Talk:Ibn Khaldun

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ethnicity[edit]

@Kansas Bear and Makeandtoss: since the subject's ethnicity keeps getting reinstated in the lead despite what MOS:ETHNICITY says, I'm starting this discussion to give "Makeandtoss" the opportunity to prove that Ibn Khaldun's ethnicity is relevant to his notability. M.Bitton (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lose "Arab" from the first paragraph of the lead, but retain, "He has been called one of the most prominent Arab and Muslim scholars and historians", as that aspect, how he is viewed today in those terms, is an important part of his notability. Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there very few articles on Wikipedia that deals with historical figures in this matter that is dealt with for Arab figures during Caliphates (similar issue on Al-Kindi, @Wikaviani:).
By this standard (which has removed any geographic/ethnic reference from the lede, instead of for example replacing Arab with Mamluk/Hafsid per a literal interpretation of MOS, which would be unsourced and an unprecedented identification): Niccolò Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei would be Florentines instead of Italians; Thomas Aquinas would be Sicilian instead of Italian; Jesus would be Roman instead of Jewish; Aristotle would be Chalcidian/Macedonian instead of Greek; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would be "Roman Holy Empirer" instead of German; Maimonides would be Almoravid instead of Sephardic Jewish; Saladin would be Abbasid instead of Kurdish. You get the point.
It is either the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia biographies apply a glaring double standard; or that the following sentence in MOS:ETHNICITY has been ignored: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability". I have demonstrated that his ethnicity is relevant to his notability by adding a reliably sourced sentence that identified him as the most prominent Arab historian, which has been removed for no reason. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that it has been removed for no reason is obviously not accurate and the source that you added doesn't prove that his ethnicity played any role in his notability. That being said, you do have a point regarding the other articles (Leonardo da Vinci for instance). M.Bitton (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are two separate issues. We were discussing identification in the opening paragraph. No counterarguments were given in your edit summary on why this reliably sourced sentence was also removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started this discussion to avoid having to do it through the edit summary. In any case, we can find all kind of cherry picked info that we can stick in the article, but that's not how Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Makeandtoss is cherrypicking here. But let's try a broader look at sourcing. I put "Ibn Khaldun" into Google Scholar and found:
  • Alatas (2013): Begins "Ibn Khaldun was one of the most remarkable Muslim scholars of the pre-modern period."
  • Dhaouadi (1990): opening doesn't identify Ibn Khaldun ethnically (but does situate him in an "Arab-Muslim" context)
  • Weiss (2009) doi:10.1017/S0020743800061560: in first paragraph, "As Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) well knew, economic and social change is a never-ending process. In the search for viable and sustainable strategies it may be stimulating to consider the insights of this great scholar of the Arab world who wrote 600 years ago."
  • Sidani (2008) doi:10.1108/17511340810845499: abstract begins, "This paper's purpose is to present the works of a North African early contributor to sociological theory, Ibn Khaldun".
  • Irwin (2018) doi:10.23943/9781400889549: book description reads, "Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) is generally regarded as the greatest intellectual ever to have appeared in the Arab world".
  • Rosenthal (1986) doi:10.1163/9789004474000_004: opening doesn't identify Ibn Khaldun ethnically, but situates him in a Muslim context.
There is some variation there, but I think Alatas, Weiss and Irwin all support the sentence Makeandtoss added to the end of the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's questioning the fact that he was Arab (at least, that's what he claimed to be), but adding that info in the middle of an edit war about "ethnicity in the lead" is not really appropriate (I can't think of a better term). Personally., I would describe him as Maghrebi (similar to his contemporaries from the same region). M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So first you said I was cherry picking from sources a label and now you want to original research a label? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means. Feel free to elaborate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Wikipedia definition: original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. That applies to the Maghrebi label. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think that anyone would question the Maghrebi label, but if RS is all it takes, then here are a couple:
  • "Maghrebi philosopher-historian Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406)".[1]
  • "the fourteenth-century Maghrebi philosopher Ibn Khaldun".[2]
More can be added if needed. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minority of sources overshadowed by the ones stating he is an Arab, including himself. Choosing a minority label over the majority one according to arguments like “I would describe him as” is also original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First you wanted a source and now you're comparing apples to oranges. Maghrebi describes him perfectly without delving into the ethnicity.
You "original research" comment makes no sense since RS was provided to support what I believe he should be described as. M.Bitton (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should not mention the ethnic background of people in the lead (WP:ETHNICITY]] plain and simple). For example, in Al-Kindi's article, we should say in the lead that he was a mathematician who worked on criptography etc .. while his ethnicity can be detailed in the body with relevant sources. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Morris, J. (2008). Imaging Islam: Intellect and Imagination in Islamic Philosophy, Poetry, and Painting. Religion and the Arts, 12(1-3), 294-318. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852908X271088
  2. ^ Philip Shukry Khoury, Joseph Kostiner (1990). Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East. University of California Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-520-07080-6.
My five cents. I am finding it difficult to sympathize with much of this discussion. It seems rather exaggerated. I think it is a bit strange to demand proof that identifying as Arab was important to him given that our article says he did this, and no one is arguing that this is wrong. Talking about the differences between cultures, such as Arabs and Berbers, is also of course something he is famous and notable for. How can we be saying that it is irrelevant to who he was? (BTW I would also say that for similar reasons I can't understand what would be wrong with calling Machiavelli "Florentine".) On the other hand, I think some of the attempts to emphasize his Arab identity are ham-fisted, and this is making discussion go in circles? I am also looking at the "Family" section, which ends with Ibn Khaldun's insistence and attachment to his claim of Arab ancestry at a time of Berber dynasties domination is a valid reason to believe his claim of Arab descent .[23][24] The sources do not appear strong enough to justify Wikipedia voice? In short, I suggest some compromising might do the trick here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Khaldun's insistence and attachment to his claim of Arab ancestry at a time of Berber dynasties domination is a valid reason to believe his claim of Arab descent I haven't noticed this before, but it doesn't make much sense since the Berber dynasties (at that time) were claiming Arab descent. Unfortunately, I couldn't check the second source, but the first doesn't support the statement. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources presented by Bondegezou and M.Bitton, it is clear that Ibn Khaldun was referred to by different terms(North African, Maghrebi), and not exclusively "Arab". Andrew Lancaster's idea of compromise might be the key. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? Immanuel Kant who was a Prussian citizen is described on his article to be a German, even though there are multiple sources identifying him as a western philosopher and as a European philosopher.
The majority of sources use Arab to described Ibn Khaldun, I can’t see why this would be controversial. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of sources use Arab 1) that's an unsubstantiated claim. 2) If MOS:ETHNICITY is to be ignored, then describing him as "Muslim" would take precedence as Islam was far more important to him than where his supposed distant ancestors came from. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not an unsubstantiated claim, look above and check the sources. There's no such thing as a Muslim ethnicity, it's a religion. How would Muslim take precedence? Did he speak the Muslim language? Is Newton primarily identified as a Christian scientist? Being Arab is a matter of culture, language and ancestry; its not just "where his supposed distant ancestors came from". This discussion is original research anyway. You want to pick and choose according to your preferences what to describe him as on Wikipedia, while I advocate following what the majority of reliable sources say. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You often compare this article and other Wiki articles, while you've been editing here for about ... 9 years ? You might know what WP:OTHER says.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I often compare to show that there is an inconsistency in applying the policy; or rather that there is a misinterpretation of the policy (which is what I am arguing, and does conflict with WP:OTHER). Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we have to proceed in compliance with our guidelines, if other articles are not, then those articles should be reworded, not this one.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikaviani I think your understanding of the Wiki "rules" is not quite right, and your insistence on this is not really helpful. It is not always a problem to use ethnic designators when they are relevant to what is notable about a person. This concern arose because too many Wikipedians were overdoing it, mentioning that someone's grandparents were German in the opening lines, so to speak. If for example someone is well known as an author who writes about what it means to be German, and about their experience being German, then that's quite different than if we would say that Donald Trump's grandparents were German in the lead. Identity in general, including ethnic identity, is a tricky subject for us, but it is often best to be mainly guided by how people present themselves to the world.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is often best to be mainly guided by how people present themselves to the world did Ibn Khaldun present himself to the word as an Arab or as a Maghrebi? Did his contemporaries view him as an Arab or as a Maghrebi? M.Bitton (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand he identified as a person of Arab descent and culture, whose recent ancestry was in the Maghreb, which to put it crudely his people had conquered. That is of course a simple wording but I am not writing the article. I can fully sympathize with the aim of trying to refine our wording on this, but it will need to be carefully sourced and discussed. As a starting point for now though I see no reason for not describing him as an Arab, if we must stick to simple wordings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned before, it's best to start citing RS. What do the reliable sources say about his identity? M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on those who want inclusion. How is the Arab background of Ibn Khaldun useful for his notability ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has somewhat bifurcated. There is the question of what to put in the lead, and there is the question of what to put in the rest of the article with respect to Ibn Khaldun's ethnicity. I agree with Andrew Lancaster's comments above and the need for some compromise. I don't think M.Bitton's desire to de-emphasise "Arab" stand up when compared to the sourcing presented.

