Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J8079s (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 29 March 2009 (→is it me?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

this is my user talk page J8079s (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, J8079s, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

al-Hassan

I have replied slightly differently on the talkpage of the History of Gunpowder. This is a longer edited version

al-Hassan has three books published by UNESCO (one of which, Islamic Technology (1986)), was also published by Cambridge University Press) and the other two are here . He was Director of the Institute for the History of the Arabic Science, University of Aleppo and more recently at the Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Toronto. He appears to meet the criteria of a reliable source. I have a copy of Islamic Technology (1986) and whilst there are no foot notes, there is a nine-page bibliography that covers English, French and German language sources - including Joseph Needham.

Partington was first written in 1960 and what he wrote was accurate at that time. I would not be surprised if nearly 50 years later there is a disagreement with newer books. Possibly the most update books on the history of gunpowder are those edited by Brenda Buchanan in 1996 and 2006.

Where there is a disagreement between reliable sources, the appropriate response is to quote (in this case) all three sources; and to highlight that there are differences between the sources. The requirement of wikipedia is WP:Verify. Quotes that are accurately taken al-Hassan appear to meet the criteria of verify; but I have not checked whether he is being accurately quoted

I could be wrong but from your edit history you appear to favour sources that advocate Chinese primacy; and for Islamic sources you appear to add flags such as {primary sources} or {self published}, possibly because you disagree with the content. With this type of editing history other editors, such as myself, could take a view (right or wrong) that you are biased. Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Geber

Thank you for encouraging me. My problem is that I'm not good at writing in English. I do many grammatical mistakes. When I see inacuracies in Misplaced Pages, most of the times I just delete them without much contributions because I cann't argue with others in English because it is not my native language. Dy yol (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

re: barnstar

You're very welcome. JFD (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

is it me?

from Geber talk

== recent edit ==

I deleted/reverted the edit which added: "No factual claims can be made about him with certainty." What is this? Out of context? Factual claim about what aspect? Your edit sounds like, we even don't know he lived on earth. Come on.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Jabir is fictional are supported by Kraus, Bertholt, Ruska, and others (dating to the tenth century). Claims that Jabir is not entirely fictional are supported by Holmyard, Sezgin, Lory, and Haq. Syed Nomanul Haq in his book Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jabir Ibn Hayyan and His Kitab Al-Ahjar (Book of Stones) and his web essay http://cis-ca.org/voices/j/jabir.htm (about his own book) makes the case for a real Jabir. His work is careful and scholarly. He does not present his work as conclusive but raises many questions about the work of others (Kraus in particular). I agree that web based sources are not the best but they are not deleted out of hand and Haq's essay is supported by his published work. Everything about him (Jabir) claimed by one source is disputed by another. We are not here (on wikipedia) to resolve the controversy only to report them. I ask you to show good faith. If you dont like Haq's work take it to the WP:RSN noticeboard. In the mean time restore the edit.J8079s (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes non-europeans are all fictional. Science was under earth reserved for/discovered by europeans during their dark ages (ok?). ... come on. Enough is enough. All these stories are mainly the work of Kraus. Why wikipedia should mention his/her name at all? Note WP:UNDUE. Minority view has no place in wikipedia as stated clearly in wiki help pages. Now you have given reference to somebody called haq and his references are Kraus. But the article already is full of his/her theory. So what are you doing? ONE PERSON's opinion can not be given heavy weight. If it really bothers you to have an article about a fictional person, then just delete the article and create another article called "the beautiful remarkable exceptional theory of Kraus". So overall, either delete the article or stop pushing your pov more than this.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)