Talk:Abu Bakr al-Razi/Archive 1

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

On the initial article

Quick note for the author of this page (and others) - great work, but it's not the done thing on the wikipedia to place one's name in an article text. This is because an article might get edited and/or expanded by anybody after you have worked on it, meaning it really would be "by" you any more. If you want people to know what you're responsible for, I'd suggest making a user account - then you can put a list of your pages on your user page if you like. Anyway, keep up the good work. --Camembert

I'm not sure about the copyright status of some material in this article, especially the quotes should be better acknowledged ([1]). I'm also not sure about the copyright status of the picture. -- till we *) 19:33, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Resectioning

To all:

  • I have tried to reformat the article according to the Wikipedia standards, chiefly by adding one "=" to the level of all sections.
  • However, I used "*" instead of "====" for the sub-sub-sections (commentaries on individual books), because the document's structure seemed clearer that way. On my browser "====" looks just like "===". (Of course that may be a fluke of my browser/fonts combination.) The drawback is that editing an individual book commentary is not possible. Perhaps the old format was better after all...
  • The commentary on Razi's medical work is quite extensive, perhaps even too detailed for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, the commentary on his chemical work, which was perhaps even more important, is too skimpy. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of chemistry would be willing to provide the details of his discovery of sulphuric acid and alcohol? (Based on half-remembered sources, I guess that the former was by distillation of vitriol; but that is little more than a guess.)
  • Ditto for the =Biography= section (currently one small paragraph...)
  • The Arabic /Persian title of Al-Hawi in the list of medical books looks strange. Could it be vandalism?
  • The full list of book titles could perhaps be moved to a separate article, "list of al-Razi's books". That would avoid the huge gaps between sections and make the text flow more naturally.

I am doen for today. All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 23:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

More fixes

Some fixes:

  • Changed "Iranian" to "Persian". As far as I know, "Iran" is a modern name. (Cf. Julius Caesar — usually said to be "Roman" not "Italian").
Iranian is an old name, although the country was usually called "Persia" in English before 1935. john k 23:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Restored the sentence about alcohol. From the sources I have seen, Al-Razi is indeed credited with the discovery of alcohol (meaning ethanol - as opposed to alcoholic beverages, which of course were pre-historical). Or, at least, he was the first who described its preparation (which presumably is what counts). Is that claim contested? BTW, as far as I know "alcohol" derives from Arabic for "spirit".
  • Merged the footnotes into the text (footnote 3 apparently was not anchored anywhere).

Jorge Stolfi 22:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alcohol discovery

It would probably be best to state exactly what Al-Razi was credited doing first. It wouldn't have been discovering alcohol or even the preparation of alcohol, since ancient distillers must have done that, too. Was he the first to identify ethanol as the intoxicating component of alcoholic beverages, or the first to describe how to prepare pure ethanol? It's probably necessary to specify ethanol, since alcohol is ambiguous in English. (By the way, Merriam-Webster Online says the word is derived from Arabic al-kuhul, "the powdered antimony". Seems like there's an etymological link missing, or at least an interesting story.) In any case, on en:wikipedia, it shouldn't have the connotation in English that he first did something that has obviously been done for millenia. I'd supply a better phrasing myself, but I don't know exactly what Al-Razi did. -- Jeff Q 23:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What "ancient distillers" are those? I have never heard of distilled beverages in ancient Greece or Rome, or anywhere else before the era of the Islamic alchemists. (They had wine and beer, of course.) Jorge Stolfi 03:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems that Geber already knew about alcohol (at least as a flammable gas that escaped from bottles of boiling wine). So presumably Al-Razi was the first to condense the product? Jorge Stolfi 06:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I am hoist by my own petard! "Distillers" was probably the wrong word. I was responding to your statement that Al-Razi "was the first who described [alcohol's] preparation". My thought was that, unless people before the 10th century C.E. found their ethanol-based beverages lying around in puddles, many people must have been preparing it for millenia. ☺ But distallation is a more specific means of ethanol preparation. Is this what Al-Razi discovered and/or invented? If so, that would eliminate the ambiguity. (BTW, I replaced your bullet above with an indent colon, because bullets screw up talk page formatting in this wonderful new style the Wiki Powers That Be have forced upon us. Please pardon the edit.) -- Jeff Q 17:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Also, it would be interesting to know if al-Razi had any idea of the antiseptic qualities of alcohol. If so, and if we can find a reliable source, we should make not of it both in this article and the article on Joseph Lister. --dws 4/25/2005

Alcohol etymology

((moved to Talk:alcohol Jorge Stolfi 03:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)))

Sulfuric acid

There is something fishy about the sulfuric acid story. This article claims that Al-Razi discovered H2SO4, and then Geber used it to discover HCl, HNO3, and aqua regia. However, according to the dates in Wikipedia, Geber died about 50 years before Al-Razi was born. What is the real story?
Jorge Stolfi 06:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me that that part of the article is incorrectly stating that Razi's work "paved the way for Geber". Geber's article also indicates that Geber's discoveries "paved the way for Razi"!! Obviously Razi could not have paved the way for Geber (unless the author of the article meant Pseudo-Geber) so it seems that the "Razi paved the way for Geber" part must be removed. --K1 10:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I just added that part in the Geber article, after reading a document on the net about the discovery of alcohol that seems authoritative and has detailed quotes of observations by Geber and other Arab alchemists. I will take out that line about Geber, but now I am unsure about whether he indeed was the frist to prepare ethanol, or whether credit should go to someone else, possibly just after Geber's . (The one above does not even mention Al-Razi, but perhaps it was due to nationalistic prejudice.)

The H2SO4 problem is even more urgent, since Geber is supposed to have used the stuff to make other acids. However, perhaps Geber did not use H2SO4, but distilled a mixture of salt and viriol, which I suppose would have generated HCl directly. Ditto for HNO3. Then perhaps Al-Razi distilled vitriol alone and got H2SO4.

Pseudo-Geber does not seem relevant, he was too late. Surely the distillation of spirits was already well known by then, even in Europe. (BTW, it seems that by the 16th century the distillation of ethanol was a very popular research topic of European alchemists. I wonder why... 8-)

Jorge Stolfi 14:21, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

2 questions

  1. "Razi always used a natural approach when treating ill patients"
    What exactly does this mean? Can you elaborate perhaps?
  2. Why exactly did Abu contradict that a Muslim priest (or mullah?) got so angry as to have his head smashed in? That is quite a severe punishment, and inspires curiosity as to the nature of the offense. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

al-Hawi anecdote

The Wikipedia article says:

A Muslim priest, whom Razi had apparently contradicted somewhere in its pages, ordered that Razi be beaten over the head with the [al-Hawi] manuscript until one of them broke. Razi's head broke first, and the result was permanent blindness for Razi.

The NIH website says:

The most sought after of all the compositions by al-Razi (Rhazes to Europeans) was his Comprehensive Book on Medicine (Kitab al-Hawi fi al-tibb). It was not a formal medical encyclopedia, but rather was assembled posthumously from Razi's working files of readings and personal observations. [My emphasis.]

Razi's "manuscript" was not assembled until after his death. Yet a "Muslim priest" orders that he be beaten over the head with it? What is wrong with this picture?? It's also suspicious that the Muslim priest is not named, thereby making the story all the more difficult to verify.

Do we have a reference for the head beating story?

--Susurrus 05:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or what about this?

His medical career was cut short by his major work, the Kitab al-Hawi fi al-tibb, or "The Comprehensive Book on Medicine", commonly referred to as "al-Hawi". [Followed by the head-beating story.]
Razi suffered failing eyesight for several years, and though he eventually lost all vision he continued to provide medical consultations and often even lectured.

The first person to spot the contadiction wins a teddy bear.

We NEED a reference for this head-beating story. I have performed a quick Google search for a reference. The whole first page of references to that story are all different versions of this Wikipedia article—never a good sign. I have already quoted the dubious material in full above. I therefore see fit to delete it from the article in the absence of any voiced dissent.

--Susurrus 23:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A citing of the head beating story appears in "A Prelude to Medical History" by Felix Marti-Ibañez on p. 112. The book was published in back 1961. This obviously predates the Wikipedia article a bit, but unfortunately the book doesn't give a source for the story. Hope this helps in some way.

==Three categories of diseases?

''Italic text'

He further classified diseases into three categories: those that are curable, those that can be cured, and those that are incurable.

What is the difference between the first two categories, please?? I think this passage needs reworking... 

05:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Surely this page is not named in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Shouldn't it be at Al-Razi, or some such? john k 21:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so. However, since full names are often used in order to disambiguate homonyms, it is not a hard and fast rule, is it? As long as there is a redirect...
Jorge Stolfi 22:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Are there any other people named Al-Razi? If not, he should go there. Just as we have articles at Avicenna and Averroes rather than Abu Ali al-Husain ibn Abdallah ibn Sina and Abu Al-Walid Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd. john k 23:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is there any objection to a move to Al-Razi? john k 05:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Picture

If the artist is unknown, then it's more likely than not a copyvio.... --Jacqui M Schedler 01:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Start of Editing Article-25 August 2005, finished 11 Sep. 2005

I am new to Wikimedia but I was searching for Al-Razi (for my study on Hermetism/Alchemy) and was very impressed with the immense research of this scholar. Not all of us have the perfect Oxford English level of the English language and I therefore volunteer to do some editing over the coming months. I first checked with the Sandbox to familiarize myself with some basic editing modes and that took some time. I am a student of English and reasonably familiar with alchemical works of the past, because of my recent study of Alchemy. So I hope I can be of some help. I will do my utmost not to change in any way the content or meaning of the article, but will only change structure of sentences and replace verbs with synonyms wherever applicable or needed. CHITRANI 25 August 21.45 (GMT +1)

SEP.07/05 I have edited p.1-8 and added information obtained from: 1. the Alchemy website: Alchemy in Islamic Times by Prof. Hamed Abdel-reheem Ead, Prof. of Chemistry at the Faculty of Science - University of Cairo
2. Brian Copenhaver: Hermetica Cambridge University Press -ISBN 0 521 42543 3 (1992).
3.G.R.S. Mead: Thrice-Greatest Hermes.3 Vol.York Beach (Maine), (1992).
4.Peter Marshall,"Alchemy,the Philosopher's Stone',-[London]: Macmillan, ISBN 90 4390 145 8, (2001). Last sentences on pages spill over and that will be corrected in the future.
CHITRANI- 07 SEP/2005- 18.51 (GMT +1)

FINISHED 11 September 2005. CHITRANI 14:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Arabic

While likely the Arabic of his name is that of common usage, those that can not read the Arabic script might naturally assume it is his full name given right before it. His full name would be: "ابو بكر محمد بن زكريا الرازى", I believe. To avoid ambiguity the opening could be changed to: "Abū Bakr Muhammad Ibn Zakarīya al-Rāzi; also Abū Bakr Al-Rāzi (ابو بکر الرازی), ...", since I don't believe writing out his full family name is necessary, as he was most likely never referred to by it anyway. Khiradtalk 06:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hermeticism

I removed this section since it did not seem to have any connection to Al-Razi. On the contrary, his style seems completely contrary to the hermetic tradition of mysticism and obscure symbolism. If there is a connection, it should be better expressed and supported by actual evidence from Al-Razi's writings (not just by someone else's unsupported statements). All the best, Jorge Stolfi 04:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hermeticism
Alchemy's source can be traced to the Hermetica, writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, Hermes Thrice-Great who is identified with the Egyptian god Thoth, inventor of alchemy and god of Wisdom. It was in ancient Egypt that the Hermetica emerged and reached the state now visible in various treatises of Arabian alchemists and philosophers. Hermeticism encompasses the Art of alchemy (both 'technical' and 'philosophical' alchemy) as well as astrology and talismanic magic. As in so may other respects, Moslems and other non-Europeans of late antiquity and the early middle ages outdid their Western contemporaries in preserving and extending the Hermetic tradition. Alchemical works began to enter Islamic lands from Alexandria as early as the 7th century, even prior to Jabir al-Hayan (known as Geberu). Many Arabian alchemists emerged since and most of them were physicians, just as al-Razi. Their alchemistical experiments lead to the discovery of many medicinal and chemical inventions which laid the foundation for future developments in both sciences.

Disambiguation?

"Al-Razi" is a fairly generic name, and simply dedicating the whole page to Abu Bakr Muhammad Zakariyah al-Razi is akin to exclusively giving the article "Smith" to Adam Smith. There is another, equally important person with the name Al-Razi: Abu Hatim Al-Razi, a somewhat fundamentalist theologian, who actively engaged in dialogues with Rhazes (the al-Razi of this article.)

Also, Rayy was and is an intellectually fertile region of Iran, thus, its possible that there are more al-Razis, or that more may be produced.

As long as there is only one other "Al-Razi", it can be accomodated by a "for ... see" note at the top of this article (I don't like such notes, but I seem to be a minority of one... 8-() If there are more, they may go to "Al-Razi (disambiguation)". I don't think that "Al-Razi" should be a disambiguation page, because Rhazes is obviously far more important than all the other Al-Razis put together. But it may be indelicate to say so, and other people may even think otherwise.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Former FA

Former FA? Why not revert back to the FA class and make it a FA article? --Striver 08:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is really informative, but reading through why it was stripped of its FA status I can see why- it is full of lists. What would other editors think of moving all the lists of books/publications by Al-Razi to another article, called something like List of Al-Razi works? or is that not accepted "wikipedia style"? We could move the summaries of all that work there, and just have a brief paragraph directing to the new article. Thoughts? --khello 01:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

move

The MOS for Arabic is to use solar letters, which means that it should be written as it is pronounced, which is Ar-Razi. Cuñado - Talk 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as noted on the MOS page. Al-Razi is far more common, and the MOS isn't finished yet. —Ruud 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can show a significant amount of references as al-Razi, then that would be the primary transliteration and it should remain. Otherwise ar-Razi is the standard. The MOS on this subject is clear, and the current voting is to solidify the standard which has been around a long time. Cuñado - Talk 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI- Googling Al-Razi gets around 143,000 hits, while Ar-Razi get around 52,200 hits. --khello 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It's true that Ar-Razi is the correct Arabic pronunciation, but this person is Persian and he was born in Iran, so I believe it's better to rename this article Razi (as pronounced in the Persian language), or the Latinised names Rhazes or Rasis (like Avicenna). —MK (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. Per MOS. Although "Al-Razi" is more referenced, "Ar-Razi" is more correct methinks --khello 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

State of the article.

I'm surprised to see this as a former featured article, because the article looks to be in a bad state. Almost no citations (footnotes), weasel and peacock terms throughout, a rambling style, a load of irrelevant or overly specific information scattered throughout, etc.

Couldn't the sections dealing with his writings be moved to a separate article, such as Works of Al-Razi, or something? The article is very quote-heavy, and although the article definitely presents a lot of information, it's hard to verify any of it without citations in-text. I believe the only actual citation was in the section I had a hand in editing some time ago, concerning Razi's harsh criticism of Islam. As I'm no great expert on Razi, it would be difficult for me to determine what is essential and what is extraneous.

We need to remember that this an encyclopedic biography, and we should try to keep it as concise and readable as possible. As it is, it fails in this qualification.--C.Logan 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Beans cause blindness

The article references his blindness was caused by beans. I checked the wiki entry for the broad beans, and there are no health issues related to blindness listed. Should this be removed? Pgrote 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you hate having to clean up after other editors' unsourced unlikely-sounding stuff? Anyway, you might also want to consider removing it as a copyvio. See this book. Dicklyon 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad reflection on this article

Am I the only one who thinks this revision of this article is far superior to what is currently the revision served to our readers? BTW in case you haven't clicked it yet, that revision is from April 2003, that is to say 5 years ago. *deep sigh* -- 82.181.254.50 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion

This page violates wiki standards by having macrons in the title. Most people can't type those. I recommend a move to Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi. Also, the macrons are in the wrong place... his name is Muḥammad ibn Zakariyā ar-Rāzī, not Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi[sic]. ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Freethinker

I had originally read about al-Razi on a website which mentioned his condemnation of Islam, his rejection of religious faith, his denouncement of people who were known as prophets, and his criticism of the Qur'an. I mean, he did write books called "The Prophet's Fraudulent Tricks" and "On the Refutation of Revealed Religions". Coming to this page, however, it seems that one would be rather hard-pressed to find any strong expression of this. For instance, the article mentions A'lam al-Nubuwwah, which is a book of response to a lost book of al-Razi's, which had made some controversial claims. The article also quotes him on his view of prophetically-revealed religions, which is not a favorable one. Here is a summary of al-Razi's views in his lost book, as it is expressed in the response:

(1)All men are by norted mixture of "absurd and inconsistent fables," which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much vaunted "eloquence" are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the "writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."
(2) "The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents. Religion stifles truth and fosters enmity. If a book in itself constitutes a demonstration that it is true revelation, the treatises of geometry, astronomy, medicine and logic can justify such a claim much better than the Qur'an [the transcendent literary beauty of which, denied by Razi, was thought by orthodox Muslims to prove the truth of Muhammad’s mission]."


Al-Razi was more a deist than an actual Muslim, probably comparable to calling some of the Founding Fathers Christians. However, the article seems to attribute some parts of his philosophy to the very religion he is opposed to, without warrant:

It is quite evident that most of his thoughts were derived from the Islam

Really, is it? Because it seems to echo a more independent, general monotheism to me. Obviously, we all bear a little bit of baggage from the realm of thought we were born into, but I don't believe it's fair to attribute his opinions so assuredly to Islamic thought, especially with the statement that "most" of his ideas came from "the Islam".

Hopefully, I'll be able to use a few of the sources, both online and print, to help add a more reasonable representation of al-Razi's stance on religion and prophecy. I'm rather lazy, so it might be ages until I get around to it.--C.Logan 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The section On Religion quotes entirely from a single secondary source. More diversity is needed. I will add something from Encyclopedia of Islam, but that is also a secondary source. Martindo (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The section On Religion quotes entirely from a single secondary source. More diversity is needed. I will add something from Encyclopedia of Islam, but that is also a secondary source. Martindo (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) - BUMP! I was just going to say the same thing. Are there are primary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.142.206.33 (talk)

Appreciate the info

Can anyone upload some quotes from these Persian scientists/scholars/intellectuals on Wikiquote (or add more quotes on their wikipage). Perhaps figures such as Biruni, Khwarizmi, Razi, din- Tusi, ghazali, etc

142.58.132.67 (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ditc

Rearrangement of Sequence

Is there anyone else who feels that the page is very long, effectively burying his skepticism near the bottom?

I propose to put all of the "Books About x" lists at the bottom, which will make his actual quotes (and comments about them) more prominent on the page.

It seems to be common practice in WP for lists to be relegated to the bottom of a page in order to present a better visual display. Martindo (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't particularly relevant to him, though. He is famous primarily as a scientist, alchemist, and physician, not for his views on religion. --146.96.23.139 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Article name 2

Why Al-Razi? The name must be Razi. --131.227.231.149 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, we have several options:
"Abu Bakr Muhammad Zakariyah al-Razi" (full Arabic name)
"Zakariyah al-Razi" (common Arabic name)
"Al-Razi" (Arabic name as might be used in English)
"Rhazes" or "Rasis" Latinized names (there may be more), widely used in historical European documents, still used by some
"Razi" (above proposal)
Personally I would be against "Razi" since I don't think it has been widely used in the West (but I may be wrong). Moreover, since it means "of Rayy", it is even less appropriate linguistically than "al-Razi" ("the one from Rayy"). Methinks that in this case "Zakariyah al-Razi" may be the best option, and consistent with the treatment of other historical figures that are known mostly by their surname, e.g. Newton (Isaac Newton).
A year ago someone decided that Jabir should be renamed Geber, so for consistency we should rename Al-Razi as "Rhazes" or "Rasis". But that is problematic because there are various options, and it seems like going backwards.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that he is a Persian, and he is not called by the name of "Al-Razi" in Iran, in the West he may have been called Al-Razi by some but I believe Razi is the correct and the name that should be used. -- - K a s h Talk | email 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
More important than that, the point is that this is an english wikipedia and we should see what english speakers call him. If they know him as "Al-Razi" then that's the best thing to call him here.حضرت محمود (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments under "Arab or Persian" section above. The fact remains that we have the following names available to us:

1. The Persian name which is Abu Bakr Mohammad Zakariya-ye Razi that has been shortened to Zakariya-ye Razi and this is the name that is used predominantly in the Persian world. 2. The Arabized name which is Abu bakr Muhammad-ibn Zakariya Al Razi or Ar Razi 3. The Latinized name Rhazes or Rasis One would think that Wikipedia should be interested in the use of the authentic(i.e. the Persian) name and then link it to the arabized and latinized names.Kamimihan (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Books in Persian

His books was released in Persian, similar alphabet to Arabic but different language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.30.61 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the Persian books, under "The Books on Medicine" have been incorrectly romanized. The correct romanization, according to the international convention for romanization of the Farsi language, is as follows:

Eşbāt-e Elm-e Pezeshki Darāmadi bar Elm-e Pezeshki Rāz-e ...... Rāz-e ...... Ketāb dar Padīd Āmadan-e Sangrīzeh Ketāb-e Dard-e Rūdeh-hā Ketāb dar Dard-e Pāy va Dard-e Peyvandhā-yeh Andām Ketāb dar Falaj ( Book on Paralysis of Organs) Dar Hey'at-e Kabed Dar Hey'at-e Qalb Dar Rag Zadan Seydeh/neh/sidneh ( was not able to make any sense of this name) Ketāb-e Ebdāl Sūdhā-ye Serkangabīn Darmānhā-ye Ābeleh

I do reccommend that the list in the article be corrected accordingly.KAMRAN MIHAN74.96.148.137 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup6. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So basically, the user Johnuniq is to follow the user Jagged85 to every single article he edits. Than, Johnuniq (an islamophobe) continues to blindly argue that the sources must be wrong because they are introduced by Jagged85. Score 1 for Bias. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPA (as well as WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG which I just recommended on another talk page). I would normally just remove a comment such as yours (it is off-topic and an attack), but this reply might be more helpful for a new editor. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV [-On Religion-]

The "On religion" section needs revision for the following reasons:

  • It fails to mention that the named books are disputed, including their content and attribution to Razi. These doubts are expressed by traditional biographers, like Shahrastānī and Ibn Abi Usaibia, as well as by contemporary historians.
  • At least one of these books have the wrong title. It's مخاريق الأنبياء and not مخارق الأنبياء. Moreover, Ibn Abi Usaibia suggests that this book doesn't exist, and that this title is only a pejorative name used by opponents of Razi. This fact needs to be mentioned in the article.
  • Also there is no consensus on the title of the second book in online and non-credible sources. Is it حيل المتنبيين or حيل المتنبئين? There is a world of difference in meaning between the two, and we need a more credible source.
  • The third book also seems "made-up" to me. Any references beside the spurious dead links I found online?
  • We should also mention that most traditional Arabic biographers/historians consider him Muslim.
  • Also The sources used in this section are not credible sources as far as Islamic philosophy is concerned. A source that is a self-proclaimed "history of atheism" (which is ironic, considering that Razi is a strong theist) is not enough to claim anything about Razi's religious views with some certainty.

So better sources needs to be cited/discussed, and other point of views need to be represented. I will try to integrate these views in the section with some quotes and sources. Any help or more information is appreciated. Alwiqi (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Can anyone fix the on religion section or do I have to do it myself. Seriously, Al Razi never wrote books on Religion. These books do no exists and they never did. Unless, you can give a better source, I'll remove the section. And if he did really profess a disliked towards Islam, he would have been executed under Sharia Law for apostasy. Common Sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.71.158 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added more credible sources. He was regarded as a heretic, and these quotes survive thanks to Abu Hatim al-Razi's refutation.Gamma737 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to do some cleanup on Religion section because sources 17,18,19 and 20 are heavily unreliable as described by Wikipedia's standards. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd better explain why you think the The Guardian, the Encyclopaedia of Islam and books by respected publishers are unreliable sources before removing them again. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

On religion section...full of b.s.?

Seriously when did al-Razi say any of that which the authors of the article claim him to say? What books he wrote mentioned them? As the article is written now, it sounds like: "well, bob said that steve said...." I think the original books were those quotes are written should be mentioned or the whole section should be deleted. 213.42.21.156 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The books are already given in the first sentence of the section. Please read the section thoroughly before you make complaints.--C.Logan 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can make up a title and a quote. As a matter of fact, these books do not exists and have never be retrieved unlike his other books. It is also very fishy that only 1 western self-claimed historian wrote about Al Razi and his books when no other historians is backing that fact up. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added more credible sources. He was regarded as a heretic, and these quotes survive thanks to Abu Hatim al-Razi's refutation.Gamma737 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Arab or Persian ?

I have a university book about Alrazi it says he was an Arab and was born in Iraq and worked at the house of wisdom in Baghdad ! Are persians are Arabic people ? they are a part of Arabia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.8.73 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

According to most reliable sources, he was Persian. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Or better said, according to worth reading sources he was Persian.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

in Arabic resourses Al razi was a persian who adopted the Arabian life syle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewoone (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is any doubt about the nationality and citizenship of Razi. He was born in Persia and a considerable amount of his work is written in Persian (Farsi). It is highly unlikely that an Arab scientist or philosopher would have produced works in Farsi. The reason his name has been arabized is because in the Islamic world, Arabic was the language of choice. This is true in the case of Biruni, Khayyam, Abu Ali Sina, Khawrazmi, etc. Also, when the West got to know about this figures, they came across the arabized name first and that is why in the West their are know by their Arabic name. kamran MihanKamimihan (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The world Razi mean a Person from Rey and the surrounding are.. People of Rey are not Arabs for sure.Pouyakhani (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

clean up

Verifiable sources for al-Razi;

clean up is needed. J8079s (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

al-Razi's Chinese student

Al-Razi had a Chinese student who was fluent and literate in Arabic, and to whom he dictated the works of Galen to. The student wrote down everyhing he said in a cursive form of Chinese writing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lNXZGQVdz_gC&pg=PA219#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.physique48.org/serv/razi.htm

http://www.nooonbooks.com/media/downloadable/files/links/2/5/pages/25058/OPS/Text/chapter-012.xml

وهو أن لكل كلمة تكتب بثلاثة أحرف وأكثر صورة واحدة ولكل كلام يطول شكل من الحروف يأتي على المعاني الكثيرة فإذا أرادوا أن يكتبوا ما يكتب في مائة ورقة كتبوه في صفح واحد بهذا القلم قال محمد بن زكريا الرازي قصدني رجل من الصين فأقام بحضرتي نحو سنة تعلم فيها العربية كلاما وخطا في مدة خمسة أشهر حتى صار فصيحا حاذقا سريع اليد فلما أراد الانصراف إلى بلده قال لي قبل ذلك بشهر اني على الخروج فأحب أن يمل على كتب جالينوس الستة عشر لأكتبها فقلت لقد ضاق عليك الوقت ولا يفي زمان مقامك لنسخ قليل منها فقال الفتى أسألك أن تهب لي نفسك مدة مقامي وتمل علي بأسرع ما يمكنك فإني أسبقك في الكتابة فتقدمت إلى بعض تلاميذي بالاجتماع معنا على ذلك فكنا نمل عليه بأسرع ما يمكنا فكان يسبقنا فلم نصدقه إلا في وقت المعارضة فإنه عارض بجميع ما كتبه وسألته عن ذلك فقال إن لنا كتابة تعرف بالمجموع وهو الذي رأيتم إذا أردنا أن نكتب الشيء الكثير في المدة اليسيرة كتبناه بهذا الخط ثم إن شئنا نقلناه إلى القلم المتعارف والمبسوط وزعم أن الإنسان الذكي السريع الأخذ والتلقين لا يمكنه أن يتعلم ذلك في أقل من عشرين سنة وللصين مداد يركبونه من أخلاط يشبه الدهن الصيني رأيت منه شيئا على مثال الألواح مختوما عليه صورة الملك تكفي القطعة الزمان الطويل مع مدوامة الكتابة وهذا مثال قلمهم

http://arabic.tebyan.net/newmobile.aspx?PageSize=1&PageIndex=19&LANGUAGE=2&BOOKID=77257&PID=31143

http://www.مجتمعي.com/books/almaktabah/الفهرست-صفحة21

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/3355_فهرست-ابن-النديم-ابن-النديم-البغدادي/الصفحة_26


http://lib.ahlolbait.com/parvan/resource/37631/c/8147/get/?doPID=&dsPID=ma26&mimeType=text/html&mimeType=text/html

http://rabat.unesco.org/majaliss/article.php3?id_article=4319


http://al-hakawati.net/arabic/civilizations/book15a1.asp

http://repos1.alpheios.net/exist/rest/db/xq/alpheios-get-ref.xq?inv=grecoarabic-inv&urn=urn:cts:greekLang:perseus0001.perseus001.alpheios-text-ara1:16

http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/exist/rest/db/xq/alpheios-get-ref.xq?inv=grecoarabic-inv&urn=urn:cts:greekLang:perseus0001.perseus001.alpheios-text-ara1:16


http://ar.edulibs.org/كيف-احسب-عمري-بالطريقة-الصينية/

http://ar.edulibs.org/get_paper.php?id=9481

Rajmaan (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Call to rework this article based on first-level research

This article is in bad need of being rewritten, and should be based on the research of those experts who are doing or have done research into the primary sources (e.g. the work of Paul E. Walker; his article on Islamic Philosophy Online -see external links- is a good start). As it stands now, too much is being based on the studies of non-experts or experts of later (Latin and early modern) science history, who are very prone to perpetuate the mistakes and inaccuracies of obsolete secundary sources. 83.101.57.84 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Humorism

Supposedly "He was among the first to use humorism to distinguish one contagious disease from another". Can that be true? Humorism dates back to the ancient Romans and Greeks.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Alcohol (again)

I took out the stuff about being the first to do ethanol. It was very weakly ref'd, and doesn't agree with Ethanol#History at all. In the section (way) above about this, there appears to be confusion about what his actual contribution was in this area William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I added some sources where it was asked "citation needed", could you please check them to see if they are reliables ? Thanks a lot and long life to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.187.35 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol and vitriol

For the third time (in 10 years) the claim that Rhazes discovered alcohol was in the article. So was the claim for vitriol. We know he did not discover vitriol. We await a decent accessible source and more detail for the alcohol claim. So far we have

Issues with these sources are:

  • The first is behind a paywall and is written by a paediatician.
  • The second is available via Google books [4] a search for alcohol yields no hits.
  • the third is available on-line [5] and has no mention of alcohol or vitriol

This vague and sweeping claim has been copied from Wikipedia, and we have no grounds for making it. I have removed it form the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Hi everybody, I added some sources where it was asked "citation needed", could you please check them to see if they are reliables ? Thanks a lot and long life to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.187.35 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.187.35 (talk)

Another source states Al Razi discovered alcohol:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18976043/

Could you please confirm ?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol discovery yet again

@Kansas Bear: @GreenMeansGo:
There is a lot of confusion regarding this point. Not only the distillation of Alcohol by Muslim chemists is debated, but also who made it first.
Robert J. Forbes clearly denies that al-Razi or any other Muslim chemist had ever distilled Alcohol [6].
Even if we accept the other sources which say the contrary, the distilition of alcohol has been acscribed alternately to different Muslim chemists, most notably Gaber, al-Kindi and al-Razi [7][8][9][10][11][12].
From the sources above it is clear that there is no agreement on this point. So to claim that al-Razi was the one who discovered alcohol is a bold statement that is highly contested by other sources. what do you think then? should we delete the statement altogether, or alter it so that it reflects the argument or what ?Viaros17 (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I...have no context for what we're discussing. I'm not totally sure how I'm connected. As very generic advice, if there is serious academic disagreement in the sources (and not just a small detracting minority), then we present that disagreement, and don't take a side "as Wikipedia". GMGtalk 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


Yeah, let me give the context :
R. J Forbes : reliable but slightly outdated (he died 45 years ago)
As to your other « sources », not a single one is from a notable historian of sciences :
Rassool : psychopathologist.
Yazdani : Indian studies
Source number 9 : images and icons in islamic tradition
Cotnoir : alchemist, artist and award-winning filmmaker
Joseph M Carlin : macrophage, monocytes, tnf, interferon and interferon-gamma
Perry Luntz : whiskey and spirits for dummies ? Is it really necessary to comment this one ? Not an academic work in the field of history of sciences ...
While the sources supporting the invention of alcohol by Razi :
Houchang D. Modanlou : among his skills : history of medicine, history of science —-> reliable.
Stefan Schlosser : University of technology in Bratislava —> reliable (at least more than the guys you cited above).
Source number 12 in the article is a blog and i’m going to remove it.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Blog removed from the article.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all, it is a well-known fact that there is a dispute and an uncertainty regarding the place and time of the first distillation of wine. The sources above was just to give a picture about the debate.
R. J Forbes book is a reliable source and has been used in Wikipedia articles like Distillation and Jabir ibn Hayyan.
Also, if you bothered to check, Rassool's source is quoting Ahmad Y. al-Hassan who is historian of Islamic science and certainly a reliable one.
And It's funny how you dismiss my sources when yours are not any better. you said:
Stefan Schlosser : University of technology in Bratislava —> reliable (at least more than the guys you cited above).
What kind of presentation is that? Are we supposed to accept this guy because he apparently went to college or what ? your sources seems to be just typical desperate search on google and actually only prove my point that there is no clear-cut sources about the topic. There is another sources which credit Jabir and Al-Kindi with this discovery like Ahmad Y. al-Hassan as mentioned above. I am ok with altering the statement so that it reflects the debate like saying "al-Razi is sometimes credited as being one of the earliest chemists to describe the distillation of alcohol". The current statement clearly does not agree with available sources Viaros17 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
« your sources seems to be just typical desperate search on google and actually only prove my point that there is no clear-cut sources about the topic »
Yeah, since you haven’t even checked the books you posted above, clearly that’s what you did, but let’s focus on content, not contributors.
We are not dealing here about who first distilled wine, we are dealing about who discovered rubbing alcohol (almost pure ethanol) and used it in medicine. As far as i know, this is not debated. However, if there is a consensus here for replacing the statement of the article with something like « he has been described as the discoverer of alcohol », i’m ok with that, but for now, there is clearly no such a thing.-—>Farawahar (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Isolating ethanol = alcohol distillation. The first isolating of ethanol has been achieved through distillation of the wine. Al-Razi might has advanced the process, or might has been the first to use alcohol for medical ends. However, to ascribe the discovery to him is a very bold statement for a hotly debated topic. Also alcohol distillation seems to be one of those discoveries that can not be ascribed to one person, but rather to the culture in which it first appeared. According to the historian of Islamic science Ahmad Y. al-Hassan [13]: The distillation of wine and the properties of alcohol were known to Islamic chemists since the eighth century, and that includes chemists like Geber and al-Kindi who were both older than al-Razi.
Given the available sources, I propose changing the wording of the sentence so that it becomes "He also was one of the first to describe" instead of "He also discovered". That is until more conclusive sources become available. Viaros17 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 »Isolating ethanol = alcohol distillation. »
Sorry, but i think you do not understand what we are talking about. In the 8th century, Distillation of wine could produce some very low quality ethanol, but not rubbing alcohol (ie high quality ethanol >90’, sometimes called pure ethanol and which may be useful in medicine). By the way, Hassan does not state that Jabir or al kindi produced pure ethanol, this is your opinion and actually OR, he said these guys invented the alembic and described the process of distillation, which is of course true. Also, Rassool’s statement page 226 : « Pure distiiled alcohol was first produced bu muslim chemists in the islamic world during the 8th and 9th centuries. » is not a quote from Hassan and therefore unreliable (because as i said above, Rassool is not a historian). Jabir created the alambic and al Kindi described the process but no mention of pure ethanol. In the article about Zakarya Razi, two reliables sources state that he discovered pure ethanol. You have added what Hassan states about Jabir and al Kindi in the alcohol article and this is ok, but do not extrapolate that Jabir or al Kindi discovered ethanol, again, this would be OR.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
None of your words seem convincing to me. And you are the one who seems to be missunderstanding but acts like you do. Again: discovering alcohol = wine distillation = isolating ethanol. This is an unquestionable fact.
In middle ages, the only possible way to isolate ethanol was through wine distillation.
I did not deny that al-Razi might has produced more pure alcohol than his predecessors, he still achieved this via distillation.
Also,rubbing alcohol according to its article is far from being ""pure ethanol". I bet you did not know what rubbing alcohol was and just read that al-Razi invented it in this article.
Anyway, I am leaving my statements here as a future reference for specialist editors about the topic. I provided my points of objection and they can act and edit the article accordingly. Viaros17 (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I know that medieval scholars distilled wine to obtain some alcohol, and Razi did the same, but it’s a matter of quality here. If the quality of alcohol did not matter, why don’t we just call wine alcohol ? Just because wine contains only about 15% alcohol. The process of distillation was well known by Al Kindi and probably by Jabir, but in practice, the first one to improve the process enough to obtain something who decently can be called alcohol was Razi and this is why many reliable sources consider him as the imventor of ethanol.—>Farawahar (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Help needed with images

I just added a number of images to the article, but some of these need a little bit of work:

Furthermore, File:Portrait of Rhazes (al-Razi) (AD 865 - 925) Wellcome L0005053 (cropped).jpg was rightly removed by Gråbergs Gråa Sång because it is not clear by whom and when it was made. However, this image is a cropped version of File:Portrait of Rhazes (al-Razi) (AD 865 - 925) Wellcome L0005053.jpg, which does contain an attribution and date in Persian on the image itself (larger full color version here), so if someone who knows Persian could edit the file in commons and add a translation of the attribution and date, we could also use it here.

Finally, I should note that I added File:Petrus Rusticus, Memoriale medicorum Wellcome L0023854.jpg (depicting al-Razi and Ibn Sina) to the 'Philosophy' section mainly because that section did not yet have any image, but actually it seems to depict both men as physicians rather than as philosophers (their medical writings were considered the standard reference works for students of medicine until at least the 17th century), so we might want to move that image and put a more appropriate one in its place. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

On the removed lead-image, It appeared to me as a recent work by a random netizen, basically "fan-art", obviously not "portrait". Unless it appears in some sort of WP:RS, including it is out of WP:PROPORTION, it's just a man with a beard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
OTOH, it may have been a portrait of the Scholars Pavilion statue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Rhazes, a physician, examines a boy Wellcome V0015933
Of the current images in the article, I think a cropped Hossein Behzad would be an ok choice. It has the bonus of being, sort of, culturally adjecent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I'm ok with the Scholars Pavilion statue too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Persian

He was Persian thus his name should be in Persian not Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.117.171.136 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello 5.117.171.136! Thanks for raising this issue on the talk page. While al-Razi was indeed Persian, his name was in fact Arabic. Please take a look at our article on Arabic names: al-Razi's kunya was "Abū Bakr" (like the caliph Abu Bakr, meaning "father of Bakr" in Arabic), his ism was Muḥammad (like the prophet Muhammad, meaning "blessed" in Arabic), his nasab was ibn Zakariyyāʾ (meaning "the son of Zakariyya'" in Arabic), and his nisba was al-Rāzī (meaning "the one from Ray" in Arabic). So his name was: the father of Bakr, Muhammad, the son of Zakariyya', from Ray. The reason why he had an Arabic name is that in his time, Persian scholars (as well as Muslim scholars from many different backgrounds) wrote their books in Arabic, and because Arabic was the language of administration. It's only appromixately one century after al-Razi's time that people slowly started to write more often in Persian again, though it would still take a long time before Persian Muslims would adopt non-Arabic names again (or, as is most often the case, Persianized forms of Arabic names). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'm a Persian so I am aware of these facts. but if a person's name is "Muhammad" and he is Persian I believe still his name should be assumed Persian not Arabic because these loanwords/loannames are now a part of Persian language. There are other articles in Wikipedia for Iranian Subjects who have Arabic name but it is assumed Persian for example see "Saeed Mohammad" . And by the way Persian names are already popular in Iran. I have a Persian name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.117.171.136 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that Zakariyya is not Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.117.171.136 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, today such Persianized names of Arabic origin (like Saeed Mohammad, born 1969) would be considered Persian. Because, as you say, they are a kind of loanwords. However, in the time of al-Razi (c. 865–925), Persians didn't just have names of Arabic origin, they had full traditional Arabic names, including the 'Abu' and "ibn" parts, and including the Arabic definite article "al-". The definite article is a good indicator here, because it was often dropped in later times: for example, Abū Manṣūr Muwaffaq Harawī (fl. 961–976) is already a Persianized form of the original Arabic Abū Manṣūr al-Muwaffaq al-Harawī. Likewise, al-Razi is sometimes simply called "Razi". But not in al-Razi's own time, when these Persianized forms did not yet exist. For this reason, the great majority of reliable sources speak of "al-Razi", the original Arabic form. As for Zakariyya', it's an Arabicized form of the Hebrew name Zechariah, but in the context of al-Razi's time, it's of course as 'Arabic' as Saeed Mohammad today is 'Persian'.
In any case, at Wikipedia, we do not make this kind of decisions for ourselves, but we follow the reliable sources. The usage in reliable sources (mostly academic books, papers, and encyclopedias) is not always the same as local popular usage (I imagine that in Iran, he is commonly known as Abo-Bakr Mohammad Zakariyya Razi, or something similar), which may sometimes surprise readers of Wikipedia who are used to that local and popular usage, and may sometimes even think that Wikipedia is wrong. But it isn't: if you look at the 'Works cited' section of the article, you will see that they all give the name in its Arabic form, except the Encyclopædia Iranica source, which adopts the modern Persianized form "Razi". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation. in Iran it's known as Zakariyya Razi. I guess Iranica is trusted by wikipedia. what about having both Arabic and Persian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.117.171.136 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Encyclopædia Iranica is certainly considered very reliable, but so are the other sources cited, and it's a situation of 7 against 1 equally prominent sources, where it would be undue to adopt the minority position. When it's important or relevant enough, such a minority view can be cited, but this is just a name, right? I mean, it gets so little attention in the sources that we wouldn't even be able to verifiably source something like "also known by his Persianized name Rāzī and his Latinized name Rhazes": Encyclopædia Iranica uses "Razi", but it doesn't even bother to mention it's Persian(ized). Actually, Encyclopædia Iranica is very often the one source among many which adopts a different transliteration for stuff, but we never follow it because it is always just Iranica against many other sources. They're just a bit idiosyncratic when it comes to this.
Also, Wikipedia is already paying much more attention to ethnicity-related aspects than the reliable sources it's supposed to follow: one would never find in reliable sources an elaboration of how this-or-this historical figure's originally Arabic name is now so-and-so in Persian but is pronounced in this way in Turkish, and actually really is Hebrew. Only on Wikipedia. We need to push back against this: the word "Arabic" is only there because we want to render the name in its original form, which happens to be in Arabic. If there is a good reason to mention the word "Persian", like when we need to say that he was a "Persian physician, philosopher and alchemist", we will do this. Nothing less, but certainly also nothing more. That too is part of following the sources.
Anyway, that's how I view it. If you can convince one or two other experienced editors to change the article (perhaps it would be good if you would made a specific proposal for how to change the text), I will submit to that consensus. If not, the article will stay as it is. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I have changed my mind: it may actually be a good idea to mention his Persianized name "Rāzī" in the lead. The fact that Encyclopædia Iranica consistently uses it should be enough reason to at least mention it. I changed the article accordingly. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.147.249.134 (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability

Why are you removing every reliable source that directly mentions his ethnicity? His ethnicity should be verifiable. current sources are more directed toward his nationality rather than his ethnicity. How can my edit be cite bombing when there is no citation in the article directly mentioning his ethnicity. You should not remove high-quality reliable sources that make article more verifiable. Unfortunately I don't have more time discussing this trivial edit, So if I'm the only person interested in making article more verifiable or otherwise the only person that thinks it is not quite verifiable then it won't change. Premitive (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In my new edit I added only one reliable citation which is required for verifiability. There is no quote, no cite bombing, no marking out in current revision. In this revision it is verifiable. If you want "Persian" to be unverifiable and look like original research then revert my new edit.Premitive (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The fact that he was Persian is verified by almost every source we are citing throughout the article. Per our verifiability policy, only material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation. Still, this would only mean a citation at the end of the sentence: putting a citation right after "Persian" is a clear-cut case of citation overkill (please read that essay).
But the sources we are citing at the end of the sentence do verify that he was Persian: they all say he was a native of Ray, Iran. Very little is known about al-Razi's life, and the fact that some sources refer to him as "Persian" clearly is based on his place of birth. If that's good enough for the sources to call him "Persian", it's also good enough for us.
Sure, if someone would come up with reliable source casting doubt on the fact that he was Persian, we might consider taking it out of the lead and elaborating a little on this in the biography section. But I have never seen such a source, and there is no one pointing to such a source right now. Apparently, the fact that al-Razi was Persian is utterly uncontroversial, so uncontroversial that many sources don't even make explicit mention of it. We can mention it if we want, but if we do so, we should not do it in a way that suggests this is controversial. Of course, putting a citation right behind "Persian" does suggest just that.
Anyways, I won't be arguing about this anymore. This is a C-class article after all, so the way it is now kind of fits well with that low quality assessment. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You just challenged all those sources that mention his birth place and not only all those sources but also other sources that mention his ethnicity as "Persian" by saying:
  • "Very little is known about al-Razi's life, and the fact that some sources refer to him as "Persian" clearly is based on his place of birth. If that's good enough for the sources to call him "Persian", it's also good enough for us."
Introduction to the History of Science (by George Sarton) exactly states Persian origin:
  • "It can not be said any longer that most of the work was done by non-Muslims; contributions of the True Believers and those of the kafirs were about equally important; but it can be easily proved that most of the Muslim work was done by men of Persian origin. To begin with, the four greatest Muslim scientists of the age were Persians, to wit, Ibn Khurdadhbih, al-Razi, al-Ya*qubi, and al-Nairizi."
So Persian origin is mentioned which is different from born in Persia. Also this quote from same source makes it clear that it makes a distinction between born in Persia and Persian:
  • "We would then meet the most progressive of the Muslims, the Persians and those living east of Persia."
So as you can see this source quite believes that he was Persian rather than simply born in Persia. The very fact that you just challenged his ethnicity claiming that some sources refer to him as Persian because he was from Persia is why we shouldn't judge or cherry-pick sources by ourselves. Also there is no citation overkill because born in Persia doesn't indicate origin. I almost did everything to your liking as you can see I removed all the quotes, citing only one source that I thought you agree most as it doesn't go more that calling him Persian. Maybe not including sources that cover his ethnicity and other topics is a reason for low quality. And at last let me remind you of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and Cherrypicking.Premitive (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
the Persians and those living east of Persia : this establishes precisely that "Persian" is taken to mean "living in Persia". No source mentioning "Persian" intimates anything else. There are no primary sources telling scholars anything about his father or mother, or otherwise permitting them to say anything about his ancestral ethnicity. You will consistently find that secondary sources mentioning "Persian" will refer to nothing but him being born in Ray. This is enough for them to say he's Persian: someone who originates from Ray quite clearly is of Persian origin, at least in some sense. Reliable sources are not obsessed with ethnicity. WP editors, on the other hand, are notoriously obsessed with ethnicity. This is a problem, because it creates an undue contrast between how WP and reliable sources deal with these things. The worst part is perhaps that talk pages are filled with discussions about ethnicity, while the articles themselves are left in a terrible state (case in point: the whole alchemy section almost cites no references). But since we have a consensus for now, we can at least end this round. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Apaugasma: This is your interpretation of what the sources say, i suggest you stop reverting and reverting again the ethnicity of this scholar. Also, you might want to be aware of this thread.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's clear that if the author thought "Persians" and "those living in Persia" are the same thing, then he could simply say "Persians" instead of "Persians and those living east of Persia"; this is a clear distinction rather than redundancy.Premitive (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: may I add mentioned source as well(as it is more specific) and we just saw that one might challenge his ethnicity? Premitive (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Fine by me, Apaugasma speaking of "bombing" while there were 3 sources for this scholar's ethnicity sounds irrelevant.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: I added them, Will you format them into one citation so that they don't mark out ethnicity as Apaugasma mentioned once?Premitive (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, we could with some effort add 60 sources after "Persian". And yet none of them will be about al-Razi's 'ethnicity' in the sense of his ancestors, since nothing is known about that. It's based on the fact that he was born and raised in Ray, Iran. This is not just my interpretation of the sources, it's what anyone who has actually read the sources would be well aware of (please do go read the sources listed in the Works cited section). As for parsing the Persians and those living east of Persia (i.e., those living in Khurasan, Bactria, etc.) as somehow meaning 'those whose ancestors were pure-blooded Persians and those living east of Persia', there could hardly be a clearer example of a tendentious and entirely uncalled for interpretation of a source. If any editor here would actually claim that only those whose parents were Persians are 'real' Persians, and that we would know this to have in fact been the case for al-Razi, then sure, this will be challenged, since there is not one reliable source supporting that.
I'll tell you what this is about: there's a fear that I or other editors may want to remove Persian ethnicity. [14] But that fear is ungrounded: the article has always called him "Persian", and has now done so for 5 months without featuring a citation right after the word "Persian". Many sources call him Persian, and there is not one reliable source contesting that he was Persian. It's not controversial. Nationalistic anxieties should not be imported into Wikipedia like that: Wikipedia is not a battleground for adding or removing ethnicities. How about leaving the word "Persian" where it has happily been for 5 months and actually go and improve the article? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
"greatness of an ethnic group"[15], "mark this fact out by citebombing it or by weird copy-editing"[16], "WP editors, on the other hand, are notoriously obsessed with ethnicity"[17], "talk pages are filled with discussions about ethnicity", "pure-blooded Persians"[18], "Nationalistic anxieties", "real Persians":
  • I prefer not to comment on any of these.
Reliable sources should not be removed and cherry-picked based on preference. Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and is based on reliable sources. I do not agree with removing any reliable source from this article.
"How about leaving the word "Persian" where it has happily been for 5 months and actually go and improve the article?"
  • I have improved it by making it verifiable. Please do not resist any further against this trivial improvement.Premitive (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Apaugasma, I won't comment your above comments about "pure Persians" etc ... to be honest, i'm a bit baffled by what you said... Also, odd how you ask for sources, sources and sources in other articles and try to remove those cited here. Feel free to improve the article in a way that fits with our guidelines, but stop removing sources that serve a purpose of verifiability.
@Premitive: Yeah, i could format the sources as you said, but honestly, 3 sources, that's not a big deal.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Distillation of ethanol

Razi is credited as the first who distilled ethanol and used it for medical purposes. Why my edit is keep getting deleted despite citing multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.60.84 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi anonymous user, thanks for posting here! I cross-posted with you, only seeing your post after I hit the 'publish' button. See my notice below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Book on chess - wrong author?

I am not convinced about this: "Al-Razi was a chess rival of al-‘Adlī and the Abbāsid caliph al-Mutawakkil attended their matches." Al-Mutawakkil died in 861, al-Razi was born in 865. That does not add up. There was an earlier chess master also named al-Razi, and I think the two of them might have been confused here. Which makes me assume that the other al-Razi was also the author of the Kitāb latīf fī al- Shiṭranj. The German wikipedia has an article on him: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Razi_(Schachspieler). This other al-Razi is recorded to have defeated al-Adli in 847, which fits into the timeline much better. Are there any reliable sources that Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi was also a chess player? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HilkMAN (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done You're absolutely right. Since it was based only on a primary source (thus constituting original research), I removed it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Abu Bakr al-Razi (closed by non-admin page mover) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi → Al-Razi – The current naming of this article makes no sense, and provides us with the least satisfactory title possible based on the full name of Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Zakariya Al-Razi. The simply fact is that Al-Razi is most commonly referred to as that and only that, 'Al-Razi', just as we have single names for many other great medieval scientists and philosophers, such as Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Geber (Jabir ibn Hayyan), Plato, Aristotle, Galen, etc. I'm not sure where the cut-off for this shorthand naming convention ends, but I'm fairly certain it is not the 10th century, and I think Al-Razi qualifies. Now in terms of sourcing, it is extremely common for Al-Razi to be referred to as just 'Al-Razi' alone. 'Abu Bakr Al-Razi' is also quite common, and by my estimate the second most common naming convention [19][20][21][22][23] (it is quite well dispersed), then 'Zakariya Al-Razi'. 'Muhammad bin Zakariya Al-Razi', the current title, seems borderline non-existent (except in some Wikipedia mirrors), and frankly seems like an arbitrary choice involving the full name minus the kunya, and a choice not based on the common names in sources. The page 'Al-Razi' currently redirects to Razi (disambiguation), but as far as I can tell, none of the other historical individuals with names ending in '...al-Razi' have ever been commonly referred to as just 'Al-Razi'. In my mind, there is no good reason why this Al-Razi page shouldn't be THE 'Al-Razi' page with a link at the top of the page to Razi (disambiguation) or an Al-Razi (disambiguation) page. The straight up use of 'Al-Razi' for this individual is sitting there plain as day in resources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, in published journals, in news, and other official resources. Or, the article could default back to 'Rhazes', which, Avicenna-style, still persists in some sources. There are plenty of approaches up for discussion, but, critically, all of the alternatives appear better than what exists. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

However, I agree that the page should be moved to something more in line with the WP:CRITERIA for article titles. I think that given the Google Scholar results above, "Abu Bakr al-Razi" (708) and "(Muhammad ibn) Zakariya' al-Razi" (885; note the straight apostrophe which we normally include per WP:MOSAR but which Google ignores, and "ibn" which is far more common than "bin" in scholarly sources and standard usage on WP) are the most common occurrences (best satisfying recognizability and naturalness). On Google Scholar, "Rhazes" gets a whopping 9,510 results, but that is partly due to the fact that something like "also called Rhazes" is added to every conceivable way to spell or transliterate the Arabic name, and partly because –as Google Ngram viewer shows us– "Rhazes" was historically (until c. 1960) by far the most common name, but has since c. 1990 been approximately as common as "al-Razi". Moreover, and this is crucial, in my experience the specialist sources have a very strong preference for "al-Razi" over "Rhazes", a preference that is also reflected in the sources currently cited in the article (the case here is very different from that of Ibn Sina/Avicenna, where specialist scholars generally prefer Avicenna). I would exclude just "Zakariya' al-Razi" because it is in fact inaccurate (Zakariya' was the name of his father), and because it seems unlikely to be more common than the correct "Muhammad ibn Zakariya' al-Razi" (to the point that I've never actually encountered just "Zakariya' al-Razi" in a scholarly source). On the count of concision and precision, "Abu Bakr al-Razi" is better: apart from the antiquated "Rhazes", it is the briefest commonly used name that still distinguishes it from other subjects. In my experience, "Abu Bakr al-Razi" is also the most common name used in passing, singular references to him (like us, scholars like to be concise, but just "al-Razi" really is too ambiguous for a single mention). If "Zakariya'" is used, consistency would dictate that we use the transliteration "Zakariyya'" since "iyy" is more often used on Wikipedia than "īy" (basic transcription "iy") as a transliteration of ِيّ.
I therefore oppose moving to al-Razi, but support moving to Abu Bakr al-Razi, with Muhammad ibn Zakariyya' al-Razi as a distant second option. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Support moving to Abu Bakr al-Razi per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Abu Bakr al-Razi (or even Rhazes as a second option). I am not convinced that he is the primary topic for the very common nisba al-Razi. Srnec (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Happy with Abu Bakr al-Razi - that was my second choice based on sourcing, naturalness, conciseness etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Support moving to Abu Bakr al-Razi. Ticks all the boxes. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Abu Bakr al-Razi per Srnec. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discovery of ethanol and sulfuric acid: a case of citogenesis

Since this is a recurrent issue that is not likely to go away anytime soon, I feel it's best to address it here on the talk page. There are a number of sources out there which claim that al-Razi discovered ethanol, as well as sulfuric acid. There's for example this paper by Amr & Tbakhi 2007, this one by Modanlou 2008, and this entry in the New World Encyclopedia.

But now note this:

al-Razi's Wikipedia page, 19 April 2006: As an alchemist, Razi is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid, the "work horse" of modern chemistry and chemical engineering. He also discovered ethanol and its refinement and use in medicine.

Modanlou 2008, p. 674: He discovered and purified alcohol (ethanol) and pioneered its use in medicine. Also, he is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid, the “work horse” of modern chemistry and chemical engineering.

New World Encyclopedia: As an alchemist, Razi is credited with the studies of sulfuric acid, the "work horse" of modern chemistry and chemical engineering. He also wrote about ethanol and its refinement and use in medicine.

According to Unification Church, New World Encyclopedia is an Internet encyclopedia that, in part, selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification values. So the fact that they copy from Wikipedia is not a surprise. But Modanlou clearly also is copying from Wikipedia, which should make it clear that his paper is not reliable.

The second thing to note about this is that neither the 2006 Wikipedia article nor Modanlou 2008 cite any source for the claims about the discovery of ethanol and sulfuric acid, and that both mention them together. This is also the case for Amr & Tbakhi 2007, who simply have the one, unreferenced sentence Among his discoveries in alchemy, he is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid and ethanol. It's extremely likely that they too just took this from the Wikipedia page: what we have here seems to be a case of citogenesis.

But what's really important for us is that there is no reliable source that actually dedicates more than a sentence or two on this subject, that actually details how al-Razi discovered these things, or that tells us in which primary source texts it is described. Sources that do discuss the details of the historical developments which led to the discovery of ethanol and sulfuric acid, as described in Ethanol#History (e.g. al-Hassan 2009) and Sulfuric acid#History (e.g. Karpenko & Norris 2002), do not at all attribute the discovery of these things to al-Razi.

What this means is that sources which just repeat the basic claim that 'he discovered sulfuric acid and ethanol', without pointing to any reliable reference, cannot be trusted. This would always be the case (truly reliable sources do come with basic evidence for their claims), but it's especially important here since we have proof that at least Modanlou 2008 was relying on unreferenced claims in Wikipedia itself. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Razi was the first to distill alcohol, sources say that, everybody know that, stop vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A09:E9C0:4:0:0:0:0:9E4B (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing or other behavior deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. What we need to do is to form a consensus through dispute resolution. That begins with presenting an argument here at the talk page. I argued above that the sources which claim this are not reliable. Do you have any counter-argument that directly addresses my reasons for regarding these sources as unreliable? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
i include 2 sources who say al Razi discovered alcohol and sulfur acid and i included "some sources say that he discovered" these products, this is a fact. stop your actions of falsification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A09:E9C0:4:0:0:0:0:7C1B (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It's indeed a fact that some sources say this, but if these sources are unreliable that's not worth much . Again, do you have any counter-argument that directly addresses my reasons for regarding these sources as unreliable? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
you're the only one who says the source are unreliable, i think the sources are reliable. i also see you have tried to erase Razi ethnicity from the page, stop your falsification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:5600:67:0:0:0:0:ADE8 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
What we do in such cases is to ask other editors at the Reliable sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN): see the thread I opened here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Apaugasma: It seems like there may be some ethno-nationalism at work here layered upon the bad scholarship given the whole Arab/Persian thing, and the potential desirability of claiming a discovery for one cultural background over another. Iranian sources on the subject likely need to be handled with great care, and, in general, every claim/statement likely needs carefully cross-checking for verification and reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
While Al-Razi may have been the first to use distilled ethanol in certain medical applications, he certainly was not the first to distill it. The methodology of boiling wine with salt was first outlined by Jabir Ibn Hayyan, and ethanol distillation was then expounded in quite considerable detail by Al-Kindi. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, though outlined methodology and considerable detail are perhaps a bit exaggerated for the two tiny phrases we have, i.e., one sentence in one work in the huge corpus of works attributed to Jabir (and fire which burns on the mouths of bottles due to boiled wine and salt), and one sentence in one work attributed to al-Kindi (and so wine is distilled in wetness and it comes out like rosewater in colour), these phrases are at least attested in primary sources which have been pointed out and translated by al-Hassan 2009, and which everyone who knows Arabic can check. I seriously doubt something like that exists in the works attributed to al-Razi, since I see no reason why al-Hassan (who published on this topic between at least 1986 and 2009) should have failed to mention that.
Anyways, a source giving such an attestation is what we would need to cite it here. Personally I would actually be really happy if someone would come up with such as source, because it would constitute further proof that the current mainstream view needs reexamination, which it surely does in my opinion (I believe it likely that there's a whole gradual development to be found in uninvestigated Arabic sources spanning from 9th/10th-century Jabir's boiling wine vapors to Taddeo Alderotti's 90% pure ethanol in the late 13th century). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It's quite possible that there was such a gradation, but more than likely that there are wide gaps in the literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Article protected

Due to the repeated disruption by multiple IP addresses, I have semi-protected this article and reverted all edits back to 23 February 2022, before this disruption began. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for protection. Reverting the last IP edit was enough. So I undid your edit as well as the last IP edit to restore some useful edits.Premitive (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's the right revision. Thanks to you both! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Name in Persian

@Premitive: With all due respect to the fact you appear to be a generally productive editor (if a little overly zealous about Persian language issues), I did not ask for vague WP:OR explanations as to how the Arabic language spelling COULD also be the Persian language spelling (though I've already explained why it is likely not), I asked for a source saying so. Your reversion without any apparent attempt to provide or point to such sources is not productive, and borderline disruptive. You know that sources are king and that the swiftest way to prove your point, if provable, is simply to source it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

First you shouldn't comment on editors; "overly zealous about Persian language issues" is exactly commenting on an editor. Also accusing me of being "borderline disruptive" is not productive and is not going to help you in a content dispute. This is an example of a Persian article that uses this name. Additionally I don't think any of my explanations were vague. If you tell me which part is vague, I will clarify it. There is no definite article "Al" in English, Yet we can write "Abu Bakr al-Razi" in English as it has been loaned to it. Same thing holds for Persian. Al-Razi himself has written his own name in his Persian works. Other Persian sources from his time, use this name to refer to him. As you can see this name is still used even in present-day Persian articles. So this is in fact one of his Persian names. But there are also other names such as "Razi". Double standards should be avoided. Speaking of WP:OR, don't you think "Persianized" that you wrote in the article is in fact WP:OR?Premitive (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
You could have just provided the source from the beginning. Unfortunately, that source is being flagged as a predatory publisher, so we'll need another. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a university master thesis that refers to al-Razi by this name. The part of the thesis that refers to him is available in this link. I am not sure if the previous source is in fact published by a predatory publisher. however a university master thesis should be enough to show that Persian-language academic literature does use this name.Premitive (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding though I've already explained why it is likely not, do you mean your WP:OR explanation? The one that when I explained to you why it is wrong you simply resorted to commenting on me? You could have just provided the source from the beginning, And you could have simply asked for source instead of WP:OR explanation of why you think it is likely not the case.Premitive (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
And this is another source which is written by Mehdi Mohaghegh.Premitive (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
None of these seem particularly fantastic, but look, in the spirit of compromise, how about we include the Farsi alphabet version of the name in a note (as I have done) - the Farsi version from what I have seen is typically subtlety different (aglided teknonym, absent alif maqsura and dropped definitive article), so the "Arabic/Persian" workaround doesn't really work (and that is obviously one reason why it cannot be done within the confines of a single template), and it would otherwise be messy to include both, marginally different variants side by side. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
No, the sources do seem pretty good to me. Mehdi Mohaghegh has two P.h.D, one for Persian language and literature and one for Islamic studies. He was a professor in Tehran University. According to his Wikipedia page:
"He has been teaching at the School of Oriental and African Studies in England (1961-1963), McGill University Institute of Islamic Studies in Canada (1965-1998), and The International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization in Malaysia (1991-1996)."
The other source is a university master thesis which is by definition peer-reviewed.
You are back to WP:OR where it is exactly were we started and that should be avoided. I prefer to rely on Mehdi Mohaghegh and that master thesis rather than WP:OR.Premitive (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Given the vast volumes of literature on Abu Bakr al-Razi, it seems incredible that the best we can do here is a master thesis on slightly suspect websites. But, in any case, perhaps could you quote where in the thesis you are referring to? In the second link, I only saw Al-Razi's name mainly listed in the part about Arabic sources and generally trivially. In the small portion of prose, two different spellings are used - overall, there is little on that page that acts to conclusively define anything. The Arabic version quite literally includes letters not in the Farsi alphabet (namely, an alif maqsura), so it is not WP:OR or even a stretch of the imagination, to assert that the Persian spelling cannot be identical to the Arabic spelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
On a secondary note, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (WP:WINARS), and the Mehdi Mohaghegh article is, in addition, totally unsourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@Premitive: "Al-Razi himself has written his own name in his Persian works." Could you please provide a reliable source for this? As far as I know, the Persian titles in article are either unsourced or were originally written in Arabic. Wiqi(55) 07:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Sufficient secondary sources has already been provided for one of his Persian name. There is no need to provide primary source but This is for example one source that provides a list his works that at least includes the following from Wikipedia page:
Ketab dar Padid Amadaneh Sangrizeh (Persian كتاب در پديد آمدن سنگريزه) ("The Book of Formation of small stones (Stones in the Kidney and Bladder)")
Dar Amadi bar Elme Pezeshki (Persian در آمدى بر علم پزشكى) ("An Introduction to the Science of Medicine").
Premitive (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Are these translations of original Arabic?Premitive (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
You must explain why we shouldn't have Persian script (while it can be sourced). The name that has been recorded in the article is also used in Persian.Premitive (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Only Arabic works are listed in the early bibliographies. Here is a quote from Deuraseh (2008) "Risalat Al-Biruni Fi Fihrist Kutub Al-Razi: A Comprehensive Bibliography Of The Works Of Abu Bakr Al-Rāzī" (full citaion in article):

3 Al-Madkhal Ila al-Tibb (Introduction to Medicine). [...] 19 Fi Tawallud al-Hasat (The Development of Stone in Bladder or Kidney).

Searching GB for Razi's Persian works returned no useful results. That said, Deuraseh (2008)'s "Introduction" mentions other bibliographies. Wiqi(55) 10:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not at all clearly established that we have a reliable, secondary source for the Persian script rendering of Al-Razi's name. I also do not understand your point about the name being potentially being loaned from Arabic into Persian sources, as this would not make it a Persian name; just an Arabic name in a Persian source. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Well As I said I do believe the provided secondary sources are reliable for the purpose.
We have sources that do refer to some Persian works. These Persian works may be old translations or they may be originals. In any case, it is not hard to see that the name of Al-Razi will appear in these old works. All of this is off course uncertain and original research based on primary sources. What is not uncertain is the secondary Persian sources that we have and they use this name. just an Arabic name in a Persian source, that name of Arabic origin has been adopted in Persian language which is exactly what loaning means.Premitive (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Mehdi Mohaghegh is certainly more reliable than WP:OR.Premitive (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
If I write a sentence with 'Charles de Gaulle' in it, that very French name does not suddenly become an English name by virtue of being in an English sentence. Names are only considered English versions of the name if they have been Anglicized, in the same way that there are Romanised/Latinsed forms of names, such as Avicenna instead of Ibn Sina. So again, Persian sources using Arabic names with borderline identical spelling do not somehow make those name 'written in Persian'. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
On Mehdi Mohaghegh, how is anyone meant to seriously evaluate an abstract of an Iranian masters thesis from the 1950s now hosted on commercial sites or determine whether it has been adequately peer reviewed? I cannot even see the date of publication or other basic meta information about the paper. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
There is simply no requirement for changing the word that is being loaned. "café" has been loaned as is from French to English. "Kindergarten" also has been loaned as is from German to English. And obviously names can be loaned as well. And Arabic names have been loaned to entire Muslim word. There are other names loaned from Arabic to Persian such as "یدالله". Persian template has no Problem rendering his name and his name has been used in Persian literature so it has been loaned. Al-Razi has lived under Samanid rule which makes it legit to add Persian.
What Mehdi Mohaghegh has to do with the master thesis? master thesis is a different source. 1950s? Master thesis is from 2007 and it has been supervised by two PhD and is successfully defended.Premitive (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Nouns and proper nouns are a different matter, as I'm sure you can deduce. Meanwhile, the Samanids used Arabic for the sciences, as with most Persian-speaking Islamic dynasties, even while using Persian elsewhere. My mistake on the masters thesis, but the point remains that these are not academic paper hosting websites. Honestly, if this is the best example you can find, it raises serious questions about whether a mention of - in your interpretation - a Persian version of the name is WP:DUE. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Court, patronage, etc. language of Samanid rule was Persian. these are not academic paper hosting websites., Since when a master thesis is just something on a hosting website but not an academic paper? (that is if I understand your sentence correctly) Since when a scholar such as Mehdi Mohaghegh is not reliable for such simple purpose? As before, Persian template can render it and it appears in Persian literature whether academic or non-academic.Premitive (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I've put up the Mehdi Mohaghegh source, for which the publisher, the Avicenna Cultural and Scientific Foundation, also checks out. As I surmised, the Persian version drops the alif maqsura, but otherwise provides little variety or interest relative to the standard Arabic spelling. In answer to your question above, the nature of sites that host content is extremely important in determining reliability. Academic papers can often be reposted on predatory sources, which Wikipedia does not use, particularly in countries with lax intellectual property rights. Papers not published on reliable hosting platforms equally provide little guarantee of their claimed peer-review credentials. Meanwhile, on the nature of the Samanids, since you like referencing Wikipedia, please note: "Scholars note that the Samanids revived Persian language and culture more than the Buyids and the Saffarids while continuing to patronize Arabic for sciences as well as the religious studies." Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  • We actually have sources for how his name is written in both Arabic and Persian, so why not use that? In Arabic, it is normally written أبو بكر محمد بن زكرياء الرازي, as for example by Kraus 1939 (see our bibliography). Sometimes the hamza (ʾ) in Zakariyyāʾ is dropped, making it أبو بكر محمد بن زكريا الرازي, as found for example in Dānish-pazhūh 1964, p. 1 of the edition (available online). I have never seen Zakariyyā written with an alif maqsura in Arabic. For Persian, we have Dānish-pazhūh 1964, p. 1 of the introduction, who writes ابوبكر محمدبن زكريا رازى (dropping the ibn Yaḥyā after Zakariyyā, which most sources don't mention and which we in our article also ignore). Mehdi Mohaghegh, who by the way is an established Razi scholar (see, e.g., his citations in Adamson 2021a), is a bit erratic: in the online article cited earlier, he writes الرازى with the definite article "al-", but in his 1993 edition of Doubts about Galen (p. 18) he writes محمد بن زكرياى رازى, without the definite article "al-" and with ... an alif maqsura for Zakariyyā. Given Mohaghegh's erratic Persian spelling, it's probably better to follow Dānish-pazhūh.
As for the question whether mentioning the Persian name is WP:DUE, I've argued that it is not on this talk page before (here), but then changed my mind: given the fact that some sources (Richter-Bernburg 2003, and now also Adamson 2021b, p. 2) prefer to refer to him by the Persian form "Razi" (dropping the definite article al- would not be allowed in Arabic, but is fairly typical for Persianized forms of Arabic names), we should probably at least mention in the lead sentence that he is often simply called "Razi". As for the full name in Persian, I agree with Iskandar323 that it resembles the Arabic too much and would look messy in the lead sentence. However, mentioning it in a footnote, as we do now, does seem wise given the inordinate amount of attention that this type of thing always seems to attract.
Finally, I would like to note that al-Razi himself seems not to have written anything in Persian. There are some testimonies and fragments in Nasir Khusraw's (d. after 1070) Zād al-​musāfirīn (a work with an Arabic title but written in Persian) which preserves parts of al-Razi's Kitāb al-ʿilm al-ilāhī ('On Theology') in Persian, fragments of which are also preserved in the original Arabic (see Daiber 2017, p. 391; Adamson 2021, p. 21). I also vaguely remember reading something somewhere about late Persian translations of medical and/or chemical works, but I can't find the source for that at this time. In any case, the unsourced lists of works in our article with their misleading translated Persian titles should be removed and/or replaced by properly sourced lists (see, e.g., Daiber 2017, pp. 389–396), which will give the original Arabic titles and English translations. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I also agree with User:Gorebath (cf. [24] [25]) that an ethnically Persian in the lead sentence is unencylopedic: it should be obvious that when we say he was Persian, we mean ethnicity in the broad sense (where he was born and was active, the equivalent of modern 'nationality'). Anything more specific (Persian ethnicity in the sense of Persian ancestry, as for example argued for by Ruska 1937, p. 4) does not belong in the lead, where it would clearly violate MOS:ETHNICITY (in contrast to his native region, his ancestry does not provide context for the activities that made the person notable). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed on the MOS:ETHNICITY front - 'ethnically Persian' just gets you into a minefield of what 'Persian' identity actually means, vis-a-vis Iran, Pars, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
When sources states that he was "a Persian not Arab" or a "native speaker of Persian", the meaning is clear. But I don't see any serious problem with removing "ethnically" as that is obvious. Regarding the source that you removed (ie. Mohaghegh-2016), I don't have anymore time to discuss that; Yes I have other things to attend to.Premitive (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Apaugasma: It's not worth a lot of time or energy, but surely محمدبن without a space can only be a typo? Those two words clearly have no cause to be aglided. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't known enough about Persian to say whether it is allowable to connect these words, but the fact that we find it both in Dānish-pazhūh 1964, p. 1 (second line) and in Mohaghegh 2017 (first line) makes me suspect that it's some kind of (scholarly?) convention rather than a typo (a Google search [26] also yields a suspiciously high number of hits). I don't feel comfortable changing this from the source: if it is a typo, we should really find another reliable source that gives the correct version. We don't have to worry about this now though; someone who is more familiar with Persian sources will surely come around and provide a better source if needed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    I looked at this a bit more, and it appears that Mohaghegh 2017 uses محمدبن 25 times, including also for such figures like Muhammad ibn Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani, Abu al-Abbas Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Iranshahri, and Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Yaman al-Samarqandi. Mohaghegh also connects other names with "ibn", for example احمدبن six times, which should make it clear that this is some kind of convention rather than a typo. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    Kinda bizarre, but sure, ok, convinced. Perhaps it is because بن has other meanings in Farsi that this convention serves to disambiguate. Obviously the necessary context is there, but بن apparently means a root, bottom or base, or, colloquially I believe, the other 'bottom' - therefore it may be a scholarly convention to avoid the interspersion of superficial obscenity. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    A bit like English bun (= buttocks) then? Imagine that, Osama bun Laden. I can see why they would want to avoid such a thing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    There are other spaces missing about the place in both texts. Consistent inconsistency. Either esoteric conventions, or faulty keyboards. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Refs for views on religion

@Groznia: the SEP ref you re-added here is the same as Adamson 2021a, which we are already citing. Also, why are the Guardian [27] and National Geographic [28] sources needed when we are already citing such an excellent source as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry, which is written by a well-respected expert such as Peter Adamson? Adamson summarizes the facts much more accurately and in a much more nuanced way than opinion pieces in the popular press ever could. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There's simply nothing wrong with citing multiple credible sources. It only cements the fact that Al-Razi was critical of religion. Furthermore, there's no Wikipedia policy which prevents me from citing multiple sources to support a statement. RegardsGroznia (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There is WP:SCHOLARSHIP saying that we follow scholars not newspapers and magazines, there is WP:DUE saying that not all sources are created equal, there is WP:CONSENSUS saying that no editor can do just anything without the agreement of most other editors and policy, and there is common sense. Non-expert sources do not cement anything when they take a more opinionated, exaggerated or sensationalist view than the experts. We follow the point of view of the most reliable (in this case, scholarly) sources, that is a core policy (WP:POV). I'm also kind of struck that you don't even think it necessary to remove the duplicate source? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Worth noting that the Guardian and National Geographic pieces also appear to be opinion, making them yet still less due here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. The Guardian and Nationalgeographic are not WP:RS in this context. We need academic sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
They are now removed. Thanks all for the input! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Bakr_al-Razi/Archive_1&oldid=1208419936"