Revision as of 20:20, 15 December 2013 editMerlinme (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,786 edits →Rarevogel needs to explain his edit(s): That's unacceptably rude.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:39, 15 December 2013 edit undoRarevogel (talk | contribs)1,010 editsNo edit summaryTag: Mobile editNext edit → | ||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
:::::::::::Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt. | :::::::::::Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt. | ||
:::::::::::: a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at ]. --] (]) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC) | :::::::::::: a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at ]. --] (]) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::::I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people. Anyway, I really wasnt intersted in proving he wasnt Persian. I found the opening sentence to be unappropriate, thats why I changed it to 'Iraqi'. Because thats all we know for sure really, that he was an Iraqi native. We might conclude that he was an Arab, given that he was born in an 'Arab' city, wrote exclusicely in Arabic and had an Arab name. But that still doesbt prove he was Arab. He might as well have been an Arabized Syriac, Persian or Jew or whatever. I dont understand why you guys have a problem with calling him 'an Iraqi scholar' but Im happy you removed that speculative opening sentence. Greets |
Revision as of 20:39, 15 December 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ibn al-Haytham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ibn al-Haytham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Ibn al-Haytham was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | |||||
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
rebuild
I would like to help fix this page. My bibliography:
- Iqbal, Muzaffar. "Is Islamic Science Possible?" Islam & Science 6, no. 2 (2008): 93+. http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-191907688.
- Lindberg, David C. "21: The Western Reception of Arabic Optics." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and RÉgis Morelon, 716-27. Vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/108315698.
- Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/89703425.
- Netton, Ian Richard. Islam, Christianity and Tradition: A Comparative Exploration. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. http://www.questia.com/read/118238459.
- Rashed, Roshdi. "19: Geometrical Optics." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and RÉgis Morelon, 643-71. Vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/108315625.
- Russell, GÜl A. "20: The Emergence of Physiological Optics." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and RÉgis Morelon, 672-715. Vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/108315654.
- Saliba, George. "3: Arabic Planetary Theories After the Eleventh Century Ad." In Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, edited by Roshdi Rashed and Regis Morelon, 58-127. London: Routledge, 1996. http://www.questia.com/read/104098973.
- "Artisans and Mathematicians in Medieval Islam." The Journal of the American Oriental Society 119, no. 4 (1999): 637. http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-62658420.
- Smith, A. Mark. "What Is the History of Medieval Optics Really About?1." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 148, no. 2 (2004): 180+. http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-708127391.
- Wade, Nicholas J., and Michael T. Swanston. Visual Perception: An Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Psychology Press, 2001. http://www.questia.com/read/108802776.
.*Theory of vision
In short, he integrated the three theoretical strands in optics that had until then been dominant but distinct-Aristotle's observations and philosophical stance, Euclid's mathematical treatment in terms of ray diagrams, and the physiological approach of Galen (c. 130-200), the great anatomist of antiquity. (from wade and swanston holds true with other sources)
The two most important treatments of optics between Euclid and Kepler were by Ptolemy (c. 100-170) and Ibn al-Haytham (c. 965-1039), who is more widely known by his latinized name of Alhazen. The Optics of Ptolemy is both experimental and psychological, dealing with colour as well as space (also from wade/swanston)
- I'm going to post this now I see other problems.J8079s (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to work on improving the article, as opposed to just confirming that the material added by Jagged_85 is supported by the sources he used, that would be great. It has the potential to be a good article, there's plenty of material here, and Alhazen is an important figure in the history of science, notably for the work on optics and his emphasis on experimentation. The parts which I would particularly like help with are a) the mathematical stuff; I'm not a mathematician, and I find it hard to judge the accuracy of this and also the notablity of it; b) the range of sources used. One of the hardest issues to resolve with Jagged_85's edits are when he uses perfectly decent sources, quoted more or less correctly, but he's quoted so much of a fringe view (or one side of an academic debate) that the effect is to unbalance the article. If you can provide more perspective on the broader academic view of Alhazen that would be much appreciated. --Merlinme (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are doing a great job. I don't know which sources you can access directly. I can cut and paste anything you might need from the above. I would like to help more but I work very slowly. Keep up the good work. J8079s (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! I personally enjoy verifying and clarifying the medieval science sources, but I am aware that there are large chunks here I don't understand well, and I'm also aware that I have limited amounts of time to verify the article in comparison to the large number of deeply misleading statements which Jagged_85 left littered all over these articles. If you have time to spare in verifying the article, or just in making it a more coherent and sensible whole, any knowledge and help you can provide will be much appreciated. --Merlinme (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are doing a great job. I don't know which sources you can access directly. I can cut and paste anything you might need from the above. I would like to help more but I work very slowly. Keep up the good work. J8079s (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to work on improving the article, as opposed to just confirming that the material added by Jagged_85 is supported by the sources he used, that would be great. It has the potential to be a good article, there's plenty of material here, and Alhazen is an important figure in the history of science, notably for the work on optics and his emphasis on experimentation. The parts which I would particularly like help with are a) the mathematical stuff; I'm not a mathematician, and I find it hard to judge the accuracy of this and also the notablity of it; b) the range of sources used. One of the hardest issues to resolve with Jagged_85's edits are when he uses perfectly decent sources, quoted more or less correctly, but he's quoted so much of a fringe view (or one side of an academic debate) that the effect is to unbalance the article. If you can provide more perspective on the broader academic view of Alhazen that would be much appreciated. --Merlinme (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup4. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.
A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
- Alhazen: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127
Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, this is potentially helpful. I have clicked on a number of these diffs, and none I've seen, so far, seem problematic. But I will click on each of the 127 diffs and evaluate if any seem to make unreasonable claims (and then if they are still in article, of course). Most really do just seem like minor wording issues and the like, and few anything potentially contentious... but that's just from a few random ones so far. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh... as a suggested procedure, I will boldface any diff that I find might be problematic; and I welcome anyone else to do so. That gives us something concrete to discuss, I think; and it rules out lots of definitely-mundane edits. Obviously, past boldfacing, relevant edits could be needed. Memories of lost time (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have reformatted the output from the script since the original did not wrap in some browsers. I intend using this format for any other articles needing this summary—please let me know if it has a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Irritating, I thought the bot would realise that this has been re-added, clearly not. Anyway I assume this "bump" post will keep this thread alive. Having been through the article and eliminated the worst and easiest to check issues, I'm now working my way back through the diffs. I'm now on diff 106. --Merlinme (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I have my Questia membership and a bit of time, so here's hoping I can get this finished off in the fairly near future. --Merlinme (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Working backwards, now on diff 94. --Merlinme (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just completed 93, which was a bit of a monster. I've deleted a lot of unnecessary over-referencing; at some point it might become possible to see at a glance the relevant reliable sources. --Merlinme (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now on diff 84. --Merlinme (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now on diff 79. --Merlinme (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now on diff 69. --Merlinme (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now on diff 79. --Merlinme (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now on diff 84. --Merlinme (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just completed 93, which was a bit of a monster. I've deleted a lot of unnecessary over-referencing; at some point it might become possible to see at a glance the relevant reliable sources. --Merlinme (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Working backwards, now on diff 94. --Merlinme (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I have my Questia membership and a bit of time, so here's hoping I can get this finished off in the fairly near future. --Merlinme (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Irritating, I thought the bot would realise that this has been re-added, clearly not. Anyway I assume this "bump" post will keep this thread alive. Having been through the article and eliminated the worst and easiest to check issues, I'm now working my way back through the diffs. I'm now on diff 106. --Merlinme (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have reformatted the output from the script since the original did not wrap in some browsers. I intend using this format for any other articles needing this summary—please let me know if it has a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Problems with biography
"Ibn Abi Usaybi'a delves deep into the propositions of his contemporary, the geometrician 'Alam al-Din ibn Abi al-Qasim al-HanafF^ (1178/9- 1251). However, as they are drawn from the geometrician's own reading of al-Qiftf s biography, it really adds nothing new. He goes on to say that Ibn al-Haytham lived at first in Basra and the surrounding area, that he was appointed as a minister, that he wanted to devote himself to science, since he was attracted to medieval vertu and to wisdom, that he then feigned madness to divest himself of his ministerial responsibilities, and that he finally left for Cairo and settled in the neighbourhood of al-Azhar Mosque. This version is as close as it possibly could be to al-Qiftfs version, with the exception that, most probably as a result of an unreliable memory, 'Alam al-Din transposes the Basra years and what al-Qifti says are the Cairo years, and on top of that makes Ibn al-Haytham into a minister.". Ibn al-Haytham and Analytical Mathematics: A History of Arabic Sciences and Mathematics Volume 2 by Roshdi Rashed, which looks like an excellent source. I added 'Minister' but maybe that needs to be qualified. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Rarevogel needs to explain his edit(s)
Per this source, Science, Medicine and Technology, Ahmad Dallal, The Oxford History of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 192;"Ibn al-Haytham (d.1039), known in the West as Alhazan, was a leading Arab mathematician, astronomer, and physicist. His optical compendium, Kitab al-Manazir, is the greatest medieval work on optics".
According to the The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.III, page 788, "IBN AL-HAYXHAM, ABU cALi, AL-HASAN B.AL-HASAN (or Husayn) B. AL-HAYTHAM AL-BASRI, AL-MisRl, was identified towards the end of the 19th century with the ALHAZEN, AVENNATHAN and AVENETAN of mediaeval Latin texts. He is one of the principal Arab mathematicians and, without any doubt, the best physicist."
If Rarevogel wishes to continue to remove references and referenced information, he will need to show the sources in question are not reliable sources, else he is simply edit warring to impose his own opinion into this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- His most recent edit rather improves the article. These ethnic "or" statements are very amaturish in the lede. I've never seen another encyclopedia that starts their aritcles on historical figures in this way. Wiqi 11:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- His most recent edit is certainly better than "Iraqi muslim", which was his original edit, however he still needs to actually use the Talk page for potentially controversial matters. --Merlinme (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- The first words about this great man shouldnt consist of speculation. The autobiography section has ample room for talk about possibility of him being a Persian, Chinese or whatever. You can even start an entire chapter about his ethnic background.
- His most recent edit is certainly better than "Iraqi muslim", which was his original edit, however he still needs to actually use the Talk page for potentially controversial matters. --Merlinme (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- The sources which describe him as a Persian, base that on the fact that his native home (Iraq) at thr timr of his birth was ruled by a tribal confederation from Iran. To some idiot 'scholars' that makes him Persian. Even though that ruling tribe wasnt even Persian, the were Daylamites. An Iranian ethnic group.
- Here are the facts
- 1) He was born a predominantly Arab city in a predominantly Arab region. Later he moved to Egypt, never leaving for Persia
- 2) He never commented on his ethnicity.
- 3) He wrote exclusively in Arabic and in his use of Arabic never shows a Persian or non-Arabic influence. His Arabic is extremely 'pure'
- 4) His (near)-contemporaries never gave us a reason to believe he was a Persian
- 5) His name shows no non-Arabic traceI'm not saying he wasnt a Persian, all Im saying is that there is no evidence to believe he was. Maybe he was Indian or Chinese, or Egyptian, Andalusian. All we no for sure is that he was an Iraqi native
- Please remove that first sentence and feel free to cobtinue your guesswork in the autobiography section.
- Another point. Calling him Iraqi is much more appropriate than calling him a Mesopotamian. Mesopotamia is an ancient Greek term, while Iraq is a term used by Alhazen himself for his home country! It was how the muslims calles lower Iraq, south of Jazira. It is not a modern term! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- You may have a point, but please give references to support your viewpoint. We're not allowed to use our own research, we're only allowed to use Reliable Sources. Please provide a reference describing him as Mesopotamiam (or Iraqi, or whatever).
- Also, could you clearly state what text you want. Your last edit to the article was for "Mesopotamian", but in your last comment on this page you seem to be arguing against the use of that term. --Merlinme (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any sources for Rarevogel's opinion. However, I do see a pattern to Rarevogel's editing....
- Rarevogel states, "I can find just as much sources claiming he was Persian. Whereupon Rarevogel places Persian before Arab.
- Rarevogel states, "I can't find any reference anywhere to any Arab ancestry, he most probably was a Persian.", removing 9 references in the process.
- Rarevogel replaces Arab with Persian and adds sources.
- Rarevogel states, "Arabs are not a learned people.When someone (qualified or not) writes at he wrote in the Arabic language or they think ll muslims are Arabs. bout him being an 'Arab scientist', they either mean tha", while adding an amazon.com reference
- This is not the only article in which Rarevogel has removed/changed references and/or referenced information to suit his own personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I made those edits years ago, because at that time they insisted on calling him an Arab. Back then I didnt really no much about the man, when I came across these texts which call him a Persian. If anything it proves that Im really only interested in getting the correct ibfo out there. And since then the sebtence has been changed. Whether or not you think he was Arab or Chinese or French, its stupid to have the page start out with speculations: '...is an Arab or Persian scholar..'. Thats a childish way to open up the page. Have an entire srction devoted to his background but dont do this. Its like opening up Copernicus' page with: 'Copernicus was a German or Polish scholar..'. You cant do that.
- kansasbear you have a tendency of blindly allowing false info to stay on these pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Another point. Calling him Iraqi is much more appropriate than calling him a Mesopotamian. Mesopotamia is an ancient Greek term, while Iraq is a term used by Alhazen himself for his home country! It was how the muslims calles lower Iraq, south of Jazira. It is not a modern term! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please remove that first sentence and feel free to cobtinue your guesswork in the autobiography section.
