Talk:Ibn al-Haytham/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rarevogel needs to explain his edit(s)

Per this source, Science, Medicine and Technology, Ahmad Dallal, The Oxford History of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 192;"Ibn al-Haytham (d.1039), known in the West as Alhazan, was a leading Arab mathematician, astronomer, and physicist. His optical compendium, Kitab al-Manazir, is the greatest medieval work on optics".

According to the The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.III, page 788, "IBN AL-HAYXHAM, ABU cALi, AL-HASAN B.AL-HASAN (or Husayn) B. AL-HAYTHAM AL-BASRI, AL-MisRl, was identified towards the end of the 19th century with the ALHAZEN, AVENNATHAN and AVENETAN of mediaeval Latin texts. He is one of the principal Arab mathematicians and, without any doubt, the best physicist."

If Rarevogel wishes to continue to remove references and referenced information, he will need to show the sources in question are not reliable sources, else he is simply edit warring to impose his own opinion into this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Another source:

Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts, David J. Hess, (Columbia University Press, 1995), page 66;"It is known that Galileo had a copy of "Opticae Thesaurus" of Ibn al-Haytham(Alhazen), an Arab scientist who was known for his experimental method (Omar 1979:68)." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

His most recent edit rather improves the article. These ethnic "or" statements are very amaturish in the lede. I've never seen another encyclopedia that starts their aritcles on historical figures in this way. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

His most recent edit is certainly better than "Iraqi muslim", which was his original edit, however he still needs to actually use the Talk page for potentially controversial matters. --Merlinme (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The first words about this great man shouldnt consist of speculation. The autobiography section has ample room for talk about possibility of him being a Persian, Chinese or whatever. You can even start an entire chapter about his ethnic background.

The sources which describe him as a Persian, base that on the fact that his native home (Iraq) at thr timr of his birth was ruled by a tribal confederation from Iran. To some idiot 'scholars' that makes him Persian. Even though that ruling tribe wasnt even Persian, the were Daylamites. An Iranian ethnic group.

Here are the facts

1) He was born a predominantly Arab city in a predominantly Arab region. Later he moved to Egypt, never leaving for Persia

2) He never commented on his ethnicity.

3) He wrote exclusively in Arabic and in his use of Arabic never shows a Persian or non-Arabic influence. His Arabic is extremely 'pure'

4) His (near)-contemporaries never gave us a reason to believe he was a Persian

5) His name shows no non-Arabic traceI'm not saying he wasnt a Persian, all Im saying is that there is no evidence to believe he was. Maybe he was Indian or Chinese, or Egyptian, Andalusian. All we no for sure is that he was an Iraqi native

Please remove that first sentence and feel free to cobtinue your guesswork in the autobiography section.

Another point. Calling him Iraqi is much more appropriate than calling him a Mesopotamian. Mesopotamia is an ancient Greek term, while Iraq is a term used by Alhazen himself for his home country! It was how the muslims calles lower Iraq, south of Jazira. It is not a modern term! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point, but please give references to support your viewpoint. We're not allowed to use our own research, we're only allowed to use Reliable Sources. Please provide a reference describing him as Mesopotamiam (or Iraqi, or whatever).

Also, could you clearly state what text you want. Your last edit to the article was for "Mesopotamian", but in your last comment on this page you seem to be arguing against the use of that term. --Merlinme (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any sources for Rarevogel's opinion. However, I do see a pattern to Rarevogel's editing....

Rarevogel states, "I can find just as much sources claiming he was Persian[1]. Whereupon Rarevogel places Persian before Arab.

Rarevogel states, "I can't find any reference anywhere to any Arab ancestry, he most probably was a Persian.",[2] removing 9 references in the process.

Rarevogel replaces Arab with Persian and adds sources.[3]

Rarevogel states, "Arabs are not a learned people.When someone (qualified or not) writes at he wrote in the Arabic language or they think ll muslims are Arabs. bout him being an 'Arab scientist', they either mean tha",[4] while adding an amazon.com reference

This is not the only article in which Rarevogel has removed/changed references and/or referenced information to suit his own personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I made those edits years ago, because at that time they insisted on calling him an Arab. Back then I didnt really no much about the man, when I came across these texts which call him a Persian. If anything it proves that Im really only interested in getting the correct ibfo out there. And since then the sebtence has been changed. Whether or not you think he was Arab or Chinese or French, its stupid to have the page start out with speculations: '...is an Arab or Persian scholar..'. Thats a childish way to open up the page. Have an entire srction devoted to his background but dont do this. Its like opening up Copernicus' page with: 'Copernicus was a German or Polish scholar..'. You cant do that.

kansasbear you have a tendency of blindly allowing false info to stay on these pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This old book says he was an Arab and "seems to have been a native of Persia and to have resided in Spain and Egypt". Some say he was "Persian or Arab". At least one calls him Alexandrian. Some say he was "born in Basra, Iraq" or in "Basra, in present-day Iraq". None say he was Iraqi. Some acknowledge that he was Muslim; some imply he was in the Islamic culture but don't say anything about his own religion. But it would seem odd for us to simply call him him Muslim, instead of saying something more about the culture and place in which he was born and operated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

He was not a native of Persia. He was a native of Iraq. He never even went to Persia.

Iraq in his lifetime was governed by an Iranian tribe. I guess that explains why that writer calls him a Persian native? Because Iraq is no Persia, never has been — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a case to be made for just deleting the debate as unnecessary in the lead, although I still don't think you've even come close to showing consensus before going ahead and making your edit in what you know is a controversial area. However in the interests of moving the article forward I've let it stand rather than undo it. I've deleted "Muslim" though, as it was rather prominent in the lead without the discussion of his background. We don't mention the religion of (say) Galileo in the lead of that article and I don't see why it's needed here. --Merlinme (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It shouldnt be controversial bro. For the reasons I mentioned before. There is zero reason to velieve he was a Persian. There is zero reason to believe he even spoke another languwge except Arabic. He came from an Arabic city, his name shows no non-Arabic trace, etc. Isnt the burden then on you to prove he was Persian? Some obscure book where they bluntly state that he was isnt enough. Because I even came across a text where they said he came 'from the Persian city of Basra'! Still most books in GoogleBooks describe him as an Arab. Which too doesnt say a lot. What does that mean? Maybe he was of Aramean/Syriac descent? Which is more probable actually than him being an ethnic Arab or Persian

The only thing we know for sure was that he was an Iraqi and a muslim, and that he wrote exclusively in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not your bro. And if the consensus of authorities is that it makes sense to describe him as an Arab, please don't impose your own personal opinion otherwise on the encyclopedia. --Merlinme (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt.

a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at WP:ANI. --Merlinme (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people. Anyway, I really wasnt intersted in proving he wasnt Persian. I found the opening sentence to be unappropriate, thats why I changed it to 'Iraqi'. Because thats all we know for sure really, that he was an Iraqi native. We might conclude that he was an Arab, given that he was born in an 'Arab' city, wrote exclusicely in Arabic and had an Arab name. But that still doesbt prove he was Arab. He might as well have been an Arabized Syriac, Persian or Jew or whatever. I dont understand why you guys have a problem with calling him 'an Iraqi scholar' but Im happy you removed that speculative opening sentence. Greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

After waiting more than 1 week, Rarevogel has failed to present any source(s) to support his opinion. Therefore, I move we place Arab in the lead as follows. "Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (965 in Basra, Iraq – c. 1040 in Cairo, Egypt) was an Arab scientist, polymath, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher". Apply the Arab ethnicity to the biography section of the article, as well, using the 3 sources I have provided and be done with it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems OK, except I think bio style calls for NOT putting birth and death places into the lead that way; just the years (965 – c. 1040). Mention Basra later; it's still not clear to me that it makes sense to say Iraq. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Re: Iraq, the historical region and the modern country do not share the same borders, and no-one has yet produced a source, contemporary or more recent, describing Alhazen as Iraqi; the "country" he was born in, assuming we mean as a political entity, as I understand it would be one of the Buyid emirates. So I don't think "Iraqi" is helpful. However I don't mind "Basra, present-day Iraq". Later it's "Basra, in the Iraq, which was then part of the Buyid emirate". I've not actually seen the region described as "the Iraq" like this; is that a standard usage in English? --Merlinme (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither does 16th century holland share the same borders with present day Netherlands. Yet you have no problem with calling Rembrandt a Dutchman. You know why? Because there is continuity there. As is with the case of Iraq. I posted a source before, where they discuss the Ancient use of the name

Egypt ie another example by the way. Iancient, medieval and modern borders all differed, yet we call people from all those periods with this same name. Bc again, there is continuity there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I do not have a problem removing Basra, Iraq and Cairo, Egypt and leaving just the years as you suggested. Since you two gentlemen have agreed, I will add Arab with the 3 academic sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I confess to knowing little of the relations between Arabs, Persians, and others in that part of the world, but the Persian people article states, "Besides modern Iran (Persia), ethnic Persians are also found in Central Asia (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) where they are usually called "Tajiks" and "Farsiwans", as well as in Southern Iraq (Babylonia), a region which has been historically an integral part of Persia." If that's so, then it explains why Alhazen is often said to be Persian; maybe he was. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Southern Babylonia (southern Iraq), was not an 'integral part of Persia'. Let me try to explain. Babylonia (what is now Iraq, that part bounded by the rivers) is a region with a long history and culture. Its where the script first developed in 3000 BC, where the first cities were built. In around 550 BC, Persians arrived and conquered the region. Because Babylonia was so rich and developed, the Persians made it the centre of their empire, with their capital near the old city of Babylon. Babylonia was briefly taken by the Greeks, who ruled from the city of Seleucia and then retaken by the Persians, after which they ruled untill the arrival of the Arabs. In that 1000 year of Persian rule in Mesopotamia, that region retained its native Aramaic language and custums, never becoming significantly Persianized. In stead, Mesopotamia Semiticized the Persian states that ruled it: exporting its language (as it was the state language) and culture across those empires. Mesopotamia in that sense was not an integral part of Persia, culturally and economically. It stood apart through its non-Persian culture and its advanced economy. It was however an integral part of the Persian states, for the most part.

If Mesopotamia was Persianized in that long period of Persian rule, we could have stated that is was part of Persia. A Persian region. But it never was Persianized. When the Arabs came most people spoke a dialect of Aramaic. That fact helped Arabize that region so quickly, bc Aramaic and Arabic are very much alike. It was easy for those people to switch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your opinion. Please could you suggest an improvement to the article, backed up by sources. --Merlinme (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned on Cosmos

Al-Hazen and some of his scientific career was discussed on the 5th episode of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey", "Hiding in the Light". I think he was referred to Arabic. If you missed this episode, it's being rebroadcast on the "National Geographic Channel" at 11P eastern tonight (right now!). Or you can watch the episode on the show's website for the next 97 days. http://www.cosmosontv.com/ Yours, Wordreader (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources mentioned he was a Persian: Alhazen: Early experiments on light by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne Egger, Ph.D.; Ibn al-Haytham - Princeton University. There are theories that his origins was from Vaheštābāḏ Ardašīr a Persian city near modern city of Ahvaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0A2:6450:D166:911D:861B:E946 (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Persian, outdated, not academically specialized, etc

• doi:10.1068/p5940. PMID 18546671. Missing or empty |title= (help), is written by Craig Aaen-Stockdale, Department of Ophthalmology, not a historian and has no specialization in the field of history or the time period in question.
• Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed.
• Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed.
• The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497, dated 1880. Terribly outdated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

---

It's strange that an old source like "The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497, dated 1880" is outdated from your aspect just because it's from "1880" then all the books that are not new are not good source or because they say something that you don't like to hear?

in Arabic Wikipedia they have accepted that this man is not clearly Persian or Arab but I don't know why people here are emphasizing that he was Arab. ولد ابن الهيثم في البصرة سنة 354هـ/965م في فترة كانت تعد العصر الذهبي للإسلام، واختلف المؤرخون أكان من أصل عربي[14] أم فارسي.

One of the friends says because his books are Arabic then he is Arab. I have written 9 books in English and doesn't have any book in my mother tongue language then I am from US?

Or because his name was Arabic then he was Arab.

With this formula you can call all other Iranian scientist Arab like:

- Abū al-Rayhān Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Bīrūnī. - Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī - Aḥmad ebn Roste Eṣfahānī - Abū Bishr ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān ibn Qanbar Al-Biṣrī (c. 760–796) (Arabic: أبو بشر عمرو بن عثمان بن قنبر البصري‎), commonly known as Sībawayh. - and many others because their name and books are in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooya3003 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What you have done right there is called original research. If you have a problem with the 2 Oxford university, the Columbia university and Encyclopaedia of Islam sources, then you should find sources better than one printed in 1880 or some website by an opthalmologist. I clearly asked for more information concerning these two sources:

• Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed.
• Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164, non-verifiable. Quote and background on authors needed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to change the current wording, please could you provide good quality sources which describe Alhazen using the terms you wish to use, and we can discuss it. It is a mildly complicated (and certainly controversial) subject, and I am sure editors are willing to listen to your arguments. You have to understand that arguments are generally won in Wikipedia by considering which are the best sources though. To put it another way, if you don't provide some good sources then you're not going to change people's minds.

I don't personally have a problem with a good source from 1880, however if that is the only good source you can find then that is problematic. It is often the case that 19th century scholars would use different terms to modern scholars, and we would tend to use the modern terms without a very good reason not to. To take a simple example off the top of my head, 19th century historians routinely referred to England when today we would say the United Kingdom. Even if you could provide two dozen good 19th century sources showing the use of England to refer to the entire country, we wouldn't suddenly replace references to the United Kingdom with England, except perhaps as a historical footnote. --Merlinme (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely endorse Merlineme's comments. The problem with "The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology" is in part the date - we need to ask if this is use of a now obsolete terminology such as 'England' for the entire UK, but also why we would use the source at all? What makes it a reliable source specifically about his ethnic identity rather than his research? We should be relying on academic historians for this specific issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Add section on his Nationality?

Variants of this discussion have been going on for many years and reflect the fact that the question of Alhazen's nationality or ethnicity is an active one in the minds of some readers. I have no horse in this race and as a historian I feel that the question of his ethnicity is not historically important, but I concede that for some it may be politically important.

I suggest that, rather than duck the issue, we face it directly by adding a section on his Nationality or Ethnicity. We could take as our model the section on Nationality in the article on Nicolaus Copernicus, which dealt with the analogous politically charged question of whether Copernicus was Polish or German. The idea there was to state the question, discuss its historical importance or unimportance, and then state the opinions of a selected group of major scholarly sources on the question of Copernicus's nationality.

I'm not naive enough to expect this to bring the debate to a halt (the Copernicus controversy still occasionally crops up) but it should reduce the level of edit warring. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bettany on history/religion

Bettany is not qualified to discuss history. He's a scientist writing for the journal Physics Education which "is the international journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level." Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request quotation June 2009

Anyone else find it odd that this edit[5] adds a 5 year old quotation needed tag? Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Yes, it's very odd. My best guess is that we had that "fact" before and it was challenged by adding the tag, then removed entirely, and it's now been restored without addressing the issue. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored by a new editor? Was it recently deleted? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Modern Re-discovery

I would like to see a section talking about Ibn Al-Haytham's recent re-discovery. There are films being made about him, for example. Furthermore, UNESCO are making Ibn Al-Haytham a central part of their International Year of Light running throughout 2015, and he will feature a global campaign with exhibitions, films, books, websites etc. This should be included here, I believe, but I don't know what would be an appropriate way to introduce it into the article without disrupting what is already here. I would like to hear suggestions. SonDiego (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately...

This para isn't acceptable:

Unfortunately, UNESCO did not check the credentials of its partner, who are engineers, but not historians. Ibn al-Haytham did not lay the foundations of the present day, but contributed with significant work to methods, theories and observations that were developed and made in Antiquity and shared by many scholars, whatever their ethnicity or religious affiliation, in Islamicate and Christian societies of the Middle Ages and the early modern period. Hence, Ibn al-Haytham certainly deserves our respect and appreciation as one of the great scholars of the 10th century and worthy to be mentioned with praise in all our modern cultures across the globe, in schoolbooks, newspapers, the TV, the Internet or other media. But we should not present him as the inventor of modern optics or today's scientific methods, which are neither one nor the same even as in the 19th century.

It may or may not be true, but without any sources its just editorial interpolation William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, if you just stopped to ignore the likes of Belting, Ihde and, of cause, Bruno Latour, you would easily see the sound scholarly background of this statement. It needs some rewording, buts its a good caveat against the BBC blurb about the "father of optics" and other tekkie stuff. Serten II (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This version won't do either [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

For what or whom? A dark room with a hole and three candles was used as well in China. Modern science and the camera obscura started with the idea of the individual, and an emerging market for art and images. Thats the major difference. Serten II (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pinhole/Jagged 85

Alhazen's "camera obscrua" is just that a "dark chamber" he uses it to prove that light does not mix in the air. On the pin hole camera the question is why the eclipse of the sun shows as a crescent but the crescent moon shows round, a question already ask before him.

The Shape of the Eclipse (III 80). This treatise is of special interest because of what it reveals about Ibn al-Haytham’s knowledge of the important subject of the camera obscura. The exact Arabic equivalent of that Latin phrase, al-bayt al-muzlim, occurs in book I, chapter 3 of the Optics;19 and indeed dark chambers are frequently used in this book for the study of such various properties of light as its rectilinear propagation and the fact that shining bodies radiate their light and color on neighboring objects. But such images as those produced by a pinhole camera are totally absent from the Optics. The nearest that Ibn al-Haytham gets to such an image is the passage in which he describes the patches of light cast on the inside wall of a “dark place” by candle flames set up at various points opposite a small aperture that leads into the dark place; the order of the images on the inside wall is the reverse of the order of the candles outside.

The experiment was designed to show that the light from one candle is not mingled with the light from another as a result of their meeting at the aperture, and in general that lights and colors are not affected by crossing one another. Although this passage occurs in book I in the context of the theory of vision,20 the eye does not in Ibn al-Haytham’s explanation act as a pinhole camera and it is expressly denied the role of a lens camera. In the present treatise, however, he approached the question, already posed in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata, of why the image of a crescent moon, cast through a small circular aperture, appears circular, whereas the same aperture will cast a crescent-shaped image of the partially eclipsed sun. Although his answer is not wholly satisfactory, and although he failed to solve the general problem of the pinhole camera, his attempted explanation of the image of a solar crescent clearly shows that he possessed the principles of the working of the camera.[7]

My source here is Ibn Al-Haytham, Abū Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography by A. I. Sabra (Sabra is a well known authority) "Ibn Al-Haytham, Abū http://www.encyclopedia.com>. That his works (Sabras) have been twisted in wikipedia means a lot of work J8079s (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Does that fit with the point made e.g. by Belting, that Alhazen was not interested in pictures? Serten II (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read Belting, but Alhazen saw the front surface of the lens of the eye as an image forming device. The image was defined by the set of rays perpendicular to the front of the lens, not as Kepler and Descartes would have it, by the rays focused on the retina by the lens. Interestingly, Alhazen's model produced an erect image, while Kepler and Descartes's produced an inverted image. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that he missed that as he had all the bits necessary to get it right. I wonder if he just couldn't accept the idea of an inverted image on the retina because it would be upside down, even though the alternative meant ignoring the effect of the iris in sunlight and was quite complicated. Or perhaps he really didn't appreciate that an image was formed using a pinhole and just saw it as a way to prove something about light. But he did know about images formed by a lens so it is all a bit strange. A bit late to ask him now I guess ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't read that as a scientific paper, he sat at home when he wrote that, and feigned madness to escape the wrath of a Hydraulic empire. I am more interested to compare the pinhole issue with the failed dam project: J8079s, do you have anything more reliable on that? Actually Alhazen had the vision of the dam, but failed the means to built it, in case of the box with a hole, he had all the technical means for a true (western style) camera obscura but lacked the vision. Hans Belting's books about the epistemic role of images covered the problem Ahazen faced in various perspectives, attached the relevant English titles. Serten II (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Florence & Baghdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science. September 2011 (Hans Belting und Deborah Lucas Schneider)
• Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art. February 1997 (Hans Belting und Edmund Jephcott)
• Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body 2014 Hans Belting and Thomas Dunlap

I think you are trying to "balance" a view we don't have or should not have. According to: The Theory of Pinhole Images from Antiquity to the Thirteenth Century David C. Lindberg Archive for History of Exact Sciences Vol. 5, No. 2 (7.8.1968), pp. 154-176 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133285 Alhazen's work on the pinhole camera was not transmitted to the latin west. J8079s (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Thats not my point. My sources refer to the fact, that he could have done much more with his research, and try to explain why he didnt. Same applies e.g. for the Chinese pinhole cameras, they used a different, non linear perspective on pictures and in so far went never as far as the western "true camera obscura." Do we agree that Alhazens optical knowledge was of high value for the west? I just have downsized the Hockney–Falco thesis to a mere hype btw. Serten II (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

over blown claims

I removed this

He has been described as the father of modern optics, ophthalmology, experimental physics and scientific methodology and the first theoretical physicist. However broad use of his findings, e.g. in mass production of images based on a linear perspective and the camera obscura required further steps in the cognitive framing of his theories. It took place long after his death during the scientific revolution.

These claims are not made by any one who is considered a reliable source (Sabra, Smith or Linberg) I am calling undue weight for the lede J8079s (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the nowiki and put a <references/> after it to make the references easy to see and use. Dmcq (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've chopped down this similar bit too but keeping most of the first sentence:

UNESCO's website on Ibn al-Haytham copies a part from Jim Khalili's book "Pathfinders“, which has received critical reviews and refers as well to Wikipedia. As said, calling him the founder or father of modern optics fails to recognize the important changes and transformations that took place until the creation of modern optics in the nineteenth century.

http://www.light2015.org/Home/ScienceStories/1000-Years-of-Arabic-Optics.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

(Khalili 2012)

(Brotton 2011)

An Anthropological Trompe L'Oeil for a Common World: An Essay on the Economy of Knowledge, Alberto Corsin Jimenez, Berghahn Books, 15.06.2013, quoting Bruno Latour We Have Never Been Modern on page 20 and 73

Don Ihde Art Precedes Science: or Did the Camera Obscura Invent Modern Science? In Instruments in Art and Science: On the Architectonics of Cultural Boundaries in the 17th Century Helmar Schramm, Ludger Schwarte, Jan Lazardzig, Walter de Gruyter, 2008

The Harvard references in the first sentence don't have actual citations. The second sentence is based n sources which do not mention the UNESCO site or the Pathfinders book and has nothing to do with commemoration and so is WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

First point sounds fine with me, thnx. You don't need to mention the UNesco to deny the fathership, so OR does not apply there.Serten II (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If no source has thought it worthwhile to comment on the site then it is wrong for Wikipedia editors to comment on it. The task is summarize what others say, not to make our own comments. Your comment about the web site was WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tags Intro

Alhazen was a person with an impressive mind, but far from being the father of modern optics or the first experimental physicist. Alhazen happened to live in the wrong society, modern science started later. There was no continuity - e.g. Schott, Abbé and Zeiss, the actual fathers of modern optics lived in a society with low islamic influence. I ask to reduce the blurb in the lede. Serten II (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Although claims for Alhazen—and for Islamic science in general—occasionally become excessive, any realistic history of science must recognize Alhazen's significant contributions to optics and the broader contributions to the sciences from Arabic speaking scholars.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alhazen is currently a sort of posterboy, as Islamic scholars have failed to produce anything since the Golden age and there is high interest in the west to provide better role models than Ali G. Lets divide between Alhazen's work (which was impressive) and his actual influence or heritage on his contemporaries (which was nill). Compare Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Science for a medieval person with an actual impact on science. As said, the current blurb in the lede is a no go. Serten II (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Although Alhazen's achievements have been exagerrated by some (see, for example, the infamous edits of Jagged 85), there is also no doubt that Alhazen established the reigning paradigm in optics employed by Roger Bacon, John Pecham, and Witelo and taught in European universities through the 16th century. Even Kepler's optical work retains major elements of Alhazen's work. To say his influence was nil is quite simply wrong.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Steve. Can you, please, contribute to editing the Ibn al-Haytham article? UNESCO unfortunately published a copy of an amateur writing (Jim Khalili) with all the exaggerations and false claims topical for them. At the end, it refers the reader for further reading to Wikipedia. Hence, we need to ensure a high quality of this entry without the numerous distortion that lay people introduced. Thanks, Sonja. Moreover, it is certainly also wrong to claim that Ibn al-Haytham had no influence in Islamicate societies. Even the Kitab al-manazir had some readers. Ibn al-Haytham's work was not limited to this important text. He was quite influential in astronomy and geometry. Furthermore, there are texts that discuss optics, but are not yet analyzed by historians. Hence, we do not really know whether more people than we believe read him. Thus lay editors do not merely exaggerate Ibn al-Haytham's achievements and impact, but also downplay both. Hence, more proper historians should participate in editing such important entries.Sonja Brentjes (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've remove the bit saying about the mistake on the UNESCO site. I'm sorry about that but Wikipedia is quite clear about things like this in the WP:Original research policy (which is about limits on Wikipedia editors can say). We can't put in our own comments about a source, we can only use other sources. The best we can do is say nothing about what is on the site or find a source that comments about it or its source. If there is a source which says the Pathfinder book by Jim Al-Kalili has the problem you're talking about I'm sure that could be fitted in somehow. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Further issues: there are descriptions in the introduction that are either historically questionable or simply wrong, but I don't know how to change them. Steve, do you know how to do this? According to the terminology of Ibn al-Haytham's own time, he can be described as a philosopher or a geometer. But his philosophical activities are certainly of a lesser degree than his geometrical ones, unless we reduce philosophy to natural philosophy. Optics fall under geometry. Terms like scientist or mathematician did not exist and he would not have recognized himself in them. I would like to delete them. He could be called astrologer (munajjim), but I never saw him called that in those primary sources that I know. Hence I would not like to use it for the time being. I will check the sources to make certain. As for polymath, this is the only description not found in Ibn al-Haytham's own time and scholarly tradition that I would use since it gives the reader a certain feeling for the broad range of themes about which he wrote. Most of the sources for the introduction are texts by people without the necessary professional competence for Ibn al-Haytham or the history of science in Islamicate societies. It is thus urgently necessary to edit this introduction to free it from incompetent evaluations. .. Sonja Brentjes (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Among others , Hans Belting and Don Ihde have written about the role of Alhazen. I will add some of the content i have added on the science talk page. Serten II (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I took out the Camera Obscura stuff you added. For any number of reasons. There's no reason to single that out for treatment at such length - he didn't invent it, even - and some of the stuff you coat-racked in there - Latour and so on - was just weird William M. Connolley (talk)

WP:I don't like it is no reason to delete valid content. I will revert that sort of vandalism. Calling Bruno Latour, Belting and Ihde irrelevant is sign of a gigantic arrogance. Serten II (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't like it. I said - errrm, well, you could try reading what I said, perhaps. the irrelevance of latour to the present matter will be obvious to all except you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Latours studies are explicitely mentioned in the quoted sources. With regard to "irrelevance" - All except me and those guys that gave him the Holberg Prize. What a jerk. I see your behavior as being offensive against living scholars of high standing and expressing continued hounding of the worst kind. Stop that. Serten II (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, if you want to discuss Alhazen's work on the camera obscura and its influences, you would do well to look at three earlier publications by David Lindberg, one of the leading scholars of medieval (Latin) optics. These are:

• David C. Lindberg, "The Theory of Pinhole Images from Antiquity to the Thirteenth Century", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 2 (7.8.1968), pp. 154-176.
• David C. Lindberg, "A reconsideration of Roger Bacon's theory of pinhole images", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 3 (29. V. 1970), pp 214-223.
• David C. Lindberg, "The Theory of Pinhole Images in the Fourteenth Century", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4 (18.VI.1970), pp. 299-325.

Lindberg's discussion within the framework of medieval science / natural philosophy is probably more relevant to Alhazen's significance than is Latour's (but I'm biased, Dave was my dissertation director). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your 1970 sources sound rather detailed and valuable in tracing the traces of Alhazens thinking in medieval optics, a redlink calling for a noteable separate entry. I have a different point about due weight. You deal here with the BBC's and UNESCO 's posterchilding Alhazen as father of modern optics. You forgot that my edits are based on science and technology philosopher Don Ihde, History of Science scholar Alberto Corsin Jimenez, Ethnology prof Heike Behrend, and the former President of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, Paul T Durbin, or the magnificient brahmeen of art history Hans Belting. Each of them deals with Alhazen and is noteable and provides different perspectives. Just take Hans Belting, "Images as a matter of faith" - thats not about optics, but how people used or dismiss (as Alhazens contemporaries) images! I ask to radically downsize Jim Al-Khalili, with all his BBC and collider glory, he does not provide anything of scholarly value here. "Brüno" sounds like a sort of red herring, provoking all sorts of emotional outbreaks, but research based on Holberg Prize laureate findings allows to counter that in two sentences. Serten II (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead picture?

I replaced the UN Bust which makes him look Roman or Greek with a picture that looks pretty decent artistic drawing from Iraqi Dinar. Moorrests (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

more on over blown claims/re write

This source ALHACEN ON REFRACTION: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of Book 7 of Alhacen's "De Aspectibus," the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb al-Manāzir." Volume One. Introduction and Latin Text Author(s): A. Mark Smith Source: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3, Section 1 (2010), pp. i-iii, v, vii-xiii, xv-cxxviii, 1, 3-145, 147-212 Published by: American Philosophical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787647 . Accessed: 12/01/2015 11:43 contains an analysis of our article by an acknowledged expert in the field I would like to see these problems fixed. J8079s (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Smith notes that Alhacen's De Aspectibus was very well received by Bacon, Witelo, and Pecham because he fit in so well with Grosseteste's schema; Alhacen's translation even made it to the pulpits; Smith: 'preaching is teaching'. Thus Smith (2001, 2010, 2015) views Alhacen not as 'revolutionary' (which Smith calls Kepler) but as 'pivotal' for the creation of the Scientific revolution. The revolution occurred after the overthrow of the Scholastic viewpoint (see Smith for more on this). Just read Smith's translation (2001, 2006, 2008, 2010) to see Alhacen as an example of the close reasoning which is now commonplace in scientific texts. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Smith says he is "So there is no doubt that Alhacen's work holds an important, perhaps even a pivotal, place in the history of optics." His place in the "Scientific Revolution" is not recorded. J8079s (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

While he was editing Alhacen's Optics, Smith wrote a nice overview of the issues involved: A. Mark Smith, "What is the History of Medieval Optics Really About?", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 148, 2, (2004): 180-194. Such an overview is just the kind of secondary source Wikipedia policy recommends. There he deals with the question of the change in optics from the medieval acceptance of Alhacen's approach to the later Keplerian model. He notes (p. 180) that Lindberg (who taught Smith) had maintained that "The transition from medieval to modern optics was evolutionary, not revolutionary." Smith's reading of Alhacen led him to conclude (p. 194) that " Kepler’s account of retinal imaging represented not a continuation, but a repudiation of the medieval optical tradition.… Out of the resulting disjunction arose not only the modern science of physical optics but also the mind-body dualism of Descartes and his philosophical successors." Smith's discussion implies that we can't label Alhacen the father of modern optics, since modern optics only begins with Kepler. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As @SteveMcCluskey notes, it took a critical viewpoint to get to modern optics; Kepler searched exhaustively for a second aperture after the entrance pupil to the eye, concluded there was none, and started the revolution. Kepler faulted both Witelo and Alhacen for not justifying their viewpoint that the optical image was upright. (Aristotle got in the way here, with his theory of forms, etc., which Alhacen, Bacon, Witelo, and Pecham built upon.) (see p.578 of A. Mark Smith (1981) "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics" Isis 72, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 568-589 via JSTOR) As Smith notes, "Alhacen was flat wrong." in this. But Alhacen deserves his place in a stream of scientists who tackled the problem over the two millennia before Kepler, especially his use of experiment to achieve understanding, a viewpoint which goes beyond the use of the use of deduction (I found a ton of quotes). He can still be read with profit (just view it as geometrical optics); indeed that was his place, as scientific textbook during medieval times (which was additionally used to justify Aristotle's formal causes, starting with the perspectivists). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

On method Smith says "Was Alhacen in fact following the hypothetico-deductive method in his experiments dealing with the equal-angles law of reflection and the rules governing refraction? It is difficult to imagine that he was, since all evidence suggests that he never conducted those experiments at all, or at least not as described. In addition, those experiments were designed not to test but to confirm hypotheses already accepted a priori. " From the Preface Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787647 There is a great deal that can be said about his method but it is not the "modern scientific method" J8079s (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In that regard, Alhacen knew about Ptolemy's data on refraction through water and air (Smith). Alhacen knew that Ptolemy's data was fit to constant second differences (a method from the Babylonian astronomical data -- Neugebauer, Exact Sciences in Antiquity), thus Ptolemy missed the sine law equivalent which Ibn Sahl found in the century before Alhacen. Alhacen in fact had access to at least part of Ibn Sahl's manuscripts. But Alhacen criticized Ptolemy in other regards, so how did he miss this? He meticulously describes an experimental setup to measure refraction, which Smith has been able to replicate and poke holes in. Smith 2010 transl, Book 7, English,pp 355-365. But this is a reason to respect Alhacen's work, as it represents a standard for reproducibiity that we aspire to follow to this day. I do not have Smith 2015 From sight to light yet, where he doubtless has more on this. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got to think that if he were "the father of the modern scientific method" that Smith or Sabra would mention it. J8079s (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to press for rewrite here, as I did on 26 Dec 2014 on another page. Smith (2001) notes that Alhacen had strong empiricist leanings, and that 'his approach is essentially hypothetico-deductive' (pp.cxv-cxvi). Smith goes on to emphasize that Alhacen was grounded firmly in the geometric approach of Ptolemy and Euclid, while going beyond Ptolemy's experiments in his own writings. But Smith disclaims the characterization of Alhacen as revolutionary. Rather, Alhacen's work is a synthesis of previous work by Euclid, Aristotle, Galen, and Ptolemy. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@J8079s, what more do you think is needed. JSTOR gives us access to a lot. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what is being proposed here. I don't think anyone who has read the sources, and in particular considered Alhazen's influence on other medieval thinkers, would argue Alhazen is unimportant in the history of science. Whether he is revolutionary... well, that depends on who you read. Essentially we are arguing about WP:Due. Certainly, a lot of Alhazen's ideas seem to be directly related to or evolutionary from Ptolemy. If we want to row back a bit in the article from some of the claims made by some sources who are not historians of science, that's fine by me. But I would hate to see a revisionist perspective on the history of science try to suggest Alhazen had no influence on the history of science. --Merlinme (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A search for 'revolutionary' yielded 0. A search for 'father of' yielded 0. I propose removing the fanboy tag, since these terms are cleaned up. OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If Smith's analysis is a different POV than many of our other sources, it would make sense to have section on it, to explain his analysis, rather than treat it as the basis for an article rewrite. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The second hit on google after Wikipedia has "father of modern optics". The tenth hit is the bradleysteffens website in which Alhazen is described thus: "how his discoveries launched the scientific revolution are just some of the questions Bradley Steffens answers in Ibn al-Haytham: First Scientist, the world's first biography of the Muslim polymath." Steffens, by normal Wikipedia standards, would probably be considered a Reliable Source; it's a published book, reviewed in various places (admittedly, not necessarily the highest credibility places). But my point is that the Wikipedia article at this point in time appears to be less hyperbolic about Alhazen than other sources. I've spent a lot of time checking most of the references in this article, the majority of which are high credibility academic sources, and I personally think that the article is a reasonable representation of those sources; and that is all that Wikipedia attempts to do, most of the time, to be a reasonable summary of other reliable sources. The "fan site" tag seems seriously over the top to me.--Merlinme (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Smith, xcviii: Bellosta and Sabra describe Alhacen as revolutionary. Smith, xcix: "scholars have different perspectives...it is no wonder that they sometimes lapse into hyperbolic characterizations, such as "revolutionary..." Smith, c: the current Wikipedia article, which describes Alhacen as the "the father of modern optics" (as has already been noted, that is not in the current version of the article). Smith, c, also quotes Steffens and Gorini as making claims about the modernity of Alhacen's work, then goes on to say: "As absurd or problematic as these claims may appear to be at first glance, most of them are based on scholarly sources and represent either what those sources actually say or what those authors infer from them." At which point I seriously question what we are arguing about! Smith acknowledges that the "Alhacen is a revolutionary in optics" has backing in scholarly sources. Smith is arguing the revisionist point of view; that does not make him correct. The part of the Wikipedia article which Smith specifically criticises ("father of modern optics") has already been removed. At this point, I can understand why we might be arguing about the best way to incorporate the new revisionist account, as given by Smith, but I am struggling to understand why the current article (with its backing in other scholarly sources, as acknowledged by Smith) is a "fan boy" article. --Merlinme (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The tag was intended to be invitational. Every section needs work. Be Bold J8079s (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@J8079s Since we agree the tag is obsolete, we can remove it. I'm working on the article to include refraction. I think Smith's 2001 characterization may have triggered adulation (ala Wikipedia) which he has worked hard to balance since. See Smith 2010, Smith 2015 for his updated views. I think Smith still agrees with his 2001 'iconic status' for Alhacen. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Every section needs work" is not constructive criticism. Be precise. If there are problems, make edits. I don't personally think that tagging an article with scholarly references as a "fan-boy" article is constructive either.

Smith, ci, while rejecting the thesis that Alhacen fits the criteria for being a revolutionary, says: "True, in certain respects Alhacen's optical synthesis fulfils both criteria." In other words, even though Smith does not agree, he acknowledges that it is at least arguable that Alhacen is revolutionary! Smith, ciii: "to deny Alhacen his revolutionary status is not to deny him his place in the sun... Alhacen's best was exceptionally good. But not perfect...there is no doubt that Alhacen's work holds an important, perhaps even a pivotal, place in the history of optics. But "important" and "pivotal" should not be confused with revolutionary."

This is one scholar's argument, and it's arguing a pretty subtle difference, which Smith himself acknowledges other scholars disagree with. Until the rest of the scholarly world is clear in its agreement with Smith's argument, I see little reason to rewrite the Wikipedia article beyond taking out the controversial "father of modern optics" line. Which has already been done. --Merlinme (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Refraction

I have started the new section on refraction. Ibn Sahl is the major story here, and how Roshdi Rashed discovered his work. So now we have to move beyond Alhacen. But where should this work on Ibn Sahl go?

I nominate History of optics. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And, it's already there. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Excess citations

I agree with the removal of the excessive number of citations for a sentence. They help nothing. If some citations are especially good but would be excessive in the article they should be put in as extra see also or more reading at the end. Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

These five citations you removed are all historian of science with advance degree in the subject. Moorrests (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The citations are there to support the statements in the text. Really, each point only needs *one* citation. Adding a pile of others is superfluous. If there is something in those citations that you think belongs in the article, and which isn't supported by the existing citations, then you need to pull those ideas out of your references and add them as text; then your new citations would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

These citation support the whole paragraph which is controversial as many times it has been disputed that's why these five historian of science have described connection between scientific method and Ibn al-Haytham. Moorrests (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The controversy you talk about does not appear there. It would have been far bette rif you know of some great controversy about that sentence if you put in some description and citation of the controversy. Even so the multiple citations would not have added anything much, what would have added weight is a review of the different points of view. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have access to the sources? what is that you want to add from them? J8079s (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did access all four sources at Carleton university library. Moorrests (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Article title "Alhazen"?

Why is this the title of the article? The foot note even states that this name isn't very common for him now. From most places I've heard he's referred to as Ibn Al-Haytham. I suggest renaming the title in order to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.46.21 (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's history. Alhacen, as Ibn Al-Haytham was known in the Latin translation of about 1200 (De Aspectibus) was singlehandedly renamed Alhazen in the compilation of the printed book by Friedrich Risner, ed. (1572) Opticae Thesaurus: Alhazeni Arabis Libri Septem Nunc Primum Editi , Eiusdem Liber De Crepusculis Et Nubium Asensionibus . Item Vitellonis Thuringopoloni Libri X which included Alhacen, and a work on Twilight (de Crepusculis), mistakenly attributed to Alhazen, as well as the Optics work of Witelo. Kepler cleaned Witelo's (& Alhazen's, whom Kepler did not complain about) image inversion question up during the scientific revolution. As recently as 2003, Alhazen was the common name in the West, and Wikipedia just followed its sources. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion here: Talk:Alhazen/Archive_2#Name_-_Alhazen_or_Ibn_al-Haytham.3F where I personally thought there was a reasonable case for using al-Haytham, which seems to be more commonly used in more modern sources. However the discussion petered out as the person who originally raised it never took it any further. I guess it was "No Consensus to change". It was quite a long time ago; do any of the current watchers of this page want to give their thoughts and see if we can reach a proper consensus? I'd suggest first reading the archived discussion I've linked above to see the discussion and the quick analysis of the sources which I did at the time. --Merlinme (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the same person as the IP user who started this thread above; thank you for the historical input, it is interesting! I am an Arab and have always heard "Ibn al-Haytham" but it seems like Alhazen is more common in English-speaking countries (ex: first paragraph of this article). Since this is the English wikipedia it might make more sense to leave the name that is more common in the respective language. --Tauzoon (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Scientific method, again

Just bringing this up since I'm sure it will be raised eventually. "Many historians of science consider Ibn al-Haytham to be the first true proponent of the modern scientific method." cited to In retrospect: Book of Optics by Jim Al-Khalili. It's a good source (published in one of the non-peer-reviewed sections of Nature), but I'm not sure how much to trust it given Khalili's (in my opinion) overenthusiastic statements on this topic in the past, and the many unreliable sources that have been pushing this view. Any thoughts? Sunrise (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess the section can be improved if in addition to the existing refs, we also add more reliable sources. Khestwol (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget Khalili, hes got no idea of history of science. Its been discussed several time and we should leave out the BBC hype. Serten II (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree - it was more that I wanted to bring up the new source I found before it came up in the context of someone trying to add it to the article again. I used it to source the statement that the Book of Optics is the most famous of Alhazen's works, and I think that's a reasonable usage, but as I said I'm skeptical of using it for the scientific method claim.

FWIW, if the BBC article has been rejected as a source (also a conclusion I think is probably warranted), someone should go through the list of articles that cite it. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, youre right User:Sunrise. Factual evidence based on printed literature, an internet hype and WP parroting political correctness. Sorta interesting combination. Serten II (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think to Balance and to save a lot of talk on other pages we should write a section to deal with these "scholars" there is professional criticism of these claims and the tendency to use metaphors and over simplifying Alhacen. J8079s (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare [8] We have some active users, that ignore this sort of discussion, have no idea of history nor of science and try to restore the hype. Thats more of a problem. Serten II (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Many historians of science" is fairly meaningless, especially from an occasionally over-enthusiastic source such as Khalili. Which historians of science? If someone can come up with a list of, say, three respected academics with sourced statements, then it would be sensible to put something in. "Many historians of science" is far too vague and hand-wavy on its own though. --Merlinme (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In the article sources we currently use, Schramm could perhaps be used to support "first true proponent of the modern scientific method". But that's one guy, who is somewhat criticised by Toomer for being anachronistic and selective in his analysis. It's not "many historians". And in any case, when analysed the Khalili statement is ridiculously vague: "Many {who?} historians of science consider Ibn al-Haytham to be the first {but who inspired Alhazen?} true {were there other proponents of similar ideas?} proponent {how and where did Alhazen actively advocate the modern scientific method?} of the modern {what about the pre-modern?} scientific method". And even Schramm doesn't really put it in the way that Khalili does. "Varying experimental conditions" is an important part of the modern scientific method, but it's not the beginning and end of the whole thing. --Merlinme (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Balance of Wisdom

An IP made an ungrammatical edit which has been quickly undone, but it is possible the IP had a point. There is definitely a "Book of the Balance of Wisdom" by Al-Khazini, which discusses specific gravity. The reference linking Alhazen to Balance of Wisdom is based on Deek, who frankly isn't always the greatest of sources. However Balance of Wisdom is undoubtedly a title which has been used more than once, and Alhazen's list of works is vast; can anyone confirm or deny that Alhazen wrote something called Balance of Wisdom (Mizan al-hikma), and whether the Deek attribution is correct? Or should this just be deleted from the article? --Merlinme (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ibn al-Hayhtam did not write book with uch a title, but his name is attached together with that of al-Kuhi to one of the treatises in al-Khazini's Kitab mizan al-hikma. Sonja Brentjes (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Thank you, although that muddies the waters somewhat. Ok, different question: the Wikipedia article currently states than al-Haytham discusses the density of the atmosphere and its relation to altitude in the Balance of Wisdom. Are those topics discussed in the treatise attached to al-Haytham's name in the Balance of Wisdom? --Merlinme (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonja Brentjes (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted the relevant sections. If Deek can get this so wrong it does also call into question whether Deek is a properly reliable source. --Merlinme (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Haytham's optical theories and Varamihira

There is a good possibility that Al Haytham's advances in optics were influenced by the theories of Varamihira. "Al-Biruni, a contemporary of Al-Haytham, had travelled to India and translated some of Varahamihira's work. Given the active exchange of ideas between the various Arab centres of learning it appears most unlikely that al-Haytham did not know of Varahamihira's theory of light." http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/illustrations/lecture16/alhazen1.html I propose including this in the optics section as a line "Alhazen's optical theories may have been influenced by the 6th century Indian polymath Varamihira". If someone can find more precise sources, that would allow us to make a more precise claim. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alhacen (Ibn al-Haytham)'s influences:

1. Euclid
2. Ptolemy
3. Galen
4. quite possibly Ibn Sahl (per H. Floris Cohen)
5. of course, the Neoplatonists
6. Smith 2001, 2006, 2008, 2010 do not mention Varahamihira
7. the selective survey by H. Floris Cohen 2010 does not mention Varahamihira

@Fundamental metric tensor:, According to JSTOR, Irfan Habib (1997) "The Formation of India: Notes on the History of an Idea" Social Scientist Vol. 25, No. 7/8 (Jul. - Aug., 1997), pp. 3-10 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517600 Varahamihira (we need an article on his optical theory) flourished 520 AD, after Ptolemy, and before Alhacen, and knew of the Greeks (the Hellenists). Clearly Varahamihira, an inventor of zero, influenced the Hindu numeral system, well before its effect on Europe.

