Talk:Avicennism

Ibn-e-Sina wasn't an Islamic Philosopher, he was an anti-Islamic Philosopher. This is all lies. He belongs to the movement of Anti-Islamists back then. The fact that Al-Ghazali was against him proves that. This article has no single word of truth in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.34.42 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avicennism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Several paragraphs go unreferenced in this article. Specifically, paragraphs including all of the ones in the "Study of Avicennan philosophy" section, the paragraph beginning with "Early Islamic philosophy, imbued as it is with Islamic theology, distinguishes more clearly than Aristotelianism the difference between essence and existence.", and most of the "Cosmology" section contain information that are unreferenced and can therefore be contested. Please resolve these issues, then feel free to return the article for a renomination. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

sources

If you want an article on this subject read this; Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman Published by Routledge, 1992 ISBN 041501929X, 9780415019293 240 pages J8079s (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodman Does mention "Avicennism" but its not whats in the article.J8079s (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to dispute using {{Hoax}}, instead of {{disputed}}, but taking a look at the history I discovered one user who have a history of misrepresenting sources heavily. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Given the Jagged problems, I can't see the point stubbing this, so I've redirected it to A, which effectively has a long stub section on this anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Avicennism" has been widely discussed by academics and deserves its own article. You need to work on trimming the article rather than wiping out history as if it never existed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to argue to the point, rather than evading it. The issue is not whether it deserves its own article, but whether the Jagged-polluted version is salvegable. I don't think it is; certainly, until you make some effort to remove the Jagged-errors, please don't restore it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked over the long discussion at the Jagged RfC, and glanced over the material in this article before it was turned into a redirect. I've had occasion to link to Avicennism in the past because I sometimes write about medicine in classical antiquity and its continuation as a humanistic tradition into the Renaissance, including the use of Arabic texts by Renaissance scholars. Deleting this article was precipitous, in my view; when one looks through the sources, they include university presses such as Oxford and SUNY, as well as standard academic journals and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Isn't there a way to address some of the problems by tagging or cutting out sections, paragraphs, or sentences rather than eliding the whole article? Redirecting Avicennism to Avicenna is no more informative or useful than it would be to redirect Neoplatonism to Plato. (As a side note, long passages of Arabic obviously don't belong here; they should be translated, and the Arabic given only when the exact words of the passage are necessary for reference — for instance, if they pose difficulties of interpretation in English, or ambiguities.)

I might also note that I do have some insight into the nature of the problem. I've been involved for more than a year in a set of articles that were contaminated by a non-neutral POV (and boy was it a whopper of a pernicious POV). In that case also it was proposed that all articles the now-banned user worked on should be stubbed or turned into redirects. But in fact the banned user had drawn on a number of legitimate sources, other editors had also made significant contributions, and what needed to happen was rewording to remove the particular slant, along with judicious editing and cutting. So I understand that this is difficult. I just find this redirect rash, and wonder whether an interested party could cull the article for some usable info. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the long section on A-ism in the A article? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say there are two problems with that. One, if it's on Avicennism, and not on Avicenna's own work, it doesn't belong there. Like Neoplatonism, or Platonism in the Renaissance, it's a topic that needs to be considered in its own right, because what becomes of Avicenna's ideas once they leave his hands is no longer about him per se. So if you consider that treatment to be adequate (or at least acceptable), it should be reduced to a summary in the Avicenna article with a "Main" tag to see this article, to which the material should be moved. Two, I find the treatment within that article confusing in its presentation for the very reason that it doesn't distinguish sufficiently between Avicenna's body of work and ideas, and the tradition he spawned. Therefore, when I'm redirected there, I don't in fact see a clear description of what "Avicennism" means. (I'm involved in editing a number of other articles that require huge amounts of research and time, or I'd try to offer more practical help; apologies for just commenting without bringing shovel and work gloves.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was mostly trying to avoid duplication, and Jaggedism. So moving the A-ism section from there, into the article here, would be OK by me, but only as long as someone actually checked it for accuracy, since it probably suffers from Jagged too. Broadly, my position is that the current state is a mess; having the mess in fewer articles is better, because there is more chance of someone sorting it out and removing inconsistencies William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, some things I'm working on are harder than writing an article from scratch because I'm trying not to throw the baby out with the bath water (even when I'm not sure the baby hasn't already drowned) and trying to respect what others have done that's legitimate. "Mess" is the operative word. Still think something here would be good, even if it's four summary paragraphs. Good luck. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I keep being told "see talk" and every time I check, I see nothing but [PA redacted - WMC], who apparently made the unanimous redirect decision. Flagged as vandalism and calling on administrators to look into it. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

False allegations of vandalism are a breach of civility. We've been through this with AAM just recently, so its off to WQA with you. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "calling on administrators to look into it"; assuming you mean the request for page protection, it has been declined [1] but was anyway rather odd: semi-protection would not have helped William M. Connolley (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any consensus or at least an agreement to redirect the page ? No we don't. So feel free to explain why you chose to redirect rather than doing a "clean up" in the same manner it was done to other articles. Also, why are you talking about civility when you have repeatedly attacked me and others with your "acting like Jagged" slanders. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits are also getting close to violating the Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Dialectric (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to remain in place, and not be redirected; as was eloquently suggested by Cynwolfe, and seconded by Al-Andalusi and myself. -Aquib (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe did not say that the article should stay in place William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from above "Still think something here would be good, even if it's four summary paragraphs. Good luck. Cynwolfe (talk) 9:26 am, 17 May 2011, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)"

Which is, rather clearly, not the unambiguous endoresment of the current article you were suggesting. The current article is a disaster area; Cynwolfe (if I read him correctly) is suggesting replacing it by the four paras that appear in Avicenna about A-ism. Your position, here, is very much like it has been elsewhere: to persistently deny that any changes should be made to fix up Jagged's errors William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is a {{Hoax}} see talk above see also WP:TE J8079s (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your characterization contradicts Cynwolfe's remarks. I am taking Cynwolfe as knowledgeable on the subject. If you are knowledgeable as well and you disagree, that does not negate Cynwofe's opinion. It is not an "all or nothing" contest. WP:NPOV. -Aquib (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from other aspects of the cleanup, I have consistently opposed actions that obscure or delete article history. If there is an article to be written, the history is a good guide to the potential content. If the article is redirected, it could remain buried indefinitely. In fact, obliterating article history is outside the scope of the cleanup. If you think the article doesn't belong here, why are you redirecting it? Because you can't accomplish your goal through AfD? -Aquib (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

I am going to reprimand everyone including my self for edit warring J8079s (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

fix it

• If you don't have time leave as a re-direct. If you need info on Avicenna for school or other reasons see Avicenna at Iranica [2] (Iranica does not have a page for Avicennism)
• If you do have time Avicennism is not a common term see google book search [3] there are no books about Avicennism although many books use the term none have chapters or sections labeled so. See Corbin, Henry (1998). The voyage and the messenger: Iran and philosophy. North Atlantic Books. pp. xxvii, 80, 93, 101. ISBN 9781556432699. Retrieved 24 May 2011.

A definition from 1901:

Avicennism. The doctrine of Avicenna, the greatest thinker of the Muslim world in the East.

Avicenna's philosophy consists mainly of Aristotelianism plus Neo-Platonism; but the mystic elements drawn from the latter are affected by Mazdaism (q. v.). He is thus interested mainly in philosophy on its religious side, and his system is a doctrine of Being, based on Aristotle. God is necessary being; space, time, and the like, which receive necessity from God, are actual being; while the objects of the physical sciences are possible being. God is thus shot through all things, and the doctrine of emanation mediates between a crude creationism and an equally crude materialism. Hence Avicenna's doctrine of an 'active' intellect, common to all men, imparted to them, and destined to return again to God. In spite of this, Avicenna holds personal immortality. His doctrines had wide influence in mediaeval thought. Those who opposed Averroes respected Avicenna, not perceiving that the later thinker only drew the logical conclusions to which the earlier unconsciously pointed. It should be noted that his influence is most marked in Dante and the Mystics. Baldwin, James Mark (1901). Dictionary of philosophy and psychology: including many of the principal conceptions of ethics, logic, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, mental pathology, anthropology, biology, neurology, physiology, economics, political and social philosophy, philology, physical science, and education; and giving a terminology in English, French, German and Italian. The Macmillan company. pp. 97–. Retrieved 24 May 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

• Link to history [4]
• I suggest starting in WP:userspace or at Avicenna

J8079s (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good faith

Although I see a clear consensus to make this page a re-direct myself, WMC, Rursus, and Cynwolfe in favor and feel I have addressed the issues raised by AAM. as a sign of good faith I will put up a stub (probably more like disambiguation). I'll give this a few hours but I think its been up to long now.J8079s (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

J, I perceive the outline of a philosophic impulse here, moving on from ibn-Rushd to find expression in ibn-Sina; later to influence Dante. If I am correct, why should we not have an article on it? I understand we have plenty of articles on Japanese railway stations and Brazilian soap operas, why not this one? If it is a proper term, and it has no book, why not an article? We have a couple of journal articles. [5]. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on subjects that have no books written on them alone. -Aquib (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, and probably will, no matter how often people explain it. I'll try again though. Having an article would be fine. Having an article containing the text that this article currently contains isn't fine, cos its junk. Keeping a redirect until someone is prepared to actually write a decent article would be the best solution William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes an article on Avicennism is even a good idea Corbin would be a source. In most cases its better to have Something than to insist on Something good however in this case what we have is worse than nothing as its just a dump for any thing that could be found that mentioned Avicenna whether or not it had anything to do with Avicennism. The history is really of no value as the original was cut and pasted from Avicenna. I feel that my offer to create a stub is a very generous one in light of the consensus (about which there is discord) J8079s (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact that is not my point. It has never been my point. My point is a redirect will obscure the history of the article, and obscure the fact the article needs attention. Now, I am willing to discuss this, would be happy to do so, but in point of fact I have made this statement several times in several different places and I have yet to receive a reply or any discussion. -Aquib (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear on the implications of using a disambiguation in this context, as is mentioned by J above. I assume this is a redirect to a disambiguation page, but in this scenario it would seem to have the opposite effect. To take a concept a mingle it with other related terms, one of which would be the correct one anyway? -Aquib (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, if that is your problem, that you can rest easy. A redirect doesn't obscure the article history, it remains fully available William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced it is not obscured; In other words, I am not convinced redirected articles are as likely to get the attention they need in order to be recovered. The more I look at this article, the more important it seems to be. -Aquib (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring merely because you don't understand the way article history is done is very bad. If you think the article text needs attention, then give it some attention. So far you've done absolutely nothing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I should probably also address the "no consensus" given as a reason for reverting by AAM and Al-A in edit summaries. This isn't an argument: there is clearly no universal agreement on either version, so "no consensus" isn't an argument for reverting the article to another "no consensus" version. If the argument is "no consensus means the article should default to its prior state" then no: that isn't a valid argument either. You have to argue why your version is good. I've argued why the Jagged version is bad, and I see no attempt by AAM or Al-A or anyone else to argue that it is good William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

in defense of Avicennism or Hikmat Al Mashreqiyyah

@Sa.vakilian:,@Aquib American Muslim:,@William M. Connolley:I think that there is clear distinction between Avicennism(Hikmat Al MAshreqiyyah) with Aristotelian views of Avicenna. here some points have to pointed out: the first is that Avicenna has two different part of scientific life. in first part he is affected by Aristotelian school of thought but in second period not only he is not Aristotelian but also he invented a philosophy by the name of Easten philosophy or Hikmat Mashreqy. the second point comebacks to translation of Hikmat Mashreqy which caused many misunderstandings between scholars. according to these translation some bodies like Edaward packook,one of the translators of Hayy ibn Yaqdhan and also F.B. Pusey had misunderstandings of Hikmat Mashreqiyyah.Edaward packook known the Hikmat Mashreqyyah as Indian philosophy and F.B. Pusey known it as illuminative philosophy.also Karadovoo known Hikmat mashreqi as a kind of Illuminative philosophy according to words of Ibn Rosh or Averroes.Max Hortenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hortenknown known Hikmat Al Mashreqi as myth. Huart also counted the Hikmat al mashreqi as Neo-Platonism.but among these scholars Nellino not only knows the Avicennism or Hikmat Al Mashreqi something which is different of Aristotelian views but also pointed out that Avicenna's views in Hikmat Mashreqi clearly different of his view in The book of healing.Nallino believes that Avicenna clearly explain his views on philosophy regardless of Aristotelian principles. also Lui Masignion knows Hikamt Mashreqi as reconciliation between philosophy in Greek sense with Hikmat in Sami sense. for further information see here:http://cgie.org.ir/fa/publication/entryview/16140--m,sharaf (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

deletion by the name of redirection

@Sa.vakilian:,@Aquib American Muslim:,@William M. Connolley: unfortunately all Article of Avicennism[[6]] deleted without any consensus. in other word the article wholly has been deleted by the name of redirect. I argued also above that Avicenna and Avicennism are two different thing.--m,sharaf (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You're not doing very well. You need to show a little good faith, by reading some of the prior discussion; ironically, the section called "Good faith" would be a good place to start. Your "deleted without any consensus" is wrong; it hasn't been deleted, and there was a rough consensus, which has lasted. By without-consensus, what you mean is that you disagree. Which is perfectly respectable; you can say just that.

As to the substance: as you'd know if you'd read the discussion above, an article on Avicennism is a reasonable idea. But the article that we had was worse than useless; hence the redirect. If you're able to make an article that isn't worse than useless, please have a go William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD. There enough academic sources to make an article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

These are some of the sources you can use to complete the article:"Handbook of Medieval Studies"[7] "History of Islamic Philosophy"[8], "The Voyage and the Messenger"[9], "Allah Transcendent: Studies in the Structure and Semiotics of Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Cosmology"[10], "Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays" [11], "THE ROLE OF AVICENNA AND OF ISLAMIC 'AVICENNISM' IN THE 14TH-CENTURY JEWISH DEBATE AROUND PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION"[12], "Islamic Thought in the Dialogue of Cultures"[13], "Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy"[14] and there is useful chart in this book: "Avicenna and His Heritage"[15]--Seyyed(t-c) 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

wow. its great and super news about Avicennism. I try completely to perfect your enterprise. thanks--m,sharaf (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad Section

Preserved here:

===orientalists's view===

orientalists have challenges on the current of Avicennism.At the same time there are many confusions among scholars particularly orientalists and orientalism about the book of "al Hikmat al Mashreqi".It seems that investigation on Hikmah Al Mashreqi initiated by Edward Pococke. He also was the translator of Hayy ibn Yaqdhan from Arabic to latina. He says that it is very difficult to clear what is intended by Avicenna in Hikmat Al Mashreqyyah. Apparently Avicenna said something about eastern philosophy or Indian philosophy versus peripatetic's teaching.After Edward Pococke, other translators also translated mashreqiyyah as mashreqi or eastern.Another orientalist and churchman, Edward Bouverie Pusey believed that the hikmah Al mashreqiyyah is identical with Illumination wisdom(hikmah al Ishraq) in introduction of ibn Tufayl's Hayy ibn Yaqdhan in 1835.Hereinafter Monk believed that hekmat Al Mashreqi as the theory of unity of existence.

Also Baron karadovo also translated Hikmat al Mashreqi as Ishraqi hikmah and at the same time has believed that this is false to know mashreqi as Sharqi just as some pupils of Avicenna thought in this way.according to Baron Karadovo these pupils distorted the thought of Avicenna into Kaldanian paganism and or Indian mysticism.Eventually he had known the book of hekmat Al mashreqi as a book in Ishraqi School. He also explained that Avicenna had a hidden and esoteric tend into Ishraqi hikmah.

Germanian scholar, Max Horten believes that Avicenna's opinions in Hikmah Al Mashreqi is myth and said that what was important for Avicenna is a kind of mystical knowledge which is introduced in articulation of Aristotelian philosophy.

---

My thoughts are that this author of this should enter it into whichever language version of Wikipedia he/she is fluent in. It's difficult to tease everything out here. Maybe someone with a better grasp of the material and the language can rework this start, but as it stands, it doesn't belong in the main article.

@William M. Connolley::i try to translate and explain the intention as far as possible by my word..why deletion?--m,sharaf (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an odd question. The answer is, what the anon wrote. Which I trust you've already read William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

if the grammar and editing is not suitable, this part need some editors to improve it. the weakness of grammar not cause User to delete it.but he has to improve it.--m,sharaf (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read what the anon said, but more carefully this time William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I read what he said repeatedly. he believes that i have to enter these words in my fluent language. later some one with better language translate these words into english. but my point is that my words here is not witout any comprehensibility. it is unfair to judge in such a way.--m,sharaf (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, you've failed to read what he wrote. Here it is, with the bit that you've persistently avoided seeing in bold: removed unsourced and... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

where he refers to source? I could not see it?..but these words at the same time has source.as follow:http://www.cgie.org.ir/fa/publication/entryview/16140--m,sharaf (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Below B-Class

This article – in its present form – is little more than a stub. It no longer meets (if it ever did) the criteria for a B-Class article: the information is not essentially complete, and would not satisfy more than the most cursory of inquiries. It's also repetitive and self-contradictory.

One source is quoted as two, where the only apparent difference is in using the 10- versus the 13-digit ISBN, and the two contradictory statements are supported by references that seem to be only 5 pages apart. Could an editor who has access to a copy of "Corbin1998" (i.e. Corbin, Henry (1998). The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy. Berkeley, CA, US: North Atlantic Books. ISBN 9781556432699. OCLC 970420613) please reduce these two sources to one (with page number), while deciding whether Corbin opines that there are two or three varieties of "Avicennism"?

I'd like to understand both of the following:

1. Ibn Sīnā's philosophy; and
2. the school or schools of philosophy created by his successors, both oriental and occidental.

As I understand it, the first should appear in the article Ibn Sīnā itself – and it does; and the second should appear in the current article. But this article fails to even indicate how any subsequent "Avicennists" developed his ideas, in either the East or the West.

yoyo (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This article could use some expansion. For instance, what is the history of Avicennism? I also think a whole section could be created on what philosophy it draws on and another could be made on what it teaches. And are there any more sources that could be used other than what is here? I would love to do some research on this. Sesxb7 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)