Talk:Psychology in the medieval Islamic world

message: It strikes me that this might be better named as Islamic psychology - it's dealing with the parts of the field of psychology developed in the Islamic world, rather than the "psychology of Muslims" per se, and this title seems to vaguely imply the latter. Shimgray | talk | 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Islamic psychology sounds more accurate. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the article accordingly. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?

message: I am lookin' for crew to translate this article in French, thank you to contact me.
Je cherche des gens motivés pour traduire cet article en Francais, merci de me contacter.  Allahnis (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Translation Traduction Française 

message: Redheylin (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: end

message: For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup.
With 225 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (the 2nd ranked user has 9 edits to his name). 
; Ethics and theology
Cause of concern, no. 7
The section says: 
The source cited was:
However, Youssef et al. argue that Muslim physicians judged schizophrenia more in terms of social deviation rather than biological dysfunction:
Neither here nor elsewhere in the entire article it is claimed that these doctors were driven by an "early scientific understanding of neuroscience and psychology"; in fact the terms "scientific", "neuroscience" and "psychology" don't even appear once in the article.
; Alpharabius (872-951) and his On the Cause of Dreams
The source cited was:
But the claim of being the first to make this distinctions is freely invented; in fact Haque only states:  
; Ali ibn Abbas al-Majusi 
Cause of concern, no. 3
The source cited was:
However, the cited source does not claim that al-Majusi was the first to describe these medical conditions:
; Avicenna
Cause of concern, no. 3
The source cited was:
However, the cited source does not claim that Avicenna was the first to investigate into these intellectual dysfunctions :
; Avicenna
The source cited was:
This sounds as if it is today scientifically proven that neuropsychiatric disorders are located in the middle part of the brain and that Avicenna anticipated modern science here. However, no such conclusion can be derived from Youssef's choice of words: 
; Social psychology
Cause of concern, no. 3
The source cited was:
However, Haque simply says:
; Copyright problems
I noticed that, beyond the usual issues with OR, SYN and OR, large chunks of text were simply copied and pasted with little or no change to the exact wording. This is particulary true for Psychology in medieval Islam#Other philosophical theories of the mind and Psychology in medieval Islam#Clinical and medical approach, but occurs throughout the article. For example, one passage reads:
Now compare with the cited source (Haque, Amber (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357–377 (2004), p. 376, footnote 15):
; Conclusion:
These issues, deficiencies and misrepresentation fully correspond to the causes of concern pointed out by many users one year ago. Since the edit history shows contents to come overwhelmingly from Jagged85's pen, with contributions of other users being minimal, collateral damage resulting from stubbing will be minimal. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Early Muslim scholars used the term 'ilm al-nafs (science of the soul/mind) to refer to psychology, some have treatises by that title, so yes it deserves its own article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is very dubious. They uzsed a term, but what did they use it to refer to? To a concept not invented until centuries later? That is unlikely William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Ilm al-Nafs = Psychology, this is how it has been translated. Saying that this concept did not exist because it was "invented" later (or rather established as a separate discipline) is like saying a country did not exist before its flag was designed or its borders defined. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: It is referred to as psychology by at least some scholars. It must therefore be included. -Aquib (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopedia of Islam or the Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science are authoritative sources to see what 'ilm al-nafs exactly means and how it has to be understood. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever are the specifics of 'ilm al-nafs, the fact that early scientists have referred to it as a separate science means it deserves its own article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article with the following title: "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: There are many authoritative sources, but none is definitive in this regard. The concept is widely accepted among academics, and as such, deserves an article. -Aquib (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This is worrisome. These issues seem fairly basic and straightforward. -Aquib (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "ilm al-nafs" translates to "science of self or psyche" - as does "psychology". It has been argued that, if this article be "granted", then will ancient Greeks have to have such an article? Well, of course, they do. This is an argument about the best TITLE of the piece - and not an informed one either - and means nothing in terms of the article's content. Redheylin (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This material belongs in History of psychology#Early psychological thought or perhaps the Philosophy of mind article and this article needs deleted. It is, frankly, religio-politically motivated. Famousdog (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've PROD'd it. Almost without a doubt that will fail, and we'll go through the tedium of AFD 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As expected; so I've put it up for AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub and rework 

message: * Support stubbing. Probably one of the most egregious examples of "Jaggedism" (sorry, I can't come up with a better term) out there. Athenean (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I'm with GPM above: this article is retrofitting the term "psychology" to a situation where it didn't really exist. It should probably just go William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Early Muslim scholars used the term 'ilm al-nafs (science of the soul/mind) to refer to psychology, some have treatises by that title, so yes it deserves its own article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is very dubious. They uzsed a term, but what did they use it to refer to? To a concept not invented until centuries later? That is unlikely William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Ilm al-Nafs = Psychology, this is how it has been translated. Saying that this concept did not exist because it was "invented" later (or rather established as a separate discipline) is like saying a country did not exist before its flag was designed or its borders defined. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: It is referred to as psychology by at least some scholars. It must therefore be included. -Aquib (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopedia of Islam or the Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science are authoritative sources to see what 'ilm al-nafs exactly means and how it has to be understood. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever are the specifics of 'ilm al-nafs, the fact that early scientists have referred to it as a separate science means it deserves its own article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article with the following title: "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: There are many authoritative sources, but none is definitive in this regard. The concept is widely accepted among academics, and as such, deserves an article. -Aquib (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This is worrisome. These issues seem fairly basic and straightforward. -Aquib (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "ilm al-nafs" translates to "science of self or psyche" - as does "psychology". It has been argued that, if this article be "granted", then will ancient Greeks have to have such an article? Well, of course, they do. This is an argument about the best TITLE of the piece - and not an informed one either - and means nothing in terms of the article's content. Redheylin (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This material belongs in History of psychology#Early psychological thought or perhaps the Philosophy of mind article and this article needs deleted. It is, frankly, religio-politically motivated. Famousdog (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've PROD'd it. Almost without a doubt that will fail, and we'll go through the tedium of AFD 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As expected; so I've put it up for AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD? 

message: Support - Article (in current or earlier forms) should not have existed and is a great example of presentism. Anachronistic use of the term "psychology" applied to earlier philosophical musings on the nature of mind/soul/spirit/self. Famousdog (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As this deletion was already opposed directly above, this article is not a candidate for PROD. Why was this done? -Aquib (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD 

message: This foolishness has drawn attention even from outside wikipedia:
Some authors have argued that the medieval scientist Alhazen should be considered the founder of psychophysics, and by definition, of experimental psychology. However, there is no evidence that he used quantitative psychophysical techniques and many of his psychological speculations had been remarked upon previously by other polymaths of the ancient world such as Aristotle, Ptolemy, Lucretius and Euclid. To apply the term "psychology" to the works of Alhazen is presentist, anachronistic and it has been argued that to do so is boosterist.
J8079s (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  foolishness 

message: Wedding and Haque document attempts to "Islamicate" psychology This is not a bad thing It could anchor a content fork see WP:Content fork 
Wedding, Danny (2004-07-29). The Handbook of International Psychology is a great place to start. Haque, Amber (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists" is a fine source in this context however the paper should not be taken as a source of historical fact to do so is to 1) miss the point of his work and 2) create a WP:POVFORK. I am concerned that users are quoting the paper out of context elsewhere on wikipedia.J8079s (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  content forking 

message: How is this thing even here? It offers NO information at all. There is more info in the links and references than in the so-called article itself. Why has this been allowed as an article when larger and more complete works have been denied. --- Wiki is all crooked and warped, made so by inconsistent censors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.98.65.194 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USELESS!!! 

message: The term "psychology" as in the title may be used improperly here based on previous versions of the page. It is not practical to represent philosophy of mind, neurobiology, and psychology from the medieval period on one page. Perhaps in the future, many different pages will be needed. Bruce526 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work Needed 

message: Caso queira traduzir se disponha. Att2804:14C:5BB3:A351:4DD:E458:5FEF:7802 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{U|Luizpuodzius}} 

message: The lead for this article is well balanced. The reader is given the perfect amount of information in the first sentence, and in the paragraph as a whole. It is concise, yet detailed. The content is well thought out and has a neutral tone overall. There was not any information that could be considered irrelevant regarding the topic. The Islamic people groups outlined in this article are underrepresented in the Western world, even more so in science. This article provides the reader with a through knowledge of what these scientists knew. I previously stated that the overall tone is neutral, and that stands for the article as a whole. The cited links that I clicked on did work. The sources are trustworthy and reputable. There is also a good mix of first hand accounts from these medieval scientists as well as more recent articles analyzing their work. The talk page for this article was extremely interesting to me. This WikiProject lasted from August 2021 to December 2021. The comments left on the talk page were constructive and well thought out. They addressed verbiage issues (what to call certain people/things), I think this helped the article have a neutral tone. My overall impression was impressed. This is a topic that I am sure was not particularly easy to find sources of and these people did a great job! The article is well developed, but there is room for more. There could be a section on what a psychiatric ward looked like and operated in the Medieval world.  Callalily4 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation