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.
The article needs to make up its mind regarding Ibn Sina vs. Avicenna. As it stands, it randomly switches between the two forms. As the article title opted for Avicenna (I suppose, correctly under WP:UE, WP:UCN), it would stand to reason to use this form throughout (except, of course, where the name itself is under discussion). --dab(𒁳) 11:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The lead sentence, and in particular the part "was a Persian polymath" has been a major vandalism magnet for months. Could we please reformulate this to leave out the ethnicity? Perhaps by saying "was a polymath from the region of Bukhara"? - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not the correct way to face with vandalism. This is wiping out the question. The correct way is to semi-protect the article, or to activate "pending changes" for it. The huge number of vandalism in this particular sentence clearly shows that it's an important aspect of Avicenna's life, and a matter with this importance should be mentioned in the lead section of the article. Although, there should be a notice on the talk page, something similar to Talk:Rumi, to prevent other editors from changing this sentence without a consensus. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No, reformulating the lead keeps the article accessible for IP users like you, while at the same time preventing vandalism. I think that is a much better solution than continuously raising protection levels. The fact that there is so much vandalism tells us more about how nationalistic people are, rather than how important Avicenna's ethnicity is. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Articles should not be written with having people's nationalistic point of view in mind, that's not Wikipedia's problem. This is like censoring an article, because a few readers does not like to see a particular matter in an article (read Wikipedia's guideline on WP:CENSOR). A good example is Jennifer Lopez, the number of vandalism in the article clearly shows that how horny people are, but the article should not be written with having people's feeling in mind. Wikipedia should not censor that article and remove the pictures, for example, just because some readers have evil feelings about her. On the other hand, activating WP:PCPP on Avicenna's article still keeps the article accessible for IPs like me. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And exactly because Britanica does not censor the article, they have written "Avicenna -- Persian philosopher and scientist" in bold format. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see that, nvm... - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Avicenna had memorised the entire Quran by the age of 10
The same information is repeated twice, using different wording and quoting differen't sources. Has anyone read the whole text to find such errors? (I haven't).Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC) The adulthood doesn't quote any sources since 2009, in a text supported y 107 references and a long list of Further reading. Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)