Talk:Avicenna/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Avicenna a 'Bon Viveur'?

Not having read his autobiography I have little to go by. However, a recent BBC programme about Avicenna and his thought (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml) portrayed him as having a hearty sexual appetite and proclivity for drink. I should add that these details served to illustrate the vitality of the man rather than a lack of moral fiber. In the light of this, perhaps the sections of the article dealing with Avicenna's character need fleshing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.200.247 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, Avicenna drunk alcohol for a long time before quitting. I am not sure about the rest of it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Avicenna a Shi'a Muslim

Was Avicenna a Shi'a Muslim? A repetitive, persistent edit insists that he was, but the editor refuses to add a citation. I don't know whether this man was Shi'a, but I do know that adding new info to a Wikipedia article requires a citation that complies with WP:VERIFY. Can someone with more knowledge of this topic shed some light on the subject? Further, should this new addition contain a citation? Kindest regards, Verum (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As Henry Corbin says in History of Islamic Philosophy from autobiography of Avicenna his father and his brother were Ismaili and invited him to this sect. Corbin guess he was Twelveres because he escaped from Mahmud of Ghazni and went to Buwayhids who were Shia. In addition Shia theologians like Nasir al-Din Tusi glorified him while Sunni theologians like al-Ghazali opposed him in Tahafat al-Falasefa.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seyyed, you seem much more knowledgable about this subject than I. I added a note to the infobox which quotes the following from Kahn's book (p. 38): "Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite." If you think your source more acurately depicts our knowledge of the subject, please make changes as you see fit. The infobox currently says Avicenna was Sunni. Thanks, AlphaEta 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to English version of Corbin's book, I would be glad If somebody added it. But about this quotation :"Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite.". It's not correct. He has said in his autobiography that his father is Ismaili. [1]. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Aisha Khan, Avicenna (Ibn Sina): Muslim Physician And Philosopher of the Eleventh Century, p. 38:

"Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite. Avicenna studied the Hanafi school of Sunni law with the learned scholar Ismail al-Zahid. This particular scholar's works shaped Hanafi, one of the four schools of thought in the Sunni branch of Islam."

"He mentions his exposure to Shiite Ismaili philosophy, when his father entertained missionaries of the sect, but says that even at a young age he remained unconvinced."

Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone, A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, p. 196:

"He was also introduced at this time to the study of Islamic law (fiqh) by a Hanafi jurist, Ismail al-Zahid (the Ascetic), so acquiring a talent for disputation that would serve him admirably in assimilating philosophical arguments."

It appears that Avicenna did not accept the invitation to the Ismaili Shia school, but was instead a student of the Hanafi Sunni school of Islamic jurispudence. It wouldn't really make sense for him to study Hanafi Sunni jurispudence if he wasn't at least a Sunni himself.

Jagged 85 (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that he was Ismaili. This is your judgment that due to he learned Hanafai Fiqh so he was Sunni. Some Shia scholars like Shahid Thani even taught other school of Fiqh. I propose to use academic source like the book of Corbin. Also Corbin put him in the category of Hellenistic philosophers and not in the category of theologians including Asha'ri and Mutazili school. Also Seyyed Hossein Nasr says in his article in encyclopedia Britannica that he's famous for his contributions in the field of Aristotelian philosophy.[2] Of course as philosophers in Iran believe, I think he himself made a theological school which we called it in Iran "Cinavi or Cinayee school". [3] --Seyyed(t-c) 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One way to solve this problem is to mention all of the notable ideas. This is more NPOV.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

i was reading a scholarly journal about this issue which basically said that his ideological leanings vis-a-vis Sunnism or Shi'ism were very much unclear, despite his father or grandfather being Ismaili. it might be an idea, as mentioned above, to mention the varying views surrounding this. by the way, al-Ghazzali's opposition to Ibn Sina in tahafut al-falasifa was due to the latter's Aristotelian theology, not necessarily his Shi'ism (hence the book title, "Incoherence of the Philosophers"). ITAQALLAH 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Seyyed - Aisha Khan, Jorge Gracia and Timothy Noone state that his teacher was a Hanafi jurist. I am not suggesting that this makes him a Sunni by default, but that it would be unusual for a Hanafi Sunni jurist to take on a Shia as a student. Also, I was not actually directly replying to your previous post about him being a Twelver Shia, but was commenting on the quotes I gave above. Could you point to which page of Corbin's book explains why he believes Avicenna to be a Twelver? But yes, I do think it's a good idea to mention both points of view to maintain a NPOV. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He wrote in page 170 Both Avicenna's father and his brother were Ismailis - He himself alludes in his autobiography to the efforts they made to win hi to the Ismaili da'wah. As in the case of al-Farabi there is undoubtedly an analogy in structure between the Avicennan universe and Ismaili cosmology, the the philosopher refused to join the brotherhood. Nevertheless, although he shied away from Ismaili Shiism, the reception he was accorded by the Shiite princes of Hamadan and Isfahan ([[[Buwayhids]]]) allows us at any rate to infer that he subscribed to Twelver shiism. [4]

I think there can be another possibility. He learned whatever he found and then made his own idea. So he didn't follow any other school of though or madhab. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just added both points of view to the article (Hanafi and Twelver). If you have another source that says he had his own theological school, then feel free to add that as well. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Avicennism instead of Mu'tazila

I think "Avicennism" is the technical word which we should use as his school of thought. He has built a philosophy by using Greek heritage and Islam. These are some source which support my claim.

• Corbin has used this expression in page 167. He described the effect of this philosophy in Islamic world especially on Shia theology as well as Europe, after he described it through the chapter. book[5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Article Islam in encyclopedia Britannica:" Avicenna (flourished 10th–11th centuries), whose versatility, imagination, inventiveness, and prudence shaped philosophy into a powerful force that gradually penetrated Islamic theology and mysticism and Persian poetry in eastern Islam and gave them universality and theoretical depth."pp. 44-47
• "The Avicennan Theory about Theories of Knowledge:Ibn Sina is the first Muslim philosopher to define knowledge as the illustration of the reality of thing for the perceiving subject and he discusses the well-known problem of the association between substance and accident. "[6]
• "Being and Necessity: A Phenomenological Investigation of Avicenna's Metaphysics and Cosmology."[7]

--Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I think we should make a separate section for criticism. There isn't only Ash'ari theologians who criticize him. Sufis like Attar[8] and Rumi [9] as well as later philosophers like Mulla Sadra and Suhrawardi criticize him from different viewpoint. So we should separate it from Takfir which led to leaving philosophy in some Muslim countries. As Corbin has said in Iran his philosophy never abandoned and Corbin as well as Nasr showed how these criticism led to new ideas in philosophy.

Also in west some philosophers criticize him. There is also another problem with what is written there:"Ibn Sīnā's heterodox beliefs, namely his belief that bodily resurrection is impossible but that only spiritual resurrection may be possible."

This is wrong. We should separate his belief and his philosophy. He insisted on belief in bodily resurrection as The Prophet and Quran introduce. But according to his philosophy it's impossible. This is a Persian translation of his idea

«باید بدانی که نوعی از معاد، با تکیه بر شرع، پذیرفتنی است و برای اثباتش، راهی جز شریعت و تصدیق خبر پیامبری نیست و این همان معاد بدن (‌‌‌معاد‌جسمانی) است و خیر و شر جسم بر همگان روشن است و نیازی به توضیح ندارد و شریعت بر حقی که پیامبر ما حضرت محمد(ص) آورده‌است، درباره سعادت و شقاوتی که مربوط به این بدن است، سخن گفته است و نوع دیگر معاد، معادی است که بر اساس عقل و قیاس برهانی درک می‌شود و پیامبری هم آن را تصدیق کرده‌است و آن عبارت است از سعادت و شقاوتی که بر اساس برهان برای نفوس بشری به اثبات می‌رسد.» --Seyyed(t-c) 16:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC

Nasr says:"In no branch of Islamic philosophy, is the influence of the Quran and Hadith more evident than in eschatology... The Islamic philosophers were fully aware of these crucial ideas in their philosophizing, but the earlier ones were unable to provide philosophical proofs for Islamic doctrines which many confessed to accept on the basis of faith but could not demonstrate within th context of Peripatetic philosophy(Mashshaee). We see such a situation in the case of Ibn Sina, who in several books including the Shifa(The book of healing) confesses that he can not prove bodily resurrection but accept it on faith."(Nasr, 1996 p. 35)[10] --Seyyed(t-c) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Surrounding situation

This article as well as most of other biographical articles doesn't clarify the situation in which Avicenna lived. It's important to clarify for the readers that he flourished in the culmination of Islamic golden age which somebody consider it as [ http://books.google.com/books?id=RKU58ZcXAM8C&dq=%22Humanism+in+the+Renaissance+of+Islam%22 The Renaissance of Islam], [The Islamic renaissance http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2acYjrx3rEC&pg=PA68&dq=%22Islamic+renaissance%22&ei=SohPR4P5Mpr8oQK317GeBg&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=KTvm0ENSrPZl0BHs70YdgTPvTrs#PPA68,M1], The Iranian renaissance and The Islamic-Iranian Renaissance.(see also Major periods of Muslim education and learning, ) In the situation that the knowledge of Quran and Hadith were developed. Most of the Greek, Persian and Indian knowledge was translated into Arabic. There were good commentary of Plato and Aristotle's works for example by al-Farabi. Theological schools have formed. Medicine was developed by the attempts of former physicians and scientists like al-Razi He used some of the best libraries of the world (two of them in Balkh and Ray destroyed during his life.) He was amid scholars and philosophers. As Aruzi Samarqandi describes in his four articles that before he left Khwarezm he live for a while with al-Biruni(great scientist and astronomer), Abu Nasr Iraqi(great mathematician), Abu Sahl Masihi(great philosopher) and Abu al-Khayr Khammar(great physician). He met the great Sufis of his time like Abusaeid Abolkheir. In brief, as Newton says he was sitting on the shoulder of giants. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

thx for this post

Oh, and did not know about it. Thanks for the information ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.75.114 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Avicenna and Descartes's idea

It's written This argument was later refined and simplified by René Descartes in epistemic terms when he stated: "I can abstract from the supposition of all external things, but not from the supposition of my own consciousness.

As I know there is a difference between Descartes's idea and Avicenna's one.

Parsania says :

شيخ الرئيس بوعلى در موضوع معرفت نفس برهانى اقامه مى كند كه انسان محال است از راه اثر خود ـ اعم از آن كه اثر ذهنى، يا عينى و به عبارت ديگر علمى و يا عملى باشد ـ خود را بشناسد; يعنى انسان قبل از انديشه و قبل از آن كه به مفاهيم و قضاياى بيّن و اوّلى و يا مفاهيم و قضاياى مبين و برهانى و يا به رفتار و كردار خارجى خود علم پيدا كند، به حقيقت خود آگاه مى شود.

بيان بوعلى مستقيماً متوجه گفتارى است كه چند سده پس از او توسط دكارت ارائه مى شود; زيرا دكارت، انديشه و تعقل را نقطه ى ملاقات خود با واقعيت پنداشت و در اين رهگذر حركت خود را براى تبيين هستى از همان موضع آغاز كرد. وى هم چنين كوشيد تا از طريق انديشه و تعقل، وجود خود را اثبات نمايد.

برهان بوعلى اين است كه اگر شما به عنوان مثال، گمان بريد كه از راه انديشه وجود خود را اثبات مى كنيد، در مقدمه اى كه از آن براى رسيدن به نتيجه استفاده مى كنيد، يا انديشه را به خود مقيد كرده و يا اين كه آن را بدون تقيد به خود ذكر كرده ايد. اگر در مقدمه، انديشه به صورت مطلق ذكر شود، در اين حال استدلال به صورت «انديشه هست، پس من هستم» در مى آيد و اين استدلال باطل است; زيرا از انديشه ى مطلق، وجود فردى خاص اثبات نمى شود. اگر در مقدمه، انديشه مقيد به «من» باشد و گفته شود: «من مى انديشم، پس من هستم» اين استدلال نيز باطل است; زيرا در جمله ى دوم، نتيجه ى جديدى كه از انديشه پديد آمده باشد، حاصل نشده است، بلكه آنچه در جمله ى اول بوده، تكرار شده است; زيرا در جمله ى اول، «من» در كنار انديشه ذكر شده است و اگر در جمله ى اول «من» شناخته نشده باشد، از صِرف انديشه نمى توانيم وجود من را دريابيم. پس در استدلال دكارت «من» در كنار انديشه و يا قبل از آن مورد شناخت بوده است و از راه انديشه چيزى كه پيش تر مورد شك و ترديد باشد، اثبات نشده است. [11]

--Seyyed(t-c) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it seems Avicennais saying the opposite of Descartes. So I think that part about Descartes should be removed and the opposite theory be given. Do you still need the translation? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Split the article

I copied all of the philosophical information of this article in Avicennism. I didn't delete anything but I think we should do so to reduce the size of the article and make the article easier for who do not familiar with the technical terms. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Saw this in an article I was reading last night:

One of the reasons why IBNi SiNA has been called Iranian is that the word Sina has been considered a Persian word. Because " SinA " (as its pronunciation was assumed to be) with its two long vowels, phonetically possesses the characteristics of a Persian word. However, the Kamus (34) specifies the correct pronunciation of this word; it is with short " i " and short " a ".

From Isis, Vol. 31, No. 1. (Nov., 1939), pp. 8-24.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753%28193911%2931%3A1%3C8%3AWISAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-EMondo Libero (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

His ethnicity on Wikipedia

I'm a bit confused as to why on the Tajik Wikipedia page Avicenna is listed as part of the Tajik great people, and on here this article states his ethnicity as Persian? There needs to be some sort of consistency here.Mondo Libero (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Persian(Tajik) is the same thing after Islam. Large number of Persians after Islam migrated to Central Asia and Afghanistan and mixed with the easter Iranian speaking groups, giving rise to Tajiks. So if there is any problem we can say Iranic but Persian (which includes Tajik as well) is used by Encyclopedias. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tajik,Afghan,Iranian are modern names

It should be cleared that names Iranian or Tajik or Afghan are modern names for persian people.We cannot say Julius Caesar is Italian.He is Roman.So Persian is the best choice for naming him and his ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Shia and Muslim

Salam Alaikom all,

With all due respect to all of you, since I believe you all are objective and well-educated, the debate of Ibn Sina being a Shia or Sunny is preposterous enough giving that we don't have a reliable reference or resource. Several articles refute each other in this matter. This article has been endorsed by WIKIProject Iran, which is fine; however, the historians agree that he was a Persian, but nothing necessarily confirms him as Shia'i.

As we might have noticed, almost no assured confirmation exists. Maybe its a good sign for us to know that such differences didn't matter at that time, or even weren't emphasized as much as we are having these days. Believe me, if Ibn Sina wanted the next generations to know, he would have proclaimed it.

Amjad, 11 May '08 ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmjadSafa (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Salaam, please cite your claims with at least one verifiable academic references and then no one can delete it. Cheers, Pejman47 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Muslims! Thats what we are!

Salam Pejman,

As for your citation, "Sayyed" who has done tremendous efforts reading and elaborating what Corbin has claimed in his book, he couldn't cite any confirmation. In his entry, Sayyed 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC), "Corbin guess he was Twelveres because he escaped from Mahmud of Ghazni and went to Buwayhids who were Shia" and on another entry by AlphEta 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC), "Kahn's book (p. 38): "Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite". Maybe I'm not as historically knowledgeable as you are fellows but why shouldn't we leave it to be Muslim.

As for you Pejman, I read you profile and you have a good histroy in this encyclopedia. However, you didn't even further your citation with exploration details as these fellows did. At least in your response to me where I found it strange to start it with "Salam" and end it with a conceited "Cheers". You found a feeble sign that he was Shia'i and rather you used it. I don't have a problem with Ibn Sina to be Shia'i or Sunny; I don't have a problem with Shia at all. But when I saw that no reference was confirming enough, then we should end it and confirm him a Muslim regardless of his Maddhab. And that should be noticed by Sayyed and AlphaEta as well. You guys did a wonderful job, but lets confirm our selves to be Muslims.

Amjad -- 16 May '08 (6.45pm +3GMT)

Avicenna was a known Shi'i Muslim and until now, few people have contested this fact. Corbin is more than credible on this subject. Carticus (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no confirming citation! Even your Corbin "Guesses"! Can you tell me how did you interpret his guesses to be facts? Your beliefs doesn't count here, only history. Did you Read Khan's Book referred by "Sayyed" and "AlphaEta"? Its a good resource too. As for the few people who have contested the fact, well in fact, I have never heard a Muslim converses about his Maddhab at all. Drop the attitude! Amjad -- 24 May '08 (11.10am +3GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmjadSafa (talk • contribs) 08:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Salam Dear Amjad ! I also think it's not important at all to dig for the Mazhab of the Muslim icons.Over all there is no difference! But when you change a sentence in Wikipedia , that is pointing to a book , that's considered very wrong .You can object the source by putting a tag like this {{Verify source}}, {{Failed verification}} or {{Dubious}}after the source that seems to be wrong.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible link to Avicenna's items on “Himetop – The History of medicine topographical database”

I suggest that somebody, interested in this page, could insert an external link to the following page describing, with pictures, some Avicenna’s memories: http://himetop.wikidot.com/avicenna

I don’t do it myself because I’m also an Administrator of this site (Himetop) and it could be a violation of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy. Thanks for your attention.

Luca Borghi (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Persian name

Avicenna's name is listed in Arabic. Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā is an Arabic name. If he has a different name in Persian, it should be listed along with its {{lang-fa|blahblah}}. However, the name there is Arabic, not Persian. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Many and many Persian names are also Arabic names, as an example , Ayatollah Khomeini's name is Ruhollah Al-Musavi Al-Khomeini ,do you mean we have to delete the Persian name and use the {{lang-ar|blahblah}}?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If there's that much disagreement about it, I suggest providing readers with references to both languages. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Although that's possible to reference it , but that is simple question :consider using Hebrew language for Abraham Lincoln, just because "Abraham" is a Hebrew word/name . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, although ibn Sina was Persian, whereas Abraham Lincoln was not Jewish. I've set up a reference to both languages, since, as pointed out immediately above, the script is the same. Hopefully that will be satisfactory. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Persian and Arabic forms are not always the same. When they are, it is because the person in question has an Arabic name. Abraham Lincoln's name is not English, it's a borrowed Hebrew name. A better comparison would be Maimonides, who had a separate Arabic and Hebrew names (although in his case, Hebrew was not his native tongue and Arabic was his "real" name). In this case, we should leave him listed only as "Arabic" unless we have a separate and different Persian form. Why repeat the same name twice? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not repeated twice, because, if my understanding is correct, in this case the issue is only whether it should be termed Persion or termed Arabic. No harm whatsoever in mentioning both in this instance, I should think. This is what the article presently does. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current form is excellent , because it can give information to the reader about his name both in Arabic and Persian .The written form in Arabic and Persian are the same , but the pronunciation in Persian and Arabic are not the same : In Arabic that is "Ibn Sina" , but in Persian it is pronounced "Ibn -e - Sina".By mentioning that both forms are written alike , that may give the reader the best information .If we mention only the Arabic form ,then how someone is supposed to know what is Persian form of his name? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

philosophy

to understand Avicenna philosophy read; Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman Published by Routledge, 1992 ISBN 041501929X, 9780415019293 --J8079s (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Portraits

What is the provenance for the image used in the info box? The picture under Avicennian philosophy appears to be 1976 storybook imagining, and should be labelled as such. Since the depiction of human beings was disfavoured in many Muslim cultures, are there any reliable sources, or are the stamps etc some sort of generic idea?Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point. The drawing is of pure imagination, and is modern in origin. The Scythian 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style

In Opening paragraph , I think the Nationality should be mentioned because the word "Persian" does not shows ethnicity here and that shows a nationality of that time (Please read Iran naming dispute).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationality would be something along the lines of Abbasid Empire, Ottoman Empire, Safavid Empire, and so forth. --Enzuru 02:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anyone who wants to take place in this debate, please go to my talk page, we're discussing it there. --Enzuru 02:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In the premodern era, citizenship doesn't make much sense. Instead, the ethnicity/culture should be mentioned. That part of the current manual of style is more appropriate for people in the modern era (after the establishment of the nation-states). The situation is similar to that of Thales or Apollonius of Tyana or Apollonius of Perga. Avicenna was Persian in the same sense that Thales or Apollonius were Greek or Leonardo da Vinci and Petrarch were Italian. It is about their ethnicity and culture, not about their citizenship, and it should be mentioned in the lead. It should be noted that even in the current manual of style, referring to Petrarch as an Italian is mentioned as a correct example, while there was no Italian citizenship at that time. Alefbe (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it refers to him as Italian because that is part of his notability as a poet, and any literature figure like Shakespeare for that matter would have it. But the reason we're voting on my talk page is because most of the important discussion took place there, and it involves several pages hence it is difficult to put it on any singular talk page. --Enzuru 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the other examples that I mentioned? Are you saying that we shouldn't mention that Da Vinci was Italian (in the opening paragraph of his article) or Albrecht Dürer was German? Alefbe (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, we later did decide in favour of keeping the ethnicity, I was just stating part of the debate against it. We agree that how ethnicity is being mentioned is fine. Right now, I am just trying to get the template changed on the right. Averroes and Avicenna both are not famous as Arab scholars or Persian scholars, hence their templates should not mirror that in big bold letters. Stating ethnicity is one thing, making it literally the header of the article is another. I know you don't like my talk page, but that's where the discussion has taken place, can you vote on that template part at least? --Enzuru 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "Islamic scolar" is confusing (because it emphasizes the works related to Islam, not the science and philosophy in the medieval Islamic world). For someone like Ghazali, this term is OK, but for Avicenna, this term doesn't encompass all of his main contributions, and for someone like Biruni, this term is quite misleading. Alefbe (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but we need an alternative. What is certain is that it doesn't need to be there, and I don't think we can find any FA article that does that with the template, including all the people you mentioned. Technically, we should be putting their name in that template, I believe, like in Leonardo da Vinci. --Enzuru 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Move Request

This article should be moved so that the title is Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina is a more correct approximation of his name. Precedent for this can be seen in the Metacomet article since it is listed under Metacomet and not his Anglicized name King Philip. Of course, Avicenna should remain as a redirect to the article but the medieval, European name should not be used as our basis. For instance, Europeans referred to Muslims as Mohammedans until the 1960s but we don't use that term. DruidODurham (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Ali Sina" make more sense? Ibn is not a name, but a directional title of sorts, sort of like "of". It certainly was not his first name, and Ibn is not used like that in Arabic, and especially not in Persian, where it literally has no meaning. The Scythian 06:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But Ibn Whatever is common in literature, especially late Orientalist literature. Doesn't even Britannica use it? --Enzuru 07:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ibn is not his first name. It is more of a title of sorts, showing parentage, and this only in Arabic. It is as though a man named "John von Hilsburg" is given a biographical name of "Von Hilsburg", with "von" being his first name. Von in German is similar to "Ibn" in Arabic, meaning literally "of". Now, why on Earth would we label Ali Sina as "Ibn Sina". It makes no sense in Arabic, and even worse, Sina was not a native Arab speaker, or even an Arab! This is seriously getting tiresome. If you guys want to put this article through some process of "Arabification" by redirecting it, that action will create a mess. The Scythian 07:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ali Sina" is simply wrong. His given name was Husayn and he was referred to as "Abu-Ali". He is mostly known as "Abu-Ali Sina" (or "AbuAli-i Sina"), "Ibn Sina" and "Avicenna. Among these three,"AbuAli Sina" is very common in Persian, but is not common in English texts. "Avicenna" is the most common in English texts and though "Ibn Sina" is not as common as Avicenna, but it is common enough to be OK. Alefbe (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. There is nothing "simply wrong" about it. Show where "Ibn Sina" is the most commonly used "name", refute the points presented, and justify why the article should be titled "Ibn Sina". So far, you have failed to do so. Oh, and its not "AbuAli Sina", but "Abu Ali Sina". At least get the English transliteration correct. The Scythian 08:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "Abu Ali" and "AbuAli" is just an issue of transliteration. The important thing is that his name is Husayn and his kunya is Abu-Ali. Referring to him as "Ali Sina" is simply wrong. Alefbe (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no hyphens in the references, so stop adding one. If you lack an understanding of English grammar at such a level, please feel free to ask questions. Also, his Kunya is rather irrelevant to the article, as he was neither a native Arabic speaker, nor is the article in Arabic or about and Arab. Lets keep this as simple as need be. The Scythian 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia rules the "most common" name must be used, and "Avecina" is the most common[12] name of him in English. --Wayiran (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree 100%. It is akin to the name Cyrus the Great in the West, he is not referred to as "Kurosh" in English. The Scythian 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment, I know what Ibn means, but that doesn't mean Ibn Whatever isn't common in English literature, because it is. --Enzuru 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just to answer, you got a citation for that? Is Cyrus the Great now Ibn Cyrus, by this logic? Lets stick to facts, and limit the Arabization and Islamization of Wikipedia whenever and wherever possible. The Scythian 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I want to bring this up because others might change what I think are good parts of the article, but you do realize that several times in the article he is referred to as Ibn Sina, which technically doesn't follow the wikiformat. I would also like to point out that Ibn does not just mean "of" it means "son" and in the idafa (genitive construction) of a name means "son of". I understand the idea of using the term that is most commonly used in English, but I wonder whether this idea should be entirely applicable when the common English term is a confused term that results from linguistic misunderstandings. Finally, I think that it's pretty hard to prevent the Islamization of an article on a Muslim living in an Islamic society. DruidODurham (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and the references to "Ibn Sina" really do not jive with the most commonly used name. As for "of" or "son of", I was making a crude comparison, but I can't imagine it matters much anyway. My concern for Islamization is purely in the modern context, where it has clearly taken on an very "Arabic" nature. Sina may have been a Muslim technically, but who knows for sure his true beliefs. He was certainly not an Arab, and his native language would not have been Arabic. Rather, Arabic would have been his "learned" form of writing and communication. It is akin to "latinizing" the name of Issac Newton. Why emphasize any Islamic aspect of this man, when his personal beliefs are not certain, unless their exists an very modern interest and agenda in doing so? The Scythian 08:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• ' who knows for sure his true beliefs'?? He was a devout MUSLIM. Just accept the fact u owe muslims a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.177.13 (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

poetry

i recommend the first poem (rubaii) mentioned in the article be replaced by the following

دل گرچه در این بادیه بسیار شتافت--- یک موی ندانست ولی موی شکافت

اندر دل من هزارخورشید بتافت---آخربه کمال ذره‌ای راه نیافت

the reason is that, this piece is obviously important.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

the user 196.205.233.172

he/she did the edit this. can someone help to figure out if that change was appropriate.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For now, we'll assume it was wrong because then it would state, "bn Sīnā wrote almost 200 treatises on a wide range of subjects, of which around 240 have survived." How do 240 out of 200 survive? --Enzuru 04:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

right. the reference [8] states 450 treatise. but i confess that at first i confused "," with "." that's why i needed reference. everything was fine.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

new template: maybe not appropriate

the user daraheni has created the template scholars of khorasan and has put it at the end of the article on avicenna. well good strat, and that's what i wanted to do. but scholars from khorasan, though interesting, is not a term used and does not apply to many persian scholars. on a similar issue please refer to a disscusion we had on this page. i have seen in encyclopedia britanica this article avicenna in britanica and the article biruni in britanica the term persian philosopher and scientist is used. this will apply to many, namely many of those in the category List of Iranian Scientists. do you agree on creating a template with the name persian scientists especially that the term is used in britanica?--Xashaiar (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Persian in English is not just a reference to a certain ethnic group, but traditionally a reference to the entire region once controlled by Persian kings. So, strictly speaking, all of the mentioned scholars were Iranic by origin and identity, but not necessairily Persian. Biruni and Khwarizmi were ethnic Choresmians and native speakers of the Khwarezmian language. Biruni even complained about the use of Persian. See Iranica:

• "... Bīrūnī was obviously a prolific author, who preferred to use Arabic, the scientific language of the Muslim world, for most of his works, rather than Persian, in which the creation of a technical and scientific vocabulary was only just taking rough shape during his time. In the introduction to his Ṣaydala, Bīrūnī inveighs against the use of Persian for scientific works, implying that such a usage was in fact taking place in his lifetime. One of his major works, the Tafhīm, exists in both Arabic and Persian versions, and it is unclear which came first. However, it was more common at this period to translate from Arabic into Persian than vice-versa, and G. Lazard is inclined to treat the Persian version as a very early translation of an Arabic original, whether made by Bīrūnī himself or not being unclear (La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane, Paris, 1963, pp. 58-62). ..." [13]

Ibn Sina - considering his references to the Sogdian language - was most likely an ethnic Sogdian (like his spiritual teacher Farabi). Unfortunately, none of the articles clearify this point. Tājik (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree with your point. but we should get rid of all those templates at the end of articles on persian/iranian scholars. i personally think the page on avicenna ends very bad, those templates are not necessary. like pages on german scholars. my point is explained in the link i posted above. so, what do you suggest? should we remove all templates and discuss here what we should do 1. whether there should be any template. 2. if so, what? concerning your second point, well language is not what defines persian/iranian people.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Templates like that aren't really needed, I think it's pointless bloat. I make templates myself, and we have to be careful what we make templates about, making simple lists is a bit silly. The template on the side where it calls him in big bold letters a "Persian scholar" is also upsetting, because it isn't his ethnicity that makes him important, it is his philosophical outputs. --Enzuru 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed that issue on the template. --Enzuru 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

wait a minute please, you changed persian scholar to islamic philosopher. if he is a "islamic philosopher" so is he "persian scholar". so let us keep things like before, and discuss things here first.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Persian scholar and Muslim philosopher are both wrong. But Islamic philosopher means he worked on philosophy relating to Islam, do you see what I mean? Either way, Muslim or Persian are both incorrect. --Enzuru 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that section states "notability". He is certainly not notable as a Persian or as a Muslim, but rather his contributions, which aren't limited to philosophy either. --Enzuru 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

seyyed hassan nasr has used the term persian philosopher and scientists. please revert and let others talk about it as well. thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "Persian philsopher" is correct, but not in regards to his notability. Can you tell me what his notability was? It won't relate to either his ethnicity or his religion, so that's all we need to put. I'm more than open to your suggestions about that. --Enzuru 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

his is notable for his contribution to medicine. there is no islamic medicine. for the moment let us keep things as before.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But we both agree! Have you checked the template? I say "Scientist and Islamic philosopher" because it's ridiculous, there is no Islamic science or medicine. I considered dropping the Islamic from philosopher, but his contributions were to that field of philosophy, not any field. The reason I'm not so quick to revert is I wanted to make this change for a while but I couldn't think of what to put (this was discussed before, there are way too many ethnic battles on Wikipedia). --Enzuru 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Avicenna's notability: "Persian and/or Arabic scholar" or "Scientist and Islamic philosopher"?

Avicenna
Title	Sharaf al-Mulk, Hujjat al-Haq, Sheikh al-Rayees
Personal
Era	Islamic golden age
Main interest(s)	Islamic medicine, alchemy and chemistry in Islam, Islamic astronomy, Islamic ethics, early Islamic philosophy, Islamic studies, logic in Islamic philosophy, geography, mathematics, Islamic psychological thought, physics, Persian poetry, science, Kalam, Paleontologist
Notable work(s)	The Canon of Medicine The Book of Healing
Senior posting
Influenced by Hippocrates, Sushruta, Charaka, Aristotle, Galen, Plotinus, Neoplatonism, Indian mathematics, Muhammad, Ja'far al-Sadiq, Wasil ibn Ata, al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi, Abu Rayhan Biruni, Muslim physicians
Influenced Abu Rayhan Biruni, Omar Khayyám, al-Ghazali, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Abubacer, Averroes, Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, Ibn al-Nafis, Scholasticism, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, Jean Buridan, Giambattista Benedetti, Galileo Galilei, William Harvey, René Descartes, Spinoza

Ibn Sina is an arabic name, all his books were in arabic. Arabic was the language of islam with no offense to any ethinticy. It a uniting language of the whole nation as its the language of the holy Quran. Hence you can't say he is persian or iranian. He belongs to all muslims and arabs. That time Arabic means muslim and vice versa.

• Scientist and Islamic philosopher - One's ethnicity (Persian) or religion (Muslim) has little to do with their contributions unless it was in civil rights. He was a scientist, and also contributed immensely to Islamic philosophy (which even a non-Muslim could theoretically do). --Enzuru 03:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

he is notable for his work in systematic studies in medicine. as a persian/iranian tradition he had contribution to other areas, whence a polymath. info box is fine to me, and as i said i have problem with the templates at the end. the term islamic scientist does not exist. islamic philosophy applies to mollasadra and not avicenna.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree, Enzuru. Whatever his achievements were, he was of Iranian ("Persian") origin. His religion was in many cases unimportant, keeping in mind that he adhered to extremely secular and unorthodox views, to an extent that al-Ghazali openly denounced him as an unbeliever. Avicenna violated Islamic laws many times, for example when he preformed autopsy on cadavers (we do not know this for sure, but it is highly possible). So, taking a look from this point of view, Avicenna was very "un-Islamic", and Islam disrupted and prevented him on many cases.

Another aspect was Avicenna's obvious connection to the famous, pre-Islamic University of Gundishapur. Avicenna's decision to write some of his works in Persian (contrary to the zeitgeist) shows his strong affinities to Iran and Iranian identity, as well as his affiliation to the Persian language. I think I missread your concerns. Still, I think that his origins should be mentioned in the intro, however in a very brief sentence. Tājik (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I never have supported the term Islamic scientist. Islamic philosophy does apply to Avicenna, even Corbin would say this. We have multiple sources describing Avicenna's contributions as to that of Islamic philosophy, if you like we could source them in the header. This is why I say clearly Scientist and Islamic philosopher I don't say Islamic scientist and philosopher or Muslim scientist and philosopher, because those are incorrect. Second, very very few sources will say Ibn Sina's notability has anything to do with him being Persian. That would be cherry picking if we used those sources. His contributions I can source you, are to all of science, and to Islamic philosophy. I don't understand why ethnicity is always pushed into articles about Persians, this isn't done in articles about famous Scots. And once again, Islamic law is not against using cadavers, mostly Sunni madhabs would be against this moreso than the Twelver or Ismaili groups. Once again, I can find sources saying he was an Islamic philosopher, anything else is original research. And once again, no matter what his achievements are, his ethnicity does not make him notable, anymore than Isaac Newton's does. Note how Isaac Newton's template is. If you honestly are against Islamic, we can drop it and just say Scientist and philosopher. But his ethnicity is not what makes him notable, most sources do not state that, that is nationalism coming into play. Yes, I agree, his origin his mention in the start of the article and in the template, so it is mentioned twice. So do you agree to him being a "Scientist and Islamic philosopher"? We have sources supporting it. --Enzuru 03:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Write your version on the talk-page. Then let's see what we can do. Tājik (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have put my version on the side for you to see. --Enzuru 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

like many other philosopher and scientists, he should be named "persian scholar". i really do not understand the term islamic philosophy just like islamic mathematics. even mollasadra can not be called islamic philosopher. i am against any islamic adjective. the persian adjective has one and only one meaning and is not ambiguous whereas islamic philosophy and islamic mathematics are indeed ambiguous.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamic philosophy is not ambigious, thousands of books have been written on it, especially in Persian and after the rise of Khomeini and the popularity of Sadra's school and Tabatabai. What makes him notable for many of those who write about in such as Corbin, is his science and his contribution to Islamic philosophy. His ethnicity isn't what makes him notable (nor is his religion). The section which we are changing asks for the notability. If he was Arab, he would have been just as notable. If he was Christian, he would have been just as notable. His religion and ethnicity don't matter in his notability, that is my point. If you want to argue whether he contributed to Islamic philosophy or philosophy in general, you can do that, but Islamic philosophy is far from ambigious as a phrase. If it was so ambigious, al-Ghazali couldn't have written The Incoherence of Philosophers, nor could Khomeini be prouncing around with the authority he claimed. --Enzuru 04:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

and why your argument does not apply to islamic mathematics? there are many books on that. it is still used. but is ambiguous. the fact that his ethnicity isn't what makes him notable is correct. but the title of the info box is not supposed to be his notability title. Sadr's article gives him the title "persian scientist and philosopher". Soroush always uses these terms. we are talking about infobox. there is a section in that box on notability in which islamic philosophy is used. title of infobox should not be islamic philosopher.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, you have pretty much destroyed your own argument. Why? Because, I don't know if you can read code, but the code of the template clearly states the green title is his notability, and you clearly state that this is his notability as per the infobox itself. And additionally, I have no clue why you would want to point out in big bold letters that he is a Persian. How does that help the reader know anything about this person? But knowing that he is a scientist and Islamic philosopher helps immensely. --Enzuru 05:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

about his notability That depends on your view of him

At that time they considered themselves as Muslims in the Kingdom of the caliphate (Actually they called it the Kingdom of Islam), With the dominance of Arab culture (Most if not all their contributions were in Arabic)

In these days after the division Every nation has claimed the heritage of Islamic civilization, such as Arabs Turks Persians Kurdish and so on..

for me i consider him as Islamic Scientist who contributed immensely to Islamic civilization --Bayrak (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Enzuru has kindly asked me to vote on this issue. I am afraid there can be no clear-cut classification for a person of Avicenna's stature. I will give an example from another versatile Medieval figure, Maimonides: Britannica characterizes him as "Jewish philosopher, jurist, and physician, the foremost intellectual figure of medieval Judaism". So basically everything is lumped together: religion and ethnicity, secular studies, intellectual standing. Based on this, Avicenna can be characterized as "Persian scholar", but also equally as "Scientist and Islamic philosopher". As long as Islamic philosophy is defined in the Wikipedia, I see no reason why Avicenna should not be called "Islamic philosopher", although obviously his contributions to philosophy extend far beyond the Islam. What I do object to (and strongly) is the use of the adjective "Islamic" in the infobox in the context of medicine, astronomy, etc. To me describing branches of science as "Islamic" is not logical. The same goes, in my view, for the construct "Islamic scientist". I would allow myself to inject more noise into the debate by suggesting a different characterization: "Medieval scientist and philosopher" or, more restrictively, "Persian scientist and philosopher". I know that this grates, but in the Medieval context "Persian" has such broad connotations.

There is no point in entering an unambiguous support/oppose vote at this point, because the discussion is still ongoing and it is really not clear what we are asked to vote for. Just to sum up my view: good alternatives to be considered (not in any particular order of preference) are "Persian scholar", "Persian scientist and philosopher", "Scientist and Islamic philosopher", "Medieval scientist and philosopher". Perhaps the relevant options should be presented in a short list and editors should be asked to vote on the shortlisted options. --Zlerman (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Enzuru's version. It's just the template. Feel free to change it. Tājik (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i dislike and reject it strongly. the infobox Enzuru proposed on the right has in my opinion some problems i suggest the following changes: infobox' title should be persian scholar. name is not Alī Sīnā Balkhi (Avicenna), name should be Ibn Sina (avincenna). main interst should be :medicine, alchemy and chemistry, astronomy, Islamic ethics, early Islamic philosophy, logic, geography, mathematics, Islamic psychological thought, physics, Persian poetry, science, Kalam, Paleontologist.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

People disliked "Ibn Sina" because it is the Arab-ized version of his name. And this is the exact same box as is on the page, only the heading is different. And to comment on your earlier post, I am not going to argue anything about Islamic mathematics, it is clear Islamic philosophy however is defined. And once again, if you look at the source code of the box, it states that the top part with the green background is his notability, and he isn't notable because of his ethnicity. I don't see how there is any confusion on that. You have yet to really make a case for Persian scholar, and argue how that makes him notable at all. He is notable as a scientist and Islamic philosopher, and once again, the source code of the template asks for his notability to be put in green, not his ethnicity, not even what he was, but what made him notable. --Enzuru 05:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

no thats not the reason. i just think that abu ali sina or ibn sina is his name. if i want to say what i would like to see as name, i would say "Name: Avicenna" is perfect. agian you are confusing everything, he is notable foremost as a physician. there is no islamic medicine, that's silly. And tell me why the name in the infobox is different than his name in the main body of the article? let us make this clearer first.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the name: I think that Balkhi is unsourced and wrong. Balkhi was the surname of his father, but not of himself. His own Arabic (!) name was Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sīnā' , and this Arabic version should be mentioned first, because that was the official terminology back then - everyone had Arabic names (comparable to Europe, where people like Nostradamus or Copernicus adopted Latin names). Tājik (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We can change the name, that's fine, I am not concerned with that, please make changes to the template on the right. And once again, as I have stated several times, I never have said he is an Islamic physician or Muslim physician, I have not tried to make that change once, because very few sources refer to him as an Islamic or Muslim physician. Rather, I have stated that as per many sources, he is a scientist (with no adjective at the start) and an Islamic philosopher (whether he was Muslim or not, practicing or not) as per sources. And as you have ignored, just as you agreed he is notable as a Scientist and Islamic philosopher, you argued wrongfully that the green is not supposed to be his notability, which in fact according to the infobox source code it is. Instead, you want us to state his ethnic background in big letters, which has nothing to do with his contributions whatsoever, and does not tell the reader anything about him, but telling them he is a scientist and Islamic philosopher does. --Enzuru 05:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

removing kunyah from what the article tells us as his name, is fine with me. but who calls him with Balkhi. the one who created this is contradiction himself. removing kunyah but leaving the city of his father! The name should be the complete verion or shortened version abu ali sina, or ibn sina, or maybe just Avicenna. they are fine with me. Balkhi can be used but we have to use it in the article as well.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadr and soroush refer to him as persian scientist. please stop this islamization of everything. you are contradictiong yourself: if you want the bold title to be his most notable title. then why not use physician. believe me, he is foremost physician. that's what the article says too. Iranica's first sentence on Avicenna is : AVICENNA, the Latin form of the name of the celebrated philosopher and physician of the Islamic world, Abū ʿAlī Ḥosayn Ebn Sīnā (b. Bukhara 370/980[?], d. Hamadān 428/1037). No islamic philosopher, the title in britanica's article is :persian scientist and philosopher. no islamic philosopher again. --Xashaiar (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadr and Saroush refer to him as that, that doesn't say anything about his notability. People refer to me as Pashtun, that isn't what makes me notable. How am I Islamizing everything? Read up. I clearly stated from the start if you wanted to drop Islamic from philosophy we could discuss that. I quote Britannica, "Arabic Ibn Sina, in full Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sina Iranian physician (we can put this), the most famous and influential of the philosopher-scientists of Islam (we should also put this too then). He was particularly noted for his contributions in the fields of Aristotelian philosophy and medicine. He composed the Kitab al-shifa' (“Book of Healing”), a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopaedia, and The Canon of Medicine, which is among the most famous books in the history of medicine." It states that he is an Iranian physician and one of the most influential philosopher-scientists of Islam. If you'd like, we can put Iranian physician and Islamic philosopher. --Enzuru 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

no i do not want "iranian physician and islamic philosopher". our original discussion was about the high number of templates at the bottom of the article. i first want to solve that. iranica nor britanica use "islamic philosopher" therefore per reliable sources that title should not be used. if you want to use britanica only iranian physiocian should be used. no islamic philosopher. i am entirely certain that the term "islamic philosophy" is not a justified one. i am now even more worried about the term "islamic medicine". what the hell is this.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My friend, it states Iranian physician and that he was an Islamic scientist-philosopher in the very same sentence, only separated by a comma. You are cherry picking what you want and don't want from a source, that isn't correct at all. I agreed to have both, because that's what Britannica has. You can't be certain that Islamic philosophy is not unjustified, because as stated earlier, we have an article on it (Islamic philosophy) and thousands of books have been written on it (much more than Islamic mathematics, which is a term used but isn't a subject in itself). I never wanted Islamic medicine, I agreed with you on that! Please, can we just accept this compromise? It states it in the exact same sentence as I showed you. --Enzuru 06:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

and to prove that i am not here to remove islam from article, let me say that a term like "Iranian physician and philosopher-scientists of Islam" as you suggest is 100% fine with me. but please no islamic adjective.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To further disprove your point, I quote Iranica which states, "AVICENNA, the Latin form of the name of the celebrated philosopher and physician of the Islamic world, Abū ʿAlī Ḥosayn Ebn Sīnā (b. Bukhara 370/980[?], d. Hamadān 428/1037)." It doesn't even state he is Persian or Iranian, it states that he was a philosopher and physician of the Islamic world. Later on the article explicity uses the term Islamic philosophy. And fine, we will settle on, "Iranian physician and philosopher-scientists of Islam." --Enzuru 06:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i quoted the first sentence of iranica. "of islamic world" is fine, but no "islamic philosopher".--Xashaiar (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing this as a temporary consensus. Once again, thousands of sources including Britannica and Iranica refer to Islamic philosophy. But, since it bothers you for some reason I will settle this with you for now, but eventually some day in the future we will find ourselves returning to this issue. --Enzuru 06:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i think you did it wrong. let us keep persian scholar and see after few weeks what others say. maybe we open a poll. let us keep things as before. based on opinion of two people there should not appear such a change. do you agree with reverting to persian scholar for the moment?--Xashaiar (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current one actually, because the issue has been on my mind for a while. Let's keep the one we decided upon and see what others say, because if opposites like us could agree on this, perhaps others can too. Famous Persians on Wikipedia are always a battleground unfortunately. --Enzuru 06:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

look at the page razi. i found the title best chosen. moreover as Zlerman said above "persian scholar" says all you want to say with this long title. i change it back to the previous version and wait what others say. per britanica the title, what comes right after name, is "perrsian philosopher and scientist"--Xashaiar (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually al-Razi has the same problem (as do many Persian articles on Wikipedia, because of lots of Arab-Persian warring too), the reason I am concentrating on Ibn Sina is because he is the most important to me, but many other groups have this issue. I don't agree with the "Persian scholar" thing, please keep it how it is since we agreed on that version after much discussion. And I quoted Britannica, it says, "Arabic Ibn Sina, in full Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sina Iranian physician, the most famous and influential of the philosopher-scientists of Islam. He was particularly noted for his contributions in the fields of Aristotelian philosophy and medicine. He composed the Kitab al-shifa' (“Book of Healing”), a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopaedia, and The Canon of Medicine, which is among the most famous books in the history of medicine." It doesn't say he's a Persian philosopher or scientist there at all. And once again, Iranica states, "AVICENNA, the Latin form of the name of the celebrated philosopher and physician of the Islamic world, Abū ʿAlī Ḥosayn Ebn Sīnā (b. Bukhara 370/980[?], d. Hamadān 428/1037)." So please, keep what we agreed upon! --Enzuru 06:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

no i prefer to wait and see. the best thing we can do, is to find a unified infobox format for persian scholars. the title you have chosen is too long (fine with me anyway but we have to wait). i have the plan to challenge the page on islamic philosophy. ibn sina, razi, khayam, hafez, are on my top list as well. so we have one common point here! please wait a few weeks.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Men are so stubborn. Sigh, fine. For now I'll go do something more feminine, like cook or sow. --Enzuru 06:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done the following Google searches and have found the following links to Avicenna. The links refer to him as a Persian scholar, or a Persian Muslim scholar. I really cannot see what the problem is in adding Persian Muslim?--Sikh-history (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just cut the title of the info-box?! Tājik (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Worth thinking about Tajik's suggestion. I don't find "Persian scholar" helpful at all. I also question why his interests should be "Islamic" everything. Of course he developed his ideas in an Islamic way, since he was a Muslim. But please do not let us downgrade his importance to Christian and Western scholarship. He is an incredibly important figure in the development of world thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i would say no we can not. there should be a title. Persian scholar looks very good to me: it is consistent and there is no danger of confusion. another possible solution would be (a global solution for all persian/iranian scholars): the title can be their nickname/short-name, e.g. avicenna, then in the main body of the infobox we can have complete name, signature, .... --Xashaiar (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Enzuru has asked me to weigh in on this issue. In my opinion, "Persian Scholar" gives absolutely no information about him. He was a scientist and a philosopher (of Islam). So perhaps he could be described (as Enzuru mentioned earler) Iranian physician and philosopher-scientist of Islam I think that is too long, how about just Iranian physician and philosopher-scientist? Though we lose the part about Islamic philosophy. --vi5in^[talk] 16:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

then can you explain why "iranian polymath" is not better than your suggestion?--Xashaiar (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Polymath is too broad a term. It also doesn't adequately explain what it was that Avicenna did. A polymath is a person who is learned in many fields; this description applies to Avicenna. However, it would be better to list the fields that he was involved in, which were primarily philosophy, science, and medicine. Hence, Iranian physician and philosopher-scientist. --vi5in^[talk] 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

polymath is not that broad. moreover the term Iranian physician and philosopher-scientist is long, i.e. not much shorter than Iranian physician and philosopher-scientist of Islam. apart from this, like in the case of razi a title like Persian scholar (Medieval era) is good and clear.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The term polymath is broad. It doesn't tell you what his fields of specialty are. His notability comes from his being a physician and philosopher-scientist, and not his being Persian. How about just Physician and philosopher-scientist? Being Iranian or Persian has nothing to do with it. --vi5in^[talk] 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

give an example where your term is used for someone else in infobox. let me say that this notability condition is superficial, because the infobox used here is called philosopher categgory. that is if we get a new page as avicenna the philosopher then you are right. if you want to push an anti-persian agenda, then we go for my earlier suggestion: title can be his short-name avicenna. this is in my opinion a good solution.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, you are breaking one of Wikipedia's golden rules, Wikipedia:Good faith. Nobody, including myself, has an anti-Persian agenda. I am the one who wants to keep Persian in both the introduction and userbox. My family has spoken Persian for decades in Afghanistan and I am Shi'a (Pashtun Shi'a are in fact often accused of being Persians who simply took upon a Pashtun lifestyle). Why would I be anti-Persian? vi5in especially has no reason to be anti-Persian, please look at his contributions. Now, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies), we should not stress the ethnicity in the introduction, and I feel putting it in big bold letters is stressing it. Second, as I have said thouands of times and you keep ignoring, the green is supposed to be his notability, not his ethnicity. This is a list of the FA biography articles of Wikipedia, meaning they are perfect. Please find one that has the ethnicity in big bold letters on the template on the right. If you do, we can continue this discussion. Going through this list, big names like Jackie Chan don't even tell you their ethnicities in the start of the article! Should we make Bill Clinton's infobox say "Caucasian President"? And if we're supposed to include citizenship (which is what you'll attempt to argue next), this means half of the Persians on Wikipedia are either Abbasid or Umayyad scholars. --Enzuru 22:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

it was an strange comment from you. 1. persian is not only about ethnicity, (tajik and zlerman mentioned similar meaning for persian). 2. if i look at some of those fa articles, then read the above comment that avicenna is the best title in the case you are afraid a bold persian scholar (Medieval era) gives the adjective persian the sole role of a ethnicity reference. 3. so you mean 75 milion people in the world, have islamic republic citizenship? please be serious. citizenship would mean, "iranian" for all scholars we talk about. 4. to make your life simple: i am here to remove islamic adjective but not "of islam", "Medieval era", and well-defined notions like them. 5, at the end you are acusing me of going to bring up citizenship issue, so may be you are also breaking one of Wikipedia's golden rules, Wikipedia:Good faith, no?--Xashaiar (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)Xashaiar, I have no "anti-Persian" agenda. My argument is solely based on notability. As Enzuru has pointed out, the green is supposed to be notability and not ethnicity. So he's not notable for being Persian or Iranian or even Muslim. But he is notable for being a scientist, a physician, and a philosopher (of Islam). We can't simply have Avicenna there either because that gives you no notablity information. Using Persian Scholar (Medieval Era) doesn't help either since it overly focuses on Persian and gives no notability information than being a scholar (a scholar of what?). Enzuru isn't breaking any rules. She just pointed out that you will possibly bring up another argument regarding citizenship (which again, has no bearing on notability). I suggest we use Physician and philosopher-scientist. --vi5in^[talk] 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i can not accept this. without title is justified better. if not we have to change the infobox format, currently we use infobox muslim scholars, there is infobox scientist as well. as the article says and is common knowledge, avicenna is a physician before anything else. --Xashaiar (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can "without title" is justified better. We can use "Infobox Scientist"; I think that would be better. However, the description should say Physician and philosopher-scientist. No mention of either Muslim or Persian/Iranian is necessary. --vi5in^[talk] 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

where is description field in that infobox scientist? have a look at riemann, hilbert, and poincaré. moreover what is this philosopher-scientist? this term is not well-defined either. (sure the term is easily understood).--Xashaiar (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then Physician, philosopher, and scientist. What I meant by "description" is the notability section in green - the one we're arguing about here. --vi5in^[talk] 16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

does not make much sense. then we should add chemistry as well. and so many other things. i would like to close this discussion and move it to my talk page. the reason is that, a huge change like removing persian (this refers to heritage and not only ethnicity of the scholars) from the definitive term persian scholar is commiting blasphemy. if we are serious on this very bold move, we must do it in a politically correct form. namely, we should start from smaller communities. in the articles on some muslim scholar there are infoboxes with title (you call them notability title) arab scholar. before changing those, i do not see any reason why we should remove persian adjective.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy? Wow. Please cut down on the hyperbole. "Persian" has nothing to do with notability. "Scientist" covers "chemist". It's obvious that you are not going to agree since you are hell-bent on having "Persian" on there. I'm not going to involve myself in this discussion anymore. --vi5in^[talk] 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read everything over, I think it would be better to change over to "Infobox Scientist" - all the information that's currently on the infobox can be included in those parameters and this conflict is avoided. ~ Toushiro (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't understand why there should not be persian scholar when there are western philosopher (as on nietzche) or arab scholar (as on ibn rush). the adjective persian is not only ethnicity reference. it is very much of the same weight and aspect as western. whereas the adjective arab is, as far as i can think, only an ethnicity reference. so, this problem, which i really love to see solved is a global wikipedia problem:western persian, arabs, ...--Xashaiar (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Both the articles you listed are not FA, and cannot be used as an example, especially Ibn Rushd, he should not say Arab on their either. And Western philosophy and Islamic philosophy are actual subjects, Persian scholarship isn't. It hasn't even been two weeks yet and two people have disagreed with you on the Persian issue. --Enzuru 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

don't worry. i will soon get few weeks off and make avicenna a FA article. it is very shameful for all science and philosophy lovers like myself not to have this article FA. i will do it i promise. my extreme interest on having this adjective persian is mostly a reaction to usage of western scholar and arab scholar. for the moment forget this issue.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Arab scholar is incorrect, it should not be used. Western philosophy like Islamic philosophy on the other hand is a subject. There are big things that separate Western philosophy from other philosophical systems like Confucian philosophy, these are subjects. Using your logic on Western philosophy, we should take French out of French fries. --Enzuru 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if its changed to "Infobox Scientist" you don't have to come up with some title for notability - so the conflict about referring to him as "Persian Scholar", " Physician, philosopher, and scientist", or otherwise is removed (and this doesn't in any way deny that he's a persian scholar). ~ Toushiro 「 話 」 23:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Enzuru 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

yet not fine with me.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. --vi5in^[talk] 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...an Simple idea but it's nice --Bayrak (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

in particular for you the remover (1, 2, 3) of persian ....--Xashaiar (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

please, assume the good faith --Bayrak (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

get out of en.wikipedia. you can do what father of obama's chief of staff emanuel suggested. --Xashaiar (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks...! :) --Bayrak (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting annoying! Why can't we just DELETE the title of the infobox and mention his ethnic origins in the article?! What is all of this about?! Everyone who is educated and has some basic knowledge of the topic knows that Avicenna was Persian, the same way everyone knows that Einstein was German. There is no need to stress this out in every sentence! Think about it! I am out of this discussion, because I do not see any improvement in it. Tājik (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I and everyone else agrees with you Tajik! The only person disagreeing is Xashaiar! --Enzuru 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

everyone else so far means 2 people or what? you people think about one of my initial suggestion. avicenna is the best title. check riemann, hilbert, and many others.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've counted like three or four, yes, that means everyone else. And we accepted the Avicenna suggestion, that goes hand in hand with changing the infobox to infobox scientist which is what those articles are using. Did you NOT understand that?! --Enzuru 03:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

read the above once more. moreover everyone else is not what you should be using, it has intrinsic meaning.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's called hyperbole, and it doesn't matter. We've reached a consensus with infobox scientists. Thank you everyone for participating. Let's hope never to do this again. --Enzuru 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

no hyperbole is a term in poetry. did you mean you said a poem? fine with me. (i used linguistic approach). --Xashaiar (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Firefox? Yuck. Check out Opera, dude. --Enzuru 03:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

opera? even its name is disgusting. i have not spent many months writing code for open source firefox and then cheat on my own child.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The open source aspect is the only good aspect of it. It's why I prefer to use FreeBSD (not Linux, eick at that mutant) over Windows, though the best OS I have ever used has been Plan 9 from Bell Labs. Aside from that, tell someone over at the FF team to figure out a way to stop having plugins screw things up with their awful memory leaks. --Enzuru 04:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(capital)gnome on debian is what should be used. forget about the rest. memory leak is no longer a problem, not for me, (provided you don't use strange/many plug-ins). have you tried their primary solution on their webpage?--Xashaiar (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't use Firefox generally beyond checking if sites I am coding are rendered correctly by gecko, but I'll check their site sometime for a solution. And you use GNOME? Even Linus Torvalds hates GNOME! I personally am fondest of ratpoison, but if I have to use an desktop environment, I like XFCE, CDE and KDE. --Enzuru 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

that person you name is the first nobel cheat prize winner. you know my persian (as apposed to iranian) heritage teaches me one thing: simplicity and conciseness is the ultimate elegancy. that's what virtually means (capital)gnome.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence XFCE. --Enzuru 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

hence moosh shodi!--Xashaiar (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you last comment could be interpreted as a direct WP:PA. Tājik (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

which one? (the last to enzuru: that's just a drop of my sense of humour. enzuro knows it, i guess.) and based on which item at WP:PA?--Xashaiar (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tajik, I'll let him get away with it this time. --Enzuru 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I count 4 people besides Xashaiar, who agree with the solution. Enzuru, Tajik, Bayrak, and myself. --vi5in^[talk] 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(off-topic but) i leave this article and alike to you.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was kinda busy before.. but hows this? (feel free to change/add more) ~ Toushiro 「 話 」 04:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. At this point I would prefer anything that doesn't seek to shove an ethnic, linguistic, or cultural definition down the reader's throat. --Afghana ^[talk] 05:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Avicenna
File:Avicenna Persian Physician.jpg Alī ibn Sīnā Balkhi
Born	approximately 980 CE Afshana, near Bukhara
Died	1037 CE Hamadan, Iran
Known for	-The Canon of Medicine -The Book of Healing -Father of modern medicine and the concept of momentum -Founder of Avicennism and Avicennian logic -Forerunner of psychoanalysis -Pioneer of aromatherapy and neuropsychiatry -Important contributor to geology
Scientific career
Fields	Islamic medicine, alchemy and chemistry in Islam, Islamic astronomy, Islamic ethics, early Islamic philosophy, Islamic studies, logic in Islamic philosophy, geography, mathematics, Islamic psychological thought, physics, Persian poetry, science, Kalam, Paleontologist

Stop claiming that Ibn Sino was persian, this kind of fascism should not be tolerated. There is no proof that he was persian, he was born in a Turkic Kingdom and spoke and wrote in arabic and Turkic, he also had an arabic name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.5.168 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rainbows / visible light spectra

The article currently states that "He also provided a sophisticated explanation for the rainbow phenomenon" whilst the quote from a scholar who apparently is familiar with Avicenna simply describes an observation - that the rainbow appears in the foreground), and an incorrect hypothesis - that the rainbow is created in the eye. The observation that the rainbow is not in the dark clouds would be evident to anyone who had observed a waterfall on a sunny day or indeed the spray of a fountain, I find it very hard to believe that he was the first person to see this. Indeed Avicenna's contemporaries Shen Kuo and Alhazen provide better explanations which severely deplete the notability of Avicenna's observation and hypothesis IMO. It should at the very least be noted that he was wrong and so I've altered the text accordingly, cf Rainbow#Scientific_history. Pbhj (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Arabic commentators on Aristotle template

a new template had been added and I removed here. The template is Arabic commentators on Aristotle. The reason why I removed is 1. according to the comment by the late Henry Corbin in the introduction of his History of Islamic Philosophy]: ...the meaning of an ethnic designation evolves with the centuries. Today, the term 'Arab', both in common parlance and in official usage, has reference to a specific ethnic, national and political concept, which coincides neither with the religious concept of 'Islam' nor with the boundaries of its universe. The Arab or Arabicized peoples are in fact no more than a tiny fraction of the Islamic world in its entirety. 2. The adjective Arabic can have two meaning: one that refers to ethnic, national and political concept which is irrelevant here or the one that refers to "Arabic language" which is irrelevant here: as the template/category is placed in the page of a Persian person and not on the page of his book.

So if there must be a template like that it must by either: Persian commentators on Aristotle or simply commentators on Aristotle--Xashaiar (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The category refers to the Arabic language and is parallel to Category:Latin commentators on Aristotle. Xashaiar's argument amounts to saying that writers in a given genre should never be grouped by the language of their texts, which goes too far. In the history of philosophy, just as it is very meaningful to be able to consider together all of the writers (of different times, places, nationalities, and ethnicities) who wrote about Aristotle in Latin, it is likewise useful to know which Aristotelian commentators were having an impact on those philosophers who were capable of reading philosophical texts in Arabic.

The category's name is short-hand for "Arabic-language commentators on Aristotle." In correct English usage, this should already be obvious from the suffix -ic (though I can appreciate that some might ignorantly mistake the meaning, as Xashaiar fears they will). I have no objection to modifying the name of the category. But I must insist that it is appropriate to classify philosophical commentators (when classified as authors of commentaries) according to the language of their commentaries; otherwise Wikipedia's category tool will be useless for indicating a group of related authors that is widely recognized in scholarly writing. Wareh (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Try to respect the level of understanding of wikipedians (I and many here understand the difference between commentators and commentaries). We are in 2009 and I gave non Iranian modern scholar point of view (Henry Corbin]). It is against wikipedia rules to bring up example in order to make your edit accepted. I do not care about Latin... Change the name of your category to something "Arabic" free. Moreover The category's name is short-hand for "Arabic-language commentators on Aristotle. is your POV. Since you appreciate the danger of having that name, so you should be able to convince yourself to change the name. Wait for WP:CONS.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Corbin's remark is irrelevant, because he is speaking about the word "Arab," not "Arabic." I am willing to seek consensus on a better name. And I do understand the difference between a commentator and a commentary; since the commentaries are aspects of the careers covered in the articles on the commentators, we need some way of saying "This belongs in a list of articles on philosophers who contributed to the body of Aristotle commentaries written in Arabic." Can you suggest any satisfactory category label wording that means this? Those who understand that Arabic and Arab are not synonyms will also understand that the name I chose means this and not "Persons uniquely definable in all contexts as 'Arabic-language', who happened to write Aristotle commentaries," but, again, I am not overly attached to the name as it stands.

But are you really saying you are utterly opposed to the existence of a category designating those persons who have written commentaries on Aristotle in Arabic (say, Category:Arabic-language commentators on Aristotle)? I did not create the historical fact that several philosophers wrote commentaries on Aristotle in Arabic; I just tried to make a category to help readers find the articles on those authors. I have no agenda here and want to respect WP:NPOV. The categories are not part of the content of the article. Taking them away just means that anyone reading about Averroes who wonders, "What other notable persons contributed to the Arabic Aristotle commentary tradition?" will come away with the incorrect answer "No Persians did" because the correct label is missing on this article. Language is relevant to classifying participants in traditions/movements of philosophical writing. Wareh (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on the link of the category. Two of three names there are Persian. Then change the cat name to Persian commentators on Aristotle. This is more relevant. Once again Try to respect the level of understanding of wikipedians What should "Arabic commentators" should mean? Nothing. Moreover you claim: "I just tried to make a category to help readers find the articles on those authors." This is unacceptable to me. For 3 reasons (explained earlier but I repeat): Why making category for each single language. Put all "Latin", "Persian", "Hungarian",... commentators on Aristotle into one category: commentators on Aristotle. 2. At least in US the word Arab is rarely used, as they use Arabic or Arabian, therefore the danger caused by the name you have chosen is too high. 3. "Arabic" in your category's title is an adjective and not noun. According to this dictionary that adjective means "(adj) Arabic (relating to or characteristic of Arabs)". --Xashaiar (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as they are commentators, the language of the commentaries is more relevant than the nationality or ethnicity of the commentators. I had considered just lumping together all Aristotle commentators, as you suggest. I thought the Arabic/Latin subcategories would be useful because, apart from some remarkable exceptions, philosophers in this period read and wrote commentaries either in Latin or in Arabic or in Greek. Thus Averroes knew and responded to the ideas of Avicenna from familiarity with his texts in their original language, the same way William of Ockham knew Aquinas' texts in Latin and responded to their ideas in Latin. Maybe Ockham spoke English to children in the street whereas Aquinas spoke Italian, and maybe they had different national or ethnic identities, but this is irrelevant to an understanding of the intellectual tradition, which it was my goal to respect. Only by having Category:Arabic commentators on Aristotle (or some renamed version of it) can the reader see this tradition of Aristotelian commentators in one place. I avoided "Islamic" because the works are not necessarily religious in character (and I wondered whether some authors of works in Judeo-Arabic might not belong). I agree we should wait for consensus. If it turns out that the Wikipedia community's consensus is against what I thought made good sense, then maybe "Islamic" would be an acceptable compromise. P.S. You are being selective in your dictionary citation: that dictionary gives the language as the first meaning of "Arabic," and even for the meaning you quote, the example of usage is "Arabic languages"! Wareh (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

you say: "Insofar as they are commentators, the language of the commentaries is more relevant than the nationality or ethnicity of the commentators." This is your POV and against my POV. I will not agree with Islamic either. Both these adjectives are meaningless. --Xashaiar (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "commentary" and a "commentator". Almost all modern scientific publications and commentaries are in English. Just check PubMed or New England Journal of Medicine. It is a requirement. However, the majority of the authors are Non-English. You cannot say that Avicenna was an Arab only because he wrote in Arabic (keeping in mind that a few of his most important works were published in Persian). Tājik (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I do not believe or "say that Avicenna was an Arab" in any sense! Nothing could be farther from my purposes than to obscure the fact that he is a Persian author. In fact, I most certainly do not want the category I created to exist if it's converted into a category just for Arabs (as Xashaiar has now done), because that would defeat the whole point I have explained, and then its name would be wrong too. (I don't think Avicenna wrote any Aristotle commentaries in Persian, and I'm not aware of any by other authors; that's why I hit on the word "Arabic" when seeking a neutral way to unify these commentators from the Islamic world into a single category.)

But, Tajik and Xashaiar, in the interest of some resolution here, please let me know if there is any label you can accept that will bring together Avicenna and Averroes as authors of commentaries on Aristotelian texts in a shared tradition. Islamic? I understand what you oppose, but not what you could support. If the New England Journal of Medicine, with all its articles in English, had existed in the Middle Ages and had been the defining hub for all the brilliant Persian and Arab and other commentators on Aristotle's logic, physics, and metaphysics, then wouldn't we still want a category to refer to that wonderful group of scholars? Please help me name it rather than trying to just snuff it out. Now, one can't just move a category, so at some point we'll have to use the WP:CFD process to rename or rearrange. Wareh (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that such a category is needed at all - honestly, I do not think that categories in general are needed. But be it so, I suggest a category "Arabic commentaries" for the works of Ibn Sina, Farabi, etc., but NOT for their biographies. Tājik (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have gone that route, but, as I've explained, the coverage of their commentaries is in the articles on the commentators. Anyway, I have switched all the members of Category:Arabic commentators on Aristotle to Category:Commentators on Aristotle for now and don't intend to reintroduce "Arabic" without a consensus. I never anticipated the issue would raise such strong feelings, and, please, assume good faith and try to realize that my real intention is just to help users of the encyclopedia discover the history of Aristotelian commentaries! I don't understand Xashaiar's objection even to "Islamic." Real scholars write about Averroes and Avicenna together as Muslim authors of Arabic-language commentaries on the Corpus Aristotelicum all the time, without any fuss, and it's a shame if we can't do the same in a Wikipedia category. But I'm hoping that doesn't matter because the "Arabic" category is gone & won't return without the support of multiple editors besides me. Best wishes in improving the encyclopedia's coverage of Persian-language and Arabic-language philosophical literature, Wareh (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is as I said earlier: "commentators on Aristotle" No need to make one for each language. Also avoid "Islamic". And more importantly: you should decide first what you want: "commentators on Aristotle" or "commentaries on Aristotle". --Xashaiar (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, despite the fact that I don't understand your reasoning & feel that some useful information/guidance is being lost here for the reader. Wareh (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A v o i d Islamic? Considering the sheer amount of sources that reference these terms, that's a bit WP:OR. Don't misguide users to your opinion! Step carefully, Wareh. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are doing OR. The fact that Avicenna is called by some Islamic Philosopher and the fact that Avicenna is a commentator on Aristotle does not make him Islamic Commentator on Aristotle. Isn't that clear? One can not pick half of a title (Islamic) from some sources and the other half (commentator on Aristotle) from other sources and combine them. Is that clear? --Xashaiar (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't shooting for this particular issue in general, I do agree with what you're saying. But saying drop Islamic was a bit too broad for comfort! I think I misunderstood. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

reading

I strongly recommend Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman ISBN 041501929X, 9780415019293 J8079s (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ip Vandals who vandalize Avicenna's background

This article gets constantly hit by ip vandals attempting to change Avicenna's background[14]. Let me just touch upon two points here to make the matter clear on why Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica and mainstream academic sources have him as a Persian and not Turkic. Note there is no superiority here between any ethnic groups of people, but an Encyclopedia should represent the truth. Avicenna obviously is the greatest scholar figure of the Islamic World since the advent of Islam, and of course nations will use it for nation building. But that should not be the intent of an Encyclopedia. He was born from an Ismaili father in Balkh (Ismailis from Balkh were always Persians and this pre-dates Ghaznavid takeover of the area) and an Iranian mother by the name of Setareh (Star in Persian) in Bukhara (under Samanids and Tajik city). He also has both Persian and Arabic works. But if that is not sufficient, lets quote Avicenna. 1) The statement of Avicenna with this regard is given here from his book Ishaarat: لكن اللغات التى نعرفها قد خلت فى عاداتها عن استعمال النفى على هذه الصورة.... فيقولون بالعربية لاشى‌ء من ح‍ ب... و كذلك ما يقال فى فصيح لغة‌الفرس هيچ ح‍ ب نيست. Thus Ibn Sina states: “In the languages we know … in Arabic it is La-shayy .. and in Persian it is Hich Nist”. Note if he knew any other languages, he would also list them. But he is clear, "In the languages we know".

2) If that is not sufficient, although I do not agree with Avicenna on this, but I think it is necessary to bring this point up to prove the point. Note I am just quoting in order to show the impossibility of the ip's claim.

Avicenna in the book of “The Healing: (Ash-Shifa) in Chapter 5 (Concerning the caliph and Imam: the necessity of obeying them. Remarks on politics, transactions and morals) states:

“ ...As for the enemies of those who oppose his laws, the legislator must decree waging war against them and destroying them, after calling on them to accept the truth. Their property and women must be declared free for the spoil. For when such property and women are not administered according to the constitution of the virtuous city, they will not bring about the good for which the property and women are sought. Rather, these would contribute to corruption and evil. Since some men have to serve others, such people must be forced to serve the people of the just city. The same applies to people not very capable of acquiring virtue. For these are slaves by nature as, for example, the Turks and Zinjis and in general those who do not grow up in noble climes where the condition for the most part are such that nations of good temperament, innate intelligence and sound minds thrive”(Chris Brown, Terry Nardin, Nicholas J. Rengger, “International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War”, Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002, pg 156-157). ”

Original Arabic: و انه لابد من ناس يخدمون الناس، فيجب ان يك.ن هؤلا يجبرون علي خدمه اهل المدينه الفاضله، و كذلك من كان من الناس بعيداً عن تلقي الفاضيله فهم عبيد‘’ بالطبع، نثل الترك والزنح، و بالجمله الذين نشأوا في غير اقاليم الشريفه التي اكثر احوالها ان ينشأفيها حسنه الامزجه صحيحه القرايح و العقول

He also has Persian poetry and is recorded in books such as these:[15]. I hope that settles the issue and there is no need for constant ip harrassments of the article. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Sina's background is clear and is no WP:notable controversy. I simply question as always if it is an important part of his contribution: he was a philosopher and physician, being Persian had little to do with either of those contributions, while his philosophical contributions were very important to Islam, yet the heading of his template calls him a "Persian scholar" and not an "Islamic philosopher" or "physician". But, I won't push the issue further for a while more. --Afghana ^[talk] 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be "Persian Muslim Polymath". Of course from a Persian perspective, he was one of the earliest if not the earliest people to write an Enyclopedic manual in Persian language and coined up important scientific terms in that language. But his other important contributions were in the area of Philosophy, Medicine, Logic, Music theory. So probably "Persian Muslim Polymath" is a good choice. It is funny though on a debate 1000 years ago, Asadi Tusi has a poem about the debate of "Persian vs Arab" and first the Arab starts and then the Persian says" We have Razi and Avicenna..". 1000 years later.. Anyhow "Persian Muslim Scholar" is a good choice. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to this, your reasoning is sound. If User:Xashaiar agrees to it, we shall change the userbox. --Afghana ^[talk] 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not contributed to this article, but I agree with both of you.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but the debate we had above was certainly contribution! --Afghana ^[talk] 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How can Avicenna be Persian when he has an ARAB name,surname and origin and he wrote in Arabic only!!??

How can Avicenna be Persian when he has an ARAB name,surname and origin and he wrote in Arabic only!!?? Humanbyrace (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but these many references seem to think so. Esowteric+Talk 10:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He also has Persian works as well..It is in this article, the major one being Daneshmnaameyeh 'Alai. Also "Sina" is not Arabic but goes back to Avesta Saena. Unfortunately the above user has been spamming articles. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity and religion

This article both states Avicenna as a Persian and Muslim - both seem to be highly debatable facts as can be seen by the debates here.

Firstly it was the Middle-East at a time of Rapid Arab expansion under Islam and integration of people left, right and centre into the Arab ethnicity. Secondly, the Persians had a massive empire just prior and they were doing the exact same.

Though controversial, I am willing to bet my lastcent that virtually everyone in the area is genetically mixed. This will leave te question of self-identifying ethnicity, which again is very debatable in his case as despite being of Tajik/Persian origin, he certainly took on an Arab name as with the case of many Arabised non-Arab peoples throughout the Middle-East during that time and later. His offspring could be anywhere from the UAE calling themselves Arabs to Iran calling themslves Persian. So not only is calling such an old and influencial figure any ethinicity/race is unscientific, it is also illogical and inaccurate.

This can also be said about his religion. It is a well-known fact that he was a major contributor to Islamic Science and Philosophy under the time of the "Islamic" or rather Arab empire. But how does that identify his actual faith, and what relevance does that have anyway? There were known Arab Muslim scientists in areas prior to Islamic expansion, and there were non-Muslim Arab controbutors in the "Islamic" empire. Then there was Baghdad during that time as a land of Wine and alcohol distillation and liberal/secular thinking - the famous "Muslim" Mosawi (sp.) Brothers were making joke wine jugs. So where is the relevance of even saying which exact branch of Islam (Maddhab) Avicenna belonged to.

I have already removed the Persian section in the opening line, transfered the source over to the box (which I believe itself is irrelevant)and left the Persian writing of his name as an important part to show it's pronounciation and origin - a compromise if you will. Please discuss here before just reverting back and I'll try to get back ASAP. Pink Princess (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a place WP:OR, debate and not a place for compromises with non-scientific theories. Major Encyclopedia's like the prestigious Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, Britannica call him Persian (and wikipedia is not certaintly better than EIS and EIR) and the few outdated sources that use to call all Muslim scientists as Arabs have been updated and mostly corrected with the last 20-50 years. He contributed to Persian scientific writing and even coined pure Persian terms and wrote Persian poetry. There is no controversy or debate on this issue among Western specialists and usually the only controversy and so called "debates" comes from neighboring people of Iranian/Persians. Even the family name "Sina"(Saena) is not Arabic actually, it is Persian (many Persians like many Muslims have Arabic names, but not many Arabs have Persian surnames like Sina). See WP:OR and just like Isaac Newton article has said English or Al-Kindi has Iraqi-Arab, Ibn Sina's native language was Persian and he will be mentioned as a Persian scientist in the introduction. Wikipedia is not a place for compromises on well known facts. It was very rare for scientists at that time to write in Persian (Persian was not a scientific language at the time of Ibn Sina, yet he made it a scientific language) and even compose Persian poetry, but Ibn Sina can be considered one of the founding fathers of this trend with his Persian scientific writings like Danesh-nama 'Alai and Rag-Shenaasi. So again, this is not a place for comproises and debates on well known fact which are accepted in Western specialist and scientific circles, but might be "debatable" in some countries. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked through the sources and can't find anywhere where it mentions the Persian poetry nor the original terms, and I contest the reliability of encyclopedia Iranica. Encyclopedia Britannica on the other hand is something I agree is reliable. And there is no OR here mate - just well know common sense, but if it also mentions ethinicites in other articles, I guess that's just the way it is. And please don't insult me with patrionism and trying to blindly guess my intentions with your ethno-political stereotypes, I can just as easily label you as a "Persian Nationalist" and against any Arabs or their achievements, but I understand how stupid, inaccurate and unscientific something like that will be. And I never made the name claim, merely suggesting the complexity of trying to determine ethnicities especially in the ME as he could have been Arabised. Also there are just as much Arabs with Persian names as the other way around - especially in places like Iraq with Arabised Persians. I could start making assumtions about your claim here, but I choose not to. ;) Take care. Pink Princess (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Britannica is generally reliable and of course so is Iranica (one cannot contest academic sources of such caliber in Wikipedia). Britannica is a general summary but for the Persian poetry of Avicenna it is recorded in many anthologies for example this one [16]. It states: "Nozhat al-majāles also comprises many quatrains by such scholars and mystics as Avicenna, Aḥmad Ḡazāli, Majd-al-Din Baḡdādi, and Aḥmad-e Jām, who had never been recognized as poets,". If you want to challenge that, first you have to look at the manuscript and then state it does not exist (which it does) and even then, you would need a scholar to back you up. Of course Avicenna's main reason of fame is due to philosophy and medicine but his poetry is mentioned by several sources and is also recorded in other books as well and an example is given in the main article. I would even say Ibn Sina was a bit of a patriot, since he can be considered as the main founder of Persian scientific writing and he took a conscious effort to coin many pure Persian terms for Arabic equivalents and not simply just borrow them. His Daneshnama (Encyclopedia)-i Ala'i is a masterpiece of Persian scientific writing. He also lived all of his life under the Persian Samanids and Buyids in Persia and Central Asia. Both Bukhara (Tajiks are the main population today and the overwhelming population 1000 years) and Hamadan are still Persian speaking cities after 1000 years. That is he really never stepped into any major Arabic territory. Be that it may, as you note Al-Kindi, Newton, da Vinchi, and etc. have their origin in the introduction. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for that source, it makes very interesting reading. However, some of the names of other Persian poets is very suspicious to me - especially Gazali and Baghdadi - both names extremely popular in the Arab world - especially Iraq to this day. Maybe I guess they fall into that gray-area of Arabised Persians - originally Persians from the ancient empires who settled etc... I also still find Encyclopedia Iranica, and for that matter any encyclopedia wtitten by a people about themselves and history suspicious - especially people from the Middle-East. I see no reason why I cannot question it's validity here - unless there is somesort of consensus which list and proves it as a definately reliable source. I equally wont trust Encyclopedia Arabica (if such thing exists) if written by Arabs. With Avicenna, I'm gonna take your word he was Persian and wont argue with you anymore on that, but reading more of Encyclopedia Iranica - I question it's NPOV and neutrality especially when it comes to this grey area of Arabisation, as I'd question any Arab-influenced source too. Btw, do you know how to get WP to send you emails when a subscribed topic is replied for, as it used to do that in my account but not any more. Also, when I have time, I will try to get a copy of Nozhat al-majāles, and seeing exactly what language it's written in - if not in somesort of hybrid lol. Take care mate, and please feel free to revert my edit. Pink Princess (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have made the statements "I also still find Encyclopedia Iranica, and for that matter any encyclopedia wtitten by a people about themselves and history suspicious" and "but reading more of Encyclopedia Iranica - I question it's NPOV and neutrality". Here are some sources by non-Iranian unrelated-to-Iranian-world highly respected scholarly works that may make you regret stating those. 1. a list of some authors of EIr (almost all non-Iranian), 2. reviews of EIr (read this one that says "Avicenna and Barda articles are without parallel in books/articles!. If you can find another publication in recent history about any subject in any language with such high level of respect, please let us know!). Xashaiar (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't regret any of my statements after reading your reviews - don't now what institution you work at and what their policy are, but I was always taught not to trust suggested reviews an article or organisation suggests for itself as it will generally be biased, missing key negative reviews. I made that mistake myself with Hilgard et Hilgard 1976. Also the review you offered was for just one author out or many, though for the purpose of arguement, yeah I guess it is reliable when it comes to his ethnicity. Though Moḥammad Amin Riāḥi article is highly suspicious - I will consult Arab-centric sources too to get a clearer picture of the ethnicities of people like Gazali and Baghdadi - as I am certain they can offer just as well reviewed sources to suggest otherwise Just checked, they are Sufi religious philosophers, and hence like the majority of religious theologians during the Arab/Islamic Empire, they were Persians, as Persia previously had a much longer history and tradition of spiritualism. And I am sure I can find sources much better in no more than half an hour on the web, but I'm really bussy writting a paper myself about a totally different subject. Also, how do you get email notifications of replies to subscribed topics? Also it might be a good idea to start some more Arab wiki-projects, I'll try set up some too and get some editors with more expertise than me on these subjects, as I'm feeling a massive shortage of a lot of great Arab philosophers, thinkers and scientists on here and also you'll get the more reliable sources on other ME peoples you want. TC Pink Princess (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Somebody Please Fix the Edit

I'd do this myself, but for some reason I don't have rights. Somebody please edit the article and fix the missing (or rather, misplaced) ref end tag. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrazkhan (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Physics

The claim that Ibn Sina postulated that momentum is equal to speed times weight, is not correct. This idea belongs to Buridan alone. Here is the relevant part of Aydin Sayili's paper [51]

"The clarification brought by Buridan to this issue owes much to his sagacious move of conceiving impetus quantitatively in a neat manner. He pointed out that if a heavy and a light body are hurled with the same speed, the heavier body's motion lasts longer or has a longer trajectory, showing that impetus increases with weight or quantity of matter. He also noted that the greater the initial velocity of projection the greater the duration and distance of flight. Thus he considered impetus as proportional to weight times velocity. In other words, his conception of impetus comes very close to the concept of momentum of Newtonian mechanics. This quantity was called both impetus and momentum by Galileo. Ibn Sina, as we have just seen, had touched upon the idea of impetus as something increasing with weight but had felt the need of rejecting this idea; or, rather, he vacillated between the two alternatives." Niche55 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Read the sources and read the article. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Ibn Sina was the first to employ an air thermometer to measure temperature has no basis in fact. The reference supplied (Footnote 62, Briffault, p. 191)states "Ibn Sina is said to have employed an air thermometer," and Briffault gives no evidence for this or identifies who said this. Magiotti (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this claim. See Talk:Thermometer and User:Syncategoremata/Ibn Sīnā and the invention of the thermometer for more details. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Sina Balkhi!

Abu Ali Sina was born in Balkh a town located in northern part of Afghanistan. I hope you guys stop linking him to your country and spreading false thing which has no root or proof.

He received his early education in Bukhara! he was born in Balkh.

In Aghanistan we have habit of using Father name as surname. @Article moderator

Please fix this and put "Abu Ali al-Hussain Ibn Abdallah Ibn Sina Balkhi" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.189.108 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Persian scholar info-box

I don't think a Persian scholar info-box should be used. Use a standard info-box like Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton articles. You don't see ethno-nationalists claiming those guys. Please stop claiming people as this or that and write about their individual accomplishements and lives. EasternAryan (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

New Translation of first poem under poetry section

{{editsemiprotected}} Dear Editors and the wider community,

With respect to the translation of the first poem in the Avicenna article, I believe that it is incorrect and misleading. The English translation is completely different to what the Farsi is implying and thus I believe there is a case for editing.

I propose the revised version below, which is much more in-line with the Farsi meaning and hence the original purpose of the poem. I STRESS that this is not an "original thought", i am merely pointing out a true and verifiable (by any Farsi speaking person) translational mistake in the article and suggesting a correction to it.

From the centre of the Earth to the peak of Saturn,
All worldly problems I did solve,
and all Knots and Mysteries I did unravel,
All Knots did I resolve but not the Master-Knot of Human Fate.


I do look forward to your comments on this matter,

Regards,

Youssof99 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of the article. The current translation seems to be from the referenced text, though there may have been some license taken in that translation to make it more poetic in English. The contradictory "all, but not" phrasing is unusual in English, more common is "all, except..." or "almost all, but not" or "many(or most), but not." Celestra (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Avicenna on Zangis and Turks

"...As for the enemies of those who oppose his laws, the legislator must decree waging war against them and destroying them, after calling on them to accept the truth. Their property and women must be declared free for the spoil. For when such property and women are not administered according to the constitution of the virtuous city, they will not bring about the good for which the property and women are sought. Rather, these would contribute to corruption and evil. Since some men have to serve others, such people must be forced to serve the people of the just city. The same applies to people not very capable of acquiring virtue. For these are slaves by nature as, for example, the Turks and Zinjis and in general those who do not grow up in noble climes where the condition for the most part are such that nations of good temperament, innate intelligence and sound minds thrive”(Chris Brown, Terry Nardin, Nicholas J. Rengger, “International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War”, Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002, pg 156-157).

