article common law, you mention a similarity to Islamic law. Was there any significant effect by Islamic law practice or thinking on the early development of English Common Law? If so, then the cause and effect should be explained. If not, then a better approach to incorporating Islamic law into this article would be somewhere else in the article, maybe as a comparison between Common Law and Islamic law in the same section along with the contrast between Civil Law and Common Law. As is, it's just a logical orphan and doesn't make sense. Boundlessly (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your addition on Islamic law threads in the commmon law fabric. It's very interesting - however it isn't the dominant factor that would be suggested by its placement, given the very very limited contact between the Islamic world and the British Isles until quite recently, and the discrete issues that seem to have migrated from Islamic law to British Common Law. May I move your paragraph to a separate section, maybe captioned "Islamic law threads," maybe just after the "Medieval Roots" section, and just before "propogation to the commonwealth and colonies?" Boundlessly (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] coordinator election
The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started
- The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I NEED URGENT HELP!!!!!
HEY THANKS A MILLION FOR THE BOX I WAS WANDERING HOW TO DO IT,so thanks but i have a question i want to see if you can make me one those blue box charts in the Siege of Kapisa, go to edit this page and i tried a million times to make it look like a normal battle article with all the combatants, commanders casualites,exct... But i cant if you could and comment on my talk tell me so i can do it myslef, sorrylast favor! THANKS YOU ARE BENEFITING BILLIONS BY THE FUTURE FOR FURTHER KNOWLEDGE IN ANCIENT STUDIES! Praise be to Allah, the most gracious, most mercifull.
[edit] Latin translations of the 12th century
I just stumbled on this very useful article, which I have added categories to (it probably could do with more). I am trying to improve Oriental studies, which is I hope being extracted from its inappropriate home at Orientalism. Any additions welcome - you might also be interested in [[1]] - lively just now. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Can you clear up this reference?
Hi Jagged,
I was just checking the Scientific Revolution and found you added this confusing reference:
- Katharine Park (March 1990). "Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: The Canon and Medical Teaching in Italian Universities after 1500 by Nancy G. Siraisi", The Journal of Modern History 62 (1), p. 169-170.
Could you disentangle the citation to Katherine Park from the citation to Nancy Siraisi.
Thanks --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found it myself, It's a review by Park of Siraisi's book, but it turns out that the point Park is making does not refer to Avicenna but to the Italian physician, Santorio Santorio. I'll quote the entire text here, marking the part in the article in italics:
- Santorio's work is a case in point. Students of the history of medicine know him for his attempts to introduce systematic experimentation and quantification into the study of physiology using a number of original scientific instruments. But Siraisi presents a much more nuanced picture. In his commentary on Canon 1.1, Santorio raised these new issues-even including woodcuts of his new thermoscopes and pulsilogia-while in other ways proving himself a staunch defender of Galenic orthodoxy.
- I'll just remove the reference, since it doesn't address Avicenna. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Indianized kingdom
I see you have a history of working on the article Indianized kingdom. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] still waiting
Jagged 85, what me and other wikip bloggers want to know is why these corrections are just being made now. why is that we have had to take it upon ourselves to change the lies and distortions that have been posted on this article. Is wiki not about honest research done by individuals that are concerned only about writting about the facts. Why have claims that are totattly inaccurate, distorted, and completely not neutral been posted on this page. Would any of the changes that are finally coming about have even been done if it werent for bloggers and other wiki users who exposed the garbage claims posted on this page. Why is it that authors of this page have decided to start with the premise of lieing and decieving and then waiting to be caught, and then make corrections. I can only think that it is becuase the authors of this web page arent really concerned about facts but only pushing their own form islamic nationalism, and then hoping that somehow it would go unnoticed. Needless to say their are still countless errors and factual inaccuracies on this web page, and everyone can rest assured cause they will be dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- See my response at Talk:Islamic science. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] expanding Muslim military history task force
I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world
Excellent article, but does the title reflect the content? Many of the later entries refer to Muslim scientists who were active (and often born) outside the Islamic world: for example, Pierre Omidyar and Jawed Karim were both born in the West, while Ahmed Zewail, Fazlur Khan, Abdus Salam, etc were all active there.
Also, are you certain that all the entries are Muslim? For example, Jawed Karim's mother was a German woman called Christine, while Lotfi Zadeh is listed online as having a Jewish Russian mother. The problem is that most scientists don't write about their religious views (Abdus Salam being a notable exception). Without sources, even Pierre Omidyar could potentially be a Christian or Zorastrian. Udzu (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved the comment to the (more appropriate) article discussion page. Udzu (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
Hi Jagged 85. Thank you for your great edits at Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe. I am really glad we now have an informative article on this very important subject. Best regards. PHG (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Source you might find interesting
Hi Jagged:
I was looking up a recent study on medieval astronomy and stumbled across an important series that might interest you. It's Islamic Philosophy Theology, and Science: Texts and Studies, published by Brill and edited by Hans Daiber and, until his death, by David Pingree. Its big (75 volumes in the last 20 years) and the list of topics and authors is impressive; it certainly has details one wouldn't find in such standard sources like the Encyclopedia of Islam or the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Unfortunately, since the publisher is Brill the prices are prohibitive, but if you have access to a good library, they would be worth looking at. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mathematics Page
Hello Jagged85. I have seen your contributions to the Kerala School page and was hoping that you would be able to help me put in formulas for another page, Puthumana Somayaji, from the reference [2]. ThankyouHijjins (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Modern scientific method
Hi. I've added some comments to the History of scientific method discussion page. Look over them if you get chance, they are directed towards you. Sorry if I come off sounding rude; this is a late night for me and I'm not at my best tired. Hope you find something to say anyhow. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fairuse images
I thought you are a Wikipedian since 2005, knowing most of the rules and guidelines here. First of all, you'll need a non-free use rationale for all the pages the image is shown on (Read Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for further information). Then read this overuse explanation by another user, why we don't put copyrighted images in lists and such: User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. Main characters of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 have their own articles and the images in the article also, no need for you to add images to the list (same idea as discography sections of artists; see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2). --staka (T ・C) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Opinion required
Asalamualikum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Yarmouk The strength of armies at battle of yarmuk is disputed. Early sources mentioned the size to be around 200,000-240,000 which are certainly highly exaggrated. Modern estimates are as follows:
- History of palestine, by Gil and Broido (1997): 100,000.