I think we have plenty of referencing to support something like "He has been called one of the most prominent Arab and Muslim scholars and historians" in the lead, as Makeandtoss originally proposed. (Happy if people want to switch those round: Muslim and Arab.) I note that text like that is not about how Ibn Khaldun saw himself, but is historiographical. It is about how people today see Ibn Khaldun. In the article, we can then expand on the issue, about how Ibn Khaldun is presented today and about how Ibn Khaldun identified himself, which would include reference to Berber, Maghrebi, North African and Spanish identities. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: desire to de-emphasise how exactly did you come to that conclusion? M.Bitton (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arab and Muslim; Muslim and Arab; doesn't matter. In the opening paragraph however it should not be controversial to say he was an Arab, as identified by majority of reliable sources, and as seen as the reality on the ground (how they interpreted the policy) in the majority of Wikipedia biographies. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is controversial to describe him as Maghrebi? M.Bitton (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very controversial to cherrypick a label from a minority of sources and ignore what the majority says, yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense! There is nothing controversial about the fact that he was Maghrebi. M.Bitton (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate how "Maghrebi" is the label used by majority of reliable sources, instead of Arab, and then come back with your "utter nonsense" accusations. Wikipedia is built using content from reliable sources, not personal preferences, and certainly not through inflammatory language used above. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an accusation, it's a statement. Are you questioning the fact that he was Maghrebi? M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not continuing a discussion on Wikipedia where arguments are built on what a user believes and prefers rather than one built on reliable sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to know that you're not questioning the fact that he was Maghrebi. So why would it be controversial to describe him as such? M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal seems reasonable to me Bondegezou. M.Bitton I don't think "Maghrebi" adds clarity to this discussion. It can be read as saying where he is from geographically, which is no problem, but geographical origins can be explained in ways which don't look like ethnic terms. Can you find a way to do that? I am personally very cautious of ethnic identifications in WP, but this is the case of a person who clearly identified themselves strongly in a certain way, within his own notable works. His understanding of his culture and supposed ancestry from the east was relevant to his self-image and world-view, just as his family's long term residence in the west was relevant. The interaction of these cultures was a major topic for him. I also think the last thing we want to do on WP is to tell the world an author was wrong about their own identity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have edited the lead along the lines previously proposed by Makeandtoss, but somewhat reworded and with an additional citation. I've not had a go at expanding the main article text on these issues. I may get to this at some point, but happy for others to have a go. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: I also think the last thing we want to do on WP is to tell the world an author was wrong about their own identity I agree and as far as I know, his identity was Maghrebi. Where his ancestors came from played no part in who he was and the fact that he criticised the Bedouins (the real Arabs) led some scholars to question whether his claimed ancestry was baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this as helpful advice but please find reliable sources and start making reasonable proposals. Just throwing around strong personal opinions won't be helpful. Are you honestly denying that he identified as an Arab? The distinction you make about "real Arabs" and Arabs in the Maghreb might well be a good lead to follow in order to make a more refined wording, but you need to get your own sourcing in order first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly denying that he identified as an Arab? I suggest you read what I wrote previously.
The advice about the sourcing applies to everyone, including yourself. Let's start by citing what the RS say about his identity.
This source, for instance, mentions his Maghrebi identity (that sets him apart from the others). Do you have a RS that does the same for the Arab one? M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing anything except a more constructive attitude. In the book you cite above I can see that there are many more refined and interesting wordings concerning his ethnic identity. If you were proposing wordings like that I guess no one would be concerned. The controversy on this talk page seems artificial and silly to me. You seem obsessed about trying to say he was not an Arab. Why? Sorry, but that seems extreme. I do not see that book saying that he was not an Arab. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem obsessed about trying to say he was not an Arab I'm not responsible for your clear misinterpretation of what I said (it's all written in black and white).
Sadly, this has become a habit around here, where one is accused of being, as the same, an Arab nationalist (by some) and wanting to remove the word Arab (by others). M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pointless. I guess people will just ignore you on this basis. I have no idea who you are or what other edits you do. I just see the unconstructive style employed in this discussion. This is no way to come up with better wordings. On WP it is important to work with others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to follow the very advice that you cited (about the RS), but for some reason, that wasn't good enough. Add to that the fact that you keep misrepresenting what I said (which is extremely annoying) to insinuate that I have some anti-Arab agenda (which is not only completely baseless, but also insulting) and this is the result of this nonsensical and utter waste of my time. If this your idea of "working" with others, then you can count me out, and on that basis, I will definitely ignore you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of ethnicity[edit]

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

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

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

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

@Andrew Lancaster@Wikaviani The problem here is not about the nature of Ibn Khaldun identity, it’s about whether such an ethnic identity should be included in the lead at all. Let’s stick to that, as Wikipedia does not operate under the personal interpretations and analysis of its users, but report what is asserted in related authoritative sources. I’m afraid RFC won’t solve the problem at hands either, as it spilled into other articles by some user who also thinks that Persians are being treated unjustly here. It’s a murky business.
Not sure why people make a big deal out of it; the Manual of Style is: “ is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow ”. It’s not a binding rule for editors really to try religiously implementing it. Also, in the case of a subject’s notability, what is considered notable about something to YOU might not be considered as notable for someone else. Again, it’s extremely subjective and vague. This whole issue is, like I said, petty and trivial. Common sense sometimes is needed, because it’s getting unproductive. Nabataeus (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear here, I have absolutely no problem with Arabness being indicated in the lead section for Ibn Khaldun or Al-Kindi or anyone else. The problem here is that the page for Avicenna was extended protected and any reference to his ethnicity or geographical origin was taken out of the lead because his ethnicity was apparently not relevant to his fame. The moment we reverse the pathetic ruling on the Avicenna, Khayyam, Suhrawardi, Ghazali pages we can put "Arab" back here and everywhere else without there being a double standard. شاه عباس (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The double standard is indeed problematic and consistency must be restored. I have discussed this previously many times that Arab and Persian historical figures specifically are having no ethnic identifications in the lede, while many historical figures in other regions, not only have an ethnic identification, but a modern one, such as Niccolò Machiavelli who is described as Italian instead of Florentine! Makeandtoss (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there has been a general ruling made at a very high level, which would itself demand something like an RFC, then we don't need to follow what happened on those Persian-oriented articles. OTOH, if indeed this is seen as the only way to avoid eternal silliness such as people constantly reverting each other, then perhaps no ethnicity is the best option. Personally, as I have already indicated, I think the problem is coming from the way in which too many editors see themselves as battling for all or nothing. If we can all get used to writing in a way which allows for multiple identities, then perhaps we can as a community calm this type of problem back down?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is silly in fact is the clear double standard in the application of WP guidelines in which western historical figures are allowed to be given ethnic labels, even labels that are not contemporaneous to the figure, while Arab and Persian are singled out, and editors are left in this endless debate. We are not adding multiple identities, just like how Machiavelli is not described in his opening paragraph as an “Italian Florentine North Mediterranean European Christian”. We will not be doing “North African South Mediterranean Arab Muslim” either. One label is more than enough, and that label should be the label that RS use, and in this case it is very clearly Arab as I have previously demonstrated. I am tired of this double standard and I am tired of this endless discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100%, Socrates is described as Greek and not "Attic-speaking Athenian pagan dialectician", somehow when it comes to Muslim figures of Arab and Persian origin that's controversial. If the ethnicity of a figure isn't debated, such as for Avicenna and Ibn Khaldun, then it should be included in the heading. شاه عباس (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine by me but the practical question here is whether you should best push this into being a Wikipedia-wide debate or just debate article by article. The examples which everyone is trying to make a point about here are connected to a different cultural situation in Persia and as far as I can see trying to bring those debates into this article is only going to confuse things?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was very clear in the Avicenna talk page debate that the editors who were against the inclusion of ethnicity were arguing for it from the perspective that figures of Islamic civilisation are more characterised by religion than ethnicity, which would include figures like Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Athir. شاه عباس (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what happened then that is a shame. But does those cases need to affect this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently doing both simultaneously. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibn_Khaldun&oldid=1219999064"