Talk:List of Arab scientists and scholars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

Jidan 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jidan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. Jidan 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested compromise

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

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

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

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

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

Support

SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--ManiF 09:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shervink 12:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)shervink.[reply]
Kash 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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

Verdict

Done - Renamed --Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suggested compromise

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

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

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

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

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

Support

SouthernComfort 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--ManiF 09:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shervink 12:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)shervink.[reply]
Kash 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Jidan 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)~~ - (This vote was posted after the consensus was reached)[reply]

Verdict

Done - Renamed --Kash 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I think this move was unfair. It wasn't even agreed upon by the author of this article - I like the idea of having a "disputed people" section in both articles, but the Iranian editors don't seem to agree with me. However, even if we move the page back, the people of disputed Arab ancestry shouldn't be in the main list - it seems to provoke the Iranian editors. I'm going to request for this page to be moved back until we can actually come to a fair compromise. --Khoikhoi 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Khoikhoi, this page should not have been moved until there was a fair compromise. A better way to handle this would be to mark each of the disputed people with a reference note and put the information at the bottom as to how and why their ethnicity is disputed. Green Giant 00:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it seems like some figures' ethnicity is more controversial than others. For example, I think the footnotes would be a good idea for Geber and Alhazan, but I don't think Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Karaji should be on the list, perhaps we could have something at the very bottom that says "it is sometimes claimed that...". --Khoikhoi 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind Khoikhoi's last suggestion. But If we kept it as "List of Muslim scientists and scholars" then we wouldn't have any more conflicts and problems about each one of those scientists, plus we would all be able to help expand the list to include all the ethnic Arabs, Persians and Turks without any mention of their ethnicity. For this to happen, Jidan would have to stop with the comparative references to "the Iranian list" as that's a regional/national list, not an ethnic one. I don't think any of us would object to a "Syrian list" for example. --ManiF 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! To avoid these kind of ugly ethnic problems, I have already stated at the very beginning of the article: By "Arab", it should not be understood as a strictly ethnically term, but rather a cultural term. Unlike the List of Iranian scientists and scholars, which has many ethnic disputed scholars but still didn't mention it. And still, I never edited that list, because I was kind of proud that they included arabs in their list. Wouldn't any american be proud if he sees Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest arabs?? I really don't understand what the problem is! If a user wants more info regarding a particular scholar, he will go to his article and there he will read the dispute about his ethnicity. This is just a List!! I am ofcourse open for any compromise. Jidan 01:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain again what the issue is. You shouldn't label individuals who aren't Arab as "Arab". The "List of Iranian scientists and scholars" is not an ethnic-based list and is irrelevant to this dissuasion. There is no "Persian scientists list" for you to make any comparative references to, if by "Arab", you don't mean an "strictly ethnically term", then lets just stick with the original compromise and the neutral term "Muslim", to make life less complicated for all of us. Also, if "Iranian scientists list" insults or flatters you, then go ahead and make similar regional/nationality-based lists for "Syrian scientists", "Yemeni scientists" and so forth. --ManiF 03:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the Arab scientists and scholars?

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

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

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

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

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

Jidan 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post. I have a few points to make about it, however. To compare with the definition quoted above, I must say that for those scientists which are correctly being called Iranian (Persian) by many here, the language was not Arabic, they were not living in an Arabic speaking coutry, and whether they sympathized with Arabic speaking people in general is a speculation. The point here is that, most of them also produced work in Persian (Take Avicenna's poems, for example). Their mother tongue (as German for someone born in Berlin or Persian for someone born in Shiraz today), was Persian, not Arabic. The language of science was Arabic at the time. This is why they wrote in Arabic. It does not mean that they were Arabs.

Almost all scientists in Iran or Syria or Turkey nowadays also speak and write in English when it comes to scientific matters. But are they English? Of course not. By the way, most of Newton's writings were in Latin, not English. Would you therefore label him as a Latin or a Roman scientist? No, of course not. With the same reasoning, those scientists were Persian, not Arabs. Please think about it and try to realize the difference between speaking a language and being a part of the culture associated with it. I might speak and write in five different languages, but still I would only define myself as Iranian. Shervink 15:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

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

Who are the Arab scientists and scholars? - II

I agree that speaking arabic doesn't mean you are an Arab. But in a time where there was no defination of nationalities, speaking arabic and living in an arabic city makes you an Arab. People are not classified by their DNA's. Unless of course its mentioned specifically that he was persian. There are many great muslim scientists who were persians. For example Ibn Sina, who spoke and wrote arabic and even had memorized the arabic Koran by the age of 10. Other persian scholars were Al-Biruni, Omar Khayyám.Those mentioned scholars unlike Al-Khwarizmi, Geber, Alhazen , Al-Kharki, lived and prospured in iranian scientific cities which rivaled baghdad, worked for iranian rulers, and wrote in persian. For example,

Omar Khayyám(1048-1131) was born in Nishapur,Iran and is famous for being a mathematican and for writting persian poems. He livied mostly in Nishapur and Isfahan, for Malik-Shah, ruler of Isfahan.

