Talk:Averroes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vonaurum's reorganisation

Changed the section "Significance" and added the section "System of Philosophy." The following paragraph had some problems discussed below.

"Before 1150 only a few Latin translations of Aristotle existed in Europe, and they were not studied much or given much credence by monastic scholars. With the rise of scholasticism came a renewed interest in Aristotle the ancient master of basic logic, which was appealing to scholastic methods and its focus on logic. When Averroes's Latin translations were discovered, they were of high quality, clear, accurate and intellecturally sophisticated. He not only translated, but made commentaries that were so good, they could form a philosophical work of their own. "

Averroes did not write in Latin, his influence in the West was due to the fact that his books were translated in Latin. Also Averroes' work was not "discovered" in the West, they were transmitted to the West. Also some translations of Aristotle did exist but Averroes's work was more readily recieved in the West beacuse his commentories bypassed Neopatonic interpreations of Aristotle prevalent at the time. --Vonaurum 20:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good points and edits. My understanding is that after the defeat of Moorish Spain, western scholars indeed did discover his work in the libraries there, and through initial translations from Arabic to Latin, introduced the west to the works of Aristotle. I have a book that discusses this with places, names and dates of these initial translations.Stbalbach 19:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Republic

Why no mention of his treatise on Plato's Republic? User:Devtrash 23:55, 10 June 2006

Thanks for the note. I've just added it to the "significance" section. -- Szvest 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Permission for translation into Spanish

I ask for permission to translate parts of the article for the Spanish version. The problem I see in this article is, that there doesn't seem to be main authors of the article, so I don't know exactly how I should indicate the credits of the authors of the original article. I have already translated some article about metaphysics from the German version, but there there are to main authors of that article. So after consulting them, I indicated : "translated from the German-Wikipedia version from M. Mueller and H. Erwin" (it appears then under "history") . How do you recommend me to comment an eventual translation from this article into Spanish?
Carmen Zavala www.zavala.de/carmen -[User:Philocarmen (contribs) 00:22, 16 May 2006]

You don't need permission, so feel free to just translate. It might be helpful to just leave a note in your Edit summary saying the text is a translation from the English Wikipedia, but you don't need to cite it or anything. FranksValli 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of "Averroes"

I can't find in the article that it's explained how his (very different) Arabic name got converted to the name "Averroes." What is the etymology of this name? Badagnani 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Latin translations of his works were mostly made from Hebrew. "Ibn Rushd" transliterated into Hebrew could equally be read "Aven Reshed" or "Aven Roshed", as Hebrew print does not normally show vowels and b and v are interchangeable (in both Hebrew and Spanish). Spanish Christians blurring their consonants might then pronounce this as "Averrosh" or "Averros". It then needed to be made declinable in Latin, so "Averroës" emerges as the final product. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Averroes did not author Al-Bayān

In the article, it mentions that Ibn Rushd wrote his famous "Bidāyat al-Mujtahid" and also "al-Bayān wa’l-Taḥṣīl, wa’l-Sharḥ wa’l-Tawjīh wa’l-Ta`līl fi Masā’il al-Mustakhraja", but this is incorrect. The author of the latter text was Abī al-Walīd Ibn Rushd al-Jadd - the grandfather, and not Abī al-Walīd Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd - the grandson, Averroes. The respective articles on Ibn Rushd and Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd in the Brill published Encyclopedia of Islam clearly gives this citation of authorship, as do many other peer-reviewed journal articles, so it is well established unless anyone else has information to the contrary?

He did, however, write a text which was an abridgement and commentary on Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī's famous text on Islamic jurisprudence, "al-Mustaṣfā" which has been published recently. It is entitled "Al-Ḍarūrī fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh aw Mukhtaṣar al-Mustaṣfā" [The Necessary in Islamic Jurisprudence or Abridgement of al-Mustaṣfā], published recently by Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī in 1994, but only available in Arabic as far as I know.

This could be a very interesting addition because it shows that at least when younger (when this text was written), this supposed antagonism between Ibn Rushd and Al-Ghazālī did not exist. Indeed, he refers to Ghazālī as "Abū Ḥāmid", which can be taken as a sign of affection and respect, or else a more formal title would have been used.

Sorry if I have done anything incorrect, I am new to Wikipedia and not quite sure how best to share information. =) Dawooddren (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers

25-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I dated/named some unsigned comments above. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a terrible idea. [Removed.] There are already date stamps on the posts and conversations like these happen over years. No need to start new sections when the same topics have been dealt with before. — LlywelynII

Clarifying text

25-Oct-2008: I have revised the wording slightly, mostly adding several commas, to clarify the phrasing. In several sections, the wording of the article seems cumbersome; however, I don't think a major rewrite would improve the concepts, which are relatively complex, no matter what phrasing is used. Instead, I think just adding commas, or a few extra words, can help clarify. Also, using just small alterations/commas can help avoid changing the meaning, which might occur if more extensive rewrites were attempted for those concepts. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Averroes Banned?

I think it should specify banned to or from what (German Wikipedia says to Lucena but I don´t have any sources on that). ABMvandeBult (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Lyons, The House of Wisdom around pg 25. (I read it in another language). My own translation of pg 254 ( with help of google translate): "In 1195 Averroës fell into disgrace and was banished from Cordoba to the predominantly Jewish city of Lucena"

About his death: María Rosa Menocal, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain, pg 239. (I read this one also in another language.)

My own translation of pg 239( with help of google translate): "In his own country and within his own culture Averroës was less warmly received. He died under suspicious circumstances in Marrakesh, but almost certainly after the Almohads had placed him under house arrest. This was in many ways the symbolic end of a typical aspect of Al-Andalus."

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia ever. If I have broken any rules by using citations and translations, then I apologize and please erase my contribution therefore. 91.182.67.154 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 139 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd: 36 edits). The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here, here or here. I restored the article to the last pre-Jagged version of 14 June 2007, keeping most of the lead and the entire section "biography" and "works" as well as "list of works". Categories, templates, interwiki links plus "further reading" and "external links" are also kept, whereas the infobox has been restored to pre-Jagged status. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Commentator

Is there a need for this redirect? It seems that Aquinas was the only one calling him that. Was this his nickname (or, at least, the name he had been known during his lifetime)? If not, I suggest the redirection to be erased. 89.110.205.39 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It can't hurt. Later commentators called him The Commentator, so it's plausible that someone could type in the nickname looking for Averroes. It should stay unless someone else sufficiently notable is also known by that nickname, in which case it should become a disambiguation page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Others were called The Commentator also. Basically, if you were discussing a commented edition of Aristotle, you would refer to Aristotle as the philosopher and the commentator -- Averroes or Alexander or whomever -- as, well, the commentator. Mccaskey (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Influence of Political Philosophy

I'm removing

Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic has played a major role in both the transmission and the adaptation of the Platonic tradition in the West. It has been a primary source in medieval political philosophy.

because I can't find any reference or evidence for this view. Also, I find evidence for the contrary here. There were no translations or ... "as late as in the sixteenth century (such as Averroes' Commentary on Plato’s Republic)" Jason from nyc (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of New World

I can't find the reference for this:

Averroes was one of those who predicted the existence of a new world beyond the Atlantic Ocean.

There doesn't seem to be anything on al Jazzera (via the link or via their search engine). The above statement has become viral on the web from this wikipedia article. One would like to verify the claim. I'm aware that Averroes read Plato's theory of Atlantis. Could that be the reference? Does anyone have further information? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes in the Philosophy Section

I’ve started work on the Philosophy section with several additions and a few changes. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I added “The Tradition of Islamic Philosophy” section. In this section I explain how Averroes advanced the tradition. This is fairly standard and I’ve referenced several diverse writers in the secondary literature.

I discuss in this section Averroes’ difference on the question of the nature of universals and Aristotle’s ontology. I worry this is too technical for Wikipedia but there are amble hyperlinks to good Wiki articles that explain the technical terms. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro to the “Commentaries on Aristotle and Plato” and cited an article in a source book on Arab Philosophy. I only discuss Averroes’ commentary on Plato’s Republic. Since the Republic is discussed in detail in the article on Plato’s Republic, I mention very little about the work. I only want to convey that Averroes’ understood and respected Plato’ work. One could add where he disagreed if someone wants to add more.

There is still amble philosophical commentaries to discuss: logic, epistemology, rhetoric, poetics, and ethics. I’ll leave that to others. I don’t think I’ll have time to return to this work in the near term. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Averroes

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Averroes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Topdemir-77":

• From Alhazen: (Topdemir 2007a, p. 77)
• From Rainbow: Topdemir, Hüseyin Gazi (2007). "Kamal Al-Din Al-Farisi's Explanation of the Rainbow" (PDF). Humanity & Social Sciences Journal. 2 (1): 75–85 [77]. Retrieved 2008-09-16.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace: Spain or the Almoravid Empire

considering these changes, I consensus has to be sought.

I ask user:Jason from nyc, before ongoing in his PoV (since it considers that Cordoba was a "Spanish city", as claimed by the Catholics while it was under Muslim/North-African rule), to read the centralized discussion to remember him that there's no "WP standard" for this case, then the only way to edit Averroes' birthplace this was is to seek for a new consensus.

For my side, I oppose any anachronism, as a person born in the Inca empire can't be considered as "Born in Peru", a person born in Muslim Iberia can't be considered as "Born in Spain".

Thanks in advance. Omar-Toons (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The wiki discussion that you referred to is about contemporary individuals (mostly from the former Soviet Union) where there are vastly different conventions due to continuous changes as we live through them. Averroes is a historical figure in which there are centuries of literature devoted to his life and thought. Thus, Averroes’ situation isn’t changing. The scholarship is fairly stable with advances adding incrementally. I used references to the literature, not my own point of view or my own theory. The overwhelming number of books and articles refers to his birth as Cordoba Spain and place of death as Marrakesh, Morocco (as you recently added). I have references to the literature but you only gave your theory. Even if I agree with your theory, it doesn’t change the fact that Wikipedia depends on the secondary literature and not our point of view. I suggest that you not change my edit until we reach a consensus.Jason from nyc (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus has to be reached starting from the stable version, i.e. the consensual one.

Since you are the one who edited the "stable" version, you are the one who has to seek for a new consensus. Thanks for understanding that.

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw, it is right that we have to change the death place to "Marrakech, Almoravid Empire"... or maybe not, maybe the birth place should be "Cordoba, then under Moroccan rule"?

Otherwise, the same kind of issues, related to French Algeria, was discussed many times on ANI and the result was that, event if sources describe some people as "Born in Algeria", it will be an anachronism and then it should be mentioned "Born in French Algeria". Please consider also WP:SURPRISE.

Btw, please don't mixup between secondary sources as sources of content and secondary sources as PoV argumentation.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The previous version was unsourced and can be removed as per WP:UNSOURCED:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.

Your version had no reliable sources. It remained there for six months since the last edit and no source was found. I looked for a source and found that most scholars state that he was born in Cordoba, Spain. Thus, I correct it and added not just one but two references. You continue to removed referenced material and substitute POV material. You don't even attempt to address the question of sources or references. Removing unsourced material is proper and allowable by anyone for any reason or no reason. The burden of proof is on you to provide sources. Since I have, my version should remain until a consensus is reached by examining competing sources. Since you have no sources, you have no argument. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As it can be seen on similar people's articles (e.g those born in Byzantine Empire/present-day Turkey, Prussia/present-day Poland Alsace/present-day France etc) the convention on the English Wikipedia is to put constituent country at the time of birth. Thus, we have to be consistent and stick with it. WP:Verifiability has NOTHING to do with this so quoting another source is futile, everyone has their conventions; some go with the present-day country others go with the country at the time of birth. English Wikipedia belongs to the latter category and there is no reason to treat this article any different. Last time this was discussed, the consensus was to put present-day Spain between brackets for those who'd be confused about it so, I'm a reverting to this stable/consensual version pending a new consensus WP:BRD. --Tachfin (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's the policy, that's fine with me but I'd like to see some evidence of this. Where is it written? Second, I'd like to see some discussion of how to apply this to non-Western history where the nation-state wasn't the organizing principle. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at other Muslim philosophers and scientists tells me this convention isn’t followed for Islamic history. Avicenna is born in ‘’Afshana, near Bukhara (capital of Samanid Empire), in present day Uzbekistan’’ and died in ‘’Hamadan, Persia‘’. Al-Farabi was born in ‘’Faryāb in Khorāsān or Otrār in Central Asia‘’ and died in ‘‘Damascus’’. Al-Razi was born in ‘’Rey, Persia‘’. Abu Rayhan Biruni was born in ‘’Khwarazm, Samanid Persia (modern-day Uzbekistan)’’. Al-Ghazali was born in ‘’Tus, modern-day Iran’’. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I ask administrators to consider blocking Omar-Toons for violating the WP:3RR rule. He has repeatedly reverted my edit and now has reverted Tachfin's edit as Tachfin and I try to reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop chating on that! You wrote on the edit summary that you reverted the article to Tachfin's version, while you just deleted the link to the Almoravid Empire on the infobox.

There was a stable version, you edited it before seeking for a consensus, then you are the one who has to justify his editings, not me or Tachfin.

Omar-Toons (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What consensus? I don’t see any consensus. I don’t see any discussion. Nor do I see adherence to conventions used through out Wikipedia. Idi Amin was born in Koboko Uganda, not Koboko, Uganda, British Empire. William Eldon Tucker was born in Hamilton, Bermuda not Hamilton, Bermuda, British Empire. Justinian I was born in Tauresium, Dardania not Tauresium, Dardania, Byzantine Empire. His wife Theodora was born in Cyprus, not Cyprus, Byzantine Empire. Pope John II was born in Rome, not Rome, Roman Empire. An Empire is a rule over several lands. It is not a Wikipedia convention to use an Empire as a birth place. You guys are making this up. There is no consensus. There’s only neglect. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's non-sense. First, Cordoba wasn't a Colony, nor a dependence of a geopolitical entity that disappeared.

A more appropriate example for comparison would be Johannes Gutenberg, born in Mainz, Electorate of Mainz, not Germany.

The use on WP is that when a version is stable for a long time (2 years for this article), editing it to can be considered as a non-consensual editing, since that means that the user who made this editing doesn't agree with all the users who participated to the redaction of that article during these 2 years.

And, again, Spain didn't exist at this time, then he can't be considered as born in a country that doesn't exist (that's what we call "anachronism").

Omar-Toons (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I gave several examples where the larger "empire" was not part of the birth place. You give me one faulty example that's telling. Gutenberg was born in Mainz, Electorate of Mainz, not Mainz, Electorate of Mainz, Holy Roman Empire. Again, an empire is not the location. The modern nation-state arose after the Peace of Westphalia. Using the city, state location convention makes sense only in the last several centuries. For many of the historical figures, only a town is used (see Plato) or region. Thus, we are using a modern convention that obscures the rich history.

This is even more of a problem with Islamic history. Strictly speaking the nation-state isn't applicable to Islamic history. The people are part of the Ummah and live in the realm of Islam Dar al-Islam. The successor of Muhammad is the caliph of which there is theoretically only one for the ummah but in practice there has been contention. Of course, I assume you know all this. However, the general reader doesn't. To list birth places as city and state used modern Western notation that doesn't traditionally apply to historical Islam. I suggest that just the city, Cordoba, is best and that is the convention used in many of the biographies for ancient and medieval history. As I show above with historical Islamic philosophers and scientists, the convention isn't used consistently. Notice the many references to Persia when, of course, the Abbasid Dynasty was in power. As I suggested above, this needs to be discussed for all historical Islamic figures. However, Almoravid Empire, like British Empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, and Holy Roman Empire are rarely found as part of the location name for historical figures. This is not in books and not part of Wikipedias traditions. I suggest we make it Cordoba and seek a wider discussion of naming conventions for ancient and medieval figures. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering us about that, you then probably know that what you are talking about wasn't the case for Morocco, who cut its ties to the Caliphates since the 8th century... or not?

On the other hand, the difference is that the Electorate of Mainz was a political entity, while Al-Andalus wasn't, it was only a term used to describe Muslim Iberia, that was directly ruled by the Empire. --Omar-Toons (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Umayyad Caliphate continued in the West when the Abbasids established power in Baghdad. Still, an Empire is too large for a birth place. Even Mainz was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Besides, the word empire is a Roman invention. It was used because Caesar couldn’t call himself King (Rex). He had to keep the pretext that the Republic still stood with both Senate and Assembly. Thus, he called himself Emperor. I still say we are using Western concepts and modern nation-state notions in a period where it doesn’t exactly apply. Look, I know you two are proud of Moroccan and Berber history and I have no problem with that. But the text of the article explains the political situation, which has great important for Averroes since he was close to those in power.

How about my suggestion that we just put the city of Cordoba? The link brings us to the article on Cordoba, its rich history, and the powers that ruled. He, of course, died in Marrakesh and the article there tells us who founded the city, etc. How about that Omar and Tachfin? And others? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "Spain" has two different meanings. There is the modern kingdom of that name. And there is the purely geographical expression for the Iberian peninsula, derived from the name of the Roman province "Hispania". Thus people can and do speak of "Muslim Spain".

Usage varies from country to country. "France" and "Turkey", for example, cannot be used as neutral geographical expressions: you'd have to say Gaul and Asia Minor (or Anatolia). But "Britain", "Italy" and "Greece" are all examples of geographical terms independent of political entities, though from time to time they have denoted political entities as well, and I contend that "Spain" falls on this side of the line. Now if we could only find a neutral descriptor for Israel/Palestine ... --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sir Myles, that would address the question of Andalusia vs. Spain. However, Omar advocates using Almoravid Empire as the nation of birth. Where do you stand with that suggestion? Also, is the purpose of the birth place political or geographical? Are we trying to locate the place or the ruling regime?Jason from nyc (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that a consensus was ever established for the current version of Averroes' birth place. I see no previous discussion. Neglect doesn't establish a consensus. This current discussion has not resulted in consensus. There is no evidence on wikipedia that "Almoravid Empire" describes a place, let alone a place of birth. Wikipedia redirects that term to Almoravid Dynasty and that isn't a place--it's a set of rulers.

The current discussion above establishes no consensus. I don’t see a proper consensus as defined in “Proper consensus”: “Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.” WP:FALSECON The default choice was a result of neglect not debate and consists in a limited consensus WP:CONLIMITED. Let me state for the record that there is no consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Younger than Abelard

He is 47 years younger than Peter Abelard, so how is he credited with being responsible for the development of scholasticism in medieval Europe? hgwb (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

See, inter alia, "{{9eb|Averroes}}" and "development". — LlywelynII 00:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Almohad philosopher?

If "Averroes (1126 - 1198) was an Almohad philosopher" as we read here, then was Voltaire a Louis XV philosopher? Wetman 14:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I gladly want know what there is so commonly, and I leave that to you. Aziri 15:11, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course not. On the other hand, (a) the usual English name of the Moroccan realm Averroës lived under is the Almohad Caliphate so there is nothing unusual at all about treating it as a demonym and (b) there's nothing terribly unusual about calling Voltaire an ancien régime or Bourbon philosopher, just as Shakespeare was an Elizabethan playwright. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Prefer Honor not Honour

Why? — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Raphael's painting of him

Averros is also depicted in Rafael's painting the "School of Athens". He is far left center with a white head-dress. Mccaskey (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And now it's in the page. Cool. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Physics

I cut this:

Ibn Rushd defined and measured force as "the rate at which work is done in changing the kinetic condition of a material body" and correctly argued "that the effect and measure of force is change in the kinetic condition of a materially resistant mass". Ibn Rushd also developed the notion that bodies have a (non-gravitational) inherent resistance to motion into physics. This idea in particular was adopted by Thomas Aquinas and subsequently by Johannes Kepler, who refereed to this fact as "Inertia". Ibn Rushd also authored three books on physics namely: "Short Commentary on the Physics", "Middle Commentary on the Physics" and "Long Commentary on the Physics".

as totally unsourced and not very plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say implausible. Highly doubtful those were the terms he phrased his ideas in, though. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect transliteration

Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Rushd is incorrect. Ibn only occurs when it is not preceded by another name, otherwise it is pronounced as bin. Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Rushd, or Ibn Rushd are both correct. Ryandward (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Might could be, but your point seems highly dubious given that "ibn" appears on Muhammad's page and one presumes some people knowledgable about Arabic would be keeping an eye on that one. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you took the liberty of editing the page. Reverted, pending sourcing and correction of Muhammad & al.'s articles. — LlywelynII 10:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Was Averroes Berber?

averroes was a berber.

Averroes is not his realy name. he was not a spanish not arab. but hij was almohad (bereber dynatie).

why do you think dat he a arab or spanish? -[213.177.151.35 at 11:35, 18 April 2004]

OK, the only person I can find claiming that Averroes is Berber is [1], and he makes the false claim that Ibn Khaldun was Berber, so I really see no reason to trust him. Conversely, real scholars who I know support the Berber cause - like Muhammad Chafik - merely say he was "Maghrebin"[www.mondeberbere.com/culture/ chafik/maghreb/substratberbere.PDF]. On the other hand, virtually everybody says he was Arab[2]. Can you present anyone more credible claiming that he was Berber? - Mustafaa 04:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

there is an onother link

the reason why there is not much peopel how saied that averroes wa a berber. is because such as you saied with the aid of the politic history of the north afrikan country's writed allong about the berber. and so saied you an anothers that ibn khaldun and averroes were arabs. but we can now say enough for the counterfeiting. enough !!

there is an exaple :

• the arab ibn battuta
• the arab filosofer ibn çinna (avicinna)
• alkwarizmi the arab

...Aziri 15:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

if you want to know more read this. Aziri 15:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You admit yourself that you don't know what ethnicity he was, and yet in the same breath you claim that he "must" have been Berber. There is no good reason for this article to even mention his ethnicity unless someone can find proof of it (as I have found for the Ibn Khaldun article.) - Mustafaa 23:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Muhemmed 'mmis n'hmed mmis 'n muhamed mmis 'n ahmed miis 'n rushd" - was it now? Or was it Muhemmed u Hmed u Muhemmed u Hmed n ayt Rucd? Or was is Muxammad ag Axmad ag Muxammad ag Axmad n Kel Rucd, as it would be in Tamasheq? How sure are you that the Berbers of al-Andalus in medieval times talked like your particular dialect this century, even supposing he had any Berber ancestry? - Mustafaa 23:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)77.248.230.71 (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC) what kind of crap are you posting here, ibn Rushd was the son of the ALMORAVID conquerors, Almoravids were full blooded Berbers who crushed the last remaining Arab Bedouin fitnah creators in Andalucía and made Andalucía part of the Berber empire of the Almoravids. He worked and died in the Berber capital of the Almoravid Empire in Marrakech were his family is originally from. This NORTH AFRICAN history, homeland of the Berbers since the dawn of time, this has nothing to do with Arabs (Asians) or Europeans.

buh, who told you that he doesn's spoked berber , was he not the dokter of the berber kalif ? was he not dead in murrakesh : the berber city.Aziri 10:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Very probably he learned to speak Berber at some point - but I doubt it just happened to be the exact same dialect you speak! And even in modern Berber, you've misspelled it: it should be Muḥemmed mmis n Ḥmed mmis n Muḥemmed mmis n Ḥmed mmis n Rucd. - Mustafaa 07:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yes that is very probably, but it's sure that learend arabic .Aziri 11:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See also

#Lead paragraph below. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic origins

My sources (e.g., Encyclopaedia of Islam, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Henri Corbin's and Majid Fakhry's Histories, etc.) do not say Ibn Rushd has a Berber origin. Unless someone has solid proof otherwise (from original sources, not from some obscure web site), this should be deleted from the introduction.77.163.42.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC). 77.248.230.71 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Your so called historians couldn’t Arabise him so they choose not to mention what his identity is. But you and your fake historians know very well that he was a full blood Berber, since his whole family were Berbers of the Almoravids dynasty, Ibn Rushd was born in Cordova, Spain, to a family with a long and well-respected tradition of legal and public service. His grandfather, the influential Abdul-Walid Muhammad (d. 1126), was the chief judge of Cordova, under the Almoravid dynasty, establishing himself as a specialist in legal methodology and in the teachings of the various legal schools. Ibn Rushd's father, Abdul-Qasim Ahmad, although not as venerated as his grandfather, held the same position until the Almoravids were ousted by the Almohad dynasty in 1146. And he was also BURRIED in the capital of the Berber empire, which was Marrakech. North Africa is the homeland of the Berbers the Berbers live there since the dawn of time, if your uneducated kind can't understand that why does your racist , dumb and uneducated kind are trying to falsify the North African and Iberian history

Name

Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph used to read:

Averroes' (born as Abu Al-Walid Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rušd) (1126 - December 10, 1198) was an Andalusi-Arab philosopher and physician, a master of philosophy and Islamic law, mathematics and medicine. He was born in Cordoba, Spain, and died in Marrakesh, Morocco.

I see two problems with this:

• First, the controversy raised here over whether Averroes was of Arab, Berber or other descent has not been settled since noone using authoritative sources has established it. As User:Mustafaa said, there is no reason for this article to talk about ethnicity unless we have an adequate authority;
• The text "...Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rušd..." is just a lineage, which an Arabic speaker might use in someone's name for a rhetorical flourish, but is inappropriate in an English-speaking context. Ibn Rushd is by far the most common way Averroes' name is rendered by Muslims in English.

The above content has been repeatedly inserted, so I'm explaining my revert in detail here for the information of others. --- Charles Stewart 20:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His full name isn't inappropriate for an English-speaking context. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Move page

Personally I feel the page should be moved to Ibn Rushd, as that was his own actual name. While googling does bring up more hits for Averroes (the web is still largely West-oriented), it's worth noting that the first hit for "Ibn Rushd" is muslimphilosophy.com, while the first hit for Averroes is the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Thoughts? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[Oppose] There's room for argument over this one (cf. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)). I think the most important question is by which name is he most likely to be familiar to users of the english Wikipedia, and I'll guess that's Averroes: certainly that's the name I first encountered. There's also the issue of disambiguation: Averroes is that bit less likely to be ambiguous than Ibn Rushd. --- Charles Stewart 10:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[Oppose] I've usually seen him refered to as Averroes. --Stbalbach 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

However this is determined, the same kind of thing needs to be figured out for the Ibn Tufayl/Abubacer reference within this article. One or the other needs to be the link but not both, otherwise you stand to confuse the reader as to the identity of Ibn Tufayl by making two seperate (linked) references.Elijahmeeks 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

By convention, use the name of the Wikipedia article (in this case, Ibn Tufail, not "Tufayl"). If there is a dispute about that, it would be handled on the Ibn Tufail talk page to rename the article. --Stbalbach 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. I've changes it to match.Elijahmeeks 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[Support] This article should use the name he had within his own culture, not the name assigned to him by a different culture. Kingturtle 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[Support] I agree with Kingturtle. So long as the more popular 'Averroes' is used as a redirect to the article and is mentioned at the start of the article then theres no reason why the article shouldnt be renamed to the correct Ibn Rushd rather remaining with the corruption Averroes. siarach 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i changed his name to from Averroes to Ibn Rushd but i don't know how to move a page

[Support] I agree - I'd like to see it changed to Ibn Rushd. I see Averroes as basically derogatory, like saying well, your outlandish foreign name is too hard for us to say, so we'll make up a nonsense nickname for you. After all, Arabic's just nonsense anyway, right? Ibn Rushd would be more respectful. A redirect can take care of people who search for Averroes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Histprof (talk • contribs).

[Oppose] Well, I think that last point is a little ridiculous. "Averroes" is not derogatory, and calling him that means only that this famous historical figure has a common name in English, not that English speakers are being disrespectful. Britannica[3] and Encarta[4] have their entries for him at Averroes. Personally, I see no call for a move; the common English name is, well, the common English name. We don't have Genghis Khan at Chinggis Khan for that same reason. At any rate, if the article is to be moved, we need to achieve consensus through WP:MOVE first.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Naming conventions for Non-European and non-Western names and titles supports the "most general rule" which is he is most generally known as Averroes in English speaking countries. I concur that no one uses the name as a slander, there is no evidence for that, I have never heard it before. -- Stbalbach 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[Support] I'm not sure what you mean by "most people in English speaking countries." The people who talk about him at any length are, by and large, scholars. Most of whom are increasingly referring to the name by which he was born. Karen Armstrong, for instance, in her "A History of God" calls him "Ibn Rushd" and mentions only once that he is "Known in the West as Averroes." I don't think this distinction is quite so clear as the Genghis Khan example, because I do not think it is quite so lop-sided that people in Anglophone countries almost without exception call him Averroes. Since, in the modern world, Averroes and Ibn Rushd are used at best equally often, I would say that the fact that it was his given name tips it in favor of Ibn Rushd. Calaf 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[Oppose] Karen Armstrong was deliberately giving an unfamiliar form, as her approach was to say "forget everything you thought you knew, here is an unbiased world-wide perspective you never thought of". So giving unfamiliar forms of names is what Brecht calls an "alienation device", aka shock tactics. In the same way, since Heidegger German scholars have generally used forms like "Herakleitos" instead of "Heraclitus", to emphasize that they are getting back to his thought in its original context as opposed to the way it comes to us through the Western tradition.

Except when there is some special point to make, I am strongly against removing Anglicised names, as I believe it is a cultural impoverishment: are we always to speak of "Roma", "Firenze", "España" and "Misr" instead of Rome, Florence, Spain and Egypt? The existence of the usual forms isn't arrogance, or a way of saying we know better than the natives: it is saying that these places and people have all influenced our culture as well, and that we are all interdependent. "Averroes" suggests an important figure in the history of general philosophy. "Ibn Rushd" suggests "this obscure Muslim scholar whom no one has heard of". (We pronounce "Paris" in English because of its importance. Some obscure small town would be pronounced "Chateauneuf-du-Pape" as in French, with no attempt at Anglicization.)

Obviously in some cases, the purist tendency has won: for example, nowadays it would be pretty odd to publish a translation of the Odyssey with "Jupiter", "Minerva" and "Ulysses" instead of Zeus, Athene and Odysseus, though this would formerly have been standard. The trick, as always, is to acknowledge these changes when they have already happened, but not to jump the gun: "Be not the first by whom the new are tried, Nor yet the last to lay the old aside."

Applying this to Muslim philosophers, I agree that by now it would be archaic affectation to use "Abubacer" and "Algazel" for Ibn Tufayl and Al-Ghazali, but for the moment, I think "Averroes" is still the more familiar form. On the principle I have explained, this is actually a tribute to the man's importance. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[Support] I agree that this article should be moved so that the title is Ibn Rushd. Precedent for this can be seen in the Metacomet article since it is listed under Metacomet and not his Anglicized name King Philip. Of course, Averroes should remain as a redirect to the article but the medieval, European name should not be used as our basis. For instance, Europeans referred to Muslims as Mohammedans until the 1960s but we don't use that term. DruidODurham (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[Oppose] A late comment to this discussion... First of all, the English language as already mentioned gives preference to Anglicized/Latinized names where they exist and have become commonplace. Additionally, the article itself makes the case that his literary legacy was more substantial in the part of the world where he was known as Averroes than in the part of the world where he was known as Ibn Rushd. As for the claims of this not being culturally sensitive enough or even denigrating, I'd just point out that no one disputes the Latinized name of the Chinese philosopher Confucius, nor does anyone claim that this is being denigrating in any way to Confucius or to Chinese culture in general. This despite the fact that unlike the ambiguous cultural attribution of Averroes' legacy, no one disputes the purely Chinese character of Confucius' legacy. So, unless this naming convention is applied to the much more clear-cut case of Confucius, I don't see why anyone would even consider changing the not so clear-cut case of Averroes. Also, I'd fully agree with the comment that the mere fact someone acquired a Latinized/Anglicized name was a recognition of that person's status and importance. Again, in the case of Confucius, Western translators didn't bother giving less important Chinese thinkers Latinized/Anglicized names, but they did that in Confucius' case as a recognition of his importance over other Chinese thinkers. Abvgd (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME. It's not like we have no way of looking at this, even if it's gotten better in the meantime. Ngram shows Averroes (besides being traditional) remains well in the lead. Google Scholar shows Averroes remains 4-5× more common than Ibn Rushd. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

SupportI think it is extremely Eurocentric that someone with a known name is referred to according to Western Christianity and not their native name. And there is enough usage of the Arabic name to lean in the direction of using it. If not clear cut, then the more authentic name is better.--Inayity (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

(a) We may soon reach a point where Ibn Rushd becomes his WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMON name, but (as noted in the comment above) we aren't there yet. Until the page has been moved, the WP:LEADSENTENCE begins with the version of the name we're using as the title. It's more common: that's why it's the title.

(b) In keeping with Avicenna and Muhammad, I've added {{larger}} templates to make the Arabic text more legible. (My own opinion is that people can zoom their own browsers if they like and Arabic text is no reason to ruin the English formatting, but we should aim to keep the usage consistent across pages.)

(c) I removed the pronunciation guide not because we don't need one (we probably do), but because it was unsourced and bogus. It seems highly unlikely that the OED's pronunciation /ævəˈrəʊɪst/ for Averroist somehow mutated into /əˈvɛroʊ.iːz/ when describing the actual person himself. It seems someone just wrote down their own (mis)pronunciation. Let's find something better somewhere. For what it's worth, the classical Latin pronunciation of that name would have been /aˈwer.rojs/ (kindly unhelpful given IPA's Latin roots: the respell looks like a-WERR-rawys if the a were Welsh, the werr were American, and the rawys were Oxbridge) or /aˈwer.roes/ (a-WERR-RAW-ays if the new syllable were Scottish...) and my own pronunciation is something like /ævɛrˈroʊ.eɪz/ (a-verr-ROH-ayz). — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mele Kalikimaka school of Islamic jurisprudence???

Is there such a thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.228.2.57 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gladius and The Rose?

Is the play called "The Gladius and The Rose" or "Ibn Rushd"? The article implies that both are its title. The statement is also entirely unsourced, and I'm not sure how significant it is, so perhaps it should be removed entirely. 2604:2000:EFC0:2:28C9:9497:C68B:2C0B (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Averroes/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.

From Talk:Averroes/Comments:  See talk-page topic "Averroes did not author Al-Bayān" by user Dawooddren at 13:23, 19 December 2007.

Last edited at 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Averroes. 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/20131203022000/http://carlosfraenkel.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spinoza_on_Philosophy_and_Religion_The_Averroistic_Sources.pdf to http://carlosfraenkel.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spinoza_on_Philosophy_and_Religion_The_Averroistic_Sources.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Secularism?

The article says, twice, that "Averroes is considered by some the father of modern secularism".

That could be highly misleading. The article linked to argues that Averroes allows a certain separation of religion and science on a high intellectual level, allowing philosophers and scientists to pursue truth rationally and with a certain independence from religious authority. That could be argued; but at the same time Averroes is careful to specify that this activity must be carried on in private and not divulged to the masses, who would be misled into rejecting their naive version of Islam without having the intellectual equipment to put the philosophical version in its place.

That is entirely different from "secularism" in the modern sense, which is political not philosophical, and means the independence of government from religion and the freedom of everyone (not just philosophers) to make their own religious or anti-religious choices and pursue truth in their own way. That is about as far from Averroes' position as it is possible to get. He believed that, once the freedom of the fully-trained philosophers is carefully ensured on a "consenting adults in private" basis, it is the right and duty of each religious community to enforce conformity on the masses (of course, as the Almohad court philosopher he had to say that). So yes, it may be one step more enlightened than Ibn Taymiyya and the Ash'arites, but it is hardly "secularism". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling him the father of modern western secularism is so broad as to be meaningless. —82.23.61.208 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire point is that Europeans misunderstood and corrupted Averroes' ideas. They excised the Islam part and retained the separation of religion from philosophy and politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.26.43 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the term "FATHER OF SECULARISM" either.. but it is true that he was one of the very first philosophers in the Muslim world to stray from the traditional ideas (confined to his culture) and start flirting with Aristotle's ideas, quite seriously. At the time there was such incredible hostility towards other culture's ideas, and it is important to note that Averroes did not share that sentiment. The article no longer reads "father of secularism" but I think the current description is quite accurate, but could be better, which states: <<Ibn Rushd was a defender of Aristotelian philosophy against claims from Islamic theologians such as Ghazali who feared that such teachings would become an affront to the teachings of Islam>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.144.46 (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and each of the 3 (now) given references makes the same claim of "he has been described as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe" but none give a reference for where that was given and only one bothers to explain, with one line of explanation and no further evidence, historical or otherwise given. As such, I'm removing it. Yb2 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Averroes. 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/20110716063948/http://www.buchhandlung-walther-koenig.de/cat/kwb_45_variantology_4/pid_170000000000790428.aspx to http://www.buchhandlung-walther-koenig.de/cat/kwb_45_variantology_4/pid_170000000000790428.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

GOCE copy-edit request page notes

CC-BY-SA declaration: copied from the GOCE Requests page here by me. The original will eventually be archived; Continue discussion here, not there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Averroes

I've recently overhauled the article to improve the sourcing and to improve the content. I'd appreciate a copyedit. English is not my first language, and my main difficulties are this: (1) Sometimes I'm not sure what tense to use. I tried to use past tense for biographical events (such as when he was born, appointed to a post, visited a place, etc.) but use present tense (as per historical present) for his thoughts and theories. It's hard to be consistent and sometimes the line is blurred, so would appreciate some input. (2) Probably this can't be helped, but medieval philosophy is a hard-to-understand subject because it often talks about theories or concepts that people today are not familiar (or means a different thing from today's ordinary use), e.g. "essence", "intellect", "Neoplatonism". I'm really hoping that it could be a GA in the near future. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, HaEr48. I've edited the English. Your tenses are generally pretty good. Actions in depictions use present tense ("The fresco shows him writing...", or "The painting, destroyed in the war, showed a crowd standing outside a building...". The pronoun/ancedent disagreement when using the third-person singular was the biggest problem (correct forms: they have, but she has; he goes, although we go and I go; his thoughts are difficult to understand, his thought is difficult to understand, historic buildings are, one historic building is). This is a common residual problem for people who have otherwise excellent English, and will, like most grammar problems, go away with experience using the language, even if you make no particular effort. A few of my phrasing edits, especially those spitting complex grammatical structures into multiple sentences, were done for style; the grammar was correct, just convoluted.

I've tried to add wikilinks to help the "strange ideas and terms confuse the reader" problem. More would help, especially to medieval philosophy pages. Relationships to modern ideas such as the anthropic principles and modern cosmology would also help anchor the concepts, if sources discussing these relationships exist. HLHJ (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Thank you so much for the copyedit and your feedback. I'll try to act on your suggestions in the next few days. HaEr48 (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Averroes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The redirect at the beginning can lose the capitalization on "right".

• Seems someone already fixed it? I don't find it capitalized in the hatnote. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In the intro, the subjects such as philosophy and astronomy can be linked to.

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I might add his "unity of the intellect theory" to the intro.

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We also might need a wikilink for "Neoplatonist"

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"In the West...", comma after West.

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't see the initial wikilinking of "Seville".

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

For the "Works" section, Averroes seems to have written on myriad topics beyond those mentioned in the section. Perhaps an "Other" subsection would address them?

• The lead paragraph of the "Works" section already contains a brief survey of his works, and includes a link to List of works by Averroes. I think these should suffice to describe the breadth of Averroes' works. IMO, an "Others" subsection would probably just boringly list the fields and titles of Averroes' less known works, so it's not that helpful. HaEr48 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Thoughts" may be too elegiac a title for the subsection; "Beliefs" or "Philosophy, or "Doctrines" would be more encyclopedic.

• Split "Thoughts" to "philosophical ideas" and "natural philosophy". HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think all of the scientific fields Averroes covered, i.e. astronomy, physics, could be encapsulated as subsections within a "Sciences" section.

• Called them "natural philosophy", as this is how sources group these fields in the context of Averroes' times. HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no article for "material intellect", so perhaps a brief summary is in order.

• The source (Adamson p. 189) doesn't really have a definition of it, unfortunately. HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Only the BBC source seems to be dead.

• Deleted the dead link. HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work with this very crucial article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague: Thanks for your review. I'm currently traveling with very limited internet. May I ask for about 2 weeks before I address your review? HaEr48 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's no problem. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comments by a non-reviewer who had thoughts, both on the first paragraph:

"who wrote about many subjects including" Not positive, but shouldn't a comma follow "subjects"? Also, an MOS thing: are these all of the subjects he wrote on (i.e. an exhaustive list), because if it is exhaustive, a different word from including should be used. Given the length of the list, I would probably assume totality and use a different word even if it is merely probably exhaustive. But the comma is the thing that initially grabbed my attention.

• Fixed the comma. Believe it or not, it's still non exhaustive (Averroes is a really prolific and wide-ranging thinker), so I believe "including" is the right word. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  

"numerous commentaries on Aristotle for which he was known" I think this is a run-on (comma should go after Aristotle).

• Added comma. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I might see some other similar things, too. Hopefully this article isn't littered with them, not that it would be GA-sinking problem (such problems are easyy to fix). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also, this article is tagged as using American English, but the spelling of "centre" in the hatnote is British. Which is it? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Changed to use centre. I don't mind American English, but sometimes I miss some words because I'm not natively educated in either variant. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reading above that English isn't your first language. That's perfectly fine, and indeed justifies some of the prose issues (having native speakers make large numbers of trivial grammatical errors raises competence questions; having non-native speakers make those same errors is perfectly normal and acceptable). It's good that you requested a copyedit from the guild, although it looks like they missed some things. Rather than posting them all here, would you like me to just fix them? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Compassionate727: Yes, if you're willing, please go ahead and fix them, I will really appreciate it! HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• And at this point I've made way too many comments in a row, as I'm wont to do late at night when medications have worn off. I'll try to force myself to log off after this. I just had one last thought: in the infobox, under Era, you place him as "medieval philosophy (Islamic Golden Age)". Medieval makes sense, as does Islamic Golden Age, and I would include both terms because they don't perfectly overlap. But I don't see why philsophy was included, given it isn't a time period. Was there a specific meaning that was meant to be communicated by this? Were you intending to wikilink to medieval philosophy rather than medieval era for a specific reason? Or is there something else I'm missing? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have no opinion either way, it's just that way before I started editing this article. I'll change it to "medieval" with a piped link to "Medieval philosophy" if you feel that's an improvement. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague and Compassionate727:: Thanks for all the feedback. I've started working on some of them (see above). There's still more work, will get to it soon. I'll ping you when I'm done, and also please let me know if there are more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague: I believe I have responded to all your comments above. Let me know if there's more I can do. HaEr48 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the article on Averroes with a new paragraph called: Contemporary "Averroës's Search"

I just would like to suggest the insert of this following paragraph in the entry on Averroës before the section "Averrroes in Popular Culture".

The very seminal mention to Averroes in contemporary literature (maybe in contemporary culture) is "Averroës's Search" (original Spanish title: "La Busca de Averroes") which is a 1947 short story by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges. Originally published in the magazine Sur, it was later included in his second anthology of short stories, El Aleph. This Borges'powerful and "short" masterpiece was the the turning point that gave room for an entire series of other works on Averroes in XXth Century popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F7:A086:6921:C99F:C107:F89:402D (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As always, we can do it but we need a reliable independent source that says so. Especially if you're trying to claim that it's "seminal" and "turning point" for other works on Averroes in the popular culture. HaEr48 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

minor edit

just a minor edit regarding 'present day morocco' which I consider as inaccurate, as Morocco was founded in 789, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.179.20 (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't dispute this for now. HaEr48 (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity

@Viaros17: Ethnicity keeps coming back to the lead paragraph: [5][6][7] As I noted in my edit summary, the manual of style (MOS:OPENPARA) clearly states "ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Religion is relevant in the case of Averroes because many of his works are about Islam, but I don't see any relevance from his ethnicity. As for other philosopher article that you cited as counterexample: "Other stuff exists" isn't a good argument on whether we include something in Wikipedia. We should follow the manual of style here and, if you want, you can also change the other articles that you mention. HaEr48 (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

HaEr48
Fair enough. However I am adding the Arab ethnicity to the biography section since its well sourced and no counter-sources have been provided to dispute the claim. Viaros17 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Viaros17: no objection from me. HaEr48 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• His ancestry seems ambiguous from the current article. Was he descended from Arabs from Arabia or of Arabised Berbers? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: Indeed. It somewhat reflects most RS biographies of him which use generic words such as "Arab" or "Moorish" and not to make a big deal of the actual ethnicity. Debates to settle this tended not to lead somewhere conclusive, e.g. see (See for example Talk:Averroes/Archive_1#Ethnicity), and to be honest I don't see the debate as having much benefit towards the article's informativeness. That's part of the reason I agree with MOS:OPENPARA guideline to not mention this. HaEr48 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If the sources don't say, there is not much to do. But I'd say it is important for historical purposes, for example to see if he can be traced to a specific tribe or person. Not just for ethnocentric chauvinists, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this is my first participation on Wikipedia ! I would just like to point out that apparently Averroes is now described as a Berber at the start of the article, however I couldn't find any source stating that he was a Berber. Femto7 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

European Averroes

As Averroes was born in Córdoba (Spain), and Córdoba, although at that time belonged to the Muslim Kingdom of Ala-Andalus, is placed in Spain which is in Western Europe. Therefore he must be considered a Muslim Western philosopher or Muslim European philosopher as well. We cannot separate Muslims and Western people or Europeans in different groups in this case. We may consider him, as Muslim European as we speak of Jewish or Christian Europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aránzazu Ceada (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It is true that he was European and "Westerner". But how would you like to express that in the article? We already say that he was from Córdoba which is now part of Spain. We don't usually explicitly mention the continent or the hemisphere of a figure in their biography, because it is obvious and redundant. For example, saying "Spanish Andalusian philosopher" is redundant, which is why I reverted your edit. HaEr48 (talk)

Podcast

NPR's Throughline has recently published a podcast on Averroes. In 30 minutes, it gives a good overview of the philosopher and his reception. I would propose adding it to the External links section, unless someone opposes. --Hispalois (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)