Talk:Platonism in Islamic philosophy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval philosophy

Islam

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Class Discussion

1.) unbiased- The wikipedia site claims that the page is unbiased based on the page instructing viewers how to follow this philosophy instead of stating what it is. Other than that it is fine 2.) referenced- There are references on the bottom of the page. Well documented. 3.) notable/important- yes because it states a new philosophy and where it is derived from. 4.) complete- yes it summarizes the subject without going into unrelated topics. 5.) There are not any pictures but I do not think you can add pictures unless you have completed a certain amount of reviews etc. 6.) This page is linked to a wide variety of links as well as the sources that were cited in the text. 7.) This is clearly written and to the point.

1) unbiased - I don't see why the neutrality of this page is in dispute.
2) references - I would have like to see more references for some of the claims (e.g. "Neoplatonism flourished especially among the Persian philosophers of the 10th century and in the Fatimid court of Egypt in the 11th century.")
3) notable - seems notable
4) complete but concise - seems concise, but I imagine much, much, much more could be written about this.
5) visual - no place for visuals
6) linked - seems well linked
7) clearly written - it's clearly written for the most part. The philosophical tenets section, though, has one paragraph about that but talks about other things, like notable followers of this philosophy.Nabaati (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reason motivating me to put the tag was because of Islamic Neoplatonists adopted the mystic doctrine of Plotinus’ One into their conception of God as a transcendent incorporeal being. Though it is sourced, chances are that most Muslims do not necessarily believe that the concept of One God is adopted from Plato. So I would look the other side and source the other point of view.Thanks. I've tagged ambiguous because it may not be clear what you may mean by adopted. --Peace world 09:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]