User talk:Weiszman

But I don't actually know anything about Persian literature... m.e. 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have solid sources ,they do not have the right to revert your edits (especially when you did not remove their contributions).You can discuss you edits on the talk page or ask a neutral admin if this problem continued --Aziz1005 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all of that was done, in other words, edit summaries and talk page comments were left, and no sources or references were ever removed by me. However, a few editors who work together have been removing my sourced references. Weiszman 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem with some other articles.Keep editing then your edits hopefully will stay ,If this didn't work ,I think then you can report it to one of the admins because this is considered POV. Best regards--Aziz1005 09:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

1) Arab descent according to other sources, Herbert Wendt. In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors. Houghton, Mifflin, 1956, p. 6 and

2) Acta Geneticae Medicae Et Gemellologiae, International Society for Twin Studies, Società italiana di genetica medica, Permanent Committee for the International Congresses of Human Genetics, Istituto "Gregorio Mendel", 1952, p. 268

3) "Ibn-Sina has been referred to as the Arab Galen." Philip Khuri Hitti. Makers of Arab History, 1968, p. 216

4) "In him Arab science reached its climax."Eugene A. Myers. Arabic Thought and the Western World in the Golden Age of Islam. 1964, p. 33

Weiszman 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you want to add these, because you believe they show that Ibn-Sina was an Arab? Can you sumarise for me the reasons that other people are giving for not including the references? (I don't just mean their motives, but their arguments.) Regards, Ben Aveling 10:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They made several arguments, such as that since the name of Ibn Sina's mother was Persian, and his father was from Balkh, which is today in Afghanistan, and Ibn Sina wrote in Persian, that's the 100% proof of him being Persian. Then they claimed "There is consensus among all major academics and historians that Ibn Sina was Persian. This is indisputable. Fringe views don't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NPOV". Then another claim: "Wikipedia requires primary sources over secondary sources." Then this: "If Britannica 2007 calls him Persian then it means that there is a consensus behind it, hence that's what wikipedia should follow. If somehow it is proved that a major alternative view considers him Arab (which I doubt) then you can simply label him as a 'muslim' scholar on the lead and explain all viewpoints in a section within the body of the article." Incidentally, Britannica calls him "Muslim scholar" [1] Then they made a few other comments. However all this misses the point - out of 4 quotes I brought in, 2 deal with him being an Arab scientist whilst the other two with his Arab ethnicity. It is not relevant whether we believe 100% he was not Arab or was for sure Persian or Tajik. What matters is that several reputable verifiable sources said otherwise, and because it is more than one source, we should report it in Wikipedia per all applicable policies. Weiszman 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the first quote which is quite explicit in its belief of Ibn Sina being Arab: "From AD 980 to AD 1037 a learned man of Arab descent lived in the Persian city of Hamadan." Herbert Wendt. In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors. Houghton, Mifflin, 1956, p. 6 [2] Weiszman 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the Wendt quote. The words are indeed clear, but that doesn't prove that Ibn Sina was an Arab, in the modern sense. I can see two possible interpretations.

1. When Wendt said that Ibn Sina was an Arab, he meant in the modern sense, excluding the possibility of his being Persian

2. When Wendt said that Ibn Sina was an Arab, he meant a Muslim, allowing the possibility of his being Persian

Can we demonstrate that Wendt would have been using the first meaning? For example, are there any examples in the book where he makes it clear that he doesn't believe that Persians are Arabs?

The other problem we have is that knowledge moves on. For example, I can find plenty of sources that say that the solar system has 9 planets. But it doesn't. After much discussion, it has been agreed that Pluto isn't a planet. So even if Wendt believed that Ibn Sina was not Persian, there may well have been discoveries in the past 50 years that prove him wrong. But first things first, what evidence do we have that Wendt used Arab in the modern sense? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, the Wendt quote is clear, as he writes "Arab descent". That throws the second possibility (2. When Wendt said that Ibn Sina was an Arab, he meant a Muslim, allowing the possibility of his being Persian) out of the window, since no one can be of "Muslim descent". Per the first point, he again makes clear in one line that he distinguishes between Persians and Arabs, as he writes: "a learned man of Arab descent lived in the Persian city of Hamadan." Additional quotes both on the Arab descent of his paternal line and Jewish descent of his maternal line are collected here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avicenna#On_Ibn_Sina.27s_mother.27s_.28who_was_from_Bukhara .29_possible_Jewish_origin

Please note that I am not disputing the prevailing view of Avicenna being Persian or even Tajik. Instead, per Wikipedia rules, I want the other view, which is backed up by several reputable and verifiable sources, to be presented as well. Instead, a few users want to supress it and view it as zero-sum game. But clearly all those sources should be reflected on the page, and it is also clear that the origin of Avicenna is somewhat murky and not as simple and straightforward as some suggest. That's why such ethnic groups as Arabs, Turks and Jews all have a point when they say that Avicenna had some of their heritage too. At the same time, he was predominantly of Iranian origin, and I do not dispute it, and never did. It's unfortunate that some turn this into a nationalistic debate, and have spent hours trying to supress the info I am bringing. Where were they all before, why didn't they improve the page that obviously needs improvement and needs to cite its sources more, as opposed to basing on 1911 Britannica?

You write that no one can be of "Muslim descent". I'm not so sure of that. At least, not if one considers Muslim, Middle-Eastern and Arab to be synonomous, as many people still do, and I can quite believe that it was a more common belief 50 years ago. But I agree that he does seem to distinguish between Arab and Persian in the sentance you cite, which suggests that he did draw a distinction. It doesn't prove that he didn't see Persian as a sub-set of Arab, but at least it shows he's capable of making the destinction. I guess the next question is, can we persuade other people that Wendt was right, or that there is a chance that he was? Amazon describes the book as "for-laymen work" but "Written with scientific authority". It's an old book, do you have access to it? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the relevant passages through Google books. There is no evidence that he considers Arabs as a subset of Persians or that he uses Muslim and Arab interchangeably. The users who state that should prove their point, the ball is really in their court and they share the burden. I have quoted him and other authors exactly, provided a full citation and complied with all the Wikipedia rules. Others should do that too. Since the first incident I've brought many more quotes, which shows that he was and still is universally recognized as a Islamic/Muslim scholar of mixed parentage, with predominant Persian (or perhaps Tajik) ethnic heritage, or possibly Arab. Also, his mother was most likely Jewish, as she was from Bukhara where many Jews lived for centuries and there are alredy two references in Western publications of her being Jewish. All these facts should be reflected in the article. Let the reader make his/her own determination based on the presented facts. No one is denying his most probable Persian heritage, and his significance for Persia. But he was significant to the whole Muslim world, and as several independent users remakred (e.g., Vakilian) at the time he most likely regarded himself as simply Muslim and Bukharian. Weiszman 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, please see what Mr. Ali Doostzadeh wrote in the talk page of Avicenna: "Muslim is not an ethnicity and Persian is not a religion in case some people did not know". In other words even he does not support the notion that "of Arab descent" could have possibly simply meant Muslim. Weiszman 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that your source believed he was an Arab. I'm yet not satisfied that he was right. I don't know why he thought Ibn-Sina was an Arab, and whatever scholars used to think, I can see from the talk page that many modern scholars, maybe even most or all, believe Ibn-Sina was Persian, and I'm sure they have their reasons for discounting what used to be believed. Do you know of any modern scholars who believe that there is a possibility that Ibn-Sina even might not have been Persian? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

unblock|Where the evidence of "sock puppeting"? it's a frivolous charge and mistake

19:08, 10 April 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Weiszman (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{SockpuppetCheckuser|AdilBaguirov}})

No mention of Weiszman at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/AdilBaguirov. I'll ask Khoikhoi to clarify. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there can't be any mention as it's all made up. All this for posting new sources on a few pages, enriching the debate and the articles? Please remove this unfair block. Weiszman 10:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume a mistake has been made. Khoikhoi doesn't seem to be around. I'll ask for an unblock at WP:ANI. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked with User:Khoikhoi. This editor is a sockpuppet.--Anthony.bradbury 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Weiszman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Where the evidence of "sock puppeting"? it's a frivolous charge and mistake

Decline reason:

Per Anthony.bradbury, above — Newyorkbrad 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.