Talk:Al-Farabi/Archive 1

message: Deleted this bit because it seemed POV:
: Baghdad's Greek heritage in philosophy that had survived the Arab invasion
Jorge Stolfi 01:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab invasion and Greek heritage

message: These terms are not very meaningful for someone born in the 9th century, are they?  Trying to label him either way is rather pointless. Any criterion (geographical, political, ethnic, linguistic...) will be arbitrary and will only invite edit wars.  IMHO, better just omit the nationality and give all the relevant facts and theories in the Biography (he was born in then-Persia, now-Turkmenistan, probably from Turkic ancestry, etc.). Jorge Stolfi 04:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not pointless, because being born an Iranian just means that.  Turkey was not even a country then, and centuries later, [some] of such Iranian tribes settled into today`s Turkey.  The only analogy I can make is; imagine a scientist is born in Italy, and speaks it, he also speaks some dilect since he is from Tuscany.  Does that make him anything else but Italian?  Even worse, to this date I had thought Al Frarabi was an Arab, since all the Islamic sites claim him as such.  They try to claim so many people; it isn`t fair, because they were only to speak and write in Arabic, or face death. It is like all the Greek artists that built Rome, but at least the world knows they were Greeks. Zmmz 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if that's your argument there was no Iran in that era or Persia. The region was known as "Turkiston", Tarkhan Uzlug is a big give away, Arabic names were adopted due to religion as Turkic names wern't religous there was no need for non-Turks to adopt Turkic names. He was born in Turkiston town and was of Turkic heritage. --Johnstevens5 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the scholars and academics of repute are hopeless in establishing his origin, I believe the Wiki-Editors are far from being intellectual enough to solve this problem! Please refer to Muhsin Mahdi's, "Farabi" article in Encyclopaedia Iranica (LINK) for further info. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish or Persian

message: The other article has been speedily deleted (as being an incorrectly titled duplicate of this article, containing nothing that isn't here), so I've removed the merge template from this article. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Every work I've read, including his own, states he is a Muslim.  The Quran itself repeatedly calls on it's readers to ponder and question its own meaning, as well as nature.  Farabi had his own perspective, but neither denounced religion nor was branded as a heretic, which was a definite possibility for any philosopher in history.  As such, the analogy to Voltaire's Christian credentials (he renounced it) is unreasonable. Farabi's views on predestination etc are not universally condemned as heretical by most Muslims. -- 24.86.203.199 06:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim?  Or Muslim like Voltaire was Xian? 

message: http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/FARABI.html
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html
http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/farabi/farabi.php
http://www.oqya.5u.com/photo6.html
The article should include his Persian ethnicity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs).
:There are even more (and more authoritative) sources that deny any certainty in the matter; that's why the article says what it does. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as do the scholarly sources; there may well be a huge number of Persian/Iranian nationalist sites that call him Persian, but it's not a matter of mere numbers — it's the quality of the sources.  Moreover, all the evidence that you mention is consistent with him not having been Persian, and is therefore not conclusive.  As for his being Muslim, there's no serious doubt about that; "practising" is a vague and irrelevant term (what is it that you want to know about his practices as opposed to his stated beliefs, and why do they matter here?.  You have read his work, haven't you? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is, under these circumstances, as clear as possible with regard to Farabi's ethnicity. If someone wishes to conduct scholarly research and convincingly prove that he was either Persian or Turkic - or Nordic for all I care -, please go ahead, maybe he'll see it appear here someday. But I'm seeing too much original research on this talk page... Selfinformation 13:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The name "Tarkhan" was not al-Farabi's name (or that of his father), but - according to both Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica - an invention of Ibn Khallekān who was himself a Turk and was desperatly trying to "turkify" al-Farabi. His work is not really a biography of al-Farabi, but only a comment on an older work: that of Ibn Abi Osaybe'a. Ibn Abi Osaybe'a claims that al-Farabi was Persian. It is the oldest known record of Farabi's life and background. It is assumed that Ibn Abi Osaybe'a's is based on even older sources which are lost today. That would mean that the oldest sources supporte(ed) the claim that he was Persian. This is also the oppinion of mainstream scholars, while Turkish scholars and nationalists reject the oldest sources and stick to the biased claims of Ibn Khallekān. Tājik 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: He was Persian and was born in Iran