- This old book says he was an Arab and "seems to have been a native of Persia and to have resided in Spain and Egypt". Some say he was "Persian or Arab". At least one calls him Alexandrian. Some say he was "born in Basra, Iraq" or in "Basra, in present-day Iraq". None say he was Iraqi. Some acknowledge that he was Muslim; some imply he was in the Islamic culture but don't say anything about his own religion. But it would seem odd for us to simply call him him Muslim, instead of saying something more about the culture and place in which he was born and operated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- He was not a native of Persia. He was a native of Iraq. He never even went to Persia.
- This old book says he was an Arab and "seems to have been a native of Persia and to have resided in Spain and Egypt". Some say he was "Persian or Arab". At least one calls him Alexandrian. Some say he was "born in Basra, Iraq" or in "Basra, in present-day Iraq". None say he was Iraqi. Some acknowledge that he was Muslim; some imply he was in the Islamic culture but don't say anything about his own religion. But it would seem odd for us to simply call him him Muslim, instead of saying something more about the culture and place in which he was born and operated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Iraq in his lifetime was governed by an Iranian tribe. I guess that explains why that writer calls him a Persian native? Because Iraq is no Persia, never has been — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a case to be made for just deleting the debate as unnecessary in the lead, although I still don't think you've even come close to showing consensus before going ahead and making your edit in what you know is a controversial area. However in the interests of moving the article forward I've let it stand rather than undo it. I've deleted "Muslim" though, as it was rather prominent in the lead without the discussion of his background. We don't mention the religion of (say) Galileo in the lead of that article and I don't see why it's needed here. --Merlinme (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It shouldnt be controversial bro. For the reasons I mentioned before. There is zero reason to velieve he was a Persian. There is zero reason to believe he even spoke another languwge except Arabic. He came from an Arabic city, his name shows no non-Arabic trace, etc. Isnt the burden then on you to prove he was Persian? Some obscure book where they bluntly state that he was isnt enough. Because I even came across a text where they said he came 'from the Persian city of Basra'! Still most books in GoogleBooks describe him as an Arab. Which too doesnt say a lot. What does that mean? Maybe he was of Aramean/Syriac descent? Which is more probable actually than him being an ethnic Arab or Persian
- The only thing we know for sure was that he was an Iraqi and a muslim, and that he wrote exclusively in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not your bro. And if the consensus of authorities is that it makes sense to describe him as an Arab, please don't impose your own personal opinion otherwise on the encyclopedia. --Merlinme (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt.
- a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at WP:ANI. --Merlinme (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people. Anyway, I really wasnt intersted in proving he wasnt Persian. I found the opening sentence to be unappropriate, thats why I changed it to 'Iraqi'. Because thats all we know for sure really, that he was an Iraqi native. We might conclude that he was an Arab, given that he was born in an 'Arab' city, wrote exclusicely in Arabic and had an Arab name. But that still doesbt prove he was Arab. He might as well have been an Arabized Syriac, Persian or Jew or whatever. I dont understand why you guys have a problem with calling him 'an Iraqi scholar' but Im happy you removed that speculative opening sentence. Greets
- a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at WP:ANI. --Merlinme (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt.
- I'm not your bro. And if the consensus of authorities is that it makes sense to describe him as an Arab, please don't impose your own personal opinion otherwise on the encyclopedia. --Merlinme (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a case to be made for just deleting the debate as unnecessary in the lead, although I still don't think you've even come close to showing consensus before going ahead and making your edit in what you know is a controversial area. However in the interests of moving the article forward I've let it stand rather than undo it. I've deleted "Muslim" though, as it was rather prominent in the lead without the discussion of his background. We don't mention the religion of (say) Galileo in the lead of that article and I don't see why it's needed here. --Merlinme (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Iraq in his lifetime was governed by an Iranian tribe. I guess that explains why that writer calls him a Persian native? Because Iraq is no Persia, never has been — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Iraq articles
- High-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- B-Class Iran articles
- High-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- B-Class Muslim scholars articles
- Unknown-importance Muslim scholars articles
- Muslim scholars task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class mathematics articles
- Low-priority mathematics articles
- B-Class Middle Ages articles
- Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
- B-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosopher articles
- Low-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- B-Class Medieval philosophy articles
- Low-importance Medieval philosophy articles
- Medieval philosophy task force articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles
- Mid-importance Astronomy articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance