Jump to content

Talk:Ismail al-Jazari

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.109.78.28 (talk) at 10:07, 26 March 2012 (→‎He was not an Arab: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

This template goes here : see Template:High-traffic



Qutoe from recent article:

7 The crank-shaft is a device which translates rotary into linear motion and is central to much of the machinery in the modern world, not least the internal combustion engine. One of the most important mechanical inventions in the history of humankind, it was created by an ingenious Muslim engineer called al-Jazari to raise water for irrigation. His 1206 Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices shows he also invented or refined the use of valves and pistons, devised some of the first mechanical clocks driven by water and weights, and was the father of robotics. Among his 50 other inventions was the combination lock.

Paul Vallely, "How Islamic inventors changed the world" 11 March 2006[1] --Ben Houston 15:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does religious affliction seem to be important here when it is seldom, or never mentioned with scientists/inventors from other cultures?

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

Arab? or Syriac?

Al-Jazari came from Northern Mesopotamia, does that really make him Arab or possibly Syriac? Because Syriacs at the time were the majority group living in Mespotamia. At the time, most of the Christian Syriacs turned Muslim to avoid paying the taxes, so he possibly could be Syriac. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC) user:Assyrio

I also would like to state that I don't believe he was Arab at all. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 04:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


He was from a Kurdish city. He was from Cizre, which lies (pretty much) on the border between Syria, Iraq and Turkey. This city has a very small Arabic population, and no Syriacs at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_al-Athir he was born in the same period as him, at the same city; he was also a Kurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.78.28 (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the term robot

The device described in the article is best described an automaton. It is completely misleading to call it a robot. See the definitions at the two linked articles for explanations of what constitutes each type of machine. Lumos3 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rapidly getting out of hand. I'm sure this man had his place in history. Unfortunately, his technologiy was lost at his death and only rediscovered recently, so to suggest he had a "giant" impact on anything is just not true. Like Mendel and genetics. Mendel was rediscovered. da Vinci was mostly lost. He had no impact even though he's given credit for a lot of stuff on which he had no influence. This guy had less influence than that. This article is not credibly documented. Has anyone checked references or the scholarship of the books referenced? Student7 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have again corrected the claim that what Al-Jazari built can be called a robot. An automaton is the correct term here. Lumos3 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive overuse of the word robot all through thae article, a chirping model bird on a clock is called a robot, should I buy a cuckoo clock and tell people I have a robot that tells me the time? The 'humanoid robots' were more like giant music boxes in the shape of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.125.13 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Al-Jazari's machines were robotic. They worked automatically and were even programmable (cam-lever system). InternetHero (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a misquotation: Fowler in his 1967 article says "from the waterclock automata of al-Jazari, with its drums, trumpets and clashing cymbals to the three piece life-sized robot band that performs more than fifty facial and body actions during each musical selection". (p. 45) The robot band he speaks about is not al-Jazari's.Teleshopper (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All by himself?

I realize that many details are missing from that long ago. Still, biographers were able to pin each invention down very precisely. Why no mention of any help? A laboratory-like facility had to be used to come up with this many inventions in his spare time, as it were. He must have had many assistants, yet none are mentioned either by name or number. This creates a slight credibility problem for me.

Also, he produced three important inventions at age 66, the year that he died. No other dates for his inventions are mentioned.

Student7 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

design+construction

I ripped out [2] the D+C subsection as a copyvio of [3] (the other ref used in it was also a copyvio of that (or the other way round) but thats another matter.

I also think several of the claims are implausible - first use of templates or paper models - but that too is another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other devices

I ripped this out too [4]. I don't know where it was copied from, but I can't see why anyone would have added "Other sundry mechanisms" unless they had copied it. Most of this misc list has been mentionned above, anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that? InternetHero (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saqiya

J restored [5] the primacy of Al-J using hydropower to power a saqiya pump, although the primacy of the chinese in general is admitted. I'm not really sure quite what a saqiya pump is, or what makes it so distinct from the chinese pumps. Google hit #1 [6] says its an animal powered pump, but that cant be right William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that "saqiya" is a type of chain pump, but we can't be too certain whether it was the same type that the Chinese were using. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Whether it was identical to the chinese ones is irrelevant - the claim that the article was previously [7] making that "This is the first known description of a water-raising machine being operated by water power." is shown to be nonsense. In your haste to redress the balance against the traditional attitude towards Islamic science, please don't puff these people up to implausible degree or you'll just make them look silly. Comparing this article to Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla is instructive William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is a previous version of the section even relevant to the current discussion? I've already acknowledged the previous version is flawed, or else I would have reverted back to that version if it wasn't. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shows how puffed up this stuff gets. At least one of your previous "facts" was unreliable. Perhaps more are. Certainly the tone is overblown William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep deleting large chunks of reliably-sourced information? No offense, but I think your last few edits have been a bit over-the-top. I am reverting them because I have not yet seen any valid reasons for your unnecessary deletions. Regardless of whether the article is too hyped up or "salivating", things like these can be re-worded or re-written, but deleting large chunks of reliably-sourced information is not the answer. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is reliably sourced is not a killer argument for inclusion. There are lots more quotes that could be pulled out of DRH amongst others. The point is to choose appropriately. For example, the quote "It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of Al-Jazari's work in the history of engineering" appears quite over-the-top. This is but one mans opinion. A rather fairer conclusion is that any conclusions must be tentative because so little research has been undertaken on Arab technology William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

TOC limit

This [8] is a symptom of the article having too many teeny tiny subsections. It needs to be re-written William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved this somewhat by removing some of the sub-section headers, which weren't really needed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double-action suction pump with valves and reciprocating piston engine

This section is backed up by [9], but although it sez "The Origin of the Suction Pump" its actually *about* " LAZAWARD (LAJVARD ) AND ZAFFER COBALT OXIDE IN ISLAMIC AND WESTERN LUSTRE GLASS AND CERAMICS". This needs fixing William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rather than an inventor"

Since I don't have access to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography at the moment, could William perhaps quote the part where it says that al-Jazari was an "engineer rather than an inventor"? I'd like to know the full context behind this rather odd assertion which seems to imply he was not an inventor. Thanks, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nationality?

I don't think this [10] is justified. But from what I gather her could have been kurdish/turkish if born in the same place today? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he an Arab? I doubt it. According to local sources where he live, he was born in the town of the Jezira (modern Cizre in the Turkish Kurdistan). Local people belive that he is a Kurd and member of Botan tribes. Is there any reliable sources to prove this claim? As far as I know, there is not a written source on Al Jazari`s nationality. it is legitimate to ask why any kind of written sources are considered more reliable than the oral sources?. By the way, the town Jezire (Cizre) is a Kurdish town .Murat


Just a question

I wanted to ask this on Yahoo answers, but I don't think they'd even know who Al-Jazari is. Anyway, did his 5th water-raising engine (the double-acting reciprocating piston pump) have a connecting rod that had an opposite "bend" to make sure that the pistons didn't act on an angle??? I would think that with an ordinary connecting rod, the cylinders would have to be on an angle since it swings like a pendulum. Heres a video of it.

Did the pistons have a strong enough support base to not act on an angle---without the need for a correlating bend in the con-rod?? Thanks for your time. It would be MUCH appreciated!! InternetHero (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't possible. InternetHero (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Portrait of Al-Jazari

Hi,

I don't think there were any physical descriptions of the man, nevermind an actual portrait. The one used here is fairly new so I don't think the test of time has anything to do with this. InternetHero (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. 208.96.110.238 (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

engineer

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

There are actual portrait of an individual if its not the actual portrait which is very important then there is no need to put any portrait with the information since it is not the actual person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.161.218 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

His name is way too long! 99.147.63.11 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources

  • Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting: The History of a Technology By John Peter Oleson Published by Springer, 1984 ISBN 9027716935, 9789027716934 628 pages
  • A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times: Irrigation and water supply ; Dams ; Bridges ; Roads ; Building construction ; Surveying Part two, Mechanical engineering : Water-raising machines ; Power from water and wind Part three, Fine technology : Instruments ; Automata ; Clocks ... By Donald Routledge Hill Published by Routledge, 1996 ISBN 0415152917, 9780415152914 263 pages J8079s (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of "first" are not sustained by the sources. J8079s (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crankshaft

Removed the Sally Ganchy reference because on p. 47 is no mention at all of crankshafts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually on page 41, which I've just corrected. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality Kurd.

Guys please these are just fake facts abaout ebuliz. He was from Ciziri in Kurdistan (south-eastern turkey) which has always been kurdish. He might have been in in the powerful kurdish botan tribe. but he was not from Iraq or arab and that i can guarante you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkurdistan (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the people from the UK agree to name Isac Newton an Italian or a Roman scientist because his famous book is in Latin, so let Al Jazari and other Kurdish and Persian scientists and scholars be named Arabs.

Can we leave out the nationalism? He predates all that stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and rework

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

Restored the stubbed version. The one action which postpones the improvement of the article indefinitely is restoring again and again the refuted POV and OR version. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazari definitly was a Turk

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

al-jazari may have been persian

there are some links where it's said al-jazari was persian:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_225/6700-A-Brief-History-Of-Artificial-Life

http://www.thebookpeople.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/qs_product_tbp?storeId=10001&catalogId=10051&langId=100&productId=206207

http://www.intellia.co.nz/game%20design.html

I think that only a few informations are still availlable on that guy, so anyone can say anything about him. My opinion is that he is probably a persian scholar. I don't agree with you when you say there were no persians in that area, this place was under persian domination for many centuries before arabs and turks came there ! please if you have strong sources, quote them, but your opinion is only your opinion and doesn't make it true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.218.32 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was not an Arab

Some claim he was a Turk or a Persian, but got no one who supports you, seeing as there was nothing Turkish/Persian with him. He was from a Kurdish city, and had an Arabic name. Simple as that.

He was not an Arab either, seeing as he was from a Kurdish city. For the people who claim that Cizre was Arabic, please take a look at this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_al-Athir. He was from the same time period, and he was a Kurd. There is nothing that suggests he was an Arab. And if you're going by name, then why not claim all the Persian scientists as Arabs? Exactly, that'd be quite silly.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ismail_al-Jazari&oldid=483988534"