Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:14, 23 May 2011

	Avicennism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 27, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

Philosophy B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. (bork!) 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 the rantings of William, 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)

• Former good article nominees
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles