# Talk:Proof of the Truthful

This review is transcluded from Talk:Proof of the Truthful/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Origin
"in multiple books of the Metaphysics of the Healing" - I think this wording is clumsy. The linked article describes it as "the Metaphysics section of The Book of Healing", which I think sounds better.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Argument
"and having a will " - this item is the middle of a list, so and isn't needed. In keeping with the adjective nature of the list, I suggest substituting rephrasing it as willful.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"God found in the Quran.[22][21]" - Please swap the sources to keep them numerical.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Reaction
"it is also "enthusiastically" received," This sentence has two citations, so it's not clear which one used the quoted descriptor.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"(d. 1204).[4][2]" - Please swap the sources to keep them numerical.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"philosophy Jon McGinnis said" - A search doesn't return much for Jon McGinnis. Is he notable enough for a redlink?
Unlinked. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Classification as ontological or cosmological argument
Are all the redlinked scholars notable enough for their own articles?
Unlinked all red links. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Lead
"Avicenna or Ibn Sina (980–1037). " It's not immediately clear that Avicenna is aka Ibn Sina. I think it should be rewritten as "Avicenna (also known as Ibn Sina, 980-1037)".
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
The MOS for philosophy only gives general advice for section titles. I think "Classification as ontological or cosmological argument" is a bit long and suggest shortening it to "Classification", but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
no concern
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
no concern
C. It contains no original research: 
no concern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
earwig returns weak results caused by common phrases.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
I am not overly familiar with the subject, but nothing has obvious has been omitted.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Active improvement occurring. No evidence of vandalism or edit warring.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Rationales provided, no concern
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass pending issues noted above. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the review. Sorry for the delay in responding - somehow the review slipped my attention. I hope my updates suffice to address your concern. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Nice work. Easy pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge proposal by ZxxZxxZ. That article briefly surveys several arguments, proposed by different philosophers under the same name, while this article is specifically about Avicenna's (and discusses it in detail). Given the different length, level of detail and specificity, it would be weird if this article becomes a section in that article. Also, that article really contains little more than long, direct quotation, as opposed to this article which have passed the GA criteria. HaEr48 (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Both of the subjects of this article and the other one have the same name in Arabic and refer to a concept similar to each other. In fact, this article is a subset of the other one. So I think this article should be moved to "Seddiqin argument (Avicenna)" or something like that to avoid confusion. — ObZorDT 04:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Obzord: I don't know "Seddiqin argument" feels like a worse name to me because
"Seddiqin" is a non standard way to romanize صدیقین . I think the first vowel is usually romanized as "i"
"Argument" is not a common translation for "burhan". From the sources I read, it should be "Proof" or "Demonstration"
Why does the title translate one word (burhan) but kept the Arabic for the other word? It's like saying "King of España" instead of "King of Spain" or "Rey de España".
Besides, I don't understand the basis of combining the three entries in the other (Seddiqin argument) article. True, they are all arguments for God's existence by Islamic philosophers. But they seemed rather different, and also there are other arguments by Muslim philosophers, such as those classified as Kalam cosmological argument. Is there a common thread for combining those three? That article doesn't do a good job explaining it. HaEr48 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@HaEr48: My point was not the name. I'm not really an expert, but from what I saw, the original "Seddiqin" argument is from Avicenna, and these other guys just redefined what they themselves considered a variation of the original argument. So having these two articles, with these different names, is pretty confusing. I invite User:Mehdi ghaed and User:Sa.vakilian to give their opinion, if they are willing to. — ObZorDT 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the article should be merged.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: In your vision, how would the structure of the merged article look like? HaEr48 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
They can not be merged... this article should treat the inner experience and it's manifestation, while the other (Seddiqin argument) should emphasis on the inner aspect. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Per the reasons given by HaEr48 and Yaḥyā, I disagree with this merge proposal. Applodion (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

He is too much cited in the article, which makes it too Adamsoncentric. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yahya Talatin: Can you explain in what way (other than being "too much cited")? If you have sources, or suggestions to add more diverse viewpoints, please elaborate. HaEr48 (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
18/29 of the footnotes, I'd call that excessive. Proof of the Truthful is wholly misrepresented in this article, that's what happens when thoughts and beliefs from one single author are projected as if they were those of Avicenna. The actual arguments provided by Avicenna, were much stronger, when they're understood in todays language.Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but the number (18/29) itself is not a problem. It's a problem if you think other viewpoints are not represented properly. It seems that you think so, I'm happy to see the article improved, but in order to be helpful please be more specific in your comments (or edits) and back them up with reliable sources. "is wholly misrepresented" is a very generic comment does not help people who want to improve it. "The actual arguments provided by Avicenna, were much stronger" is your opinion, but Wikipedia relies more on works of reliable secondary/tertiary sources rather than an editor's opinion or analysis of the work itself. HaEr48 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If Adamson opinion in the floating man experiment wasn't misinterpreted, then I'd be very conscious to use him as source. Proof of the Truthful in everyday language (which can be experienced by everyone): If you pinch yourself and you have pain in an area, the physical manifestation and the inner experience of pain aren't the same. There can be thousands of manifestations, be it brain activity (from todays language), screaming, etc... they can all be coming from different places, yet the inner subjective experience can be unitary. The only uniting factor of all those different physical manifestation is an unitary subjective immaterial experience of pain. Then Avicenna simply generalized from that: All physical manifestations can therefor be joined by one single unitary experience (God). He elsewhere developped from there, on how physical manifestations can only be joined by an inner agent. In the West that part has been plainly dealt with, by Jung Synchronicity concept. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

As for sources, common day observation by about anyone can never be sourced, because no one can ever take credit for. Why would you publish something everyone can already without any special knowledge observe (unless it's a kindergarten book, but I doubt it is allowed to use such works here) ? But just for your information, in his thought experiment talkpage, I have posted links to a bunch of Avicenna philosophical concepts. If you check by yourself, you'll see that I am not inventing anything. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how the last comments relate to the article subject? The article is about argument for God's existence, why are you talking about pinching, pain, brain activity? HaEr48 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Several hundred years ago, thinkers were building their argumentations on minimal a priori knowledge. This means that every conclusions were derived from direct observation. In Islamic and European (particularly in the middle ages) works man was made from the image of God. The pinching example was just analogical; Avicenna projecting a human experience and from there deriving the existence of God. From the other article: Seddiqin means the argument of the sincere men or truthful ones. Do you think that the reader from just reading the article will understand what the hell the sincere men has to do with God existence? Nowhere in the other article or this one, there is anything explicitly telling why sincerity is connected with God. Here [1] is the central Islamic doctrine that all Islamic philosophers follow. Sincerity is about intention (see the link) which is an inner experience... not an outer manifestation. Those issues were raised by Kant in the Prolegomena. Why is an identical copy of you, not you? Because your inner experience is missing in the other copy.  See while those articles are sourced, they say nothing about the initial philosophy of Avicenna. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

HaEr48, are the rest of the arguments in Seddiqin argument derived from this Avicenna's Proof of the Truthful? If so, should the two articles be merged? VR talk 23:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Not sure, it's hard to tell the realationship from the text of Seddiqin argument which contains mostly of very short explanations and original quotes without context. It may be just that they share the same name. HaEr48 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)