Jump to content

Talk:Avicenna/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Religious affiliation

Could someone find a decent reference on whether Ibn Sina was Shia or Sunni and add it to this article (unless there is some reason not to add it at all)? An IP editor has been doing so but they have been repeatedly reverted (by me amongst other people) for either giving no source or giving an inappropriate source (the most recent was to an old mirror of wikipedia). My impression is that (despite the entry near the top of the page) he was Shia with Ismaili sympathies with but I have no source here to confirm that properly.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've some references that confirm IP I'll addAmir (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The only reference I know, which deals with this subject in detail, is by Dimitri Gutas, the Yale University chair of Islamic History, who is well-known for his Avicenna scholarship and book (title: Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad). Here is the complete reference:
Gutas, Dimitri (1987). "Avicenna's maḏhab, with an appendix on the question of his date of birth". Quaderni di Studi Arabi. 5–6: 323–336.
I'll add the reference to the bib section. --Alwiqi (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

User Artacoana you have reverted my last changes to the text. The source you applied for the "Tajik" assertion as per our discussion is not at all about avicenna. The source you continue to cite is of Encylopedia Iranica explaining the origin of the people of the Tajik origin. No where in that source is a mention of Avicenna. As such as per Wikipedia rules you can not use a source that has no bearing on the point you are making. I reverted your change back to the default "Persian." If you continue to change my edit, I will not change yours, as this would be an "edit warring" but I will have to ask an admin to remidiate as your assertions are not supported. Sincerely Dr. Persi (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

To user Artacoana: I didn't have time to continue this matter with you on your talk page (hopefully I'll do). I respect your idea, but what you are doing in synthesis and self-interpretation. There is no source to call Avicenna as a Tajik and user Dr. Persi is correct in his view.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My response is as follows:

  • Iranians are insisting on the fact that Avicenna was only Persian.
  • Avicenna came from Central Asia with the native Persian speaking TAJIK population of Iranian origin. His father was from Balkh, Afghanistan and his mother from Bukhara, Uzbekistan.
  • The only Persian speaking natives of Iranian origin in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan are formally called TAJIK, and not Persian.
  • He lived during the Ghaznavid rule whose cultural centers and capitals were located in Ghazni and Bost, both located in today's Afghanistan.
  • Avicenna lived in the 10th century and the term Tajik was used during his time (please refer to the given references to the definition of Tajik).
  • Both terms Persian and Tajik should be used to refer to the ethnicity or origin of Avicenna, as he belongs to all Persian speaking people of the region and not only to Iranians.
  • Only using the term Persian creates confusion and the fallacy that Avicenna must have been originated from Iran (with today's borders).

I think that's what they want, as we can see from their insistence. We as Tajiks of Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan feel as the victim of this dispute that our cultural heritage is being stolen by some chauvinist Iranians. We believe that Wikipedia is a free and fair source that is not seeking biased information and We trust the experienced admins' fair mediation. A request for mediation has been sent. Please refer to the site for more details. --Artacoana (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Artacoana. We need a source that declares: [Avicenna was a Tajik]. In addition, for example, in Afghanistan there is Hazara people, who are considered Persian same as Tajiks. Suppose a Hazara user make a similar comment of you an then write Avicenna was a Persian (Tajik (Hazara))! --Aliwiki (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Hazara people are Persian, but in linguistic sense; they are not of Iranian origin. Tajiks are both ethnically and linguistically Persian of Iranian origin. And don't forget that the term Tajik was even used for Persians of Iran before the Pahlavi's time.--Artacoana (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's about sources then at least valid ones should be used and that is the Encyclopædia Iranica. Iranica is dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. This Encyclopædia is an international, collaborative project, based at Columbia University in the City of New York. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA in Iranica. What Iranica does mention is his birthplace and the birthplace of his father and mother and at the same time "Iranica states that The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and northeastern Afghanistan (Badaḵšān)." AND "By the eleventh century the Turks applied this term more specifically to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan" (i.e. the homeland of Avicernna). Iranica must be the only valid source used for disputed articles.--Artacoana (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Persians of his homeland are called Tajik and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.--Artacoana (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly, excuse my interruption if I am wrong, but there doesn't appear to be an actual "mediation" going on here?
Secondly, it is absolutely the case that, to establish that Avicenna was a Tajik we would need a source saying exactly that. Deducing that he might have been or must have been is not allowed per WP:OR.
Thirdly, from looking at the article Tajik people, it does not appear that the term had ever been used (in any language) at the time of Avicenna's birth. It only seems to have come into common use, probably, a few hundred years after he died and even then it did not have it's modern meaning until the 15th century. Obviously, it is not impossible that our article might be inaccurate, but it does make it look unlikely that Avicenna could possibly have been a Tajik. --FormerIP (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comment. It's just a misunderstanding of some terms Persian and Tajik. Calling Avicenna a Tajik falls into WP:OR. again thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand Ruud's insistence on the application of Goodman's Avicenna as "a reliable source". Jūzjānī (980 - 1037) is a pupil and THE biographer of Avicenna, whose citations have been used by the medieval Islamic bio-bibliographer Ebn al-Qefṭī (in Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā) as the source of his entries on the life of Avicenna. Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā, "The History of Learned Men", was translated by J. Lippert in 1903. NOWHERE IN THIS VERY RELIABLE SOURCE CAN BE SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE PERSIAN ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA. As a result, the primary sources such as Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam have avoided using the term Persian for the ethnicity of Avicenna. The application of the term "Persian" is unfair and leads to the unfair claim of Iranians for these scholars, as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics. This unfair application can lead to division and hatred among people of the region.--Artacoana (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The page as it is now is well strcutred without delving into personal agendas. It is fair, and it is structured well. I insist again, to everybody including user Artacoana, that this had nothing to do with Iranian or Non-Iranian perspective as I am NOT supporting the Iranian perspective. As per Len Evan Goodman, and encyclopedia sources he was Persian. Any other assertion as to his origin is "original research" and wikipedia can not cite original research as fact. Other than that, there really should not have been any issue at all. This is a great article and has a lot of room for expansion! Let us focus on expanding the article to reflect his scientific and personal achievements and not on his hypothetical region, or the food he ate, or the religion he practiced! Thank you everybody for a fair outcome! Dr. Persi (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The identity of people in the region in the medieval times was largely drawn from their territorial ties. They were called Balkhi (native of Balkh), Heravi (native of Herat), Sistani (native of Sistan), Juzjani (native of Juzjan), etc. The terms"ethnicity" and "race" are modern terms and appeared in the 18th and 19th century in Europe.--Artacoana (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the modern identity part. see the Shuabbiyah movement. Or this source: "Such interpretations of Iranian identity seem to have been influenced by Eurocentric notions of national identity, drawn from Western civic-territorial experiences of nationhood and nationalism. Pre-modern, non-Western nations do not fit easily into this ethnocentric Western paradigm. The idea of nationhood in societies of Asia is often derived from fictive genealogical and territorial origins and vernacular culture and religion, whereas Western ideas of nationhood have been historically based on the specific boundaries, the development of legal-rational communities, and civic cultures "[1] or Al-Masudi : "The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages." (10th century). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Page move?

Although many older sources will refer to him as Avicenna, it appears to me that modern English-speaking scholars usually refer to him as Ibn Sina. Should the page be moved? I don't have a very strong opinion about this, so I don't mind if others disagree. --FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The google search result shows approximately same result for both names. I also don't have strong opinion, and it doesn't make any difference.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Persian vs. Tajik

There is no need to mention the word "Tajik" in the article, since (a) "Tajik" is just another word for "Persian" and (b) "Persian" is more common in English. Tājik (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there edit-warring about a source on this article? Are there concerns about its reliability, or just its language? Non-English sources are allowable on Wikipedia, though if there is controversy, then it is recommended to follow the steps in WP:RSUE, and provide a translated quote from the source within the citation. --Elonka 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a little bit of both. The source is not very reliable, and we have much better ones available. And since, in a historical context, "Tajik" and "Persian" are synonyms, we should use the most common expression, and that is "Persian" and not "Tajik". Tājik (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's as important to state ethnicity as it is his origin - that is Bukhara.Pink Princess (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Note to Admin:

Please check the reference are. References 6 and 35 claim to quote the encyclopedia Britannica however it in fact takes the reader to encyclopedia Iranica, and not a credible source. First, Ibn-Sina or Avicenna is taught to be a Turkic speaking muslim scientist in almost all education systems except afghan, tajik and iranian. To claim that he was persian or tajik is baseless as he was born in a Turkic kingdom and spoke Turki, and his writings are in Turki. These documents are accessible in national libraries in Uzbekistan. Please correct the reference. I just read the reference the writer used from the link provided, and even the iranica encyclopedia does not mention that he was persian nor born to a persian family whatsoever. This is a clear case of iranian or afghan chauvinism. I ask the admin to give this article a thorough inspection.

Avicenna did not speak in Turkic language. If you read his works, they all are in Farsi Arabc script. During the time of Avicenna Bukhara and Samarqand - Tajik populated cities were centers of knowledge and wisdom. Turks had nothing to with Avicenna. Only after several years with a recommendation of farsi speaking poet Jami, a new poet Alisher Navoi starts writing in Uzbek though he started writing in Uzbek. Pan-Turks do not edit this article! --71.235.49.156 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to everyone, who the hell are you to say Pan-Turkics aren't allowed to edit if Persian Natinalists seem very active here? What hypocrisy! Pink Princess (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not every Persian scholar is claimed, only the ones born in Turkestan, if you deny that Turks lived in that area you deny a part of human history, nobody claims Avicenna as a Turk they are debating his origins as this is normal because he was born in Turkestan. Redman19 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the genetic study of people in central Asia, its confirmed by scientists that they have Persian ancestry. So the very debate of Persian and Tajik is useless. Persian and Tajik are not two different ethnicities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.207.193 (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

it would be great if you guys would just spend 10 mins reading the article on Iranian peoples. regrading what 'redman19' said...Tajiks are not Turks, they are Iranian peoples and simply speak a modern-Iranian language which is popular as "Persian" but surely doesn't mean they are Persian, just like matter of fact Avestan people first resided in Transoxsania prior to moving westward to modern day Iran. i think it will be a neutral approach to simply identify him as Iranian.

I never said Tajiks were Turks, I only said that almost all medieval scholars born in Turksestan are claimed as Persians, I know that Avicenna is Persian but another famous person from Turkestan is Alfarabi, several sources state him as a Turk but still he is made Persian, his origins are debatable. Redman19 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood you. you are indeed correct. I was just attempting to clarify the difference between Tajiks and Persian, unfortunately Persians have the misunderstanding that all Iranian peoples are "Persians", while Persians were only one of the many Iranian tribes who inhabited the western lands(Modern day Fars).

Avicenna's family

Aisha Khan source claims Avicenna's family was Sunni. This is obviously a false claim and it's in contrast to many sources.( such as: Heinz Halm - 1997-The Fatimids and their traditions of learning - Page 51;Manoucher Parvin-2006-Avicenna and I: The Journey of Spirits - Page 132 and many others that if it's necessary I can cite them here.). About Avicenna himself. In the reference of Jules L. Janssens page 90, only views about Avicenna's is given and just 3 lines before, in page 89, being a Twelver is also mentioned. Avicenna believed in necessity of Imam as a privy Muhammadan truth and can be examples for faithful.(Voices of Islam By CORNELL, Vincent J. p.34).Arthur John Arberry in his book Avicenna on theology, p.5:Nuh II was a Shi'ite sympathizer, and we read with great interest of the magnificent Samanid library to which the youthful Avicenna had access ; this vast repository, later destroyed — no doubt by those Sunni zealots who did not scruple t whisper that the torch which fired the treasury of learning was lit by philosopher himself, jealous to keep to himself knowledge he had there imbided-contained many manuscript of Greek science not available elsewhere. In addition, Avicenna refused to be present himself to Sultan Mahmud who was a strict Sunni. Sultan Mahmoud ordered detention of Avicenna which made him to leave Khorasan (Ref:Claud Field (2004), Mystics and Saints of Islam, p.88), and go to west, where was under control of Shia governing system of Buyid Dynasty and he worked in the Shia court of Shams al-Din Dawlah. Some part of the book al-Insaf (the judgement) was destroyed by Sultan Mas'ud (Peter Heath (1992), Allegory and philosophy in Avicenna, p.28).--Aliwiki (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Mr Ali, let me tell you that I'm a twelver Shia Muslim and at the same time a Tajik from Herat. Relgion doesn't make you Persian or Tajik. Please avoid the false propaganda of Iranian regime on Wikipedia!--Artacoana (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Artacoana, I didn't edit anything related to Persian or Tajik! Did I? pay more attention.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have already gone through many of those sources, and none of them actually claim that Avicenna was a Shia. Furthermore, nothing in the above sources justifies deleting a reference to an academic paper that was written specifically to determine Avicenna's sect (which also happens to be written by Dimitri Gutas, a well-known scholar in the field). Wiqixtalk 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Read the definition of the word Family.Avicenna's family include himself too. I chose this title per Aisha Khan's book wrong analysis. Aisha Khan c=who is an unknown scholar claimed Avicenna's family was Sunni which is in contrast to many sources. In addition I gave further indirect information in the above comment and about Jules L. Janssens source.--Aliwiki (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
First, Aisha Khan (and other sources) mention that at some point Avicenna's father converted to Ismailism. However, the section you're editing is about Avicenna himself, not his father. Second, nothing justifies you deleting references to the most thorough study to date on Avicenna's sect, which even considers calling Avicenna a Shia to be a "historical distortion". Third, many of the sources you're adding to this section do not claim anything about Avicenna's sect, so why are you adding them? Wiqixtalk 10:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Your argument falls into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The source of Jules L. Janssens is just a bibliography and in addition three lines before calls Avicenna a Shia. Aisha khan (an unknown scholar) obviously is wrong about Avicenna's family. He is calling Avicenna's family a Sunni one! which is in contrast with many western scholars.--Aliwiki (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't closely looked into this, but there seems to be a difference of opinion among academics on this issue. Could the two of you consider to expand the Biography section, discussing the various points of view on this issue, instead of just piling on reference after reference into the infobox? Infoboxes should summarize the information in the article, not present any claims not covered elsewhere. —Ruud 18:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I 'll write more detail in his biography by tomorrow. thanks for your good suggestion.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with Ruud's suggestion. I have just written something based on what we know, I'll add it to the article. However, there seems to be four different theories regarding Avicenna's sect (perhaps even more), so I don't see a need to summarize such complicated information in the infobox. I would much rather keep complicated information confined to the main article text. Wiqixtalk 21:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a reasonable start. Ideally you would also summarize the arguments the historians used to reach their conclusion. Finally, search through academic journals to see if other historians, or they between themselves, supported or criticized their viewpoint. —Ruud 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to come late. I was absent for a week due to an incident in real life. Any way, the article is 103 kilobytes long and the idea was not to report an excerpt of the book which its preview is available, but to give further evidences of his sect. I suggest to provide our evidences, make a short summery with at least one or two references about them and put it in the article body for the beneit of the reader. I can propose the following evidences:
Just a note; One of Avicenna's teachers, named Ismaelzada, thought him Hanafi tradition, so it's not surprising that he was familiar with this school of thought. About Aisha Khan's book; I searched the web and It seems he is not an academic expert of this topic, and that he believed Avicenna's family were Sunni proves he is a zealous author.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Three points:
  • There are similar arguments for him being Sunni Hanafi. For example, the hanafi biographer Abū al-wafāʾ al-qurayshī (d. 775 AH) included Avicenna in his Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafyyah, which proves that other Hanafis thought Avicenna to be one of them. Avicenna has also been criticized by Shia historians, like the 19th-century's scholar al-Khawānsārī, "Ṣaḥib al-rawḍāt", who considered Avicenna to be a Sunni despite hinting at his belief in the Imamah. Furthermore, some sources claim that Avicenna wrote in his al-shifāʾ that Omar was more deserved of the Caliphate than Ali (thus refuting his believe in the Shia formulation of the concept of Imamah, but not Imamah in general). etc. So there are many contradictory sources about his religious beliefs, and this is still an open question.
  • Remember that any argument added to the article must adhere to the policy of no original research and no original synthesis. So make sure that each argument you add is directly supported by the reference cited.
  • As for Aisha Khan, she is an associate professor of anthropology at New York University, with many works on historiography and Islam under her belt.
Wiqixtalk 02:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. About scholars, we are not going to list thousand Islamic scholar here. I mentioned the most prominent Shia/Sunni scholars. About Aisha khan; I guess you mean this Aisha Khan. Am I correct?--Aliwiki (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to IP's changes

There has been a few IP addresses that constantly change "Persian" to "Iranian" and at times cut sources or change content without a reasonable explanation of citation almost on par with vandalims of the page. The following should establish for these IPs, if not just one person (or few persons) with multiple IPs (?)) that there is enough historical evidence to support his ethnicity and indeed his place of birth as Persian, and Persia respectively:

Author: Aisha, Khan
Work: Avicenna (Ibn Sina): Muslim physician and philosopher of the eleventh century
Publisher: The Rosen Publishing Group
Date: 2006

A sample page where there is direct indication that he was Persian: Page 47 Link to see the page here

Author: Oxford University Press
Work: The American Historical Association's guide to historical literature
Publisher: Mary Beth Norton
Date: 1995
Text from the source: "'Good introduction to work of Avicenna, properly known as Ibn Sina, seminal Persian figure in philosophy and medicine and..."

Author: Ehsan Yar-Shater
Title: Encyclopaedia Iranica
Publisher: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Date: 2004
Text from the source: "Avicenna (qv) was the first Persian physician to build on the Galeno-Hippocratic tradition rather than dogmatically adhering to its every precept. His view of disease, as articulated in his Ketdb al-qdnun fi'l-tebb..."

Author(s): Francis Barrett, Lives
Title: The lives of alchemystical philosophers; with a catalogue of books in occult chemistry, and a selection of treatises on the hermetic art
Date: 1815
Text: Indicates he was born in Persia. So he was born in Samanid Persia, not Iranian Samanids... Link here

Author: Sir Muhammad Iqbal
Title: The development of metaphysics in Persia: a contribution to the history of Muslim philosophy
Publisher: Luzac & Co.
Date: 1908
Text: Page 38 Link here "Among early Persian Philosophers, Avicenna alone attempted to..."

Author: Jorge J. E. Gracia, Timothy B. Noone
Title: A companion to philosophy in the Middle Ages
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Date: 2005
Text: Page 196 Link here "Avicenna was born in the domain of a Persian dynasty, the Samanids, near the city of Bukhara..." (This is particularly important since the person behind the IP also chagnes Samanids from "Persian" to "Iranian". See edit history)

Author: Peter Damian, Kate Damian
Title: Aromatherapy: scent and psyche : using essential oils for psychological and physical well-being
Publisher: Inner Traditions / Bear & Company
Date: 1995
Text: "The invention of distillation is attributed to Persians, particularly to the renown physician, philosopher, and alchemist Hakim Abu Ali Abdulah Husayn Ibn Sina, known more familiarly in the West as Avicenna. Actually some perfumed waters used in Persia perior to Avicenna's birth, and by the thirteenth century...was being exported as far as China. Link here

Author: Vilen Vardanyan
Title: Panorama of Psychology
Publisher: AuthorHouse
Date: 2011
Text: Page 35: "Avicenna was a Persian philosopher & Physican & one of the main interpreters of Aristotle to the Islamic world...Much of his life Avicenna spent traveling form court to court in Persia." Link here (Note his origin and that he spent most of his time including the portion in Samanid and later Ghaznavids in "Persia")

Author: Massachusetts Medical Society, New England Surgical Society
Title: Boston medical and surgical journal, Volume 171, Issue 1
Publisher: MGH (Mass General Hospital)
Date: 1914
Text: Page 286 "Afrter traveling in northeastern Persia he settled in Hamdan, where he spent the rest of his life. He became physician to the ruling prince, Shams-ed-Dowleh. Like many Persian doctor of present day, Avicenna took to politics and became a Minister." Link here

Author: Armand Augustine Maurer
Title: Medieval philosophy
Publisher: PIMS
Date: 1982
Text: Page 94 "Avicenna was a Persian and Averros a Spanish Moore." Link here

Author: Cyrus Abivardi
Title: Iranian Entomology: Applied entomology
Publisher: Springer
Date: 2001
Text: Page 477 "Publications of another Persian scholar, Avicenna (980-1037 A.D.), known as Ibn-Sina also contain some information on insects and related groups." Link here

Author: Burton F. Beers
Title: World history: patterns of civilization
Publisher: Prentice Hall
Date: 1993
Text: Page 236 "Avicenna was born in 980 near Bukhara, a center of Islamic culture of Persia."

Author: Hugh Chisholm
Title: The encyclopædia britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information, Volume 3
Publisher: University Press
Date: 1910
Text: Page 62 "his [Avicenna] father a Persian from Balkh..."

Author: Chad Meister, J. B. Stump
Title: Christian thought: a historical introduction
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Date: 2009
Text: Page 256 "Two if its [Muslim empire] greatest minds were from these time and places: Avicenna from Persia, and Averroes from Spain." Link here

Dr. Persi (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of Persian here is ambiguous, considering that it's not just an ethnicity but also a geographical location (i.e., a place of birth). If this double meaning is true, then we need to make sure which sense of meaning is meant by the source cited (i.e., ethnicity or place of birth?), and this distinction need to be made explicit in the article. We should also find sources that deal specificity with his ethnicity, as opposed to it being mentioned in passing. Wiqixtalk 02:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That is absolutely not true! Persian here refers to an indication for the people who have lived in the Persian empire at least by then. The concept of "Iranian" is a rather recent one. Look at the sources. They clearly state it. Whatever other assumptions we drive is original research. I wont mind if he changed the text to Iranian (Persian) but he has not yet generated even one source that states clearly that he was Iranian in the sense he is referring to. Also Iranian, has many meanings. According to the English Wikipedia Persian and Iranian is an interchangable concept. I really am worried that you guys are trying to change historical facts based on your own assertions instead of having sources for it! How much more is needed aside from legible sources that distinctly state it?
Additionally it is clearly both in this case. Note the above source stating "his [Avicenna] father a Persian from Balkh." There is no question that he was Persian by origin as well.Dr. Persi (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is further proof of his "ethnicity" as you asked for:

Author: Elizabeth Lane Furdell
Title: Fatal thirst: diabetes in Britain until insulin
Publisher: BRILL
Date: 2009
Text: Page 19 "During the middle ages and at some Western universities well into the seventeenth century doctors relied on the wisdom of Avicenna (980-1037), an ethnic persian." Link here

Author: Paul Strathern
Title: brief history of medicine: from Hippocrates to gene therapy
Publisher:Running Press
Date: 2005
Text: Page 58 "Avicenna was born an ethnic Persian in 980" Link here

Dr. Persi (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source that states it:

Author: Brian Duignan
Title: Medieval Philosophy
Publisher: The Rosen Publishing Group
Date: 2010
Text: Page 89 "Avicenna, an ethnic Persian who spent his wholfe life in eastern and central regions of Iran received his earliest education in Bukhara under the direction of his father." Link here
Dr. Persi (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet more:

Author: Michael Kort
Title: Central Asian republics
Publisher: Infobase Publishing
Date: 2004
Text: Page 24 "...an ethnic Persian like Avicenna, al-Biruni was born near present-day city of Khiva, in Turkmenistan." Link here

Author: Encyclopaedia Britanica
Title: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 1
Publisher: Encyclopaedia Britannica
Date: 2005
Text: Page 739 "Avicenna an ethnic Persian..."

Author: Frederick Seitz
Title: The science matrix: the journey, travails, triumphs
Publisher: Frederick Seitz
Date: 1998
Text: Page 24 "Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980-1037) a brilliant Persian philosopher and critic, did suggest that air resistance leads to the dissipation of the movement of a body set in motion and that in the very unlikely circumstances that one could produce a vaccum...."

Link here

Lastly the link you gave is to Persian (disambiguation) but here it is about Persian people a subset of people in Iranian pleatue and synonymous with people of the country Iran. Although there are a lot of Persians in counries like Afghanestan, and Tajikestan and other newly independent state who trace their ancestory to the Persian empire or its reach. The problem is recent historical messes that has made this concept rather difficult. No matter, in case of Avicenna, there is ample proof as well as the fact that there was no Iran back then. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The new set of references seem more relevant to this discussion, especially the "ethnic Persian" phrase, which none of the old references or quotes had. This is a clear indication that he may have been a Persian by ethnicity, not just by birth. We should probably cite those new references instead of ones that just use "Persian". Wiqixtalk 06:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Sources cited as you asked.

Dr. Persi (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP still keeps changing "Persian" to "Iranian" without citing any sources or even bothering so much as to read my sources. I have provided sources that clearly delineate his origin and his ethnicity, and yet this IP keeps reverting my edits saying "see the talk page" when in fact he has not made any contribution of any sort. This is starting to look like a personal vendetta on the part of the IP and unless he can produce reasonable sources, he is simply pushing his on WP:SYN agenda. I corrected it again because the sources I cited clearly state his "ethnicity", aside from the other 20 some sources that call him Persian in passing. I do not know how much longer I can keep up with this silly cat and mouse game. It needs some attention from somebody who is familiar with Wiki rules. Dr. Persi (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern ethnology does not use the term "Persian" for the Iranian Peoples living in modern day Tajikistan please refer to prior sections of this talk page; they are referenced. most of your sources are medical sources or entry level history textbooks which are not ethnologically precise sources. they literature is has a generalist tone, and use the term "Persian" in a generalist fashion. "Iranian" would be a neutral terminology , it includes Persian and Tajiks so neither should have problems with it , unless you have other intentions(which are clear looking at your edits on other iranian scholars pages (as another IP editor had also mentioned before). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.173.158 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You sound awefully close to another user, Artacoana who also advocated the same logic before when he put Persian (Tajik) and was told by multiple admins that his sources were not at all relevant to his point. If so, then you are acting as a "duck". Point is the sources are specific and they delineate this point. By the way "Encylopedia Britannica" and "Medieval History" are NOT debatable sources! You need a stronger argument than that. There are ample sources with specific reference to both ethnicity and nationality. Any other inference is your personal vendetta or original research neither of which Wikipedia houses. See WP:Original. Also looking at what you typed it shouts "original research." This is not a forum! You seem to confuse that. If you state a statement you have to make sure it is VERFIABLE. You are obsessed with me as you seem to have no other argument than following my "edit history" and you are further uneducated about me because you seem to not see the sources I utilize. This is a clear example of that. Unless you provide clear cut evidence to support your assertions they are original research and POV. I stress again that you seem to think the talk page is a forum, as it is not! It is meant to be a place to provide evidence and discuss aspects of the discussion. You are also as per your history a very novice account having made only a few edits. It is interesting how you just came out of nowhere with such a sudden interest in the issue of Avicenna, not to mention your complete knowledge of the past history of this page. Again make sure you read wikipedia rules on sock pupetry. Dr. Persi (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to Encylopedia Britannica Volume 1. In snippet view since that book is not available for free but you can easily acquire it in any library. Link here on the top "Avicenna an ethnic Persian..." Dr. Persi (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Dr. Persi. GoetheFromm (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey's ministry of culture and tourism claims Ibn Sina as being Turkic =(

" History Though there is no dispute about where Ibn Sina was born or died, his origin is open to discussion. Yet according to his own words in his famous “Al-Qanun Fi’l Tıbb” (Vol:2) it will not be a far-fetched assumption to accept him as a Turk. The fact that he wrote mostly in Arabic is due to nothing but his desire to abide with the existing unwritten rule of the era: the language of the religion was the language of science since both aimed to be understood universally. Consequently, Latin was used for scholarly works in the Christian World, while Arabic was the common language used by muslim scholars."

How unfortunate to see these governments, cultural and tourist organizations creating such rubbish and spreading propaganda around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.83.45 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he spoke Farsi indicates a lot about his origin. GoetheFromm (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey claims a lot of things as being Turkish some Greek and some Persian. Claims are meaningless unless supported by facts. Nationalism has no place in objectivity. Dr. Persi (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Avicenna quote

"So when I had reached the age of eighteen I was finished with all of those [philosophical] sciences; at that time I had a better memory for learning, but today my knowledge is more mature; otherwise it is the same; nothing new has come to me since."

Gohlman, Life, 37-39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.83.45 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Great quote. In a week I intend to start reading a bit more about Avicenna. He is such a diverse scholar that it is impossible to fix this article without at least reading a few books about him. Unfortunatley, I did not like the book by Goodman. Khan's book is much better but doesnt have the same degree of detail. This is a great quote nonetheless. At any rate, I will check out Gohlman. In the meanwhile, any recommendation for solid, impartial sources for study of Avicenna? Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
While somewhat "POV" Iranica [2] has a lot of really good stuff on Avicenna. J8079s (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes Iranica has a somewhat "universal pov" and for this reason it is reviewed by all scholars as "the MOST reliable source" (read the last pages here) ever written about things concerning southwestern Asia and beyond: in English or even any other language (see this review). EIr with more than 1500 top (mostly non-iranian) scholars as contributors can not achieve anything else than what it has already! I wished more "Iranian opinions" were included in their articles, but they seem to have one criterion: only "TOP scholars" write (as put by this reviewer: "highest standard of scholarship"). I have heard that "Islamists" hate Encyclopaedia Iranica. Xashaiar (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

His real name is Ibn Sina, not Avicenna??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. I don't have an opinion on this particular case, but it is likely that it has been discussed before, and searching the archives of this talk page may turn up something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Region

I removed "region", it does not mean anything, except to create the erroneous impression that Avicenna was from Persia (Iran). In fact, Persia (Iran) itself was part of the Samanid empire, which was from Afghanistan. So, Avicenna was an "Afghan Persian" born in the "Afghan Samanid empire", there is no "Iran/Persia" involved here!!! Kasparov49acer 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Samanids were a Persian dynasty of Afghanistan, not Iran. I added that since many Iranians have created a lot of confusion regarding the word "Persia" and they have associated that to today's "Iran". The Samanids were not from today's Iran, they were from today's Afghanistan, and today's Iran was their colony. --Kasparov49acer 16:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone keep changing my edits. When I change something, I am curteous enough to provide a short xplanation. Please explain us how or why you are trying to twist the truth here !?! --Kasparov49acer 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 July 2011

Please fix your signature so there is a link to your talk page (see WP:SIG and ask at WP:HELPDESK is needed). Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add more precise information regarding the regions the Avicenna resided, including the ruling dynasties of those regions. These information are taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica and will serve as a reliable and academic source. The previous regions were incomplete and did not really make any sense.--Artacoana (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This "precise information"(in the form of place of birth and place of death) already exists within the template. The previous region was referenced and later removed without any discussion. Oddly the same thing was done on the Rumi article, which also was referenced by me. This appears to be more personal than any concern for historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You can change wherever you find the information is redundant. However, you are not allowed to remove or revert the complete referenced section, without any reason or explanation. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--Artacoana (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet you have removed the complete referenced section without any viable reason! TWICE![3][4] "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not complete removal of everything. What I did was adding details to the regions, cities and ruling dynasties to other region. Lets have a look at the previous version. There was Greater Khorasan with no dtails of the cities and ruling dynasties associated with! Perhaps because those cities (Bukhara and Urganj) do not longer located in today's Iran? And suddenly we have Persia, with Buyid dynasty, and Hamadan, Ray and Qazvin all mentioned in the template, why? Because they all part of Iran? Is this what we want to see in a free and fair encyclopaedia? Wikipedia is open for everyone and we are advised to be be bold, trying to reach a compromise and avoid edit waring. Please instead of reverting the whole template, say where is not correct? If you are disagreed with the addition of dates, fine, remove them, but dont remove few cities and leave other in favour of a country!--Artacoana (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention that his family was from Afghanistan? He was only born in Bukhara, but his family came from today's Afghanistan. Perhaps the idea that the greatest Muslim scientist in the world was from Afghanistan is too much to bear for our Iranian friends???--74.59.138.65 (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)--Kasparov49acer 03:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


Iran Afghanistan and other modern names today we call our countries can not explain the region of Samanied empire.. However Samanies call themselves Persian.In many sources Like Ferdowsi's Shahname you can find The Name: Persian.Samanied empire is one of the best Persian Empires and do many good thing to save Persian language and culture .Please be noticed that Afghan and Tajik are torkic names that mongols call persians and sogdians.(sogdians are old persian / parthian people their language is near pashtoo language). The name "Iran" came since Sassanian Empire .All Persian Language states were called "Iran" and Non Persian states were called "Aniran".... for example Yeman or Armenia was Aniran but Bactra was Iran.. And the whole Empire called Persian Empire....Maybe It is Complex but this is the way Sassanian call their throne... As you can see in a part of Shahname Rostam says :"I will make Iran to Ruins " Because (in the Story) He is from Aniran not Iran (Scythans were not Persian but related to Aryan People).Of course Today's Modern Iran is NOT that country. Avecina is Persian but today there is no persian empire.I can imagine Indians of America 1000 years ago call their region for example "Bidoo" but today Indians of America are American.And the people of 1000 years ago in there were Bidoo!!! 178.173.140.92 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Which is all very interesting and quite possibly correct, however I'm afraid we can't take take your word for it; if you want to make specific changes to the article because of the complexities of the names of the empires and countries, please say what the changes you want to make are, provide a Reliable Source to support those changes. --Merlinme (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Engineering?

I've deleted a lot of the claims in the Engineering section, but I'm tempted to delete the whole lot. The only source cited I can't check and was listed with a "Failed verification" anyway. The reference was: "Mariam Rozhanskaya and I. S. Levinova (1996), "Statics", in Roshdi Rashed, ed., Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, Vol. 2, p. 614-642 [633]. Routledge, London and New York.</ref>[failed verification]" Can anyone check that, or provide another source to back up the claims in this section? I can't even verify that Mi'yar al-'aql existed. --Merlinme (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this help?[5] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, although my main conclusion from that is that whoever wrote the section on engineering for Avicenna was making it up. I haven't exhaustively been through the Jagged_85 diffs yet, but it's certainly reminiscent of Jagged_85's tactics, where an article which mentioned X, Y + Z is used as a reference that X invented Y + Z. The reference mentions Ibn Sina once, as far as I can tell, and discusses "machines (ingenious devices)" and "levers". This becomes "Ibn Sina invented levers and ingenious devices."
I'll delete the engineering section now. --Merlinme (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Diff 20 in my summary above shows that Jagged added the engineering section in October 2007 (I was able to find that from searching some local files made for the above summary). The diff is [20]. Thanks again for persisting with this important cleanup! Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at cleanup3. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Will look at this article next. Will now tag article. This may take some time, the last one took months. --Merlinme (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of concentrating on the worst problems first I've done a search for "pioneer", "father" and "first", all words heavily over-used by Jagged_85. Ignoring routine uses of first, that gives:
  1. Ibn Sīnā is also considered the father of the fundamental concept of momentum in physics. Really don't think he is.
  2. In this, Ibn Sīnā is credited as being the first to correctly document the anatomy of the human eye, along with descriptions of eye afflictions such as cataracts. Need to check this, but sounds rather sweeping to me.
  3. The Canon of Medicine was the first book dealing with experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials,[31][32] and efficacy tests,[33][34] and it laid out the following rules and principles for testing the effectiveness of new drugs and medications, which still form the basis of clinical pharmacology[34] and modern clinical trials. Most of this is wildly over the top, based on previous research.
  4. Avicenna was a pioneer of neuropsychiatry As far as I'm aware neuropsychiatry didn't even exist in any recognisable modern sense
  5. He first described numerous neuropsychiatric conditions, including hallucination, insomnia, mania, nightmare, melancholia, dementia, epilepsy, paralysis, stroke, vertigo and tremor. I'd be staggered if this is true. The Romans and Greeks didn't know about epilepsy?
  6. In chemistry, the chemical process of steam distillation was first described by Ibn Sīnā Need to check
  7. As a chemist, Avicenna was one of the first to write refutations on alchemy, after al-Kindi. He wasn't a chemist in the modern sense.
  8. In the chapters on mechanics and engineering in his encyclopedia Mi'yar al-'aql (The Measure of the Mind), Avicenna writes an analysis on the ilm al-hiyal (science of ingenious devices) and makes the first successful attempt to classify simple machines and their combinations sounds like hyperbole to me.
  9. He first describes and illustrates the five constituent simple machines: the lever, pulley, screw, wedge, and windlass first to describe the lever???
  10. He is also the first to describe a mechanism which is essentially a combination of all of these simple machines (except for the wedge). need to check
  11. Father of modern medicine; Avicennian logic; concepts of inertia and momentum; important contributor to geology; pioneer of aromatherapy and neuropsychiatry I've already deleted inertia, momentum, neuropsychiatry. Need to check others.
If anyone wishes to check some of these for me, feel free. --Merlinme (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've had an initial sweep through. I've been quite aggressive in my cuts. If someone wants to put material back in, using references which they have personally verified, please do so. It's slightly scary though how web searches just produce wholesale copies of what is a lot of highly dubious Wikipedia material. --Merlinme (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 7 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 13 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Asfhana, Asfhona

Sometimes, he is from Asfhana, sometimes from Asfhona.--Palapa (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Followed the approach of Galen and Hippocrates

The original wording, which I've reverted to: was "He was one of the Islamic world's leading writers in the field of medicine and followed the approach of Hippocrates and Galen." Jagged changed this to: "He was one of the Islamic world's leading writers in the field of medicine. He was influenced by the approach of Hippocrates and Galen, as well as Sushruta and Charaka." The diff is here: [6]
It's fairly typical of the puffery and outright dubious edits which Jagged made; I can't find any evidence at all of a direct link to Sushruta and Charaka, for example. I could be persuaded that "influenced by" is a better phrasing than "Followed the approach of", but please justify the phrasing here rather than just reverting my Jagged cleanup edits. --Merlinme (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Protect the article

There have been dozens of IP's changing the background information of Avicenna. I suggest we protect the article from vandalism. Unfortunatly do I not know how to do it, so I hope anyone else could do it. (That is of course if the majority of contributers in this article accept to protect it.) --Arsaces (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The procedure is to make a request at WP:RFPP (a bit scary the first time: copy a previous request and edit it). However, while it's irritating, I don't think this article gets enough vandalism for semiprotection. Sometimes, if you go to the trouble of establishing that new editors and unregistered users (IPs) have not added anything constructive in the last few months, an article will be semiprotected for a couple of months, but I have a feeling we are not at that stage here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This article have a good number of watchers. So it's well maintained. The better way is to solve content disputes in the talk page. Or if you think there is vandalism or disruptive edit, warn users in their talk pages and talk with them. Finally you can report them to admins. I agree with Johnuniq. Winter Gaze (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For future reference ...

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup3 - in regards to the banner tag on the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:IbnSina-Dushanbe.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IbnSina-Dushanbe.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:IbnSina-Dushanbe.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

sacrifice integrity

For a good laugh, check out this Turkish UNESCO site that claims Ibn Sina was a Turk:

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/mow/nomination_forms/turkey_works_ibn_sina_suleymaniye_manuscript_library.pdf

'Though there is no dispute about where Ibn Sina was born or died, his origin is open to discussion. Yet according to his own words in his famous “Al-Qanun Fi’l Tıbb” (Vol:2) it will not be a far-fetched assumption to accept him as a Turk.

Ibn Sina, the eminent scientist, philosopher, pharmacologist, theorist, poet and successful politician of Turkish origin is mostly known as a clinician under his Latin name “Avicenna”.'

BY

Prof. Dr. Berin U. YURDADOĞ Prof.Dr. Nilüfer TUNCER Prof.Dr. İrfan ÇAKIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Pan-Turkism at its best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychology

I have inserted a tag on account of the wording in the Psychology section of this article as it appears currently to suggest that De Anima is a translation of Avicenna's work. This may be misleading. De Anima is the Latin title of the work Perì Psūchês (Regaring the Soul) by Aristotle but the current wording makes it sound as if it is an original work by Avicenna.

I understand that Aristotle's work was translated into Arabic by Avicenna but I am unclear if he translated it from the original Greek, from a later Greek or other translation, or from a Latin translation. I believe it may be that Avicenna's work was later translated into Latin but cannot verify this, nor if there are separate Latin translations from the Arabic and From the Greek. Perhaps this element could be expanded therefore to clarify who translated what, from what, into what, and when, as a lot can be lost as well as added in translation.

LookingGlass (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This may well be a User:Jagged_85 problem, i.e. an edit which was made without proper understanding of the sources, and which tended to emphasise Avicenna's achievements at the expense of those who went before him (such as Aristotle). I haven't however checked and don't really have the time to do so at the moment. If you have some understanding of the subject matter, just rewrite the whole section using sources you have available to you. Don't worry too much about the current text; if your understanding is different to what the article currently says, you are probably right.
Alternatively you can attempt to verify the current information using the current references, plus any other sources you have available to you. Again, if anything looks at all dubious or can't be verified, just get rid of it; it's probably wrong. --Merlinme (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Name in Persian (Pur-e Sina) is probably original research

This Persian name was added Pur-e Sina(son of Sina). This was added by IP 130.229.49.82 without any sources. It seems to be original research, it is a translation of Ibn Sina's Arabic name [Ibn Sina means Son of Sina]. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not do a little research? Bibliotheca Indica, Volume 61, Issue 2, by Asiatic Society (Calcutta, India), Asiatic Society of Bengal, page 36.[7]--Pur i Sina signifies the same as Ibn Sina.
I guess only "honest" editors can find such information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please no Wp:Personal attacks, thank you. I did research and could not find Pur-e Sina used for Ibn Sina, you used Pur-i Sina, but still thank you for finding a source, however it is snippet and it is unclear to what extent and purpose this name is used. It is certainly not widespread. All the sources for Pur-i Sina seem to be based on a modern Iranian book written by Saeed Nafisi. (Zindagi va-kar va-andishah va-ruzgar-i Pur-i Sina ((Zindagi va-kar va-andishah Pur-i Sina- زندگی و کار و اندیشهٔ پورسینا،) (Tehran: Kitabkhana-yi Danish, 1953 -54). DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's a personal attack, then you should take your own advice(ie.list of massacres in Turkey). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Both of these sources are not reliable sources for determining the ethnicity of Avicenna.

  • Ravil Bukharaev, was a mathematician, author, poet, radio journalist and has no qualifications as a historian much less, history of this time period.
  • Theodore Levin, is a professor of music and has no qualifications as a historian or for history of this time period. His unsourced quoting of what Uzbek historians believe should not be represented as fact on wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alevi view

I deleted the following section due to the total lack of sources. It might be possible to have some or all of it in the article if somebody could provide sources and put it into context.

Life of Ibn-i Sina according to the Alevi view 

  "no one is as blind, as that man, that does not want to see (truth)"

  - Ibn-i Sina

Ibn-i Sina was born to a family, whom moved from Belh (Balk) to Buhara (Bukhara), he was born next to Hermisan, in Afshana in August 980. Ibn-i Sina's father was working for the state as finance employee, the reason for their immigration, meanwhile Ibn-i Sina was born. He was known for his overwhelming intelligence, with 10 years of age, he could fully narrate the holy Koran. With 18 years of age he had learned all knowledge that was available in the capital of science, Bukhara. With age of 57, in the year of 1037 he died and left over 150 scriptures for science and humanity.

Ibn-i Sina was an Ahlulbayt adherant. In this context of time, the minor difference between Twelver Shia, Ismailism or Alevism did not exist.

His saying, prooves his adheritance: 

  "among the mankind, Ali is the one, that the senses can not capture, only the mind (intellect) can select him"

  - Ibn-i Sina

--Merlinme (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at cleanup3. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Will look at this article next. Will now tag article. This may take some time, the last one took months. --Merlinme (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of concentrating on the worst problems first I've done a search for "pioneer", "father" and "first", all words heavily over-used by Jagged_85. Ignoring routine uses of first, that gives:
  1. Ibn Sīnā is also considered the father of the fundamental concept of momentum in physics. Really don't think he is.
  2. In this, Ibn Sīnā is credited as being the first to correctly document the anatomy of the human eye, along with descriptions of eye afflictions such as cataracts. Need to check this, but sounds rather sweeping to me.
  3. The Canon of Medicine was the first book dealing with experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials,[31][32] and efficacy tests,[33][34] and it laid out the following rules and principles for testing the effectiveness of new drugs and medications, which still form the basis of clinical pharmacology[34] and modern clinical trials. Most of this is wildly over the top, based on previous research.
  4. Avicenna was a pioneer of neuropsychiatry As far as I'm aware neuropsychiatry didn't even exist in any recognisable modern sense
  5. He first described numerous neuropsychiatric conditions, including hallucination, insomnia, mania, nightmare, melancholia, dementia, epilepsy, paralysis, stroke, vertigo and tremor. I'd be staggered if this is true. The Romans and Greeks didn't know about epilepsy?
  6. In chemistry, the chemical process of steam distillation was first described by Ibn Sīnā Need to check
  7. As a chemist, Avicenna was one of the first to write refutations on alchemy, after al-Kindi. He wasn't a chemist in the modern sense.
  8. In the chapters on mechanics and engineering in his encyclopedia Mi'yar al-'aql (The Measure of the Mind), Avicenna writes an analysis on the ilm al-hiyal (science of ingenious devices) and makes the first successful attempt to classify simple machines and their combinations sounds like hyperbole to me.
  9. He first describes and illustrates the five constituent simple machines: the lever, pulley, screw, wedge, and windlass first to describe the lever???
  10. He is also the first to describe a mechanism which is essentially a combination of all of these simple machines (except for the wedge). need to check
  11. Father of modern medicine; Avicennian logic; concepts of inertia and momentum; important contributor to geology; pioneer of aromatherapy and neuropsychiatry I've already deleted inertia, momentum, neuropsychiatry. Need to check others.
If anyone wishes to check some of these for me, feel free. --Merlinme (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've had an initial sweep through. I've been quite aggressive in my cuts. If someone wants to put material back in, using references which they have personally verified, please do so. It's slightly scary though how web searches just produce wholesale copies of what is a lot of highly dubious Wikipedia material. --Merlinme (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 7 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 13 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviving this thread as I have a bit of time. --Merlinme (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Currently on diff 20. --Merlinme (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently on diff 22. Can anybody verify any of the Astronomy details? There's a series of obscure and hard to verify references which all seem somewhat implausible. If no-one can verify (or provide other references) I'm tempted to delete the whole section. As far as I can tell astronomy is not generally considered one of Avicenna's most significant contributions. --Merlinme (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The only one I could find was, "A History of Arabic Astronomy" that references this;
"The study of astrology was refuted by Avicenna. His reasons were both due to the methods used by astrologers being conjectural rather than empirical and also due to the views of astrologers conflicting with orthodox Islam. He also cited passages from the Qur'an in order to justify his refutation of astrology on both scientific and religious grounds."
However the source, George Saliba (1994), A History of Arabic Astronomy: Planetary Theories During the Golden Age of Islam, p. 60, 67-69, only mentions Avicenna on page 69. I saw nothing on pages 60, 67 or 68 that had anything to do with Avicenna. Hope this helps. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Adulthood

This is an extensive story of the working life of a major character, yet has been without references for 4 years. This is hardly good enough for the biography of a major historical figure. In fact, most of it and the subsequent section seem to be verbatim (or slightly modified from this by well-intentioned editors) from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica entry which appeared in earlier versions of this article (see history 2004). Should it simply be replaced with EB1911 text, or at least citations added to credit it? Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Added "Tajik-Persian"

I added "Tajik-Persian" instead of "Persian" since the two group of people (Tajiks and Persians) are, because of 18th century political-events, no longer the exact same people. Pluss that in articles about scholars and historical peoples from Iran articles tend to use the term "Iranian" instead of "Persian".

--Arsaces (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your unsourced addition, since all the sources for his ethnicity state Persian and make no mention of Tajik. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Tajik people are East-Persians and thus adding "Tajik-Persian" instead of Persian would be more accurate, given that Avicenna was born in the Eastern parts of the Persian world and given the fact that articles about historical West-Persians tend to use the word "Iranian" instead of Persian.

For only 100 year ago there was no significant difference between "Persian" and "Tajik", but because of modern geo-political events the two have different meanings now and thus "Tajik-Persian" would be more appropriate.

--90.149.188.205 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Our own opinions not normally relevant, we should use what the most reliable sources use (giving due weight to conflicting sources where necessary). I'm also not sure I understand your argument, as based on what you're saying he would have been considered a Persian at the time, it's only if we are considering him using current terminology that it might be correct to call him Tajik-Persian. In general we would normally use the appropriate contemporary term, not the appropriate modern term. Valentinian I was born in Cibalae, modern-day Vinkovci, which is part of Croatia. No-one would ever describe him as Croatian, though. He was a Roman. Similarly it makes no sense to describe Avicenna using distinctions which were created centuries after his death. --Merlinme (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Touche. A fair argument. I will not edit it back again. --90.149.188.205 (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Nahid285

User:Nahid285 needs to use the talk page and gain consensus for the change(s) he wants, instead of edit warring. I have already posted information from "The Encyclopaedia of Islam" concerning Avicenna's place of birth on Nahid285's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at cleanup3. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Will look at this article next. Will now tag article. This may take some time, the last one took months. --Merlinme (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of concentrating on the worst problems first I've done a search for "pioneer", "father" and "first", all words heavily over-used by Jagged_85. Ignoring routine uses of first, that gives:
  1. Ibn Sīnā is also considered the father of the fundamental concept of momentum in physics. Really don't think he is.
  2. In this, Ibn Sīnā is credited as being the first to correctly document the anatomy of the human eye, along with descriptions of eye afflictions such as cataracts. Need to check this, but sounds rather sweeping to me.
  3. The Canon of Medicine was the first book dealing with experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials,[31][32] and efficacy tests,[33][34] and it laid out the following rules and principles for testing the effectiveness of new drugs and medications, which still form the basis of clinical pharmacology[34] and modern clinical trials. Most of this is wildly over the top, based on previous research.
  4. Avicenna was a pioneer of neuropsychiatry As far as I'm aware neuropsychiatry didn't even exist in any recognisable modern sense
  5. He first described numerous neuropsychiatric conditions, including hallucination, insomnia, mania, nightmare, melancholia, dementia, epilepsy, paralysis, stroke, vertigo and tremor. I'd be staggered if this is true. The Romans and Greeks didn't know about epilepsy?
  6. In chemistry, the chemical process of steam distillation was first described by Ibn Sīnā Need to check
  7. As a chemist, Avicenna was one of the first to write refutations on alchemy, after al-Kindi. He wasn't a chemist in the modern sense.
  8. In the chapters on mechanics and engineering in his encyclopedia Mi'yar al-'aql (The Measure of the Mind), Avicenna writes an analysis on the ilm al-hiyal (science of ingenious devices) and makes the first successful attempt to classify simple machines and their combinations sounds like hyperbole to me.
  9. He first describes and illustrates the five constituent simple machines: the lever, pulley, screw, wedge, and windlass first to describe the lever???
  10. He is also the first to describe a mechanism which is essentially a combination of all of these simple machines (except for the wedge). need to check
  11. Father of modern medicine; Avicennian logic; concepts of inertia and momentum; important contributor to geology; pioneer of aromatherapy and neuropsychiatry I've already deleted inertia, momentum, neuropsychiatry. Need to check others.
If anyone wishes to check some of these for me, feel free. --Merlinme (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've had an initial sweep through. I've been quite aggressive in my cuts. If someone wants to put material back in, using references which they have personally verified, please do so. It's slightly scary though how web searches just produce wholesale copies of what is a lot of highly dubious Wikipedia material. --Merlinme (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 7 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 13 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviving this thread as I have a bit of time. --Merlinme (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Currently on diff 20. --Merlinme (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently on diff 22. Can anybody verify any of the Astronomy details? There's a series of obscure and hard to verify references which all seem somewhat implausible. If no-one can verify (or provide other references) I'm tempted to delete the whole section. As far as I can tell astronomy is not generally considered one of Avicenna's most significant contributions. --Merlinme (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The only one I could find was, "A History of Arabic Astronomy" that references this;
"The study of astrology was refuted by Avicenna. His reasons were both due to the methods used by astrologers being conjectural rather than empirical and also due to the views of astrologers conflicting with orthodox Islam. He also cited passages from the Qur'an in order to justify his refutation of astrology on both scientific and religious grounds."
However the source, George Saliba (1994), A History of Arabic Astronomy: Planetary Theories During the Golden Age of Islam, p. 60, 67-69, only mentions Avicenna on page 69. I saw nothing on pages 60, 67 or 68 that had anything to do with Avicenna. Hope this helps. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Unarchive Jagged cleanup as I hopefully have a bit of time and I now have a JSTOR account. (Woohoo!) --Merlinme (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Another (minor) point on his name

Where is says " or in Arabic writing Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā[2] (Arabic أبو علي الحسين بن عبد الله بن سينا)" the English doesn't correctly transliterate the Arabic. Either the English would be Alī al-Ḥusayn bin ʿAbd Allāh bin Sīnā or else the Arabic would be أبو علي الحسين ابن عبد الله ابن سينا .

They both mean the same thing, but they aren't the same name. I've never heard anyone say, for example, "Osama ibn Laden."

This is true. Additionally, the second Arabic name listed does actually say ibn--does anybody have a source that suggests one is used over the other? Secondplanet (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
A quick search of the page reveals that "ibn" is used several times in the references and "bin" none. The Arabic has been changed to reflect this. Secondplanet (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Name

(a) We may soon reach a point where Ibn Sina becomes his WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMON name, but 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) I'm not sure what ابو علی‌ سینا is but it's not "Ibn Sina". Don't include it in the lead with misleading romanization. If it is the Farsi form of Ibn-Sina, it's fine to include it again but you should include a gloss in italics immediately after: Persian: ابو علی‌ سینا, Whatever This Really Says. It's Bu Ali Sina (which it seems to be) or something else, it doesn't go in the lead at all: it goes in the infobox under Other names.

(c) The inline comments were very polite, but it's more helpful to link to policy if we've got one. In the meantime, I'm shifting to the (slightly smaller) format used by the article on Muhammad (pbuh). If it's good enough for the Prophet, it's good enough for freethinkers like Avicenna. (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—like I said—it was very polite and we should aim to keep the use consistent across pages.)

(d) The short form of the name was given as Farsi and the long form given as Arabic. Both names are Arabic (fixed). The Farsi may look similar but be pronounced differently. If so, feel free to add in an italic romanization to capture how he or his people would have spoken his name. — LlywelynII 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

Not saying that it's unbiased (it ain't), but Avicenna at the 9th ed. EB has a pretty thorough treatment of why this guy was so important to medieval Europe and the ways in which they misunderstood but were influenced by him. — LlywelynII 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death

As We Can see, the article does not give any indications on what kind of a disease caused his death.Why is that?Is it not mentioned in any of references?Rezameyqani (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty common for there to be no clear cause of death for historical figures before the modern era. Lots of people died from an unspecified fever, or "ague", or "colic" (in Avicenna's case). Off the top of my head, the Death of Alexander the Great is endlessly argued over, and the exact cause of death of John of England is unclear. We can't perform an autopsy, surviving doctor's notes are rare and probably not very helpful even where they exist, and it's hard to know which contemporary descriptions are reliable and accurate, if any at all. Famously, King John was alleged to have died from "a surfeit of peaches". --Merlinme (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Style, Phrasing and Word Choices

This is a mix of general comments about style, rather than content. As other sections in this Talk page are about content issues, maybe a single section for all non-content issues will suffice.

1) It seems that the whole Biography section was written with a "fairy tale" style of writing. This in addition to some non-standard ways of describing things and several parts that seem implausible. This might be secondary to the subject's works, but it would be a better article overall if it was written in more encyclopedic way.

2) The word "Corpus" is used twice and, although suitable, it seems that simply "body of work" is a better fit for this type of article. In any case, the second use of the word in "corpus of works" is redundant as corpus already implies/refers-to a collection, or "works".

3) The term "madhab" links to a WP page where the word is is spelled differently. And the use of the word in "...regarding Avicenna's madhab..." would be better off with a more obvious equivalent, or a short explanation in parenthesis. Following the link, I still can't tell if the word refers to (is a name for) a specific school of thought within Islamic jurisprudence or is a generic term, like "category". Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit War but no one is WP:TALK

Use Talk page and stop edit war.--Inayity (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

This has been posted before...[8]

  • Ravil Bukharaev, is not a historian.[9]
  • Theodore Levin, is professor of music at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Not a historian.

Therefore, neither Islam in Russia:The Four Seasons or The Hundred Thousand Fools of God: Musical Travels in Central Asia are reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a sock puppetry/POV-pushing team case

Same behavior and edits by these users:

Better to fill and submit a SPI. --46.143.214.22 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dont for get the IP:188.113.200.68 --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth and death

According to the Encyclopædia Iranica article, only his year of death is known, even his age is very uncertain; 980 is the traditional estimate for his birth year but said to be "untenable". So how could the precise day of birth and death be known? I must assume that somebody made those dates up completely out of thin air. For medieval personalities, such exact dates are almost never known. Nice job for not catching this, watchers. No wonder Wikipedia degenerates into Disinfopedia if obvious falsehoods like these are just shrugged off. We have responsibility, folks! Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable, not to spread "truthiness". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but we have eight refrerences to prove he is the "Father of Early Modern Medicine", so it's not all bad! It was this edit by an IP on 17 October 2014 that added the falsely precise dates, probably copied (incorrectly) from ru:Ибн Сина. Unfortunately, the number of people wanting to add fluff exceeds the number prepared to oppose it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Atheist"

This is a poor translation of the pejorative used by Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc. to attack Avicenna. The world ملحد is used to mean "atheist," especially today, but a more literal translation like "deviant" or "heretic" would be appropriate here. He wasn't attacked for nonbelief in a deity, but for other metaphysical beliefs that his critics considered to be at odds with the teachings of Islam. "Atheist" gives the wrong impression. 108.4.27.205 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What would be a better version then? Something along the lines of "he was accused of heretical teachings"? Can you provide a secondary source which puts it better? --Merlinme (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The statement was without any reliable citation to it, so I just removed it. Khestwol (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
From what i know from many sources in arabic (like History of atheism in islam by Abdel Rahman Badawi) is that he wasn't only "against islamic teachings" but he didn't believe in revelation at all just like Abu bakr arrazi. So i think the article should be more precise about his beliefs than just saying he was a devout muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.93.180.42 (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
the "devout Muslim" thing is just fluff. He was a Muslim philosopher, writing on stuff including theological speculation. "Devout" as an adjective doesn't really cover theological speculation, but it is here only used for emphasis to drive home the point that he was a Muslim (which he was). Of course, Muslim theology of the 10th century would today be almost universally considered heretical and blasphemous. He was shot down as a heretic in the 12th century, and after the 13th century it was theological thought itself that came to be seen as heretical. Of course this is of no interest to the people who just want a figurehead on which they can tag the labels "devout Muslim and great thinker". The article airily claims that "Avicennism" became a "leading school" in Islamic philosophy. Well, when and where, and more to the point until when? After 1200, I am quite sure you will be hard put to find any argument invoking Avicenna's scheme of emanations. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Traces of WP:BOMBARD antics

seriously?[10]

He has been described as the "Father of Early Modern Medicine". [Colgan, Richard. Advice to the Healer: On the Art of Caring. Springer, 2013, p. 37.(ISBN 978-1-4614-5169-3)] [Juergensmeyer M., Kitts M., Jerryson M. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence'. OUP USA, 2013, p. 625.(ISBN 9780199759996)] [Paul E. "The Emperor Is Buck Naked: Why Medical Evidence Is Not Necessarily Proof" Abbott Press, 2014, p 12. (ISBN 9781458216410)] [Herlihy J. "Islam for Our Time: Inside the Traditional World of Islamic Spirituality" Xlibris Corporation, 2012, p 108.(ISBN 9781479709953)] [Ma'oz M. "The Meeting of Civilizations: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish" Sussex Academic Press, 2009, p 243. (ISBN 9781845193959)] [Ganchy S. "Islam and Science, Medicine, and Technology" The Rosen Publishing Group, 2009, p 30. (ISBN 9781435850668)] [Galvin T. "Come from the Shadows: The Long and Lonely Struggle for Peace in Afghanistan" Douglas & McIntyre, 2011, p 34. (ISBN 9781553657828)] [Ishiyama J., Breuning M. "21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook" SAGE Publications, 2010, p 573. (ISBN 9781452266367)]

These "father of X" epithets are of dubious notability or stylistic merit at the best of times. Here, the father not of "medicine", nor of "modern medicine", but of early modern medicine? Why not "late late medieval" or "early early modern"? And even if there is any merit in this epithet, the has been called passive statement isn't made any better by slapping half a dozen references on it, not a single one of which makes clear who has called him by this title and when. Was it Colgan (2013)? Or rather "The Emperor Is Buck Naked" (2014)? Or maybe "Islam for our Time" (2012)? Or maybe "Meeting of Civilizations" (2012)? Or perhaps "Islam and Science" (2009)? Or how about the work on "Peace in Afghanistan" (2011)? Or perhaps the handbook on 21st-century political science? That sounds like a relevant candidate now?

This kind of statement needs one reference which establishes who said so, when they said so, and by weight of their credentials that it is relevant to repeat the statement. What has been done here instead is just a pathetic (because I assume unintentional) parody of shoddy Wikipedia editing. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


I think I see what is going on here. Citogenesis. This explains why such an extremely lame and unlikely title could stick around, and why it is only found in suspect and lazy literature beginning about 2009. The claim was introduced like that, "he is considered the father of medicine" cited to one Cas Lek Cesk, who apparently said in some paper back in 1980 "The father of medicine, Avicenna, in our science and culture". Then, the claim "father of medicine" or "father of medicine" spent some times in the lead and/or infobox of this page. Then it was taken down. Then it was added back with the weird "early modern" addition, because clearly he cannot be "the father of medicine", nor "the father of modern medicine", so let's make him the father of something. Apparently by using google books and just heaping up all the hacks who used this "father" quip since 2010 or so. I realize this article has always been rather poor, and very difficult to maintain, but this is really the opposite of how articles should be written (obsessive WP:BOMBARD attention on hyperbole in the lead, pretty much unsupervised sprawling prose in the body).

Of course, this is what always happens on Wikipedia as soon any historical character can be argued to be Persian: His "Persian" identity will be BOMBARDed with at least four footnotes (even when it is completely undisputed! guys! you love Persians, I get it, but why would you do that?), and then the hyperbole will be piled up by cherry-picked google-books search results, but all this loving attention will be firmly limited to the lead and infobox, because hey, who will ever read more than that. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Too funny, the original "source" of the "father of medicine" thing, "Cas Lek Cesk", is actually Casopis Lékaru Ceských "Journal of Czech Physicians". It was cited as "Cas Lek Cesk (1980). "The father of medicine, Avicenna, in our science and culture: Abu Ali ibn Sina (980-1037)", Becka J. 119 (1), p. 17-23." So, this was a guy called J. Becka writing in Cas Lek Cesk in 1980, and not vice versa. Of course, whoever added this never saw the paper, they googled "father of medicine" and found this page where the title of a Czech paper of 1980 is given in English translation. Then they confused the author with the journal name.

So this entire "father of" thing boils down to, in communist-era Czechoslovakia, a paper on Avicenna once dubbed him "the father of medicine in our science and culture". Only on Wikipedia could something as marginal as this keep festering until it becomes "he has been described as the father of early modern medicine", tagged with a half-dozen footnote to random publications from the 2010s, right up there in the lead paragraph on Avicenna. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. I put my thoughts at the user's talk and I will repeat here: Suppose someone tried to justify the statement "Avicenna is regarded as the father of modern medicine". Is there any objective test that could be applied? What work known to have been done by the person would justify such a statement? For example, if the person worked to establish hygiene, that could be noted; if they established evidentiary-based treatments, that could be noted.

Thanks also for your analysis of the history of the phrase. There has been a wide push (not just at Wikipedia) in recent decades to boost the status of certain historic individuals, and a massive case of boosterism editing is still slowly being cleaned up. At any rate, let's stick to recorded facts and omit the father of decorations. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I dispare of ever getting a good article here or any where in wikipedia about Muslims and science, but keep up the good work J8079s (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't an Arabic block quotation right-justified?

... instead of left-justified, since it's read from right to left? How can that be achieved? Wegesrand (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the translation of the floating man argument.

Hi all. I provided a better translation (both, I think, in terms of accuracy and readability) of the floating man argument. Also took out all the inserted arabic terms, since we are giving the actual original Arabic below. Please feel free to change or improve the translation if you can, it is not an easy passage (so also all respect to the previous attempt). Please, however, do not simply revert it; I do have the background to be trusted on this matter, as anyone who can make the comparison should be aware of. 47.18.169.243 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

deletion for the sake of bad reason

my edit inverted by 139.51.15.19 . the reason mentioned as (Completely unnecessary and poorly written text). while this added texts are both necessary and rich. according to my edition on the basis of Sharaf Khorasani, on of the most scholars in Iran on Avicenna' life, there is not one report on Avicenna's life but there are three reports on this subject. before anything I refer to this point.--m,sharaf (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

rewrite Avicenna'life

on of the best and accurate narrative on Avicenna's life is belong to Sharaf Khorasani. he was an encyclopedia writer and also a prominent Iranian scholar in Islamic philosophy. you can see his essay on Avicenna here in islamic great Encyclopedia.--m,sharaf (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Avicenna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Further reading: Russian works

Does this entire list of Russian literature really belong here on en-wiki? I don't think these works are even cited anywhere in the article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


I agree with the above, I am another reader, and I just want to say that I noticed the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.91.80 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:UE

The article needs to make up its mind regarding Ibn Sina vs. Avicenna. As it stands, it randomly switches between the two forms. As the article title opted for Avicenna (I suppose, correctly under WP:UE, WP:UCN), it would stand to reason to use this form throughout (except, of course, where the name itself is under discussion). --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the lead sentence

The lead sentence, and in particular the part "was a Persian polymath" has been a major vandalism magnet for months. Could we please reformulate this to leave out the ethnicity? Perhaps by saying "was a polymath from the region of Bukhara"? - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not the correct way to face with vandalism. This is wiping out the question. The correct way is to semi-protect the article, or to activate "pending changes" for it. The huge number of vandalism in this particular sentence clearly shows that it's an important aspect of Avicenna's life, and a matter with this importance should be mentioned in the lead section of the article. Although, there should be a notice on the talk page, something similar to Talk:Rumi, to prevent other editors from changing this sentence without a consensus. 46.225.24.102 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No, reformulating the lead keeps the article accessible for IP users like you, while at the same time preventing vandalism. I think that is a much better solution than continuously raising protection levels. The fact that there is so much vandalism tells us more about how nationalistic people are, rather than how important Avicenna's ethnicity is. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Articles should not be written with having people's nationalistic point of view in mind, that's not Wikipedia's problem. This is like censoring an article, because a few readers does not like to see a particular matter in an article (read Wikipedia's guideline on WP:CENSOR). A good example is Jennifer Lopez, the number of vandalism in the article clearly shows that how horny people are, but the article should not be written with having people's feeling in mind. Wikipedia should not censor that article and remove the pictures, for example, just because some readers have evil feelings about her. On the other hand, activating WP:PCPP on Avicenna's article still keeps the article accessible for IPs like me. 46.225.38.202 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Then would you say that Britannica is censoring? - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And exactly because Britanica does not censor the article, they have written "Avicenna -- Persian philosopher and scientist" in bold format. 46.225.38.202 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see that, nvm... - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Avicenna had memorised the entire Quran by the age of 10

The same information is repeated twice, using different wording and quoting differen't sources. Has anyone read the whole text to find such errors? (I haven't).Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC) The adulthood doesn't quote any sources since 2009, in a text supported y 107 references and a long list of Further reading. Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

@Arjayay: The United Nations source is about "geographical names", surely that's a reliable source for geographical articles, but this article is not about geography, and I have a source about medieval Islamic civilization which says the etymology is unclear. -- Kouhi (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Kindly include it in the article, then. I'll rewrite the sentence to match. — LlywelynII 17:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record, an online version of the UN reference can be found here (Vol. II, which is the second document; 21 MB!). Page 31 only uses "Sina" to demonstrate how the letter sin is used, nothing etymological. It's not even the correct Sina: سینا‎‎ (right) vs سیناء‎‎ (wrong). I'd remove this incorrectly sourced piece of misinformation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
As below, the Persian form is identical but you're right that I was wrong to ignore the bit on the end when using it as a citation here. — LlywelynII 18:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Name

Deserves its a separate section, but it could still use some work:

  • Avicenna doesn't need IPA, but if it gets one it should be sourced or removed. We're not talking about formal classical (or even ecclesiastical) Latin but English mangling of Latin mangling of an Arabic form of a Persian name. I certainly pronounce it closer to /ɪ/ than /ɛ/ and we shouldn't be snobbish or overly precious about one "correct" form existing.
  • Ibn Sina probably does need an IPA to clarify the unusual set of letters and to clarify that it's properly /iː/ and not /ɪ/. Needs sourcing, though.
  • This site, along with our Mount Sinai article's Farsi equivalent, suggests a connection between Sina and Sinai and from there a likely link to the Mesopotamian moon god Sin. This dictionary shows it might also come from a word for "breast" or a kind of tree, though, so—while we should dig in more to the etymology—we should wait for a reliable source to clarify which is the likely origin of the name.

 — LlywelynII 17:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing was the right move. Per WP:SYNTH, we should stick to RSs that discuss the etymology of Ibn Sina's name, and not other similarly spelled words. Eperoton (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avicenna. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 10:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Why are there so long stories in this article but references for them are missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.99.115 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I added he was sometimes considered as the father of early modern medicine, with sources. Your opinion ? Wikaviani (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Other contributions

Hi, many sources point to Avicenna as the "father of the fundamental concept of momentum in physics":

http://sciences-croisees.com/N7-8/hist/MEHRIBAN.pdf

https://books.google.fr/books?id=CEcSDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA625&lpg=PA625&dq=avicenna+father+concept+momentum&source=bl&ots=pY4aVUqsS7&sig=TPryAw3zO-J903YDsmX5PEKtObM&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicmp3_ppfWAhWrCMAKHf2AD2kQ6AEIYDAQ#v=onepage&q=avicenna%20father%20concept%20momentum&f=false

http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/a/Avicenna.htm 

So what about including it in the article ?

37.172.127.170 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

On my talk page I wrote (when this had only the middle cite): I feel the lead is getting over-cluttered with these "father of this, creator of that" entries; to merit inclusion, it would be better if these things were mentioned in more than one source, or a source about the history of physics - which this ain't.
If other editors (particularly ones who speak better French and some Italian) feel this merits inclusion based on these three cites, I'm content enough for it to be re-added. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The relevant portions in all these sources are in English. Their reliability is debatable. The first website is run by academics, and the paper is written by an academic, but it's strikingly unprofessional as a publication, with broken English and inline citations to a random unsigned text from the web. The passage on the Italian website is of unclear attribution. The Oxford Handbook is a solid, but not specialist source. This characterization is found in the chapter "A Sociotheological Approach to Understanding Religious Violence", and the authors don't seem to have expertise in the history of science. To summarize, we can say that this characterization appears in some reputable publications, but it's not clear that it's a view held by specialists in the history of science.
Rather than simply arguing about this vague "father of" title, I think it would be more helpful to describe the actual theory proposed by Avicenna based on specialist sources. Here's a concise discussion, which explains his concept of mayl and how it relates to what later came to be known as momentum. Eperoton (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This is actually already covered briefly in the article, though without mentioning momentum. Eperoton (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User Eperoton, i don't think that the level of English of professor Mehriban should affect the reliability of her article and i would say that your words are a little bit shocking for a non native English speaker like me... Professor Mehriban is an academic in that field as you said, so her "broken English" as you say is not a legit argument to criticize the reliability of her article for this topic. I think we should write in the article that this man is the father of the concept of momentum just because many sources states so, but as user pinkbeast said, we should write this elsewhere than in the lead to avoid a self-cluttered introduction. 2A01:E34:EE9D:A200:4505:3888:ACA8:BAA9 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm new on Wikipedia and i don't know if my opinion has any importance, but as a non native English speaker, i would like to say that i agree with the anonymous user above. What does the level of English of Mehriban do with her level as an academic in this field...??? Of course that we should include in the article that this man is a founder of the concept of momentum just because he is so ! Just have a look on internet and you'll see that there are far more than 3 sources claiming so... Wikipedia contains many articles listing people as father or founder of some fields, but some of you are saying that they don't want to say "father of this, founder of that"...! User Eperoton, we can speak of Avicenna as the founder of momentum AND also write about his concept of mayl... Farawahar (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You know, you almost had me convinced until you came up with this very obvious sock puppet. Leave it out until an editor who's not a sock puppeteer supports it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but i'm a not a "sock puppet" at all and as i told above, i'm new on wikipedia and obviously, you just don't care about my opinion. Anyway, i have tried to contribute and gave my opinion. Farawahar (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, you're not, you just turn up shortly after the IP to express the same opinion, can't use the Shift key in the same way as the IP, use this odd "User Eperoton" form of address just like the IP... Pinkbeast (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if IP and Farawahar are the same person (judging by the time shift between the two messages, pinkbeast may be right), but the IP's argument about the level of English used by foreign scholars (Mehriban) is legit. More, i looked at the article and haven't seen such a blalant "broken English"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikaviani (talk • contribs) 08:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So how do we solve this ? Any other opinions ? Pinkbeast, what do you think now ? 37.172.115.249 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, my reference to broken English was unclear. The author's command of English isn't a measure of reliability. However, the markedly unprofessional form of the article, including the citations, indicates a lack of professional editorial control that would establish reliability through the publisher. Without it, we need reliability based on the author, and I see no evidence that the author is an established expert in the history of science with peer-reviewed publications in that area. If this "father of" characterization is generally accepted, it shouldn't be hard to find solid sourcing for it. If we can only find a couple of tangential references to it, then we shouldn't give this view too much prominence. Putting a statement like "some authors have called him" in the body of the article should be ok. It doesn't look like anyone is insisting on putting this statement in the lead, so perhaps we can agree on that. Eperoton (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's ok for me, i understand your POV and totally agree with you. So we should write something about that, precising that all sources are not unanimous, in another part of the article. I'll do that when i'll have a little time... Thanks for your very constructive contribution. 37.170.140.220 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Afshona's coordinates

In case anyone is interested, Afshona's coordinate is: 39°59′38.48″N 64°22′41.2″E / 39.9940222°N 64.378111°E / 39.9940222; 64.378111. Dalba 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avicenna. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avicenna. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Abu sina

Ethnicity of Abu Sina is controversial between scientists,some says persian and some says turkic,so no right to write the ethnicity of Abu Sina persian,for example Theodore Craig Levin says that Abu Sina was Turkic.


[8] ^ Theodore Craig Levin, The Hundred Thousand Fools of God: Musical Travels in Central Asia (And Queens, New York), Indiana University Press, 1996, p.40 Najibhakimy (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at the topics of the book you're talking about, it's not a specialized source for the biography of a medieval muslim scholar, therefore, it's unreliable here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Just NO. First read WP:RS and other related guidelines. Seems you copy-pasted that citation from another WP or an old revision. See this diff. Theodore Levin is a musician.[11](archived link) The author of that book is not a historian and his book is non-RS for this topic. Before posting more comments, it's better to take a look at talk page archives to see how many times his ethnicity and background discussed by editors. Also avoid writing forum-like comments and nationalistic rants on talk pages.[12] Read WP:FORUM. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Enjoy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmmm, sockpuppet? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, probably ! thanks for your insight ! best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems just copy-pasted that citation from Turkish WP.[13] It's citation #8 there. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Greater Khorasan

Is there a reason why we are unable to report that Abu Ali Sina was from Greater Khorasan. This is a verified fact, and I am not sure why this is something that needs to be reverted back. As modern western sources have noted political and cultural repression of the modern Eastern Persian identity (Tajiks) -- this, unfortunately, appears to be an example of that.

Is there an encyclopedic reason that prohibits us from reporting his regional origins when it has been noted that the ethnic page that autolinks to him is not considered fully unbiased? I'm not here to start revision war, so I feel like it is best to have a discussion about this.

If you require a specific quote that says he was born in Greater Khorasan -- I am sure that can be done. However, this is already established. -- Jamaas9 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jamaas9, my revert has nothing to do with a "repression of Tajiks", and the fact that you don't want to edit war is good for you, because edit warring can lead you to a block here on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because you provided no source for it, if you can find reliable sources supporting your edit then you can add back ""Greater Khorassan" and include your sources in the article. If you need any help, just ask, i'll be glad to help you. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Dorood, Wikaviani, thanks for clarifying your intentions. My point was not put explicit blame or intent but highlight that this can easily interpreted to at least implicitly repressive to the Tajik's (or all Persians from Khorasani descent) connection to their historical, presumably genetic, cultural, and modern ethnic connection to their Eastern Iranian ancestors. As we have noted in the Rumi page, there seems to be an issue regarding the modern Persian people page, and want to ensure the Wikipedia can serve its purpose to relay accurate and reliable information. Adding the Greater Khorasan region does add to the accuracy as it helps readers at least understand there is at least a historical connection between present-day Central Asia/Afghanistan and present-day Iran -- which a topic that isn't fully panned out yet by western scholars regarding the native Persian-speaking population of these regions. To maintain true neutrality, and given the term Persian people page is primarily used both in a historical and modern context to only relate a subset of the full historical Persian population. We need to be extra careful to not be biased at all and serve as a trusted source for people who are looking to at least have an introduction to Iranian studies.
I applaud that you want to have specific quotes even regarding established facts as it will also further relay to the readers that we are to be fully trusted. If you are willing -- you can go ahead and search for one along with me. Do you believe we need a direct quote saying that Buhkara is in Khorasan, or is just being from Buhkara enough? By definition, Buhkara is in Greater Khorasan and that why I am asking. Sepas Ghorzaram --Jamaas9 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Done Jamaas9, i added back "Greater Khorassan" and a source for this. And by the way, i'm a Khorassani from Neishapour, my goal is absolutely not to be "implicitly repressive" to Tajiks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: I reverted your edit. How is that book written by two physicians a reliable history book? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Wario-Man : then this means i screwed up, i think i confused two people with the same name. Thanks for the revert of my erroneous edit. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

good sources/Rfc

[this] and [this] Notice that the editor who did all this is by far the top contributor to the article, with 350 edits. A great deal of what we have here is original research. There is a large group of articles at Iranica [14] its more neutral than what we have here. Also a good source is Goodman, Lenn Evan (1992). Avicenna. Routledge. ISBN 9780415019293. Retrieved 9 July 2010.

Chemistry

The quote on the impossibility of transmutation is out of context. The 5-6 pages here is a good initiation into his philosophy. [15] (starting from p.155).

Problem of just quoting lines like this, the context is lost in the process.

That conclusion stands mostly on two arguments:

Appearance says little about substance:

  • According to him, from one gold by appearance and one silver, one could not tell which is gold by substance.
    • Since what eyes shows says nothing about the ontology (nature) of the object itself.
      • Transmutation of appearance does not imply transmutation of substance.

Temporary changes can not change substance:

  • Because the world of appearance (physical) change.
    • Any change of appearance will therefor change.
      • Since substance is invariable and change of appearance is not.
        • Change of appearance does not imply transmutation of substance.

The second argument is particularly relevant in Islamic-Alchemy.

Persian

change ((Persian)) to ((Persians|Persian)) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:1c50:13ba:7843:a475 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The first usage of Persian links to Persian people. I see that Persians itself redirects to Persian people. If you want any of the other 34 instances of the word 'Persian' in this article linked, please give the full sentence for context so it's clear which one you are referring to. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Google Doodle

There is a new Google Doodle entitled Ibn Sina’s 1038th Birthday published today. Throughout the cover text for the doodle and on the doodle itself Google uses "Ibn Sina", admitting just once that he was sometimes known as “Avicenna” in the West. The search link is also for "Ibn Sina". Now although the doodle went out in several countries, it was targeted mainly at North Africa where Ibn Sīnā is his commonly used name. It appears that "Avicenna" is the commonly used western name. For example in the Time article about the doodle Avicenna is used. There is no reason to change the article title or the text of the article on the basis of a doodle sent to be intelligible to a non-English speaking audience. And I see the article has now been protected to stop this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Without expressing any opinion on the merits of either name, it does bother me that usage switches randomly between Avicenna and Ibn Sina throughout the article. It would be much better consistency-wise to pick one and use it thoughout than to use both. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 13:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The name of the great doctor and philosopher, in English, is Avicenna. In the English wikipedia, we use English names. So, for example, we call Rome a city that no Roman calls Rome. The name of the city is "Roma", but we don't care, because we use English names. The same can be said of "Venezia," of "Αθήνα," of "רוּשָׁלַיִם‬." Great names all, but useless for us, because this is the English wikipedia, not the Italian, nor Greek, nor Hebraic wikipedia. Untill some clown comes along and redirects _all_ of the English wikipedia names to some supposedly original or "politically correct" name, Avicenna it should stay, and, for consistency, this is the name that should be used throughout the article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Ibn Sina has been increasingly used in academic literature in recent years. Perhaps with time this variant will become predominant as happened with Peking/Beijing and Tamerlane/Timur, but at the moment Avicenna seems to be more common. Eperoton (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This seems a sensible position (and devoid of inane paranoia about "political correctness"). We can wait and see what the literature uses. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with XavierItzm. The most common name in English sources matters. Why some parts of article use "Ibn Sina"? What's the point of using it? It does not make any sense in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Order of the names

@Wikaviani: The birth name must be referred first and then the nicknames, mononyms or pen names. As you can see in featured articles of BLPs. Bi-on-ic (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bi-on-ic, thanks for taking the time to explain your changes. I'll self-revert. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avicenna/Archive_3&oldid=1136317641"