# Talk:Averroes

There is no dispute about that. Here is another source. [1]. Being an Andalusian doesn't mean he isn't an Arab.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

‪Wikaviani‬--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me, do you really think that the book you linked in your above comment is a reliable source for this topic ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikaviani, what's the reliable source for this topic. I obviously have no time to be kidding. The source is published by the University of Chicago and the author is a notable historian Rémi Brague.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The author is a historian of philosophy, not specialized in the history of Islam. I already added a high quality source (EOI 3] that says he was Andalusian. Also, you can take alook at Talk:List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars#WP:OR as there is an active thread about this. Good night.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikaviani, what does the history of Islam have to do with this?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
He is a historian of philosophy and a philosopher, not a historian of medieval islam. He got a phd in philosophy (not a phd in history). You could use this source to discuss his ideas not his origins. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
MOS:ETHNICITY says that "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." In this case I feel that ethnicity (unlike religion) has no relevance to Averroes' notability so let's not argue over something that shouldn't be added in the first place. I get that  some people feel passionately about this, I suggest take the energy to research the lineage and ethnic background and add it in a prose form to the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, see previous discussions Talk:Averroes/Archive_1#Ethnicity and Talk:Averroes/Archive_1#Ethnicity_2, this tends to be an intractable debate. HaEr48 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Those are IPs making stuff up with no sources. There is no dispute over his ethnicity but of course, when it's Arab it's controversial. Here is a source from Brill Encyclopedia of Islam [2]. Also, ethnicity here is a notable thing about Ibn Rushd.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:RS AGE: Why should we use the 1927 work (Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition) and not use the 1986 work (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition)?
"Also, ethnicity here is a notable thing about Ibn Rushd." Do you have any evidence for this claim? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Both are not contradicting each other. This is a reliable source and that's a reliable source. The source itself says he is known as "The greatest Arab philosopher in Spain".-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Please, it;s not "when it's Arab it's controversial" at all, it's just applying policy and avoiding edit wars. You're welcome to add material from RSes about his ethnicity in the article body where such info belongs. It took a lot of work bringing this article to Good article status, it serves no one's interest to carelessly go against the MOS and start edit wars now. HaEr48 (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not true. Ethnicity can be included in the lead if it's notable. This person is known as the "greatest Arab philosopher of Spain". Also, when it's Arab it's controversial, this has been the trend in most articles of Wikipedia. I have always seen editors removing Arab from articles without any reason. It doesn't bother me because I am an Arab, it does bother me because I they are removing sourced content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The MOS doesn't say "it can be included in the lead if it's notable", it's only if it is relevant to the subject's notability". In this case, I don't believe this is the case. Averroes is notable on the weight of his works in philosophy, Islamic law, medicine, astronomy, commentary on Aristotle, etc. as well as his legacy in Medieval Europe; being Arab is nowhere near the main factor of this notability. Again, no one is suggesting removing of sourced information about his ethnicity, I am just saying it belongs in the article body, not the lead paragraph. HaEr48 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Well I don't mind that. I just saw that editor in Doug Weller's talk page saying that he is going to remove Averroes from the list of Arab philosophers without even having to do a little bit of search to see that there are tons of reliable sources saying he is an Arab.[3].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@HaEr48:, @SharabSalam: Arab philosopher/writer/poet, etc are just generic designations. It can mean anything from an arabic-speaking Iranian to an Andalusian with unknown tribal affiliations. Are there any sources that talks about the Arab origin of his family? His tribal claims (Tanukh, Kinda, Zuhr, Taghlib, Qays, etc)? You know that the majority of people in Al-Andalus were claiming arab tribal affiliations, but they were muladi/Berber/Saqaliba in origin? It's like claiming that the Hammudids were Berbers (by using tangential mentions of Berber in reliable sources), but finding that they were Idrisids when using more detailed accounts of their origins.-TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't find any sources that discussed his origins. All the sources you showed are peripherally mentioning the word "Arab" without expanding on it.  -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Even reading about his grandfather Ibn Rushd al-Jadd shows that little is known about them, "Ibn Rushd al-Jadd was born in Cordova in Shawwāl 450/December 1058. Little is known about the origins and activities of his family. To judge by the short genealogy provided by early biographers, it seems that he was the first member of his family to gain renown. It is not until IbnʿAbd al-Malik al-Marrākushī (d. 703/1303) that we find a short entry on Ibn Rushd’s father included in a biographical dictionary: “Aḥmad b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Rushd, a man of science, excellence and integrity (ʿadāla), was still alive in 482/1089.” Subsequently, the Maghribī historian al-Maqqarī provided what appears to be the complete genealogy of Ibn Rushd al-Jadd: Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Aḥmad b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Rushd. This suggests that it was the grandfather of Ibn Rushd’s great-grandfather...who converted to Islam. Assuming that the average lifespan in al-Andalus was forty lunar years, and that twenty-five was the average age of conversion, Ibn Rushd’s ancestors would have converted to Islam about the middle of the 3rd/9th century, approximately two centuries after the Muslims arrived in the Iberian Peninsula." -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
TheseusHeLl, the term Arab is not generic. There is no source that says he is Berber or Persian. All reliable sources say that he is an Arab. The source that you have brought doesn't dispute that. It also not a reliable source in this subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
the term Arab is not generic.
I didn't say that the term Arab is generic. I said: "Arab philosopher/writer/poet, etc are just generic designations. It can mean anything from an arabic-speaking Iranian to an Andalusian with unknown tribal affiliations. Are there any sources that talks about the Arab origin of his family? His tribal claims (Tanukh, Kinda, Zuhr, Taghlib, Qays, etc)? You know that the majority of people in Al-Andalus were claiming arab tribal affiliations, but they were muladi/Berber/Saqaliba in origin?"
There is no source that says he is Berber or Persian.
Who said anything about him being a Persian or Berber? Did you read what I wrote?
All reliable sources say that he is an Arab.
Nope. All reliable sources say that nothing is known about his origins. If you have any sources that goes in detail about his origins, feel free to share them.
The source that you have brought doesn't dispute that.
It actually disputes that. It says about his grandfather (Ibn Rushd al-jadd), "Little is known about the origins and activities of his family." and "This suggests that it was the grandfather of Ibn Rushd’s great-grandfather...who converted to Islam. Assuming that the average lifespan in al-Andalus was forty lunar years, and that twenty-five was the average age of conversion, Ibn Rushd’s ancestors would have converted to Islam about the middle of the 3rd/9th century, approximately two centuries after the Muslims arrived in the Iberian Peninsula."
It also not a reliable source in this subject.
Oh yes a work that is edited by (Oussama Arabi, David S. Powers and Susan A. Spectorsky) and goes in detail about his grandfather's biography is not reliable, okay.-TheseusHeLl (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I have brought multiple sources that say he is an Arab. The only source that you have brought is not reliable and not in their expertise to talk about origins. I have brought sources from multiple historians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

We have multiple sources saying he is an Arab. 

source 1: University of Chicago by a leading historian Rémi Brague
source 2 encyclopedia of Islam published by Brill
source 3 Jon Stewart (philosopher) published by Bloomsbury
source 4 published by the University of Yale
The only reason I can think of to completely remove Arab from the article is that you just don't like it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Pure example of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You dodged all the points that I made and that Wikaviani made. You know that the source that I gave you is more reliable than the multiple sources you gave? Is the concept of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS too hard? A quick mention of Arab is more reliable than a whole section about the life/origin/genealogy of his grandfather? And more reliable than EI2? Are you implying that there is no relationship between Ibn Rushd al-Hafid and Ibn Rushd al-Jadd?
Using a reliable philosophical work that talks (tangentially) about his ethnicity while avoiding all the other reliable sources that talks about his life in more detail is disingenuous. In example the EI2 gives more detail about his life... without talking about his ethnicity because nothing is know about it, "Ibn Rushd belonged to an important Spanish family. His grandfather (d. 520/1126), a Maliki jurisconsult, had been qaddi and imam of the Great Mosque of Cordova.". The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, "...was born at Cordoba into a family prominent for its expert devotion to the study...", etc.-TheseusHeLl (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
We are not discussing the tribal affliction of Ibn Rushd as we aren't going to add that. We are discussing whether sources are saying he is an Arab or not. All reliable sources say he is an Arab. There is no reliable source that says he is Berber, Persian or whatever. Also, we don't do original research here. We need sources that explicitly say he is not Arab.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
We need sources that explicitly say he is not Arab.
Actually we need sources that explicitly say he is of Arab descent/origin. And we need sources that clearly says that his family were arabs. Tangential mentions of Arab are not good sources for a Good article. The existence of the three sources that I gave you negates the assertion "All reliable sources say he is an Arab". The burden of proof is not on me it's on you.
There is no reliable source that says he is Berber, Persian or whatever.
No one is claiming that he is Berber, Persian or whatever. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Since reliable sources call him explicitly an Arab we should say it as reliable sources say it. Wikipedia should not censor reliably sourced content. This discussion is becoming boring as you are changing the goalpost all the time so I am just going to leave. This is not an article that I am interested in. I will wait until there is another discussion and see if I can help.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Your above sources are indeed from prestigious universities, but the problem is that their authors have no expertise in islamic history (but philosophy), however, if we can find reliable souces supporting Arab ethnicity, i would be in favor to include this in the article, even in the lead, since the ethnicity of this scholar, along with many others is relevant for their notability and shows how much medieval islamic era was rich and many other scholars have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead (i'm aware of WP:OTHER ...). Thus, the only point for me, would be to find reliable sources about his ethnicity. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: Actually we can't find them. His origins are unknown. I don't think sources that only mentions Arab without expanding on the claim are to be used. The only known thing is that he was Andalusian. As you can see above, the book Islamic Legal Thought A Compendium of Muslim Jurists ([4]) is the only book I found that goes in detail about their family's genealogy/biography/origins. From the book you can see that the biographers of his grandfather never wrote anything about his family's origins. They gave the genealogy, but they never give the ethnicity. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@TheseusHeLl: Agreed, this is why i said that the only point for me is that we don't have reliable sources about his ethnic background. Also, a passing mention of "Arab" in a source is indeed not enough to support Arab ethnicity.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this discussion reflected in any of the published literature? A section about the confusing regarding his origin—again, if discussed in the literature—would probably help neutralize this issue, even if it doesn't explicitly say he is/n't an Arab.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources quoted above to support the Arab origin are passing mentions of "Arab" as an introduction (e.g. "this Arab philosopher ..."). I haven't read any scholarly work that discusses the ethnicity in detail. There might be some out there, if someone finds any, I would be interested as well. HaEr48 (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The only source that I found that discusses his origins (precisely his grandfather's) is Islamic Legal Thought: A Compendium of Muslim Jurists (p:297). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I suggest you use reliable source for the ethnicity of this scholar, especially since this article is a good article. The source you tried to cite is all but reliable, take a look at the authors' competences.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, I have already responded in the above section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Me too.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikaviani, I have responded to your vague response.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Relaxwikis: Given that the subject is a pretty famous person, I'm sure he has a lot of nicknames given by various other authors. "The Commentator" is a bit special because that often substitute his own name in Latin writings, and in those writing the large part of his reputation comes from him being the guy who wrote those commentaries. See Averroes#In_Latin_tradition for explanation and sources. For that I believe it deserve mention in the lead without any attribution. But as for other titles and nicknames, in my opinion, if they are relevant they should at most be mentioned in the body, and with attribution who said it (e.g. Historian XXX calls Averroes YYY). In addition, we should only add them to the lead if we have some evidence that it is widespread. Otherwise we'll end up adding dozens of nicknames in the lead, which I don't think will be great for its conciseness. HaEr48 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood thanks.--Relaxwikis (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is just a quick question: Is there any clear linguistic/historical research on how "Ibn Rushd" -> "Averroes"? I understand that "Ibn" often became "Aben" or "Aven" in Spain at the time, but I'm confused how "Rushd" was transmogrified into "-rroes." If anyone has any info, that'd be great!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Gen. Quon, I don't have sources but just to speculate, Cluster reduction is pretty common (especially if the same cluster does not exist in the target language) so the losing of the d is not unexpected, and if the 'sh' [ʃ] sound does not appear in standard Spanish or Latin so it's not surprising either for it to be simplified to 's'. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose that we delete all reference to the ethnic ancestry of Averroes unless someone finds a really strong source. There has been a lot of back and forth editing about the ancestry of Averroes. I don't think any of the sources have looked very strong (recently some more respectable journals are being added, but I don't see that they discuss this question) so I also asked user:Srnec if they have any better sources. The response [5]:

Do other editors agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rushd is of non-Arabic origin? What?? That's a big lie.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AF#Etymology_3 2A02:CE0:2800:6CF4:48AE:42F3:3A38:6B3B (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, we can not use an etymology for a similar sounding word in wiktionary as evidence of what the best published sources say (which is what we are trying to summarize). Secondly as I understand it the ancestry of his grandfather is better described as uncertain than  "non Arabic". Thirdly, if there are other strong sources for this topic of research then of course we could look at what they have to say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not pertinent to his grandfather's origins, but there is no particular reason to believe the very Arabic name "Ibn Rushd" is anything but Arabic, given that is a perfectly ordinary formation of a very common Arabic root. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I suppose you realize this but to make it clear for everyone, Christians and Jews can also have Arabic names in Arabic-speaking countries. The thing is that we know that some surnames in Andalucia indicated a claim to a specific genealogical link back to Arabia. Apparently this is not known to be one of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: He is described as Arab in these RS: [6], [7],  The term Arab Andalusian is used by majority of RS: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].
Described as most important thinker in Arab history: [15], [16]. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss I have mentioned the following in edsums. I will explain in detail because maybe it will also help you in future cases.
First, you appear to misunderstand the terms "majority" and "reliable sources". Looking at the list it seems obvious that these are not all sources you happened to know, but actually just the results of a quick google search. (This is also how you described what you did in your edsum.) This is not good enough.
Reliable sources always need to be reliable in terms of the information you want to source. An extremely good book on physics is not a reliable source for biology. You clearly have not checked if these random sources to see if they would be sources considered to have expertise in Andalusians in this period. For example you are using modern news media, and books about completely different topics. Are there any sources at all here which are about Andalusian Spain, or about Averroes? Are there any sources you cite which actually discuss the use of the word "Arab", or is this only a raw list of random sources that happen to use a specific combination of words, perhaps without much thought?
A majority can only be defined if you have some clear way of first counting a total. I don't see how you can do this in such a case. Obviously if you google a word combination you have no way of doing this. 100% of the hits you get will show the word combination you searched for.
Second, as I mentioned to you, in past discussions on this talk page it has been mentioned that there is actually specialized literature which has discussed the topic of how "Arab" Averroes is. When such a specialised literature exists, then we should use that. Please read the older posts which explain that experts on this exact topic note "his lack of an Arab (or Berber) tribal nisba" and that he was "accused" of being of Jewish descent, and that "Rushd" is a non-Arab name. We only know his ancestry back to his grandfather. Historians know for a fact that many "Arab Andalusians" had non Arab ancestry, because of forced conversions. For this reason such specialists think his ancestry is uncertain, and ancestry-claims are a key thing in this specific culture.
In Andalusian Spain the upper class all lived in an Arabic culture and therefore authors writing casually can call them Arabs in this general cultural sense. However, when discussing Andalusia in a precise sense, some people were specifically Arabs, in the sense of having claims of ancestry back to Arabia. Others were not. Normally we do not know, and for these people it is easiest to take the option of calling them Andalusians. Andalusians in this period are by definition people who were were "Arab" in a general sense, but we don't need to say that if we know that experts would find this term problematic. On Wikipedia, the choice of adjectives in the first lines of a biography are meant to be done with care (also concerning readability). Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This all sounds like original research and trying to figure out his ancestry, as if it mattered, instead of reporting what RS have said. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
No, I am reporting what we (editors of this article) have, in the past, found in expert published sources which are about this exact topic. PLEASE read more carefully. And please look at the older posts on this talk page, which cite the sources involved. BTW, concerning sources which you found using google, which of them are really reliable sources for this topic? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Going through your sources using the numbers currently on screen:
[6] Non-specialist tertiary work. Short biography written for Saudi medical journal. Only uses the word once and clearly in a very generic way. Akin to many Arab and Muslim physicians and scholars we discussed in this series,1–6 Ibn Rushd was a true polymath
[7] Article specialised in the history of rhetoric. Uses the adjective "arab" constantly but always when talking generically using plurals and abstract collective concepts for example "arab culture", "arab philosophers", "arab commentators" etc. Avicenna and Al-Farabi are constantly bracketed with Averroes as one category of people when he is mentioned, and we know that Al-Farabi and Avicenna are only given this adjective in such generic discussions, and not in careful discussions. Nothing specifically about our question. Terms in the form Andalus* do not appear.
[8] Al-Jazeera, a news organization. Clearly NOT an RS here. It is a short bit of journalism which uses the term "Andalusian Arab" once.
[9] Media Storehouse®: High Quality Prints. Clearly NOT an RS. Did you really look at this first before posting it here? :)
[10] A scholarly article about an English medieval philosopher Roger Bacon. Averroes is called an "arab andalusian" in one footnote. (Avicenna, in his footnote, is called a Persian.) HOWEVER, in the body text which this footnote connects to he calls Averroes and Avicenna "Arab" in scare quotes, obviously suggesting that the term is questionable for these two men. Can't use this to prove the opposite can we?
[11] Book: Intelligent Business Process Optimization for the Service Industry. Again, did you look at this before posting? Please be aware that experienced Wikipedia editors really do check it when you post things like this.
[12] "Arab-Andalusian logic as represented by Averroes". The adjective is NOT connected to Averroes.
[13] Averroes is described as Arab-Andalusian once in passing in the introduction to this book entitled "Historiography and the Formation of Philosophical Canons". I can't see the rest in this case, and I am presuming you also can't?
[14] Averroes is described once in passing as a "Arab Andalusian doctor and philosopher" in a footnote about a modern mosque which was named after him in a book "The Impact of Religion: on Character Formation, Ethical Education". The book is not about him or people like him.
In general, when people use the "Arab Andalusian" this is not like they are using a normal English word which we can look up in a dictionary or reasonably expect everyone to have a clear idea about. This is a really important point here. What authors mean by this when they use it in passing (for example how, if at all, it might contrast with "Andalusian") is not explained, but WE KNOW there are several quite different possibilities. So for example it probably intends to simply distinguish him from the Andalusians who did not speak Arabic and were not moslems. (I am not saying I know what they intend, but that we do NOT know.) BUT it could also mean something else. Most obviously for this culture and period the term, if being used carefully by an expert, implies that the person is not descended from Iberians or Berbers, but from Arabs who lived in the Arabian peninsula. As good editors we should aim to write as clearly as we can. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Here are some sources describing Ibn Rochd's ancestry:
[1] Arab, Berber or perhaps Muladic stock;
[2] Muladí family;
[3] Muladí and Berber family;
[4] [5] Lacked an Arab or Berber tribal Nisba, "Rushd" is not an Arab name, accused of having Jewish ancestry (like many Berber tribes at the time), it can't be proven if he has Arab ancestry;
[6] Banu Rochd are probably indigenous (Muladí);
With all of this in mind, it would be disingenuous to present him as a pure-blood Arab imo NAADAAN (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I think the point is that the best sources don't all use the same terms or even fully agree with each other when talking about this carefully. There is therefore nothing stopping us from using quite careful language in our own article, because this is what will reflect what is going on in the field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@NAADAAN: Your claim that "it can't be proven" is original research. We have dozens of sources stating he was an Arab, and he doesn't need to be "pure-blood" Arab to be called Arab. It is more disingenuous to remove any mention of Arab in his biography, depsite the presence of more sources explicitly saying he is so. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: NAADAAN has given sources for this topic as have other editors previously. But the sources you have brought so far are mainly not reliable sources for this particular point, as explained previously. Furthermore this is not only a question of sourcing but also of using clear language so that our readers can really understand what the best sources saying (for example, if experts disagree, or use different types of terminology).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
They have brought three sources. What we were discussing before was specifically Arab Andalusian and related to the lede. Please do not mix things up. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead should reflect what we source and summarize in the body of the article. This is not a separate subject (and you also don't treat it as a separate subject in your post above addressed to NAADAAN which claims we have dozens of sources saying something else). You clearly need to get past the idea that googling for specific words you want is a proper way of determining what a field thinks about a topic. We can't make these decisions based on googling specific terms and/or counting. We need to look at the sources (multiple) which are most focused upon the point we need to clarify, and then really read them. You also clearly have not read what previous editors have said about this exact topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Read the papers I have provided as [4] and [5] with regards to how his ancestry is disputed. NAADAAN (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add to the article in light of some academic studies on the link between Ibn Rushd and Ibn Taymiyyah. I think the Islamic influences section is lazily written, it sounds like no Muslim took Ibn Rushd seriously, when in fact major theologians like Ibn Taymiyyah did, and quoted from his Tahafut al-Tahafut. The impact of Ibn Taymiyyah on modern Sunni Islam cannot be understated - hence the narrative of a "disregarding" of Ibn Rushd and his intellectual legacy in the Muslim world should not be foisted on readers.
Here are some sources I may use:

Janssens, Jules. "Ibn Taymiyya on Ibn Rushd in the Darʾ taʿārud․ al-ʿaql wa-l-naql (with Special Attention to His Quotations of Ibn Rushd's Tahāfut al-tahāfut)." Contextualizing Premodern Philosophy. Routledge, 2023. 147-178.
Hoover, Jon. "Ibn Taymiyya’s Use of Ibn Rushd to Refute the Incorporealism of Fakhr al-Dıˉn al-Raˉzıˉ." Islamic Philosophy from the 12th to the 14th Century (2018): 469-91.
Lalahwa, Illa Fadhliya, Agus Gunawan, and Muhajir Muhajir. "The Relationship between Religion and Reason in the Context of Islamic Education Philosophy from the Perspective of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Taimiyah." Al-Jadwa: Jurnal Studi Islam 3.2 (2024): 111-119.
(contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 17:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

In the article it is stated that Averroes legacy in the islamic world was limited until the XIXth century. It cites some secondary sources to support this claim. However, in Ibn Khaldun's Al-Muqaddimah Averroes is mentioned many times in the sixth book as a relevant figure in islamic philosophy. Considering that the Muqaddimah was written more than a century after his death, this indicates that his works had more impact in the islamic world than what is apparently stated im the article. I believe it should at least be mention in the relevant seccion. Maybe he lost relevance later, but at the time of Ibn Khaldun he was still well regarded and known. Oscar Lama (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Oscar Lama! I wrote most of the content around 4 years ago, that was what I found in the sources I consulted. You might be right, if indeed Ibn Khaldun referenced him in the Muqaddimah, then his influence is likely greater than stated in the article. I welcome being corrected on this. Regarding usage of secondary sources, Wikipedia's guidelines prefer basing on secondary sources to interpreting primary sources on your own. See WP:PSTS. Unfortunately, I'm not able to dedicate the time to research this right now, but if you have some solid secondary sources on this, feel free to rework the section, and I'll be happy to collaborate when I have a chance. Preferably sources that reviiew Averroes' influence in the Islamic world from a distance, rather than just calling out specific reference from Ibn Khaldun, etc. HaEr48 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Same goes for comments from AvDahan in the previous section - and thank you AvDahan for adding some pointers! HaEr48 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@HaEr48 Hi! I see. I also can't dedicate a lot of time to do a thorough research, I found these mentions while reading the Muqaddimah itself. Had I found any secondary sources to back this up I'd have updated the article, but because I didn't I chose to start this talk thread. It may be that the cited articles' authors had an eastern muslim centric viewpoint, and that is why they didn't find Averroes that relevant. But I think this was a problem for a lot of western arabic writers, andaluzian and magrebies throught muslim history after the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate, specially if, like Averroes and unlike Ibn Khaldun, they never lived in the middle east  and Misr and remained in Al-Andaluz/northwest Africa. It could also be that Ibn Khaldun, being born in Tunisia and knowing a lot of andaluzian migrant teachers, had more specific knowledge about wester writters than even the best eastern scholars of the time. (It wouldn't be surprising considering the impresively comprehensive lists of names he cites and mentions in the Muqaddimah). If i find something I'll update the artice, and maybe then it should be mention that Averroes was mentioned multiple times in the Muqaddimah. Thank you. Oscar Lama (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at it right now, but I think that what some authors are talking about when they refer to Averroes in this way is that his impact was much bigger in Europe than in the Middle East. I think he clearly did have an impact in the Moslem west, and through authors such as Ibn Khaldun he would have come to be known. But as a philosopher I understood that he did not ever attain the level of respect of the early Islamic philosophers from the east, whereas at least for a while he was seen as one of "the" philosophers among Europeans. So it will be important to get the right wordings to make sure we are talking about "relative" levels of influence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think its interesting for the Cultural References section to mention that the author, Salman Rushdie, in his latest book “Knife - Meditations after an Attempted Murder” (2024) names Averroes among his influencers in Muslim thought and art. And also that Rushdie's father had chosen Averroes' name (the ibn Rushd version) as the family surname. This fact fits right in this section, but I have no experience in adding new information and references. Frotronic (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)