Talk:Ismail al-Jazari

message: I think Al Jazari inventing the camshaft is frivolous. Heron of Alexandria, nearly a thousand years before, already had water automata of the kind. Read the Stamp mill wiki entry, you will see that apparently water mills through the Roman and Early Middle Ages used cams to convert the rotary movement into a vertical one (to stamp all kinds of material). Please remove the camshaft "invention" attribution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.66 (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  camshaft ???? 

message: Please modify the article. He was definitly Turk and not Arab. Only his name is Arabic and nothing else. That time all the region was Turk and Tukmen. He is from Turkey and it is logic that we name him Turk and not Arab. Freedomist (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: this fight about how to claim a kurdish person is amazing. 185.238.219.118 (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Good point. We don't say "Christian" or "Jewish" when describing an inventor from that same period, nor "Buddhist", etc.  In addition, the mention of his religion raises another important point. If religion is important, shouldn't the reason for the Near East not developing these devices be mentioned: the inventions were declared "haram" and banned for religious reasons, and their promoters banished? Student7 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Even more so, his religious affliction is likely speculation, he was just from a region/city where the dominant religion was Islam, so likely he practised that too. Claiming him for the glory of whatever religion or ethnic group is just wrong. Yaj for the men with ten toes!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiB72 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was Turk 

message: The device described in the article is best described an automaton. It is completely misleading to call it a robot. See the definitions at the two linked articles for explanations of what constitutes each type of machine. Lumos3 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is rapidly getting out of hand. I'm sure this man had his place in history. Unfortunately, his technologiy was lost at his death and only rediscovered recently, so to suggest he had a "giant" impact on anything is just not true. Like Mendel and genetics. Mendel was rediscovered. da Vinci was mostly lost. He had no impact even though he's given credit for a lot of stuff on which he had no influence. This guy had less influence than that. This article is not credibly documented. Has anyone checked references or the scholarship of the books referenced? Student7 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Al-Jazari's machines were robotic. They worked automatically and were even programmable (cam-lever system). InternetHero (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of the term robot 

message: I realize that many details are missing from that long ago. Still, biographers were able to pin each invention down very precisely. Why no mention of any help? A laboratory-like facility had to be used to come up with this many inventions in his spare time, as it were. He must have had many assistants, yet none are mentioned either by name or number. This creates a slight credibility problem for me. 
Also, he produced three important inventions at age 66, the year that he died. No other dates for his inventions are mentioned. 
Student7 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All by himself?

message: I ripped out  the D+C subsection as a copyvio of  (the other ref used in it was also a copyvio of that (or the other way round) but thats another matter.
I also think several of the claims are implausible - first use of templates or paper models - but that too is another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored those sections in quotation format instead to avoid any copyvio issues. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure thats really good enough. Anyway, I've removed those sections that were nothing but quotes. Wiki isn't a quote-farm William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored those sections (yet again) with some of it in my own words and some of it in Hill's words. Is this good enough for you or are you still planning to remove those sections again for some other reason? Jagged 85 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, of course its not good enough, barely even a thin veneer. Apologies for the rollback, though, I hit the wrong button. "Mechanical clock" is entirely misleading, as I said. They were water clocks, with some kind of mechanism added on, but that wasn't doing the timekeeping. There is no reason for a separate section on them - thats double counting. Mechanical clock means pendulum/spring. Your previous version linked Mechanical_clock, which goes straight to pendulum clock. The mech controls section is (a) nothing but a quote, and (b) near meaningless with such a lack of context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand of a mechanical clock, it is is simply a clock driven by weights. If al-Jazari described a clock which was "driven by both water and weights", wouldn't that technically make it a mechanical clock? Either way, I've renamed the section to simply "Weight-driven water clocks" to be more specific. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try following mechanical clock, ah, I see I've already pointed you to that, but you do seem to have missed the point. This time try actually clicking on it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia link for mechanical clock pointing to Pendulum clock doesn't really mean anything. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It means the obvious - that the section titled mech clks is misleading, as well as that whoever put in that link was either careless or deliberately misleading William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm restoring "Weight-driven water clocks", since there really is no justification to remove it now that it's not even called "Mechanical clocks" anymore. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for transperancy: "Why wouldn't it be mechanical"??? It obviously was the 1st clock that functioned automatically. The mechanism made that possible. InternetHero (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  design+construction 

message: I ripped this out too . I don't know where it was copied from, but I can't see why anyone would have added "Other sundry mechanisms" unless they had copied it. Most of this misc list has been mentionned above, anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you do that? InternetHero (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other devices 

message: J restored  the primacy of Al-J using hydropower to power a saqiya pump, although the primacy of the chinese in general is admitted. I'm not really sure quite what a saqiya pump is, or what makes it so distinct from the chinese pumps. Google hit #1  says its an animal powered pump, but that cant be right William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is that "saqiya" is a type of chain pump, but we can't be too certain whether it was the same type that the Chinese were using. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. Whether it was identical to the chinese ones is irrelevant - the claim that the article was previously  making that "This is the first known description of a water-raising machine being operated by water power." is shown to be nonsense. In your haste to redress the balance against the traditional attitude towards Islamic science, please don't puff these people up to implausible degree or you'll just make them look silly. Comparing this article to Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla is instructive William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a previous version of the section even relevant to the current discussion? I've already acknowledged the previous version is flawed, or else I would have reverted back to that version if it wasn't. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It shows how puffed up this stuff gets. At least one of your previous "facts" was unreliable. Perhaps more are. Certainly the tone is overblown William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep deleting large chunks of reliably-sourced information? No offense, but I think your last few edits have been a bit over-the-top. I am reverting them because I have not yet seen any valid reasons for your unnecessary deletions. Regardless of whether the article is too hyped up or "salivating", things like these can be re-worded or re-written, but deleting large chunks of reliably-sourced information is not the answer. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You still haven't addressed the other two sections you've deleted: "Mechanical controls" and "Candle clocks". Both of these are very useful sections, so please don't attempt to remove them again. If you have a problem with my wording or quoting, then you can always put them in your own words, but like I said before, removing them is not the solution. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (William) you need to understand the extent to which A;-Jazari influenced today's society. He IS the most important figure in engineering: he is the "father". InternetHero (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saqiya 

message: This  is a symptom of the article having too many teeny tiny subsections. It needs to be re-written William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC limit 

message: This section is backed up by , but although it sez "The Origin of the Suction Pump" its actually *about* "  LAZAWARD (LAJVARD ) AND ZAFFER COBALT OXIDE IN ISLAMIC AND WESTERN LUSTRE GLASS AND CERAMICS". This needs fixing William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-action suction pump with valves and reciprocating piston engine 

message: Since I don't have access to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography at the moment, could William perhaps quote the part where it says that al-Jazari was an "engineer rather than an inventor"? I'd like to know the full context behind this rather odd  assertion which seems to imply he was not an inventor. Thanks, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't take kindly to you removing that text. I' provided a ref in the edit comment; now I've put it in the text. Its in the std DRH compedium which I'm sure you have access to William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if you were offended, but no, I don't have access to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography at the moment. It's just that I have a hard time believing DR Hill would say that (judging from his other works I've read), which is why I am asking for the full quote, to understand the context behind it if he did indeed say it. Also, you should always add the ref in the text itself rather than in the edit summary. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jagged85. Donald Routeledge Hill would more than likely call Al-Jazari an engineer. He has stated that his is the father of engineering. Why would he try to play-down such a quotable quote??? InternetHero (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rather than an inventor" 

message: I don't think this  is justified. But from what I gather her could have been kurdish/turkish if born in the same place today? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality? 

message: I wanted to ask this on Yahoo answers, but I don't think they'd even know who Al-Jazari is. Anyway, did his 5th water-raising engine (the double-acting reciprocating piston pump) have a connecting rod that had an opposite "bend" to make sure that the pistons didn't act on an angle??? I would think that with an ordinary connecting rod, the cylinders would have to be on an angle since it swings like a pendulum. Heres a video of it.
Did the pistons have a strong enough support base to not act on an angle---without the need for a correlating bend in the con-rod?? Thanks for your time. It would be MUCH appreciated!! InternetHero (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that isn't possible. InternetHero (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a question

message: Hi, 
I don't think there were any physical descriptions of the man, nevermind an actual portrait. The one used here is fairly new so I don't think the test of time has anything to do with this. InternetHero (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me either. 208.96.110.238 (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrait of Al-Jazari

message: Could we recruit an engineer to edit this? Al-Jazari deserves better than this.J8079s (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  engineer 

message: His name is way too long! 99.147.63.11 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: just say "badi-zaman jazari" (common format; all-time-genius of jazira region)
Tabascofernandez (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: * Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting: The History of a Technology By John Peter Oleson Published by Springer, 1984 , 9789027716934 628 pages
* A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times: Irrigation and water supply ; Dams ; Bridges ; Roads ; Building construction ; Surveying Part two, Mechanical engineering : Water-raising machines ; Power from water and wind Part three, Fine technology : Instruments ; Automata ; Clocks ... By Donald Routledge Hill Published by Routledge, 1996 , 9780415152914 263 pages  J8079s (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Removed the Sally Ganchy reference because on p. 47 is no mention at all of crankshafts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually on page 41, which I've just corrected. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crankshaft 

message: Guys please these are just fake facts abaout ebuliz. He was from Ciziri in Kurdistan (south-eastern turkey) which has always been kurdish. He might have been in in the powerful kurdish botan tribe. but he was not from Iraq or arab and that i can guarante you..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkurdistan (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we leave out the nationalism? He predates all that stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality Kurd. 

message: For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup.
With 360 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd with 55 edits is William M. Connolley who did clean-up work). The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. As the last pre-Jagged85 version (from 18 November 2006) is unreferenced and contains at least one false claim (namely that he invented the crankshaft, which however dates back as far as the Romans), I stubbed the article completely. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored the stubbed version. The one action which postpones the improvement of the article indefinitely is restoring again and again the refuted POV and OR version. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub and rework 

message: He worked in service of the Artuqid dynasty, an Oghuz Turk Dynasty in Diyarbakır and it is natural that we name he Turk.  Al-Jazira and all Mesopotamia in that time and before that time i.e. at least in the beginning of abbasid caliphate was under control of Turks/Turkmens. There was no arab or others such as persians and kurds in the area at that time and region inhabitantes were Assyrians, Armenians and Turks of them only Turks were Muslim. Thus we can say that Al jazari was definitly from Turkic ancestory. Freedomist (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Jazari definitly was a [[Turk]]

message: there are some links where it's said al-jazari was persian:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_225/6700-A-Brief-History-Of-Artificial-Life
http://www.thebookpeople.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/qs_product_tbp?storeId=10001&catalogId=10051&langId=100&productId=206207
http://www.intellia.co.nz/game%20design.html
I think that only a few informations are still availlable on that guy, so anyone can say anything about him. My opinion is that he is probably a persian scholar.
I don't agree with you when you say there were no persians in that area, this place was under persian domination for many centuries before arabs and turks came there ! please if you have strong sources, quote them, but your opinion is only your opinion and doesn't make it true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.218.32 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-jazari may have been persian 

message: Some claim he was a Turk or a Persian, but got no one who supports you, seeing as there was nothing Turkish/Persian with him. He was from a Kurdish city, and had an Arabic name. Simple as that. 
He was not an Arab either, seeing as he was from a Kurdish city. For the people who claim that Cizre was Arabic, please take a look at this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_al-Athir. He was from the same time period, and he was a Kurd. There is nothing that suggests he was an Arab. And if you're going by name, then why not claim all the Persian scientists as Arabs? Exactly, that'd be quite silly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.78.28 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was not an Arab 

message: It certainly seems that way to me. For this reason I flagged this article as violating NPOV. Please don't remove the POV-tag until the issue of Al-Jazari's nationality is resolved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.102.124 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did editors with a nationalist agenda infiltrate this article? 

message: Al-jarzi was in Artuqid dynasty, a Turkic Dynasty in Anatolia and it is ligic that he was  Turk.  All north Mesopotamia and east anotolia in that time under control of Turkic pepole and tribes. He was not arab and he was Turk. Al farabi had a arabic name but he was Turk. Some people think that if the name is Arabic so he is an Arab. no. He was Muslim and he chose an arabic name. Freedomist (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: He was a [[Turk]] and not Arab

message: He was a Artuk Turkish citizen. At least this could be mentioned. Also, there are sources for his Turkish ancestry. Stanford, Warsaw But a non national statement would also be ok. Because of non- national life style of the time. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehsan Masood is not a historian(ie. Stanford link) and neither Abdullah Uzun or Fahri Vatansever are historians and have no specialization in that time period(ie. Warsaw pdf). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish origin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ismail Al-Jazari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030421055019/http://www.finns-books.com:80/auto.htm to http://www.finns-books.com/auto.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ismail al-Jazari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225091836/http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm to http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312021929/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Notes/Notes%203.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Notes/Notes%203.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226102543/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Notes/Notes%202.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Notes/Notes%202.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shef.ac.uk/marcoms/eview/articles58/robot.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article just assumes that he was a muslim; no sources are provided to back this up.
It is POSSIBLE that he was a Kurdish Yazidi from Cizre.
As we already established the Kurdishness of this individual and the city and family he was from, now remains establishing his religion.
Cizre, a city in the heart of Kurdish areas of the Middle-East, has always been a stronghold of Kurdish patriots.
As such, Kurdish Yazidism thrived here for centuries. In fact, Cizre was the capital of the Botan Principality, a Kurdish principality of the Middle Ages.
This Principality, centered in Cizre, adopted Yazidism as their national religion!
Furthermore, Al-Jazari featured the Peacock in many of his designs, such as the Peacock Pitcher and the Peacock Fountain. 
The peacock is a holy creature in the Kurdish religion of Yazidism, known as "Melek Taus". 
The peacock is not native to the Middle-East, so non-Kurdish populations wouldn't be all too familiar with this birds, unless they are Kurds and cultured about the Yazidi faith, or Yazidi Kurds themselves. 
Even today, most of the Middle-East either is unfamiliar with this bird (even though we live in an era of mass media!) or they associate it with Yazidi's, which is unfortunately seen as a negative thing these days.
 Source for Cizre's (Jazari) Yazidi faith adoption:
Nelida Fuccaro, The other Kurds: Yazidis in colonial Iraq, 256 pp., Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.203.168 (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was he really a Kurdish Muslim, or a Kurdish Yazidi?  

message: his name is "Abū l-ʿIzz", his father(s?) is "Ismāʿīl (ibn?) ar-Razāz, (Ismāʿīl the rice-shopper), and "al-Jazarī" is his placename (of Jazira? (caliphate province; so kurdish). and "Badīʿ az-Zaman" is his supertitle, common format of these names (that are unique, no ambiguation) is using supertitle (if exists. if not, we "have to" use [Abu-phrase]) and placename, so his name should be "Badīʿ az-Zaman al-Jazarī". compare : Abu-Raihan al-Berouni (of Beroun city, of Khwarezm), Abu-l-wafa Bouzjani (of Bouzjan), Abu-l-Alaa al-Ma'arri, etc. using supertitle (if exists) preferred than Abu-phrase. because supertitle is given to famous people [by kings, caliphs, emirs, even people {of their time}) for avoiding  to say their names (for respect; if you don't use it means disrespect, because "it's built/given to say"). it's like english "Sir" but more variable and professionalized: Badīʿ az-Zaman: the Genius of all times (wasn't he?). finally, in addition: if you don't, it means you ignore all his works and career, because he wasn't born in this name; he worked so hard to get this supertitle
Tabascofernandez (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct it 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ismail al-Jazari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226105147/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%206.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%206.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226105147/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%206.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%206.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517013534/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article350594.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article350594.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: He was an Arab live and these is the sources:
Hayes, John Richard, 1983. The Genius of Arab Civilization:Source of Renaissance. 2nd edition. p. 205. MIT Press. Ceccarelli, Marco, 2007. Distinguished Figures in Mechanism and Machine Science: Their Contributions and Legacies. Vol. 1. P6. Springer. Marco Ceccarelli, 2007 Distinguished Figures in Mechanism and Machine Science: Their Contributions and Legacies. Part.2. Dr. Norman SMITH, 1974 The Arabian Legacy.New Scientist, April 4, 1974 ISSN 0262-4079. The Cambridge History of Egypt, 1998 Historiography of the Ayyubid and Mamluk epochs Vol.1. Cambridge University Press. Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir, 850
Kitáb Al-Hiyal كتاب الحيل.Traslated and annotated by Donald R. Hill, 1978 Li Guo, 1998 Early Mamluk Syrian Historiography. Vol.1. Biographical Dictionary of the History of Technology Al-Jazari, Ibn Al-Razzaz Aleksandr D. Knyž, 1999 Ibn ʻArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam. SUNY Press.  الرشيد (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these sources are not supporting the Arab claim, i found ony one of them supporting this claim (Ceccarelli). Also, there are other sources on this talk page supporting a Persian claim and a Kurdish claim.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Arab  

message: Many users are trying to include an ethnicity for this scholar. It seems that this kind of disruption has increased significantly since the references about his ethnic background have been removed from the article and listed here. I would like to have other users' opinion as to bring back the references in the main space of the article in order to lower the disruption (even if it appears that references about his ethnicity are only a few and not the best ones for ethnicity claims).   your opinions are more than welcome about this proposal. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: Would it be possible to construct a few sentences that would acknowledge all the apparent disputed "claims" that al-Jazari was (either) Arab, Turkish, or Kurdish, by citing the key evidence for each claim?  This then not only informs the reader that there is some disagreement on this matter, but also allows the reader to make their own decision based on the evidence (or to decide not to make a choice {credit to Neil Peart}). - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support this idea. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible solution to ethnicity dispute 

message: The ethnicity of this scholar is a matter of disruption, since many people (IP/brand new accounts) often show up to add "Kurd" or "Arab" or "XXX". Taking a look at this version of the article, one can see that this scholar has been variously described as Kurd, Arab or Persian, i suggest to add back these ethnicities along with the relevant sources.  Thoughts ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind having them added in the biography section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: if it's to be mentioned, it should be only in the biography section, not in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Mention the ethnicities only in the body of the article, not the Lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your insight. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic background