Talk:Avicenna

good sources/Rfc

[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 [1] its more neutral than what we have here. Also a good source is Goodman, Lenn Evan (1992). Avicenna. Routledge. ISBN 9780415019293. Retrieved 9 July 2010.

sacrifice integrity

For a good laugh, check out this Turkish UNESCO site that claims Ibn Sina was a Turk:

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/mow/nomination_forms/turkey_works_ibn_sina_suleymaniye_manuscript_library.pdf

'Though there is no dispute about where Ibn Sina was born or died, his origin is open to discussion. Yet according to his own words in his famous “Al-Qanun Fi’l Tıbb” (Vol:2) it will not be a far-fetched assumption to accept him as a Turk.

Ibn Sina, the eminent scientist, philosopher, pharmacologist, theorist, poet and successful politician of Turkish origin is mostly known as a clinician under his Latin name “Avicenna”.'

BY

Prof. Dr. Berin U. YURDADOĞ Prof.Dr. Nilüfer TUNCER Prof.Dr. İrfan ÇAKIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Pan-Turkism at its best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychology

I have inserted a tag on account of the wording in the Psychology section of this article as it appears currently to suggest that De Anima is a translation of Avicenna's work. This may be misleading. De Anima is the Latin title of the work Perì Psūchês (Regaring the Soul) by Aristotle but the current wording makes it sound as if it is an original work by Avicenna.

I understand that Aristotle's work was translated into Arabic by Avicenna but I am unclear if he translated it from the original Greek, from a later Greek or other translation, or from a Latin translation. I believe it may be that Avicenna's work was later translated into Latin but cannot verify this, nor if there are separate Latin translations from the Arabic and From the Greek. Perhaps this element could be expanded therefore to clarify who translated what, from what, into what, and when, as a lot can be lost as well as added in translation.

LookingGlass (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This may well be a User:Jagged_85 problem, i.e. an edit which was made without proper understanding of the sources, and which tended to emphasise Avicenna's achievements at the expense of those who went before him (such as Aristotle). I haven't however checked and don't really have the time to do so at the moment. If you have some understanding of the subject matter, just rewrite the whole section using sources you have available to you. Don't worry too much about the current text; if your understanding is different to what the article currently says, you are probably right.

Alternatively you can attempt to verify the current information using the current references, plus any other sources you have available to you. Again, if anything looks at all dubious or can't be verified, just get rid of it; it's probably wrong. --Merlinme (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Name in Persian (Pur-e Sina) is probably original research

This Persian name was added Pur-e Sina(son of Sina). This was added by IP 130.229.49.82 without any sources. It seems to be original research, it is a translation of Ibn Sina's Arabic name [Ibn Sina means Son of Sina]. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not do a little research? Bibliotheca Indica, Volume 61, Issue 2, by Asiatic Society (Calcutta, India), Asiatic Society of Bengal, page 36.[2]--Pur i Sina signifies the same as Ibn Sina.

I guess only "honest" editors can find such information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please no Wp:Personal attacks, thank you. I did research and could not find Pur-e Sina used for Ibn Sina, you used Pur-i Sina, but still thank you for finding a source, however it is snippet and it is unclear to what extent and purpose this name is used. It is certainly not widespread. All the sources for Pur-i Sina seem to be based on a modern Iranian book written by Saeed Nafisi. (Zindagi va-kar va-andishah va-ruzgar-i Pur-i Sina ((Zindagi va-kar va-andishah Pur-i Sina- زندگی و کار و اندیشهٔ پورسینا،) (Tehran: Kitabkhana-yi Danish, 1953 -54). DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's a personal attack, then you should take your own advice(ie.list of massacres in Turkey). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Another (minor) point on his name

Where is says " or in Arabic writing Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā[2] (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."