Misplaced Pages

Talk:Avicenna: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:29, 9 April 2007 editWeiszman (talk | contribs)112 edits Ibn Sina← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:50, 1 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,073,677 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Avicenna|blp=no|1=
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Muslim scholars|class=B}} {{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=high}}
{{philosophy|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=high}}
{{WikiProject_Iran|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Iran|importance=high}}
{{WPMA|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top|Muslim-scholars=yes|Muslim-scholars-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|philosopher=yes|medieval=yes|ethics=yes|logic=yes|science=yes}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|society=yes|society-imp=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(900d)
|archive = Talk:Avicenna/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Annual readership|days=365}}


== Need for some housekeeping and edits--but page is locked==
== Uniformity of Reference ==
I am not sure why this article is locked and it wasn't clear how to request editing. If someone else is able to edit, please go in an add a bunch of the missing links to other WP articles e.g. the article, in one paragraph mentions Galen four times, but no where else in the article. There are no links to the article on Galen. While I suspect most people who read this page know who he was and all about the four humors, etc. I am not so sure that msot people reading the article would be expected to know this and it. I think the article on ] would beenfit from a bit more context as well.
To be consistent with Western usage the name Avicenna should be used throughout. In addition the dating system of CE (Common Era) not AD (Anno Domini) or AH is to be preferred. Remember, this is the English language page of Misplaced Pages.


I also think that given the somewhat enthusiastic sentiment which states he is the leading mind after Hippocrates and Galen, that perhaps some further discussion that could provide context about what was the prevailing views at the time, why this somewhat hyperbolic statement, is actually reasonable, and probably accurate statement, and what was the state of medicine in Europe, and what other leading medical scholars of the era were about. Its just if you make such statements in a WP article you really need to substantiate it with links or cites to authoratative sources.
...However, this is wrong: "His Latinized name is a anglicization of Ibn Sina". I can't point on a source right away, but Avicenna is the *Latin* transcription of the name, used from the late Middle Ages on, when the philosopher first became known in the West. Please don't "anglicize" too much, even in the English Misplaced Pages :-)
--] 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the conclusion, but not necessariy the tone, which may benefit from being a bit more neutral in nuances.
== Other Comments ==
In what country/countries are Kharmaithen and Hamadan? -- ]
Answer: Iran


I don't think there is a good appreciation of how little progress was made in Europe from the time of the late Roman empire until the 1600's and why that is (and am sure that there are other articles that would be useful to link to to help give people an opportunity to appreciate the reason why some authors have been so superperlitive in their choice of adjectives. It wasn't all gloom and doom, but a lot of prior knowledge was only made available to European physicians via the ''Cannon of Medicine'' and other similar works given that the most prolific of all ancient Greeks was Galen and his work didn't quite make the cut-off off in time for translation into Latin and didn't really show up in European medicine until translated into Arabic (excepting some of his work by ]) in 8th Century e.g. by ].
:That's actually not an easy question to answer. The 1911 EB says he was "born at Afshena in the district of Bokhara" and that his father was a tax collector in Harmaitin. Modern Bokhara is in Uzbekistan but back then it was all just Central Asia. Hamadan seems to be definitely in Persia/Iran tho. ]


I think it is an example of where adding the links might help most people who may not be history of of medicine buffs.] (]) 08:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'll add Central Asia and Persia. -- ]
== Page name ==


Can we correct the page name to be Ibn Sina's original name Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abillah ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sina rather than Avicenna as known in the west.
:::Another reason for ]


Surely a person would rather be identified and recognised but his official birth name which historians have recorded as Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abillah ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sina. For justification we can look at Al-Farabi's page, https://en.wikipedia.org/Al-Farabi where his page is named by his original name rather than the western name Alpharabius <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Yo all're crazy man, ibn Sina was Turkmen, and that is not mentioned anywhere in your article


: No, this is the English Misplaced Pages, so the legit title is Avicenna. Your remark about Al-Farabi is irrelevant, since in English, he's called Al-Farabi, not Alpharabius. Best.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 22:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,.. DO NOT MAKE RIDICUL OF YOURSELVES AND SAY THAT IBN SINA WAS A TURKMEN.
::It is English Misplaced Pages, but we could have the decency to use Ibn Sina's name instead of some Latinate corruption of it. ] (]) 17:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
HE CAN NOT BE A NOMAD. -) and I cant think of any of his writings in Turmen,. or in general Turkish lang.
::Avicenna is just a corruption of Ibn Sina, Ibn Sina is the actual name. You're argument here doesn't make sense at all, by your logic a person called Peter should have his documents with multiple names if he decides to move between countries or regions speaking different, those are, Peter, Pietro, Pedro, Pyotr, Butrus etc.
He ruled! Therefore the word MEDICINE ended from persian MADADE SINO (Sino's cure)
::Thus, here Ibn Sina is the better choice for naming the page as that is the original name of the person in his native tongue. ] (]) 07:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


What about Ibn Rushd who is known in the West as Averroes? We can simply change the name to Ibn Sina and have the search “Avicenna” be redirected to the page, just as is done on the Ibn Rushd page. This does not have anything to do with being “the English Misplaced Pages.” ] (]) 08:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


Please see ]. Ibn Sina is commonly transliterated in English as Ibn Sina, never Avicenna. This page should be changed to Ibn Sina. --] (]) 09:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
-- Apparently you don't know much about anything as Turkmens weren't even in existence when Avicenna was born.


:Also, Please see the comments made to your earlier request for the same thing. See my comments under your prior posting of the same nature. Please read the response editors provide you and don't just keep re-posting the same request based on your misperception. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: Using Latin form names everywhere is foolish. It makes more sense to call him what Muslims do, which is ].
::Thank you I just made this request as well. What a weird defensive response you got. ] (]) 23:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


== Section on Theology ==
-- No it isn't, that's what they're called in English, if you look at any important English document their names are Averroes, Avicenna, Rhazes etc...! Why the confusion?


In the section titled Theology, there is a reference to Al-Razi, that may not be correct.
I've read Avicenna's Psychology. The term psychology there does no mean the modern practice of psychology as mental health, but more the study of the anatomy of the soul. The two are ultimately related but still distinct. The link to psychology is therefore deceptive.
Apparently, Al-Razi had died prior to Avicenna's birth.


== Birthplace ==


Ibn Sina who is known as Abu Ali Sina Balkhi was born in ] (current Afghanistan) instead of ] that has been recorded here.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)</span>
First of all,. AS far as I know the word MEDICINE has been originated from persian Madadi Sino. The idea cant offer a proof. That is what I read somewhere, but cant recall.
Second of all. As it has been already mentioned Arabic language was the scientific language or prestigeous language of the time. Therefore it is true, and we have been taught that Ibn Sina accomplished part of his works in Arabic, as well as in Persian. However Samanids states is considered the first oficial Tajik state. As the editor already mentioned his father worked in Samanids administration, that gave Ibn Sina opportunity to study in Bukhara (where nowadays 90% of the population speak Tajik language). Being a Tajik, I do not deny that we belong to Persian group. Unfortunately, here what is happening here. Refering to a simple example, which will make it easier for you to understand the point, I want to finish my paragraph. Looking at an elevator some people say it is a lift (from British), but other people insist in saying that it is an elevator. AND WHY IS THIS ALL NECESSARY? THE MAIN THING IS THAT HE WAS FROM ONE NATION, THAT WE ALL ARE IN,.. ISLAM!!


:{{re|ZakiFrahmand1}} ] widely record that he was born in Afshana, a village near Bukhara. His '']'' al-Balkhī derives from the fact that his father Abd Allah was a native of Balkh, as also recorded by reliable sources and mentioned in the article.
:In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page (or use the 'new section' button at the top of the page). Please also don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). Thanks! {{p}} <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 12:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
::Where is the link to your relaible sources?
::I think he was born in greater balkh. ] (]) 20:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


== Origin of Ibn Sina ==


Though he has written a few works in persian, it was most probably used to convey literature just as arabic. His first language was most probably sogdian. In this sense, he would be "persian" only in the frequent meaning in english that Persia means the whole ancient Iran. Wouldn't, however, other identifications as of Sogdian, Iranian, Central Asian, from present Uzbekistan, also arabic, as being the language of most of his work, be also relevant? ] (]) 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
::More detail on what "anatomy of the soul" means? Is this ] merged with ] or something? List of topics?
:Sorry, but we base our info on academic sources, not the personal opinion of users. --] (]) 14:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


== Was he a persian ? ==
the Psychology of Avicenna is a study on the Soul. It means, A philosophical way to studie the human soul.


<strike>It’s known and mentioned in the article that his father was native to the city of balkh, that makes him a tajik not a persian, it’s known that tajiks were called persians and both names were used as synonyms to them but they are not the same ethnically, these differences do matter today, for some reason there is some sort of persianization of scientists of non-persian iranian ethnic groups ] (]) 13:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)</strike> '''<--- ] ] of ]'''
Zoe, They were both ancient provinces in Iran. Hamadan is still part of Iran, but Khwarezm and Bukhara were given to Russia when it invaded Persia, or Iran.] 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:The sources in the article contradict you. And to make it worse you have posted zero sources to back your claims. --] (]) 13:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
<strike>::Who are/were the native ethnic group of balkh ? ] (]) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)</strike> '''<--- ] ] of ]'''
:::This is impossible to know. The ethnicity then was not the ethnicity now. All we have are sources referring to him as Persian. ] Game Set Match. ] (]) 16:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::: It should be purged from the lead though per ]. ]] 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::That makes no sense at all.
:::::Greeks may not be the Greeks of the antiquity but that doesn't make them not Greek. The same for Persians.
:::::Ibn-Sina's heritage is as important as Aristotle's was. He should be referred as a Persian polymath. ] (]) 02:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Reputable sources already confirmed that contemporary Tajiks are the original Persian speaking population of Central Asia, including descendants of native Balkhis since antiquity. Saying it’s impossible to know that Tajiks existed back then is as erroneous as saying we can’t confirm the ethnicity of native Shirazis during Saadi’s lifetime. ] (]) 18:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::While that may be true, do you have ] stating that Avicenna was Tajik? ] (]) 20:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::In general the indigenous Central Asians (of multiple ethnicities) were of Iranic origin (I.e. Sarmatians). ] (]) 02:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


== Avicenna a Tajik? == == Persian name of Ibn Sina ==


{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} Hello all, I had a recommendation in regards to the name of Ibn Sina in Persian. As you all know, "Ibn" is an Arabic suffix to which there are Persian equivalents. In some Persian sources, Ibn Sina is called Pour Sina, Pour meaning the same thing as Ibn. I am curious to see if anyone thinks it would be appropriate to include پور سینا (pour Sina) in addition to Ibn Sina, which is also included in the Persian version of this article. Thank you.
A comment on the following sentence in the article: "(Some sources actually state that Avicenna was born in Hamadan, and a good brief biography, linked below, claims him as a Tajik from Balkh)."


Sources:
The tajik ethnicity is ill-defined, and the meaning seems to have fluctuated in the course of history. Some say that the tajiks are descendants of arabs after the Islamic invasions, others claim they are persians have emigrated from the iranian area around 200 AD. Today some will call any persian-speaking sunni with no specific ethnic association in the afghanistan/tajikstan area a tajik, yet there exists ismaili tajiks and even an extremely small group of imami tajik. Others affiliate themselves with different tajik clans.


http://www.parsianjoman.org/wp-content/uploads/ParsiSareh.pdf (Page numbers of PDF: 25, 34,) (The article is in Persian)
Because of this confusion around the tajik ethnicity the modern day tajiks are striving to create a national identity, and thus some tajik sites will present persian philosophers with a background from the modern-day Tajikistan area as tajiks... though this can be viewed as highly speculative...


https://www.iranketab.ir/book/63551-poorsina (Persian book that uses "Pour Sina" and not "Ibn Sina" in the title)
It is extremely doubtful that Ibn Sina/Avicenna would associate a tajik ethnicity with himself... most probably he viewed himself a persian.


https://abadis.ir/fatofa/%D9%BE%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7/ (Scroll down to see the Dehkhoda Dictionary entry)] (]) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
-- I'm Azeri/Turkic and I'm more than convinced that Avicenna was PERSIAN!


] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> - This seems like the sort of question that should be a discussion, rather than an uncontroversial edit request. ] (]) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
-- Even though I have a high regard for Persian contributions to human civilization, I think SOME of today's Persians have an inferiority complex, because they self-"persianize" all the great Muslim Scholars. Speaking Persian does not show anything about being a Persian or not, just as using Arabic does not indicate origin. It is a fact that the Islamic world was very mixed those days. Most Muslims were very mixed and spoke Arabic and Persian those days in addition to their native languages. Ibni Sina was born in Central Asia and he could very well be of Tajik or Turkic origin, as well as of Persian or Arabic. -Serkan


: I think if there is an authoritative citation that indicates what he might have referred to himself, or what any of his peers would have, then it would be totally reasonable to include it with his already non-trivial list of names.


If it just a translation of what we know from the historic person, from what was written in Arabic, into Person by modern authors, then I don't know that it would add anything to the article that translation of his Arabic name into any other contemporary language would. (perhaps even less, e.g. if there is an English translation of Ibn I think it is always helpful to give people as much context as possible to understand, and they certainly did tend to put a lot more in a name, particularly of a polymath who was a widely respected scholar. I defer to the historic figure and documents as to what he was called.
“Avicenna’s ethnicity”.
I found it very interesting that there is so much discussion over an obvious fact! He was Persian. No doubt about it. But there are always those who want to change the obvious.
He was not Persian, he was Tajik, he was not Tajik, he was Turk… He was Persian and that is his ethnic background. Was he a Muslim? Of course he was. Did he write in Arabic? Yes he did. But “Muslim” is not an ethnic background. The moment that the world starts crediting Descartes as a Christian scientist or Spinoza as a Jewish scholar we can call Avicenna a Muslim scientist.


If you have any information about which of the other names listed he might have used, or who might have used a specific name, that would be interesting to include. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Most of his work is in Arabic for two main reasons. One, Arabic was the scientific language of the time so it made sense for him to publish his work in Arabic. The scientific language of our time, as you know, is English. I know of a Greek mathematician (She was born in Greece, fluent in German, English, and Greek) working at the Princeton university. She publishes her work in English. Now is she an English mathematician, a Christian one or an American one? You decide!


== Change name from Avicenna to Ibn Sina ==
The second reason for Avicenna to do his work in Arabic and not in Farsi, was the religious one. If he were to publish all of his work in Farsi, he would risk alienating the religious cast and the ruler(s) of the time and that would mean imprisonment, execution or exiled to say the least. Throughout centuries Arabs, under the name of Islam, tried really hard to erase anything that was Persian. The same phenomenon happened during the dark ages under the ruling of the Roman Catholic Church.


While it is important to acknowledge that Ibn Sina is known (erroneously) as Avicenna in the West, having the article title as "Avicenna" and referring to him in the article as "Avicenna" rather than his actual name, Ibn Sina, is an erasure of his identity as a non-European. Ibn Sina is his actual name, Avicenna is the Latin corruption of his name. This is the equivalent of if we went to Shakespeare's Misplaced Pages page and renamed him to Sheikh Zabyir. The argument that "this is the English Misplaced Pages, so therefore we call him Avicenna" has no merit, as there are many Misplaced Pages articles about individuals named "Yusuf" without them being renamed to the English/Latin version of "Joseph". ] (]) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
As for some of the Persians suffering from the “inferiority complex”, you are absolutely correct! After all, no nation is perfect! But rest assured that those who know the history of that nation and its contributions to the civilization of the man kind are extremely confident about their heritage. Call Avicenna Turkish if it builds your cofidence. Try advocating “Arabian Gulf”in the magazines. When the dust is settled Avicenna will be known as a Persian scientist and maps will note the gulf as the “Persian Gulf”. Kiarash
:Please see ] and ]. It's just how his name is commonly transliterated in English, nothing too deep - no one is denying his "non-European" identity. --] (]) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::If it's nothing too deep as you say, it should be fixed. The title should be his name rather than a European misunderstanding of it. Presenting his actual name is the neutral choice here.
::I also disagree to the applicability of the "right great wrongs" article (which seems to be about verification). Noting how this article got Ibn Sina's name wrong and how it relates to eurocentrism is good, as these are things we should be thinking about in order to be respectful. ] (]) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Nevertheless, ] is our policy, & we adhere to policies. '''Ibn Sina''' is first noted in the article, but people are most likely to search for the common name & ] to see the article name be the same as the common name. ] (]) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I took a look at some of the policy on names, and I saw that "article titles with non neutral terms cannot simply be ''a'' name commonly used in the past, it must be ''the'' common name in current use." Just from looking around online it seems like he is often referred to as Ibn Sina, so Avicenna isn't ''the'' name, and it seems to hit all 5 criteria for the common name policy. As Avicenna is a Latin European corruption of his name it doesn't seem to fit my notion of neutral.
::::I am new to this so forgive me if I'm misreading or missing more context (wow, there's a lot of policy!), but the apparent compliance with policy and it seeming more respectful and avoiding as much Eurocentric bias feel like good reason for a title change. People searching for Avicenna can just be redirected and learn his actual name. ] (]) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it. If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time etc. you may appreciate what you ''perceive'' as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, is today.
:::::It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.
:::::If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his ''actual'' name (e.g. پورسینا), as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. ] (]) 08:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::And about por sina didn’t you dismiss the guy who said it? And that is not an actual name it is call a Kunea and if you anything about Ibn sina’s culture and Arabic you would know what it is. You are one of the most obnoxious act like a know it all I have ever seen. Yes please inform us more about a person we study the life of in 6th grade? Please do ] (]) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it. If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time etc. you may appreciate what you ''perceive'' as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, or Pour Sina, is today.
:::::It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.
:::::If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his ''actual'' name, as pronounced by himself, as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. ] (]) 09:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::It is a corruption wether you like it or not. It is not a translation go translate ابن سينا to English
:::::and why would you keep a translation as the name itself?
:::::put the man’s name end of story
:::::you are too defensive and somewhat offended on the audacity of people wanting him to have his name as if you own the man.
:::::His name is not common that each culture has a was of writing and saying it like Issac or Ibrahim.
:::::I honestly have no idea how you are in charge here, but you shouldn’t. Dismissive, obnoxious, ignorant and mildly racist.
:::::because you have Issues with your culture at the moment doesn’t give you the right to actually lash out on people
:::::yes his works were respected, why do you think the name change? Let us not act like the church didn’t know what it was doing Mr Know it all. ] (]) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


== Correction ==


Needs correction:


His father was from Balkh.
-- In fact before psychological conclusions you need to study unbiased resources , for Avicenna look at the section below.] 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Balkh is a very famous city located in present day Afghanistan not Turkmenistan.
You can confirm it with a quick and short Google search.
-- I think it's quite obvious where Serkan is from, nice try!
I was born in Afghanistan that's why I am sure what I am talking about. ] (]) 14:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
:Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh here but; in Misplaced Pages we follow ], not random Google searches. Being from Afghanistan doesn't give you a PHD in history, especially since Avicenna has no relation to Afghanistan, as it did not exist back then. --] (]) 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
::Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.
::Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and he has no connection to Turkmenistan.
::Note Turkmenistan did not exist in the past! ] (]) 19:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.
:Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and it is not correct to connect to Afghanistan either. ] (]) 20:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


== Ibn-Sina was Ethnically Persian ==
--The only people with an inferiority complex are Turks and Arabs who cliam a Persian scholar who regarded himself as a Persian as their own to make themselves feel better. -Manny


] has taken it upon himself to edit as far as I am aware of Rumi and Ibn-Sina's pages to remove MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability".
--Well, I am ethnically Kurdish and I think I can see myself closer to the Persian. I care about the truth, I do not give a damn about ethnicities otherwise. Just to point out what is wrong with SOME of the Persians here, how can a gulf can be claimed to be absolutely Persian?! If somebody calls it Arabian, that is as legitimate as the Persian. My point is why so much fuss about this? Now, extrapolate this behaviour of yours to your claims regarding the etnicities of the middle-eastern scientists, and you might see what the problem is. -Serkan


This doesn't apply here, they're ethnically Persian figures, who worked in Persian, and were influenced by Persian.


Rumi is widely referred to as a Persian figure, see Rumi Talk page as well for consensus.
:People, just thought youd like to know:
Ibn-Sina is referred to as Persian in citation 23 and throughout the sources found on his page, as well as on Britannica.


Their ethnicities are as relevant to them as any Greek or Roman figure, who I consistently find are ethnically referred to in their lead paragraphs. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:#] is an Iranian language, culture, and ethnicity. The Tajiks themselves believe this. So even if Avicinna was a Tajik, he would still be an Iranian.
:#Avicinna also wrote in Persian too. Example, the book: "Daneshnameh ye Alaaee"--] 18:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


:User Kansas Bear has edited more than 50 pages belonging to Persian and Iranian figures, removing the ethnicity. I took the labour to look at his contributions, and this "ethnicity removing" behaviour seems to be entirely concentrated on Iranian figures, never Arab figures like al-Kindi or Ibn Arabi or Averroes. I second this in saying that ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead section of this article as it is in Averroes' page and that of many other Islamic figures. It is completely ridiculous to have such a high protection status on a page just because one editor has requested it after his edits were reverted for obvious vandalism. ] (]) 06:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Textbook Farsi is Dari. If he wrote in Persian it was not the same dialect which Iranians speak today. Persia was a VAST empire at the time of Ibn Sina. He was not "Iranian" because Iran was nonexistent. He was from Balkh which is present day Afgh/Tajik. Iranians claim all great muslim poets and writers as their own but if their poems are closely examined it is evident that they are NOT Iranian. Rudi.
:Ethnicity is a fluid concept, especially in the ancient world, often pertaining simply to citizenship or language more than anything else, and far removed from the modern, more formalized conception of ethnicity. Ancient 'Persia' was a sweeping concept that expanded from the original Pars to encompass, conceptually, much of Central Asia. That isn't an ethnicity; that's a generalization. If we take Rumi, what he certainly ''was'' was a Persian poet, i.e. a native Persian-speaking poet most famous for his Persian works. What he identified as ethnically, in the modern sense of the word, is anyone's guess. Often individuals in that day and age do not really seem to have imagined themselves as ethnically anything; identifying more with their home town or province - in all likelihood, it wasn't much of a concern to them. The one big exception in the Muslim world, then and now, are those obsessed with demonstrating some connection back to the Quraysh of Mecca, for reasons of status. As for Avicenna, he wrote primarily in Arabic, so culturally he clearly straddled the Arabic-Persian divide far more evenly than the likes of Rumi, in the true Abbasid tradition. It would probably be most apt to simply make a point to this effect in the lead, stating that he produced works in both Arabic (predominantly) and Persian. ] (]) 08:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
::We are not here concerned with self-identification or the notion of ethnicity as it operated in their heads (although, if you are interested, you can check out Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah where the function of ethnicity isn't that far fetched from what it is today in the MENA region). Of course, we are not here concerned with nation-states either. The problem here lies in selective scholarship and bias when it comes to Misplaced Pages articles, where Iranian figures are almost exclusively targeted. Avicenna's is the only page where "polymath" is given as a title without any sort of predicate, and for some reason it has the highest level of protection because one obviously biased user (whose edit history tells all) requested it. Not only is it ridiculous, it also goes against the previous consensus reached about this topic. ] (]) 00:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
:::If we look at gold-standard tertiary resources such as the , they treat the material in exactly the same way, eschewing tangled debates about ethnicity in favor of his importance as a scholar in the Islamic world. Avoiding tangled debates is the reason for ]. ] (]) 06:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
::::It reads "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."
::::In Avicenna's case, both his Iranian ethnicity and his Islamic faith are relevant to his contributions to world-philosophy. These are the predicates of his scholarship in most sources. In the same manner that ] is described as Greek and ] as an Arab Muslim when they are mention in modern scholarship.
::::Once again, it is very peculiar that this removal of ethnic identification applies overwhelmingly to Iranians on Misplaced Pages. ] for instance is explicitly stated to be an Arab, and so is ]. ] (]) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Please see ]. Also, what is the problem with the ethnicity being removed '''from the lead''', take a look at the body of the article, and you'll see that his ethnicity is mentioned. Best.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 01:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::That's not what that means. He's not notable for being any ethnicity; he is notable for being a great scholar of the middle ages/Islamic golden age. His origins are almost entirely irrelevant. Ethnicity shouldn't have been in the lead of the ] page either - I've removed it from there also now. ] (]) 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::The lead section of the article on Averroes still contians a geographical signifier. It's absurd that the same not be the case for Avicenna. ] (]) 13:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::It's been identified that he lived under the Samanid Empire. ] (]) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The Samanid empire is not a geography, it's a political state. If we follow the precedent of the Averroes article (following Andulus rather than alMurwārīd), we should say that he was from Khurâsân/Greater Iran (whence he was from) or Iran (where he lived during the majority of his active scholarly years). ] (]) 03:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::All geographies are political defined by definition; they are just lines on maps. Al-Andalus was an Umayyad territory. The boundaries of the Samanid Empire at the time are relatively clear and specific to the subject. "Khorasan" is just a vague, shifting concept. ] (]) 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Not all geographies are restricted to political borders in any sense. Khurâsân and (Greater) Iran certainly aren't, being based on a shared cultural and historical heritage. Andalucia, furthermore, as a geographical concept, is not any less "vague" than Khurâsân. We use these categories based on conventions, without which everything is relative and it becomes impossible to communicate meaning based on a shared recognised reality. The same is the case here, if we hesitate to use "Khurâsân" or "Iran" where they are absolutely justified because they are historically relative, then when ''should we'' use them? I am happy for the article to only use "Muslim" as a predicate, and to only refer to Avicenna's geographical, rather than ethnic, origin. A vague statement on the courts wherein he was active is actually much more counterproductive than a simple reference to his geographic origin based on the conventional categories "Iran" and "Khurâsân", especially in a lead section that is supposed to be concise and straightforward. ] (]) 10:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::He didn't actually come from Khorasan though, but the neighbouring ] (or ]) - is that what you want to put? It's there in early life. ] (]) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Furthermore, that he was in the "employ" of the Sâmânid empire is false information. The cited sources say that he was ethnically Persian and that ''his father '' was in the employ of the Sâmânids. Ibn Sīnâ himself was in the employ of Daylamite dynasties. ] (]) 03:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::That's a better point - though he did serve ] of the Samanids, he soon moved on to serve the ] and later the ], so a wide mix. ] (]) 07:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::Then remove Greek from the lead on Socrates, Arab from Khaldun, etc, etc.
::::::You won't because the racism/reductionism towards Persians is evident on this site. ] (]) 21:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? How is that helping with authoring of this article?
:::::::This is NOT a forum to vent perceived grievances.
:::::::WP has a zero tolerance for racism and if you have an actual example of such then please follow the proper procedure and policy. I would suggest you consider the possibility that not getting your way in this discussion very well may have ''nothing'' to do with any racism, prejudice, or biases. ] (]) 09:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:Ibn Sina was a Persian. This has also been mentioned by UNESCO.] (]) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
:: There is clear anti-Iranian bias in many Iran-related pages on Misplaced Pages. The fact that the ethnicity of Avicenna, Khayyam and many others is removed from their lead paragraphs is a disheartening development that must be addressed by the admins. The fact that they are ethnically Persian is important given that they contributed to the survival of the Persian culture, language and identity. Without these people, Persian would have been another lost ethnicity/language, just like the dozens that were erased after the Islamic conquest. While the article does not need to open with a statement of their ethnicity, it can at least elaborate on it in the following line or paragraph in the introduction - ] (]) 23:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:Regardless of whether he was Persian or Arab, the current text describing him in the Biography section is offensive, as it refers to “Persian stock.” “Stock”, as in “breeding stock”, is an inappropriate word for referring to humans under any circumstance and i request that this be changed to “heritage” or a similarly neutral word that does not relate to animals. ] (]) 04:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


== Autobiography of Avicenna ==
--Can you speak any of these dialects? Do you think dialects remain constant over time?] 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


First, Ibn Sina wrote an autobiography for his pupil named Abu Ubayd Al-Juzjani, which his student then completed with a concluding chapter. This autobiographical text was later included by Ibn Abi Ashaybi'ah in his work entitled ''<nowiki/>'Uyūn al-Anbā' fī Thabaqāt al-Athibbā''' (Literary History of Medicine). This is the main source of Ibn Sina lifestory, especially for early childhood and education.
:Yes, we can speak, and we can in fact read texts written 1000 years ago. Prose or poetry. Persian dialects are in fact nothing more than accents in practicality. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" did not exist back then. But Iranians did. With your line of reasoning, Shakespeare cannot be considered English either. Nor can Dante be Italian. And if Persians are "claiming" all those people as Iranian, well maybe it's because the land called Persia was a damn huge place in antiquity. Why do you think The BBC Persian service caters to both Afghanistan '''and''' Iran? Look at the page, it has material for both readers. It even has news items written for Tajiks.--] 02:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Second, Ibn Sina was born in 980 when Nuh ibn Mansyur was in power and the Samanid dynasty was facing war with the Karakhanids in the north and the Buyid dynasty in the south. Then, the Samanid empire was fall to Karakhanids in 999, and completely gone in 1004. No one mention this war in the background of Ibnu Sina's biography. Just for note, after the death of Nuh ibn Mansyur in 997, Ibn Sina fleed from Bukhara.