But Ptolemy took data on refraction before Varahamihira. H. Floris Cohen points out Arabic spherical trigonometry for expressing the angular position to face Mecca at prayer, of course would have needed a good number system. And clearly Varahamihira influenced this. So the argument for influence works both ways. Ptolemy's work on refraction preceded Varahamihira's work on refraction. The science from Alhacen (especially the first 3 books in Book of Optics, which are Alhacen's enduring contribution) did not need Varahamihira's contribution.

However Alhacen's attempts to explain refraction using kinetic particles smashing on layers of matter indeed resemble Varahamihira's model, as stated by Authier 1995. I found Smith 2010 p.245 book 7 [2.83], modelling refracted light as iron particles smashing thin layers of wood. The next paragraph [2.84] considers the glancing motion of an iron sword against a thick log: Alhacen's experimentalist views clearly are investigating a dynamical theory of light. Smith 2010 p.247 para. [2.89] translates Alhacen as

when light passes from a denser to a rarer {[transparent]} body its motion will be faster [because it is less hindered] and when the light {[ray]} is oblique to the two coincident surfaces of the transparent body that form the interface of the two bodies {[e.g., from water to air]} its motion will occur along a line that lies between the normal dropped from the initial point of its motion [into that interface] and the line perpendicular to the normal dropped from the initial point of its motion.

. (Smith's interpolation is denoted as '['. I have added the '{[' interpolations to further explicate Alhacen's concept of refraction of light from water to air. As physicists, I am sure you know that we follow Alhacen's convention of measuring from the normal to this day.) But Smith does not cite Varahamihira in his 2010 volume on refraction, indeed Smith found the simile far-fetched (footnote 48: pp347-352 ). Smith notes that Alhacen's dynamical theory of refraction seems to have influenced Kepler.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC),

@Ancheta Wis: Nice discussion of the influences on Alhacen, but I have one quibble with your otherwise fine presentation. You speak of "Alhacen's experimentalist views" in his dynamical treatments of refraction and reflection. Alhacen used mechanical analogies in thought experiments to illustrate those optical processes. However, these are not actual optical experiments nor are they even mechanical experiments. I think applying the term experimentalist to them is profoundly misleading. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Very nice analysis of the sources by Ancheta Wis. I do tend to agree however with SteveMcCluskey that, as far as my limited knowledge goes, the experiments being discussed, with light rays being compared to physical iron objects, are thought experiments, so to describe them as "Alhacen's experimentalist views" is unnecessarily confusing. Alhacen may have believed in practical experiments more than other thinkers of his time, but to confuse his thought experiments with his practical experiments is not helpful. --Merlinme (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://www.jstor.org/stable/3657358
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/3657357?seq=1#page_thumbnails_tab_contents
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/20020399
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/20020403?seq=1#page_thumbnails_tab_contents
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/27757395
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/27757399?seq=1#page_thumbnails_tab_contents
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787647
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787651?seq=1#page_thumbnails_tab_contents

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Asked bot's owner for help. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Arab .Ignore the Arabs?

Ibn al-Haytham Arab scientist Why do not you put it in the box?

--Disappeared (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alhazen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150429162745/http://www.aku.edu/res-office/pdfs/AKU_Research_Publications_1995%E2%80%931998.pdf to http://www.aku.edu/res-office/pdfs/AKU_Research_Publications_1995–1998.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Verification(s) needed

The article has named ref for "Sabra 1989", for which there is no full citation. Possibly a typo for "Sabra 1998", but as I am not competent to assess that someone else needs to check it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sabra 1989,The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I-III, On direct vision. 2 Volume Set (Studies of the Warburg Institute 40-41) Al-Haytham, Ibn ; translated with introduction and commentary by A.I. Sabra. Published by London : Warburg Institute, University of London, 1989 ISBN 9780854810727

This is Sabra's translation to English from the Arabic. Smith used Sabra for his numbering of the Latin chapters & paragraphs. It's been hard for me to get to Sabra. The Arabic Books IV-V were hard even for Sabra. I think there was only one such Arabic manuscript, from Spain, available to him, whereas there were 17-18 good Latin manuscripts. The Latin skipped Ibn al-Haytham's First Discourse (on methodology). I remember reading that the diagrams differed between Latin manuscripts. Ibn al-Haytham has a physiological sketch of the optic chiasm in the manuscript in the Süleymaniye in Istanbul. But Vesalius' engraving, 500 years after Ibn al-Haytham, is a better rendering of the anatomy. Alhazen believed that fusion of the right and left images from the eyes occurred in the optic chiasm. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this item, or at least the first volume, was already listed under "Primary", but did not link properly because the author field was bunged up. I will fix that directly, but there is some ambiguity here that needs further resolution. E.g., the different ISBNs. Possibly the pair of volumes together have a different ISBN than the individual volumes? The citation in the text probably should be to the specific volume. Could you check on that, and the ISBNs? As a long shot: any chance you might be able to find the page numbers? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I find that ISBN 0854810722 yields Google snippets. For example "discourse" gets me right to Sabra's translation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

note 67a, on diplopia (the double vision experiment) is discussed in Sabra 1989 cvi, 124-5 (but Google shows only the 1st 3 hits)

note 67b, Sabra 1989 p.3

note 67c, Sabra 1989 p.3. But the same thought can be found in Alhazen's Aporias (doubts) against Ptolemy ("Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are interested in things for their own sake are not interested in other things. The road to truth is rough ..." etc.) which I learned from Pines' translation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I was testing my latest entry and tried the Google Books word cloud "error in inference" (it's in Common terms and phrases). The software seems to capture human-like intelligence. <gulp>--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said at the top, I don't have any subject/content competence here, so I leave discussion of content and interpretation and what ought to be cited to the rest of you. I'll let you all know where there may be some kind of problem with the citations. BTW, in the next couple of hours I hope to do a bunch of complicated clean-up, esp. in the "Sources" section, so please be extra cautious before doing any editing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Note that the numbering of the notes changes as notes are added, merged, or deleted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Experiment (again)

@Ancheta Wis:'s recent edit used a count of the occurrences of the word "experiment" in Sabra's translation of Alhazen's work as evidence for Alhazen's use of experiment. This has several problems.

• The term experiment is a problematic one; in the Middle Ages it could mean anything from common experience to thought experiments to experiments in the modern sense; it must be used with caution.
• An analysis of this sort, particularly without examining the contexts in which the word occurs, is a classic example of original research and of why Wikipeda has a policy against WP:OR.
• Past discussions on Talk note the limits of his experiments and show that he wasn't following the modern hypothetico-deductive metnod. Incidentally, they also pointed out where Smith has questioned Sabra's attribution of experiments to Ahazen.

For that reason I'm reverting the recent edit. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey, where should we start. My most recent investigation was triggered by a search for ISBNs for Sabra 1989, whom I previously avoided, because of my difficulty getting to the text, which is in Google snippets. It is still not as easy to read Sabra's text as Smith's text; at least there is JSTOR for Smith's text. Smith's translation showed dozens of entries (over 18 in books I, II, III alone) which bespeak an empirical viewpoint.

Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with ..., Book I 91 Volume 1, from JSTOR in particular Book I p379 6.86 "And this can be tried anytime."

Alhacen book I, II, III

I p355 5.39 eye anatomy shown in books on anatomy

I p356 6.6 this is the accepted opinion of natural philosophers on how vision occurs

I p360 6.18 footnote 60 experiment thus empirically ascertained

I p363 6.24 explanation of focus on one item from an infinity of items

I p366 6.36 explanation of focus by agreement with experiment

I p367 6.38 "and all of these points become clear with experimentation"

I p373 6.56 footnote 87 falsification of extromission theory of vision

I p379 6.85 camera obscura

I p379 6.86 And this can be tried anytime.

pp376-7 6.69 footnote 99 (p410) image fusion in optic chiasm (Galen citation cxxxvi, intro -- Margaret Tallmadge May, 1968,trans. Galen's De Usu Partium Corporis Humani ) review

I p377 6.69 diplopia -> image fusion

transmission of forms to optic chiasm see book II 2.23-2.24 pp426-7]

II p423 2.30 from this experiment it will therefore be clear that ...

II p443 3.53 from this experiment

II p443 3.56 from these experiments, it is eminently clear that ...

II p453 3.80 experiment in a darkened room which [subject] has not seen before

fusion in chiasm book III 2.17, pp569-70

III p573 2.25 Moreover everything we have discussed can be tested so that we will attain certainty over it.

p574 figure 3.8: experimental setup (described in p573 2.26 cites comments which are in footnote 23, p633) to show diplopia down to the notch in the plaque for your nose to fit in. (builds up the geometrical setup in Ptolemy, Optics III,43 per Smith 1996, Ptolemy's Theory p147)

III p578 2.50 thus, the reason that ... has been shown through deduction and experiment.

III p585 2.74 ...He will see the situation was the same as the one where the experiment was carried out when ...

It remains to correlate Smith's entries with Sabra's.

But the genie may be out of the bottle, already. The automated count is supplemented by a word cloud in the Google Books entry for Sabra 1989. For example quiddity or error in inference (This entry in particular has me wondering how Google came to include this concept -- was AI involved here?). I don't think Smith's translation has the word 'quiddity' (but I have not yet investigated more fully). It reflects a medieval viewpoint in the Arabic which Sabra may have succeeded in conveying from Alhacen. Yet Alhacen's phraseology in the 18 entries above shows an empirical viewpoint. As Smith points out, Alhacen's sources were the mathematicians, the natural philosophers, the medicalists, and empiricists of the Hellenist tradition. Yet his views were nuanced and comprehensive. Certainly he had the intellect for the subject. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 'quiddity': Sabra's sentences involve a 'spinning top' with multiple colors which blur as the top spins. This is reminiscent of the 'potter's wheel' with multiple colors which blur as the wheel spins, a setup from Ptolemy's theory of visual perception. Sabra 1989 p142 uses 'red': "When sight perceives a red colour, it perceives that it is red only because it has recognized it."

In contrast, in the first example of 'quiditas' that Smith encounters (note 44 p.538 = 'what kind of thing a _ is'. 'quid'=what. '_itas'=ness. So 'quiditas'=whatness. ), he translates the occurrence of quiditas in Book II p.431 "[3.19] Sight perceives what kind of thing a visible object is through recognition exclusively. But recognition is not perception by brute sensation, for sight does not recognize everything it has seen before unless it remembers. ... Therefore if recognition were perception by brute sensation, it would follow that sight would immediately recognize everything it has seen before under all conditions, but this is not the case." It's not the medieval quiddity of Aquinas.

I think I am not going to get very far using Google snippets from Sabra. The text is too truncated. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey, I found the citation Smith 2001, 91 vol. 1, p.cxv, which characterizes Alhacen's methodology as 'essentially hypothetico-deductive' (via JSTOR). (Smith's caveat is that Alhacen's experiments are basically a perfection of Ptolemy's experiments, evolutionary rather than revolutionary. In contrast, Smith 2015 notes that Giambattista della Porta showed the way to model the eye with a water-filled glass sphere, which Kepler used to overturn Ptolemy's (and Alhacen's and Witelo's) theory of vision. Kepler had to model the entrance pupil of the eye as part of the imaging chain, and show that light through the entrance pupil focuses to a point on the back of the eye. Kepler's complaint (about Witelo) was that he was forced to investigate the imaging chain so that he could continue his astronomical research.

This is all in keeping with our modern conception of science as a continual process for improving our understanding.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: Interesting passage that you found. Smith seems to be slightly inconsistent with himself. In the introduction to his Alhacen on Refraction, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3, Section 1, pp. c-ci Smith says: "Was Alhacen in fact following the hypothetico-deductive method in his experiments dealing with the equal-angles law of reflection and the rules governing refraction? It is difficult to imagine that he was, since all evidence suggests that he never conducted those experiments at all, or at least not as described. In addition, those experiments were designed not to test but to confirm hypotheses already accepted a priori." Clearly Smith denies the importance of experiments in this context, and puts them more in the context of confirming (or demonstrating) rather than testing a theory. We should stay conscious of the multiple roles of experiment. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

proposal

I propose a smaller number of shortened unique footnotes in which author, year, and page number would be compressed down to a named ref to a {{harvnb}}, directly pointing to an author|year for each respective inline ref. + Each repeated author, year would be lettered by a unique named ref, indirectly pointing via the {{harvnb}} link to the full {{Citation}}. + A given page would have an {{rp}} for the unique page number.

For example, one of the citations shows up on World Cat. The full citation for the article is formatted thus in Book of Optics

• Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2001), written at Philadelphia, "Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's De Aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāẓir, 2 vols.", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 91 (4–5), Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, ISBN 0-87169-914-1, OCLC 47168716{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Books I-III (2001 — 91(4)) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text via JSTOR; — 91(5) Vol 2 English translation, Book I:TOCpp.339-341, Book II:TOCpp.415-6, Book III:TOCpp.559-560, Notes 681ff, Bibl. via JSTOR

Smith 2001 shows up in the article a number of times as a {{harvnb}} Smith 2001, which points to the full citation. A named ref can point to any number of Smith 2001 refs, each lettered uniquely, a to z, aa to az, etc. Thus each lettered ref indirectly points to the full citation, without page number, which I propose to specify with a {{rp}} page number.

A named ref with rp would be, for example the initial ref would be

<ref name=Smith2001>{{harvnb|Smith|2001}}</ref>

and a succeeding ref for Smith2001 would be for example on p. 384

<ref name=Smith2001/>{{rp|p.384}}

References

Thus the Smith refs could then compress his life's work down to a uniquely lettered named ref (a, b, c ...) and page number. This means I will try to harmonize the citation style in the article in the next few days, if the editors of this page approve. OK?

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Or you could use (Smith 2001, p. xxx) or (Smith 2001, p. 386). Or even Smith 2001 (p. 388), etc. There really is not need to use {{rp}}, and much to be said against it. It is unclear what you mean by "compress[ing] his life's work down to a uniquely lettered named ref (a, b, c ...) and page number." Where an author has more than one worked cited in a given year there is the convention of an appended letter (e.g.: Smith 2001a, Smith 2001b), but I suspect you are thinking of the superscripted ^{^ a b} where a footnote (such as created with the <ref>...</ref> tags) is re-used with "named refs". The point of re-using "refs" in that way is to avoid repeating a long note (such as a citation). Named refs are kind of pointless where the content is just a short cite, and especially where you go to all the extra hassle of using {rp}. Better to just have separate notes. E.g.: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2001|p=xxii}}</ref> and <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2001|p=384}}</ref>. I think you'll agree this is a lot simpler, both in execution and display. Ping me if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the article has lot of cruft in it. But interesting. Would like some help cleaning it up? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why yes. :-) Any contribution welcomed. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this could be fun, I am looking forward to it. I am going to start with some rearrangement. I note that the "References" section is mostly footnotes, but subdivided into "Bibliography", which is a list of sources, but that term is ambiguous with the list of books titled "Primary" and "Secondary". I am going to rearrange this a little bit. If it seems terribly, terribly wrong we can, as always, just revert. But hopefully this will be just fine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I see a lot of instances where {Harv} was used, resulting in "(Smith 2001)", where {Harvnb} ("no braces") would be more appropriate. I will proceed to correct those. And hopefully everyone will look before editing, to avoid edit conflicts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: In your last edit, citing Smith's "From Sight to Light", you include a url to an MP3. Are you citing the book, or a video? Either way, you it is preferable to put the bibliographic data into a template (rather than straight text), as that identifies the data, and also will do any formatting automatically. Also, it is better to collect all of these full citations in "Sources". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@J. Johnson (JJ), I knew of the 2015 book and its contents, and included the URL to an hour-long audio interview of Smith regarding the content of Smith 2015. My intent is actually to give content, such as the fact the Giambattista della Porta gave Kepler the idea for his model of the eye. But I don't have the page numbers from the print book. Is there a template for an audio citation? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's {{cite AV media}}. However, I suspect there is a deeper problem here: if you have not seen the book, you should not cite it. (See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.) Theoretically you could cite an audio recording of a book (a "talking book"), but that is derivative, and without page numbers (or such) it makes it harder for anyone else to verify the material. And if the recording is not of the book, but of someone else citing the book, not only is the book beyond what you can cite, but the recording might not qualify as a reliable source.

But (so many "buts"!) there is an even deeper problem. If you have already determined (already know) that something is a "fact", and your intent is to find support for including it, then there is some question of whether you have a neutral point of view. Ideally we find reliable sources on a topic, study them, and add material in accordance with those sources. We do not (or should not) pre-judge what should be in an article, and then (like lawyers) "build a case" for it. When you citoe a source there is an assumption that you have some familiarity with the whole context, and didn't just cherry-pick the parts you like. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@J. Johnson (JJ), Thank you for your 'buts'; for example, the fact about Giambattista della Porta's model of the eye: I learned it from Smith 2015. Revisiting, I could simply cite pp323, 380. There are also learned citations which I could use, but since wikipedia prefers secondary sources, I think the audio interview might qualify. It is certainly more accessible, since I could list the audio minute for each fact. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the aversion to primary sources is often over done, and the notion of a secondary source and how it might be better poorly understood. It's one think where experts argue over deep issues on the basis of abtruse details, where one needs be an expert to understand the argument. But where some scholar states something clearly, and there's no issue (hopefully one has checked enough sources, especially secondary sources, to see that there is no issue), then better to have it straight from the expert. As before, I think audio clips are very poor sources, and no improvement for being "secondary". So by all means, if you find this in Smith, cite Smith. I've got a little more work to do today, but should be clear in a little bit so you can add it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "Smith 2004" work looks good; I think you've got a handle on how this stuff works. A point to note: using |jstor= in the template is a lot easier than adding the url (see my last edit). Also, the {{citation}} template (unlike {{cite xxx}} templates) doesn't automatically add the final period. As a point of technique: I usually leave the period off, until after I have checked (previewed) the result.

Some other suggestions. I have found that this stuff is much more readable (in edit mode) if the parameter names are "closed up" (no spaces) with the vertical bars and equal signs, but the values are set off with spaces. E.g.: "|last= Smith |year= 2004", etc. You have already noticed that I always put the first and last names of authors, editors, etc., on the same line. (Though I am as yet undecided whether author links should also be there, or on the following line.) I generally do the same with volume, issue, and page. I also find that the date is important enough to put near the top, but haven't decided whether it works best at the very top, or following the author(s). Note that I am not suggesting that you should do things this way. I think these work better, but please feel free to experiment and see if you improve on them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotations with citations

Several points to keep in mind. First, it is always good to provide the specific location (page number or such) in the source where a quotation or other material is taken. When using the {{harv}} templates this is easily done with the |p=, |pp=, or |loc= parameters. However in the {{cite xxx}}/{{citation}} templates the |pages= parameter is not for the specific location, but for the page range of the entire source, such as an article in journal. (Or possibly the chapter in a book.) If you provide the full citation (with {cite} or {citation}) you need to added the specific page number following the template.

Second, use of the |quote= parameter in {cite} and {citation}, though fairly common, is suboptimal. As I pull the full citations out of the main text (and put them into "Sources") I will be leaving the quotes behind in a note (<ref>), and appending a short cite to the full citation. This will make the edit text less encumbered with bibliographic detail, and eliminate few duplicated full citations. In general, if you add a quotation, it is best to handle it outside of the citation template, either before or after. Check the text for instances, or ask if you have any questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

---

In the lede there is a compound footnote (currently n13) that cites Sabra (2008), Kalin, Ayduz & Dagli (2009), and Dallal (1999), with quotations from the last two. This footnote is replicated (via a named-ref) three times, to support three points: that Alhazen was 1) a "mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher," 2) "sometimes called al-Baṣrī after his birthplace Basra in Iraq," and 3) "or al-Miṣrī ("of Egypt")". I doubt that the quotations are needed, and I doubt even more that all three citations are need to support each of these points. I suggest that someone with access to these sources verify which sources are needed for which points, and if the quotations can be dumped. Note that page numbers are really helpful for this purpose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Note13 is now used for claim 1 alone. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Note 13 might now be phrased "three sources support this claim": Sabra (2008), Kalin, Ayduz & Dagli (2009), and Dallal (1999). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I just tried inserting a quote with a {{harv}} citation, but was forced to hard-code the citation in the article. (I couldn't get the harv to work.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't work how? I presume with the combination "vol.2, p.437". No problem. Either use the more general |loc= parameter, as I did with this edit, or simply append whatever details you want after the template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I got a red message while embedding an external link in the harvnb. Thank you for showing us how to use |loc=

As a convenience to the reader, I was trying to include a link to p. 437 via JSTOR. But a determined reader could just follow the citation, select the vol.2 link, click the page numbers tab to a page with a little icon for p.437, and read the quote. This is assuming they aleady have access, such as at a location with a university library connection. Otherwise, the reader will also have to gain access to JSTOR, and then put Smith 2001 on their list of allowed pages with JSTOR. It's such a laborious process, potentially taking weeks, I have to believe that access to content via external links is frowned upon. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)y

Thank you for using the |loc= parameter. I added in the JSTOR link to p.437 directly to the citation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's Smith 2001, Trans.of the American Philo. Soc., right? That's a complicated citation, and needs some work. (I have been ignoring it.) Paywalled links are always a problem, and therefore generally frowned on. Is there any chance this item might be found in Google Books? (I'd look, but I'm already late. Time to go!!!!!) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. JSTOR, a digital library, has an institutional program to encourage Wikipedia editors to use its resources. It's free if you apply and meet the requirements of The Wikipedia Library. Google Books limits the pages you can read. Smith 2001 is over 800 pages long. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Accessing JSTOR to develop an article is one thing, providing links that hit pay-walls is a bit different. Particularly in linking to specific pages/locations. If Google Books will serve up a particular page then it doesn't matter if other pages are blocked. As to linking to specific pages in JSTOR – I have never explored that, not having JSTOR access. (I've never considered my usage to warrant that access.) But if you have some source that is "open" we could explore how to do such links. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

So I tried a query for p.437, Smith 2001 vol.2 from Google Books. Now isn't it going to be necessary to capture this specific query for the Wayback machine? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so; Google should be as stable as anything else on the web. BTW, note that you don't need the three-line url for Google: just the "id" portion identifies the book (e.g.: https://books.google.com/books?id=3x0LAAAAIAAJ), and adding "&pg=PA437" will get you the page. Note also the {{google books}} template, which I've used a few times. I haven't decided if it is superior to just the basic url.

So I have pretty much cleaned up everything citation-wise. I tagged a few questionable citations, and I didn't fix up much in the Primary and Secondary lists. One thing to consider: removing all the blockquote templatess from the citations, as not appropriate for footnotes. Something else to watch for: there is a bot that likes to merge identical notes into a named-ref pair. I've added a line to try to deter it, but the only sure way is if every note is unique. One of way helping with that is having page numbers (or such), which is a good idea anyway.

As most WP editors are accustomed to just throwing stuff in with a full citation, and many can't be troubled to see what the established style is, or even to see if the source is already present, monitoring, and occasionally a little chivvying, will be necessary to resist entropical decline. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation in "Sources" and Primary/Secondary

@Ontoraul, while trying to understand the El-Bizri 2005 change to the citations ( El-Bizri 2005 <-- 2005a, 2005b ), I noticed there is possibly a parallel situation in the second El-Bizri 2009 citation (a potential El-Bizri 2009a, 2009b)? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, I corrected the references--Raul Corazzon (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Some matters to sort out. In the "Sources" section we list all the sources used in the article, and that should be complete. That is, we should not have any short cites linking to a full citation some where else. We also have a "Further reading" section, subdivided in "Primary" and "Secondary". (I presume these refer to a characterization of the listed items as primary or secondary sources (and tertiary?), as might be of interest to scholars and seriouus students on one hand, and to more casual general readers on the other hand.)

It is to be expected that "Sources" and "Further reading" will overlap. It is also quite reasonable to use a citation template so that everything gets presented in a consistent format ("style"). (And even should be required, given the existing inconsistency.) Which leads to the question of whether repeated entries need to be disambiguated. In a word, no.

In regard of different sources that resolve to the same author and year, the conventional use of a letter suffix to disambiguate sources (e.g.: El-Bizri 2005a, El-Bizri 2005b) so that the short cites point to the correct source is not needed in the "Further reading" section because, strictly speaking, nothing is (or should be) pointing to those entries.

In regard of the anchors ("CITEREFS") generated by the citation templates, there is no problem because the link goes to first one (in Sources). If there was any problem a {cite} template could be used, without the "ref=harv" parameter, and no anchor would be generated. Or {citation} could be used with "ref" set to a dummy value. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alhazen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930153427/http://www.cgie.org.ir/shavad.asp?id=123&avaid=1917 to http://www.cgie.org.ir/shavad.asp?id=123&avaid=1917

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927190009/http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/cit/citlcalhazen1.htm to http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/cit/citlcalhazen1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Name

Not here to argue about the use of the Latinate name. (It's more WP:COMMON in WP:ENGLISH.)

Am curious if I understand this Arabic name correctly, though. This guy is named Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan, his dad was also known as al-Ḥasan, and his granddad was known as al-Haytham. So the Latinate name, besides being pretty garbled, is actually the name of his grandfather... but the "corrected" modern name Ibn al-Haytham is still wrong and is actually a title that should refer to Abū ʿAlī's father?

a) Is that understanding correct?

b) If so, anyone have a WP:RS that points that out, so we can mention it in the article?

 — LlywelynII 05:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Abu Ali = Father of Ali which is a Kunya

I believe the latin comes from his first name, which is weird they usually come from the surname at the end. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Since his name is sometimes written al-Hasan and sometimes al-Basri is added on is it worth mentioning that he is not to be confused with the other al-Hasan al-Basri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_of_Basra. I certainly got the two confused when I first started researchjing alhazen. NickPriceNZ (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A.Mark Smith 2001 has a passage describing how the usage for the name for Alhacen evolved in the West. Briefly, you can blame Friedrich Risner 1572 pp. x, xi, xxi-xxiii for garbling the name to Alhazen. Maybe a note would suffice. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alhazen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aku.edu/res-office/pdfs/AKU_Research_Publications_1995

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Marsh_Arabs

Since Alhazen was born in Basra during the Buyid era, has anyone considered that he may have been Marsh Arab? Perhaps this might help to solve disputes over ethnicity. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any source speaking about this origin ? --Aṭlas (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)