Talk:Nasir al-Din al-Tusi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clayerone, Díkopos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates

So the article says "born 18 February 1201 in Ṭūs, Khorasan – died on 26 June 1274" and the stamps say "2001 Azerbaijani stamp for the 800th anniversary of his birth." (OK, that fits) and "1956 Iranian stamp for the 700th anniversary of his death." (no, that doesn't fit). Although the stamp does indeed say its the 700th anniversary of his death William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As per your second comment, the stamp from Iran is not from 1956 it is from the Iranian year 1356 which is roughly 1976. --108.18.145.11 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have found a stamp from the republic of Azerbaijan that should solve our problem:[1]
• As per Iranian stamps..right now the Iranian calendar is 1391 and the Western one is 2012. So it makes for the authorities to have issued the stamp in 1355/1356 (1975/1976) period. The user that uploaded that stamp does not read Persian. It may be remotely possible that the stamp was issued

ahead of Tusi's 700th year passing away but highly doubtful. So good catch and I will ask that user to double check.--108.18.145.11 (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Real vandalizm is your non impartial, biased, and emotional nationalistic approach

Your action is a vandalism! ı am not offering or proving that Nasir al-Din is Azerbaijani Turk. I am giving an idea, an information that there are certain scientists and historians (with correct references to journal and monographs) about Nasir al-Din and Azerbaijan. And you have not right not include or delete opinions based on big number of publications if you do not like them (you action contradicts totally the rules of Wikipedia. So please return all sentences and references I have introduced into this article. --User:Nejati Babak

None of the sources you refer to are reliable as none of the authors are historians (and thus not authoritative on the subject), cf. WP:RS. In addition, they are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore, reputable sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica and people that lived the same time as al-Tusi claim the exact opposite of the references you added. Since the references make an extraordinary claim not backed by any reputable source, I vote to remove them (cf. WP:RS). Borek 9 (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The weak and baseless claim must be removed, as they are unknown and make a ridiculous claim about Tusi being Turk without any reliable source. All reliable and authoritative references, both modern and contemporary, explicitly call him Persian. There is no base in claiming or "suggesting" (read: pushing) a Turkic background. The "information" that Nejati is offering is useless, baseless, and wrong. I second Borek9 vote to delete those sentences. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Religious Contribution

I think there should be a section for his religious Contribution.

does anybody has some knowledge about the books he wrote on religion --Mutawassam (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rescuing Manuscripts from the Library of Baghdad

On the House_of_Wisdom page it is claimed al-Tusi managed to rescue 400,000 manuscripts from it before the Mongols destroyed it. It is not mentioned at all on this page. Perhaps it is worth mentioning? 2001:44B8:31C8:FD00:313E:8954:420F:E563 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but it would be good to have independent verification that the source (The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance (2010, ISBN 978-1-60819-058-4) by Jim Al-Khalili) supports it, and to see if there are further details. Where do you think the incident should be mentioned: in the last paragraph of the Biography section, perhaps?—Odysseus1479 06:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

3.2 Biology and evolution (citation needed)?

All of the "Biology and evolution" section give the same non peer reviewed article as a source and that article only makes wage references to “Akhlaq-i-Nasri” (Nasirean Ethics).

I think that, that section should be removed unless someone can give sources from peer reviewed journal or directly from the “Akhlaq-i-Nasri” (Nasirean Ethics). Agge.se (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think so too. The claims are based entirely on two pages of the "Azerbaijan International". To my understanding, this might be popular science not based in actual facts; see WP:RS. The passages that are cited here seem to be from some recent translation of Tusi's main work (on ethics, not biology!); there may be mistranslations and quoting out of context, cobbled together in a way that a reader is led to believe Tusi was writing about evolution in a time when such a term wasn't even conceived. I'm not contesting Tusi's deep insights, but they were along natural philosophy, not putting forth a scientific theory. He certainly wasn't the "12th century Darwin" like some editors want us believe. It's a peculiar cross-section of oriental studies, history and biology, so it may take some time to verify/peer-review all these claims and put them in their proper context. --Enyavar (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Nesireddin Tusi is Azerbaijani and it dosen't change Erus (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

See above and in the archives of this page for previous discussions of the question, which include indications that Azerbaijani identity is an anachronism for the period anyway. If reliable sources to support the claim can be produced, there may be a place for it in the article, but merely saying so is not going to convince anybody, particularly in the face of numerous references that say he was Persian without qualification.—Odysseus1479 23:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No sources, Erus97?

• Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. Ian Richard Netton, page 663, AL-TUSI,. NASIR. AL-DIN. (AD. 1201–74). Persian Shi'ite scholar, writing in Persian and Arabic. Al-Tusi's early career was spent as court astrologer..
• Tusi, Nasir al-Din. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 27 December 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nasir-al-Din-al-Tusi>. b)Arthur Goldschmidt, Lawrence Davidson. "A Concise History of the Middle East", Westview Press, 2009. ninth edition, pg 127: "Hulegu, contrite at the damage he had wrought, patronized the great Persian scholar, Nasiruddin Tusi (died 1274), who saved the lives of many other scientists and artists, accumulated a library of 400000 volumes, and built an astronomical .."
• Nanne Pieter George Joosse, Bar Hebraeus, A Syriac encyclopaedia of Aristotelian philosophy: Barhebraeus (13th c.), Butyrum sapientiae, books of ethics, economy, and politics: a critical edition, with introduction, translation, commentary, and glossaries, Published by Brill, 2004. excerpt: "the famous Persian scholar Nasir al-Din Tusi"
• Seyyed H. Badakhchani. Contemplation and Action: The Spiritual Autobiography of a Muslim Scholar: Nasir al-Din Tusi (In Association With the Institute of Ismaili Studies. I. B. Tauris (December 3, 1999). ISBN 1-86064-523-2. page.1: "Nasir al-Din Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Hasan Tusi:, the renowned Persian astronomer, philosopher and theologian.

Check the article, there are plenty more sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Contribution in trigonometry

← Previous edit User talk:William M. Connolley 764 BYTES REMOVED, 5 MINUTES AGO →‎Nasir al-din a-Tusi: please put this on the article talk page, where it belongs

Courtesy notice: I asked for clarification on blanking policy at ANI. permlink ☆ Bri (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nasir al-din a-Tusi

Hi, Nasir al-din al-Tusi is the first one to work on trigonometry as an independent branch of mathematics :

http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380188236_Echi.pdf,"An important mathematical contribution of al-Tusi was the creation of trigonometry as a mathematical discipline in its own right rather than as just a tool for astronomical applications. In “Treatise on the quadrilateral", al-Tusi gave the first extant exposition of the whole system of plane and spherical trigonometry. This work is really the first in history on trigonometry as an independent branch of pure Mathematics." ^ http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Al-Tusi_Nasir.html,"One of al-Tusi's most important mathematical contributions was the creation of trigonometry as a mathematical discipline in its own right rather than as just a tool for astronomical applications. In Treatise on the quadrilateral al-Tusi gave the first extant exposition of the whole system of plane and spherical trigonometry. This work is really the first in history on trigonometry as an independent branch of pure mathematics and the first in which all six cases for a right-angled spherical triangle are set forth."

If you look at Al-Khwarizmi, he is considered to be the father of algebra because he is the first to recognize algebra as an independent discipline... So why can't we consider al-Tusi as the founder of modern trigonometry ? Or at least we should write in the article that he " created trigonometry as a mathematical discipline in its own right" as stated in many relible sources (i reported above two reliable sources stating so...). Thanks for yor answers Farawahar (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

He is considered as the founder of modern trigonometry...

User:Farawahar wasn't happy [2] with [3], writing:

If you look at Al-Khwarizmi, he is considered to be the father of algebra because he is the first to recognize algebra as an independent discipline... So why can't we consider al-Tusi as the founder of modern trigonometry?

The answer is that vague "founder of" or "father of" claims are WP:PEACOCK and best avoided, especially if you have no refs saying so. Quite what "modern" trigonometry might be is also vague William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, now that I investigate the claim he is considered to be the father of algebra, I find that it is false: the article makes the rather weaker claim He is often considered one of the fathers of algebra William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so what about saying what the source states ? I mean "he created trigonometry as a mathematical discipline in its own right" ? About Al-Khwarizmi, this is what is said in his article:

"J. J. O'Conner and E. F. Robertson wrote in the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive:

Perhaps one of the most significant advances made by Arabic mathematics began at this time with the work of al-Khwarizmi, namely the beginnings of algebra."

So he is considered as the one who, with his work, "beginned algebra"...

Farawahar (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubious statements about evolution

I agree with the opinion, mentioned above, that the "Biology and evolution" section is rather dubious (POV).

The statements and quotations in that section are based on a contribution by Farid Alakbarli (2001) to the magazine Azerbaijan International. I have compared them with the only available English translation of the Nasirean Ethics, by George Michael Wickens (1964). I have no qualification to judge the quality of the two translations; all I can tell is that Wickens's (1964) translation has been published by Allen & Unwin in the "UNESCO Collection of Representative Works, Persian Series", while Alakbarli's (2001) translated excerpts have been published in what seems to be a popular magazine. Besides, none of the two authors seems to have any formal (academic) education in biology.

I cannot find any corroboration in Wickens (1964) for the evolutionary interpretation provided by Alakbarli (2001). The latter states in his article that "the term 'takamul', which means 'perfection' [...,] now means 'evolution'". This statement, however, begs the question of whether, 600 years ago, Tusi indeed used takamul to express what we today call "evolution".

The section has four quotations from the Nasirean Ethics. Three of them I have been able to locate in Wicken's (1964) translation (First Discourse, First Division, Fourth Section; i.e. pp. 43–48). The results are as follows:

1. Hereditary variability: I have been unable to locate this sentence or any references to hereditary variability. Since I didn't read the entire book, I may simply have overlooked it. Alternatively, Alakbarli's (2001) translation is too different from Wickens's (1964) to identify the sentence.
2. Adaptation: Tusi does not state that animals are able to adapt, but rather that they are adapted. No change at all seems to be implied by Tusi's wording. The difference is comparable to Paley's natural theology versus Darwin's evolution: both agree that animals are adapted. While Paley (and, it seems to me, Tusi) assumed that animals are created as adapted beings, Darwin argued that animals become adapted in the course of time.
3. Three types of living things: many philosophers throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages have recognised plants, animals, and humans as "three types of living things". No evolutionary thinking can be inferred from this fact, which is just as compatible with essentialism.
4. Human evolution: where Alakbarli (2001) translates, "Such humans [probably anthropoid apes] live in the Western Sudan and other distant corners of the world," Wickens's (1964, p. 46) translation states, "Such are the peoples dwelling on the fringes of the inhabited world, like the negroes in the West [endnote 175: manand-i sudan-i maghrib. The reference is, of course, to Africa generally, albeit to North Africa in particular.] and others, for the movements and actions of the likes of this type correspond to the actions of animals." It is, at best, unclear why "humans" or "negroes" should be interpreted as "anthropoid apes". More importantly, Tusi describes how humans are similar to animals, not how they evolved from animals. ("This [learning by imitation] is the utmost of the animal degrees, and the first of the degrees of Man is contiguos therewith", p. 46.) The idea that higher animals are similar to man, entailed by Aristotle's scala naturae, has been accepted by many thinkers, such as Linnaeus, who explicitly rejected evolution.

To summarise: while I cannot rule out Alakbarli's (2001) interpretation with anything close to certainty, I think the burden of proof is upon those who argue that Tusi assumed species to evolve. In the relevant chapter of the Nasirean Ethics, I could not find any sentence that unambiguously supports this view. True enough, Tusi describes how species vary, in the sense of differing from each other, and that individuals of some animal species are able to increase their "perfection" through learning. Nothing of this entails that Tusi believed species to change through time, however, which would be the minimal precondition for calling his views evolutionary.

It is not Wikipedia's task to find out whether Alakbarli's interpretation of Tusi is correct, but merely whether it is argued well enough to be mentioned. As I see it, the quotations are compatible with Alakbarli's evolutionary interpretation, but do not support it to the exclusion of a stationary (non-evolutionary) interpretation. I therefore suggest the following changes to the section:

• Evolution is removed from the section title.
• References to evolution, adaptation and heredity are removed from the text, except mentioning that some scholars (viz., Alakbarli 2001) have given an evolutionary interpretation to Tusi's writing.
• The quotations are replaced by Wickens's (1964) translations.
• The first quotation is removed, unless someone can identify it in Wickens (1964).

Before carrying out these changes, I would like to encourage other users to express any disagreements or doubts.

Best wishes, Hanno (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The section looks to be the usual rubbish introduced by user:Jagged 85 [4]. Nothing he did can be trusted, even things referenced are often false or exaggerated William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily have to delete the entire section. Tusi has obviously written very insightful about biological subjects (this is also clear from Wickens's translation). It is only that I couldn't find any evidence supporting the claim that he was an early evolutionist. Hanno (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have now (re)inserted a section about biology, emphasising Tusi's contributions to descriptive biology, and using quotations from Wickens's (1964) translation. Evolution is mentioned as an interpretation only. Hanno (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Good work. Tusi is deservedly a famous figure in the history of science, and he doesn't need flaky claims to support his reputation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up here. Good to know that my request in 2016 wasn't in vain. --Enyavar (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible Legacy/Influence on Copernicus

Hello, I was going to add a small section under legacy about how he may have influenced Copernicus' mathematical model of the solar system. There's enough evidence in publications to warrant a discussion about it and it's an interesting point of contingency to elaborate on. Below is a list of authors and publications I'll use for it.

• Nosonovsky, Michael. "Abner of Burgos: The Missing Link between Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Nicolaus Copernicus?"
  
• Morrison, Robert. "A Scholarly Intermediary between the Ottoman Empire and Renaissance Europe"
  
• Hartner, Willy. "Copernicus, the Man, the Work, and Its History".
  
• Pedersen, Olaf "Early Physics and Astronomy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayerone (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Rabin, Sheila (2004-11-30). "Nicolaus Copernicus".
  
• Veselovsky, I. N. "Copernicus and Nasīr Al-DĪn AL-TŪSĪ".
  

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Khaje nasir toosi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi siding the Mongols section

Hi, I was reading about how Tusi sided with the Mongols during the siege of Baghdad and how in fact the funding for his observatory was a reward for his help. Can we have a section on this, please. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.199.31 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

More sources for contribution to the conservation of mass

All over Wikipedia a single source source has been used to say that al-Tusi contributed to an earlier version of the conservation of mass. I do not know if it is even true or not but certainly a better source is needed.

Nasir al-Din Tusi and Tusi

Those who are interested in removing Nasir al-Din Tusi and Tusi and their Persian text from the lead or otherwise moving them into a footnote can write here. Note that these names are used in various reliable sources, some of which are cited in the article. He has lived in empires where Persian was the official language. Additionally consider that he has written in both Arabic and Persian. Premitive (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

We should also consider that the page of Saudi Arabia still reads "The Saudi government[169][170][171] and the royal family[172][173][174] have often been accused of corruption over many years,[175] and this continues into the 21st century." Surely removing this should have a higher priority than removing Persian names and translations from this page? There does not seem to be a logical reason to remove Persian names or translations from the lead. They should not be censored. (per cluttering the lead or similar reasons) Premitive (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)