message: The italics seemed wrong to me, but I am no expert, so please consider the following:
    Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, 
    was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher.
Shouldn't it be:
    Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, 
    was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher.
Or something even clearer, such as:
    Unfortunately the book Theology, which Farabi thought to have been written by 
    Aristotle and relied upon, was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, 
    a neo-Platonic philosopher.
(or something the like)
Or am I totally off? Selfinformation 13:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that, on the whole, the italics are OK here; if they're not placed around "of Aristotle", the sentence would seem to be contradicting itself (first identifying the book as by Aristotle, and then saying that it wasn't) — though that doesn't apply to your second version.  As it is, "of Aristotle" is part of the title (like Diary of a Nobody or Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which weren't, of course, by a nobody or by the Elders of Zion).  Checking the sources and other texts, "Theology of Aristotle" seems to be a common way of printing the title of the book.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle's <i>Theology</i> 

message: Should he, or should he not be included on this list? The list of Persian scientists-page states:
   The following is a non-comprehensive list of Iranian scientists and engineers that lived
   from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age.
   
   By "Iranian", all the peoples of historic Persia are meant, i.e. what is today Iran,
   Afghanistan, and all the countries of Central Asia ("common modern definition") that were
   historically part of the Persian empire. In some cases, their exact ancestry is unclear.
   They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but
   nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Iranian" and/or "Persian".
This seems to relate to ethnic identity, which has been established to be uncertain in F.'s case... Selfinformation 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria for categories and for lists are often much looser than for other aspects of Wikipedia; in this case al-Farabi's inclusion seems justified by the sentence: "They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other 'Lists of...', but nevertheless [sic] their names and work are somehow linked to the words 'Iranian' and/or 'Persian'." --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Persian scientists 

message: Muhammad ibn Tarhan ibn Uzlug el-Farabi, also known as Alpharabius or Avensar in medieval Latin texts, born 878 in Turkistan, died 950, one of the most brilliant and famed of Muslim philosophers; also know as the second teacher, (Aristotle being the first). He was of Turkish origin. Farabi’s father was in the Turkish bodyguard of the caliph, and his life was spent in Baghdad and Aleppo. 
Farabi, al: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1980 edition, Vol.4, p.51.'''
Another source
Farabi was born in Vasic, a district of Oghuz Karacuk (Farab) city in Turkistan. He received his early education in Bukhara, Turkistan and continued the rest of his education in Baghdad. He led a simple Sufi life in Damascus when he died. He left many works in logic, metaphysics, morality and politics. 
Farabi introduced philosophy to Islam, the newly acquired religion of Turks. He found Islam as a religion was of itself not sufficient for the needs of a philosopher. He saw human reason as superior to revelation. Religion provided truth in a symbolic form to non-philosophers, who were not able to apprehend it in more pure forms. The major part of Farabi’s writings was directed to the problem of the correct ordering of the state. He argued that just as God rules the universe, so should the philosopher, as the most perfect kind of man, rule the state; he thus relates the political upheavals of his time to the divorce of the philosopher from the government. 
Philosophy in Farabi’s cultural environment faced many obstacles which did not occur in the time of Aristotle and Plato. As a Turkish philosopher, it is necessary to see Farabi’s originality and contributions within this context, as he tried to reconcile philosophy with Islam as a radical monotheistic religion. Farabi successfully utilized the mystic element as one of characteristics of Turkish-Islamic thought while he was resolving this problem. He made rational mysticism a characteristic in the Turkish religious perception and tried to reconcile religion and philosophy as two separate ways leading the truth. 
One of Farabi’s views that has an important place in Turkish-Islamic thought is his perception of morality and politics. According to him, happiness is a purpose that everybody desires to have and it is “absolute good” due to its nature. Every action which leads human beings to this purpose and will make them happy is “good” and the action that prevents him from becoming so is “bad” and human beings have the potential to distinguish what is good and what is bad. Since wisdom can comprehend what is good and what is bad, human beings should have a balanced freedom in the field of morality. 
Farabi has an irreplaceable place in Turkish-Islamic thought and Sufism, as opposed to Arabic-Islamic thinking, with an influence reaching over eleven hundred centuries. 
Reference: “Philosophy among the Early Muslim States”, Prof.Dr. Hanifi Ozcan, The Turks, Vol.2, Yeni Turkiye Yayinlari, Istanbul, 2002.'''
A great article is here
http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID=473
Its clearly evident that he was ethnically a Turk, all reliable source's point towards this conclusion aswell as logical points, he was born in Turkestan, the slave guards were Turkic, his name is Tarkhan etc etc etc
I'll add it to the article.
Johnstevens5
: There are more sources that call him Persian, some of which have already been listed on this page, but none are conclusive, as the article already states "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins". --ManiF 03:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, this article says, "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins", so why push one ethnic group over the other? (FYI, "Iranian" isn't an ethnic group, it's a nationality) —Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can find a hundred sources saying he's Persian, I'll show you a hundred saying he's Turkic, now listen, its quality not quantity. The guy was evidently of Turkic heritage, born in Turkiston, his name, him being son of slave guards who at the time were Turkic.
Ultimately, he was a muslim scientist of Turkic heritage, simple.
--Johnstevens5 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farabi's ethnicity according to Britannica 

message: Do you understand that "Iranian" is not an ethnic group? —Khoikhoi 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not more sources that say he's Persian, that's absolutely utterly riduclous, please source these claims.
Tarkhan and Uzlug are Turkish names.
He was not Iranian, he was a Muslim Turk so cannot be included in "Persian scientists" or "Iranian Scientists" because its not accurate or correct.
Here read this
FARABI
bu Na~r Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ul-Farabil (ca. 870950), Arabian philosopher, was born of Turkish stock at Fgrb in Turkestan, where also he spent his youth. Thence he journeyed to Bagdad, where he learned Arabic and gave himself to the study of mathematics, medicine and philosophy, especially the works of Aristotle. Later he went to the court of the ~Iamdnid Saif addaula, from whom he received a warm welcome and a small pension. Here he lived a quiet if not an ascetic life.
He died in Damascus, whither he had gone with his patron. His works are very clear in style, though aphoristic rather than systematic in the treatment of subjects. Unfortunately the success of Avicenna seems to have led to the neglect of much of his work. In Europe his compendium of Aristotles Rhetoric was published at Venice, 1484. Two of his smaller works appear in Alpharabii opera omnia (Paris, 1638), and two are translated in F. A. SchmOlders Documenta philosophiae Arabum (Bonn, 1836). More recently Fr. Dieterici has published at Leiden:
Alfarabis philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German trans. 1892); Alfarabis Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German trans. with an essay Uber den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie, 1900); Die Staatsleitung von A tfarabi in German, with an essay on Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie (1904).
For Farbis life see McG. de Slanes translation of Ibn Khallikan (vol. 3, pp- 307 if.); and for further information as to his works M. Steinschneiders article in the Mimoires de lAcademie (St Petersburg, srie 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 5869); and C. Brockelmanns Gesch.
der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, f 898),pp.210-213. (G. W. T.)
http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FARABI.htm
Its pretty conclusive, Tarkhan Uzlug Farabi was a Turk, Britannica 1911 is very objective and uses scholorly sources.
Regards
--Johnstevens5 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John.... 

message: Sources are needed to back up the claims that he was "Persian" and not born in Farab.
Regards
--Johnstevens5 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: * "... These present themselves as our most extensive and detailed sources though they date a good three centuries after Fa@ra@b^'s death. Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a's entry, which is the earlier one, consists of a collection and patching together of all the diverse pieces of information that were available to him in Syria at that time. It includes much legendary material, but Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a also quotes Fa@ra@b^ where he can. Ebn K¨alleka@n's entry, by contrast, is a response to that of Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a: the latter had mentioned at the beginning of his entry, and for the first time by any extant biographer, that Fa@ra@b^'s father was of Persian descent; Ebn K¨alleka@n's entry is completely animated by the effort to prove that Fa@ra@b^ was ethnically Turkish. To this end, Ebn K¨alleka@n first gave Fa@ra@b^ an additional nesba, one he never had, al-Tork^. Abu'l-Feda@÷, who copied Ebn K¨alleka@n, corrected this, and changed the word, al-Tork^ "the Turk," which reads like a nesba, to the descriptive statement, wa-ka@na rajolan tork^yan "he was a Turkish man" (Mokòtasáar II, p. 104). Second, at the end of his entry, Ebn K¨alleka@n spent considerable time giving the correct spelling and vocalization of all the names which he says are Turkish and are associated with Fa@ra@b^: the names of his alleged grand- and great-grandfather, T®arkòa@n and Awzalag@ (adding explicitly, wa-homa@ men asma@÷ al-tork, "these are Turkish names"), and the toponymics of his origins, Fa@ra@b, OtÂra@r, Bala@sag@u@n, and Ka@œg@ar (the information on the toponymics is derived from Sam¿a@n^, under the nesba al-Fa@ra@b^, though Sam¿a@n^ does not refer to the philosopher). In between, Ebn K¨alleka@n offers a continuous narrative of Fa@ra@b^'s life as reconstructed by him. ..." -Encyclopaedia Iranica: "Farabi"
As you can see, the claim that he was Turkish is actually the WEAKEST claim among all and was the work of an obvious "nationalist" who - like this johnstevens5 - invented and created false claims just to give his wrong vews some base. 
It's funny that this guy has now suddenly discovered the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, because yesterday, he did not accept any information of the Britannica in regard of Ulugh Beg and his origin (Britannica calls him a "Persian scientist"). 
Tajik 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia Iranica is not authoritative, its a student project, it is a joke compared to Britannica.
Here is the objective reality.
FARABI
bu Na~r Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ul-Farabil (ca. 870950), Arabian philosopher, was born of Turkish stock at Fgrb in Turkestan, where also he spent his youth. Thence he journeyed to Bagdad, where he learned Arabic and gave himself to the study of mathematics, medicine and philosophy, especially the works of Aristotle. Later he went to the court of the ~Iamdnid Saif addaula, from whom he received a warm welcome and a small pension. Here he lived a quiet if not an ascetic life.
Alfarabis philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German trans. 1892); Alfarabis Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German trans. with an essay Uber den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie, 1900); Die Staatsleitung von A tfarabi in German, with an essay on Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie (1904).
For Farbis life see McG. de Slanes translation of Ibn Khallikan (vol. 3, pp- 307 if.); and for further information as to his works M. Steinschneiders article in the Mimoires de lAcademie (St Petersburg, srie 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 5869); and C. Brockelmanns Gesch.
der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, f 898),pp.210-213. (G. W. T.)
http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FARABI.htm
Using "Iranica" makes you a Nationalist, if I was to use a Turkish Encyclopedia you woulnd't accept it and call it bias.
Its one rule for all, not one rule for some and another for others.
The theory that he was a Persian need's hard sources and references.
The reality is he was a Turk
Uzlug- Tarkhan are Turkish names.
He was born in a Turk area.
If you find this hard to swallow that's your problem.
 
