Talk:Ibn al-Haytham

The text that was pasted in here on Dec 7 2003 by an anonymous user at 66.17.154.157 is lifted bodily from http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Haytham.html and looks very like a copyright violation. Have made an inquiry of the authors of the material. (That explains why so suddenly and annoyingly turned into ibn al-Haytham.) Dandrake 08:09, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

It was a violation. Checked with authors of the stolen material. Deleted. Dandrake 01:45, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Was he Persian, Arab, ...or BOTH?

1. The "Abbasid Caliph" was a ruler, of a dynasty, not a place. "Persia" was a place.
2. The Abbasid Caliph itself was itself almost entirely Persianized: "It is clear however, that Iranians not only dominated the bureacracy, but all branches of The Abbasid government". Richard Nelson Frye, Golden Age of Persia, p151. Even al-Mamun's mother was a Persian.
3. Do you have any proof that he was Arab? The name Basra itself is an originally Persian name. The entrie region was homeland of Persia until the Arab invasion. The Persian capital was in fact far inside today's Iraq. Basra was Persia.

My vote is that we say he was neither Arab, nor Persian, but simply lets say he was "a muslim".--Zereshk 15:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Basra is Arabic city which have pure Arabic name (حجارة رخوة إلى البياض ما هي وبها سميت البصرة Basra means soft white rocks)and it is well-know who founded Basra (The present city was founded in 636 as an encampment and garrison for the Arab tribesmen constituting the armies of amir `Umar ibn al-Khattab,).why don’t you say the Persian invasion because the native people of Iraq are Assyrian, Cheldan and Arab(Lakhmids , Almanathera)(اللخميين و المناذرة) and Iraq now is mixed country (like Iran).However it is considered as Arabic country like Iran is considered as Persian country. Also remember Persia is historically southern Iran and the region around Shiraz (شيراز). Aziz1005 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Was he Persian, Arab, ...or BOTH?

Zereshk,

First a history of Basra, 1) The city was founded by caliph Omar in 636 as a Military base on a canal that has since silted dry, a few miles south of the present city, where a tell still marks its site. The name Al-Basrah, which means in Arabic "the over watching" or "the seeing everything", was given to it because of its role as a Military base against the sassanid empire.

2) Coming back to Alhazan. Muslim scientists of non-Arabic origins were always extra mentioned in History Books. So relax! There are no mistakes about that. Alhazan was not a Persian. Here are also some resources.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Haytham.html http://www.answers.com/topic/alhazen http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579452/Alhazen.html http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=5788 http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Alhazen.html

4) Many of the Scientists mentioned in Iranian scientists are Arabs. I will agree by saying they were just "muslims", IF you agree that all other Persian scientists are JUST "Muslims" NOT Persians! Would you like that? ;-)

You're both right and wrong. If you believe that we've "Persianized" Arabian mathematicians/scientists other than Geber and Alhazen then please name them and prove otherwise (that they are Arabs), if not, then quite simply, your argument is unfounded. You're right in that even if you could argue that Alhazen was Iranian (e.g. Sassanid influence in Basra) it still would not mean that he was "Persian". I believe that there's more going in favour of Geber being a Persian than Alhazen. Alireza Hashemi 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

As for Basra, I will give the reply on the Basra page.

As for AlHazen,

Your Link 1 and Link 2 actually say he was from "Persia".

Link 3 and Link 4 I cannot access the full text to see conclusion.

I dont know why youre being so protective; is it so offending to you that he be both Arab and from Persia culturally? Astaghfurillah.--Zereshk 02:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Replay to Replay

Yes, I am actually offended. Why is it that when it comes to ethnic Arab Scientists, the “being Arab and Persian” thing is mentioned, which then is used as an excuse to put them in the Iranian scientists list, but when it comes to Persian Scientists which were born, raised and lived their whole life in an Arab environment , are considered as being “just Persian” ??

You hit the nail on the head! Shukran ya akhi --Inahet 06:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the latter?--Zereshk 06:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will give the reply on the corresponding articles. Just look for my name ;-).

From the modifications that you have done on only Geber, Alhazen, I can see that you are a patriotic Iranian, just like the references you use. In fact too patriotic to see the truth.

Yes. I am here to counter patriotic Pan-Arabs who are offended that Persians contributed to their culture and identity. It seems their racist attitude toward the "mawali" never really changed.--Zereshk 04:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Pan-Arab" is. I acknowledge, like most other Arabs, the Persian contribution to the Islamic civilisation, just like I acknowledge the Greek contribution which was alot greater than the persian, and the Indian. The Golden Era started only after Harun Al-Rashid have became the Caliph and ordered that all Greek Books in constintanople Library should be transleted to Arabic. "Write me a book, and I will give you the weight of it as Gold" was a famous statement from Harun.His legacy was continued by Al-mamun. You, with your very patriotic,racist and offensive statements like:"...almost 95% of the entire scientific establishment of Baghdad, all imported from Iran....The Abbasid Caliph itself was itself almost entirely Persianized...Baghdad was was an Iranian city" are the one with serious racist attiude. Zereshk,You have Persianized everything that can move or not move. And you seriously need to change your resources, if you want your articles to be Neutral.

1. My sources are from Harvard and Columbia. I have nothing to worry about.
2. The word "Persia" is not even mentioned on the Geber article, the word "Iran" is used only once in the entire Geber and Al Hazen articles, and you accuse me of "persianizing everything"? How fucked up is that?--Zereshk 17:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually didn't mean only Geber and Alhazen that were persianized, these are only the tip of the Eisberg. Anyway, I think we both agree that the Islamic civilization had produced many great scientists,regardless of race or religion, and had contributed alot to the Human Knowledge. We should join forces and show the western world that the Islamic Civilization is not to be underestimated. And when it comes to questions regarding ethnicity, I am sure we can resolve this.I end this with a quote from Al-Kindi:

We ought not to be embarrassed of appreciating the truth and of obtaining it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distant and nations different from us. Nothing should be dearer to the seeker of truth than the truth itself, and there is no deterioration of the truth, nor belittling either of one who speaks it or conveys it -- Jidan 21:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Alhamdulillah I agree with you.

See if you agree with me on this:

Obviously not all Islamic era scientists were Persian. Thabit ibn Qurra, Al-Kindi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Khaldun are some big name examples. (Im a big fan of Ibn Arabi by the way)

I think youve felt startled after seeing that huge fat list I have been working on during the past 3 months.

But I am sure that if you and I sit down and compile a similar list of Arab medieval scientists, it will be just as long, if not longer.

I am willing to help you with it, since I have some good sources from the classical era.

There are hundreds of scientists that lived west of Dijla and Furat (and were not hence Persian by any means). Misr, Shaam, Andalusia, Antakiyah, Habashah, all have had numerous prominent scientists.

Now once in a while we run into a fellow that has an overlapping background, like Geber or Al-Hazen. As you say, we can easily work it out. My idea is that we can say he was both Arab and Persian. Simple as that. Because that's how it really was. 8th century Baghdad was where Persian and Arabic cultures mixed in together in a very productive way. There was the deep Persian background and heritage, mixing in with the potency of the Arabic language and scientific ideology of Islam coming from Arabia. A very powerful mix. For example, Ibn Rushd was both Arab and Spanish. That's how cultures flourish. By overlapping into eachother. And it's a good thing.

By saying he was Persian, does that mean he was not Arab? Of course not. He was an Arab as well.

Im sure we can construct an Arab scientist List, that will make you feel proud as an Arab as well.

Then we can spill them into one separate Super jumbo List of Islamic scientists. Hows that?--Zereshk 07:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I sensed a big shift in your last writing. If what you just wrote, you didn’t just wrote but also believe in it. Then you are unique among Iranians! :-). Because you are the first Iranian I know (and I know a lot of Iranians), that acknowledges the rule the Arabs had in forging the “Islamic Civilization”. If you go to the Arabic Wiki, to check Geber or Alhazen or Al-Razi , they are all categorized under just Muslims-“مسلمون”, no nationalities what so ever! You see, the Arabs are proud of all Muslim scientists that lived in that time, because they think they are the ones who provided the right environment, open libraries for everyone, and financial support. Just like an American nowadays would be proud if one of his citizens won a Nobel price, without regard to his origin country. Between 800 – 1450 CE, if you wanted to learn proper science you would have to read Arabic books, and you would have to be in one of the great cities, Baghdad, Cairo, or Cordoba ( in Spain), which all were ruled by Arabs! That’s why, Arabs are proud of all Muslim scientists without regard to nationality, while Persians are proud of only Persian ones!. Making a Super jumbo List of Islamic scientists is a great idea!

Arab scientists

I have an un-edited list of Arab scientists with a paragraph of biographical description for each. These are neither Persian nor Persian related. And Wikipedia doesnt have these folks listed.

I cant find the time to write an entry for each and put together the list. Im still working on the Persian list which I started. And I have 60 other projects to finish and tend to.

Where do you want me to send this list to? (Or perhaps paste it somewhere?) Ive contacted User:Yuber about this.

Also, let's make sure that all these entries (whether from the Persian or Arab list) ultimately appear on the "muslim scientists" list.--Zereshk 21:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabic Names

Could someone please provide his name and the titles of his various books in Arabic script? This seems relevant considering that they are Arabic in origin. It would also be great if we include some sort of an illustration here (such as a portrait). --Fizan 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

references and article

According to many of the references, he's an Arab, and should be mentioned as such in the article, or what's the point of the references?

All sources say he was Persian

We can not say he was "Muslim" because we are not sure what religion he followed. What is a fact is that he was of Persian (Iranian) origin.

What sources are those? Also, please sign your comments, will you? 195.229.241.187 12:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He was Arab [1]Aziz1005 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Buwayhid Persia

Alhazen was born, raised, and lived in Basra during the time that Iraq was a part of Buwayhid Persia (945–1055). [2] --ManiF 17:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to say he was "Persian" and none of the sources proove what you are saying.--Ahwaz 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the article before reverting it, it says "Muslim" not Persian or Arab. He was however born in Buwayhid Persia. --ManiF 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Buwayhid Persia is simply a concoction. Will you object if I change Geber's birthplace to Tus, Umayyad Arabia? --Inahet 05:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Arab

And Alhazen is sooo arab that even Iraq, the bitter enemy of Iran, printed him in their currency 300px|thumb|The Arab mathematician Ibn Al-Haitham depicted in a 10000 Iraqi Dinar note.  and all encyclopedias and scientific articles say that he was Arab:

• Columbia Encyclopedia
• Encarta

And what is this about Basra being persian??? Basra was created by the arabs as a millitary camp to attack Ithe ranians!

128.131.220.102 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Avicenna2.jpg

Poststamp of Ibn Sina

Iraq is no "bitter enemy of Iran". Saddam was.

Having money printed with his image really proves nothing. Poland once issued a stamp with Avicenna's picture on it, and Iraq once claimed Kuwait to be its 19th province. And Iran's main laser research facility at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is named after Ebne Heisam.

Claims therefore have little meaning.

Lets just say he was muslim.--Zereshk 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, it will be a nice world if we called all muslims scientist just muslims. But this is not where the problem is. The problem is calling some scientist by their nationalities e.g. Ibn Sina a persian scientist while others like Alhazen just a muslim scientist. This is not fair! He was a native of basra, a city in south Iraq, which is predominantly arab. I am not going to waste my time on this anyway. I just hope the people take wikipedia as a secondray source not a primary. I have really seen alot of rubish posted in wikipedia and I think you agree with me on this too. Jidan 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Long ago in this very article, I proposed that we mention that he is both, or that he is reported to be Arab by some, Persian by others. The Arab editors did not accept. What can I say? I would have no trouble mentioning both claims. But would you?--Zereshk 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish indeed. And it's not an academic source. Serious people only use it to find more better original sources. I personally tend to find the act of creating articles more rewarding. But once made, they become the property of POV wars. That's when I leave.--Zereshk 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a person's biography to include the ethnic origin and cultural background. Especially in an encyclopedia or other biographic work. Cultural-social upbringings bring with them both similar and different viewpoints on life as shown through history. To suggest otherwise can lead one to a fallacy such as political correctness over fact in history which is what we're all after in this great virtual community, knoweldgeable fact. I'd say that it'd be nice to see more comprehensive biographies that mention family history too, did they have many siblings, only child, were they raised by an uncle or aunt, etc.. I do think those things, especially in childhood, play a subtle to vital role in helping us understand the individual we're studying wheter a biography of non-fiction like Aristotle or a fictional character like Scarlett O'Hara. Prospero74 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientific method

I wanted to make a note of caution about claims that Ibn al-Haytham or anyone else was the first to use experiments or the scientific method. Philosophers of science define these concepts narrowly sometimes, so what he did might not qualify as scientific method by all definitions. I'm not that familiar with his work and the article does say "perhaps the first", so I'm making a comment in talk instead of editing the article.

Question about section titled "Model of Motions"

In this section, we find the following: One of Alhzen's achievements was to "reduce physical entities to geometrical entities". This sounds a little vague - and potentially false. The ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes did something very similar (if I understand the phrase correctly), for example, in his law of the lever, where weights are described as massive points at some particular distance from the fulcrum of the lever; Archimedes then extended the law of the lever to a theory of the center of mass. In fact, the concept of using mathematical entities to represent physical entities (as well as using mathematical relationships to understand the physical relationships between said physical entities) is really the foundation of any mathematics-based science. So, I do not know if we can claim that Alhazen introduced this concept into the sciences. I would like to have a response to this, as I am very interested. Thank you.

Alhazen's birthplace is not in Persia

No reliable, academic source says that Alhazen was born in "Buwayhid, Persia." They all say that he was born in Basrah, Iraq. Also, no reliable source claims that Iraq was ever part of "Buwayhid Persia." Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new imaginary countries.

Also, although the Buwayhids conquered Iraq, they allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in power: "In 945 the Buwayhids, an Iranian Shia dynasty, conquered Baghdad. However, they allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in office as a symbol of continuity and legitimacy."--Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library. So it would make more sense to say that he was born in the Abbasid Caliphate than in Persia. But I think that leaving it as Basrah, Iraq would be more accurate and verifiable. Need I say more? --Inahet 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, Alhazen was born, raised, and lived in Basra during the time that Iraq was officially a part of Buwayhid Persia (945–1055). That's just a simple fact, look up Buwayhid in Britannica. [3] Weather or not Buwayhid symbolically allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in office in Baghdad has nothing to do with the fact that they ruled Basrah. --ManiF 06:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, no mention of Iraq being part of a Persian empire, which was dead for 300 years before Alhazen was born, is in that link. Also, because the Buwayhids were Persian doesn't make the land they ruled part of Persia. The Kurdish Ayyubid dynasty ruled Yemen once, was Yemen part of Kurdistan, or Kurdish empire?--Inahet 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But as I said, verification is key, thus leaving it as just Basrah, Iraq is best. --Inahet 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Read Buwayhid, they were an Iranian dynasty that called themselves Shahanshah of Iran (The native name of "Persia" is "Iran"., read Iran naming dispute). Persian empire was never "dead", there were several Persian empires over the centuries from Achamenids and Sassanids to Buwayhids and Safavids. Infect, up until 20th century there wasn't a country called Iraq. "Aragh" was a name given to a region west of Iran divided into Aragh Ajam and Aragh Arab where Aragh Arab encompassed parts of modern day Iraq, however the name Iraq was not applied to a single country until 20th century during English occupation periods. So the name Iraq is a new concept and can not be applied before 20th century. --ManiF 20:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromised version: Basrah, Iraq (then part of Buwayhids dynasty, Persia) ? Amir85 20:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way there is no country named Iraq until 20th century, Iraq is modern name for a region. Amir85 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Iraq was the name which Arabs, even prior to the Islamic conquest, called mesopatamia (the land between two rivers). Iraq comes from the arabic root word Irq(عرق), which means veins, or roots. In this sense, the two rivers Tigris and Eupharets, are the veins who carried water and gave life to this land. Iraq was also a province within the ummayed caliphate, and it was called the the provence of Iraq. So Iraq is not a modern name, and is much older than "Persia". Its very interesting to notice that some Iranian editors try their best to shove in "Iran","Persia",etc to articles where it has absolutly NO relevence. jidan 11:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's totally inaccurate, you can't backup any of those statements with an academic source. Mesopotamia has nothing to do with the modern name Iraq the history of which I already explained. Iraq may not be a modern name, but it's a modern entity as a state. Oh and the relevance is the fact Ibn al-Haitham was born and raised in Basra which was at time ruled by a Persian dynasty the Buwayhid. --ManiF 11:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Move from Alhazen -> Ibn al-Haitham

I have moved the article from Alhazen -> Ibn al-Haitham, since Ibn al-Haitham IS his original name in Arabic. jidan 22:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not suppose to move articles without a proposal and a consensus on the talk page. --ManiF 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The change of the name of this article from "Alhazen" to "ibn al-Haitham" is untenable and contrary to Wikipedia's practices for the following reasons:

• "Ibn al-Haitham" is a patronymic, meaning "son of [someone whose name included the phrase] al-Haitham". For confirmation, check the article on arabic names. If Alhazen is known by this patronymic alone in the non-English speaking world, so be it, add this fact to the article. But in the English speaking world, and therefore in the English Wikipedia, the latinized version should go, as he is primarily known by this name.

• To get around the point above, you would have to include his entire name, "Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn al-Haitham". But then, the title of the article wouldn't be in English, as point 3 of the Wikipedia naming conventions suggest, but in latinized Arabic.

• These conventions also state that the most common name of a person should be the title of the article. User Jidan has brought up the fact that ibn al-haitham "IS his name in Arabic". That may be, although it is only a part of it, as described above. Furthermore, Wikipedia is interested in the most common name of someone, not their actual, lesser-known name. John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison, but the title of his article is "John Wayne".

User Jidan has brought up a valid and important point in renaming the article; Eurocentric history and viewpoints should be actively questioned, especially someone who worked primarily during the Dark Ages, which as he points out in a later post were not dark at all for the Arab world. However, the facts show that, whether you support the Arabic name as a title or the Latinized name, the current name of the article is in error and should be changed. I personally support the full Arabic name, but that is contrary to Wikipedia practices, so the only acceptable choice is "Alhazen". I won't immediately change the name of the article before an adequate amount of discussion has taken place, but I think it should be reverted to "Alhazen". GuildNavigator84 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make the point, that the variant Alhazen is a modern misunderstanding (see below). Maybe it would be appropriate now to have the article by the name Alhazen, but I'm pretty sure in coming years the scientific community will have Alhacen spelling variant universally adopted. You can already check this at books.google.com, where most of the recent scholarly work uses Alhacen. It is of-course possible to rename the article all the time, but in my opinion the name of the article should be correct. --Aethralis 07:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Snell's Laws of Refraction

Within this article it says that Alhazen discorved the laws of diffraction - i am unaware if he suggested any quantitative law - but this is misleading 'the' law(s) of refraction used today (at least at A-level) were proposed by Snell.

No, it was Ibn al-Haithem. He is the first who said that the refract angel is dependent on the medium the light passes through, and that its a constant and is dependent on the incident angle. I think Snell was only the first who put it into a mathematical equation. Keep in mind that this man is considered The father of optics. jidan 11:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned author about the law of refraction. I don't recall seeing that attributed to Alhazen in the secondary literature of the history of science, and Jidan's description is sufficiently vague that it would also describe the relationship proposed by Ptolemy in the second century. Snell put it in exact quantitative form and that is what most historians of science (and scientists) count as "discovering" the law of refraction. --SteveMcCluskey 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which sentence in this article do you disagree on? And steve, you should try reading history books written by non-europeans for a change. You would be amazed to know that the dark ages, was not dark at all! jidan 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On Iraq

now, i am not an expert on this man, nor will i try to be. I do not know whether he was arab or persian, but i do know that the majority of iraq was persian/iranic (due to the sassanid empire nad parthian empires). therefore, we cannot assume one is arab just because they lived or died in a nation that is TODAY arab. lets just keep this in mind.Iranian Patriot 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the key question is what would he have regarded himself as? WLD 13:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alhazen or Alhacen?

The name variant Alhazen, what is most used, is in all probability wrong and invented by Friedrich Risner, the editor of the 1572 Alhacens optical treatise (David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler, p. 210, David C. Lindberg, Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages, p. xxxiii). In all medieval manuscripts (again Lindberg) the variant Alhazen never occurs, so it is in my opinion wrong to say that the latinized variant of his name is Alhazen. --Aethralis 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The name seems a bit odd in any case. If you look at the Wikipedia article on Arabic names, the construction Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn al-Haitham is roughly "The father of Ali the Hasan son of the Haitham". This makes his kunya "father of Ali", as a substitute for his ism, and his nasab is "son of the Haitham" (which is also a bit odd), but I'm a bit lost as to whether the al-Hasan is a description (laqab) of his son, or of himself. Possibly, there is a missing comma, so it should be something like "Abu Ali, al-Hasan Ibn al-Haitham" or roughly "The father of Ali, the Hasan son of the Haitham". My knowledge of arabic is pretty much non-existant, so I don't know what al-Hasan actually translates to, as it would normally be a description of some type - the wise, the beautiful, the submissive, etc. Overall the format doesn't look quite right, and seems to be missing parts. If an arabic speaker can explain, that would be useful. WLD 12:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A. Mark Smith, Alhacens Theory of Visual Perception, vol 1. Introduction and Latin Text (American Philosophical Society, 2001), p. cxxv writes: "Alhacen’s full name is Abū ‘Alī al-Haṣan ibn al-Haṣan ibn al-Haytham, "al-Haṣan" being his given name. Assuming that the "c" is soft, the "h" is aspirated, and the stress is on the second syllable, then "Alhacen" constitutes an accurate Latin transliteration of "al-Haṣan"." He also states (p. xxi) "There is, however, no support whatever within the manuscript tradition for that choice [Alhazen]. The only forms to be found in the manuscripts themselves are "Hacen", "Alacen", "Achen", and "Alhacen", this last being the most common." He also confirms that Risner is responsible for the inaccurate name Alhazen. --Aethralis 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd be happy for the article to be moved to Alhacen, with redirects to it from Alhazen and the current name, and other variants. By the way, the article opens with an English transliteration of the Arabic name which omits the "ibn al-Haṣan" given in your reference. Assuming the reference is correct, it'll need adding in. WLD 09:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Double checked. The reference is correct. --Aethralis 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mesopotamia

Basra is a city located in Mesopotamia (iraq) NOT Persia persia is Iran ,can't you read maps Aziz1005 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On Attraction Between Masses and Evolution

I haven't heard anything about Alhazen writing about Newton's gravity equation. Could someone give a source on Alhazen writing about attraction between masses. I think this may be an error.

Also, I hadn't heard that he had written about Evolution. Can someone give a source for this?

The other contributions I read about in the article seem familiar to me; but when I read the line on attraction between masses, it seemed to me that someone was implying that Alhazen knew Newton's gravity equation, which I hadn't heard about before.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.237.76.116 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Alhacen's heliocentrism?

I have recently looked for sources supporting and criticizing a number of myths appearing in discussions concerning the History of astronomy. If you know of any sources related to these myths, please add them to the discussion at Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions. --SteveMcCluskey 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading Ibn al-Haytham's The Configuration of the World, I see no reason to question his geocentrism. I have moved the claim that he advocated a heliocentric view to a footnote.--SteveMcCluskey 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Squaring the circle

I reworded a sentence. It said that he: "eventually realized that the problem cannot be solved." There isn't any evidence of this, and the reference given in the article doesn't suggest this. In fact, the reference says: "Whether ibn al-Haytham suspected that the problem was insoluble or whether he only realised that he could not solve it, in (sic.) an interesting question which will never be answered." The distinction is an important one, so I reworded it to say that he gave up on the impossible task. Andy Ross 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Book of optics?

Most probably the illustration of Ibn_al-Haytham#Book_of_Optics (Latin Ibn Haithem's book.jpg) is wrong as the repro clearly states "Vitellonis Thuringopoloni opticae libri decem". This being the book of optics by Witelo. See [4] → Aethralis 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded another image Image:Alhazen's book.jpg. You can use it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the upload. I also changed the description of the Latin Ibn Haithem's book.jpg to "Witelo's book". → Aethralis 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

As a member of the Good Article Wikiproject I think this article has reached good article criteria. So please nominate it here if you agree with me. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be nominated, but I might be a bit biased here (since I wrote half of it), so I would prefer if other people would comment on and/or nominate the article instead. Jagged 85 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the process of nomination. You're the best person to nominate it because you've written half of it. Of course, try to build consensus before nomination. There isn't any bias. Then another person who hasn't participated in the article will review and assess it. En Sha Allah--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've just added the article to the nomination list. Jagged 85 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Iraqi"?

Shouldn't it be "Mesopotamian" or "Persian" or something? — Omegatron 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Iraq" has always been the Arabic name for Mesopotamia. Jagged 85 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Quick Fail

I'm going to quick fail this article's GA nomination since the only image on the page (from Iraqi currency) does not have source information of fair-use rationale (currency is always assumed to be fair-use). And, I'm not sure on whether fair-use allows a depiction of a person in their infobox to come from fair-use currency. Might want to look into that (WP:FUC. I also took a very quick look at the article, and I can tell you that I thought that the article was very quote-heavy and that the external links section is too big. I would also highly recommend using citation templates for the citations, since they seem to be fairly inconsistent. This is just my opinion, but I'd recommend looking into those before renominating the article. I didn't want to quick-fail the article without giving a little advice. Good luck. Drewcifer3000 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've begun re-organizing the references, and will try to work out the other issues soon. Jagged 85 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tone

While this article is very informative it smacks of boosterism. What evidence is there of the subject's religious affiliation? At the time he was born, Iraq was in transition from being predominantly Christian to being predominantly Muslim. Also, much of the article is devoted more to citing non-authorities grandiosly proclaiming his greatness. What does it matter if the writers of children's books pronounce him to be the greatest scientist? What does it matter if multi-cultural instruction manuals declare his greatness? Statements by scientists in his field(s) are far more persuasive and show the others to be signs of insecurity. There are places for Islamic cheerleading. This isn't it. JoeFriday 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For example: although his contributions to optics and the psychology of vision are worthy of commendation, the claim (by Khaleefa) that he is the founder of psychophysics certainly rests on very shaky foundations. Khaleefa's paper is unconvincing on this point and was clearly never intended to by read by psychophysicists. This claim is slipped into the last paragraph and cites a book review for support. It diminishes the remarkable contributions made by Weber and Fechner to make such a claim with so little evidence. Famousdog 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Was Ibn al-Haytham a Shi'a Muslim

Was Ibn al-Haytham a Shi'a Muslim? A repetitive, persistent edit insists that he was, but the editor refuses to add a citation. I don't know whether this man was Shi'a, but I do know that adding new info to a Wikipedia article requires a citation that complies with WP:VERIFY. Can someone with more knowledge of this topic shed some light on the subject? Further, should this new addition contain a citation? Kindest regards, Verum (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In the same way

I saw that it was mentioned by several contributers here in the discussion that " we cannot assume a person to be Arab if the country he was born in is Arabic today"

Well in the same we would say that we CANNOT assume someone to be Persian if the country he was born in is NOW Iranian/Persian. As we already know during that time ,nowdays Iran, was part of the Abbasid empire & it was not only ruled by Arabs but also huge no. of Arabic tribes where living there, so everyone thas was born there does NOT necessarily need to be Persian, like in nowdays Iran more than 40% of its population is made by Azeri Iranians & they're not cosidered as Persians, same thing apply for many Muslim scietists that are assumed to be Persians JUST becasue they where born in NOWDAYS Iran.193.6.158.33 (User talk:193.6.158.33) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad citations

Why are there citations to review of a book instead of the book itself? look at 69 1n 37. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangestand (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GA renomination

Now that most of the problems mentioned above in #GA Quick Fail have been fixed (besides the image, which may have to be removed), I am thinking about renominating this article for GA status. Before doing so, I'd like to know what other users here think about it? Jagged 85 (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For a start a Good Article needs to be NPOV, which at the moment it certainly isn't. Al-Haytham was clearly a genius, but he was not the all-knowing superhuman that this article paints him out to be. He made many incorrect statements (e.g. the lens as receptive organ rather than retina) in his works and many discoveries are attributed to him that were made earlier by other scholars (Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy). The rubbish about psychophysics by Khaleeda needs addressed. I suggest this article presents a more balanced picture before attempting GA status. Famousdog (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems you've already addressed some of these issues with your last few edits to the article. I've also just made a few edits to the Psychology section clarifying the views of Khaleefa and Howard, pointing out that Howard did not actually claim that Ibn al-Haytham discovered binocular vision or motion perception (but just improved on them), and that Khaleefa acknowledges that his view is a minority view (the majority view being that Fechner is the founder of psychophysics). Jagged 85 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Much improved, thank you. However, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that al-Haytham contributed "several concepts" that are now part of psychophysics. I don't agree. Khaleefa's arguments regarding psychophysics are just plain wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the term, an overly narrow definition that limits psychophysics to the optics of the eye and a confusion of psychophysics with psychology. Al-Haytham made a definite contribution to visual psychology but his contribution to visual psychophysics is minimal, if not zero. I think this new section needs toned down as well. Famousdog (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychophysics

Khaleefa doesn't really acknowledge that his view is a minority one. Instead, he is arguing (I would argue on the basis of flawed logic, poor scholarship and very little evidence) that the majority of researchers are wrong, which is quite a different matter. In addition, Taha (1990) is a book review and is, as far as I can tell, unobtainable. I suggest that this reference is removed until a copy can be located! Do you have a copy of this paper, or are you citing Khaleefa's citation? Famousdog (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

non-euclidean geometry

unless someone can find any credible sources by serious scholars, and more then one, here that he somehow he knew anything about non-euclidean geometry, that claim will be altered or removed, since i cant find any sources that claim that he is, everything i ve read says Nikolai Lobachevsky and János Bolyai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

analytical geometry???

someone want to tell me how this guy pioneered analytical geometry, since analytical geometry didnt exist till Rene Descartes had founded it as a branch of mathematics more then 6 century after this guy existed?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)