Talk:Al-Kindi

Comments

Al-Kindi isn't persian .... and Al-Kindi is drived from Kinda a great arab tribe.

---

since when Al-Kindi become a persian? he is from an arab tribe in yemen ... so please check this link before making any changes on the article: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/kindi/default.htm--212.138.64.176 00:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Many Famous Arab Scientist and Thinkers are being falsely claimed persians!! If not stopped or at least hindered, the credibility of Wikipedia will heavelly suffer!! And this is not good neither for the arabs nor for the persians. Since both of them use this Free Encyclopedia for the promotion of their great cultures.

---

AL-KINDI he was a philosopher a mathematician and astronomer, when the famous scientist like Galileo and NEWTONS they said that all physical laws are absolute but al-kindi said all physical laws are relative,, the theory of relativity was truly discovered by AL-KINDI not ALBERT EINSTIEN but unfortunately we don't know the al-kindi we just recognized einstien ,,, al-kindi is a person who basically gives the idea of theory of relativity, later on he did more discovered and told about theory of relativity,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.56.234 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"number system"?

What is meant by this term where it appears in this article? Is it about a particular numeral system (in which case it is mis-directed and should be changed to numeral system) or about something else (what?)? Michael Hardy 01:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peculiar recent edits

Perhaps the oddest is the insistence that al-Kindi was Christian; where exactly does this claim come from? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

try here The APOLOGY OF AL KINDY IN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY AGAINST ISLAM --CltFn 14:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, most sources I've read insist that he was a Muslim.Heraclius 15:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are a lot of muslim websites that would like to portray him as a Muslim to perpetuate a myth of a great Islamic philosopher, but no , he was a Christian.--CltFn 15:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

So you have most websites calling him a Muslim, but one or two calling him a Christian. Until this dispute is solved, I will just stick with the "Arab" description.Heraclius 15:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Well why do you not read The APOLOGY OF AL KINDY IN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY AGAINST ISLAM for starters?--CltFn 15:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read the text to which you link? Try reading the introduction by its translator. It's a different al-Kindi... Why are there so many anti-Islamic bigots on Wikipedia at the moment? They seem to crop up everywhere. A "myth of a great Islamic philosopher" indeed! Every book on the history of philosophy includes al-Kindi, and correctly describes him as an important Islamic philosopher. No-one considers al-Kindi to be one of the greatest Islamic philosophers, mind you, though he's in the top ten, perhaps the top six. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: [1] from the Wikipedia entry on Cryptanalysis

The line in the middle reads: "والحمد لله رب العالمين وصلى الله على نبيه محمد.." or "..And praise to Allah, and may peace be upon His prophet Muhammed". I suppose that should be conclusive.

I too observe this anti-Islamic bigots phenomenon.. It's very sad.

--Estr4ng3d 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are there so many anti-Islamic bigots on Wikipedia at the moment? This may explain it [2].Heraclius 16:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes; how depressing. Mind you, it's a symptom rather than a cause. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You may also want to look here, just for kicks User:Saduj_al-Dahij.Heraclius 04:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is called Peer Review. When information is not seen as accurate or impartial it is challenged by fellow editors and corrected. This process takes place on both sides of any given topic in Wikipedia. The question I would ask is why is it that whenever one challenges any assertions in Islamic related topics the source of the challenge is immediately labelled a bigot or an Islamophobe particularly by Muslims.? --CltFn 08:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1. In what sense are you a peer in this case? You insisted on an obvious mistake on the basis of one document which you hadn't read... I mean, I've read some poor referee's reports from academic journals, but rarely anything like that. (Note, incidentally, that Wikipedia:Peer review means something specific.)
2. I don't use the label immediately; in this case, I used it when you made giveaway comments ("there are a lot of muslim websites that would like to portray him as a Muslim", when the references are to two non-Muslim books on philosophy, and "to perpetuate a myth of a great Islamic philosopher"), though the extreme flimsiness of your evidence coupled with your certainty and obduracy helped. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct name of Al-Kindi

The complete name of Al-Kindi in Arabic characters is أبو يوسف يعقوب ابن إسحاق الكندي . It was wrong in the previous edition ("abu ya'qub yusuf" instead of the correct form "abu yusuf ya'qub").

Very accurate name and ancestry information (34 generations) is in the following Arabic page: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/kindi/kindi-bio-ayun.htm

--Filius Rosadis 23:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Quotes on Al-Kindi

The exact words of what Ibn al-Nadim said about al-kind is not repeated. Why in the world do you keep deleteing it??!!! Jidan 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Calm down.
2. The quotation adds nothing to the article; it says nothing that isn't already said. It's one of many, many possible quotations from writers who say the same thing.
3. Why did you revert all my careful changes of characters with diacritics? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, I really appreciate your effort in maintaining the qualtity of this article. In this article, al-kindi, is mentionend as the "philosopher of the arab" (by arab is meant arab-speaking not arab ethnic, this should be mentioned in the article), but by whom? and when? I have other qoutes on al-kindi from german and english scientists on al-kindi, will you keep deleting them? Jidan 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact the article says: "he was often referred to simply as 'the Arab philosopher'" (by which was meant, according to all my sources, ethnic Arab — another reason that calling him Persian is anomalous). That's the point, of course — he was often referred to in that way; I know of no reason to suppose that Ibn al-Nadim was the first person so to refer to him. If he was the first, though, then that is better mentioned in the article. Generally speaking, it's much better to add important material to the article than to stick it into a quotations section. Would you mind placing the quotations you have in mind here, so that we can discuss how best to incorporate them into the article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

TheGrappler nominated this article for Good article status, & I must sadly write that while it is better than many articles on Wikipedia, it fails to pass the bar for being considered a "Good article". The reasons include:

1. The article states that he is "the greatest philosopher of Arab descent", yet the explanation for this value judgement only gets one short paragraph. More space is devoted to his accomplishments in medicine.
2. This article needs a more clear attribution of claims. In one passage, this article states that "al-Kindī was the first pharmacologist to determine and apply a correct dosage for most of the drugs available at the time" -- an important point, yet this statement needs an authority to confirm it. Although there are 2 sources cited at the bottom, it is not clear how their writings relate to the details given here; even to say "John Doe believed that X" -- then list the publicaiton where John Doe made this claim under "References" would be an improvement.
3. A glance at this Talk page shows that the accuracy of the article is still under debate.
4. And lastly, for such an important person, the article is surprisingly light. I'd really expect to find a more full discussion of this interesting person. -- llywrch 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Restarting the work on al-Kindi

Hi everyone,

When I came across the al-Kindi article, I thought it would benefit from some attention.

My initial assessment of it was that what was already there was good. However, I considered two things:

1) What needs improving: it needs referencing and in places correcting (if you read Richard Adamson, he says Kindi actually set out to merely introduce Greek thought to the Islamic world, but ended up reinterpretting alot of it in a very original manner - the article says he was unoriginal!).

2) What needs adding: more work needs to be done on his contributions to Islamic Philosophy and his specific ideas in certain areas. It would also be good if we could do likewise with his contribution to the sciences.

