Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources from infobox

I have removed the ethnicity from the infobox. Infoboxes are only used for straightforward, un-controversial information - not for stuff which requires multiple citations.

Really people, it does not matter what ethnicity he was. If the sources are clear then it should be mentioned; if the sources discuss the multiple claims i.e. if the sources think it important that there are multiple claims, write some prose about it. If there are just a bunch of competing claims either leave it out or make brief mention in prose with something like "Current scholarship is divided on whether he was Arab or Persian" or "There is no academic consensus about his ethnicity" or better, just leave it out.

If the two of you continue to edit war about ethnicity here or elsewhere I will support long term blocks on both of you. This has gone on long enough and has occurred on multiple articles. Jbh ^Talk 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

| ethnicity =Arab or Persian or Sabian

Sources

• The text in the article "There is a difference of opinion[11] as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khorasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian Sabian[13]" looks fine. It is also the type of nuanced information that does not belong in an infobox. Jbh ^Talk 13:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree S.N. Nasr quote is enough and it sums up the equally disputed claims fairly. I am also sick of these debates and it was not my intention to re-start any arguments here. However, when disruptive edits occurs, you are sometimes compelled to respond. Both in this article and in Hunayn ibn Ishaq one I was simply reverting disruptive edits. It was not me who started edit warring. Viaros17 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jbhunley, thank you for your comments, however, while i usually agree with your proposals, i do not this time. Keeping the sources on the talk page for the Al-Jazari article was fine because there is almost no specialized source dealing with his ethnicity, this is clearly not the case here. The article has a “background” section where his multiple possible ethnicities are given but the sources are in the talk page ! Not including the (reliable) sources when they are readily available online is, according to me, a poor scholarly practice. I don’t have enough time to fix this now, but in a few days, i will make a proposal to improve the article. As to Viaros “fighting vandalism” on the Hunayn ibn ishaq article and elsewhere, here is the conclusion of the administrators : [1], to spare your time, the conclusion was : both of us are warned but Viaros’ “record in this conflict is significantly worse that that of Farawahar, and I would strongly advise you to moderate your behavior.” (Quote from admin Vanamonde). And, Viaros, adding sources or good faith editing is not “vandalism” ...—>Farawahar (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Farawahar regardless the infobox is not appropriate for any information that is nuanced or controversial. (As I looked for the rules I found that the community has actually disallowed the use of the ethnicity= parameter in infoboxes [2] so the whole thing is moot.) Also, simply stacking references which say essentially the same thing to somehow add authority through numbers adds zero value to the article for our readers. If there are sources which bring more that "he was ethnicity-X" then it is worthwhile to add the source along with expanding the text within the body of the article. Again text like some say he was Arab [1][2][3][4] or Persian [1][2][3][4] etc is simply a sign of ethnic POV pushing, particularly when the sources are used for nothing other than supporting a claim of a particular ethnicity.

The only time making multiple citations would be appropriate is if sources with enough biographical details to be used elsewhere in the article make the claim. Even then it is generally bad practice to use multiple sources for the same information so they should each lend some additional information or nuance. In this case the only thing that can actually be said is no one knows for sure what his ethnicity was, and most sources report one of three possibilities. That can be supported by one or two high quality biographical references i.e. [11] and [13] which accurately represent the current scholarship.

Also, I moved the sources to the talk page to preserve them because they were were not being used elsewhere in the article. There is a template they can be placed in which will prevent them from being archived if they might be used for later expansion of the article. As I said earlier though, they lend no value to the article if they are simply used to add numbers to the various 'he was X' claims. Jbh ^Talk 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. it looks like at least some are already in the article e.g. Encyclopedia of Islam so there is no need for them to be preserved here. If there are any which are not already used elsewhere in the article please let me know and I will preserve them for possible later use. Jbh ^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, I do not intend to add sources in the infobox, what i mean is that the current “background section” is clearly not well sourced and should be changed and sourced. Also, i do not understand why you say that adding reliable sources for the ethnicity is POV pushing, if so, then almost all the articles on this community encyclopedia ate written by POV pushers because they all have a backgronud section with sources. Also, any sentence like “most sources describe him as Arab/Persian/Sabean” is OR because none of the sources support it. No really, i’m sorry, but whatever angle i look at it, i don’t understand your position here.—>Farawahar (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue is adding sources simply for the sake of adding sources. Four sources saying he is Persian have no more weight than a single source which says the same and is of less use to the reader than a single source which accurately sums up the fact that there are competing claims e.g. footnote [11]. What stacking sources which all say the same thing looks like is an attempt to make a givin claim of ethnicity more valid because it has more sources i.e. number of sources cited does not correlate with strength of claim. Especially when all the source says is 'He was X from Y'. It is this attempt to make one claim seem more valid than another when no source directly says one claim is more valid which is POV pushing.

There is a difference between quality of sourcing and quantity of sources. For instance the single source which says 'there is some debate whether he was...' is infinitely better than a dozen sources, each making contradictory claims. I have no objection if you want to try to improve the background section if you can find sources which provide additional information or detail. But what you two were doing, each simply adding sources which support a claim to a particular ethnicity and then trying to balance out the number for each, is not improving the article. There is already a single source which says there are different ideas on where he came from so there is no need to demonstrate that with a multitude of sources.

Before adding a source it is good to ask 'what new information does this add to the article?' and 'is this better than the sources already in the article?' and finally 'what do I hope to accomplish by adding this source?' In fact, considering the long term dispute here, I would suggest that if either of you want to add a source they explicitly answer those three questions on the talk page. This would be good practice on other articles where similar conflicts exist as well. Jbh ^Talk 16:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Any sources which..." See the sentence which exists in the article and footnotes [11] and [13]. What do you see as wrong there? Jbh ^Talk 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not said that i want to leave the article with numerous sources for any ethnicity Jbhunley, i said that the background section is clearly not well sourced. There is a claim that he was pethaps a Persian but no reliable source for it. Also, why should we applicate some theorical rules here while these rules are not in use elsewhere (nowhere ?) on Wikipedia ? If you say that adding more than one source for any ethnicity is POV pushing, then, as i said, all this encyclopedia is written by POV pushers because as far as i have seen, many many articles have far more than one source for their claims. And there are even some experienced users who ask for many sources, have a look at : [3] i quote : “Something like this (an accusation that the families were part of the ethnic cleansing for raising their children as Turkish) would not require only two sources, it would require maybe 7 or 8” by user Seraphim System ... it’s really difficult for new users to understand while more experienced ones themselves do not agree on the rules ... do you remember the hookah article ? Some 12 sources for a claim ? Supported by all the experienced users who attacked me just becsuse i was saying exactly what you say now, i mean discussing the quality of the sources ? nobody says nothing about that, and in this article, 4 or 5 sources are too many, really ? —>Farawahar (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What I saw the two of you doing was adding multiple sources to the infobox so that is the behavior I addressed. Article improvement is the entire purpose of WP and if you believe the Background section can be improved that is great.

The fact that other articles are being loaded down with excessive citations is not a reason to do so elsewhere. WP:CITATIONOVERKILL is worth reading. For an example of a controversial biography which is a featured article see Abu Nidal. You will notice that there are very few multiple citations which use only two footnotes. Featured articles (the version which passes feature article review) are what one should look to for examples of best practice here. There are times when multiple citations may be useful. For instance if it is not possible to cite a single source for 'his ethnicity is disputed some say he was Persian or Arab or Swabian'[1], it would be OK to write 'his ethnicity has been reported as Arab[1], Persian[2] and Swabian[3]'. The only time it is worth adding multiple sources which say exactly the same thing is while sorting out scholarly consensus. For instance if 20 scholars say he was Persian but only 5 say Arab and 2 Swabian that can be used for justify on the talk page a sentence in the article like 'most scholars say he was Persian [choose representive source] while a minority think he could have been Arab [representive source] or Swabian [representive source]'. The other sources may have been part of the discussion which led to the final sentence but there is no legitimate need for them to all be in the article. Jbh ^Talk 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand, anyway, i cannot do any improvement now, i’ll see that in a few days when i’ll have more time. Thank you.—>Farawahar (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! PS. If you disagree with my reasoning I will take no offense if you want to get wider input from WP:NPOVN or some such. My opinion is only my opinion and I am happy to get other views. Jbh ^Talk 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC) last edited: 19:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t take any offense either Jbhunley i’m just trying to contribute honestly and modestly to this encyclopædia and i think that the most important thing here is that we discussed calmly and politely about the article. My appologizes if one or more of my comments hurt you, this was by no mean my goal. You are a nice and polite user and i really appreciate working here with you. Take care.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No offense at all, not even nearly so. Apologies are entirely unnecessary. Few editors care if they may have offended so thank you anyway. I always enjoy working with you whether we agree or not. Take care as well. Jbh ^Talk 19:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Best specialized sources added back to the article

I added back four of the best specialized sources to the article. Also, i corrected some other words in the article not supported by the sources cited like for example “perhaps to some of their relatives” (stated in the source) and not “probably to some of their relatives”.—>Farawahar (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Farawahar (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Viaros17 : sources number 13 and 17 are for the Arab claim. Also, check the skills of steffens and williams, no specialization in medieval Islamic history. Remember the case of ammar al mawsili, when i added Chapman, who is a historian of science for the persian claim ? Kansas bear said it was unreliable because chapman has no specialization in medieval islamic history.—>Farawahar (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see that the article text is different in either version. Am I missing something? Which particular source is used to support a given, uncontested, claim is not terribly relavent so long as it is a reliable academic source. There is an essay Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) which may provide some guidance on the best types of sources as well. Regardless, it is not worth edit warring over.
  @Farawahar: why, specifically, do you think your edits are needed i.e. what benefit do they bring to the reader? Viaros17 what, specifically, do you object to about her edits? Do you think they misinform the reader or damage/lessen the reader's understanding of the subject? Jbh ^Talk 14:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jbh, happy to see you are here. I chose the best sources from the talk page and added them in the article in order to illustrate the sentence “There is a difference of opinion as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khorasan who later went to Kufa”. I think this is relevant, but Viaros, in a hurry to add another source for the Arab claim (because he thought there was 2 sources for the Persian claim and only one for Arab ...), missed the fact that there was already two sources for his supposed Arab ethnicity, but i think he now agrees with the current version of the article and there will not be any further edit warring here. Take care.—->Farawahar (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the same author twice does not mean there are two different sources. I can easily revert your edit and start an edit war, however, unlike you, I am not interested in such childish arguments. Viaros17 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It often happens that the same author is quoted many times in wikipedia articles, especially here, Holmyard is the most reliable author among those who support an Arab ethnicity. More, two different books of him are quoted, not the same, this means two sources. The current version is well balanced and you know as well as me than any edit war will lead us and especially you, Viaros, if i believe what the admin said last time, to a block. I think we’re done here.—>Farawahar (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Nor is there a need for parity in number of sources for each claim. All that matters is each bit of information can be traced back to a quality reliable source. Regardless of my opinion of the necessity of the addition, I see no evidence it damages the article nor reason it must be removed in the face of firm objection.

Farawahar is correct that should either of you edit war over ethnicity anywhere on Wikipedia it is very likely long blocks will get handed out. I am not an admin so I can not say for sure (Even if I were admins can not act as admins where they have been acting as editors.) but from prior experience I can be pretty sure of what would happen. Jbh ^Talk 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable opinion Jbhunley, i did my best to chose the best sources : for the Arab claim, Eric John Holmyard, i quote from the Wikipedia article on him : “His scholarly work included rectification of accounts of the history of alchemy, particularly in relation with Islamic science.“, for the Persian claim : George Sarton, historian of sciences with specialization in middle eastern Islamic scholars, i quote from his article on Wikipedia : “he learned Arabic and traveled around the Middle East for part of his research, inspecting original manuscripts of Islamic scientists. By the time of his death, he had completed only the first three volumes: I. From Homer to Omar Khayyam; II. From Rabbi Ben Ezra to Roger Bacon, pt. 1–2;“ and William R. Newman who is a historian of alchemy and chemistry, i quote from Wikipedia : “Most of Newman’s work in the History of Science has been devoted to alchemy and "chymistry,"” and in the infobox about Newman, it’s said he is a historian of chemistry (Jabir ibn Hayyan was a chemist). All these sources are specialized reliable sources, as everybody can see and i cited them to illustrate the sentence above : “There is a difference of opinion as to whether he was an ARAB from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a PERSIAN from Khorasan who later went to Kufa”. By the way, Jbhunley, you say you’re not an admin but my opinion, which is much less valuable than yours however, is that you would be a great admin if you were one. I don’t know if i will be very active on the English wikipedia from now, since i’m a Polish woman, i will probably try to contribute to the Polish Wiki (Polish is my mother tongue), anyway, thank you very much Jbh, i learned a lot from working with you. Take care. Cześć !—>Farawahar (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and I am very happy you found value in my opinions as I have found in yours. I am glad you will contributing to Wikipedia and hope you will you will choose to contribute more here. English Wikipedia often suffers from a lack of perspective from other parts of the world, particularly the Islamic world and I think you have much to offer here. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 02:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A precursor to the character notion used today

@Wikaviani: I'm busy at the moment but will post my thoughts here as I find time for it. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

First, the least important part, the provenance of the wording: some guy dropped it in there in 2014 with no source or edit summary. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Second, the idea that Jabir's application of numerology to Arabic consonants is a precursor of today's element symbols only makes sense if today's symbols are numerological in nature or if Jabir's system was one of abbreviations. We can dismiss the first option out of hand, and we can honestly do the same for the second: of course he was only dealing with consonants, he was writing in Arabic. Your userpage says you're a native speaker of Farsi, so I don't think I need to elaborate. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to elaborate further. On a second thought you're perfectly right and therefore, feel free to remove it from the article. Thank you for the time you spent on it dude. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Article title

See WP:AT#Deciding on an article title "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize".

The EB1911 has the article under the name "Geber". In English language general references such as modern English language encyclopaedias what is the most common article title for this person? For example the modern Britannica Encyclopaedia has its article under Abū Mūsā Jābir ibn Ḥayyān (Muslim alchemist).

-- PBS (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on this, but Britannica is not really a top tier source, and should be avoided especially if other sources are avaliable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many other sources which use the original version of his name (i.e. Jabir). I suggest keeping the name as it is. Cabolitæ (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with Cabolitae, a look at the sources listed in the article is enough to see that he's mainly called "Jabir". Example, in source number 13, Eric John Holmyard calls him "Geber" but later the same Holmyard says "Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan, generally known merely as Jabir". In source number 15, William R. Newman calls him "Jabir". More, sources that call him "Geber" usually also call him Jabir in other parts of their book.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Father of chemistry

Hi Dbachmann, i noticed that you added "by whom" next to the "father of chemistry" claim. I was wondering why such an addition since three sources are actually supporting this claim, therefore i would say that the answer to your question is "he is called father of chemistry at least by the authors of the three sources". Please let me know if i'm missing a key point and am mistaken. Thank you. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

New Encyclopaedia of Islam update: Jabir is NOT a historical figure

As it has been expected, scholarly opinion is increasingly favoring the non-historicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan.

The updated article on Jabir in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, uploaded online only a few days ago, does not support a historical Jābir:

• "Jābir b. Ḥayyān (b. first half of the second/eighth century, d. c. 200/815?) is the alleged author of a vast corpus of mainly alchemical writings. Scholars, however, dispute his very existence and his authorship of that corpus.[4]"

Also last year, Encyclopedia Britannica updated its article on alchemy in which Jabir is merely "a name applied to a collection of underground writings" rather than a historical person:

• "The most famous was Jābir ibn Ḥayyān, now believed to be a name applied to a collection of “underground writings” produced in Baghdad after the theological reaction against science.[5]"

The lead and the article itself needs to be re-written so that it reflects the recent scholarly opinion.

1- The lead of the article should explicitly mention that Jabir is an alleged author not a historically-attested person.
2- The lead should also mention that scholars recently has been inclining more and more to the opinion of a non-historical Jabir.
3- No biographic information should be put in the lead.
4- Introducing Jabir as a chemist, astronomer, engineer, geographer, philosopher, physicist, and physician...etc, is non academic and speculative. Besides his disputed existence, the vast corpus ascribed to him was not the product of a single man. The lead should only highlights the significance of his alchemical writings, while other topics covered in the corpus could be elaborated in the body of the article. OclandEagle (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: @Pinkbeast: @Dbachmann: @Johnbod: @Kansas Bear: OclandEagle (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this - it certainly needs writing up carefully, and will probably then need defending on a regular basis. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've had a go at the lead, using these refs. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for updating this article Johnbod. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod

Thanks for your response. Most of your additions are great and I will incorporate them in the new lead. However, I do have some reservations.
I see that you did not alter or delete much from the old lead. That was my main concern for opening this discussion. Given the new emerging scholarly consensus regarding the historicity of Jabir, a new rephrasing of the article has to be done accordingly. Phrases like "He was this or that" or "He is considered the father of such and such" should be avoided IMO.

It has been long established that Jabir was not the author of most, if any, of the works attributed to him. The question remained, however, of whether this alleged polymath has ever lived at all. The scholarly consensuses has been increasingly favouring the non-historicity of Jabir. This was finally culminated by the updated article on Jabir in the Encyclobedia of Islam. This is the first update of EOI since decades, and the anticipated article on Jabir was uploaded online only a few days ago. EOI is the primary and formost source on Islam and Islamic history, and its articles usualy summarize the prevalent scholarly opinion on its entries.

In short, scholars are no longer concerned with the alleged Jabir himself, but rather with the large number of works ascribed to him. Jabir ibn Hayyan, whoever he was, was not the author of the large corpus ascribed to him, and most probably, has never existed at all.

Given what I have mentioned above here is my suggested improvement over your proposed lead.

• "Abu Mūsā Jābir ibn Hayyān (Arabic/Persian جابر بن حیان, often given the nisbas, al-Azdi, al-Kufi, al-Tusi or al-Sufi; fl. c. 721 – c. 815), was an alleged polymath, credited by tradition as the author of an enormous number and variety of works in Arabic often called the Jabirian corpus. This large corpus of over 3,000 works, covers a wide range of topics, more particularly esoteric disciplines, including alchemy, cosmology, numerology, astrology, medicine, mysticism and philosophy. The corpus is noted mostly for its alchemical writings which had an enormous influence on the development of early chemistry.
  
  As early as the 10th century, the identity and exact corpus of works of Jabir was in dispute in Islamic circles. The authorship of all these works by a single figure, and even the existence of a historical Jabir, are also doubted by modern scholars. Recent scholarly opinion tends to reject the historicity of Jabir. Instead, Jabir ibn Hayyan is seen more like a pseudonym to whom "underground writings" by various authors became ascribed.
  
  His name was Latinized as "Geber" in the Christian West and in 13th-century Europe an anonymous writer, usually referred to as Pseudo-Geber, produced alchemical and metallurgical writings under the pen-name Geber."

Please let me have your opinion on this lead or any suggestions from your part. Best regardsOclandEagle (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this, which I think is essentially fine, although the rest of the article will need some matching changes. I'd avoid "alleged", which I suspect will lead to trouble; also "was" suggests he did actually exist. Maybe: "is a figure credited by tradition as the polymathic author..." or similar. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your are completely right regarding the "was" note. However, adding the word "alleged" at the beginning is a must. The very same word is even used in the Encyclopaedia of Islam's article [6] and, thus, is highly sourced. OclandEagle (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it will be a magnet for trouble, with people replacing the text using "traditional" non-scholarly sources. "Putative" or something might be an alternative. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would go with what Johnbod said. Also, i don’t think that leaving out all other sources’ claims and only including EOI 3´s version about this scholar in the article would be a good move, especially while we don’t even know for sure if he was a muslim or not. The fact that Jabir was or not a physical person does not dismiss his corpus’ input and the widely supported claim about that corpus inaugurating the science of chemistry. Also, Bitannica is not the best source, it should be used only if better sources are not available. EOI 3 says that scholars dispute the existence of Jabir, not "he did not exist". Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Also, i don’t think that leaving out all other sources’ claims and only including EOI 3´s version about this scholar in the article would be a good move"

What sources are you referring to exactly? The article hardly discusses the historicity problem. The Jabir's biography presented in the article is almost exclusively based on the outdated, and now discredited study, of Eric John Holmyard. There are two other sources by Paul Kraus and Nomanul Haq which are more concerned with the historicity of the Jabirian corpus, and which I have no problem with despite being old. The rest of the article are just casual mentions of Jabir and his alleged writings, sometimes duplicating information from Holmyard's obsolete study.

There is almost nothing known about Jabir ibn Hayyan in the Islamic sources, except that he allegedly lived in kufa and died at the beginning of the 9th century.

Eric John Holmyard, the earliest western biographer of Jabir, tried to re-construct his biography based on the few ambiguous and contradictory references about him in the Islamic tradition. The author fabricated a new biography basing his claims on the proposition that Jabir was the son of a certain Abbasid activist called Hayyan al-Attar. Although the theory was based on a weak evidence, it was widely accepted in almost all 20th century textbooks and sources. This newly-invented biography played a big role in promoting a historical Jabir.

Today, Holmyard's fabricated biography has become obsolete, and is no longer accepted in the scholarly circles.

Here is an important recently-published study that refute this alleged biography completely:[7]

"In 1927 Holmyard formulated the hypothesis that the Abbasid activist Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār (“Ḥayyān the Perfumer”, fl. 98/717) was the father of the second/eighth century alchemist Jābir b. Ḥayyān. It will be shown here that this hypothesis is contradicted by two sources that have since been published (the third book of al-Balādhurī’s Ansāb al-ashrāf and the anonymous Akhbār al-ʿAbbās wa-wuldihi). The implications of this finding for the question of Jābir’s historicity will also be explored. Although the references to Jābir in later sources (including a number of new ones that will be listed here) strongly suggest that he is not a historical figure, his historicity is still often accepted, or at least left open as a possibility. It will be argued that Holmyard’s hypothesis has been a crucial factor in this continued acceptance, and that its rejection probably also entails the rejection of a historical Jābir."

So besides this fabricated biography, what other sources support the historicity of Jabir that are on bar with the recent article of Encyclopedia of Islam.

"especially while we don’t even know for sure if he was a muslim or not."

What does that even mean? how does him being Muslim or not weaken the credibility of EOI ? sorry, but such statement will reflect badly on your arguments.

"The fact that Jabir was or not a physical person does not dismiss his corpus’ input and the widely supported claim about that corpus inaugurating the science of chemistry."

No disagreement here. I never even alluded to that in my posts. The apocryphal nature of the Jabiriian texts has already been established since the last century. That is of course does not affect the importance of this writings on later alchemists and on chemistry in general. This writings, however, were the product of many authors from the 9th and 10th centuries, not the brainchild of Jabir: the 8th century alleged polymath.

Here is another quote from the same study mentioned above regarding this point:[8]

"The historical value of the Jābirian texts should be assessed on the basis of the historical role played by the ideas they contain, not on the basis of the historicity of their supposed author. The findings presented in this article render Jābir’s historicity increasingly implausible, but that does not in any way affect the contents of the Jābirian texts and the tremendous impact they have had on later authors. These works are also among the earliest witnesses we have of the alchemical tradition in a wider sense, and their sheer copiousness renders them afundamental source for gaining a proper understanding of the history of alchemy and chemistry."

"EOI 3 says that scholars dispute the existence of Jabir, not "he did not exist"."

which I never said and something no one would ever know. Regardless, the scholarly consensus as summarized by the recent EOI update is that: Jabir ibn Hayyan is an alleged figure whose very existence is disputed. And that is how we should articulate the lead.

Also, refrain from editing the article while the discussion is still open, the current lead will be altered anyway like Johnbod and I have agreed on. OclandEagle (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i find it quite strange how, within a couple of weeks, several newbies are suddenly interested by this article. I took a look at your WP:TLDR post. There are several strong sources for Jabir’s biography. Holmyard is one of them, but there are many others, like William R Newmann, George Sarton, Paul Kraus, Rajep Jamil, Rajep Sally, Steven John Livesey, etc ...

Also, EOI 3 is a very good source for Islam-related topics, but it’s not the only one, this was what i meant above. And, for your information, i added a BRILL cite few days ago for Jabir’s ethnicity.

«Also, refrain from editing the article while the discussion is still open, the current lead will be altered anyway like Johnbod and I have agreed on.» Easy dude, lower your tone and keep in mind that Wikipedia works primarily with WP:CONSENSUS, and nobody owns it; as i said above, i agree with most of what Johnbod said and i thanked him fot his update. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

All modern biographies of Jabir are based on Holmyard's obsolete study as I have explained above. It does not matter anyway. Scholars are now more concerned with the Jabirian corpus, rather than its supposed author.

Regarding the source you have added recently [9]. Rajep Jamil, Rajep Sally and Steven John Livesey are the book's editors, not authors. The book is a collection of essays that were written by different authors. The essay on Jabir, for example, was written by William R. Newman who is already referenced several times in the article.
Anyway, what the source says about Jabir is basically the same of what I am arguing here:

"According to the traditional bio-bibliography of the Muslims, Jabir lived at some time in the eighth century, and wrote a wealth of books on virtually every aspect of natural philosophy. Fortunately, the brilliant work of Paul Kraus in the 1940s allows us to say with some certainty that the vast majority of the surviving works ascribed to Jabir are in fact forgeries, many penned a good century after the master's death.... The Jabirian corpus is therefore a large and heterogeneous mix of texts belonging to different authors writing in different periods."

"as i said above, i agree with most of what Johnbod said and i thanked him fot his update."

Johnbod's update was just to kickstart the discussion. I also thanked him for his additions and gave my notes on some points. The last version of the update, on which we both agreed, is the one that I wrote above. So, If you have any suggestions or modifications on that version, let us know before we update the article with the new lead. OclandEagle (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, you cannot remove a sentence that is well-sourced and replace it with an unsourced POV like you did. I reverted partially, reinstated the sentence describing Jabir as the father or the founder of early chemistry. However, i changed "widely regarded as the father of ..." and replaced it with "widely described as the father of ...". The latter sentence is a fact, since actually several sources are supporting it. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Although I am not fan of such epithets as "the father of this and father of that", I will go with your edit for now. Best regards. OclandEagle (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but you have to know that such epithets are widely used in numerous other articles, e.g. Hippocrates, René Descartes and many others.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Mind your sources Proposal for some changes (including dates), and a comment on the quality of the sources used

Elsewhere on this talk page, it has been found “quite strange how, within a couple of weeks, several newbies are suddenly interested by this article”. I think I have an explanation for this: the new article on Jābir in the Encyclopaedia of Islam by Forster that was published around the time of that comment, and the recent (2017) paper by Delva referred to by Forster (references [3] and [11] in the article) are the first two scholarly publications to discuss the questions surrounding Jābir’s historicity since Nomanul Haq’s 1994 book, that is, the first scholarly publications on the subject in almost 25 years.

But despite the arrival of the “newbies” referred to in the comment, not much has actually changed in the article. Even with respect to the article’s lead, which admittedly has seen a number of important adjustments, there are still some things to be gleaned from the new publications. Note, for example, that the birth date of c. 721 was an inference made by Holmyard [“An Essay on Jābir ibn Ḥayyān”, Studien zur Geschichte der Chemie, 1927, p. 32] that depended on his hypothesis about Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār, which is now obsolete [see Delva 2017]. Also note the discussion of death dates in Delva 2017, note 6, who gives c. 806-816. I will be bold and change Jābir’s dates from “fl. c. 721 – c. 815” to “died c. 806-816”.

More generally, though, and quite apart from the new publications, this article suffers heavily from the abundance of really, really bad sources on Jābir that are out there. Take, for example, the claim in the lead that Jābir invented “many of the basic processes and equipment still used by chemists today”. The source for this claim is a paper co-authored by five people working in a “Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Research Center”, a “Liver and Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Center”, a “Medical Philosophy and History Research Center”, a “Hematology-Oncology Research Center”, and a “Drug Applied Research Center and Faculty of Pharmacy”. The wider context in which the claim is made runs as follows:

“Jaber Ibn Hayyan or Geber, the famous Iranian chemist who died in 721 at Tous (near to Mashhad), was the father of a number of discoveries recorded in an encyclopaedia and of many treatises covering two thousand topics, and these became the bible of European chemists of the 18th century, particularly of Lavoisier. Geber is widely regarded as the founder of chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and equipment still used by chemists today.”

Note, first, that this paper cites no source whatsoever. Second, that Jābir was inferred by Holmyard to have been born, not to have died in 721. Third, that the claim that Lavoisier was still using Jābir is so far off the mark (even pseudo-Geber, though still used by Sennert in the 17th century, was quite out-of-date by the time of Lavoisier) that it may well be taken to establish that the authors of this paper have absolutely no clue about the wider history of chemistry. Perhaps they know all about "Hematology-Oncology" or "Drug Applied Research", but these people should not be writing about medieval texts, nor should they ever be quoted on that subject.

Since I don't know whether the claim is in fact supported with evidence by actual historians of chemistry discussing primary sources (Stapleton perhaps?), I will be bold and remove it for the time being.

I don’t know enough about Wikipedia’s rules to be sure whether this is even possible, but I would strongly recommend removing all claims in this article stemming from tertiary sources, which are almost invariably wild and wrong (except for a very few which cautiously cite some secondary source, but in that case the same secondary source can perfectly be cited here), and putting in place some kind of embargo prohibiting the use of non-authoritative tertiary sources for this article. If, as I suspect, this is not possible according to Wikipedia’s rules, then this article should actually be used to argue the case for making this kind of thing possible. Of course prohibiting tertiary sources would not make much sense in most cases, but there are some subjects (and Jābir is certainly among them, as is alchemy more generally) about which so much rubbish is published that it really becomes necessary to guarantee a minimum of quality. Edit: I read up a bit on the rules, and actually articles are expected to rely primarily on secondary sources, the use of tertiary sources being restricted to directly relevant and authoritative sources (e.g., Jābir's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam), which should also primarily be used as a guide to determining due weight. So according to Wikipedia guidelines themselves, most sources used in this article should go. 16:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, if anyone is wondering about what secondary sources to use, there is the list that was put up here earlier (“39. List of secondary literature”, in Talk:Jābir ibn Hayyān/Archive 2). However, that list (even though still incomplete) is probably too long for realistic use here. It would already be great to have a Wikipedia article on Jābir that is firmly grounded in the following:

Kraus, Paul 1942-1943. Jâbir ibn Hayyân: Contribution à l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam, Vol. I-II.

Sezgin, Fuat 1972. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (GAS), Leiden: Brill, vol IV, p. 132–269.

Lory, Pierre 1989 [reprint 2003]. Alchimie et mystique en terre d’Islam.

Delva, Thijs 2017. "The Abbasid Activist Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār as the Father of Jābir b. Ḥayyān: An Influential Hypothesis Revisited". Journal of Abbasid Studies. 4: 35–61. (= reference [11] here)

Forster, Regula 2018. "Jābir b. Ḥayyān". Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. (= reference [3] here)

@Jbhunley: @Pinkbeast: @Dbachmann: @Johnbod: @Kansas Bear: @Wikaviani: @OclandEagle:2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:18CB:3C23:805D:66F3 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

see my reply on my talk page. you changed several stuffs with no consensus and no sources. how do you know jabir was shiite ? maybe he was sunnite, so "Islam" alone is better. you have not given a source for this. you changed other stuffs too, with no sources, like "the father of chemistry" into "one of the father of chemistry" but this isn't what the sources say too. you also removed the part with "founder of chemistry" but this is with a source from the Turkish speaking university of Tabriz, in the Turkish area of Iran with the name "Azerbaijan", that is a reliable source i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.253.120.136 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Kindly consider the following:

- I changed the category “religion” from “Islam” to “Shi’i Islam”. It is a widely acknowledged fact that the Jābirian writings were produced by a Shi’i author or a group of Shi’i authors. You will find this in almost any reliable source on the subject, so it seems a bit excessive to add a reference for this. If you really insist, we may refer to Lory, Pierre 1989, Alchimie et mystique en terre d’Islam, pp. 47-125, who has the fullest account of Jābirian Shi’ism? I made this change because, as has been shown by Kraus, Corbin, and Lory, the Jābirian corpus contains a highly original form of Shi’ism, which actually constitutes a very important witness for the history of early Shi’i doctrines and ideas. Eventually something should be written about this in the article itself, but indicating that it is Shi’i Islam that we’re talking about here seems like an absolute minimum. Not a good source to refer to for this but one that you can check right now online is Encyclopaedia Iranica’s article “Kimiā” (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kimia), which mentions that the Jābirian “treatises were probably composed in Iraq by a school of Shiʿite alchemists during the 9th and 10th centuries (Kraus, 1943, Introduction)”. Note, by the way, how explicitly the qualifier "Shi'ite" is here included in a general description that could perfectly have done without, were it not for the central importance of Shi'i speculations in many Jābirian writings.

- The source from (researchers from) the University of Tabriz (“Contribution of Iranian chemists in research activities, on the occasion of the International Year of Chemistry”), used in the article for the claim that Jābir was “the founder of early chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and equipment still used by chemists today” was discussed by me above (please first take a look at my argument there). I understand why you may think that a paper written by authors associated with a university may be a good source, but mere affiliation with a university does in fact not always guarantee that a source is reliable. In this case, its authors are writing outside of their fields of expertise, and unfortunately, they seem to be rather ignorant about the history of chemistry. More importantly, they do not discuss the primary sources, nor do they even cite a secondary source, for the very claim that is cited here. They merely state it, as an unsubstantiated conjecture (they just assume it is true, probably because it is a widely shared view in their environments), rather than as a researched fact. As I’m sure you’ll understand, this does not constitute a reliable source according to Wikipedia’s standards.

- I changed “the father or the founder of early chemistry” to “one of the fathers of early chemistry” as part of the previous change, having to delete “or the founder of early” and what comes after it. I chose “one of the fathers” because, although Jābir is indeed popularly called “the father of chemistry”, so are Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier. What about “He is often counted among the founding fathers of chemistry”?

Thank you for considering my arguments, and please do reply. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:3857:6D86:61BB:336A (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

no, i don't agree, for now, you have not showed a link for a source so that i can check if what you claim is true or is not. do u have any link and the number page for everything u say ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.253.120.15 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you would like me to provide a link for? Please note that I am only responsible for providing reliable sources, not for providing links. I will try to accommodate you, though:

- As for the Shi’i question, there obviously is no website on which you can check the fact that there is a complete scholarly consensus about the Shi’i nature of the Jābirian works (or in the case of Fuat Sezgin and Syed Nomanul Haq, who argued for Jābir’s historical existence and authorship, about the fact that Jābir was a Shi’i), you can only check all of the existing literature. However, encyclopedic sources like the one I gave you (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kimia), or Regula Forster’s article on the Encyclopedia of Islam (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/jabir-b-hayyan-COM_32665) will also confirm this. As I said, the most authoritative source is Lory, Pierre 1989, Alchimie et mystique en terre d’Islam, pp. 47-125.

If you don’t have access to any of this, perhaps you can check one of Lory’s open access articles: Lory, Pierre. “Eschatologie alchimique chez jâbir ibn Hayyân” in: Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée, 2000(91-94), pp.73-92 (http://remmm.revues.org/249), which has the following, intriguing abstract (click "English" under "Résumés"):

"The corpus of texts attributed to the alchemist Jâbir ibn Hayyân, which was probably completed during the first half of the 1Oth century AD, delivers several elements of an original eschatological extreme Shî'i doctrine. Jâbir does not give an opinion on the question of the succession of the Imams which divided the Shî'i movement at that time : according to his school of thought, the encounter with the Imam happens by means of gnostic knowledge, and especially through the discovery of the secrets of alchemy as a global universal science. The present article attempts to shed light upon new evidence on the basis of an analysis of the Kitâb al-Bayân. According to this text, the collective salvation of mankind from the prison of ignorance will happen with the help of the spreading of esoterical sciences. At the end of times, a messianic divine and human person called the Bayân will manifest the hidden dimensions of being and fulfill the destiny of the whole of mankind."

Or perhaps just note the title of scholarly papers like Nomanul Haq, Syed. “Greek alchemy or Shi`i metaphysics? A preliminary statement concerning Jabir ibn Hayyan's Zahir and Batin Language” in: Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, Vol. 4/ii (2002) 19-32 (which argues, probably incorrectly by the way, that Jābir took the ẓāhir/bāṭin concept from Shi’i philosophy rather than from the alchemical tradition), or Lory, Pierre. “Esotérisme shi’ite et alchimie. Quelques remarques sur la doctrine de l’initiation dans le Corpus Jābirien” in: M. A. Amir-Moezzi, M. De Cillis, D. De Smet, O. Mir-Kasimov (eds.). L'Ésotérisme shi'ite, ses racines et ses prolongements (= Shi'i Esotericism: Its Roots and Developments). Turnhout: Brepols, 2016.

- As for the badly sourced claim of Jābir inventing processes and equipment, the link to that source is given in the article (http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rccqf/v40n2/v40n2a07.pdf). You will find the claim quoted in the article at pp. 241-242. You can check there for yourself that it does not cite any source, that it proclaims Jābir to have died in 721, that its authors do not have the necessary expertise, and the funny fact that it cites a Wikipedia article (p. 259).

Thank you again for your attention. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:ECF2:F683:99E3:4D94 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, i concur with some of your proposals, i added Shi'i for this scholar's religion and sourced it with the Iranica article you linked above. I also tagged one claim with {{cn}} (citation needed) and removed the unreliable source for it. However, i don't agree with your proposal about "father of chemistry". While Boyle and Lavoisier have been described as being "fathers of modern chemistry", we should keep in mind that they lived roughly 9 centuries after Jabir who has been widely described as the "father of early chemistry". Therefore, i suggest we keep going with what the cited sources say and keep the sentence unchanged. Thanks for letting us know about these issues. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Thanks for taking a look at this.

Actually, one of the three sources cited for the father thing (https://web.archive.org/web/20080630061235/http://www.unhas.ac.id/~rhiza/saintis/haiyan.html) says “the father of modern Chemistry” (yes this is a very bad source that should definitely be removed). I did not check the other two sources, but they’re also really not the kind of thing we should be citing. However, a Google search on -Jabir ibn Hayyan "father of chemistry"- gives 27800 results, while a search for -Jabir ibn Hayyan "father of early chemistry"- only gives 2370 results. Clearly, “father of chemistry” is the much more popular version. But of course, this conflicts with the fact that the title “father of chemistry” is also very popularly used for Robert Boyle (Google: 101000 results) and Antoine Lavoisier (Google: 88000 results). Now all of these are popular references, and you will have a hard time finding them in the scholarly literature. In so far as they are popular, I would argue that they do not need any source at all, and that it is best to remove all the references for them. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:40C8:B51:E4F4:26AD (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Google hits are not the best way to find out the "title" to give to a scholar, reliable sources matter. I will remove the Zahoor source if it does not support the claim, but the other sources will remain in the lead, because when a claim is sometimes considered as being controversial, sources are needed, even in the lead.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: [TL:DR : all three sources have “father of chemistry”, not “father of early chemistry”, but all three are unreliable (a.o. because they make unsubstantiated claims, seemingly taken from this very Wikipedia page); I will replace them with Newman’s article on Jābir in Encyclopaedia Britannica]

You’re probably right that popular claims are likely to be controversial and are better backed up by a reliable source. The fact is, however, that none of the three sources used are reliable. Furthermore, none of the three sources state that Jābir is the father of early chemistry, but rather just “father of chemistry”. Let me discuss them one by one:

1) Derewenda, Zygmunt S. (2007), "On wine, chirality and crystallography", Acta Crystallographica A, 64 (Pt 1): 246–258 [247]. It states the Jābir is “considered by many to be the father of chemistry” (p. 247). It further states that he is “credited with the discovery of crystallization as a purification process” and “Aside from tartaric acid, he discovered citric acid and acetic acid, as well as hydrochloric acid and nitric acid [...]”. These are all questionable claims, but Derewenda does not cite any source for them. They are very likely taken from this very Wikipedia page (see below).

2) John Warren (2005). "War and the Cultural Heritage of Iraq: a sadly mismanaged affair", Third World Quarterly, Volume 26, Issue 4 & 5, p. 815-830. States on p. 827: “Jabir bin Hayyan, who lived in Kufa in the 8th century, was an alchemist whose rational mind led him to analytical understandings which have given him the title of the Father of Chemistry”. Although he does not make any questionable claims, Warren does not cite any source, and is not an authority on the subject.

3) "Jabir Ibn Haiyan (jabir), Died 803 C.E." by Dr. A. Zahoor. First states that Jābir “is generally known as the Father of Chemistry”, but later repeats the same questionable claims about Jābir discovering “the preparation of nitric, hydrochloric, citric and tartaric acids”, and goes on to say that “it is on the basis of such works that he is regarded as the father of modern [!] Chemistry”.

Why is it likely that Derewenda and Zahoor took their unsourced claims about tartaric, acetic and citric acids from this Wikipedia page? First of all, because they are likely to rely on encyclopedic sources, and because Wikipedia is the only such source to include these claims. Secondly, because they do not occur in the secondary literature. The article here on Wikipedia cites Holmyard, Makers of Chemistry, who on pp. 59-60 states that Jābir “knew how to concentrate acetic acid by the distillation of vinegar, and was also acquainted with citric acid and other organic substances.” First, note that Holmyard ’s book does not cite any (primary or other) sources and so cannot be considered to be a secondary source. Second, that tartaric acid is not mentioned by Holmyard. Third, that the caustic properties of both acetic and citric acid were known and used since antiquity (Holmyard himself cites on p. 37 Zosimus of Panopolis as describing that “white lead may be obtained by exposing lead to ‘vapours’ [scil. of acetic acid, vinegar]"), but that discovering them as isolated chemical substances is quite something else (on p. 187, Holmyard rightly ascribes the discovery of citric and tartaric acid to Carl Wilhelm Scheele, 1742–1786 CE).

Anyways, all three sources used describe Jābir as the “father of chemistry”, not as “the father of early chemistry”. However, that this title is also widely used for other chemists, and especially Robert Boyle, can be seen from the fact that Lawrence Principe, who wrote the most authoritative English general history of alchemy to date, preserves it for Robert Boyle (Principe, Lawrence M. 2013. The Secrets of Alchemy. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 86: “Robert Boyle (1627-1691), later to be proclaimed the Father of Chemistry for boldly championing the value of the discipline [...]”).

Nevertheless, it remains of course a fact that Jābir is widely described as a father of chemistry, we only need to find a reliable source for it. I suggest using Newman, William R. (August 03, 2016). "Abū Mūsā Jābir ibn Ḥayyān.", Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., Accessed 1 Sep. 2019. (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abu-Musa-Jabir-ibn-Hayyan), who has in his lead “known as the father of Arabic chemistry”. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:7DFC:7B31:B289:E1DB (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

On another note, and in another edit, I removed the “founder of early chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and equipment still used by chemists today” part. This was literally quoted from the source that has been shown to be unreliable (see above), and there is no need to keep to the letter such a controversial, unsourced (and as it happens, untrue) claim. Once this subject will finally have received the serious research it deserves (which will happen, in my estimation, in about a hundred years), a more nuanced statement about Jābir’s technical accomplishments will undoubtedly be added to this page.2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:7DFC:7B31:B289:E1DB (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just STOP changing article like you do. father of early chemistry or father of chemistry it's all the same.185.253.120.136 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear fellow IP user, thank you for leaving this message. Please note, however, that you have not given a reason for your revert; “it’s all the same” would rather be a reason to leave my edit as is. Reverting a thoroughly argued edit without giving a proper reason is not acceptable. Please do argue your case. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:7DFC:7B31:B289:E1DB (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You all need to stop edit-warring, i asked for page protection. Belgian IP, please keep in mind that the Britannica source you tried to include is not the best one, even unreliable. You can ask to Doug Weller, an admin about that. A far better source, this one supports the "father of Arab chemistry", but, in my humble opinion, it's not representative of what the mainstream of sources say about Jabir. I would suggest you to stop trying to push a specific POV by all means, including edit-warring. Posting messages here is not an excuse for an edit war. So far, you've been reverted by several users.

Turkish IP, i'm speechless when i read your comments, your behaviour is all but constructive., you cannot just revert for some reasons and refuse to engage properly on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikaviani,

You are right that Britannica is not always as reliable as one might hope it to be. However, in this case, the article was written by William R. Newman, who is one of the leading authorities on the history of alchemy, and who is the foremost international expert on the Latin pseudo-Geber works. Surely, this is more reliable than three coincidental references in non-expert sources, two of whom repeat unsourced and unsubstantiated claims? (I did not, by the way, have to include Newman's article: it was already cited here.) The reference you give to The Oxford Dictionary of Islam is indeed quite appalling in its reductionist brevity, but you may be interested to know that it actually is severely summarizing Kraus 1942 (Jâbir ibn Hayyân: Contribution à l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam. Vol. II) and a 1953 article by Stapleton (Stapleton, H.E. “The Antiquity of Alchemy” in: Ambix, 1953, Vol.5/1-2, pp.1-43), both of which are eminently reliable sources.

I understand I’m giving you a hard time here, but please do not accuse me of edit warring. I was once reverted by AbhiMukh97, but merely as a result of forgetting to add an edit summary. I was twice reverted by the other IP user, but on two different edits, and on neither of those two occasions have I re-reverted. Please also reconsider calling a legitimate and well argued concern for sources by that ugly name of POV pushing. I just happen to know the scholarly literature on this subject very well, and I’m trying to bring this article more in line with it.

Finally, I have the feeling that I'm the victim of some kind of false equivalence or argument to moderation here. It does hurt. If only for the sake of justice, I would like to ask you to look into my arguments, and even consider reinstating my last two changes. They may not be what we will agree on, but I would feel a whole lot better if they were not simply confirmed as amounting to vandalism.

Thank you for your efforts, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:7DFC:7B31:B289:E1DB (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for updating paragraph on Geber in the lead

I feel like I’m on a roll here, so I’ll immediately propose another change:

The paragraph on Geber in the lead is, in its current state, misleading. Jabir’s name was not merely Latinized: actual translations of Arabic Jabirian works into Latin were made, and it's on the basis of these that Latin authors continued the tradition of writing under Jabir’s name. I propose to adjust the paragraph to the following:

Some Arabic Jabirian works (e.g., the “Book of Mercy”, and the “Book of Seventy”) were translated into Latin under the Latinized name "Geber",[ref 1] and in 13th-century Europe an anonymous writer, usually referred to as pseudo-Geber, started to produce alchemical and metallurgical writings under this name.[ref 2]

Ref 1: Darmstaedter, Ernst. “Liber Misericordiae Geber: Eine lateinische Übersetzung des gröβeren Kitâb l-raḥma”, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin, 17/4, 1925, pp. 181–197; Berthelot, Marcellin. “Archéologie et Histoire des sciences”, Mémoires de l’Académie des sciences de l’Institut de France, 49, 1906, pp. 308–363.

Ref 2: Newman, William R. “New Light on the Identity of Geber”, Sudhoffs Archiv, 1985, 69, pp. 76–90; Newman, William R. The Summa perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber: A critical edition, translation and study, Leiden: Brill, 1991, pp. 57–103. It has been argued by Ahmad Y. al-Hassan that the pseudo-Geber works were actually translated into Latin from the Arabic (see al-Hassan, Ahmad Y. “The Arabic Origin of the Summa and Geber Latin Works: A Refutation of Berthelot, Ruska, and Newman Based on Arabic Sources”, in: Ahmad Y. al-Hassan. Studies in al-Kimya': Critical Issues in Latin and Arabic Alchemy and Chemistry. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2009, pp. 53–104; also available online).

If someone wonders why I relegated al-Hassan’s study to the footnote: this is because his is a minority view, which is as of yet not accepted by the scholarly community (see, e.g., the way it is framed by Forster in the EI3: “[…] not until 1893 did Berthelot declare that no part of the Latin Geber corpus was translated from Arabic (Berthelot, La chimie, 3:16). This might indeed be true for the Summa perfectionis (“The height of perfection”) (Ullmann, 198; Newman, esp. 57–103, but see Al-Hassan), but some of the Latin Geber works, such as the Liber de septuaginta and the Liber misericordiae (see above), are, without doubt, translations from Arabic.”

Waiting for your feedback, 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:9866:263:4E06:54B4 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Please edit the article and i'll review your edit. : Sounds good to me. Please edit the article and i'll review your edit. @Kansas Bear:, @Johnbod:, @Pinkbeast: and @Jbhunley: Gentlemen, i would also welcome your opinion, if you disagree with the IP's edit, please let me know. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for new justification and reference for Jabir as “the father of chemistry”

As I argued elsewhere on this talk page, the quote “[...] the founder of early chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and equipment still used by chemists today” as it appears now in the lead, was literally taken from a very unreliable source, and should be removed. I also argued that the sources presently quoted for the claim that Jabir was the father of early chemistry are unreliable and should be replaced.

I now propose to solve both problems by replacing the entire phrase starting with “He has been widely described [...]” with the following:

Popularly known as the father of chemistry, Jabir’s works contain the oldest known systematic classification of chemical substances, and the oldest known instructions for deriving an inorganic compound (Sal ammoniac or Ammonium chloride) from organic substances (such as plants, blood, and hair) by chemical means.

The reference I propose to add for this is: Stapleton, H.E; Azo, R.F & Hidayat Husain, M. “Chemistry in Iraq and Persia in the Tenth Century A.D.”, Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. VIII, no. 6, 1927, pp. 317-418 (pp. 338-340).

This way, we use an eminently reliable source to show Jabir’s importance in the history of chemistry, and thereby immediately indicate why he is popularly called “the father of chemistry”.

What do you think? 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:9866:263:4E06:54B4 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

IP: Thank you for your time working on the article. I do not have the wherewithal to comment right now -- maybe within a week or so. I just wanted to let you know your contributions have been noticed, at least by me , and your talk page explanations appreciated. Jbh ^Talk 15:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Same for me, as i said on my talk page. Please feel free to edit the article and i'll review your edit. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I just reviewed and accepted your changes. Thanks very much for your contribution.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted, you don't have the right to change the article without consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.253.120.74 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see my above comment, the other IP's edit has been reviewed by me and is legit, you need to stop behaving like that, please review our guidelines in order to better understand how this encyclopedia works. Do no do that again. Thanks in advance.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

'Father-of' claims go beyond the statement of verifiable fact, are seldom encyclopedic, and are often used to support nationalist or supremacist agendas. If a reliable source describes an individual as a 'father of' a given field, I suggest first checking to see if other reliable sources support the claim, and if other reliable sources have described other individuals using the same description. If there is conflict or limited support for such a claim, either exclude the description, or say 'he is one of a number of people, including X,Y,and Z, who have been described as the 'father of chemistry'.Dialectric (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your statement may be correct in general and i agree with it, however, in this case, we even don't know with certainty the "nationality" of this scholar, though job for anybody who would try to claim any "nationalism" or "supremacism" ... The source proposed by the IP is reliable and other reliable sources support it. Also, as discussed extensively on this talk page, it has been specified in the article that Jabir Ibn Hayyan is popularly known as the "father of chemstry", it seems like a perfectly reasonable claim to me. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dialectric: I certainly agree that from a historiographical point of view, “father of” claims often obscure far more than they enlighten. But it is important to note that I purposefully chose to frame it as “popularly known”, which already indicates the level at which this title must be understood. I took my cue for this from Antoine Lavoisier, which has “He is widely considered in popular literature as the "father of modern chemistry"”. Interesting in this case is that already in the medieval Arabic literature, chemistry was often simply referred to as the ʿilm Jābir (“the science of Jābir”), which certainly says a lot about how popularly Jābir was associated with chemistry. This popular association is an established and quite uncontroversial fact, and we are merely noting it in the passing. Finally, it is immediately followed by a clear statement of two very important developments in the history of chemistry associated with the Jābirian corpus (classification of chemical substances and chemical synthesis of a naturally occuring compound), a statement that is supported by a source that is very widely cited in the scholarly literature, and that gives a good idea of why and how Jābir got this popular title.

The only important reservation that I do have about it is that this idea of Jābir as the father of chemistry is often misunderstood and abused to attribute to Jābir any and all modern chemical discoveries, which is undoubtedly often inspired by nationalist and/or islamist sentiments. This very Wikipedia page is actually full of disinformation of that kind, and would need a thorough clean-up to get rid of it. I would welcome any support for throwing out the bath water (which frankly is most of this article apart from the lead), but please, let us keep the baby. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:D86E:5F4B:2257:8B25 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If you decide to engage into a major clean up of the article, i'll be glad to review your edits, as it's now clear that you are a knowledgeable editor who can improve this article. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an exciting prospect. Unfortunately, it would cost an inordinate amount of time, much more than I have right now. If someone else were to engage in such a project, I would be more than happy to offer help and advice, but at the moment I just can’t afford to take up this rather arduous task all by myself. It’s safe to say though that I will probably not be able to resist coming back to this in the future. 2A02:1811:C1E:BE00:B574:B3B5:B38A:5B0A (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that. Anyway, please let e know if one day you find the time for this. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Are there any untranslated Arabic books attributed to Jabir?

If so, could anyone point me in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedEnoch (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

pic

I moved this as I can find no connection to Jabir — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 06:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Predicting fisison

This section seems rather unlikely and cites a book on religion. I have removed it pending clarification and a more adequate reference.

Predicting nuclear fission

Jabir ibn Hayyan wrote about an atom being capable to disintegrate and that the energy emitted as a result of disintegration is capable to destroy Baghdad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Stolfi (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and citation tags

This issue has been signalled a number of times already at this talk page, but since improvements are slow in the coming, I've decided to add tags concerning (A) the reliability of the sources used in this article and (B) the interpretation of these sources.

(A) This article contains a staggering amount of references, the great majority of which refer to non-secondary sources that are irrelevant, obsolete, incompetent, or a combination of these. This problem is compounded by the fact that the subject of this article is very obscure, a situation which really demands sources written by experts who have actually investigated the primary sources. This would include:

Kraus, Paul 1942-1943. Jâbir ibn Hayyân: Contribution à l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam. I. Le corpus des écrits jâbiriens. II. Jâbir et la science grecque. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

Sezgin, Fuat 1972. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. Leiden: Brill, vol. IV, pp. 132–269.

Lory, Pierre 1983. Dix traités d’alchimie de Jâbir ibn Hayyân. Paris: Sindbad.

Lory, Pierre 1989. Alchimie et mystique en terre d’Islam. Lagrasse: Verdier.

Nomanul Haq, Syed 1994. Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jābir ibn Ḥayyān and his Kitāb al-Aḥjār (Book of Stones). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Delva, Thijs 2017. "The Abbasid Activist Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār as the Father of Jābir b. Ḥayyān: An Influential Hypothesis Revisited". Journal of Abbasid Studies, 4, pp. 35–61.

Forster, Regula 2018. "Jābir b. Ḥayyān". Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three.

Anything else written by these authors also qualifies, as well as anything written by Marcellin Berthelot, Henry E. Stapleton, Julius Ruska, William R. Newman, Lawrence M. Principe, and some of the things written by Eric J. Holmyard (though not his 1931 Makers of Chemistry, nor his 1957 Alchemy, both of which do not refer to any sources and contain a lot of speculative and obsolete material). Of course, the most recent sources (Delva 2017 and especially Forster 2018) should be given the most weight.

(B) Much of this article seems to be written by people who have some interest in Jābir, read a few of the things which they find relatively easy to access (unfortunately often of a very low quality), and with this limited understanding go on to edit the article. Though this is natural enough, the problem with such a limited approach is that the editors often completely lack the background knowledge to critically engage with the sources they use, do not know how what is said in these sources relates to what is said in other sources, and for these reasons tend to make an original synthesis which is often even further removed from the scholarly consensus than the sources they consulted in the first place.

As it stands, only the lead is relatively free from these two issues. My recommendation is actually to delete everything apart from the lead, and then to monitor the article closely, removing any contributions which are not based on a close and critical reading of expert sources. Apaugasma (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked (nor am I competent to) but the page has been edited (long ago, but stuff often persists) by User:Jagged 85 which is always a red flag... see-also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That user did indeed strongly contribute to this article (93 edits, amounting to 3.35% of the total edits made to the page), and some of it did actually stick (see, e.g., this diff.).

However, as I've indicated above, the problem here is much broader in nature. It is rooted in the obscurity of the subject matter, and in the fact that the few existing quality sources for it are rather hard to access (the two most important scholars, Kraus and Lory, both having written their works in French, and more recent quality sources sitting behind a pay-wall). This unfortunate combination has resulted in a proliferation of inaccurate, misleading and/or unsubstantiated claims in non-expert (tertiary) sources, an assortment of which is to be found in this article. Apaugasma (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for rewrite

@Wikaviani: @Kansas Bear:, @Johnbod:, @Pinkbeast: and @Jbhunley: @Dbachmann: @OclandEagle:

I’ve updated the bibliography section to include the most authoritative sources on Jābir that are known to me. What is crucial about this list is that, in contrast with the sources currently used (see the section 'Unreliable sources and citation tags' above), every single scholar on it has personally investigated the Arabic Jābirian texts themselves, and has extensively engaged with the existing secondary literature on them. My proposal now is to rewrite the article in such a way that it is mainly based either on those sources or on other sources that qualify the same criteria.

This will involve a great deal of rewriting, and in some cases the deletion of entire sections. Below is a breakdown of what I think should be done with each section. I will start work on this shortly, but I would very much appreciate some feedback on it before I begin. All proposals below are completely open for discussion; any comments are welcome. Of course, it would be ideal if some other editor(s) would be willing to take on the task of rewriting some sections in the same spirit, in which case I would be happy to review them.

(all name-date references below are to be found in the bibliography)

“Early references”: Contains a discussion of Ibn al-Nadīm’s testimony on Jābir and some other primary sources on Jābir’s biography. This is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedic source like Wikipedia, and needs to be replaced with a discussion of what secondary sources have said on the subject (mainly Kraus 1942-1943: 1, Nomanul Haq 1994, Delva 2017).

“Life and background”: Kraus (1930) pioneered the view that Jābirian Shi'ism was related to Ismai'ilism, but he did not consider this as a ‘clever mixing of references’; Corbin merely elaborated on Kraus and is irrelevant here; the sudden statement that “Jābir [...] lived mostly in the 8th century” and was “born in Tus” is misleading and needs to be replaced with a short discussion of Jābir’s uncertain chronological, geographical and social background; the nisbas al-Tartusi and al-Tarsusi only occur in late testimonies and need not be mentioned here, while the nisba al-Harrani does not occur in any source and is a conjecture by the Wikipedia editor who wrote this, based on obsolete speculations about a Sabian/Harranian background for Arabic alchemy; Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār is not called “al-Azdī” in any source: this is again a conjecture by a Wikipedia editor, based on Holmyard, Makers of Chemistry (1931): 49–50, and should be replaced with a discussion of Holmyard’s hypothesis as presented in Holmyard 1927 and as argued against by Delva 2017 (who points out precisely that Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār was affiliated with the Nakhaʿ tribe); the idea that Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār and his family fled to Yemen and that Jābir grew up there is a baseless (i.e., unsourced) speculation of Holmyard, Makers of Chemistry (1931): 50 and should be removed; Harbi al-Himyari is a semi-legendary figure whose name only occurs in some Jābirian writings and should probably not be mentioned here; Jābir’s relations to the Barmakids should be mentioned but along with the fact that most scholars doubt their historicity; likewise for his relations with Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq.

“The Jabirian corpus”: The first paragraph is mainly good, and primarily needs the addition of a few sources: Lory 1983’s arguments that the Jābirian writings as we now have them contain different layers should definitely be mentioned. The scope of the corpus has been mentioned in the lead and does not need repeating (or perhaps better: should be shortened in the lead, and mentioned here with reference to Kraus 1942–1943: 1). The description of the major collections of treatises in the corpus is incomplete (the Book of Five Hundred should probably also be mentioned, and mention should be made of Kraus 1942–1943: 1’s views on the relative chronology of the different collections). It also contains some misleading and inaccurate claims: not all of the 112 books were dedicated to the Barmakids (which is in any case irrelevant here); the Ten Books of course do not contain “descriptions of alchemists such as Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle”, but rather are directed against alchemical ideas falsely attributed to these ancient philosophers (which Sezgin 1971 has argued points to the existence of an eight-century pseudepigraphical alchemical literature). The last paragraph is good but should be sourced.

“People”: This section is misleadingly named, since rather than about ‘people’, it is about writings referred to in the corpus, many of them (though not all) pseudepigraphical. The section based on Lory 2008b (“Kimiā”) should be rewritten so as to be a paraphrase rather than a plagiaristic copy-paste. The direct reference to Ibn al-Nadīm (a primary source) is unencyclopedic and should be removed. The last sentence on “Arius” (another obscure figure named by Jābir, very unlikely to refer to the Christian theologian as linked) is misleading and confused, not properly sourced, and should be removed.

“Jābirian Shi'ism”: This section does not exist, but should definitely be created at one point. It should be based mainly on Lory 1989, but should also take note of more recent work on the subject (Capezzone 2020, more recent papers by Lory, etc.). The view that Jābirian Shi'ism was a form of Isma'lism should only be mentioned as an older view that is now considered obsolete.

“Theories”: The first two paragraphs are, respectively, improperly sourced and not sourced at all, and should be removed. The third paragraph (on the elements) is OK but should at one point be rewritten to be based on the authoritative account of Kraus 1942–1943: 2 rather than on Nomanul Haq 1994 (who is derivative on this subject). The fourth paragraph (the intro to the sulfur-mercury theory of metals) is good, but the reference to Holmyard, Makers of Chemistry (1931) should be replaced with a better one, and about the Secret of Creation it should be mentioned that Kraus 1942–1943: 2 tentatively dated it to the early ninth century, though also showing that it at least partially depends on older sources. The quote of the Book of Explanation is unsourced and should be removed, as well as the badly sourced and unfounded claim of Holmyard about it. The paragraph about Jābir’s classification of chemical substances does not properly belong with his (philosophical) “theories” (its mention right after the sulfur-theory of metals is also highly misleading), and should be placed in a separate section on this topic. The claim in the last paragraph about “chemical equivalents” is bogus and needs to be removed.

“Laboratory equipment and material”: the first two paragraphs are entirely based on junk sources, contain various unsubstantiated claims, and should be completely removed. The paragraph on mineral acids is based on the work of Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, which though valuable for scholars should for Wikipedia’s purposes be considered to be a fringe source: it should either be rewritten to include the majority view that nitric acid was not known before the thirteenth century, or be removed. The paragraph on alcohol is not actually related to Jābir, and should probably be removed. In general, the topic of Jābirian chemistry is badly under-researched, and since there are hardly any good scholarly sources on it, its discussion on this Wikipedia page should be kept to a strict minimum.

“Legacy”: This section is almost completely based on junk sources, and is highly tendentious. Its content should be entirely removed and replaced by a short statement on the Arabic-Latin translations, the influence of these on pseudo-Geber and other medieval alchemists, and the lasting legacy of some aspects of Jābirian alchemy such as the sulfur-mercury theory.

“The Geber-Jabir problem”: Wikipedia already has an article on Pseudo-Geber, and the question of the Latin (pseudo-)Geber works should at this point in the article already have been adequately dealt with (in the lead, and in a short description in the new version of the section on “Legacy”). There is no need to detail the entire 20th century discussion on this subject, but if we were to do so, it would be highly misleading (as this section does) to entirely leave out the extensive arguments of William R. Newman, whose views on the topic (that the Summa Perfectionis was written in the thirteenth century by a Latin author who heavily relied on Arabic sources) are followed by the great majority of scholars today. This entire section should probably be deleted.

“In popular culture”: There is always some discussion amongst editors whether to include such a section or not. Personally, I tend to side with the contra camp, but I do not think it very important compared to the rest of the article.

“See also”: List of pre-modern Iranian scientists and scholars is obviously irrelevant, while Pseudepigraphy, Khālid ibn Yazīd, Ibn Waḥshiyya, Ibn Umayl, al-Ṭughrāʾī, and al-Jaldakī should probably also be mentioned.

Apaugasma (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds generally ok, for an entirely non-expert perspective. If not an "In popular culture”, section, one on the personal legend is probably needed. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Same goes for me, although i do not understand some stuffs you said above like "List of pre-modern Iranian scientists and scholars is obviously irrelevant" while there are 3 reliable sources in the article that support an Iranian ethnicity.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought there was a consensus here on the fact that Jābir's ethnicity is fundamentally uncertain, and that, moreover, nothing of what is known about him on a biographical level can be taken for historical fact? In this case, it seems misleading to associate him with a list of Iranian scientists.

Now if you really think the link should stay, I would understand that and agree. What seems more of a problem to me, however, is the reason you give for this, i.e., that three reliable sources support it. This actually illustrates one of the two problems I identified above, i.e., that "this article possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". All three (or perhaps two, since Ragep et al. is mis-cited and actually also refers to a chapter by Newman) of the sources cited are in themselves reliable, in so far as both Sarton and Newman are notable and distinguished historians of science. In context, however, they are not reliable at all, since both are speaking far outside of their domain of expertise: none of them fluently reads Arabic or has investigated even one primary source dealing with Jābir or his biography, and they are both entirely relying on their (perhaps not always very recent) readings of a small number of secondary sources. Yet there are sources out there whose authors have painstakingly examined all the primary (Arabic) sources on the subject of Jābir's biography, or at the very least have studied all existing secondary sources that are relevant to it and know how to understand them in the context of early Arabic-Islamic history (in other words, they are arabists). So what is and what is not a reliable source also heavily depends on context: no one would think of citing scholars specialized in Isaac Newton for something related to the birthplace of Aristotle just because they mentioned something about it in the passing, yet this is precisely the kind of thing that happens to this article all of the time. The whole goal of my proposal here is to have an article that is based on sources who, so to speak, know what they are talking about. If however, you feel that this is too rash (content will change, sometimes radically), or otherwise feel uncomfortable about it, we should probably discuss this now. Apaugasma (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you about the uncertainty of Jabir's ethnicity, i did not say that Jabir was an Iranian, i just said that we have 3 reliable sources for his Iranian ethnicity (the Arab ethnicity claim is sourced too, just like the Sabian one ...). However, i strongly disagree with your comments about the sources, especially when you say "they are not reliable at all, since both are speaking far outside of their domain of expertise: none of them fluently reads Arabic or has investigated even one primary source dealing with Jābir or his biography, and they are both entirely relying on their (perhaps not always very recent) readings of a small number of secondary sources". This is your interpretation, we could take these sources to WP:RSN in order to check them if you want. But feel free to add those sources "out there whose authors have painstakingly examined all the primary (Arabic) sources on the subject of Jābir's biography, or at the very least have studied all existing secondary sources that are relevant to it and know how to understand them in the context of early Arabic-Islamic history" if they qualify as reliable.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Could you in the future please discuss an issue properly before you remove something from the article (also make sure to see the above section "Unreliable sources and citation tags")? You have stated that you disagree, which is of course great, but you have not explained why you disagree. Do you really believe that it is appropriate and a good interpretation of sources to cite an author who mentions something in the passing about which they are not at all a subject expert? Or do you believe that Sarton and Newman are subject experts on the biography of Jabir? I am not here to fight you, I just really honestly want to know how you see these things. Of course, I also would like to sort this out before I spend the enormous amount of time that this article needs to get in shape. As you know, I have already spent a great deal of time on it in the past (see the archives of this talk page and yours for that), but still was only able to improve a few things, because all of the energy crept into showing that bad sources really were bad sources. You said then that you were willing to help when I found the time, so let's discuss this now. Apaugasma (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait for WP:RSN's response, i'm not here to fight you either (i don't even get why you said that). Unilaterally, you added some irrelevant tags about the supposed unreliability of the sources, i reverted you in oder to wait for a consensus, end off, there is no "fight" here. I sincerely think that you're wrong about the sources that are cited in the article. Sarton was a prominent historian of science (the founder of this field) and he knew Arabic. Newman is also a historian of science and, more precisely, a historian of chemistry, Jabir's main field of study. Besides, BRILL is ususally considered to be a high quality source (encyclopedia of islam is a BRILL publication if i'm not mistaken). Again, feel free to add more reliable sources to the article, like Kraus (who is already cited in the current version of the article) or Nomanul Haq.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me state that your replies come over as unsupportive and unconstructive. It seems to me that removing the tags based on a disagreement over one example and taking that example to WP:RSN is making a straw man out of that example and generally escalating the issue rather than discussing it. Putting forward the condition that I can add sources "if they qualify as reliable" also strongly suggests a lack of trust, especially in the context where I just massively updated the bibliography with the most authoritative sources available (and have not received a single comment on that). Also, I explicitly included William R. Newman amongst the authors of whom anything they have written qualifies as reliable, and have literally stated that "both Sarton and Newman are notable and distinguished historians of science". To keep having that pointed out to me feels a bit like the point that I am actually trying to make (about the appropriateness of quoting generalists vs. quoting subject experts) is not being addressed. Thank you for you attention, Apaugasma (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, i think that it's better to comment on content, that's what i tried to do. I took the sources to WP:RSN to check if your comments about them being "not reliable at all" were correct or not (and it appears that they are reliable). The tag you added to the article was not relevant in my humble opinion, since i don't see which sources are unreliable in this article, i removed it per WP:ONUS, this has nothing to do with straw man. You may have "better" sources for this article, if so, again, feel free to cite them. The sources are not generalists, rather, they actually are expert sources, since Sarton was a historian of sciences, Newman a historian of chemistry and Ragep a historian of Science in Islamic Societies. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What I actually said was this:

"All three [...] of the sources cited are in themselves reliable, in so far as both Sarton and Newman are notable and distinguished historians of science. In context, however, they are not reliable at all, since both are speaking far outside of their domain of expertise [...]". (emphasis added)

I admit that I might have expressed myself a bit more clearly, but it is truly ironic that you cut out the "In context" part there... If that was setting up the straw man, then your "it appears that they are reliable" has now grandly knocked it down. Anyway, now that what I was not trying to say has been successfully refuted, we may perhaps get to what I was trying to say:

On WP:RSN, Guest2625 stated that "The best sources will be books or academic articles that solely focuses on his life". This does not exist as such, but we have some very close equivalents in Kraus 1942-1943: I: xvii-lxv and in Delva 2017, both of whom have investigated all the extant Arabic bio-bibliographical sources. The first states: "Ibn Waḥshiyya infers from his [i.e., Jabir's] name al-Azdī that he must have been of Arabic origin [footnote: Which is not at all necessary, because Jābir may have been a client (mawlā) of the Azd tribe established in Kufa]" (Kraus 1942-1943: I: xl-xli, my translation). This is echoed by Delva 2017: 36, who writes: “One of his nisbas, al-Azdī, suggests that he was a member of the Azd and thus of Arab descent, although he may very well have been a mawlā (client) of this Yemenite tribe. In the latter case he probably was a Persian, because he is said to have hailed from Khurasan (eastern Iran) and to have died in Tus (a city in Khurasan) in 200/816, whence the nisba al-Ṭūsī.”, citing Kraus after the first sentence and giving copious references to primary sources for the second.

Now what one would call generalists or experts may strongly depend on one's perspective. All that I am proposing is that when we have good statements from the 'best' or 'most expert' sources which are fully grounded in the primary sources, we should not be citing sources who are just mentioning something in the passing and who have never even seen any primary source on the subject, however reliable they may generally be. This is not at all to deprecate the authors of these sources or their reliability (Newman is without a doubt the top scholar in his field, which is late medieval and early modern Latin and vernacular alchemy): it is just to have the good sense not to quote them on one of the inevitably many things which they are not knowledgeable on. Apaugasma (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Argh, I'm sorry to be so long-winded about this. Turns out that the guidelines on identifying reliable sources mention exactly what I've been trying to say. According to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. [...] Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.". Almost every word here applies. (adding this also to WP:RSN).
Apaugasma (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you are the only editor so far who says that these sources are not reliable in context, i already exposed my arguments above, and the comments at WP:RSN do not follow your rationale. As i suggested above, you might feel free to add better sources to this article, but removing several sources and the claim they support would be irrelevant here. Anyway, it's a waste of time to continue this meaningless discussion about the Persian ethnicity of Jabir, you suggested several other improvements above, and i think that you can go ahead and make your proposal.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you're surely right that we've put enough time in this already. But I do think that we've both gained a better understanding of how the other party looks at the use of sources, which may still prove to be valuable for future discussions. I've been working hard on a rewrite of the section on the Jabirian corpus, which I hope I'll be able to finish and put into the article for review tomorrow. Cheers, Apaugasma (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Major rewrite

@Wikaviani: @Kansas Bear: @Johnbod: @Pinkbeast: @Jbhunley: @Dbachmann: @OclandEagle:

I have rewritten most things in the article, except for the lead, the infobox, and the section 'Biography' (including 'Early References' and 'Life and background'). The sections 'In popular culture', 'See also' and 'External links' have also been left untouched, while some extra sources were added to the bibliography.

The section 'The Jabirian corpus' has been significantly expanded, and there is an entirely new section on the background of Jabirian alchemy in Greco-Egyptian, Byzantine and Persian alchemy (some of the content, though rewritten, overlaps with the old section 'People'). The section 'Chemical philosophy' retains some slightly modified material from the old section 'Theories' (now called 'Elements and natures'; this still needs to be rewritten), and contains a rewritten section on the sulfur-mercury theory of metals.

This is a lot of new text, so it would be nice to have some people review it also on spelling and style. Any comments are welcome! Apaugasma (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the time you spent at it and the job you did. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources for biography/ethnicity

Dear Wikaviani,

Our WP:BESTSOURCES, which focus on the question of Jabir's biography and investigate all the available primary sources for this purpose (Kraus 1942–1943, pp. xvii–lxv; Delva 2017), are saying that Jabir may have been Persian, or may have been Arab, depending on whether his affiliation to the Azd is taken to be a client-ship or not. To quote Delva 2017, p. 36:

One of his nisbas, al-Azdī, suggests that he was a member of the Azd and thus of Arab descent, although he may very well have been a mawlā (client) of this Yemenite tribe. In the latter case he probably was a Persian, because he is said to have hailed from Khurasan (eastern Iran) and to have died in Tus (a city in Khurasan) in 200/816, whence the nisba al-Ṭūsī.

If we have these sources, and if we are duly citing them, why should we be citing a bunch of sources that mistakenly, and except for Holmyard merely in the passing, call him Arab or Persian as if no uncertainty existed? These sources may be good and reliable (although I do maintain that per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, they are not for this particular subject), but the point is that they are simply irrelevant when the crux of the matter has already been explained in detail on the basis of the best sources available.

If you really insist, we could draw up a list of more relevant scholars who have taken a definite view on the subject (e.g., Corbin 1950 supported Kraus' client-ship hypothesis, thus coming out for Persian, while Forster 2018 quite bluntly states that Jabir "seems to have been of Arab descent"), but only if you have a good argument why this should be an improvement rather than a retrogression?

Kind regards, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: The problem is that you are aware of the fact that WP:RSN dubbed the sources as being reliable for this topic, yet you keep removing them. Besides, i have not seen a single other editor supporting your view about these sources, which means that your POV about them is quite far from any consensus, thus all the sources sound ok for this article (even if, Newman's work was about an American alchemist, which probably makes that one a bit less relevant here).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read the actual discussion at WP:RSN, and notice that we only got two comments, confirming that "all the sources mentioned are reliable sources" and that "most sources look OK", respectively. But of course, I already stated that "the sources cited are in themselves reliable" on this very talk page, before it was taken to WP:RSN. I also stated that "In context, however, they are not reliable at all", from which ironically enough the "in context, however" was cut out, resulting in a non-discussion. This just really isn't the way we should go about this. Note that my argument as I stated it now is not that these sources would not be reliable (of course Sarton and Newman are reliable!), but that they are contradicted by better sources which clearly show that in this particular case, Sarton and Newman were making an honest (and completely understandable) mistake. They are assuming that there is no uncertainty over the matter, while the best sources clearly state that there is. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"I already stated that "the sources cited are in themselves reliable" : Fine, thus they should be included in the article, ( per WP:NPOV : "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." ).

"I also stated that "In context, however, they are not reliable at all" : Sorry, but again, nobody else said that but you, your POV does not matter here, neither does mine, but you behave against what me and two other editors said, this sounds like a clear cut case of ownership of an article.

"This just really isn't the way we should go about this. Note that my argument as I stated it now is not that these sources would not be reliable (of course Sarton and Newman are reliable!), but that they are contradicted by better sources which clearly show that in this particular case, Sarton and Newman were making an honest (and completely understandable) mistake. They are assuming that there is no uncertainty over the matter, while the best sources clearly state that there is." : once more, this is against WP:NPOV (see above).

I draw your attention on the fact that WP:NPOV "is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research"".

However, i would be happy to include Corbin and Forster in the article too.

I strongly suggest you self-revert and move forward, we already spent too much time on this.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

May I ask you to please ease up a bit with the WP:ASPERSIONS? I too would rather not have this discussion, but if we do, let's try to keep it as pleasant and efficient as possible for everyone involved (including also other editors who may find themselves reading through this).

So you believe that, even when the two most thorough studies on Jabir's biography (Kraus 1942–1943, vol. I, p. xli, note 1; Delva 2017, p. 36) are stating that it is fundamentally unclear whether Jabir was Arab or Persian (or indeed, of yet a different background), it will be a breach of WP:NPOV not to cite and fully quote a number of sources who have never investigated the medieval biographical literature on Jabir, but do straightforwardly call him "the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan" in the passing (Newman 1996, p. 178, with reference to "the brilliant work of Paul Kraus in the 1940s", no less)? I believe that fails both the "proportionately" and "significant" clauses in the WP:NPOV policy you cited, per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, respectively. As such, I honestly believe that citing and quoting those sources would breach WP:NPOV.

Furthermore, what purpose would it serve to cite those passing mentions? For our readers to be able to reassure themselves that such-and-such a great scholar called Jabir "Arab", or "Persian"? My concern is that this would be misleading, since we are actually saying that those who have investigated the question believe such firm assertions to be unwarranted. I am really curious as to your rationale for including these passing mentions, beyond and independent of my opposition to them: what would they bring to the table?

I'm totally open to citing some passing mentions if you truly believe this is necessary, I just wish you would engage a bit with the argument for not doing so. Thank you for taking this into consideration, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"May I ask you to please ease up a bit with the WP:ASPERSIONS" : Don't know what you're talking about, if it's about ownership of this article, please note that the removal of sources that have been dubbed as being reliable by 3 other editors while you, you all and yourself think that they are not reliable for this topic qualifies as ownership of an article.

"So you believe that, even when the two most thorough studies on Jabir's biography (Kraus 1942–1943, vol. I, p. xli, note 1; Delva 2017, p. 36) are stating that it is fundamentally unclear whether Jabir was Arab or Persian (or indeed, of yet a different background), it will be a breach of WP:NPOV not to cite and fully quote a number of sources who have never investigated the medieval biographical literature on Jabir, but do straightforwardly call him "the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan" : this proves that you blindly reverted me without even taking the time to check what i did ... where exactly did i fully quote" those sources ? i did not change a single word in the article, all i did was to add back some sources that, again, have been dubbed as being reliable, your blind revert was therefore totally irrelevant.

"I believe that fails both the "proportionately" and "significant" clauses in the WP:NPOV policy you cited, per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, respectively. As such, I honestly believe that citing and quoting those sources would breach WP:NPOV." : once more, you're mistaken because you did not check my edit carefully, there is nothing undue in adding some sources without changing a single word in the article ... please take the time to check what people do before reverting to your favorite version next time, that would spare us some precious time ...

"Furthermore, what purpose would it serve to cite those passing mentions? For our readers to be able to reassure themselves that such-and-such a great scholar called Jabir "Arab", or "Persian"? My concern is that this would be misleading, since we are actually saying that those who have investigated the question believe such firm assertions to be unwarranted. I am really curious as to your rationale for including these passing mentions, beyond and independent of my opposition to them: what would they bring to the table?" : do i really need to address these concerns of yours, given what i said just above ? Which part of my edit is "misleading" ? adding 4 sources to an article without changing a single word of it is misleading according to you ?

"I'm totally open to citing some passing mentions if you truly believe this is necessary, I just wish you would engage a bit with the argument for not doing so. Thank you for taking this into consideration" : i think that i already took way too much time about this. Also, i think that a self revert would be quite legit.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just take a look at your edit for yourself. Are those or are those not full quotes? Yes, they're in the footnotes (a fact of which I was fully aware, thank you very much), and I understand how my quibbling about them may come over as WP:OWN (your point about this is well taken), but it is you who is not looking at the content, and who is blindly demanding a self-revert based on accusations of misbehavior, without any discussion of the content at all. In the face of this, I preserve the right to demand that you discuss the actual edits, since that is what we are supposed to do. I added some references to scholars (including also Holmyard, Sarton and Newman) who took more definite views, with full bibliographical citation but without undue quotes. Does that look OK to you? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Just take a look at your edit for yourself. Are those or are those not full quotes?" : No, they're not, the footnotes were not in the main article's space, i.e. what our readers can read without clicking on the sources (personally, i don't click on the sources when i read a Wikipedia article, but i can check the sources if i want to edit the article)

"but it is you who is not looking at the content, and who is blindly demanding a self-revert based on accusations of misbehavior, without any discussion of the content at all. In the face of this, I preserve the right to demand that you discuss the actual edits, since that is what we are supposed to do." : you gotta be kidding me, right ? without any discussion ? what are we doing here then ?

"I added some references to scholars (including also Holmyard, Sarton and Newman) who took more definite views, with full bibliographical citation but without undue quotes. Does that look OK to you?" : No, it's not ok, that paragraph in itself is good, but it should be added in the main body of the article, not only in the footnotes.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

First you argue that your edit was not putting undue weight on passing mentions because they were only cited in the footnotes (a valid point so far as it goes), but then my compromise edit is not OK because it should actually be added to the main body of the article? That seems just wrongheaded. Unless there's an actual argument you want to engage with, I think this should be fine. Kind regards, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edit is not a compromise, our readers will probably miss those sources' view, as they are included in one source (the number 21), that is a breach of WP:NPOV. For your information, giving footnotes (and page numbers) is a good practice on Wikipedia, this is why it would be better to keep the footnotes in the article : [10] : "On Wikipedia, an inline citation is generally a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion.". You need to comply with our guidelines.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything that is said in the main body (a paraphrase of Delva 2017, p. 36) is directly supported by that one footnote, which immediately refers to Delva 2017, p. 36. Everything that is in the footnote, in turn, is directly supported by harvnb references. This is as in compliance with guidelines as it gets, and I would remind you that "it is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause" (WP:ASPERSIONS).

Readers who don't read footnotes (but know that many do, and that they can be shown by simply hovering over them with the mouse) would have missed everything in your edit too, so don't be moving the goalposts now.

As the article stands, we are addressing, explaining, and sourcing the uncertainty over his ethnicity in the main text, while thanks to your intervention readers who are really interested in this question will find more detailed information in the footnote. I think that on reflection, you'll find that this is perfectly fine as it is. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Everything that is said in the main body (a paraphrase of Delva 2017, p. 36) is directly supported by that one footnote, which immediately refers to Delva 2017, p. 36. Everything that is in the footnote, in turn, is directly supported by harvnb references. This is as in compliance with guidelines as it gets, and I would remind you that "it is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause" (WP:ASPERSIONS)" : not gonna comment this, as it sounds to me like you play repeatedly the victim card.

"As the article stands, we are addressing, explaining, and sourcing the uncertainty over his ethnicity in the main text, while thanks to your intervention readers who are really interested in this question will find more detailed information in the footnote. I think that on reflection, you'll find that this is perfectly fine as it is." : that's the problem, as it stands, only theviews of Delva and Kraus, who think that there is an uncertainty about Jabir ibn Hayyan's ethnicity are represented while we have at least 3 views about this :

* those who think that he was an arab

* those who think that he was a Persian

* those who think that there is an uncertainty about his ethnicity.

I see no legit reason to only represent the latters.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You know what is sometimes said of justice, that it does not consist in treating all things equally, but rather in treating equal things as equal, and unequal things as unequal? Something very similar applies to maintaining a neutral point of view: it is not about treating all published views equally, but about treating equal views as equal and unequal views as unequal. This is what the "proportionately" in the first line of WP:NPOV stands for. Now what is crucial to see is that all published views being equal is very far from being the 'standard mode', so to speak. In fact, it is a very rare thing indeed that fundamentally different views exist, and that they all carry the same scholarly weight. So it's very important not to assume this kind of equality, but rather to investigate which scholarly views actually do weigh more heavily into the balance, and which less.

Having read the scholarly literature, as I will admit I have done, helps with this, but there are a few basic things that everyone with some access to the sources (many of them are online these days) can check. One of the crucial things in the question of Jabir's ethnicity is to differentiate between sources that actually investigated and discussed the question to some length, and those sources which just mentioned his ethnicity in the passing. The latter are significant only in so far as they may tell us something about the impact of the former type of sources. Sources of the former type are limited really to Ruska 1923, Holmyard 1927, Kraus 1942–1943, and Delva 2017 (if you know of another one, please do mention it).

Ruska and Holmyard were taking opposite positions (as they were wont to do), Ruska 1923 arguing that Jabir was Persian and Holmyard 1927 that he was Arab. This was all in the context of the scholarly debate of the 1920s, in which Jabir was still assumed to be a real historical figure, and in which neither the Jabirian texts, nor the medieval bio-bibliographical literature on Jabir had yet been properly investigated. This arduous task was left to Kraus 1942–1943, who is widely acknowledged as the single most authoritative source (Nomanul Haq 1994, p. 8: "we can hardly turn to a scholar more erudite in this field than Paul Kraus whose monumental study of 1942-43 was a major breakthrough in Jabirian studies"; Newman 1996, p. 178: "the brilliant work of Paul Kraus in the 1940s"; Delva 2017, p. 41: "Paul Kraus in his monumental studies"). Kraus took the considered view that Jabir's ethnicity was fundamentally uncertain, a position which was reaffirmed by Delva 2017, who independently re-investigated the entire issue of Jabir's historicity.

Now while Holmyard's and (especially) Ruska's views do find some echoes in the passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity in later sources (e.g. Newman 1996, Forster 2018), what you will find far more often is that his ethnicity is not mentioned at all: e.g., major works of Jabirian scholarship such as Sezgin 1971, Lory 1989, or Nomanul Haq 1994, and major encyclopedic entries such as Plessner 1981, say nothing at all about Jabir's ethnicity. This fact is probably best understood as reflecting the general uncertainty of anything relating to Jabir's biography, as demonstrated by Kraus: if his ethnicity is fundamentally uncertain, it is highly impractical ('the Muslim alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan, who may have been Arab, or Persian, or Turkic, or Bactrian, or ..." ), and frankly rather irrelevant, to mention it (you may often find this type of thing on Wikipedia, but that's another story). Of course, assessing this kind of impact in passing mentions, or lack thereof, will always be somewhat speculative. If we restrict ourselves to the sources that investigated the question, however, it is fair to say that Ruska's and Holmyard's views from the 1920s were generally superseded by the work of Kraus, and that Kraus' view in this particular case carries all the more weight, since it was reaffirmed by Delva's recent study.

If it may then be considered established that these views carry unequal weight, we should find some way to represent them fairly and proportionately. I think this is accomplished nicely by presenting Kraus' authoritative view in the main text, and mentioning the older views of Ruska and Holmyard (along with their later echoes) in the footnote. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 03:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the wall of text, but where exactly did i say that we should "treat all things equally" ? I said that I see no legit reason to only represent the sources that support an uncertainty about Jabir's ethnic background and all i did was to quote 4 sources in the footnotes.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your concerns. As far as I see, all three views are represented in the article, though certainly not with the same weight. If you would consider some views not to be represented in the article because they are in the footnotes, then I would say that they are not represented in the article because that would be granting them undue weight. However I look at it, it appears to me to be about assigning WP:DUE weight. If this is not what this is about, then what is your concern? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing WP:UNDUE with this edit of mines in my humble opinion. I'm sorry to say so, but once again, while WP:RSN judged the sources i tried to add back as reliable (thus legit for inclusion), you decide unilaterally that this would be irrelevant, that sounds like a WP:OWN case to me, i will wait for the dispute resolution noticeboard's opinion and will indeed accept what will be said there.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me then also briefly state how I see it: my concern is that there was something WP:UNDUE about your edit, but up until now you have completely refused to discuss that concern. You appear to believe that it is not necessary to discuss this concern, because per WP:OWN, I should not have reverted your edit, and should not be so adamant about (what may be perceived as) minor concerns in the first place. I, from my part, believe that although WP:OWN certainly is something I should watch out for, this policy should never be invoked to justify not engaging with a legitimate and duly argued concern. I too will abide by the dispute resolution process, and in the mean time, thank you for taking that initiative. Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's wrong, i did not refuse to discuss the matter with you, if you were right, then what are we doing here ? My point is that the sources are reliable, even for this article, thus, legit for inclusion at least with inline citation in the footnotes, nothing less, nothing more. So far, you're the only editor who says that these sources are unreliable here and reverse their inclusion like you did, this behavior sounds like WP:OWN to me. Even if you have concerns about their inclusion, since WP:RSN dubbed them as reliable, your concerns are therefore addressed and you should not stand against their inclusion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Al-Azd is an Arab tribe. As for Khorasan, the place of birth will not change the ethnicity in any case. Jabir bin Hayyan was born in Khorasan from an Arab tribe and later moved to Kufa and was not primarily Persian or Perisan speaking. As for wali, there is no relationship and there is no such thing as "wali" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6077026/ Historicalxz (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)