Talk:Ibn Khaldun

Problems of ethnicity

Makeandtoss makes a valid point: there is a glaring double standard and selective application of the supposed "followed practices." Some users have taken it upon themselves to purge Wikipedia of any references to the Arabness of historical figures. I'm unsure why this is such a significant issue. If the ethnicity of these figures isn't contested, there should be no problem with its inclusion. While ethnicity should generally not be in the lead, it should not always be excluded. Determining what constitutes X’s "notabilities" is subjective and vague — there are no clear, objective metrics where such a predicate can be agreed upon in any meaningful sense. So why are we wasting time on petty and trivial matters? It just seems unproductive. @Makeandtoss@M.Bitton@Andrew Lancaster@Bondegezou@Kansas Bear@Wikaviani

18:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Nabataeus (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: I think the conversation has been poor, with too many editors, including (I'm sorry) this post all too focussed upon trying to accuse other editors. I don't think this should be such a difficult topic. Normally I hate RFC's but maybe we need one in this case because the conversation has not been very good. (I hope not.) I am in any case NOT opposed to indicating that Ibn Khaldun identified as someone with Arab ancestry and culture. He clearly did. I AM opposed to ANY kind of "all or nothing" ethnic identification, or any other kind of all or nothing identity. Even today, when so many people seem obsessed with all or nothing identities, it seems to be widely admitted, during calmer moments, that most of have many overlapping ways of identifying ourselves? Perhaps we can all agree on those two points and use that to find reasonable wordings? Ibn Khaldun was not a 21st century person on social media obsessed with all or nothing identities.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have no problem with including his Arab background (which is quite undisputed) in the lead if those who support said inclusion can prove that this is useful for his notability.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster@Wikaviani The problem here is not about the nature of Ibn Khaldun identity, it’s about whether such an ethnic identity should be included in the lead at all. Let’s stick to that, as Wikipedia does not operate under the personal interpretations and analysis of its users, but report what is asserted in related authoritative sources. I’m afraid RFC won’t solve the problem at hands either, as it spilled into other articles by some user who also thinks that Persians are being treated unjustly here. It’s a murky business.

Not sure why people make a big deal out of it; the Manual of Style is: “ is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow ”. It’s not a binding rule for editors really to try religiously implementing it. Also, in the case of a subject’s notability, what is considered notable about something to YOU might not be considered as notable for someone else. Again, it’s extremely subjective and vague. This whole issue is, like I said, petty and trivial. Common sense sometimes is needed, because it’s getting unproductive. Nabataeus (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, I have absolutely no problem with Arabness being indicated in the lead section for Ibn Khaldun or Al-Kindi or anyone else. The problem here is that the page for Avicenna was extended protected and any reference to his ethnicity or geographical origin was taken out of the lead because his ethnicity was apparently not relevant to his fame. The moment we reverse the pathetic ruling on the Avicenna, Khayyam, Suhrawardi, Ghazali pages we can put "Arab" back here and everywhere else without there being a double standard. شاه عباس (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The double standard is indeed problematic and consistency must be restored. I have discussed this previously many times that Arab and Persian historical figures specifically are having no ethnic identifications in the lede, while many historical figures in other regions, not only have an ethnic identification, but a modern one, such as Niccolò Machiavelli who is described as Italian instead of Florentine! Makeandtoss (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless there has been a general ruling made at a very high level, which would itself demand something like an RFC, then we don't need to follow what happened on those Persian-oriented articles. OTOH, if indeed this is seen as the only way to avoid eternal silliness such as people constantly reverting each other, then perhaps no ethnicity is the best option. Personally, as I have already indicated, I think the problem is coming from the way in which too many editors see themselves as battling for all or nothing. If we can all get used to writing in a way which allows for multiple identities, then perhaps we can as a community calm this type of problem back down?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What is silly in fact is the clear double standard in the application of WP guidelines in which western historical figures are allowed to be given ethnic labels, even labels that are not contemporaneous to the figure, while Arab and Persian are singled out, and editors are left in this endless debate. We are not adding multiple identities, just like how Machiavelli is not described in his opening paragraph as an “Italian Florentine North Mediterranean European Christian”. We will not be doing “North African South Mediterranean Arab Muslim” either. One label is more than enough, and that label should be the label that RS use, and in this case it is very clearly Arab as I have previously demonstrated. I am tired of this double standard and I am tired of this endless discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

100%, Socrates is described as Greek and not "Attic-speaking Athenian pagan dialectician", somehow when it comes to Muslim figures of Arab and Persian origin that's controversial. If the ethnicity of a figure isn't debated, such as for Avicenna and Ibn Khaldun, then it should be included in the heading. شاه عباس (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all fine by me but the practical question here is whether you should best push this into being a Wikipedia-wide debate or just debate article by article. The examples which everyone is trying to make a point about here are connected to a different cultural situation in Persia and as far as I can see trying to bring those debates into this article is only going to confuse things?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It was very clear in the Avicenna talk page debate that the editors who were against the inclusion of ethnicity were arguing for it from the perspective that figures of Islamic civilisation are more characterised by religion than ethnicity, which would include figures like Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Athir. شاه عباس (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If that is what happened then that is a shame. But does those cases need to affect this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I am currently doing both simultaneously. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Extensive quotations

§ Religious thought seems to consist of nothing but two long quotations from Taha Husain's work of 1925. I believe that this doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for writing and for quoting. yoyo (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)