This should hopefully get al-Kindi recognized as a "good article"!

If anyone has any ideas, please feel free to post them up.

Alexander.Hainy 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lots added to both philosophy and scientific contributions, references from no less than three seperate academic books (although if anyone could add some more it would be great!), I think this article is on track to becoming a "good article". After I add the sub-section on optics to the section "Contributions" I think I might try to get it put forward. Alexander.Hainy 10:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

some notes for improvement

the article has wondeful potential to become a good article and maybe even a featured article, especially because of the significance of this personality in the light of Islamic philosophy. there are some things needing improvement if the article is to attain GA status.

• there is no citation for the reference to Black, it seems. The notes refer to "Black, page X" but the work itself by Black (and is that Deborah Black as earlier mentioned?) is not specified so far as I could see in a text search for "black" in the page. (note by ecsd)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.68.177 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be comprehensive enough to quickly overview and "sum up" the article as well as the topics discussed therein.. take a look at some FA-class biography articles to see prime examples of how such is achieved.
• when introducing academics, include something very brief about who the academic is. for example, "According to Henry Corbin, professor in Islamic studies, Al-Kindi was born in Kufa ..." or something like that, from then on he can be referred to simply as Corbin where mention of him is appropriate. the point of this is for ease of reading, you ideally don't want readers having to open a new window to find out who Corbin is (making things more arduous than necessary) when you can succinctly give the reader the essential information within the article.
  • as a sub-point to this, if you are making statements of fact upon which there is no academic dispute, you can get rid of mentioning the academic altogether and (for example) simply say "Al-Kindi was born in Kufa ...". attribution becomes important when elements of individual opinions (i.e. which may be disputed) are involved. this doesn't seem to be much of a concern in the article however.
• from what i could gather in my quick overview, the article says very little about the criticism he must have received, especially from traditionists of his time, as well as the asha'rites and hanbalites of later times. i only managed to find one line which discussed opposition (i.e. that of Ghazzali and his response to the philosophers), although i am sure academics must have covered opposition to him in more depth than just this.
• please be sure to comb through the article with the manual of style, its biography supplement, and the guide on writing better articles

i haven't gone into too much depth over content issues as i've only briefly scanned over the article, but it's been given B-class status (upon the threshold of GA i would imagine), and i would definitely recommend submitting it for a formal peer review and perhaps re-enlisting it as a GA candidate afterwards. ITAQALLAH 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your helpful feedback ITAQALLAH, we'll do our best to implement your suggestions (hopefully a section on "controversies") and then submit it for peer review.

Thanks again! Alexander.Hainy 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Thinking of submitting the article for a peer review, any thoughts/suggestions/objections? Alexander.Hainy 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Article's name

The article should not use a strict transliteration for its name. According to WP:AMOS, an article's name should be a primary transliteration, or a standard transliteration if no primary transliteration exists. This article uses a strict transliteration in the lead too, which should be really fixed, if you are considering nominating it as a GA or even requesting a peer review. The article should be moved to Al-Kindi, the primary transliteration, and the lead should be fixed and changed in compliance with WP:AMOS. Should I proceed and do that, or does anybody have another thought? ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Please go ahead and make the necessary alterations to the article :-) thanks for letting us know about that! Alexander.Hainy 13:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page, modified the lead, added the full script, and used a more accurate transliteration. Corrected many typos on my way. Only problem is there's a big gap between the subject's name in the lead and the Arabic script. :-/ Would you like to shorten the name to make it look better, or just leave it as it is? ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On text-size medium there isn't a gap between the lead and the arabic, does wikipedia have any specific policies relating to this? I think it is important to keep the full name if at all possible, as this is how he would have been known in his works. Any thoughts?

Thanks again for your all your help! Alexander.Hainy 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I interchanged the script and the strict transliteration. I think this is a harmless and fine way, and the gap is gone. Article's looking good; You can request a peer review if you don't have any more work/expansion left in the article. After that, the article will probably have a good chance at becoming a good article. All the best mate! ← ANAS ^Talk? 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Article ready?

I think the article is ready for a re-review! Alexander.Hainy 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see the point of removing the (grammatically and stylistically necessary) definite article froma couple of the headers, nor the effort to banish "also" from the article (in a number of places it was again grammatically correct, and the changed version either less or at least no more clear.

Also, please use edit summaries. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexander, there are some suggestions from the current peer review you haven't implemented yet. A quick look shows that you have not changed the varying spellings of the subject's name to the correct spelling. Also, you have the links and the other names like al-Farabi, which is spelled differently in the article. Perhaps you should check if you have applied all the suggestions in the current PR first. Good luck! ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexander.Hainy: you need to look here for explanations (and give explanations here, too). I reverted most of your edits as you gave no explanation for them, not even edit summaries. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. Sorry about the edit summaries Mel, will remember that in future. I had removed "also" and the definite article in titles at the suggestion of the peer review. I would really appreciate it if you could have a look at the peer review page and flag those suggestions which you feel best be disregarded.

Thanks again, I will review the peer review page and make sure I haven't missed anything.Alexander.Hainy 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel, you have not provided any explanation why you have changed the name of al-Farabi again. As I said on the edit summary, I have corrected the transliteration. Several other editors have been kind enough to keep the article tidy without leaving an explanation on the talk page. I didn't realize it was necessary to leave a summary on the talk page, so please forgive me for the oversight.

Thanks Alexander.Hainy 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Misspelling"? Throughout this Talk page lately, there's been a curious unargued agreement that a certain spelling of "al-Kindī" and other names, which ignores normal Wikipedia practice (to use the most common accurate form of a name) and, in calling one of the most common forms "wrong" and "misspelt" (as below) and therefore changeable without explanation, also goes against Wikiquette.

In what sense are these forms wrong? They're used in most of the modern sources at which I've looked. Debates at related pages have been resolved in favour of this sort of transliteration; I haven't checked yet, but I expect that consensus has been overturned by this new and (to my mind, at least) unwelcome approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahah! I think I see the mispelling of al-Kindi... its in that blue box :-P Alexander.Hainy 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OFFICIAL APOLOGY: Sorry, there is al-Kindī everywhere! I am correcting it now ;) sorry Anas, you were right! Alexander.Hainy 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. ;) ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name argument

Mel Etitis, I didn't understand your last comment well, but I think we have an issue with the naming of the article. Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. All guidelines, discussions, and consensus are in favor of using a common, primary transliteration for an article's name. Al-Kindi is, in this case, the more common and used name. A Yahoo! search yields 433 results for Al-Kindī and 212,000 results for Al-Kindi, where it also recognizes him and provides search filters. A staggering margin, eh? Also in published media, see here. Furthermore, it is never favored to use a strict transliteration for an article's name. It is both uncommonly used and difficult to use. Do you have another opinion? :-)

By the way, I have never said these spellings, or more accurately transliterations, are wrong. I'd have to say, I would be slightly offended by your comments if they were pointed towards me. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo or Google searches show what's most common on the Internet; the use of diacritics and other symbols is much less common on the Internet than in published sources, in which "al-Kindī" is much the more common transliteration. Little or no discussion was offered on this, above — the claim was simply made that "al-Kindi" is standard. Just pulling recent general reference books books off my shelf, the following use "al-Kindī" (I didn't find one that used "al-Kindi", except for a book dating from the 1970s):

• Carr & Mahalingam [edd] Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy (Routledge, 2001)
• Dronke [ed.] A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy (CUP, 1992)
• Deutsch & Bontekoe [edd] A Companion to World Philosophies (Blackwell, 1999)
• Flew & Priest [edd] A Dictionary of Philosophy (Pan, 1984)
• King One Hundred Philosophers (Barrons, 2004)
• Watt Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh UP, 1987)

In the discussions above, I should also note, are various references to "al-Kindi" being a misspelling, including your own reference to "al-Kindi" being "the correct spelling". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself, "the use of diacritics and other symbols is much less common on the Internet". As much as the references you provided are significant, the 800-something books in an Amazon book search and the Yahoo search results do have their significance too. You can't treat Wikipedia the same way printed references are treated; for example, any English user will probably search for al-Kindi, not al-Kindī when he looks for information online. This issue has been discussed deeply in many talk pages. As an example, see the recent debate in Shia Islam talk page. I, myself voted 'support' for the strict transliteration and 'weak support' for the standard English transliteration, but I now know it is, although inaccurate, the preferred transliteration.

When I said al-Kindi was the correct spelling, it was logically obvious that I meant it was the spelling supposed to be used throughout the whole article. Anyways, this is not the real problem here. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Internet sources are often inaccurate, misrepresenting (for example, by omitting diacritics) the titles of and quotations from books and papers.
2. "any English user will probably search for al-Kindi, not al-Kindī" that's what redirects are for.
3. We should be representing most common best practice, not most common poor practice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel, I agree with your points, believe me (see my votes/opinions in the Shia Islam debate), but I am only working according to the consensus. Personally, I would definitely love to name every article accurately, but then again this isn't my encyclopedia. :) Remember there are thousands of articles with Arabic names that are rendered somehow inaccurately, like Saddam Hussein (Ṣaddām Ḥusayn). Perhaps a poll should be started to gain consensus for naming this article, what do you say? :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The policy has always been that we use the most common and readily understandable form (as used in English-language publications). That's overwhelmingly "Saddam Hussain", not Ṣaddām Ḥusayn, but in cases like this one, where the person is referred to almost solely in academic or semi-academic works, the most common academic or semi-academic form is used. In other words, we don't have, and have never claimed to have, a consistent method of transliteration; it depends upon the individual case.

A poll is a last (and much deprecated) resort. A formal discussion of a renaming proposal would be fine, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I agree, you can start a rename or move proposal if you'd like to. All the best. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article renaming

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus Duja► 09:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The article was renamed from Al-Kindī to Al-Kindi without sufficient discussion or reason. rather than simply move it back, could intersted parties explain here which name they think that it should have, and why? remember, this is not a vote, it's a discussion, so reasons are what count. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things states: "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."

• Change. I've given above a list of (recent) publications, none of them very specialised, which use the "al-Kindī" form. I found one older text that used "al-Kindi", and some references to mediæval texts that followed theoir usage of "Alkindi". "Al-Kindī" is the most common form in printed texts; as it's a name that's almost only found in academic or semi-acadmic texts, the most common usage in those is what's required. (Usage on the Internet is misleading; our preferred usage of "Pelé", for example (as listed at the naming conventions page) would have to be changed if we went by a Google search.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While there are sources that use "Al-Kindī", they are only a minority. Al-Kindi is a primary transliteration. It is used more commonly both in published and online sources. A large results margin (see above discussion) found using Yahoo search goes in favor of the transliteration Al-Kindi. Also a Google Book search yields 798 results for books using "Al-Kindi" and only 61 results for "Al-Kindī". Encyclopedia Britannica uses al-Kindi. The guidelines state that a primary transliteration, one used by 75% or more of the references, should be used if available. Al-Kindi is clearly the primary transliteration since it is much more widely used everywhere. While I would love to go with a more accurate title, it simply wouldn't satisfy the consensus. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  Note that some, at least, of the books listed at "798 results for books using 'Al-Kindi'" in fact use "Al-Kindī". From the first page of the search: Al-Kind-I's Metaphysics by Alfred L. Ivry, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought by Michael A. Cook, Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy by Muhsin Mahdi; in other words, a third of the books on that page use "al-Kindī", even though they come up on Google as using "al-Kindi", and the Google text sometimes presents them as using "al-Kindi". That's the problem with relying on Internet searches (as Arabic MOS says: "Google searches can be useful in determining the most common usage, but should not be heavily relied upon".) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  They are very few. I searched through the first 6 pages and all had "Al-Kindi". Furthermore, Al-Kind-I's Metaphysics clearly uses "Al-Kindi" in its text, al-Farabi's book by Mahdi uses Al-Kindi, and Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought uses "Al-Kindi" too. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that you need to look more closely; I've just rechecked, and all three books that I mentioned clearly use "al-Kindī". You did look at the text of the books, not just at Google's incorrect text, didn't you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm, I didn't and I can't. My connection is too slow. But anyway, I guess they're still fewer than those using "Al-Kindi". ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Well, that's my point; if you go by what Google, et al., say, you'll get a skewed view of what's out there. They misrepresent books and articles by simplifying the text. Guessing that one usage is more common isn't good enough. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep as Al-Kindi. The Arabic MOS is clear on naming conventions. The standard version that wikipedia uses would be Al-Kindi, with no accent markers for long vowels. There are several reasons why, but the most simple one for this debate is for standardization across all the Islam related articles. Cuñado - Talk 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  But, as I pointed out above, our naming conventions don't demand consistency; they demand that we use the most common form. As the MoS states: "A name has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in English use the same transliteration"; there's no evidence that 75% of English sources use "al-Kindi" (I'd say that "al-Kindī" came closer to that). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would vote keep per Anas Salloum. - Darwinek 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Despite the fact that I've demonstrated that his figures are faulty? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, I see that Anas Salloum asked you to join in, together with others. I'll bring this to the attention of WP:AN/I. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  What? I have only invited him to join a discussion, since I know he has a fair understanding of Arabic. I have invited a few others too, it's normal. I have not asked him to vote keep, it's his opinion. My God, please assume good faith. Why are you making this me-versus-you? If inviting others for a discussion (since it will probably not be noticed) is considered wrong, I am sorry! I have been invited to discussions several times and I thought it would be OK. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  I didn't think of it in that way until I noticed that you'd asked a number of people hitherto unconnected with the article to join the discussion, without mentioning that here (which always used to be the courteous thing to do; perhaps things have changed). If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry. I don't really see what an understanding of Arabic has to do with this discussion, but that's another matter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Just so you know I am not canvassing. Also, I hardly know any of the editors (which were 4 only, by the way) that I sent my invitations to, and with Darwinek, my interaction has been recent and brief. I am and have always assumed good faith and am not one of those editors who would do anything to illustrate a point. Regards, ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  Well, five, but who's counting. As I said, if I'm wrong then I'm sorry. I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong, so I'm sorry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  No, no. I mean, my support is based rather on WP:AMOS arguments. Still, I am opened to both solutions. - Darwinek 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I did comment on WP:AMOS too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer "al-Kindi" --Striver - talk 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  Um, well, that's nice, but why? This is a discussion, not a vote or an expression of personal taste. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Move Use of overdashes is widely used in scholarly, and even quality popular literature (in the case of al-Khwārizmī definitely more than 75%) and is therefore the primary transliteration. Web pages are not a reliable source to find out common usage, due to technical restrictions which prevent(ed) people from using diacritics. —Ruud 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• On the whole, I prefer Al-Kindi without diacritic, in the title. The three books Mel cites from the Google books use macrons for all Arabic names, without discrimination; this is not Wikipedia style. (One of them references Al-Kindi only by full name and only in footnotes, which are often more pedantic than main text; our article titles should be less pedantic than main text.) I would read WP:AMOS as recommending the simple form when it is clear what that simple form is, as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  "footnotes, which are often more pedantic than main text"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. In a field more familiar to me, footnotes will often include untranslated Greek, when the text always translates; or Greek in the Greek alphabet, where the main text transliterates. Don't Arabists work the same way? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've no idea; I'll ask (my College has two Arabists, whom I should see at lunch today). It's not really relevant to this question, though; I've never seen a text in any subject area in which a name is printed differently in the text and the footnotes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Al-Kindi and gravitation

I recently flagged the statement that "Al-Kindi stated his law of terrestrial gravity" with the template that "this source's reliability may need verification," since the only source was the historical introduction to a physics text which. In areas where it was possible to check this book's other claims, they turned out to be historically inaccurate.

I have since checked the article on Al-Kindi by Jean Jolivet and Roshdi Rashed in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography and found no mention of al-Kindi's teaching on gravitation. George N. Atiyeh, in his Al-Kindi: Philosopher of the Arabs, (Rawalpinidi: Islamic Research Institure, 1966), p. 85 presents a description of al-Kindi's view as the conventional Aristotelian one in which heavy bodies, such as the Earth, move downward toward the centre and light bodies, such as Fire, move upward away from the centre.

I will remove the claim here and in other places where it appears. --SteveMcCluskey 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Relativity

I'm deleting the section on relativity. The only source brought is from an evangelical religious website which seems quite biased, including claims that the theory of relativity is is found in ancient religious works, and dubious claims about Einstein's religiosity. If anyone wants to find a scholarly source for the claim that Al-Kindi's theories were a precursor the theory of relativity, they can reinstate it. Zachen3 (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cardano:: "Al-Kindi one of twelve greatest minds"

The Italian Renaissance scholar Gerolamo Cardano (1501–1575) considered [Al-Kindi] one of the twelve greatest minds of the Middle Ages...

Al-Kindi was certainly a great mind (as was Cardano) and my comment is not about this page. My question is: Does anyone know who Cardano's other eleven "great minds" were? I've Googled and Googled and Wiki'ed and Wiki'ed but only ever find that "Al-Kindi was one of twelve." Just curious. Jamesdowallen (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize this page is not the appropriate venue for the fact, but I did finally get my question answered via

http://archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/toc/toc.cgi?page=1388;dir=hutto_dicti_078_en_1795;step=textonly

Quote: Those 12 persons were, Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius Pergæus, Aristotle, Archytas of Tarentum, Vitruvius, Achindus [Al-Kindi], Mahomet Ibn Moses the inventor or improver of Algebra, Duns Scotus, John Suisset surnamed the Calculator, Galen, and Heber of Spain.

(Googling en-route to this discovery, I also learned that Ptolemy may have been on an earlier version of Cardano's list.) Jamesdowallen (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic sources

The claim in this article about al-Kindi's work on the tides references MuslimHeritage.com (which has reliability problems) but I think the material comes from:

Dunlop, D. M. (1971). Arab Civilization to A.D. 1500. Arab Background Series. Longman.

Next time I'm at the relevant library, I'll check this and replace the reference as appropriate.
The article also uses the History of Science and Technology in Islam website, which is self-published by Ahmad Y. al-Hassan. My memory of the relevant discussion at WP:RSN is that this site can be used but with qualifications, i.e. if the claim is at all exceptional, note its source; otherwise the author is an accepted, if perhaps heterodox, authority in this area.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV introduction

The introduction is somewhat 'loaded.' 130.225.236.92 (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a GA

I've removed the GA tag. With a POV header on it for the last 9 months, it can't be a GA William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who listed this. TT added the tag [3] but saying This article was linked from WP:GA, so it is having {{good article}} added per Wikipedia:Bot requests#GA symbol, using AWB. The actual discussion seems to be years earlier Talk:Al-Kindi/GA1 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The review is there in the article milestones if you care to look. AS you will also see further up a reassessment has been started and you are encouraged to post your specific concerns there. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed a couple of issues in the article and have commented on the reassessment page. I encourage members of this wikiproject to participate in the article's improvement to preserve its status as a Good article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to have erred. You added:

Al-Kindi is credited with inventing the pinhole apparatus which was an early form of the camera obscura. He used it as a research tool.<ref>Ogbourne, Derek. Encyclopedia of Optography. Muswell Press. p. 179. ISBN 0954795946.</ref> Using a ray model, al-Kindi also described the formation of shadows and images in the camera obscura.<ref>Wellington, Jerry J. (1994). Secondary science: contemporary issues and practical approaches. Psychology Press. p. 263. ISBN 0415098440.</ref>

but a glance at the camera obscura page shows that it far predates Al-K William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write, or at least didn't intend to write, that he invented the camera obscura or he invented the first form of the camera obscura. From memory, the source for the first sentence mentions Ptolemy had used it before him. Like I had stated in the reassessment page, I don't know much about this topic. However, I provided the exact url in the source. Could you please read it and then clarify the info in this sentence. Also, I don't know why you removed the second sentence which says Using a ray model, al-Kindi also described the formation of shadows and images in the camera obscura. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the CA page says it was invented earlier (who knows, it may be wrong, but then we have much more to clean up). So saying that he invented an early form of something invented much earlier is a problem. You have to be careful: apparently reliable sources say wrong things, sometimes William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the source used for the first sentence (Encyclopedia of Optography) appears reliable and it's not centered on al-Kindi. It just mentions one of his contributions. The exact words from the source reads: Optical science reached a high point in the work of Claudius Ptolemy, after which it was forgotten until its revival by the Arab scientist al-Kindi, who introduced the pinhole apparatus, an early form of the camera obscura, as a research tool. Investigations into the functioning of the eye and the pinhole effect continued during the golden age of Islam, reaching a peak in the work of Ibn al-Haitham ... Also, I still do not understand the concerns for the second sentence that was removed. Could you clarify this for me? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So, this looks like classic Jagged misrepresentation of sources. He takes a source that basically says Al-K revived something, and makes it say he invented it. That is wrong. The second sentence isn't obviously wrong, but with the first sentence removed it isn't terribly interesting in itself: it just says he did something others had previously done. Now that, integrated into a coherent view of his work, might be worth saying. As a stand-alone factoid it is odd William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub and rework

For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 128 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article after May 2007 by far (2nd with 22 edits is William M. Connolley who did clean-up work). The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. I restore the article to the first pre-Jagged version on 2 May 2007 which seems fairly good plus the usual update on categories, templates, infoboxes etc. etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Optics

The optics section looks dodgy, if

Thus, the De Aspectibus shows that al-Kindî favored an extramission view of vision, in which rays extend from the eyes to make contact with an object, enabling a person to see it.[2] Following Euclid's Optics ultimately, al-Kindî offers geometrical demonstrations against both the alternative “intromission” view, and the view that fuses extramission with intromission; views identified mostly with Aristotle's De anima and Plato's Timaeus, respectively. In other treatises, however, al-Kindî may be more sympathetic to Aristotle's understanding of vision, mixed with possible familiarity with relevant treatises of Ptolemy and John Philoponus. [4]

is to be believed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Kindis Music Theory

The informations in this paragraph are wrong.

There are a lot of music theorists who are supposed that they added the fifth string to the oud, among them also Ziryab, the student of Ishaq al-Mawsili.

Concerning Al-Kindi, this is a pointless and not very plausible speculation. His music treatise, not the ones which we do not know, but one of those which have survived, describes very clearly a four stringed oud. Based on his treatise, it has even been reconstructed by the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at Frankfurt am Main (I recommend the publications by Eckhard Neubauer who studied Al-Kindis treatises and published their facsimile). Concerning music therapy, Al-Kindi also mentions in another book that these four strings had been coloured according to the four elements and its humours. This is the reason why Al-Kindi is explicitely associated with a very simple and early oud which has just four simple strings, not the five double strings as they are used today.

Another characteristic is that Al-Kindis terminology can be easily recognized as an Arabic translation of Greek terms and he mentioned explicitely his admiration of the Byzantine Octoechos system. This is astonishing, because most of the Ancient Greek treatises had been translated later into Arabic dialects, between the 9th and the 10th century. Al-Farabi's contributions clearly profited from them. Platonykiss (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Born in Basra or Kufa?

"He was born and educated in Basra" (opening paragraph)

"Al-Kindi was born in Kufa [...] received his preliminary education there" (opening line under the chapter "Life")

Which one is correct? Ben tetuan (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The former, according to Peter Adamson; the latter, according to Henry Corbin (or so I read the cited sources). Why, how do you understand them?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Al-Kindi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I hesitate to list anything as being of "GA" status or better unless it has actually already received that official designation, which is why I chose "B", which often just means that the article might be GA quality, but just hasn't been "officially" recognized as such yet. Having said that, the fact that the "Chemistry" section is only one sentence long is probably the primary single drawback the article has. It should either be expanded or removed and the content placed in another section. All sections of articles should probably be at least three sentences long. Badbilltucker 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion and Ethnic

He was a Jewish. I don't know why some people trying to Hide that ?? Nizami Aruzi said he was jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gholaghabijan (talk • contribs) 17:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please use an accurate source. Aruzi is known to be a contentious source. Vedissasantu (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Kindi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026091801/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Al-Kindi.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Al-Kindi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521055213/http://www.bendykes.com/forty.php to http://www.bendykes.com/forty.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

gave rise to the birth of

F would like the article to say:

His book entitled "Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages" gave rise to the birth of cryptanalysis and devised several new methods of breaking ciphers

It can't: "gave rise to the birth of" doesn't parse properly. But even with that infelicity rephrased, it still can't be true, because of "devised several new methods of breaking ciphers" which implies the obvious: that previous methods of breaking ciphers existed. And therefore, this was not the "birth" of cryptography William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: This is what is stated in the cryptanalysis article:

"Although the actual word "cryptanalysis" is relatively recent (it was coined by William Friedman in 1920), methods for breaking codes and ciphers are much older. The first known recorded explanation of cryptanalysis was given by 9th-century Persian[8] polymath, Al-Kindi (also known as "Alkindus" in Europe), in A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages."

This is what is stated in the Frequency analysis article:

"The first known recorded explanation of frequency analysis (indeed, of any kind of cryptanalysis) was given in the 9th century by Al-Kindi, an Arab polymath, in A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages."

This is in History of cryptography:

"David Kahn notes in The Codebreakers that modern cryptology originated among the muslims, the first people to systematically document cryptanalytic methods.[11] The invention of the frequency-analysis technique for breaking monoalphabetic substitution ciphers, by Al-Kindi, a Persian mathematician, sometime around AD 800 proved to be the single most significant cryptanalytic advance until World War II. Al-Kindi wrote a book on cryptography entitled Risalah fi Istikhraj al-Mu'amma (Manuscript for the Deciphering Cryptographic Messages), in which he described the first cryptanalytic techniques, including some for polyalphabetic ciphers, cipher classification, Arabic phonetics and syntax, and most importantly, gave the first descriptions on frequency analysis.[12] He also covered methods of encipherments, cryptanalysis of certain encipherments, and statistical analysis of letters and letter combinations in Arabic.[13][14]"

You're probably not someone with advanced knowledge in the field of mathematics, because if you were, you would have understood that when we say "Al-Kindi gave birth to the field of cryptanalysis", this is because he is the first to SYSTEMATICALLY use these kind of methods (just like many other polymaths have been dubbed with a title like "father of", "founder of", etc...). So just be serious one second and stop reverting legit edits please... Farawahar (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I made the change again, since who does not say a word, consent, I suppose that you agree with that. Farawahar (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Al Kindi Background

Farawahar Al-Kindi and Persian are incompatible things, He's from noble Arab family of Kinda tribe. Being an Arab is both explicitly stated by medieval biographical accounts and reliable modern historians respectively (It's not matter of dispute). please stop your historical distortions by the deliberate nitpicking of invalid material.

Your source states: But that he was also said to be one of only two famous Arab philosophers -the other is Al-Kindi- P.123.

Thus, I will remove your source. Unless you could provide reliable materials to support your point. Otherwise, distortion will get us nowhere. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You should first prove that the source i cited is not valid (it’s the same source cited in several wikipedia articles about medieval muslim scholars...). Your opinion about an incompatibility between Al-Kindi and Persian just doesn’t matter for me... For your information, removal of sourced informations can get you blocked. Farawahar (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

my opinion on the topic is not biased. Your one source is self contradictory and simply insufficient to make sweeping remarks on his background. i gave you the benefit of the doubt to provide the necessarily materials. it's you who is driven by nationalistic sentiments on baseless ground.

Your unconcern for the incompatible nature of Al-Kindi (the surname with the suffix "i"..) and Persian, display a great deal of how much your knowledge extend on Kindi's biography.

It's relatively easy to comprehend. Bear with me, his full name from medieval biography is; Yaqub ibn Isaq ibn as-Sabah ibn Amran Ibn Ismail ibn Muhammad ibn "Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays" (661 CE) Al-Kindi (designate his tribe). His father was the governor of Kufa and his great father was the chief of Kindah tribe. It's like calling the sky is blue. His Arab origin is absolutely not challenged intentionally by any respected historian.

Now, if you have reliable sources to add more input, please do, Wikipedia is not the place for historical distortions. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The source given by N is « Encyclopaedia of islam » and is perfectly legit, the one cited by F is « Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures », Helaine Selin, this is also perfectly legit, so i would go for « Persian or Arab » in the lead of the article, this is what we do when sources are divergent. Wikaviani (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed again the article with "Arab or Persian". there is seemingly a relative concensus on this point (William M. Connolley, Wikaviani and me). I removed Nabataeus' source number 5 which did not support the claim. Nabataeus, please keep your grammatical lessons for yourself and let's stick to the sources. The only nationalist person here is you, when you remove a reliable source stating "Persian" and bombard the article with yours. My proposal is more balanced and take care of the fact that reliable sources are not unanimous about Al-Kindi. Farawahar (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Arab or Persian" mislead the readers as if there's an uncertainty concerning Al-Kindi's origin, Which is not the case whatsoever. The origin of Al-Kindi is established from Medieval biographies, him and his father and forefathers are known and influential figures in Muhammad's, Umayyads, and throughout early Abbasid period. In the light of the information surplus we have on Al-Kindi life, Being Persian is out of the frame.

Your sourece also states that Al-Kindi was one of the two famous Arab philosophers, and in another paragraph as Persian mathematician. He is not reliable source for Al-Kindi's Background. Either way.

You seem to fail to comprehend that modern historians build on an already existing materials, While calling him Arab (which majority of historians rightly consider..) is based on authoritative medieval biographies, for instance that of Ibn Al-Nadem where he give description of Al-Kindi life and origin, and even call him the philosopher of the Arabs.. Your source on the other hand as contradicting as it is, the author have no real bases to rely on his Kindi's background remark. If the divergent of sources (notice it's only one source that is cling to) justify inaccurate statements, then likewise Avicenna should be changed to "Persian or Arab" in the lead of the article, as I could provide numerous sources stating inaccurately that he is Arab;

https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=pkzx2TeYYT8C&pg=PA1086&dq=%22Avicenna+arab%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkj-PaqZ7YAhXBOhQKHZsVBwUQ6AEIUzAI#v=onepage&q=%22Avicenna%20arab%22&f=false / Avicenna, Arab physician (980 -1037), polymath in the world of letters and science.

Therefore i will remove the erroneous remark. please notice:

You didn't address the crucial point of my statement about Al-Kindi full name, i gave you the page of his great father, contemporary to Muhammad lifetime, Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays. Ignoring it doesn't help. Nabataeus (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, since Wikipedia is not your blog, your opinion about this topic does not matter here (my opinion does not matter either).

1) The « source » you provided above and that states Avicenna is an Arab polymath is not legit for his ethnicity because it’s not a historical source, only a scientific book with no historical claims... The source i proposed is a historical source: « Encyclopaedia of the HISTORY of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures ».

2). There is not a single mention of Al-Kindi in the article you linked above about his « grand father »...

3) You act against the majority of the contributors on this topic, 3 of them (Wikaviani, William M. Connolley and me) agree to mention the Persian ethnicity in this article (please note that Wikaviani and William M. Connolley are extended confirmed users of Wikipedia).

4) Last but not least, many Iranian/Persian scholars are sometimes listed with Arabs because they used to write their works in Arabic (Arabic was then just like English today), this is not only my opinion, this is also What George Saliba says in the article on Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi in the reference number 3:

« Take, for example, someone like Muhammad b. Musa al-Khwarizmi (fl. 850) who may present a problem for the EIr, for although he was obviously of Persian descent, he lived and worked in Baghdad and was not known to have produced a single scientific work in Persian. »

as you can see, things are not nearly as simple as you think.

Farawahar (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You made a mistake by presumming my statement as a mere opinion, when in reality it's further from the truth.

1. It's not from an incapability to provide better sources, as the assertion of Avicenna Arab ethnicity is entirely inaccurate. Rather i quickly used whatever reference my eyes fell upon. That's on me. I should used more qualified materials. But it's not my goal to go hunting for quasi authoritative specious reference on Ibn Sina's ethnic background to use it as an instrument for deliberate vandalism. Critical and logical assessment is the criterion in such matters.

2. I seriously question if you're aware of my input on Al-Kindi's full name (Which beg the question if you're also aware that his name is Yaqub, Al-Kindi is his surname which designate his tribe "Kindah". An Arab tribe)

I lead you to the article of his grandfather Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays to shed light on the inconsistency of your source with first hand historical informations we have on Al-Kindi. Especially every Medieval biographical accounts he is mentioned in. "IBN AL-NADIM AND IBN USAYBI'A GIVE A LONG LIST OF HIS ANCESTORS, the most important of whom was AL-ASHATH B. QAYS"

3. I can see the voice of Wikaviani, which i appreciate his concern. But however, he think of our dispute on Al-Kindi's origin as another background ambiguous figure being fought over. Al-Kindi's origin is EXPLICITLY STATED by Medieval biographers that MODERN HISTORIANS rely on as a reliable reference instead of presumptive remarks.

4. This has nothing to do with Persian scholars origin controversies. The historical information we have on Al-Kindi's family provide absolutely irrefutable evidence of his Arab origin. His father was the governor of Kufa, his grand father fought the Umayyad in rebellious war, his great great father was the chieftain of Kindah tribe who lived in the lifespan of prophet Muhammad. There's no room of ambiguity concerning his lineage. I Hope i made it clear. Thus the statement simply; is inaccurate and incompatible with historical sources. Needless to say, I am not responsible for any inconveniencies. Nabataeus (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You must be either ignorant or bad faith when you use the fact that his father was governor of kufa to justify that he was Arab. Al-Kindi was born around 800, so his father lived at the beginning of the Abbasid era, a period when Persians/Iranians were ubiquitous at every level of the empire. The Abbasids themselves came to power thanks to an Iranian general named Abu Muslim !

More, you claim that my source is not reliable ? This source is used in many Wikipedia articles about medieval muslim scholars.

For example: Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (source number 1 which is used to prove that Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi was Iranian). Please have a look at the talk page of that article and you’ll see that this source is unanimously accepted as a reliable one for this kind of topics on medieval thinkers.

Here is the Wikipedia article about this source:

Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures

Now, please be my guest, go ahead and explain me why you sistematically remove this source which is widely used on Wikipedia as reliable ? Farawahar (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been respectful towards you in this entire conversation, you should abstain from offensive remarks. sometimes humans are so blinded by their emotional attachment to the issue even if they were on the wrong side.

I thought i didn't need to point the obvious? My prime argument was that he hail from too famous and influential Arab family which makes his Arab origin irrefutable. You see, Al-Kindi's Father lineage is quite clear: Ishaq (His Father) was the son of as-Sabah son of Amran son of Ismail son of Muhammad son of "Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays" the chieftain of Kindah who was converted to Islam. and was also a general in the Rashidun army who participated in the battle of Al-Qadisiyyah.

Your source is not reliable concerning Al-Kindi's biography for one main crucial reason: Being Self Contradictory. The author give two conflicting statements which is best described as an antithetical. While he say he was Persian mathematician in one paragraph, he say the opposite in another. as i previously stated. Better example of such discrepancy in your source;

• Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures : Thinkers such as the Arab al-Kindi and the Turk al-Farabi worked closely with those who were studying foreign texts and preparing translations. By the time of the Persian Ibn Sina (980-1037), the cultivation of foreign knowledge within the context of Islam was yielding new fruits on Islamic soil. P.272.

Your source as showcased above is simply not reliable for Al-Kindi's background. You can however provide more qualified materials to support your opinion. Otherwise, If you ignore it and insist on continuing the disruptive edits it will eventually lead you to being blocked. Nabataeus (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, when have i been disrespectfull with you ? I think English is not our native language, so maybe you misunderstood some of my words. Your argument of my source which is, according to you, contradictory is not legit because as i said you above, Persian/Iranian scholars are often listed with Arabs due to the language of their works and i gave you a cite from Saliba who is an expert in this matter. You need another proof ? I think that you and me can find a common ground by saying that Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reliable source, however, when you look at this article on the history of trigonometry :

https://www.britannica.com/topic/trigonometry

It’s stated :

“Several Arab scholars, notably Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1201–74) and al-Bāttāni, continued to develop spherical trigonometry and brought it to its present form. Ṭūsī was the first (c. 1250) to write a work on trigonometry independently of astronomy”

So, Nasir al-din al-Tusi would be an “Arab scholar” according to this article on Britannica...

However, when you Check this other article on Britannica :

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nasir-al-Din-al-Tusi

You can see : “Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, PERSIAN SCHOLAR...”

I think you should try to find other arguments and accept what is obvious, my source is reliable and is widely used on Wikipedia as so.

I have no other choice to undo one more time your illegitimate revert of my edit.

Farawahar (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Straw man argument. This has nothing to do with other scholars. Stick to the matter being discussed at hand and stop diverting and deflecting the topic. You claimed your source mentioned Al-Kindi as being Persian. I replied your reference is not reliable for the numerous reasons listed above, Self contradictory is the major one.

• Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures : Thinkers such as the Arab al-Kindi and the Turk al-Farabi worked closely with those who were studying foreign texts and preparing translations. By the time of the Persian Ibn Sina (980-1037), the cultivation of foreign knowledge within the context of Islam was yielding new fruits on Islamic soil. P.272.

Clearly, as the above quote show and i made the effort to highlight the important paragraph and give direct link to the page of your book that state he was Arab, Therefore -with minimum logic- the material you presented is not reliable and contradictory. I am not responsible for any inconveniencies. Unless you cite qualified materials that support your Persian Kindi claim, your disruptive edits will be removed. Nothing crazy to ask for. Have a nice day. Nabataeus (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

How to solve this issue ?

This never-ending edit-war is all but constructive, so i warn you two about that, if you keep going in this way, i'll ask for a block for both of you and page protection.

Now try to solve your dispute calmly and ONLY IN THE TALK PAGE. For my part, i think that both of you provide legit sources, but N has far more than one source, this is why i have a proposal:

1) If F can't provide another source supporting the Persian claim, then we should write something like "The vast majority of sources list him as Arab, but he also has been described as Persian".

2) If F can provide another source for the Persian claim, then we can write "Arab or Persian".

Wikaviani (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani, the problem with the first proposal, is that he never was described as Persian in a reliable source concerning Al-Kindi's biography. As his origin is conclusively known therefore there's no ambiguity. The one which he provided as a reference for the Persian origin « Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures » can't sustain his assertion, as other paragraphs contains conflicting statements. Take these two examples from his source down under for better perspective;

• "Abu Nasr Al-Farabi had, following the Persian mathematician Al-Kindi, adopted the aristotelian translations" P.1667.
• "Thinkers such as the Arab al-Kindi and the Turk al-Farabi worked closely with those who were studying foreign texts and preparing translations." P.272

That's my main objection on his source. The author seems to be contradictious in both of his remarks, which probably reflect that he is not well acquainted with Al-Kindi's life. Thus logically not reliable (In other things maybe he is..). I made that point from the start, but Farawahar cling to his reference and refuse to give other reliable sources when i asked him to. It's not a crazy requirement when we face unsustained reference. If he doesn't provide the necessarily materials.. the article should be in It's formal version where he is stated as Arab, before Farawahar first disruptive edit. Nabataeus (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

according to me, both of you blatantly broke the WP:3RR and made dirsuptive edits even if i think that it occured in good faith.

I think both of you are arguing about false problems.

Farawahar seems to ignore the fact that almost (i will clarify the word "almost" just after) all reliable sources (as far i have seen) list this great man as "Arab", so, a well balanced article should not state "Arab or Persian" just as if these two claims were both equally sourced...

For your part, you seem to ignore what Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures is. This book is a collection of articles written by dozens of scholar, therefore, the fact that you found page 272 a quote that says Al-Kindi is Arab while Farawahar found page 1667 another quote saying he's Persian is not contradictory, it just means that two reliable authors disagree about Al-Kindi's ethnicity. This is why i said above "almost" all reliable sources list him as Arab.

That leads me to say that a sentence like "the vast majority of sources list him as Arab ["your sources"], but he also has been described as Persian ["F's source]" is quite irrefutable and well balanced.

I hope this will help close this case and if there is a consensus about the sentence above, you or Farawahar can change the lead of the article in this way.

Wikaviani (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, that both of your proposals serve the same purpose with slightly different rephrasing. And the reason why almost entirely all sources describe him as Arab (Rightfully of course) is simple. He hail, as i previously stated and Farawahar ignored by not addressing my point, from influential Arab family (Check medieval Ibn Al-Nadim and Usaybi'a Biography..)

Al- Kindi (Yaqub) full name is: Yaqub ibn Ishaq ibn as-Sabbah ibn Amran Ibn Ismail ibn Muhammad ibn "Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays"

The most famous individual of his ancestors as highlighted above is Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays the chieftain of Kindah tribe, who was converted then abandoned allegiance with the Rashidun after Muhammad death, to be subjugated again.. he was also married to Abu-Bakr sister.

The information surplus on Al-Kindi background leave no room for doubt and provide absolutely irrefutable evidence of his Arab origin. Therefore, the Persian origin is out of the frame and no respected historian who is acquainted with Al- Kindi's life will intentionally challenge that. As they have no ground as far as credible medieval accounts of that period goes. such as the great work of Ibn Al-Nadim, Kitab Al-Fihrist.

Nabataeus (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I quicly checked the web to see if i could find other sources listing him as a Persian and i found only few sources about his ethnicity (almost all of them stating he was Arab and a few stating he was Persian but i have doubt on their reliability). However, i was surprised not to find the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures , so i think that evidence of absence is no absence of evidence...

To Nabataeus : Above you said that your concern about my source was that it was cotradictory but now, wikaviani proved you that it was not, so you come back to the same old fashioned argument about his name... a name is not a Solid proof of his ethnicity, just because even if his ancestrors are originally Arabs, nothing prevents them from being iranized over time.

For your information, i asked to administrators noticeboard about the reliability of sources what they thought of my source for this topic and one of them answered me that it is ok. If controversial, each one of us can add his (her) own sources.

So, if i summarize, administrators are ok with my source, two extended confirmed users (William M. Connolley and wikaviani) who intervened here are also ok with my source, but you are not.

You said above :

“That's my main objection on his source. The author seems to be contradictious in both of his remarks, which probably reflect that he is not well acquainted with Al-Kindi's life.”

Your « main objection » no longer stands.

You said also above :

“The information surplus on Al-Kindi background leave no room for doubt and provide absolutely irrefutable evidence of his Arab origin. Therefore, the Persian origin is out of the frame and no respected historian who is acquainted with Al- Kindi's life will intentionally challenge that. As they have no ground as far as credible medieval accounts of that period goes. such as the great work of Ibn Al-Nadim, Kitab Al-Fihrist.”

So why is my (reliable) source contracting this statement ?

I’m not here to impose my POV and i will accecpt your version of the arricle if you give me a legit argument.

Since i checked the web, i think that the first proposal of wikaviani is well balanced Most reliable sources list Al-Kindi as Arab, this a fact. At least one reliable source lists him as Persian, this is another fact. Understand me well, i’m not here to fight you or anybody else, it’s not about winning or losing, but put yourself in my place : You have a source, everybody exept one person say it’s reliable and you’re engaged in an edit war with this single contributor, tell me please, what would you do...?

---

Your source is still not reliable and contradictory to sustain your argument, a collection of articles and anonymous author who made a serious invalid assertion without a page note to clarify his statement. There's a name for these kind of sources in the historical sphere: specious. They are based on assumption and not derived from historical sources. Do not forget that Al-Kindi is historical figure and not a phenomena that need a scientific method approach, when someone make a wrong remark on his ethnicity.. You should ask where did he get his notion from? Ibn Al-Nadim biography? But he described him as the greatest Arab philosopher. You should ought to prevent the issue by presenting reliable materials, if you really had a good case to make.

 Farawahar: about his name... a name is not a Solid proof of his ethnicity, just because even if his ancestrors are originally Arabs, nothing prevents them from being iranized over time.

Not for my sake, but for the sake of logic and everything it stands for, his ancestors, his father to his great fathers are famous Arabs.. His Arab lineage -numerous times i stated it already- is irrefutable. Kufa and Basra were also the centers of Arab culture. It just seems to me that you try to find an exit. You hardly provide any sources.

Last but not least, If Ibn Al-Nadim (Died 995-998) is not convenient enough.. Here is the quote of Ibn Abi Usaibia (1203-1270) if you want the full quote, the source is cited.

• ibn Abi Uasibia: Yaqub Ibn Ishq al-Kindi, an Arab philosopher and one of the descendants of Arab kings (chieftain)..

The Persian origin claim is blatantly inaccurate remark.

Nabataeus (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  Farawahar: So, if i summarize, administrators are ok with my source..

I just noticed the question you rised to the administrator(Not "s"), It's not what he said.. DO NOT manipulate his statement!

The article on the encyclopaedia is a poor thing, with only one (affiliated) source, but the book itself has run to three editions with a mainstream publisher, so although it is tertiary and not secondary it should be OK, provided the ethnicity is not a matter of controversy. If it is controversial then I'd recommend additional sources. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's tertiary (I presume you know what it means..) And it should be ok: britannica status ok. Thereby i can't take your statement above other than deliberate dishonesty. Abide the administrator recommendation, and provide additional sources.

Notice: Ibn Al-Nadim and ibn Abi Uasibia are primary sources of Al-Kindi's origin which other researches are based on. Not a secondary or tertiary source.

Nabataeus (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, obviously, since English is not our mother tongue, you and me have trouble communicating. When you ask a question on the administratorS noticeboard, one of them answers you and this means administratorS answered you, this not dishonnesty (you seem to know dishonnesty very well...).

Second point, administrator Guy told the source is ok, and if controversial, add other sources, i understand this statement means you and me can provide our sources (ie not to keep only the Persian ethnicity).

Third point, there is no real controversy here, we have on one side one contributor with sources) and on the other side many others (also with source).

I agreed to discuss nicely with you although i have support from a reliable source, other contributors and administratorS, but since you insult me, i refuse to continue to argue with you.

Farawahar (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Well my reading and writing comprehension skills are pretty decent and not inapprehensible.. I didn't insult you so don't play that card, i stated that i can't take it other than an act of dishonesty by cutting substantial part of the administrator post and then presented to me in a misleading manner. I genuinely disliked the conduct.

The administrator made it pretty clear and even in his tone that it should be treated with caution. Moreover your tertiary source violate Wikipedia's policies:

• The distinction between tertiary and secondary sources is important, because WP:No original research policy states: "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

• Simple facts: A tertiary source is most often used for reference citations for basic and fairly trivial facts that are not likely to be disputed and can be verified in other sources. Examples include various vernacular names for a species, the pronunciation of a foreign word, or a baseball player's statistics in a particular year.

I've been anything but insulting this entire conversation, i took the effort and time to provide references and walk you through it, even explaining with patience how Al-Kindi being Arab is conclusively established.

But You somehow managed to cling firmly to unreliable tertiary source that you're incapable of verifying by secondary sources when asked multiple times! the policy is clear and explicit. Provide reliable materials. Simple. If not and you continued the disruptive edits, I will make sure to inform the Administrators.

Nabataeus (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Ethnicity

It seems that tertiary are reliables when they qualify as reliable sources (publisher/author/content)... So the source i propsed above is a reliable source. Farawahar (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of copyright material

I have deleted the body of the article which was a copyright violation of http://www.traditionalarabicmusic.com/The%20Old%20Masters/al_kindi.htm, http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/al-kindi and http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/al-kindi Flat Out (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? Prima facie, it looks like these are copying the WP page. You need to investigate the history of the page. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be as you describe, traditionalarabicmusic is clearly copying from Wikipedia. See [5] and compare to Ibn Bajjah. On the other hand I see no similarities/copyright violation with the source Muslimheritage. If it exist, then those identical parts should be deleted and not the entirety of the article. Nabataeus (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I ran the first url through the wayback machine and it appears you are right. Flat Out (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Contribution of yaqoob Al Kindi in physics

Concern 103.164.48.12 (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Consistency regarding ethnicity in lead

@Iskandar323 please maintain the consistency of the Avicenna page in accordance with MOS:ETHNICITY, here and on Averroes. If you are unable to, unlock the Avicenna page. شاه عباس (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

and Ibn Khaldun! شاه عباس (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS provides an exception based on whether the ethnicity is related to his notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

it was ruled that Avicenna's ethnicity is not related to his notability as he worked within an islamic milieu. Not a very sound argument but that's the ruling. For the sake of consistency it should be the same here. شاه عباس (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)