Avicenna is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
[this] and [this] Notice that the editor who did all this is by far the top contributor to the article, with 350 edits. A great deal of what we have here is original research. There is a large group of articles at Iranica  its more neutral than what we have here. Also a good source is Goodman, Lenn Evan (1992). Avicenna. Routledge. ISBN9780415019293. Retrieved 9 July 2010.
Where is says " or in Arabic writing Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā (Arabic أبو علي الحسين بن عبد الله بن سينا)" the English doesn't correctly transliterate the Arabic. Either the English would be Alī al-Ḥusayn bin ʿAbd Allāh bin Sīnā or else the Arabic would be أبو علي الحسين ابن عبد الله ابن سينا .
They both mean the same thing, but they aren't the same name. I've never heard anyone say, for example, "Osama ibn Laden."
This is an extensive story of the working life of a major character, yet has been without references for 4 years. This is hardly good enough for the biography of a major historical figure. In fact, most of it and the subsequent section seem to be verbatim (or slightly modified from this by well-intentioned editors) from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica entry which appeared in earlier versions of this article (see history 2004). Should it simply be replaced with EB1911 text, or at least citations added to credit it? Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I added "Tajik-Persian" instead of "Persian" since the two group of people (Tajiks and Persians) are, because of 18th century political-events, no longer the exact same people. Pluss that in articles about scholars and historical peoples from Iran articles tend to use the term "Iranian" instead of "Persian".
I have reverted your unsourced addition, since all the sources for his ethnicity state Persian and make no mention of Tajik. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Tajik people are East-Persians and thus adding "Tajik-Persian" instead of Persian would be more accurate, given that Avicenna was born in the Eastern parts of the Persian world and given the fact that articles about historical West-Persians tend to use the word "Iranian" instead of Persian.
For only 100 year ago there was no significant difference between "Persian" and "Tajik", but because of modern geo-political events the two have different meanings now and thus "Tajik-Persian" would be more appropriate.
Our own opinions not normally relevant, we should use what the most reliable sources use (giving due weight to conflicting sources where necessary). I'm also not sure I understand your argument, as based on what you're saying he would have been considered a Persian at the time, it's only if we are considering him using current terminology that it might be correct to call him Tajik-Persian. In general we would normally use the appropriate contemporary term, not the appropriate modern term. Valentinian I was born in Cibalae, modern-day Vinkovci, which is part of Croatia. No-one would ever describe him as Croatian, though. He was a Roman. Similarly it makes no sense to describe Avicenna using distinctions which were created centuries after his death. --Merlinme (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Touche. A fair argument. I will not edit it back again. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)