Talk:List of Arab scientists and scholars

Untitled
This is the talk page for article:        List of Arab scientists and scholars.

=Topics from 2006=

Non Arab entries
As I explained in my edit summaries, many of the scientists included in the "List of Arab scientists and scholars" are are either not Arab ( Khwarizmi and Karaji) or may not have been Arab (Gaber and Alhazan ). These particular individuals' names should either be omitted or the list should be renamed to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars" to avoid controversy and conflict. --ManiF 05:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This list, lists only arab scientists, including Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Karkhi. However, their main articles are beeing continuesly vandalized. Jidan 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See the discussion pages of those articles, and you see that satisfactory proof has been provided that they are either not Arab (Khwarizmi and Karaji) or may not have been Arab (Gaber and Alhazan). It's inappropriate to call other editor's edits "vandalism" and label scientists who weren't Arab, as Arab. --ManiF 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion pages prove that they are actually Arab. Have you read them? I Don't think so. Jidan 06:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They certainly don't, I have read them, I don't think you have though. --ManiF 06:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

May I also point out that half of the scientists and scholars in List of Iranian scientists and scholars are actually arab or may have not been persians! For example Geber, Alhazen, Al-Khwarizmi and Al-karkhi. Jidan 06:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no comparison here, simply two different situations. Al-Khwarizmi/Al-Karaji are definitely Persian and Geber was born in Iran and hence Iranian, even if he wasn't Persian. --ManiF 06:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
How about we create a new section at this page called "People with disputed ethnicity"? (or something like that) That way, the peopel are still in the article, but they're not listed as definitely being Arabs. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't mind Geber and Alhazen whose ethnicity is disputed being listed under such section, but Khwarizmi and Al-Karaji who are defiantly Persian should be removed from this list altogether. --ManiF 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi, most of the scientists and scholars I listed in List of Arab scientists and scholars are Arabs. And if not, then they are most propably arab. And if not, then they are arab by culture. I have already added a note on the main article that says: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term.

May I also point out that half of the scientists and scholars in List of Iranian scientists and scholars are actually Arab or People with disputed ethnicity. For example Geber, Alhazen, Al-Khwarizmi and Al-karkhi, ...

Jidan 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jidan,


 * I see what you mean. However, most Persians see these people as ethnically and culturally Persian. That's why I think it would make a good compromise if we have the disputed people in a different section.


 * Here's another suggestion: if you still think it's a good idea to include all these people perhaps you could change the title to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars".


 * As for the List of Iranian scientists and scholars page, we'll have to fix that one up as well. --Khoikhoi 06:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * These people wrote all their works in Arabic and lived their whole life in arabic cities. They had arabic names, and they practicied an arabic religion. Sorry, but can you please point to me which part is culturally persian?


 * I would agree to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars" if the persians also rename thier list. I think this way it would be fair.


 * Its really disappointing, that instead of concentrating my effort in "expanding" the articel, I have to concentrate it in "keeping" the article. Jidan 07:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, Arabic was the language of science in the Middle East back then, which is why they spoke it. Also, Baghdad among other cities - were certainly not "Arab cites", but rather multicultural ones. Let's see if Mani agrees to the compromise. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And New York is a multicultural city and the language its citizens speak is today the language of science. But still, its citizens are called Americans! Jidan 07:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Back then they didn't have nations like we have them today. However, we're getting off topic. I was thinking, instead of going for the List of Muslims compromise, how about having sections of disputed ethnicity for both pages? --Khoikhoi 07:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Jidan 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian list has nothing to do with this discussion, it's not a "Persians' list", but rather a geographical list with its own definition. Move this page to "List of Muslim scientists and scholars", and I'll help expand it to include Turks, Arabs and Persians. --ManiF 07:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But why can't we let their be a page about famous Arabs? I have to go to sleep anyways. We'll resolve this tomorrow. --Khoikhoi 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure let this be a page about famous Arabs, but then non-Arabs should be taken off of it. --ManiF 07:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ManiF, first read, then think, then write and not the other way around. Khoikhoi suggested that persons of whom we are not sure of thier ethnicity to be listed in a special list. Jidan 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jidan, I suggest you go and read WP:NPA again. --ManiF 08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What he said wasn't a personal attack. --Khoikhoi 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested compromise
Rename the article List of Muslim scientists and scholars and include everyone. Otherwise, those figures in question cannot, in good faith, be added to this article. Please vote Support or Oppose below along with a short comment if you are so inclined. SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean renaming and joining both articles: List of Arab scientists and scholars and List of Iranian scientists and scholars to one article List of Muslim scientists and scholars ?Jidan 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. However, that would necessitate a separate poll conducted on that article's talk. Furthermore, in the event that such a merge be conducted, those figures whose ethnic background is disputed must remain ambiguous. In other words, those who are clearly "Arab" or "Persian" or whatever other background may be listed as such, but those like Geber must remain simply "Muslim." If you agree, you may wish to conditionally vote "support" and leave a comment to that effect. SouthernComfort 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, there must be agreement concerning the usage of "Arab" versus "Arabic-speaking." SouthernComfort 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep all three lists. Those scientists of which we are reasonably sure whether they're Iranian/Persian or Arab, we can include in the lists accordingly. The list of Muslim scientists would include most of the scientists from both groups (except for those few Iranian scientists which may not actually have been Muslim.) To those who are suggesting that all these people were Arabs because they used the Arabic language, I can only say, we are not Americans or Englishmen either, even though we use the English language here. Moreover, for most Iranian scientists of that era, Arabic was not the mother tongue. It was the language of work, of writing, the language of academia. Shervink 12:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Support

 * 1) SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --ManiF 09:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Shervink 12:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)shervink.
 * 4) Kash 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Jidan 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) We have List_of_Russians, List of Jewish Scientists, List of Iranian scientists and what not, but refuse to use List of Arab scientists? Does not sound fair to me abakharev 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Verdict
Done - Renamed --Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * - wikipedia is not a democray. Jidan 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested compromise
Rename the article List of Muslim scientists and scholars and include everyone. Otherwise, those figures in question cannot, in good faith, be added to this article. Please vote Support or Oppose below along with a short comment if you are so inclined. SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean renaming and joining both articles: List of Arab scientists and scholars and List of Iranian scientists and scholars to one article List of Muslim scientists and scholars ?Jidan 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. However, that would necessitate a separate poll conducted on that article's talk. Furthermore, in the event that such a merge be conducted, those figures whose ethnic background is disputed must remain ambiguous. In other words, those who are clearly "Arab" or "Persian" or whatever other background may be listed as such, but those like Geber must remain simply "Muslim." If you agree, you may wish to conditionally vote "support" and leave a comment to that effect. SouthernComfort 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, there must be agreement concerning the usage of "Arab" versus "Arabic-speaking." SouthernComfort 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep all three lists. Those scientists of which we are reasonably sure whether they're Iranian/Persian or Arab, we can include in the lists accordingly. The list of Muslim scientists would include most of the scientists from both groups (except for those few Iranian scientists which may not actually have been Muslim.) To those who are suggesting that all these people were Arabs because they used the Arabic language, I can only say, we are not Americans or Englishmen either, even though we use the English language here. Moreover, for most Iranian scientists of that era, Arabic was not the mother tongue. It was the language of work, of writing, the language of academia. Shervink 12:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Support

 * 1) SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --ManiF 09:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Shervink 12:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)shervink.
 * 4) Kash 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Jidan 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC) - (This vote was posted after the consensus was reached)

Verdict
Done - Renamed --Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Move
I think this move was unfair. It wasn't even agreed upon by the author of this article - I like the idea of having a "disputed people" section in both articles, but the Iranian editors don't seem to agree with me. However, even if we move the page back, the people of disputed Arab ancestry shouldn't be in the main list - it seems to provoke the Iranian editors. I'm going to request for this page to be moved back until we can actually come to a fair compromise. --Khoikhoi 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Khoikhoi, this page should not have been moved until there was a fair compromise. A better way to handle this would be to mark each of the disputed people with a reference note and put the information at the bottom as to how and why their ethnicity is disputed. Green Giant 00:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it seems like some figures' ethnicity is more controversial than others. For example, I think the footnotes would be a good idea for Geber and Alhazan, but I don't think Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Karaji should be on the list, perhaps we could have something at the very bottom that says "it is sometimes claimed that...". --Khoikhoi 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind Khoikhoi's last suggestion. But If we kept it as "List of Muslim scientists and scholars" then we wouldn't have any more conflicts and problems about each one of those scientists, plus we would all be able to help expand the list to include all the ethnic Arabs, Persians and Turks without any mention of their ethnicity. For this to happen, Jidan would have to stop with the comparative references to "the Iranian list" as that's a regional/national list, not an ethnic one. I don't think any of us would object to a "Syrian list" for example. --ManiF 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! To avoid these kind of ugly ethnic problems, I have already stated at the very beginning of the article: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term. Unlike the List of Iranian scientists and scholars, which has many ethnic disputed scholars but still didn't mention it. And still, I never edited that list, because I was kind of proud that they included arabs in their list. Wouldn't any american be proud if he sees Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest arabs?? I really don't understand what the problem is! If a user wants more info regarding a particular scholar, he will go to his article and there he will read the dispute about his ethnicity. This is just a List!! I am ofcourse open for any compromise. Jidan 01:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me explain again what the issue is. You shouldn't label individuals who aren't Arab as "Arab". The "List of Iranian scientists and scholars" is not an ethnic-based list and is irrelevant to this dissuasion. There is no "Persian scientists list" for you to make any comparative references to, if by "Arab", you don't mean an "strictly ethnically term", then lets just stick with the original compromise and the neutral term "Muslim", to make life less complicated for all of us. Also, if "Iranian scientists list" insults or flatters you, then go ahead and make similar regional/nationality-based lists for "Syrian scientists", "Yemeni scientists" and so forth. --ManiF 03:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are the Arab scientists and scholars?
The word "Arab" is not an ethnical word. It may have been 1400 years ago before the Islamic conquests, but after it and now its definatly not. Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Lybia, and most of the countries that comprise the Arab World, are actually not ethnical Arabs. Even the Arab League, which hosts all 22 Arab countries that stretch from Mauritania in the west to Oman in the east, on its formation in 1946, defined "Arab" as follows:

"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the  aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."

George Sarton, a Belgian-American polymath and historian of science, in his book "Introduction to the History of Science" states:

''On 8 June, A.D. 632, the Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Prayers be upon Him) died, having accomplished the marvelous task of uniting the tribes of Arabia into a homogeneous and powerful nation. ...In the interval, Persia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the whole North Africa, Gibraltar and Spain had been submitted to the Islamic State, and a new civilization had been established. The Arabs quickly assimilated the culture and knowledge of the peoples they ruled, while the latter in turn - Persians, Syrians, Copts, Berbers, and others - adopted the Arabic language. The nationality of the Muslim thus became submerged, and the term Arab acquired a linguistic sense rather than a strictly ethnological one. ''

After clearing this and knowing that at the medivial ages there were was no Nationalities, the List of Arab scientists and scholars shall contain any scholars that lived in arab cities, and produced their work in Arabic. The term "muslim scientist" doesn't sound right. No body calls Isaac Newton a christian scientist, but rather an English scientist. And not all Arab scholars were muslim!.

Jidan 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post. I have a few points to make about it, however. To compare with the definition quoted above, I must say that for those scientists which are correctly being called Iranian (Persian) by many here, the language was not Arabic, they were not living in an Arabic speaking coutry, and whether they sympathized with Arabic speaking people in general is a speculation. The point here is that, most of them also produced work in Persian (Take Avicenna's poems, for example). Their mother tongue (as German for someone born in Berlin or Persian for someone born in Shiraz today), was Persian, not Arabic. The language of science was Arabic at the time. This is why they wrote in Arabic. It does not mean that they were Arabs.
 * Almost all scientists in Iran or Syria or Turkey nowadays also speak and write in English when it comes to scientific matters. But are they English? Of course not. By the way, most of Newton's writings were in Latin, not English. Would you therefore label him as a Latin or a Roman scientist? No, of course not. With the same reasoning, those scientists were Persian, not Arabs. Please think about it and try to realize the difference between speaking a language and being a part of the culture associated with it. I might speak and write in five different languages, but still I would only define myself as Iranian. Shervink 15:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * George Sarton's quote is not about the modern definition and application of the term "Arab". In modern times, Arab is largely an ethnic term, Muslim is the better term in the context you are referring to. --ManiF 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Jidan, you don't understand anything. You keep saying "I'm proud that arab scientists are on the Iranian list", as if by repeating a lie it makes it a factual truth. Those scientists are From the Iranian Plateau, want it or not, and as such they are Iranian. As for culturaly arab, I don't know what it means because it is well know among scholars that Arabs adopted Persian way of life and not the other way around.Farhad74.57.247.47 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Jidan, you don't understand anything. You keep saying "I'm proud that arab scientists are on the Iranian list", as if by repeating a lie it makes it a factual truth. Those scientists are From the Iranian Plateau, want it or not, and as such they are Iranian. As for culturaly arab, I don't know what it means because it is well know among scholars that Arabs adopted Persian way of life and not the other way around. Farhad_MI

Who are the Arab scientists and scholars? - II
I agree that speaking arabic doesn't mean you are an Arab. But in a time where there was no defination of nationalities, speaking arabic and living in an arabic city makes you an Arab. People are not classified by their DNA's. Unless of course its mentioned specifically that he was persian. There are many great muslim scientists who were persians. For example Ibn Sina, who spoke and wrote arabic and even had memorized the arabic Koran by the age of 10. Other persian scholars were Al-Biruni, Omar Khayyám.Those mentioned scholars unlike Al-Khwarizmi, Geber, Alhazen, Al-Kharki, lived and prospured in iranian scientific cities which rivaled baghdad, worked for iranian rulers, and wrote in persian. For example,
 * Omar Khayyám(1048-1131) was born in Nishapur,Iran and is famous for being a mathematican and for writting persian poems. He livied mostly in Nishapur and Isfahan, for Malik-Shah, ruler of Isfahan.


 * Ibn Sina(980 - 1037) was born in Bukhara, Afghanistan, and worked for the persian Samanid ruler. He also wrote many books in persian.


 * Al-Biruni(973-1048) was born in Khwarazm,Uzbakistan. Lived mostly in persia. He wrote his books in Persian and Arabic.

Those can be defined as persian scholars. Arabic was not the only choice. And baghdad(iraq) was also not the only choice. Al-Khwarizmi, Geber, Alhazen, Al-Karkhi were arabs. For more info regarding those scholars, please ALWAYS read the discussion page and no way only the main article. Because of the large numbers of Iranian users, info regarding his background and ethnicity was instantly deleted by them, although backed by authoritaive neutral authors. Also in good faith, I have also explictily stated at the beginning of the article that: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term..

Until now I have spent 20% of my time in trying to expand the article and 80% in trying to keep it. This is really very frustrating ;-( Jidan 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can make this argument for Geber and Alhazen. But Al-Khwarizmi, as indicated by historical sources, was not an Arab - he was a Persian by birth and origin. (A list of all the historical sources has been compiled here) Khwarizmi only wrote in Arabic - because it was the official language of the realm. Other Persian scientists such as Avicenna, and Biruni mostly wrote in Arabic as well, but as you said it yourself, they were not Arabs. --ManiF 18:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Arab scientists and scholars, List of Iranian scientists ?
Why was the List of Arab scientists and scholars renamed to List of Muslim scientists and scholars, while List of Iranian scientists and scholars was not renamed? Until there is a proper explaintion this should stay as it is. We should than have three lists. Iranian,Arab, and muslim. Jidan 22:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Russians starts with the disclaimer:
 * This is a list of people associated with Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union, and Russia of today. For a long time Russia has been a multinational country, and many people of different nationalities contributed to its culture, to its glory, and to its sorrow. They may be ethnic Ukrainians (like Nikolai Gogol), Georgians (like Stalin and Georgi Daneliya), Belarusians (like Kazimir Malevich), Tatars (like Rudolf Nureyev), Jews (like Trotsky and Maya Plisetskaya), Poles (like Vaslav Nijinsky), Armenians (like Aram Katchaturian), Germans (like Catherine the Great), Danish (like Vitus Bering and Vladimir Dal), Italians (like Karl Briullov), Greeks (like John Capodistria), Romanians (like Mikhail Kheraskov), Frenchmen (like Marius Petipa), Dutchmen (like Sergius Witte), Portuguese (like Anton de Vieira)... Sometimes we don't know their exact ancestry. Sometimes their formal nationality was written down at random or for political or other reasons. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names are linked to the words "Russia", "Russian".

Maybe we should put something similar in the begining of this list as well? Alternatively we could put footnotes to the people of disputed ethnicity leading to something like The ethnic background is unlear (see the correponded article for details), but he certainly used Arabic for his works?. In anyway I do not see how putting say Al-Khwarizmi to this list does not prohibit his inclusion to say List of Iranian scientists. abakharev 01:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very wise to me. I think this will end this silly ethnic crap, which has paralyzed the advance of this article. Now we can concentrate on the expansion of the actual article.

I will add the following disclaimer as suggested by abakharev:

This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World, Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus), and all those that were under the rule of Arabs. The arabs have ruled a multinational empire, and many people of different nationalities contributed to its culture, to its glory, and to its sorrow. They may be ethnic Persians(like Sibawayh ), Berbers(like ?), Kurds (like ?), Jews (like ?). Sometimes we don't know their exact ancestry. Sometimes their formal nationality was written down at random or for political or other reasons. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arabs",and "Arabians".

Jidan 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Jidan's proposed "disclaimer", this is further complicating the issue and claiming people who are clearly NOT Arab as Arabs. Such personalities should either be omitted from the list or the list should be renamed. --ManiF 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think including people like Al-Khwarizmi to the list still offends Persians, and this is too controversial, despite the definition change. It may work out on the Russian page, but there are too many disputes in this area to have it be like that - I still think this list should be about ethnic Arabs, not people associated with the Arab World.


 * This new intro doesn't seem to have resolved the conflict, rather, it seems to be opening a new can of worms - by including people who are accepted as Persians universally, such as Sibawayh. The list of Iranian scientists and scholars doesn't have any Arabs in it. (with the exception of Alhazen and Geber, who have disputed ethnicities) --Khoikhoi 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think also the list should contain only arabs. I have removed Sibawayh, although the only thing he was famous for is arabic grammer. Now,Geber is definitive arab:
 * Columbia Encyclopedia
 * Ancients & Alchemists
 * Britannica Encyclopedia
 * Encarta Encyclopedia

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

If Geber and Alhazen are not Arab you can as well label him chinese. Its really interesting what nonsense is sometimes posted in wikipedia.

Now the list is entirly arab.

Regarding Al-Khwarizmi, its very much disputed. He might have been born in Qutrubbull and in Columbia Encyclopedia he is described as arab. And Britannica doesn't mention him as persian.

Samething goes to Al-Karkhi.

128.131.220.102 06:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I just checked and 128.131.220.102 is a proxy IP address from Vienna University of Technology, so I suspect the anon is a blocked user from Vienna, Austria, who has been very much involved on this page, trying to circumvent his block. The administrators should investigate this matter. Second of all, nothing is as clear cut as suggested by the anon, there are many sources out there referring to Geber and Alhazen as Persian or Iranian, so their ethnicity is very much disputed, see the corresponded articles for details. I have no objection to their inclusion on this list though. Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Karaji on the other hand are definitely not Arab, as the majority, and most of the published authoritative sources refer to them as Persian. Those two should be omitted from the list. --ManiF 07:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you attakcing me personallly? Why not instead answer the points? Do you think that Jidan is the only user who will stand against those continues falsifications? 128.131.220.102 07:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a silly dispute
Under the Umayyads, there WAS a strong distinction made between Arab and Ajam. However, the Abbasids -- whose power base was Greater Khorasan -- fully accepted the Ajam as part of universal ummah. There was intermarriage in Khorasan; there was intermarriage in Baghdad. After the fall of the Abbasids to the Mongols and later, the warfare between Safavids and the Ottomans, Persian and Arab were again distanced. Trying to read that distinction back into the Abbasid period is wrong-headed. How about just a list of Muslim scientists and scholars who wrote in Arabic under Abbasid rule? With a note appended to each one summarizing theories of origin?

Or perhaps just a list of Muslim scholars and scientists from 750 to 1300, grouped by the courts that patronized them, with one list of the ones who wrote in Arabic, a list of the ones who wrote in Persian, and perhaps a short list of the people like Rumi who wrote in both languages? C'mon, think of ways around the problem. Zora 09:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizmi and Karaji
Kharazmi and Karaji are not Arab, they are probably as Arab as a Maya from Tabasco! - kami


 * Why? do you know them personally? Its disputed. Read their discussion pages Al-Karkhi, Al-Khwarizmi. Jidan 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Entries Format for the List of Arab scientists and scholars
Any new entries on the list should follow the following rules:
 * Do not index entries by the articles:
 * Al - the
 * ibn, bin, banu - son of
 * abu - father of, the one with
 * Enter both the Arabic and Latin name (if any), and make the Latin name point to the Arabic name.
 * Always make sure that the person is not already listed.
 * Give a short description of their important works. Preferably not more than four lines.
 * The geographic places of birth or death should correspond to today's political map, e.g. Harran in Turkey not Syria, Cordoba in Spain not in al-Andalus, Khwarizm in Uzbekistan not Persia, etc.
 * Don't give their full names, the title or name and title is enough e.g. just Ibn Khaldun, rather than Abū Zayd ʕAbdu l-Rahman ibn Muħammad ibn Khaldūn al-Haḍramī.
 * The format of entry should be like this:
 * Ibn xxxx (date, place of birth - date, place of death )
 * Short description of his/her important works.

Please follow these simple rules so that the list stays overlookable and easy to navigate. Thank You Jidan 16:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Abdulrahim Nasr Chafi
This redlinked entry, inserted by raises some questions, as follows:
 * 1) Are redlinked entries permitted in lists? (I saw a message saying they are removed by Bots)
 * 2) Does this specific list include modern living people, such as this entry, who is claimed to be an American professor? If so, does it conflict with the mission statement at the top of the list?
 * 3) I see from this user's contribs diffs that the same or similar entry was inserted in many list articles, including:
 * Arab Americans


 * Lebanese Americans


 * Muslim Scientists

Can someone be Muslim and Jewish at the same time? Is it just a joke/hoax? Thanks, Crum375 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Resource?
I found a resource, but is it good? It is well referenced:

Khaleel, Kasem (2000). The Arabian connection: A conspiracy against humanity. Lincolnshire, IL: Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN: 0-911119-70-1.

A neighbor recommended it, and it is available on Amazon. While it does not appear to be biased, it does have a somewhat personal tone, however thoroughly referenced.

He asks the question: "Who originated the modern sciences?" The book purports to answer this question.

Cover bio: "Dr. Kasem Khaleel is a medical writer specializing in health and the history of science. The author of over twelve books, his ten year study in the field of scientific history culminated in the publication of this book."

--Anonymous writer

Al Farabi
I don't think English language users of English wikipedia should be subjected to the stupidity and narrowmindedness displayed in the discussions above. If someone wrote in Arabic, they belong on the list, whether they believed in Islam or not, whether they were Bedouin or Tajik or whatever. In the English speaking world Arabic is a cultural category before it is an ethnic one. If the heading to the page is: "This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World and Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) that lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. In some cases, their exact ancestry in unclear. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic" then Al-Farabi belongs here. Let the discussions on background be alluded to, gone into on the individual page, but here make entries which are useful to users of the encyclopedia. RuthieK 14:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all, this is a list of Arabs and there is a clear definition of who are Arabs and who aren't in English or any other language, and Iranians and Turks don't fall into that category. Bottom line, this list shouldn't be used as a POV fork to label individuals who weren't Arab as "Arab". Not all Muslims are Arab, Farabi wasn't an Arab, to call him or list him as an "Arab" is simply false. --Mardavich 14:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if English is your first language, I get the feeling not. But you can read what it says at the top of the article. I copied for you here. Read it again. And I didn't say he was an Arab. What I did say, if you read it again, is that culture in Arabic is not equivalent to Islamic culture. Read it again. I don't care about whether someone considers himself an Arab or Persian or Turkish or Turkic or whatever. On that level culture is stupid. There is something called Arabic culture, conducted in the Arabic language, which arose out of (but is wider than) Islamic culture - something one can be interested in without caring a toss about the ethnic hangups of people. The sooner people in the Middle East stop expending so much energy on fatuous questions, the sooner they will again make contributions to civilization everyone can be interested in. You are not a good advertisement for your culture. Goodbye. RuthieK 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Culture is not Arabic. Only the scientific language was Arabic.  Much like Latin was the scientific language of the West. Al-Farabi was from Central Asia and so he can not be classified as an Arab.   So why don't you call a lot of the European scientists a Roman because they wrote in Latin? --alidoostzadeh 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact many classical writers are called 'Roman writers' or 'Latin writers' even thought they came from Spain or North Africa. Look at lists of German/French/English/American writers and you will find people listed who were not born in those countries. I think the discussion shows a degree of petty tribalism that is unworthy of the scientists listed and the scientific spirit in general. RuthieK 22:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to create a list of Arabic Writers, Latin Writes and English Writers in Wikipedia. Accuracy and tribalism are two different matters.  --alidoostzadeh 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Accuracy and tribalism are two very connected matters on this page. It is clear that people are more interested in narrow racial definitions than serving the reader. Anyway limiting the list to arab scientist just shows that the major contributions to civilization from the Islamic world were made by non-arabs (and I think it is not unconnected with arab tribalism). And people who cannot write English properly should not be writing on the English wikipedia - do it on the arabic one, if you can write arabic well enough RuthieK 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My English is fine thank you. And I speak several languages and at least have sufficient knowledge on where Farabi is from.  Accuracy and tribalism are two different matters all together as I pointed out.  Farabi is not an Arab scientist.  Again feel free to have make a list list of Latin Writes and English Writers.  Do not give us your definition of Arab please, since Arab is ethno-linguistic group.  Furthermore Baghdad was a multi-cultural city back then.  --alidoostzadeh 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the intent of the article was to list the numerous contributions to science, ancient and modern, by scientists of the Islamic world during the Islamic Golden Age. If this is acceptable, I would suggest to rephrase the lead to reflect this, and then be possibly a little more inclusive and allow any of the Islamic scientists and philosophers of that era, including Al Farabi. The title itself can be modified to "Arab and Muslim ..." Comments? Crum375 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need for that, there is already a List of Muslim scientists. Lumping together Arabs and Muslims would be misleading to the average reader. --Mardavich 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * some of these scientists were very far from being orthodox Muslims - perhaps not properly Muslims at all, they can't honestly go on a Muslim list, but they contributed to science and philosophy in the Arabic language, which is undeniable, and which is clearer than ethnicity (which is frequently as very murky matter - is Arab a real ethnicity anyway, it seems to go far beyond the descendants of the 'Arabian exodus' following Muhammed and the early caliphs). The list is to help the user. Notes about origins can still be added. Smile RuthieK 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your definition is simply incorrect. Someone who was not born as an Arab and learned Arabic later on his life does not count as an Arab.  Writing in English or French does not make a person English or French.  As per Farabi's culture, you can rad it in his book of music where  he discusses all forms of music from Central Asia to Africa.  Arab is not an ethnicity as a racial definition, but it is an ethno-linguistic definition and not some sort of citizenship you can acquire if you choose.  If you are not born from this ethno-linguistic group, then you are not an Arab.  The 100 year old orientalism of mistaking Muslims and Arabs is long obsolete and more 80% of Muslims today are not Arabs. --alidoostzadeh 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made no definitions. It is not,I would submit, about being 'born' into a tradition. Vladimir Nabokov (born in Russia, educated in Russian, Germany, England, lived some years in America, then lived and died in Switzerland) belongs in a list of American writers . He belongs because he contributed to American literature by writing in English. And this list is not about being an Arab (whatever that is) - the article on Arabs admits it is a linguistic not a racial term (though some people might try to squeeze into a racial form). This list is about science and contributions to science in Arabic (a linguistic and cultural world). I think other entries make it clear I am perfectly clear that I am aware that Arab does not equal Muslim nor vice versa. RuthieK 21:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The comparison is invalid since American is a citizenship. Arab is a ethno-linguistic group.  Anyone in the world can potentially become an American by obtaining citizenship.  But anyone who was not born into the Arab ethno-linguistic group can not become an Arab.  --alidoostzadeh 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not about citizenship. If he had never been a US citizen it would be the same. Solzhenitsin took US citizenship but is not an American writer (he didn't contribute to American literature). You seem to think the list is about being "arab" - it isn't. Read the first paragraph. It is about contribution to scientific culture in arabic/the arab world (i.e. the arab speaking world). Being an arab doesn't enter into it. A list of Chinese scientists can include many non-ethnically Chinese (Han) scientists: as long as the were part of Chinese-language. (We have anyway established that arab is a vague designation. You feel you have the power to decide who is an arab. I don't believe it means much. Creation of identity like that is about politics. I shouldn;t be imposed on the past. To me an arab is someone who lives in arabia - no one outside arabia can be an arab. But I am not imposing that on anyone.) My father is Scottish (of Italian descent), my mother is German. I was born in Hong Kong. I find attempts to create 'races' creepy. RuthieK 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Of course some people might dislike 'arabs' and not want Al-Farabi to here sas part of 'arab science'. It is unhelpful politics either way. RuthieK 17:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; but I see some points that need addressing. First, the List of Muslim scientists is not time limited to the Islamic Golden Age, whereas this one seems to be ('up to until the beginning of the modern age' - needs clearer definition). Second, I think there may be a very significant overlap between the 2 lists, which in general is bad - it duplicates work, it is a source for inconsistencies, it confuses readers. Third, if this one is strictly limited to ethnic Arabs, you'll have a problem in validating ethnicity. If you just read the current Arab article, it specifically mentions the language as the common denominator: "The Arabs are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa." So clearly this would be problematic. A good WP list depends on well defined inclusion criteria; anything else is prone to problems. Crum375 13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the comment of 17:36, I am not talking about race, but an ethno-linguistic group. American in the end is defined by citizeship.  Farabi made contributions to Arabic culture, but he has also made contributions to other cultures specially Iranic and Turkic.  I do not have the power to decide who is an Arab as you claim!  An Arab by definition is anyone who is born of Arab speaking parents.  An American by definition is anyone who has American citizenship.  I am going by standard definitions and nothing more.  Farabi's son or grandson could have potentially become arabized (arabs) but this does not hold for Farabi.  Also the comparison of a scientist to a writer is invalid.  A writer/poet contributes to the language, but a scientist just uses the language to express scientific opinion.  Like many people who are from India and China and are constantly contributing to the English scientific and scholarly literature.  They do not become British or American and are still considered Indian and Chinese.  --alidoostzadeh 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the English speaking world an Arab is undertood as someone from Arabia (Egyptians, Syrians,etc would not be considered Arabs). Science is done within a particular culture (especially 1000 years ago when a large part of science was a tradtion of shared errors). It is about tradition and communities of communications. It is not so different from literature as you suggest. What makes a difference today with Indian/Chinese scientists is that there is a world scientific community (each scientist publishing in English as well as his/her own native language) (the work is often/mostly done in the native language - and translated in English by someone else for publication) and self-conscious nation states has arisen in the last thousand years. VS Naipaul and J. Conrad are also part of English literature (neither born in England, one not a native speaker of English either. It is about contribution). I am saying you are trying imposing a definition of arab on this list 1) which isn't generally recognised in English (the language of this encyclopedia) 2) which too narrow and distorting for the subject (science) 3) which misunderstand what the list is. Read the first paragraph of the article. This article is about science in the arabic speaking tradition (not about defining or recognizing who is an arab!) It is easy to include the information you want (mark each person you consider a true 'arab' with a little sign) on the broader idea of this list, not vice versa.


 * You are wrong. The Indian and Chinese scientists do not translate their work.  They write directly in English since it is the scientific language of the modern world.  Your problem is probably due the name of the article.  Arab scientists means scientists born from the Arab ethno-linguistic group.  Nothing more nothing less.  Just like English Scientists does not include Chinese and Indians who write in English.  For example Avicenna wrote both in Persian and Arabic.  But he is a Persian scientist and does not become an Arab scientist by writing in Arabic.  Writing in the standard scientific language of the time does not make you an Arab.  --alidoostzadeh 20:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Arab
There is no clear definition of arab - except they live in arabia. This list clearly states it is for people who contributed to science in arabic in the middle ages. Read the first paragraph of the article!!! People wishing to folow quasi-racial (ethic) definitions can use the other list clearly provided for them RuthieK 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) American Heritage Dictionary: Ar·ab (²r“…b) n. 1. A member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern Africa from the seventh century.


 * True most of North Africa and Arab world are Arabized. The clear definition of Arab is anyone whose parents speak Arabic as their first language.  Also the name of the article is Arab Scientists.  If you want to change it to "scientists who used Arabic", then I have no problem with the inclusion of Farabi.  --alidoostzadeh 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am not thinking about race - because I am not defining Arab. I am showing you that your definition of arab is not the primary one in the English-speaking world. To most people Arab people live in Arabia. To most people, coming from an Arabic-speaking country doesn't make you arab any more than speaking Spanish makes you Spanish or French French. You are trying to impose on the article a view of concept and word Arab which is artificial and unnatural for most readers. So I am not thinking about race - I am suggesting (repeatedly) that the list is (exactly what it announces itself to be in the first paragraph) for people (of whatever race) who contributed to science in the arabic speaking cultural world (this is simply about authorship of texts, not a racial definition). Anyway, there is now a List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars, which uses your definition, you are welcome to change it reflect your views entirely. RuthieK 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong RuthieK, we're not just talking about race here, there is a universal definition of who an Arab is culturally, linguistically, or otherwise, and it doesn't cover Turks or Persians. Please don't WP:DISRUPT to make a point. --Mardavich 23:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * RuthieK is wrong. Spanish, Latino, Hispanic, French are all ethno-linguistic groups.  So is Arab.  Originally Arabs were from Arabia, but now the group has expanded because more people Arabic as their mothertongue.  I do not think he understands that the term Arab Scientists means Arab scientists!  Farabi was not an Arab since his mothertongue and fathertongue was not Arabic.  Writing in Arabic does not make a person Arab just like writing in scientific articles in English does not make a person English or American.  --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * you are mislead by the difficulty of naming the list - what the list is is made clear in the first paragraph of the article. READ IT!!! Definitions of arab do not come into it. IT IS NOT A LIST OF ARABS (whatever that means). It is a list of CONTRIBUTERS to scientific culture in the "arabic cultural/language world" (of whatever race or background)(That is rather clumsy as the name of a list so an simpler one was chosen)! And for the record there is NOT a clear definition of arab in English. You seem incapable of reading English and understanding it.RuthieK 10:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As Ali doostzadeh already stated, feel free to cerate a list for "scientists who used Arabic" to include non-Arabs who may have used Arabic. But this is a "List of Arab scientists " and the common definition of Arab is a member of Arabic-speaking ethno-linguistic people. --Mardavich 10:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is alist for your agenda on arabs already and this list has always been defined in line wiht what I have maintained all along - but you cannot bear to concede that. Read 1st para of article RuthieK 10:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

List for Ethno-linguistic Arabs
There is a list for your views List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars. It was created because there is a group of people determined not to follow the self-description of the list arab scientists and scholars which includes ALL scientists contributing to science in the arabic cultural world. Some people want a list of arab scientists, following their own definition of arab (not even the usual definition in english). That list is to cater to their wishes, in the hope they will stop blocking, reverting and vandalising entries on the this listRuthieK 10:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as the title of this article is "List of Arab scientists", people will naturally object to the addition of personalities who are academically accepted as Turks, Persians, Kurds, and etc. --Mardavich 10:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps if there is another entry called "list of scientists and scholars who wrote in Arabic", then there would no dispute. --alidoostzadeh 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey RuthieK, I tried adding to the list Al-Khwarizmi, who was born and lived his whole life in bahgdad, wrote and tought all his work in arabic, was buried in baghdad, but the Iranian Group keept always deleting it, saying that he was persian, which even that is not sure as you can see from his article's discussion. I tried to convince them that an Arab is not a race, just like an american is not a race, and even gave them the "official" defination of Arab as put by the Arab League, which goes like this: "An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples.", i.e. arab is not a race, but rather a cultural and linguistic term, but all this was fruitless. Good Luck!!Jidan 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, Ramadan mubarak everyone :) Jidan 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy Ramadan! I disagree though that Arab is not an ethno-linguistic group.  Of course my objection went further since I rightfully consider Baghdad to have been multi-cultural city back then.  --alidoostzadeh 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The term Arab is commonly defined as an ethno-linguistic classification. As it is, the title of this article is "List of Arab scientists", the list shouldn't be used as a POV fork to label historical figures as Arab, when their articles says otherwise. --Mardavich 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A Persian, a Berber, A Turk can contribute to scientific culture in arabic/the arabic cultural world. If ethnicity is so precious to you (I am sick of all this stupid racial nonsense). Who cares. I, like most people in the English speaking world, am more interested in "middle eastern" culture than race. This list announces what it is about in the first paragraph. Mardavich and his ethnically minded friends ('Arab' or 'Persian' or whatever) should not try and bully others into playing their games. RuthieK 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop making accusations and listen to what others are saying. This is a matter of accuracy. It's a universally accepted fact that Turks, Persians, Kurds etc ARE NOT ARABS and hence don't belong on "List of Arab scientists". If you're "more interested in middle eastern culture" then go ahead and create a "List of Middle Eastern scientists" and include Arabs, Turks, Persians, Kurds and other Middle Easterners. --Mardavich 22:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * His unreasonable comments are like saying all Europeans are the same! Or Chinese and Japanese people are the same! And then he accuses others of spewing racial nonsense!  --alidoostzadeh 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In connection with the above discussion, I have changed the description of the list. The previous description would be applicable to anyone who wrote in Arabic or lived in an Arab country for a considerable time, including Al-Biruni, Maimonides, Mashallah, or other people who cannot be in any way considered "Arab scholars". Beit Or 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The names you mentioned above would fit here. Arabness is like Americaness. Its a culture tied with a language (arabic) Jidan 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the key to ethnic identification is self-identification. None of the persons above could be demonstrated to have identified himself as Arab. Beit Or 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * sigh*...please read the discission above. This discussion was already done when this article was created. And we made a consensus with outer neutral observers to put this disclaimer. One of theses users was User:ManiF. If you like to discuess who is arab and who is not, you can do that here Who_is_an_Arab. Jidan 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer
Guys, I think the disclaimer was usefull (especially since it was taken from the List of Russians. There should be some overlap between this list and the other lists. People like Al-Khwarizmi lived all their life in Arabic countries but might be Persian or Turks by blood, others like Ibn Sina might considered to be Arabs but they lived in Uzbekistan and Persia. There were inter-ethnic marraiges, The modern boundaries are different from the old boundaries, etc., etc. We (you) will die arguing instead of editing. Lets have all the lists be maximally inclusive it does not matter that Ibn Sina will be in the lists of Persian, Arabs, Uzbeks, Afghans - you name it. People who like to brag by long lists will brag. Everybody will be happy. It worked that way for quite a while, lets keep it. Alex Bakharev 10:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists must be defined in a meaningful way. We could say that List of Russians includes everyone who ever set a foot on the Russian soil or uttered a word in Russian, but such a list would serve no meaningful purpose. The definition in the List of Russians is meaningful because Russia is a country, and a person who comes from Russia, became notable in Russia, or have lived most of his life in Russia may be legitimately called "Russian", whatever his ethnicity. There is, however, no such country as "Arabia" and never was (there is the Arabian peninsula, but that's different). Abbasid caliphate, where al-Khwarezmi lived, was ruled by an Arab dynasty, but this fact doesn't make everyone who lived in that state "Arab": China was ruled by a Mongol dynasty, but you cannot call the Chinese from that period "Mongols". Thus, we cannot apply here the same approach as in the List of Russians. Beit Or 10:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beit Or, this is a totally different situation. Arab is an ethnolinguistic grouping by common definition, these people simply aren't Arabs. --ManiF 11:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You can call the Abbasid caliphate, "Arabia", if that makes you feel better, they are just names. Since it was a political entity, ruled by an arab dynasty, which ruled its territory and its citizens under one law(the islamic sharia), and under one language(arabic) .Its capital, baghdad, where most scholars come from, was and still is an arab city. Why would this be different from imperial Russia? I won't discuess Al-Khwarizmi, since he was by culture and ethnicity an arab. But lets take Al-Farabi.He lived his last 40 years in baghdad(an arab city), where all his work was written, and his salary was paid from taxes collected by this arab governement. Its only logical that he should be included in the list of arab scholars. Besides, the disclaimer says clearly:

They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic"....That should be itJidan 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this "somehow linked" is what I love most: it doesn't really matter how, any "link" will do to claim they are Arab scholars. We cannot call a country the way we like, and in any event, the rulers do not determine the ethnicities of all other dwellers of the coutry. In addition, al-Khwarezmi, a Persian and possibly a Zoroastrian, was not Arab. Beit Or 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)This disclaimer was not invented by me, 2)its used in many lists, and 3)it makes sense, namely to avoid edit wars as Alex said. And funny how you say that al-khwarizmi is persian, while you spell his name wiht the arab-naming AL-.... Anyway, we can discuess this further in his article. You can go ahead and make a list of scholars with Arab DNA and link it here. But this disclaimer was here since the beginning of the article creation, and it should stay there. If you still disagree, then we can bring outside neutral mediators,i.e. no iranians,arabs, or jews. And I will accept whatever comes out. Until this happens, pleeeeease, don't erase this list. Thank you Jidan 22:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Iraq was a multi-ethnic country back then and even Baghdad is a Persian name as is Fallujah as is Anbar. There used to be many Iranians in iraq until pan-Arabists did their usual ethnic cleansing in the 20th century.  Also the concept of an "arab world" is a totally recent invetion of the last century and such an idea did not exist in the multi-ethnic Abbasid empire.  The most capable Vazirs of Abbassids were Persians.  Also the Abbasids were lame ducks once the Persian Buyids and then the Seljuqs took over Iraq and they were just there as symbols (like the queen of England today).  At least till the mongol era, one can safely say a good portion of Iraq was Iranian.  Going back to the Sassanid era, Arabs were definitely a minority.  There is still 25% Iranians in Iraq, mainly Kurds.  Abu Ali Sina has Persian works and my friend's Alex' Bukharev's analogy does not hold.  Khwarizmi used the Persian Zoroastrian calendar which no Arab has ever used and some books have clearly denoted him al-Majusi (Zoroastrian).  Writing in Arabic (although using the Persian calendar and dates and names) does not make one an Arab just like writing Latin does not make an English person like newton a Roman.  Many of these discussions has taken place in the al-khwarizmi archives.  The fact is major Professors of mathematics history who 10-20 years ago wrote al-Khwarizmi as Arab have changed to Persian in their recent work.  This process is slow, but 20 years from now, no one will make this mistake and this mistake has to do with prejudice of equating Muslim and Arab historically.  --alidoostzadeh 04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All empires were multi-ethnic. Look for example at the roman empire, it even had an arab casear, Marcus Philippus. And so was the Achaemenid Empire, who used babylonians and the assyrians to administer their empire, or later the Sassanid Empire. Again, you can go ahead and create a list of scholars with Arab DNA and link to here. But this disclaimer was here since the beginning of the article creation, and it should stay there. Jidan 14:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the somehow wording, this should do it.Jidan 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the disclaimer at the top of the page, because it provides an important explanation to the reader. Further discussion about the exact wording might be appropriate, but some explanation is certainly necessary. Doc  Tropics  17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer only makes the whole list meaningless. Basically, it justifies including into the list anyone with an Arabic name and anyone who has lived for some time in an Arabic-speaking country. Beit Or 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me if I'm being dense, but if someone has an Arabic name and lives in an Arabic country, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include them in such a list as an Arab. We can't perform genetics tests on 1,000 year old scholars, but we can cite sources who identify them as Arabic, which should be sufficient if the sources are both verifiable and reliable. Doc  Tropics  18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many Jews or Berbers who had Arabic names and spoke Arabic, but that doesn't mean they were (or are) Arabs. Including people into this list based on reliable sources is a good idea, but then we don't need this disclaimer, only a statement to the effect that the list includes people referred to as "Arabs" by reliable sources. Beit Or 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is one of accuracy. The first problem I see here, and there is plenty, is using an anachronistic term like the Arab World, when there was no such thing until the modern, post-French revolution, and in fact post WWII period. And yes, it is in fact unreasonable to assume that anyone with an Arabic-sounding name is automatically Arab, anymore than anyone with an English-sounding name is automatically English. For example, I came upon a reference for one of the disputed scholars, Masha'allah, which notes that he did have a Persian name though his penname was Arabized. Arabization of names was not uncommon at the time. Arabic was the language of science then, just as Greek once was. I don't see a similar list of Greek scholars that includes everyone of notability who spoke or wrote in Greek, or had a Greek or Hellenized name.

As far as I can see, the argument behind this list seems to be: if "the Iranians" have a list, then the Arabs should have one too! And when some scholars are removed by others who feel that their contributions are worthy of mention in their own right and not be subsumed into an arbitrary category such as this, the removal is sometimes explained in terms of some joint Iranian-Israeli conspiracy! This is bordering on the ridiculous and I'm mystified that several attempts at community consensus have simply been dismissed or ignored based on that. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   ·    ☥   20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being an Arab is a cultrual and a lingustic term (For more see Who is an Arab). Anybody who lived in one of the arabic countries, or came from it, will be listed in this article. Its that simple, no need to start a philosophical boring discussion; at least not at this article. Cheers Jidan 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Cultural" and "linguistic" is the recent definition adopted by the Arab League, and it would be wrong to project it backwards into the past. The one you have cited is just one out of many conflicting definitions of Arabness. Beit Or 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Arab league just repeated what Muhammed, an arab statsman and religious leader, said 1400 years before:

...Being an Arab is not, in any of you, inherited from father or mother but it is only the language that is spoken (Innama Hiya Al-lisan). Jidan 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well what Beit Or said makes really no sense at all ... while he refuses what all Arabs agree that being Arab is to speak Arabic language regardless of the stupid theories of Origin .. saying that is the new Pan-arabism theory he forget that in the past in the days of Islamic Empire there was diffrentiation according to ethnicity and most of those whom he claims that they are Iranians like Al-Khawarizmi and Al-Biruni, has written nothing in iranian languages but Arabic --Chaos 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ali doostzadeh wrote:

1/There used to be many Iranians in iraq until pan-Arabists did their usual ethnic cleansing in the 20th century.

2/At least till the mongol era, one can safely say a good portion of Iraq was Iranian. Going back to the Sassanid era, Arabs were definitely a minority. There is still 25% Iranians in Iraq, mainly Kurds.

1/Usual ethnic cleansing!!!???

The was no ethnic cleansing done by Arabs in history and surely not in the 20 th century

2/Iraq was and is still a semite majority country,genetic tests had proven that there are more Semites in Iran than Aryans.

When Iranians came to middle-east 2700 years ago they were very few nomadic warriors who only imposed their language upon semite peoples which was inhabtating Iraq 4000-4500 years before the coming of Iranians.

I think it rather should be:"one can safely say that a good portion of Iran is genetically and culturally[religion,alphabet,language,music]not Iranian but Semite and Semite Arab.

There is still 65-70% non Persians in Iran mainly Turk,Kurd and Arabs.

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Egyptians
I just found the discussions here but there are too many to wade through. I did notice there was a suggestion to change this to one of Muslim scholars rather than Arab. Can't tell what came of that, but I think it's more appropriate. I am removing Egyptians from this page because it claims to be "a list of scientists and scholars of Arab origin." That's just not accurate. Please see discussion I had with Jidan on my talk page. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   ·    ☥   05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion already million times. There is a List of Iranian scientists and most of the scientists listed there are Uzbeks, Afghans, Arabs, kurds, and Turks. They have been listed there just becuase they talk an indo-aryan language. This list is more preciser. And there is a disclaimer which has been continuesly been removed by same users, who we had a consensus with last spring. Jidan 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That one is the list of Iranian rather than Persian scientists. Beit Or 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And Afghani's, Uzbeki's, Kazakhstani's, Turkestani's, Khowarimzis(in uzbakistan), etc, are not Iranians, but its still listed, and I have no porblem with it becasue there is the disclaimer. This article is based upon the disclaimer(which you removed) which was agreed upon since its creation last spring. You remove the disclaimer, you remove the article. Thats your way of paying me back for this, isn't it? Jidan 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * this is rediculous, Egypt at that time was not arabized yet, like the rest of Northern Africa, infact tyhe majority of the population by thetime Saladin was in control was Coptic, making the Muslims in Egypt as Arabs, the Egyptian Muslim arab scholars MUST be included, this is inaccurate, and must be undone..

41.237.99.185 (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alhazen And Gaber Are Arabs 100% Aaaaaaaa142538 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Al khwarizmi wasn't Arab or Persian Aaaaaaaa142538 (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

=Topics from 2007=

Question
What exactly (which names) made this list's accuracy disputed or made it based on original research ? --Lanov 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A more precise question is, which name doesn't confirm with the disclaimer? Jidan 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an Arab is only the language that is spoken
Jidan, you think, on this basis, whoever speaks Arabic is Arab? Gutsarin 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody who comes from an Arab country is an Arab. Jidan 16:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're not looking at the facts. Are Berbers, Somalians, Egyptians, Nubians, Syriacs, Jews... are all these people Arabs because they might come from countries that call themselves Arab? Granted among them are people who identify as Arabs but a lot do not, and rightly so. Don't forget that most of what is called the Arab World today, all North Africa, was not originally Arab, so it's unlikely that these people listed here called themselves Arabs because at that time "Arab" held its original meaning based on tribal and geneological factors. Some people even faked it like the supposed "ashraf" of today from Nigeria to Afghanistan, but ironically the Saudis don't consider them "real Arabs". Encyclopedias need to be based on verifiable and logical facts. Egyegy 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The defination of an arab person, is anybody who comes from an Arab Country, without regard to his ethnicity, i.e. its a cultrul and lingustic defination. Why do you think there is a discaimer right at the beginning of the article? Egypt, Tunis, Morroco, etc, are all arab countries, and they are members of the Arab League. The official international name of Eygpt is Jumhūriyyat Miṣr al-ʿArabiyyah - Arab Republic of Egypt, and one of the great leaders of arab nationlism was the egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. And yes, there are arab jews, just like there are german jews, or french jews.
 * BTW, please don't listen to what User:Mardavich tells you. If it was the truth, then you should ask yourself why he tells you this secretly through E-mail  instead of using the talk page. He had also labled many arab scientist as persian. Oh, and using his logic, you should ask him why is it okay then to list Uzbakistans (Al-Biruni, ibn sina), Kazakhistani, Afghanistanis, etc, in the List of Iranian scientists  Jidan 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah and somalia is also a member of the Arab League, but the truth is that a lot of Somalis and Egyptians couldn't care less about the official stance of theirs governments. Berbers have been fighting the Moroccan and Algerian governments for decades just to be recognized even though these these countries are originally Berber. Nasser was a dictator who took over Egypt by force. He was Bedouin Arab on one side of his family and is considered by lots of EGyptians as Egypt's version of Franco. The current official name has only been around since the 1970s. It has nothing to do with how any of these scholars considered themselves centuries ago. Also when Egypt became indpendent in 1922 it was the Egyptian Kingdom, then the Egyptian Republic. Then under Nasser it became a dictatorship and has been ever since. But anyway it's completely irrelevant what the official name of Egypt is today (which will change sooner or later). Iran's "Islamic Republic" too is no more a refelection of how Iranians actually feel about their culture Egyegy 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, so you don't consider Gamal Abdel Nasser an egyptian. Anyway, the disclaimer makes it clear who the listed people are. BTW, why do mention in your userpage that your native language is Egyptian, although you don't understand it quite well ? Oh, and since when is egyptian actually a language? I thought it was just an accent of arabic, just like Gulf Arabic or Hejazi Arabic. It seems to me you haven't actually been living in Egypt long. Jidan 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ease up on the conspiracy theories man. I was trying to say nicely that his Egyptian wasn't very comprehensible. Of course Nasser is Egyptian but he didn't seem too fond of that himself now, did he?! His background helps explain some of his views. Besides the Bedouin consider themselves a people apart with their own language ("”The Bedouin can feel disconnected from the rest of the country; we don’t even really speak the same language. Some Bedouin have trouble understanding the Egyptian dialect,”) Egyegy 20:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, I just want to make a list of all scholars from the Arab World. Nobody is saying that egyptians are ethnic arabs (although there have been a large arab immagriation), but they are cultrualy and lingusticly arab and are an insperatable part of the arab world. Also, in each scholar entry of the list, the place of brith and death is recorded, so everybody will know that abu kamal is egyptian. Can we now concentrate our efforts in expaniding the list? Thank you. Jidan 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page because of the edit war. The issue appears to be inclusion of Ibn Farnas, Abu Kamil, Al Fazari, and Ibn Yunus, although from the summary notes the dispute appears to be about Fazari. Please discuss.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I filed a RFC here . Lets see if the system really works ;) Jidan 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ..and here . Jidan 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC Response
It would seem the issue is wether or not you are trying to define "Arab" as a ethnic or culural group. If you wish to define it as a cultural group then, by definition, any person from an Arabic speaking nation or area is an Arab. If you wish to define it along ethnic terms then only members of the Semitic people in and around Arabia would be included. IMO only the ethnic group should be included, otherwise you are going to have to not only clump several African and notably "un-Arab" peoples into the list you are also going to have to determine when these Arabic speaking regions first became "Arab". This is only going to spark more debate and would make this List even more conflict prone than it already is. Just my two cents. NeoFreak 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Asma'i
Link did not include an apostrophe before the i, leading it nowhere. Fixed this.--Aeranis 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

=Topics from 2008=

these scholars are Arabs
before i start the history lesson i wanna say as one of the friends said earlier, An Arab its like An American, a people who bron in the arabian land and his language is arabic, even if they wasn't arab by race if u wanna consider arab as a race.

you have to know that there is an arab race of one arabic country that called Yemen, the arabs originally started on that country not like everybody think (i mean its not saudi arabia), in thousand of years before islam, christianity, and jewdism the Yemeni people are travling to many countries in the world for trade, espcially a group of people in Yemen called 'Hadrami, this people consider one of the best business people in the world, they are the people who sent Islam to Indonesia and malaysia plus another Asian and African countries, also in some parts of Europe. Imegration was very big from this country in the begning for the countries that has semetice groups such as arabs, of course those languages has a lot of arabic vocabulary, then after they mixed with them new generations looks alike because they all are semetice race, these group of people add more arabic words to their language because they had lack of vocabulary, also they accepted the arabic words coz they found the language itself looks tipcally like arabic, then those group of people sparades in a lot of other places and so on, also in Yemen there was a great disaster of Yemen that called Marib Dam, so more Yemeni imigretions started, even today in Iran itself, they use the Arabic alphabet in their language, plus that more of 40% of persian language has arabic vocabulary, after that another era of arab-persian problem during the eimpre of Persia, when arab had a big war with the Persian empire that called Battle of Thi Qar, the arab at that time wasn't muslims yet.

also i want to say that all (not even most) the poeple that their names started with AL are arabs.

also all of the Ahl al-Bayt, are arabs, and iranian are saying that they are persian untill today!! well i will accept that they are Iranian people today coz they born and lived in Iran, but ethnically are not Persian. —Abdullah Alkendy (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

i hope that i help as much as i can because i got these info from an old people who are already dead. —Abdullah Alkendy (talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers
26-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I inserted missing topic headers & trimmed the bot-signed notes. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Format
26-Oct-2008: The format guidelines for adding entries to the list are described under the topic (above) titled: Entries Format for the List of Arab scientists and scholars. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Ikhwan Al-safa (The Brethren of Purity)
The article Brethren of Purity does not say they were Arab. So why they are listed here? Please explain.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This list should be altered to "Caliphate civilisation scientists and scholars"
The word "Arab" is used ambigiously and clearly refers to different groups at different times. Unfortunately, English has not developed a wording analogue to Greek (Hellenic) / Hellenistic for the Arabs.

The definition of the Arab League mentioned here earlier is quite frankly horrible, notwithstanding that the Arab League in 1946, when it defined the word "Arab", included few if any democratic leaders.

"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the  aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."

I kindly ask: who defines whether a person's aspirations are "in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arab speaking peoples"? Does this mean that a person speaking Arabic, living in an Arabic speaking country, but who for some reason has happened to be in conflict with the majority of Arab speaking peoples (for instance by converting to another religion, something that is punishable in many such countries) is not an Arab anymore? For crying out loud.

Muslim scientist is not a good term either, though it is featured on Wikipedia as well. Yet again - and this is also inconsequent - people like Hunayn ibn Ishaq, a well-renowned 9th century translator, would not be included there because he was a Christian. There was a certain pressure in Muslim societies to embrace the faith of Islam, if you wanted to reach the pinnacles of society - the term "Muslim scientist" goes into highly speculative details of whatever denomination a person held publicly and what he thought privately.

