Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world

Trebuche

This article ascribes the counterweight trebuchet as an invention of the Islamic Golden Age, citing Mardi bin Ali al-Tarsusi (actually block copying text from the article on him, which occurs in several places). But as the article Trebuchet makes clear (although I cannot find an English version of cited text myself, nor is one cited), Tarsusi ascribed the invention as being made outside the Islamic world entirely. While nothing about the text in this article about trebuchets is wrong, its appearance in the list appears incorrect; this article is limited on its face to "inventions [which] were developed in the medieval Islamic world."

However, as a relatively new user, I don't want to just up and delete it, in case someone else has a different view?

Ibn Zakariyā (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and wholly deleted the section, for the reasons outlined above; also the paragraph above about gunpowder, for the same reason (it correctly stated within the paragraph that gunpowder was not developed in the medieval Islamic world.

Ibn Zakariyā (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Al-Tarsusi does not say it was invented outside the Islamic world. All he claimed is that "Trebuchets are machines invented by unbelieving devils", which tells us nothing about where it was made, or whether he was referring to the counterweight trebuchet or just trebuchets in general. All we do know is that the earliest clear evidence for the counterweight trebuchet is from the Islamic world. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Moonhawk

I agree that clocks and astrolabes aren't actually Muslim inventions, but merely refinements. Like saying that Ford 'invented' the automobile. That being said, Moonhawk, it's a little unusual to read "The clock is not an Islamic invention" in a list of... Islamic inventions. Should a new section be made for these refinements? Or should it merely be elaborated that, while the device was not invented by Muslims, it was improved by them? These technically wouldn't belong here as they aren't literally 'inventions', but their development should be noted.--C.Logan 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to above: Stop being jealous and give credit where its due —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.105.1 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move this to Inventions in the Muslim world

This new title is more accurate, and doesn't imply any POV's.--Sefringle 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Beit Or 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. There is no such thing as a "Muslim invention," anymore than there are "Christian inventions," "Shinto inventions," etc.Proabivouac 22:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Wow... I was actually pondering whether or not I should propose this change a day ago, for all of the above stated reasons. Kudos for beating me to it.--C.Logan 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of boldness, and as it seems that the voting here has died out after 4-0, I've changed the title to the above proposed.--C.Logan 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the article be renamed to Inventions of the Muslim Golden Age as suggested by User:DougWeller on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC) This way it will cover the fact that these inventions were in a specific time period and it will also give credit that these inventions where done within the Islamic Empire. It is ok to give credit and name these inventions Islamic or Muslim because the Islamic Empire and Islamic beliefs paved the way and made it possible for these inventions to take place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.9.27 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is disgrace

In my humble opinion it doesn’t make sense to attribute inventions to a religion. I think it leads to confusion. The Muslim Empire and modern Islam are not one in the same any more than modern Italy is equal to the Roman Empire This article relies mostly, if not completely, on unreliable sources or highly POV claims made in a certain source. It's probably best to wipe this page clean and start from scratch. Beit Or 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Attributing these inventions to Islam is in and of itself absurd. Furthermore, what has been done here belongs into the realm of fiction, and not in an encyclopedia. Most of what is listed is simply false. A disgrace for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken a good look at things, but I have noticed that the past few months of contributions have come almost entirely from one user, so there should certainly be an assessment here.--C.Logan 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Islamic Golden Age.Proabivouac 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm already seeing some questionable and POV content.--C.Logan 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one big violation of WP:Peacock.

The other thing is, the editor ignores the talk page.

Many of the linked scholars have also been edited by the same user (e.g. Ibn al-Haytham,) so consistency between articles is no guide. Some of the sources cited (where there are sources) are questionable.Proabivouac 02:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think an AfD is in order. Would we want an article called inventions in the Western World? It would be hundreds of pages long. Arrow740 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a point. I feel that religiously-organized articles are risky business in and of themselves. We do have culturally-organized "invention" articles (like Chinese inventions), but there's a difference between culture and religion. Many individuals call anything produced by a culture which practices Islam "Muslim", when in reality such inventions are Arab, Persian, Moorish, or Turkish- I've seen some individuals lament over the commonplace tagging of "Persian" architecture as "Muslim", an act which which essentially hijacks the accomplishments of a culture. Additionally, the title (much moreso the previous title) infers that such inventions came about because the inventor was Muslim (which was only sometimes the case). I have a strange feeling that Christian inventions wouldn't fly with anyone, and Inventions in Christendom would probably get too long, depending on what one defines as "Christendom".--C.Logan 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be no longer than Timeline of inventions as that includes, Christian, Muslim, Indian and Chinese inventions.Vice regent 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There was an Islamic caliphate at the beginning, and inventions in that caliphate can be considered as "national" inventions such as Egyptian inventions or Chinese ones. Despise the fact that the Omeyyad and Abbasid caliphates are more Arab empires than Islamic caliphate, many consider that they are more or less its continuation. In those caliphates, the principal language of scientist works was Arabic. As many of the scientists were non-Arabs, but wrote in Arabic, it appears to be more appropriate to give a label "Islamic inventions" than "Arabic inventions". But since non-Muslim scientists bearing Arabic or Persian names can be mistakenly or dishonestly presented as Muslims, it can lead to ideas of "hijacks of accomplishments of cultures" from inside or outside the Muslim community. It's not uncommon that people devote their efforts and achievements to their religion and country, but it's still better to distribute this article to nations such as Abbasid caliphate, Fatimid caliphate, Samanid kingdom or Delhi sultanate, etc. Snn77 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how there could've been Islamic "scientists" before the philosophy of science was developed. Unless someone can show they adhered to the scientific method they should be called academics or something like that. They were no more scientists than people working at Apple stores are "geniuses". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.32.245.170 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on specific inventions

I've just restored some of the inventions removed yesterday, and added more references as support. However, I didn't restore all of them, as there were some I agreed shouldn't be on the list. To avoid any edit wars, it would be helpful if users who have issues with some of the inventions listed in the article to comment on those specific examples here before removing them from the article itself. Jagged 85 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the inclusion of Kerosene. I've done a little research, and it seems that the only source which attributes the discovery of Kerosene to "Muslims" is the very biased source which is listed (whose explicit purpose is to rewrite everything we know about history with a pro-Islam slant), which happens to be published by a publishing house which produces (besides alternative remedy books) exclusively Muslim spirituality books [1] and what appears to be a 9/11 conspiracy theory book [2] which purports to reveal who the "real terrorists" are. I'm not buying it, and I doubt the majority of scholarship does either, or else we wouldn't need to turn to Dr. Ajram for our magical history lesson.

Unfortunately, it seems the author has a problem understanding the difference between an "invention" and "study into a field". I can learn how to melt lead or iron, but that doesn't mean I've invented smelting. I'm going to look into this whole thing, but I'm a little concerned that this heavily-used source is nothing but a bad synthesis of half-facts and conclusion-jumps.--C.Logan 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point on whether Dr. Ajram's claims are credible, but I have now included another source giving more details on kerosene and its inventor. I think I might start looking for other sources to use instead of Ajram's one. Jagged 85 03:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being mindful of my concerns with using reliable sources; I appreciate your consideration in this respect.--C.Logan 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of camera in camera obscura

Having the word "camera obscura" coming from "qamara" sounds goofy - "camera" is a perfectly legitimate Latin word (the root of "chambre" in French, "camera" in Italian, and "Comrade" in Rus- ah, I mean, English). "qamara" itself was certainly borrowed from Latin. Jérôme Plût (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted that. Camera (as a word) comes from latin (classic) and greek and predates Islam. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gristmills

I'm using Wikipedia details here for consistency within Wikipedia. Gristmills have been used in Europe and areas from 2nd century BC and the peak of design e.g. Barbegal aqueduct and mill was used from 1st - 3rd century AD. Then Muslim_Agricultural_Revolution#Industrial_milling claims that "The first gristmills were invented by Muslim engineers in the Islamic world,"...which clearly cannot be true. Is the issue "geared" gristmills or use of trip-hammers ?. Trip hammer were used in China e.g. read Water_Wheel#Ancient_China before Islam. This needs verifying. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Industrial mills

It claims here that a "A variety of industrial mills were first invented in the Islamic world, including fulling mills, gristmills, hullers, paper mills, sawmills, stamp mills, steel mills, sugar mills, and windmills.". This is clearly a dubious claim (see also copy in Watermill#Islamic_world. Fulling makes no mention of Islam and the Romans fulled cloth (idea pre-dates Islam) but not clear if mechanised first in middle east. Gristmills clearly pre-date Islam (see above). Mechanised hullers are uncertain. Paper mills are used first in Baghdad. Sawmills are uncertain - Sawmill#History says nothing. Stamp mills - uncertain but a paper mill is a stamp mill of sorts. Steel mills - uncertain. Sugar#Cane_sugar_outside_Asia says it clearer what happened with sugar and the description is "Arab entrepreneurs" rather than "Islamic world" which is what is claimed here. windmills first used. The mix of invention and adaption and no references make "first invented" an untrustworthy claim. To keep all those technologies in the wording "first invented" should be changed to just "used". Ttiotsw (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lateen Sail

An article by I.C. Campbell from 1995 (http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/journals/jwh/jwh061p001.pdf): "The Latin Sail in World History", convincingly demonstrates that 1) The Lateen Sail was used in the mediterranean late antiquity (2-4th century AD, Aegean sea) 2)There is no evidence of the lateen sail used in the Indian ocean before the 15th century, which makes the idea that the lateen was translated from the indian ocean to the mediterranean in the 9th century, when it first appears in medieval sources, difficult to uphold. 3)The first builders and sailors of the mediterranean muslim fleets of the period the lateen appears were local christian subjects of muslim rulers, not muslims themselves.

The Wiki article also points this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateen

I removed the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.182.91 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Noticed we're not supposed to do that. Added it with some modifications. Suggest removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.182.91 (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

College

Wouldn't Plato's Academy or the Lyceum be an earlier manifestation of the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.180.176 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Juiced soft drink

This article is a joke. Good example are “Juiced soft drink, Sherbet, and Sharab”. Sources? An article about Sherbet, published in the Saudi Aramco World magazine (this magazine is free publication published by the Saudi Aramco oil company) The second one is from www.1001inventions.com (Posted by person called Nosheen on February 27, 2006 02:58 PM, as his personal contribution to the site.)--N Jordan (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Aviation

his attempt was successful he only hurt himself landing

Suggestions

I think it would be a fairly good idea if we split the article into Arab inventions, Persian inventions, Berber inventions, Turkish inventions, etc. This would help reduce the size of the article, but there are certain issues we should take into consideration first. Many of these inventions are shared between these cultures, as they were all working within the same scholarly tradition, or were often migrating from each of these regions. For example, Persians and Turks in the Arab world, Arabs in Persia or Turkey, or Arabs and Berbers in Spain, etc. This scholarly tradition they followed is often called the "Islamic" culture by most scholars, in much the same way the "Hellenistic" culture refers to Greek, Egyptian, Syrian and Babylonian cultures working in the Hellenic tradition. If we did split this article into more specific cultures, we would end up having to copy and paste much of the same information into several articles (eg. al-Jazari was an Arab working in a Turkish state, Geber or Alhacen could be claimed by Arabs or Persians, Abbas Ibn Firnas could be claimed by Arabs or Berbers, etc.).

Personally, I think a better idea would be to name the article either Muslim technology or Technology in the Muslim world or Medieval Muslim technology instead, in much the same way Medieval technology covers medieval Christian European technology. A third option would be to leave the title as it is. Either way is fine with me.

Jagged 85 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you on the talk page. We want to avoid calling inventions "Muslim," because inventions don't have a religion.Proabivouac 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a better idea may be to split the article into inventions by field (e.g. medical, military and mechanical). This would not have the issue of "Persians and Turks in the Arab world" or vice-versa to it. Vice regent 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've also been thinking of doing recently, which is why I was adding links to the Alchemy (Islam), Islamic astronomy and Islamic medicine articles. I am intending for those articles to cover the chemical, astronomical and medical technologies respectively in more detail, with only brief descriptions or listings for them in this article. This should reduce the size of the article and allow more space to be used for other technologies. Jagged 85 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do inventions have a religion, culture or nationality?

As already suggested, they don't. But they don't have a "culture" or "nationality" either. Therefore splitting the article into Persian inventions (for example) would be inappropriate.

I also suggest that the titles of the following articles be modified:

• Canadian inventions
• English inventions and discoveries
• Scottish inventions and discoveries
• List of Chinese inventions
• Northern Irish inventions and discoveries
• Dutch inventions and discoveries

Vice regent 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the point of this article is that these inventions were made in societies where Islam was the prominent religion. The term Islamic society in and of itself is a problem obviously because many things shape a society besides its religion and there is a huge variety among Islamic societies and has sparked debate in the studies of religion and history. One solution to this problem has been the idea to use the term Islamicate, e.g. Islamicate art. This term is used to refer to things in a society where Islam is the dominate religion but are not directly related to the religion itself. Maybe the page should use this term and be named something like Medieval Islamicate Inventions? Just an idea, I don't think the term solves all the problems either, but at the moment its the best idea I have. DruidODurham (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The term Islam means civilisation. Hence why the name shouldn't be changed. Relgion did play a massive part in inspiring the scientists and the Western societies called them "Islamic" because of this. Let's stick top the real world here as I can already see the renaming convention is irrelevant and borders on WP:POV. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all psychotic. Almost none of these things are any more an "Islamic" invention or discovery than the Internet was a Christian one. Just because a development came out of a country where a particular religion was dominant at the time doesn't mean that development has anything to do with the religion. This really isn't complicated. Stances apart from this are definitely not NPOV. StealthCopyEditor (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Vice Regent, that all the above should be changed to "Inventions in..." and I will actively support a group rename nomination. This specific case is perhaps different, since it stands as a fact that sciences were flourishing all over the Islamic lands of the Middle Ages. Debresser (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

What are "scientific inventions"? Was the pez dispenser a "scientific invention" as well? I understand that people here may be more interested in history than philosophy and therefore may not understand what science is but I disagree that any of this is scientific in nature. For one, science doesn't make inventions. It is responsible for theory, experimentation and verification only. I think that references to science and scientists in this article need to be changed to something more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.32.245.170 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe all scientific inventions should be organized by time period. You could have an Ancient page, then sub-sections on Greece, Rome, China, etc.. Then a Medieval, and so on. Maybe it's a better idea to divide science/inventions by region and time period, as well as widespread use and novelty, then by religion. Actually as I'm writing this it seems fairly mindless to categorize science and technology by religion. Where's the Sikh science page? What did the Wiccans invent? What about cults? Any Satanic inventions? This should be moved on quickly by the way. What's Einstein? Is he on the Jewish science page? (How about a "Post-Industrial Science Page, or just "20th Century Science, for good old Al. Make sense?) (Gunslinger1812 (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

This is actually a fairly reasonable idea. It would take some work, to be sure, but this would profit the encyclopedia in terms of neutrality. The problem, of course, would be to form a consensus concerning this idea, and given the work involved, it would be difficult to convince conservatives unless you would be willing to take on a great deal of the effort.--C.Logan (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if this doesn't look right. My question: "Is this propaganda?" There is no general concept of Christian Science, Jewish Science, Jain Science, etc.. Truly inventions are the work of individuals, which a given society then either does or does not implement. There was no unified Islam after 750. Prior to 750 you could argue that you're dealing with a unified nation-state, but most of these inventions don't fall into that category. If anything this page should be deleted and split into Persian, Arabic, etc..

Also some of these "inventions" are exaggerated or misleading. What amounts to a wind-up toy is not an "android" (?!?!).

This is the kind of stuff that makes wikipedia look bad, and you'd be hard pressed to say the person (and it is mostly one) who wrote this doesn't have an agenda. (Gunslinger1812 (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Don't worry about being green. I second a few of your concerns- the misleading presentation is something that certainly needs work. Many of these "inventions" are just improvements, which is something that is not always clarified to a satisfactory extent (they are inventions in their own right, but while I could redesign the structure of a tire and create the Logan tire, I cannot reasonably be said to have invented the general "tire").

Your suggestion is problematic, though- breaking inventions up into national pages only inspires nationalism rather than religious agenda, and creates a whole load of little pages in the process (the concept of the Islamic world is useful as a geographical concept). You notice well enough that this article has one major contributor; this is unfavorable, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. Unfortunately, nobody else seems to have the time or interest in contributing to the article as much as Jagged- whether or not agenda comes into play in his contributions is another issue. The article definitely needs a once-over for the sake of neutrality and verifiability.--C.Logan (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

why is there no "Inventions in the Christian world" or "Inventions in the Hindu world" maybe it's because inventions are invented by people not religion, we have no way of telling how Islamic the inventors were other then they happened to be in an Islamic state/culture. I do think Inventors can be described as being of a nationality as this can be better qualified. this article is more about Islamic agenda then information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.114.229 (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed before on this talk page and the conclusion is that the "Islamic world" does not refer to the religion of Islam, but only to the geographic location known as the Muslim world. It would be pointless to split this article up into individual Arabian, Andalusian, Persian, etc. articles for reasons already given above in #Suggestions. I assume it was you who put the deletion tag on the article? If so, please avoid doing so next time before discussing it here first. Jagged 85 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is what you are claiming then it should be clearly stated in the first paragraph

links to Islamic websits should not be allowed and the Islam project teg should be removed Oxyman42 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove wikiproject templates, especially if you are not a member of that wikiproject. This article is a part of Muslim history and therefore falls within the scope of the Islam wikiproject. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please pay attention to this quotation.Bernard Lewis states(Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response)

"There have been many civilizations in human history, almost all of which were local, in the sense that they were defined by a region and an ethnic group. This applied to all the ancient civilizations of the Middle East—Egypt, Babylon, Persia; to the great civilizations of Asia—India, China; and to the civilizations of Pre-Columbian America. There are two exceptions: Christendom and Islam. These are two civilizations defined by religion, in which religion is the primary defining force, not, as in India or China, a secondary aspect among others of an essentially regional and ethnically defined civilization. Here, again, another word of explanation is necessary."

Thus we have Islamic sciences and inventions which are related to Islamic civilization. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has written it would be difficult to convince conservatives unless you would be willing to take on a great deal of the effort.

Unfortunately There are too many conservatives in the world such as Donald Routledge Hill, Henry Corbin, Bernard Lewis, George Saliba. Apparently the number of these conservative scholars is more than others. Compare [3] with [4] and [5] as well as [6] with [7] and [8]. As you see there are more books which have used Islamic instead of Arabic in their titles. I didn't speak about Persian due to there are numerous books about ancient Persian civilization.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. I think I might use that Bernard Lewis quote as a footnote in the article to clear up any misconceptions. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Either this article is about invention or Islam, it can't be both if you are claiming it is about invention Islamic agenda has no place here that is why the project template should be removed, as it stands this article is about selected evidence aquried by Islamists to construct a false psado history using highly dubious sources Oxyman42 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that cultures, religions and social norms do have an influence on technology, just as technologies have influence on the structures of societies. It is surely fair to suggest this in the same way as it is fair to ascribe inventions during the period of the Roman Empire as Roman. If it was the economic, social and/or cultural conditions of Islam that gave rise to an invention it would seem fair for it to be labeled as Islamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.226.253 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another quote from Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response:

"In English we use the word “Islam” with two distinct meanings, and the distinction is often blurred and lost and gives rise to considerable confusion. In the one sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christianity; that is to say, a religion in the strict sense of the word: a system of belief and worship. In the other sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christendom; that is to say, a civilization shaped and defined by a religion, but containing many elements apart from and even hostile to that religion, yet arising within that civilization."

In other words, the term "Islam" refers to both the religion of Islam (like the term Christianity) and the civilization of Islam (like the term Christendom). Both of these meanings have already been well-established in academic circles for a long time now. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody said Either this article is about invention or Islam, it can't be both if you are claiming it is about invention Islamic agenda has no place here that is why the project template should be removed, as it stands this article is about selected evidence aquried by Islamists to construct a false psado history using highly dubious sources.

I think you misunderstand the usage of templates on the article and talk page. I agree with you that we shouldn't put the template of Islam on the article. But we use wikiproject template on the talk page to manage related articles better. We put this template on Anti-Islam articles as well. It's just a tool for wikipedians. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

another use of selected favourable quotes this should be made clear in the first paragraph if that is the case of course being an Islamist Jagged 85 won't allow fair reportage and his next action will probably be to explode Oxyman42 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

if the islam project tags even anti islamic articles why is there no tag onTalk:Islamic_terrorism, conclusin editors here have an Islamist agenda. please apply tag on [Talk:Islamic_terrorism]], before re adding it here if this is not the case Oxyman42 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For your information, Talk:Islamic terrorism does have a Template:WikiProject Islam template, but you simply failed to notice it. Also, try to avoid personal attacks during discussions. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

why is this article full of developments? a development is not an invention therefore should not be here, saying the editors here are islamists with an agenda is not an insult but the truth also given your logic it is very likely your next action will be to explode and is an observation rather than an insult Oxyman42 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Inventions by time period

If we can get some kind of consensus, then I think we (?) should list all inventions by time peroid. For example, the Ancient Page could be subdivided into Rome, Greec, China, etc. Also we should note inventions that were widespread versus those that were novelties. For example, "the aqeducts were in use throughout the Roman World, while the steam engine was invented in the Ancient time period by Hesod (? I forget, Greek scientist around AD 100) but was never more than a novelty. This seems like the most logical way to present science and technology, and it gives a much better sense of what has come before, a real timeline for inventions. I know people love their ethnic groups, but scientists are typically not the "mainsteam, normal" types anyway. As soon as ethnic groups are added an article on scientific facts takes on social/political implications.

I know this is a daunting task. We begin with "fire" and end with "gene splicing and viagra." Hmmmm, that's another question. Is viagra an invention? Or is there a medial page? I guess I just stumbled onto something else.

If everbody agrees that the time period idea is the way to go, we could start wth Pre-history (bows, fire, the wheel) and move on. We could just leave the other pages up until the whole thing was done. I know it's a big project, but by the end it would probably be worth it.

(Gunslinger1812 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

There is already a Timeline of historic inventions article on Wikipedia, if that is what you meant. Jagged 85 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

there is too much self praise by the Muslims they have an agenda to promote their religion and will not act reasonably, they have already stated that it's about "their history" in other words their agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protest against islamic imposition (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you there is a greater number of non-Muslims on wikipedia to counter any such Muslim conspiracies that you fear might be going on. At any rate, your edits are no proper way to counter such things as they violate wikipedia guidelines to an even greater extent than your suggested threat. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this "check-and-balance" system is not so effective with articles that end up being edited almost exclusively by a single editor, as is the case here. I've received a few notes about this article before, and I myself have picked through entire sections of questionable content which would cause me to question the intent (or even just the focus) of the contributions here.--C.Logan (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that its not perfect but to suggest that the whole article is hogwash is far fetched. On top of that, the user himself has an obvious bias against Muslims claiming conspiracy theories and prejudices by them and using that as reasoning for his arguments. As for the history of editing, there is more than one editor editing, just that one is more prominent than others but last I checked, if he isn't do something wrong, then he's just being an active wikipedian. If he is doing something(s) wrong and no reverts or discusses his changes with him and instead just suggests to just blow away the whole article, its the people's fault whose responsibility is to check unbalanced editing. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

non spliting

I don't think that should be split into Persian, ottoman, Arabian…invention because of the complex to split it, at that time a Muslim/Persian scientist would go to House of Wisdom in Baghdad to study a certain thing in Arabic for instance, plus according to Islamic "hadeeth" a Muslim should go anywhere in the world seeking for science, shouldn't keep any kind of science to him self and s/he should spread it.

I think the word Islamic refers to a time era in this specific article; I know it might look like of some kind of propaganda for some people but it doesn't look like one to me. However I think the title should be changed to other phrase refers clearly to the invention in during Islamic era.

radiant guy (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

objection

I object to the following passage:

"Most of these inventions were invented in the Middle Ages, particularly during what is known as the "Islamic Golden Age". a closer examination of these successes reveals that they came about because these individuals stepped outside of the Muslim realm. For example, today Muslim scientists and scholars are trained in the West. I claim that Islam is not conducive to the pursuit of rational inquiry, and when Islam asserts itself, it borrows, co-opts and ultimately, when time has passed and memory forgotten, claims that these borrowed and co-opted things were originated by Muslims, not by the native cultures that preceded the Muslims."

For starters, it seems to lie squarely in the realm of original research. Its source is an argumentative article of opinion. Secondly, it is revisionist; ie, it is not the opinion of most scholars or the general public, as far as I am aware. Thirdly, part of it is written in the first person. Fourthly, it is highly derogatory; it attacks a religion and belittles the accomplishments of people which professed it.

The only mention of the highlighted text I see possible is as the opinion of the article's particular author. If there were others with similar conclusions, the dissenting authors and their arguments could be mentioned.

This being said, I will proceed in changing it.

201.242.100.181 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 201.242.100.181 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the text. In addition, by 'article' ("he only mention of the highlighted text I see possible is as the opinion of the article's particular author") I meant magazine article; the one where the the highlighted text was apparently based from.

201.242.100.181 (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) User:Jagged 85 please have the guts to sign your pov pushing

I object to the use of Islamofachistic quotations from Islamic sources highly eddited to produce a psuado history as seen by the Islamic Pov pushers such as User:Jagged 85 quotations from these sources can't be regarded as appropriate Islam: Empire of Faith a b Ahmad Y Hassan Journal of the Islamic Medical Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxyman42 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I object to the dubious text you have injected into the lead section, as I noted in my edit - the lead section now contains text that contains POV text in a first person narrative i.e "I claim that Islam is not conducive to the pursuit of rational inquiry, and when Islam asserts itself, it borrows, co-opts and ultimately, when time has passed and memory forgotten, claims that these borrowed and co-opted things were originated by Muslims, not by the native cultures that preceded the Muslims." - all this just copy pasted from a POV website Frontpage Magazine - which is at odds with wikipedia's core policy of NPOV and could also be a copyvio. Pahari Sahib (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

since when is a quotation a copyvio unless you're pov pushing? when you delete all the dupious Islamic pov pushing sources you might have a point, this article needs a more NPOV source than you, please reframe from inserting your propaganda here

I have made a request for a non Islamic pusher to look at this article in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests please avoid your pov pushing untill it is looked at by a non pov pusher Oxyman42 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the so called sources are extremely suspect on this article and the article needs looking over with a view to removeing all pov claims form dubious sources Oxyman42 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am glad that you are seeking assistance - but I object to being called an Islamic POV pusher edits like this do not help - seems to me to be straight out of conservapedia. Pahari Sahib (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

reply: surely a way of trying to balance a debate is to include opinions from both sides? There are about 100 quotations from dubious Islamic sites, or quotations carefully selected and taken out of context to support an argument. I added that (single) quotation after several others were deleted by pov pushers such as "many of them (the inventions) had direct implications for Fiqh related issues"

this quotation was supplied by a Muslim when it suited the point he was trying to make but deleted it when I added it to the article as it did not support the pov agenda"In English we use the word “Islam” with two distinct meanings, and the distinction is often blurred and lost and gives rise to considerable confusion. In the one sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christianity; that is to say, a religion in the strict sense of the word: a system of belief and worship. In the other sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christendom; that is to say, a civilization shaped and defined by a religion, but containing many elements apart from and even hostile to that religion, yet arising within that civilization."Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong

Any edit which goes against the pov pushing agenda is deleted by someone from WP:ISLAM which is unlike a normal Wikiproject as it is a group of pov pushers intent of pushing their views rather then improving wikipedia Oxyman42 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not a member of WP:ISLAM, but you should at least try and follow WP:MOS and cite it correctly - and not overload the lead section with your POV. Pahari Sahib (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a wikiproject just to monitor the stuff coming from WP:ISLAM, I did try and cite it correctly, but every time I try and add something here it is reverted by pov pushers from WP:ISLAM. the whole article at present amounts to one big pov push from WP:ISLAM and it is somewhat beyond one person to check 150 odd quotations to see if they are correct Oxyman42 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Front Page is obviously not a reliable source for this. And I'm sure some sources and claims from this problematic article must be pruned but degenerating into non-authoritative sources is not the answer. And, if you have problems with editors I advise you bring them up at the proper locations rather than insulting a whole Wiki project which has had many good editors. These are obviously very political issues which is why so many editors leave working on Islam related articles because there is no end to POV pushers from either side. But, we combat that by dealing with individual editors and trying to make articles better... not by citing poor sources to add "balance". gren グレン 11:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

While understanding that Oxyman42 is looking to put some objective balance into the article, the edit under question is inappropriate, misplaced and poorly presented. The article should be restored to [[9]] SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article as suggested.

Pahari Sahib 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

General comment on appropriateness of scope

A general comment, partially echoing some earlier statements ...

I wonder about the appropriateness of the scope of this article. In general the article is a stretch in that it is almost a "list article" which often is not a good article. Still in this case an article about the contributions of a significant group I think meets the appropriateness criteria, barely. But this article is trying to tie the contributions of all Muslims throughout the Eastern hemisphere through all history. These are very disparate cultures with their own histories and the contributions many of them have made often have more to do with their neighbors, who are not necessarily Muslim, than they do with the rest of the Muslim world.

I would propose that an article about the inventions of the Muslim Golden Age around the Mediterranean is an appropriate article since these cultures clearly had a lot of interconnection and can be seen, to some degree, a cohesive ethnic group (and I say that not in the sense that their weren't different ethnicities but in the sense that they all saw themselves as having a lot in common and were fairly tight-knit for much of that period). And clearly this culture made important contributions to the world during that period. But I think trying to keep it as broad as it is makes no more sense than having a broad article about the contributions of the Greeks which includes the accomplishments of people from Greektown in Chicago. In other words, it is trying to tie together too many things with a very thin thread (which essentially means that it is a POV article trying to push an agenda).

Just my opinion ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed this would be an article about the medieval period, but it seems to be about anything scientific and Muslim. I agree, the Muslim Golden Age or something like that.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to move a quantity of informations such as enhancements of inventions to a new article like Science in the Medieval Islamic world. These informations are historically valuable while not very appropriate to be called "Inventions". Snn77 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Constructed or Invented? & Used or Invented?

I think some of the submissions are misleading. For example under "Clock Technology" no where does it say they invented the technology. They may have constructed these devices but it doesnt mean they invented them. (Someone could just as well have constructed a chariot but it doesnt mean they invented it)

Theres a number of articles about items being used but just because something is used it doesnt make it an invention.

Bill 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the sort of thing I'm excising from this article. Check my edits. Frotz (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

chemical technology

It's clear that the modern discipline of chemistry came to the West by way of Arab scholars who preserved the ancient art of alchemy. It cannot be said that Arab scholars invented alchemy. The very word "alchemy" alludes to this. It means "the art of the land of Khem". "Khem" is the ancient name of Egypt and the Egyptian word for "black". A lot of Arab alchemic terminology persists to the present day, but this does not imply that any of it was invented by said Arabs. This is particularly true of assertions of the invention of crucibles and calicination: both of which are intrinsic to smelting and the manufacture of lime. These demonstrably existed before Islam appeared. Frotz (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking sorely needed

This article is very much in need of fact-checking. Over the past couple weeks I've been checking the facts on the assertions made in this article. I find that a tremendous number of them predate Islam. This seems to be the product of scholars not checking their facts or else having POV-pushing agendas. Is anyone interested in helping with this? Frotz (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I must warn you that an attempt to put facts here may lead to you been called a conservapedia reading conservative. I have tried to put things right in the past but these efforts are quickly undone by organized members of WP:ISLAM. They even object to using a quote supllied by them if it goes against their agenda. Oxyman42 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally what I've been doing is cross-checking assertions in this article with other articles. Things that contradict otherwise well-known facts are deleted. I deleted all cites from one author who was shown to practice dubious and sloppy scholarship. I got most of the glaringly obvious ones already. Let's just dive in and take on the POV-pushers when the time comes. So far, they haven't complained about anything I've removed from here. Frotz (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

advice

Possibly a way to proceed on this is to not just list the inventions, but to say a little more, making clear the role.-- if you avoid disputes on exactly what to call it. A definite way not to proceed with this article or any other is to make comments about the motives of other editors. DGG (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If as is the case here there is an organized group of POV pushers I don't see how it can be avoided Oxyman42 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested inventions

It's been a a few months since I've edited this article, but I'm surprised to find how many inventions were removed on the speculative grounds that the editor thinks they may have been invented in ancient times (without citing any sources), even though many of the inventions that were removed were clearly referenced to reliable sources. As such, I intend to restore these inventions in a seperate "Contested inventions" category, which basically lists inventions which have been claimed by other civilizations, similar to the "Other inventions" section of the List of Chinese inventions. If some editors can cite reliable sources which suggest some of the technologies were invented in other civilizations, then they can move those entries to the "Contested inventions" section and explain it there. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Other inventions" section that you refer and link to states clearly that those "Things often misunderstood or rumored to be invented by the Chinese:" I suspect that you will omit such a necessary caveat if it goes against your agenda, this observation is based on your past edits Oxyman42 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The inventions I removed are fairly obvious to casual students of history, physics, chemistry, and alchemy. Here's a small sampling:

• Using cotton to staunch wounds. Since all sorts of wooly substances were used as bandages, it's most certain that someone used the fruit of a cotton plant for the same purpose.
• Attempts to fly. The Greek myth of Icarus makes it clear that the ancients thought of this. Are we to believe that NOBODY until the 10th century tried to fly?
• Numerous things listed as inventions of the Islamic world are directly contradicted WITH CITES in the very articles the listings reference. Did anyone think to take the small effort to go that short distance and check?
• Are we to believe that no physician before the advent of Islam thought of cutting into live patients? Similarly, as soon as the saw was invented, shouldn't someone have thought of using one to cut off diseased limbs?
• Do we really need examples for inventions in the 20th century and beyond? Shouldn't this article be limited to Islam's Golden Age?
• Numerous alchemic devices and techniques are listed as Islamic inventions, when they are crucial in one form or another to the preparation and working of copper, bronze, brass, and other metals. Are we to believe that metallurgy began no earlier than the 7th century?
• Cobs are bricks made of mud mixed with straw. This stuff is mentioned in the Book of Exodus, depending on who you ask (it might have been adobe), and is commonly found in stone-age excavations.

Frotz (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Post Afd 2 modifications

It appears the second Afd has closed, because apparently POV can be corrected by editing [10]. I do not understand this closure reason at all (and have requested clarification [11]), because per the Afd nomination reason and my subsequent comments, it is the very premise of the article through its title which is what violates the neutral point of view principle. However, if this article is to be kept despite the many delete votes, and the masses of criticism on this talk page, the very minimimum I believe that needs to happen to avoid further challenges to this article is:

• Change the title
• Write a comprehensive and accurate lead to establish exactly why this manufactured correlation is notable (and not from a POV, but reflecting accurate third party opinions that think it is so)
• Give a proper account of the various civilisations that have contributed, and not just say 'islam/a muslim done it'. There is a wide gulf between these civilisations and societies.
• Convert it to a timeline based list, not a meaningless grouping by subject
• Massively copyedit for POV and accuracy

MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that the same people that argued for this article to be kept on various grounds are happy to allow this article to remain with it's POV pushing agenda Oxyman42 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Three-masted merchant vessel

Muslim sailors were responsible for introducing the large three-masted merchant vessels to the Mediterranean Sea.

Ancient Roman ships were known to have large three-masted cargo vessels.

This section should be deleted as it seems that someone has provided a link disproving the claim anyhow at the moment it contradicts itself, I would do it myself but have already been lectured about editing this article so shall wait for someone else to do it Oxyman42 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That someone was me. I'm trying to sort out things that really were invented in the Islamic Golden Age from those things commonly-mistaken as being Islamic in origin. Jagged 85 has a valid point in separating the two. Another thing that needs to be done is to drastically cut down on the number of enhancements and variations of inventions. For instance, the assorted entries having to with variants of the astrolabe and armillary spheres must be removed. Both were known to the ancient Greeks. Listing enhancements to them here is inconsequential. Frotz (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with things commonly-mistaken as being Islamic in origin haveing their own clearly defined section as they will probably appear in the main text if not, whatJagged 85 seemed to propose was a kind of speculation section, which would go against wikipedia being an encyclopedia. I agree that the title of the page contains the word invention therefore developments are not really appropriate here, my advice is remove them again I shall wait for others to delete them as I have been warned Oxyman42 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by a "speculation section". Frotz (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant a "Contested inventions" section where you can only speculate who invented the inventions mentioned, an encyclopedia is supposed to deal with facts, If we cannot be sure where the inventions came from here is not really the place to put it Oxyman42 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On/off switch

The on/off switch, an important feedback control principle, was invented by Muslim engineers between the 9th and 12th centuries, and it was employed in a variety of automata and water clocks. The mechanism later had an influence on the development of the electric on/off switch which appeared in the 1950s. weater or not a Muslim invented the on/off switch (unlikely) it is just speculation to say it had "influence on the development of the electric on/off switch" if not complete rubbish Oxyman42 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Explosive gunpowder" what other kind of gunpowder is there? I'm guessing that the explosive kind was better then the non explosive kind Oxyman42 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The on/off switch is likely predated by the Romans and Greeks. The Roman Senate had a habit of stopping the water clock when time was about to run out. Greek automata would need some way to be started and stopped. Gunpowder doesn't explode unless it's confined. The section on "explosive gunpowder" probably refers to the optimum ratio of saltpetre to charcoal to sulphur. If the Chinese were smart enough to invent the stuff, I'm quite sure they were smart enough to tinker with the ratios. Therefore inventing explosive powder in this article is bunk. Frotz (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find your sources to provide evidence then fine, you seem to think the Greeks and Romans made everything. And you keep deleting good sources. Please stop this. At the very least discuss it here first. Provide sources. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"If you can find your sources to provide evidence then fine" most of the pro islamic stuff on this page is so called sourced by pro Islamic material which is neither an adequate source or a credible reference, not good sources. no need to ask you to stop as your religious zeal is totally in control of your actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.222.64 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What "pro-Islamic material"? Nearly all the sources used on this page are from secular sources. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all? means not all right and define "secular sources" clearly sources like "100 islamic inventions" are not sitting on the fence regards who's side they are on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.218.84 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Too long

The article at present is 184 KB long. I will propose to split it into several specialized articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to split the article into two articles, one dealing with the classical period and the other with the modern period, like what I've recently done with the Timeline of Islamic science and engineering article. Jagged 85 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone is looking for a definitive list of inventions in the Islamic world, they shouldn't have to waste time searching around in several different articles to find what they need to know. What I would propose is a cutting down on the descriptions of each passage (for each invention) and create separate articles for each overhead section (so that the elaboration on each passage will not be lost but simply transferred to several articles). To me, that would be the only acceptable way to split the article into several others--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be split, and the current individual lists should be replaced by some coherent summarizing text, while the lists themselves are moved to list-of articles. Regarding search: a definite total list could be constructed by including all those list-of articles into one specialized total list-of article. This way the material becomes easier to edit, overview, maintain and search all-in-one and everyone will become happy and live in eternal bliss ever after... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain: including. If we have an article List of islamic petrochemical inventions and one List of mathematical inventions we can create one total list-of article composed of those individual articles, this way:

{{List of islamic petrochemical inventions}}

{{List of islamic mathematical inventions}}

{{List of islamic astronomical inventions}}

etc. This way the individual lists are called as wikipedia "templates". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

change title/ elminate duplications

"Innovations" more accurately describes the items on this list. multiple listings of the same "discovery" should be eliminated.J8079s (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Innovations" would be too broad in scope, as it would include all scientific and philosophical innovations as well. The article would become too large if all kinds of innovations were included. Jagged 85 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA

I hate to say it like this but Jagged is a Muslim propagandist. Science should go by time period, region, widespread use vs. novelty, and nothing more; it's the only way not to be biased or to allow someone to spread religious propaganda on an encyclopedia website. The Ancient stuff is more or less done already, but these Medieval Muslim pages should be deleted, and again sorry to say it, but Jegged should be banned from this website. He's using it, plain and simple, for his own propaganda. You wouldn't let a Creationist write the page on Creationism, would you?

Gunslinger1812

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 

For the hundredth time already, this article is not defined by religion, but by a geopolitical region known as medieval Islam. The quote at the top of the article already explains this clearly. And if you want to insult me, go to my talk page and do it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Jagged 85 displays a continuous and preditable one-sidedness in most of his articles. Jagged includes in his Muslim innovation series Christian Hungarian engineers as much as Soviet engineers and Muslim atheists. The whole category "Muslim xyz" seems to rest on shaken foundations. I also agree that if all users were going by his sens of truthfulness in writing articles, Wikipedia would be a place immediately to leave. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Really because I don't. You seem to have an agenda for personally attacking his work. You repeatedly vandalise articles that have anything to do with Islam claiming the sources are "not correct". Please stop this or I will open a request for comment on your behaviour. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To gunpowder and gunslinger: You are confusing the "Islamic religion" with the "Islamic civilization". It is unfortunate that these two very different things have the same first word in their name. If you don't know the difference, then you probably should not be working on articles about them. Your attitude towards Jagged is completely inappropriate. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To CharlesGillingham: The problem those two, as well as I, have with this distinction of the two terms Islamic civilization and Islamic religion is that no such thing exists for any other civilization. There is clearly a Christian civilization that dominated Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire and for a long time thereafter. Much astronomy and science was supported by the church. But I have looked and have found no article anywhere on Wikipedia about Christian science or Christian inventions. No one would consider writing such an article. Certainly, there is the weasly excuse of referring to "Islamic civilization," but civilizations did exist prior to the invasions of Islam, and in fact most of the "Islamic" scholars, even when they were actual Muslims, drew from pre-Islamic writings and works. The problem I have here is the very premise of qualifying these things as "Islamic" in the first place, and deflecting that criticism with the rebuttal that we are talking about civilization doesn't get around the criticism. No other civilization is referred to by its religion, and even where scientists like Isaac Newton had an overt religious inspiration for their discoveries, they and their discoveries are not referred to as "Christian" discoveries. In other words, the use of the adjective Islamic is biased and non-neutral, regardless of Bernard Lewis says.KartoumHero (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

better scholarship needed

Instead of cut and paste lets check our sources and explain what we mean.

• A Short History of Chemistry Partington ISBN 0486659771
• Story of Alchemy and Early Chemistry Stillman ISBN 0766132307
• Creation of Fire: Chemistry's Lively History from Alchemy to the Atomic Age Cobb ISBN 073820594X
• Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries Lucas ISBN 0766151417
• From Alchemy to Chemistry Read ISBN 0486286908
• The Dictionary of Alchemy Fernando ISBN 1843336189
• Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry: Papers from Ambix Debus ISBN 0954648412
• The Chemical Tree; A History of Chemistry Brock ISBN 0393302685
• Alchemy Holmyard ISBN 0486262987
• A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Partington ISBN 0801859549
• Glasss: a World History Macfarlane and Martin ISBN 0226500284
• Sasanian and Post-Sasnian Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass Whitehouse and Brill ISBN 0872901580
• A Short History of the Art of Distillation from the Beginnings Up to the Death of Cellier Blumenthal Forbs ISBN 9004006176J8079s (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a real interest should do some work to improve the article.J8079s (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to put the tags back upJ8079s (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

A large number of the inventions in this article are given a history which contradicts (wholly or in part) the history in the wikipedia article on those inventions. See, e.g., rudder, gunpowder, distillation, guitar, sundial, astrolabe. The common element seems to be that many of these inventions were developed by different people in different parts of the world over thousands of years, sometimes independently and sometimes based upon a partial or complete understanding of the device's history. It is therefore rather artificial to point to one element in the path of the device's development and say that this was the moment when the device was invented - yet that is the approach taken in much of this article. A great deal of work would be required to go through the article methodically.

I should add that this is generally not the case with the theoretical/mathematical items in the article - in most cases it is clear that the discoveries in question originated in medieval Islam. However I would query whether these are "inventions" in the ordinary meaning of the term. LeContexte (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Items

The following items need to be removed:

• shipmills: the difference between "boat mills" and "ship mills" is OR. In fact, the size of the carrier is irrelevant to its function. The conventional term is "shipmill" not boat mill, because there was always a deck, and usually an enclosed superstructure, to keep the flour away from the damp. This was first recorded at Rome in 547 AD in Procopius of Caesarea's Gothic Wars (1.19.8-29) when Belisaurius who was besieged there ordered water wheels to be attached to the boats. (see also Lucas who gives priority to Belisarius' invention: Adam Lucas: Wind, Water, Work: Ancient and Medieval Milling Technology, BRILL, 2006 ISBN 9004146490, p.62).
• turbine: preceded by Greco-Roman technology (Andrew Wilson: “Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy”, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 92 (2002), p.16):

At Chemtou and Testour two helix-turbine mill installations of almost identical type, each with three mill-races, seem to date also from the fourth century A.D. (PI. Ill, I). The wheels here were driven by tapering mill-races entering a circular wheelshaft tangentially, creating a swirling column of water that left the wheelshaft at a lower level. The horizontal wheels, which must have had angled blades, rotated fully submerged in a sort of artificial whirlpool, and acted as true turbines - a highly sophisticated design not paralleled again until 1577, in Spain.

• street light: preceded by Greco-Roman technology (Bruce M. Metzger, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 11, No. 4. (Dec., 1948), pp. 72):

Among ancient cities Antioch was distinctive in being the only one known to possess a regular system of street lighting.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Combination lock: Finds from the Roman period in Greece: Wolfram Hoepfner: "Ein Kombinationsschloss aus dem Kerameikos", Archäologischer Anzeiger, Vol., No. 2 (1979), pp. 210–213
• Diversion dam: In fact, one of the very oldest dam structures, in evidence in Ancient Egypt by 2600-2100 BC (Overview of the History of Water Resources and Irrigation Management in the Near East Region )
• Clear, colourless and high-purity glass: Produced by the 3rd cent. in Hellenistic Egypt, by the Imperial period also blowing glass with these characteristices. (R.J. Forbes: "Studies in Ancient Technology", Vol. 5, Leiden 1957 , pp.153-172). In fact, many Roman museums have a sizeable collection of these glasses (see Commons) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Central heating through underfloor pipes: In evidence in Reichenau abbey in the 9th c. AD, in the early medieval episcopium of the cathedral of Geneva and in Disentis, the Merovingian curtis at Fulda (ca. 700 AD), as well as other places in the Alpine upland (cf. Hägermann, Dieter; Schneider, Helmuth (1997), Propyläen Technikgeschichte. Landbau und Handwerk, 750 v. Chr. bis 1000 n. Chr. (2nd ed. ed.), Berlin, p. 456-459, ISBN 3-549-05632-X). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Silica glass: There is no mention of "Silica glass" in the cited source, and, anyway the context makes it clear that Lynn White merely summarizes what Muslim historians, that is Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari has to say about Ibn Firnas, not what he thinks Ibn Firnas invented. Definitely Ibn Firnas was not "the first to make glass from stones (quartz?)", as rock crystal was widely worked long before: Michael Vickers - Rock Crystal. The Key to Cut Glass and Diatreta in Rome and Persia, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Vol. 9, 1996). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Airmail system utilizing homing pigeons: dates back to pre-Islamic times (Greece, China etc.): Andrew D. Blechman: Pigeons: The Fascinating Saga of the World's Most Revered and Reviled Bird, Univ. of Queensland Press, 2007, pp.11f. ISBN 9780702236419 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Purification and oxidisation: Distillation and processes allied to it were known and applied by Greek alchemists in Roman times (Taylor, F. Sherwood (1945) 'The evolution of the still', Annals of Science, 5:3, 185 - 202), so the Independent article clearly errs. For an attribution of these two specific processes to Muslim alchemists, therefore, I'd like to see a less concise and more scholarly source. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Lead carbonatic, Arsenic: Attribution of invention not in citation given, Sarton merely states: "We find in his (Jabir, Geber) writings remarkably sound views on methods of chemical research, a theory on the geologic formation of metals (the six metals differ essentially because of different proportions of sulphur and mercury in them); preparation of various substances (e.g., basic lead carbonatic, arsenic and antimony from their sulphides)." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Confectionery: Attribution of invention not in citation given, Mokyr merely states: "The Arabs also learned to grow and refine sugar and to make confectionery from it." Mokyr, Joel (2002), Twenty-Five Centuries of Technological Change, p. 25, ISBN 0415269318 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Pure distilled alcohol: No source given, whereas the standard work by Forbes attributes the distilliation of alcohol to around 1100 in Italy (Forbes, Robert James (1970). A short history of the art of distillation: from the beginnings up to the death of Cellier Blumenthal. BRILL. p. 57, 89. ISBN 9789004006171.) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Restaurant: Attribution of invention not in citation given, Lindsay merely states: "In addition, there were shops that sold breads, pastries, and sweetmeats, as well as restaurants where one could purchase all sorts of prepared dishes" (Lindsay, James E. (2005), Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 131, ISBN 0313322708). Clearly from the careless, somewhat anachronistic use of the term, one cannot infer that the author believes restaurants were a Muslim invention, unknown before. Besides, to offer "all sorts of prepared dishes" is not at all a specific characteristics of restaurants, in fact restaurants typically offer only a certain range of meals (French or Italian; pasta and pizza or steak; fish or meat etc.). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Sugar refinery: Attribution of invention not in citation given, Lucas merely says that "These mills were engaged in a wide variety of tasks, including...crushing mineral ores and sugarcane" (Adam Robert Lucas (2005), "Industrial Milling in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: A Survey of the Evidence for an Industrial Revolution in Medieval Europe", Technology and Culture 46 (1): 1-30 [10]). While I would not exclude the possibility of Muslim engineers being the first to produce sugar in any quantities, a source which says so is needed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Water purification: This is a pretty unspecified category. If this is an allusion to the desalination of water by distillation and other related water distillation processes, evidence goes back as far as Aristotle (Taylor, F. Sherwood (1945) 'The evolution of the still', Annals of Science, 5:3, 185 - 202 (186)) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision

For the sake of clarity, below are those inventions and discovery again which were removed because they were not supported by the cited source, but which I think might be attributed to Muslim people nonetheless; but it needs better references for that:

• Purification and oxidisation
• Sugar refinery Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Geomantic computer

Geomantic instrument, Egypt or Syria, 1241-1242 CE, made by Muhammad ibn Khutlukh al Mawsuli. British Museum.

Detail.

Detail.

Quite a surprising feat of technology at the British Museum: a geomantic computer-like instrument, made in Egypt or Syria in 1241-1242 CE, by Muhammad ibn Khutlukh al Mawsuli. According to the museum notice, this instrument was used for the purpose of divination, to answer questions such as "Will this person be a suitable husband?" or "Will I succeed in business?". When turning the dials, random designs of dots would appear, which were then interpreted. A poem is writen at the back of the instrument, praising its virtues: "I am the silent speaker... the judicious one hides his secret thoughts, but I disclose them as if hearts were created as my parts." The manufacturing skills involved are quite amazing for the period. Feel free to insert this info into the article. PHG (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It rather deserves its own article like the Antikythera mechanism, because the usage of that Geomantic instrument is not clear. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also maybe related to Book of Ingenious Devices. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Emilie Savage-Smith and Marion Smith discussed this at length; it's clear that this is a table used to replace the old sand-and-tray method of geomancy. These aren't "random designs of dots" but a system of sixteen dot figures (see Geomantic figures). Unlike the Antikythera Mechanism, this machine's use is readily apparent. An article devoted to this, however, would be greatly appreciated. Tascil (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Things the Muslims did not invent

The paper mill predates the Islamic Golden Age. Hydropower to run the mill may be an Islamic innovation, but this should be listed under "uses of hydropower"; the way it is now, we are implying that the paper mill was invented by Muslims.

Article problems (X-2009)

• Scope. It is not clear what spatial and temporal extent this article is meant to cover. The lead claims that it is meant to cover the period from the Caliphate to the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires, but this cannot be right as it means that e.g. 1921 Istanbul would be medieval, an absurdity. Hodgson does not use the word "medieval" in his work The Venture of Islam, but he identifies the "middle Islamic period" as being from 945-1503 (p. 96, ISBN 0-226-34678-1; before is the Caliphal Period, afterwards is the Period of Gunpowder Empires.) The temporal scope in Medieval Islamic Civilization: an Encyclopedia (ISBN 0415966914, p. xii) is given as roughly from the 6th through 17th centuries.
• Bogus inventions. This list has suffered persistently from editing where various things used during this period have been indiscriminately inserted without checking to see whether they are new or whether they existed before. I have removed a large number (over 30) of non-inventions of this sort, but more have appeared as new material has been added. For example, the spur, just added, is not of medieval Arabic origin, as claimed, as it was used by the Celts in the late Iron Age (ISBN 9004072330, p. 115.) For another example, there is no claim in the source given that the "steel helmet", just added, first appeared in medieval Islam. These are two arbitrary examples but there are sure to be many more.
• Bogus sources.
      (1) For example, the account of a rocket flight given here is taken from Evliya Çelebi's Seyahatname, which is not a reliable source as it contains many tall tales and fictional material (pp. 153 ff., ISBN 9004137157).
      (2) For another example, the source [12], from an advocacy site, states incorrectly that all clocks were water clocks prior to the 16th century, and seems to imply that spring-powered clocks were not known prior to 1556, which is also incorrect.
      (3) The article also cites potted histories of the world and newspaper articles which claim that the alembic, distillation, filtration, and sublimation were invented at this time. Actually, these all existed earlier during the Hellenistic period (see A short history of chemistry, Partington, 3rd ed., Courier Dover, 1989, ISBN 0486659771, pp. 23–24.)
      (4) The children's book Islam and Science, Medicine, and Technology (Rosen, 2009, ISBN 1435850661) is cited on Al-Jazari's piston pump. A quote from this source reads (p. 41): "A crankshaft is a wheel that sets several crank pins into motion. The wheel's motion is circular, but the pins move back and forth in a straight line". This is nonsensical in two ways: (1) a crankshaft is a shaft, not a wheel; (2) crank pins move around and around in a circle, not back and forth in a straight line.
• Original research; misreading of sources. For example, the entry on the "elephant clock" states that it contains the earliest example of a closed-loop system in a mechanism. This claim does not appear in the source and is not correct as closed-loop systems appeared already in Hero's Pneumatica (ISBN 026213067X, pp. 20-21.)
• No criterion for novelty or significance of inventions. In a way, this is the most important problem, as with a stringent criterion for notability of an invention, the list could perhaps be maintained with sufficient work, but without it it will grow without bound as new material is spammed in.

Spacepotato (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This article will be forever tagged

• until it is defined what "invented" actually means in the context here and
• unless some users change their way of selective perception of attributing an invention to the "Muslims" at all costs. The recent incorrect addition of Dardanelles Gun is a case in point: although the article on the gun explicitly states that the screw-connected super guns were earlier known in medieval Europe and the technology was very likely imported into the Ottoman Empire, the gun was still included here.

The only solution is to radically delete all contents which cannot verify that a) this was invention and b) this invention can be attributed to islamic engineers. That means, entries such as the "Canal watermill" which are introduced as inventions on the flimsy basis that they "were located on the main canals of valley-floor irrigation systems" are to be removed as lacking both in criteria a) and b). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Dardanelles Gun was included as a one-off—that is, the claim is that this particular piece of bronze was made in the medieval Islamic world, even if the gun type is not new—although this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an invention.

I agree with your main point however. To spell it out in tedious detail, for something to be a verifiable part of a list of inventions in medieval Islam, we need to have five criteria satisfied:

1. It must be clearly stated what the thing is, whether it's a new type of device, a new process, a new substance, or a specific item (a one-off.) If before there were only red widgets and now there are green widgets, the invention must be given as the "green widget", not the "widget".
2. It must have appeared in medieval Islam.
3. The sources must prove that criterion 2 is satisfied.
4. It must not have appeared earlier outside of medieval Islam. (This criterion could conceivably be weakened in the case of independent invention.)
5. The sources must prove that criterion 4 is satisfied.

Failure to use criteria 4 and 5 has caused many problems. Criterion 1 has been a bit of a problem as well. We should also avoid dubious sources such as newspaper articles, potted histories of the world, children's books, videos of the "History Channel", and advocacy websites and journals. Spacepotato (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed references to the unreliable Terzioglu source discussed on my talk page. Dialectric Dialectric (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More bogus inventions

• Shampoo. Sake Dean Mahomet's "shampooing" salons offered therapeutic massage (called "shampooing", from the Hindi champi, head massage.) This was not a practice he developed himself, however, as it already existed in India at the time. "Shampooing" came to mean hair-wash only after his death. (The travels of Dean Mahomet: an eighteenth-Century journey through India, Sake Deen Mahomet and Michael Herbert Fisher, University of California Press, 1997, ISBN 0520207173, pp. 148, 149, 155, 156, 197.) Since this was not an invention, I have removed it from the article. Spacepotato (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Ship mill dam. This is based on the following quote: "In about 1183 Ibn Jubayr saw the ship-mills across the River Khabur, `forming, as it were, a dam'." (p. 166, A history of engineering in classical and medieval times, Donald Hill, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 0415152917.) I removed this because, obviously, it's not really a dam. Ibn Jubayr just means that he saw a large number of mills, so that it gave the appearance of a dam. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicative entries

• Steam-powered and self-rotating spit and smoke jack: Smoke-jacks are powered by smoke. Taqi al-Din's device was steam-powered, and therefore not a smoke-jack. The remaining claims in this entry were redundant with the entry above, "Steam turbine, impulse". I removed this. Spacepotato (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

It seems there are multiple (as much as 4 or 5) listings of the same exact thing under different categories, probably added only to make the article longer. Also, many of the sources seem questionable at best, but then again, it's wikipedia where anything goes as long as it's printed and "PC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.218.244 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of political correctness is getting a little stale, not only because is that not the motivation of the editors (remember, assume good faith is a rule here), but also because asserting that some scientific and technological innovations originated outside of Europe is really quite politically incorrect, given the resistance from some quarters. That said though, I agree, the article does need improvement. If you can specifically point out examples of repetition, and/or iffy sources, please do so, but a vague condemnation of the article is not constructive. thanks Maxkbennett (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

77.109.218.244 is completely correct. Furthermore, parts from this article are repeated in related articles. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, specific are examples required. I don't know why I need to repeat this. Second, if parts of this article (or any article) are repeated in related articles, that is OK, as long as it is relevant to the topic at hand. If the exact phrasing is identical then someone my want to fix that, but that is a nit pick.Maxkbennett (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Max, you ask for examples. Why don't you look for them yourself? Two people have by now stated that they are to be found. Appearently we don't want to engage in the hard work ourselves, isn't that obvious? Debresser (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I have to say that it does not speak well of you, seeing as you are happy to make accusations of political correctness, but the moment that some actually work is requested of you it is all excuses and cop-outs. In any case I have not seen the repetition myself so as far as I am concerned it is not real until you find it. (or does that make me PC?)Maxkbennett (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done some serious cleanup to this article, as its history shows. Presently I am not well, which makes extensive editing hard for me. Also, I prefer not to meddle with this article, so that nobody should accuse me of a spearheading a Jewish campaign to diminish the importance of Islam's contributions to the world. Are these arguments enough to persuade you of my better intentions? Debresser (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I never questioned your intentions, sorry if it sounded like that, but if you are capable of leaving vague condemnations of the article on the talk page, you should be capable of citing exactly what your concern is. After scanning the article a little more closely, I found a single repetition (restaurant, which was a "see above" deal). I do admit I very well may have missed something, particularly in some of the more technical subjects of which I am largely ignorant. So ball is in your court, either man up or drop the issue, this sort of behavior is, at best, royally unhelpful. Maxkbennett (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Listing of possible inventions

The recent restoration by Jagged of material pointing at the "possible invention of the papermill" calls for some clarification. Can we include such material here or do we need to draw a line somewhere between hypothesis and fact? Does the inclusion of "possible" cases not give WP:Undue weight under the heading of a list of inventions? In this particular case, while it is definitely possible that Muslim paper-makers were the first to use such mills, this was at the same time possibly definitely not the case (see paper mill) and this wide grey area also exist for many other technological items whose history we do not know well enough. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Compass rose

I made a small mistake, File:WInd Rose Aguiar.png is indeed a 32-point compass rose. However, Tibbetts does not credit the Arabs, or anyone else, with its invention: "The Arabs had a compass rose of 32 points and their normal method of indicating these points used the rising and setting of 15 prominent star groups together with the Pole star to indicate the pole. Other groups were also occasionally used by the Arabs in this way." (p.105f.) C'est tout, so clearly WP:OR. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source - Muslimheritage.com

Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find that source listed, though. Have you removed them?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed almost all of them from this article, and generally replaced the citation with a 'citation needed' tag. There may be one or two citations I missed. Dialectric (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently standing article problem templates

The previously included 13 problem-with-article templates [13] constituted overtagging. We need to use a set of templates that represents the current, unresolved disputes. The problem here is that users tend to tag the article and leave, so the templates are not removed when the dispute is resolved. Often users don't even post comments on the talk page. I looked through the talk page and gather that the unresolved disputes are:

• that it may be too long
• that its citations need checking
• that it may contain a synthesis of unverified ideas

If someone has a better template for the third, that's fine. I see no reason these templates should remain:

• original research
• self-published
• disputed

I see no accusations of original research or self-published sources, and I see no current dispute about the factual accuracy.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC) There are obvious issues with this article. A plethora of templates won't make that any clearer, and will just clutter the article. I think the current three templates reflect the current, unresolved disputes. Thoughts?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. I reinstate the templates until these issues are solved. If there is a need to curtail the template, please take away the most recent ones and not those which point at the most important and long-standing issues. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hand Cannon

I have noticed that this invention is listed on both this article and list of Chinese inventions. Considering the problems outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and the strong textual and archaelogical evidence presented in favour of the latter, I have removed this claim from the article. List of Chinese inventions is an FA and has multiple, academic sources backing up its assertion, while this article has many known POV problems and backs its assertion up with sources of very poor quality (a history channel video and a website). This contrasts with the multiple high quality sources backing up the Chinese assertion. Thus, I feel compelled to remove it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I have checked the history of science and technology website, and there is no claim that the islamic world were the first to invent the hand cannon. This appears to be another case of source misrepresentation that has plagued this article. I advise all editors to check any fact sourced to that source rigorously and remove them as required.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have further removed gunpowder cartridge and explosive gunpowder from the claims list. The latter claim is sourced to a youtube video (clearly unreliable) and the former claim is sourced to the same website above, which does not state that the islamic world was the first to invent "gunpowder cartridges". Indeed, the only section in which that is mentioned is here:

St. Petersburgh MS., p. 159, Illustration of the faris (knight) who frightens the horses of the enemy and the two foot soldiers accompanying him. On the right, the foot soldier is carrying a hand-held midfa` (cannon), and on the left the soldier is carrying a sprinkling club. The mounted knight carries a lance to which gunpowder cartridges are attached. The three men and the horse wear also fireproof clothing to which gunpowder cartridges are attached.

Clearly no claim of invention. In fact, the website clearly states that the islamic world was a transmitter of gunpowder technology from China to the west. In no way does it claim these inventions for the islamic world itself. Indeed the "explosive gunpowder" claim is clearly absurd, as cast-iron gunpowder bombs were being used as earlier as the Later Liang.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stub and rework

For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 1.553 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor by far. Next come Gun Powder Ma (94, 2nd), Spacepotato (70, 4th), and Dialectric (32, 5th) who have doing clean-up work ever since the article has been tagged in 2009.

Antimony

The article says:

Isolated by Jābir ibn Hayyān

However, at Antimony#History we find there is some controversy as to Jābir ibn Hayyān, that is Geber's actual contribution to the study of antimony. Be this as it may, other evidence shows that antimony was intentionally produced in Europe and the Near East as early as the late Bronze age (Robert Forbes: Studies in Acient Technology, Brill, 1964, pp. 163ff.):

We find many antimony-bronzes among the oldest copper alloys, but these need not always have been intentional. Indeed in most cases the percentage of antimony is so low that we can safely ascribe it to the natural impurities of the copper ore used and not to any addition of antimony ore during the smelting of the copper. Thus some of the oldest Mesopotamian bronzes contain up to 3% of antimony, it was found und in Anau I copper, in old Abyssinian alloys, in Japanese, Indian, Chinese and Gallic bronzes.

There are, however, a few centres in Antiquity where the addition of antimony to copper was standard practice, in this case the percentage may be as high as 15-20% and objects of pure antimony are found there too. Such a centre is Velem St. Vid in Hungary. Von Miske thinks that the ore used does only contain lead and arsenic as impurities and that the antimony was added intentionally because tin was lacking in the region. Others believe that the mixed copper-antimony ore was so rich in antimony that the alloy was obtained unintentionally. It was a success, for we find objects from this centre in Silezia,West Prussia and Bavaria. Some of the lake dwelling bronzes containing up to 15% of antimony may have come from Velem St. Yid. For weapons, however, this alloy was too brittle and tin ore was imported from Bohemia for their manufacture (84). Though Petrie proposed at a time to ascribe some Egyptian bronzes containing antimony to import from Hungary, there is no proof for any trade-connection at so early a date. The antimony may well have been derived from local copper ores and some of the "antimony" of earlier analyses was later found to be bismuth ! In La Tene times another centre of antimony-bronzes grew up in the Vosges mountains. In the Near East the Caucasus region was another centre of the manufacture of antimony and antimony-alloys.

Many antimony objects were found in the graves of Redkinlager on the Aksatfa, a tributary of the Kura river, near Tiflis, including footrings, bracelets, etc. These objects are said to date from the ninth or tenth century B.C. Others have been found at Koban. Gradually these objects disappear and tin objects take their place. It can be proved that they were made by roasting and reducing stibnite for some of them still contain an appreciable sulphur percentage due to insufficient roasting. Other antimony objects have been found near the copper mines of Khedabek. Most of them are cast, but their use must have been restricted, as they are very brittle. Other objects were beads, amulets, buttons, etc. The Caucasus may have been the source of some of the antimony objects found in Mesopotamia. There is a bowl of the Gudea period and the vase found at Tello and analysed by Berthelot. The metal was also used from time to time in the Assyrian period for Sargon II mentions it among other metal tablets of the foundation deposit of his new bit-hilani at Chorsabad.

Three-course meal

The article says:

Restaurants in medieval Islamic Spain served three-course meals, which was earlier introduced in the 9th century by Ziryab, who insisted that meals should be served in three separate courses consisting of soup, the main course, and dessert.

The source cited was:

Salma Khadra Jayyusi and Manuela Marin (1994), The Legacy of Muslim Spain, p. 117, Brill Publishers, ISBN 90-04-09599-3

But the reference merely confers upon Ziryab the honor of pepping up the local cuisine of Córdoba, Spain and makes no reference to the courses numbering –as they usually do today– three:

He [Ziryab] revolutionised the local cuisine, not merely by bringing in unfamiliar fruit and vegetables but by insisting, for example, that meals should be served in separate courses, including soup and desserts, and that crystal was a more appropiate container for choice beverages than heavy goblets of precious metals.

Oil field, petroleum industry, naphtha, and tar

The article says:

An early petroleum industry was established in the 8th century, when the streets of Baghdad were paved with tar, derived from petroleum through destructive distillation. In the 9th century, oil fields were first exploited in the area around modern Baku, Azerbaijan, to produce naphtha. These fields were described by al-Masudi in the 10th century, and by Marco Polo in the 13th century, who described the output of its oil wells as hundreds of shiploads.

I could not check the source, but in any case Robert Forbes, an expert on oil by profession, has 120 pages dedicated to the diverse use to which the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia put all kinds of naphta (a word of Akkadian origin) and bitumen (Studies in Acient Technology, Brill, Vol. I, 1955, pp.1-100). The chapters titles include: "as building material", "as water-proofing agent", "Lighting and heating", "Paints and protective coatings", "Water-proofing", "Bitumen as a cement" etc.

Apart from this, the well-known military use of naphta as Greek fire by the Byzantines since the late 7th century is also described by Forbes (pp. 100-105).

Geared and hydropowered water supply system

Al-Jazari developed the earliest water supply system to be driven by gears and hydropower, which was built in 13th century Damascus to supply water to its mosques and Bimaristan hospitals. The system had water from a lake turn a scoop-wheel and a system of gears which transported jars of water up to a water channel that led to mosques and hospitals in the city.

A scoop-wheel is a waterwheel which lifts water to a higher level. However, such waterwheels, as in fact the three most common types of waterwheels (undershot, overshot, breastshot), had already been invented by Hellenistic engineers of the 3rd-1st century BC (Watermill#History). This also includes vertical waterwheels which, by mechanical necessity, have to be powered by a gearing system. Norias, which transported jars of water, were in use around 300 AD at the latest (see refs. there).

Geared and wind-powered gristmills with trip hammers

The first geared gristmills[47] were invented by Muslim engineers in the Islamic world, and were used for grinding corn and other seeds to produce meals...

The source cited was:

Donald Routledge Hill (1996), "Engineering", p. 781, in (Rashed & Morelon 1996, pp. 751–95)

I haven't looked into the source but Hill is an international authority on the history of technology in the Islamic world and I cannot imagine him making such a blunder. If he did so, he would be dead wrong. The earliest geared gristmills or grain-mills are obviously recorded by Greek authors (like Strabon, XII, 3, 30 C 556, dating to before 70 BC) and Roman authors (Vitruvius, X, 5.2, 40 BC) and there is an abundant archaeological record demonstrating the widespread use of such mills all over the ancient world. To give but one example from the list: Three undershot wheels from Hagendorn, Switzerland, from the late 2nd century AD (as you know undershot wheels are a type of vertical wheels and the power transmission of vertical wheels can only be done through the operation of gears (Wikander, Örjan (2000a), "The Water-Mill", in Wikander, Örjan, Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, Technology and Change in History, 2, Leiden: Brill, pp. 371–400,ISBN 90-04-11123-9, p.385 )

Beauty parlour and cosmetology school:

In the 9th century, Ziryab opened the first beauty parlour and "cosmetology school" for women near Alcázar, Al-Andalus.

Chemical depilatory for hair removal:

Chemical depilatory for hair removal: In the 9th century, Ziryab taught women in Al-Andalus "the shaping of eyebrows and the use of depilatories for removing body hair

The source cited for both claims was:

Lebling Jr., Robert W. (July–August 2003), "Flight of the Blackbird", Saudi Aramco World: 24–33, http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200304/flight.of.the.blackbird.htm, retrieved 2008-01-28

However, Lebling does not make any claim of these beauty products being an Islamic invention. Rather, he puts Ziryab into a context where he, a wide-travelled man from the capital of Baghdad, brings some refinement and new ideas to the ladies of the peripheral and provincial Al-Andalus:

For women, Blackbird opened a "beauty parlor/cosmetology school" not far from the Alcazar, the emir's palace. He created hairstyles that were daring for the time. The women of Spain traditionally wore their hair parted in the middle, covering their ears, with a long braid down the back. Ziryab introduced a shorter, shaped cut, with bangs on the forehead and the ears uncovered. He taught the shaping of eyebrows and the use of depilatories for removing body hair. He introduced new perfumes and cosmetics.

Toothpaste, functional and pleasant

In the 9th century, the Persian musician and fashion designer Ziryab is known to have invented a type of toothpaste, which he popularized throughout Islamic Spain.[61] The exact ingredients of this toothpaste are not currently known,[59] but unlike the earlier Egyptian and Roman toothpastes, Ziryab's toothpaste was reported to have been both "functional and pleasant to taste."[61]

The source cited was:

Sertima, Ivan Van (1992), The Golden Age of the Moor, Transaction Publishers, p. 267, ISBN 1560005815

First, toothpastes - which btw, unlike modern toothpaste, did not contain florids, but were abrasives - are already recorded by Pliny, Naturalis historia, 28.49, 31.46, 31.21+26, 36.42. But this is really one of the more funnier Jaggedisms when you think about it: It may come as a surprise that Arab commentators of the 9th century would knew how Roman or Ancient Egyptian toothpaste tasted, or that the ancients would have done later Arab users the favour to report their own toothpaste as "unfunctional and unpleasant to taste". In either case, Sertima merely writes:

He [Ziryab] even made a contribution to dental hygiene by inventing a toothpaste that was both functional and pleasant to taste.

• Minor points:

High-rise roof garden

The medieval Egyptian city of Fustat had a number of high-rise buildings that Nasir Khusraw in the early 11th century described as rising up to 14 stories, with roof gardens on the top story complete with ox-drawn water wheels for irrigating them.[

The source cited was:

Behrens-Abouseif, Doris (1992), Islamic Architecture in Cairo, Brill Publishers, p. 6, ISBN 90 04 09626 4

However, Behrens-Abouseif does not portrait Nasir Khusraw to be describing any novelty which would warrant the label "invention". As an aside, the Nasir Khusraw's claim has to be taken with a grain of salt, since oxen would not powerful enough to overcome the friction and weight of monstrous waterwheels of 28 m or more diameter (14 stories x 2 m). Practical reasons would dictate such super-sized wheels to be powered through the force of the current alone.

Minaret

Per definition an Islamic invention, but two of the most prominent theories, namely that minarets evolved from (Syrian) church towers or, particularly in the Maghreb, from ancient Greek lighhouses (Pharos) deserve at least a mention when talking about its origins.

Checked and found to be correct as far as I can tell

• Coffee as a drink, Albarello, Fritware, Hispano-Moresque ware, Iznik pottery, Tin-glazing, Prefabricated home and movable structure, Bridge mill

Debatable

• Lusterwar - according to some authors already produced in Roman Egypt
• Stonepaste - ceramic - there exists a Chinese claim

Conclusion: From the 19 entries I checked, I found 8 to be correct, 2 debatable and 9 to be not correct, that is about 50% were problematic claims. To this number another 10 recent removals of mine have to be added, where the percentage was roughly equal. Since there is little reason to assume that the quality of the other entries suddenly rises dramatically above those checked, my view is that the article urgently needs to be stubbed and reworked. It suffers from the same inherent flaws described and analysed in detail here. The recent 1:1 translation into French (17/01/2011), despite the long-standing numerous tags, demonstrates that contentious material is beginning to spread outside of this Wikipedia and our control. We in the English WP have an obligation to the average, unsuspecting reader who relies on us to prevent this from happening. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Could we re-write the intro to say that "invention" is not being used in the encyclopedic sense? This is not a time of great invention but rather one of diffusion and/or improvements. I see that some sources report this kind of stuff as Muslim and Byzantine Technology. I think a page move could save more of the content and still be encyclopedic (with heavy first removal). Even those you found correct are debatable as Inventions. J8079s (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a good stub here. I suggest a page move to Technology in medieval Islam or something similar with a cut off date (1453 jumps to mind but there are others). We could add things that were not Invented but passed though the like the astrolabe or paper. and look towards improving things from here BE BOLD J8079s (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article clear has multiple issues, the most obvious of which is the title. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this. I believe the the U.S, patent office lists millions of "inventions" which are probably most technological innovations. The implication is Islamic scientists primarily advanced other people's inventions. Do we have sources for this assertion? Is there a difference of opinion?

Question the approach. There are at least two aspects of this cleanup. One is the removal of unverifiable content, the other is the shifting of POV through recharacterizing "Islamic" achievements as "Arabic", recharacterizing inventions as technological innovations. While there is no question regarding unverifiable or misrepresented content, these other aspects are more nebulous. While I do not question the right of the cleanup crew to address such questions, I would not care to see them mixed together. -Aquib (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I want this to be "inclusive" for instance the noria is,I think, iconic but not an invention. There would still be room for original inventions (if any).J8079s (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Magnifying glass

Just because it existed earlier (as we come to know these days), it doesn't mean that alhazen did not "invent" something. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an issue raised by Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs), which you simply reverted ([14]) rather than take to the talk page. Obviously, if evidence of far earlier usage is presented, then claims of "invention" are dubious, particularly when said far earlier employment receives no mention at all. Particularly given the sad history of this article, I highly suggest you drop the revert warring and resolve the problematic wording by including the earlier usage with a solid reference if you want the information to stand. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My dad invented potato salad earlier today. Nevermind that people cooked it before he invented it: he invented it independently, even if he had access to potato salad recipes, and had even eaten it before. I'm so glad I live in the house that brought potato salad into the world, and I'm not being biased in favor of my family over history. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, it's not my job to add the "Bronze Age" material just so we preserve the earlier content. This should have been done by Gun Powder Ma who has access to the reference (I don't have the reference). I have restored the content after rewording. You are in no position to tell me that alhazen's work cannot be reinstated until I add the material on "Bronze Age". Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What's with the quotes around Bronze Age? Anyway, while you're quick to describe this as an "invention" of "medieval Islam", any mention without the Bronze Age mention isn't going to fly. The reasons for this should be obvious. And, indeed, Gun Powder Ma may do this, but—or anyone else—but users who restore evidence bear a burden, and in this case it's due to the fact that Gun Powder Ma has presented evidence to the contrary. This must be addressed before this "invention" is reinstated, otherwise I refer you back to Ian.Thomason's point above. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, things don't work here the way you like it to be. By your "reasoning", one could easily remove content on any European invention (or idea) by just claiming that an earlier version existed in an ancient civilization, and that material won't be reinstated until editors (who are usually not familiar with the earlier version or the context within which it was made) work hard on "figuring out" this earlier thing, while the one who made the first claim bears no responsibility.

I'm surprised you mention Ian.thomson's analogy which I purposefully ignored. The analogy is flawed as it says "...he had access to potato salad recipes, and had even eaten it before" and I say for the 5th time, where is the evidence for transmission ? Besides, we are talking about Alhazen, a pioneer of Optics who spent his lifetime studying light, and not a guy who decided to make salad 5 minutes after playing with potatoes. Al-Andalusi (talk)

Quotes from p.191:

A recent find in the Idaean Cave in Crete of two rock crystal lenses of unusually good optical quality led to this investigation of other lenses from antiquity. The evidence indicates that the use of lenses was widespread throughout the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin over several millennia. The quality of some of these lenses was sufficient to permit their use as magnifying glasses. The use of lenses as burning glasses in Classical Greece is noted, as is the need for magnifying lenses to authenticate seal impressions. The probability that magnifying lenses were used by gem carvers and seal engravers is discussed...

...These lenses should be considered in context with the much older ones found by Sir Arthur Evans in the Palace of Knossos and in the nearby Mavro Spelio Cemetery which date from 1400 B.C. The Bronze Age lenses received some attention in 1928 soon after the time of their excavation, but subsequently have received little mention. There are now 23 ancient

lenses on display in the Archaeological Museum at Herakleion and many more are in storage there. They are also made of rock crystal and are of optical quality, with generated plano-convex surfaces.

So, clearly not a medieval Islamic invention. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The source you quoted continues to state that the earlier lenses were used for sun-glare and as a remedial agent but there is no evidence they were used for reading or presbyopia. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite see your point. The AJA article states: "The quality of some of these lenses was sufficient to permit their use as magnifying glasses." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder

Please stop vandalizing the article. You can either bring up whatever you have an issue with here (especially the sources), or just not vandalize. Reverting "because you need better sources" isn't gonna cut it. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 10:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Users have every reason to be suspicious of these articles, which are infamous for blatant misrepresentation and falsification of cited sources. If there is some contested information on the article, it needs to be worked out here before being reinstated. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this is your first comment on this talk page so I'm not sure why it is a little heated. Also, an experienced editor should be aware that it is not appropriate to use rollback for good-faith edits, or to say that other editors are performing vandalism (see WP:ROLLBACK and WP:VAND). Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq (talk · contribs), If my history on these articles matters to you, there's always my contributions log, within which, if you dare, you will find that I am not new to the situation plaguing many of these articles. As for the "heat"; are you unfamiliar with Jagged 85 (talk · contribs)'s "contributions"? If not, I recommend you check into that before proceeding: see the infamous RFC, and note that other users are still cleaning up after Jagged's falsifications. In the mean time I again recommend that the solution here is to talk out exactly what the problem is on this talk page before proceeding. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, but my indent was supposed to indicate that my comment was for Aua (you have not used rollback on good-faith edits or claimed edits were vandalism). I totally agree that in view of the extraordinary examples available at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup that good reasons (with sources) need to be thoroughly discussed before adding kitchen sink claims to articles. Johnuniq (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You can be suspicious, sure, but to revert my edits without any reason is wrong. There is no reason (nor is it WP policy) to get a consensus on every single addition to the article on this talkpage before adding it. Additionally, just because Jagged added some things does not automatically make them wrong and excluded from future addition.

Here is the issue again, you have a problem with what I inserted? Please bring it up here. Tell me why you disagree and think the sources are wrong. If your only complaint is that a previous user abused the article, then you clearly have no understanding of WP rules.

I'll give this some time before reverting it back in case I don't get a response that actually addresses the material.

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record, nothing was reinstated intentionally. I have no idea what Jagged added and no interest in putting a red tape around whatever he did. If it's true, and he misrepresented it, then it deserves to be put back regardless.

Your guys overzealous approach, while admirable, is definitely over the top here.

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As others have said, the removal of the recent additions was not vandalism. Addressing the specific claim of gunpowder, see the [discussion on the hand cannon article talk page]. Ahmad Hassan's claim is cited to two self-published articles, contrasted to the published scholarly history used to support the claim of invention in China. Hassan's work certainly does not meet the standard of exceptional sources to support extraordinary claims, as scholarly consensus situates the origin of gunpowder in China.

The 'earliest documentary evidence' wording used in Aua's addition is also in this instance something of a weasel word, as this document referred to postdates direct archeological evidence - an actual gun - from China. Dialectric (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. That is something I can work with.

Well, the claim was never gunpowder, but rather the hand cannon. I think everyone agrees the former was invented in China. Hassan claims the Arabs used it first, and that is contested. I doubt people on this page with their strict standards will allow it to be on the page even if you mention how contested it is. I will withdraw that. There is of course the possibility of having a "Contested" section, but I am doubtful how much support I can get for that.

Alright, how about other claims?

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aua. Have you checked yourself the claims you've reintroduced? I don't have access to The Legacy of Muslim Spain right now, but I remember quite clearly that all references to Ziryab's innovations were overinterpretations of the type Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cause of concern #3. As for algorithms, there has not been provided a source so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Again, that is something I can work with (as opposed to just an outright deletion).

I do have access to it as well as the library system of a major US university. Here is a quote from the book, page 117:

"[Ziryab] introduced....under-arm deodorant and new short hair styles..."

For now, that's what I have and what the source says. I understand your guys' frustration with previous vandalism, but you need to balance your response. Take a look at other lists and see how many things are not sourced. I am not saying that's right; I, myself, plan to clean the Chinese list and removed unsourced claims since it seems to be a prime example of "national pride run amok", but let's be more cooperative as opposed to critical.

As a disclaimer, I have no horse in this race, but I seriously want to improve this.

Finally, I will look up the algorism ref for you.

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be surprised but I am actually a prime critic of the Chinese list, although it is still better than most lists. I was right about Ziryab. This is too weak a statement. The context merely refers to Al-Andalus and the author here does summarizes the view of Arab (=primary) sources historography on him as much as he gives his own opinion. For an invention claim, we would need a much stronger basis, not just a four-word sentence. If the Arabs really did invent deodorant by mainstream consensus, it would be no problem to cite a multitude of scholarly references and peer-reviewed articles, wouldn't you agree? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@ User:Aua, every single invention on the Chinese list is sourced, not a single unsourced claim is present. You appear to be under the mistaken assumption that User:Gun Powder Ma is Chinese/a pro China editor. He has spent most of his edits downplaying Chinese achievements. If you came to the List of Chinese inventions article with the intent of deleting sections because you want revenge on Gun Powder Ma, I can assure you that he would be happy to see most of the article deleted.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First things first, what do you guys think of this? We can milk a few things out of it and the Independent is pretty credible last time I checked (that is, of course, assuming there is a real intent to have a comprehensive list rather than just being dicks about it). @DÜNGÁNÈ, I realized Gun Powder Ma is equally critical of all non-Western lists. Whatever happened to honest contributing! Cheers! Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)