] (]) 21:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Here is where confusion the comes from; Tajikestan, Ghazaghestan, Bukhara, Khwarezm, Samarghand, and a few other states and cities formerly part of the Iranian plateau, and the country Iran, were at some point fairly recent in history, invaded and thus give to Russia, when Peter the Great invaded Iran. As a result, these ancient Iranians are now Iranian-Russians, or Iranian-Turkey.] 01:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2023 ==
== ] ==


{{edit extended-protected|Avicenna|answered=yes}}
An ] has some possible wiki link suggestions for the ] article, and they have been placed on ] for your convenience.<br />''Tip:'' Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add <nowiki>{{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Avicenna}}</nowiki> to this page. &mdash; ] 00:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Change <code><nowiki>{{lang-fa|ابن سینا}}</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>{{lang-ar|ابن سینا}}</nowiki></code> and add <code><nowiki>{{lang-fa|پور سینا}}</nowiki></code> after it. ―<span style="font-family: IM Fell English, IM Fell Pica, EB Garamond, Garamond, Cormorant, serif;">] (''] · ]'')</span> 06:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


*] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Why? <span style="font-weight:bold; color:SlateBlue;">] • ]</span> 15:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Depending on how old the reference to "Tajik" is, it might mean Arab, as "Tajik", derives from Tayyi', the name of an Arab tribe at the forfront of the Muslim conquests in the East (David M. McClory, micopsor@aol.com).
*:Because "Ibn Sīnā" is Avicenna's more widely known Arabic name but his Persian name is "Pūr Sīnâ". ―<span style="font-family: IM Fell English, IM Fell Pica, EB Garamond, Garamond, Cormorant, serif;">] (''] · ]'')</span> 16:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:: Deactivating request as proposed is now extendedconfirmed so can edit the article themselves. ] ] 21:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


== December 2023 ==
So Rudi with your logic, the Germans are "germanizing" Emmanuel Kant and a great many other great minds because their birthplace lies now in Russia or elsewhere! The Germans cann then disown Hitler! He was born in Austria! Nice logic!


{{re|Premitive}} ] states that "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, <u>a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence</u>". Obviously, there is no question that the subject was most closely associated with the Arabic language given that most of his works, including his famous ones (], which wasn't translated into Persian until the 18th century, and ]), were written in Arabic. ] (]) 03:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


{{re|Premitive}} just in case you missed the first ping: could you please read my comment and provide a valid rationale for your revert? Thanks. ] (]) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


:Not true, I answered these in my last edit summary:
Just wanted to make a point. Avicenna was Persian and tajik and Persian have the same meaning, that is Iranian-persian muslim. Avicennas mother was Zoroastrian and this is a good enough proof of his Iranian/Persian/Tajik origin as opposed to a Turkic origin.
* "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence"
==Irania/Persian?==
:The if part says nothing about what to do if there are two languages associated with a person. On the other hand the guideline clearly states that:
I did a search on Avicenna and he was described as either Iranian or Persian by these sources:
: "Relevant foreign-language names, such as those of people who do not write their names in English, are encouraged. ... Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas."
, , ,, ,
: This rule is followed all around Misplaced Pages. You certainly know about it. It is strange that you insist on doing otherwise.
,
: Why the guidelines talk about separating different foreign languages with semicolon? Because it allows them.
.So his origin is very clear.I added the term ''of Persian-Tajik origin'' to the text.Both Persians and Tajiks attribue Avicenna to themselves and in fact they are closely related to each other.] 18:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
* "Since most of his works, including his famous ones (] and ]), were written in Arabic, then Arabic has to be the language that he is closely associated with"
: His native language was Persian. He wrote in Persian. Persian was official language where he was born and lived.
: Now there are two WP:NPOV option: Move both to footnote, or Keep both in the first sentence. Keeping Arabic in the first sentence and removing Persian is a violation of WP:NPOV.
:] (]) 03:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


: Besides we have a source already saying:
I'm no expert in ethnology, especially Central Asian (I'm 14 and from the UK) but as I was doing some homework on Avicenna I found . It clearly shows Avicenaa in the top right corner, so does this mean Misplaced Pages's stance on Avicenna ethnicity is that he is a Tajik? ] 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
* Adamson 2016, pp. 113, 117, 206. (page 113) "For one thing, it means that he had a Persian cultural background...he spoke Persian natively and did use it to write philosophy."
: ] (]) 04:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|You certainly know about it. It is strange|q=yes}} The only thing that is really strange is your assumption of bad faith.
::This discussion is about his name and what the sources say about it (everything else is irrelevant):
::#Avicenna is a Latin corruption of his '''Arabic patronym''', which is well known and mentioned in his autobiography (which was written in Arabic). This fact is also ].
::#The Persian equivalent that you added is a) not covered in the article and b) it looks undistinguishable from the Arabic patronym (which would suggest that this is a later transliteration).
::Given that we're not supposed to ], I see no reason to keep it. NPOV, that you mentioned, only comes into play when there is a dispute between RS. ] (]) 12:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
:::You just said he has written more Arabic work and therefore Arabic should be the only one that we mention. Now that was all irrelevant? The guidelines are also irrelevant now? Nevertheless I added source for Persian name that you are trying to remove. But really I don't care if you remove the Persian name and its source (or perhaps it would be more reasonable for someone else to do it.) Any discussion with those who only want to remove a Persian name (shifting from one reason to another while doing so) is a waste time. ] (]) 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
::::That cherry picked source a) failed verification as it doesn't support the transliteration that you added and b) is at odds with what the reliable sources say about his name and what's covered in the article. It also makes no sense as "Ibn Sina" (son of Sina) is clearly Arabic. Do you have anything else or is that it? ] (]) 14:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
::::: A source saying "Avicenna is a Latin rendering of a Hebraic translation of the Persian name Ibn Sina." fails verification? Now you want a Persian language source writing ابن سینا? I can bring a whole lot of that. But I'm sure that is not what you want. Tagging it as verification failed is childish; you are trying to make it look like it doesn't contain the said quote. So now it is about etymology? Sina is of Persian origin while ibn is of Arabic origin. But I thought it was not about etymology, right? "it is clearly Arabic" settles it (it hold for any source that I bring, Persian or not), why are we discussing it then? You know I can bring more sources but tagging the source that I just added as "verification failed" and "it is clearly Arabic" is telling. As I said just remove them, I won't revert. With this rate, within a few year, all Middle East and North Africa minorities (Persians, Berbers, etc.) will be removed from English Misplaced Pages. These days, English Misplaced Pages is not worthy of spending any time. (Assuming one is not paid, that is) ] (]) 15:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::Please refrain from assuming bad faith.
::::::Since I don't expect Persians to write in any other language, a Persian language source wouldn't prove anything (for the all reasons that I mentioned).
::::::Who said anything about etymology? All I said is that Ibn Sina is a Arabic patronym (this is a fact). Do you disagree with it? ] (]) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2024 ==
== Iranian or Persian ==


{{Edit extended-protected|Avicenna|answered=yes}}
I have noticed in this article as well as a few others that the world Iran or Iranian is not used and many try to justify it by saying that Iran did not exist back then. (before 1935)
The main name is Ibn Sina, Avicenna is a nickname that should be in the paragraph not the Title. ] (]) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a common misunderstanding among westerners who think Iran was CREATED in 1935 and it just happened to be on the same land as Persia or that the name Iran is a modern name. which is of course wrong since the country Iran was called Iran for at least the past 2000 years( since Sassanid period) by its people but it had a different name in west (Persia) therefore I think historical Iranian figures like Ibn Sina should be called Iranian not just Persian. In Iran, Ibn Sina is referred to as an IRANIAN scientist not Persian. More importantly I am not sure if Ibn Sina was PERSIAN as far as his race is concerned since not all Iranians are Persians. He could be a Tujik or Turkman but still be an Iranians since he lived and died in the country that was called Iran.
I just wanted to see what you all think of my proposal.


:{{Not done}} The ] of this scholar is Avicenna.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Gol


== His name. ==
Ibn Sina was born in Bukhara, then part of Persia, now part of modern day Turkemanistan. So Ibn Sina is truly Pesian and all you arabs and turks can deny it but he will always remain a Persian. The only reason why he wrote most of his books in arabic is because the language of Islam was arabic, not because he was arab.


I know it was incredibly hard and inconvenient back in the day to say “Ibn Sīnā” but don’t you think it’s time to give him his name back? I mean all of that talk of representation and cultural appropriation that’s happening in the west, does that include our scientists who got their names stolen to “fit”.
Patriot
his western name should be in the () and his Actual name or what we call his Kunea should be the title of the page
Ibn Sīnā


thank you ] (]) 23:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:Hi ''Patriot''. I don't think it's a big deal. There are no Turk neither Arab ''conspiracies'' going on. It is simply a question of naming! If you have some concerns about the naming of Iran/Persia, please I advice you to visit ] and discuss this there before here. -- ] 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC) <small>]</small>


:Avicenna and Ibn Sina are not different names, they are different romanisations of the same name. We typically use whatever spelling is preferred by the majority of current sources, and it would appear based on the sources cited in the article that "Avicenna" is still more commonly used in the 21st century (although "Ibn Sina" is being used more often). Compare e.g. ], not Aristotélēs. ] (]) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
: It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Ibn Sino was PERSIAN. In his time, Bukhara city in Mouraunnahr(modern Uzbekistan) was invaded by Persians, but it in no circumstances is a proof that he was Persian. Avicenna as well as Al-Biruni, Al-Khorazmi is NOT Persian. They only lived in territories occupied by Persia(Iran). It's just like saying that all Iraqies are Americans, which is completely incorrect.


{{Edit extended-protected|Avicenna|answered=yes}}
::* Arabian physician and philosopher, born at Kharmaithen, in the province of Bokhara, 980; died at Hamadan, in Northern Persia, 1037.
<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->


A typo has managed to snake its way into this sentence: "Sometime later, {{tl|hiss}} father invited the physician and philosopher al-Natili to their house to educate ibn Sina" Can we get someone with permissions to cobrect this typo?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02157a.htm
🐍🐍🐍
] (]) 17:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
{{reftalk}}
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 10:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


:Change hiss to his ] (]) 21:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 02:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024 ==
Maybe the article is written by pan-Iranists. He cannot be be Persian, even though the territory of Uzbekistan. At that time there were no distinguishing people by ethnicity and no one knows his origin. Many modern Uzbek scholars write in Russian, becuase of Russian influence.


{{edit extended-protected|Avicenna|answered=yes}}
The most democratic way of defining his is
Why because of politics they hide that he was a persian.are all of us bad guys that world should not know?shame that persian did very goog works for this world but never been respected. ] (]) 10:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Avicenna is the greatest scholar from CENTRAL ASIA born in modern Uzbekistan.
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 10:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024 ==
Actually Uzbekistan has more right to claim this scholar as 'their' fellow'.


{{edit extended-protected|Avicenna|answered=yes}}
You should STOP claiming that all those scholars were Persians. No doubt Iran has very rich culture, but that does not make all the scholars "Iranian" or "Persian".
Write that he is CENTRAL ASIAN!!!!


In the lead


'His philosophy was of the Muslim Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.'
Citizen of Uzbekistan.


The term 'Muslim Peripatetic school' is not mentioned in the source and there is nothing like ''Muslim Peripatetic school'. so it should be edited to :
: Avicenna lived 1000 years ago, in a time when Turks had not yet conquered Central-Asia. And he was certainly not an ], because Uzbeks arrived in that region some '''500 years''' later.
: Avicenna was an urban native Persian-speaker (="Tajik"), son of a famous Persian scholar from ]. When the Turks (Ghaznavids) conquered Khorasan, Avicenna left his home and fled to the court of the Persian ] in Isfahan.
: Only because he was born in a region which 950 years later became "Uzbekistan", it does not mean that he was an "Uzbek". The Turkish scholar ] (who is considered an Uzbek national hero today!) was born in ] ... but that does not mean that he was "Chinese"! The same goes to ], who was born in ] and lived his entire life there. Today, he is considered Uzbekistan's greatest poet ... although, according to your logic, he was not an "Uzbek", but an "Afgha" (=]).
: ] 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


'His philosophy was of the Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.' ] (]) 15:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
== Physiotheraphy section ==
I removed the whole section as it is a '''total mess'''. I hope someone can help creating it from scratch. Cheers -- ''] 06:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)'' <small>]</small>


{{done}}


] (]) 22:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Apparently, a grade 8 canadian textbook has called Ibn Sina as "one the most famous arab scholars". Unfortunately i have forgotten the name of the textbook.


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024 ==


{{edit extended-protected|Avicenna|answered=yes}}
==I don't think Avicenna is unrecognized==
'was a preeminent philosopher and physician of the Muslim world, flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age'


must change to
Fascinating article on Avicenna that I enjoyed reading. But one thing: "Ibn Sina is rarely remembered in the West today and his fundamental contributions to medicine and the European reawakening go largely unrecognised." This is puzzling. Unrecognized? Surely not! Avicenna is generally and universally regarded as one of the most important intellectual influences on European thinking for the next four or five centuries. Americans learn his name in grade school. I think he is one of the most important names in culture anywhere in the Western world--East or West--in that period of time. But it was a long time ago....it should not be surprising that Voltaire is more recognizable now. He's only been dead for two hundred years. :-) - N. Harris ] 1/17/06 14:14 (UTC)


'was a Persian philosopher and physician preeminent in the Muslim world . He was flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age' ] (]) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
== Persian? ==


{{not done}}, a consensus was reached on this above.
In his own biography, Ibn Sina never mentioned a Persian descent, or anything of the like. Obviously, he didn't see himself as such, why are people trying to force their POV on this article? Afshna and Bokhara were part of the Islamic Caliphate at the time, not Persia. What we do know, is that Ibn Sina wrote the bulk of his work in Arabic(he didn't write similar texts in Persian, as this article is trying to imply). Even if his ethnic background was not Arab, he was extremly influenced by the Arabian culture, he wrote in it, spoke it, and thought in it. I'm sure battling on his ethnicity( Arab/Turkic/Persian) will get us nowhere. I'm taking off the Persian descent references, and correcting the mistakes done to the locales' sovereignty.


] (]) 22:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, does anyone know german? What does this reference translate to: F. Wüstenfeld's Geschichte der arabischen Aerzte und Naturforscher (Gottingen, 1840)?


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024 ==
I don't know German, but it doesn't take a genius to see that "arabischen" translates to "Arab", but what is the context? ] 16:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Avicenna|answered=yes}}

In the popular culture section, There's a novel by Egyptian writer Youssef Zidane about Ibn sina called Fardaqan, published in Arabic and translated to Italian and Persian, and covers Ibn sina time during his imprisonment in the castle and take flashbacks on his life and his work. ] (]) 00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
He is sometimes mistaken for Arab because he wrote some of his books in Arabic which was the langue of science in the eastern world the same way that Latin was the dominant language in the western world but it does not mean any scientist who wrote in that is a Roman. Ibn Sina also has books in Persian. He is Persian and all the encyclopedias either mention him as Iranian or Persian. I suggested using Iranian but other people said Persian is more appropriate. In either case defining him as just Muslim is wrong since it is a vague term and it would be like saying that Dante was a Christen poet! The only argument is whether to call him Persian or Tajik but the Tajik themselves are defined as “central Asian Persians” so I think it is correct to refer to him as Persian but I still prefer Iranian.
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 03:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011433?query=ibn%20sina&ct=


] 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


You obviously did not even consider my argument, Ibn Sina wrote most of his work in Arabic, not only because it was the language of science but also, because that's the language he was more comfortable with. are you trying to imply that all Middle-easterners are Persian? Also, until the dispute is over with, I suggest we keep the ethncity debate to the talk page. ] 06:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


You can not prove that he was more comfortable with Arabic, how do you know? How do you know my suggestion that he did it because it was the language of science is not correct? Beside even if he was more comfortable with Arabic that does not make him an Arab. Don’t attack me or make up things about me. I never tried to say all Middle Easterns are Persians! Britannica says he was Iranian so do you argue about their legitimacy? I don’t think they are pro Persian/ Iranian do you?

We can not just label him as Muslim it is too vague have you seen Dante being labeled as Christian poet?


] 07:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)



Here are two more sources and one of them is Columbia

http://www.bartleby.com/65/av/Avicenna.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/A/Avicenna.asp

I am putting Persian back on because I have provided enough sources for you.

dont change it until you have proven that he is '''Not''' Persian or Iranian. or that he is Arab.


] 07:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

== A compromise ==

Gol, I can't prove that a certain twisted fact doesn't exist: Somebody claims that a man named Arash Al-Farsi died in Tehran at 6 PM on Saturday. I can't give him sources that Arash Al-Farsi '''didn't''' die in Tehran( because simply it didn't happen), so does that mean that Arash did die? Obviously, you need to check your logic. Now, most people at that time identified themselves to religion, especially in the Middle-East. Just because Arabic was the language of science doesn't mean that it couldn't have been his first.Also, I know that Arabic was the language he was comfortable with, because he spoke with it, and wrote most of his books in it. Trying to twist my words won't make your arguments stronger.

Anyway, there are three opinions here: That he either was Tajik, Persian, or Arab. Instead of degrading ourselves to an edit war( something I saw you're keen on) let's all compromise and claim the subject controversial. That's much more professional than you screaming "Persian, Persian, Persian!" down our throats on the article. What do other editors think? ] 14:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I guess you are new to Misplaced Pages and don’t know the rules.

'''Original research''' is not accepted you have to have a source. Which I do!

Read the guidelines please. http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NOR

'''you have to have a legitimate source.'''

I gave you three sources that he was labeled either as Persian or Iranian and one of those sources are considered to be the most legitimate in the world. Can you give me a source that he is labeled as Arab or Turk? A source as legitimate as Britannica? I am changing it to Persian but you can change it to Iranian if you want.''' My argument is based on Britannica''' you have no source. Stop editing based on your own belief. I have sources. Very legitimate sources. You don’t

'''Encyclopaedia of the Orient also describes him as Iranian.'''

Provide a source first. Britannica says he was Iranian. Do you a have more legitimate source?

This is not a twisted fact! Otherwise Britannica would not support it.

and stop attacking me!

] 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird, you previously provided a source, yet it's gone now, how come? belatedly discovered disparities, maybe? If your sources are definitive re-post this 'another source'. What's this ''encyclopedia of the Orient''? Anyway, There is obvious controversy concerning Ibn Sina's ethnicity, mentioning it won't detract from any arguments. The basis of NPOV is to mention all sides, and not be biased towards a certain ethnicity, race, or religion. Obviously you're extremly biased, and mentioning he's Persian here won't make him as such. What's the matter with you?

The Britannica link only mentions 75 words from the whole article, it's an incomplete source. From what I got you base your arguments on him coming from what you deem "Persia". At that time, Persia was part of the Islamic Caliphate, and Khorasan was considered Central Asian, not Persian. Your weak attempts at distorting Geography are poor desperate attempts to confirm something ingrained in you. Objective researchers don't pay mind to the preconceptions they were taught, as such mentioning the controversy was the scholarly thing to do.

Instead, You're obviously engaging in a ], something against Misplaced Pages's policies. Please adhere to them before you stand on a podium and instruct others to do so. I won't put the ethnicity controversy back, obviously from your observed childish behavior you'll propably revert it back(again). Instead, I'll wait for an editor with some sense to back me up, until then please refer to the definition of ]. ] 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I removed the link because it would not go to the right page no matter how many times I tried to copy it. A technical difficulty but the source was correct and it was the '''Encyclopedia of the Orient''' which I mentioned above.

Here is the link to the main page but you should type "Avicenna" in it to see.

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/index.htm

If you can not see the whole page on Britannica is because you are not a member. Beside why does it matter the word Iranian is mentioned in the beginning. Are you saying it will be changed in the rest of the article??

You are not doing revert war? I provided one of the most legitimate sources in the world and based on that changed your edits but you changed mine without any source.

Stop attacking me! personal attacks and name callings are not allowed in WP

If my edits are wrong then provide source dont call me names!

] 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:: To those suggesting that Avicenna was more comfortable with Arabic than with Persian I can only say you have no business editing articles on this subject. Avicenna has even written poetry in the classical styles of Persian literature. Anybody familiar with the Persian language knows that these are extremely difficult styles, which you can only use if you have a command of the language well above that of ordinary (even educated) people. Avicenna most definitely had no problems with the Persian language. As already pointed out, Arabic was a language any educated person of that time was supposed to know. But well, you wouldn't say all wikipedians are English because they write in English, would you? ] 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink


As it has been already mentioned Arabic language was the scientific language or prestigeous language of the time. Therefore it is true, and we have been taught that Ibn Sina accomplished part of his works in Arabic, as well as in Persian. However Samanids states is considered the first oficial Tajik state. As the editor already mentioned his father worked in Samanids administration, that gave Ibn Sina opportunity to study in Bukhara (where nowadays 90% of the population speak Tajik language). Being a Tajik, I do not deny that we belong to Persian group. Unfortunately, here what is happening here. Refering to a simple example, which will make it easier for you to understand the point, I want to finish my paragraph. Looking at an elevator some people say it is a lift (from British), but other people insist in saying that it is an elevator. AND WHY IS THIS ALL NECESSARY? THE MAIN THING IS THAT HE WAS FROM ONE NATION, THAT WE ALL ARE IN,.. ISLAM!!

== Zero Compromise ==

MB, it is true that Avicenna may not be Iranian, and he may be an Arab (how can anyone logically say that, it is beyond me). On another discussion page you said, “Prophet Muhamad spoke Persian”. But, people who think that are along the lines of the same people who swear Alexander the Great was actually Turkish, and that history has done the Turkish people wrong. I guess some people believe in UFOs too, and have been trying numerous of times to edit the UFO article, saying “They do exist”. This article is not concerned with the fact that all Middle-Eastern people are not Persian; it has, however, to do with Pur Sina (Avicenna) who was Iranian. Furthermore, I have noticed that you have tried to change the birthplace of many ] scientists over the past few weeks (Al Biruni, Avicenna, Al Khwarizmi etc.). I do realize that these facts might not be desirable to you, yet, that does not excuse your reverts. You have also mentioned that a certain article in Britannica is incomplete because it has 75 words. Unlike Misplaced Pages, Britannica only displays a part of an article, and you have got to pay to view the rest. However, in this case you need not to look far; I looked at it and the first thing that ] says about ] is, '''“....born 980, Bukhara, ] died 1037, Hamadan. 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” '''. But, you seem to play tune-def, and may be a bit biased. Now, it is important as a scholar to question the status quo, however, if you have your own hypothesis, you need to provide refrences rather than just rhetoric. What books are you reading that say this stuff are true? Any way, I have to tell you though, just because you can edit in Misplaced Pages, it does not mean you can insert your own off-the-wall opinions, with brute force, and without providing ONE credible source. In the face of over-WHELMING evidence provided to you in , you still try to revert the article, and at this point if you try to revert this article without proper merit one more time, I will report you if you violate the 3rr rule, as well as, report you for possible vandalism, and being a possible sockpuppet. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy; it is based only on facts. Hence, when and if a mediator reviews the article’s history and sees you have no references, yet you still revert, they permanently block your username and even IP address. You have also been personally attacking some users here. Just be forewarned of that please.] 22:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

: I've cleaned up the intro, let people draw their own conclusions from his place of birth and living I'd say. —'']'' 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Root, there is no conclusion to be drawned out in this case. The man was Iranian according to three major encyclopedias, and the ], and the ] dictionaries. The area he was born in was part of the then Kingdom of Iran (Persia), and centuries later it was invaded and taken away from Iran by Peter the Great of Russia. His province was an ancient Iranian state before this invasion. See the above refrences for Khwarezm, and then let me know what you think? ] 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

::: avicenna was not turkic at all. the only turkic empire that was able to produce such minds was the ottomans. the central asian empires were turko-persian empires. the persians took all the administration, science, scholarly, religous,etc... levels, while the turkic tribes took care of the military aspect. the central asian turks were better at fighting, and iranians were better educated, that is a fact, most educated people of the time were iranian, due to the hundreds of years of cultural development, while the turkic tribes were all nomadic. there is no way he was turkic, or arab for that matter for the exact same reasons. even arabs wrote about how persians did most of the cultural and scientific work. and even turkic tribes new that, such as timur, that is why they let the persians administer the empire while all they did was expand it. that is why the term turco persian is used for the central asian empires, and that is why persian culture has always been the dominating force in central asia, the middle east, and the ottoman empire. avicenna was tajik/persian (tajik and persian are of the same tribe) --Iranian Patriot.

== a poem of avicenna ==

دل در ایـن بادیه بسیــار شتافت یک مـوی ندانست ولی مـوی شکافت
و اندر دل من هزار خورشید بتافت و آخر به کمال ذره‌ای راه نیافت

== iranian ==

why don't we just call avecenna Iranian. doesn't iranian mean all iranic people(tajiks, ossetians, persians, balochis, ect).so if avecenna's definitely from Iranic origins why shouldn't we use that term?

you make sense, but the thing is for anyone doing research, iranian means nothing. most westerners only know of irans history as persian. iranian will just confuse the reader. also, there is some dispute between iranic peoples over the term iranian. iranian now has come to mean more of a nationality than ethnicity, because the iranic peoples now are not under one roof like they were during the achaemenids, parthians, and sassanids. some iranics dont like being called iranian, others dont mind being called iranian. however Persian works best in this context.] 16:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

== Badly written and needs clean up ==

Please clean up the 'flowery language' and add more factual information with citations. Central Asia and present day Afghanistan was never called persia.

Thank you.

:neither was iran until the west labled it Persia on their maps. when these countries were part of Persia (iran as iranians know it) they were also called persia. the fact is that persia is the name used by the west to represent Iran. Iran has always been called iran, all iranians know this, afghans know it, tajiks know it, etc... (arya, Eron, iranzameen, and other variations for 2500 years). but the fact of the matter is that the west only knows about irans history as persia. many westerners still believe that iran was an invented name imposed on the nation by the shah in the 1930's. they dont know the truth, and to keep our history alive in the english language and in the world, we have to use the term persia.] 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

== Avicenna was Persian ==

He was born from Bukhara from a Zoroastrian mother and Ismaili Father originally from Balkh. He lists the languages he knows and neither turkish nor even Iranian Soghdian is mentioned. Bukhara during Samanid times was Persian speaking as Rudaki is the first poet from there. Soghdian (which is an Iranian language) was the previous language, but at the time of Samanids it was well supplanted by new Persian. --] 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:bukhara today is still persian speaking.] 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

---OK what about Shah Ismail what language was he speaking and what was the official language of Persia(an ancient term used till Macedonian-Hellen Massacre) And tell me who are ottomans which language was Selim the brave was using and what was the official language of ottomans and selcuks. Dont be kidding aboıut you know few Shah Ismail was a half Turkish(probably Kipcak of Azerbayjan) Arian(father side) but strange he was using Cagatay(lingua franca of asia of that times) in his court instead of persian and it is absolute that Selim was Turanic and using Persian (not even Ottoman) in his poetry. Shah Ismail sent letter to Selim in Cagatay relim replied back in Persian. Also official languages of Seljuks was Persian. Persian was used to civilise and de-militarise Turkish tribes in great Turkish empires. And even after long run migrations to anatolia from todays Iran till 1968 turkish population was 1.3 times the persian population(12 mil turanians 9 mil persians in 11 mil arians total 25mil) in Iran which is still assimilating Turks and even genosiding(google Azadistan and south Azerbajan)

: OMG ... no comment. For your information: ] & ]! Besides that, it's ] (spelled with a "y") and not ]! ] 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Philosophical doctrine ==

Have started on taking some stuff from the French version, which was a Featured Article. Not an expert on the subject though, so please copyread if you are. --] 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

== Peer review citation needed ==

Please comment on the discussion at ]. --] 16:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

== Avicenna vs. Ibn Sina ==

I'm not sure what the naming conventions are here, but it seems the article should be titled 'Ibn Sina' - with a redirect from Avicenna - rather than the way it is now, considering that was his real name. Other philosophers (Ibn Khaldun, Al Khwarizmi) with Arab/Persian names have articles at their real names rather than latinizations of such (e.g. Algoritmi).

Also, the article internally uses both names at different places for no apparent reason - I think it should be made consistent (i.e. mention the "Avicenna" variant at the top, and use Ibn Sina throughout the article.)
Comments?
] 19:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*I am in agreement here. Using the Latinized name creates a nasty POV. ] 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

== Persian vs. Tajik ==
Tajiks and Persians are basically the same people, therefore, if it says Persian it doesnt really matter. Both are Iranic and not only that, but both are from the same tribe.
--Iranian Patriot


But, more importantly at the time of Avicenna Khwarezm was not even what it is today, part of Russia, it was part of ]. Later Russia invaded Persia and took it away.] 02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

are you iranian zmmz? avicenna is definetly iranic (tajik/persian most likely), can you please tell me which people dispute this fact, so that i may enlighten them...
thanks--Iranian Patriot.

Tajik vs. Persian seems to be the newest dispute. I think Avicenna should be referred to as Persian, based on the following reasons:

1. His father was from Balkh in Khorassan, which is not even close to where Tajik tribes traditionally resided.
2. His father was Shia, while Tajiks were/are primarily Sunnis.
3. Avicenna never referred to himself as Tajik.

I would like to see solid evidence of Avicenna being a Tajik, other than a general dubious claim that every Persian speaking Central Asian has to be Tajik. In particular considering that his father had moved to Bukhara from Balkh, his original birth place. If tomorrow I move to Tajikstan, that does not make me or my children a person of Tajik ancestory.
] 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:# ] are the main inhabitants of ].
:# Ibn Sina's father was from ], a Tajik city.
:# He was born to a Tajik mother in Afshana, near ], another Tajik city.
:# Ibn Sina's father was not ], like the modern population of Iran, but an ], like many people in modern ]. Besides that, this is not really an important point, because a) Iran was converted to Shiism by the ] 500 years after Ibn Sina, and b) religion does not define ethnicity.
:# Ibn Sina never refered to himself as ''Persian'' either, but we KNOW that he was an ethnic Tajik (=Persian), because of his writings.
:# If you take a look at the article ], you'll see that '''Tājīk''' ''"is a term generally applied to Persian-speaking peoples of Iranian origin living east of Iran. The Tajik homelands are Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and the Xinjiang province of China. Alternative names for the Tajiks are Fārsī (Persian), Pārsīwān (Persian-speaking), and Dīhgān (roughly "urban" in contrast to "nomadic" or "tribal"—only used in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan)"''.
:# The word ''Tajik'' was already in use at the time of Ibn Sina, although mostly in Turkic languages. ] used the word as a synonym for ''Persian'' in his famous "''Diwān-u Lu<u>gh</u>at al-Turk"''.
:: ] 19:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Tajik,

You will have to provide more links or references for some of your claims. In particular my argument is that:

1. I am an ethnic Khorassani myself, and I am not Tajik, and I don't believe Tajiks are the main inhabitants of Khorassan, in particular the region from Balkh to central Iran where Avicenna's father came from. Please provide a source for your claim.

2. Also you base your claim on the definition that all Persian speaking people outside of the current boundaries of Iran will have to be Tajik. This description (which also shows up in wikipedia's definition of Tajiks) is not accurate enough. Ethnic Tajiks are a distinct tribe who also look differently from other central asians. In particular considering that the borders of Iran today is quite different from what it was 1000 years ago, your basic definition of a "Tajik" does not sound solid.

That said, your mentioning of Mahmud Kashgari clears up the issue about the use of the term "Tajik" 1000 years ago. Thanks for the reference. I'll have to try to find a copy of his work.

Can anybody check and see if Avicenna ever referred to himself as Persian or Iranian?

] 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::Tajik is a '''definition'''. Tajik is what Central Asian Persians have been referred to in the past, and the name stuck. Tajik=Persian, and Persian=Tajik, its the same thing. I have no problem with Tajik being in this article.] 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::: @ Ghlobe: if you are from Khorasan (and I guess you are talking about the modern Iranian province(s) Khorasan), then you '''are''' a Tajik, even if you do not call yourself as such. "Tajik" is not a seperate ethnic group, but simply another name for the people who are generally known in the west as "Persians". And usually, Persians who are from the regions East of Iran, are generally called "Tajiks". From Khayyam and Ferdousi to Rumi and al-Biruni, all of them were "Tajiks". ] 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Tajik, I'm sure that this user thought taht Tajik was a different ethnic group. I think we both made it clear to him now that Tajik is just a definition which means: Central Asian Persian. Hopefully this dispute is resolved.] 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, but this claim requires proof. Please provide an independent source that states the term "Tajik" is not a separate ethnic group. Alternatively we can replace the term in the article with "Central Asian Persian" to resolve the dispute.
] 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

: The source is already given in the article: ], which is an authoritative scholarly work. Here is a "screenshot" of the article "Tajik": The article is written by Prof. ]. Another source proving that "Tajik" and "Persian" are synonyms, and that they were used as synonyms even in the ] kingdom: .
: Besides that, if Tajiks and Persians WERE different ethnic groups, then Avicenna was rather "Tajik" than "Persian". ] 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::: Qashqai turkic tribes still call all Persian speakers as Tajiks. --] 02:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

==B-Class==

Guys, you should work to make this a B-Class article, i am sure that it will take very little to achieve it. I would also like to invite you to join ]. --] 07:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

== Ibn Sina... Persian/Tajik/Iranian/Arabic ==

Since there are so many arguments about his ethnicity and it is very hard to prove 100% who he really was, especially considering the time he lived in, lets just called it an even and leave just "Persian" since Iranians and Tajiks are Persian. However there is also strong possibility he was not Persian, but I advice we leave just him as "Persian" for now, until better proof is found. (I would look more into Eastern sources rather than Western, since they are not always accurate, and they are sometime misunderstand Eastern history)

What do you, intelligent people, say?


By the way I found a great website where you can find more information abotu him here - http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/sina/ I didn't have time to go over it but if you guys have time I advise you to go there.{{unsignedip|76.212.89.57 }}


:: Actually Ibn Sina's ethnicity is very clear. He writes in his texts that he only knows Persian and Arabic. Also his mother name was Setareh and his Name "Saena" is Persian. So he was Iranian/Tajik. Thanks for the links. --] 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::: It doesn't matter what his mother's name meant, they lived around Persians, They were Turkic.

==French==
I added the relevant information from the French article ] a few days ago. As such, I removed the FAOL|French tag. -- ] 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== Historical Fraud ==

In Asian Games 2006 (Doha), at the Openning Ceremony, it is mentioned that Avicenna was an Arab physician (This historical fraud repeated for Biruni ]). These great men were Persian. It is needed that every Persian (Iranian, Tajik, Azaris, Kurds,...) be sensitive to this dirty movements.
] 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:That is true, but actually neither of these are Persian either they are both Turkic, and it is historical fraud to say they
were Persian.
] 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:: They were both Iranians. Biruni was a Khwarzmian and Abu Ali Sina was from Balkh. There is 100% evidence that they both did not know Turkish. Biruni when he talks about the Turkish months he writes: I do not know their order or their meaning. Abu Ali Sina also writes: ''in the language we know...'' and then brings a phrase from Persian and then Arabic. Both of them also have Persian writings. --] 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

== Turkic/Persian ==


There are so many sources stating that he is Persian, and so many stating that he is Turkic. Almost all of the proofs are correct about him, and have a point for either one of those. Since his culture, his birth location, his native language and all other proofs suggest both, I'll just change it to Turkic/Persian. No biggie.

:It should be changed in the template as well (on top of the picture).

:: No serious scholar would ever claim that he was Turkic. It is a well established fact - based on his own autobiography (written in Arabic) - that he was of Persian descent. I have never seen any scholarly article or book claiming that Avicenna was a Turk. His birth-place, his name, and even his Persian works only point toward a Persian origin. ] 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Actually he clearly states that ''In the languages I know'' and them mentions a phrase in Arabic and then Persian. And as you pointed out he has several Persian works. Plus his father was Ismaili from Balkh and his mother's name was Setareh. --] 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


==Ibn Sino Turkic not Persian and defenitely not Tajik==

Ibn Sino is Turkic. First of all he was born in Afshona village which is 100% turk. Secondly, he lived in Seljukid Empire time. Seljukids were turkic nation and iran was part of the empire. Which means not central asia but persia was part of the central asia. Thirdly, there are people who speak persian in Bukhara but they are not persian and certainly not tajiks. They are local people whos language been enfluanced by persian culture and language. If you compare there ghisical look with old iranian or aryan you will see that they look more like turkic nation rather the persian.{{unsigned|Buriwolf}}
:Neither Iran nor Turkey existed at those times. Indeed, ] is located near ] in ] (now part of ]). So where's Turkey in all this? -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 12:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
: Ibn Sina lived in the ] and later in the ] - he had nothing to do with the Seljuqs. Besides that, the Seljuqs were a highly Persianized Oghuz-Turkic family who ruled over a land that was overwhelmingly NON-Turkic. The Turks - including the ruling family - were a tiny minority, not even numbering 100,000. As for the "looks" - this is the dumbest example ever. First of all, we do not know how ibn Sina looked like. Secondly, the population of Central Asia 1000 years ago was totally different than today. And third: the "looks" are not really an indicator for someone's origin. May I remind you that almost NOBODY in Turkey has a "Turkic look" nowadays?! Even Atatürk himself had light hair and eyes! ] 14:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::Hi Tajik. Turk come to central asia in 5th century and they were there for long time. Secondly, there is no turkic look it is true but 1000 year ago there were turkic and persian look diferences. Even today scientes can pridect origin of the persons. Thirdly when I mean turk, I don't mean turkish. You should understand deference between turk and turkish. Example, uzbek live in uzbekistan and turkish live in turkey but both of them turk not turkish. Nation called tajik never existed, maybe some tribe name was tajik in 19 century. Main nations in central asia were turks and persians. if he is not turk then he is persian, if not persian then turk. Tajik maybe persian tribe.{{unsigned|Buriwolf}}
::: What are you talking about?! Avicenna mentions in his own '''autobiography''' that he is Persian. Besides that, the number of Turks was at that time not more than 200,000 IN TOTAL (comparable to the number of Mongols at the time of Genghis Khan). It is attested by Ghaznavid historians that the TOTAL number of Oghuz Turks living in Central Asia was at the time of Sultan Mas'ud Ghaznavi not more than 60,000 - and the Oghuz were the LARGEST Turkic group in Central Asia. At the same time, Baghdad alone had more than 300,000 inhabitants! This has been discussed so many times. It is totally hillarious to claim that Avicenna was a Turk ... and I am not even talking about the fact, that - at that time - the Turks were still predominantly a nomadic people with no interest in science or philosophy! Ibn Sina was the son of a known Persian scholar from Balkh, his mother was member of the ] family. Do you have ANY reliable sources for your claims? As for ''Tajik'' ... go to the article ] and figure out the meaning of the word. ] 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Actually he clearly states that ''In the languages I know'' and them mentions a phrase in Arabic and then Persian. And as you pointed out he has several Persian works. Plus his father was Ismaili from Balkh and his mother's name was Setareh. Uzbeks did not exist as an ethnic group during the time of Avicenna as they are not attested by any source. --] 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

==Abu Ali (or 'Father of Ali' in English) is 'Kunya' or 'Nickame'==
And not the Muslim scholar's name as incorrectly indicated in the box. The name mentioned in the article, as per the naming convention, his name in the box should be(First/Last Name): Al-Husayn Al-Balkhi (known in the East as 'Ibn Sina' & in the West as 'Avicenna') name is added then it will be: Al-Husayn Abdullah{or 'A.'} Al-Balkhi (known in the East as 'Ibn Sina' & in the West as 'Avicenna'). (] 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

==Persian (Tājīk)==
I was reading this discussion and I think people are missing some points here. When we are asking where someone is coming from, the answer is the name of the country that he is from not his ethnicity or his language. We should follow the same here. Therefore, I think the word Tajik in parenthesis which refers to his ethnicity is not appropriate here. The other confusion is about the word Persian. Persian can refer to ], ], and residents of the country of Persia(]).
Therefore here we should say Avicenna was a Persian … (As it is done in many reliable sources) and Wikilink '''Persian''' to ] or ] as the name of the country he was from.(] 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

== Ibn Sina ==

Having sources that are not biographical, at least 50+ years old and referring to him as an Arab scientist is not being honest. The fact is that we know enough about his life and he was Persian. He has written lots of Persian works (hard any arab in history has written in Persian), his father was from Balkh (Afghanistan) and his mothers name was Sittarah. And also in a passage he indicates that he knows only Arabic and Persian. What is interesting is that 1911 Britannica called him an Arab but the 2007 has fixed it and called him a Persian. Thus this convention of calling all Muslim scientists as an Arab (even non-Iranian ones) is being slowly disregarded within western academia. But for Avicenna given his Persian works, and what we know about his biography, it is sufficient. --] 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir you removed not only Arab origin references but others too about Arab science and Arab Galen. But according to Misplaced Pages policy, all major points of view should be reflected. You can note that modern research considers him Persian, however older sources were split on the issue, calling him Arab too. This is per Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy After all that's what's being done on the ] page too, where despite nearly all sources, including modern encyclopedia Britannica calling him a Turk, references about his purported Persian or Tajik origin are inserted as well. ] 19:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
: There is consensus among all major academics and historians that Ibn Sina was Persian. This is indisputable. Fringe views don't belong on Misplaced Pages per ]. --] 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::Actually[REDACTED] OR policy requires primary sources over secondary and secondary over teriatary. Primary sources consider him a Persian. You can't use something from 1952 which is not even biographical. The term Arab science is a misnomer. Also Misplaced Pages requires modern research or primary sources. We don't put old research in wikipedia. And research means research on biography. --] 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no such requirements - please cite where you take those rules from, its surely not from English Misplaced Pages. citations I've provided are abiding by all Misplaced Pages rules and should be part of the article, not removed arbitrarily by self-appointed aribiters. ] 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages requires primary sources over secondary sources. In the case of secondary sources overwhelmingly favor Persian. But in this case we have enough from primary sources including the fact that Ibn Sina's mothers name was Sittarah, he was born in Balkh Afghanistan and scholars who have written about his biography (which is relevant) have stated he was Persian. Note on Al-Farabi many sources have mentioned he was Arabian because Muslim and Arab were synonmous. Thus biographical and specialized and modern sources count. Note Ibn Sina lived under Persian dynasties, and wrote Persian and his last name Sina is also Persian plus his mother's name which was mentioned. So primary sources affirm what modern scholars say (and we don't rely on a medical book from a japanese doctor on a biography of avicenna). All modern references including Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, Columbia and Britannica do not have a shadow of doubt about his ancestry. --] 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, for yet again one more time, Misplaced Pages makes '''absolutely no such requirements''' (i.e., primary sources over secondary) as you think, re-check again and . Moreover from these policy pages, pay attention to these lines: "''Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge''." and "''Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.''" The names of people (mother, grandpa, etc) are not very relevant here: Mahmud Kashgari whom another guy mentioned today, despite being a Turk had a non-Turk name. Many Turks had Muslim (Arab and Iranian) names. Afghanistan had and still has many Turks living there, specifically in Balkh which was governed by Turks as early as 7th-8th century "According to Tabari, "Al-Krz" was to be the last station for Tarkhan Tirek/Nizak.75 Balkhl76 states that "The Turk who was amir of Balkh" was killed by...""

"Mahmud of Ghazna recruited Khalaj Turks from the regions of Balkh and Ghazna." RICHARD N. FRYE, A. M. SAYILI (1945) THE TURKS IN KHURASAN AND TRANSOXANIA AT THE TIME OF THE ARAB CONQUEST The Muslim World 35 (4), 308–315.

To wrap up, Misplaced Pages rules request multiple points of view (MPOV) and all major verifiable sources, that's why his Arab origin sources should be included (just as minority opinion on al-Farabi's possible Persian or Tajik origin is included in its the respective article). ] 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Actually that source of yours is old (1945). And has nothing to do with Avicenna. Richard Frye is actually explicit and says Avicenna is Persian, so you can not make intrepretations. Since Avicenna lived during Samanid era. As per Avicenna he clearly states he only knows Arabic and Persian only and I have his statement. There is no minority viewpoint with regards to Avicenna in modern scholarly references. You seem to not understand[REDACTED] policy of OR well. No biographical source of recent has mentioned Arabic origin. Farabi by the way has been called Arabian in many old sources as well, but today we know that is not true. Farabi has been called a Persian by the oldest extant source discussing his ethnicity. As I have explained to you, Islamic scientists were called Arabian scientists equivalently in older western scholarship. This was a practice of middle ages. Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 has changed significantly relative to 2007 and where-as in 1911 they had avicenna as an Arab in 2007 they have him as an Iranian. Also your sources had absolutely nothing about Avicenna and his biography whereas I brought four very recent and modern sources which also discuss biography. In wikipedia, exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Not something from 1952 in a japanese journal. In the case of Avicenna, he was from Balkh so Arabic is out of question. All the sources mention he was Persian and the turkic population of balkh today are Uzbeks who are recent newcomers. And no, he was not a khalaj turk (and there are disputes now even about khalaj turks and the ethnicity of hephtalites as well who were mixed) as his father was an Ismaili which were generally hostile to Ghaznavids. As he mentions the languages he knows (Persian and Arabic) and does not mention Turkish and actually has a comment about Turks not reaching civilization (nomadic)... None of the major encyclopedias Britannica, Columbia, Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica mention a minority opinion and they are all equivalently clear. On Farabi encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica are not clear, primary sources differ, he has Soghidan and Persian glosses but no Turkish and etc. So the two cases are totally different and your comparison would be valid if Farabi is called an Arab because some sources (even in google books) describe him as an Arabian. What you are suggesting is actually to put Arabian as well for Farabi because couple of sources have called him Arabian in google books and these sources are not specialized and it was common practice to call Muslim scientists as Arabs. --] 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sir, actually there is no rule in Misplaced Pages about "old" or "new" sources (please prove otherwise if I am mistaken). One cannot label sources "old" to remove them. These sources are from after 1950, not from 19th century after all. Then, my response was to your talk of Misplaced Pages's "requirement" of "primary sources over secondary" (and other similar claims) and the statement "he was born in Balkh Afghanistan" as being some uncontestable evidence of his Persian origin. As the above sources write, including Frye, not just Persians, but for example Turks lived in Balkh since before Avicenna's time (as did Arabs after the Islamization of the area). Here are some more sources including Frye's Cambridge History where he and other editors revisit that aricle decades later and don't change the findings

"Chinese sources of the time say that the western boundary of the Turks extended beyond Balkh to Merv in 630 AD. Baladhuri also mentions Merv as the last outpost of the Sassanians against the Turks at the time of the Arab conquests" (Frye, "Khurasan," 313).

"after Nēzak tarxān, who retreated towards Balkh. It happened also in 709 that the. Arabs defeated some Turks who tried to help the Sogdians."

Another is here

"After the well-known victory of Bahram Chubin over the army of the Ephtalits and Turks in 58835 Hurmazd36 IV presented him Balkh city and all of Khorasan37. After the murder of Chol-khaqan38 his son Yil-tegin39 took cover in the fortress of Paykand40. Bahram Chubin lay siege to the fortress and forced him to surrender at discretion, and captured a great booty. However, he had sent Hurmazd only a part of it, and the rest of it he appropriated for himself. This provoked the anger of the shahanshah and he wiped him off his post41. According to data of the Byzantine sources, after the victory over the Turks Bahram Chubin has been sent to Caucasus, where he was at war with the Byzantine army. In this war Bahram Chubin suffered a defeat, an after that he has been wiped off his post42. However, Bahram Chubin refused to submit to Hurmazd and excited revolt against him in 590 in Balkh43. Before that he concluded a treaty with the Turks, and included in his army the troops of the Turkish volunteers. Then he set out with united army to the capital of the Sasanids - Ktesifon44."

However, it is not the Turk origin of Avicenna that is discussed (at least I did not bring such evidence), but the addition of several sources describing him being of Arab origin. All those sources are major, English-language, and verifiable, thus qualifying per Misplaced Pages rules. At the same time no one is removing the majority opinion of him being Persian. Yet Misplaced Pages rules of MPOV and NPOV are clear that all major points of view, major sources, should be included and reflected. ] 04:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Again Hephtalites today are not known as Turk by many but that is beyond the issue. Yes Gok-turks fought Sassanids over Balkh. And yes as you see the boundary of Turks extended beyond Balkh to Marv (more to the east). But it was beyond balh. And Marv is modern day turkomanestan. But this is not a discussion on Turks. So I'll end that here.

::: Back to avicenna. Your sources again are not sources that talk about Avicenna's biography! Unlike the sources I brought. They are old and lack any relevance to Avicenna's biography. They contradict modern encyclopedia's and sources and books. And they lack any primary evidence which is a key in Misplaced Pages. They are not biographical scholarly sources from historians of Islamic philosophy writing in recent time. Also Arabs did not choose Persian names. Sina and Sitarah are both Persian names. Arabs did not write in Persian like Avicenna did. And Misplaced Pages does require modern references specially when all the 2007 references (Iranica, Columbia, Encyclopedia of Islam , Britannica) and tons books as well as primary sources contradict two sources you have from 1952. Else instead of Encyclopedia Britannica 2007 which states Avicenna as a Persian, someone mistakenly could quote 1911 Britannica. Again by your own claim then, we should put Farabi as an Arab because some old sources have said Farabi as an Arab where-as no primary source has said so. Again your 1952 source which is non-biographical and not specialized to Avicenna contradict biographical sources that are specialized for Avicenna in Iranica, Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, Encyclopedia of Islam and also modern scholars of Islamic history. Also you do not have any primary sources. Thus in Misplaced Pages ''exceptional claims require strong sources''.

::: And you should read this: '''''If we speak of Arabs in this Chapter we include all those that belong to the civilization of Islam which means syrians, Persians, copts, Berbers and others too'''''. I believe that should be clear for any user. The term Arab is used generally for any muslim scientist regardless of ethnicity. This is also the case for Farabi. But all new encyclopedias do not follow this convention. Encyclopedia 1911 Britannica called avicenna an Arab but Encyclopedia Britannica 2007 does not. I think this change itself is sufficient reason. --] 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw this dispute listed on RFC. If Britannica 2007 calls him Persian then it means that there is a consensus behind it, hence that's what[REDACTED] should follow. If somehow it is proved that a major alternative view considers him Arab (which I doubt) then you can simply label him as a 'muslim' scholar on the lead and explain all viewpoints in a section within the body of the article. ] 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:Sure you did - like other users before you. Since Britannica 2007 calls ] a Turk then it means that there is a consensus behind it, hence that's what Misplaced Pages should follow, disregarding the minority's opinion of him being Turkish? Is that right? ] 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for the comment.. And it is not only Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. But even more scholarly Encyclopedias like Encyclopedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica. I believe that should settle it and there is no strong counter-claim from any modern academic source that is specialized towards Avicenna and his biography. Also note that to use the word Arab and Muslim interchangeably has been long practice in orientalist material. But this convention is slowly being done away with.--] 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Weiszman, your views about primary vs secondary sources are wrong, there is a huge distinction between the two. You can't just call him an arab because people did so 1000 years ago, this is pretty self-explanatory. Why is he not called an Arab today? Did some sort of conspiracy take place? I highly doubt it, it's probably because the definition of an 'arab' has slightly changed since the middles ages, which is only normal. ] 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:welcome to discussion. Please consider familiarizing yourself with the discussion a little more beforehand though (and definitely before accusing someone of being "wrong"), as the references are not from 1000 years ago, but from four respectable sources in 1950s and 1960s. Although even if it were from 1000 years ago (which would make them primary sources), that should still be noted in Misplaced Pages per the rules, as long as undue weight it not given to that information. Similarly, Misplaced Pages does not prefer primary sources over secondary and tertiary, and neither does it require an author name, nor some other demands that have popped up unilaterally. Therefore as you can see my position is based on Misplaced Pages's rules and regulations, whilst what others' position is not. ] 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about "primary sources", which does not mean people from 50 years ago. It means people contemporary to Avicenna who may have used the word "Arab" to mean muslim. Regardless, a source from the 50s and 60s is unarguably outdated compared to Britannica 2007. You should familiarise yourself with ] and/or ], that way you won't have to wait for others to convince you that you're wrong about something as fundamental. ] 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:your comment about "primary sources" is in both cases misplaced. Afterwards when you familiarize yourself with ] and ], you'll discover that there is simply no rules about "outdated" materials. Although my sources are barely 50 years old, to consider a source "outdated" one has to feature at least a 100+ year old reference. Britannica 2007 is basically not different from previous versions, as did not update its article, it has remained the same for some time now. Also, it calls Avicenna as Islamic (or Muslim) philosopher and scientist, not Persian. It only says that his city of birth, "Bukhara, Persia, now Iran". ] 06:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::I respond to the RfC.

::I completely agree with Weiszman's interpretation of the policies and guidelines, and completely disagree with alidoostzadeh's and Mardavich's interpretations of the same.

::However, while Weiszman's got the policies correct, his implementation of them in this case is not adequate; and while the other two editors got the policies upside down, their case is nonetheless strong.

::Using primary sources is all but forbidden in Misplaced Pages. Trying to deduce a person's descent from his place of birth and his parents personal names is clear cut original research, and is forbidden in Misplaced Pages. Scholarly works published in the 60's are not prima facie outdated. Above all: Misplaced Pages is not about truth, it's about direct and explicit attributability to reliable secondary sources.

::The point is, alidoostzadeh and Mardavich needn't have resorted to original research to make a strong case for their views. If, in fact, Avicenna's ancestry is described as Persian by several contemporary encyclopedias, as in fact i was able to ascertain in the case of the Columbia encyclopedia, and if no contemporary source can be procured which contradicts this claim, then for Misplaced Pages's purposes, he was of Persian ancestry.

::Moreover, alidoostzadeh and Mardavich needn't have resorted to twisting Misplaced Pages's policies to discredit Weiszman's two quotes. These quotes do not explicitly state he was of Arab descent. They qualify him as an Arab scholar. This may reasonably mean a scholar writing in Arabic, who is strongly influenced by the Arabic scholarly tradition and who, in turn, made his mark on this tradition.

::To sum up, it is my opinion that alidoostzadeh and Mardavich should read carefully the Attribution policy and they probably owe Weiszman an apology for their misguided assault on him. However the article should not state, neither explicitly nor implicitly, that Avicenna was of Arabic descent, unless an explicit claim to the contrary by a reliable secondary source can be produced. ] 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::I am pretty familiar w/ the fact that Avicenna (ابن سينا) was not an Arab. However, i totally agree w/ Weiszman and Itayb (i.e. ''Misplaced Pages is not about truth, it's about direct and explicit attributability to reliable secondary sources''.) We assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be ] where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That ] is wrong is a value or ]. That ] were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
::Now, in order for everyone to respect[REDACTED] policies and guidelines, i suggest the following formulation or an equivalent:
::{{quotation|'''Ibn Sina''' (full name ''Abū ‘Alī al-Husayn ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sīnā al-Bal<u>kh</u>ī''; ], '''ابن سينا''' ; Also known as Avicenna, born 980, dead 1037) was a ] ('']''),<refs> ], ], and a ]...Though he is widely known as being a Persian, some scholars and other sources of the 20th century refer to him as being of Arab descent<refs>...}}
:: -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually unlike what Weiszman suggests, Britannica 2007 clearly and explicitly says: ''... '''Iranian physician''', the most famous and influential of the philosopher-scientists of Islam. ''. I am not sure why Weiszman without any sources states that Britannica says:''Avicenna as Islamic (or Muslim) philosopher and scientist, not Persian. ''. This shows in my opinion a lack of sincerety. Everyone can see the above link and judge for themselves. And actually Arab scholar is different word than Arab descent. I have explained the position already of some western scholars. Please read this: '''''If we speak of Arabs in this Chapter we include all those that belong to the civilization of Islam which means syrians, Persians, copts, Berbers and others too'''''. So this note is very important and what these scholar mean by Arab is not Arab descent but Arab in this sense described. So there is nothing about Arab descent. I think the above clarification and terminology needs to be taken into account. Britannica 2007, Columbia, Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam, ...etc. are all very up to date and modern sources and they do not mention any Arab descent. None of them also contradict each other as in the case of some other scholars. Misplaced Pages should be an up to date encyclopedia. --] 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: User:FayssalF, your suggestion is unacceptable. Avicenna was not Arab, you know that, I know that, suggesting otherwise contradicts all scholarly sources. I have seen fringe sources that state ] and ] were homosexual, that doesn't mean I should republish those claims on Misplaced Pages. ] clearly states "'''''views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views'''''", and that's the case here. To call Avicenna an Arab is a fringe view not worthy of serious consideration and contrary to all rational and all the scholarly biographies and encyclopedias. --] 12:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I know that this comment will annoy Persians who expect I say that "Avicenna is Persian" (As I really believe) but I believe the problem is not his ethnicity. The problem is our(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc) ethnocentrism. It's extremely foolish to debate about his ethnic origin instead of improving the article. I hate ethnocentric attitudes which result in ethnic tensions among us(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc). I beg you(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc) to leave such debates and try to improve the articles, if not we(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc) will never have numerous FA articles about our great scholars. Please pay attention to Rumi's poem:
{{quotation|I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin.
I am not from the kingdom of the two Iraqs.
I am not from the land of the Khurasan.
...
My place is placeless, my trace is traceless
No body no soul, I am from the soul of souls..."

—Rumi}}
Please forgive me and continue your extremely important debate!!!--<font face="monospace">](]-])</font> 13:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks Sa.vakilian for your input. Much appreciated.
:To Ali. Please remember that Britannica 2007 reference to him as an Iranian physician is erroneous. It should state ''Persian''.
:To Mardavich. You seem to miss the point. It is about a debatable fact. I know of course that Avicenna is not an Arab. Most Arabs know that. But if there exist a real debate at the scholarly level than we must note it here. If not we don't have to. So it is up to you both (yourselves and Weiszman) to figure out if there's such a scholarly debate or not. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:: The Britannica 2007 reference to him as an Iranian physician is NOT erroneous. "Iranian" is sometimes synonymous with "Persian". Iran has always been called Iran internally, and Persians are an ], in the ethnic sense as well. --] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::what Mardavich says is correct. Persia is only used by foreigners (western and sometimes Arab historian). The local people only called it Iran or Iranshahr. please also see ]--] 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Weiszman you don't have to be uncivil to everyone who doesn't share your opinion. It's as if you are trying to scare me off, though you're actually achieving the opposite. Weiszman said: <blockquote>
Afterwards when you familiarize yourself with WP:CITE and WP:ATT, you'll discover that there is simply no rules about "outdated" materials. Although my sources are barely 50 years old, to consider a source "outdated" one has to feature at least a 100+ year old reference.</blockquote>
] says: <blockquote>
Age of the source and rate of change of the subject — Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age of the source.</blockquote>
Concerning the "specialty" of a source, is adds:<blockquote>
Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another... These issues are particularly pertinent to Misplaced Pages where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.
</blockquote>
Therefore I insist, you are the one who needs to familiarise himself with ]. ] 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Miskin if you remember, you said "You should familiarise yourself with ] and/or ], that way you won't have to wait for others to convince you that you're wrong about something as fundamental." Hence my reply that neither one of the abovecited policies govern the "outdated material". ] 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:50, 1 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avicenna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2.5 years 
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAfghanistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCentral Asia High‑importance
WikiProject iconAvicenna is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconIran High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Muslim scholars Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Logic / Ethics / Science / Medieval High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Logic
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
Taskforce icon
Medieval philosophy
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Society Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Need for some housekeeping and edits--but page is locked

I am not sure why this article is locked and it wasn't clear how to request editing. If someone else is able to edit, please go in an add a bunch of the missing links to other WP articles e.g. the article, in one paragraph mentions Galen four times, but no where else in the article. There are no links to the article on Galen. While I suspect most people who read this page know who he was and all about the four humors, etc. I am not so sure that msot people reading the article would be expected to know this and it. I think the article on The Cannon of Medicine would beenfit from a bit more context as well.

I also think that given the somewhat enthusiastic sentiment which states he is the leading mind after Hippocrates and Galen, that perhaps some further discussion that could provide context about what was the prevailing views at the time, why this somewhat hyperbolic statement, is actually reasonable, and probably accurate statement, and what was the state of medicine in Europe, and what other leading medical scholars of the era were about. Its just if you make such statements in a WP article you really need to substantiate it with links or cites to authoratative sources.

I agree with the conclusion, but not necessariy the tone, which may benefit from being a bit more neutral in nuances.  

I don't think there is a good appreciation of how little progress was made in Europe from the time of the late Roman empire until the 1600's and why that is (and am sure that there are other articles that would be useful to link to to help give people an opportunity to appreciate the reason why some authors have been so superperlitive in their choice of adjectives. It wasn't all gloom and doom, but a lot of prior knowledge was only made available to European physicians via the Cannon of Medicine and other similar works given that the most prolific of all ancient Greeks was Galen and his work didn't quite make the cut-off off in time for translation into Latin and didn't really show up in European medicine until translated into Arabic (excepting some of his work by Oribasius) in 8th Century e.g. by Hunayn ibn Ishaq.

I think it is an example of where adding the links might help most people who may not be history of of medicine buffs.DrKC MD (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Page name

Can we correct the page name to be Ibn Sina's original name Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abillah ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sina rather than Avicenna as known in the west.

Surely a person would rather be identified and recognised but his official birth name which historians have recorded as Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abillah ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sina. For justification we can look at Al-Farabi's page, https://en.wikipedia.org/Al-Farabi where his page is named by his original name rather than the western name Alpharabius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaschillin (talkcontribs) 22:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No, this is the English Misplaced Pages, so the legit title is Avicenna. Your remark about Al-Farabi is irrelevant, since in English, he's called Al-Farabi, not Alpharabius. Best.---Wikaviani 22:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It is English Misplaced Pages, but we could have the decency to use Ibn Sina's name instead of some Latinate corruption of it. June-tree (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Avicenna is just a corruption of Ibn Sina, Ibn Sina is the actual name. You're argument here doesn't make sense at all, by your logic a person called Peter should have his documents with multiple names if he decides to move between countries or regions speaking different, those are, Peter, Pietro, Pedro, Pyotr, Butrus etc.
Thus, here Ibn Sina is the better choice for naming the page as that is the original name of the person in his native tongue. 116.75.197.194 (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

What about Ibn Rushd who is known in the West as Averroes? We can simply change the name to Ibn Sina and have the search “Avicenna” be redirected to the page, just as is done on the Ibn Rushd page. This does not have anything to do with being “the English Misplaced Pages.” Abu Yagub (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMON NAME. Ibn Sina is commonly transliterated in English as Ibn Sina, never Avicenna. This page should be changed to Ibn Sina. --Sultanic (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, Please see the comments made to your earlier request for the same thing. See my comments under your prior posting of the same nature. Please read the response editors provide you and don't just keep re-posting the same request based on your misperception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talkcontribs) 09:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you I just made this request as well. What a weird defensive response you got. 78.139.198.171 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Section on Theology

In the section titled Theology, there is a reference to Al-Razi, that may not be correct. Apparently, Al-Razi had died prior to Avicenna's birth.

Birthplace

Ibn Sina who is known as Abu Ali Sina Balkhi was born in Balkh (current Afghanistan) instead of Bukhara that has been recorded here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakiFrahmand1 (talkcontribs) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ZakiFrahmand1: reliable sources widely record that he was born in Afshana, a village near Bukhara. His nisba al-Balkhī derives from the fact that his father Abd Allah was a native of Balkh, as also recorded by reliable sources and mentioned in the article.
In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page (or use the 'new section' button at the top of the page). Please also don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 12:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Where is the link to your relaible sources?
I think he was born in greater balkh. 2001:14BB:69C:4405:34B2:7BC5:987F:80E1 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Origin of Ibn Sina

Though he has written a few works in persian, it was most probably used to convey literature just as arabic. His first language was most probably sogdian. In this sense, he would be "persian" only in the frequent meaning in english that Persia means the whole ancient Iran. Wouldn't, however, other identifications as of Sogdian, Iranian, Central Asian, from present Uzbekistan, also arabic, as being the language of most of his work, be also relevant? 191.210.246.4 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but we base our info on academic sources, not the personal opinion of users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Was he a persian ?

It’s known and mentioned in the article that his father was native to the city of balkh, that makes him a tajik not a persian, it’s known that tajiks were called persians and both names were used as synonyms to them but they are not the same ethnically, these differences do matter today, for some reason there is some sort of persianization of scientists of non-persian iranian ethnic groups Ibn Siwa (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

The sources in the article contradict you. And to make it worse you have posted zero sources to back your claims. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

::Who are/were the native ethnic group of balkh ? Ibn Siwa (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

This is impossible to know. The ethnicity then was not the ethnicity now. All we have are sources referring to him as Persian. WP:RS Game Set Match. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be purged from the lead though per mos:ethnicity. Wiqi 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all.
Greeks may not be the Greeks of the antiquity but that doesn't make them not Greek. The same for Persians.
Ibn-Sina's heritage is as important as Aristotle's was. He should be referred as a Persian polymath. 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Reputable sources already confirmed that contemporary Tajiks are the original Persian speaking population of Central Asia, including descendants of native Balkhis since antiquity. Saying it’s impossible to know that Tajiks existed back then is as erroneous as saying we can’t confirm the ethnicity of native Shirazis during Saadi’s lifetime. 2600:1700:158F:A900:8533:C371:68B6:FFDF (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
While that may be true, do you have reliable sources stating that Avicenna was Tajik? Peaceray (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
In general the indigenous Central Asians (of multiple ethnicities) were of Iranic origin (I.e. Sarmatians). 2600:100C:A211:7F18:55CA:A842:29DD:B235 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Persian name of Ibn Sina

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello all, I had a recommendation in regards to the name of Ibn Sina in Persian. As you all know, "Ibn" is an Arabic suffix to which there are Persian equivalents. In some Persian sources, Ibn Sina is called Pour Sina, Pour meaning the same thing as Ibn. I am curious to see if anyone thinks it would be appropriate to include پور سینا (pour Sina) in addition to Ibn Sina, which is also included in the Persian version of this article. Thank you.

Sources:

http://www.parsianjoman.org/wp-content/uploads/ParsiSareh.pdf (Page numbers of PDF: 25, 34,) (The article is in Persian)

https://www.iranketab.ir/book/63551-poorsina (Persian book that uses "Pour Sina" and not "Ibn Sina" in the title)

https://abadis.ir/fatofa/%D9%BE%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7/ (Scroll down to see the Dehkhoda Dictionary entry)MarkParker1221 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: - This seems like the sort of question that should be a discussion, rather than an uncontroversial edit request. PianoDan (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think if there is an authoritative citation that indicates what he might have referred to himself, or what any of his peers would have, then it would be totally reasonable to include it with his already non-trivial list of names.

If it just a translation of what we know from the historic person, from what was written in Arabic, into Person by modern authors, then I don't know that it would add anything to the article that translation of his Arabic name into any other contemporary language would. (perhaps even less, e.g. if there is an English translation of Ibn I think it is always helpful to give people as much context as possible to understand, and they certainly did tend to put a lot more in a name, particularly of a polymath who was a widely respected scholar. I defer to the historic figure and documents as to what he was called.

If you have any information about which of the other names listed he might have used, or who might have used a specific name, that would be interesting to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talkcontribs) 09:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Change name from Avicenna to Ibn Sina

While it is important to acknowledge that Ibn Sina is known (erroneously) as Avicenna in the West, having the article title as "Avicenna" and referring to him in the article as "Avicenna" rather than his actual name, Ibn Sina, is an erasure of his identity as a non-European. Ibn Sina is his actual name, Avicenna is the Latin corruption of his name. This is the equivalent of if we went to Shakespeare's Misplaced Pages page and renamed him to Sheikh Zabyir. The argument that "this is the English Misplaced Pages, so therefore we call him Avicenna" has no merit, as there are many Misplaced Pages articles about individuals named "Yusuf" without them being renamed to the English/Latin version of "Joseph". Aaleem912 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMON NAME and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's just how his name is commonly transliterated in English, nothing too deep - no one is denying his "non-European" identity. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
If it's nothing too deep as you say, it should be fixed. The title should be his name rather than a European misunderstanding of it. Presenting his actual name is the neutral choice here.
I also disagree to the applicability of the "right great wrongs" article (which seems to be about verification). Noting how this article got Ibn Sina's name wrong and how it relates to eurocentrism is good, as these are things we should be thinking about in order to be respectful. June-tree (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, WP:COMMONNAME is our policy, & we adhere to policies. Ibn Sina is first noted in the article, but people are most likely to search for the common name & expect to see the article name be the same as the common name. Peaceray (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I took a look at some of the policy on names, and I saw that "article titles with non neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use." Just from looking around online it seems like he is often referred to as Ibn Sina, so Avicenna isn't the name, and it seems to hit all 5 criteria for the common name policy. As Avicenna is a Latin European corruption of his name it doesn't seem to fit my notion of neutral.
I am new to this so forgive me if I'm misreading or missing more context (wow, there's a lot of policy!), but the apparent compliance with policy and it seeming more respectful and avoiding as much Eurocentric bias feel like good reason for a title change. People searching for Avicenna can just be redirected and learn his actual name. June-tree (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it. If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time etc. you may appreciate what you perceive as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, is today.
It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.
If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his actual name (e.g. پورسینا), as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. DrKC MD (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
And about por sina didn’t you dismiss the guy who said it? And that is not an actual name it is call a Kunea and if you anything about Ibn sina’s culture and Arabic you would know what it is. You are one of the most obnoxious act like a know it all I have ever seen. Yes please inform us more about a person we study the life of in 6th grade? Please do 78.139.198.171 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it. If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time etc. you may appreciate what you perceive as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, or Pour Sina, is today.
It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.
If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his actual name, as pronounced by himself, as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. DrKC MD (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It is a corruption wether you like it or not. It is not a translation go translate ابن سينا to English
and why would you keep a translation as the name itself?
put the man’s name end of story
you are too defensive and somewhat offended on the audacity of people wanting him to have his name as if you own the man.
His name is not common that each culture has a was of writing and saying it like Issac or Ibrahim.
I honestly have no idea how you are in charge here, but you shouldn’t. Dismissive, obnoxious, ignorant and mildly racist.
because you have Issues with your culture at the moment doesn’t give you the right to actually lash out on people
yes his works were respected, why do you think the name change? Let us not act like the church didn’t know what it was doing Mr Know it all. 78.139.198.171 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction

Needs correction:

His father was from Balkh. Balkh is a very famous city located in present day Afghanistan not Turkmenistan. You can confirm it with a quick and short Google search. I was born in Afghanistan that's why I am sure what I am talking about. 2607:FEA8:BA5:C450:8D76:240A:3F2B:21EC (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh here but; in Misplaced Pages we follow WP:RS, not random Google searches. Being from Afghanistan doesn't give you a PHD in history, especially since Avicenna has no relation to Afghanistan, as it did not exist back then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.
Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and he has no connection to Turkmenistan.
Note Turkmenistan did not exist in the past! Zahgha (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.
Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and it is not correct to connect to Afghanistan either. Zahgha (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ibn-Sina was Ethnically Persian

Kansas Bear has taken it upon himself to edit as far as I am aware of Rumi and Ibn-Sina's pages to remove MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability".

This doesn't apply here, they're ethnically Persian figures, who worked in Persian, and were influenced by Persian.

Rumi is widely referred to as a Persian figure, see Rumi Talk page as well for consensus. Ibn-Sina is referred to as Persian in citation 23 and throughout the sources found on his page, as well as on Britannica.

Their ethnicities are as relevant to them as any Greek or Roman figure, who I consistently find are ethnically referred to in their lead paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

User Kansas Bear has edited more than 50 pages belonging to Persian and Iranian figures, removing the ethnicity. I took the labour to look at his contributions, and this "ethnicity removing" behaviour seems to be entirely concentrated on Iranian figures, never Arab figures like al-Kindi or Ibn Arabi or Averroes. I second this in saying that ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead section of this article as it is in Averroes' page and that of many other Islamic figures. It is completely ridiculous to have such a high protection status on a page just because one editor has requested it after his edits were reverted for obvious vandalism. شاه عباس (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Ethnicity is a fluid concept, especially in the ancient world, often pertaining simply to citizenship or language more than anything else, and far removed from the modern, more formalized conception of ethnicity. Ancient 'Persia' was a sweeping concept that expanded from the original Pars to encompass, conceptually, much of Central Asia. That isn't an ethnicity; that's a generalization. If we take Rumi, what he certainly was was a Persian poet, i.e. a native Persian-speaking poet most famous for his Persian works. What he identified as ethnically, in the modern sense of the word, is anyone's guess. Often individuals in that day and age do not really seem to have imagined themselves as ethnically anything; identifying more with their home town or province - in all likelihood, it wasn't much of a concern to them. The one big exception in the Muslim world, then and now, are those obsessed with demonstrating some connection back to the Quraysh of Mecca, for reasons of status. As for Avicenna, he wrote primarily in Arabic, so culturally he clearly straddled the Arabic-Persian divide far more evenly than the likes of Rumi, in the true Abbasid tradition. It would probably be most apt to simply make a point to this effect in the lead, stating that he produced works in both Arabic (predominantly) and Persian. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
We are not here concerned with self-identification or the notion of ethnicity as it operated in their heads (although, if you are interested, you can check out Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah where the function of ethnicity isn't that far fetched from what it is today in the MENA region). Of course, we are not here concerned with nation-states either. The problem here lies in selective scholarship and bias when it comes to Misplaced Pages articles, where Iranian figures are almost exclusively targeted. Avicenna's is the only page where "polymath" is given as a title without any sort of predicate, and for some reason it has the highest level of protection because one obviously biased user (whose edit history tells all) requested it. Not only is it ridiculous, it also goes against the previous consensus reached about this topic. شاه عباس (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
If we look at gold-standard tertiary resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they treat the material in exactly the same way, eschewing tangled debates about ethnicity in favor of his importance as a scholar in the Islamic world. Avoiding tangled debates is the reason for MOS:ETHNICITY. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It reads "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."
In Avicenna's case, both his Iranian ethnicity and his Islamic faith are relevant to his contributions to world-philosophy. These are the predicates of his scholarship in most sources. In the same manner that Aristotle is described as Greek and Averroes as an Arab Muslim when they are mention in modern scholarship.
Once again, it is very peculiar that this removal of ethnic identification applies overwhelmingly to Iranians on Misplaced Pages. Ibn Khaldun for instance is explicitly stated to be an Arab, and so is Averroes. شاه عباس (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHER. Also, what is the problem with the ethnicity being removed from the lead, take a look at the body of the article, and you'll see that his ethnicity is mentioned. Best.---Wikaviani 01:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
That's not what that means. He's not notable for being any ethnicity; he is notable for being a great scholar of the middle ages/Islamic golden age. His origins are almost entirely irrelevant. Ethnicity shouldn't have been in the lead of the Averroes page either - I've removed it from there also now. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead section of the article on Averroes still contians a geographical signifier. It's absurd that the same not be the case for Avicenna. شاه عباس (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It's been identified that he lived under the Samanid Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The Samanid empire is not a geography, it's a political state. If we follow the precedent of the Averroes article (following Andulus rather than alMurwārīd), we should say that he was from Khurâsân/Greater Iran (whence he was from) or Iran (where he lived during the majority of his active scholarly years). شاه عباس (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
All geographies are political defined by definition; they are just lines on maps. Al-Andalus was an Umayyad territory. The boundaries of the Samanid Empire at the time are relatively clear and specific to the subject. "Khorasan" is just a vague, shifting concept. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Not all geographies are restricted to political borders in any sense. Khurâsân and (Greater) Iran certainly aren't, being based on a shared cultural and historical heritage. Andalucia, furthermore, as a geographical concept, is not any less "vague" than Khurâsân. We use these categories based on conventions, without which everything is relative and it becomes impossible to communicate meaning based on a shared recognised reality. The same is the case here, if we hesitate to use "Khurâsân" or "Iran" where they are absolutely justified because they are historically relative, then when should we use them? I am happy for the article to only use "Muslim" as a predicate, and to only refer to Avicenna's geographical, rather than ethnic, origin. A vague statement on the courts wherein he was active is actually much more counterproductive than a simple reference to his geographic origin based on the conventional categories "Iran" and "Khurâsân", especially in a lead section that is supposed to be concise and straightforward. شاه عباس (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
He didn't actually come from Khorasan though, but the neighbouring Transoxiana (or Sogdia) - is that what you want to put? It's there in early life. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, that he was in the "employ" of the Sâmânid empire is false information. The cited sources say that he was ethnically Persian and that his father was in the employ of the Sâmânids. Ibn Sīnâ himself was in the employ of Daylamite dynasties. شاه عباس (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
That's a better point - though he did serve Nuh II of the Samanids, he soon moved on to serve the Ma'munids and later the Buyid dynasty, so a wide mix. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Then remove Greek from the lead on Socrates, Arab from Khaldun, etc, etc.
You won't because the racism/reductionism towards Persians is evident on this site. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? How is that helping with authoring of this article?
This is NOT a forum to vent perceived grievances.
WP has a zero tolerance for racism and if you have an actual example of such then please follow the proper procedure and policy. I would suggest you consider the possibility that not getting your way in this discussion very well may have nothing to do with any racism, prejudice, or biases. DrKC MD (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Ibn Sina was a Persian. This has also been mentioned by UNESCO.Iroony (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
There is clear anti-Iranian bias in many Iran-related pages on Misplaced Pages. The fact that the ethnicity of Avicenna, Khayyam and many others is removed from their lead paragraphs is a disheartening development that must be addressed by the admins. The fact that they are ethnically Persian is important given that they contributed to the survival of the Persian culture, language and identity. Without these people, Persian would have been another lost ethnicity/language, just like the dozens that were erased after the Islamic conquest. While the article does not need to open with a statement of their ethnicity, it can at least elaborate on it in the following line or paragraph in the introduction - 24.225.217.56 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of whether he was Persian or Arab, the current text describing him in the Biography section is offensive, as it refers to “Persian stock.” “Stock”, as in “breeding stock”, is an inappropriate word for referring to humans under any circumstance and i request that this be changed to “heritage” or a similarly neutral word that does not relate to animals. Scihard (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Autobiography of Avicenna

First, Ibn Sina wrote an autobiography for his pupil named Abu Ubayd Al-Juzjani, which his student then completed with a concluding chapter. This autobiographical text was later included by Ibn Abi Ashaybi'ah in his work entitled 'Uyūn al-Anbā' fī Thabaqāt al-Athibbā' (Literary History of Medicine). This is the main source of Ibn Sina lifestory, especially for early childhood and education.

Second, Ibn Sina was born in 980 when Nuh ibn Mansyur was in power and the Samanid dynasty was facing war with the Karakhanids in the north and the Buyid dynasty in the south. Then, the Samanid empire was fall to Karakhanids in 999, and completely gone in 1004. No one mention this war in the background of Ibnu Sina's biography. Just for note, after the death of Nuh ibn Mansyur in 997, Ibn Sina fleed from Bukhara.

Lokamaya (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change {{lang-fa|ابن سینا}} to {{lang-ar|ابن سینا}} and add {{lang-fa|پور سینا}} after it. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 06:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

@Premitive: MOS:FORLANG states that "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence". Obviously, there is no question that the subject was most closely associated with the Arabic language given that most of his works, including his famous ones (The Canon of Medicine, which wasn't translated into Persian until the 18th century, and The Book of Healing), were written in Arabic. M.Bitton (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Premitive: just in case you missed the first ping: could you please read my comment and provide a valid rationale for your revert? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not true, I answered these in my last edit summary:
  • "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence"
The if part says nothing about what to do if there are two languages associated with a person. On the other hand the guideline clearly states that:
"Relevant foreign-language names, such as those of people who do not write their names in English, are encouraged. ... Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas."
This rule is followed all around Misplaced Pages. You certainly know about it. It is strange that you insist on doing otherwise.
Why the guidelines talk about separating different foreign languages with semicolon? Because it allows them.
His native language was Persian. He wrote in Persian. Persian was official language where he was born and lived.
Now there are two WP:NPOV option: Move both to footnote, or Keep both in the first sentence. Keeping Arabic in the first sentence and removing Persian is a violation of WP:NPOV.
Premitive (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Besides we have a source already saying:
  • Adamson 2016, pp. 113, 117, 206. (page 113) "For one thing, it means that he had a Persian cultural background...he spoke Persian natively and did use it to write philosophy."
Premitive (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
You certainly know about it. It is strange The only thing that is really strange is your assumption of bad faith.
This discussion is about his name and what the sources say about it (everything else is irrelevant):
  1. Avicenna is a Latin corruption of his Arabic patronym, which is well known and mentioned in his autobiography (which was written in Arabic). This fact is also covered in the article's body.
  2. The Persian equivalent that you added is a) not covered in the article and b) it looks undistinguishable from the Arabic patronym (which would suggest that this is a later transliteration).
Given that we're not supposed to include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology, I see no reason to keep it. NPOV, that you mentioned, only comes into play when there is a dispute between RS. M.Bitton (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
You just said he has written more Arabic work and therefore Arabic should be the only one that we mention. Now that was all irrelevant? The guidelines are also irrelevant now? Nevertheless I added source for Persian name that you are trying to remove. But really I don't care if you remove the Persian name and its source (or perhaps it would be more reasonable for someone else to do it.) Any discussion with those who only want to remove a Persian name (shifting from one reason to another while doing so) is a waste time. Premitive (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
That cherry picked source a) failed verification as it doesn't support the transliteration that you added and b) is at odds with what the reliable sources say about his name and what's covered in the article. It also makes no sense as "Ibn Sina" (son of Sina) is clearly Arabic. Do you have anything else or is that it? M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
A source saying "Avicenna is a Latin rendering of a Hebraic translation of the Persian name Ibn Sina." fails verification? Now you want a Persian language source writing ابن سینا? I can bring a whole lot of that. But I'm sure that is not what you want. Tagging it as verification failed is childish; you are trying to make it look like it doesn't contain the said quote. So now it is about etymology? Sina is of Persian origin while ibn is of Arabic origin. But I thought it was not about etymology, right? "it is clearly Arabic" settles it (it hold for any source that I bring, Persian or not), why are we discussing it then? You know I can bring more sources but tagging the source that I just added as "verification failed" and "it is clearly Arabic" is telling. As I said just remove them, I won't revert. With this rate, within a few year, all Middle East and North Africa minorities (Persians, Berbers, etc.) will be removed from English Misplaced Pages. These days, English Misplaced Pages is not worthy of spending any time. (Assuming one is not paid, that is) Premitive (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from assuming bad faith.
Since I don't expect Persians to write in any other language, a Persian language source wouldn't prove anything (for the all reasons that I mentioned).
Who said anything about etymology? All I said is that Ibn Sina is a Arabic patronym (this is a fact). Do you disagree with it? M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The main name is Ibn Sina, Avicenna is a nickname that should be in the paragraph not the Title. 100.15.218.54 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The WP:COMMONNAME of this scholar is Avicenna.---Wikaviani 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

His name.

I know it was incredibly hard and inconvenient back in the day to say “Ibn Sīnā” but don’t you think it’s time to give him his name back? I mean all of that talk of representation and cultural appropriation that’s happening in the west, does that include our scientists who got their names stolen to “fit”. his western name should be in the () and his Actual name or what we call his Kunea should be the title of the page Ibn Sīnā

thank you 78.139.198.171 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Avicenna and Ibn Sina are not different names, they are different romanisations of the same name. We typically use whatever spelling is preferred by the majority of current sources, and it would appear based on the sources cited in the article that "Avicenna" is still more commonly used in the 21st century (although "Ibn Sina" is being used more often). Compare e.g. Aristotle, not Aristotélēs. ITBF (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A typo has managed to snake its way into this sentence: "Sometime later, {{hiss}} father invited the physician and philosopher al-Natili to their house to educate ibn Sina" Can we get someone with permissions to cobrect this typo? 🐍🐍🐍 KEP95 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Change hiss to his KEP95 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done Jamedeus (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why because of politics they hide that he was a persian.are all of us bad guys that world should not know?shame that persian did very goog works for this world but never been respected. Mike tiger111 (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the lead

'His philosophy was of the Muslim Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.'

The term 'Muslim Peripatetic school' is not mentioned in the source and there is nothing like Muslim Peripatetic school'. so it should be edited to :

'His philosophy was of the Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.' 207.96.13.12 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

'was a preeminent philosopher and physician of the Muslim world, flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age'

must change to

'was a Persian philosopher and physician preeminent in the Muslim world . He was flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age' Zahgha (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, a consensus was reached on this above.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the popular culture section, There's a novel by Egyptian writer Youssef Zidane about Ibn sina called Fardaqan, published in Arabic and translated to Italian and Persian, and covers Ibn sina time during his imprisonment in the castle and take flashbacks on his life and his work. Marclyo (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Annh07 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Avicenna: Difference between revisions Add topic