Talk:Avicenna

Change name from Avicenna to Ibn Sina

While it is important to acknowledge that Ibn Sina is known (erroneously) as Avicenna in the West, having the article title as "Avicenna" and referring to him in the article as "Avicenna" rather than his actual name, Ibn Sina, is an erasure of his identity as a non-European. Ibn Sina is his actual name, Avicenna is the Latin corruption of his name. This is the equivalent of if we went to Shakespeare's Wikipedia page and renamed him to Sheikh Zabyir. The argument that "this is the English Wikipedia, so therefore we call him Avicenna" has no merit, as there are many Wikipedia articles about individuals named "Yusuf" without them being renamed to the English/Latin version of "Joseph". Aaleem912 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMON NAME and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's just how his name is commonly transliterated in English, nothing too deep - no one is denying his "non-European" identity. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's nothing too deep as you say, it should be fixed. The title should be his name rather than a European misunderstanding of it. Presenting his actual name is the neutral choice here.

I also disagree to the applicability of the "right great wrongs" article (which seems to be about verification). Noting how this article got Ibn Sina's name wrong and how it relates to eurocentrism is good, as these are things we should be thinking about in order to be respectful. June-tree (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, WP:COMMONNAME is our policy, & we adhere to policies. Ibn Sina is first noted in the article, but people are most likely to search for the common name & expect to see the article name be the same as the common name. Peaceray (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the policy on names, and I saw that "article titles with non neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use." Just from looking around online it seems like he is often referred to as Ibn Sina, so Avicenna isn't the name, and it seems to hit all 5 criteria for the common name policy. As Avicenna is a Latin European corruption of his name it doesn't seem to fit my notion of neutral.

I am new to this so forgive me if I'm misreading or missing more context (wow, there's a lot of policy!), but the apparent compliance with policy and it seeming more respectful and avoiding as much Eurocentric bias feel like good reason for a title change. People searching for Avicenna can just be redirected and learn his actual name. June-tree (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it. If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time etc. you may appreciate what you perceive as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, is today.

It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.

If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his actual name (e.g. پورسینا), as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. DrKC MD (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

And about por sina didn’t you dismiss the guy who said it? And that is not an actual name it is call a Kunea and if you anything about Ibn sina’s culture and Arabic you would know what it is. You are one of the most obnoxious act like a know it all I have ever seen. Yes please inform us more about a person we study the life of in 6th grade? Please do 78.139.198.171 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it. If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time etc. you may appreciate what you perceive as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, or Pour Sina, is today.

It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.

If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his actual name, as pronounced by himself, as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. DrKC MD (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a corruption wether you like it or not. It is not a translation go translate ابن سينا to English

and why would you keep a translation as the name itself?

put the man’s name end of story

you are too defensive and somewhat offended on the audacity of people wanting him to have his name as if you own the man.

His name is not common that each culture has a was of writing and saying it like Issac or Ibrahim.

I honestly have no idea how you are in charge here, but you shouldn’t. Dismissive, obnoxious, ignorant and mildly racist.

because you have Issues with your culture at the moment doesn’t give you the right to actually lash out on people

yes his works were respected, why do you think the name change? Let us not act like the church didn’t know what it was doing Mr Know it all. 78.139.198.171 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Per the article, "Avicenna is a Latin corruption of the Arabic patronym Ibn Sīnā (ابن سينا), meaning "Son of Sina". However, Avicenna was not the son but the great-great-grandson of a man named Sina." Evidently Ibn Sina wasn't his "actual name" either. —  AjaxSmack  04:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Correction

Needs correction:

His father was from Balkh. Balkh is a very famous city located in present day Afghanistan not Turkmenistan. You can confirm it with a quick and short Google search. I was born in Afghanistan that's why I am sure what I am talking about. 2607:FEA8:BA5:C450:8D76:240A:3F2B:21EC (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh here but; in Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not random Google searches. Being from Afghanistan doesn't give you a PHD in history, especially since Avicenna has no relation to Afghanistan, as it did not exist back then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.

Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and he has no connection to Turkmenistan.

Note Turkmenistan did not exist in the past! Zahgha (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.

Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and it is not correct to connect to Afghanistan either. Zahgha (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ibn-Sina was Ethnically Persian

Kansas Bear has taken it upon himself to edit as far as I am aware of Rumi and Ibn-Sina's pages to remove MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability".

This doesn't apply here, they're ethnically Persian figures, who worked in Persian, and were influenced by Persian.

Rumi is widely referred to as a Persian figure, see Rumi Talk page as well for consensus. Ibn-Sina is referred to as Persian in citation 23 and throughout the sources found on his page, as well as on Britannica.

Their ethnicities are as relevant to them as any Greek or Roman figure, who I consistently find are ethnically referred to in their lead paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

User Kansas Bear has edited more than 50 pages belonging to Persian and Iranian figures, removing the ethnicity. I took the labour to look at his contributions, and this "ethnicity removing" behaviour seems to be entirely concentrated on Iranian figures, never Arab figures like al-Kindi or Ibn Arabi or Averroes. I second this in saying that ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead section of this article as it is in Averroes' page and that of many other Islamic figures. It is completely ridiculous to have such a high protection status on a page just because one editor has requested it after his edits were reverted for obvious vandalism. شاه عباس (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a fluid concept, especially in the ancient world, often pertaining simply to citizenship or language more than anything else, and far removed from the modern, more formalized conception of ethnicity. Ancient 'Persia' was a sweeping concept that expanded from the original Pars to encompass, conceptually, much of Central Asia. That isn't an ethnicity; that's a generalization. If we take Rumi, what he certainly was was a Persian poet, i.e. a native Persian-speaking poet most famous for his Persian works. What he identified as ethnically, in the modern sense of the word, is anyone's guess. Often individuals in that day and age do not really seem to have imagined themselves as ethnically anything; identifying more with their home town or province - in all likelihood, it wasn't much of a concern to them. The one big exception in the Muslim world, then and now, are those obsessed with demonstrating some connection back to the Quraysh of Mecca, for reasons of status. As for Avicenna, he wrote primarily in Arabic, so culturally he clearly straddled the Arabic-Persian divide far more evenly than the likes of Rumi, in the true Abbasid tradition. It would probably be most apt to simply make a point to this effect in the lead, stating that he produced works in both Arabic (predominantly) and Persian. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We are not here concerned with self-identification or the notion of ethnicity as it operated in their heads (although, if you are interested, you can check out Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah where the function of ethnicity isn't that far fetched from what it is today in the MENA region). Of course, we are not here concerned with nation-states either. The problem here lies in selective scholarship and bias when it comes to Wikipedia articles, where Iranian figures are almost exclusively targeted. Avicenna's is the only page where "polymath" is given as a title without any sort of predicate, and for some reason it has the highest level of protection because one obviously biased user (whose edit history tells all) requested it. Not only is it ridiculous, it also goes against the previous consensus reached about this topic. شاه عباس (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If we look at gold-standard tertiary resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they treat the material in exactly the same way, eschewing tangled debates about ethnicity in favor of his importance as a scholar in the Islamic world. Avoiding tangled debates is the reason for MOS:ETHNICITY. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It reads "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."

In Avicenna's case, both his Iranian ethnicity and his Islamic faith are relevant to his contributions to world-philosophy. These are the predicates of his scholarship in most sources. In the same manner that Aristotle is described as Greek and Averroes as an Arab Muslim when they are mention in modern scholarship.

Once again, it is very peculiar that this removal of ethnic identification applies overwhelmingly to Iranians on Wikipedia. Ibn Khaldun for instance is explicitly stated to be an Arab, and so is Averroes. شاه عباس (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHER. Also, what is the problem with the ethnicity being removed from the lead, take a look at the body of the article, and you'll see that his ethnicity is mentioned. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not what that means. He's not notable for being any ethnicity; he is notable for being a great scholar of the middle ages/Islamic golden age. His origins are almost entirely irrelevant. Ethnicity shouldn't have been in the lead of the Averroes page either - I've removed it from there also now. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead section of the article on Averroes still contians a geographical signifier. It's absurd that the same not be the case for Avicenna. شاه عباس (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been identified that he lived under the Samanid Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Samanid empire is not a geography, it's a political state. If we follow the precedent of the Averroes article (following Andulus rather than alMurwārīd), we should say that he was from Khurâsân/Greater Iran (whence he was from) or Iran (where he lived during the majority of his active scholarly years). شاه عباس (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

All geographies are political defined by definition; they are just lines on maps. Al-Andalus was an Umayyad territory. The boundaries of the Samanid Empire at the time are relatively clear and specific to the subject. "Khorasan" is just a vague, shifting concept. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Not all geographies are restricted to political borders in any sense. Khurâsân and (Greater) Iran certainly aren't, being based on a shared cultural and historical heritage. Andalucia, furthermore, as a geographical concept, is not any less "vague" than Khurâsân. We use these categories based on conventions, without which everything is relative and it becomes impossible to communicate meaning based on a shared recognised reality. The same is the case here, if we hesitate to use "Khurâsân" or "Iran" where they are absolutely justified because they are historically relative, then when should we use them? I am happy for the article to only use "Muslim" as a predicate, and to only refer to Avicenna's geographical, rather than ethnic, origin. A vague statement on the courts wherein he was active is actually much more counterproductive than a simple reference to his geographic origin based on the conventional categories "Iran" and "Khurâsân", especially in a lead section that is supposed to be concise and straightforward. شاه عباس (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

He didn't actually come from Khorasan though, but the neighbouring Transoxiana (or Sogdia) - is that what you want to put? It's there in early life. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, that he was in the "employ" of the Sâmânid empire is false information. The cited sources say that he was ethnically Persian and that his father was in the employ of the Sâmânids. Ibn Sīnâ himself was in the employ of Daylamite dynasties. شاه عباس (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a better point - though he did serve Nuh II of the Samanids, he soon moved on to serve the Ma'munids and later the Buyid dynasty, so a wide mix. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Persian it's not only iranian that living in Iran, it's also tajiks. Avicenna was a persian/tajik. Tajiks is a same as a Persian 90.151.131.170 (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Then remove Greek from the lead on Socrates, Arab from Khaldun, etc, etc.

You won't because the racism/reductionism towards Persians is evident on this site. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? How is that helping with authoring of this article?

This is NOT a forum to vent perceived grievances.

WP has a zero tolerance for racism and if you have an actual example of such then please follow the proper procedure and policy. I would suggest you consider the possibility that not getting your way in this discussion very well may have nothing to do with any racism, prejudice, or biases. DrKC MD (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ibn Sina was a Persian. This has also been mentioned by UNESCO.Iroony (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There is clear anti-Iranian bias in many Iran-related pages on Wikipedia. The fact that the ethnicity of Avicenna, Khayyam and many others is removed from their lead paragraphs is a disheartening development that must be addressed by the admins. The fact that they are ethnically Persian is important given that they contributed to the survival of the Persian culture, language and identity. Without these people, Persian would have been another lost ethnicity/language, just like the dozens that were erased after the Islamic conquest. While the article does not need to open with a statement of their ethnicity, it can at least elaborate on it in the following line or paragraph in the introduction - 24.225.217.56 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he was Persian or Arab, the current text describing him in the Biography section is offensive, as it refers to “Persian stock.” “Stock”, as in “breeding stock”, is an inappropriate word for referring to humans under any circumstance and i request that this be changed to “heritage” or a similarly neutral word that does not relate to animals. Scihard (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2024

The main name is Ibn Sina, Avicenna is a nickname that should be in the paragraph not the Title. 100.15.218.54 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The WP:COMMONNAME of this scholar is Avicenna.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

His name.

I know it was incredibly hard and inconvenient back in the day to say “Ibn Sīnā” but don’t you think it’s time to give him his name back? I mean all of that talk of representation and cultural appropriation that’s happening in the west, does that include our scientists who got their names stolen to “fit”. his western name should be in the () and his Actual name or what we call his Kunea should be the title of the page Ibn Sīnā

thank you 78.139.198.171 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Avicenna and Ibn Sina are not different names, they are different romanisations of the same name. We typically use whatever spelling is preferred by the majority of current sources, and it would appear based on the sources cited in the article that "Avicenna" is still more commonly used in the 21st century (although "Ibn Sina" is being used more often). Compare e.g. Aristotle, not Aristotélēs. ITBF (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A typo has managed to snake its way into this sentence: "Sometime later, {{hiss}} father invited the physician and philosopher al-Natili to their house to educate ibn Sina" Can we get someone with permissions to cobrect this typo? 🐍🐍🐍 KEP95 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Change hiss to his KEP95 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

Why because of politics they hide that he was a persian.are all of us bad guys that world should not know?shame that persian did very goog works for this world but never been respected. Mike tiger111 (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

In the lead

'His philosophy was of the Muslim Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.'

The term 'Muslim Peripatetic school' is not mentioned in the source and there is nothing like Muslim Peripatetic school. so it should be edited to :

'His philosophy was of the Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.' 207.96.13.12 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

'was a preeminent philosopher and physician of the Muslim world,[4][5] flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age'

must change to

'was a Persian philosopher and physician preeminent in the Muslim world [4][5]. He was flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age' Zahgha (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, a consensus was reached on this above.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

In the popular culture section, There's a novel by Egyptian writer Youssef Zidane about Ibn sina called Fardaqan, published in Arabic and translated to Italian and Persian, and covers Ibn sina time during his imprisonment in the castle and take flashbacks on his life and his work. Marclyo (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Annh07 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:SNOW. The core justification given for the proposal is clearly not the case. (closed by non-admin page mover) Remsense ‥ 论 15:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Avicenna → Ibn SinaIbn Sina – His actual name was Ibn Sina Avicenna is less common nowadays mostly used is Ibn Sina and according to Google trends Therealbey (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't use Google Trends, we use actual attestation in reliable sources. The corresponding tool is Ngrams, which indicates this is not a remotely plausible move. Remsense ‥ 论 15:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Therealbey: Please consider asking on talk first if you think something is amiss with prominent articles like this before making requests, which have to be closed by others. Remsense ‥ 论 15:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Google statistics#Google Trends search statistics Therealbey (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. You should read it first, including the banner at the top that says "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." Remsense ‥ 论 16:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

My mistake! Can you point out the guidelines on Google ngrams viewer ? Therealbey (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The guideline is, of course, just WP:NC. Ngrams is a tool that searches English-language publications, is all. It is a tool we use to determine whether a criterion applies. Remsense ‥ 论 18:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but what about WP:SET? It says we can use Google Trends for popularity tests . On the other hand, you said, "We don't use Google Trends". Therealbey (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

We use tools for what they are designed to tell us. Trends tells us what people search for, while Ngrams tells us what sources say. Again, if you read the actual relevant policy, not another information page that is largely unrelated to the topic at hand, you see we care about recognizability, largely reflected in what English-language sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 19:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Thanks for guiding, appreciate that Therealbey (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

Change preeminent philosopher to preeminent persian philosopher.

This is the case for Britanica and most other sources as well. It is uncontroversial to mention a well-known figure’s ethnicity. Mamin13799 (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per this and other discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2025

Edit Request: Change Ibn Sina's Name from Arabic to Persian**

I am requesting a change in the name of Ibn Sina from the Arabic to Persian. While acknowledging the historical context in which Persian scholars often wrote in Arabic, it is crucial to emphasize Ibn Sina's Persian heritage. Given that modern Persian still uses Arabic script, changing his name to better reflects his Persian origins along his Islamic identity, because Persian still was a language of Islam that time.

Although Ibn Sina was indeed a prominent Islamic scholar, his contributions to various fields such as medicine, philosophy, and science were part of Persian culture and heritage, rather than exclusively "Arab Knowledge and achievements." This change will help to accurately highlight his Persian identity and the significant contributions made by Persian scholars to global knowledge. Themanlonewolf (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Not clear what specific changes are requested. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 07:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed summary for technical prose

I've been using Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental large language model to create summaries for the most popular articles with {{Technical}} templates. This article, Avicenna, has such a template in the "Metaphysical doctrine" section. Here is the paragraph summary at grade 5 reading level which Gemini 2.5 Pro suggested for that section:

Avicenna was a thinker who studied why things exist. He believed there's a difference between knowing what something is, like its idea, and the fact that it actually exists. He argued that things don't just start existing on their own; something else must cause them to exist. Avicenna thought about things that might exist if caused, and one special thing, like God, that must exist all by itself and is the cause for everything else. He described this necessary being as unique and simple, unlike physical things. Later, some other scholars disagreed with some of Avicenna's ideas.

While I have read and may have made some modifications to that summary, I am not going to add it to the section because I want other editors to review, revise if appropriate, and add it instead. This is an experiment with a few dozen articles initially to see how these suggestions are received, and after a week or two, I will decide how to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Cramulator (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a viable way to contribute to our articles; such summaries would ideally reflect a person reasoning as to what cited sources are saying. Remsense ‥ 论 17:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I am retracting this and the other LLM-generated suggestions due to clear negative consensus at the Village Pump. I will be posting a thorough postmortem report in mid-April to the source code release page. Thanks to all who commented on the suggestions both negatively and positively, and especially to those editors who have manually addressed the overly technical cleanup issue on six, so far, of the 68 articles where suggestions were posted. Cramulator (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) was accused of being a Kafir and an atheist

he was mentioned as kafir and leader of kafirs during the time, even imam gazali has accused the same. This should be mentioned in the lead.

https://www.thecollector.com/ibn-sina-al-ghazali-philosophy-heresy/

https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/1202/1/1501043%20AHMED,%20SULAIMAN.pdf?

https://www.academia.edu/114106393/Doubting_the_Faith_of_Philosophers_Understanding_the_Problems_of_Takfeeri_Paradigm_for_Approaching_Ibn_Sina? 雄奇 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

ابن سینا

It’s an undeniable historical fact that Avicenna (Abu Ali Sina) was Iranian — born in Bukhara when it was a center of Persian culture, writing in Persian and Arabic, and contributing fundamentally to the Persian scientific and philosophical heritage. Locking a Wikipedia article doesn't rewrite history.

Sadly, Wikipedia, once a symbol of open knowledge, is gradually falling into chronic stagnation — where coordinated interest groups and behind-the-scenes influence sometimes overshadow factual accuracy. This is not just disappointing; it’s dangerous. When such dynamics take hold, the values, identities, and cultural heritage of nations are manipulated to fit narratives that serve power, not truth.

National identity is not a debate topic — it's a matter of historical record. No amount of editing wars or page protection can erase that. Dan (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dan: I am not sure what you are getting at here. The Early life and education states that Avicenna was born in c. 980 in the village of Afshana in Transoxiana to a Persian family. That is supported by four citations. Are you saying that Avicenna was not Persian? Peaceray (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Re-read what I actually wrote, because I never said this Dan (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2025

Please change Avicenna in all instances including title to Ibn E Sina. There was no such person ad Avicenna and this westernised version of my ancestors name is unnecessary. 86.18.4.7 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done As the article states, he is commonly known in the West as Avicenna. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy that governs the use of Avicenna. Family preference fails to overrule that & you have provided no verification from reliable source to reinforce your claims. Peaceray (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2025

Change "was a preeminent philosopher and physician of the Muslim world." to "was a preeminent Persian philosopher and physician of the Muslim world." Added "Persian". Explanation: Almost all biographies of historical figures, especially philosophers and polymaths, in multicultural contexts specify their ethnic or national background in the lead. The article lead for Avicenna does not mention he is Persian, which needs to be fixed. Avicenna's Persian identity is well-documented in reliable sources (e.g., Encyclopaedia Iranica, Britannica). Adding "Persian" improves accuracy and aligns with Wikipedia's practice for notable figures from large empires and cultural spheres.

Sources: Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Avicenna Encyclopaedia Iranica: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avicenna-i/ Faraz Farsiani (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per this discussion and others. This change requires consensus. tony 18:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Moved this argument to a dedicated section below (#MOS:ETHNICITY: case for "Persian" descriptor in lead) for clearer discussion on the merits. Kasra str (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

he was Iranian

He is Iranian and was born in the village of Afshan (located in present-day Uzbekistan). Uzbekistan was part of Iran at the time and separated many years later and even now he is considered Iranian like Tajiks, even famous cities of Uzbekistan (Samarkand and Bukhara) actually have Iranian roots along with Iranian history (Hafez mentioned them).This is a distortion of the truth! You are misrepresenting the nationality of our scientific geniuses and poets to the world, just like the nationality of Rumi. How can you allow yourself to do such a thing?~2025-43361-47 (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here? The article says verbatim he was "from a Persian family." His Iranian roots are very clear, they're just not overtly included in the short description because of factors like MOS:ETHNICITY. That being said, another user proposed including his ethnic roots in the short description below. You are free to comment on that and provide your input. There is a case to be made for including it there, as it does encompass the notability standards for writing it in the summary, in my opinion. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Ibn-Sina was Persian

was a preeminent PERSIAN philosopher and physician. ~2026-12155-11 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is true & his Persian origins are noted under the biography section. However, that most of his works were written in Arabic & his influence on the Islamic world has ensured his notability as a preeminent MOSLEM philosopher & physician. Peaceray (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Whether more emphasis is put on his importance as a Persian philosopher and physician, or a Muslim philosopher physician is totally arbitrary. The answer is both, at the end of it all. Technically, the two of you are both correct. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY: case for "Persian" descriptor in lead

Opening a dedicated section to discuss the MOS:ETHNICITY case for including "Persian" in the lead. Prior threads on this question have either been declined edit requests (which require pre-existing consensus rather than building it) or discussions that ended without resolving the policy question on its merits, so I'd like to put the strongest version of the argument on the record for proper discussion.

MOS:ETHNICITY says ethnicity should not be in the lead "unless relevant to the subject's notability." Ibn Sina's Persian background is directly relevant to his notability for two concrete reasons: He is one of the small number of figures who wrote substantive philosophical and scientific works in New Persian (notably the Daneshnameh-ye Alai, dedicated to Ala al-Dawla), at a moment when Arabic was the overwhelmingly dominant scholarly language. That linguistic choice is a recurring subject of scholarship on him and is not incidental, it is part of why he matters in the history of Persian intellectual culture specifically, not just "the Muslim world" generically. Reliable tertiary sources of the kind Wikipedia treats as authoritative consistently identify him as Persian in their lead descriptions: Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Persian philosopher and scientist"), Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopedia.com ("Persian-born Islamic philosopher and physician"), and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, which situates him under the Persian Samanid dynasty in its opening biographical section. When the most authoritative reference works converge on this descriptor at the top of their entries, omitting it from Wikipedia's lead is a departure from standard practice. The body of the Wikipedia article itself already states he was "born in c. 980 in the village of Afshana in Transoxiana to a Persian family," so the question is purely one of lead placement, not of factual dispute. On the WP:OTHER point raised in earlier threads: it is true that other-stuff-exists is not a standalone argument. But MOS:ETHNICITY is meant to be applied consistently, and comparable examples — Averroes (Andalusian Arab), Al-Kindi (Arab), Ibn Khaldun (Arab), Aristotle (Greek) — do include ethnic or geo-cultural descriptors in their lead sections. If the standard for inclusion is "relevant to notability," Ibn Sina clears the same bar those figures clear. Excluding "Persian" here while retaining ethnic descriptors for comparable figures is the inconsistent application of MOS:ETHNICITY, not the faithful one. The earlier suggestion to instead note that he wrote in both Arabic and Persian is reasonable but does not substitute for the ethnic descriptor. Language of composition and ethnic background are different facts, and the body of the article already establishes both. The proposed wording — "a preeminent Persian philosopher and physician of the Muslim world" — is concise, well-sourced, and consistent with how comparable figures are introduced in their leads. Kasra str (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Support — I agree his Persian ethnicity should be put in the short description. You make a very good case for it here while keeping MOS:ETHNICITY in mind. Given it's been confirmed by so many reliable sources and it's an issue of wide disagreement, making the issue clear by including it would be a good idea. I would argue, per MOS:ETHNICITY it is notable that he was Persian considering his geographical place of birth - this is one reason so much dispute surrounds the topic. Ideally, it would be included in the short description but even if other users disagree with their own perspective of policy, it's not a huge deal. The info is already described in his biography section. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @HarvardJock OP is likely an AI generated slop, while I have no opinion at all in this specific matter, but I caught Kasra using a hallucinated quote in the Persian Gulf talk page to push a nationalistic narrative. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't realize that. Thanks for informing me. I'm usually good at detecting AI and for whatever reason this didn't look like it to me. I suppose this means we disregard his entire post and his call for discussion on the matter? HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about this discussion, I followed the trail from their contributions page. His post in the Persian Gulf Talk page is most definitely AI, he referenced a quote in the Britannica article that simply does not exist, that's also other than the obvious md formatting.. dem dashes and bulletpoints lmao — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at his other posts, it does look like AI. Perhaps I'm not as good at detecting it because I use dashes regularly and I'm not AI lol. Anyway, once it's confirmed he's AI and his account gets flagged or blocked, I will strikethrough his post and comments. Ironically enough, he did make a good case for MOS:ETHNICITY being inapplicable here insofar as excluding Avicenna ethnic background in the short description, making a solid case for including it. Although, this was likely the AI doing the work. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to respond to this directly because the accusation is unfair and frankly careless. I have spent hours trying to read through the relevant policies, sources, and past discussions before posting. You may disagree with my interpretation, wording, or argument, but reducing that work to “AI slop” is dismissive and not helpful. More importantly, the specific claim being made against me is false. The quote from the Britannica article does exist. I provided the citation, unfortunately i cannot attach the screenshot showing the exact passage. So the statement that I used a “hallucinated quote” is not correct. It seems the source was not checked carefully before that accusation was made. Could you please check the accusation before jumping to conclusion. Innocent until proven guilty I assumed.

If someone has a problem with the source, its reliability, its relevance, or how I used it, that is completely fair to discuss. But saying I fabricated or hallucinated a quote when the text is visibly present in the cited article is a serious accusation, and it should not be made casually.

I also do not think it is appropriate to use speculation about AI, formatting style, dashes, or bullet points as a shortcut to dismiss the substance of a discussion. Please address the actual argument and the actual sources. I am not asking anyone to agree with me automatically, but I do expect basic fairness: check the reference before accusing me of inventing it. The user @A Contemporary Nomad says " I have no opinion at all in this specific matter" but does not bother to check the facts stated with valid sources. Kasra str (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sources are correct, the Britannica article does in fact describe what you've written in your post. Not that there's any need for it, there's already countless sources that describe Avicenna as being Persian and it's the primary ethnicity written in his description in this article. The relevant issue here concerns including his Persian ethnicity in the short description, in which, like I already said, I support including. For the record, I have engaged with your argument and I agreed with it. It's up to other editors to see if they agree, and if so, then we can add that detail in the article summary. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@HarvardJock thanks for actually engaging with the argument fairly. I really appreciate it. I'm taking Contemporary Nomad's fabrication accusation to ANI Kasra str (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)