Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 30 May 2008

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Islam B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moonhawk

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

Proposal to move this to Inventions in the Muslim world

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

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

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

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

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

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 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)

Comments on specific inventions

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

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

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

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

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

Etymology of camera in camera obscura

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

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

Gristmills

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

Industrial mills

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

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do inventions have a religion, culture or nationality?

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

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

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

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

Comments

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 Misplaced Pages, 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[REDACTED] 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 with and as well as with and . 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 ], before re adding it here if this is not the case Oxyman42 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Inventions by time period

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

non spliting

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

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

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

objection

I object to the following passage:

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

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

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

This being said, I will proceed in changing it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Opinion

While understanding that Oxyman42 is looking to put some objective balance into the article, the edit under question is inappropriate, misplaced and poorly presented. The article should be restored to ] SilkTork * 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article as suggested.

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

General comment on appropriateness of scope

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

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

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

Just my opinion ...

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

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

The article should be removed

It`s called "Inventions in the Islamic World", but many things listed are not Inventions from that period or culture. And some sources are quiet doubtful. 62.178.137.216 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be improved, it's not going to be deleted. Right now it is not very good. I've made a few tweaks but the whole thing is to big for one person. At the moment I think it's a bit ridiculous. There were a lot of inventions from the Islamic world, but this sort of article, claiming so much, is maybe a bit demeaning in one sense as people may look at it and realise it is wrong and not realise what the truth really is.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are too many Muslim pov pushers on[REDACTED] to allow this article to be deleted, they would just start it again. there needs to be an active organised group just to moniter the crap comeing from WP islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.252.203 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. Administrators wouldn't delete it because there is no reason to delete it, it clearly meets the qualifications of a Misplaced Pages article even if it is as bad as many others. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats just pandering to the religionists, exagarations and untruths would not be tollerated in a normal article, but we must appease the muslims mustn't we

Well, I've weeded out some of the more obvious exaggerations and inaccuracies. Frotz (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

don't delude yourself and think the religionists are going to just stop now someone has tried to put them right, remember you are dealing with people who when they are not pov pushing here are making explosive belts, an invention which this artice strangely forgets to mention

To be fair, it was the Tamil Tigers in 1991 who introduced them according to explosive belt. Though, I suspect they were in use much earlier since I recall cartoons older than that showing them. Frotz (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when does a fact like Muslims did not actually invent it stop it from appearing in this article? If they did not invent it they sure as hell "developed" it

Constructed or Invented? & Used or Invented?

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

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

Bill 23 May 2008 (UTC)

chemical technology

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

Fact checking sorely needed

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

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

1. Muslims.http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677 The Muslim Accomplishments That Weren’t By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com

• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused