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.
@Arjayay: The United Nations source is about "geographical names", surely that's a reliable source for geographical articles, but this article is not about geography, and I have a source about medieval Islamic civilization which says the etymology is unclear. -- Kouhi (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Kindly include it in the article, then. I'll rewrite the sentence to match. — LlywelynII 17:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record, an online version of the UN reference can be found here (Vol. II, which is the second document; 21 MB!). Page 31 only uses "Sina" to demonstrate how the letter sin is used, nothing etymological. It's not even the correct Sina: سینا (right) vs سیناء (wrong). I'd remove this incorrectly sourced piece of misinformation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
As below, the Persian form is identical but you're right that I was wrong to ignore the bit on the end when using it as a citation here. — LlywelynII 18:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Deserves its a separate section, but it could still use some work:
Avicenna doesn't need IPA, but if it gets one it should be sourced or removed. We're not talking about formal classical (or even ecclesiastical) Latin but English mangling of Latin mangling of an Arabic form of a Persian name. I certainly pronounce it closer to /ɪ/ than /ɛ/ and we shouldn't be snobbish or overly precious about one "correct" form existing.
Ibn Sina probably does need an IPA to clarify the unusual set of letters and to clarify that it's properly /iː/ and not /ɪ/. Needs sourcing, though.
This site, along with our Mount Sinai article's Farsi equivalent, suggests a connection between Sina and Sinai and from there a likely link to the Mesopotamian moon god Sin. This dictionary shows it might also come from a word for "breast" or a kind of tree, though, so—while we should dig in more to the etymology—we should wait for a reliable source to clarify which is the likely origin of the name.