- Donner (1981): 100,000.
- David Chandler: 100,000
- Kennedy (2006, p. 145): 80,000.
- Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. 80,000
- David nicolle, Yarmouk 636. 50,000
- Kindersley, 80,000
- Andre Corvisier 80,000
- Yarmouk university, department of history, jordan. says; 125,000
- Agha Ibrahim Akram: 150,000
- M. Athar Zaidi (Expansion of Islam, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli): 100,000-120,000
- Ibn Rais ( Rise of Caliphate from BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY, department of history, Turkey.): 100,000
Looking at the lower ends, most of the sources places numbers to be around 80,000-100,000. Now what the dispute is, it is that User:Wiki1609 insist that the army size should be placed to be 20,000-25,000 claiming that Kegri and Haldon mentioned this size in there book for byzantine army at yarmuk. Though i have showed upon him that this size was for the muslim armies not for the byzaitne army and they just simply avoided stating any size for byzantine arm,y clearly and thus mentioned that "byzantine outnumbered arabs".... he still insist that leaving all historians behind these two must be preffered over all ! Now third party is invited and it wants a opinion of other users, you are invited to express your views. It must be noted that 5 byzantine expedition armies were sent by heraculis to rollback syria with there won different objects, the retreat of muslim armies with out fight, from all over syria to yarmuk, forced those 5 armies to gather near yarmuk and thus battle of yarmuk was fought. The size of usuall byzantine expedition force use to be 15,000-30,000 in that era. Regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Please stop placing Dhalsim in anime or manga-related categories. That's twice you've done so [3] [4]. Point being, he is a video game character, hence, he came from a video game. Also, we don't categorize characters by their appearances in other media, or else it would be overcategorization. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gunpowder
Roger Bacon had written about gunpowder by 1267, and possibly as early as 1248. Hasan al-Rammah did not write about gunpowder until 1270.
The suddenness with which gunpowder appears in both European and Islamic sources, as well as its appearance in European sources slightly before Islamic ones, is one of the reasons that scholars such as Iqtidar Alam Khan argue that gunpowder was transmitted to Europe and the Islamic world as a result of the Mongol invasions.
As for when the Arabs first began purifying saltpeter, it is a considerable digression (as well as an infringement of undue weight) to go into such detail, especially when the only source cited is Ahmad al-Hassan's website.
JFD (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, saltpetre was well-known to pre-Islamic alchemists as was its uses, means of acquisition and purification. The stuff can be found in lumps in dung heaps! Frotz (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you reverted without addressing the concerns I brought up, namely, whether it infringes due weight to delve in such detail into al-Hassan's arguments about when the Arabs first purified saltpeter in the gunpowder/history of gunpowder articles, and the appropriateness of relying exclusively on his personal webpage as your source for such statements.
JFD (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Your most recent wording ("Though potassium nitrate was earlier known to Arabic chemists, the Islamic world did not acquire knowledge of gunpowder until the 13th century") still contradicts what even al-Hassan himself acknowledges is "the general notion that saltpetre was not known till the thirteenth century in Arabic alchemy and chemistry".
This is why the dating of Arabic knowledge of saltpeter belongs on the saltpeter page, not on the gunpowder page.
JFD (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Though al-Rammah attributes his work to his "forefathers", we have no Arabic reference to gunpowder that can clearly be said to precede him, and Chase is quite unambiguous that Arab knowledge of gunpowder dates to the mid-13th century.
And, again, your sole source for this is al-Hassan's personal webpage. JFD (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poorly-researched material
Please do not add poorly-researched material to Wikipedia. I am in the process of removing dubious statements from Inventions in the Islamic world. Your addition of demonstrably false statements is not helpful. Frotz (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Avicennism
Salam Alaykum,
Dear Jagged, I've nominated Avicennism as a good article, while I know it hasn't reached to GA criteria. I want to make the issue active again. Can you please take a look at the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi bro, nice to meet you again. I eager to see your great works since January.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you find Nicholas Rescher's articles such as[5]
- Studies in the History of Arabic Logic. Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgh Press), 1963
- The Development of Arabic Logic. Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgh Press), 1964.
--Seyyed(t-c) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Before and After Avicenna: Proceedings of the First Conference
- Interpreting Avicenna: Science and Philosophy in Medieval Islam
- Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman
[edit] Inventions and stupid mistake
Thanks for quickly correcting my stupid mistake of putting my name in an article. And thanks for looking for the sort of citations that I'm looking for too. About asbestos cloth, I think it's most certain that it was used as fireproof clothing at some time, but its extreme expense tended to prevent such use. Furthermore, warfare back then didn't really call for such measures. Frotz (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Muhammad al-Idrisi
Hi, if it wasn't for the improvements you've since made to this article, I'd delete the whole of the new material as a copyright violation by the preceding editor. Please see Talk:Muhammad al-Idrisi#Copyright violation. I hope you'll be able to return and make the text more different from the original version at pages 13 to 15 of http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/Sicily1.pdf. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] People known as the father or mother of something
I notice from the article history that you have been a major contributor to People known as the father or mother of something. You may be interested to know that it is up for deletion, and your views on it would be appreciated. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
