Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

author ?

could someone help this article. It needs to cite which book the discoveries come from. Or if they are credited to Jabir by others. Krause mentions 3000 works credited to Jabir, most of them written in the 9th and 10th cen..The mineral acids are credited to Pseudo Gerber's books.J8079s (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Geber is not an Arab!

Please stop this stupid claims! Are you trying to prove that Paris is not in France?! Someone from Khorasan can be Pashto/Dari/Afghani or ... but definitely not an Arab. There is no doubt that Geber was a Persian. This argument is getting very boring. I can understand that it is very frustrating to find Arab (real Arab, not those who know Arabic) scientist (some one from Saudi Arabia, do you know any?!), but it is obvious for the world that Razi/Ibn Sina/Jaber/Kharazmi etc are all Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.135.251 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article only says that "some sources state that he was an Arab". The article itself does not actually claim that he was an Arab. -kotra (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?! Persian chauvinism is really funny...please look up al-Azd tribe; Jabir ibn Hayyan was a member of that prominent Arab family. He was in no way persian, no matter how many obscure, silly web sites you put here. If he were alive, he'd probably laugh at your ignorance, too. Keep going, though. I'm sure it adds excitement to your lives sleeping at night thinking persians dominate the world...MB (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Is your comment directed to me or to 211.28.135.251? If it was directed to me, I want to clarify that I'm not saying Geber was Arab OR Persian. I honestly don't have an opinion either way. I was just saying that the article doesn't actually claim he was Arab (or Persian, for that matter); it only says that some sources claim he was one or the other. I agree that there are too many citations, though, for both statements. But whoever your comment was directed to, please do not make personal attacks against other editors. -kotra (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

corpus

This article needs to be re-written. To Jabir Gerber sulfur and mercury are not elements but principles (masculine and feminine). Also the debate is not Arab vs Persian but whether he is real or imaginary. Separate claims for should be made for the Latin corpus and the Arabic corpus. Good sources are available J8079s (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Here are some sources

Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan and his Kitab Al-Ahjar(Book of Stones) Jabir and Haq ISBN 0792332547, 9780792332541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber: a Critical Edition, Translation and Study Geber and Newman ISBN 9004094664 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum —Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Instruments and Experiments in the History of Chemistry Holms and Levere ISBN 0262082829
A Short History of Chemistry Partington ISBN 0486659771
Story of Alchemy and Early Chemistry Stillman ISBN 0766132307
Creation of Fire: Chemistry's Lively History from Alchemy to the Atomic Age Cobb ISBN 073820594X
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries Lucas ISBN 0766151417
From Alchemy to Chemistry Read ISBN 0486286908
The Dictionary of Alchemy Fernando ISBN 1843336189
Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry: Papers from Ambix Debus ISBN 0954648412
The Chemical Tree; A History of Chemistry Brock ISBN 0393302685 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
Alchemy Holmyard ISBN 0486262987
A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Partington ISBN 0801859549
A Short History of the Art of Distillation from the Beginnings Up to the Death of Cellier Blumenthal Forbs ISBN 9004006176

J8079s (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much focus on his ethnicity

It would be nice if all the effort focused on trying to determine which part of the middle east he was from could be directed toward finding references for the claims made in the article about the techniques he developed. There are very few citations (sometimes none) to back up claims of his discoveries. Jeremiah (talk·cont) 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 17 references to back up that he was an Arab seems a bit like overkill to me. -kotra (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many would you prefer, then? Do you understand the concept of reference counting to determine which of two possibilities is better-supported? You can't provide just one reference for that, since none of the references themselves do the counting. There is a meaningful point here that cannot be demonstrated any other way: a) Geber is considered by overwhelming consensus to be Arab, however b) there is still significant literature suggesting he was Persian. In what universe are less references better and how do I get a bus pass to go there? --70.131.51.228 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You know well wikipedia doesnt lie on the truth but on the sources. You Arabs know well he was Persian (He was born in Tus in north east of Iran. See the map, how far is it from arabs?)... He was most probably Persian... You Arabs think that whoever is Muslim must be Arab, or whoever has an Islamic name, must be arab, or whoever knows arabic must be arab!!!! I am a muslim, my name is Mohammad, and I know arabic(because I learned to understand quran) but I am IRANIAN. The same thing was there for Geber... Actually its not that important for me, you can think as your wish, you can change the facts, take all Iranian scientists for arabs, call Persian gulf as a-r.a-b.i-a.n gulf... But know one thing, the truth never dies. --61.8.140.20 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not he was an Arab, a Persian, or both. My point is just that when there are more than 5 or 6 references, new ones cease to have any useful purpose. When it comes to references, we should focus on quality, not quantity. Also, using a large number of references to prove a point (here that he is "overwhelmingly" considered to be Arab), is original research, even if it uses outside sources to come to that conclusion. None of the references actually claim that "most sources state that he was an Arab" (correct me if I'm wrong), so it is original research to take a bunch of references that say one thing and from that conclude that "most" say it. I could probably find 20 references that state the Holocaust didn't exist, and so conclude that "most" say that too, since there might be only 10 references in a Holocaust article that say it does. But that would of course be incorrect.

If there aren't any reliable sources that say how common either view is (Arab or Persian), the best we can do is say "Some sources describe him as an Arab, whereas others describe him as a Persian." -kotra (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

i totally agree with Kotra on his ethnicity, he was most definately persian, and most sources do not list him as arab. Arabs just come on wikiepdia and claim somehow every muslim must be arab, when it is quiet clear the scientific achievements during the middle ages were made by persians, jews, and Zoroastrianist's who converted to islam. The amounrt of nationalism and lieing and distorting makes me sick personally.Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I never commented on his ethnicity. My comment was just that there are too many references, and that "counting" references to make a point is original research. -kotra (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At most you should have 3 sources. The rest can be left as notes or amalgamated in the 3 sources. LOTRrules (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't know how exactly they should be left as notes or amalgamated. -kotra (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can split them into bullut points (see Horcrux ref at the bottom of the page it has 1 refs but 3-4 sources) Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I find all this endless bickering between Arabs who say he was an Arab and Persians who say he was a Persian childish and pointless. Nobody knows for sure which he was. Accept it and grow up. Kwertii (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Which Acids Ibn Hayyan Discovered?

The article says he discovered hydrochloric acid and nitric acid. The article on sulphuric acid says he discovered that one, too. Did he discover all three (plausible, since sulphuric acid can be easily used to produce the other two), or is there some confusion over this? 128.103.187.40 (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

serious problem with refs.

not all of the given references indicating a possible arab ethnic background of geber can be taken serious. for example 19. Columbia Encyclopedia, 20. Ahmad Y Hassan, Arabic Alchemy. i mean what is then a reliable source? i would like to remove some of these written-in-2-minutes references.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think one source says that he is Arab and one source says that he is Persian is enough. and I think you should make it just like Alhazen's page (was an Arab or/and Persian). Mussav (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

yes. but you are referring to the style of citation. my comment is about unreliability of some of those sources claiming he is arab. the above two examples can not be considered reliable.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Both problems can be solved at once by removing all but a couple of the best sources for each. I don't know which is the best, though, otherwise I would do it myself. -kotra (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

all right. i will review the sources and get rid of some of them which can not be, in my opinion, considered reliable.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -kotra (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Be bold ! The article could use a major re-write if you have time and you are inclined to do so.J8079s (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a major rewrite is necessary, just a bunch of reference improvement and some cleanup. -kotra (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

i added "The Essential Golden Dawn" which is not really an essential thing. my reason is that there are 2-4 sources in the arab-list that have problems:

ref. no. 8. Alchemy,Eric John Holmyard, P 68. in this page and the following one there is no direct claim that he is arab. he just (tries) to dash out the possibilities.
ref. no. 20. Ahmad Y Hassan, Arabic Alchemy. this can not be taken serious at all.
ref. no. 6, History of Analytical Chemistry By Ferenc Szabadváry,P 11,ISBN 2881245692..

so here is what i do at first. remove these three. if you disagree let me know, otherwise i assume that you agree with me. i will go through other sources and will write here.--Xashaiar (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One source that claims he is Arab is enough, one source claims that he is Persian is enough, why 10 to 20 sources? I mean this ruins the page. We should make it like Alhazen's page. "He was an Arab or Persian' and one source for each. Mussav (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

hold on! i am by no means going to be moderate, i am for truth. i am reading the arab-sources. so far none of them are reliable for the following reason: your sources, the above 3 examples are provided as primary observation, have other claims, unrelated to geber, which are in contradiction to what other sources say about well-documented facts. i am trying to figure out how wikipedia guides can be used to resolve this. in fact "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" can be of use here: the claim that geber can be an arab, is so strange that you need a better argument for the inclusion of this in the article.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you or is my English that rusty? I'm taking the advantage of this section to make a suggestion to reduce the sources. let's reduce the number of sources from one hundred to only one or two. one source that claims he is Arab is enough and one source that claims he is Persian is enough. There are hundred of websites says he is Arab or Persian, should we add them all? You will ruin the page, the page is already ruined.. one or two sources is more than enough. so please let's try to educe the sources instead of adding more. Mussav (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

you have already removed more reliable sources. that's a problem. please revert back. websites are not reliable. i am able to create 300 websites in matter of days supporting any claim i want. my point is based on wikipedia guideline "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". any inclusion and mention of the claim you support (that geber can be non-persian) is a problem. more opinions are needed.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Something I don't understand. the 20 sources that says he is Persian isn't enough? what is going one here is ridicules, this isn't a race for who has the most sources. as I said earlier one source is enough. and btw, why saying he is non-Persian is a problem? there are sources says he is Arab, so I believe both. again I'm sticking with my point, one source is enough and I'm waiting for others opinion. Mussav (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

you should read my comments more carefully to understand the point on exceptional claims. (the possibility of being arab is not the point and is indeed not my problem, the point is in the exceptional nature of this claim in this particular situation).--Xashaiar (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

But You didn't gave me your opinion about my suggestion? What do you think of having only one source for each? we'll choose the best source for each, then you don't have to worry about the other sources. Others opinion needed. Mussav (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have no side on this issue. I don't know or care if Geber was Arab, Persian, or both. But you both are right, we only need one or two sources for either claim. Any more than that disrupts the flow of the article and is unnecessary. So I recommend: Mussav, if you are willing, can you choose one source that says he was Arab, and remove the others? And Xashaiar, if you are willing, can you choose one source that says he was Persian, and remove the others? This way there is no conflict of interest; you will both want to find the best, most reliable source. What do you think? -kotra (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is a good idea, when you've picked a source, post it here on the talk page. Once both the Arab source and the Persian source are posted, I'll remove the rest all at once. That way there won't be a time when there's only 1 source for one, and 10 for the other. -kotra (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree to have only one source for each, but the problem is most of them are quotation from books, books that I've never read. so it's hard to me to choose the best source, If some one else can help us to choose the perfect source, we'll appreciate it. Mussav (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Is this allowed? [1]. If so, then I think it's the best solution so far. Mussav (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

for the time being i collected things all together. look at the page and not the diff file, because diff file shows it wrong!--Xashaiar (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've examined the changes and everything looks ok. You only changed this much, which is fine. Lord of Moria above suggested this type of change. I think it's fine for now, but I think it still would be best to take out all the unreliable sources, and only keep 1 or 2 of the best. -kotra (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

with regard to this, i would say since the issue is important let us keep everything as it is (as otherwise it will be brought up again by people). we still do not have article size problem.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It's better now than it was before, anyway. Thank you for your help. -kotra (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"present-day Iran"

Mussav has changed the wording of the bio section without a consensus. Iran is not Iraq, Iraq, albeit a geographical region for centuries, was created as a political state in the last century, Iran on the other hand has been a geo-political state for centuries which was occupied at times by different powers (ie Umayads). I am restoring the original wording, Mussav needs to get a clear consensus before he attempt to change this again. --Sina111 (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

yes sina. i am concerned about the behaviour of mussav. he uses words like "iraqi", "present day", "that day", "then", "part of"... and guess how: in a random way. these are non-encyclopaedic and do not follow historical developments. this is english wikipedia and we have to use what main stream media in this language use. one example: there are usages of the term "iraqi" and then link to "iraq" page. i have difficulties to understand this.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me that Iran was the same Iran back then? the same borders? are you telling me that you still living in Buyied Dynasty for example? In that era Iran's geography was bigger than present day Iran. Am I wrong?. And please this is has nothing to do with Iraq. I already explained the Iraq issue in another page. Mussav (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Boarders have nothing to do with the fact that Iran was a state before and after Umayads. Regardless, two users have opposed your changes, you have no consensus for this change, so please do not attempt to change the wording again without a cleat consensus here. If you continue to ignore WP:Consensus, you will be reported for WP:Disruption. --Sina111 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You said Iran right? was it Iran in the Buyid Dynasty for example? in that time it had a different geography map and different politic..etc. If the borders and the differences between Iran's Geography now and backthen have nothing to do with it, then in that case you are right. but still think it wasn't the same Iran backthen. That's my point of view/theory. :) Mussav (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Geber (Lunar Crater)

There is a conflict in cross-references, and I have no idea what is correct. Looks like this page has been altered to take care of this from this side of things. See the Wiki entries: Geber (Crater), and List of Craters on the Moon (G). The conflict has to do with the eponym for this crater.

The List page links both the Geber (Crater) page and this page of Geber as the eponym.

The Geber (Crater) page links Jabir ibn Aflah page as the eponym.

They do appear to be different people, as you differentiate. Who is this crater actually named after?

PJLareau (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

leading paragraph

The user User:Mussav has come up with the change insisting on puting "geber lived during two regimes of umaya and abassid" on the introduction. this does not seem to be a common practice for biographic pages, like shamloo who lived during shah and islamic republic. there are 1000s of such example. I propose support and WP:CONS from others to stop this.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ummayad state was the ruler during that time, and Geber was an Arab figure during that time, observe that we aren't prejudice.. he was a Persian figure too but removing Ummaya (The state, the empire, the ruler) from the phrase and keeping Persia (who wasn't a state and had no power during that time) is completely nonsense. I did write Ummaya but he reverted it, I did write The Arab Empire but again he reverted it. since Geber lived during 2 dynasties (2 states) I wrote both of them The Ummayad and The Abbassid States... with keeping the Persia name in the phrase, he was born in Iran after all. Mussav (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

if you want to add that, we should add it like this "abassid that was dominated and guided by persian vazirs", and for umaya we should add it like this "umaya who burned the persian libraries". if you want to experiment, go and change the page of shamloo. no need for regimes to be mentioned in the first sentence no one practices this in wikipedia.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OH so you are so sensitive about the Arabs? your edits are all the same. is this what is all about? No we aren't obligated to add anything more than the Abbasid Arab State or the Umayyad Arab state, no more no less. Persia was under the rule of the Arab and vice versa… this is a fact, get used to it. Mussav (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

and what about the whole history minus 200 years? the whole middle east and central asia was under iranian rule. just like now.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I said vice versa besides it's has nothing to do with this article. Mussav (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

this language is against wiki rules. go and add all iranian dynasties for the whole history -200 years to arab related article. bring some examples here, then we do similar things here. ok?--Xashaiar (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about. we are talking about Geber right? during his life-time he lived under the rule of Ummaya and Abbassed. and this is the only thing should be mentioned. I have no idea why you are bringing all Iranian dynasties? you lost me. Mussav (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave a reference for Geber. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input but that wasn't the issue we were discussing... Umayyad was the ruler in that time and Geber was an Arab symbol and prominent during that time just like exactly what he was for persia and we should mention it just like we mentioned that he was prominent for Persia... but thanks again. Mussav (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jabir was the most famous alchemist of the age. His ethnic/national/religious back ground are not notable enough for the opening paragraph.J8079s (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is already much emphasis on ethnicity. My opinion is that we should only mention the facts and remove the descriptions. Dy yol (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

POV Vandalism

Someone has changed the article to a POV. --Wayiran (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

50 intermediate revisions not shown in the link you put. That's deceptive and not very smart. Dy yol (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention any unsourced addition I made, and I will delete it. Dy yol (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dy yol. The many changes reverted by Wayiran were properly sourced, by multiple editors. This is not POV, this is incorporation of excellent historical research on this important figure.Ajrocke (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

hold on. the whole purpose of Dy yol and Ajrocke as seen in the changes here and there, is: the great geber has nothing to do with the Iranian Jabir. This is not acceptable for obvious reasons. There can be 1-2 lines discussion at the very end of the article called "Conspiracy theory on Geber" and all your sources and claims can be put there. Do not forget to look at WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims need exceptional proofs. --Xashaiar (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exceptional claims need exceptional proofs. But these are not exceptional claims, and there are no red flags here. Red flags are for "surprising claims not covered by mainstream sources" or "claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community." The relevant community for this article is the community of professional historians of science, of which I am a member (you may look up my bio from my user page if you like). All professional historians of science, historians of chemistry, and historians of alchemy will agree with the edits made by me and by Dy yol. To summarize: recent edits to this article were properly sourced from mainstream authorities, and they accurately reflect the prevailing views among professional historians of chemistry and alchemy. These views are neither new or surprising (see, for instance, the relevant article in Encyclopedia Britannica Online). If you want to revert, you will need to cite proper and better sources to support such a change, or you will need to show why the sources which recent editors have cited in support of their edits are not mainstream.Ajrocke (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

hold on again. you are bringing up a very sensitive issue. you call yourself "a member of historians of science". I do not have anything against this claim; it is up to you. However let me point out the fact: not all historian of science write the truth. (if you need example, let me know, so that for any claim I can bring up counter-claims all by historian of science). I am asking you to find one single example of conspiracy theories in scientific areas that was not advocated by a historian of science. that's the first thing. Second: for god sake do not give reference to britannica. an encyclopaedia that calls all muslims arabs can not be taken seriously. the fact is that your claim is a form of conspiracy theory and as such uninteresting. I was kind enough to offer you a section at the bottom of the article to persuade your theory (no matter how well sourced they are). Next we come to the idea that "it is an English wikipedia". According to GFCA we have Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy. now, my point is that your theory is controversial as 1. it ignores completely the whole library of Persian and Arabic texts written on Geber 2. the figure is from medieval period and hence the latter sources, even smaller in number, are more reliable than the new daily-base publications. 3. I am happy that you confessed "These views are neither new or surprising". That's it.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your good efforts on behalf of Persian science and scientists. Just to be clear: "These views [that] are neither new nor surprising" which I referred to are the ones in the recent edits. If you want to revert, please cite better sources as your basis to do so. Thank you!Ajrocke (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica and three books written by William Newman — the Author of the article about Jabir in Britannica — were used as sources to the parts of the article about Geber's Persian background. Dy yol (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Read WP:POINT carefully. 2. His Persian background is mentioned in many books. look at 16 sources we have provided. (There were more there but the user mentioned in previous talk section decided we remove some in order to make article readable, I guess). 3. The discussion was on something else. 4. As a matter of fact, on Iranian world related articles, Enc. Britannica should not be used.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not revert multiple edits

Reverting an edit is sometimes justified. But reverting multiple edits over extended period of time is very disruptive. Pasitigris ignored tens of edits by multple users and reverted large porions of the article to a previous version. I wrote to him here. Everytime I made an edit I was willing to discuss my edit with anyone who may object, but after I and others made multiple edits without objections, it is very distruptive to revert all of our edits suddenly. Dy yol (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think that sourced material was removed. You can add them. I've removed before material because the sources don't verify the material. The article has a tag which states that the article contain "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text". Dy yol (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

exceptional claims

Please flag the claims that you think are exceptional and I will provide sources or delete them J8079s (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

I do have problem to justify the way article looks like. Are we talking about Jabir or Geber or the conspiracy theory on them. I thought about some solutions. 1. Either we devote the article to Jabir and write it like it was before Dy yol and Ajrocke made their edits (I'm assuming good faith). And add a new section on the theory that famous Geber is not Jabir. 2. Or we change the title to Jabir and forget completely about Geber, and Reliable sources/others can create a page about that Geber.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad Idea. But who do you mean by Jabir? Do you mean the author/authors of the arabic corpus, or only the historical figure. These are not necessary the same. If you mean the author/authors of the arabic corpus, I agree with you. Dy yol (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand our problem. you assume Jabir and Geber are definitely not the same. I am calling it a conspiracy theory. By the way have a look at this similar thing.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You can call it "conspiracy theory" but that's your POV. If you think that some sources in the article (like Britannica) are not reliable, you can ask at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And if you think the discussion about Jaber's identity is a "cospiracy theory", you can ask at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Dy yol (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. for example the page 15 of the book states "..Geber..whose identity with Jabir is still in dispute". Note that it does not recognise your theory that Geber is not Jabir. 2. Page 140 of the book call the theory "Geber‡Jabir" explicitly this famous controversy. 3. The book gives a good explanation of the problem. 4. pages 279-300 of the book call it "Geber-Jabir problem". 5. How many sources do you need that states Geber is the latin name of Jabir ebn hayyan. Choose a reasonable number I will list your-chosen-number of reliable sources.

So overall, the first sentence of the article should be removed. In the section "Geber-Jabir problem" everything can be explained.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Geber problem is not about the persons per se, it is about their work. In other words to what extent were the Latin person's writings his own versus translation from Arabic. Dy yol (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. You are pushing the POV that Latin Geber existed! The sources given describes roughly "the assumption that Jabir ebn hayyan is not the actual writer of an arabic version (now lost) of some Latin books (not lost)" (the existence and creation of a person called Geber is a consequence of this) as "Geber-Jabir problem". Your "sources" (see the article and earlier comments) in fact say: since there is no original arabic version found, therefore the work was by someone called Geber. Let me be honest; I found it extremely hard to take this kind of reasoning serious.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The first source you've given states at page 36 "The Latin author Geber claimed at the beginning of his Sum of Perfection...". Anyway, any intrepetation by me or by you will be considered an original research. Dy yol (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But you have already a page called Pseudo-Geber, so what is the point of pushing the pov-controversy "Geber is an unknown author..." and that in the first sentence. I fail to understand.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose to be in the opening? I'm open to any suggestion which reflect NPOV, no original research and other Wikipedia rules. Dy yol (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is something like this. But expanding Jabir-Geber problem. Maybe in the first sentence we give link to that section under "known by his latanized". We can not start an article when we are not sure about whom we are talking. moreover there is already the page Pseudo-Geber.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should present the contemporary view and the traditional view. I propose that I put a version and you put your version and we request comments Dy yol (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

all right. but in the next few days i am busy so in a week i will present my version.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Send me a message when you ready. Thanks. Dy yol (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Geber/Jabir

Not only is Geber not always Jabir, even Jabir is not always the Persian polymath. Please see pg 33 Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jabir Ibn Hayyan and His Kitab Al-Ahjar (Book of Stones) By Syed Nomanul Haq Published by Springer, 1994 ISBN 0792332547, 9780792332541 View it here [2] Until well into the 20th century it was believed that there was only one Jabir/Geber however this view is untenable in light of all subsequent research. I have reliable sources.J8079s (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I'm saying this is an Exceptional claim. Because there are many different views regarding this issue, and this problem has not been solved yet. The hundreds of Arabic writings ascribed to Jabir have not yet been properly edited and discussed, So no conclusion can be made. Your argue that "until well into the 20th century it was believed that there was only one Jabir/Geber" is also wrong. "The Geber Problem" was there since the end of 19th century or even before. --Wayiran (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which claim you are calling "exceptional".

we agree there is a "Geber Problem"
do we agree there is a "Jabir Problem"?
I think we agree that article should reflect all the "viewpoints" that are found in reliable sources
can we agree too the points made in the next section by Dy yol ?

J8079s (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Let us work for a common ground

Instead of engaging in edit wars, let us work together. I propose the following:

1-The ethnicity issue is a cause of many edit wars, how to deal with it?
2-The opening of the article should be neutral about the question of who is Geber and what he did
3-We should tag the material before deleting it with the relevant tag e.g. source needed or the source does not verify the text, etc and wait for other editors to backup the material. If nobody did, you can delete it
4-Make a single change per edit, so others don't revert all of your changes, and give clear reason at the edit summary.
5-Don't revert multiple edits and better not to revert any edit and try to build consensus and to discuss.
6-If you think that the source given is not reliable or that some material in the article constitute a fringe theory, ask first at the relevent noticeboard and don't force your opinion
7-Assume good faith.

What do you think? Dy yol (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Geber Problem

This version(by Wayiran) is not good but it is slightly better than the other(by Ajrocke ). The grammar is not acceptable and It needs to be expanded. The differences are slight and a great deal of work needs to be done. I am just a weekend wikipedian but I will help as much as I can.J8079s (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a neutral opening paragraph

This is a suggestion for a neutral opening:

Geber is the Latinized form of "Jabir". Large works on alchemy both in Arabic and in Latin are attributed to him.

Traditionally he is identified as Jābir ibn Hayyān (Persian/Arabic جابر ابن حیان) (born c. 721 in Tus, Iran–died c. 815 in Kufa),a prominent Muslim polymath: a chemist and alchemist, astronomer and astrologer, engineer, geologist, philosopher, physicist, and pharmacist and physician. He is considered by many to be one of the "fathers of chemistry." His ethnic background is not clear; although some sources state that he was an Arab, other sources introduce him as Persian.

For a long time, his works was known to the Latin West to be translations from Arabic. But since the end of the 19th century, many scholars have disputed the attribution of some of the Latin works to him, this has been known as the Geber problem. Moreover, some historians have maintained that Jabir is the pen name of a group of Ismaili writers in the ninth and tenth centuries, and that he died—if indeed he ever lived—a century before the Arabic writings ascribed to him were composed (see "The Geber Problem", below).

What do you think? Dy yol (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have enough time to make it with punctuality (As I am on my college break!), but I prefer this one:

Geber is the Latinized form of "Jabir", with the full name of Abu Musa Jābir ibn Hayyān (Persian/Arabic جابر ابن حیان) (born c. 721 in Tus, Iran–died c. 815 in Kufa), a prominent Muslim polymath: a chemist and alchemist, astronomer and astrologer, engineer, geologist, philosopher, physicist, and pharmacist and physician. He is considered by many to be one of the "fathers of chemistry." His ethnic background is not clear; although some sources state that he was an Arab[6], other sources introduce him as Persian.

Jabir emphasized the systematic experimentation, and did much to free alchemy from superstition and turn it into a science. Jabir is credited with the developing of over twenty types of instruments still in use today, such as the alembic and with the discovery and description of many now-commonplace chemical substances and processes – such as the citric, acetic, hydrochloric, tartaric and nitric acids, distillation, and crystallization.

Geber is held to be the first practical alchemist. His alchemical works are highly esoteric and probably coded. He also paved the way for most of the later Islamic alchemists, including al-Kindi, al-Razi, al-Tughrai and al-Iraqi, who lived in the 9th-13th centuries. His books strongly influenced the medieval European alchemists and justified their search for the philosopher's stone.

As early as the tenth century, the identity of Geber appears to have been disputed. His existence, the attribution of some of the Latin works to him, and whether his name was a pen name of a group of Ismaili writers, or the date of his death, are the subjects of these disputes.

--Wayiran (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think your version is neutral. As shown in mainstream encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta, the contemporary view on Geber is very different from the traditional view. Quoting from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Dy yol (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We should not put the detailed information in the lead section. We have already given the relevant information in details in the Geber's Problem section, and this is as per the WP:NPOV enough. In my version, I've "mentioned" it in the lead section and this is enough for lead section as per the WP:lead section. Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The most important question is "who is Geber?". The lead section should give summary of the different significant views in neutral language. Your version give one detailed view in biased language. Dy yol (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my version, I have written:

"His existence, the attribution of some of the Latin works to him, and whether his name was a pen name of a group of Ismaili writers, or the date of his death, are the subjects of these disputes."

1- Existence

2- attribution of some of the Latin works to him

3- whether his name was a pen name of a group of Ismaili writers

4- the date of his death

These are the issues which have been mentioned in my version. It was really interesting to see that you have written: "Your version give ONE detailed view in BIASED language." !!!

As per the wikipedia:lead section, the lead section should cover the summary of the article, and not the issues in detail. Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There are roughly 2 views on Geber/Jabir, a traditional and a contemporary view. Your version give only one view or at least undue weight to one view. Where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth". Dy yol (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dy yol. To cite only one example of POV in Wayiran's suggested opening: he writes that the identity of Geber "appears" to have been disputed. There's no "appearance" about it. The identity of Geber has been disputed, discussed, and investigated since the tenth century. Outstanding historical forensic research from the 1870s to the present has consistently established that more than one person was responsible for the Arabic and the Latin corpus attributed to Geber/Jabir. All recent professional historical literature, and all current mainstream encyclopedias (even if one excludes Britannica, which Wayiran considers to be biased) confirm this. To write otherwise, as in Wayiran's suggested opening, is POV. Ajrocke (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I offered some helpful edits for the "Geber problem" section, taking account of Wayiran's newer edits and retaining them as much as possible. Crosland's comment is now 47 years old, and it was relevant to note that. The Latin Geber's book Summa Perfectionis is not known in any Arabic version, so the word "however" would have been misleading. I retained all source citations by previous editors, but eliminated a couple of sentences that would have been appropriate at the beginning of the article, but not where the section is presently placed. Ajrocke (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, as it was providing the incorrect information which was saying "Jabir, ... is said to have written Latin works under the name of Geber..." !!!!!!!! I'm sorry, but Geber never ever wrote anything in Latin, but the Latin works of him are the translations of his Arabic works. Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I support your edit Wayiran. The fact of the matter is that the two arguments of the users (Ajrocke and Dy yol) and their sources are based on

Since there is no Arabic version left, so Jabir eb Hayyan was not the writer, hence the creation of Geber. (see page 280 of the book for this statement)
Dy yol says As shown in mainstream encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta,

These are unacceptable. No matter how well-sourced they are.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the phrase you object so strongly to, "Jabir, ... is said to have written Latin works under the name of Geber..." was not mine, but that of another editor. I actually agree with your criticism, and invite you to change this poor sentence. The sentence in question is one that I never changed in my latest edits! So your response to this false accusation is to remove ALL of the edits that I DID make. Please tell me what is wrong with any of the edits that I actually made. Otherwise, I would be very grateful if you would revert back to what I had done.Ajrocke (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this that of another editor? Obviously this edit has been done by you, and is not faithful to the source provided for it. I mean this part:

Jabir, by reputation the greatest chemist of Islam and author of many treatises in Arabic, is said to have written Latin works under the name of Geber, which is the medieval rendering of the Arabic Jabir, the Geberu of the Middle Ages.

Which has been unfortunately reverted by user Dy yol again to your incorrect version! Can you please tell him that your version is lacking in sourcing, and at least this part should be removed. Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Truth about Geber/Jabir

Wikipedia is not about the truth or logic the info must be based on what is verifiable in reliable sourses. If you want an article based on "the Truth" ,as you see it, you should try a different wiki. All the controversies (both sides) will be reflected in the article. J8079s (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry

This section is a mess. Repetions that I noticed in this section that should be merged:

In the 1st paragragh

He emphasised systematic experimentation

in the 3rd paragragh

He clearly recognized and proclaimed the importance of experimentation

In the 1st paragragh

He is credited with the invention of over twenty types of now-basic chemical laboratory equipment .... and with the discovery and description of many now-commonplace chemical substances and processes

in the 4th paragragh

Jabir is also credited with the invention and development of a number of chemical substances and instruments that are still used today

In the 1st paragragh

such as the hydrochloric and nitric acids, distillation

in the 4th paragragh

He discovered sulfuric acid, and by distilling it together with various salts, Jabir discovered hydrochloric acid (from salt) and nitric acid (from saltpeter)... He is also credited with the discovery of citric acid (the sour component of lemons and other unripe fruits), acetic acid (from vinegar), and tartaric acid (from wine-making residues). Jabir also discovered and isolated several chemical elements, such as arsenic, antimony and bismuth.

Some portions in the chemistry section belong to the alchemy section:

He also paved the way for most of the later Islamic alchemists, including al-Kindi, al-Razi, al-Tughrai and al-Iraqi, who lived in the 9th-13th centuries. His books strongly influenced the medieval European alchemists and justified their search for the philosopher's stone.

Dy yol (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to have a Chemistry contribution section (and it seems we must) It will need citations from the work that they found in.J8079s (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So -- who discovered Sulphuric acid?

This article currently credits Geber with the discovery of Sulphuric acid. However our article on "false Geber", an impostor who published his own work under Geber's name, was the first to describe Sulphuric acid. Other sources I have read back up this interpretation. So -- what is the source of the assertion that the original Geber discovered Sulphuric acid? If there is no source this passage should be struck. If false Geber is the first to write about Sulphuric acid in a systematic, useful, methodical manner, but the original Geber's writing contained a passing mention to a substance later readers could infer was Sulphuric acid I think the article should say that.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good try. But your mistake seems to be: you assume the hypothesis (of existence of "false Geber"), and then argue about the true geber.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

recent edit

I deleted/reverted the edit which added: "No factual claims can be made about him with certainty." What is this? Out of context? Factual claim about what aspect? Your edit sounds like, we even don't know he lived on earth. Come on.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Jabir is fictional are supported by Kraus, Bertholt, Ruska, and others (dating to the tenth century). Claims that Jabir is not entirely fictional are supported by Holmyard, Sezgin, Lory, and Haq. Syed Nomanul Haq in his book Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jabir Ibn Hayyan and His Kitab Al-Ahjar (Book of Stones) and his web essay http://cis-ca.org/voices/j/jabir.htm (about his own book) makes the case for a real Jabir. His work is careful and scholarly. He does not present his work as conclusive but raises many questions about the work of others (Kraus in particular). I agree that web based sources are not the best but they are not deleted out of hand and Haq's essay is supported by his published work. Everything about him (Jabir) claimed by one source is disputed by another. We are not here (on wikipedia) to resolve the controversy only to report them. I ask you to show good faith. If you dont like Haq's work take it to the WP:RSN noticeboard. In the mean time restore the edit.J8079s (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes non-europeans are all fictional. Science was under earth reserved for/discovered by europeans during their dark ages (ok?). ... come on. Enough is enough. All these stories are mainly the work of Kraus. Why wikipedia should mention his/her name at all? Note WP:UNDUE. Minority view has no place in wikipedia as stated clearly in wiki help pages. Now you have given reference to somebody called haq and his references are Kraus. But the article already is full of his/her theory. So what are you doing? ONE PERSON's opinion can not be given heavy weight. If it really bothers you to have an article about a fictional person, then just delete the article and create another article called "the beautiful remarkable exceptional theory of Kraus". So overall, either delete the article or stop pushing your pov more than this.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the truth or logic the info must be based on what is verifiable in reliable sourses. If you want an article based on "the Truth" ,as you see it, you should try a different wiki. If you wish to dispute Paul Kraus you will need a reliable source, like Syed Nomanul Haq for instance.J8079s (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE IS FULL OF KRAUS FICTION. ENOUGH.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Geber was not born in "Iran"

I am concerned by the constant nationalism displayed on these Wikipedia pages.

Geber was born in Tus, which was then part of the Umayyad Caliphate. He died in Kufa, which was then under the control of the Abbasid Caliphate. To say he was born in Iran is to link to the page of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Geber is notable as an Arabic-language writer, and his name is given in standard Arabic format and in the Arabic language. Why do we have it as "Persian"?

The neutral thing is to avoid anachronisms. Plus, please use the {{lang}} template. Ogress _smash! 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Be careful. To call "correction of your edit" nationalism is in violation of wiki rules. 2. "Caliphate" can not mean country or state or anything in that direction. This is obvious for those who know otherwise use some online dictionaries. 3. the information you had added were already in the text if you read few more lines. 4. Since there is no "al" in front of his surname, his name can not be considered Arabic. "from arabic" is not the same as arabic. Morepver personal names do not have ethnicity, look at the example "david",... 5. Iran has always been called Iran and the connection to Islamic republic has 30 out 2500 years weight, so if someone seeing Iran in front of Tus and read the birth-date of Geber and still thinks of Islamic republic of Iran, then something serious has to be done in all wikipedia. --Xashaiar (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the Abbasid designation, they were just a dynasty. I do, however, agree with you on the usage of the standard Arabic format. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I removed "Iran" too, there is no need for a geopolitical designation of any kind in the lead, mentioning the city of birth/death is sufficient. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

npov

This has grown quite tedious.the Arab Persian debate must be reflected in a neutral way. Please show good faith. J8079s (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there an issue with stating that his ethnicity is debated by a minority of sources? Because most of the major sources, Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, state him to be Arab. Even if we list many minor books compared to these respectable encyclopedias, we are breaking WP:UNDUE by stating the ethnicity is simply debated when it seems the major sources are agreeing he is Arab and do not make mention of this controversy. I have my hands full with articles on Afghanistan and Pashtuns at the moment, and don't wish to be drawn too deeply into yet another Persian-or-Arab-or-Muslim conflict like this, however I was requested by Izady to give some assistance. I wish the best of luck to all involved, <shamless-advertising> and invite those tired of these conflicts to WP:Afghanistan to help us organize the project. </shameless-advertising> --Afghana ^[talk] 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I do not have knowledge of the specifics you are referring to above, there is absolutely nothing reputable about the Encarta encyclopaedia. Have you ever read it? Few of its entries are even useful for a 10 year old... To claim that these encyclopedic articles, frequently written by non-scholars and in the case of Encarta by hacks, are a viable source of knowledge is absurd. There is a huge difference between peer-reviewed materials and the schlep encyclopedias you are referring to... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a Tibetan Buddhist tradition that Jabir (or Dza-bir) was an Indian yogi. See the articles by Michael Walter (J of Indian Philosophy v20, 1992:425-438; v24, 1996:145-164). Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.51.65 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Discussion Has Been Archived by Werdnabot

This discussion page has had lots of activity and nearly all of it has been removed from this page and archived at:

Talk:Geber/Archive_2

The biggest talking point has been a controversy over Geber's ethnicity... Arab, Persian, Kurdish.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwal111111 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Page rename to Jābir ibn Hayyān?

I was wondering whether we could rename this page to Jābir ibn Hayyān, as there are three people referred to as Geber in English: Jābir ibn Hayyān, Jabir ibn Aflah and pseudo-Geber (whoever that might be). Jābir ibn Hayyān is the name currently most used in English and in other European languages, as can be seen by the references in this article. Then the Geber page could be a disambiguation page for the three figures. This would make it more obvious that Geber has been used as a name for all three, which is hard to tell from the various Wikipedia articles right now. –Syncategoremata (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BE BOLD The page needs lots of help. J8079s (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, as being necessary for proper disambiguation. Aervanath (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Geber → Jābir ibn Hayyān — I am requesting that this page be moved to Jābir ibn Hayyān and the page currently at that address, a redirect to this page, be either moved to this location or else simply deleted. (That page has no talk page and has had just a single edit to create the redirect.) If this goes ahead, I will then make this page, Geber, a disambiguation page for Jābir ibn Hayyān, Jabir ibn Aflah and pseudo-Geber. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose WP:ENGLISH. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this person is usually referred to as Jābir ibn Hayyān, to avoid confusing him with the other two ways in which "Geber" could be understood (as Jabir ibn Aflah or as the pseudo-Geber). If you look at the article's references, for example, most of the titles discussing this author use "Jābir ibn Hayyān", while those discussing the pseudo-Geber use "Geber".

If you would still oppose the move, I could create a "Geber (disambiguation)" page and link to that in a hatnote?

All the best –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hatnotes are always useful; even if moved, there should be one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's very true. Thanks for reminding me. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Support The move. WP:ENGLISH can not help here as all three are known as "Geber". The confusion is historic and needs explaining. A lot of ink has been used to explore whos who. J8079s (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The works of Jābir ibn Hayyān (now called the Jabirian corpus by contemporary sources) and the Latin corpus (original works of pseudo-Geber from the 13th century onwards) were thought to be the work of Jabir ibn Aflah. More research has shown the separation and the importance of each. Wikipedia does a poor job with the works in these three areas. Moving the page is a good start.J8079s (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to this, the identity of pseudo-Geber is currently an open question (see "The Geber Problem" section on this page) and that to have the entry for Jābir ibn Hayyān on a page called "Geber" rather prejudges the outcome of that debate. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appropriateness of ibn appearing between names

Ibn between names is always pronounced "Bin", as indicated in the Arabic spelling (بن) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandward (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Arab/Farsi name spelling

The Arabic: جابر بن حيان spelling is binary identical to both the Persian: جابر بن حيان spelling and the title spelling in ar:جابر بن حيان. The title spelling in fa:جابر بن حیان looks similar but is binary different. Someone plz look into that. -Mkratz (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

the problems

Previous attempts to fix this have been stalemated by a few irredentists but I'll try again.

The Geber problem

Ihde, Aaron John (1984-04-01). The development of modern chemistry Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 9780486642352. [3] (see page 16) is a mainstream wp:rs that says that the Latin works(Summa et al) are not direct translations. They draw on Arabic sources but reflect the state knowledge in AD 1300 not AD 800 in other words showing 500 years of progress and that Geber(the author/eitor of Summa) is not the 8th century Jabir. I can find no contemporary WP:RS sources that say he is although some say there is debate none articulate the nature of such debate.The source that there is still a debate; Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven John; Wallis, Faith (2005). Medieval science, technology, and medicine: an encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 9780415969307. [4]

Just a foot note from Holmyard Makers of Chemistry 1 It should, however, be stated that the general opinion of those best qualified to judge is that the Latin works are not authentic. The present writer is practically alone in believing that they may be.

The Jabir problem

That some or all of the Arabic corpus was written later. For an overview please see Peter Lory's article Kimia [[5]]. For a more detailed look please see Haq, Syed Nomanul; Jabir ibn Hayyan (1994). Names, Natures and Things: Jabir ibn Hayyan and His Kitab Al-Ahjar (Book of Stones). Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0792325877.[6]

Thank you for your time and interest J8079s (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to second the information from J8079s and to note that the obvious promoter of the opinion that the works of pseudo-Geber are translations from Arabic texts is Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, whose latest salvo is available on his website and is forthcoming in the Journal for the History of Arabic Science (volume 15 I think; I've not yet seen it). I'm still to be convinced by any of his many essays on this subject, though it is entirely possible that the discovery and study of more works of Islamic alchemy works could change this. As an area of study, this field is dreadfully immature.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem sources

As per [7] WP:Rfc jagged is not the only problem here see talk arcives

Ansari, Farzana Latif; Qureshi, Rumana; Qureshi, Masood Latif (1998), Electrocyclic reactions: from fundamentals to research, Wiley-VCH, p. ii (not page 2), ISBN 3527297553 The book is dedicated to Jabir but cites no sources for the assertions.
Derewenda, Zygmunt S. (2007), "On wine, chirality and crystallography", Acta Crystallographica A 64: 246–258 [8] Does not give a source for his assertions. He does provide a bibliography but I don't recognize any names of Jabir/Geber scholars.
Koningsveld, Ronald; Stockmayer, Walter H. (2001), Polymer Phase Diagrams: A Textbook, Oxford University Press, pp. xii-xiii, ISBN 0198556349 contains a quote (rendered incorrectly in the article) and correctly credits Holmyard The Makers of Chemistry the real quote:

"The first essential in chemistry is that thou shouldest perform
practical work and conduct experiments, for he who performs not
practical work nor makes experiments will never attain to the least
degree of mastery. But thou, O my son, do thou experiment so
that thou mayest acquire knowledge.

Scientists delight not in abundance of material ; they rejoice only
in the excellence of their experimental methods."

The views of Holmyard (Holmyard, Eric John (1931). Makers of Chemistry, by Eric John Holmyard, Clarendon press. [9].) are misrepresented As Holmyard says in the preface to The Makers of Chemistry 1931 AD

Though I have had very large recourse to original authorities, I do not claim to have used no other. Students of the history of chemistry will recognize my debt to Kopp, Hoefer, Ferguson, Thomson, Stillman, von Meyer, von Lippmann, Berthelot and other scholars, which indeed I frankly and gratefully acknow- ledge. Unfortunately, the new discoveries concerning the works of Jabir ibn Hayyan, announced a short time ago by Ruska and his collaborators, came too late for me to make use of them ; but it is still uncertain what their true import may be.

On page 60

There are, however, certain other Latin works, entitled The Sum of Perfection, The Investigation of Perfection, The Invention of Verity, The Book of Furnaces, and The Testament, which pass under his name but of which no Arabic original is known. A problem which historians of chemistry have not yet succeeded in solving is whether these works are genuine or not.

He goes on to argue for Jabir and says on page 63

The authenticity of the books under consideration is therefore still uncertain. It is possible that they are genuine translations from Arabic books of Jabir ; or that they are genuine translations from Arabic books of other chemists ; or that they are summaries, made in medieval Europe, of Jabir's Arabic books; or that they are medieval European forgeries made by an unknown author and merely fathered upon Jabir in order to ensure a favourable reception. Whatever the future may disclose concerning them, we may safely say that they are not unworthy of Jabir and that he is worthy of them ; and that we know of no other chemist, Muslim or Christian, who could for one moment be imagined to have written them.

However by 1957 AD when he (Holmyard) wrote Alchemy. Courier Dover Publications. p. 134. ISBN 9780486262987. [10] Holmyard had abandoned the idea of an Arabic original. (although they are based on "Islamic" alchemical theories)
The question at once arises whether the Latin works are genuine translations from the Arabic, or written by a Latin author and, according to common practice, ascribed to Jabir in order to heighten their authority. That they are based on Muslim alchemical theory and practice is not questioned, but the same may be said of most Latin treatises on alchemy of that period; and from various turns of phrase it seems likely that their author could read Arabic. But the general style of the works is to clear and systematic to find a close parallel in any of the known writings of the Jabirian corpus, and we look in vain in them for any references to the characteristically Jabirian ideas of "balance" and the alphabetic numerology. Indeed for their age they have a remarkably matter of fact air about them, theory being stated with a minimum of prolixity and much precise practical detail being given. The general impression they convey is that they are the product of an occidental rather than an oriental mind, and a likely guess would be that they were written by a European scholar, possibly in Moorish Spain. Whatever their origin, they became the principal authorities in early Western alchemy and held that position for two or there centuries.
(emphasis mine)

Strathern, Paul (2001-04-03). Mendeleyev's dream: the quest for the elements. Macmillan. ISBN 9780312262044. [11]. Strathern appears to be wrong here pg 43 everyone else says sulphur and mercury are philosophical elements not chemical (see AMBIX, Vol. 53, No. 1, March 2006, 43–65 © Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 2006 DOI 10.1179/174582306X93183 The Mineral Exhalation Theory of Metallogenesis in Pre-Modern Mineral Science JOHN A. NORRIS Czech Geological Survey, Prague or Holmyard, Eric John (1931). Makers of Chemistry, by Eric John Holmyard, Clarendon press. [12] pgs 57 and 58) and equivalent to the "exhalations" of Aristotle they are not original to Jabir though his contributions are important.
the self-published website History of Science and Technology in Islam view's expressed there are not supported by the sources he cites

There is more but that is enough for now. J8079s (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that J8079s. Just to follow up on two of the issues raised here:

As you point out, in his 1931 book, Holmyard agrees with Berthelot's that pseudo-Geber's works are of Latin not Arabic origin. Yet al-Hassan in his articles (such as this one) (Archive link RF 20141029) can still refer to "the definitive judgments by Holmyard" that the pseudo-Geberian corpus is translated from the Arabic, since he carefully only pays attention to Holmyard's "series of papers published between 1922 and 1928". It is this sort of misrepresentation (or ignorance) of the sources, amongst other problems, that makes me very wary of al-Hassan's work (whether his self-published information or the material he publishes in journals).
The assertions about Jabir in Derewenda's paper do seem to be unsourced; none of the references in that paper contain anything about Geber so far as I can see (or at the very least, none of them are themselves good sources for that information).
And yes, Strathern appears to be deeply confused about mercury and sulfur. I'll have a look at his book the next time I'm in the relevant library here.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

More source issues

Ahmad Y. Al-Hassan's (see Syncategoremata's comment above) has pulled some of his essays into book form, which is cited in the article. I don't believe his book is a RS for these claims:

According to Forbes "no proof was ever found that the Arabs knew alcohol or any mineral acid in a period before they were discovered in Italy, whatever the opinion of some modern authors may be on this point."^{[MP 1]} However this claim is due to Forbes (and others) lack of knowledge of Arabic texts, and a number of instances of distillation of wine have been found by Ahmad Y. Al-Hassan.^{[MP 2]} Fractional distillation of alcohol first occurs about 1100 probably in Salerno. Magister Salernus (died 1167) provides one of the earliest direct recipes.^[1] Directions to make sulfuric acid, nitric acid and aqua regis appear in the pseudo-Geberian works Liber Fornacum, De inventione perfectionis, and the Summa.^[1]

^ Forbes, Robert James (1970). A short history of the art of distillation: from the beginnings up to the death of Cellier Blumenthal. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-00617-1. Retrieved 26 June 2010.

^ "Studies in al-Kimya - critical issues in Latin and Arabic Alchemy" by Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, published by Georg Olms Verlag 2009. Chapter 9 "Alcohol and the distillation of wine in Arabic Sources from the 8th century."

The review of Al-Hassan's work by Ferrario [13] concludes:

It is a real shame that a book dealing with such a vast and articulate matter, which could prompt interesting and challenging questions in the history of Arabic and Latin chemistry, is flawed by so many mistakes and editorial inaccuracies. No doubt Al-Hassan’s arguments could have the fiery strength to raise a vivid scholarly debate, but unfortunately the apparent lack of care in the preparation of this monograph makes it look more like a provisional record of interesting research and thoughts than like a finished and well meditated scholarly work. [14]

For these reasons and the concern already raised, I am removing the bolded sentence from the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

/* Laboratory equipment and material */

This was the chemistry section what is here is some of the worst of wikipedia some of these things are older than Jabir some are newer (mineral acids most notable) some of the sources are bad some are misused. Lets remember as we edit this that Jabir was amazing and doesn't need exaggeration.J8079s (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ok using Forbes, Robert James (1970). A short history of the art of distillation: from the beginnings up to the death of Cellier Blumenthal. BRILL. ISBN 9789004006171. Retrieved 22 June 2010. alcohol is first distilled (fractional distillation) in 1100 in Italy. "Distillation" is used in a very different sense by the alchemists, it includes "filtration", expressing oil,extraction with water, and the ancient method of extracting essential oil from plant material with fats and oil.( more needed)J8079s (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Geber and Pseudo Geber

Many things attributed to Geber, like the sulphuric acid, aqua regia , aqua fortis and so on, were really discovered by Pseudo-Geber, who was an european alchemist. I think this article deserves a cleanup, and we should verify which things belong to Geber and which to Pseudo-Geber--Knight1993 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Pseudo-Geber was a fake character. It was/is the result of denying the concept of dark ages. In that long period science in the area in which you want to create fake heros for was at best concerned with "how many Genies can be put on the tip of a needle?". Believe it or not, it is true. Xashaiar (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My good friend, everytime I place my interest in a persian- related article you appear. It happened with the Avicenna and Biruni articles, which are in a terrible shape. It happened with the Shahnameh article. Why is that?? I understand you are persian, that is preety obvious from your name and the achaemenid symbol you have in your channel. I have a deep respect for your nation and its history, but I don´t like nationalistic POV in the articles, for ANY nation. The existence of a european alchemist dubbed "Pseudo-Geber" is something well accepted among scholars, and the only ones who deny it are the "Islamic Golden Age" scholars, who cannot tolerate the idea that many of the achievments credited to Geber in the past were in fact made by a ( in their opinion) "dark age" european (when in fact the whole notion of dark ages is losing supporters). I understand you love your nation, but you have to lay aside your nationalistic tendencies and be neutral. And I´m really fed up with the endless discussions about the ethnicity of the medieval islamic scholars.Peace--Knight1993 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer to your question: Please read wp:watchlist. Please try to have minimum amount of capability to work with wikipedia. I am referring to this kind of pages and [15], ... which should answer to your question "Why is that??". 1. "Pseudo-Geber"and alike did not exist and were/being created by Eurocentric Academic centers. 2. love stories, as you put it, play no role here. 3. You say "I´m really fed up with the endless discussions about the ethnicity". This discussion has nothing to do with ethnicity and for me: I´m really fed up with the endless Eurocentric POV pushing! Xashaiar (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But that is not a valid reasoning when making an encyclopedia, since proper Wikipedians don't care about truth, only by correctly reflecting the outside academic opinions outside Wikipedia, whether biased or not! The only thing that we proper Wikipedians care about is attributing each opinion to the proper source and referencing it properly. If f.ex. pro-Persian sources criticise the "Eurocentric Academic centers" for bias, we refer to those cricisms too. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Extlinks

The list of external links needs an update: most of those links malbehaves, such as 404 (not found) mainsites have no unrestricted access to anything about Jabir, redirects to Amazon who popups dangerosities etc.. A "googling" (search-engining) might be profitable. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For Wiqi55

"The Nisba al-Azdin certainly does NOT necessarily indicate Arab origin. ..." Henry Corbin, "The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy", p. 45. — Z 03:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's just Corbin's view (which he provided no evidence for: like which primary source mentioned that "Azdi" was just a Nesba that he picked up from others and not representative of his tribe?). Other historians have disagreed and considered him an Arab. We should mentioned both views equally. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

link

just to dump this link [16] hauq's web site J8079s (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

another dump [17] History of Islamic Philosophy by Henry Corbin Translated by Liadain Sherrard with the assistance of Philip Sherrard KEGAN PAUL INTERNATIONAL London and New York in association with ISLAMIC PUBLICATIONS for THE INSTITUTE OF ISMAILI STUDIES London — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2012‎

Persian transliteration

User "In fact" concludes from "born and educated in Tus, Persia" that Jabir spoke Persian. That's WP:OR that's not worthy of inclusion in this article.

And even if you did find a source claiming that Jabir spoke Persian, then you still have to justify the need for a Persian transliteration, especially next to the Arabic and Latin ones. We understand the need for the Arabic transliteration given that Jabir undoubtedly wrote in Arabic, and likewise we understand the need for the Latin one due to the reception of his works in the Latin West. Furthermore, the study of Jabir's works continues to be dominated by Euro-American scholarship, not Iranian scholarship. So what is exactly the point of including a Persian transliteration here ? Are you implying that there is this separate "Persian-speaking world" that received Jabir's works differently from the Arabic and Latin ones ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Both languages are written in one script so we can just add "(جابر بن حيان)". --Z 10:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me start with an example, if someone was born and educated in France, can you possibly claim that he does not speak French ?! Or if someone was born and educated in Saudi Arabia, can you possibly think that he does not speak Arabic ?!!!

In Arabic, there is a saying : It is more clear than the SUN

This is so obvious and there is no need to discuss it. You are actually wasting my time.

The reason he had to write in Arabic was that in that time, Arabic was the international language. scientists had to write in Arabic. Just like nowadays that they write in English. In fact 08:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think your example misses the fact that Persian was not the only native language in Persia. For one example, take the region of Khawarizm. We know that Biruni's native language was Khwarizmian and not Persian. We also know that sometimes before the 8th century Turkish tribes settled in Khawarizm, especially in the province of Kerder. According to Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, their presence among the Khwarizmians led to the development of a hybrid language that was "neither Turkish nor Khwarizmian". To conclude, someone living in Persia tells us nothing about their native language. It could be anything. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Regardless of what language(s) Jabir spoke, there is no evidence that he wrote any work in Persian, or that any of his works survived in Persian translations. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not use Geber. That's the most common name and the name he's known in English.--Wester (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Khwarizmians are an Iranian people of East Iranian stock, similar to the Pashtuns, Sogdians, Yaghnobis and Scythians. Al-Biruni was an East Iranian Khwarezmian. Not Persian. I think I actually read somewhere that he preferred Arabic to Persian. 173.15.19.73 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Jabir ibn Hayyan (copied from my talk page to be continued here)

There are many sources which show that Jabir ibn Hayyan is a Persian AyOuBoXe (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi AyOuBoXe. There are also many sources which show that he is an Arab. The consensus arrived on the talk pages is to use both. See Talk:Jābir ibn Hayyān/Archive 2 for example. A couple of times a month someone removes either Persian or Arab, and those of us who watch the page put it back. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

-- https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=KGTxCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Jabir+ibn+Hayyan+is+persian&source=bl&ots=wGWae8GVGg&sig=Mk54uwANBZPGCuonIuNcW9dbqNA&hl=ar&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Jabir%20ibn%20Hayyan%20is%20persian&f=false

--E. J. Holmyard (ed.) The Arabic Works of Jabir ibn Hayyan, translated by Richard Russell in 1678. New York, E. P. Dutton (1928); Also Paris, P.Geuther.

--S.N. Nasr, "Life Sciences, Alchemy and Medicine", The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge, Volume 4, 1975, p. 412

-William R. Newman, Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution, Harvard University Press, 1994. p.94: "According to traditional bio-bibliography of Muslims, Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Persian alchemist who lived at some time in the eight century and wrote a wealth of books on virtually every aspect of natural philosophy"

-William R. Newman, The Occult and Manifest Among the Alchemist, in F. J. Ragep, Sally P Ragep, Steven John Livesey, Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on pre-Modern science held at University of Oklahoma, Brill, 1996/1997, p.178: "This language of extracting the hidden nature formed an important lemma for the extensive corpus associated with the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan"

-Henry Corbin, "The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy", Translated by Joseph H. Rowe, North Atlantic Books, 1998. p.45: "The Nisba al-Azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Geber seems to have been a client of the Azd tribe established in Kufa"

-Tamara M. Green, "The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World)", Brill, 1992. p.177: "His most famous student was the Persian *Jabir ibn Hayyan (b. circa 721 C.E.), under whose name the vast corpus of alchemical writing circulated in the medieval period in both the east and west, although many of the works attributed to Jabir have been demonstrated to be likely product of later Ismaili' tradition."

-David Gordon White, "The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India", University of Chicago Press, 1996. p.447

-William R. Newman, Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature, University of Chicago Press, 2004. p.181: "The corpus ascribed to the eight-century Persian sage Jabir ibn Hayyan.."

-Wilbur Applebaum, The Scientific revolution and the foundation of modern science, Greenwood Press, 1995. p.44: "The chief source of Arabic alchemy was associated with the name, in its Latinized form, of Geber, an eighth-century Persian."

-Neil Kamil, Fortress of the Soul: Violence, Metaphysics, and Material Life in the Huguenots New World, 1517-1751 (Early America: History, Contextulture), JHU Press, 2005. p.182: "The ninth-century Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan, also known as Geber, is accurately called pseudo-Geber since most of the works published under this name in the West were forgeries"

-Aleksandr Sergeevich Povarennykh, Crystal Chemical Classification of Minerals, Plenum Press, 1972, v.1, ISBN 0-306-30348-5, p.4: "The first to give separate consideration to minerals and other inorganic substances were the following: The Persian alchemist Jabir (721-815)..."

-George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Pub. for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, by the Williams & Wilkins Company, 1931, vol.2 pt.1, page 1044: "Was Geber, as the name would imply, the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Haiyan?"

-Dan Merkur, in The psychoanalytic study of society (eds. Bryce Boyer, et al.), vol. 18, Routledge, ISBN 0-88163-161-2, page 352: "I would note that the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan developed the theory that all metals consist of different 'balances' ..."

-Anthony Gross, The Dissolution of the Lancastrian Kingship: Sir John Fortescue and the Crisis of Monarchy in Fifteenth-century England, Paul Watkins, 1996, ISBN 1-871615-90-9, p.19: "Ever since the Seventy Books attributed to the Persian alchemist Jabir Ibn Hayyan had been translated into Latin ...."

-- Henry Corbin, "The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy", Translated by Joseph H. Rowe, North Atlantic Books, 1998. p.45: "The Nisba al-Azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Geber seems to have been a client of the Azd tribe established in Kufa"AyOuBoXe (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

AyOuBoXe, I am not an expert on science in the Islamic Golden Age. I'm moving (copying) all this to the article talk page. Continue the discussion there with other editors. But please look at the discussions in the Archives, which are now visible at the top of the talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the subject AyOuBoXe (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC) So what you think about Jabir ibn Hayyan.He is a persian or an arab ?AyOuBoXe (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Jabir ibn hayyan was a Arab-Persian he was of mixed stock he most Enclopedias say he was an Arab Persian i dont know how hard it is for people on wikipedia to know this it was common back than there Arabs in Khorshan and central asia who date back to the time of islamic expanision its not really rocket science to know he was of mixed breed my 5 yr old son knows thatAntiIranpropergenda (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jabir ibn Hayyan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

List of secondary literature

This article is almost entirely based on tertiary sources, and it shows. To anyone who is willing to work on the article in the future, I would recommend to base your writing on authors who have actually investigated the Jābirian texts rather than on authors citing these scholars or even authors citing authors who cited them. It is a complex subject, and tertiary sources are very prone to misunderstandings of all sorts. I compiled the following list on the problem of the historical identity of Jābir (on this topic it should be pretty exhaustive), but please do complete the list on other topics.

Please also consider that some scholars in this list have spent (much) more time and energy investigating the Jābirian texts, and should therefore be given more weight. All experts agree that Kraus 1942-1943 remains the single most authoritative source. The second most important would be Lory 1989. Apart from those two, I strongly recommend Holmyard 1927 (this along with Fahd 1970 is the source that should be used for the Hayyan the pharmacist hypothesis, not Holmyard’s 1931 Makers of Chemistry which is a popularizing book that cites no sources), Sezgin 1970-1984 GAS IV, Lory 1983, and Nomanul Haq 1994.

1893 Berthelot, Marcellin & Houdas, Octave V. 1893. La Chimie au Moyen Âge. Vol. I-III. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, vol. I, pp. 336–350

1923 Holmyard, Eric J. “Arabic Chemistry” in: Science Progress, XVII, 1923, pp. 252–261.

1923 Holmyard, Eric J. “Chemistry in Medieval Islam” in: Chemistry and Industry, 1923, p. 387-390 .

1923 Holmyard. “Jābir ibn Ḥayyān” in: PRSM, XVI, 1923, pp. 46–57.

1923 Ruska “Über das Schriftenverzeichnis des Gābir ibn Ḥajjān und die Unechtheit einiger ihm zugeschriebenen Abhandlungen” in: AGM, XV, 1923, pp. 53–67.

1924 Holmyard, Eric J. “A Critical Examination of Berthelot's Work upon Arabic Chemistry” in: Isis, VI, pp. 479–499.

1924 Ruska. Arabische Alchemisten II: Gaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, der sechste Imām. Arbeiten aus dem Institut für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, 10. Heidelb.: Carl Winter, 1924, p. 41 e.v.

1925 Holmyard, Eric J. “The Present Position of the Geber Problem” in: Science Progress, XIX, 1925, pp. 415–426.

1925 Ruska, Julius. “Probleme der Gabir-Forschung” in: Der Islam, 14, 1925, S. 100-104. (review of Holmyard 1923 “Jābir ibn Ḥayyān” in PRSM)

1927 Holmyard, Eric J. “An Essay on Jābir ibn Ḥayyān” in: Studien zur Geschichte der Chemie, Festgabe für E. O. von Lippmann, Berlin 1927, p. 28-37.

1927 Ruska, Julius. “Die siebzig Bücher des Gābir ibn Ḥajjān” in: Studien zur Geschichte der Chemie, Festgabe für E. O. von Lippmann, Berlin 1927, p. 38-47.

1927 Ruska, Julius. “Über Gābir ibn Ḥajjān und seine Beziehungen zum Imām Gaʿfar aṣ-Ṣādiq” in: Der Islam, XVI, 1927, pp. 264–266.

1928 Ruska, J. "Das Giftbuch des Gabir ibn Hajjan" in: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Jan 1, 1928, Vol.31, p.453-456.

1929 Ruska, Julius. “The History and Present Status of the Jaber Problem” in: Journal for Chemical Education, VI, 1929, pp. 1266–1276.

1930 Ruska, Julius. “Die bisherigen Versuche das Dschābir-Problem zu lösen” in: Dritter Jahresbericht des Forschungsinstituts für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften (Mit einer Wissenschaftlichen Beilage. Der Zusammenbruch der Dschābir-Legende), Berlin 1930, pp. 9–22.

1930 Kraus, Paul. “Dschābir ibn Ḥajjān und die Ismāʿīlijja”, Berlin 1930. (reprinted in Kraus, Paul. Alchemie, Ketzerei, Apokryphen im frühen Islam. Hildesheim et al., Olms, 1994, pp. 27-46.)

1931 Kraus, Paul. “Studien zu Jābir ibn Hayyān” in: Isis, XV, 1, 1931, pp. 7–30.

1936 Stapleton, H.E. “Further Notes on the Arabic Alchemical Manuscripts in the Libraries of India” in: Isis, 1936, Vol.26(1), p.127.

1937 Ruska. “The History of the Jābir Problem” in: Islamic Culture, XI, 1937, pp. 303–312.

1939 Ruska & Garbers, Karl. “Vorschriften zur Herstellung von scharfen Wässern bei Gabir und Razi” in: Der Islam, 25, 1939, pp. 1-34.

1942-1943 Kraus, Paul. Jâbir ibn Hayyân, Contribution à l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam. I. Le corpus des écrits jâbiriens. Cairo (1942–1943), I, pp. I-LXV.

1950 Corbin, Henry. “Le Livre du Glorieux” in: Eranos-Jahrbuch, XVIII, Zürich, 1950, pp. 47-114. [reprinted in Corbin, Henry 1986. Alchimie comme art hiératique. Editions de l'Herne, pp. 145-219]

1953 Stapleton, H.E. “The Antiquity of Alchemy” in: Ambix, 1953, Vol.5(1-2), pp.1-43.

1957 Holmyard, E.J. Alchemy. Harmondsworth: Penguin [reprint New York: Dover]

1961 Haschmi, Mohamed Yahia. “The beginning of Arab Alchemy” in: Ambix, 9, pp. 155-161.

1964 Sezgin, Fuat. “Das Problem des Jâbir ibn Hayyân im Lichte neuer gefundener Handschriften” in: ZDMG, 114, 1964, pp. 255-268.

1965 Plessner, Martin. “ Jâbir ibn Hayyân und die Zeit der Entstehung der Jâbir-Schriften” in: ZDMG, 115, 1965, pp. 23-35.

1969 Plessner, M. “Geber and Jābir IBN Hayyān: an Authentic Sixteenth-Century Quotation from Jābir” in: Ambix, 01 November 1969, Vol.16(3), pp.113-118.

1970 Fahd, Toufic (Tawfiq). “Ja far al-Sâdiq et la tradition scientifique arabe.” in: Le shî'isme Imâmite. Travaux du Centre d'études supérieures d'histoire des religions de Strasbourg. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970, pp. 131-142.

1970-1984 Sezgin, Fuat. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (GAS). Leiden: Brill. Vol. III, pp. 211–223, pp. 358–359; vol IV, pp. 330-331, pp. 132–229-269; vol. V, pp. 219–225; vol. VI, pp. 129–135; vol. VII, pp. 108–110, pp. 233–236; vol. IX, pp. 230–232.

1972 Plessner, Martin. “The history of Arabic Literature” [= review of Sezgin, GAS IV] in: Ambix, Vol.19(3), pp.209-215.

1972 Rex, Friedemann. “Fuat Sezgin: Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, Band IV” [review] in: Der Islam, 1972, 49, pp. 305-310.

1972 Ullmann, Manfred. Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam. Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1, 6, 2. Leiden: Brill, 1972, pp. 198–208.

1975 Rex, Friedemann 1975. Zur Theorie der Naturprozesse in der früharabischen Wissenschaft : das Kitāb al-ihrāg, übersetzt und erklärt, ein Beitrag zum alchemistischen Weltbild der Gābir-schriften (8./10. Jahrhundert n. Chr.). Wiesbaden: Steiner.

1979 Zirnis, Peter. The Kitāb Usṭuqus Al-Uss of Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān. PhD thesis, 1979, New York University 140.

1983 Lory, Pierre. Dix traités d’alchimie de Jâbir ibn Hayyân. Les dix premiers Traités du 'Livre des Soixante-dix'. Textes traduits et présentés. Paris: Sindbad.

1986 Marquet, Yves. “Quelles furent les relations entre 'Jâbir ibn Ḥayyân' et les Iḫwân aṣ-Ṣafâ’?” in: Studia Islamica, 1986, Vol.64, pp.39-51.

1988 Lory, Pierre 1988. Tadbīr al-’Iksīr al-’A‘ẓam - ‘Arba‘a ‘ashara risāla fī ṣan‘at al-kimyā’ – Gābir Ibn Ḥayyān. Damascus: al-Ma‘had al-‘Ilmī al-Faransī li-l-Dirāsāt al-‘Arabiyya.

1989 Lory, Pierre. Alchimie et mystique en terre d’Islam. Collection « Islam spirituel ». Lagrasse: Verdier. (2d ed. éditions Gallimard, folio/essais, 2003)

1994 Nomanul Haq, Syed (Ed.). Names, natures and things : the alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan and his Kitab al-Ahjar (Book of stones). Dordrecht : Kluwer, 1994.

1998 Gannagé, Emma. Le commentaire d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise In de generatione et corruptione perdu en grec, retrouvé en arabe dans Gabir Ibn Hayyan, Kitab al-Tasrif. Édition, traduction annotée et commentaire par Emma Gannagé. PhD Dissertation, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1998. pp. 260/388/405-451

2000 Lory, Pierre. “Eschatologie alchimique chez jâbir ibn Hayyân” in: Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée, 2000(91-94), pp.73-92. [ http://remmm.revues.org/249]

2002 Haq, Syed Nomanul. ”Greek alchemy or Shi`i metaphysics? A preliminary statement concerning Jabir ibn Hayyan's Zahir and Batin Language” in: Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, Vol. 4/ii (2002) 19-32.

2008 De Smet Daniel. “Ja‘far al-Ṣādeq and Esoteric Sciences” in: Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. XIV, Fascicle 4, New York 2008, pp. 362-363. (LORI 50.32 1/1-) (online http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jafar-al-sadeq-iv-and-esoteric-sciences)

2009 Shiloah, Amnon. The Origin of Language and its Link with Music according to the Theory of Jābir ibn Hayyān. (al-Masaq 21-2, 2009, pp. 153-162)

84.193.65.47 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)