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 WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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 true. Additionally, the second Arabic name listed does actually say ibn--does anybody have a source that suggests one is used over the other? Secondplanet (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
A quick search of the page reveals that "ibn" is used several times in the references and "bin" none. The Arabic has been changed to reflect this. Secondplanet (talk) 17:37, 13 August 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)
User:Nahid285 needs to use the talk page and gain consensus for the change(s) he wants, instead of edit warring. I have already posted information from "The Encyclopaedia of Islam" concerning Avicenna's place of birth on Nahid285's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at cleanup3. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.
A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
Will look at this article next. Will now tag article. This may take some time, the last one took months. --Merlinme (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of concentrating on the worst problems first I've done a search for "pioneer", "father" and "first", all words heavily over-used by Jagged_85. Ignoring routine uses of first, that gives:
Ibn Sīnā is also considered the father of the fundamental concept of momentum in physics. Really don't think he is.
In this, Ibn Sīnā is credited as being the first to correctly document the anatomy of the human eye, along with descriptions of eye afflictions such as cataracts. Need to check this, but sounds rather sweeping to me.
The Canon of Medicine was the first book dealing with experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials, and efficacy tests, and it laid out the following rules and principles for testing the effectiveness of new drugs and medications, which still form the basis of clinical pharmacology and modern clinical trials. Most of this is wildly over the top, based on previous research.
Avicenna was a pioneer of neuropsychiatry As far as I'm aware neuropsychiatry didn't even exist in any recognisable modern sense
He first described numerous neuropsychiatric conditions, including hallucination, insomnia, mania, nightmare, melancholia, dementia, epilepsy, paralysis, stroke, vertigo and tremor. I'd be staggered if this is true. The Romans and Greeks didn't know about epilepsy?
In chemistry, the chemical process of steam distillation was first described by Ibn Sīnā Need to check
As a chemist, Avicenna was one of the first to write refutations on alchemy, after al-Kindi. He wasn't a chemist in the modern sense.
In the chapters on mechanics and engineering in his encyclopedia Mi'yar al-'aql (The Measure of the Mind), Avicenna writes an analysis on the ilm al-hiyal (science of ingenious devices) and makes the first successful attempt to classify simple machines and their combinations sounds like hyperbole to me.
He first describes and illustrates the five constituent simple machines: the lever, pulley, screw, wedge, and windlass first to describe the lever???
He is also the first to describe a mechanism which is essentially a combination of all of these simple machines (except for the wedge). need to check
Father of modern medicine; Avicennian logic; concepts of inertia and momentum; important contributor to geology; pioneer of aromatherapy and neuropsychiatry I've already deleted inertia, momentum, neuropsychiatry. Need to check others.
If anyone wishes to check some of these for me, feel free. --Merlinme (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've had an initial sweep through. I've been quite aggressive in my cuts. If someone wants to put material back in, using references which they have personally verified, please do so. It's slightly scary though how web searches just produce wholesale copies of what is a lot of highly dubious Wikipedia material. --Merlinme (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 7 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Progress report: on diff 13 from this list. --Merlinme (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Reviving this thread as I have a bit of time. --Merlinme (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently on diff 20. --Merlinme (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently on diff 22. Can anybody verify any of the Astronomy details? There's a series of obscure and hard to verify references which all seem somewhat implausible. If no-one can verify (or provide other references) I'm tempted to delete the whole section. As far as I can tell astronomy is not generally considered one of Avicenna's most significant contributions. --Merlinme (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The only one I could find was, "A History of Arabic Astronomy" that references this;
"The study of astrology was refuted by Avicenna. His reasons were both due to the methods used by astrologers being conjectural rather than empirical and also due to the views of astrologers conflicting with orthodox Islam. He also cited passages from the Qur'an in order to justify his refutation of astrology on both scientific and religious grounds."
However the source, George Saliba (1994), A History of Arabic Astronomy: Planetary Theories During the Golden Age of Islam, p. 60, 67-69, only mentions Avicenna on page 69. I saw nothing on pages 60, 67 or 68 that had anything to do with Avicenna. Hope this helps. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Unarchive Jagged cleanup as I hopefully have a bit of time and I now have a JSTOR account. (Woohoo!) --Merlinme (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
(a) We may soon reach a point where Ibn Sina becomes his WP:ENGLISHWP:COMMON name, but we aren't there yet. Until the page has been moved, the WP:LEADSENTENCE begins with the version of the name we're using as the title. It's more common: that's why it's the title.
(b) I'm not sure what ابو علی سینا is but it's not "Ibn Sina". Don't include it in the lead with misleading romanization. If it is the Farsi form of Ibn-Sina, it's fine to include it again but you should include a gloss in italics immediately after: Persian: ابو علی سینا, Whatever This Really Says. It's Bu Ali Sina (which it seems to be) or something else, it doesn't go in the lead at all: it goes in the infobox under Other names.
(c) The inline comments were very polite, but it's more helpful to link to policy if we've got one. In the meantime, I'm shifting to the (slightly smaller) format used by the article on Muhammad (pbuh). If it's good enough for the Prophet, it's good enough for freethinkers like Avicenna. (My own opinion is that people can zoom their own browsers if they like and Arabic text is no reason to ruin the English formatting, but—like I said—it was very polite and we should aim to keep the use consistent across pages.)
(d) The short form of the name was given as Farsi and the long form given as Arabic. Both names are Arabic (fixed). The Farsi may look similar but be pronounced differently. If so, feel free to add in an italic romanization to capture how he or his people would have spoken his name. — LlywelynII 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not saying that it's unbiased (it ain't), but Avicenna at the 9th ed. EB has a pretty thorough treatment of why this guy was so important to medieval Europe and the ways in which they misunderstood but were influenced by him. — LlywelynII 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
As We Can see, the article does not give any indications on what kind of a disease caused his death.Why is that?Is it not mentioned in any of references?Rezameyqani (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty common for there to be no clear cause of death for historical figures before the modern era. Lots of people died from an unspecified fever, or "ague", or "colic" (in Avicenna's case). Off the top of my head, the Death of Alexander the Great is endlessly argued over, and the exact cause of death of John of England is unclear. We can't perform an autopsy, surviving doctor's notes are rare and probably not very helpful even where they exist, and it's hard to know which contemporary descriptions are reliable and accurate, if any at all. Famously, King John was alleged to have died from "a surfeit of peaches". --Merlinme (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)