--Johnstevens5 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farabi's origin according to the (authoritative) Iranica 

message: the Dehkhoda Dictionary be used as a credible source?It was first printed in 1931, a time when the Shah was obsessed with nationalism and proving the superiority of Persians, a period in which there was a huge anti-Turkism in Iran.
How can this be considered objective? how can it be allowed in Wikipedia? it should definately not be used as a source.
I'll remove it.
--Johnstevens5 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can the Dehkhoda Dictionary be used as a source for Wikipedia??? 

message: What was his madhhab?--Striver 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Madhhab

message: According to Deborah Black in an academic article written for the History of Islamic Philosophy (edited by Oliver Leaman and Hossein Nasr), al-Farabi did not treat the theology as an authentic Aristotelian text, and his preference on Neo-Platonic metaphysics is because of real philosophical considerations. Therefore, unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I suggest we remove the following section: 
"Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher" 
Alexander.Hainy 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Alexander.Hainy 11:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Farabi and the "theology of aristotle" 

message: I've started to add to the section on al-Farabi's philosophical thought, main priorities are his metaphysics/cosmology (done), psychology and practical/political philosophy. If anyone has any suggestions, any comments, please feel free to post them up!
Alexander.Hainy 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added two paragraphs on epistemology, more sources (and possibly more detail) will be added when I get home and have all my books with me. Next up is his theory of the soul and the afterlife! Alexander.Hainy 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Section on the soul and prophetic knowledge is complete. Everything in the philosophical thought section is referenced as well. Aiming to add sections on practical philosophy and the afterlife this afternoon. Alexander.Hainy 14:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Practical philosophy done for now, next task will be a small section on his contribution to logic. Does anyone have any other ideas? Alexander.Hainy 09:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Farabi's philosophy 

message: I might be mistaken (and I usually am), but I thought al-Farabi considered philosophy and revelation two different ways of attaining the same truth; one based on the soul's faculty of reason, the other based on it's faculty of imagination. 
If there is a good academic citation of this, could someone provide it? Otherwise I'm not sure if this sentence should be there! :-S
Alexander.Hainy 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence amended. Alexander.Hainy 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reason is superior to revelation" - citation needed. 

