![]() | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article talks about the Persian city and that there was an academy; it focuses on the intellectual heritage of the city. Besides, there is more that can be said about the city and it seems pointless to create a new artcle for that purpose
The Academy and the city where it was located are logically distinguishable. Instead of a move, we could have a split. All material relating to the city goes to Gundishapur (city) and the rest stays in the Academy. Zora 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.
Request was to move to Gundishapur. WhiteNight T | @ | C 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
One editor just added a long essay on the superiority of Persian culture which is far, far from NPOV. I don't have time to rewrite just now -- I've spent a long day driving visitors about the city -- but it needs to be done. Zora 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I dont think the NPOV tag is necessary. Just rewrite the section. It's no big deal.-- Zereshk 17:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora,
Since you took the trouble to edit the entire article instead of just that section, is it OK if I ask you to restore some of the info that you deleted which I think is pertinent, such as the mentioning of Vansibin as well as Zeidan's writings? Or did you perhaps have a particular reason to delete such info? Thanx.-- Zereshk 18:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not clear that Gundishapur was the most important medical center in the world in the 6th and 7th centuries. How would you measure that? I removed this boast. I also removed quote re Persia inventing modern medicine, or suchlike. "Persia" is an abstraction. "Persia" can't do a darn thing. The achievement belongs to an enlightened monarch and a bunch of smart people, all of whom are now DEAD. In a wider sense, it's an example of what humans can do.
Zereshk, you didn't reply to the copyvio question. I'm taking that as a tacit admission that the article is a copvio, and will do more rewriting. Zora 22:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Contrary to what google hits say almost unanimously, Vansibin was not in Khuzestan, but farther up northwest, in the current Iraq-Syria region. It was then part of the Persian Empire. I finally found a mention of it in Donald Hill's book. He spells it "Nisibīn". The "Vansibin" word is a Persian equivalent. Same thing. I'm updating the article.-- Zereshk 05:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Zora, if this is your belief that it's just a bunch of smart people and a monarch, then you better go and change the tens of thousands of articles that give credit of inventions and scientific breakthroughs to entire peoples (Romans, British, American, German, ect.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.73.38 ( talk) 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Zereshk, if you're going to INSIST on using this article to go "Persia, Persia, rah rah rah!" then I'm going to add the nationalism link. You aren't any bigger, or more important, because of something that people did several centuries ago. Who you are is what YOU have done.
I also removed the link you added to a lecture at a New Delhi university. The speaker is exalting Islamic homeopathic medicine and Islamic civilization in a public lecture full of boasting and hyperbole. I would agree that Islamic scholars, including scholars at Gundishapur and later in Baghdad, preserved various works that would otherwise have been lost. But they weren't the only ones! Much was also preserved in Byzantium, and taken to Europe by scholars who fled the fall of Constantinople. The quote is not a credible claim, or a credible source. Zora 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
so does Persia have its proud achievements.
Im sorry, but I cant let you take that away, no matter how hard you try to censor the existence of Persia with your "nationalism" pretext.
Its true, the academy did dominate the city in terms of significance, but there are other historical resources we can draw upon to discuss the city. I also see no need to split the article, there's nothing wrong with having one thorough and comprehensive article on either subject really. If the vote decides that the article name should remain, then the article shold be cleaned up. Right now it begins:
The Academy of Gundishapur (...) was the intellectual center of the Sassanid empire. Its Academy offered training...
How does an academy have an academy? There are several points in the article in which the subject is confused in the middle of the sentence. No matter what the verdict is on the name, we should make the article lucidly discuss either the City in the context of the Academy, or the Academy in the context of the City. The section The Rise of Gundishapur talks about the city, while Significance of Gundishapur talks about the academy, while Gundishapur Under Muslim Rule talks about both. No formal distinction is made.
I suppose thats the real issue, that the article needs to be clarified, and based on the content it can be about either the city or the academy. MrPMonday 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I split the article into Gundeshapur and Academy of Gundishapur. I'm not very happy with the different names, but "Gundeshapur" returned more results in Google (2.600, whereas most other common variants returned around 900).
Why did I split? It seemed that a lot of the article was about the city, not the academy (i.e. it was the site of the death of mani, it was founded by so-and-so, etc.).
I do agree that it's pretty hard to seperate the history of the city from that of the academy. I tried to do that, but left a fair bit of duplicate material. A rewrite of both may be in order.
Alternatively, everything could be left in the article on the city. Either one would be fine, I just don't think it was right to have the history of the city in the article on the academy. What do you think? Flammifer 07:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there's some academic doubt as to whether the medical academy of Jundishapur/Gundeshapur actually existed.
eg. Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity (1997), p. 94:
and Plinio Prioreschi, A History of Medicine (2001), p. 362:
where [601]= Michael W. Dols, The Origin of the Islamic Hospital: Myth and Reality, Bull. Hist. Med., LXI, 367-390, (1987).
On the other hand, the Encyclopedia Iranica at [1], also [2] and [3], seems rather more well-disposed to the story. (Edited version of the first article also at www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Geography/gondi_Shapur_medical_school.htm).
In later times, according to Prioreschi, "there is no lack of assertions about the great fame of Jundishapur. For example, ibn al-Kofthi (d. 1248) writes:
... but is this a reliable report of the legend, some three centuries after the medical school had ceased to exist?
Google Books doesn't show me the next page from Prioreschi, but on p.364 he continues:
where [614]= Peregrine Horden, "The Nestorians, Gondeshapur, and Islamic Medicine: A Sceptical Comment" (1983), noting that it is unlikely Gondeshapur could have been a major medical school in this period, since not a single graduate of it is identified.
Jheald 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Jheald makes an incredibly valid point. I have edited the page to reflect the recent scholarship I found (from Michael Dols), and Jheald, I would definitely encourage you to add your information as well!
I did make some other edits, based on research I had done in many of the same sources already cited on the page. I edited what I felt were oddly structured sentences, and in a few cases, removed what I thought was extraneous information. Also, I went through the entire article and changed the varied spellings of Gundeshapur to, well, "Gundeshapur," since that is the spelling on the title of this article. Also, I made all the book references I used, and all the sources into Chicago style format.
I hope I haven't truly offended anyone with these changes. Cmxwagner ( talk) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The twin cities of Seleukeia and Ktêsiphôn (´Arabic al-madînatân or al-mudun)were NOT on the Euphratês / Firât, but on the Tigris / Dijlah.
Nuremberg 1.1.2013 Angel.Garcia ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.130.228 ( talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems like the contents of this page are offered for sale at this Internet address:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131205227/Gondishapur-Wiki
If you decide to read as a guest, it takes you to a page with a few payment options. is it allowed (or legal?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 ( talk) 05:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gundeshapur. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The bold revisionist claim about the so-called "Kurdish" bloodline of the Sassanian kings looks really dodgy. Omid.espero ( talk) 09:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
"The origin of the Sasanian Kings were originated form the Kurdish family bloodline" is not saying munch since by that time kord was used in ardashir khodaname book (lord ardashirs book) to meant generic iranian nomads in kerman to the east, and neither where those nomad kord groups that became the modern group Kurds later already there, and from the famous people there it seems to be a christian center of religious service and the main fortrress in the area
So this is a claim of ethnic origins from kurdish family bloodline that uses the kurdish in turkeys word for village,گنده, wich is shared meaning from related langugages like luri and bakhtiari, in northern to mean village. gondeh,aswell.And shortened "deh" is the form used in khuzestan, but since there is over 1400 years seperating the word for army ,Gund and,gunde, and those groups that where referenced as kurd in the zagros mountain in the middle-ages, (village) and it being in the south of iran, where the iranian "Kurdish"language like luri/bakhtiari/kurdish use the short "Deh" from gonde and persian deh, like dehzful it being named such, and kunduz (old fortress) aswell and ruin-dez another, in kurdish is true, that the first part is most likely meant to referer to modern village shapur todaytoday, but towns around iran with fortress of soldiers) being by islamic time called gond-dez-shapor-shapor withouth saying any letter twice in a row is perfekt for a arabic jundeshapor form, since it was the main administritive center. So since it aligns with towns named kundez meaning old fort then its explanation can be found in the iranian language of the time withouth having to be in some form of kurdish. Kuhndiz-shah and if using local luri or kurdi in khuzestan then it should be more akin to deh-shapor or gund-shapor. Since it was christians living there primally and connection to kurdish is due to shared language, kohan-dez-shah is a eastern city title/place and replacing old with soldiers is propably the easiest way to give a hint of naming places back then)it seems very missleading to make it seems like the ancient word kord and modern kord-like group are refering to the same ethnic group, since what means to be kord today as a people is not the same as the word kord, for the sassanians/or parthians used it for nomadic groups know from central and easter iran, like amartiya and sagaratians like people who used lassos and whose migrating needed to be observed so it goes well with the other nomadic people. The islamicied kurds called such by arabs by the 10 century near the caucausus would be the first specific kurd named groups that was with the meaning of a iranian speaking group and not the word for nomads. So yeah the part of kurdish family bloodline and it being named village in kurdish should be taken away since its not correct that anyone knows if those people called kurd through history became lurs,western ,northern or southern kurds, or settled in a city. But the memeory of the islamicied and arab-family kurds near the caucusus was saved and given later to other groups of same speaking people in the mountains when their name started to run afoul sharia or decencey. Like a tribe of magician moutain kurds where among the first "modern kurds" living and changing their name to one of the names used today, like gurani or sorani or kurmmanji or luri, the kurds on the mountain slowly became distict groups and the new kurdish distint group startet to be predatory tribes untill the 20th century, being the modern group.
Whoever did that should remove the line about originated from kurdish blood, since at most it would be shared ancestral blood with ardashirs kin and nomad groups wich wwhere predatory, but claiming Gondeshapor stands for shapurs village is not like false information. I did not find anything. Editor please remmove or put it in context Bennanak88 ( talk) 11:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article talks about the Persian city and that there was an academy; it focuses on the intellectual heritage of the city. Besides, there is more that can be said about the city and it seems pointless to create a new artcle for that purpose
The Academy and the city where it was located are logically distinguishable. Instead of a move, we could have a split. All material relating to the city goes to Gundishapur (city) and the rest stays in the Academy. Zora 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.
Request was to move to Gundishapur. WhiteNight T | @ | C 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
One editor just added a long essay on the superiority of Persian culture which is far, far from NPOV. I don't have time to rewrite just now -- I've spent a long day driving visitors about the city -- but it needs to be done. Zora 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I dont think the NPOV tag is necessary. Just rewrite the section. It's no big deal.-- Zereshk 17:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora,
Since you took the trouble to edit the entire article instead of just that section, is it OK if I ask you to restore some of the info that you deleted which I think is pertinent, such as the mentioning of Vansibin as well as Zeidan's writings? Or did you perhaps have a particular reason to delete such info? Thanx.-- Zereshk 18:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not clear that Gundishapur was the most important medical center in the world in the 6th and 7th centuries. How would you measure that? I removed this boast. I also removed quote re Persia inventing modern medicine, or suchlike. "Persia" is an abstraction. "Persia" can't do a darn thing. The achievement belongs to an enlightened monarch and a bunch of smart people, all of whom are now DEAD. In a wider sense, it's an example of what humans can do.
Zereshk, you didn't reply to the copyvio question. I'm taking that as a tacit admission that the article is a copvio, and will do more rewriting. Zora 22:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Contrary to what google hits say almost unanimously, Vansibin was not in Khuzestan, but farther up northwest, in the current Iraq-Syria region. It was then part of the Persian Empire. I finally found a mention of it in Donald Hill's book. He spells it "Nisibīn". The "Vansibin" word is a Persian equivalent. Same thing. I'm updating the article.-- Zereshk 05:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Zora, if this is your belief that it's just a bunch of smart people and a monarch, then you better go and change the tens of thousands of articles that give credit of inventions and scientific breakthroughs to entire peoples (Romans, British, American, German, ect.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.73.38 ( talk) 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Zereshk, if you're going to INSIST on using this article to go "Persia, Persia, rah rah rah!" then I'm going to add the nationalism link. You aren't any bigger, or more important, because of something that people did several centuries ago. Who you are is what YOU have done.
I also removed the link you added to a lecture at a New Delhi university. The speaker is exalting Islamic homeopathic medicine and Islamic civilization in a public lecture full of boasting and hyperbole. I would agree that Islamic scholars, including scholars at Gundishapur and later in Baghdad, preserved various works that would otherwise have been lost. But they weren't the only ones! Much was also preserved in Byzantium, and taken to Europe by scholars who fled the fall of Constantinople. The quote is not a credible claim, or a credible source. Zora 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
so does Persia have its proud achievements.
Im sorry, but I cant let you take that away, no matter how hard you try to censor the existence of Persia with your "nationalism" pretext.
Its true, the academy did dominate the city in terms of significance, but there are other historical resources we can draw upon to discuss the city. I also see no need to split the article, there's nothing wrong with having one thorough and comprehensive article on either subject really. If the vote decides that the article name should remain, then the article shold be cleaned up. Right now it begins:
The Academy of Gundishapur (...) was the intellectual center of the Sassanid empire. Its Academy offered training...
How does an academy have an academy? There are several points in the article in which the subject is confused in the middle of the sentence. No matter what the verdict is on the name, we should make the article lucidly discuss either the City in the context of the Academy, or the Academy in the context of the City. The section The Rise of Gundishapur talks about the city, while Significance of Gundishapur talks about the academy, while Gundishapur Under Muslim Rule talks about both. No formal distinction is made.
I suppose thats the real issue, that the article needs to be clarified, and based on the content it can be about either the city or the academy. MrPMonday 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I split the article into Gundeshapur and Academy of Gundishapur. I'm not very happy with the different names, but "Gundeshapur" returned more results in Google (2.600, whereas most other common variants returned around 900).
Why did I split? It seemed that a lot of the article was about the city, not the academy (i.e. it was the site of the death of mani, it was founded by so-and-so, etc.).
I do agree that it's pretty hard to seperate the history of the city from that of the academy. I tried to do that, but left a fair bit of duplicate material. A rewrite of both may be in order.
Alternatively, everything could be left in the article on the city. Either one would be fine, I just don't think it was right to have the history of the city in the article on the academy. What do you think? Flammifer 07:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there's some academic doubt as to whether the medical academy of Jundishapur/Gundeshapur actually existed.
eg. Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity (1997), p. 94:
and Plinio Prioreschi, A History of Medicine (2001), p. 362:
where [601]= Michael W. Dols, The Origin of the Islamic Hospital: Myth and Reality, Bull. Hist. Med., LXI, 367-390, (1987).
On the other hand, the Encyclopedia Iranica at [1], also [2] and [3], seems rather more well-disposed to the story. (Edited version of the first article also at www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Geography/gondi_Shapur_medical_school.htm).
In later times, according to Prioreschi, "there is no lack of assertions about the great fame of Jundishapur. For example, ibn al-Kofthi (d. 1248) writes:
... but is this a reliable report of the legend, some three centuries after the medical school had ceased to exist?
Google Books doesn't show me the next page from Prioreschi, but on p.364 he continues:
where [614]= Peregrine Horden, "The Nestorians, Gondeshapur, and Islamic Medicine: A Sceptical Comment" (1983), noting that it is unlikely Gondeshapur could have been a major medical school in this period, since not a single graduate of it is identified.
Jheald 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Jheald makes an incredibly valid point. I have edited the page to reflect the recent scholarship I found (from Michael Dols), and Jheald, I would definitely encourage you to add your information as well!
I did make some other edits, based on research I had done in many of the same sources already cited on the page. I edited what I felt were oddly structured sentences, and in a few cases, removed what I thought was extraneous information. Also, I went through the entire article and changed the varied spellings of Gundeshapur to, well, "Gundeshapur," since that is the spelling on the title of this article. Also, I made all the book references I used, and all the sources into Chicago style format.
I hope I haven't truly offended anyone with these changes. Cmxwagner ( talk) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The twin cities of Seleukeia and Ktêsiphôn (´Arabic al-madînatân or al-mudun)were NOT on the Euphratês / Firât, but on the Tigris / Dijlah.
Nuremberg 1.1.2013 Angel.Garcia ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.130.228 ( talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems like the contents of this page are offered for sale at this Internet address:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131205227/Gondishapur-Wiki
If you decide to read as a guest, it takes you to a page with a few payment options. is it allowed (or legal?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 ( talk) 05:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gundeshapur. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The bold revisionist claim about the so-called "Kurdish" bloodline of the Sassanian kings looks really dodgy. Omid.espero ( talk) 09:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
"The origin of the Sasanian Kings were originated form the Kurdish family bloodline" is not saying munch since by that time kord was used in ardashir khodaname book (lord ardashirs book) to meant generic iranian nomads in kerman to the east, and neither where those nomad kord groups that became the modern group Kurds later already there, and from the famous people there it seems to be a christian center of religious service and the main fortrress in the area
So this is a claim of ethnic origins from kurdish family bloodline that uses the kurdish in turkeys word for village,گنده, wich is shared meaning from related langugages like luri and bakhtiari, in northern to mean village. gondeh,aswell.And shortened "deh" is the form used in khuzestan, but since there is over 1400 years seperating the word for army ,Gund and,gunde, and those groups that where referenced as kurd in the zagros mountain in the middle-ages, (village) and it being in the south of iran, where the iranian "Kurdish"language like luri/bakhtiari/kurdish use the short "Deh" from gonde and persian deh, like dehzful it being named such, and kunduz (old fortress) aswell and ruin-dez another, in kurdish is true, that the first part is most likely meant to referer to modern village shapur todaytoday, but towns around iran with fortress of soldiers) being by islamic time called gond-dez-shapor-shapor withouth saying any letter twice in a row is perfekt for a arabic jundeshapor form, since it was the main administritive center. So since it aligns with towns named kundez meaning old fort then its explanation can be found in the iranian language of the time withouth having to be in some form of kurdish. Kuhndiz-shah and if using local luri or kurdi in khuzestan then it should be more akin to deh-shapor or gund-shapor. Since it was christians living there primally and connection to kurdish is due to shared language, kohan-dez-shah is a eastern city title/place and replacing old with soldiers is propably the easiest way to give a hint of naming places back then)it seems very missleading to make it seems like the ancient word kord and modern kord-like group are refering to the same ethnic group, since what means to be kord today as a people is not the same as the word kord, for the sassanians/or parthians used it for nomadic groups know from central and easter iran, like amartiya and sagaratians like people who used lassos and whose migrating needed to be observed so it goes well with the other nomadic people. The islamicied kurds called such by arabs by the 10 century near the caucausus would be the first specific kurd named groups that was with the meaning of a iranian speaking group and not the word for nomads. So yeah the part of kurdish family bloodline and it being named village in kurdish should be taken away since its not correct that anyone knows if those people called kurd through history became lurs,western ,northern or southern kurds, or settled in a city. But the memeory of the islamicied and arab-family kurds near the caucusus was saved and given later to other groups of same speaking people in the mountains when their name started to run afoul sharia or decencey. Like a tribe of magician moutain kurds where among the first "modern kurds" living and changing their name to one of the names used today, like gurani or sorani or kurmmanji or luri, the kurds on the mountain slowly became distict groups and the new kurdish distint group startet to be predatory tribes untill the 20th century, being the modern group.
Whoever did that should remove the line about originated from kurdish blood, since at most it would be shared ancestral blood with ardashirs kin and nomad groups wich wwhere predatory, but claiming Gondeshapor stands for shapurs village is not like false information. I did not find anything. Editor please remmove or put it in context Bennanak88 ( talk) 11:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)