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

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

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

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

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

List of Arab scientists and scholars , List of Iranian scientists ?

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

List of Russians starts with the disclaimer:

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

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

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

I will add the following disclaimer as suggested by abakharev:

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

Jidan 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think also the list should contain only arabs. I have removed Sibawayh, although the only thing he was famous for is arabic grammer. Now,Geber is definitive arab:

And Alhazen is sooo arab that even Iraq, the bitter enemy of Iran, printed him in their currency

File:Ibn haithem.jpg

The Arab mathematician Ibn Al-Haitham depicted in a 10000 Iraqi Dinar note.

and all encyclopedias and scientific articles say that he was Arab:

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

Now the list is entirly arab.

Regarding Al-Khwarizmi, its very much disputed. He might have been born in Qutrubbull [1] and in Columbia Encyclopedia he is described as arab. And Britannica doesn't mention him as persian.

Samething goes to Al-Karkhi [2].

128.131.220.102 06:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I just checked and 128.131.220.102 is a proxy IP address from Vienna University of Technology [3], so I suspect the anon is a blocked user from Vienna, Austria, who has been very much involved on this page, trying to circumvent his block. The administrators should investigate this matter. Second of all, nothing is as clear cut as suggested by the anon, there are many sources out there referring to Geber and Alhazen as Persian or Iranian, so their ethnicity is very much disputed, see the corresponded articles for details. I have no objection to their inclusion on this list though. Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Karaji on the other hand are definitely not Arab, as the majority, and most of the published authoritative sources refer to them as Persian. Those two should be omitted from the list. --ManiF 07:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a silly dispute

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

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

Khwarizmi and Karaji

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

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

Entries Format for the List of Arab scientists and scholars

Any new entries on the list should follow the following rules:

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

Ibn xxxx (date, place of birth - date, place of death )

Short description of his/her important works.

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

Abdulrahim Nasr Chafi

This redlinked entry, inserted by 69.109.147.3 (talk · contribs) raises some questions, as follows:

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

Arab Americans
Jewish Americans
Lebanese Americans
Austrians Scientists
Muslim Scientists
Fictional Scientists
many many more.

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

Resource?

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

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

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

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

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

--Anonymous writer

Al Farabi

I don't think English language users of English wikipedia should be subjected to the stupidity and narrowmindedness displayed in the discussions above. If someone wrote in Arabic, they belong on the list, whether they believed in Islam or not, whether they were Bedouin or Tajik or whatever. In the English speaking world Arabic is a cultural category before it is an ethnic one. If the heading to the page is: "This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World and Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) that lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. In some cases, their exact ancestry in unclear. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic" then Al-Farabi belongs here. Let the discussions on background be alluded to, gone into on the individual page, but here make entries which are useful to users of the encyclopedia. RuthieK 14:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, this is a list of Arabs and there is a clear definition of who are Arabs and who aren't in English or any other language, and Iranians and Turks don't fall into that category. Bottom line, this list shouldn't be used as a POV fork to label individuals who weren't Arab as "Arab". Not all Muslims are Arab, Farabi wasn't an Arab, to call him or list him as an "Arab" is simply false. --Mardavich 14:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if English is your first language, I get the feeling not. But you can read what it says at the top of the article. I copied for you here. Read it again. And I didn't say he was an Arab. What I did say, if you read it again, is that culture in Arabic is not equivalent to Islamic culture. Read it again. I don't care about whether someone considers himself an Arab or Persian or Turkish or Turkic or whatever. On that level culture is stupid. There is something called Arabic culture, conducted in the Arabic language, which arose out of (but is wider than) Islamic culture - something one can be interested in without caring a toss about the ethnic hangups of people. The sooner people in the Middle East stop expending so much energy on fatuous questions, the sooner they will again make contributions to civilization everyone can be interested in. You are not a good advertisement for your culture. Goodbye. RuthieK 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You are free to create a list of Arabic Writers, Latin Writes and English Writers. --69.86.16.239 01:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]