This should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticktocktic4040 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can he have observed the 1032 transit of Venus?

While I'd really like to believe that somebody prior to Jeremiah Horrocks observed a transit of Venus, it is very improbable that Avicenna did. The circumstantial evidence is strong: Venus's path through the sky was not established precisely enough to identify a transit until Kepler (and Horrocks). Perhaps smoked glass could have been used to observe the sun decently, but the lack of any other instruments certainly didn't help.

However, there is more direct evidence. Avicenna lived the last decade or so of his life in Isfahan in the service of Abu Jafar. As can be seen on this transit map: http://www.hmnao.com/nao/transit/V_1032/ the eclipse was not visible from Isfahan, or anywhere in modern-day Iran. The present-day city of Erzurum in Turkey, 2000 km away, is about the closest the transit was visible, and even then not for more than a few minutes at sunset.

I don't know if this argument constitutes original research, but it seems to me that at least the claim of an observation by Avicenna should be treated more skeptically in the article. None of the many Venus transit books I've read have even dealt with Avicenna's having observed the transit, and in this case I think the lack of evidence is significant.

Does anybody know whether he claimed to have observed a transit, or was that claim made by later writers? Jonathan.kade (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This claim for an early observation of a transit of Venus worries me too. Avicenna does claim to have seen the transit but gives no information on when or where is was. The best reference I have on this is a paper by Goldstein, in which he discusses (and rejects) a large number of such claims:

Goldstein, Bernard R. (1969). "Some Medieval Reports of Venus and Mercury Transits". Centaurus. 14 (1): 49–59. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0498.1969.tb00135.x. Retrieved 2010-03-17.

In this article, Goldstein concludes that "we do not have a well authenticated medieval report of a transit; the only report for which the observation of a transit cannot be excluded immediately is that of Avicenna, whose report includes too little information." (p. 55). Earlier in that paper he says that "this transit may not have been visible where he [that is, Avicenna] lived" (p. 53). His analysis of the visibility of the transit is based on data from this paper:

Meeus, J. (1958). "The Transits of Venus, 3000 B.C. to A.D. 3000". Journal of the British Astronomical Association. 68: 98–108.

Based on that paper, there is some chance that Avicenna would have been able to see the transit but he probably could not have done so. (One problem is that he could have been elsewhere than in Isfahan at that particular date, though it is all very circumstantial.) There is some uncertainty in the figures provided by Meeus, and if the bounds on those have been improved in the meantime (i.e. in the last 50 years) it is possible that any such observation could now be categorically ruled out. (By the way, the link you provided for the transit visibility is marvellous and I've added that to my list of references for this.)

Just on what I have here, any categorical claims that Avicenna observed this transit should, indeed, be qualified rather severely. I'll have a go at that now.

All the best and many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

tags

The reason I tagged this article is that its greatest contributor is a user that has been proved as a tendentious editor. He basically did all sorts of things to hype and exxagerate the contributions of medieval islamic scholars, and one of his favourites was Avicenna. A serious revition needs to be done in all the biographies of islamic scholars he contributed, and until then, the articles should be tagged. Before removing the tags, please see [this] and [this] Notice that the editor who did all this is by far the top contributor to the article, with 350 edits. The second has only 67.--Knight1993 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

there is a mistake!

ibn-i sina (Aviccena) is not persian. He is Turk. Horasan was a turkish city and the state of him was turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.225.229.239 (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He was Persian, his name Sina is Persian, he was born in the Persian Samanid empire in the Persian speaking city of Bukhara from an Ismaili father and a mother named sitara (Persian for Star). He wrote Persian poetry and books (besides Arabic) and has this to say about Turks: "...As for the enemies of those who oppose his laws, the legislator must decree waging war against them and destroying them, after calling on them to accept the truth. Their property and women must be declared free for the spoil. For when such property and women are not administered according to the constitution of the virtuous city, they will not bring about the good for which the property and women are sought. Rather, these would contribute to corruption and evil. Since some men have to serve others, such people must be forced to serve the people of the just city. The same applies to people not very capable of acquiring virtue. For these are slaves by nature as, for example, the Turks and Zinjis and in general those who do not grow up in noble climes where the condition for the most part are such that nations of good temperament, innate intelligence and sound minds thrive”(Chris Brown, Terry Nardin, Nicholas J. Rengger, “International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War”, Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002, pg 156-157). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfjhabajf54 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Avicenna|b00855lt}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

He was not a Shia, but a Sunni

He was a Sunni. He converted to Sunni Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.136.36 (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Could editors please not edit the content above unless they are the editor who originally made this comment: see WP:TPO.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Sina is an arabic name, all his books were in arabic. Arabic was the language of islam with no offense to any ethinticy. It a uniting language of the whole nation as its the language of the holy Quran. Hence you can't say he is persian or iranian. He belongs to all muslims and arabs. That time Arabic means muslim and vice versa.

Actually:

1) Ibn Sina's father was Ismaili but he was shia Ithna-Ashari. His works have been criticized by Sunni scholars like Ghazzali among others.

2) Ibn Sina has significant amount of works in Persian. Including an Encyclopedia : "Daneshnameyeh 'Alai", or for example the book on "Rag Shenaasi" (Knowledge of the veins of the body).

3) Sina is not an Arabic term but it is related to Saena of Avesta which is a bird.

4) Arabic does not mean Muslim. The difference between 'Ajam/Fors/Iranian/Persian and Arabic was well known since Salman Farsi. They are both Muslim nations but different languages, cultures and roots. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The argument is that during the time when Ibn Sina lived, the arabic was the official language of state, people and science. That time, arabic means muslim and vise versa. Moreover, Ibn sina was born in Balkh - not even persia or modern iran. Most of arabic tribes travelled all across asia and were origin and granfathers of arabic speaking population in Asia. Hence you can't know for sure the race of a person unless you trace his origin all the way.

That time also there were nothing called Persian Empire. That time there was only the Islamic empire during its golden age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.2.73 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you are incorrect. Ibn Sina was born under the Samanid Persian empire and its official language was Persian. The people there were Persians as Bukhara today is even majority Persian Tajik, let alone in the 9th-10th century. Arabic does not mean Muslim, only 15% of Muslims are Arabs. Sina is by the way not even an Arabic name. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Sina was clearly a Sunni (Hanafi) Muslim, as there is credible evidence for this. There is no legitimate evidence on the other hand which says he was a Shia. Please stop this nonsense and recognize that Ibn Sina was clearly a Sunni who studied Sunni (Hanafi) figh, made a living from this, and practiced Sunni (Hanafi) Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.248.2 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is precious!

The phenomenon you can see here deserves to be recorded and analyzed to understand more the ethnic and religious conflicts of Middle East and Central Asia. I want to extract some facts and just present it to you, you will see for yourself how interesting it is:

1) First of all there is an ongoing debate on whether Avicenna was Persian or Arab. Meanwhile, some funny guy states that he was actually Turkic. If you have spent most of your history plundering and ruining other civilizations that's your fault. If other people spent theirs creating a strong culture and generating scientists that's their glory. You spent your time conquering the lands you wanted (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, or Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc. for that matter) and during this time Khorasan was busy contributing to the scientific community. Not only you did not help in the process, you destroyed their heritage and now you want to steal their figures? Knowing you, that makes perfect sense to me!

2) I think we (in general, Asians) are not really qualified to edit Wikipedia. Consider Aristotle, Galileo Galilei and Copernicus as an example. No other European nation ever challenges their Greek, Italian or Polish origins even though they may have wrote their books in Latin or any other language not native to their own land. Every fact they have is based upon strong grounds and yet the simplest thing one can infer about a notable person is his birthplace his native language and other stuff. Yet we have not settled on these simplest problems. I say stop it, if you do not have the knowledge don't write anything here. Let those who actually know to decide.10:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratemahmood (talk • contribs)

Dubious

While we don't have a single valid source pointing to any affiliation with the Sunni Islam, we seem to have a consensus he was an adherent of Shi'a Islam. So, my issue is, there is some belief that he may have been under taqiyya when in his autobiography he stated he rejected Ismailism. My question is, if I bring a strong source that contradicts Corbin, what will we do about it? --Enzuru 03:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll adjust the article if the source is reliable. He is claimed by both 12ers and Ismailis, but we uphold the truth as it is reported. *Flexes muscles as if she were superhero.* If you are concerned, pop the cite to the talk page - er, here - and we can review. I can also hit up the liberry for the latest on Ibn Sina, although I am loathe to wade through works on him.

There was a lot of ideological foment up at Alamuut and lots of anti-Mongols went there and/or left there, including Sunnis, 12ers and varied People of the Book. It can be hard to prove any one individual who was born into an Ismaili family but converted to another branch of Shi'i Islam or even Sunnism was practicing taqiyyah, but if you got the texts, by all means, post them! ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 04:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is they are Ismaili sources. The issue is, they make a good argument: while his brother and father were perhaps very prominent Ismaili, he himself was active in the Islamic world and under the courts of many non-Ismaili rulers. Also, like I stated before, his ideology is virtually indistinguishable from the Ismailism of his day, and likewise, his advances on that ideology I believe are permanent facets of the faith. --Enzuru 07:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we remove the "dubious" tag, because it seems not to be dubious. You have a citation... Ogress _smash! 07:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have a counter citation from a bad Ismaili source. It's something.
• If I'm correct, Corbin guesses in his source, to be honest, "we don't know" is the standard scholarly consensus you'd find in most texts. I'm a tad hesitant in accepting this just quite yet. --Enzuru 08:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

132.206.198.36 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC) But in fact we do have some sources pointing to Ibn Sina's Sunnism, the latest scholarship in fact. I'd like to direct you to Robert Wisnovsky's article on Avicenna in The Cambridge Companion To Arabic Philosophy, in which at page 95 he cites Dimitri Gutas' research in "Avicenna's Madhhab with an Appendix on the Question of the Date of his Birth" ( a full citation of the sources will follow), which concludes that based on Avicenna's own autobiography, his father "arranged for him to be tutored in Islamic Jurisprudence by a Hanafi, that is, a member of one of the four Sunni--as opposed to Shi'i--schools of legal thought" (Wisnovsky 95). I have not verified myself Gutas' use of the sources. I intend to do that one of these days.

Speaking of authority on this issue, one shouldn't take Corbin for granted, he is predisposed to Shi'ism, and is known to force interpretation to suit the idea. He seems convinced for instance that Ibn al Arabi is a Shi'i. I refer you to Michel Chodzkievic's work on Shaykh al-Akbar for clarification on this issue. The point being, Corbin is no authority for the matter at hand.

Here's the full citation for Gutas' work: D. Gutas "Avicenna's Madhhab with an Appendix on the Question of the Date of his Birth," Quaderni di studi arabi 5-6 (1987-8), 323-36

The assertion that he is twelver is thus, at the very least, still dubious. But I think the currect scholarship has done much to show that the more commonsense and obvious conclusion, given the sources, is that he is Sunni. More on this is due....

I suggest altering the article to stating that he is Sunni, while discussing other possible interpretation on this page.

Once again, we find more sources saying his religious faith is unknown, then the others stating it. What does everyone think we should do? I think we should leave the dubious tag here on the Twelver thing. --Enzuru 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 132.206.198.36. Another source that testifies to Ibn Sina's Sunnism, based on the Gutas paper mentioned above, is Janssens, Jules L. (1991). An annotated bibliography on Ibn Sînâ (1970-1989): including Arabic and Persian publications and Turkish and Russian references. Janssens asserts that Gutas "convincingly demonstrates that I.S. was a sunni-Hanafi.". He also gave more details. I see no reason why this view shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Alwiqi (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)--

someone said "arranged for him to be tutored in Islamic Jurisprudence by a Hanafi, that is, a member of one of the four Sunni--as opposed to Shi'i--schools of legal thought" is a proof of he being a Suuni. which is not right, shia's have a tendency of studying other school of thoughts. for example Allama Naseem Abbas Rizvi has studied Hadiths from Sunni sources. I being a shia has also studied under Sunni scholors. Again, there is no confusion on his father being an Ismaili then how come this argument means that sending his children to Sunni school meant he was a sunni. Also, the person Avicena was most inspired was Al-Farabi, who was a Twelver Shia, without any doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.10.174 (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)