Talk:Timeline of science and engineering in the Muslim world

message: Some of the style guidelines are obvious and well known to most. But hey it's nice to be thorough.
* None of the guidelines below should contradict wikipedia style and organization guidelines. 
* All entries should be list items. 
* The timeline is to be sectioned by century. Century section headings should give the century's number in roman numerals. 
* approximate year dates should be preceded by ca. (abbreviation for circa). 
* Dates are given using the gregorian calendar. Hijra calendar dates should be identified with AH.
* I figure the separator between the date and the content of a timeline entry should be a sequence of one or more keywords ordered alphabetically and enclosed in square brackets, naming the research field for which the entry is most relevant; eg, [mathematics], [ceramics; materials; metallurgy] and so on.
* References: Instead of an external links section, a "References" section is used with external links given in it as needed. The references are numbered so they can be used for citations in the body of the text.
* Entries that are bloated due to biographical detail should instead link to the subject's own article, and create it if it does not already exist.
* Keywords or at least some of them should be bold for faster browsing. 
* There may need to be a reworking of the article's title, and thus its placement in any larger structure of articles.
--Universaliss 12:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for style and organization 

message: I found a resource, but is it good? It is well referenced:
Khaleel, Kasem (2000). The Arabian connection: A conspiracy against humanity. Lincolnshire, IL: Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN: 0-911119-70-1.
A neighbor recommended it, and it is available on Amazon. While it does not appear to be biased, it does have a somewhat personal tone, however thoroughly referenced.
He asks the question: "Who originated the modern sciences?" The book purports to answer this question.
Cover bio: "Dr. Kasem Khaleel is a medical writer specializing in health and the history of science. The author of over twelve books, his ten year study in the field of scientific history culminated in the publication of this book."
--Anonymous writer
:Over twelve books? Thirteen, by chance? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 08:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Resource?

message: The text, "1600s [mathematics] The Arabic mathematician Mohammed Baqir Yazdi gave the pair of amicable numbers 9,363,584 and 9,437,056 still many years before Euler's contribution [1]." was copied from http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and the way it reads misses that according to http://amicable.adsl.dk/aliquot/c2/c2_7.txt (this link was taken from the Wikipedia page Amicable_number and as can be seen from http://amicable.homepage.dk/apstat.htm#discoverer ) that single pair is joint discovered by Decartes i.e. it is recorded as Yazdi/Decartes. Euler obviously came later (well he was born later, duh!) and has 59 pairs to his name. Also interestingly that original copied reference, http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html also mentions the pair 
17296 and 18416 and also says how these had been mistakenly attributed to Euler, "He also gave the pair of amicable numbers 17296, 18416 which have been attributed to Euler, but we know that these were known earlier than al-Farisi, perhaps even by Thabit ibn Qurra himself." Other sites attribute this to Fermat and not Euler, and would show this as being found by all of al-Banna, Farisi and Fermat. That site linked on the Wikipedia page as reference [1] for the Arabic mathematics at the University of St-Andrews Scotland really has a thing with Euler and that raises issues with its accuracy. I have no idea how to change this other than to say that Yazdi was co-discoverer of that pair with Descartes (1636)...but that doesn't really spin it right now does it ? Ttiotsw 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated it to state joint discovery with Descartes. Ttiotsw 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus the 17296, 18416 reworded to mention Fermat and not Euler.Ttiotsw 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text on amicable numbers misses Descartes contribution to same pair. 

message: The last paragraph in the section for 965 - 1040 ...has the last sentence as "... Lagrange gave the first known proof in 1771, ... more than 750 years after al-Haytham."
There is no evidence that "al-Haytham" found a proof. He just stated the theorem. It even says so in the reference. The "750" year value was copied from http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and reworded. This is very much WP:OR. Please get it right - with these mistakes you make a mockery of both the contributions of ibn al-Haitham and Lagrange to mathematics. Ttiotsw 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded to mention Lagrange. Ttiotsw 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text on ibn al-Haitham implies he knew proof 750 years before Lagrange. This is wrong. 

message: Im athiest, so i dont care either way, but shouldn't there also be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish Science as well?
Also, is not science and technology a seperate subject (not neccisarily mutually exclusive) to a religion.
This article would do much better to be "Timeline of Human Science and Technology" or at least "Timeline of Middle-east Science and Technology" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.221.252 (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this topic conform to NPOV? 

message: Although a lot of the science described hier is very important, I have my doubts that this is all "Islamic science".
The reasons for my doubts are:
Today there is no pure "Islamic science" under the term of what we understand as "physical Science". Science is science, that's it. So science in the Islamic world is just science, not Islamic science. Under the official term "science" there isn't also no Christain science, Jewish science, or whatever.
But, under certain cirumstances we can name it indeed Islamic science:
*Political geographically based argument: During the Islamic empire, when it was a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory. In this case there is an argument to name it "Islamic science". For example it is normal talk about Belgium science (Science performed by a person from Belgium), Maroccan science (science performed bu a person from Marocco). But concerning todays, it is strange to talk about Islamic science, since this linguistically implies science performed by a Islamist or a Moslim, hereby linking the religion of that person with the science he is doing. As I told earlier, in this point of view it is also strange to talk about "Jewish science" (however, Israelian science is correct). Unlike Europe (the continent), the Islam is not a a geographical entity, and unlike the European Union the Islamic world is not a Political geographically union also. Althought the last one is a weak argument. At the wikipedia you will not find any sites about "European sciences", only maybe something like "Science in (the) Europe (Union)". Also you will not find a site "Western science". But to name it Islamic science according during the Islamic Empire is, I think, correct. According to todays, "Islamic world science" is also okay, although a little strange and murky to me, since we do not also speak about "Sciences in Catholic countries in the world".
*Cultural entity based argument: Science developed purely based on the merit of a Islamic culture. Some argue that this is the case indeed with science in the Islamic world during the period of Islamic civilization. I personally disagree with this argument, because science is not developed purely on the merit of that culture, without outside knowledge or influences. For example, science during that period was based and influenced by the sciences from Europe and vice versa. Only under very very special circumstances this argument is valid, for example science in the Empire of China during the their period of isolation (although the political geographically based argument is already valid according to China). Or maybe science or technology in South Amerika before there was contact with the Europeans.
*Ethnic based argument: Science or technology developed by an ethnic group or race. For example the arrow developed by an American Indian. Although this argument is a dubious and a maybe racist one, for example "white science".
*Religion based argument: In some circumstances we can speak of religious science, when we speak of science according to the interpretation of the holy book of that religion. See for example Christian Science.
Conclusion: according to the arguments, and the fact that this site described sciences upto the 20th century, it does not meet the above criteria.
So, I think that the topic name of this page should be changed from "Timeline of Islamic science and technology" to "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world". But I'm not going to change the title for the upcoming two days, first I want to know from someone about why and how of the present title Demophon 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the title. Demophon 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to change title into "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world"

message: I think it would be a good idea to split this article into two seperate articles, to reduce the size of the article and to make space for more additions. One article can deal with the timeline of Islamic science, and the other with the timeline of Muslim technology. Any comments? Jagged 85 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into two articles?

message: Great article, but does the title ("Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world") reflect the content? Many of the later entries refer to Muslim scientists who were active (and often born) outside the Islamic world: for example, Pierre Omidyar and Jawed Karim were both born in the West, while Ahmed Zewail, Fazlur Khan, Abdus Salam, etc were all active there.
Also, are we certain that all the entries are Muslim? For example, Jawed Karim's mother was a German woman called Christine, while Lotfi Zadeh is listed online as having a Jewish Russian mother. The problem is that most scientists don't write about their religious views (Abdus Salam being a notable exception). Without sources, even Pierre Omidyar could potentially be a Christian or Zorastrian. Udzu (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, so I've renamed the article "Timeline of Muslim scientists and engineers", and added a refimprovesect for the 20th and 21st century scientists. Udzu (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless there is a clear ref that states they are Muslim then a number of the 20th/21st century can be removed. I'll individual flag each one. If they stay unref'd then we eventually delete the entry. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title and citations

message: In June 2007 Demophon made a reasoned argument for a change of title for this article.  Then in March 2008 Udzu changed it back again , but I'm not sure I folow his reasons for this. Can we have a debate?
I suggest "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world" is the better title. We dont talk about Christian science or Atheistic science so why have an Islamic science. As User:Udzu says , little is known of the beliefs of the scientists mentioned here. The Islamic world is a cultural entity under which science operated for centuries. I propose changing it back again to "Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world"  . Lumos3 (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I whole heartedly disagree. Jews consider themselves to be a race, however there are black Jews. So why should Jews be classified as a race? It is Islamic science, there are many fieleds, (see Aviccena for details). In addition as noted in the introduction many Muslims say the Qu'ran expresses scientific knowledge. ANd that is why "Islamic Science" is Islamic Science. Do you understand? I hope I have clarified enough info. Leave the title as it is. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just moved the Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers section to a new article: Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. Any comments? Jagged 85 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the article title

message: here are some third party sources 
* holms, fredric l; Trevor H Levere (2000). Instruments and Experimentation in the History of Chemistry. MIT press, 91. .
* Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan and his Kitab Al-Ahjar(Book of Stones) Jabir and Haq 
* The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber: a Critical Edition, Translation and Study Geber and Newman 
* A Short History of Chemistry Partington 
* Story of Alchemy and Early Chemistry Stillman 
* Creation of Fire: Chemistry's Lively History from Alchemy to the Atomic Age Cobb 
* Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries Lucas 
* From Alchemy to Chemistry Read 
* The Dictionary of Alchemy Fernando 
* Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry: Papers from Ambix Debus 
* The Chemical Tree; A History of Chemistry Brock 
* Alchemy Holmyard 
* A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Partington 
* A Short History of the Art of Distillation from the Beginnings Up to the Death of Cellier Blumenthal Forbs 
* Glasss: a World History Macfarlane and Martin 
* Sasanian and Post-Sasnian Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass Whitehouse and Brill 
this article cites a large number of self published sources which are not reliable. The claims that are true are confirmed. Misleading claims should be explained or deleted. J8079s (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres another Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science By Roshdi Rashed, Régis Morelon Contributor Roshdi Rashed, Régis Morelon Published by Routledge, 1996 , 9780415124119
J8079s (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable source 

message: from the source cited; "To compensate this relative "failure", Taqī al-Dīn evokes in his book Kitāb Nūr an important discovery that was never mentioned before. This regards an instrument that makes the objects located far away appear closer to the observer. He says: "I made a crystal (billawr) that has two lenses displaying in details the objects from long distances. When they look from one of its edges, people can see the sail of the ship in far. My instrument is similar to that of ancient Greeks which had made and placed on the Tower of Alexandria" [13].
Taqī al-Dīn's assertion evokes no less than a kind of spectacles, the instrument that had beginning from 1609 the tremendous fortune we know of, when Galileo directed it to the skies and used it as a telescope. As he describes it, Taqi al-Din's instrument helps to see the objects in detail by bringing them very close. In addition, he stated that he wrote an article explaining the way of making and using this instrument. Yet, there is confusion concerning a part of his explanation, when he claims that his apparatus has similar properties to one used by ancient Greeks in Alexandria penthouse. Obviously, this derives from the tales and narrations that surrounded this mysterious monument, like burning mirrors.
At any rate, this is a topic that needs to be investigated carefully, to state whether such an invention was really made in Ottoman lands, if Taqi al-Din's instrument attracted the attention of his contemporaries, and most of all, if it was transmitted in a way or another to Western Europe by the end of the 16th century. According to the known and available information, spectacles were used in Europe at the beginning of the 17th century. It was in this context that Galileo used them in astronomical investigation from the summer of 1609. Now, Taqī al-Dīn's book had been written nearly 30-35 years before. What conclusions could be drawn from these dates? Only a thorough research in the original archives can attain a conclusion. What we can state for the moment is that this is an area of research worth a deep investigation, and that it may reveal some hidden secrets." J8079s (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the J8079s's addition of a reference was to support the reinstating of the above paragraph about Taqi al-Din (please include rationals in summery statements in future). I have moved the above paragraph to talk because it is an incorrect to statement of fact to say "Taqi al-Din invents a rudimentary telescope" in 1551 - 1574.  The source Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir himself states "this is a topic that needs to be investigated carefully, to state whether such an invention was really made in Ottoman lands" and that "there is confusion concerning a part of (Taqi al-Din's) explanation". Since this only has a single source and that source thinks the actual existence of a telescope is dubious we are falling well outside Reliable sources -> Reliability in specific contexts ->Consensus and WP:SOURCES Tiny-minority views. This paragraph has to be re-written and maybe should not be included at all if we stick to those guidelines. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I added the info from the citied source and added the failed verification tag in the hopes some one would rewrite the text to conform to the facts: 1) its not a telescope  2) he used an earlier model and 3) He may not have built it at all. Sorry about the breakdown in etiquette. I hate to see things deleted but we must conform to the facts. So I am with you rewrite or delete. The whole article needs Primarysources, no OR and checked for misrepresentation of the sources given.J8079s (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TY for the explanation. Have a look at Timeline of historic inventions and you will see allot of the same dubious claims. I have started a cleanup process there (or tried to) and some of the refs found may be useful here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taqi al-Din 

message: these are reliable third party sources that you can access at google books
*Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting: The History of a Technology By John Peter Oleson Published by Springer, 1984 , 9789027716934
*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
*Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages By Andre Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Adrian Walford, Michael Lapidge Translated by Adrian Walford Published by Routledge, 2000 , 9781579582821
*Science and Literature in the Middle Ages, and at the Period of the Renaissance By P. L. Jacob Published by Bickers and Son, 1878 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Nov 23, 2005 (Down load at google books)
*Early Physics and Astronomy: A Historical Introduction By Olaf Pedersen Published by CUP Archive, 1993 , 9780521408998
*Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia By Thomas F. Glick, Steven John Livesey, Faith Wallis Published by Routledge, 2005 , 9780415969307
*Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler By David C. Lindberg Published by University of Chicago Press, 1981 , 9780226482354
Claims of "first" need citations "first recorded" is different than "invented" improvements are not invention (but they are still important). Please lets do some reading and improve the article. Until its resolved lets keep the tags. J8079s (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting stuff if you want to help save it grab a book and start checking sources you will learn a lot. Don't be afraid of "mainstream" sources if its real we'll find it.J8079s (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: A source that merely repeats a claim is insufficient. Reliable 3rd party sources are available there is no need for self published sources or quote farms J8079s (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  claims 

message: * Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries Lucas 
*Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence By Peter Roger Stuart Moorey Published by EISENBRAUNS, 1999 , 9781575060422
* Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era: A Sourcebook By Georgia Lynette Irby-Massie, Paul T. Keyser Published by Routledge, 2002 , 9780415238472
doesnt anyone want to help?J8079s (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comare this web site: Hassan, Ahmad Y. "The Manufacture of Coloured Glass". History of Science and Technology in Islam. Retrieved on 2007-09-03. To the Stockholm Papyrus avalible here: http://www.clericus.org/etexts/Stockholm%20Papyrus.htm 
Also here: http://www.farlang.com/gemstones/radcliffe-stockholm-papyrus/page_001
The recipes especially for cleaning and making pearls leads me to question the reliability of the citation J8079s (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more sources 

message: Why are the tags placed on the page? I have revereted them owing to the lack of explanation. The sources seem fine to me and they are based on good sources. Please stop including false tags. They are not needed. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There appear to be inline tags citing where the problems seem to lie. Looking at the one for Lusterware shows that nether source backs up the claim that Jabir ibn Hayyan invented it and other sources do not make that claim . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just begun the in line tags. If the sources "seem fine" you have not checked them. I am hopeful that someone take the time to add the info that is needed. Many wonderful things were done in this time period but lackadaisical scholarship is an insult to their efforts. I could make a list if you want to help.J8079s (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - mostly fixed the one I cited above. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: here is an easy one: 794 - [industry, technology] The first paper mills are created in Baghdad, marking the beginning of the paper industry.[40] 
This is probably true but the source cited:  http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=329  does not give a date. J8079s (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources/tags 

message: I'm concerned about the validity of sources for the recent entries on this list, specifically the ones covering 1900 to the present day. It seems that a large number of those entries are either unsourced or use only self-published sources. Additionally, in our current globalised world it doesn't seem to make sense to talk about Islamic, or Western, or Chinese, or any other kind of science and engineering. Big projects are invariably multiresearcher - what percentage of coinventors have to be Muslim before it can be considered Islamic science? How do we define "Muslim scientist"? Born in a majority Muslim area? To a Muslim family? Converted to the faith? Before or after the invention? It seems like a perennial thorn and just not possible to reconcile with Wikipedia's original research and neutral point of view policies.
Please note that I'm not talking about the entries before 1900 (or even, arguably, before 1945). Before then, science and engineering were separate and nationalistic/cultural. But I think that this article would stand better as a historically focused one rather than going through to the present day. Orpheus (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait for comment on the rest, but I'm going to take out the ones that have nothing to do with science or engineering (boxing, for instance). Orpheus (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, "First Muslim to do X" is kind of circular logic - I took out a couple of those as well. No reason not to have a List of Islamic firsts article, along the lines of List of African-American firsts, but they don't fit with this article. Orpheus (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been a week with no opposition - going ahead and removing the modern era items. Orpheus (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th/21st century entries 

message: The more I look at this article, the more I think it needs a complete rewrite. I'm going to have a bash at it, and I'd appreciate any suggestions or criticisms that the community has. I'll list my objectives here, and I welcome any additions or modifications. These are off the top of my head - I'll probably end up making lots of modifications myself...
* Avoid a chronologically ordered duplication of Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age. I think that's a pretty good article, and I can see there's a lot of overlap between there and here. I envisage lots of links into subsections of Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age, in lieu of detailed descriptions here.
* Condense multiple discoveries into single entries. For instance, Gerber has a lot of independent entries here, one after the other. I propose condensing those into something like "Gerber was active in advancing the science of chemistry from X to Y CE. His discoveries included short list of primary discoveries, especially those relevant to subsequent timeline entries."
* Apply a narrower definition of science and engineering. The legal, political and culinary innovations are good fodder sorry... for timelines of jurisprudence, governance and, um, gourmance, but they don't belong here. 
* Better style. I like the idea of categorising discoveries, especially as this is a timeline and not a categorised list, but there must be a better way to do it. Any suggestions?
* Summarise, and include less detail on invention specifics. Here's a good timeline entry and one better suited to a brief summary and a link to Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age. See if you can guess which is which.
** 1579 [civil engineering] The first prefabricated homes and movable structure are invented by Akbar the Great.[307]
** 1589 - 1590 [astronomy, engineering, metallurgy] The seamless celestial globe invented by Muslim metallurgists and instrument-makers in Mughal India, specifically Lahore and Kashmir, is considered to be one of the most remarkable feats in metallurgy and engineering. All globes before and after this were seamed, and in the 20th century, it was believed by metallurgists to be technically impossible to create a metal globe without any seams. It was in the 1980s, however, that Emilie Savage-Smith discovered several celestial globes without any seams in Lahore and Kashmir. The earliest was invented in Kashmir by the Muslim metallurgist Ali Kashmiri ibn Luqman in 998 AH (1589-1590 CE) during Akbar the Great's reign; he invented the method of lost-wax casting in order to produce these globes. 21 such globes were produced, and these remain the only examples of seamless metal globes. These seamless celestial globes are considered to be an unsurpassed feat in metallurgy, hence some consider this achievement to be comparable to that of the Great Pyramid of Giza which was considered an unsurpassed feat in architecture until the 19th century.[310]
* Less pride, more NPOV. This isn't a big problem when looking at the tone, but the quality of some of the entries suggests a completely understandable but sadly unencyclopedic enthusiasm to claim a discovery for "our" side. For reasoning, see my own feelings on the matter (warning: may include harmful quantities of undirected musing). 
As I said above, suggestions welcome here or on my talk page (probably a better venue for discussing the last entry) and I'll endeavour to create a list of (or perhaps archive on a talk subpage) the content I end up removing during the rewrite. Orpheus (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Some additions to some of the points, have not been explained why they were added in. Faro0485 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has provided any explaination to the "original research?" at the end of the 610 - 632 [empiricism, theology] The Qur'an", or the "It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being."[5]"[unreliable source?]"" Or the other parts tagged[dubious – discuss], they should be removed as I don't think I can see anything wrong with them. Faro0485 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of 7th century 

message: It is disputed by Dietrich Lohrmann, the reference added to the windmill wiki article. But I don't know German, do you?  Faro0485 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windmill 

message: I removed a lot of the crap. Reformatted it. Feel free to start the real cleanup work. Hell, do we even really need this article? Oh man it was painful, took a lot of time! Anyone want to comment on my work!?  --kittyKAY4 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed out Al-Jazari, why? Faro0485 (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bad! Just a lapse. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: While almost all of it was sourced, A LOT of it was repetitive. A lot of it was offtopic. And all of it was too poorly constructed so as to be helpful, a timeline should be concise, a timeline shouldn't have these ranges of 300,400,500 years referring to no real event. There were a dozen things that got placed in two or three or four times. The giant blocks of text seemed inappropriate for this article, and it was obvious that having these large, poorly worded, and often contributed to multiple additions and a difficultly in comprehending the text. I understand WP:PRESERVE but it seemed that the format, the bulk of irrelevant, inaccurate and unreadable text was hampering contribution. I believe the right approach is to cut out the cruft and try to accept more appropriate edits in the style of some of the respectable timelines such as chemistry. I apologize for the cursing but I spent hours trying to clean out these awful entries and was taken aback to see a lot of it come back in. The page took hours to read, comprehend and try to summarize succinctly (again, I think we should try to keep the events on this page significant, at least having citations inside WP, lest we be overrun); again, looking at featured timelines such as Timeline of chemistry for an example. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, even when sourced and succinct we need to look at these contributions... 1000-1048 Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī criticizes the theory of the transmutation of metals.[99] followed by 1000-1037 Avicenna criticizes the theory of the transmutation of metals.[95] and then 1377...discredits the theory of the transmutation of metals.[239]. In my mind... unless the alchemy leads to the creation of a chemistry technique such as crystallization, we should avoid such pointless, repetitive commentary all over this article... --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix as of May 2009 

message: Reference 316 and 317 links are broken. Faro0485 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV cure 

message: Isn't hadith science the prelude to the scientific method, shouldn't that be included? Faro0485 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadith Science 

message: * Incorrect entries; misreading of sources: There are a number of problematic statements, in various sections, e.g.:(1) "Geber...introduced...chemical processes such as ... filtration": incorrect, filtration goes back at least to the Hellenistic alchemists (A short history of chemistry, Partington, 3rd ed., Courier Dover, 1989, , p. 23.)(2) "An early industrial factory complex for Islamic pottery and glass production is built in Ar-Raqqah, Syria...nearly three hundred new chemical recipes for glass are produced at all three sites."  This is a misreading of the source (.)  What there are nearly three hundred of is samples of glass, which were analyzed by electron microprobe.  Different samples may have been produced by the same recipe and the authors group the samples into just a few main types.(3) "c. 930: The cartographic grid is invented in Baghdad": The cartographic grid itself was not invented in the Islamic world as it dates back to the Hellenistic period and was used e.g. by Ptolemy (Science and civilisation in China, Joseph Needham, vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, 1959, , p. 527.)  The source (, David A. King, "Reflections on some new studies on applied science in Islamic societies (8th-19th centuries)", Islam & Science, June 2004) discusses some maps made with a special, Mecca-centered, type of cartographical grid for the purpose of determining the qibla; in his book (World-maps for finding the direction and distance to Mecca: innovation and tradition in Islamic science, David A. King, Brill, 1999, ) King discusses these maps in greater detail.(4) "Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī invents the quadrant":   The quadrant itself was not invented in the Islamic world as it was described by Ptolemy in the Almagest (book I, chapter 12, pp. 62 ff. in the translation of Toomer, .)  King credits al-Khwarizmi with describing the sine quadrant, a particular type of quadrant (Astronomy before the Telescope, Christopher Walker, ed., , p. 167.)  King also considers it possible that the author of an anonymous treatise on the universal horary quadrant, or quadrans vetus (another type of quadrant) is al-Khwarizmi, but points out that the author does not claim to have invented it ().This is just from a quick scan, which also reveals many more problems.
* Scope confusion: The article describes the framed-tube system of skyscraper construction and other structural innovations developed by Fazlur Khan, and the erection of the John Hancock Center, the Sears Tower, and a few other American skyscrapers.  These are not inventions of the Islamic world as they occurred in the United States, which is not part of the Islamic world. (Khan moved to the U.S. in the 1950s and later worked for SOM in Chicago, which is where he did his designing; see Engineering legends: great American civil engineers : 32 profiles of inspiration and achievement, Richard Weingardt, ASCE Publications, 2005, , pp. 75 ff.)
* No criterion for novelty or significance of entries: Any timeline or list needs some criterion for deciding what is important enough to include as otherwise it will become clogged with cruft.   
::Spacepotato (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed references to the unreliable Terzioglu source discussed on   my talk page. Dialectric (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Fazlur Khan material, but scope confusion is still present. Spacepotato (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed the Abdus Salam material as well.  This is not to deny that Salam contributed greatly to particle physics; it's just that the contributions mentioned were made while he was working outside the Islamic world, either at Imperial College in London, UK, or at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy.  See for example his Nobel Prize bio, or the locations given in the following papers: , , , , , , . Spacepotato (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues (X-2009) 

message: Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source - Muslimheritage.com material 

message: For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup.
With 346 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd. 46 edits). The article has been tagged for almost two years. The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. For this reason I reverted contents to the last pre-Jagged85 version, that is 01 December 2006, with some modifications. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concept of this article needs rework. Once upon a time the idea of Muslim/Islamic/Caliphate science made some sense. Nowadays science is global. Probably the timeline should be truncated. List_of_timelines#Science is vaguely instructive - why, of all the world, do Poland and Islam get their own science timelines? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Science becoming at a certain point global was also one of the main arguments which led to the deletion of Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. A quick fix is to cut off the list at ca. 1800. If we put a question mark behind the whole concept of timelines here, though, I guess we would need to go to AfD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this revert is brutal to say the least, and work should be done to re-add deleted information. I also think that a cutoff at 1800 on the basis that science became "global" then is vacuous because simultaneously it can be argued: that science and "knowledge" has always been global through well-known and unknown paths of transmission , and that "islamic" or arab scientists remained relatively isolated from Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. For this reason I do not support this recent revert. Will probably get to it in due time, pending any responses here. --Scriber (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not all gloves, but how brutal would it be to continue to feed thousands of unsuspecting readers with fabricated evidence? Reading through this talk page it is striking how many incredulous remarks the Jaggedism has generated over the years. Many users have spent a lot of time and effort to free the list from its many flawed claims over the years, but there was still no end in sight. In this light, it is only fair and respectful to the general effort that we now do things the other way round, that is we only restore contents which is true to its reference. The burden of proof is on those who add or restore material. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you brought this up. Your latest revert removed my latest edit, which added information taken from other wikipedia pages. If you alter the structure of the document, I would hope it is done in a way so as to protect legitimate information added by users. --Scriber (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry for that, I try my best to save edits by other users, but since these cleanups have to be done manually (WP software is only of limited value here) there is unfortunately always the danger of removing reliable material, too. If there were an easy way for such a monumental task (the said user made 60,000 edits!), it would have been done long ago (the article's been tagged for 2 years). Please restore your material, the good thing of the stub is that you can do your work now undisturbed from further cleanups. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub and rework 

message: I've removed the section because there only was a dumb statement not backed by a credible source. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it, as useful William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 19th Century

message: I've just reverted what appears at first glance to be a decently-sourced addition. I've done this because the source is not available to me and the history of that anon contributor (plus a related one) make me very suspicious that this is another incarnation of a prolific pov-pushing sock. I realise that this runs counter to WP:AGF but that policy is not a suicide pact and the problems caused by the sock are both deeply engrained and common. Please can someone check the source and provide a relevant quotation from it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent revert 

message: Avicenna, Al-Haytham (alhazen) for example. Al-tusi, al-nafisi, al-razi (rhazes), it's a list shockingly lacking in the biggest names. 135.23.132.58 (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: this is missing a lot