Talk:Al-Farabi

message: Sogdian is an Iranian language not turkish !!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.49.233 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sogdian or Turkish ?what? 

message: This comment isn't sourced. I have been unable to find any reliable source for this in any of Maimonides' writings. He does write very complimentary things about Al Farabi. But not this.
For example he writes "ובכלל אומר לך, לא תתעסק בספרי מלאכת ההיגיון אלא במה שחיבר החכם אבונצ"ר אלפראכ"י לבדו, כי כל מה שחיבר בכלל, ובפרט ספר ההתחלות הנמצאות שלו, הכל סולת נקיה, ויתכן שיבין וישכיל האדם מדבריו, לפי שהוא היה מופלג בחכמה"
But nothing I could find which supports the above statement that Maimonides called al-Farabi the 2nd master.
Unfortunately this statement seems to have been copied in many other web pages, whether they copied it from here or here is copied from there, this is not the way to do things!
Please either provide a source or remove this statement, thanks
Boiledspaghetti (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "To use Maimonides’ words, if Aristotle is the First Master the second one is undoubtedly Farabi" 

message: He was originally Persian, from the golden age of Islam. He was born from Persian parents and his place of birth is currently in Kazakhstan. He lived in so many cities. There is no evidence of him being Turkish!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.233.2.105 (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of Farabi 

message: Please take your concerns here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: The article, especially the lede, is rife with language that is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. To wit: "He was an impeccable early Islamic philosopher..." and "...His impact on philosophy is undeniable..." (emphases added) Subjective adjectives like these are frowned upon by all relevant style manuals, for use in encyclopedia. I'll give fair warning to anyone who might be willing to clean up the language here, and if no one else steps-up to do it after a month or so, I'll undertake it myself. Bricology (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can (sort-of) see the issue with the first instance, but the second example of "bias" isn't problematic at all and it most definitely isn't subjective. Al Farabi objectively had an undeniable impact on philosophy in the Islamic world and, by extension, the scholastic school in the Latin West. I don't see the issue here. If it continues to be a problem I think you can submit a request to have a mod look at it. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:9A1B (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic use of language 

message: Neither Nasr & Aminrazavi nor Durant, pp. 253-254, say nothing about Kara-Khanid Khanate, and Farabi died almost half a century before they came to power → Michal Biran (2012). "Ilak-Khanids." Encyclopædia Iranica; C.E. Bosworth (1954–2007). "Ilek-K̲h̲āns or Ḳarak̲h̲ānids." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Fari Dark (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farabi and Kara-Khanid Khanate 

message: End of the debate, Turanists and pan-Turkicist take their claim from a Kurd claiming to be a Barmakid how ironic. From Farabi's own work there's no traces of any Turkic influence. Also Abbasid Caliphate barely reached if not at all Kazakhstan. Transoxiana barely included or did not even include Kazakhstan too. Outside of Ahmad Yasawi a 11th century Turkic poet Kazakhstan got no legitimate claim.
He had Shia influence which was non existent during 9th century Kazakhstan, but not for the 9th century Greater Khorosan. Kazakhstan also never had any known scholar before the 19th century, how can they have only one from the 10th century ?  
This is unfair for Faryab province of 
Afghanistan and an insult to logic. 
2A02:8428:809E:6701:F0D7:5A73:115E:BA24 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's of Iranic stock from Faryab, Afghanistan.  

message: Why does the caption for the image of the Iranian stamp feel the need to stress that this is al-Farabi's "imagined face", while the caption under the equally imaginary picture in the Kazakh banknote remains silent, and the medieval European woodcut only admits in a you-have-to-go-looking-for-it pop-up that that artist didn't even bother imagining al-Farabi and just recycled the same picture used for other people? And why is it the medieval European woodcut — probably the least accurate of the three — the one chosen to be the portrait of this guy?
2604:3D09:A984:A600:9489:A8E8:7BC4:92AC (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image captions?