Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Father of (early) chemistry

As far as I can see, over the last few years several editors of this article have opposed referring to Jabir by a sweeping characterization such as "the father of (early) chemistry": Dbachmann ([1]), OclandEagle ([2]), and Dialectric ([3]). In each case, Wikaviani was the only one to insist that the characterization should be included ([4], [5]), at which point the others gave in.

As far as I'm concerned, the argument is this: none of the top-tier encyclopedic sources on Jabir (Kraus & Plessner 1960–2007 (EI2); Forster 2018 (EI3); Plessner 1981 (DSB); Lory 2008a (NDSB)), nor any of the major works of Jabirian scholarship (Kraus 1942–1943, Corbin 1950, Sezgin 1971, Lory 1989, Nomanul Haq 1994, Gannagé 1998) uses this title to characterize Jabir. The title is indeed widely used on popular websites, and appears here and there in reliable sources who are briefly referring to Jabir, but never in the most prominent scholarly sources. What Wikipedia should reflect is the latter, not the former. Also, the title is a form of puffery, and in such cases it is much better to factually describe (as we indeed do) a subject's actual accomplishments (oldest classification of chemical substances, first chemical synthesis, pioneer in organic chemistry, etc.).

I'll go with whatever receives consensus, but I would like to hear others on this. Hu741f4, William M. Connolley, you recently changed the article with regard to the title, what are your thoughts? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Members of the WikiProjects History of science, Chemistry, and Biography have been notified of this discussion. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially given that the article says "It is not clear whether Jabir ibn Hayyan ever existed as a historical person" I would say "no". Clearly the ideas and the surviving texts were important to the development of chemistry as a discipline but characterisation as "father" doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, when i look at Hippocrates, a featured article, i see He is often referred to as the "Father of Medicine" while the lead states next that the achievements of the writers of the Corpus, the practitioners of Hippocratic medicine, and the actions of Hippocrates himself were often conflated; thus very little is known about what Hippocrates actually thought, wrote, and did.. So, while there is little known about Hippocrates, he is still referred to as the father of Medecine (with a source that is less prominent that the one used to claim that Jabir ibn Hayyan was the father of early chemistry).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The comparison with Hippocrates is a good one. While there are some subtle differences (Hippocrates is much more popular, and the writings attributed to him do rank among the oldest medical texts in existence), the two figures are comparable in many respects, including being called the father of their discipline by many popular sources. However, the fact that when it comes to the "father of medicine" title, our Hippocrates article should cite sources like Microsoft Encarta or Leff & Leff 1956, From Witchcraft to World Health (published by Camelot Press Ltd.) speaks volumes. Featured article or not, it would be greatly improved by leaving out the title (as well as meaningless phrases such as "one of the most outstanding figures", "lasting contributions to the field", etc.) from the lead and instead saying a little bit more about the actual historical developments and innovations (the first systematic use of prognosis and clinical observation, humoural theory, etc.). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I did some more research with regard to Hippocrates, and it appears that in his case, top-tier Hippocratic scholars such as Jacques Jouanna, Helen King, and Wesley D. Smith do refer to Hippocrates as the "father of medicine" (I also updated the article). However, this is clearly because it is traditional to do so, and when it comes down to evaluating the title, an expert scholar like Jouanna writes the following: Hippocrates was neither the Father of Medicine nor the founder of the Coan school, but he did manage to confer an exceptionally lustrous reputation upon this school through his teaching. (Jouanna, Jacques 1999. Hippocrates. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 42). Nevertheless, it is clearly due to cite the title in the Hippocrates article, because if expert scholars choose to retain a traditional but antiquated title (no doubt a relic of 19th-century scholarship), we should do so too. The case of Jabir, on the other hand, is very different, since there is no tradition to mention such a title in the scholarly literature about Jabir at all, and it is only found in popular sources, which are doubtlessly trying to puff up Jabir's reputation by giving him the same 19th-century treatment as Hippocrates. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: WP:ONUS, which you cited in your edit summary, reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I don't understand how that policy applies to your edit, since if anything, it would demand that you achieve consensus for including the disputed "father of (early) chemistry" title? But let's just discuss the matter. Since WP:BURDEN, another part of our verifiability policy, also specifies that the burden to provide adequate sourcing for disputed content is on those who wish to include it, it would be helpful if you were more specific about which sources exactly you are thinking of when calling the title "well-sourced". None of the sources now cited in the article refer to Jabir as the "father of (early) chemistry", and as far as I know, no prominent scholarly source does. Finally, though it would be good to know which sources we are talking about, remember that reliable sourcing is not the only concern: per the very same WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the other issues that have been identified above (due weight and puffery) need to be addressed too. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you, especially given this kind of edit of yours that qualifies of bullies a DRN notification and an advice from a veteran user ... WP:ONUS means that the long standing version should remain unless there is a consensus for changing it, i would wait for other editors' opinion, but if you really don't want to leave that "father of early chemistry" in the article, go ahead and remove it, even if in my opinion, that would make the article less instructive for our readers. We're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to those who might be interested: there actually is a conduct policy (WP:NOCONSENSUS) which says that regardless whether the proposal is to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. But this conduct policy tends to be contradicted by the content policy WP:ONUS, which says that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content in an article, and more generally that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, which also means that something like the often-seen "removal of sourced content" is not in and by itself a sufficient reason to revert an edit. Whole talk pages have been filled with discussions about how to resolve the seeming contradiction between those two policies (see, e.g., here), but what it comes down to is that while conduct policy (WP:NOCONSENSUS) demands that consensus should be sought for any type of change, content policy (WP:ONUS) prescribes that inclusion of article content should be based on more than verifiability in reliable sources alone. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The correct and suitable phrase should be "sometimes referred to as the father of early chemistry". Hu741f4 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Jabir ibn Hayyan, Born: 721 AD, Tous, Iran (moved from user talk page)

Jabir ibn Hayyan, Born: 721 AD, Tous, Iran. خردمندان (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi خردمندان! I've moved this from my user talk page to the article talk page. Please post here when you want to discuss article content.

The 721 date of birth is based on a hypothesis put forward by Holmyard 1927, which is of course quite outdated: it was always considered doubtful by other scholars (who often only gave the death date, as 815 AD), and it has recently been shown to be highly unlikely by Delva 2017.

As for his origin in Tus: that too is a hypothetical, based on the fact that his nisba is sometimes given as al-Ṭūsī and that Ibn al-Nadim stated that he hailed from Khurasan. However, because this is all very uncertain, the most prominent and reliable sources never state that Jabir was born in Tus in such a straightforward way. Because it is our task to follow these sources, we should not be doing that either. I hope you understand, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay we can write his birth place in general Khorasan, Iran. We have a Source! In the other hand there is not any doubt, supposition or source that he was born in another place. There is not any source that say some thing different or reject that. --خردمندان (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How many famous person in history has more information about "place of birth" more than him! --خردمندان (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Source: Britannica — Preceding unsigned comment added by خردمندان (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That Encyclopædia Britannica article was written by William R. Newman, who is a truly great scholar, but does not know Arabic and is not by any means a subject specialist on Jabir. From WP:BRITANNICA: Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. And such sources are abundantly available here: just take a look at our bibliography.

When one looks at these reliable secondary sources, one will soon find that none of them state that Jabir was born in Khurasan. We only have Ibn al-Nadim (a primary source) saying that, but we cannot base evaluative statements on primary sources. Ibn al-Nadim wrote almost 200 years after Jabir supposedly lived. For this reason, scholars do not regard the information on Jabir given by Ibn al-Nadim as very reliable, and while they of course often report Ibn al-Nadim's view (like we also do in the main body of our article, with context), they never take it to be a fact. Delva 2017 p. 38 note 16 refers to Ruska, Ullmann 1972 p. 201, and Lory 1989 pp. 15–17 as all confirming that Ibn al-Nadim's account and the biographical tradition based on it is unreliable. The scholarly view is that we just don't know where he was born, if he ever lived at all (which actually is rather doubtful according to most scholars, Sezgin 1971 and Nomanul Haq 1994 being notable exceptions; this is explicitly covered by Delva 2017 and Forster 2018). In such a case, it is misleading to give a birth place in the infobox.

