Talk:Alhazen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Alhazen was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Mentioned on Cosmos[edit]

Al-Hazen and some of his scientific career was discussed on the 5th episode of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey", "Hiding in the Light". I think he was referred to Arabic. If you missed this episode, it's being rebroadcast on the "National Geographic Channel" at 11P eastern tonight (right now!). Or you can watch the episode on the show's website for the next 97 days. http://www.cosmosontv.com/ Yours, Wordreader (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources mentioned he was a Persian: Alhazen: Early experiments on light by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne Egger, Ph.D.; Ibn al-Haytham - Princeton University. There are theories that his origins was from Vaheštābāḏ Ardašīr a Persian city near modern city of Ahvaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0A2:6450:D166:911D:861B:E946 (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Persian, outdated, not academically specialized, etc[edit]

  • doi:10.1068/p5940. PMID 18546671. Missing or empty |title= (help), is written by Craig Aaen-Stockdale, Department of Ophthalmology, not a historian and has no specialization in the field of history or the time period in question.
  • Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed.
  • Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed.
  • The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497, dated 1880. Terribly outdated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's strange that an old source like "The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497, dated 1880" is outdated from your aspect just because it's from "1880" then all the books that are not new are not good source or because they say something that you don't like to hear?

in Arabic Wikipedia they have accepted that this man is not clearly Persian or Arab but I don't know why people here are emphasizing that he was Arab. ولد ابن الهيثم في البصرة سنة 354هـ/965م في فترة كانت تعد العصر الذهبي للإسلام، واختلف المؤرخون أكان من أصل عربي[14] أم فارسي.

One of the friends says because his books are Arabic then he is Arab. I have written 9 books in English and doesn't have any book in my mother tongue language then I am from US?

Or because his name was Arabic then he was Arab.

With this formula you can call all other Iranian scientist Arab like:

- Abū al-Rayhān Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Bīrūnī. - Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī - Aḥmad ebn Roste Eṣfahānī - Abū Bishr ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān ibn Qanbar Al-Biṣrī (c. 760–796) (Arabic: أبو بشر عمرو بن عثمان بن قنبر البصري‎), commonly known as Sībawayh. - and many others because their name and books are in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooya3003 (talkcontribs) 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What you have done right there is called original research. If you have a problem with the 2 Oxford university, the Columbia university and Encyclopaedia of Islam sources, then you should find sources better than one printed in 1880 or some website by an opthalmologist. I clearly asked for more information concerning these two sources:
  • Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed.
  • Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to change the current wording, please could you provide good quality sources which describe Alhazen using the terms you wish to use, and we can discuss it. It is a mildly complicated (and certainly controversial) subject, and I am sure editors are willing to listen to your arguments. You have to understand that arguments are generally won in Wikipedia by considering which are the best sources though. To put it another way, if you don't provide some good sources then you're not going to change people's minds.
I don't personally have a problem with a good source from 1880, however if that is the only good source you can find then that is problematic. It is often the case that 19th century scholars would use different terms to modern scholars, and we would tend to use the modern terms without a very good reason not to. To take a simple example off the top of my head, 19th century historians routinely referred to England when today we would say the United Kingdom. Even if you could provide two dozen good 19th century sources showing the use of England to refer to the entire country, we wouldn't suddenly replace references to the United Kingdom with England, except perhaps as a historical footnote. --Merlinme (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I completely endorse Merlineme's comments. The problem with "The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology" is in part the date - we need to ask if this is use of a now obsolete terminology such as 'England' for the entire UK, but also why we would use the source at all? What makes it a reliable source specifically about his ethnic identity rather than his research? We should be relying on academic historians for this specific issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Add section on his Nationality?[edit]

Variants of this discussion have been going on for many years and reflect the fact that the question of Alhazen's nationality or ethnicity is an active one in the minds of some readers. I have no horse in this race and as a historian I feel that the question of his ethnicity is not historically important, but I concede that for some it may be politically important.

I suggest that, rather than duck the issue, we face it directly by adding a section on his Nationality or Ethnicity. We could take as our model the section on Nationality in the article on Nicolaus Copernicus, which dealt with the analogous politically charged question of whether Copernicus was Polish or German. The idea there was to state the question, discuss its historical importance or unimportance, and then state the opinions of a selected group of major scholarly sources on the question of Copernicus's nationality.

I'm not naive enough to expect this to bring the debate to a halt (the Copernicus controversy still occasionally crops up) but it should reduce the level of edit warring. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bettany on history/religion[edit]

Bettany is not qualified to discuss history. He's a scientist writing for the journal Physics Education which "is the international journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level." Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request quotation June 2009[edit]

Anyone else find it odd that this edit[1] adds a 5 year old quotation needed tag? Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Yes, it's very odd. My best guess is that we had that "fact" before and it was challenged by adding the tag, then removed entirely, and it's now been restored without addressing the issue. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Restored by a new editor? Was it recently deleted? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)