Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 14 March 2011

Mathematics Stub‑class High‑priority

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Middle Ages Stub‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Mathematics in the medieval Islamic world: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2022-09-17 There are no active tasks for this page

good page

i didnt know half this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We Jews are an Ethnic group

why are we added to the Religion list but not the ethnic group? did not Jews contribute in Islamic Spain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (--FDR (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)talk) 10:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

if jew are a ethnic group, does that mean my ethnicity changes when i convert to judaism?86.144.71.206 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the post you are responding to is over three months old, and was offered as a one-time edit. Additionally, your post seems tangential and not really in keeping with the idea of article discussion, Misplaced Pages is not a Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch. - Arcayne () 02:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No such thing as Islamic mathematics

The religion of Islam does not include math, there is no connection. Mathematicians who were living in regions where Islam was the dominant religion , does not imply that they were Islamic mathematicians . The term makes no sense , but is rather used in some sort of vain attempt at associating the glory of the accomplishments of mathematicians and scientists with the religion of Islam. The fact of studying the Qu'ran makes no impact on one's mathematic ability. The same goes for any other association of a faith with a scientific field. Thus editors who are going around weaving terms like Islamic mathematicians are using Misplaced Pages as a soap box.--CltFn 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk on talk pages to gain consensus before moving. Add an NPOV if you are worried about these issues... you may be right but you need to discuss. Here's my problem. If anything is "good" you say it's not Islamic based and if it's "bad" like the invasion of Iberia you say it is Islamic. This is just adding systemic bias to Misplaced Pages because you don't have a coherent system for when to include religion as an influence... and when to not. We will get some discussion here before this is moved again and we will get discussion about how this should be dealt with over the whole gamut of articles. Thank you. gren グレン 07:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the move. See also Talk:Islamic science. --Striver 10:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the move as well. Islamic mathematics is a well-defined term to historians of mathematics with a precise meaning. It's pretty clear tha CtlFn again has no idea what he is talking about. If you don't like the name of this term, so be it, but don't start using Misplaced Pages as a soap box yourself. —Ruud 13:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic mathematics and Arabic mathematics are modern historical terms for the mathematical sciences in Islamic civilization from the beginning of Islam (A.D. 622) until the 17th century. Although most of the mathematicians in this period of Islamic civilization were Muslims, some prominent mathematicians had other religious backgrounds (Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian). Arabic was the main scientific language but not necessarily the native language of a mathematician, who might have been Persian, Turkish, etc. (Definition by Prof. J. P. Hogendijk)

Islamic mathematics?

This is a discussion we really need to have. I completely oppose CltFn's arbitrary moves and changes on things he does not need acceptable but this does not make him wrong. What we need to discuss is "is there an Islamic mathematics?" Who uses that phrase? How is it used between different parties? Do Muslims uses it to glorify Islam while secular scholars use it as a term of convenience? If so we cannot conflate those differences as the same. Is attributing these mathematics to the Arabs any different than making it Islamic mathematics? Is it just changing it from a religious pride issue to an ethnic pride issue? What do mathematics historians call this? Personally I don't know what the title of this article will be but I'm pretty sure we'll need to have a section describing the fact that Islamic mathematics is a term in use but so is Arab mathematics. It is not one or the other and the supporters of each term have their biases. Arab nationalists want to glorify the Arabs while "Islamic nationalists" (for lack of a better term) want to use this to glorify Islam. We need to recognize that this is not a straightforward discussion of one is true the other isn't. Both have merit and both are propaganda. We could go for "Mathematics arising from the Middle East" however that is not a term commonly used and would therefore be hard to justify its usage. Let's have a serious discussion and not let this get into reverting before we have done that. gren グレン 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Historians of mathematics use the terms Arabic mathematics or Islamic mathematics. I don't know who coined these terms, but I think it is far more likely that they were invented by ignorant Westerners than nationalistic Arabs or Muslims. This article should clearly mention that not all mathematicians that fall under this category were Arabs or even Muslims, but it is definitly not Misplaced Pages's task to "correct" unfortunatly chosen terminology. —Ruud 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

invented by ignorant Westerners ? Sounds a bit strong for a guess--CltFn 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Ruud / R. Koot, you removed {{accuracy}}. I have re-added it in the sense of making it totally disputed. I am doing this because I think CltFn would make the point that we don't have proof that these mathematicians were Muslim. Therefore what you have would be inaccurate. I don't want to debate this as a fact or whatnot but please do me the favor of not removing this. I will make sure this doesn't digress into a revert war but in order to do that we must address the argument of CltFn which is by no means unfounded. Therefore please do not remove those tags and let us discuss it first. As we come to a decision we can remove the tags. Revert warring will not be tolerated though for anyone here. If you start reverting without involving yourself in the discussion you should probably receive a short block. gren グレン 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the {{accuracy}} tag as the reference I added made it clear that there are no factual accuracy problems with the current article, and that adding two tags was just CtlFn trying to make a WP:POINT. I don't understand your reasoning (" that we don't have proof that these mathematicians were Muslim") though, as the article states that Islamic mathematics refers to mathematics "including Arab and Persian mathematicians, as well as other Muslims and non-Muslims"? —Ruud 19:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion and mathematics

It seems that the debate involving the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag centers around whether Islam was influential in the development of mathematics. This is silly.

The connection between religion and mathematics is well-known in the history of mathematics. The followers of Pythagoras held the religio-spiritual belief that everything was number. Religious aspects of the theory of number appear in the Theaetetus and the Timaeus of Plato. Even as late as in the 17th century, Leibniz would have said that the invention of calculus was a vehicle for peering into the mind of God.

Even in the early 20th century, Western mathematics has been highly influenced by Western philosophical thought, and philosophical thought does and should include religion. Only after the separation of logic into its own category (apart from mainstream mathematics) in the middle of the 20th century did the connection between Western mathematics and Western philosophy cease entirely.

Now, I am not an expert in medieval mathematics, but I am quite knowledgeable about the philosophy of mathematics. The suggestion that Islamic thought had nothing to do with the development of medieval mathematics seems highly improbable to me, and I believe that the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag should be removed. --Wzhao553 08:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the NPOV concerns were easily debunked and I have already adressed the factual accuracy concerns. No one has voiced any concerns since. —Ruud 00:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection between religion and mathematics that I can see, by the way what exactly is Islamic thought and what does it have to do with Mathematics. This seems to be obvious to you , so , how about explaining this to other wikipedia editors who may not be see the connection. .--CltFn 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree that religion and mathematics are subsets of philosophy, but it is wrong that religion is the mother of mathematics. They may both derive from the same sense of awe and religiosity, but to say that the teachings specific to one form of religion give rise to mathematics is silly. As someone who has studied Islam, knows the language, and is fully familiar with the Hadith and the teachings of the various schools of jurisprudence, I can say that nowhere did I ever see in any of the teachings anything remotely concerned with mathematics. If you can point to something in the haditha or the Quran that might suggest otherwise, it would be a great addition to the article. But I am certain no such connection exists. The only connection is the consanguineity between the spiritual need to understand the world and the expression of that understanding in either mathematical terms or in the folk mythologies of religion. Those who are drawn to one tend also to be drawn to the other, but in no way does learning about angry Abrahamic Gods inspire mathematical revelations.

This idea of "Islamic mathematics" completely ignores and downplays the contributions of pre-Islamic thinkers in India, Babylon, Egypt and other places whose insights were essential for later "Islamic" thinkers to draw their insights. In other words, the people who gave us mathematical insights would have likely done so if the dominant religion were Zoroastrianism or Christianity.

If anything, what Islam provided was not a religion, but a stable government with fixed laws that allowed for trade, economic growth, and division of labor. It was this that allowed a larger number of people to specialize in mathematics and contribute their talents rather than laboring in fields. So if Islam contributed to mathematics, it was only tangentially.KartoumHero (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming this article to Middle-Eastern mathematics

I would like to open a discusion about renaming this article to Middle-Eastern mathematics as Mathematics has nothing to do with Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or Christianity or any religion , unless that religion provides mathematical principles and datums that would justify such an association. --CltFn 02:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But religion and mathematics are heavily intertwined. Mathematics provided a religious and spiritual world-view for the Pythagoreans. Logical and "mathematical" proofs of the existence of God have been attempted by Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza and many others. Then there's Kronecker's famous quote that "God made the whole numbers; the rest is the work of man." Even proponents of intelligent design have begun to employ probability theory in their arguments against naturalism. Why do you feel that there is no justification for such an association? --Wzhao553 02:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Give me one tenet from Islam that correlates with Mathematics. --CltFn 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Averroes' attempt to provide mathematical rigor to his theological and metaphysical reasoning by attempting to reconcile Islam with Aristotelian philosophy? --Wzhao553 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What tenet from Islam are you referring to? --CltFn 03:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Averroism. --Wzhao553 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see , thanks to this remarkable tenet I can see my math skills increasing already.--CltFn 03:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "Middle-Eastern mathematics" is a neologism, while the term "Islamic mathemtics" is as well-established in the history of mathematics as "Renaissance" is in the history of Europe. —Ruud 02:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to vote , this is not a vote but a discussion --CltFn 02:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did I vote? —Ruud 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't rename this. "Islamic mathematics" gets plenty of Google hits; "Middle-Eastern mathematics" only a few, most of which refer to something entirely different. --Lambiam 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "Middle-Eastern mathematics" would be incorrect due to several reasons. Islamic mathematicians not only lived in the Middle East, they also lived in Central Asia, North Africa, Spain and India. Mathematics has also been studied in the Middle East since the days of the Egyptians and Babylonians (which already have their own articles), and continued in the days of the Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Arabs and Turks. This article refers broadly to the mathematics of the Islamic-dominated cultures, and not just the religion of Islam, in the same way "Greek mathematics" refers braodly to the mathematics of the Hellenistic cultures, and not just the Greek people. Jagged 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Totally disputed" tag

CltFn re-added the {{Totally disputed}} tag on 2006 May 15 03:01, with edit summary: the dispute is all over the talk page and was mentioned in my comment when I inserted the tag the first time. But as far as I can see, all issues have satisfactorily been dealt with since. What else is left? CltFn should be more specific, especially in light of the fact that the tag was removed by another editor in good standing. --Lambiam 08:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

math typo

This bit seems to have an obvious typo:

Al-Haytham (b. 965), also known as Alhazen, in his work on number theory, seems to have been the first to attempt to classify all even perfect numbers (numbers equal to the sum of their proper divisors) as those of the form ${\displaystyle \ 2^{k}-1(2^{k}-1)}$ where ${\displaystyle \ 2^{k}-1}$ is prime.

since ${\displaystyle 2^{k}-1(2^{k}-1)}$ is always 1. I can think of a few things that the author might've meant to write, but I don't know the subject well enough to correct it myself. Staecker 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the formula, which now reads: ${\displaystyle \ 2^{k-1}(2^{k}-1)}$. --Lambiam 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Supposedly Al-Batanni (868-929) produced the relationship tanx = sinx/cosx

However, it says later that Abu'l-Wáfa (940-998) invented the tangent function.

I dont see how you could get a relationship for the tangent function before the tangent function was invented. Harley peters 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to Islamic mathematics or Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World

Between the two titles "Islamic mathematics" and "Arabic mathematics", the first one is much less misleading. The overwhelming majority of those mathematicians were muslim (at least in name), while only a small minority of them were Arab. I should also remind that the previous move to "Arabic mathematics" (in March 10) wasn't based on any concensus. this page should either move back to "Islamic mathematics" or to "Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World" (which I think is much more accurate). Jahangard 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic mathematics and Islamic mathematics are the only two terms used by historians mathematics and therefore the only acceptable titles. Both are misleading as the mathematicians it concerns where neither all Arabs not all Muslim. The term Islamic mathematics has recently been gaining more prominence:

Although many able authors have contributed valuable articles, the work as a whole is flawed, to such an extent that one hesitates to recommend it as a general reference on the subject for non-specialists. The flaws are of an editorial nature, and the first is the title chosen for the work. It is no disservice to Arabs (modern or medieval) to point-out that non-Arabs (principally Persians and Turks) also played important roles in the development of medieval Islamic science, and these roles should be acknowledged in the choice of title. "Islamic" is a very serviceable epithet and should have been used, rather than "Arabic," to describe the science being studied. — J. L. Berggren on Roshdi Rashed's Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science. (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 120, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 2000), pp. 282-283.)

but on the other hand seems to attract a lot of frustrated people which believe the name implies a closer connection to Islam than it does in reality (see posts above.) —Ruud 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually, shorter names and phrases are more common than the longers. However, for controversial names, avoiding the ambiguity and the controversy is much more important than other criteria. Therefore, "Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World" is a much better title compared to the other two. Also, between "Islamic mathematics" and "Arabic mathematics", although both of them can be misleading, the second one is much more misleading, because the overwhelming majority of those mathematicians were not Arab. Anyway, it's better to see the opinion of other wikipedians. Jahangard 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Arabic and Islamic mathematics thats the title used for this period in History of mathematics. It neatly escapes the conflict and is an acurate description. --Salix alba (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It still has the problems that I mentioned (e.g. ambiguity). Mathematics in medieval Islamic world is the exact description of the topic. I think, Also, titles such as "Medieval Islamic Mathematics" or "Mathematics of Medieval Islam" are fine (the first one is consistent with "Medieval European Mathematics" and the second one is already used in the title of a relevant book). Jahangard 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey for the requested move

Arabic mathematics → Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World — That's what this page is about. For the detail of the discussion see above. Jahangard 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

• Support per previous discussion. Jahangard 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support The page should be moved from Arabic mathematics (most of these people are not Arab), but I'd still prefer the old title Islamic mathematics. --Mardavich 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "arabic", which refers to language. If it were referring to Arabs, the correct term would be "Arabian mathematics" or "Arab mathematics". In any case, I believe some cool reflection is needed here, and comment further below.
• Support, Islamic mathemaathics is more appropriate. Islamic mathemaathics is also consistent with related WP articls such as Islamic science, Islamic medicine, Islamic astronomy,Islamic astrology ...(Arash the Archer 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
• Support The page should be movd to Islamic Mathematics, since most of the people here are not Arabic--Pam55 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Far less POV title, and is far more accurate. It should be titled Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World. Also note that many of the other articles are open to discussion about being moved as well.--Sefringle 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support: "Arabic Mathematics" would limit the Mathematics researches to the Arab world, while "Mathematics In Medieval Muslim World" will reflect all the works done in all Muslim territories (Arab, Turkish, Persian). -Ariana310 07:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ariana, it seems from your comment that you did not notice the remark I already made a few lines above concerning the distinction between arabic and Arab/Arabian. I do hope you have taken the trouble to read the many interesting discussions on this page (above and below) before expressing your opinion. Geometry guy 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

• Veto "Arabic mathematics" and "Islamic mathematics" are the only two terms used to describe this era in the history of mathematics. Misplaced Pages is not the place to "correct" unfortunately chosen terminology. —Ruud 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As I explained before, for ambiguous or controversial names, the popularity of a name is not the main criterion. About the usage, there is already a book with the title Mathematics of Medieval Islam. So, claiming that "Arabic mathematics" and "Islamic mathematics" are the only two terms used to describe this era in the history of mathematics is simply wrong. Jahangard 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who looks hard enough can find exceptions to the rule. Read the comment of the reviewer to see how he names the subject of this book. —Ruud 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? I've already mentioned that "Islamic mathematics" is more commonly used (mostly because it's a shorter name). I'm saying that 1) For a controversial topic such as this, avoiding the ambiguity is much more important than the usnig the most comon names. (see WP:Name). 2) Terms such as "Mathematics of Medieval Islam" are already used in the related literature, to refer to the topic of this page. Jahangard 00:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a common and accepted usage. —Ruud 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As a side note the author of this book is also the author of the article "Arabic mathematics" in Encyclopaedia Britannica. —Ruud 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not an acceptable usage?!!! That's the title of one of the most important books on this subject. Jahangard 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not say acceptable, I said accepted. —Ruud 08:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Rethink required. Now that this issue appears to have cooled down a bit, I think a serious rethink is needed. A month ago, I would not have been in the least bit bothered what this article is called, but since then I have seen the colossal waste of time that can be generated when people attempt to categorize by religion (this is not, I hasten to add, a comment on this discussion). Let me make some remarks.
  1. This article is closely associated with the category Category:Islamic mathematics formally known as Category:Arabic mathematics. I came here because of the current CfD on Category:Jewish mathematicians. One of the arguments used by the Jewish-by-occupation pressure group for the existence of this category is that it is "similar to" Category:Arab mathematicians. The argument is flawed, but it is difficult to counter effectively at the moment, because our own (mathematics) house is not in order. For one thing, Category:Arab mathematicians should probably be renamed, but there is another point...
  2. One of the arguments I would like to employ at the CfD to explain the distinction is that there is no Jewish mathematics (or Category:Jewish mathematics), but there is Arabic mathematics (and Category:Arabic mathematics). Then I click on these links and find myself in an Islamic world. A Jewish editor following these links is hardly going to be impressed.
  3. I do not deny that personal and societal religion has a role to play in scientific and mathematical thought. However, calling this Islamic mathematics is a bit like calling the mathematics of (say) 15th-18th century Europe Christian mathematics. Similarly, although the society was Islamic, I am not convinced that "Mathematics of the Islamic/Medieval Muslim world" is any more helpful a choice of title than "Mathematics of the Christian world" or "Mathematics of the pagan world". It seems to me to be wiser to avoid using religious terms unless there is clear case that religion is central to the description of the topic.
  4. This brings us back to the issue that started this debate: Arabic mathematics is misleading because "The overwhelming majority of those mathematicians were muslim (at least in name), while only a small minority of them were Arab." I sympathise with this point of view, and agree that the established term "Arabic mathematics" is not ideal — however, this concern is actually a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word arabic. The OED defines it to mean "the semitic language of the Arabs" and "of or relating to Arabia (especially with regard to language and culture)". The noun and adjective referring to people is Arabian or simply Arab.

In other words, Arabic mathematics does not refer to Arabs at all, it refers to the indisputable fact that this mathematics was written in Arabic! It was the lingua franca of the time. I understand that many readers (especially non-native English speakers) may miss this point, but the solution is simple: spell out the meaning of the name in the introduction to the article. Please think on it. Geometry guy 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have observed the difference between "Arabic" and "Arab" (or "Arabian"). You should also look at the difference between "Islamic" and "Muslim". This page is not directly about religoius background. This page (and the corresponding category) is about the mathematics of a historical civilization which is called "Islamic civilization", or more precisely "Medieval Islamic civilization" (not "Arabic civilization"). That's why most of the recent works on this subject use "Islamic Mathematics" or "Medieval Islamic Mathematics" or similar terms. To avoid the ambiguity, I had proposed a title such as "medieval Islamic mathematics" (or "Mathematics in medieval Islamic world"). Based on the discussion in this page (and the survey), I moved the page to "Medieval Islamic Mathematics". However, later, the page was moved to "Islamic mathematics", without furthur discussions on the talk page. I should also note that until now, the mathematic pages, are categorized based on nationality (for modern era), ethnicity, or the culture (civilization), not the language. We don't refer to Indian mathematics as "sanskrit mathematics". The same is true for medieval European mathematics which is not called "Latin mathematics" (sometimes the language and the historical culture have the same word, like "Greek civilization"). A title such as "Medieval Islamic mathematics" avoids any ambiguity. It clearly shows the relation to the well-defined term "Medieval Islamic civilization", and after all, this page is about mathematics in that civilization. I should also note that one of the best recent works on this subject have used "Mathematics of Medieval Islam" as the title. About other pages, if it is related to a certain civilization and culture, we can have a page (and a correponding category). For example, if there are sufficient resources on "Mathematics in ancient Jewish civilization", we can have a page on "ancient Jewish mathematics" (related to a certain civilization, not just the religious background of the mathematicians). Jahangard 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This difference was not noted before and is the main justification given for support votes in the survey, so I think it needs to be considered.

About the main justification of the previous discussion, I had mentioned that both "Arabic mathematics" and "Islamic mathematics" acn be ambiguous (the first one might be confused with Arabian ethnicity and the second one might be confused with the muslim religious background, rather than the relation to "Islamic civilization"). I explained that the first ambiguity is much more misleading than the second ambiguity (because, after all, the overwhelming majority of those matematicians were muslim, while only a minority of them were Arab). However, I argued that it's much better to have a title which not ambigious (that's why I proposed the move to "Mathematics in Medieval Islamic World" or "Medieval Islamic mathematics"). Also, I agree that we need to think more about the title (we probably need to have another survey, because in the previous survey, the choice between "Medieval Islamic mathematics" and "Islamic Mathematics" is not clear).

Yes you did, and now you are saying it again. I disagree with your assertion about levels of ambiguity, and your justification in terms of numbers, but I have more-or-less said that already too. Anyway, concerning the point of agreement, there appears to be a useful discussion starting at the WikiProject. Geometry guy 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I followed your suggestion: Islamic is both a redirect here, and a derived adjective in the dictionary, which gives two meanings for Islam: the religion of the Muslims, and the Muslim world. It defines Muslims as followers of this religion, and Muslim (adj.) means "of the Muslims or their religion". This didn't reassure me much. I also don't find it helpful to bring the article's history into the discussion.

As for the more substantive points, I didn't quite get the relevance of sanskrit etc., as the term "Arabic mathematics" clearly is commonly used, along with "Arabic culture" and and "Arabic literature". I admit my final paragraph oversimplified the issue by saying that "Arabic" refers to the language (it does, but not only) — I did this to emphasise that it is not used to refer to the people. I did appreciate the nuances you articulate concerning "Islamic civilization", but ask you (and others) again to think on it. I will too. Geometry guy 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My main point was that categorizing mathematics based on the language is not very common. Also, there are some practical problems. The fact is that although most of those mathematical works (in the Medieval Islamic world) are written in Arabic, some Medieval Islamic mathematicians have works in other languages (specially Persian). For example, Jamshid Kashani has written in both Arabic and Persian. In doesn't make sense to separate these works just based on the language. The same thing can be applied in our time. There are many 20-century mathematicians who have written both in French and English languages (or both German and English), and it does not make sense to gategorize their work based on the language, however it still makes sense to categorize works in certain branches of mathematics, based on the school of thought, which is indirectly related to the country or the academic institutes (for example "French school of algebraic geometry" which was heavily influenced by works of Serre and Grothendieck). Jahangard 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand/misrepresent my comments here. Who is talking about categorizing by language? Not me, and I thought I had clarified. Slicing up mathematics/mathematicians by language is indeed a stupid idea. Anyway, there are enough categorizations: I hope there is not going to be Category:Mathematics/Mathematicians by civilization either!

"Arabic", like "Greek", is a word with nuances covering language, literature and culture. It is just one way to describe the mathematical culture of that era. Islamic and/or Muslim is another way. The mathematicians weren't all Muslim, and they did not all write in Arabic all the time, so what can we do? Reflect on it, and hope consensus finds a good solution. Geometry guy 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Arabic can also refer to a culture, literature, ... . However, this page is about mathematics in a historical civilization/culture which is called "Islamic civilization" or more precisely "Medieval Islamic civilization". Nowadays, nobody call that culture/civilization "Arabic civilization" (In 19-century or early 20-century European texts you may find this term synonymous with "Islamic civilization", but, in recent years this special usage of the term is obsolete and "Arabic culture", or "medieval Arabic culture" may only refer to a sub-category of "Medieval Islamic culture/civilization" not the whole civilization). I still prefer "Medieval Islamic mathematics" because it avoids possible ambiguity. Jahangard 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You make several strong assertions here without justifying them, and I have found plenty of material on this page (including some quoted sources) which disagrees with them. Furthermore, I am not so old, and have always heard of the mathematics and mathematicians that gave us algebra and algorithms referred to as arabic. This mathematics did indeed take place in an Islamic civilization, but that does not mean it is necessarily the most sensible name for the category. Finally Misplaced Pages does not innovate: when you say in recent years this suggests a movement towards replacing terms like arabic by more politically correct (? I am not sure if that is the right phrase, or a fair comment) terms like Islamic. I have nothing against such a trend, but it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to advance it. This is what policies like NOR and NPOV are intended to avoid. Geometry guy 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion by approval?

Jahangard has suggested in the above discussion that

...we need to think more about the title (we probably need to have another survey, because in the previous survey, the choice between "Medieval Islamic mathematics" and "Islamic Mathematics" is not clear).

It will be clear from my contributions here that I share this view. Can I suggest, however, that it might be more productive to have a discussion by nomination and approval, rather than the more adversarial support/oppose approach? In this procedure, editors can nominate possible titles for this article which other editors can support or comment on. Anyone can nominate as many titles as they like, and everyone can support as many options as they wish, in the spirit of approval voting, although as usual, it would not be helpful to call it a vote. This approach might help to generate and refine solutions to the naming problem which has been occupying editors here for so long. Geometry guy 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest summarizing the pros and cons of each title, in an as neutral way as possible, between the nomination and voting phase. —Ruud 23:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I had in mind a more interactive approach. Obviously the nominator would discuss the pros (and if they are truly wikipedian, also some of the cons), but further pros and cons could be added by other users. One reason for this approach is that new ideas for titles could be generated during the process. Also, I emphasise, it is rarely a good idea to have a vote in wikipedia: it is the weight of argument, not the weight of numbers that really matters when trying to find consensus. Geometry guy 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham

In the list of mathematicians in this article we should just bring the lead statement of the coresponding main article without any change or discussion. Ibn al-Haytham article indicates that he was born in Basra which is now currently in Iraq but it doesn't say he was Iraqi. If anyone doesn't agree with this please take it to the main article of Ibn al-Haytham first and if there was a consensus about that we will change here accordingly. (Arash the Archer 00:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Dear Arash,Iraqi does not mean ethnicity Iraq is a country and as long as that person born in that country and have a surname such as Al-Basri then He is Iraqi I did not say he was Arab or Persian I just said he was Iraqi. Arab Iraqi or Persian Iraqi is another issue. Also saying Many/Most of the important mathematicians were Persians is considered POV because some of them their ethnicity is not clear or controversial, also who is going to decide who was important and who wasn’t?!. I can also say many of them were Arabs since at least 40% of them were definitely Arabs. If you still disagree please let me know so we can discuss the issue until we agree:).Thanks--Aziz1005 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As I told you before this is not the place to discuss if he was Iraqi or not. There are very good reasons why we can not say he was Iraqi(the main one is that Iraq wasn't a country until 20th century) You should go to Talk:Ibn_al-Haytham if you want to discuss it. In this article we should just bring the lead of Ibn al-Haytham main article.Cheers! (Arash the Archer 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Iraq is a country even before the 20th century and it's mentioned in many historical books. Anyway, if you still want to remove the word Iraqi from here as far as it is not mentioned in the main article that could be understood because as you said if there is an issue about that man we should discuss it there, I’ll do a research about Ibn Alhaytham then I can discuss the changes there. However the other sentence (Many/Most of the important mathematicians were Persians is considered) is still POV therefore I still disagree with reverting it back to the article.Salam--Aziz1005 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You agreed to delete the word Iraqi according to the Ibn al-Haytham main article, so why do keep adding it? Regarding the other sentence it is no doubt that Many of the most important mathematicians were Persians. It is also not POV to put it in the article since most of people do differentiate between Arabs and Persians and this sentence it illuminative.(Arash the Archer 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

I reverted just because others who did not want to discuss the issue reverted my edit. Also because you did not respond!=p. I wrote Muslim instead of Iraqi, since the main article hasn't changed. The other sentence is pov because Now the title is Islamic mathematics not Arabic so there is no need to mention that sentence since most of those scientists were Muslims and it's not our job to count how many of them were Persians, Tajiks, Arabs or Turks, therefore it is still considered pov. What do you think?--Aziz1005 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Let me take another look at the article to see if I can replace is with a more NPOV statement.(Arash the Archer 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

biographies

I'm going to rewrite the biographies section to be more concise, in chronological order and based on the lists from Hogendijk and MacTutor. —Ruud 06:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Making the biographies more concise is a good idea. However, I don't think that relating them to modern countries (such as Uzbekistan, Iran, Irak, ...) is meaningful. Instead of that, their ethnicity (Arab, Persian, Turk, ...) should be mentioned. Jahangard 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the format used by Hogendijk's list and the approximate location where any of the persons on this list seems far more more relevant than the ethnicity people which to ascribe to them. I might change it to a place of birth/death format later, though. —Ruud 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jahangard, modern countries/nationalities are irrelevant, their ethnicity (Arab, Persian, Turk) should definitely be mentioned, along with city of birth/death (Not modern country).--Mardavich 06:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you give some arguments for that, as I don't find this obvious (in fact, I hold the opposite opinion) and have to note that it is quite common to refer to historic geographical areas by their modern name while leaving out any information on the subjects ethnicity. I'd strongly prefer to leave any discussion of the ethnicity of to the full biography, where it can be backed by a number of reliable sources. —Ruud 07:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was no nationality in the classical times, people were identified by their ethnicities, referring to historic geographical areas as modern countries automatically associates the subjects with that modern nationality, and that's misleading. Since then, the borders have changed and the native populations have migrated and re-migrated many times (someone from Merv or Bukhara would have been an "Iranian" at that time, but not anymore) so Khwarazmi was no Uzbek, Abu al-Wafa was no Iraqi, and Al-Jayyani was no Spaniard. --Mardavich 08:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed titles

Arabic mathematics

Pros

1. Together with Islamic mathematics by far the most frequently used term in academic literature in to refer to this period in the history of mathematics. Of these two Arabic mathematics is probably used the most, however Islamic mathematics is more common in recent literature.
2. This title reflects the fact that a key feature of mathematics in this era was the generation of new mathematical ideas which have become associated with the Arabic language, such as algebra, algorithm and (of course) Arabic numeral.
3. Consistent with the naming of Babylonian mathematics, Egyptian mathematics, Indian mathematics, ...

Cons

1. Not all, perhaps even only a minority, of the mathematicians in this period where ethnic Arabs and is therefore seen as offensive by some people, even though "Arabic" seems to refer to the language used to transmit science during that time.
2. Although Arabic was the dominant scientific language of the Islamic world in that era, the mathematical works were not exclusively written in Arabic. Some medieval Islamic mathematicians have have works in other languages. For example, one of the main works by al-Kashi is written in Persian. Arabic is ambiguous and can refer to both "Arabic language" and "Arabic culture". Even among those mathematicians who have written their mathematical works exclusively in Arabic, many didn't belong to the Arabic culture. For example, Khayyam has written his main mathematical works is Arabic, but he is also famous for his Persian poetry (he is considered as one of the icons of Persian culture).

Quotes

1. Let us begin with a neutral and innocent definition of Arabic, or what also may be called Islamic, science in terms of time and space: the term Arabic (or Islamic) science the scientific activities of individuals who lived in a region that might extended chronologically from the eighth century A.D. to the beginning of the modern era, and geographically from the Iberian Peninsula and north Africa to the Indus valley and from the Southern Arabia to the Caspian Sea—that is, the region covered for most of that period by what we call Islamic Civilization, and in which the results of the activities referred to were for the most part expressed in the Arabic Language. We need not be concerned over the refinements that obviously need to be introduced over this seemingly neutral definition. —Sabra, A. I. (1996). "Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence". Isis. 87: 654–670.

2. In the present case, the problems of the proper "historical" approach are further complicated by the difficulties of defining "Islamic" mathematics. One minor dispute is terminological: since "Islam" is primarily a religious term, it seems inappropriate to use it to qualify a science whch had very little to do with religion (especially when a number of its practitioners in the period in question were not Muslims). I prefer "Arabic," although that term too requires many qualifications. But, even when we allow "Islamic" to stand as a shorthand word for a cultural complex, we are still faced with the fact that the mathematics (like all the sciences) of that culture are simply a continuation of the Hellenistic Greek tradition. One of the most remarkable features of Islamic civilization was the way in which it took over and continued, in a different language and mostly in a different geographical area, the scientific heritage of antiquity, which was moribund in the contemporary Byzantine Empire, and in so doing breathed new life into it. There are a number of brilliant achievements in Arabic mathematics, but it has to be viewed as the direct continuation of the Greek tradition (and indeed is unintelligible without that background). Thus making "Islamic mathematics" a separate subject of study is artificial. Berggren, a scholar with a notable record of investigation of previously unstudied medieval mathematical texts, is of course well aware of all this, and of necessity allots some space to laying out the ancient Greek background to the topics he treats. But I should have liked to have seen in the book a more forceful presentation of the essential unity of Greek and Arabic mathematics. — Gerald J. Toomer on J. Lennart Berggren's Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam. (The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 95, No. 6. (Jun. - Jul., 1988), pp. 567-569)

Islamic mathematics

Pros

1. Together with Arabic mathematics by far the most frequently used term in academic literature in to refer to this period in the history of mathematics. Of these two Arabic mathematics is probably used the most, however Islamic mathematics is more common in recent literature.
2. Consistent with the naming of Babylonian mathematics, Egyptian mathematics, Indian mathematics, ...
3. Consistent with Islamic science, Islamic medicine, Islamic astronomy,Islamic astrology ...
4. "Islamic" refers to "Islamic civilization" which is a well-defined term.

Cons

1. Seems to put some people into an "OMG Islam!!!1111!1!1"-mode, or at least causes them to misinterpret this as "the mathematics of Islam", while "Islamic" in this context merely refers to the Islamic civilization.
2. How relevant is it that the culture of the time was primarily Islamic, when there were, for example, many Jewish mathematicians who contributed to the mathematics of the period? (This learnt at a recent CfD!)

Quotes

1. Let us begin with a neutral and innocent definition of Arabic, or what also may be called Islamic, science in terms of time and space: the term Arabic (or Islamic) science the scientific activities of individuals who lived in a region that might extended chronologically from the eighth century A.D. to the beginning of the modern era, and geographically from the Iberian Peninsula and north Africa to the Indus valley and from the Southern Arabia to the Caspian Sea—that is, the region covered for most of that period by what we call Islamic Civilization, and in which the results of the activities referred to were for the most part expressed in the Arabic Language. We need not be concerned over the refinements that obviously need to be introduced over this seemingly neutral definition. —Sabra, A. I. (1996). "Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence". Isis. 87: 654–670.

2. Although many able authors have contributed valuable articles, the work as a whole is flawed, to such an extent that one hesitates to recommend it as a general reference on the subject for non-specialists. The flaws are of an editorial nature, and the first is the title chosen for the work. It is no disservice to Arabs (modern or medieval) to point-out that non-Arabs (principally Persians and Turks) also played important roles in the development of medieval Islamic science, and these roles should be acknowledged in the choice of title. "Islamic" is a very serviceable epithet and should have been used, rather than "Arabic," to describe the science being studied. — J. Lennart Berggren on Roshdi Rashed's Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science. (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 120, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 2000), pp. 282-283.)

Arabic/Islamic mathematics

(Or similar titles such as Arabic and/or Islamic mathematics.)

Pros

1. Covers both of the most frequently used terms in academic literature with a neutral point of view.
2. The combination of the two titles suggests that this is an historical period article, rather than an ethnic or religious one.

Cons

1. Has the potential to offend both the readers who would dislike "Arabic mathematics" and also the readers who would dislike "Islamic mathematics"!
2. It is quite uncommon, if not unprecedented, to give articles multiple titles on Misplaced Pages. Those are given the lead section.

Arabic and Persian mathematics

Pros

1. Covers the two main cultures involved. Persian suggests period and arabic suggests it's not ethnic (but see Con no. 2 below!)
2. Fairly concise, descriptive, would work for the category, and also suggests an option for handling Category:Arab mathematicians.
3. Usual advantage of avoiding names with religious connotations.

Cons

1. Nonstandard.
2. There were mathematicians in this period who where neither Arab nor Persian (but for example, Turkish or Moorish). Unlike "Arabic mathematics" it would be quite difficult to explain that "Arabic and Persian" does not refer to the ethnicity of them but to something else instead.

Medieval Islamic mathematics

Pros

1. Seems to be regarded as less offensive than "Islamic mathematics" by some people.
2. Consistent with "Medieval European mathematics" (but see con #2).
3. A similar title is used in one of the most important books on this subject: Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam.

Cons

1. Medieval is only a temporal adjective and is superfluous as there is no "Ancient Islamic mathematics" or "Modern Islamic mathematics".

(History of) mathematics in (the) (medieval) Islamic civilization/world

Pros

1. Seems to be effective at avoiding upsetting some people in the way "Arabic mathematics" or "Islamic mathematics" does.

Cons

1. Would be inconsistent with the current naming of Egyptian mathematics, Greek mathematics, Indian mathematics, ...
2. Would be inconsistent with the naming of other article son historical topic (e.g. the article on World War II is located at World War II, not History of the Second World War.)
3. While a great title (of a chapter) for a book, Misplaced Pages is not a book but an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a list of terms followed by a description of that term (is this necessarily true for an online wikipedia which easily uses "redirects"?). The terms which people will encounter in literature, and then perhaps decide to look up in Misplaced Pages, are "Arabic mathematics" and "Islamic mathematics". An encyclopedia should not concern itself with "fancy" titles and is a descriptive work, not a prescriptive work and should therefore not try to "correct" unfortunately chosen terminology which is in common use by historians.
4. Some of these variations do not lend themselves well as suitable names for the associated category.
5. The lead section of this article would still start out "In the history of mathematics, Islamic mathematics or Arabic mathematics refers to ..." as these are the terms used in the relevant literature.

(History of) mathematics in (the) (medieval) arabic era/culture

Pros

1. Titles such as these, as in the previous suggestion, have the potential to avoid upsetting some people, by making it clear that the term "arabic" refers to a cultural/linguistic rather than ethnic phenomenon.
2. It is worth searching for titles which avoid the word "Islamic" (why?), yet do not lend themselves to other misinterpretations.

Cons

1. Same inconsistency issues as above (how important is consistency?).
2. The arabic era could be confused with the Arab empire, which is a sub-period, as far as I understand.
3. Arabic culture still has the potential to be confused with Arab/Arabian culture. That historical culture is often called "Islamic culture" (or "medieval Islamic culture") and "Arabic culture" is mostly used in another meaning (refering only to the culture of Arabic world).
4. Some of these variations do not lend themselves as suitable names for the associated category.
5. The lead section of this article would still start out "In the history of mathematics, Islamic mathematics or Arabic mathematics refers to ..." as these are the terms used in the relevant literature.

(History of) Mathematics and Islam

Pros

Cons

1. This refers to a totally different topic than that discussed in this article.

(Medieval) Middle Eastern mathematics

Pros

1. Using a geographical term is less divisive than using a term with ethnic or religious connotations.

Cons

1. No reliable sources have been identified which use this term to refer to this period in the history of mathematics.
2. Morocco, Spain, and Central Asia are not part of the Middle East.

Excuse me?

Am I the only person who finds this discussion surrealistic? Aquib (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

unprotected, and please sign

I have unprotected this page, since it was protected nearly a month ago for edit warring. By the way, everyone should sign posts on talk pages with four tildes. I can't easily tell how long the stuff in the previous section has been there, and usually we look over the talk page before unprotecting articles, so the dates help. CMummert · talk 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The section above is being written collaboratively and it would therefore be inappropriate or impossible to sign the comments. —Ruud 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems CMummert has disappeared or changed their name? -Aquib (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Zadeh

This page is supposed to be about Mathematics in Medieval Islamic World, not about modern mathematicians with Muslim background (such as L. A. Zadeh). I removed the section about fuzzy mathematics. Jahāngard (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Mathematics

There is no such thing as Islamic mathematics. What is the point of this article. I don't see how anyone, no matter how politically correct they are, could possibly believe that arithmetic would be different for a Mohammedan than a Christian. 1+1=2 universally. --FDR (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean?

I'm dubious about declaring this clean . RK notes at least one other problem and restores the tag . I think the claim re irrationals was dodgy : what the source actually said was Algebra was a unifying theory which allowed rational numbers, irrational numbers, geometrical magnitudes, etc., to all be treated as "algebraic objects" and this is rather different to Arabic mathematicians were also the first to treat irrational numbers as algebraic objects WMC 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to fear that moving most content in the article to a subpage and then selectively moving stuff back in will be a better approach than slowly cleaning up this mess. The real pity is that most statements have some truth at the core, but have been so distorted that any casual reader will be severely misled. —Ruud 14:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It may well be for the best William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: the article in its pre-stub state is available from Talk:Mathematics in medieval Islam/Jagged 85 William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kindly restore this article

If you wish to work further on a subpage, it is not necessary to stub the article first -Aquib (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming the history will be restored as well. -Aquib (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article was stubbed for a good reason, discussed above. Do you understand those reasons? If not we can explain them WMC 08:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The last article I saw stubbed by this "cleanup crew", Science in medieval Islam, is still sitting there empty - as it was left several months ago. If anyone stubs another article in this effort, I am going straight to the arbitration committee. Your choice. -Aquib (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting this article from scratch is not going to take any longer rewriting the existing article to be factually accurate (which is still going to take a very long time of course). In the mean time there is a nice list of good books anyone interested in the subject can borrow from his or her library. I have all confidence that the arbcom would agree with this action. —Ruud 14:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Threats of going to arbcomm are a waste of time. Arbcomm will certainly reject any such attempt on the grounds that you have failed to take the preliminary steps at dispute resolution. The first of which is to discuss the matter here. So, please, lets discuss it. The first point of which has to be: are you aware of the Jagged cleanup and the reasons for it? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have watched this scenario unfold since April of last year. I have made comments on various discussion pages and tried to work with various members of the cleanup effort to quantify the damage and identify a reasonable way to address it. This drawn out, carte blanche approach to remediation is not acceptable.

You and your teammates do not own this article. You are not entitled, under an RFC/U against an editor, to truncate the article, dispense with its history, decat it (whatever that implies), basically lock it out, and take it into a private space where changes may, or may not be accomplished.

Return the article to the mainspace. Then we can discuss what needs to be done with all the affected articles on this portal - in a transparent forum with the necessary visibility across the encyclopedia.

Aquib (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are largely mistaken. You and your teammates do not own this article is both wrong and right: no-one owns the article, but there is no "team". In particular, *you* do not own the article either. You are not entitled... to truncate the article - wrong. Anyone is entitled to truncate, change, whatever any article. Subject to agreement from those who care. *You* are most certainly not entitled to insist on the Jagged version being restored. Return the article to the mainspace. Then we can... - no. You are not entitled to issue instructions. When an article is (like this one) badly broken, there are two ways to go: either fix it up in place, or to stub it and work back up. Neither one is entitled to be considered the One True Way. Which gets chosen depends on the balance of the various editors judgements. But in this case the many many many Jagged problems point to not leaving misleading information about being the best way. For myself, I think it better than wikipedia lack some useful information than that it include misleading / wrong information. Even one error isn't worth 10 true facts: it just poisons the entire structure, and you don't know what you can trust.

If you're familiar with the Jagged problems, then you ought to know all this. Simply insisting on having your preferred version is unlikely to work William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well, it is no surprise to me you feel entitled to take these actions. -Aquib (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have taken these actions in a manner which makes them practically irreversible by anyone else; otherwise, I would do revert them myself. In this regard, you have violated the spirit of our principles. You have also undoubtedly broken a rule somewhere. -Aquib (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have also undoubtedly broken a rule somewhere? Good to see you WP:AGF, and also trying to defuse tension: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Page_move_.2F lockout at Mathematics in medieval Islam. Keep reading the rule book and when you work out what rule was broken, do let me know. Or possibly RK; I'm at something of a loss to know what rule I could possibly have broken William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see... and how many articles have had their edit histories obliterated by your team? -Aquib (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no team. I have obliterated no edit histories. Why don't you settle down and actually do some productive editing? I just checked the last 500 edits to this page, which reaches back to 2008. You have precisely one edit, and it is trivial . Why not channel the energy you're putting into outrage into actually adding something to the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You are avoiding answering my question. If you have truncated the article due to Jag's edits, I would like to see what the article looked like before he began editing it. I would also like to do the same on any of the potentially hundreds or thousands of other articles Jag edited. I assume that is why we have edit histories. Please don't say you aren't on a team, don't make me go back through the history of the various pages where this effort has been organized. Assuming they have histories. Kindly answer my question. How many articles are you aware of which have had their histories obliterated due to Jag cleanup, or where is a list of such articles kept? -Aquib (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a bit surreal and certainly unproductive. You asked how many articles have had their edit histories obliterated by your team? I didn't avoid the question, I answered it fully. First the question is meaningless, because there is no team. If I try to answer your question by replacing it with how many articles have had their edit histories obliterated by you? then the answer is none which I've already given. I don't speak for anyone else. If you want to see what the article looged like pre-Jagged, then you can use the edit history like I did, and discover William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see Future Perfect at Sunrise has undone the damage. -Aquib (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And who did this "damage"? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You can find my reply here. -Aquib (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr: What's the current status of this article ? Is this the final state of the article, or is it still undergoing the restoration process ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is stubbed. It awaits someone prepared to either (a) rebuild it from scratch or (b) prepared to go carefully through the pre-stubbed state to sieve out the valuable material from the chaff and the errors William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone you and Ruud Koot approve of. Pjoef didn't do a good enough job right? Aquib (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• 18 hours before this article was stubbed, it was declared clean by User:Pjoef.

• Ruud Koot disagrees with Pjoefs claim, although no proof is given

• WMC removes a dubious claim but here we can see the claim Islamic mathematicians, Arabs, did use irrational numbers in algebraic equations.

• WMC believes this sounds totally made up . Again, here we see Arabic mathematicians (or others working in the Islamic civilization) did discover the derivitive of cubic polynomials.

• Bollocks I don't know what dynamic functional algebra is, but WMC does not dispute the assertions, he only changes the name.

• Nit picking Fibonnaci's use of the notation system of Arabic mathematicians seems well known, still WMC goes in and clarifies.

• Apparently it is against the rules to repeat a fact

• Again But what is the great sin in this? This fact is used in different places in the article, in different contexts. This is dictated by the organization of the material.

• Shortly afterward, The decision, to stub the article was made by two people: User:William M. Connolley (AKA User:WMC) and User:Ruud Koot. This decision was taken without consensus.

• Ruud moves in to bully and intimidate Pjoef. I guess his name says it all.

To summarize: Koot and WMC tell anyone who complains to get involved in the cleanup. But when people participate, they get bullied and intimidated, and Koot/WMC pull the plug on the article. WMC/Koot claim to be knowledgeable, and question other's expertise. At the same time, their own edits and critiques are hopelessly inadequate and inept. I say that to give them the benefit of the doubt, I would hate to think they know what they are doing.

I am restoring this article to the state it was in after Pjoef's cleanup.

This is just a beginning. A more comprehensive approach needs to be taken to put a halt to these article stubbings, moves and redirects in the name of the Jag cleanup. I am seeing other articles that have been submarined as well. If the justification is similar to this, then we are talking about collateral damage a large scale. Again, I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps people's tempers got the best of them, or they have lost their perspective. I am hoping this is a one-off incident and not a pattern. The alternative explanations are of a far more serious nature.

Aquib (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've re-stubbed it. The article was broken. Insisting that it wasn't is not very useful. Objecting to, say claims that they had invented derivatives makes little sense William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WMC, I would expect an expert in this field to be more precise. As you can see, the assertion in question is whether "they" (Tusi) was the first to use (ie discover) a derivative of cubic polynomials - not whether he discovered derivatives. Please be more precise, this is important. This is your single response to my points regarding the five edits you made before the article was "stubbed".

My reply to you is found on page 97 of History of Mathematics: Highways and Byways By Amy Dahan-Dalmèdico, Jeanne Peiffer. Published in association with the Mathematical Association of America. I can quote it for you: The discussion, in effect, is almost always based on the search for maxims, and for that Sharif Al-Din used expressions corresponding to the first derivative for polynomials. He referenced the role of the determinant in cubic equations. Here is the link, look for page 97.

Please do not waste my time with the sort of careless offhand inaccurate reasoning you have offered in the discussion up to this point. I actually would prefer to be creating content. You have no case. You have shut down the page claiming inaccuracies you cannot substantiate. In the process you violated AGF for Pj's contributions. Pj was personally attacked for differing with you. The examples you gave for stubbing the article are almost wholly inaccurate or off-topic. Aquib (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And please follow the talk guidelines for indenting replies. Replying without indentation is discourteous. It is also a phenomenon curiously associated with tendentious editors.

Aquib (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. And if you want a polite discussion, I suggest dropping the careless offhand inaccurate reasoning stuff. As for the derivatives: do you not understand: they didn't even have the concept William M. Connolley (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you for bringing in family members, that is a crude tactic for evasion. And you are disagreeing with a book I am citing - not me. If you disagree with the book, state your reasoning and/or put it up on RS. -Aquib (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Aquib, please find me even one single mathematician who can tell me what a "dynamic functional algebra" is supposed to be (hint: you won't be able to). The term doesn't appear in the source Jagged cited, it's something he made up and suggestively linked to functional algebra. I think we've given several more examples already and could give many more, but I somehow doubt we are going to make you realize how broken and misleading Jagged's prose was. —Ruud 14:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure RK. It is an algebraic function you can plug variables into. Add an algorithm and you have the makings of a computer program. Here's an article on Backus winning the Turing award in 1977. Backus developed FORTRAN (FORmula TRANslator, the programming language used by a generation of scientists. The article discusses these topics at length. If you read the whole article, you will understand what Jag is referring to. The only reason I didn't recognize it at first is because it's so obvious. And it's from the first link in a Google query for the words Dynamic algebraic function.

Jag does not have to repeat his sources word for word. None of us do. In fact, if we did, it would be a copyvio. The rest of the examples are even poorer quality than this one. U got nada. This is looking more and more like it's all smoke and mirrors.

Aquib (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. —Ruud 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And please indent your replies. Someone else may want to take a look at this, it needs to be readable. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aam appears to place great store by Pj declaring the article clean. But as far as I can tell, all Pj did was fiddle with the references a bit - he doesn't seem to have understood any of the problems at all. And certainly, *after* his cleanup the article was still littered with nonsense - e.g. . So I don't think IT HAS BEEN CLEANED UP! should be taken seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there's another explanation you haven't mentioned isn't there? And it has been stated by several other editors since this incident began. The article is basically sound and you're wrong. Lights on. -Aquib (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WMC that Pjoef doesn't seen to have understood the scope of this article's problems. It's not that one or two refs need tweaking. We are talking, mass, systematic POV-pushing by completely distorting sources, making claims that are not backed by sources, cherry picking, quoting out of contect, low quality sourcing using Google Books snippets, puffery, the works. It's all outlined in the RfC/U for Jagged 85. The way I see it, the article is NOT clean, and no we are not going to "kindly restore", not now, not ever. Rather, it needs to be re-written from scratch. Athenean (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC regarding stubbing (deletion) of Mathematics in medieval Islam article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

See Kindly restore this article directly above. This article was identified as needing review and possible cleanup per an RFC/U. When Pjoef worked on it and declared it clean, WMC made 5 edits to the page citing objectionable material. WMC and Ruud Koot then moved the article out of the mainspace. Ruud Koot and others subjected Pjoef to an abusive discussion on Pjoef's talk page. The article history was subsequently restored. Looking through the original objections (article edits) by WMC on 2/14, they appear to be spurious; and they have been refuted. In spite of this, Ruud Koot and WMC refuse to allow the page to be restored to Pjoef's version. The article should be restored to Pjoef's most recent version as of 2/14. -Aquib (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The timeline to article stubbing (excerpted and updated from above section)

• 18 hours before this article was stubbed, it was declared clean by User:Pjoef.

• user:Ruud Koot disagrees with Pjoefs claim, although no proof is given

• user:WMC (AKA user:William M. Connolley) removes a dubious claim but here we can see the claim Islamic mathematicians, Arabs, did use irrational numbers in algebraic equations. I have refuted this claim above.

• WMC believes this sounds totally made up . Again, here we see Arabic mathematicians (or others working in the Islamic civilization) did discover the derivitive of cubic polynomials. I have refuted this claim above.

• Bollocks See my explanation of this to Ruud Koot above, This objection has also been refuted.

• Nit picking Fibonnaci's use of the notation system of Arabic mathematicians seems well known, still WMC goes in and clarifies. Not actually a problem here, more a question of taste.

• Apparently it is against the rules to repeat a fact

• Again But what is the great sin in this? This fact is used in different places in the article, in different contexts. This is dictated by the organization of the material.

• Shortly afterward, The decision, to stub the article was made by two people: User:William M. Connolley (AKA User:WMC) and User:Ruud Koot. This decision was taken without consensus.

• Ruud moves in to bully and intimidate Pjoef.

I am particularly upset at the article move initiated by Ruud Koot, which took the article history with it, and the treatment he and WMC dished out to Pjoef. I am trying to assume good faith and handle this in a civil manner under an RFC.

A review of the facts in the section directly above (Kindly...) will show there is no legitimate reason to keep the article stubbed. All WMC's objections have been refuted. They are spurious. This article needs to be restored to the last edit by Pjoef on 2/14.

Aquib (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article for a few weeks. When I last saw it, it was badly in need of a complete rewrite or, failing that, stubbing. But it looks like there's been a lot of work since, so I don't know if that was the right call or not. If no one has dealt with this by tomorrow night I'll go through the history and see what I can find. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do, and Thank You -Aquib (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is such an utter POV-fest, filled with insidious fraudulent sourcing, outright fabrications, and peacockery that stubbing is the only remedy, and I wholeheartedly support it. The sections on "Non-Euclidean Geomertr" and "Calculus" are cases in point. Integral calculus? Seriously now? Athenean (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Have you looked at the 2/14 version by Pjoef summarized "cleanup complete" (something to that effect)? Have you looked at the 5 diffs from WMCs markup edits (above), and his remarks re 2/14-2/15 immediately before the article was stubbed? I would particularly like to know your opinions on those points. Thanks Aquib (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Time out. In the case of integral calculus, you are referring to one of WMC's objections. How do you explain the source I included in my response to him, which I am including below?

Page 97 of History of Mathematics: Highways and Byways By Amy Dahan-Dalmèdico, Jeanne Peiffer. Published in association with the Mathematical Association of America. I can quote it for you: The discussion, in effect, is almost always based on the search for maxims, and for that Sharif Al-Din used expressions corresponding to the first derivative for polynomials. He referenced the role of the determinant in cubic equations. Here is the link, look for page 97.

This RFC is about whether the article has been cleaned up. If you have read the RFC and the section above it closely, and you are familiar with the subject (I am not particularly so), then your opinion is welcome. But I am having a problem sorting out the information I am seeking for this RFC from the immediate reaction everyone has when I bring up the subject. That is why I raised the RFC in the first place.

Aquib (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• See Analysis of recent changes below for my summary of the edits performed by Pjoef. It appears to me that despite massive alterations, very little substantive change from Jagged 85's version occurred. Most of Pjoef's edits involved spacing and citation formatting. However, what is needed is careful analysis of the text for accuracy and WP:DUE, with a slow check of the sources. Until that occurs, the article should remain stubbed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• keep stubbed: Aquib, this isn't an RFC, because an RFC needs to Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. You haven't included a neutral statement, you've simply pushed your own viewpoint. Pj did not understand the problem; the article he decalred "CLEAN" in bug shouty langage was still a disaster area. Nor, I think, does Aquib really have any understanding of the problems, which is why whenever I, Ruud, or anyone else raises genuine problems with the article he merely dismisses those objections as "refuted", even though they haven't been. I dno't think Aquib has the background in Maths to be understanding the problems (see for example the section above where he tried to explain what dynamic functional algebra is) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

True my RFC skills need sharpening and I am a bit upset. I am not an expert on anything; I am a generalist. And I don't plan on leaving this world in the hands of experts, thanks for offering. My interest in the article is due to its significance to Islamic and world civilization. Speaking of civilization, a civil and collaborative approach on the part of the other editors would have gone a long way towards heading this off. I am still hoping to get multi-word replies from you to these questions regarding Tusi and dynamic functional algebra.

• Page 97 of History of Mathematics: Highways and Byways By Amy Dahan-Dalmèdico, Jeanne Peiffer. Published in association with the Mathematical Association of America. I can quote it for you: The discussion, in effect, is almost always based on the search for maxims, and for that Sharif Al-Din used expressions corresponding to the first derivative for polynomials. He referenced the role of the determinant in cubic equations. Here is the link, look for page 97. Derivatives is a term used in calculus,is it not?
• Dynamic functional algebra is an algebraic function you can plug variables into. Add an algorithm and you have the makings of a computer program. Here's an article on Backus winning the Turing award in 1977. Perhaps we are coining a term here? You disagree with my line of thinking? Someone puts an assertion like this in an article and you cut it out with the edit summary bollocks? Anyone?

Dynamic functional algebra is a made-up term. No-one has a clue what it is. Jagged made it up because it sounded good and, like, all impressive. Neither he nor you nor anyone else knows what it is, for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. What we are seeing here is you defending, to the death, all of Jagged's errors, even the utterly implausible. When are you going to admit that there are huge errors in his texts?

As to your PDF - this is ridiculous. You've just googled functional and dynamic, and come up with an irrelevant document about functional programming, which you haven't read, or understood, or even noticed that it has nothing at all to do with the subject under debate. That is an excellent example of the way Jagged approached references: start off with the text you want to justify, google a few of the words, and add in the ref, relevant or not William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with stubbing Looking at both versions, Athenean sums up my feelings on the non-stub version pretty well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree with stubbing: The editors supporting the blanking/stubbing of this article still haven't provided any adequate justifications for such an extreme measure, but the only justification they continue to use is the flawed Jagged 85 RFC, which was based on an extremely biased selective sample that only represented a tiny percentage of the user's edits, which some users have irrationally interpreted to mean that all edits involving Jagged 85 are unreliable. Several editors have since used the Jagged 85 RfC as an excuse to blank out entire articles, including for example Science in medieval Islam, Physics in medieval Islam, and now Mathematics in medieval Islam, without ever bothering to fact-check these articles at all, nor do they have any intention of ever having these articles re-written. If any editor disagrees with their POV, they'll accuse their opponents of POV-pushing, even though some of them clearly have a POV-pushing agenda of their own. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if they resort to blanking/stubbing all the Islamic science articles if this disturbing pattern continues. And by the way Athenian, the Greek mathematics article also makes claims about integral calculus, so that must mean Greek mathematics should also be stubbed using your own ridiculous logic. Jagged 85 (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're wrong. People have provided plenty of examples of your errors / disinformation / misunderstandings. For example, this . So your without ever bothering to fact-check these articles at all is just offensive: people *have* fact-checked the articles, and they have repeatedly failed those checks William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Restore, but with {{verify source}} tags (or another special tag) following each sentence. We can then slowly verify each sentence/statement and either re-phrase to better reflect the cited sources or delete if failed verification. I'm suggesting this approach based on my experience in cleaning Jagged edits in a couple of shorter articles (al-Battani and Abu Kamil). In both cases, the Jagged content was useful as a starting point, and better than starting from scratch. And I have to admit that Jagged can be right some times or almost so (i.e., not all his edits are of the same quality). Once this process is done, we can delete sources and claims that can be proven false or unreliable. I would also suggest saving the hard parts for last, like writing a synthesis for mathematical development, after all cleaning/verification is done. Wiqixtalk 10:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, and comes from an editor who has successfully applied the technique. -Aquib (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• See also, this page for a broader context of the scope involved, as well as a current Wiki-dynamic, which I found today. On that page it appears to start with misuse of sources, but that leads directly to a Misplaced Pages RfC clean-up effort; while well motivated and intentioned, it might have gone past neutral. It was How many articles have been truncated in the Jag cleanup effort? that caused my interest, and I commented there hoping to help. But, I will repeat here a part from the EB article ref'd there, because it sets a reliable standard for others to judge content details in their relevant context; comment has been requested.

  Muslim maritime, agricultural, and technological innovations, as well as much East Asian technology via the Muslim world, made their way to western Europe in one of the largest technology transfers in world history. What Europeans did not invent they readily borrowed and adapted for their own use. Of the three great civilizations of western Eurasia and North Africa, that of Christian Europe began as the least developed in virtually all aspects of material and intellectual culture, well behind the Islamic states and Byzantium.

  Keeping comments informative rather than judgmental for now, one could also look at stable introductory material at another topic, here, and get other ref'd opinions of H. G. Wells , from his c.1920 The Outline of History or more a recent one from academic Bernard Lewis, writing about their period of decline. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't fall into the Aquib / Jagged "war on Islam" framing. this isn't. This is a "'war' on very badly misleading articles" William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Restore ~ I was participating to the February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive when I "ran" into this article. I have wikified this article in a couple of days (13–14 February 2011). At the end of my work here an advertising banner appeared at the top of the page. Then, I quickly read what was the matter of the litigation, and I thought to do something to help, because I did not want to see many hours of work wasted in just few seconds. So, I started consolidating and grouping references, moving notes in a new proper section, and more, but I was stopped by Ruud and I could not finish the job. My intention was to check out if there were any incorrect information and sources. This article has been edited thousands of times and was reviewed and assessed as B-class by WP Mathematics. I read it line by line and word by word, and in my humble opinion, it is mostly well-sourced, comprehensible and reasonably clear, and follows the NPOV policy, Anyway, our most important resource are our readers (more than editors) so, restore this article immediately and tag any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and unverified facts and citations/sources by using inline citation and verifiability maintenance templates. This was something I was doing before I was stopped by Ruud.
  I also invite you to read the March 2011 Update at Wikimedia Strategic Planning. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you really read this thing line-by-line, why didn't you spot any of the obvious glaring errors that have subsequently been noted? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Simply because I was grouping references and that was something I would liked to do after then. If I remember rightly, I've also added a couple of inline templates for citing sources/verifiability and etcetera.
    P.S.: you can not judge the work of your plumber if you stop him when he took off but did not replace the pipe. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not good enough. You're claiming to have read this through line by line but you noticed none of the problems. That does rather suggest that you aren't competent to assess it. Please take a moment to look at the problems subsequently identified, and indicate why you failed to notice them William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of recent changes

Pjoef (talk · contribs) made many changes to this article, and it is very hard to see what was done. I have attempted to summarize the changes to assist discussion, but now that I have done so I do not think the result is very helpful as it is too complex. Nevertheless, here it is. The early part of the following notes should be accurate, but I lost enthusiasm and might have missed some changes in the later edits.

Pjoef made 45 edits on February 14 and 15, 2011. This permalink shows the state of the article after the last of these edits.

Considering successive edits as a single change, seven changes were made:

diff1

• Insert spaces (two spaces between sentences).
• Place punctuation outside quotes.
• Rearrange citations (splitting to multiple lines).
• Tweak some citations (use "first" field, use "pp", and more).
• Change some page ranges like "pages=60–3" to "pages=60–63".
• Use {{Harv}} to rearrange reference in five places.
• Add links like Aristotle and first visibility of the Moon.
• Incorporate {{quote}} into {{Citation}}.
• Put square brackes around ellipsis, to give .
• Move an image (Irakischer Maler von 1287 001.jpg).
• Add {{lang-ar}} and {{lang-lat}}.
• Add {{See also|Algebra}} and {{See also|Arithmetic}} and {{See also|Geometry}}.
• Put "See also" in alphabetical order in two columns.
• Move "Biographies" section.
• In "External links", add {{Refbegin}} and {{Refend}}.
• Add the underlined text in: "development of mathematics, including the early Islamic mathematics".
• Add reference for "MacTutor": Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance?

diff2

• Change bare http link in ref by adding a name ().
• Link Saccheri quadrilateral.
• Fix typo.

diff3

• Change some links and URLs.

diff4

• Use {{sfn}} to replace some refs.

diff5

• More citation changes.
• Introduce new text:

  Al-Hassār, a mathematician from the Maghreb (North Africa) specializing in Islamic inheritance jurisprudence during the 12th century, developed the modern symbolic mathematical notation for fractions, where the numerator and denominator are separated by a horizontal bar. The "dust ciphers he used are also nearly identical to the digits used in the current Western Arabic numerals. These same digits and fractional notation appear soon after in the work of Fibonacci in the 13th century.

• Insert new text:

  who were also the first to treat irrational numbers as algebraic objects, which was made possible by the development of algebra

• Change subheading from "Cubic equations" to "Dynamic functional algebra".
• Insert new text:

  and was the first to discover the derivative of cubic polynomials

  This was the earliest form of dynamic functional algebra.

• Change text for Al-Hassar including insertions like "developed the modern symbolic mathematical notation for fractions". Seemed to introduce a partial duplication: "Al-Hassār, an Arabic mathematician from the Maghreb...".
• Removed some   between number and unit.

diff6

• More citation changes.

diff7

• More citation changes and some tweaks.

Taken altogether, the amount of content change was small, yet hard to see due to the massive alterations to spacing and citation style. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, see this and this (note: the second link will be archived at the end of this month ) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point Pjoef. As I have been saying, there was a lack of AGF and discussion towards consensus when this article was stubbed. It was basically pulled out from under you. -Aquib (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, John. This is helpful. I am not seeing opinions anywhere in the RFC on the veracity of the assertions re Tusi's use of the derivatives of cubic polynomials (I have linked a source above) and also the term dynamic functional algebra (I linked to an article on the Turing prize for FORTRAN). I have seen nonsense, bollocks, that sort of reply, but something a bit more specific would be helpful. I am not a SMEee, but they too seem worthy of a civil reply. -Aquib (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class mathematics articles
• High-priority mathematics articles
• Stub-Class Middle Ages articles
• High-importance Middle Ages articles
• Stub-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment