Talk:Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji

The editor of al-Bitruji's On the Principles of Astronomy notes that "His name would indicate that his forebears came from the town of Pecroches, north of Cordova." Another source associates him with Seville. In either case, he appears to be Spanish, rather than from Morocco. --SteveMcCluskey 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit:

• I removed his birthplace from the article because, from what I can tell, the only sources that tend to mention his birthplace are either too old, written by non specialists, or they do so in passing. The reliable sources that deal specifically with his biography make it quite clear that we have no idea where or when he was born.^[1][2][3]
• Per WP:SIDEBAR, the sidebar does not belong in this article.
• I also restored the word Spanish (since that's what's attributed to the source) and removed the link from the word "Arab".

M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

M.Bitton, Agreed. I reverted user History21st two times for the same reasons you gave above. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji

Hello

this article should be restored to March 5th 2018‎ version by "Viaros17" please. There was a forced edit from some members.

sources for birthplace and nationality:

Spanish source:
Link 1

English sources:
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

French sources:
Link 5
Link 6(page 443)

Arabic source:
Link 7

Also, in line 2 of Viaros17's version, Spanish-Arab, should be replaced by Moroccan, as Spain did not exist as a country at that time, Andalusia was under Almohad rule and Moroccans are ethnically berbers not arabs. Thank you

Like I said before: the only sources that tend to mention his birthplace do so either in passing, are too old or are written by non specialists. The above are not exception, therefore this non consensual edit will be reverted. I also restored the above "2018" heading (please do not delete someone else's edit in the TP). M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

how did you decide they were unreliable sources? and what consensus are you talking about? you came and edited an article by force and asked your friend to come and say "i agree".--History21st (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

your friend to come and say "i agree" What makes you believe that Wikaviani is my friend or that I asked them to do anything? As for the consensus, I suggest you read this edit summary by the admin (Number 57) who blocked you for what you're doing again. M.Bitton (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

this discussion was initiated since 10 days and you waited until I modified the article to answer. I've brought enough sources that supports my argument, Now this article should be restored to a previous version because there is really no consensus like I said. You cannot force edits this way. and seeing that you decided all alone that all those sources were unreliable we're going to have to ask @Number 57: to intervene. --History21st (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@History21st: Let me see if i got this one straight, so, according to you, this edit, where you remove J. Vernet, an eminent specialist of medieval Islam, to replace it with Michael Maunder, the author of "Transit When Planets Cross the Sun" is legit ? Typical behavior of a WP:NOTHERE "editor" with serious WP:CIR issues. You said you will ask to Number 57 to intervene ? this shows your lack of knowledge about Wiki rules. Usually, administrators don't intervene to support one side in a content dispute, there are other ways to solve this kind of disputes. But administrators can block users who keep edit warring (just like you) in order to push their POV using unreliable sources. Last but not least, i'm not M.Bitton's friend, i just try to work together with any user who is here to build an encyclopedia.

@M.Bitton: I think that if this disruptive editor keeps going on edit warring and removing reliable sources to replace them by unreliable sources in order to push his POV, it will be up to admins to deal with him, so i advise you to avoid wasting your time, just report him at the edit warring noticeboard if he keeps reverting (or just ping me if you need me to do so, i was the one who reported him in june). Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

oh here's the backup. 1st of all, before any edits in article you should propose what you want to edit in the talk page and leave enough time for it to be discussed and after a consensus is found the article can be edited...that's not what you did. 2) I'm asking an administrator's intervention in order to restore the article to a prior version( before you and your friend's attack) because there is no consensus like I said. restore doesn't mean support one side over the other it means in political terms "statu quo ante bellum" (the bellum you provoked).3)you talk about j vernet ok what about dr Akram Zahoor? I know only the sources you bring are reliable not mine. 4) how about the multiple french sources talking about Noureddine written centuries ago. they are all wrong I know, only the sources you bring are truthful.5) this place is not a place to talk to your friend or give him advice, you should use his talk page for that. --History21st (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here we go ... Ok, let's take an accurate look at your "sources" :

Link 1 : it's an atlas of photos of the moon how is it reliable about a medieval muslim scholar ?

Link 2 : Who's A. Bala ? what are his skills that make him a reliable source for a this topic ?

Link 3 : Unpublished material, how is this reliable for this topic ?

Link 4 : Already stated above, who is Michael Maunder ? What are his skills that make him reliable for this topic ?

Link 5 : an outdated book by M. Bailly who appears to be "un Garde honoraire"... How is this outdated source reliable here ?

Link 6 : "BULLETIN DES SCIENCES MATHÉMATIQUES ET ASTRONOMIQUES", written by "H. B." (who's that guy/lady ???) Again, an outdated 19th century (1878) source which has no specialization about a medieval muslim scholar.

Link 7 : I don't speak Arabic, but this one appears to be a random website "http://andalushistory.com", how is this website (by whom ?) a reliable source for this topic ?

Looks like none of these sources is reliable for this topic, or at least, none of them can challenge J. Vernet here...

Finally, it seems that you were right when you said above "they are all wrong I know" ...

You want to find an admin to step in and deal with this ? fine, be my guest, go ahead and if you need any help just ping me, i'll gladly help you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

you forgot to mention Akram Zahoor. unreliable also. but the most reliable one is Vernet who's mentioning spain which did not exist at that time. we don't know where he is born but we know he's spanish. nice one.(while that part of actual Spain was part of Morocco at that time see map. link 7 you got the sources at the bottom of the page( مركز بغداد لعلوم الفلك والفضاء، عدنان احمد العبدرواد علم الفلك ، على بن عبد الله الدفاع فضل الإسلام على الحضارة الغربية، مونتجومرى وات ترجمه حسين أحمد أمين ) still unreliable. they are not helping my point of view therefore unreliable. --History21st (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

"you forgot to mention Akram Zahoor" : wrong, Zahoor is your link number 3, i mentioned it above but since it's an unpublished material, it's not reliable.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

what about link 7's sources? how about another source(link 8)--History21st (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

link seems unavailable online (here is a screenshot)--History21st (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Link 7 is a random website as i said above, it's not published reliable specialized material. Link 8 is a book by Benoit Patar, a philosopher : [1], therefore, it's unreliable for this topic. You need to provide a reliable published source from a historian specialized in medieval Islamic history. Definitely, you have to read WP:RS.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wikaviani: I would also like to stress that any sources put forward, to challenge J. Vernet's version, will additionally have to contend with "the Encyclopaedia of Islam", the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Science, and Technology in Islam" and Bernard R. Goldstein M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ibn Qattuta: with regard to your sources: what do they say about the subject? Please start by providing the page numbers. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

:*Source: Bertone, G. (2021). A Tale of Two Infinities: Gravitational Waves and the Quantum Origin of the Universe's Biggest Mysteries. Royaume-Uni: Oxford University Press.

• Page number:107
• Here is what it says: "Al Bitruji, an astronomer born in the 11th century in present-day Morocco and active in Arab Spain, tries to get rid of the epicycles of the Ptolemaic system by proposing the existence of a substance that drags all the planets in its movement, and whose intensity decreases from the sphere of the fixed stars towards the lower planets. Al Bitruji's model does not allow the precise calculation of the motion of the planets, but it will long serve as an example of a possible alternative to the Ptolemaic model."

Ibn Qattuta (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

That's a passing mention by a physicist. what makes you think that it would trump all the reliable sources that are about the subject? M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

So are we going to just neglect the fact that we're dealing with a source which is published by Oxford University press, one of the most reliable publishers so far? I understand that it was written by a physicist, but that doesn't mean it will present false historical information. I'm pretty sure that it was fact-checked before it was published. Ibn Qattuta (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

Your response tells me that you haven't really read the previous discussion and what was said about sources by non specialists and those that simply mention him in passing (in this case, we have both, making the sources unreliable for the claim). M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

i have read it, i just disagree. A non specialized source isn't necessarily unreliable, especially when it's published by reliable publishers. Anyway we let it as it is now untill we find 'better' sources. (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)

Regarding your edit, you have reverted 6 edits i made, in one of which i replaced "Iberian" with "Andalusian", i think this point wasn't discussed before. You also removed a ref that i added. Can you explain why? Ibn Qattuta (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

You added useless blank spaces and a redundant source. He is described as Spanish-Arab, so Iberian-Arab, while not strictly adhering to the source, is the closest to it without engaging in needless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you think that the term "Andalusian" is my original research i'd like to say you're wrong. He's described as Andalusian in many other sources, such as

• this one: Samsó, Julio (2007). "Biṭrūjī: Nūr al‐Dīn Abū Isḥāq [Abū Jaʿfar] Ibrāhīm ibn Yūsuf al‐Biṭrūjī". In Thomas Hockey; et al. (eds.). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers. New York: Springer. pp. 133–4. ISBN 978-0-387-31022-0.
• And this one: The Oxford History of Islam. (1999). États-Unis: Oxford University Press. Ibn Qattuta (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

I didn't say that it was you original research. I suggest you read what I wrote about the used source. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, i misunderstood you. In any case, "Iberian" is not accurate, "Andalusian" is. That's what i meant. I'd like to hear your comment about the sources i just cited. Ibn Qattuta (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

Not when it comes to ethnicity. It's either that or Spanish-Arab. In any case, what needed to be said I don't intend on discussing this further. M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well then we should simply use the term 'Arab Andalusian' to describe him, much like Averroes, Avempace, and Ibn Tufayl, all of whom lived around the same time as Al Bitruji. Ibn Qattuta (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

We don't have to, but we can (I guess). M.Bitton (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Does this mean that we have reached a consensus? Shall i make the edit? Ibn Qattuta (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

If you want. M.Bitton (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. What should i do with the source there? Shall i remove it? Or just keep it and add the other sources i already mentioned on this discussion? Ibn Qattuta (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

@M.Bitton, I think we should remove "Arab" from the lead per MOS:Ethnicity. "Andalusian" is more than enough for me. Ibn Qattuta (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)Reply

I don't see why not. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply