Talk:Al-Zahrawi

another image
another uploaded image from Kitab al-Tasrif can be found here Image:Zahrawi1.png.  ITAQALLAH  12:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Albulassim = Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi ?
It seems to be the same than Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (936 - 1013), even if the births don't match. Precise birth and death of Abu al-Qasim are not sure and he is also famous to have found some internal medical examinations. TCY 13:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I can't find much on Albulassim that would indicate that he's a different person. Furthermore, in some dialects the Qaaf is silent, which would change Abu al-Qasim into Abu al'asim and, with the merging of the letters when spoken (certain letters are absorbed in speech), becomes Abu lassim. It's almost certain that these two people are the same. No response with the message that you left on the user's talk page means that I'm going to turn Abulassim's into a redirect. Cheers, CP 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

rewrite
how are his instruments different than these? http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/roman_surgical/ J8079s (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but the source actually says this: "He devised about 200 new surgical instruments such as knifes, curettes, retractors, spoons, sounds, hooks, rods and specula." He obviously didn't invent the scalpel, hook, or specula, so I interpret this to mean he invented new types of these instruments. But the article implies that he invented them. I'll see if I can re-word it. Rees11 (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Missed Arab
In the first paragraph, it doesn't mention his ethnicity as "Arab" like on other pages about influencial/historical people. There's no contest on ethnicity here as it mentions his origin multiple times throughout the article - so this is just am article template minor edit. Pink Princess (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why this article refers to al-Zahrawi as "Islam's greatest medieval surgeon" and other Islamic references. There is absolutely no mention on how Islam or Islamic agents affected this man's research, or why Muslims were in Spain. Furthermore, his administering of alcohol to patients, an intoxicating drink, would seem to run counter to Islam. This smacks of evangelizing and apologetics for Islam rather than providing anything of historical or scholastic value.

70.134.48.134 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The common factor among these Islamic scholars(some of them were not actually Muslims)is that they all lived during the Rule of Islamic state, which was based on teachings of Quran. To your surprise, Quran is not just a book of prayers but also includes detailed treatment of a comprehensive constitution needed to organize and govern the life of Muslims. This system allowed science and technological advancements to prosper. Most of these principles are universal to humanity and that is why it is not surprising to Muslims that other states can advance in science and technology if they establish their constitution on justice, fairness, human rights and wellness (a major driving motive behind inventions), law and order, etc. Islam is not science but it provided the right environment for science and technology to prosper, as the case in the Golden Age of Islam. A second point is that Islam prohibits drinking alcohol unless it is necessary to use. Islamic Sharia or Fiqh (Jurisprudence) is much complicated than it looks to you. The Fiqh rule in this case is that necessity supersedes prohibition, which is clearly outlined in verses from Quran. I hope this was informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.174.127 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone can add to the article the sociopolitical infrastructure of the Islamic state back then, and its influence on nurturing scientific and technological advancements. Such infrastructure could be very similar to what we see today in technologically advanced countries which promote scientific advancement for the betterment of humanity which requires that the country is a promoter of human rights, welfare, justice, law and order. The promotion can also be in very similar forms of today's media propaganda, research funding, free education, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.174.127 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup4. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi:


 * With 31 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article (2nd: 7). The article has been tagged intermittently since December 2010. The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here, here or here. I restore the last pre-Jagged version of 25 May 2007 keeping the categories, interwiki links, templates, further reading etc., but removing exceptional unreferenced claims. For more background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are removing a lot more than Jagged's content. Saying that you also removed exceptional claims won't work either, you need to use tags to give editors a chance to provide references. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

what sources say about invention
translations with commentaries: some of the instruments and technices do not appear in the works of earlier writers and may be regarded as original or in common practice at the time al-Zahrawi makes no claim of invention, he does call on his years of experience as a surgeon and a lot of the teaching of the  ancients whom he cites by name. J8079s (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

needle
The needle is attested in medicine well before al-Zahrawi you need to check your source (it is possible that al- Zahrawi describes a new kind of needle is that what your source is saying?) if so you need to quote it accurately. as written The surgical needle was invented and described by Abū al-Qāsim in his Al-Tasrif. its not acceptable. J8079s (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether the needle described by Abulcasis was similar to the ones known in earlier civilizations or his was a more advanced version is not relevant here. In both cases, it still counts as an independent discovery or invention unless an undisputed evidence of transmission or learning is provided, something you and Dialectric have failed to provide. You could however, state very briefly that it was known earlier without implicitly implying any transmission. Al-Andalusi (talk)


 * ? Insisting on undisputed evidence of transmission is far too high a bar, especially when it is easter-egged and the linking article doens't support your text. The reference - "A. I. Makki. "Needles & Pins", AlShindagah 68, January–February 2006." isn't clear. Is AlShindagah the same as http://www.alshindagah.com/Shindagah94/index.htm? If so, it doesn't look very reliable. If not - what is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Providing an evidence of transmission is a reasonable request. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't what you said. You insisted on undisputed evidence of transmission which is very different William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source you provide does not support you. Have you read it? 'AlShindagah'' 68, January–February 2006 The source is not as bad as the use you are making of it. See also WP:TEND —Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2011


 * You do not remove an invention or an idea by a scholar just because we now know that an earlier version existed. You need to provide an (1) undisputed (2) evidence of transmission to the scholar before you can have the description removed. It would still count as an independent invention until the above is provided, there is however no harm in stating briefly that it was known earlier. Is this hard ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Al-Shindagah is a corporate magazine published by the Al-Habtoor Group. I am not sure it is a reliable source.  In any case, the article cited does not claim that Al-Zahrawi invented the surgical needle or surgical suture.  The relevant paragraph of the article is as follows:"Al-Tasrif was an encyclopedia of medicne and modern surgery, a portion of the encyclopedia devoted to surgery was published seperately and became the first independent illustrated work on the subject. It contained illustrations of a remarkable array of surgical instruments, which incuded medical needles for suturing wounds, and described the operations of fractures, dislocations, bladder stone, gangrene and other conditions. Al-Zahrawi's work was later translated by Guy de Chauliac, one of the greatest surgeons of medieval times, and in this manner, it found its way into the different libraries of Europe. His book replaced Paul of Aegina's 'Epitiome,' - which was used as a standard work for surgery in Europe - and it remained as the most used book on surgery for the next five hundred years. ('Needles & Pins', A. I. Makki, Al-Shindagah, January/February 2006. Misspellings as in the original.)"
 * Al-Andalusi's argument that a counterargument or evidence of transmission must be provided is completely incorrect. For the article to claim the needle as an invention of al-Zahrawi, the source must state that it's an invention of al-Zahrawi.  An editor cannot conclude on his own that something is an invention.  This is WP:OR and is impermissible.
 * Spacepotato (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source stating it was an invention is assumed as far as the discussion is concerned. What William and J8079s are suggesting, is the removal of such statements (even when referred to as an invention) just because an earlier version existed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot assume it is an invention if the source does not say so.
 * If the source did say it was an invention, but other sources said otherwise, or mentioned that it was used earlier, then it would still be best to take the claim of invention out if, upon review, the claim of invention seemed poorly justified, mistaken, poorly sourced, or otherwise not credible. Spacepotato (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify what's being discussed. Assuming that we have:


 * (1) A reliable scholarly reference that
 * (2) States it's an invention
 * (3) In addition, we do not know of any source that claims the scholar borrowed the idea from somewhere else.


 * then in this case, I believe that the claim of invention can remain in the article provided that the earlier usage is briefly mentioned. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether to mention the claim of invention, and how much weight to give to it if it is mentioned, would depend on the evidence the RS presents for (2), the credibility of the claim in view of the previous usage, and the evidence for and against the claim of invention in general. Spacepotato (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases of independent or simultaneous invention we will find reliable sources that say exactly that. You have to read them before you use them.J8079s (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Arab medicine," not "Arabic medicine"
Arabic refers to the language; Arab refers to the people or culture. "Arabic medicine" implies medical texts written in the Arabic language, which may be written by non-Arabs. https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/17/arab-arabic-arabian/ Mpaniello (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Father of (modern) surgery
As is usual for 'father of' claims, none of the sources used in the current revision for the bombastic claim that al-Zahrawi was "the father of surgery" are actual experts on al-Zahrawi or medieval medicine, which renders this completely outdated Whig history / Great Men type of claim wp:undue. I will therefore remove it from the article in my next edit. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 22:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it here. William M. Connolley appears to agree that the claim is wp:puffery.
 * @176.29.192.0/18: if you have a good argument why this should be included anyway, here is the place to make it and to convince other editors. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole article really can benefit from using works written by professional historians of medicine.For example, It doesn't mention that most of Al-Zahrawi work on surgery was based on Paul of Aegina. Also I am not sure how reliable Handbook to Life in the Medieval World is when it come to history of medicine. For instance it is stated there that "A major breakthrough still employed today in surgery was Abulcasis’s disscovery of the use of catgut for internal suturating". And yet Rainer Bromer(professional historian of medicine) wrote in 1001 Distortions: How (Not) to Narrate History of Science that this is actually false.
 * On page 209, quote "it is evident that the author fell for the (understandable) suggestion that catgut had something to do with cats, when actually this suture material was and still is produced mostly from sheep intestine. Galen used it in the 2nd century, and the English term most likely derives from kit gut, kit meaning a fiddle (Greek: kithara) whose strings were made of sheep intestine, as a quick glance into any dictionary of English reveals.14 Thus, again, we find an unsubstantiated claim to priority, dealing with Muslim surgeons mostly in isolation from their predecessors and neighbors."
 * This honestly makes me skeptical about other exceptional claims. For instance this article claims quoting Handbook to Life in the Medieval World, that Al-Zahrawi anticipated Kocher's method. The problem is Handbook to Life in the Medieval World does not provide any evidence for it. Moreover I have a book Medieval Islamic Medicine written by Emilie Savage-Smith and Peter Pormann, two professional historian of medicine. They cover the work of Al-Zahrawi, but I can't find anything there about Kocher's method. I think if Al-Zahrawi really anticipated it they would certainly mention it DMKR2005 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a general problem with Wikipedia articles. In the real world, there is a lot of puff being generated, and Wikipedia editors tend to 'add' to articles anything they can find on the internet. Thus misleading history of science finds its way to Wikipedia all the time. Almost anything not written by specialists in medieval medicine should really be removed from articles like this, but the challenge is often to do this without blanking the page!
 * For me personally, there's the additional problem that I find myself unable to rewrite an article without digging into the sources and spending weeks on it. That's time I don't actually have for Wikipedia. Thus I stick to patrolling, contenting myself with preventing the addition of puff and other badly-sourced stuff to articles. But if you're skeptical about claims found in Wikipedia articles that are not cited to high-quality specialist sources, by all means remove them! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Abdull qasim ali zahrawi
Presentation in topics form 37.111.168.66 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)