message: If you read this talk page, you'll see that this page had been subject to many edit-wars over the ethnicity of Al-Farabi, which is why it was agreed to state both POV positions as a compromise, and that's what made the article stable. --Mardavich 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-standing compromise 

message: The oldest known reference to a possible Turkic origin is given by the medieval historian Ibn Khallekān (died in 1282), who in his work Wafayāt (completed in 669/1271) claimed that Farabi was born in the small village of Wasij near Farab (in what is today Otrar, Kazakhstan) of Turkic parents, and in the following decades and centuries.  Other sources including the Oxford companion to philosophy have mentioned a Turkic origin* edited by Ted Honderich. (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 269.  "Of Turki origin, al-Farabi studied under Christian thinkers" 
* edited and translated by Norman Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin. (2003). Classical Islam : a sourcebook of religious literature. New York: Routledge. pp. 170.  "He was of Turkish origin, was born in Turkestan" 
* Ian Richard Netton. (1999). Al-Fārābī and his school. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.  "He appears to have been born into a military family of Turkish origin in the village of Wasil, Farab, in Turkestan" 
* Bassam Tibi. (2008). Political Islam, world politics, and Europe : democratic peace and Euro-Islam versus global jihad. London: Routledge.  "In fact was by origin a Turk, but his cultural language was Arabic and his commitment was to his was to the Islamic civilization, not to his ethnicity" 
* Gulnara A. Bakieva. (2006). Social memory and contemporaneity. Washington, D.C.: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.  "Al-Farabi, a Turk by origin, born in Otrar, which was in the territory of modern Kazakhstan" 
* edited by Henrietta Moore. (1996). The future of anthropological knowledge. London: Routledge.  "al-Farabi (873-950), a scholar of Turkish origin." 
* Diané Collinson and Robert Wilkinson. (1994). Thirty-Five Oriental Philosophers.. London: Routledge.  "Al-Farabi is thought to be of Turkish origin. His family name suggests that he came from the vicinity of Farab in Transoxiana." 
* Fernand Braudel ; translated by Richard Mayne. (1995). A history of civilizations. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.  "Al-Farabi, born in 870, was of Turkish origin. He lived in Aleppo and died in 950 in Damascus" 
* Jaroslav Krejčí ; assisted by Anna Krejčová. (1990). Before the European challenge : the great civilizations of Asia and the Middle East. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 140.  "the Transoxanian Turk al-Farabi (d. circa 950)" 
* Hamid Naseem. (2001). Muslim philosophy science and mysticism. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. pp. 78.  "Al-Farabi, the first Turkish philosopher" 
* Clifford Sawhney. The World's Greatest Seers and Philosophers, 2005, p. 41
* Zainal Abidin Ahmad. Negara utama (Madinatuʾl fadilah) Teori kenegaraan dari sardjana Islam al Farabi. 1964, p. 19
* Haroon Khan Sherwani. Studies in Muslim Political Thought and Administration. 1945, p. 63
* Ian Richard Netton. Al-Farabi and His School, 1999, p. 5.
Comment: 
* Either we add "claimed" to all primary sources or remove it from them all. Sole Soul (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: removed. Sole Soul (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  But food for thought, do you think ""Henrietta Moore" has studied Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Abi Osaybea,  Al-Shahrazūrī, Farab, Otrar, Arabic and etc.?  How many of these authors have really delved in the issue?  Of course these sources meet WP:RS in wikipedia.--RustamDastani (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My believe is that nobody really know, so I have my issues with the so called "specialists" also, but we can only apply Wikipedia rules here. Sole Soul (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A great quote from the Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy: "These biographical facts are paltry in the extreme but we must resist the urge to embellish them with fanciful stories, as the medieval biographers did, or engage in idle speculation about al-Farabi’s ethnicity or religious affiliation on the basis of contrived interpretations of his works, as many modern scholars have done." Sole Soul (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that should be added and I have added it.  Thanks.  --RustamDastani (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic origin 

message: I have added many biographical items to the article as well.  Specially his stay in Baghdad, Damascus and Egypt.--RustamDastani (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography expanded

message: As you know Rustam, my first choice is a brief ethnicity section. 
The factors that explains why a RS say he was Turkish, Persian or unknown are many, some of the them:
* Which primary source is used.
* His home city: Farab or Faryab.
* Any pro-Turkish or pro-Persian agenda some old or modern historians may have.
I can expand the Turkish section to make it like the Persian section by listing encyclopedias that said he was Turkish and the sources that said he was from Farab and at least one source which talk about pro-Persian bias. 
I can, but I did not because that makes me part of the problem of ethnicity in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, expanding the Turkish section is the lesser evil than a completely unbalanced article. I may conduct RFC to ask for consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not arguing whether he was Turkish or Persian. I talked in good faith but clearly that is not working . I will stop these discussions. Sole Soul (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am assuming good faith although I do think your criticsm of D. Gutas is a slightly off.  I just wanted to mention 1,2,3 and say that there are other arguments.  I just basically summarized the Iranian origin section.  You can do the same for the Turkish origin section if you wish, but please remember points 1,2,3 above which I mentioned some wikipedia rules about possible WP:OR (extrapolation from a sentence) and WP:synthesis. Thanks.  --RustamDastani (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, if I add anything I will use near the exact words as the RS, not more. Sole Soul (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  There were other arguments I did not mention , so that the main issue can be about Farabi and his works rather than the silly back and forth.  However it is good to have this summary since classical sources differ.  Since the issue is inconsequential as far as his work (except possibly his work on music).  I have no problem with putting a similar size paragraph in the other section.  I just had a problem with extrapolation(WP:OR (point 2)) or synthesis (point 3). --RustamDastani (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought 

message: So I looked up wikipedia's list of Turkish scholars/scientists and came up with 1-2 names from middle ages and even those like taqi muhammad ibn ma'ruf is contested between arabs and turks because of the ambiguities surrounding their nationalities...all the rest are from contemporary times...when will the turks acknowledge that their history doesn't start with the pen but the sword..
:Next time do us a favor, keep your "observation" to yourself, would you?Torebay (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  observation 

message: Can I ask a simple question? Is there ANY evidence at all that al Farabi was a Muslim. The evidence suggests that his beliefs were strongly Neo-Platonist with a significant leaning to Aristotelian modifications of Platonism. What evidence is there that he had any Muslim beliefs on top of all that. I welcome enlightenment on this point, but please, quotations from his texts only. I don't need religious rants, just facts. Apart from being born into a Muslim culture, was he himself a Muslim? Eluard (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A simple question

message: Many here need the reminder that there is a difference between religious affiliation and nationality, therefore debates ought to be separate. In this case Al-Farabi was a Persian Muslim, just as President Kennedy was an Irish-American Catholic. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion v. Nationality 

message: Can someone ban or block the user who posted 'Persian's Historical Theft' (user: 217.146.218.193 )
He seems to be making changes to Persian/Iranian related articles, and after reading his rant [REMOVED ethnic slur]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk • contribs) 23:20, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
:Are you joking? Do you know what a "glass house" is? How about not answering an unruly disruptor with cheap shots. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block 

message: in Turkish Böri (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fârâbî  

message: The article itself says Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan although the infobox for some reason only says Turkmenistan. When were these the same place? And the source I saw, Henry Corbin,   says "Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ibn Uzalagh al-Farabi was born at Wasij, near Farab in Transoxiana". If the sources disagree, we must make that clear. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree that perhaps both Turkmenistan (from the BEA) and Kazakhstan (assuming we're sure about it) should be mentioned. I have also seen "Turkish Transoxiana" being linked to Farabi, and "Turkistan" mentioned in some of the early biographical dictionaries (like Ẓahīr al-dīn al-Bayhaqī's Tatimmat ṣiwān al-ḥikma). Wiqi(55) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Turkmenistan was used by the cited source. In any case, I have opted to use the version used by Bayhaqi (Turkestan) and Ibn Nadim (Faryab in Khorasan). Incidentally, at least in the version of his book found on-line, Ibn Nadim does not mention anything about his Persian ancestry (contrary to what this article claims). Wiqi(55) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most academically-accepted terminology for the region at the time, is Persia or Transoxiana if you want to be precise. Modern borders and region names are irrelevant. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using the wording of reliable sources (most of which agree that he was born in predominantly Turkish regions, regardless of his ethnicity) should be preferred. Also, the primary/secondary sources do not just say Transoxiana/Khorasan, but actually give more details and name places, like Turkestan. The secondary sources also use these more precise terms. We should be more precise and try to reflect the wording/tone used in the cited sources. There is no point in trying to hide that information. Wiqi(55) 05:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or better yet, just leave it the birthplace as Farab without any other labels, either linking it to [Farab]] or the section that discusses the dispute about where he was actually born, which Farab that is, in order to avoid similar silly disputes. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems there is disagreement in the sources used. Precise terms or otherwise. Which brings things back to Dougweller's comment at the top of this section. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

text:  Kurdo, the only sources we have, and they were well-cited here, are Bayhaqi (Farab, Turkestan) and Ibn Nadim (Faryab, Khorasan). So which primary source mentioned that he was born in Farab, Iran? Wiqi(55) 05:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the difference between [[Turkmenistan]], [[Kazakhstan]] and [[Transoxiana]] 

message: Wiqi55 has placed two n-line dubious tags in front of two quoted verifiable statements supported by academic secondary sources, requesting a quote from the primary source in another language, that the academic secondary sources are quoting. This is an outright abuse of dubious tags, as our job as Wikipedias, is not to question secondary sources and request quotes from primary sources instead. This is also borderline WP:OR, as secondary sources are more acceptable in Wikipedia than primary sources anyways, and in this case we have a verifiable quote from a secondary source, being questioned by Wiqi55, based on his own original research. Wiqi55 is in no position to question the research of an academic, and a reliable secondary source and claim that he "didn't find the quote" in the primary source, as if his findings/research or lack thereof, have any bearing on the verifiability or the reliability of the secondary source. This is not how Wikipedia works and that's not what the dubious tag is intended for. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Examining primary sources in a descriptive manner is not considered original research (see WP:PRIMARY). I'm aware that some reliable sources sometimes make mistakes. I'm not sure whether that is true or not in this case, but I thought the issue needs to be discussed. This will eventually help us to determine whether such sources are reliable/specialist or not. If you can find the quote in question, please post it. Wiqi(55) 04:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted these as an inappropriate use of the tags. I've been this before, an editor saying that we have to verify what appear to be reliable sources before we can use them. Wiqi, take these to WP:RSN and see if people agree with you there. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The RSN is not useful here as this is about a claim made by a source, not necessarily the source itself. The documentation of  explains why adding this template was appropriate. Start reading from "The purposes of this template are ..." Wiqi(55) 07:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Iranica is a reliable source. Unless you have consensus here that these sources are not reliable, you'll need to appeal elsewhere. This is an RSN issue, what else could it be? Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The claim under discussion is not made by Iranica. It is cited here based on a book published by "I.B. Tauris in association with The Institute of Ismaili Studies". Doesn't seem very reliable to me. But I'm not questioning the source, as other sources (primary or secondary) might have made the same claim. This is exactly why we have  , to ask for more sources. Wiqi(55) 08:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first template you added to a statement that you yourself added, "Ibn al-Nadim in his Fihrist, and" - I don't understand why you added that and then added a template, but in any case I've reverted it as it would need a source. I'll get back to the other one in a minute but first I want to fix something else that got messed up a while back. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't need fixing after all. Sorry about my confusion over Iranica. I.B. Tauris looks like a reliable publisher and Institute of Ismaili Studies seems to be a reliable institution from looking at the article and the relationships of the Institute. So I can see no reason not to believe that the book meets our criteria as a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it wasn't me who added that sentence. Regardless of the quality of the source, the claim is still an exceptional claim, not even mentioned in the Iranica article which had an extensive discussion of his ethnicity (and Ibn al-Nadim is more famous than some the names discussed by Iranica). Exceptional claims should be discussed and sourced properly. I'm not sure why do you find that objectionable. Wiqi(55) 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks very much as though you did add it, see . I still think this is a matter for RSN, you are arguing that it is not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was undoing a blanket revert. The intermediate diff that added that sentence can be found here . Also, the documentation of  is clear and inline with my usage (i.e., asking for more sources). Otherwise, why do you think we have the  template? Wiqi(55) 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, Wikiblame just showed you adding it. I will say that I think a lot of editors don't agree with the essay you cited, WP:DRNC, which is probably why it never became a guideline. As for the template, it's one of those that has seemed pretty pointless to me unless used on an inactive article with an inactive talk page by someone who is pretty sure it needs work but doesn't have the time or whatever to do it. In this case it's served any purpose it might have here, warned/alerted editors, and it is now time to take it to RSN if you don't think it's accurate or a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm currently looking at the other sources we have here and none of them mention the Persian claim made by Ibn al-Nadim (although I'm not done yet). If no other source supports this claim and other editors are not willing to concede that it was just an error, then I'd guess we will eventually end up at the RSN. Wiqi(55) 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn Nadim and Persian ancestry 

message: Our sources say Turkish, thus the article needs to say Turkish. Our article on Turkic peoples says "The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of people including existing societies such as the Turkish, Azerbaijani, Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyzs, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauzs, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Nogais and as well as past civilizations such as the Kumans, Kipchaks, Avars, Bulgars, Turgeshes, Seljuks, Khazars, Ottoman Turks, Mamluks, Timurids, and possibly the Xiongnu and Huns", and that is not what our sources are suggesting, they are specifically saying Turkish. I don't understand why editors use a word not used in our sources although this appears on the fact of it to be some sort of nationalist thing to avoid using the word Turkish. It may not be that but that is what it looks like to an outsider. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thanks for noticing this. Even in other matters it seems that the Turkish section misrepresents what the sources are saying. For instance, Bosworth was writing about modern Turkish nationalists, not Ibn Khallikan. And Gutas nowhere criticized Ibn Khallikan, he merely noted that Ibn Khallikan intended to refute the claim that Farabi was Persian -- that is not a criticism. The section also misses the views of Abu al-Fida'. Wiqi(55) 06:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Gutas is saying Ibn Khallikan was keen on proving "a Turkish ethnic origin" and to "this end", he mde a fabrication, changing the name/title "Al-Turki" to a descriptive statement "he was a Turk". Gutas  calls Ibn Khallikan's work " completely animated by the effort to prove that Fārābī was ethnically Turkish". If that's not criticism, I'm not sure what is. So there is no misinterpretation here. Pease don't change the wording without a clear WP:CON here first. Kurdo777 (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why you changed 'Turkish' to 'Turkic' - it doesn't appear that the sources use the word Turkic, and you don't seem to have consensus for that change in any case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Doug, are you addressing me? I did not change "Turkish" to "Turkic", I kept all your changes. So I'm not sure what you mean. I'm actually all for getting consensus for such contested changes. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, do you have any secondary sources which claim that Gutas (and "others", as the current paragraph claims) "criticized" Ibn Khallikan? If you don't, then there is no point in imposing your own original research on what Gutas has said. Instead, we should try to report the views of Gutas without using loaded words, like "criticized", and let the readers decide whether it was a criticism or not. Second, you claim that Gutas was one of "others" who also criticized Ibn Khallikan. You'll need to cite sources for those "others", otherwise it is just Gutas. Third, you have also removed the views of Ibn al-Fida' without giving any reason for doing so. Fourth, Bosworth was talking about modern Turkish nationalists. This meaning is not being made clear in a paragraph about historical reports. Should I go ahead and make these changes? Wiqi(55) 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kurdo, thanks for your post to my talk page, but you did change 'Turkish' to 'Turkic' with phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Farabi&action=historysubmit&diff=457968841&oldid=457934109 this edit]. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I see that now. That appears to have an error, as a result of copy/paste job gone wrong. Otherwise, not only I did not intent to change Turkish to Turkic, I actually tried to save those Turkic-oo-Turkish changes you had made, and I did do that for both the headers and two other usages in the same paragraph, but I accidentally missed this one. Sorry about that. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, these things happen, I just couldn't figure out why at the time because there were no other similar changes. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic vs Turkish 

message: most historians agree that he is persian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.244.61 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  hes persian 

message: "Ibn Nadim in his al-fihrist, which is the first work to mention Frabi considers him to be of Persian origin, as does Muhammad Shahrazuri in his Ta'rikh al-hukama and Ibn Abi Usaybi'ah in his Tabaqat al-atibba. In contrast, Ibn Khallikan in his Wafayat al-a yan considers him to be of Turkish descent." p.134
S.H.Nasr (2008) An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia vol 1: from zoroaster to umar khayyam New York.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farabi's Persian origin 

message: al-Farabi's name ( / ) is Arabic and should be mentioned as such in the lead. I see no reason why it should be mentioned as Persian, because it was not Persian, Farabi was not (an ethnic) Persian, nor did he write in Persian. He had some knowledge of Persian which he had aquired in the learning centers of Khorasan and Iraq. He spent almost all of his life in Arabic Iraq, all of his works are in Arabic and he relied mostly on Arabic translations of Greek works. 
It will also neutralize this silly fight between Persian and Turkish nationalists, trying to "Persianize" or "Turkicize" a philosopher who lived more than 1000 years ago and was almost certainly of Iranian Sogdian origin - a people with a unique culture, identity, language, and script living in between the Perso-Arabic world and the Turkic nomadic confederations. --Lysozym (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in the lead 

message: −(84.100.243.163 (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Farabi and Aristotle. Importance of Zimmermann's translation of Al-Farabi's ''Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle's de Interpretatione'' 

message: Most of the stuff citing "Iranica"  is cut and pasted it needs to be summarized in an editors own words J8079s (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright vio 

message: Not persian, he was really turkish man. Simply, Farab was a Turkish region according to Ibn Ibn Hawkal.   
: You need to provide a reliable source to support your view.--Chewings72 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Farabi. 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/20160307121111/http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html to http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325171417/http://umcc.ais.org/~maftab/ip/hmp/XXIII-TwentyThree.pdf to http://umcc.ais.org/~maftab/ip/hmp/XXIII-TwentyThree.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307121111/http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html to http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html
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) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al-Farabi. 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  tag to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv9f4%2Fv9f410.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003184408/http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-f1f713a319da41dc97d398057889ff2f-fa.html to http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-f1f713a319da41dc97d398057889ff2f-fa.html
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) 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified