text:
Talk:Omar Khayyam

Pupils
User:Telementor: I have removed the line that says: "For decades, he also taught the philosophy of Avicenna in Nishapur". Khayyam was known to dislike teaching. There are a few figures alleged to have studied with him (Al-Khazini, Nizami Aruzi of Samarcand, and Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani). But it is purely conjectural if they had been pupils of his.

 * dab: You were right to remove the "for decades" bit, as it was not properly referenced. But then you go on to state "Khayyam was known to dislike teaching" -- please, again, tell us on whose authority we are told this. Then suddenly you become critical and question the reliability of the tradition naming his students. Well, ok, but you cannot be selective in being sceptical of medieval tradition just when it fits whatever you wish to emphasize. Question this tradition as "conjectural", but apply the same standard to the tradition that he was "disliked by Sufis".

Heliocentrism mistranslation, OR, and citogenesis
I've removed a passage claiming that Omar Khayyam's association with heliocentrism stemmed from a mistranslation of FItzgerald. In reading the two citations, I found that one was simply text of the poetry (along with some general discussion of Fitzgerald's poetic liberties), while the other (Olson) was not about mistaken heliocentrism, but rather Fitzgerald's translation incorrectly alluding to zodiacal light with the phrase "false dawn" (a mistranslation of the Persian Sahari). Looking to the original edit, I found that the Olson source was simply used to substantiate the idea that Fitzgerald's translations were often anachronistic, and only later was the citation moved to support the statement as a whole. The claim that Omar Khayyam's association with heliocentrism stemmed from the quoted passage of poetry is not supported anywhere, and appears to have been supposition on the part of the original editor. Unfortunately, I did find a number of websites written since 2012 which now repeat the claim using similar language, so future editors should be wary of possible citogenesis. Darth Coracle (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving the ethnicity
I am struggling to find a way to rewrite the ethnicity into the first paragraph in Life section.

"Omar Khayyam was born in 1048 in Nishapur, of Persian ancestry. Nishapur, was a leading metropolis during medieval times under the Seljuq dynasty and had been a major center of the Zoroastrian religion, and it is likely that Khayyam's father was a Zoroastrian who had converted to Islam."

Thoughts?

I had thought about;
 * "Omar Khayyam was born,of Zoroastrian Persian ancestry, in Nishapur in 1048. Nishapur, was a leading metropolis during medieval times under the Seljuq dynasty and had been a major center of the Zoroastrian religion."

Thoughts? Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I did a rewrite, still not happy with the flow or wording. Any ideas would be appreciated.

P.S. The IP owes me two six-packs of Guinness Foreign Extra Stout. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I am going to move some sentences around, so if I lose or misplace a reference or two, please add them back. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

b: a member of one of the peoples forming the modern Iranian nationality") MOS:FIRSTBIO clearly states that usually "nationality" should be mentioned. His religion is also of dispute so I changed it to Khorasani on the life section. Ehsanbasafa (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, the people they are related to is mentioned on the lead section (first paragraph) of articles such as Ibn al-Haytham, William Shakespeare, Avicenna and Napoleon. The word "Persian" (historically) does not necessarily refer to the ethnicity of the person. It refers to being part of the Iranian people. (or according to Merriam-Webster : Meaning of "Persian": "one of the ancient Iranians who under Cyrus and his successors founded an empire in southwest Asia

 * Persian is not a nationality and therefore should not be in the lead.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "Persian" does refer to nationality. Please read the previous and the current sources I mentioned. Merriam-Webster: "b: a member of one of the peoples forming the modern Iranian nationality". Iran has always been called Persia throughout history in the Western world. Up until 1935 in English, historical sources have always referred to Iran as Persia. This article is about a historic person and not a contemporary one. According to the article Persians on the Wikipedia itself "In historical contexts, especially in English, "Persian" may be defined more loosely (often as a national identity) to cover all subjects of the ancient Persian polities, regardless of their ethnic background....
 * Although Persis (Persia proper) was only one of the provinces of ancient Iran, varieties of this term (e.g., Persia) were adopted through Greek sources and used as an exonym for all of the Persian Empire for many years. Thus, especially in the Western world, the names Persia and Persian came to refer to all of Iran and its subjects.
 * Some medieval and early modern Islamic sources also used cognates of the term Persian to refer to various Iranian peoples and languages, including the speakers of Khwarazmian, Mazanderani, and Old Azeri. 10th-century Iraqi historian Al-Masudi refers to Pahlavi, Dari, and Azari as dialects of the Persian language. In 1333, medieval Moroccan traveler and scholar Ibn Battuta referred to the Afghans of Kabul as a specific sub-tribe of the Persians. Lady Mary (Leonora Woulfe) Sheil, in her observation of Iran during the Qajar era, states that the Kurds and the Leks would consider themselves as belonging to the race of the "old Persians".
 * On 21 March 1935, former king of Iran Reza Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty issued a decree asking the international community to use the term Iran, the native name of the country, in formal correspondence. However, the term Persian is still historically used to designate the predominant population of the Iranian peoples living in the Iranian cultural continent. " Ehsanbasafa (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At historic times when a Persian Empire, such as the Achaemenid one, was extant, one could refer to the denizens of said empire as "Persian", i.e.: Persian commanders, soldiers, scribes, etc., as if it were a nationality, but in the context of being born into the Seljuk Empire, it become a bit more murky. Persian in this context is more of a ethnicity or supposed identity, since in many sources it is unclear whether the sources imply Persian ancestry or simply that Khayyan spoke and wrote principally in Persian, which is the more indisputable information. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, your argument is on point and I have no further arguments to make. If the consensuses is that the word "Persian" should not be used, then I recommend using the words "Khorasani" or "Iranian". Ehsanbasafa (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I recommend neither Persian, Iranian, or Khorasani. None of these are nationalities of Khayyam's time. I recommend the article be returned to:
 * "Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm Nīsābūrī(18 May 1048 – 4 December 1131), commonly known as Omar Khayyam (Persian: عمر خیّام), was a polymath, mathematician, astronomer, historian, philosopher, and poet." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I would like to know your arguments against using the demonym of Khorasani instead of Persian in the lead section. (MOS:FIRSTBIO clearly states that usually "nationality" should be mentioned so I recommend this word as a form of replacement for the word "Persian" which might also refer to ethnicity.) The consensus seems to be to not use the word Persian @LouisAragon (My previous argument was that it is used for referring to nationality and not ethnicity). I recommend this because I think that wp:weight is not considered in the current lead section of this article. In according to the historical context of Khayyam, he was born in Nishapur which is itself historically a part of a region called Khorasan (Abbasid Revolution was ignited in Khorasan). The current lead is vague, and the clear identity of Khayyam remains a guessing game for the reader. At the time of Khayyam Khorasan was an important region politicly due to the de jure rule of Abbasid caliphs with Arab Khalifs. Khorasani people have had a great importance at the time of Khayyam in the political tensions of the time. I recommend using the demonym of Khorasani for Khayaam. This demonym will also not refer to any specific ethnicity and it should be of no dispute. This is the change that I am recommending in the first pargraph of the lead: "...was a khorasani polymath, known for his contributions to..." @LouisAragon @HistoryofIran @Iskandar323 @Kansas Bear Ehsanbasafa (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the value of using "Khorasani"? If is was deemed an important part of his identity, he would have been nicknamed 'Khorasani' at some point. Why do we need to belabor a particular geographical identifier, and even assuming there is a reason for that, why 'Khorasani'? Why not Nishapuri, which is actually in his name? Other tertiary sources seem to tend to either just refer to him as 'Persian' or just drop the ethnicity altogether, which is possibly the best option and what we already have. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the wording of the lead as it now stands. As yet, I find no compelling reason to add anything else to the lead.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm Nīsābūrī (18 May 1048 – 4 December 1131), commonly known as Omar Khayyam (Persian: عمر خیّام), was a polymath, known for his contributions to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and Persian poetry."

 * It stops other nations who hates persians from claiming notable figures like they do with Avicenna and Rumi 115.70.22.143 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Nationality
Subject's Nationality Should be cited in the lead. since it is directly relevant to subjects Notability. Removing Nationality from the lead and introduction section is pointless. Khayyam is famous because of his Persian Poetry. Thus he should be Introduced as a "Persian" or "Iranian" Poet. Removing His Nationality is meaningless and Unhelpful. However, the decision to remove his nationality from the lead is Racist and Anti-Iranian too. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 * "Removing His Nationality is meaningless and Unhelpful."
 * Persian is his ethnicity not nationality. When he was born in Nishapur(1048), it was part of the Seljuk Empire. Ergo, his nationality would be more Seljukian....

 * "Khayyam is famous because of his Persian Poetry."
 * Exactly. Not for being Persian. Which means MOS:Ethnicity applies here.

 * "However, the decision to remove his nationality from the lead is Racist and Anti-Iranian too."
 * LMAO. Iran, as a nation, did not exist during the time of Omar Khayyam. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1- Seljuk Dynasty Was a Dynasty of Persia/Iran, with Turkic Origin. They Were Persianised, Spoke Persian, Converted to Islam and Adopted Iranian Culture. So Seljuks Themselves Must be called a Persian/Iranian Dynasty With Turkic Origin.
 * 2-Khayam is famous exactly for Being a Persian. So his Ethnicity Must be cited in the lead.
 * 3-Iran as a Nation has more than three Thousand years of history, and always Existed as such. Iran As a Nation Existed at the time of Khayyam, as is evident from works of Ferdowsi, Nizami and Other Writers.
 * 4- "Iranian" Refers to the Iranian people, not only Nation state of Iran.
 * 4- So It is Anti Iranian to remove His Ethnicity/Nationality From the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not anti-Iranian, please stop saying stuff like this, doesn't make sense and would make me anti-Iranian as well for reverting you earlier in the other article. Iran was not a political entity at the time. And Omar Khayyam is not famous for his ethnicity, but his other work, as yourself said earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1- Certainly Iran was a political entity at the Time, And Seljuks Belonged To this Political Entity. But regardless of existence of Iran as a nation at the Time of Khayyam, It is Evident that Khayyam was an Iranian Person. so, in the first place, "Iranian/Persian" refers to "Iranian People" and Khayyam's "Ethnicity," rather than his "Nationality," and Khayyam WAS Famous for being Iranian/Persian. I said it is meaningless and unhelpful to remove his Ethnicity from the lead, Because there is no reason to do that.
 * 2- By removing his Iranian/Persian Ethnicity from the lead, The People who visit this site will not notice his Origins Immediately. because many people do not read the entire article and just look at the lead and first few Paragraphs. so by this removal, his ethnic Identity as an "Iranian/Persian" person Becomes less known to the public. and because, it serves against the interest of Iranian People, it is Anti-Iranian.
 * 3- I suggest, Revise the decision to remove the ethnicity from the lead and add Iranian/Persian. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) No; "As noted above, and by several scholars,51 the concept of Iran (former Eranshahr) as a political entity disappeared from view after the collapse of the Sasanian Empire in the seventh century, although it remained a component of Iranians’ ‘national sentiment’ that was most clearly preserved in the Persian language." - page 42, Melville, Charles (2019). "Concepts of government and state formation in Mongol Iran". In Babaie, Sussan (ed.). Iran After the Mongols. Bloomsbury Publishing. The book goes on to say that it was revived under the Mongols. I can send it to you if want.
 * 2) Sorry, but that does not make any sense. I agree the lede could better, but MOS:ETHNICITY still applies.
 * 3) No, MOS:ETHNICITY. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1-We are talking about "Iranian" in an Ethnolinguistic Concept. We are talking about Iranian people, not Iranian Empires.
 * 2-That Exactly makes sense. In MOS:ETHNICITY It is Stated "...Unless Relevant To Subjects Notability." Medieval Iranian Scientists, Philosophers, Poets, ETC were Notable for being "Iranian/Persian," Just Like Ancient Greek Philosophers and Poets such as Plato, Aristotle, Pindar, ETC, are Introduced as a "Greek" Philosopher, Poet, ETC, In the Lead Section of their Wikipedia Pages. What is the difference Between Persians and Greeks in this Regard?
 * 3- Yes. You provide absolutely no reason. It is Exactly According To the MOS:Ethnicity, For Example, Dante is introduced as an Italian Poet in the lead, but Italy did not existed at that time. he was born in the Republic of Florence.
 * 4-So I believe The decision To remove the Ethnicity from the lead, is politically motivated and should be revised. Every other Ethnicity is cited in the lead. only Iranians/Persians are removed. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Then MOS:ETHNICITY applies again.
 * 2 No, Omar Khayyam was notable for his contributions to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and poetry. Not for being "Persian". If you can't demonstrate why its notable, then please stop repeating it.
 * 3) See WP:WHATABOUT. We're talking about this article, not the article of Dante. If you have concerns about how the Dante article is written, take it to its talk page, not here.
 * 4) Please read WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA and WP:DROPTHESTICK. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 * There is clear anti-Iranian bias in many Iran-related pages on Wikipedia. The fact that the ethnicity of Avicenna, Khayyam and many others is removed from their lead paragraphs is a disheartening development that must be addressed by the admins. The fact that they are ethnically Persian is important given that they contributed to the survival of the Persian culture, language and identity. Without these people, Persian would have been another lost ethnicity/language, just like the dozens that were erased after the Islamic conquest. While the article does not need to open with a statement of their ethnicity, it can at least elaborate on it in the following line or paragraph in the introduction. - 24.225.217.56 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving the article to "Khayyam"
Hi, the main application of "Khayyam" refers to "Omar Khayyam". So I think "Omar" in the article name is redundant and we can move the article to "Khayyam". Please discuss. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Omar Khayyam


text:
Talk:Avicenna

Need for some housekeeping and edits--but page is locked
I am not sure why this article is locked and it wasn't clear how to request editing. If someone else is able to edit, please go in an add a bunch of the missing links to other WP articles e.g. the article, in one paragraph mentions Galen four times, but no where else in the article. There are no links to the article on Galen. While I suspect most people who read this page know who he was and all about the four humors, etc. I am not so sure that msot people reading the article would be expected to know this and it. I think the article on The Cannon of Medicine would beenfit from a bit more context as well.

I also think that given the somewhat enthusiastic sentiment which states he is the leading mind after Hippocrates and Galen, that perhaps some further discussion that could provide context about what was the prevailing views at the time, why this somewhat hyperbolic statement, is actually reasonable, and probably accurate statement, and what was the state of medicine in Europe, and what other leading medical scholars of the era were about. Its just if you make such statements in a WP article you really need to substantiate it with links or cites to authoratative sources.

I agree with the conclusion, but not necessariy the tone, which may benefit from being a bit more neutral in nuances.

I don't think there is a good appreciation of how little progress was made in Europe from the time of the late Roman empire until the 1600's and why that is (and am sure that there are other articles that would be useful to link to to help give people an opportunity to appreciate the reason why some authors have been so superperlitive in their choice of adjectives. It wasn't all gloom and doom, but a lot of prior knowledge was only made available to European physicians via the Cannon of Medicine and other similar works given that the most prolific of all ancient Greeks was Galen and his work didn't quite make the cut-off off in time for translation into Latin and didn't really show up in European medicine until translated into Arabic (excepting some of his work by Oribasius) in 8th Century e.g. by Hunayn ibn Ishaq.

I think it is an example of where adding the links might help most people who may not be history of of medicine buffs.DrKC MD (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Page name
Can we correct the page name to be Ibn Sina's original name Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abillah ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sina rather than Avicenna as known in the west.

Surely a person would rather be identified and recognised but his official birth name which historians have recorded as Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abillah ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sina. For justification we can look at Al-Farabi's page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi where his page is named by his original name rather than the western name Alpharabius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaschillin (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * No, this is the English Wikipedia, so the legit title is Avicenna. Your remark about Al-Farabi is irrelevant, since in English, he's called Al-Farabi, not Alpharabius. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is English Wikipedia, but we could have the decency to use Ibn Sina's name instead of some Latinate corruption of it. June-tree (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What about Ibn Rushd who is known in the West as Averroes? We can simply change the name to Ibn Sina and have the search “Avicenna” be redirected to the page, just as is done on the Ibn Rushd page. This does not have anything to do with being “the English Wikipedia.” Abu Yagub (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMON NAME. Ibn Sina is commonly transliterated in English as Ibn Sina, never Avicenna. This page should be changed to Ibn Sina. --Sultanic (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Also, Please see the comments made to your earlier request for the same thing. See my comments under your prior posting of the same nature.  Please read the response editors provide you and don't just keep re-posting the same request based on your misperception.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you I just made this request as well. What a weird defensive response you got. 78.139.198.171 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Section on Theology
In the section titled Theology, there is a reference to Al-Razi, that may not be correct. Apparently, Al-Razi had died prior to Avicenna's birth.

Birthplace
Ibn Sina who is known as Abu Ali Sina Balkhi was born in Balkh (current Afghanistan) instead of Bukhara that has been recorded here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakiFrahmand1 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 * reliable sources widely record that he was born in Afshana, a village near Bukhara. His nisba al-Balkhī derives from the fact that his father Abd Allah was a native of Balkh, as also recorded by reliable sources and mentioned in the article.
 * In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page (or use the 'new section' button at the top of the page). Please also don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the link to your relaible sources?
 * I think he was born in greater balkh. 2001:14BB:69C:4405:34B2:7BC5:987F:80E1 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Origin of Ibn Sina
Though he has written a few works in persian, it was most probably used to convey literature just as arabic. His first language was most probably sogdian. In this sense, he would be "persian" only in the frequent meaning in english that Persia means the whole ancient Iran. Wouldn't, however, other identifications as of Sogdian, Iranian, Central Asian, from present Uzbekistan, also arabic, as being the language of most of his work, be also relevant? 191.210.246.4 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we base our info on academic sources, not the personal opinion of users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Was he a persian ?
It’s known and mentioned in the article that his father was native to the city of balkh, that makes him a tajik not a persian, it’s known that tajiks were called persians and both names were used as synonyms to them but they are not the same ethnically, these differences do matter today, for some reason there is some sort of persianization of scientists of non-persian iranian ethnic groups Ibn Siwa (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled
 * The sources in the article contradict you. And to make it worse you have posted zero sources to back your claims. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ibn Siwa (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled
 * This is impossible to know. The ethnicity then was not the ethnicity now. All we have are sources referring to him as Persian. WP:RS Game Set Match. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be purged from the lead though per mos:ethnicity. Wiqi(55) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all.
 * Greeks may not be the Greeks of the antiquity but that doesn't make them not Greek. The same for Persians.
 * Ibn-Sina's heritage is as important as Aristotle's was. He should be referred as a Persian polymath. 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reputable sources already confirmed that contemporary Tajiks are the original Persian speaking population of Central Asia, including descendants of native Balkhis since antiquity. Saying it’s impossible to know that Tajiks existed back then is as erroneous as saying we can’t confirm the ethnicity of native Shirazis during Saadi’s lifetime. 2600:1700:158F:A900:8533:C371:68B6:FFDF (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, do you have reliable sources stating that Avicenna was Tajik? Peaceray (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In general the indigenous Central Asians (of multiple ethnicities) were of Iranic origin (I.e. Sarmatians). 2600:100C:A211:7F18:55CA:A842:29DD:B235 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Persian name of Ibn Sina
Hello all, I had a recommendation in regards to the name of Ibn Sina in Persian. As you all know, "Ibn" is an Arabic suffix to which there are Persian equivalents. In some Persian sources, Ibn Sina is called Pour Sina, Pour meaning the same thing as Ibn. I am curious to see if anyone thinks it would be appropriate to include پور سینا (pour Sina) in addition to Ibn Sina, which is also included in the Persian version of this article. Thank you.

Sources:

http://www.parsianjoman.org/wp-content/uploads/ParsiSareh.pdf (Page numbers of PDF: 25, 34,) (The article is in Persian)

https://www.iranketab.ir/book/63551-poorsina (Persian book that uses "Pour Sina" and not "Ibn Sina" in the title)

https://abadis.ir/fatofa/%D9%BE%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7/ (Scroll down to see the Dehkhoda Dictionary entry)MarkParker1221 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: - This seems like the sort of question that should be a discussion, rather than an uncontroversial edit request. PianoDan (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think if there is an authoritative citation that indicates what he might have referred to himself, or what any of his peers would have, then it would be totally reasonable to include it with his already non-trivial list of names.

If it just a translation of what we know from the historic person, from what was written in Arabic, into Person by modern authors, then I don't know that it would add anything to the article that translation of his Arabic name into any other contemporary language would. (perhaps even less, e.g. if there is an English translation of Ibn I think it is always helpful to give people as much context as possible to understand, and they certainly did tend to put a lot more in a name, particularly of a polymath who was a widely respected scholar. I defer to the historic figure and documents as to what he was called.

If you have any information about which of the other names listed he might have used, or who might have used a specific name, that would be interesting to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 09:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Change name from Avicenna to Ibn Sina
While it is important to acknowledge that Ibn Sina is known (erroneously) as Avicenna in the West, having the article title as "Avicenna" and referring to him in the article as "Avicenna" rather than his actual name, Ibn Sina, is an erasure of his identity as a non-European. Ibn Sina is his actual name, Avicenna is the Latin corruption of his name. This is the equivalent of if we went to Shakespeare's Wikipedia page and renamed him to Sheikh Zabyir. The argument that "this is the English Wikipedia, so therefore we call him Avicenna" has no merit, as there are many Wikipedia articles about individuals named "Yusuf" without them being renamed to the English/Latin version of "Joseph". Aaleem912 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COMMON NAME and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's just how his name is commonly transliterated in English, nothing too deep - no one is denying his "non-European" identity. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's nothing too deep as you say, it should be fixed. The title should be his name rather than a European misunderstanding of it. Presenting his actual name is the neutral choice here.
 * I also disagree to the applicability of the "right great wrongs" article (which seems to be about verification). Noting how this article got Ibn Sina's name wrong and how it relates to eurocentrism is good, as these are things we should be thinking about in order to be respectful. June-tree (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, WP:COMMONNAME is our policy, & we adhere to policies. Ibn Sina is first noted in the article, but people are most likely to search for the common name & expect to see the article name be the same as the common name. Peaceray (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I took a look at some of the policy on names, and I saw that "article titles with non neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use." Just from looking around online it seems like he is often referred to as Ibn Sina, so Avicenna isn't the name, and it seems to hit all 5 criteria for the common name policy. As Avicenna is a Latin European corruption of his name it doesn't seem to fit my notion of neutral.
 * I am new to this so forgive me if I'm misreading or missing more context (wow, there's a lot of policy!), but the apparent compliance with policy and it seeming more respectful and avoiding as much Eurocentric bias feel like good reason for a title change. People searching for Avicenna can just be redirected and learn his actual name. June-tree (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it.  If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time  etc. you may appreciate what you perceive as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, is today.
 * It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.
 * If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his actual name (e.g. پورسینا), as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. DrKC MD (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And about por sina didn’t you dismiss the guy who said it? And that is not an actual name it is call a Kunea and if you anything about Ibn sina’s culture and Arabic you would know what it is. You are one of the most obnoxious act like a know it all I have ever seen. Yes please inform us more about a person we study the life of in 6th grade? Please do 78.139.198.171 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly referring to a transliteration as "corruption" doesn't further discourse. Transliteration of languages is always based on a current consensus. What you currently assert is his name is not his name, but rather the current, early 21st century transliteration of it.  If you look at how European names were variable spelled by Europeans at the time  etc. you may appreciate what you perceive as a grave social injustice that had anything to do with his background, was really just instability and convention in written language in Europe at the time, just as is Ibn Sina, or Pour Sina, is today.
 * It almost certainly has nothing to do with any sort of 'erasure', or others slight, that you happen to imagine.
 * If you were to take some time, do a little reading, and familiarize yourself with some historic documents, rather than lash out with reactionary and uncritical 21st century revisionist sentiment, you might learn that there was a great deal of appreciation of his work at that time, and that at some point in the not-so-distant-future people may be decrying your insistence on using a transliteration of only part of his name, rather than his actual name, as pronounced by himself, as being incredibly insensitive and culturally tone-deaf. DrKC MD (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a corruption wether you like it or not. It is not a translation go translate ابن سينا to English
 * and why would you keep a translation as the name itself?
 * put the man’s name end of story
 * you are too defensive and somewhat offended on the audacity of people wanting him to have his name as if you own the man.
 * His name is not common that each culture has a was of writing and saying it like Issac or Ibrahim.
 * I honestly have no idea how you are in charge here, but you shouldn’t. Dismissive, obnoxious, ignorant and mildly racist.
 * because you have Issues with your culture at the moment doesn’t give you the right to actually lash out on people
 * yes his works were respected, why do you think the name change? Let us not act like the church didn’t know what it was doing Mr Know it all. 78.139.198.171 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction
Needs correction:

His father was from Balkh. Balkh is a very famous city located in present day Afghanistan not Turkmenistan. You can confirm it with a quick and short Google search. I was born in Afghanistan that's why I am sure what I am talking about. 2607:FEA8:BA5:C450:8D76:240A:3F2B:21EC (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh here but; in Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not random Google searches. Being from Afghanistan doesn't give you a PHD in history, especially since Avicenna has no relation to Afghanistan, as it did not exist back then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.
 * Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and he has no connection to Turkmenistan.
 * Note Turkmenistan did not exist in the past! Zahgha (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Balkh is now part of Afghanistan, and back then it belonged to the Greater Iran.
 * Ibn Sina is a Persian Scholar, and it is not correct to connect to Afghanistan either. Zahgha (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ibn-Sina was Ethnically Persian
Kansas Bear has taken it upon himself to edit as far as I am aware of Rumi and Ibn-Sina's pages to remove MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability".

This doesn't apply here, they're ethnically Persian figures, who worked in Persian, and were influenced by Persian.

Rumi is widely referred to as a Persian figure, see Rumi Talk page as well for consensus. Ibn-Sina is referred to as Persian in citation 23 and throughout the sources found on his page, as well as on Britannica.

Their ethnicities are as relevant to them as any Greek or Roman figure, who I consistently find are ethnically referred to in their lead paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 * User Kansas Bear has edited more than 50 pages belonging to Persian and Iranian figures, removing the ethnicity. I took the labour to look at his contributions, and this "ethnicity removing" behaviour seems to be entirely concentrated on Iranian figures, never Arab figures like al-Kindi or Ibn Arabi or Averroes. I second this in saying that ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead section of this article as it is in Averroes' page and that of many other Islamic figures. It is completely ridiculous to have such a high protection status on a page just because one editor has requested it after his edits were reverted for obvious vandalism. شاه عباس (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is a fluid concept, especially in the ancient world, often pertaining simply to citizenship or language more than anything else, and far removed from the modern, more formalized conception of ethnicity. Ancient 'Persia' was a sweeping concept that expanded from the original Pars to encompass, conceptually, much of Central Asia. That isn't an ethnicity; that's a generalization. If we take Rumi, what he certainly was was a Persian poet, i.e. a native Persian-speaking poet most famous for his Persian works. What he identified as ethnically, in the modern sense of the word, is anyone's guess. Often individuals in that day and age do not really seem to have imagined themselves as ethnically anything; identifying more with their home town or province - in all likelihood, it wasn't much of a concern to them. The one big exception in the Muslim world, then and now, are those obsessed with demonstrating some connection back to the Quraysh of Mecca, for reasons of status. As for Avicenna, he wrote primarily in Arabic, so culturally he clearly straddled the Arabic-Persian divide far more evenly than the likes of Rumi, in the true Abbasid tradition. It would probably be most apt to simply make a point to this effect in the lead, stating that he produced works in both Arabic (predominantly) and Persian. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not here concerned with self-identification or the notion of ethnicity as it operated in their heads (although, if you are interested, you can check out Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah where the function of ethnicity isn't that far fetched from what it is today in the MENA region). Of course, we are not here concerned with nation-states either. The problem here lies in selective scholarship and bias when it comes to Wikipedia articles, where Iranian figures are almost exclusively targeted. Avicenna's is the only page where "polymath" is given as a title without any sort of predicate, and for some reason it has the highest level of protection because one obviously biased user (whose edit history tells all) requested it. Not only is it ridiculous, it also goes against the previous consensus reached about this topic. شاه عباس (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If we look at gold-standard tertiary resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they treat the material in exactly the same way, eschewing tangled debates about ethnicity in favor of his importance as a scholar in the Islamic world. Avoiding tangled debates is the reason for MOS:ETHNICITY. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It reads "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."
 * In Avicenna's case, both his Iranian ethnicity and his Islamic faith are relevant to his contributions to world-philosophy. These are the predicates of his scholarship in most sources. In the same manner that Aristotle is described as Greek and Averroes as an Arab Muslim when they are mention in modern scholarship.
 * Once again, it is very peculiar that this removal of ethnic identification applies overwhelmingly to Iranians on Wikipedia. Ibn Khaldun for instance is explicitly stated to be an Arab, and so is Averroes. شاه عباس (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHER. Also, what is the problem with the ethnicity being removed from the lead, take a look at the body of the article, and you'll see that his ethnicity is mentioned. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what that means. He's not notable for being any ethnicity; he is notable for being a great scholar of the middle ages/Islamic golden age. His origins are almost entirely irrelevant. Ethnicity shouldn't have been in the lead of the Averroes page either - I've removed it from there also now. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead section of the article on Averroes still contians a geographical signifier. It's absurd that the same not be the case for Avicenna. شاه عباس (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been identified that he lived under the Samanid Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Samanid empire is not a geography, it's a political state. If we follow the precedent of the Averroes article (following Andulus rather than alMurwārīd), we should say that he was from Khurâsân/Greater Iran (whence he was from) or Iran (where he lived during the majority of his active scholarly years). شاه عباس (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All geographies are political defined by definition; they are just lines on maps. Al-Andalus was an Umayyad territory. The boundaries of the Samanid Empire at the time are relatively clear and specific to the subject. "Khorasan" is just a vague, shifting concept. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all geographies are restricted to political borders in any sense. Khurâsân and (Greater) Iran certainly aren't, being based on a shared cultural and historical heritage. Andalucia, furthermore, as a geographical concept, is not any less "vague" than Khurâsân. We use these categories based on conventions, without which everything is relative and it becomes impossible to communicate meaning based on a shared recognised reality. The same is the case here, if we hesitate to use "Khurâsân" or "Iran" where they are absolutely justified because they are historically relative, then when should we use them? I am happy for the article to only use "Muslim" as a predicate, and to only refer to Avicenna's geographical, rather than ethnic, origin. A vague statement on the courts wherein he was active is actually much more counterproductive than a simple reference to his geographic origin based on the conventional categories "Iran" and "Khurâsân", especially in a lead section that is supposed to be concise and straightforward. شاه عباس (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He didn't actually come from Khorasan though, but the neighbouring Transoxiana (or Sogdia) - is that what you want to put? It's there in early life. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that he was in the "employ" of the Sâmânid empire is false information. The cited sources say that he was ethnically Persian and that his father  was in the employ of the Sâmânids. Ibn Sīnâ himself was in the employ of Daylamite dynasties. شاه عباس (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a better point - though he did serve Nuh II of the Samanids, he soon moved on to serve the Ma'munids and later the Buyid dynasty, so a wide mix. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then remove Greek from the lead on Socrates, Arab from Khaldun, etc, etc.
 * You won't because the racism/reductionism towards Persians is evident on this site. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? How is that helping with authoring of this article?
 * This is NOT a forum to vent perceived grievances.
 * WP has a zero tolerance for racism and if you have an actual example of such then please follow the proper procedure and policy. I would suggest you consider the possibility that not getting your way in this discussion very well may have nothing to do with any racism, prejudice, or biases. DrKC MD (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ibn Sina was a Persian. This has also been mentioned by UNESCO.Iroony (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is clear anti-Iranian bias in many Iran-related pages on Wikipedia. The fact that the ethnicity of Avicenna, Khayyam and many others is removed from their lead paragraphs is a disheartening development that must be addressed by the admins. The fact that they are ethnically Persian is important given that they contributed to the survival of the Persian culture, language and identity. Without these people, Persian would have been another lost ethnicity/language, just like the dozens that were erased after the Islamic conquest. While the article does not need to open with a statement of their ethnicity, it can at least elaborate on it in the following line or paragraph in the introduction - 24.225.217.56 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether he was Persian or Arab, the current text describing him in the Biography section is offensive, as it refers to “Persian stock.” “Stock”, as in “breeding stock”, is an inappropriate word for referring to humans under any circumstance and i request that this be changed to “heritage” or a similarly neutral word that does not relate to animals. Scihard (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Autobiography of Avicenna
First, Ibn Sina wrote an autobiography for his pupil named Abu Ubayd Al-Juzjani, which his student then completed with a concluding chapter. This autobiographical text was later included by Ibn Abi Ashaybi'ah in his work entitled  'Uyūn al-Anbā' fī Thabaqāt al-Athibbā' (Literary History of Medicine). This is the main source of Ibn Sina lifestory, especially for early childhood and education.

Second, Ibn Sina was born in 980 when Nuh ibn Mansyur was in power and the Samanid dynasty was facing war with the Karakhanids in the north and the Buyid dynasty in the south. Then, the Samanid empire was fall to Karakhanids in 999, and completely gone in 1004. No one mention this war in the background of Ibnu Sina's biography. Just for note, after the death of Nuh ibn Mansyur in 997, Ibn Sina fleed from Bukhara.

Lokamaya (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2023
Change  to   and add   after it. ― Ö S M A N (talk · contribs) 06:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Why? Edward-Woodrow  •  talk  15:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because "Ibn Sīnā" is Avicenna's more widely known Arabic name but his Persian name is "Pūr Sīnâ". ― Ö S M A N (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Deactivating request as proposed is now extendedconfirmed so can edit the article themselves. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
MOS:FORLANG states that "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence ". Obviously, there is no question that the subject was most closely associated with the Arabic language given that most of his works, including his famous ones (The Canon of Medicine, which wasn't translated into Persian until the 18th century, and The Book of Healing), were written in Arabic. M.Bitton (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

just in case you missed the first ping: could you please read my comment and provide a valid rationale for your revert? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Not true, I answered these in my last edit summary:

 * "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence"
 * The if part says nothing about what to do if there are two languages associated with a person. On the other hand the guideline clearly states that:
 * "Relevant foreign-language names, such as those of people who do not write their names in English, are encouraged. ... Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas."
 * This rule is followed all around Wikipedia. You certainly know about it. It is strange that you insist on doing otherwise.
 * Why the guidelines talk about separating different foreign languages with semicolon? Because it allows them.

 * "Since most of his works, including his famous ones (The Canon of Medicine and The Book of Healing), were written in Arabic, then Arabic has to be the language that he is closely associated with"
 * His native language was Persian. He wrote in Persian. Persian was official language where he was born and lived.
 * Now there are two WP:NPOV option: Move both to footnote, or Keep both in the first sentence. Keeping Arabic in the first sentence and removing Persian is a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * Premitive (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Besides we have a source already saying:

 * Adamson 2016, pp. 113, 117, 206. (page 113) "For one thing, it means that he[Avicenna] had a Persian cultural background...he spoke Persian natively and did use it to write philosophy."
 * Premitive (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You certainly know about it. It is strange The only thing that is really strange is your assumption of bad faith.
 * This discussion is about his name and what the sources say about it (everything else is irrelevant):
 * Avicenna is a Latin corruption of his Arabic patronym, which is well known and mentioned in his autobiography (which was written in Arabic). This fact is also covered in the article's body.
 * The Persian equivalent that you added is a) not covered in the article and b) it looks undistinguishable from the Arabic patronym (which would suggest that this is a later transliteration).
 * Given that we're not supposed to include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology, I see no reason to keep it. NPOV, that you mentioned, only comes into play when there is a dispute between RS. M.Bitton (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You just said he has written more Arabic work and therefore Arabic should be the only one that we mention. Now that was all irrelevant? The guidelines are also irrelevant now? Nevertheless I added source for Persian name that you are trying to remove. But really I don't care if you remove the Persian name and its source (or perhaps it would be more reasonable for someone else to do it.) Any discussion with those who only want to remove a Persian name (shifting from one reason to another while doing so) is a waste time. Premitive (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That cherry picked source a) failed verification as it doesn't support the transliteration that you added and b) is at odds with what the reliable sources say about his name and what's covered in the article. It also makes no sense as "Ibn Sina" (son of Sina) is clearly Arabic. Do you have anything else or is that it? M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A source saying "Avicenna is a Latin rendering of a Hebraic translation of the Persian name Ibn Sina." fails verification? Now you want a Persian language source writing ابن سینا? I can bring a whole lot of that. But I'm sure that is not what you want. Tagging it as verification failed is childish; you are trying to make it look like it doesn't contain the said quote. So now it is about etymology? Sina is of Persian origin while ibn is of Arabic origin. But I thought it was not about etymology, right? "it is clearly Arabic" settles it (it hold for any source that I bring, Persian or not), why are we discussing it then? You know I can bring more sources but tagging the source that I just added as "verification failed" and "it is clearly Arabic" is telling. As I said just remove them, I won't revert. With this rate, within a few year, all Middle East and North Africa minorities (Persians, Berbers, etc.) will be removed from English Wikipedia. These days, English Wikipedia is not worthy of spending any time. (Assuming one is not paid, that is) Premitive (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from assuming bad faith.
 * Since I don't expect Persians to write in any other language, a Persian language source wouldn't prove anything (for the all reasons that I mentioned).
 * Who said anything about etymology? All I said is that Ibn Sina is a Arabic patronym (this is a fact). Do you disagree with it? M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2024
The main name is Ibn Sina, Avicenna is a nickname that should be in the paragraph not the Title. 100.15.218.54 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 * ❌ The WP:COMMONNAME of this scholar is Avicenna. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

His name.
I know it was incredibly hard and inconvenient back in the day to say “Ibn Sīnā” but don’t you think it’s time to give him his name back? I mean all of that talk of representation and cultural appropriation that’s happening in the west, does that include our scientists who got their names stolen to “fit”. his western name should be in the and his Actual name or what we call his Kunea should be the title of the page Ibn Sīnā

thank you 78.139.198.171 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Avicenna and Ibn Sina are not different names, they are different romanisations of the same name. We typically use whatever spelling is preferred by the majority of current sources, and it would appear based on the sources cited in the article that "Avicenna" is still more commonly used in the 21st century (although "Ibn Sina" is being used more often). Compare e.g. Aristotle, not Aristotélēs. ITBF (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A typo has managed to snake its way into this sentence: "Sometime later, hiss father invited the physician and philosopher al-Natili to their house to educate ibn Sina" Can we get someone with permissions to cobrect this typo? 🐍🐍🐍 KEP95 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Change hiss to his KEP95 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamedeus (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024
Why because of politics they hide that he was a persian.are all of us bad guys that world should not know?shame that persian did very goog works for this world but never been respected. Mike tiger111 (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024
In the lead

'His philosophy was of the Muslim Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.'

The term 'Muslim Peripatetic school' is not mentioned in the source and there is nothing like ''Muslim Peripatetic school'. so it should be edited to :

'His philosophy was of the Peripatetic school derived from Aristotelianism.' 207.96.13.12 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024
'was a preeminent philosopher and physician of the Muslim world,[4][5] flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age'

must change to

'was a Persian philosopher and physician preeminent in the Muslim world [4][5]. He was flourishing during the Islamic Golden Age' Zahgha (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Avicenna


text: Talk:Reed

title: Talk:Reed


text:
Talk:Dance

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexigreer33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Woodfox1!.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 October 2017 and 17 November 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lucas.me.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate image?
I removed File:Assyriankhigga.jpg, an image that is said to be an example of the Assyrian folk dance khigga, because (1) it doesn't seem like a very good visual representation of the dance, and (2) there are literally thousands of other higher quality images that could also rightfully appear here -- and there's not room for all of them. My edit was reverted because the image "shows that dancers can wear costumes or not" and because "the article needs a Middle Eastern example", and perhaps also because of an emotional attachment to the image by the reverter, who uploaded it. I don't mean to belittle the worth of this image but it seems unsuitable for the article for the reasons I gave above. That said, I am not inclined to edit war over this and will defer to the opinions of other editors. Lambtron (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016
16chseld 606 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Video
I think User:TonyTheTiger has a good idea in adding a video or two, but I agree that a 2-second clip of one person half-heartedly shimmying, while several others don't dance, is not of much encyclopedic value. Some alternative, perhaps more informative files:

FourViolas (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 * It seems that many videos are worthy of inclusion in the article. Instead of sprinkling them throughout the article — where they will necessarily interrupt the flow of information to readers — would it make sense to create a video gallery? Perhaps below the existing image gallery? Lambtron (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Re-posting a proposition by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi that Rhythm and dance be merged into Dance, to hopefully generate some interest and responses.

The Rhythm and dance article discusses the relationship between Rhythm and Dance, supplies some information on the background and styles of dancing and quotes some poetry as well. I see no reason why that warrants a separate article. It looks like a simple case of WP:OVERLAP to me. Also, the resulting article would not warrant WP:SPLIT based on length since it will only be 45,867 Kilo Bytes even if no content is removed.

 * Dance Page size:                       28,336 Bytes

 * Rhythm and dance Page size:   17,534 Bytes

The article's author, Redheylin, appears to strongly disagree with me. See our discussion here. WannaBeEditor (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Since no one responded I went ahead and completed the merge. WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommendation for structure and content
Understanding that the term "dance" is extremely broad in regards to the vast amount of information, it could encompass, I found the structures and it flows of the article distracting and sporadic. My suggestions for structure/content revision would be as follows:

1. General overview: definitions of dance that recognizes the diverse definitions that now exist.
 * You mentioned the many definitions proposed in your note- why not openly express the broad term that dance has developed to be?

2. Categories: This section may need to be expanded upon. The categories of Performance and Participation dance do not give an adequate overview of many modern forms of dance. There should be more forms of dance listed.
 * Also, when describing Performance/concert dance, I would include information about the advanced, intricate skills that performers must possess in order to artistically portray the piece. A large distinction between concert dance and participatory dance is training, education and professionalism - and emphasis should be placed on this.

3. History: a broader category of history can be used to group and discuss the origins, timeline and cultural aspects of dance.
 * Origins
 * Timeline
 * Cultural Traditions

4. Dancing and Music: This section is currently very minimal. The Wiki page it is referencing and is missing many citations and a broad perspective. Consider removing if this cannot be revised using a more reliable source.

5. Dance Education: Not all dancers receive their dance education through institutions of higher learning. I would suggest expanding on other means (studio, companies, etc.)

6. Occupations: It is mentioned that most jobs are low paying and dancers must supplement their incomes - would include source and statistics for this statement.

7. Venues: If you areto competitions in terms of place, I suggest also including the many other venues where dance is performed. Otherwise, the information about competitive dancing fits more logically into the "Categories" of dance.

--MeghanBri7 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome, ! That looks like a great general outline, and some very perceptive comments. This page has needed work for a long time. A few notes:
 * Guidelines for the first (overview) section may be found at WP:Lede
 * I agree competition could be better treated under "categories"—it's kind of a combination of participatory and performative forms, and that needs explaining. Not sure if it's ever been discussed in RS through that kind of anthropological lens.
 * I'm sure better sources on dance and music exist;, , , etc., etc. We do our best to WP:PRESERVE salvageable content whenever possible.
 * I think it would be excellent to have more material in the areas you mention., I met you at a meetup a while ago and never managed to get in contact with the dance-specialist librarian you mentioned—are they still around? I was hoping they could offer basic advice on sourcing in the field, which we could share with WP:DANCE.
 * Best of luck with the revisions, wish I had more time to help! FourViolas (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. New sections usually go at the bottom; you can read all about it at WP:Talk page guidelines. New responses go under what they're responding to, indented by adding one more ":" than the previous comment. FourViolas (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Hey, thanks for joining and welcome. Per WP:BOLD, when you think an edit is necessary, you can just go ahead and do it, you don't need to ask for permission. Regarding dance, I certainly agree that the page will benefit from restructuring and editing, and any contribution to the page will be great. If I find time, I might be active on this page as well, I am planning to merge rhythm and dance into this page (see merger proposal section on top of this one). Just as a final note, to leave a message to a specific editor on a talk page (like I just did), insert the following template: " . Once again welcome. WannaBeEditor (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Bhangra Dance
Bhangra dance from Punjab, india got mainstream recognition after bhangra videos made by Gurdeep Pandher went viral in the Yukon Territory, Canada. Punjabi-Sikh immigrants have been dancing bhagnra ever since they moved to Canada over a hundred years ago. There have been many popular bhangra organizations and clubs in Canada since decades, however still bhangra was mostly limited to Canada's Punjabi-Sikh community. Yukon Territory's Gurdeep Pandher made numerous efforts and his work got Canadian national and international attention. Gurdeep Pandher's bhangra in Yukon was first reported nationally by CBC and then live broadcasted by Canada's CTV National News CTV National News. Gurdeep Pandher's Yukon made bhangra videos went viral with millions of views. His work was covered by Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post, Yahoo Canada and international media. All this helped making bhangra a Canadian mainstream dance.

MarkHilton (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dance. 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/20060820155540/http://www.dancemuseum.org/ to http://www.dancemuseum.org/

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) 18:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Cane
please change ((cane)) to ((Walking stick|cane))
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017
Under Approaches to dance - Concert dance section:

Please change:

allows interludes of rhythmic dance that developed into entirely "plotless" ballets in the 20th century.

to:

allows interludes of rhythmic dance that developed into entirely "plotless" ballets in the 20th century

In other words, please delete the full stop / period mark (".") after the word "century".

This change is necessary to keep the sentence grammatically correct, because there are more words after the word "century".

The presence of this full stop / period mark is an edit error, originated from this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhythm_and_dance&type=revision&diff=716667355&oldid=716667094

97.94.123.41 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  05:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Music and movement
'Music and movement' is re-directed to here, but the article has no mention of it. 86.132.221.167 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Music and Movement was a regular BBC radio broadcast for primary schools in the post-war period and perhaps earlier. It's a shame there isn't an article about it and that the expression redirects here to Dance, where Music and Movement is not mentioned. "Find a space, children!" --- Frans Fowler (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhythm section is out of balance
While I think the discussion of the role of rhythm and its intersection through dance and music is a positive development for the article (and I have not as yet investigated who introduced the section into the article, but thank you), I have to say there are some significant problems with the current wording of the prose. For one, this section is far too long for the amount of encyclopedic information it contains. Second (and explaining the first issues) the tone is way out of step with prose appropriate to an encyclopedia article, instead reading very much like a summary of someone's dissertation. It's loaded with just far too many appeals to authority via in-prose references to academics couched in overly-academic language. Some degree of direct attribution is permissible and even desirable in an encyclopedic summary, but the overall effect here is to create the impression of a non-neutral voice attempting to argue for a particular view of certain phenomena. All of that said, there's a lot of valuable information here, and the sourcing more than satisfactory. But I think this could be written with 50-60% of the words utilized here and be sharper and more encyclopedic for it. Thoughts? Snow let's rap 04:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi - I know this is two years old, but I agree with your statement. It is rather superfluous with quotes predominantly from Ted Shawn. The section also misses other cultural perspectives on dance and rhythm. I propose that it be edited to be shorter, less superfluous, and also introduce more global perspectives. Alenmartel (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm embarassed to say, I had completely forgotten to address this in any way. My time for the project right now as virtually nil, such are the demands of my home and work life at this particular time, so if you feel that you can reduce and restructure the content appropriately, I encourage you to take a crack. If you do, I think, given how much work is needed to bring this into line with encyclopedic tone and reduce the section down to reasonable summary style size, you should feel pretty bold in your removals, and in particular in cutting down one some the researcher callouts, the sheer volume of which is a significant part of the problem that makes this read like it is someone's personal graduate research (which I would not be surprised to learn is the case).  Since this may involve cutting significant amounts of content, something which will often catch the eye and concerns of reasonable cautious editors, you may want to include reference to this discussion in your edit summaries so it is obvious you are not working from a lack of previous discussion and so that the concerns expressed here can become part of the analysis any additional editor might make of your removals.

 * If on the other hand, you are not comfortable making that many reductive edits yourself, for whatever reason, I will attempt to address it as one of my first orders of business when the time comes that I can return to regular editing here: though at present time, when that may be possible is very much up in the air. In any event, thanks for reminding me of this!  Snow let's rap 05:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018
107.167.97.209 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nici  Vampire  Heart  11:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Image of Claudel's The Waltz
An image of Camille Claudel's The Waltz was removed in a good faith revert, although there are a few good reasons to include it on the page (I had included it in the European section, due to Claudel's legacy and her growing reputation as an internationally known and important French sculptor). The Waltz is arguably the best sculptural representative of dance. Edgar Degas' Little Dancer of Fourteen Years is beautifully crafted, yet she does not convey action, but gives a sense of waiting for the performance to occur. Claudel's The Waltz, on the other hand, and its ability to convey feeling and flow of motion, well captures the emotions and feelings of both dance and of the individuals dancing. The revert language indicates that adding another image, especially one of a sculpture, isn't right for this page. I'd point out that the image seemed well-placed, is relevant to the section, and offers readers a chance to link to further information about such a statue and about it's creator (if some haven't heard of Camille Claudel please read of her amazing, talented, and artistically soaring, but ultimately - as a women in a man's profession in the late 19th century and early 20th century France - sad and wronged life). This image of The Waltz can only enhance, not detract from, this article. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 * As the reverter, I am perceiving in your various comments a sort of infatuation with that particular work of art. The article is already stuffed with images, which adequately communicate various modes of dance. The sculpture, which, in the photo, looks more like The Hug, is such crufty overkill that I implore you to consider the wisdom of its placement in the article. It does not belong there. Has it not yet been placed in the Claudel article? Why not find out what sort of metal it was cast in, and add it to the article on that particular metal? Silver? Pewter?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . The Waltz is a fine work by a major artist, so yes, I appreciate it, as will many readers. But my point in accenting its unique character and discussing its appearance is that no other major statue seems to capture the movement of dance, and so it would become a good addition to this page (which does have room in the section it was placed in). Maybe others will comment. Another, and perhaps better, option is to include a visual arts "gallery" section in the article, which would present sculptures and paintings. Degas and others come to mind, see Category:Dance in art. Until the fairly recent inventions of photography and film were able to present the visual definition of dance in its various forms, the only way to communicate these appearance was through painting and sculpture. A gallery which can give a historical overview of this communication might be worth considering. Another option is to move Renoir's Dance at Bougival, which is now the only and out-of-place visual artwork represented in the photographic gallery, to the spot where The Waltz had been placed. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Your mention of the Category:Dance in art should provide you ample opportunity for the dissemination of the photo you are so enamored of. The Renoir does seem misplaced, so feel free to move it. The gallery you are proposing does not belong in the article, though. Consider the concept of mission creep before you start letting those visions dance in your head.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay (?). Yes, it is a beautiful sculpture, and The Waltz is probably the best existing sculpture on the subject of dance (please find a better one). Which is why I brought it to this page, thinking it would represent the topic of dance well. You reverted, and so I tried to communicate my initial reasoning of why I felt that the sculpture would be a good artistic representation of dance for this article. The end result of this? We've found an image of an artwork which we agree on. You'd accept moving Dance at Bougival out of the gallery and into the text, and I heartily agree that it's a fine piece of art to represent dance. So, a good result, and it was fun collaborating with you. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019
Please afuckdd the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_dance to the text "contemporary dance" in the third paragraph under the heading Origins in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance page Evelyn federick (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk  (We are the champions, my friends)  18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Major updates and additions proposal
Hi all - hoping we can grow this page and to also perhaps update and fix some things that I'll highlight below. Let me know thoughts. Based on consensus, I'm happy to make some of the agreed upon additions/changes (though I am a contemporary dancer and do teach dance history so there may be a COI there).

Much of this page is skewed towards the western context of concert dance (even with the Cultural traditions section present). While there are mentions of non-western dance forms, it'd be good to update and add to this page such that it is more reflective of global perspectives in each of the sections. I know it is impossible to capture ALL perspectives and that that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, but in regards to an article on dance, we can definitely add to this to develop a better spread of global perspectives such that it is not weighted towards one cultural perspective over another. :)

 * Performance and participation: this section focuses mostly on western dance forms and on concert dance forms. Furthermore, there are plenty of presentational dances that are not performed on stages, as spectacles, or in a virtuoso manner. For example, site-specific dance, postmodern dance, Hijra dance, indigenous presentational dances, etc. Participatory dance goes beyond social dance or corps in ballet, such as sacred dances that are participatory in nature but have specific religious functions. Also, that participatory dance lacks narrative (and that only ballet differs) is also not true - there are plenty of folk dance performances with narratives that are danced to and for each other in a participatory setting. There are also no sources in this section.

 * Dance and music: predominantly western focused. Dance and music and their interplay and integration takes various perspectives, such as in cultures where the word for dance and music are the same.

 * Dance and rhythm: most of this section focuses on the perspectives of Lincoln Kirstein and Ted Shawn, both Americans and both western concert dance focused. This does not take into perspective broader perspectives on rhythm and the human body, such as in African and Asian cultures, such as polyrhythm and polycentrism. This section also seems to have superfluous information with regards to Ted Shawn quotes.

 * Approaches to dance: see above note on performance and participation. This section could use mention of religious approaches to dance, such as Japanese Kagura, Indigenous dances that are sacred in nature, etc. The participatory and social dance portion of this section is also focused on rhythm. The polyrhythm section on African dance here should be mentioned in the Dance and rhythm section.

 * Cultural traditions:
 * 1) Africa - there are mentions of the traditional, neotraditional, and classical styles, but it would also be good to mention the continent's contribution to popular dance (eg. Angolan kizomba). This would add knowledge in regards to Africa's cultural export, which is often underrepresented. Also, this section could also develop to include examples from the continent, eg. west, south, central, north, and east Africa, which have dance forms that differ quite a bit from each other.
 * 2) Asia - focuses on India and the Levant, but is missing mentions of other cultures that were also previously mentioned in this article (eg. China and Japan). I also think it'd be a disservice not to mention the pony dance from Gangnam Style as a global phenomenon ;) . So, we could definitely add to this section.
 * 3) Europe and North America - this should be split to Europe and North America. European folk dance could be expanded a bit to include perhaps how folk dance was used as a tool for national identity-making, which was an important use of folk dance in the 20th century. There is no mention of Indigenous dance in North America, African American dance is underrepresented in terms of its global influence (seems like a list and passing mention). Ballet could have maybe three or four more sentences taking us from the 17th century to present day (eg. up until the time of George Balanchine/globalization?). Same with modern dance, maybe until the postmodern movement started/established/globalized?
 * 4) Latin America - can expand this to include indigenous forms that are still practiced (eg. Mayans, Zapotec, etc.).
 * 5) United States - why does this have its own section when all others are continent-based? While the statement here is reflective of the development of hip hop, it's better suited in the North America section.
 * 6) Australia and Polynesia can be added to represent those areas of the continent from both the colonial, global, and indigenous perspectives.
 * 1) Latin America - can expand this to include indigenous forms that are still practiced (eg. Mayans, Zapotec, etc.).
 * 2) United States - why does this have its own section when all others are continent-based? While the statement here is reflective of the development of hip hop, it's better suited in the North America section.
 * 3) Australia and Polynesia can be added to represent those areas of the continent from both the colonial, global, and indigenous perspectives.
 * 1) Australia and Polynesia can be added to represent those areas of the continent from both the colonial, global, and indigenous perspectives.
 * 1) Australia and Polynesia can be added to represent those areas of the continent from both the colonial, global, and indigenous perspectives.

 * Dance education: this section is wholly focused on formal dance training as it exists today. Should we add the historical perspectives? We can also add oral traditions that are still practiced, dance notation's use in dance education (eg. a few hundred years ago, the use of Beauchamp-Feuillet Notation in dance manuals in Europe were used, whereas today Labanotation is used to teach recorded choreographies), and other systems (eg. guru-disciple systems such as in particular Asian cultures).

 * Occupations: this section is wholly focused on the western perspective of occupation, but occupation can also be used to include occupations in the religious realm, scholarly realm, etc. Furthermore, 'Dance teachers' is wholly focused on studio dance but dance instruction as a career is actually multi-faceted and also takes place in other contexts (eg. guru-disciple systems, learning in a monastic setting, etc.).

 * Competitions: this section can be expanded to include non-studio and non-western competitive practices, eg. cyphers in the breakdancing world, powwow competitions, Japanese Kagura competitions (where scoring includes judging based on the preservation of ancient stories in new choreographies), and so on.

 * Gallery: no real comment except to maybe reduce the number of studio dance photos and add some other photos.

Let me know thoughts on the above. I come at this from the perspective of a western concert dancer but also a dance historian (I haven't made any edits yet, in case there is a concern for COI). Alenmartel (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Alen, I am not typically in a habit of giving a blanket endorsement to such sweeping page overhaul proposals, but there is very, very little in what you have suggested above which I would not agree would benefit the page considerably. The fact of the matter is, given the breadth of this topic and the importance of this form of art and human activity as a universal matter across cultures, this article is currently significantly below the threshold of content that would be allowed by our page length and summary style policies. In other words, there's room to grow here. And since that would involve mostly an additive process, I think you should consider yourself encouraged to be WP:BOLD on this one in running at this topic, if you feel you have the time to devote to it.  Work and home life obligations will unfortunately have me sidelined to an occasional feedback capacity and unfortunately at this time, I cannot predict when those demands will abate, as there are factors out of my control. However, if you ping me whenever you feel like you could use a second opinion on a matter, I will try to respond, however briefly, within a few days, hopefully a week at most. I know that's hardly super responsive, but unfortunately the best I can promise these days.

 * To get just a little bit into the weeds, so you don't feel you are flying completely solo or without some express consensus (even be it a very small consensus for now):
 * Yes, I 100% agree that the 'performance and participation', 'Dance and music', and 'Approaches to dance' sections could all use expansion in terms of both conceptual discussions and cultures represented. In these areas in particular, I advise removals to be kept to a minimum for now (except as needed to adjust the prose for flow) and focus on additions: we can always trim back later if the article becomes too long and unwieldy. In addition to coverage of existing cultural practices and perspectives, I would also like it if we could see some increased discussion about empirical studies on dance, including neurological/biopsychological insights, if you feel competent to research and render those concepts.
 * 'Dance and rhythm' has already been discussed in a section above, and I encourage any editor reading this to look at that brief discussion for more detailed insights into some of the problems I feel this section introduces in terms of WP:WEIGHT and encyclopedic tone. This is definitely one section that I think was probably introduced by someone a little to close to the tradition of one dancer and perhaps certain academics.  Even if that's not the case, this section really reads like a dissertation and partly as a consequence of this lacks appropriate tone and neutrality, with far too much reliance on direct attribution and anchoring in specific schools of thought--it really needs correction towards a more neutral voice and more general overview. This is really one area where I'd encourage some more substantial trimming even in initial passes; we could easily see more than half of this section going to make it more balanced with the scope of the article as a whole. This is also another area where I think some empirical discussion from the psychological and biological sciences could be useful to help balance out the social science tone a little--but those sources may be difficult to find if the editor searching for them does not have access to larger academic research databases.  As per my advice above, if you do end up making edits removing significant portions of the content here, you may want to pepper your edit summaries with references to these discussions, to provide context to any editors who may otherwise become alerted at said removals.
 * I agree with the basic restructuring you have contemplated to cultural traditions section. Let's be careful not to make this an everything and the kitchen sink section, since we do have parallel articles and categories that help to flesh out dance in particular cultural contexts, but certainly the susbections could be more robust and the distinctions better organized than at present.
 * For the 'Dance education' and 'Occupations' sections, I would advise caution with adding discussion of just any context in which dance becomes semi-professional. Unless dance itself is a significant part of a particular occupation, practice, or pedagogical process, it probably should not get more than the briefest of mention here, if any at all. We do need to draw a line at some point in throwing in reference to any context in which dance occurs, after-all.
 * Competitions: Absolutely agree there is a need to adjust this section to be more culturally expansive. Because such a section could easily grow in size quickly though, I'd advise trying to discuss these competitions (of all stripes) at a surface level, with liberal use of internal links (where possible) to other articles to allow follow-ups on particular competitions/traditions as the reader sees fit.
 * I actually like the current composition of the gallery pretty well: I even approve of the recent changes made since I last checked in here. But I will admit, I've long thought about adding a large number of additional photos, which is why there is a selection of photos in my sandbox that I have culled from Commons over time: high quality dance images are not as plentiful as one might hope on Commons, so it may be worth looking at that selection, especially as I curated the selection both for photo quality and span of representation of dance varieties. I've long felt tempted to add an extra row to the gallery to accommodate some of these, but there is a page load/mobile user consideration in play that stopped me. However, as the article grows in length, the justification for additional in-line use of images grows as well.  So it is my hope that you will be able to accommodate at least the large majority of the images currently used in the gallery, either by keeping them there or moving them to appropriate sections.  There is a maximum amount of photos that we should be suing over-all, but I would argue that since dance is a subject that inherently involves a strong visual component in terms of encyclopedic discussion, we can push that threshold here a little, if in any article.  In short, try to keep everything in while adding more as space opens up by virtue of increased prose, but do keep an eye on the concern of load times for those on mobile or low-bandwidth connections, as an accessibility matter.
 * Well, that's all I can think to say by way of general feedback for now. This will be a substantial effort at expansion, so I hope you get some assistance soon. I will try to lend a hand when and how I can, though as I noted before, it is likely to be minimal for now. Still, these are changes of a sort I have felt are a long time coming, so I wish you speedy and productive efforts!

 * Addendum: Since I am here, while I usually try to constrain my activity on this project (and talk pages in particular) away from expressly social comments, I'd just like to say that I hope my friends on this page are taking care of themselves in these worrisome times--best wishes until we can talk again more liberally about art and other such topics. :) Snow let's rap 06:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as regards your concerns about COI, Alen, I don't think there is any real need for worry as far as the issues you have referenced. If, as a dancer or historian, you find yourself tempted to address your own perspectives, especially as a source, then you want to tread with caution and probably get a second opinion before adding anything.  But your mere expertise in these fields does not in itself constitute WP:COI as we usually use the term on this project, and is in fact just considered extra useful context that you will be bringing to your editing. Your personal knowledge and expertise doesn't give you extra authority in consensus discussion, and can't be used as a basis for adding content without an appropriate source, but it's also not a knock against your perceived neutrality, provided you follow all relevant content policies. Snow let's rap 07:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dance
Dance is simply defined as the enjoyment of body movement with music 🎶 Nitil Talukdar (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

P.E
A dance that imitates / the move-ment of a lizard 112.198.114.0 (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B
— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
— Assignment last updated by Sl968935 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Kpop
Hi can someone please add a kpop dance picture in the dance section please 41.114.178.238 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Dance on social media" section reads like it's trying to advertise TikTok
Why does it only mention TikTok? Why does it feel like it's just praising TikTok 222.127.72.89 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition and Culture
— Assignment last updated by Dancer137 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

add ref's
please add refs for Helen Moller and redlink Helen Moller

98.248.161.240 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dance