Jump to content

Talk:Ibn al-Haytham

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.109.199.11 (talk) at 10:56, 7 July 2017 (→‎How do we solve this?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good articleIbn al-Haytham was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 14, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Ethnicity

The replacement of Persian with Arabic as ethnicity is wrong. It is like replacing Irish with Celtic or Russian with Slavic. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Arab and Panethnicity "Arabs (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group whose native language is Arabic, comprising the majority of the Arab world." Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. FYI, Wikipedia can not be used to reference Wikipedia. Whereas I have sources stating he was Arab:
  • Science, Medicine and Technology, Ahmad Dallal, The Oxford History of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 192;"Ibn al-Haytham (d. 1039), "..known in the West as Alhazan, was a leading Arab mathematician, astronomer, and physicist. His optical compendium, Kitab al-Manazir, is the greatest medieval work on optics."
  • Ibn al-Haytham, J. Vernet, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. III, ed. B. Lewis, V.L. Menage, C. Pellat, J. Schacht (Brill, 1996), 788;" "IBN AL-HAYXHAM, B. AL-HAYTHAM AL-BASRI, AL-MisRl, was identified towards the end of the 19th century with the ALHAZEN, AVENNATHAN and AVENETAN of mediaeval Latin texts. He is one of the principal Arab mathematicians and, without any doubt, the best physicist."
  • David J. Hess, Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts, (Columbia University Press, 1995), page 66;"It is known that Galileo had a copy of "Opticae Thesaurus" of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), an Arab scholar who is praised today for his experimental method, although views on what this method entails and which importance it has in Ibn al-Haytham's work differ. (Omar 1979:68)." --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying he was not an Arab. I am saying that calling him an Arab is like saying he is a Slav rather than a Russian. I see from previous discussion that the eis sufficient doubt over a more precise categorization so I now agree with the Arab but your links are simply confirmation not an attempt at finding out if there is something more precise. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparing and constrasting is meaningless here. We state what the sources say, not what we interpret(or want) them to say. I could care less what his ethnicity was, what I will argue is the blind removal of referenced information without a discussion and blantantly ignoring what university sources state. Wikipedia:RS & Wikipedia:OR are quite relevant in this case. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put the reference back in as it corroborated that he was well known. I agree that he was Arab. However a quick search on Wikipedia gave lots more references at 112000 on 'Alhazen Persian' than 86000 for 'Alhazen Arab' and just producing references that say 'Arab' does not show anything much because others say Persian and Persian is more specific. Saying Russian rather than Slav or Irish instead of Celtic is better. As I was saying the discussion that went on before showed there was real doubt about the Persian part despite what Google shows about higher numbers. I can easily get sources saying Persian so that sort of stuff is just bias confirmation without the evidence shown at the previous discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket searches are not going to prove anything. Ignoring university sources, gives the impression you are a nationalistic POV pusher. Another "new user" has brought:
  • Renaissance Theories of Vision, by Charles H Carman and John Shannon Hendrix
Charles H Carman, is a professor of Italian Renaissance and Baroque art[1]
John Shannon Hendrix is a professor of Architectural History at the University of Lincoln, UK, and an Adjunct Professor of Art and Architectural History[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither seems qualified to make a statement concerning Alhazen or his ethnicity.
Whereas Encyclopaedia of Islam is made up of academics whose field is Islam and the areas it inhabits.
John Esposito, is an American professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you descend to name calling when I point out problems. Well that's a great way to get improve an article. I had User talk:Khestwol (talk · contribs) come along to my talk page and call me a vandal too. Might I suggest you pair try pointing out the previous discussion at [3] to the person you are warring against on the article page rather than making up your own arguments or reverting without saying anything useful to them? I shall not bother you further in your nice playground here but I would point out WP:CIVILITY and WP:OWN to you both. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to look at subject-specifc encyclopedia's for these cases. The eminent Dictionary of Scientific Biography (online) gives a detailed account of the primary sources, never explicitly ascribes an ethnicity and summarizes it with "About Ibn al-Haytham’s life we have several, not always consistent, reports, most of which come from the thirteenth century." The The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Science, and Technology in Islam gives a similar account, but summarizes the whole article as "Ibn al-Ḥaytam was an eminent eleventh-century Arab optician, geometer, arithmetician, algebraist, astronomer, and engineer." Unless some similarly authoritative source would explicitly claim he wasn't I would therefore simply go with "Arab". Sources such as Renaissance Theories of Vision, which only mention an ethnicity in passage, instead of giving a detailed account of the primary sources are not appropriate. —Ruud 19:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, Kansas Bear invited me on my talk page to give an opinion on the sources. Since I am an uninvolved editor, I hope you will give it due consideration. As far as I can see, it is probably difficult to be sure of anything, and it is definitely worth fighting over. If Basra was a Persian-speaking region at that time, it is very likely that he grew up speaking Persian, but Arabic was certainly the lingua franca and all his work would have been written in Arabic. I agree with Ruud Koot that the best sources to resolve the issue would be biographies. Scientific books, no matter how reliable, would only gloss over the issue. Perhaps you can agree to punt the issue and note his ethnicity as "Persian and Arabic." Notice what we do with Al-Biruni. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just call him Muslim, so we don't have these Arab-Persian wars on Wikipedia. We know at least for sure that he was Muslim.[1] 70.50.212.52 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Persian Wikipedia calls him "Arab and Iranian" (according to Google Translate, and I guess it could also be translated as "Arab and Persian") -- fa:ابن_هیثم. So I think it is reasonable to call him "Arab and Persian" using the same citations given on the Persian Wikipedia. I don't think Caliphates had "no nationalities" in them. Of course there are some cultural groups which exist today which existed before and after a Caliphate was in control. For example, Kurds and some other Persian groups. Many people inside Caliphates were not Muslims. While we know Alhazen was a Muslim, making a 1:1 relationship with cultural identity and religion is just as outdated and wrong as not describing him as a scientist (the archaic equivalent would be "natural philosopher"). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.light2015.org/Home/About/Latest-News/December2014/Laun-Opening-Ceremony.html

Most sources list him as Persian, which would not be surprising given the era he lived in. Still a lot list him as being Arab. But there is certainly clear agreement that he was Arab, as the main editor shows proclivity towards. It should be changed to 'Arab or Persian (or Persian or Arab)'. I think this is as reasonable as other contributors do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:EF90:386A:843D:F048:641C (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? I have seen NO reliable sources stating he was Persian. Instead I see you removing quote(s) from reliable soruces that state he was Arab. Which is disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are quotes 90000 quotes stating he was Arab, more reliable as the 120000 that refer to him as Persian? You have provided extremely arbitrary sources, which themselves do not provide any specific justification for his 'Arab' ethnicity, just as many sources who refer to Al Haytham as 'Persian', do not. Various scholarly sources, list him as being either Persian or Arab - mind you this has been the case for, at least, several decades now. There is no way anyone can determine his ethnicity with good confidence, and it may never be determined. For that, it would only make sense to change his ethnicity to 'Arab or Persian', as another contributor, above, has suggested.2601:882:100:EF90:386A:843D:F048:641C (talk)

I still see NO evidence backed by reliable sources calling him Persian. Your opinion or those of other IPs, most likely the same person, have no influence on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written using published reliable secondary sources, not the opinion(s) of editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


You are wrong. There are NO reliable sources which make it clear that he was Arab. You are clearly biased against any suggestion, no matter how reaonable, that Al Haytham was Persian. You are going against the majority viewpoint which cites him as Persian, and you are not even allowing for the suggestion that he may have been Persian. Your edits are entirely baseless. Please revert to "Arab or Persian". Jpz1979 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illiterate much?
  • "There are NO reliable sources which make it clear that he was Arab."
Can't read?
  • Ibn al-Haytham, J. Vernet, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. III, ed. B. Lewis, V.L. Menage, C. Pellat, J. Schacht (Brill, 1996), 788;" "IBN AL-HAYXHAM, B. AL-HAYTHAM AL-BASRI, AL-MisRl, was identified towards the end of the 19th century with the ALHAZEN, AVENNATHAN and AVENETAN of mediaeval Latin texts. He is one of the principal Arab mathematicians and, without any doubt, the best physicist."
  • "It is known that Galileo had a copy of "Opticae Thesaurus" of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), an Arab scholar who is praised today for his experimental method, although views on what this method entails and which importance it has in Ibn al-Haytham's work differ." -- Hess, David J. (1995), Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts, page 66.
Reasonable? You have produce NO reliable sources! LOL. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not sources that make it clear he was arab, but rather, sources that clearly state he was an arab. But such statements are ubiquitous and, unfortunately, always ungrounded. There are plenty of scholarly sources, which similarly suggest, that he was Persian. Ignoring the body of conflicting opinions, can only be described as Cherry picking. At this point, there is no sound basis for excluding Persian as his possible ethnicity.

Maybe you should direct your energy towards research instead of baseless, ignorant accusations directed at another editor.
"There are plenty of scholarly sources, which similarly suggest, that he was Persian."
And yet you haven't presented any. Instead you have attributed your lack of reliable sources to accusing me of bias and cherry picking.
"there is no sound basis for excluding Persian as his possible ethnicity."
Except you have NO reliable sources. LMAO.
"Those are not sources that make it clear he was arab, but rather, sources that clearly state he was an arab."
I believe Wikipedia:COMPETENCE is coming into play here. BOOM! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just go back through a few hundred of your corrupt edits, and I'm sure you will find all the sources supporting he was Persian. There have already been countless references for this, and you have mindlessly removed them. "I believe Wikipedia:COMPETENCE is coming into play here." More like your incompetence in grasping the English language. 2601:882:100:EF90:B569:5681:F528:93CB (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell should we care what his ethnicity was? I mean, seriously! The only reason this would matter to anyone would be either: (a) to feed their own hubris, and/or to (b) cause further racial tension and division. Well, guess what? Neither of those reasons have any value whatsoever. They only serve to tarnish the image of this amazing man. —grolltech(talk) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that currently the vast majority or 80% to 90% of both Iraq and Basra population is Arab. 45.116.233.18 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persian ethnicity

Hi everybody, i added Persian for his ethnicity as Institute of physics states so. I would like to say that one must consider the historical situation at that time: Arab language was just like English today, and all scholars at that time used to write in Arabic, this is why they are often listed as "Arabs". For example, Britannica lists the Persian scholar Nasir ibn al-Tusi as Arab: https://www.britannica.com/topic/trigonometry "Several Arab scholars, notably Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1201–74) and al-Bāttāni, continued to develop spherical trigonometry and brought it to its present form." Of course some "Arab" scholars were true ethnic Arabs, my aim is not to minimise Arab contribution which is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.225.246.222 (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physics.org is not a reliable source for Islamic history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kansas Bear:, i can see you're reverting all sources without any explanation, Ibn Al-Haytham was a scientist and i think that the IOP of London is a more reliable source that your sole opinion. They are dealing with all physicians and not only muslims, that's not a reason to say they are not reliables...It's easy to revert all changees just because you don't want to admit that the ethnicity of that scholar is NOT clear and doing so means you don't respect the rules of Wikipedia, and apparently you just don't care about that. So could you please give me an explanation for that ? or maybe it's because you just don't like Persians ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.218.32 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing of sourced material

I added some sources which support the Persian ethnicity of Alhazen. These sources are:

  • Child, John; Hodge, Tim; Shuter, Paul; Taylor, David (1992). Understanding history (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. p. 70. ISBN 0-435-31211-1.
  • Dessel, Norman F.; Nehrich, Richard B.; Voran, Glenn I. (1973). Science and human destiny. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 164. ISBN 0-07-016580-7.
  • Killeen, Kevin (2014). Thomas Browne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 940. ISBN 0199640432.
  • Carman, Charles H. (2016). Renaissance Theories of Vision. Routledge. p. 77. ISBN 1317066405.
  • Carpi, Anthony; E. Egger, Anne (2011). The process of science (Rev. ed. ed.). [New Caanan, CT]: Visionlearning, Inc. p. 103. ISBN 1257961322. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • Watt, R.J. (1990). Visual processing : computational, psychophysical, and cognitive research (Repr. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ [u.a.]: Erlbaum. p. 1. ISBN 0863771726.
  • Lemaitre, Gérard René (2009). Astronomical optics and elasticity theory active optics methods (2nd corrected pr. ed.). Berlin: Springer. p. 3. ISBN 3540689052.
  • Sarkar, Mukul; Theuwissen, Albert (2013). A biologically inspired CMOS image sensor. Berlin: Springer. p. 1. ISBN 3642349013.
  • Laureys, Steven; Tononi, Giulio (2008). The Neurology of Consciousness Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology (1st ed. ed.). Burlington: Elsevier. p. ix (preface). ISBN 0080921027. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • "Visionlearning.com". Visionlearning. Retrieved 15 October 2016.

But the user:Kansas Bear removes them. Some of these sources are academic works of the historians, whose works are relevant to the topic of ethnicity. But the user:Kansas Bear says the historians must be specifically of Islamic studies, and uses this reason to delete the sourced material. I find this irrelevant, as any historian can comment on the topic and his work must be considered reliable and relevant to the topic. --Scienceis (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Uh no.
  • "Some of these sources are academic works of the historians.
Actually, Understanding history, is a generalized book, which was written by historians with no specialization in Islam or Islamic studies.
  • Norman F Dessel, earned a B.S. in 1957, an M.S. in 1958, and a Ph.D. in Physics in August 1961.
  • Richard B Nehrich, chemist
  • Glenn I Voran, appears to have only written the above book and "Atomic light"
  • Kevin Killeen, Phd, early modern science and intellectual history, the uses of the Bible in the seventeenth century and poetics and rhetoric
  • Charles Carman, Professor in the Art History department at University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo).
  • Anthony Carpi, Professor of Environmental Toxicology
  • Anne E. Egger, Assistant Professor Geological Sciences and Science Education
  • R.J. Watt, Professor Psychology
  • Gérard René Lemaitre, Phd, French astronomer
  • Mukul Sarkar, Biomedical Engineering from University of Technology, Aachen, Germany in 2006 and Ph.D. degree in Electronic Instrumentation Engineering from the Technical University of Delft.
  • Albert Theuwissen, degree in electrical engineering from the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium) in 1977.
  • Steven Laurys, MD, PhD, leads the Coma Science Group at the Cyclotron Research Center and Department of Neurology
  • Guilio Tononi, Professor, Department of Psychiatry.
None of these academics is qualified for Islamic history, nor should their work be used for Islamic history. Since user:Scienceis arrived, this has been the only article he has edited. Clearly this editor is here to input their opinion into this article using anything that repeats his opinion. Considering the Encyclopaedia of Islam states Alhazen to be Arab, numerous "new users" have tried to use the same inadequate sources to push their POV.
Whereas comparing Scienceis' "sources"
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Juan Vernet. ed. B.LEWIS, V. L. MENAGE, CH. PELLAT AND J. SCHACHT
  • Juan Vernet, historian of Arabic Science, produced books and articles such as his early studies on Ibn al-Banna’ al-Marrakushi (1952), his edition of the Geography of Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi (1958), his survey of the knowledge transmitted through Spain in the Middle Ages, 1978.
Science, Medicine and Technology, Ahmad Dallal, The Oxford History of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito.
  • Ahmad Dallal, Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University
  • John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


So our difference is here:
  • I say any historian can comment on Alhazen's ethnicity
  • you say only the comments from the Islamic studies historians must be considered valid
I asked for Dispute resolution. Lets see how they can help us with this issue. --Scienceis (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


So your problem is you don't care what sources you use as long as they say what you want(ie. disruptive editing). I am also amazed at how you figured out how to post a 3rr warning, which you ignored my previous comments on this talk page over this very issue,[4] which you also ignored(ie. trolling)! This is starting to look like a block user, back socking to push a POV using inferior sources.
  • "I say any historian can comment on Alhazen's ethnicity
Which shows how desperate you are to push Persian as his ethnicity when zero Islamic historians support this. Which you continue to conveniently ignore.
  • "you say only the comments from the Islamic studies historians must be considered valid
I am saying a historian with an academic background in this particular area should be considered. Not some Brits that have written a generalized history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I do care which source I'm using. One of my key sources is: Child, John; Hodge, Tim; Shuter, Paul; Taylor, David (1992). Understanding history (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. p. 70. ISBN 0-435-31211-1. which is:
  • An academic and reliable source
  • A source written by historians
  • Supports Alhazen was Persian
But when I add this source to the article, you keep on removing them. You are trying to keep your version of the article intact. It also seems that you dont read my comments. Once I told you that he was NOT born to an Arab family, because neither of sources that are listed support the idea that he was "born" to an "Arab family". These sources only say he was an Arab scientist, but not birth to an Arab "family". When I remove these unsourced material, you keep on reverting me. I added another part to the article which says that some of his works have been translated into Persian, and the source of this edit was encyclopedia of Islam. Again you reverted me. You should consider other editors as well, and not to ignore them. --Scienceis (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


And just exactly who are John Child, Tim Hodge, Paul Shuter and David Taylor? Simply repeating the same tired claim proves nothing, especially when these particular individuals have no expertise in this area. The burden of proof is on you. Prove who these authors are, what their area of expertise is, or drop the stick.
  • "because neither of sources that are listed support the idea that he was "born" to an "Arab family"."
This falls under citing the sky is blue, I have a source written and edited by academics working in the field of Islamic history/science stating he was Arab, stands to reason he was born into an Arab family.
  • "You should consider other editors as well, and not to ignore them."
You should try finding reliable sources written by historians in Islamic studies, not professors of pyschology, geology, astronomy, environmental toxicology or geological sciences!
  • "I added another part to the article which says that some of his works have been translated into Persian, and the source of this edit was encyclopedia of Islam"
You mean the source, Encyclopaedia of Islam you continue to ignore? The source stating he was Arab? You have a bit of a problem with hypocrisy there. FYI, that is called cherry-picking a source, taking what you agree with and ignoring/suppressing what you disagree with.
  • "Once I told you that he was NOT born to an Arab family, because neither of sources that are listed support the idea that he was "born" to an "Arab family"."
And I explained in detail why your sources are not reliable for this article's history/ethnicity and you ignored that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: Wow! you rock! --Aṭlas (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


John Child, Tim Hodge, Paul Shuter and David Taylor are the authors of the book "Understanding history" by Heinemann Educational in Oxford. What we know is that their work is a reliable source for wikipedia, and their work is about history, which makes it relevant for ethnicity of Alhazen.
Paul Shuter is the author of following books:
  • Shuter, Paul (2009). Medicine through time. Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 0435501402.
  • Shuter, Paul; Lewis, Terry (1988). Skills in history (1. publ., reprinted ed.). London: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435318640.
  • Rogers, Rick (2009). The American West 1840-95. Harlow: Heinemann. ISBN 0435501437.
  • Child, Paul Shuter, John (1989). The changing face of Britain (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435310348.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Taylor, John Child ; Tim Hodge ; Paul Shuter ; David (1992). Understanding history (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435312111.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Shuter, Fiona Reynoldson, Paul (1992). Indians of North America. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435314262.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Shuter, Fiona Reynoldson, Paul (1991). Castles and cathedrals. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435312766.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Shuter, Paul; Culpin, Chris; Colwill, Ian; Shephard, Colin (1990). Using historical sources. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435310453.
  • Shuter, Paul (2014). William Shakespeare : a man for all times. Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 1432996339.
  • Shuter, Paul; Walsh, Ben; Dalton, Hannah. Explaining the Modern World: Power, Reformation and the Historic Environment. Hodder Education. ISBN 1471862933.
John Child is the author of following book which shows he has been active in the field of Islamic studies:
  • Child, John (1995). The rise of Islam (1st American ed. ed.). New York: P. Bedrick Books. ISBN 0872261166. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • Taylor, John Child ; Tim Hodge ; Paul Shuter ; David (1992). Understanding history (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435312111.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Some of the works of David Taylor are:
  • Taylor, David (2001). The Cold War. Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 1588103730.
  • Taylor, David (1997). The French Revolution. Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 043531694X.
  • Taylor, David (2001). Adolf Hitler. Oxford: Heinemann Library. ISBN 0431138540.
  • Taylor, Fiona Reynoldson, David (1997). Roman Empire (Foundation ed. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 0435309579. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Taylor, David (1997). The USA, 1919-41. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435308831.
  • Taylor, David (2001). Key battles of World War I. Chicago: Heinemann Library. ISBN 1575724375.
  • Reynoldson, Fiona; Taylor, David (1998). Britain, 1750-1900 (Foundation ed. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 0435309862. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • Reynoldson, Fiona; Taylor, David (1998). Black peoples of the Americas (Foundation ed. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 0435309900. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • Taylor, David; Reynoldson, Fiona (1998). The twentieth century world (Foundation ed. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann. ISBN 043530982X. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • Taylor, John Child ; Tim Hodge ; Paul Shuter ; David (1992). Understanding history (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435312111.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Tim Hidge has also published:
  • Hodge, Tim (1998). Parnell and the Irish Question (LONGMAN HISTORY IN DEPTH). Harlow: Longman. ISBN 0582296285.
  • Taylor, John Child ; Tim Hodge ; Paul Shuter ; David (1992). Understanding history (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. ISBN 0435312111.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
There are many other sources which support Alhazen is Persian. Even in a book related to history of Islam, this can be found. For instance you can see the following book which is related to history of Islam and calls Alhazen a Persian:
دان, جان (1394). گسترش اسلام (in Persian). تهران: ققنوس. p. 82. ISBN 978-964-311-700-9.
This book is the translation of the book:
Dunn, John (1996). The spread of Islam. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books. ISBN 1560062851.
So even the books about Islamic studies support Persian ethnicity of Alhazen.
--Scienceis (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You conclude from the ethnicity of Alhazen, the ethnicity of his family, and you consider that it "falls under citing the sky is blue", whereas this is not true. This is original research because Alhzen is different from his family. In this way I can also add "Alhazen was born to a Persian family" because sources support "Alhazen is a Persian scientist". --Scienceis (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see anything that proves who the authors are. I see a google search for names and publications, which have proven they have no expertise in the field of Islamic studies, thank you.

  • John Child:

The Rise of Islam by Distinguished Visiting Professor University of Hong Kong Chair of Commerce John Child,[5]

John Child that wrote "Rise of Islam", he is not a reliable source either.
Do you mean this John Dunn? Another failed google book search?
  • "For instance you can see the following book which is related to history of Islam and calls Alhazen a Persian"
Wow. The perfect example of POV pushing.
  • "You conclude from the ethnicity of Alhazen, the ethnicity of his family, and you consider that it "falls under citing the sky is blue", whereas this is not true. This is original research because Alhzen is different from his family."
Uh no. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, states he is Arab. So, unless someone can change their ethnicity with a snap of their fingers......
You conclude that some historians with NO background in Islamic studies should be used to write Islamic history, simply because you want Persian listed, despite NO historians in the field of Islamic studies stating this. How pathetic is that?
See, you have no idea who those authors are, you just have what they published, which has shown their field. You have no idea who John Child is/was, his area of expertise, or if he just wrote books for children. In short you are just desperate to push your POV, while ignoring academic sources that prove you wrong. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia does not require us to digg into every detail of the authors of a book. When the requirements of reliability and relevancy was fulfilled, thats all we need.
There are also sources in other languages like French, German, etc, which say Alhazen was Persian. Here is a list of some of them:
  • Perini-Santos, Ernesto (2006). La théorie ockhamienne de la connaissance évidente (in French). Paris: Vrin. p. 12. ISBN 2711618196.
  • Changeux, Jean-Pierre (2008). Du vrai, du beau, du bien (in French). Paris: Odile Jacob. p. 114. ISBN 2738119042.
  • Febvre, Richard Taillet, Loïc Villain, Pascal (2009). Dictionnaire de physique (in French) (2e éd. ed.). Bruxelles: De Boeck. p. 16. ISBN 2804102483.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Hehl, Walter (2012). Die unheimliche Beschleunigung des Wissens : Warum wir nichts verstehen und trotzdem Grosses schaffen (in German) (1., Aufl. ed.). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverl. p. 39. ISBN 3728134554.
  • María Andrés, Dulce; Luis Antón, Juan (2016). Física y Química 4º ESO (LOMCE) (in Spanish). Editex. p. 32. ISBN 8490788022.
  • Curci, Nicola. Karl Marbe: un uomo al lavoro nelle officine della mente (in Italian). FrancoAngeli. p. 1.1. ISBN 8891733210.
  • 3D Stereoscopico: teoria e stato dell'arte (in Italian). ileNOliukGO. 2010. p. 13.
  • Laschi, Roberto; Riccioni, Anna. Calcolatori & formazione. I primi cinquant'anni (in Italian). FrancoAngeli. p. 18. ISBN 8856826577.
I dont say all these sources are high quality sources and perfect, but they show the extent of considering Alhazen as Persian. --Scienceis (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the list of publications by Child, Hodge, Shuter, and Taylor provided above. I note that many of their works are published by Heinemann Educational; Heinemann's web page describes them as:
"Heinemann is the UK's most trusted education partner and publishes resources for Primary and Secondary schools, FE colleges and training providers."
Considering this fact and the broad topic range of the authors' works and the general nature of their titles, it seems we are dealing with authors of introductory textbooks for the school market; hardly the kind of works we would look at for scholarly research into Islamic history. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It does not specify which type of textbook, just says textbooks. Wikipedia:No original research says: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources." So college textbooks are also considered as tertiary sources. --Scienceis (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from Scienceis latest addition of more unreliable sources, I do not believe he knows what a reliable source is.
  • "Wikipedia does not require us to digg into every detail of the authors of a book."
Really?
Here you go,
  • "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a list of sources that call Alhazen as Persian:

  1. Child, John; Hodge, Tim; Shuter, Paul; Taylor, David (1992). Understanding history (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. p. 70. ISBN 0-435-31211-1.
  2. Dessel, Norman F.; Nehrich, Richard B.; Voran, Glenn I. (1973). Science and human destiny. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 164. ISBN 0-07-016580-7.
  3. Killeen, Kevin (2014). Thomas Browne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 940. ISBN 0199640432.
  4. Carman, Charles H. (2016). Renaissance Theories of Vision. Routledge. p. 77. ISBN 1317066405.
  5. Carpi, Anthony; E. Egger, Anne (2011). The process of science (Rev. ed. ed.). [New Caanan, CT]: Visionlearning, Inc. p. 103. ISBN 1257961322. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  6. Watt, R.J. (1990). Visual processing : computational, psychophysical, and cognitive research (Repr. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ [u.a.]: Erlbaum. p. 1. ISBN 0863771726.
  7. Lemaitre, Gérard René (2009). Astronomical optics and elasticity theory active optics methods (2nd corrected pr. ed.). Berlin: Springer. p. 3. ISBN 3540689052.
  8. Sarkar, Mukul; Theuwissen, Albert (2013). A biologically inspired CMOS image sensor. Berlin: Springer. p. 1. ISBN 3642349013.
  9. Laureys, Steven; Tononi, Giulio (2008). The Neurology of Consciousness Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology (1st ed. ed.). Burlington: Elsevier. p. ix (preface). ISBN 0080921027. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  10. Dunn, John (1996). The spread of Islam. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books. ISBN 1560062851.
  11. Tombran-Tink, ed. by Joyce (2008). Visual transduction and non-visual light perception. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. p. v (preface). ISBN 1597453749. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
  12. S. Cunningham, Lawrence; J. Reich, John (2009). Culture and Values: A Survey of the Humanities (7 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 601. ISBN 0495570664.
  13. Fortey, Jacqueline (2007). Great scientists. New York: Dorling Kindersley. p. 64. ISBN 0756629748.
  14. Serebriakov, Alexander Georgievič (2005). Optimization and analysis of deep-UV imaging systems. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. p. 7. ISBN 90-9019672-2.
  15. Tombran-Tink, Joyce; J. Barnstable, Colin (2008). Ophthalmology Research. Humana.
  16. Fell-Smith, Charlotte (1909). John Dee (1527-1608). London: Constable & Co. p. 323.
  17. McKernan, B. Digital cinema: the revolution in cinematography, postproduction, and distribution. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 2.
  18. Lucas, Laurent; Loscos, Céline; Rémion, Yannick (2013). 3D Video: From Capture to Diffusion. John Wiley & Sons. p. 1.2.1. ISBN 1118761863.
  19. Giovanni, Vulpetti; Johnson, Les; L. Matloff, Gregory (2014). Solar Sails: A Novel Approach to Interplanetary Travel. Springer. p. 52. ISBN 149390941X.
  20. Ellen Boyle, Jennifer (2010). Anamorphosis in early modern literature : mediation and affect. Farnham, Surrey [England]: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 23. ISBN 1409400697.
  21. Elliott, Paul (2011). Hitchcock and the cinema of sensations : embodied film theory and cinematic reception. London: Tauris. p. 78. ISBN 1848855877.
  22. Juhasz, Alexandra; Lebow, Alisa (2015). A Companion to Contemporary Documentary Film. John Wiley & Sons. p. 362. ISBN 0470671645.
  23. Curran, Clive-Steven (2013). The anticipation of converging industries a concept applied to nutraceuticals and functional foods. London: Springer. p. 77. ISBN 1447151704.
  24. S. Kirunda, Emmanuel (2016). Beyond the Fourth Heritage: A Personal View on How to Transcend Our Heritages of Birth. AuthorHouse. ISBN 1524617032.
  25. Hughes, Aaron W.; Wolfson, Elliot R. (2010). New directions in Jewish philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. p. 167. ISBN 0253221641.
  26. Paolini, William (2013). Choosing and Using Astronomical Eyepieces. New York, NY: Springer New York. p. 4. ISBN 1461477239.
  27. Doody, Dave (2009). Deep Space Craft. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 54. ISBN 3540895108.
  28. Ayton, translated from the Latin of Dr. Thomas Smith by Wm. Alexr. (1999). The life of John Dee. Thame, England: I-H-O Books. ISBN 1872189172.
  29. Exploring tech careers (4th ed. ed.). New York NY: Ferguson. 2006. p. 227. ISBN 1438112270. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  30. Cooke, Vivian; Howard, Colin (2016). Key Concepts in Primary Science: Audit and Subject Knowledge. Critical Publishing. p. What is solar system?. ISBN 1910391522.
  31. Howard, Donald R. (1989). Chaucer : his life, his works, his world. New York: Fawcett Columbine. ISBN 0449903419.
  32. Mnookin, Seth (2012). The panic virus : the true story behind the vaccine-autism controversy (1st Simon & Schuster trade pbk. ed. ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 155. ISBN 1439158657. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  33. Ghosh, Rupak (2011). Green Science Genius: Light. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). ISBN 8179933539.
  34. Diaspro, Alberto (2010). Nanoscopy and multidimensional optical fluorescence microscopy ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. p. 18-2. ISBN 1420078895.
  35. Stewart, Desmond (1967). Early Islam. New York: Time, inc. pp. 129, 188. ISBN 0809403315.
  36. Perini-Santos, Ernesto (2006). La théorie ockhamienne de la connaissance évidente (in French). Paris: Vrin. p. 12. ISBN 2711618196.
  37. Changeux, Jean-Pierre (2008). Du vrai, du beau, du bien (in French). Paris: Odile Jacob. p. 114. ISBN 2738119042.
  38. Febvre, Richard Taillet, Loïc Villain, Pascal (2009). Dictionnaire de physique (in French) (2e éd. ed.). Bruxelles: De Boeck. p. 16. ISBN 2804102483.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  39. Hehl, Walter (2012). Die unheimliche Beschleunigung des Wissens : Warum wir nichts verstehen und trotzdem Grosses schaffen (in German) (1., Aufl. ed.). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverl. p. 39. ISBN 3728134554.
  40. María Andrés, Dulce; Luis Antón, Juan (2016). Física y Química 4º ESO (LOMCE) (in Spanish). Editex. p. 32. ISBN 8490788022.
  41. A. Convissar, Robert (2011). Princípios E Práticas Do Laser Na Odontologia (in Spanish). Elsevier Brasil. p. 1. ISBN 8535252878.
  42. Curci, Nicola. Karl Marbe: un uomo al lavoro nelle officine della mente (in Italian). FrancoAngeli. p. 1.1. ISBN 8891733210.
  43. 3D Stereoscopico: teoria e stato dell'arte (in Italian). ileNOliukGO. 2010. p. 13.
  44. Laschi, Roberto; Riccioni, Anna. Calcolatori & formazione. I primi cinquant'anni (in Italian). FrancoAngeli. p. 18. ISBN 8856826577.
  45. Melcher, D. (2011). Visual stability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 366(1564), 468-475.
  46. Burr, D. C., & Morrone, M. C. (2011). Spatiotopic coding and remapping in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1564), 504-515.
  47. Powell, Susan. "Math 646 Book Report March 28, 2011 Non-Euclidean Geometry." Book Report (2011).
  48. Aaen-Stockdale, Craig. "Ibn al-Haytham and psychophysics." Perception 37.4 (2008): 636-638.
  49. Melcher, David, and Carol L. Colby. "Trans-saccadic perception." Trends in cognitive sciences 12.12 (2008): 466-473.
  50. Leontiadis, Stefanie. The architecture of public open urban spaces. How to define a syntax in the contemporary urban environment. Diss. Italy, 2012.
  51. Burr, David. "Eye movements: keeping vision stable." Current Biology 14.5 (2004): R195-R197.
  52. Corradi, Massimo. "A short history of the rainbow." Lettera Matematica: March 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 49–57
  53. Olson, M. J. (2015). The Camera Obscura and the Nature of the Soul: On a Tension between the Mechanics of Sensation and the Metaphysics of the Soul. Intellectual History Review, 25(3), 279-291.
  54. Gori, S., Giora, E., & Agostini, T. (2010). Measuring the Breathing Light Illusion by means of induced simultaneous contrast. Perception, 39(1), 5-12.
  55. Watt, Roger J. Visual processing: Computational, psychophysical, and cognitive research. Psychology Press, 1990.
  56. Gori, Simone, Enrico Giora, and Tiziano Agostini. "THE STRENGTH OF A VISUAL ILLUSION MEASURED BY A RELATED ILLUSORY PHENOMENON." Proceedings of Fechner Day 26.1 (2010): 191-196.
  57. Ye, J., & Yu, J. (2014). Ray geometry in non-pinhole cameras: a survey. The Visual Computer, 30(1), 93-112.
  58. Vojniković, B., & Tamajo, E. (2013). Horopters–Definition and Construction. Collegium antropologicum, 37(1), 9-12.
  59. Burr, D. C., & Morrone, M. C. (2010). Vision: keeping the world still when the eyes move. Current Biology, 20(10), R442-R444.
  60. Brown, Elliot, Ben Hattenbach, and Ian Washburn. "From Camera Obscura To Camera Futura: How Patents Shaped Two Centuries of Photographic Innovation and Competition." J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 98 (2016): 406-557.
  61. Kardjilova, K., Popov, P., Lyutskanov, V., Pulov, V., & Mihova, M. (2010). An educational physics laboratory experiment for directly measuring the speed of light. ATI Applied Technologies & Innovations, 1, 29-32.
  62. Morrone, C., & Burr, D. (2008). Visual stability during saccadic eye movements. Gazzaniga et al., editors. The Cognitive Neurosciences,.
  63. Farzinnia, Arsham. "Above And Beyond The Standard Model: On Phenomenology Of Lee-Wick Theory And Massive Vector Color-Octet." arXiv preprint arXiv:1210.8061 (2012).
  64. Chakrabarti, S. (1998). Ground based spectroscopic studies of sunlit airglow and aurora. Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics, 60(14), 1403-1423.
  65. Melcher, D. A. V. I. D., and M. C. Morrone. "Trans-saccadic memory: Building a stable world from glance to glance." Eye movement research: A window on mind and brain (2007): 213-236.
  66. Melcher, David. "Visual stability." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 366.1564 (2011): 468-475.
  67. BURR, D. C., & MORRONE, M. C. 93 Visual Perception during Saccades.
  68. Hughes, M. W. (2013). A HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY. The Routledge International Companion to Educational Psychology, 1943(1999), 3.
  69. Desbiens, J. (2013). Content metamorphosis in synthetic holography. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 415, No. 1, p. 012008). IOP Publishing.
  70. Morrone, M. C. 66 Interaction between Eye Movements and Vision: Perception during Saccades.
  71. Vulpetti, G., Johnson, L., & Matloff, G. L. (2015). The Solar Sail Option: From the Oceans to Space. In Solar Sails (pp. 45-58). Springer New York.
  72. Melcher, D. (2011). Introduction: Visual stability. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 468-475.
  73. Catapano, G., & Verkerke, G. J. (2012). Artificial Organs. Handbook of Research on Biomedical Engineering Education and Advanced Bioengineering Learning: Interdisciplinary Concepts: Interdisciplinary Concepts, 2, 60.
  74. Melcher, D., & Morrone, M. C. (2015). Nonretinotopic visual processing in the brain. Visual neuroscience, 32, E017.
  75. Streffen, Isabella Sarah Espie. "I spy with my military eye: strategies of military vision and their use in fine art practice." (2013).
  76. Del Centina, A. (2016). On Kepler’s system of conics in Astronomiae pars optica. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 1-23.
  77. Yrjönsuuri, M. (2014). Seeing Distance. In Active Perception in the History of Philosophy (pp. 187-206). Springer International Publishing.
  78. Normanno, Davide, Thomas van Zanten, and María F. García-Parajo. "Near-Field Optical Microscopy: Insight on the Nanometer-Scale Organization of the Cell Membrane." Nanoscopy and Multidimensional Optical Fluorescence Microscopy (2010): 1.
  79. Francl, M. (2015). The enlightenment of chemistry. Nature chemistry, 7(10), 761-762.
  80. Vojniković, B., & Tamajo, E. (2013). Horopters–Definition and Construction. Collegium antropologicum, 37(1), 9-12.
  81. Paolini, W. (2013). Introducing the Astronomical Eyepiece. In Choosing and Using Astronomical Eyepieces (pp. 3-32). Springer New York.
  82. Varvoglis, H. (2014). From Classical Era to the Renaissance. In History and Evolution of Concepts in Physics (pp. 21-26). Springer International Publishing.
  83. Gabrieli, F. (1970). Knowledge and Attainments in the Mediterranean. Diogenes, 18(71), 59-64.
  84. Masic, I., Dilic, M., Solakovic, E., Rustempasic, N., & Ridjanovic, Z. (January 01, 2008). Why historians of medicine called Ibn al-Nafis second Avicenna?. Medicinski Arhiv, 62, 4, 244-9.
  85. Baker, David. "The Caliph's Captive." The Optician, Jun 18 2010: 29-30.
  86. Manfroid, Jean. "L’origine du télescope (I)." Ciel (Le) 75 (2013): 22-32. (French)
  87. Vuillemin, J. C. (2005). L'œil de Galilée pour les yeux de Chimène. Poétique, (2), 153-168. (French)
  88. Ribot, Vincent. "Contribution à l'étude de la vie et l'œuvre relative à l'élevage d'Olivier de Serres." PhD diss., 2009. (French)
  89. Júnior, Francisco de Assis Scannavino. "Instrumento Eletro-Optico para o Estudo do Sistema de Inibicao da Acomodacao Ocular" PhD diss., Universidade de São Paulo, 2003. (Spanish)
  90. Bernard, Lane. "Visionary science of human eye." Australian, The: Newspaper Source. JAN 17, 2007.
  91. Theirault, Richard, and Inhwan Chang. "Milling Tool With Rotatable Cutting Disks." U.S. Patent No. 20,160,059,326. 3 Mar. 2016.
  92. "Visionlearning.com". Visionlearning. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  93. Corradi, Massimo. "DELL’ARCOBALENO." (2016). http://www.academia.edu/download/44855741/LM96_17-25_Corradi.pdf (Italian)
  94. DE ASSISTIR, A. FABULOSA MÁQUINA. "Cláudio Ribeiro da Cunha." https://tede.pucsp.br/bitstream/handle/18249/1/Claudio%20Ribeiro%20da%20Cunha.pdf
  95. Ahmed Khan, Sameen. "Medieval Islamic Achievements in Optics." http://prometeo.sif.it/papers/online/sag/031/01-02/pdf/06-percorsi.pdf
And many more sources. --Scienceis (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear Scienceis has refused to get the point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Scienceis can explain who these authors are, there is no reason to continue to post questionable sources on the talk page. Considering:
  • Dr Paul Elliott, Lecturer in Film Studies, author, "Hitchcock and the cinema of sensations : embodied film theory and cinematic reception"
Seriously?
I believe this is proof that Scienceis is simply "googling" Alhazen/Ibn al-Haytham + Persian and not verifying the author's credibility. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have ordered some books. I'm waiting to get them, till then I will occasionally check this page. --Scienceis (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible. Can I get the name of this books ? --Aṭlas (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar comment in the thread above, but I'll repeat it here, because I think this is a foolish discussion. There are so many things to worry about in this world, but this isn't one of them. Why the hell should we care what his ethnicity was? I mean, seriously! I am descended of one of these two ethnicities, and I can say unequivocally that I couldn't care less. I daresay that he would agree, because if this topic mattered to him, he would have written about it himself. Instead, he wrote things like this:

"The seeker after truth, does not place his trust in any consensus, however broad or however venerable: instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and he scrutinizes, measures, and verifies ... The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow."

The only reason this would matter to anyone would be either: (a) to feed their own hubris, and/or to (b) cause further racial tension and division. Well, guess what? Neither of those reasons have any value whatsoever. They only serve to tarnish the image of this great thinker and amazing man. —grolltech(talk)


Marsh_Arabs

Since Alhazen was born in Basra during the Buyid era, has anyone considered that he may have been Marsh Arab? Perhaps this might help to solve disputes over ethnicity. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source speaking about this origin ? --Aṭlas (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric science. Alhazen shows that the density of the heavens is less than the density of the atmosphere

"The body of the heavens is rarer than the body of air" -- Alhazen

Alhazen deduced that the heavens (including outer space), being transparent bodies, like the atmosphere, and like water, cause a change in the direction of a light ray propagating between Earthly media, and non-terrestial bodies. This phenomenon is due to the change in direction of a light ray from a fixed star, as the light ray propagates through the transparent body, at the interface between the material in the transparent bodies, such as between air and outer space. Alhazen had previously seen this refractive phenomenon at the interface between water and air, as described by Ptolemy 800 years before him. But being an astronomer, Alhazen applies the reasoning to the stars. Alhazen describes an experiment to quantitatively measure the degree of bending of the light ray between air and outer space using an astrolabe or armillary sphere,

armillary sphere

to measure the angular position of a fixed star, tracking that star from its rising to its zenith.[1] See: ALHACEN ON REFRACTION: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of Book 7 of Alhacen's "De Aspectibus," the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb al-Manāzir." Volume Two. English Translation by A. Mark Smith Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3, Section 2 (2010), pp. 213-331, 333-397, 399, 401-451, 453, 455-491, 493, 495-535, 537-550. Published by: American Philosophical Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787651 in JSTOR Page Count: 335

  1. ^ Alhazen, Book of Optics, Book 7 (Refraction), pp 270-274 (paragraphs 4.28 - 4.35)

Alhazen points out that the fixed stars travel in circles centered on the celestial sphere.

Smith 2010 translation, De Aspectibus, paragraph [4.28] p.271: .. Track one of the large fixed stars that appear on the zenith for your location. Track it at its rising in the east. Take an armillary sphere and set it up in a high location from which you can see the horizon. Arrange the armillary apparatus so that its meridian circle is posed with its pole [pointing] above the earth according to the altitude of the celestial pole on the horizon. When the star rises, turn the ring that rotates about the equinoctial pole until it is in line with the star. Determine the star's location on the ring. This will give you the angular distance of that star from the celestial pole. Track the star until it reaches the meridian circle. Adjust the ring as you have adjusted it before, until the ring is in line with the star. This gives the [angular] distance of the star from the celestial pole when the star lies directly overhead. You will find that the [angular] distance of the star from the celestial pole at its rising is less than the [angular] distance of the star at its zenith.

[4.29] This is so because the fixed star always moves on the same circle among circles parallel to the equator. ...

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ibn al-Haytham. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we solve this?

The never-ending tit-for-tat edit-war over Alhazan's ethnicity is one of the reasons why this article was removed from the list of good articles. I would like everybody genuinely interested in making this article the best it can be and getting it relisted as a good article to join me in making some concrete suggestions for how we can settle/sidestep this obviously contentious issue. I know which way I fall on the issue, and how I would write the article if I could tyrannically dictate such a thing, but I genuinely think that there must be a way to phrase the lead that acknowledges that different perspectives exist, acknowledges the controversy, but does not pander to politically or religiously motivated viewpoints. Let's try to solve this. We're clever people, right? Famousdog (c) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pending-protected the article, but I will toss an idea into the ring here: at Nicolaus Copernicus, whose ethnicity is famously fought over (German/Polish), we came up (after about 10 years (!), the talk-pages make fabulous reading) with leaving the ethnicity out of the lede, and just label him "a Renaissance- and Reformation-era mathematician and astronomer". Might a comparable era our timescale serve in the case here? Lectonar (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, as I see it, is that him being an Arab is sourced to multiple reliable academic sources written by acknowledged experts in the fields of Islamic history and Islamic science, while those who claim he was Persian provide links to blogs and sources written by "laymen", like the edit I just reverted, which is sourced to a blogpost about photography, with only a passing mention of Ibn Al-Haytham. Which IMO means that claims about him being Persian should be seen as an unsourced fringe claim, not meriting any mention at all in the article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. But the presence of a mention of his (probably) Arab ethnicity in the lead is obviously twisting the knickers of a whole bunch of people, albeit people who cannot find a reliable source to counter it. This issue is preventing a pretty comprehensive article from being elevated to the nirvana of good-articleness. Is there a way that we can prevent further edit-warring while still maintaining WP's principles? Famousdog (c) 13:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem moving his ethnicity to the body of the article, although I do not believe this will stop IP POV pushers from using unreliable sources for their interpretation of his ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(please don't top-post) Famousdog (c) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody and thank you very much for your work. I would say to Thomas.W that it's not true, the sources stating he was Persian are not only blogs, for example this one :

https://www.physics.org/interact/physics-evolution/text-only/02.html

This is from Institute of physics based in London which states he was a Persian, please, tell me if you really think it's a blog ? There is another big difference between me and those saying he was Arab, it's that i do not remove sources stating he was an Arab, i just add sources stating he was a Persian and i think this is my right as long as my sources are reliables, don't agree ??? I think like one contributor who said that as his ethnicity is unclear, we should just say "muslim scientist" this could solve the problem. More, i would report rudeness from Kansas Bear on his talk page, treating a user of liar and sockpuppet, please just go on his talk page and see by yourself. Thanks again for your job guys (and ladies of course).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk)

Anonymous User, that sadly IS a blog, albeit a blog from a fairly prestigious source. The problem is that this prestigious institution is an institute devoted to physics, not history. It might be possibly be considered a reliable source for physics but not history. That is the problem with this source as I see it. Physicists, clever though they are, are not historians. Famousdog (c) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that you do not remove reliable sources is not really a point in your favour. If you did, it would hardly be considered proper behaviour. Famousdog (c) 14:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you for your answer Famousdog, but other sources (including historical ones) are listed above on this talk page, and a single user, Kansas bear, removed all of them (saying he does not want articles writen by "some Brits" who write only generaly...) being by the way rude with some users who just wanted to upgrade the article fairly (this is my case), i thought this was forbidden on Wikipedia which is a usualy reliable source very usefull for me as well in my professionnal life than my personnal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the attitude and actions of this IP, it is clear this is a blocked user here to right great wrongs. Incapable of bringing reliable sources for this article, said IP resorts to accusation of racism, lying, and distortion of facts. I see no reason to continue a dialogue with this type of "person" and that we have this talk page "semi-protected" against IPs. That said, moving Alhazen's ethnicity out of the lead, will not remove the problem of disruptive IPs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kansas bear, Thank you for your answer, i never accused you of racism, i just said you were rude and not very respectfull with britsh writers (and by the way, being British is not a "race" but this is another story...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

This is your post kansas bear:

"I am saying a historian with an academic background in this particular area should be considered. Not some Brits that have written a generalized history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)" 

So please keep the word "liar" for youself.

But that's not the point here, the point is "are the sources unanimous about the ethnicity of that man ?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about these sources stating he was Persian :

• Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70

• Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164

• The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497

I would like to know if they are RS. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go do your own work, since your latest edit is not a reliable source either, it's a blog.
Also, this statement links your current IP to the one that posted the lie on my talk page
  • "More, i would report rudeness from Kansas Bear on his talk page, treating a user of liar and sockpuppet, please just go on his talk page and see by yourself."
You stated:
  • "Hi Kansas bear, i can see you're reverting all sources without any explanation"[6]
That is a lie. I explained three times, twice in edit summaries[7][8] and once on the talk page[9]
  • "So please keep the word "liar" for youself."
First off, considering you have taken my statement out of context(ie. distortion of facts), have not read any of the discussion concerning Child, Shuter, and Taylor and have blatantly ignored what SteveMcCluskey stated, this just proves you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
And while you continue to embarrass yourself, learn to spell and do research.
You also stated:
  • "i never accused you of racism"[10]
  • "So could you please give me an explanation for that ? or maybe it's because you just don't like Persians"[11]
This is a personal attack and an accusation of racism. Appears you have lied, again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

The page may need semi-protection (i.e. blocking IP editors).

I have no idea what ethnicity this man was. I'm not entirely sure why it's necessary to include this in the article. But any determination of his ethnicity should be done on the talk page. None of you have any direct knowledge of this man; he has been dead for over 500 years. Please discuss this with decor. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposition of Power-enwiki is clever and that's exactly what i say, i don't know that man, he died 1000 years ago, but when i search on google about him, sources are not unanimous.
For kansas bear : you don't know me neither, i'haven't been rude with anybody here, this does'nt make sens for me to be rude with people, all that i say is that you and me do not know him and sources appear to be divergent.
If i make some mistales when i write, please forgive me, this is because english is not my mother tongue as i'm french, and i l'ive in Paris, but i love wikipedia as i use it since a long time and i've allways been honest even if you think i'me not.
I've made some articles on french wikipedia on historical topics, and they are still here, allmost unchanged, years after, maybe it's because they are not so bad or at least i hope so.
Honestly, i've tried to search about these people (Child, Taylor, etc...) and i've found a wide range of propositions (rugbyman, professor, etc...) i do not know them, but some of them have been published in prestigious souces (like Kevin Killeen Oxford University press if do not make a mistake, who is a historian in the field of intellectual history and stating Ibn al-Haythzm is Persian).
As i said, i don't know ibn al-Haytham, and if you are absolutely certain that he was an Arab, so it's ok for me but the problem is that the majority of "reliables" sources states he's Arab but a few ones states he's Persian and if you look on other famous people with controversially ethnicity (Copernicus, Geber...) their ethnicity is either not mentionned (Copernicus) either double mentionned (Geber), correct me if i'm wrong.
I hope i haven't bored you with my long long speech... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.137.2 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection may deal with the short term problem, but I think User:Famousdog's suggestion that we follow the Copernicus procedure, and remove discussions of ethnicity from the lede and place a balanced discussion of the scholarly view of the claims that he is Arabic or Persian in the body of the article has real merit. In 2010 I added (as an IP) the following note to editors, based on a similar note in the Copernicus article, as hidden text after a similar discussion on Talk.
"NOTE TO EDITORS: Please read the talk page before editing the introductory paragraphs. These paragraphs represent a consensus on how best to present the essential information in the introduction. Other issues are discussed later in the article. Whether nationality should be attributed to Alhazen is in dispute among editors (see the Talk page and its archives)."
The note to editors was removed in 2015, apparently inadvertently, when Persondata migrated to Wikidata. As a step to restore some calm to the article, I'll restore the note to editors. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment Kansas bear, i just went on the Al-Razi talk page to ask other contributors if my sources are reliables or not.
It's true that that source is a blog but i checked the author of it and he's a member of "american academy of innovation", so i thought his blog was reliable.
Anyway, contributors will decide on the talk page of Al-Razi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.187.35 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if the discussion at al-Razi will be very productive, as you raised your question in a section where the most recent comment was made in 2005. You should rely on the insights of this, currently active, discussion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SteveMcClusky and thanks for your answer.
My remark about Al Razi was just an answer to Kansas Bear's statement above and not directly linked to Ibn Al Haytham, i continued on Kansas's talk page after that but he erased my question about the reliability of sources.
Trying to solve this issue, i would like to know if these sources are reliables according to you:
  • Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70
  • ^ Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164
  • ^ The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497
  • Killeen, Kevin (2014). Thomas Browne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 940
Another user than me (Scienceis) has listed more sources stating that Ibn al-Haytham was Persian.
I agree that most sources list him as Arab but some sources list him as Persian.
If you look to Jabir ibn Hayyan's article, there are 3 sources stating he was Arab and 12 stating he was Persian, and in his article it's stayed "Arab or Persian".
Thanks for your work.
Ooh yes, i've seen al Razi's talk page and the last coment is effectively very old. My appologize. I can write my comment in "alcohol again" but even there the last comment is quite old... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.187.35 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a historian of science, I would have to say that the sources you cite are not reliable sources on the historical question of the ethnicity of Ibn al-Haytham. There certainly are reliable historical studies out there for someone who wishes to do the research. A good starting point would be A. I. Sabra's discussion of the original sources on his life in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography:
I really have nothing more to add on the topic. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view,
but i'm a mathematician and i love logics.
I studied a PhD in the field of stochastical calculus at the Pierre et Marie University in Paris and had the honour to publish a few articles for the CNRS. I am saying that because in one of my articles, i proposed some historical facts to introduce my work whose facts were wrong, so the CNRS asked me to remove them from my article, otherwise they would refuse to publish me.
What i want to say is that prestigious organisms (like CNRS, Oxford University and many others) will not publish works with false informations even if these false informations are not linked with the main subject of that work.
The last source above is from a historian and published at Oxford University Press, that's why i think it's reliable.
I followed your article link from Sabra and haven't found any information about Ibn al-Haytham's ethnicity, so if i understand well your proposal, you mean his ethnicity shoud be removed from the article ?
Thank you for the time you spent for reading me, i have nothing else to add neither except if someone else want to discuss further about this issue.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.169.229.140 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

37.169.229.140, when you say, "Another user than me (Scienceis) has listed more sources...," are you claiming that you and User:Scienceis are not the same person? I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks. —grolltech(talk) 22:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm only an IP user, i don't have an account on Wikipedia and i have never had one. I'm NOT Scienceis. Many other users proposed to remove Arabic ethnicity (and Persian as well), i think it's the only way to reach a concensus on this article (see above Lectonar, Dmcq, power-enwiki and others). Have a look at the sources and share your POV about them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.165.190 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source reliable enough :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abu-ali-al-hasan-ibn-al-hasan-ibn-al-haytham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.243 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 193.109.199.243,
My opinion is that your source is a reliable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.20.253 (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited is excerpted from a volume of a 7-volume encyclopedia set on the history of science: Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery, vol. 2. The Google Books page for that volume notes that it could not find any reviews in the usual places and describes the editor, Neil Schlager, as "a chemical engineer who has run factories in Nashville, Tennessee; Winnipeg, Canada; and Bahrain". A WorldCat search shows that the series is held by only 16 libraries, worldwide. I'm not certain this holds up as a reliable source on Ibn al-Haytham's ethnicity and, as I've said several times before, I don't feel his ethnicity is a significant element for this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your answer but the fact is that encyclopedia.com is believed to be legit :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/about

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibn_al-Haytham&oldid=789442679"