Talk:Al-Jazari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News On 11 July 2007, Al-Jazari was linked from Reddit, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

This template goes here : see Template:High-traffic

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about Muslim scholars.
Note: The project includes non-Muslim scholars of Islam.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Al-Jazari is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Qutoe from recent article:

7 The crank-shaft is a device which translates rotary into linear motion and is central to much of the machinery in the modern world, not least the internal combustion engine. One of the most important mechanical inventions in the history of humankind, it was created by an ingenious Muslim engineer called al-Jazari to raise water for irrigation. His 1206 Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices shows he also invented or refined the use of valves and pistons, devised some of the first mechanical clocks driven by water and weights, and was the father of robotics. Among his 50 other inventions was the combination lock.

Paul Vallely, "How Islamic inventors changed the world" 11 March 2006[1] --Ben Houston 15:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does religious affliction seem to be important here when it is seldom, or never mentioned with scientists/inventors from other cultures?

Good point. We don't say "Christian" or "Jewish" when describing an inventor from that same period, nor "Buddhist", etc. In addition, the mention of his religion raises another important point. If religion is important, shouldn't the reason for the Near East not developing these devices be mentioned: the inventions were declared "haram" and banned for religious reasons, and their promoters banished? Student7 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Misuse of the term robot

The device described in the article is best described an automaton. It is completely misleading to call it a robot. See the definitions at the two linked articles for explanations of what constitutes each type of machine. Lumos3 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is rapidly getting out of hand. I'm sure this man had his place in history. Unfortunately, his technologiy was lost at his death and only rediscovered recently, so to suggest he had a "giant" impact on anything is just not true. Like Mendel and genetics. Mendel was rediscovered. da Vinci was mostly lost. He had no impact even though he's given credit for a lot of stuff on which he had no influence. This guy had less influence than that. This article is not credibly documented. Has anyone checked references or the scholarship of the books referenced? Student7 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have again corrected the claim that what Al-Jazari built can be called a robot. An automaton is the correct term here. Lumos3 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a massive overuse of the word robot all through thae article, a chirping model bird on a clock is called a robot, should I buy a cuckoo clock and tell people I have a robot that tells me the time? The 'humanoid robots' were more like giant music boxes in the shape of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.125.13 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All by himself?

I realize that many details are missing from that long ago. Still, biographers were able to pin each invention down very precisely. Why no mention of any help? A laboratory-like facility had to be used to come up with this many inventions in his spare time, as it were. He must have had many assistants, yet none are mentioned either by name or number. This creates a slight credibility problem for me.

Also, he produced three important inventions at age 66, the year that he died. No other dates for his inventions are mentioned.

Student7 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] design+construction

I ripped out [2] the D+C subsection as a copyvio of [3] (the other ref used in it was also a copyvio of that (or the other way round) but thats another matter.

I also think several of the claims are implausible - first use of templates or paper models - but that too is another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored those sections in quotation format instead to avoid any copyvio issues. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure thats really good enough. Anyway, I've removed those sections that were nothing but quotes. Wiki isn't a quote-farm William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've restored those sections (yet again) with some of it in my own words and some of it in Hill's words. Is this good enough for you or are you still planning to remove those sections again for some other reason? Jagged 85 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, of course its not good enough, barely even a thin veneer. Apologies for the rollback, though, I hit the wrong button. "Mechanical clock" is entirely misleading, as I said. They were water clocks, with some kind of mechanism added on, but that wasn't doing the timekeeping. There is no reason for a separate section on them - thats double counting. Mechanical clock means pendulum/spring. Your previous version linked Mechanical_clock, which goes straight to pendulum clock. The mech controls section is (a) nothing but a quote, and (b) near meaningless with such a lack of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand of a mechanical clock, it is is simply a clock driven by weights. If al-Jazari described a clock which was "driven by both water and weights", wouldn't that technically make it a mechanical clock? Either way, I've renamed the section to simply "Weight-driven water clocks" to be more specific. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Try following mechanical clock, ah, I see I've already pointed you to that, but you do seem to have missed the point. This time try actually clicking on it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia link for mechanical clock pointing to Pendulum clock doesn't really mean anything. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It means the obvious - that the section titled mech clks is misleading, as well as that whoever put in that link was either careless or deliberately misleading William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm restoring "Weight-driven water clocks", since there really is no justification to remove it now that it's not even called "Mechanical clocks" anymore. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other devices

I ripped this out too [4]. I don't know where it was copied from, but I can't see why anyone would have added "Other sundry mechanisms" unless they had copied it. Most of this misc list has been mentionned above, anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saqiya

J restored [5] the primacy of Al-J using hydropower to power a saqiya pump, although the primacy of the chinese in general is admitted. I'm not really sure quite what a saqiya pump is, or what makes it so distinct from the chinese pumps. Google hit #1 [6] says its an animal powered pump, but that cant be right William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that "saqiya" is a type of chain pump, but we can't be too certain whether it was the same type that the Chinese were using. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good. Whether it was identical to the chinese ones is irrelevant - the claim that the article was previously [7] making that "This is the first known description of a water-raising machine being operated by water power." is shown to be nonsense. In your haste to redress the balance against the traditional attitude towards Islamic science, please don't puff these people up to implausible degree or you'll just make them look silly. Comparing this article to Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla is instructive William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
How is a previous version of the section even relevant to the current discussion? I've already acknowledged the previous version is flawed, or else I would have reverted back to that version if it wasn't. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It shows how puffed up this stuff gets. At least one of your previous "facts" was unreliable. Perhaps more are. Certainly the tone is overblown William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting large chunks of reliably-sourced information? No offense, but I think your last few edits have been a bit over-the-top. I am reverting them because I have not yet seen any valid reasons for your unnecessary deletions. Regardless of whether the article is too hyped up or "salivating", things like these can be re-worded or re-written, but deleting large chunks of reliably-sourced information is not the answer. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That information is reliably sourced is not a killer argument for inclusion. There are lots more quotes that could be pulled out of DRH amongst others. The point is to choose appropriately. For example, the quote "It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of Al-Jazari's work in the history of engineering" appears quite over-the-top. This is but one mans opinion. A rather fairer conclusion is that any conclusions must be tentative because so little research has been undertaken on Arab technology William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the other two sections you've deleted: "Mechanical controls" and "Candle clocks". Both of these are very useful sections, so please don't attempt to remove them again. If you have a problem with my wording or quoting, then you can always put them in your own words, but like I said before, removing them is not the solution. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TOC limit

This [8] is a symptom of the article having too many teeny tiny subsections. It needs to be re-written William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've improved this somewhat by removing some of the sub-section headers, which weren't really needed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double-action suction pump with valves and reciprocating piston engine

This section is backed up by [9], but although it sez "The Origin of the Suction Pump" its actually *about* " LAZAWARD (LAJVARD ) AND ZAFFER COBALT OXIDE IN ISLAMIC AND WESTERN LUSTRE GLASS AND CERAMICS". This needs fixing William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Rather than an inventor"

Since I don't have access to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography at the moment, could William perhaps quote the part where it says that al-Jazari was an "engineer rather than an inventor"? I'd like to know the full context behind this rather odd assertion which seems to imply he was not an inventor. Thanks, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to you removing that text. I' provided a ref in the edit comment; now I've put it in the text. Its in the std DRH compedium which I'm sure you have access to William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if you were offended, but no, I don't have access to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography at the moment. It's just that I have a hard time believing DR Hill would say that (judging from his other works I've read), which is why I am asking for the full quote, to understand the context behind it if he did indeed say it. Also, you should always add the ref in the text itself rather than in the edit summary. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality?

I don't think this [10] is justified. But from what I gather her could have been kurdish/turkish if born in the same place today? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)