Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan

pic

I moved this as I can find no connection to Jabir J8079s (talk)

Predicting fisison

This section seems rather unlikely and cites a book on religion. I have removed it pending clarification and a more adequate reference.

Predicting nuclear fission

Jabir ibn Hayyan wrote about an atom being capable to disintegrate and that the energy emitted as a result of disintegration is capable to destroy Baghdad.

Geber ethnicity claims needs an update

Kansas Bear

There are two points here that need to be addressed:

1-"The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge, Volume 4. S.N. Nasr", is the main source used in the article for Geber's ethnicity. The information from this source seems to have been manipulated intentionally in order to push a POV.

What the source really says:

"Jabir is entitled in traditional sources as al-'Azdi, Al-Kufi, Al-Tusi, Al-Sufi. There is also a debate as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khurasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian origin and later lived in Persia and Iraq."

How the source is represented in the article:

"Jabir is entitled in the traditional sources as al-Azdi, al-Kufi, al-Tusi, al-Sufi. There is a debate as to whether he was a Persian from Khorasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian origin and later lived in Iran".

As you can see, in the original source, S.N. Nasr clearly mentions three different possible ethnisites: Arab, Persian and a less popular Syrian one. The source as quoted in the article omits the Arab part completely and presents only tow possible ethnisites: Persian and Syrian one. The omission seems to be deliberate, and the one who made it was apparently exploiting the fact that the page 412 of the book, where the paragraph appears, is inaccessible on google books [1].
The source was quoted honestly by the user "Ali doostzadeh" years age, you can check it in the archive here.

So here we have a clear case of source manipulation and dishonesty in order to push a POV.

2-There is a third claim for Geber's ethnisity that no one seems to have mentioned. According to several sources, Jabir ibn Hayyan was neither a Persian nor an Arab but rather a Syrian Sabian from Harran, which explains why he is sometimes described as a Harranian.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
When S.N. Nasr says that some have suggested a Syrian origin for Geber, he is referring to this alleged Harranian origin, not to the Arab one. The Arab claim says that Geber's father was an Iraqi of Yemeni origin and has nothing to do with Syria.

Given what I have mentioned above, I propose re-writing the background section so that it includes all three claimed ethnicities, and without POV or original research.

Your opinion?
Viaros17 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley your insight would be welcome also. Viaros17 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Viaros17: Thank you for the ping. I am out of the house until late tonight (US Eastern Time) but I will see what I can find tomorrow. Cheers! Update: I did a quick check of my libraru and found that I have Syed Nomanul Haq & Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jābir Ibn Hayyān and His Kitāb Al-Ahjār (Book of Stones) Springer 1994 which may be of help. Jbh ^Talk 18:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 18:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Viaros17: Well, I am not sure how these sources might help, but I don't think we need any more sources. My intention was not to have a discussion so that we delete one ethnicity or another. The matter has already been discussed several times, and the consensus has been that Geber's ethnicity is disputed which is indeed the case here. The point of objection is regarding the phrasing of one paragraph that contains an obvious original research. More precisely, the phrase that says "most sources refer to Geber as Persian" which is not supported by any reference listed. Also, there is the issue of misrepresenting S.N. Nasr quote by removing a crucial part as I've shown above.
So what is required here is rephrasing of the paragraph in question so that it reflects the referenced sources without any OR or misrepresentation. I opened the discussion so that I get a consensus before performing any adjustment to the article. Viaros17 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. I still need to read through the sources before I can make a suggestion on how to phrase things. Jbh ^Talk 23:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Source manipulation has been confirmed

As I've mentioned above, the source of S.N. Nasr has indisputably been tempered with. The original source had existed in the body of the article unmanipulated until 2013, as can be seen in the archived version here. Then, in May 2013, the source was tampered with by an anonymous IP 178.131.123.48.[9] Surprisingly, this vandalism went unnoticed for more than 5 years!
I restored the information that had been deleted, and re-wrote the related parts of the article so that it reflects the listed sources accurately. Viaros17 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You have made huge removal of references from the article without any consensus for that. Jbh has not said this was ok. As to the Arab sources, Encyclopedia of Islam cites Holmyard, since Holmyard is cited, no need to quote him twice.—>Farawahar (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of sources

Farawahar
4 sources for each claim is more than enough, so why did you re-add more non-specialist sources for the Persian claim? I can easily add as much references for the Arab and Sabian claims using similar sources which is completely pointless and not needed. The matter is equally disputed, so there is no point in favoring one claim over the other. I have kept the most reliable sources for each claim and deleted the rest which are not academically specialized on the topic and thus should not be used per Wikibidia rules. So please explain your edit. Viaros17 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Viaros17 : no, you left 4 sources for the Arab claim and only three for the Persian one. You removed sources without any consensus. Why don’t you remove sources on numerous Arab articles when there are plenty ? I think you and me know the answer. Which sources are not specialized ? I already asked you above to explain your edit but you did not answer : [10].—>Farawahar (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)More, Corbin does not even states that Jabir was Persian, he only says that his name doesn’t mean an Arab ethnicity ...

As Kansas Bear and LouisAragon already said on the edit warring noticeboard, your “expertise” about what is or not a reliable source is more than dubious : [11], [12], [13]. We need More than your opinion here. It’s ok for me to remove some sources, but we need to avoid to mislead the readers and leave as many sources for his Persian claim than the Arab and Sabian.—>Farawahar (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Farawahar

"no, you left 4 sources for the Arab claim and only three for the Persian one."

I left 4 sources for each claim (including Corbin). You can add one if you do not consider Corbin a one source.

"You removed sources without any consensus."

I discovered a huge case of source manipulation and a malicious attempt seeking to push a POV. The sources that I deleted are both redundant and non-reliable.

"Why don’t you remove sources on numerous Arab articles when there are plenty ?"

Unless the sources are reliable you are free to delete whatever sources you might find redundant or unnecessary.

"Which sources are not specialized ?"

Really? So now you do not know what sources are not "specialized".

Neil Kamil, a specialist in the history and culture of the Atlantic and Mediterranean worlds from the 15th-18th centuries.[14]

Aleksandr Sergeevich Povarennykh, a geologist.[15]

Daniel Merkur, a clinical psychoanalyst.

Anthony Gross, a printmaker, painter and war artist.

None of the authers above have any specialty in the history of Islam or the history of Science. Moreover, even if they were reliable sources, there is no need to flood the article with references for an already disputed point. Again, 4 sources are enough. Viaros17 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the sources, George Sarton, who is a reliable source for this topic, is quoted by you for the Sabisn claim. However, he supports a Persian ethnicity firmly and only says “probably Sabian”. You use this source to support a Sabian ethnicity. This is quite revealing about your goals in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farawahar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Farawahar
LMFAO, how does calling him “probably Sabian” support a Persian ethnicity "firmly"?! George Sarton calls him a Persian casually which could mean a geographic designation (his birthplace), while the Sabian origin is clearly more supported by him and mentioned in a paragraph discussing his ethnicity. Also why did you not answer for the unreliability of the sources you are trying to add? or you have no answer? Viaros17 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your statement above seems to be OR. As to the sources reliability, i need time to check them. Since i’m not able to do this right now, i’ll deal with this later today and, as i said, we need more than your opinion of mine here, learn to be a little patient.—>Farawahar (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How about replacing the Corbin source with the one of George Sarton for the Persian claim? At the end there will be 4 sources for both the Arab and Persian claims and 3 sources for the less popular Sabian one? Agreed? Viaros17 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farawahar (talk • contribs)

I replaced Corbin source with the one of George Sarton, Compromise? Viaros17 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Viaros17, but the Sarton source is still used for the Sabian claim while i haven’t found sny mention of this in the source : [16]. If confirmed, Sarton should be removed from the Sabian source list. I’ve found other reliable sources on the web, i’ll take the time to read them carefully and then add them to the article in a few days, when i’ll have more time.—-Farawahar (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Farawahar

Here is a link for Sarton's source [17]. The source can not be deleted since Sarton is clearly favouring the Sabian ethnicity. If you have other reliable sources for the Persian claim, we can use them there instead of the one of Sarton. Also why did you change the order of ethnicities? Alphabetically the Arab ethnicity should be the first as it has been presented in the article for years. Any reason for your edit? Viaros17 (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources from infobox

I have removed the ethnicity from the infobox. Infoboxes are only used for straightforward, un-controversial information - not for stuff which requires multiple citations.

Really people, it does not matter what ethnicity he was. If the sources are clear then it should be mentioned; if the sources discuss the multiple claims i.e. if the sources think it important that there are multiple claims, write some prose about it. If there are just a bunch of competing claims either leave it out or make brief mention in prose with something like "Current scholarship is divided on whether he was Arab or Persian" or "There is no academic consensus about his ethnicity" or better, just leave it out.

If the two of you continue to edit war about ethnicity here or elsewhere I will support long term blocks on both of you. This has gone on long enough and has occurred on multiple articles. Jbh ^Talk 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

| ethnicity =Arab or Persian or Sabian

Sources

• The text in the article "There is a difference of opinion[11] as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khorasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian Sabian[13]" looks fine. It is also the type of nuanced information that does not belong in an infobox. Jbh ^Talk 13:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree S.N. Nasr quote is enough and it sums up the equally disputed claims fairly. I am also sick of these debates and it was not my intention to re-start any arguments here. However, when disruptive edits occurs, you are sometimes compelled to respond. Both in this article and in Hunayn ibn Ishaq one I was simply reverting disruptive edits. It was not me who started edit warring. Viaros17 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jbhunley, thank you for your comments, however, while i usually agree with your proposals, i do not this time. Keeping the sources on the talk page for the Al-Jazari article was fine because there is almost no specialized source dealing with his ethnicity, this is clearly not the case here. The article has a “background” section where his multiple possible ethnicities are given but the sources are in the talk page ! Not including the (reliable) sources when they are readily available online is, according to me, a poor scholarly practice. I don’t have enough time to fix this now, but in a few days, i will make a proposal to improve the article. As to Viaros “fighting vandalism” on the Hunayn ibn ishaq article and elsewhere, here is the conclusion of the administrators : [18], to spare your time, the conclusion was : both of us are warned but Viaros’ “record in this conflict is significantly worse that that of Farawahar, and I would strongly advise you to moderate your behavior.” (Quote from admin Vanamonde). And, Viaros, adding sources or good faith editing is not “vandalism” ...—>Farawahar (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Farawahar regardless the infobox is not appropriate for any information that is nuanced or controversial. (As I looked for the rules I found that the community has actually disallowed the use of the ethnicity= parameter in infoboxes [19] so the whole thing is moot.) Also, simply stacking references which say essentially the same thing to somehow add authority through numbers adds zero value to the article for our readers. If there are sources which bring more that "he was ethnicity-X" then it is worthwhile to add the source along with expanding the text within the body of the article. Again text like some say he was Arab [1][2][3][4] or Persian [1][2][3][4] etc is simply a sign of ethnic POV pushing, particularly when the sources are used for nothing other than supporting a claim of a particular ethnicity.

The only time making multiple citations would be appropriate is if sources with enough biographical details to be used elsewhere in the article make the claim. Even then it is generally bad practice to use multiple sources for the same information so they should each lend some additional information or nuance. In this case the only thing that can actually be said is no one knows for sure what his ethnicity was, and most sources report one of three possibilities. That can be supported by one or two high quality biographical references i.e. [11] and [13] which accurately represent the current scholarship.

Also, I moved the sources to the talk page to preserve them because they were were not being used elsewhere in the article. There is a template they can be placed in which will prevent them from being archived if they might be used for later expansion of the article. As I said earlier though, they lend no value to the article if they are simply used to add numbers to the various 'he was X' claims. Jbh ^Talk 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. it looks like at least some are already in the article e.g. Encyclopedia of Islam so there is no need for them to be preserved here. If there are any which are not already used elsewhere in the article please let me know and I will preserve them for possible later use. Jbh ^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, I do not intend to add sources in the infobox, what i mean is that the current “background section” is clearly not well sourced and should be changed and sourced. Also, i do not understand why you say that adding reliable sources for the ethnicity is POV pushing, if so, then almost all the articles on this community encyclopedia ate written by POV pushers because they all have a backgronud section with sources. Also, any sentence like “most sources describe him as Arab/Persian/Sabean” is OR because none of the sources support it. No really, i’m sorry, but whatever angle i look at it, i don’t understand your position here.—>Farawahar (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue is adding sources simply for the sake of adding sources. Four sources saying he is Persian have no more weight than a single source which says the same and is of less use to the reader than a single source which accurately sums up the fact that there are competing claims e.g. footnote [11]. What stacking sources which all say the same thing looks like is an attempt to make a givin claim of ethnicity more valid because it has more sources i.e. number of sources cited does not correlate with strength of claim. Especially when all the source says is 'He was X from Y'. It is this attempt to make one claim seem more valid than another when no source directly says one claim is more valid which is POV pushing.

There is a difference between quality of sourcing and quantity of sources. For instance the single source which says 'there is some debate whether he was...' is infinitely better than a dozen sources, each making contradictory claims. I have no objection if you want to try to improve the background section if you can find sources which provide additional information or detail. But what you two were doing, each simply adding sources which support a claim to a particular ethnicity and then trying to balance out the number for each, is not improving the article. There is already a single source which says there are different ideas on where he came from so there is no need to demonstrate that with a multitude of sources.

Before adding a source it is good to ask 'what new information does this add to the article?' and 'is this better than the sources already in the article?' and finally 'what do I hope to accomplish by adding this source?' In fact, considering the long term dispute here, I would suggest that if either of you want to add a source they explicitly answer those three questions on the talk page. This would be good practice on other articles where similar conflicts exist as well. Jbh ^Talk 16:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Any sources which..." See the sentence which exists in the article and footnotes [11] and [13]. What do you see as wrong there? Jbh ^Talk 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not said that i want to leave the article with numerous sources for any ethnicity Jbhunley, i said that the background section is clearly not well sourced. There is a claim that he was pethaps a Persian but no reliable source for it. Also, why should we applicate some theorical rules here while these rules are not in use elsewhere (nowhere ?) on Wikipedia ? If you say that adding more than one source for any ethnicity is POV pushing, then, as i said, all this encyclopedia is written by POV pushers because as far as i have seen, many many articles have far more than one source for their claims. And there are even some experienced users who ask for many sources, have a look at : [20] i quote : “Something like this (an accusation that the families were part of the ethnic cleansing for raising their children as Turkish) would not require only two sources, it would require maybe 7 or 8” by user Seraphim System ... it’s really difficult for new users to understand while more experienced ones themselves do not agree on the rules ... do you remember the hookah article ? Some 12 sources for a claim ? Supported by all the experienced users who attacked me just becsuse i was saying exactly what you say now, i mean discussing the quality of the sources ? nobody says nothing about that, and in this article, 4 or 5 sources are too many, really ? —>Farawahar (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What I saw the two of you doing was adding multiple sources to the infobox so that is the behavior I addressed. Article improvement is the entire purpose of WP and if you believe the Background section can be improved that is great.

The fact that other articles are being loaded down with excessive citations is not a reason to do so elsewhere. WP:CITATIONOVERKILL is worth reading. For an example of a controversial biography which is a featured article see Abu Nidal. You will notice that there are very few multiple citations which use only two footnotes. Featured articles (the version which passes feature article review) are what one should look to for examples of best practice here. There are times when multiple citations may be useful. For instance if it is not possible to cite a single source for 'his ethnicity is disputed some say he was Persian or Arab or Swabian'[1], it would be OK to write 'his ethnicity has been reported as Arab[1], Persian[2] and Swabian[3]'. The only time it is worth adding multiple sources which say exactly the same thing is while sorting out scholarly consensus. For instance if 20 scholars say he was Persian but only 5 say Arab and 2 Swabian that can be used for justify on the talk page a sentence in the article like 'most scholars say he was Persian [choose representive source] while a minority think he could have been Arab [representive source] or Swabian [representive source]'. The other sources may have been part of the discussion which led to the final sentence but there is no legitimate need for them to all be in the article. Jbh ^Talk 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand, anyway, i cannot do any improvement now, i’ll see that in a few days when i’ll have more time. Thank you.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! PS. If you disagree with my reasoning I will take no offense if you want to get wider input from WP:NPOVN or some such. My opinion is only my opinion and I am happy to get other views. Jbh ^Talk 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC) last edited: 19:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t take any offense either Jbhunley i’m just trying to contribute honestly and modestly to this encyclopædia and i think that the most important thing here is that we discussed calmly and politely about the article. My appologizes if one or more of my comments hurt you, this was by no mean my goal. You are a nice and polite user and i really appreciate working here with you. Take care.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No offense at all, not even nearly so. Apologies are entirely unnecessary. Few editors care if they may have offended so thank you anyway. I always enjoy working with you whether we agree or not. Take care as well. Jbh ^Talk 19:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Best specialized sources added back to the article

I added back four of the best specialized sources to the article. Also, i corrected some other words in the article not supported by the sources cited like for example “perhaps to some of their relatives” (stated in the source) and not “probably to some of their relatives”.—>Farawahar (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Farawahar (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Viaros17 : sources number 13 and 17 are for the Arab claim. Also, check the skills of steffens and williams, no specialization in medieval Islamic history. Remember the case of ammar al mawsili, when i added Chapman, who is a historian of science for the persian claim ? Kansas bear said it was unreliable because chapman has no specialization in medieval islamic history.—>Farawahar (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see that the article text is different in either version. Am I missing something? Which particular source is used to support a given, uncontested, claim is not terribly relavent so long as it is a reliable academic source. There is an essay Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) which may provide some guidance on the best types of sources as well. Regardless, it is not worth edit warring over.
  @Farawahar: why, specifically, do you think your edits are needed i.e. what benefit do they bring to the reader? Viaros17 what, specifically, do you object to about her edits? Do you think they misinform the reader or damage/lessen the reader's understanding of the subject? Jbh ^Talk 14:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jbh, happy to see you are here. I chose the best sources from the talk page and added them in the article in order to illustrate the sentence “There is a difference of opinion as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khorasan who later went to Kufa”. I think this is relevant, but Viaros, in a hurry to add another source for the Arab claim (because he thought there was 2 sources for the Persian claim and only one for Arab ...), missed the fact that there was already two sources for his supposed Arab ethnicity, but i think he now agrees with the current version of the article and there will not be any further edit warring here. Take care.—->Farawahar (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the same author twice does not mean there are two different sources. I can easily revert your edit and start an edit war, however, unlike you, I am not interested in such childish arguments. Viaros17 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It often happens that the same author is quoted many times in wikipedia articles, especially here, Holmyard is the most reliable author among those who support an Arab ethnicity. More, two different books of him are quoted, not the same, this means two sources. The current version is well balanced and you know as well as me than any edit war will lead us and especially you, Viaros, if i believe what the admin said last time, to a block. I think we’re done here.—>Farawahar (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Nor is there a need for parity in number of sources for each claim. All that matters is each bit of information can be traced back to a quality reliable source. Regardless of my opinion of the necessity of the addition, I see no evidence it damages the article nor reason it must be removed in the face of firm objection.

Farawahar is correct that should either of you edit war over ethnicity anywhere on Wikipedia it is very likely long blocks will get handed out. I am not an admin so I can not say for sure (Even if I were admins can not act as admins where they have been acting as editors.) but from prior experience I can be pretty sure of what would happen. Jbh ^Talk 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable opinion Jbhunley, i did my best to chose the best sources : for the Arab claim, Eric John Holmyard, i quote from the Wikipedia article on him : “His scholarly work included rectification of accounts of the history of alchemy, particularly in relation with Islamic science.“, for the Persian claim : George Sarton, historian of sciences with specialization in middle eastern Islamic scholars, i quote from his article on Wikipedia : “he learned Arabic and traveled around the Middle East for part of his research, inspecting original manuscripts of Islamic scientists. By the time of his death, he had completed only the first three volumes: I. From Homer to Omar Khayyam; II. From Rabbi Ben Ezra to Roger Bacon, pt. 1–2;“ and William R. Newman who is a historian of alchemy and chemistry, i quote from Wikipedia : “Most of Newman’s work in the History of Science has been devoted to alchemy and "chymistry,"” and in the infobox about Newman, it’s said he is a historian of chemistry (Jabir ibn Hayyan was a chemist). All these sources are specialized reliable sources, as everybody can see and i cited them to illustrate the sentence above : “There is a difference of opinion as to whether he was an ARAB from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a PERSIAN from Khorasan who later went to Kufa”. By the way, Jbhunley, you say you’re not an admin but my opinion, which is much less valuable than yours however, is that you would be a great admin if you were one. I don’t know if i will be very active on the English wikipedia from now, since i’m a Polish woman, i will probably try to contribute to the Polish Wiki (Polish is my mother tongue), anyway, thank you very much Jbh, i learned a lot from working with you. Take care.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)