The same pressure was present in Christian societies, but the idea that Galileo Galilei or Charles Darwin would be labelled "Christian scientists" (they were certainly both members of churches throughout their lives) would be ludicrous. The same actually goes for medieval scholars in Christian countries - for instance Paul of Aegina who was a Greek Christian in the 7th century AD. The latter category Christian Scientists does not even exist - it is redirected to an obscure 19th century church. If Wikipedia finds it relevant to list all the scientists who (at least formally) believed in the Quran, why are not the scientists who paid at least lip-service to the Bible mentioned as well?

Now to the point: most of the scientists referred to here and on the Muslim scholar page should be transferred to a page called something like "(Arab) Caliphate civilisation scientists and scholars". Because that's what it's about. Most of these scholars were Arabs, but a sizeable minority belong to "arabized" people: Persians, Jews, Kurds, Greeks etc, who wrote in Arabic. Most of them were Muslims, but a sizeable minority were only formally so, or belonged to other religious groups. The likely ethnically Arab scholars who predate the Caliphate should be moved to another site, perhaps called "Pre-Islamic Arab scholars". Sponsianus (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny
You guys are double spacing the list of entries in your list of Arab scholars so that it looks like theres more names. Do you guys have to constantly live in the shadow of Persians? I mean I constantly see Arab critics to academically sourced Persian scholars in Iranian wiki pages, and it's really sad I mean the other day I found out from a friend who lived in Jordon that they taught students in his school that Ibn Sina was an Arab...Whatever you guys have to prove to yourselves only makes a mockery of intelligent, reasonable minded Arabs who know a good source from a fabricated one.

Ditc (talk)DITC

The wikiarticle about Persian scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_scientists

Includes many non Persian scientists(such as Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Turk,Uzbek,Jew,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...)

But the scientists included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars

ARE ALL ARAB since their mother tongue,name,surname and origin was ARAB(or SEMITE for someones)living under ARAB states

Humanbyrace (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are all scholar listed here ARAB?
The wikiarticle about Persian scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_scientists

Includes many non Persian scientists(such as Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Turk,Uzbek,Jew,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...) Kurd,Georgian,Arab,Armenian,Azari,Afghan,Soghd,Khawarezmian,Pahlavi,Tabari,Old irani,Middle irani,Gilaki,Balush,Lari...) are all considered Iranic !!!

But the scientists included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars

ARE ALL ARAB since their mother tongue,name,surname and origin was ARAB(or SEMITE for someones)living under ARAB states

Humanbyrace (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to mr Ali doostzadeh

Ali doostzadeh wrote:

1/There used to be many Iranians in iraq until pan-Arabists did their usual ethnic cleansing in the 20th century.

2/At least till the mongol era, one can safely say a good portion of Iraq was Iranian. Going back to the Sassanid era, Arabs were definitely a minority. There is still 25% Iranians in Iraq, mainly Kurds.

1/Usual ethnic cleansing!!!???

The was no ethnic cleansing done by Arabs in history and surely not in the 20 th century

there have been so many ethnic cleansing is sudan,morroco, iraq,... done by arabs !!!

2/Iraq was and is still a semite majority country,genetic tests had proven that there are more Semites in Iran than Aryans.

When Iranians came to middle-east 2700 years ago they were very few nomadic warriors who only imposed their language upon semite peoples which was inhabtating Iraq 4000-4500 years before the coming of Iranians. 2700 years ago? if aryan immigration be true and not myth, it happened 7000 years ago !!!

I think it rather should be:"one can safely say that a good portion of Iran is genetically and culturally[religion,alphabet,language,music]not Iranian but Semite and Semite Arab. religion,alphabet,language (somehow) and specially music of so-called semetics are heavily influenced by Iranians.

There is still 65-70% non Persians in Iran mainly Turk,Kurd and Arabs. kurds are Iranic, arabs of Iran are either immigrants or refugees,azaris also are Iranic but they speak an old version of turkic ottoman language.

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Brethren of Purity were NOT all arab
from 5 known members, 3 of them mentioned below were not obviously arab. ابوسلیمان محمد بن معشر بُستی ,ابوالحسن علی بن هارون زنجانی، ابواحمد مهرجانی)نهرجوری)،

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irakischer_Maler_von_1287_001.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.197.66 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tags
Should we delete the "this section is empty tags", along with the section headers? That would seem to make sense to me, as it would lead to a cleaner, more reader-friendly list, and the tags seem to yield little benefit and much cost in terms of distraction -- what sayeth consensus?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Too modern
The intro sez ... lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. It isn't quite clear when that is; Modern history says Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.... So 20th century people are definitely too modern. 19th C too, I'd say; and even 18th C is dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replacing the non-specific phrase with a specific date cutoff could be helpful in addressing the point.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the cut off point should be when it stopped making any sense to talk about "Arab" science - ie, when science became effectively global; or when the globalisation of science reached this region, loosely defined. I'm not sure when that might be, though. End of the middle ages? As a strawman, how about arbitrarily saying 1600? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me. As would most any other date.  More important, I think, is establishing a specific date that is in the broad realm of what is reasonable, and specifying what it relates to (e.g., people born before that date, or alternatively died by that date ... etc.).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Scholars?
"scientists and scholars" is quite vague. To take a specific case, what about philosophers such as Ahmad Bilal Yousaf? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The term, scholar, is quite broad and would include philosophers. Scientist, however, is not quite as broad and would not include philosophers. We could call the article a "List of Arab scholars", interpreting scholar to include scientists, but I don't think everyone will agree with that interpretation. So I think it would be more useful to keep both scientists and scholars' in the title. Folklore1 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion with Aṭlas
User:Aṭlas, sorry but your reasons for the deletions are not Valid. Regarding the Moorish scholars, half of them are clearly ethnic Arabs who belonged to known Arab tribes like for example, Al-Bakri ( Banu Bakr), Al-Ghafiqi ( Ghafiq), Ibn Jubayr ( Banu Kinanah), Ibn al-Kattani ( Madh'hij),  Ibn Malik ( Tayy),  Ibn al-Wafid ( Banu Lakhm), and others. So there is no argument over such names to begin with. As for the rest whose biography or ethnicity is not clear, they also belongs in the article as mentioned in the disclaimer at the beginning.

And I don't see what is your problem with the Muslim Egyptian and Syrian scholars exactly?

Finally, regarding the unrelated scholars(islamic scolares and historians) they surely falls under the category of "scholars" which is within the scope of this list. The same type of scholars have been listed in articles like List of Turkic scholars and List of Iranian scientists and scholars as well. So why single this article out? Either delete them there too, or keep them listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasfras17 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Regarding the Moorish scholars, half of them are clearly ethnic Arabs who belong to known Arab tribes like for example". Any sources for this claim ? You can't know the origins of a Moorish person without sources. As Moors were from different origins, they can be Arabs or blacks, berbers or Muladi... Nisbas can't prove your claims (some muladis created Berber genealogies to themselves, while the latter created Arab genealogies). This applies to Maghrebis as well (they can be Berbers). As for the syrians, Iriqis and egyptians. I agree! I should restore them to the article. Any other WP:OR edits you'll be reported to admins.-Aṭlas (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of ethnisity as a strictly racialist concept is pretty confused and obsolete. Going by that logic, we don't even know for sure the origin of any man that has ever lived on earth. Maybe we should dig up their graves, take DNA samples and then bring up the results as "sources". How about that ?


 * A lot of Hellenistic period Greek philosophers were not in fact "Greek" -in an ethnic sense- but rather native people of territories conquered by  Macedonians. Still historians today classify them as Greek philosophers, either because they were quite Hellenized, or simply because there is no enough information about them to assume otherwise.
 * The same thing for Persian scholars, most of them are not ethnic Persians but rather an east-Iranian speaking central Asian population who got persianised after the Muslim conquest of Iran. Still today they are regarded by most as "Persians" regardless of their national feelings at the time and the extent of their Persianization or its lack thereof.
 * The same story could be said about Romans, Chinese, Turks, Indians, and indeed every single nation in history. The difference being the extent of such phenomenon varies from one nation to another depending on its hegemony.


 * And Arabs are no exception. The Arab scholars of this article are understood to be the scholars who appereed in the arabosphere of the Islamic world, dominated by Arab culture and language, regardless of whether they were ethnic Arabs or Arabised, and regardless of whether their "Nisbas" are authentic or made up. Unless the scholar's ethnicity in this arabosphere  is distinct and identified to be non-Arab, then he belongs in this list. That is what this article is about, and that is why it was agreed upon to put a disclaimer at the beginning which says "In some cases, their exact ancestry is unclear." So you are the one who is vandalizing this article by deleting relevant material. And yes I am OK with notifying the admins to mediate, if you are insistent on edit-Waring. Frasfras17 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Where are the source(s) confirming Arab ethnicity for:


 * Ali ibn Isa al-Kahhal
 * Ibn `Asakir
 * Ibn al-'Awwam
 * Al-Bakri
 * Ibn Bassal
 * Dawud al-Antaki
 * Al-Dhahabi
 * Domiyat
 * just for starters. None of the named articles have any mention of Arab or sources for ethnicity. Therefore, the inclusion of these individuals in this article is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That Escalated Quickly. Did I hit a nerve ? or what ? "Your understanding of ethnicity as a strictly racialist concept is pretty confused and obsolete." Where is the racialist concept in my reply ? Did I talk about the "old race concepts" (Mongoloids, Caucasoids....) ? That's a clear misrepresentation of my reply, and I think it's intentional. A typical straw man fallacy (Going by that logic, we don't even know for sure the origin of any man that has ever lived on earth. Maybe we should dig up theair graves and take dna samples and bring up the results as "sources". How about that ?.) Cash Me Ousside, how Bow Dah ? All what you wrote is your point of view and WP:OR.
 * "Unless the scholar's ethnicity in this arabosphere is distinct and identified to be non-Arab, then he belongs in this list.". Well, this conclusion runs counter to what is in WP:SOURCELIST; "....the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well."-Aṭlas (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kansas Bear.
 * Well, ِdemanding sources for some of these names is like demanding sources for "The sky is blue". Being born in an Arab city, belonging to some Arabian tribe, speaking Arabic as native language are all enough indicators of ones' Arab ethnicity or at least identity. I can easily provide sources for the names you have brought up, it is not the point. My problem is why when it comes to Arab scholars the "acceptance criteria are higher". I mean why it is okay for Phoenician Porphyry (philosopher) to be listed in List of ancient Greek philosophers with no objection, but an Arab scholar can not be listed in an Arab list unless dozens of sources about his family tree is provided to just "cite the obvious". Anyway, here are some sources for the names you mentioned if that is going to settle the argument here:
 * *Ali ibn Isa al-Kahhal
 * *Al-Bakri
 * *Al-Dhahabi
 * *Dawud al-Antaki
 * *Ibn `Asakir
 * *Ibn al-'Awwam and *Ibn Bassal

Frasfras17 (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Well, ِdemanding sources for some of these names is like demanding sources for "The sky is blue"."
 * Actually, no it's not. Since, none of the ones I listed made any mention of their ethnicity in their individual articles nor did they have any sources indicating their ethnicity. And if you are going to start quoting policy then you surely know about Verifiability and Reliable sources.
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * "The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."
 * "Being born in an Arab city, belonging to some Arabian tribe, speaking Arabic as native language are all enough indicators of ones' Arab ethnicity or at least identity."
 * That is the definition of original research. As I said before that was just the start. What about the other names that have been the center of the edit war?
 * Oh, and Abdel R. Omran was professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Not an historian, therefore Public Health & Welfare in the Arab States - Past - Present and Future, is not a reliable source.
 * As for Ibn Asakir, you should not use Encyclopaedia Britannica, instead, A History of the Crusades, ed.Kenneth M. Setton, Vol. 5, page 27, by Nabih Amin Faris. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, so you approve on the rest of the sources that I've brought, and agree with me that those names should not be deleted arbitrarily. As for the rest of the list, their sources are available too. However, i am too busy now to provide them all at once. so i will be sourcing some names every once in a while, and you can then check them and evaluate the sources. How about that? Frasfras17 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As per Verifiability, unless their individual articles state Arab ethnicity(with a source) they should not be listed here. Those names which have reliable sources can be re-added. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Zakarya al Qazwini
Here we go. Zakariya is Arab by origin, it's not the first time you deliberately disrupted Arab related pages, Al-Kindi, Mubariz al-Din Muhammad and now this page? (All have one similarity, your versions were removed) I think I am getting tired of this unconstructive patterns, it just need a serious admin intervention if it continued (And a history CV of pages you edited all the way until an admin intervention who reverted your versions, just to make them in the spotlight that it is your usual behavior of crusading Arab articles). Your page would be certainly reverted, like your other disruptive edits. Let me remind you once again: Your OR or what you consider applicable to be Arab or whatnot doesn't matter. I will leave you to comprehend that simple fact. Nabataeus (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are very selective when you use Wikipedia :

« it's not the first time you deliberately disrupted Arab related pages, Al-Kindi, Mubariz al-Din Muhammad and now this page? (All have one similarity, your versions were removed)«

I perfectly agree with the version about Mubariz which states that he was of « distant Arab origin » and not « Arab » like you wanted to write in the article (this version goes even further than the one i proposed because it includes the word « distant »...). And, of course, you do not speak about articles like Ismail al-Jazari, Muzaffarids or Abdullah Ansari you tried to vandalize by Arabizing them (these articles have also one similarity : YOUR versions were removed), but do not feel humiliated, because Wikipedia is not about winning. More, Frasfras tried to state that Zakariya al-Qazwini was an Arab, but LouisAragon reverted him... Stating that Qazwini was an Arab is not a problem for me if you provide a reliable source saying so. But if you can’t, i will revert your edit...

« it is your usual behavior of crusading Arab articles »

Crusades mainly occured against Turkish dynasties and, in a much lower level, Iranian dynasties, but only some Arabs like you complain about it.. quite a funny behavior...

I’m not « crusading » against anyone, i’m only trying to improve (modestly) Wikipedia and when i find a reliable souurce for an Arab claim, i include it, like i did here, but i have not found a single edit from you supporting another people than Arabs...

Anyway, we’re not here to speak about you or me... but do not forget what i told you, provide a reliable source stating that Qazwini was an Arab and NOT only « Arab origin » to include him in your Arab list (if only the origin matters, then you, me, and anybody else on this planet is an Ethiopian !).

« I think I am getting tired »

Yeah, you're right to be tired because I always fight POV pushers like you until they're tired...

Farawahar (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I perfectly agree with the version about Mubariz which states that he was of « distant Arab origin » and not « Arab » like you wanted to write in the article (this version goes even further than the one i proposed because it includes the word « distant »...).


 * Huh, how ironic. The problem was not about paraphrasing, but rather your inaccurate shoving of the word Persian in front of his page. Therefore it was removed by an admin. You could just change the wording in the article couldn't you? But it doesn't correspond with your initial POV it appears.


 * And, of course, you do not speak about articles like Ismail al-Jazari, Muzaffarids or Abdullah Ansari you tried to vandalize by Arabizing them (these articles have also one similarity : YOUR versions were removed), but do not feel humiliated, because Wikipedia is not about winning.


 * Your input in Muzaffarids and Khawaja was valid, you didn't remove references or revert my version, as you noticed, edit conflicts are absent. I am flexible to any opinion unless if it swim in an ocean of erroneous. There's no winning or losing. Advice: Do not consider me your antagonist.


 * More, Frasfras tried to state that Zakariya al-Qazwini was an Arab, but LouisAragon reverted him... Stating that Qazwini was an Arab is not a problem for me if you provide a reliable source saying so. But if you can’t, i will revert your edit...


 * Authoritative sources are numerous. The encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol IV state: He drew his origin from an Arab family...


 * Crusades mainly occured against Turkish dynasties and, in a much lower level, Iranian dynasties, but only some Arabs like you complain about it.. quite a funny behavior...


 * Arab dynasties were involved. Never mind. It was metaphorical statement.


 * I’m not « crusading » against anyone, i’m only trying to improve (modestly) Wikipedia and when i find a reliable souurce for an Arab claim, i include it, like i did here, but i have not found a single edit from you supporting another people than Arabs...


 * In front of you, Khawaja page, I corrected the reference citation that state Persian.


 * Anyway, we’re not here to speak about you or me... but do not forget what i told you, provide a reliable source stating that Qazwini was an Arab and NOT only « Arab origin » to include him in your Arab list (if only the origin matters, then you, me, and anybody else on this planet is an Ethiopian !).


 * What a wrong analogy someone could make, truly.


 * - al-Qazwini was one of the most famous Arab scholars dealing with natural history.
 * - the Arab geographers al-Masudi, Zakariya Qazwini, and al-Wardi.


 * Yeah, you're right to be tired because I always fight POV pushers like you until they're tired...


 * It's hard to reason with people who have similar mentality. Nabataeus (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the time you took to find some sources stating Zakarya was Arab, therefore, his name can remain in the Arab list (and on the Persian list).

« Huh, how ironic. The problem was not about paraphrasing, but rather your inaccurate shoving of the word Persian in front of his page. Therefore it was removed by an admin. You could just change the wording in the article couldn't you? But it doesn't correspond with your initial POV it appears. »

As you can check, no amin intervention here : Mubariz al-Din Muhammad. Do you know why ? Because since i’m not a nationalist like you AND someone found a reliable source stating that Mubariz was of distant Arab origin, not like you who first tried to state he was an Arab using a Venezuelan economist as « referenced informations » on this topic, (LMAO!), there was just no need of an admin there ...

« I am flexible to any opinion »

Yeah, you’re flexible when you can not do otherwise (just like in the Al-Jazari article...).

« In front of you, Khawaja page, I corrected the reference citation that state Persian »

The source about Ansari was mine, you did not add it, you just corrected the regerence style (and you could not remove it because it’s reliable...).

« Advice: Do not consider me your antagonist. »

All nationalists are my antagonists, do you know why ? Just because nationalism means war (unlike patriotism). Since seemingly you need to advise everybody, i will tell you 3 things :

1) Keep your « advices » for yourself.

2) I’m Ms nobody, but if i had an advice for you, it would be :

contribute to Wikipedia honestly, not like you did until now, like a POV editor, and you should not hear about me anymore, but if you’re here to fight against others, blatantly trying to Arabize Wikipedia just as if it was a battleground, then trust me, i’ll be there to make you « tired » of fighting again ...

3) i’m an Iranian woman with Polish ancestry and living with an Iranian man. Being of Polish ancestry does not make me Polish, i consider myself Iranian (or strongly Iranized), AND, i know it's hard to accept for a nationalist, but yes, we are all Ethiopians at the origin, even you and even me with my blond hair and my green eyes.

I think we’re done now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farawahar (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What a ranting filled with multiple accusative statements and mixed with deliberate dishonesty. It lack any intellectual input. You take the morale ground, but that was your edit in AL-Kindi. An epitome example of mendacious individual. Forget it, emotions are leaking from your keyboard, it prevent comprehension. I will leave it there. Have a nice day angry woman ! Nabataeus (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ho ho ho, since i told you i’m a woman, my emotions are leaking from my keyboard ... so shabby... As to my “deliberate dishonesty”, i let other users see here about you, always the first to give lessons but the last one to apply them ... My contribution to Al kindi article was reliable, since the experienced user Kansas Besr said, tertiary sources are reliables, but i will deal with this issue elsewhere. Farawahar (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)