Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

This is disgrace

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

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

I haven't taken a good look at things, but I have noticed that the past few months of contributions have come almost entirely from one user, so there should certainly be an assessment here.--C.Logan 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
See also Islamic Golden Age.Proabivouac 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'm already seeing some questionable and POV content.--C.Logan 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's one big violation of WP:Peacock.
The other thing is, the editor ignores the talk page.
Many of the linked scholars have also been edited by the same user (e.g. Ibn al-Haytham,) so consistency between articles is no guide. Some of the sources cited (where there are sources) are questionable.Proabivouac 02:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think an AfD is in order. Would we want an article called inventions in the Western World? It would be hundreds of pages long. Arrow740 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You have a point. I feel that religiously-organized articles are risky business in and of themselves. We do have culturally-organized "invention" articles (like Chinese inventions), but there's a difference between culture and religion. Many individuals call anything produced by a culture which practices Islam "Muslim", when in reality such inventions are Arab, Persian, Moorish, or Turkish- I've seen some individuals lament over the commonplace tagging of "Persian" architecture as "Muslim", an act which which essentially hijacks the accomplishments of a culture. Additionally, the title (much moreso the previous title) infers that such inventions came about because the inventor was Muslim (which was only sometimes the case). I have a strange feeling that Christian inventions wouldn't fly with anyone, and Inventions in Christendom would probably get too long, depending on what one defines as "Christendom".--C.Logan 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be no longer than Timeline of inventions as that includes, Christian, Muslim, Indian and Chinese inventions.Vice regent 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There was an Islamic caliphate at the beginning, and inventions in that caliphate can be considered as "national" inventions such as Egyptian inventions or Chinese ones. Despise the fact that the Omeyyad and Abbasid caliphates are more Arab empires than Islamic caliphate, many consider that they are more or less its continuation. In those caliphates, the principal language of scientist works was Arabic. As many of the scientists were non-Arabs, but wrote in Arabic, it appears to be more appropriate to give a label "Islamic inventions" than "Arabic inventions". But since non-Muslim scientists bearing Arabic or Persian names can be mistakenly or dishonestly presented as Muslims, it can lead to ideas of "hijacks of accomplishments of cultures" from inside or outside the Muslim community. It's not uncommon that people devote their efforts and achievements to their religion and country, but it's still better to distribute this article to nations such as Abbasid caliphate, Fatimid caliphate, Samanid kingdom or Delhi sultanate, etc. Snn77 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

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

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


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

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

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

Don't worry about being green. I second a few of your concerns- the misleading presentation is something that certainly needs work. Many of these "inventions" are just improvements, which is something that is not always clarified to a satisfactory extent (they are inventions in their own right, but while I could redesign the structure of a tire and create the Logan tire, I cannot reasonably be said to have invented the general "tire").
Your suggestion is problematic, though- breaking inventions up into national pages only inspires nationalism rather than religious agenda, and creates a whole load of little pages in the process (the concept of the Islamic world is useful as a geographical concept). You notice well enough that this article has one major contributor; this is unfavorable, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. Unfortunately, nobody else seems to have the time or interest in contributing to the article as much as Jagged- whether or not agenda comes into play in his contributions is another issue. The article definitely needs a once-over for the sake of neutrality and verifiability.--C.Logan (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please do not remove wikiproject templates, especially if you are not a member of that wikiproject. This article is a part of Muslim history and therefore falls within the scope of the Islam wikiproject. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please pay attention to this quotation.Bernard Lewis states(Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response)

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

Thus we have Islamic sciences and inventions which are related to Islamic civilization. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has written it would be difficult to convince conservatives unless you would be willing to take on a great deal of the effort.
Unfortunately There are too many conservatives in the world such as Donald Routledge Hill, Henry Corbin, Bernard Lewis, George Saliba. Apparently the number of these conservative scholars is more than others. Compare [1] with [2] and [3] as well as [4] with [5] and [6]. As you see there are more books which have used Islamic instead of Arabic in their titles. I didn't speak about Persian due to there are numerous books about ancient Persian civilization.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those sources. I think I might use that Bernard Lewis quote as a footnote in the article to clear up any misconceptions. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Either this article is about invention or Islam, it can't be both if you are claiming it is about invention Islamic agenda has no place here that is why the project template should be removed, as it stands this article is about selected evidence aquried by Islamists to construct a false psado history using highly dubious sources Oxyman42 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Somebody said Either this article is about invention or Islam, it can't be both if you are claiming it is about invention Islamic agenda has no place here that is why the project template should be removed, as it stands this article is about selected evidence aquried by Islamists to construct a false psado history using highly dubious sources.
I think you misunderstand the usage of templates on the article and talk page. I agree with you that we shouldn't put the template of Islam on the article. But we use wikiproject template on the talk page to manage related articles better. We put this template on Anti-Islam articles as well. It's just a tool for wikipedians. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
another use of selected favourable quotes this should be made clear in the first paragraph if that is the case of course being an Islamist Jagged 85 won't allow fair reportage and his next action will probably be to explode Oxyman42 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Items

The following items need to be removed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision

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

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

Stub and rework

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

Antimony

The article says:

Isolated by Jābir ibn Hayyān

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

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

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

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

Three-course meal

The article says:

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

The source cited was:

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

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

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

Oil field, petroleum industry, naphtha, and tar

The article says:

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

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

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

Geared and hydropowered water supply system

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

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

Geared and wind-powered gristmills with trip hammers

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

The source cited was:

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

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

Beauty parlour and cosmetology school:

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

Chemical depilatory for hair removal:

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

The source cited for both claims was:

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

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

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

Toothpaste, functional and pleasant

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

The source cited was:

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

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

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

  • Minor points:
High-rise roof garden

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

The source cited was:

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

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

Minaret

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

Checked and found to be correct as far as I can tell
  • Coffee as a drink, Albarello, Fritware, Hispano-Moresque ware, Iznik pottery, Tin-glazing, Prefabricated home and movable structure, Bridge mill
Debatable
  • Lusterwar - according to some authors already produced in Roman Egypt
  • Stonepaste - ceramic - there exists a Chinese claim

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

Comments

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

I do not see a good stub here. I suggest a page move to Technology in medieval Islam or something similar with a cut off date (1453 jumps to mind but there are others). We could add things that were not Invented but passed though the like the astrolabe or paper. and look towards improving things from here BE BOLD J8079s (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. This article clear has multiple issues, the most obvious of which is the title. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about this. I believe the the U.S, patent office lists millions of "inventions" which are probably most technological innovations. The implication is Islamic scientists primarily advanced other people's inventions. Do we have sources for this assertion? Is there a difference of opinion?
Question the approach. There are at least two aspects of this cleanup. One is the removal of unverifiable content, the other is the shifting of POV through recharacterizing "Islamic" achievements as "Arabic", recharacterizing inventions as technological innovations. While there is no question regarding unverifiable or misrepresented content, these other aspects are more nebulous. While I do not question the right of the cleanup crew to address such questions, I would not care to see them mixed together. -Aquib (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I want this to be "inclusive" for instance the noria is,I think, iconic but not an invention. There would still be room for original inventions (if any).J8079s (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Magnifying glass

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

This is an issue raised by Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs), which you simply reverted ([7]) rather than take to the talk page. Obviously, if evidence of far earlier usage is presented, then claims of "invention" are dubious, particularly when said far earlier employment receives no mention at all. Particularly given the sad history of this article, I highly suggest you drop the revert warring and resolve the problematic wording by including the earlier usage with a solid reference if you want the information to stand. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
My dad invented potato salad earlier today. Nevermind that people cooked it before he invented it: he invented it independently, even if he had access to potato salad recipes, and had even eaten it before. I'm so glad I live in the house that brought potato salad into the world, and I'm not being biased in favor of my family over history. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page, it's not my job to add the "Bronze Age" material just so we preserve the earlier content. This should have been done by Gun Powder Ma who has access to the reference (I don't have the reference). I have restored the content after rewording. You are in no position to tell me that alhazen's work cannot be reinstated until I add the material on "Bronze Age". Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What's with the quotes around Bronze Age? Anyway, while you're quick to describe this as an "invention" of "medieval Islam", any mention without the Bronze Age mention isn't going to fly. The reasons for this should be obvious. And, indeed, Gun Powder Ma may do this, but—or anyone else—but users who restore evidence bear a burden, and in this case it's due to the fact that Gun Powder Ma has presented evidence to the contrary. This must be addressed before this "invention" is reinstated, otherwise I refer you back to Ian.Thomason's point above. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately, things don't work here the way you like it to be. By your "reasoning", one could easily remove content on any European invention (or idea) by just claiming that an earlier version existed in an ancient civilization, and that material won't be reinstated until editors (who are usually not familiar with the earlier version or the context within which it was made) work hard on "figuring out" this earlier thing, while the one who made the first claim bears no responsibility.
I'm surprised you mention Ian.thomson's analogy which I purposefully ignored. The analogy is flawed as it says "...he had access to potato salad recipes, and had even eaten it before" and I say for the 5th time, where is the evidence for transmission ? Besides, we are talking about Alhazen, a pioneer of Optics who spent his lifetime studying light, and not a guy who decided to make salad 5 minutes after playing with potatoes. Al-Andalusi (talk)

Quotes from p.191:

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

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

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

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

The source you quoted continues to state that the earlier lenses were used for sun-glare and as a remedial agent but there is no evidence they were used for reading or presbyopia. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite see your point. The AJA article states: "The quality of some of these lenses was sufficient to permit their use as magnifying glasses." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Name

As has been brought up various times before (see above), this article seems to suffer from a very questionable name. Why isn't this article called something like "List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world"? As it stands, the article title is basically vague nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: definitely makes more sense than List of inventions in medieval Islam. What is medieval Islam anyways?
List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world seems pretty reasonable, accurate, and reflects what the article is about.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 09:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the comments above, I think this may be the general sentiment, and if there are no objections, I'll just go ahead and move it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it will solve any problems but it won't make them worse. You're right, it is a slightly better title, though really the two are equivalent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Can't see the difference but whatever. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder

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

Users have every reason to be suspicious of these articles, which are infamous for blatant misrepresentation and falsification of cited sources. If there is some contested information on the article, it needs to be worked out here before being reinstated. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this is your first comment on this talk page so I'm not sure why it is a little heated. Also, an experienced editor should be aware that it is not appropriate to use rollback for good-faith edits, or to say that other editors are performing vandalism (see WP:ROLLBACK and WP:VAND). Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq (talk · contribs), If my history on these articles matters to you, there's always my contributions log, within which, if you dare, you will find that I am not new to the situation plaguing many of these articles. As for the "heat"; are you unfamiliar with Jagged 85 (talk · contribs)'s "contributions"? If not, I recommend you check into that before proceeding: see the infamous RFC, and note that other users are still cleaning up after Jagged's falsifications. In the mean time I again recommend that the solution here is to talk out exactly what the problem is on this talk page before proceeding. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion, but my indent was supposed to indicate that my comment was for Aua (you have not used rollback on good-faith edits or claimed edits were vandalism). I totally agree that in view of the extraordinary examples available at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup that good reasons (with sources) need to be thoroughly discussed before adding kitchen sink claims to articles. Johnuniq (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? You can be suspicious, sure, but to revert my edits without any reason is wrong. There is no reason (nor is it WP policy) to get a consensus on every single addition to the article on this talkpage before adding it. Additionally, just because Jagged added some things does not automatically make them wrong and excluded from future addition.
Here is the issue again, you have a problem with what I inserted? Please bring it up here. Tell me why you disagree and think the sources are wrong. If your only complaint is that a previous user abused the article, then you clearly have no understanding of WP rules.
I'll give this some time before reverting it back in case I don't get a response that actually addresses the material.
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and just for the record, nothing was reinstated intentionally. I have no idea what Jagged added and no interest in putting a red tape around whatever he did. If it's true, and he misrepresented it, then it deserves to be put back regardless.
Your guys overzealous approach, while admirable, is definitely over the top here.
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 13:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
As others have said, the removal of the recent additions was not vandalism. Addressing the specific claim of gunpowder, see the [discussion on the hand cannon article talk page]. Ahmad Hassan's claim is cited to two self-published articles, contrasted to the published scholarly history used to support the claim of invention in China. Hassan's work certainly does not meet the standard of exceptional sources to support extraordinary claims, as scholarly consensus situates the origin of gunpowder in China.
The 'earliest documentary evidence' wording used in Aua's addition is also in this instance something of a weasel word, as this document referred to postdates direct archeological evidence - an actual gun - from China. Dialectric (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Great. That is something I can work with.
Well, the claim was never gunpowder, but rather the hand cannon. I think everyone agrees the former was invented in China. Hassan claims the Arabs used it first, and that is contested. I doubt people on this page with their strict standards will allow it to be on the page even if you mention how contested it is. I will withdraw that. There is of course the possibility of having a "Contested" section, but I am doubtful how much support I can get for that.
Alright, how about other claims?
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 15:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi,
Again, that is something I can work with (as opposed to just an outright deletion).
I do have access to it as well as the library system of a major US university. Here is a quote from the book, page 117:
"[Ziryab] introduced....under-arm deodorant and new short hair styles..."
For now, that's what I have and what the source says. I understand your guys' frustration with previous vandalism, but you need to balance your response. Take a look at other lists and see how many things are not sourced. I am not saying that's right; I, myself, plan to clean the Chinese list and removed unsourced claims since it seems to be a prime example of "national pride run amok", but let's be more cooperative as opposed to critical.
As a disclaimer, I have no horse in this race, but I seriously want to improve this.
Finally, I will look up the algorism ref for you.
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You may be surprised but I am actually a prime critic of the Chinese list, although it is still better than most lists. I was right about Ziryab. This is too weak a statement. The context merely refers to Al-Andalus and the author here does summarizes the view of Arab (=primary) sources historography on him as much as he gives his own opinion. For an invention claim, we would need a much stronger basis, not just a four-word sentence. If the Arabs really did invent deodorant by mainstream consensus, it would be no problem to cite a multitude of scholarly references and peer-reviewed articles, wouldn't you agree? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
@ User:Aua, every single invention on the Chinese list is sourced, not a single unsourced claim is present. You appear to be under the mistaken assumption that User:Gun Powder Ma is Chinese/a pro China editor. He has spent most of his edits downplaying Chinese achievements. If you came to the List of Chinese inventions article with the intent of deleting sections because you want revenge on Gun Powder Ma, I can assure you that he would be happy to see most of the article deleted.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Comments should aim to encourage collaborative editing, and should not be phrased in terms that suggest that people who don't fall into line are dicks or dishonest.
Re the invention of under-arm deodorant: not all sourced material is suitable for inclusion in an article. I am not ready to reach a conclusion on that issue, but some WP:REDFLAG skepticism would appear appropriate for a claim regarding who invented a deodorant 1160 years ago. It seems likely that attempts to produce some form of deodorant would have arisen at multiple locations in multiple periods—are the sources available sufficient? I'll have a look at the linked article in due course, but some care is needed given the industry apparently involved in claiming ancient inventions (i.e. much more than a media report is needed). Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Newspaper reports like that are never credible sources. That is just some journo hack putting together a swift article, not a reliable source William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool then, here we go (apologies if some of these things already appear on the article; I was too tired/bored after compiling this to double-check):

  • Algebra: [A, while its roots can be traced to Babylon, its beginning as a discipline is, like its name, Arabic]
How the Arabs Invented Algebra: The History of the Concept of Variables by Tika Downey;
Sociology: Introductory Readings by Anthony Giddens, Page 212;
The birth of plenty: how the prosperity of the modern world was created by William J. Bernstein, page 274-275;
Universe on a T-Shirt: The Quest for the Theory of Everything by Dan Falk, page 28; :Voices from the Heights by Mark Williams, page 46;
The miseducation of the West: how schools and the media distort our understanding of the Islamic world by Joe L. Kincheloe, page 156;
Separated brethren: a review of Protestant, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox & other religions in the United States by William Joseph Whalen, page 265.
The TV Arab by Jack G. Shaheen, page 10;
The Military Factor in Social Change: The state as revolution by Henry Barbera, page 118
The Military Factor in Social Change: The state as revolution by Henry Barbera, page 118;
Progress of science: its origin, course, promoters, and results by J. Villin Marmery, page 43;
Story of civilization: showing how, from earliest times, men have increased their knowledge and mastery of the world, and thereby changed their ways of living in it by Carl Lotus Becker & Frederic Duncalf, page 228;
  • Pendulum clock [B, the date given is after what we have here, so I'm willing to bet it's wrong on the article since we have an earlier example]  :
Progress of science: its origin, course, promoters, and results by J. Villin Marmery, page 43;
Holy Warriors by John J. O'Neill, page 133;
A Muslim primer: beginner's guide to Islam, Volume 2 by Ira G. Zepp, page 153.
  • Distillation [B, no source was given the Arabs copied it, but the greeks used it for water distillation, the Arabs used it for chemical reactions] :
The Arabs in Spain; an historical narrative, page 213;
Regional cuisines of medieval Europe: a book of essays by Melitta Weiss Adamson, page 113;
Unity in nature: an analogy between music and life by C. E. Stromeyer, page 561;
In a World Of...Friends, Foes & Fools by James Merritt, page 90;
Medicine Through Time by Fiona Reynoldson, page 46.
  • Greek fire [B, definitely same time the source below attributes it to Arabs] :
A history of Greek fire and gunpowder by James Riddick Partington, page 22
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music History by Michael Miller
  • Arabic method/method by figures:
Arithmetic on the productive system: accompanied by a key and cubical blocks by Roswell Chamberlain Smith, page 28
  • Lute [B, debated] :
The Military Factor in Social Change: The state as revolution by Henry Barbera, page 118
  • Aerometer [B+, source given in parent article is weak] :
Progress of science: its origin, course, promoters, and results by J. Villin Marmery, page 43
The Military Factor in Social Change: The state as revolution by Henry Barbera, page 118
The Military Factor in Social Change: The state as revolution by Henry Barbera, page 118
  • Solar Return Solar return charting:
The Fated Sky: Astrology in History by Benson Bobrick, page 67
  • Pasta ascuitta/Pasta [A, Pasta (other than noodles) and especially dry pasta is invented by Arabs] :
Midnight in Sicily: On Art, Feed, History, Travel and la Cosa Nostra by Peter Robb, page 123;
Pasta: the story of a universal food by Silvano Serventi, Françoise Sabban, page 11.
Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science--from the Babylonians to the Maya by Dick Teresi, page 70.
The Scent Trail: How One Woman's Quest for the Perfect Perfume Took Her Around the World by Celia Lyttelton, page 102.
It's broken, let's fix it: the Zeitgeist and modern entreprise by Gerard M. de Beuckelaer, page 27.
Plane and spherical trigonometry by Leonard Magruder Passano, page xiv, 165;
Capitalism and freedom: the contradictory character of globalisation by Peter Nolan, page 248. (Here, it is claimed that Sine was invented by them too)
World Faith by Ruth Cranston, page 168;
The Spirit of Islam: A History of the Evolution and Ideals of Islam by Syed Ameer Ali, page 391.
A Muslim primer: beginner's guide to Islam, Volume 2 by Ira G. Zepp, page 153.
World Faith by Ruth Cranston, page 168;
A short history of technology by Harold G. Bowen and Charles F. Kettering, page 30;
A Muslim primer: beginner's guide to Islam, Volume 2 by Ira G. Zepp, page 153.
Medical history from the earliest times: a popular history of the healing art by Edward Theodore Withington, page 172.
  • Soap bars (NOT soap, the Babylonians are to credit for that] [E, not mentioned] :
The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance by Jim Al-Khalili, Chapter 4.
Chaucer's cultural geography by Kathryn L. Lynch, page 171
  • Argool:
The new international encyclopæeia, Volume 1 by Daniel Coit Gilman, Harry Thurston Peck, Frank Moore Colby, page 793;
Holy Murder: The Death of Hypatia of Alexandria by Charlotte Kramer, page 215;
Boats of the World by Sean McGrail.
Philosophical Investigations from the Sanctity of the Press by Henry Dribble, page 166

Contested/Unknown:

  • Zero [A, can be safely said to be Arabic] :
There is some discussion about the zero, but I don't think we can attribute that to the Arabs. I think the Indians have that honor. Personal opinion aside, these sources argue the Arabs created the Zero while only introducing 1 through 9 to Europe:
The Fated Sky: Astrology in History by Benson Bobrick, page 67-68;
Sociology: Introductory Readings by Anthony Giddens, Page 212;
Holy Warriors by John J. O'Neill, page 133;
Voices from the Heights by Mark Williams, page 46;
Telecommunications and data communications handbookby Ray Horak, page 275
Aquarius now: radical common sense and reclaiming our personal sovereignty by Marilyn Ferguson, page 33-34;
The miseducation of the West: how schools and the media distort our understanding of the Islamic world by Joe L. Kincheloe, page 156.
  • Black powder: Was it Chinese? Arabic? Roger Bacon (known to read Arabic and said to have copied the formula)? [C, Chinese claim is solid]
Probabilistic safety assessment in the chemical and nuclear industries by R. R. Fullwood, page 273;
Firearms, the law, and forensic ballistics by Tom A. Warlow, (Chapter 1: the beginning) page 1;

I know you guys are skeptics, so please plow through. They all clearly state that Arabs invented the thing, and that is reason for inclusion. I'll put it here first for you to take a closer look at it. I shall -again- ask people to take their POV's out of this.

Happy checking!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 13:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you verify these sources for credibility? I looked at 3 entries, and one of the 3, Cheque: Philosophical Investigations from the Sanctity of the Press by Henry Dribble, page 166, comes from a self-published work of satire, which should have immediately read as non-scholarly. Dialectric (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, I did. Can't believed that slipped under the radar. You are right though. Will remove.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, added two more sources. Again, please feel free to double-check and bring up whatever you have a problem with. I urge you to read them, actually. Like I said before, I have no interest in attributing to them whatever; I just want to give them a fair (historically accurate) shake.
I want to do this in batches, so I won't overwhelm you guys with sources/claims. For now, the above is the first of those batches and I'll wait for some input before this moves to the article.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism is reasonable. Bear in mind that there is no agreement about who invented the radio or the telephone, so it may not be possible to clearly establish the identity of inventors from many centuries in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree, which is why I'm asking people to take a look at what I compiled before moving to the article. If there is anything contested/unknown, it still deserves a mention if we have enough credible sources contradicting each other without clear consensus.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 09:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Aua, I suggest you to look at the wikipedia articles for each of the items on your list, and remove those of your claims for which the relevant article contains an earlier, pre-Islamic, claim to invention or use, cited to a reliable source, as it appears you have not yet done this. Dialectric (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool, will do. Here is the legend of what I will attach to each entry:
[A]: Confirmed by the article
[B]: Unknown/Debated
[C]: Contested by the article
[D]: No article exists
[E]: No mention of its history is mentioned on its page
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Aua, could you clarify which definition of Serpentine you are referring to? Also, what is 'Argool'? Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am working on figuring out what serpentine they were talking about in the original source. Here is the quote:

"Modern distillation takes place in factories, but the process is essentially exactly the same as it was when the Arabs invented the serpentine."

As for Arghul, the source listed here says it was invented in the "post-Mohammedan period by Arabs," while the article has Egyptian hieroglyphs representing it. I am utterly confused about this one and trying to consolidate those two facts together, although I am leaning towards an earlier invention by Egyptians.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Aua, I suggest that you go through your sources again and remove those that are not works of history / by historians. The first book on your list, How the Arabs Invented Algebra: The History of the Concept of Variables by Tika Downey, is a 32 page children's book. In general, it appears that the books you have found just make passing mention of "Arabs invented X" or "Muslims invented X" without elaboration, and without references. Even if drawn from a book by a reliable author, such claims will be subject to skepticism and are likely to be removed unless a source with more detail is provided. Dialectric (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Multiple sources are there so claims can be double-checked or triple-checked before moving to the article. If people have a problem with a claim, they can check the sources. That said, only the reputable sources will be eventually used in the article.
Additionally, I will not use sources if they are not scholarly. However, as per WP:SOURCE and WP:IRS, we don't only use works of historians; putting such a precondition on this article- and this article only- amounts to civil POV pushing. I have tried to stay away from SPS and QS, but I'll be glad if people point out to things that have slipped through.
Finally, I need to move this batch so I can propose the next batch and so on.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a long list, but it seems to be entirely pointless, as your checking has been so non-rigorous. Zero, for example, clearly fails; yet you've checked it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Zero is a special case, because although the name is Arabic, its origins are Indian like I stated. It was not to be included, so that was a mistake.
Anyways, I went through Jagged cleanup, and nowhere does it state we need to double check claims on the talk page before being added to articles he Jaggedized. The same policies that apply elsewhere apply here. Claims can be (re-)introduced if (new) sources back them up, and if people have a problem, they can list a source here saying something to the contrary. In that case, we can discuss the matter here, and if both claims are equally verifiable, we can say it's contested.
Anyways, now, I don't want to overwhelm with more lists, so any other issues before a mass move to the article?
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't do any mass moves before people have actually said something favourable. Lute and Guitar look wrong too (no, I haven't checked all the others) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Lute and Guitar look wrong, sources?
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If you agree, why ask for sources? But the answer is: our articles on them, the history sections William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed to the not mass moving, but not the claim.
I referred back to the articles:
Lute: "The origins of the lute are obscure, and organologists disagree about the very definition of a lute"
We know that the word is derived from Arabic, and we know that the Moors brought the Oud to Spain with them.
That doesn't really contradict the claim here.Additionally, the whole section is not sourced. I can put that the Arabs invented it, and I have sources to back me up.
Second, Guitar: name also derived from Arabic.
We are also told that "the precise lineage of the instrument is still unclear," and that it is "first mentioned in literature in the 13th century." Coincidentally at around the same time the source says the Arabs came up with it.
Both articles need to be changed to reflect that. You did bring up a good point, so armed with the sources, I'll do that soon.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename article

What about "MiddleEastern inventions".

If you can come with better names please add them here. "Inventions of Medieval Islamic World" mentions all the inventions made in that era. But what about all the other inventions before the age of Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.214.180 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I question some the entries in this list, as Sonja Brentjes of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science has debunked them.

  1. Arabeque debunked as not an invention, but a 'cultural item' [8] (p128)
  2. Lusterware and possibly other pottery claims, debunked [9] (p131)
  3. Attempt at gliding debunked [10] (p 140-141)--Diamondbuster (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Will check and cross-reference, removing/modifying as appropriate. Thanks for your input!
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Does minaret belong here? I argue it is not an invention, but a cultural item, which under the skin is chimney, lighthouse, tower, or spire.--Diamondbuster (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on other lists, it seems a solid argument can be made for including it.
On another topic, I'm working my way removing what you listed above as I verify both the sources you listed and what we as well others.
On a third topic, I think the details for coffee can be included even if they appear elsewhere. It's important to have some details about the inventions. See List of Chinese inventions for an example of a great list (and I have done some work around there and can assert all lists should rise up to its standards).
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 04:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

The composition of this list is an argument unto itself- and no different than the fictional "inventions in the medieval Christian world", or, "inventions made by white people", or "inventions of the male world" -and I propose its deletion for being not more than an advocacy tool. Mavigogun (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Lists_of_inventions_or_discoveries. The only anomaly about this article compared to the rest of "list of inventions by XXXX" articles is that it's very poorly maintained.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I wonder why there is no List of Persian inventions or List of Arab inventions. Would that be better?--Ninthabout (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair points, though I'd much better have it renamed to something like "middle eastern inventions," which would greatly expand its scope rather than the geographical and temporal restrictions currently imposed on it.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 05:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am sorry to place this text here from Greek genocide which says how knowledge, inventions travelled with people and not tied to geography or religion, particularly where inventions predate Islam.

"The Greek presence in Asia Minor has been dated to at least the time of Homer around 800 BCE.[14] The geographer Strabo referred to Smyrna as the first Greek city in Asia Minor.[15] Greeks referred to the Black Sea as the "Euxinos Pontos" or "hospitable sea" and starting in the eighth century BCE they began navigating its shores and settling along its coast.[15] The most notable Greek cities of the Black Sea were Trebizond, Sampsounta, Sinope and Heraclea Pontica.[15]

During the Hellenistic period (334 BC - 1st century BC) that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek culture and language began to dominate Asia Minor. The Hellenization of the region accelerated under Roman and early Byzantine rule, and by the early centuries AD the local Anatolian languages had become extinct, being replaced by the common Koine Greek language.[16][17][18] The resultant Greek culture in Asia Minor flourished during the following millennium under the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire. Until the Turkic peoples began their late medieval conquests of this empire, Byzantine Greek citizens were the largest group of indigenous peoples living in Asia Minor.[15] Even after the Turkic conquests of the interior, the Black Sea coast and mountains of Asia Minor remained the heart of a Greek state, the Empire of Trebizond, until its eventual conquest by the Ottoman Turks in 1461.

At the outbreak of World War I, Asia Minor was ethnically diverse, its population including Turks, Azeris, Pontic Greeks (including Caucasus Greeks), Armenians, Kurds, Zazas, Georgians, Circassians, Assyrians, Jews, and Laz people."

Historical provenance is vital to claim priority and there should be a code of conduct for how priority may be claimed and how disputes are resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.108.239 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Should we include discoveries? If so we should move the page.
  2. Sal ammoniac is an ancient discovery, therefore does not belong here I assume?
  3. Are the things attributed to Gerber from pseudo Gerber?

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 11:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

  1. I have no opinion on this. Discoveries can be included I suppose and a move would be appropriate.
  2. Makes sense!
  3. I suggest restoring the chemistry section. Many sources do attribute those discoveries to Gerber and I think it'd be OR on our part to attribute them to pseudo Gerber. We can always append a note to that effect in the article though.
What do you think?
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 02:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

My question would be, isn't this entire page a severe case of WP:SYNTH? The concept of "medieval Islamic world" is rather arbitrary, and includes all of Iberia, North Africa, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Greater Persia as well as Mughal India. Why are these conflated on grounds of religion? Especially as no single item is even remotely related to religion? Why not "inventions and discoveries in medieval Persia/India" and "inventions and discoveries in the Ottoman Empire", etc.? Also "medieval" is arbitrary. Either say "Golden Age (8th-13th century)", i.e. during the Caliphates, or say "Ottoman Empire", "Mughal India", etc., i.e. take polities instead of "medieval" which is a poorly defined period even where it is applicable, i.e. in Europe. Furthermore, the fact that the list on the entire "medieval Islamic world" consists of all of seventeen, partly dubious, entries in itself suggests that the premise is contrived -- "medieval Islamic world" may or may not be a useful concept in some contexts, but clearly "inventions" is not such a context. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world. 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) 22:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_inventions_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world/Archive_2&oldid=1128584261"