Just to give a taste of how uncertain these things are: Forster 2018, who actually writes in the Encyclopedia of Islam (a much more reliable tertiary source than Britannica, and the standard reference work for anything Islam-related), has Probably born in Kufa, Jābir seems to have been of Arab descent. Now this is a fluke, not supported by the most prominent secondary sources on this subject (Kraus 1942–1943, Sezgin 1971, Lory 1983 & 1989, Nomanul Haq 1994, Delva 2017) and caused by Forster's too strong reliance on Holmyard 1927. But putting 'Kufa' as a birth place in the infobox would be just as undue as putting in Tus, since the prominent sources I've just mentioned do not affirm either of those two, and some explicitly say it is fundamentally uncertain. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"William R. Newman does not know Arabic and is not by any means a subject specialist on Jabir." And how is specialist on Jabir?! And this sources you mentioned are more more reliable sourc?! --خردمندان (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You can not change history! Jabir ibn Hayyan was borned in Tous, Iran. --خردمندان (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The subject specialists I've mentioned are all Arabists who have studied both the Arabic texts attributed to Jabir and the Arabic biographical literature with respect to Jabir (Ibn al-Nadim, etc.). I'm sorry that these experts do not say the same thing as you've learned elsewhere. This happens quite a lot, actually, which is natural when what's everywhere on the internet contradicts the expert literature. Take it from the bright side: now you know that you really shouldn't trust Google . ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see any reliable source from you. You just use the literature instead of History knowledge! --خردمندان (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Holmyard, E.J. (16 May 1923), "Jabir ibn Hayyan", Section of the History of Medicine, p. 47 – via SAGE Publications
This says" "it would appear reasonable to place Jabir's birth somewhere about the years 730-735 and his death some eighty years later; it must, however, be definitely stated that these dates are only conjectural. All that we can be certain of is that he flourished during the latter half of the eight century". "Jabir is variously described as 'of Tus,' 'of Tartus,' 'of Kufa,' 'of Khorasan,' and also as a Sabaean (of Harran). No information as to his birthplace is to be found in his writings." "Practically all the authorities agree in stating that he lived at Kufa for at least part of his life." -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Toddy1! I guess this is helpful in so far as it establishes that uncertainty about his birth place (and date) was already the norm in 1923. However, please note that this is 4 years before Holmyard (1927) proposed the more definite 721 CE birth date based on the Hayyan al-Attar hypothesis (since again discredited), and 20 years before Kraus 1942–1943 definitely showed that there's no earlier biographical information than the one provided by Ibn al-Nadim (c. 932–995), that most of the extant texts attributed to Jabir date from c. 850–950, and that we should take all the conflicting biographical claims about him with a serious grain of salt. These three assertions by Kraus have never been seriously challenged by any scholar since (even Sezgin 1971 & Nomanul Haq 1994 agree with Kraus this far). You may also want to know that the connection with the so-called 'Sabaeans' of Harran is an artefact of 19th-century scholarship that has long since been abandoned (on this, see especially Van Bladel 2009, pp. 64–118; we have an article on the subject but it's in such a bad state that you may want to prefer reading what I've written about this here). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abu-Musa-Jabir-ibn-Hayyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.70.60 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Though the plethora of prominent reliable sources I've mentioned above are almost without exception difficult to access, and though I understand that editors like to verify what is being said in sources they can access, it's probably worth mentioning here that the fact that sources are not available online or otherwise difficult to access does not in any way make them less reliable or carry less weight as compared to more accessible sources (like Britannica, or works that are in the public domain and thus freely accessible online): see WP:SOURCEACCESS, and Wikipedia:Offline sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's English article here about Jabir ibn Hayyan, and we must put english references. You don't accept Britannica and 1000 other references. You don't accept Ibn al-Nadim (c. 932–995). Just you look some anonymous author after 1971. Is it fair or scientific?! --77.119.223.155 (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of nūshādhir (sal ammoniac)

Hi Premitive! With regard to your question "is this what is being stated by the source?", Kraus 1942–1943, vol. II, p. 42 speaks about l'étymologie iranienne du mot nūšāḏir while Lory 2008b (here) speaks about Persian technical names (zaybaq = mercury, nošāder = sal-ammoniac). Ruska 1923a, p. 7 (here) discusses the persische, syrische und arabische Entwicklung of the word. He also quotes on p. 6 the view of Laufer, Berthold (1919). Sino-Iranica: Chinese Contributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran. Fieldiana, Anthropological series. Vol. 15. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. pp. 504–506. OCLC 1084859541., who thought that Persian našādir, nušādir, naušādir, naušādur, nōšādur were a later development and that there can be no doubt that it was a word of the Sogdian language (Kraus 1942–1943 also refers to both Ruska 1923a and Laufer 1919 in his footnote, so perhaps we should too).

In general, when I rewrote this article I used "Iranian" and "Persian" interchangeably, taking them to be more or less synonyms. Obviously in a more narrow etymological context they are not quite as synonymous as I presumed. Then again, the salient point here is that the word's Iranian/Persian background may connect Jabirian alchemy to the Sasanian medical schools of late antiquity, so whether the word ultimately derives from Persian or from some other Iranian language isn't the most relevant. Perhaps we should follow Kraus here, who may be using the word "iranienne" because of Laufer's suggestion of a Sogdian origin?

As for the use of "Iranian" or "Persian" in the rest of the article, I think both are fine, so I have no objection to the changes you made. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted my edit as the origin of the word seems to be disputed between sources (Persian or Sogdian) and Iranian is an umbrella term that covers both. Usage of Persian and Iranian interchangeably should be avoided as they are not equivalent whether it to be for ethnicity or for language. Regarding replacing mentions of "Iranian" that refer to ethnicity with "Persian": Delva, as I remember, had a clear distinction for the usage of Iranian and Persian but still uses "Persian" for possible ethnicity of Jabir just like other sources. Thanks for answering my question.Premitive (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Jabir as a Mandaean: questionable sources

@Mcvti: Hi. In your edit summary you claimed that those two sources are reliable. How so? can you explain? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mcvti: scholars are generally agreed that the author(s) of the Jabir corpus adhered to some kind of Shi'ism. Kraus 1930 was the first to put forward the hypothesis that they were (Qarmatian) Isma'ilis. Corbin 1950 criticized some parts of this thesis, arguing that in certain respects the Jabir authors differed from the Isma'ilis. In general, however, both Corbin and other scholars adopted Kraus' view as authoritative. This lasted until Lory 1989 made a dedicated study of Jabirian Shi'ism, and concluded that the Jabir authors were probably not Isma'ilis, but represented some other form of early Shi'ism closely related to it. Lory suggested that perhaps they even formed a Shi'ite sect of their own. This was taken up by Capezzone 2020, who argued that the Jabir authors formed an independent Shi'ite sect of the type that later Twelver Shi'ites would call ghulat. (Everything I write here is summarized by Capezzone 2020, which conveniently is available in open access.)

Now none of these expert scholars ever even mention the word "Mandaean". Whoever writes that Jabir was Mandaean either is unaware of the overwhelming scholarly consensus that his writings point to a form of Shi'ism, or is taking an extreme minority position that consciously tries to refute the majority view. As for the Askary 2013 source you cite, it is clearly a case of the former: Askary is simply ignorant of the scholarly view on this subject, and makes no argument against it at all. Furthermore, being published in the political weekly magazine Executive Intelligence Review, Askary 2013 is not a reliable source in this context. I'm curious though about Essa & Ali 2010: the preview doesn't show the page (95) you cite. The source itself (the publisher, etc.) looks like it's reliable, but we would still need to know whether Essa & Ali 2010 are not making the same mistake as Askary 2013, i.e. of just being ignorant about the proper scholarly view. If they are aware of the majority position that the Jabir writings are Shi'ite in nature and have a primary source-based argument against that view, it would certainly be interesting to include in the article as a minority position. I will admit I'm kind of skeptical about this though. Could you quote the relevant part of Essa & Ali 2010, p. 95 here on this talk page?

*Capezzone, Leonardo (2020). "The Solitude of the Orphan: Ǧābir b. Ḥayyān and the Shiite Heterodox Milieu of the Third/Ninth–Fourth/Tenth Centuries". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 83 (1): 51–73. doi:10.1017/S0041977X20000014. S2CID 214044897.

*Corbin, Henry (1950). "Le livre du Glorieux de Jâbir ibn Hayyân". Eranos-Jahrbuch. 18: 48–114.

*Kraus, Paul (1930). "Dschābir ibn Ḥajjān und die Ismāʿīlijja". In Ruska, Julius (ed.). Dritter Jahresbericht des Forschungsinstituts für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften. Mit einer Wissenschaftlichen Beilage: Der Zusammenbruch der Dschābir-Legende. Berlin: Springer. pp. 23–42. OCLC 913815541.

*Lory, Pierre (1989). Alchimie et mystique en terre d'Islam. Lagrasse: Verdier. ISBN 9782864320913.

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please remember that sources generally use Sabian rather than Mandaean. Sometimes even incorrectly spell it as Sabaean or Sabean. Mcvti (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to answer? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the link [6] Mcvti (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"The name that stands out in this period is that of Jabir ibn Hayyan. Though a Sabian, he was part of the Muslim world as well as the Muslim community of scholars and scientists in Baghdad." Mcvti (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the expert (truly secondary in the sense they investigated the primary sources on this subject) sources cited above don't mention the words "Sabian" or "Sabaean"/"Sabean" either . Barthélemy d'Herbelot (1625–1695!) in his Bibliothèque Orientale, p.360 (referred to by Holmyard 1923, p. 47) conjectured that Jabir was a Harranian Sabian (who, as you probably know, have nothing to do with the Mandaean Sabians), but this connection between 'Hermetic' authors such as Jabir and the Sabians of Harran has long since been abandoned by Jabir scholars. The more general connection between Arabic Hermeticism and the Sabians of Harran was thoroughly refuted by Van Bladel 2009, pp. 64–118.

I imagine that this lies at the basis of Askary 2013's mistake: having read somewhere that Jabir was a 'Sabian' (I believe that the often unreliable Seyyed Hossein Nasr repeats this in one of his books, and the same extremely outdated nonsense is also still found in the New Encyclopedia of Islam: "not a Muslim, but a Harranian from the community of the Harranian "Sabians" of North Syria"), he probably took that to mean 'Mandaean'. As is clear from your link and quote (thank you for that), Essa & Ali 2010 also just assume he was a 'Sabian', and are completely unaware of the actual scholarly view that he was Shi'ite, which they neither mention nor argue against. That's not even a minority position per WP:DUE, and so should not be included in the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Btw, Apaugasma - how come you find the second source reliable? As far as I can see, neither the book nor its authors (who appear quite obscure) appear to be cited by any WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, two sources (there may be others which I have to look through) claiming he was a Sabian at least warrants a minority view. Mandaeans are known to have lived in Harran with Hermeticists. Many scholars from Harran have the epithet Al-Harrani Al-Sabi such as Thabit ibn Qurra who was a Sabian-Mandaean, not a pagan. I agree, however, that Mandaeans are accused of being pagan star worshippers from Harran, often confused with being Hermeticists who falsely dubbed themseleves as Harranian Sabians to avoid persecution. The Mandaeans were the real Sabians of Harran and many intelectuals from the scientific field were Sabian-Mandaeans. Van Bladel believes the Mandaeans did not exist before the 5th Century which is clearly incorrect since Mandaean lead amulets were discovered dating from as early as the 3rd Century. Scholars of Mandaeism have criticized Van Bladels book 'From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes'. Mcvti (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As you have already been told, the first source is far from WP:RS, as it is from a political weekly magazine. That leaves us with one source (whose reliability is also questionable) that makes a passing mention of Jabir being Mandean/Sabian, not even making a single mention of the vast majority of WP:RS regarding his Shia background. In what world does that constitute a minority view? --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The world in which Apaugasma mentioned several scholars that considered Jabir ibn Hayyan to be a Harranian Sabian but refuted by Van Bladel. Van Bladel himself has been refuted. Apaugasma has described Mandaeism as the late antique religion. Sabian-Mandaeism is very much still alive and I invite them to take a look at Mandaeism and Mandaeans. The sources I have provided along with the ones Apaugasma gave showing Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Sabian or Harranian Sabian/Mandaean should not be dismissed because Van Bladel doesn't agree with them. Scholars don't agree on many aspects of Van Bladel's view on the Mandaeans. Mcvti (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: well, the publisher (International Institute of Islamic Thought) didn't look too bad, and in the pdf of the abridged version provided by the Institute's website, the series "Studies in Islamic Civilization" in which the book appeared is commended by John Esposito, while the book itself is praised by Charles E. Butterworth (admittedly both on the backcover, but these are some weighty names).

It's actually my experience that even the best scholars make mistakes like this from time to time, and that a whole book or author should not be judged on one error. On the other hand, and this is probably more important, it's a strong reminder that a source being (semi-)RS does not in any way mean that everything contained in it is even remotely accurate. One should always look at the broader literature, and especially to what sources the source itself is citing. If it's not citing anything, it's not actually a secondary source for that claim. If it's only citing a secondary source, it's better to look at that secondary source itself. But especially when nothing is cited, chances are that it's not correct: this may sound surprising, but it's really not when you consider that if the author doesn't cite a source, it's sometimes because he or she didn't check a source. No one is perfect, and writing from memory simply will lead to errors, sooner or later. I think that's what happened here.

@Mcvti: what you write about the Sabians of Harran being Mandaeans and vice versa flies in the face of all established scholarship on this subject. You are severly mistaken. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and please just start by reading a reliable source like Van Bladel 2009. Apart from that, if you truly believe that Van Bladel's widely respected views are refuted, you should mention which reliable sources have done so. Even more to the point on this talk page, you should mention a reliable source that is aware of the majority view on Jabir being Shi'ite and explicitly argues that he was Mandaean. We can't just jump from a clearly uninformed source saying 'Sabian', simply by way of OR, to 'Mandaean'. If there's no RS speaking in an appropriately informed context, we should all go do something else. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the Harranian Sabians are only Mandaeans. The community of people who called themselves Sabians in Harran included Mandaeans as well as Hermeticists (Hermeticists used the term Sabian to gain acceptance as People of the Book). Van Bladel's book From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes has been criticized, one example is here and also JJ Buckley [7] dating Mandaean amulets from the 3rd Century which Van Bladel does not consider in his book. If we consider that Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Shia and take that as the majority view, why cant sources you yourself mentioned be considered a minority view? It has been argued that Mandaeans lived in Edessa and Harran during the Abbasid Caliphate and were scholars famed in the sciences such as astronomy, mathematics, physics etc. as well as translaters from Greek to Arabic and Aramaic similar to Hermeticists. It takes an extremely skilled scholar to distinguish between Harranian Hermeticists from Harranian Mandaeans since they are reported to even wear similar clothing in Harran. However this is not our argument here, but we are trying to determine if Jabir may have been a Sabian from Harran. I believe our combined sources establish at least a minority view about Jabir being a Sabian and the sources showing he was a Shia and also Van Bladel's analysis should also be included of course. In other words, all the sources showing all points of view should be included as long as they are reliable sources. Mandaeism is very much still alive and you can easily find sources to confirm that if you wish. Mcvti (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Van Bladel 2009 conclusively demonstrates that there is no evidence for the long-speculated-upon relations between the Sabians of Harran and Hermeticism. The fact that Van Bladel 2017's thesis on the 5th-century Sassanid origins of Mandaeism has been criticized has nothing to do with that at all: it's a completely different thesis on a completely different subject, only by the same scholar. Yet you keep on confusing Mandaean Sabians (who lived in the marchlands of sourthern Iraq and practiced a Jewish Christian 'Gnostic' religion) with Harranian Sabians (who lived in northern Syria and practised a pagan syncretic Hellenistic religion) with Hermeticists (who had nothing to with either of the former two, all per Van Bladel 2009). Again, please read the sources you are citing. Did you notice that the long review of Van Bladel 2017 you cited does not even mention the word "Harran"? That's because Mandaeans have nothing to with the 'Sabian' religion of Harran. It's with this latter, pagan religion (in which Hermes was worshipped as one of the main gods) that some scholars connected Jabir (because of Jabir's own connections with Hermeticism), though Holmyard 1923 is the most recent expert source who even still mentions this.

But let's go back to some basic Wikipedia: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source and a secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources (WP:SECONDARY). What source have we that provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources that says Jabir was "Mandaean"? None. What source of such a kind that says he was "Sabian"? None. Barthélemy d'Herbelot is 17th-century, and all sources which have been regurgitating d'Herbelot's outdated conjectures about Jabir being a Harranian pagan Hermeticist have not been doing their own thinking based on primary sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that I am repeating myself. Basing your argument on Van Bladel only and dismissing all other scholars is not a NPOV. The Mandaeans as I have stated lived in Harran and Edessa and Mosul as well as the marshes. They are also known as Harranian Sabians by historians. In fact an important religious scripture they have is also called the Haran Gawaita. They are Harranian Sabians just as much as the pseud-Sabian Heremeticists. This is a fact that you refuse to accept. Wikipedia doesn't care what you or I think. It is what reliable sources state and there a few that state that Jabir was a Sabian. Askary states Mandaean and not Hermeticist as I am sure he would differentiate between the two, since one follows John the Baptist and the other Hermes. Mcvti (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources for section on chemical discoveries

The source [8] used here is not a reliable source. It's published on the website of Northern Kentucky University, but it does not itself cite any source apart from http://www.learn-persian.com/english/Hayyan_Jabir.php, which very obviously is not reliable. We need true secondary sources here, which make an argument based upon the primary evidence (the existence of such a secondary source for any claim made in articles is in fact required by policy, see WP:PSTS). If it can't tell you in which medieval Arabic texts a supposed discovery is described, it's not properly a secondary source for that discovery.

At first glance, part of the Northern Kentucky University post seems to go back on the work of Ahmad Y. al-Hassan (published in 2009 by Georg Olms Verlag, see the bibliography, but also available online). However, on the one hand al-Hassan's work is itself fringe and not accepted by other scholars (see, e.g., the negative reviews [9] [10]; this was already addressed by several editors in this 2010 thread), and on the other hand the Northern Kentucky University post contains some things which even al-Hassan wouldn't claim. Some of these claims, such as that Jabir discovered hydrochloric acid or that Abu Bakr al-Razi discovered ethanol (absent, e.g., from al-Hassan's article on the subject) seem to go back on much older 19th-century sources which still regarded both the Latin pseudo-Geber and all Latin al-Razi works as authentic, a view that has long since been abandoned by scholars (for pseudo-Geber, see the work of Newman 1986 and 1991 as cited in our article; for the inauthenticity of the Latin al-Razi works, see Ruska 1939, Moureau 2020, and the long thread here, where we dug out the 19th-century origin of some of these claims).

Reliable sources that should be used to write a section on Jabir's chemical discoveries (all cited in our bibliography) are Stapleton 1905, Ruska 1923a, Stapleton, Azo & Hidayat Husain 1927, Ruska 1928, Ruska & Garbers 1939, and El-eswed 2006. Do not use the works of Holmyard, which start from the now rejected presumption that the Latin pseudo-Geber works are authentic. Others reliable sources not directly on Jabir but providing useful background information are Karpenko & Norris 2002 and Multhauf, Robert P. (1966). The Origins of Chemistry. London: Oldbourne. ISBN 9782881245947. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Aqua regia

Hi, how do we know if something is a secondary source or not. I know how to cite a source but how to obtain a secondary source I need help in. Thanks. Dane Khan (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dane Khan: a secondary source is a source that directly bases its claims upon an analysis and evaluation of other sources, called in this context primary sources. And underlying assumption in the use of these terms is that the secondary source is produced by someone who is trusted and authorized, like a scholar or scientist, while the information in the primary source is not to be taken on face value and needs evaluation by an expert, like for example medieval texts. Such secondary sources written by experts are commonly found in academic journals and scholarly monographs. They can be recognized by the fact that they cite primary sources to support their claims.

For example, this paper by Ahmad Y. al-Hassan starts out by quoting a passage from Jabir ibn Hayyan's Kitāb Ikhrāj mā fī al-quwwa ilā al-fiʿl, citing the 1935 edition of that medieval text by Paul Kraus (citation no. 4). Al-Hassan's claim that Jabir knew about alcohol vapors is directly based upon that quote.

In the context of this article, I strongly recommend using the secondary sources I listed above. In contrast to al-Hassan 2009, these sources I listed are regularly cited and regarded as authoritative by other scholars. To get a good picture of the general background, I suggest starting with Multhauf 1966. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Antimony

It is stated here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_chemical_element_discoveries, that he discovered antimony, but that is not mentioned in this article. Dubious source? Then perhaps it shouldn't be claimed on the other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.53.15 (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that! This is one of the few pages dealing with the history of chemistry that I hadn't checked yet in my flurry of updates and corrections in February 2021. I have done so now. The claim about antimony is made by Sarton 1927–1948, vol. I, p. 532: We find in them [sc. the works attributed to Jabir] [...] preparation of various substances (e. g., basic lead carbonate; arsenic and antimony from their sulphides). Now Sarton can be a dodgy source because he is tertiary (he didn't investigate these things himself, but based his writings on the works of Ruska and Holmyard) and because he tends to take the 13th/14th-century pseudo-Geber writings as authentic (a position now abandoned by most scholars), but in this case he does seem to be referring to the Arabic works. Still, a passing mention like this (in a parenthetical!) isn't a great source to base such a sweeping claim on, and I wouldn't recommend using Sarton in this article. In any case the claim is merely that the Jabirian works contain a description of the isolation of metallic antimony, not necessarily that Jabir was the first to do so or that he discovered this. That in itself might bear mention in this article, provided a better source is used and that it is given broader context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Nationality in the infobox

Hi Aein7! With regard to setting a nationality parameter in the infobox, please note that according to the many reliable sources cited in Jabir ibn Hayyan#Biography Jabir's historical existence is uncertain, and that if he existed his origin and background is also uncertain. That's why instead of a 'nationality' parameter (which isn't ideal in the first place, since nationality is a modern phenomenon) we have a 'region' parameter: the historical sources do make a connection with both Kufa and Tus, so if not Jabir himself then at least the authors who wrote in his name may have been connected to these places.

In general, please keep in mind that what we write needs to be directly based on what reliable sources are saying, so that the content of our articles is verifiable. If you wish to argue about this, please be prepared to cite reliable sources that support your view. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If only I had half your patience, Apaugasma. But yes I second that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

He was arab not persian

The following sources confirm that he was an arab:

- the work of geber By Eric John Holmyard https://web.archive.org/web/20160310053227/https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=siLPmQew3AoC&pg=PR7&dq=Jabir+ibn+Hayyan+Azd&hl=ar&sa=X&ei=boFjUfjXA8LqswbG_IDoBA&redir_esc=y

- Kraus، P. (1962). "Djābir B. Ḥayyān". Encylopaedia of Islam (2nd Edition). Brill Academic Publishers.2. P. 357–359.

His name itself put his nisba to azd tribe of yemen !

The article try to deny it by making a citation that says “some people claimed arab nisba to convert to islam”, even if that was true it’s not an argument that can be used to assume that jabir was one of them with no evidence at all, at least add “it’s suggested that he was an arab” Ikhnatoun (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

He was neither Persian nor Arab; we don't even know if he was one person. Stop cherry picking stuff and actually read the article. This goes to both you and the people (such as the IP above) trying to claim him as Persian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

At least add a suggestion about his arab origin, obviously the sources i mentioned are reliable enough Ikhnatoun (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

At least read the article first. It is already mentioned that he was either Arab or Persian (that is if he is indeed one person). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Birth AD

Born 721-722 202.163.83.189 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)