Talk:Gundeshapur

message: The article talks about the Persian city and that there was an academy; it focuses on the intellectual heritage of the city. Besides, there is more that can be said about the city and it seems pointless to create a new artcle for that purpose
===Voting===
*Support MrPMonday 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: *Support MrPMonday 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: The Academy and the city where it was located are logically distinguishable. Instead of a move, we could have a split. All material relating to the city goes to Gundishapur (city) and the rest stays in the Academy. Zora 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. 
Request was to move to Gundishapur. WhiteNight T | @ | C 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Descision

message: One editor just added a long essay on the superiority of Persian culture which is far, far from NPOV. I don't have time to rewrite just now -- I've spent a long day driving visitors about the city -- but it needs to be done. Zora 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted because I was trying to streamline, but I may have erred in leaving those things out. I googled extensively on Gundishapur and didn't find either Vansibin or Zeidan mentioned -- however, it's likely that you have access to material in Persian that hasn't made it into English yet. Let me do some googling and fact-checking, and I'll get back to you if I can't find anything. Thanks very much for approaching this in a collaborative spirit! Zora 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find ONE glancing mention of Vansibin in English, on an Iranian site. All other mentions are just mirrors of the cite in the Wikipedia article. Georgi Zeidan seems to have been a late 19th century historian/writer of historical fiction, not the best or most recent source. There might be more on these topics in your older paper copy of the Encyclopedia Iranica -- they're not covered in the online Iranica. I also found what seems to be the previous version of the Wikipedia article in various websites run by Manuchehr Noury, with his name attached as author. Is he plagiarizing the Wikipedia article, or is the Wikipedia article plagiarizing him? This is distressing -- I'm worried that more extensive rewriting will be necessary, to remove copyvio. Zora 21:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I used were indeed Persian. I did a superficial search in some books at my library, but did not find anything on Vansibin. (not surprising of course, considering that the west's current perspective on Iranian history is obsolete by 25 years). I did however find a mention on the webpage of the University of Tehran. Im very busy nowadays moving to Texas. Cant find the time to spend on WP much anymore.--Zereshk 18:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Update: "Jurji Zaydan" is an Arabic literature historian. He is mentioned in Edward Browne's Islamic Medicine, p94 .--Zereshk 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zora's edit, and Vansibin

message: Contrary to what google hits say almost unanimously, Vansibin was not in Khuzestan, but farther up northwest, in the current Iraq-Syria region. It was then part of the Persian Empire. I finally found a mention of it in Donald Hill's book. He spells it "Nisibīn". The "Vansibin" word is a Persian equivalent. Same thing. I'm updating the article.--Zereshk 05:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it modern Nusaybin (Nisibis in Greek and Latin texts) ? Wisdood (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: One more reason why Google should not be a research tool

message: Its true, the academy did dominate the city in terms of significance, but there are other historical resources we can draw upon to discuss the city.  I also see no need to split the article, there's nothing wrong with having one thorough and comprehensive article on either subject really.  If the vote decides that the article name should remain, then the article shold be cleaned up.  Right now it begins:
The Academy of Gundishapur (...) was the intellectual center of the Sassanid empire. Its Academy offered training...
How does an academy have an academy?  There are several points in the article in which the subject is confused in the middle of the sentence.  No matter what the verdict is on the name, we should make the article lucidly discuss either the City in the context of the Academy, or the Academy in the context of the City.  The section The Rise of Gundishapur talks about the city, while Significance of Gundishapur talks about the academy, while Gundishapur Under Muslim Rule talks about both.  No formal distinction is made.
I suppose thats the real issue, that the article needs to be clarified, and based on the content it can be about either the city or the academy. MrPMonday 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to vote oppositions 

message: I split the article into Gundeshapur and Academy of Gundishapur. I'm not very happy with the different names, but "Gundeshapur" returned more results in Google (2.600, whereas most other common variants returned around 900).
Why did I split? It seemed that a lot of the article was about the city, not the academy (i.e. it was the site of the death of mani, it was founded by so-and-so, etc.).
I do agree that it's pretty hard to seperate the history of the city from that of the academy. I tried to do that, but left a fair bit of duplicate material. A rewrite of both may be in order.
Alternatively, everything could be left in the article on the city. Either one would be fine, I just don't think it was right to have the history of the city in the article on the academy. What do you think? Flammifer 07:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article (Seperate city from academia) 

message: Apparently there's some academic doubt as to whether the medical academy of Jundishapur/Gundeshapur actually existed.
eg. Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity (1997), p. 94:
:"Jundishapur was certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek, Syriac and Jewish intellectuals, but there is no evidence that any medical academy existed there.  Only in the early ninth century did Arab-Islamic learned medicine take shape.".
and Plinio Prioreschi, A History of Medicine (2001), p. 362:
:"The problem is that such a historical sketch "bristles with difficulties"[601].  It has been pointed out that there are no Persian sources that support the claims that Jundishapar played such an important role in medical history, that the Arabic sources are late and not devoid of historiographical problems, ..., that there is no evidence that the academicians of the school of Edessa went to Jundishapar at the end of the fifth century, ...[601]
where [601]= Michael W. Dols, The Origin of the Islamic Hospital: Myth and Reality, Bull. Hist. Med., LXI, 367-390, (1987).  
On the other hand, the Encyclopedia Iranica at , also  and , seems rather more well-disposed to the story. (Edited version of the first article also at www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Geography/gondi_Shapur_medical_school.htm). 
In later times, according to Prioreschi, "there is no lack of assertions about the great fame of Jundishapur.  For example, ibn al-Kofthi (d. 1248) writes: 
:The physicians of Jundishapar reached the highest degree of knowledge since the time of the Persian kings.  Because of that they acquired a very great reputation ... They made very rapid progress in science, they found new ways to treat diseases with medications and distinguished themselves for their ability to a point that their methods were judged superior to those of the Greeks and the Hindus.
... but is this a reliable report of the legend, some three centuries after the medical school had ceased to exist?
Google Books doesn't show me the next page from Prioreschi, but on p.364 he continues:
:[There] is no reference to a pre-existing Nestorian hospital, or to a medical school other than Nisbis (from which one of the court physicians had come)... From the above it is evident that the history and importance of Jundishapur as a medical centre is not clear.  It would appear that although there was probably a hospital (or at least an infirmary) in the sixth century, there is no evidence of a major medical school in either the sixth or seventh centuries.[614]
where [614]= Peregrine Horden, "The Nestorians, Gondeshapur, and Islamic Medicine: A Sceptical Comment" (1983), noting that it is unlikely Gondeshapur could have been a major medical school in this period, since not a single graduate of it is identified.  
Jheald 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The myth of the hospital? 

message: The twin cities of Seleukeia and Ktêsiphôn (´Arabic al-madînatân or al-mudun)were NOT on the Euphratês / Firât, but on the Tigris / Dijlah.
Nuremberg 1.1.2013 Angel.Garcia ~ ~ ~ ~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.130.228 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ctesiphôn - NOT on Euphratês 

message: It seems like the contents of this page are offered for sale at this Internet address:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131205227/Gondishapur-Wiki
If you decide to read as a guest, it takes you to a page with a few payment options.  is it allowed (or legal?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sale of this page, is it allowed (or legal?) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gundeshapur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203013254/http://www.ut.ac.ir/en/main-links/historical.htm to http://www.ut.ac.ir/en/main-links/historical.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002222214/http://rnb.uin.googlepages.com/v22n2spring2005.pdf to http://rnb.uin.googlepages.com/v22n2spring2005.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The bold revisionist claim about the so-called "Kurdish" bloodline of the Sassanian kings looks really dodgy. Omid.espero (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The part making kurdish claims