Talk:Avicenna/Archive 4

Removing mention of being Muslim from opening section
What is the legitimacy of some users, including, removing the mention of him being Muslim from the opening section, which is commonly included in other articles? Does anyone actually doubt the veracity of him being Muslim? — LissanX (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The source being quoted in the article, from Britannica says that he was a Muslim physician. So why is the other user removing it several times the mention of Muslim when it’s not only relevant but also well sourced (in fact the source in the article mentions it) that he was a Muslim? 77.16.56.227 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh, there's obviously no doubt that Avicenna was Muslim, however, it's completely irrelevant information. Should we start adding 'Christian' to the lede of Thomas Jefferson, etc? No. Also, I didn't remove anything, I simply restored the original revision. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, there’s disagreements amongst historians whether Thomas Jefferson actually was a Christian or not, considering he denied basic beliefs of Christianity, he didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah nor the son of God among other things etc... However, there’s clear evidence that Avicenna was very religious, and that he was a Muslim. Even the very source that you used CLEARLY says he was a Muslim. And how is it ‘’completely irrelevant’’ to include that he’s a Muslim considering other articles similar to Avicenna mentions it? 77.16.56.227 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying it's irrelevant to be in the lede. It's already emphasized in the main text. Also, I haven't used any source, look at the history of the article. --HistoryofIran (talk)

03:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t think you get it. The very SAME source that you used mentions in the lead that he was a Muslim physician. So yes, it is relevant to him and should be included in the article. 77.16.56.227 (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It’s mentioned in every other article, so why not Avicenna, especially considering how a source used in the same article mentions him being Muslim? 77.16.56.227 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Read my comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Try reading Manual of Style/Biography, Context section; "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the source I sent you (the same being used in the article). Again, you haven’t answered any of our questions, why are you removing the mention of him being Muslim when the sources clearly mentions that he was a Muslim? It is mentioned in the other articles, so why not on Avicenna? 77.16.56.227 (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The same argument can be made for his ethnicity. Why is his ethnicity so important but not his religion? You can’t pick and choose.
 * Avicenna’s religion is irrelevant? Avicenna’s religion plays a huge part in his life, the Islamic Golden Age? 77.16.56.227 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also on other articles similar to Avicenna, the religion is mentioned. So why is it not mentioned in Avicenna considering that it is not only relevant but Also important to his life and the sources mentions that he was a Muslim? 77.16.56.227 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * How does one read the introduction without getting the impression that he was not a Muslim? Because that would be the only reason to complain about not mentioning it again, more explicitly. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new lede to satisfy OP
The Muslim   Pour Sina, also known as Abu Ali Sina (ابوعلی سینا), Pour Sina (پورسینا), and often known in the west as Avicenna (c. 980 – June 1037) was a Muslim Persian   polymath who was a Muslim and is regarded as one of the most significant Muslims, Islamic physicians, Islamic astronomers, Islamic thinkers and Islamic writers of the Islamic Golden Age, *
 * "He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara. His native language was Persian" (from "Ibn Sina ("Avicenna")", Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill, second edition (2009). Accessed via Brill Online at www.encislam.brill.nl).
 * "Avicenna was the greatest of all Persian thinkers; as physician and metaphysician ..." (excerpt from A.J. Arberry, Avicenna on Theology, KAZI PUBN INC, 1995).
 * "Whereas the name of Avicenna (Ibn Sina, died 1037) is generally listed as chronologically first among noteworthy Iranian philosophers, recent evidence has revealed previous existence of Ismaili philosophical systems with a structure no less complete than of Avicenna" (from p. 74 of Henry Corbin, The Voyage and the messenger: Iran and philosophy, North Atlantic Books, 1998. and the Muslim father of modern medicine.  Avicenna was Muslim.    Avicenna, who was Muslim, is also called "the most influential philosopher of the pre-modern era". He was a Muslim but also a peripatetic philosopher influenced by Aristotelian philosophy as well as Islam. Of the 450 works  he is believed to have written as a Muslim, around 240 have survived, including 150 on Islamic philosophy and 40 on medicine. Avicenna was Muslim.
 * "He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara. His native language was Persian" (from "Ibn Sina ("Avicenna")", Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill, second edition (2009). Accessed via Brill Online at www.encislam.brill.nl).
 * "Avicenna was the greatest of all Persian thinkers; as physician and metaphysician ..." (excerpt from A.J. Arberry, Avicenna on Theology, KAZI PUBN INC, 1995).
 * "Whereas the name of Avicenna (Ibn Sina, died 1037) is generally listed as chronologically first among noteworthy Iranian philosophers, recent evidence has revealed previous existence of Ismaili philosophical systems with a structure no less complete than of Avicenna" (from p. 74 of Henry Corbin, The Voyage and the messenger: Iran and philosophy, North Atlantic Books, 1998. and the Muslim father of modern medicine.  Avicenna was Muslim.    Avicenna, who was Muslim, is also called "the most influential philosopher of the pre-modern era". He was a Muslim but also a peripatetic philosopher influenced by Aristotelian philosophy as well as Islam. Of the 450 works  he is believed to have written as a Muslim, around 240 have survived, including 150 on Islamic philosophy and 40 on medicine. Avicenna was Muslim.

As a Muslim, his most famous works are The Book of Healing, a philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopedia which became a standard medical text at many medieval universities and remained in use as late as 1650. Avicenna was Muslim.

Besides Islam, philosophy, and medicine, Avicenna's corpus includes writings on Islamic astronomy, Islamic alchemy, Islamic geography and geology, Islamic psychology, Islamic theology, Islamic logic, Islamic mathematics, Islamic physics and works of Islamic poetry. Avicenna was Muslim.


 * If the IP isn't 100% satisfied with the above version, then I have to ask why they want us to hide the fact that Avicenna was Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't write "Isaac Newton was a Christian English...". However, just like Newton, we can add Avicenna's religion and a brief/summary of his religious views in the lead if they're relevant information. e.g. "Avicenna was a Muslim and ... (rest of paragraph)". See Isaac Newton to understand my point. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the proposal is a Reductio ad absurdum intended to get OP and IP to back down. They can't honestly say it's an improvement, but not saying so means that we don't have to plaster "Avicenna was a Muslim" into and inbetween every single sentence of the lede, which opens the door to accepting that the lede is already in a state where one could not read it without concluding he was Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well... then my comment is in a wrong place. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP (who is probably the same as ) is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia . --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP is on a dynamic range - here's their edit history - but it's a wireless broadband connection.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose and comment I still don't get how the religion of Avicenna is relevant in the lede. Is the religion of Isaac Newton relevant in the lede of his article ? Clearly not. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Avicenna was literally an Islamic philosopher, but him being Muslim "is not relevant". The rabid Islamophobia on Wikipedia trying to “de-Islamify” Muslim figures through weak excuses is ludicrous. An example of a Christian individual who had nothing to do with Christianity, Thomas Jefferson, is being used to remove the word Muslim from an article about an Islamic philosopher. We might as well be removing any mentions of the Pope being Catholic or the Dalai Lama being Buddhist. The fact that this irrational and hypocritical censoring of the article is even being discussed, let alone justified through foolish comparisons with Thomas Jefferson, is a joke. — LissanX (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're aiming for a second block for harassment/personal attacks . Grow up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please desist from such irrelevant comments like "The rabid Islamophobia on Wikipedia trying to “de-Islamify” Muslim figures through weak excuses is ludicrous". Nobody denies that Avicenna was a Muslim scholar, but 's question is perfectly relevant here, and so far, you failed to provide a satisfactory answer. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new lede
Avicenna, who is sometimes called Ibn Sina or Abu Ali Sina by demanding, entitled Muslims who have the gall to refer to him by his real name, was an Islamic philosopher whose Muslim identity had nothing to do with his Islamic philosophy. Some have suggested that he was Persian, but who cares, that’s not relevant in this article about him. He was polymath who had nothing to do with Islam and is regarded as one of the most significant Islamic figures whose Muslim identity is irrelevant. Muslims are bad. The world renowned Wikipedia editors Ian.thomson and HistoryofIran have attested that he is the greatest Islamic philosopher whose Muslim identity is irrelevant, comparing him, in their infinite wisdom, to Thomas Jefferson.

His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopedia, both of which prove he wasn't a Muslim.

Besides not being Muslim, philosophy, and medicine, Avicenna's corpus includes writings on Astronomy in medieval Islam (which has nothing to do with Islam), Alchemy and chemistry in medieval Islam (also has nothing to do with Islam), Geography and cartography in medieval Islam (sigh, not Muslim), Psychology in medieval Islam (HistoryofIran hasn’t moved the page to a new title removing the word Islamic yet), Islamic theology (also has nothing to do with Islam), Logic in Islamic philosophy, Mathematics in medieval Islam, Physics in medieval Islam and works of Islamic poetry, all of which had absolutely no relevance to being Muslim, just like Thomas Jefferson. Note that our Wikipedia editors are working hard to revise these articles to not include the words "Islam" or "Muslim" because they are irrelevant.

Ian.thomson has suggested that even a single mention of Avicenna being Muslim is tantamount to peppering the article with the word a thousand times and living under Sharia Law. Writer HistoryofIran even addressed the UN, saying "Iranians have been gassed and their bodies turned into milk crates by evil Muslims. Why should we mention Islamic philosophers are Muslim? The word 'Muslim' is tantamount to profanity and is bad. We don't go around mentioning Whoopie Goldberg is Jewish, do we? This is a perfect example of why I'm right." This drew cheers from the crowd, except from Saudi diplomats who threw fisticuffs. Whoopie Goldberg responded, saying "I ain't Jewish".
 * With some added sources, I think this represents, and the rest of the anti-Muslim faction accordingly. I think the next order of business should be getting to work on removing the word from writings on Astronomy in medieval Islam, Alchemy and chemistry in medieval Islam, Geography and cartography in medieval Islam, Psychology in medieval Islam, Islamic theology, Logic in Islamic philosophy, Mathematics in medieval Islam, Physics in medieval Islam and works of Islamic poetry, as stated in the proposed article — LissanX (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your point would come across better if you weren't making shit up about people and engaging in personal attacks in a way that give the impression you're not here in good faith. At no point did I deny that he was Muslim.  I'll ask again: How is it possible to read the current lede without arriving at the understanding that he was Muslim?  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * talking about "making shit up" after a fake proposal pretending that one mention of "Muslim" is the same as a thousand mentions and an Islamic takeover of the lede? Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house. — LissanX (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again: how is it possible to read the current lede without arriving at the understanding that he was Muslim? The lede doesn't hide that he's Muslim.  Your counter-proposal actually did put words in other people's mouths.  My joke proposal pointed out the absurdity in your bad-faith accusation that others are hiding the fact that he's Muslim, when the lede doesn't actually hide that fact at all from anyone who is literate.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Medicine
The Cannon of Medicine, an encyclopaedia of medicine was the first medical book in the European schools and was used by the scientists of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. There were already 15 issues in Latin and one in hibru at the end of XVth century. Ibn Sina indicated the infectious character of tuberculosis in that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.94.168 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ibn-sina-bust-tandis (1).jpg

Extra information on Ibn Sina move to Urgench
Regarding Urgench, Ibn Sina moved to the Ma'munid dynasty after the fall of the Samanids. However there is no mention of this. Only the place 'Urgench'. Urgench is the same place as Gurganj which is where he moved to, mainly as the Ma'munids dynasty had close ties to the Samanids prior to their fall. The actual wiki page also mentions this hence its important to do the same vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.199.31 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021
The full name translation of Avicenna in the Name section is wrong. It should be "Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn bin ʿAbdillāh bin al-Ḥasan bin ʿAlī bin Sīnā". Instead of "ibn", it should be "bin". The Arabic writing also uses "بن" (bin) instead of "ابن" (ibn) here. Amonthothra (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gaioa  (T C L) 18:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I respect your astute eye, but actually "ابن" and "بن", when used to signify the sequence of paternal ancestors, is always pronounced the same in formal Arabic (in English, "ibn"). However, some people remove the alif (ا) when writing the paternal sequence to lessen the repetition. In the end, though, the pronunciation in formal Arabic is always the same (ibn, never bin). Therefore, it should be Ibn Sina, not Bin Sina, especially since "Sina" is not preceded by another name (e.g. Osama bin Laden and not Osama ibn Laden, since "Laden" is preceded by "Osama"; although as I have mentioned, in formal Arabic, one would pronounce it as ibn despite the difference in writing). I will revert the edit you have made. Thanks! --Abu Yagub (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ibn Sina (Persian: ابن سینا‎) is not a Persian word پورسینا Pour Sina
Ibn Sina (Persian: ابن سینا‎) is not a Persian word. It is Arabic. He is not called Ibn Sina, in fact he is Pour Sina not even Pur Sina! Whoever wrote this article had no proper understanding of Persian and English languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShParsi (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed these concerns with my latest edit, thanks! :) --Abu Yagub (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Pur is a cat sound and is wrong.
Pour Sina is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShParsi (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed this mistake. Thanks! --Abu Yagub (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of newly added material
User:HistoryofIran, you recently removed my addition to the article, stating WP:UNDUE and WP:OR as reason.

My additions (italics) were (in the lead) that Avicenna "was a Persian or Sogdian"

In the section 'Early Life' I added that "Avicenna was born in Afshana, a village near Bukhara (in present-day Uzbekistan), in Sogdiana, then the capital of the Samanids, a Persian dynasty in Central Asia and Greater Khorasan."

In the same section: "His mother, named Sitāra, was from Bukhara, a local that may be regarded as a Tajik.

Finally, I reported Foltz's opinion that Avicenna's native language "may well have been Sogdian."

I think there must be a mistake, because I don't see WP:OR, and I do not see WP:UNDUE.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You were already told this by three editors various times in the talk page of Sogdia. Majority of the sources either dont state that Avicenna was Sogdian or they arent reliable. Yet you proceeded to add this here regardless, this is some next level Tendentious editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't need to use bold characters History of Iran. What other editors had to say in the past in other articles doesn't matter. Otherwise I'd count all those who proposed other origins for Avicenna here and elsewhere in the past. You said:  Majority of the sources either dont state that Avicenna was Sogdian or they arent reliable. Yet you proceeded to add this here regardless, this is some next level Tendentious editing. That is not true. I also don't see how the claim that Avicenna's native language was Sogdian is WP:UNDUE in any stretch of imagination, since Foltz is the only scholar to have ever made statements in this regard. I appreciated it when you changed your mind later on, but please try and not be aggressive from the start. I am going to fly a RfC if you still disagree with my addition, so I advise you to focus on the matter at hand, providing sources for your claims, and to explain how what I added is "original research" and WP:UNDUE? Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021 - grammar error
Change chapter 'Adulthood', second sentence, from 'By the time Avicenna was at least 21 years old, he father died' to 'By the time Avicenna was at least 21 years old, his father died'. Removing grammar error. Janusz-Osoba (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Peaceray (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC
Should newly added content be regarded as WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, and may/should it be included in the article? Please, specify whether you are pro/against adding all the new material or which of the four pieces information you are pro and against.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose OP's similiar proposal is already opposed by the majority, yet he proceeded to do a RFC here as well. I believe it is about time an admin took a look at this. Majority of the sources either dont state that Avicenna was Sogdian or they arent reliable. The only exception is Foltz (in an interview, not even a book), who says that Avicena may have spoken Sogdian, not that he did. The vast majority of sources call Avicenna a Persian (again, read WP:UNDUE), some examples;


 * 1) Ibn Sīnā, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition - He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara. His native language was Persian
 * 2) Medicine is a science by which we learn about the conditions of the human body. Its purpose is to preserve health when well and restore health when ill;’ a famous definition of medicine by the Persian polymath of the eleventh century, Avicenna. - Reflections on Avicenna’s impact on medicine: his reach beyond the Middle East
 * 3) We have rubais by Avicenna (d. 428/1037), the greatest of the Persian philosophers, whom 'Umar regarded as his master and whose encyclopaedic work - Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4
 * 4) Many of these achievements were later collated and made known in the West through the writings of another Persian, the great Avicenna (born Ibn Sina, 980–1037). A History of Iran, Axworthy, page 81
 * 5) Abu ‘Ali al-Hasan Ibn Sina (ca. 980–1037 CE), known in Latin as Avicenna, was a physician, natural philosopher, mathematician, poetic mystic, and princely minister. Of Persian descent, he was born in Afshana in the province of Bukhara - p 369, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1
 * 6) This books deals with the philosophy of Ibn Sina - Avicenna as he was known in the Latin West - a Persian Muslim - Avicenna's Al-Shifā': Oriental Philosophy
 * --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: There is no WP:OR and no WP:UNDUE. There are multiple reliable sources by acknowledged scholars supporting the new material. History of Iran, I appreciated it when you once corrected yourself, but making personal attacks is as bad as being uncivil. Okay, so now we have one source stating his native language was Persian. That makes it even. You forgot to provide sources supporting his mother being anything different from Tajik. Finally, speaking of "origin" or "ethnicity", we don't know whether the sources you provided mean "Persian" as a synonym for "Iranian" or Iranian from Persia, ethnic Persian. This is also due to the fact Avicenna was not born in Persia, but in Sogdia. Again, I do not see WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, and as per Neutral point of view, I would include everything.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - If sources are found? then it's not original research. As for weight? I shall leave that for others to decide, if the proposed info is too much or not. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The question seems to be, was he Sogdian or Persian? The difference seems somewhat irrelevant: Sogdia by the looks of it was essentially and then actually Persian. As a practical matter, Persian has much more meaning to the average reader than Sogdian, which I had not heard of until just now. Combined with HistoryofIrans sources, dont see the reason to change. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek, I see what you are saying, and I agree with you on Sogdia. But by that line of reasoning, the list of "Notable Sogdians" at Sogdia either is to be removed or it is fair to include Avicenna there, or is it? I ask you to address the other two additions: claim about Tajik mother and Sogdian as native language (according to Foltz). Should we include that? As "possible"?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - First of all, this proposal is directly based on reliable, secondary sources and so does not qualify as original research (for something to be OR, it must either involve an inappropriate use of primary sources, or far-fetched inferences from secondary sources, which is not the case here). Second, Dimitri Gutas, one of the foremost experts on Avicenna, notes in his 2014 Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition (2nd ed.), p. xi that especially in Iran, where in later centuries (and also because of his presumed Persian origins) he was elevated to a most revered status, he was considered a representative of a mystical philosophy whose origins allegedly go back to a pre-Islamic Persian spirituality. Western scholarship in the twentieth century followed by and large this spurious later tradition. Apparently, Gutas is quite unsure about such specific claims on Avicenna's origins (cf. also his impenetrable article on Avicenna's biography in Eir, which neither says that he's Persian nor that he is Sogdian nor anything else), and he seems especially skeptical about the ubiquitous claims for a presumed Persian origin. But, and this is my third point, this whole matter is a question of due weight. Claims for a Persian origin are indeed ubiquitous, and thus isolated and passing mentions of him as Sogdian such as those of Corbin et al. carry only little weight. At the very least, these are opinions which should not be stated as facts, but rather attributed to their authors in-text ("According to Yarshater, ... However, according to Corbin, etc."). But then context matters, and I seriously question whether such passing mentions by scholars (and this applies both to passing mentions of him as Persian and as Sogdian) should get such extensive coverage by us: this would in itself be undue. As Gutas documents in his Eir article, a scholarly biography of Avicenna still needs to be written, and until then we should probably say as little as possible about it. We won't accomplish that by adding stuff about possible Sogdian origins, which is why I oppose. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Apaugasma thanks for your comment, this is the kind of reasoned comments I like to read. I see what you are saying. But here's the thing, and I ask this in earnest, are you positive that (regardless of Gutas) "Persian" in the ubiquitous claims by English-native-speakers equals with "ethnic Persian" and is not a synonym of Iranian, which is quite often the case in English speaking world? This question could arise anyhow, but in this case especially because Avicenna was actually born in Sogdia. The "Sogdians" were Iranians. Yes, Gutas very likely speaks of "Persian-Persian", but, like you said, he is skeptical speaking of "presumed origins" ans "spurious claims". If it were for me, I would call him neither a Sogdian nor a Persian but use another word, such as "Muslim polymath" or "Polymath from the Samanid Empire". Context matters, but it is also up to us to put in Wikipedia stuff that makes sense and we are positive about. Was he an ethnic Persian though? Was he "Sogdian"? Was he a Muslim from the Samanid Empire?
 * What about the pieces about it being possible to call his mother a Tajik and his native language may well have been Sogdian? Claims that his mother was anything other than Tajik/Sogdian don't seem to be ubiquitous, and I saw only one source saying his native language was Persian. Foltz, who differently from Gutas is proposing something, not rejecting it, is quite reliable, and his proposal makes sense given context and the other sources provided.    --Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See the thing is that since sources don't really care about where his mother was from, neither should we (that is the true meaning of WP:NPOV: we say as much and as little as the sources do). I thought for a while about using "Iranian" rather than "Persian", but that would be unduly applying a linguistic category (Sogdian was an Eastern Iranian language) to a statement of cultural background (kind of like when people used to speak about 'Semites', as if the linguistic category meant anything at all in cultural terms; this should really be avoided). Given the skepticism of a top-tier expert like Gutas, I would perhaps consider supporting replacing "Persian" by "Muslim", but then I also think that "Persian" is fine given the fact that Avicenna lived at the start of the 10th/11th century Persian Renaissance and clearly lived and worked in that cultural atmosphere. That's also probably why the sources speak so easily about "Persian", and as long as no expert comes up to explicitly refute this, we should follow that general tendency in the sources. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 16:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC) PS I'm glad you find my comment reasoned, but it would be nice if you, once you are unblocked, also would stick to reasoned comments on talk pages rather than taking refuge to disruptive editing and personal attacks. Thanks.


 * Oppose per above.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  11:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unless and until additional sources can be found to support this assertion. Until it can be effectively verified, it remains close to original research and giving it undue weight would most certainly be a problem. Should better (or just more) sources be found, this should absolutely be revisited.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This material is not encyclopedic wording.  And we have no way of ever knowing what his native language was (Persia at various points was a broad empire encompassing more than one language, but with Persian as the prestige language). He is known, however, as a Persian figure.  Strongly agree with Apaugasma about confusion of linguistic and general cultural labels.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021
Avicenne born in Balkh Afghanistan Fahizkarimi (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yea right Fahizkarimi (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021
Replace all instances of "Avicenna" to Ibn Sina (his correct name) except where stating it's Latin corruption/Latinization to Avicenna. It's a small change but an accurate one. (No one even speaks Latin anymore; people still speak Arabic) 142.150.72.151 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. That's a pretty significant change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Invention of steam distillation by Avicenna
There is a claim that steam distillation was invented by Avicenna which makes the rounds in all kinds of non-expert sources, and now also in our articles on distillation and steam distillation. However, I have not been able to find a truly reliable source for this. If it the claim is true, which I do not itself dispute, we should be able to find it in a work written by a historian of alchemy and chemistry, or by another historian of science. From WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. I do not consider the sources currently cited in the articles referred to above to be appropriate for the content, and therefore not reliable in context. We should either find a better source, or remove the statement. Any help with this would be appreciated (I posted a similar message to Talk:Distillation and Talk:Steam distillation). ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Section
The section header for "Other Contributions" should be moved in front of the subsection "Earth Sciences". --84.189.84.17 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The organization of the content is admittedly pretty bad here, but the stuff above 'Other contributions' purports to describe the contents of the Kitab al-Shifa, while the stuff under 'Other contributions' concerns contributions appearing in other works (though partly also in the Kitab al-Shifa). Just moving the section header is therefore not a viable option.
 * By the way, in the future you might want to use the edit semi-protected template. It notifies experienced editors that someone has requested a change on a semi-protected page like this. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see now. I was assuming that the book in question was about medicine, not about a lot more. Thanks for clarifying.
 * If you block the article, the onus is on you (not personally) to make it work. If someone reads this and refuses to change the article just because a template is missing, this person should immediatle stop working on the Wikipedia for good. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, surely any autoconfirmed user passing by the article may answer a request (like I did), it's just that when you use the edit semi-protected template, another user is guaranteed to answer your request (and rather quickly too) because the request is then placed on a special list watched by experienced users. That may not happen on many of the poorly watched or un-watched pages out there, where without a template your message may remain wholly unread for months, if not years... ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That would be a pretty silly case, blocking a page with nobody watching it. Par for the course for Wikipedia, I guess. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested correction, 14th century not 13th
Under medieval section

"As early as the 13th century when Dante Alighieri depicted him in Limbo alongside the virtuous non-Christian thinkers in his Divine Comedy"

The Divine Comedy was written in 1320, so it is 14th Century not 13th. Mikelwiki575 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ in the future, please consider using the edit semi-protected template: this is the perfect counterexample, but normally the template gets things done more quickly. Thanks! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)