Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive 1

Why no mention of racism against India?
Biruni was a known racist against Indians and Hinduism, possessing no real knowledge of any of the two subjects. In the book "Description of India" he is ridiculously racist and claims India has no mathematical tradition, even though without India the Muslims would have no numbers and no people to kill like they always have in their bloody history. Someone needs to mention this racism, this article praises him consistently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.48.187 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, this article is consistently worshipful and does not appear in the least bit balanced. There is plenty to mention about Al-biruni's deficiencies, his racism is the least of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.157.134 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have sources, edit the article and reference those sources. This is Wikipedia, not Requestopedia, everyone must make the changes they want made, and not expect others to do it for them. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  08:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Declarative statements like "He is now regarded as the father of Indology" are patently absurd; the "footnote" there merely points to some obviously muslim propaganda piece, in no mainstream university setting is Al-biruni "regarded as the father of indology". Just absolutely absurd article clearly worked over feverishly by some muslim propagandist. I'm just pointing out the obvious - I've tangled with nationalist/evangelical people at wikipedia before (and who hasnt?) and they always seem to have far more time (and far more partners in intellectual crime) and tackling their non-stop edit wars takes enormous focused energy and that is why they keep winning over time even at wikipedia. This is a problem ultimately with the open structure of wikipedia, I believe, and I'm not about to tackle *that* subject from here. Anyone with the time and energy to tackle the edit wars that would ensue can handle it and thats not me. I'm just stating the obvious need for balance in this article which is severely worshipful and unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.157.134 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of us joined this project to counter bias. I joined the project mainly to contribute to articles on Ismailism and rid Wikipedia articles on Islam from Sunni and Twelver bias. My time is limited, as is the time of others. Do I believe your criticism is valid? Some of it definitely is, but most of us do not have time to fix everything on Wikipedia. If you feel passionately about this, join the project. If you think Wikipedia's problem is its open structure, then there isn't too much use pointing out the obvious. You can start researching and editing right away, and that is really what this project needs, rather than having yet another biased editor signing up and adding his or her crap without someone like you to counter it. It's in your hands, pointing out the obvious usually is not helpful, and pointing out anything and not acting upon it yourself rarely gets something done. You're intelligent, and I'd like to see you help us out. If not, take care of yourself and maybe you'll sign up another time. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would add as well that its not merely about "having the sources" - which is what the evangelicals and nationalists always demand (as if they have any appreciation of source material). Its about mainstream sources that have been vetted by university peer-published journals; merely attaching a footnote does not make something "sourced", one has to be able to gauge and judge the value of source material. Of course the evangelicals and nationalists refuse to do that, they seem to think that 5 footnotes referring to some pakistani or iranian pampleteer counts as "sources" and they demand others footnote in the same way. It doesnt work like that at all, as anyone who has been to university knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.157.134 (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're exactly right, WP:RS demands reliable secular sources, not biased sources like this one. The sources in this article are not correct according to Wikipedia standards. You are absolutely correct in stating Wikipedia's policy, now please sign up and help us out. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL @ Pashtun I really liked your respond:D--Ddd0dd (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you jaan, I do try. :P -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  04:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

proposed move
I propose that this article is moved to al-Biruni. He seems to be refered to by this name more ofter and it si consitent with the page name of other biographies. Are there any objections? —Ruud 16:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine with me.--Zereshk 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Khwrazmian
The native language of Abu Rayhan Biruni was Khwrazmian which is an Iranian language. So calling him Persian (Iranian) in the wider sense is fine. But he was not Turkic and he even messedup the sequence of Turkic months. Khwarazmian was a close relative of Sogdian and an important trade and scientific language,spoken primarily in the upper Oxus River region. Evidence of Khwarazmian can be found in the works of the astrologer Biruni,and also the Khwarazmian-Arabic dictionary of Zamakhshari,which testify to its continuous importance in Central Asia after the conversionof that region to Islam


 * Khwarizmi is Iranian?!? Buddy you need some serious history lessons. Khwarizmi is 100% Turkic. Trust me.


 * - He means ancient Khwarazmi, not modern turkic khwarizmi my friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.253.43.32 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

he was persian
Whoever removed the word Persian from the article please dont do that again. First of all you need to discuss it in talk page and also you need to have a source

Britannica says he is Persian. Please bring another legitimate source that says he is not. adding the "muslim" part was great and thank you to whoever did that but you should not remove Persian from the article.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015394?query=biruni&ct=eb

Thank you

Gol 01:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that there is a lot of discussion about the ethnicity of al-biruni.Well different people have given their opinions and i think it's difficult to know whether he was a persian or turkish as there would always be objection about it.All i want to do is to bring a simple fact to your knowledge that in the past it was a custom to relate people as arabs and ajams(persian or non arabs).So i think that because of the word ajmi a lot of people are today known as persians and we can never know what their real ethnicity was.But i think that we should all be proud that he was a muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humming20 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You can say he was from Ariana Defines Persian Greater Iran as including "much of the Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, with cultural influences extending to China, western India, and the Semitic speaking world... In a modern day only Iranian claim the name Persians ...Abu Rayhan Biruni was not born nor buried Ghazni in Iran.... But he was part of the Persian Empire and culture !!!!!

Persian?
This site mentions that al-Biruni is an Arab: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579454/Al-Biruni.html It should be mentioned, I'm taking off Persian since it's disputed. Also, this site states he's an Arab as well: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/mathhist/arab.html MB 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam-Webster dictionary, among numerous other sources say, “......in full Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni  Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and an outstanding intellectual figure.”. If they say so, that`s good enough for me. Zmmz 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zmmz and I agree 100%

MB, you can not base your argument on a random website. we dont know how accurate they are. we need a legitimate source, like Britannica, which is respected and highly regarded by most people. so please bring one if you want to change anything.

Gol 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Encarta is a very legitimate source, also the second link sources the library of congress and has a decent bibliography page. Britannica isn't the only legit source in the net. I gave legit sources showing he's an Arab, you decided to delete my sources to keep citing him as Persian, you're extremly biased. Your racism is causing Wikipedia's legitimacy to be questioned, seriously please understand that not all Muslim scholars were Persian! Keep your propaganda for yourself, this is a neutral source of information. MB 08:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is actually [the] most used and respected encyclopedia in the world. And, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as well as, the Oxford dictionary are [the] most widely respected dictionaries in the world, that are used online and as a hard copy. Also, the difference between your MSN, or AOL Encarta and other source is that these three are the most recently updated ones. And, MB from judging the fact that you have tried to changed the identity of many Persian scientists, not just this one, in the past few weeks, I’d say you are the one who seems to go against over-whelming consensus, and try to edit articles to be more desirable to your personal opinions. You don’t assume good faith. Sorry, you are the biased one. Bottom line: You have the three best of the best sources; that’s all you need.Zmmz 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion, you can't force it down my throat. I have posted a legit source, nobody has a right to delete it. Also, I don't assume good faith?! Well, if it isn't the crow calling the raven black! Besides, I can see that since you started writing these articles, you had the "Muslim scholar=Persian scholar" equation, Even in Jabir Ibn Hayyan al-Azdi(who's tribe is a reputable Arabian tribe) has been called Persian in it's earliest version. about 50% of the scholars listed in your "list of Persian scientists" are Arabs. You're extremly biased, and you refuse to listen to reason. I have already contacted an admin on the violations at this article. If you want me to assume good faith, you should show it. i.e. don't delete my legit reference, simply because you don't agree with what it proves. MB 21:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No one has the right to delete yours or anyone else`s refrences. Yet, I have proof that you have tried to change the birthplace of many Persian scientists, including ones that are universally known as Iranian like Avicenna. There isn`t one source that comes from one encyclopedia that says Avicenna was an Arab. So why do you feel it is necessary to change his or other scientists origins? I`m just curious, what do you get out of it? Just because you have an opinion, which I know you are passionate about, it does not mean you can bend history to your will. So, bottom line, I don`t get it; you are saying my sources that for the fourth time in a row I am mentioning here, are Merriam-Webster dictionary, as well as, the Oxford dictionary, as well as the Britannica are wrong?Zmmz 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, nobody has a right to delete references, tell that to R.Koot. Also, you're very selective: What about Jabir, universally known as an Arab. What about Ibn al-Haytham, also universally known as an Arab; the article's reference page was full of sites naming him Arab, yet we had Persian extremists calling him Persian! Al-Biruni is disputed, since I gave references that disagree with him being Persian, and name him Arab, yet you decided to call him Persian. Why did you do that? I simply want to show the truth that not all Muslim scholars were Persian. Some of them were, some of them were Turks, and a lot of them were Arabs. I want Wikipedia to be more factually accurate, that's all. And why do you claim that all Muslim scholars are Persian, is there a reason? I never claimed your sources are wrong, I simply said that I have two sources that show otherwise, unless we have definitive evidence, or we all reach a consensus, the matter is disputed. You're triggering an edit war by keeping the Persian ethnicity. MB22:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know who called Geber Persian? That would be inaacurate, and would go against all the encyclopedias and scholars who say he was an Arab. But this is the same thing you are doing to the Persian scientists. I respect you, and respect the fact that Geber was an important Arab scientist. He was the `Father of Alchemy`. No one has the right to change his origins. But, when you try to tell a culture that its own people, in this case scientists, were of a different race, specially when that country and all the major dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world recognize them as such, then you have created a problem. No one wants their race changed, it takes away from their culture and pride. Facts are more important than hypothesis when it comes to religion, or in this case culture and race. There are some important scientists in every culture, but you cannot change their origins if they are universally known to be Persian for example. I can`t go on with these discussions anymore, since the argument does not have much merit to begin with anyway. It seems you and a friend of yours are the lone voices who object to this; yet, the dictionary and all the encyclopedias say something else. Please understand that. Zmmz 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% I dont know who named Geber Persian either, certainly wasnt me, but it was completely wrong to do so. I grow up in Iran and he was always refer to as Arab. However just as it was wrong to take away his ethnicity is equally wrong to change Biruni’s ethnicity he is defined a Persian by Britannica. As for people who argue that Iran was part of Islamic territory, so what? That does not change the ethnicity of Persians. Egypt was part of Iranian imperial territory for 200 years does that make the people of Egypt Persian? Egypt was also under the rule of Ottomans for a very long time but that does not make them Turkish.

Gol 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Biruni was Persian.. Besides his Persian name, and the fact that he clearly mentions the people of Khawarazm are a branch of Persian, he has several Persian works as well. In those Persian works he used many pure Persian terms for complex concepts.  --Ali doostzadeh 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Khawarazm is a Persian branch geographically speaking, but the people are Turkic.

Actually Not! the region was filled by Persians who later was slaughtered by Mongolic and Turkic people : '''in the very early part of its history, the inhabitants of the area were from Iranian stock and they spoke an Eastern Iranian language called Khwarezmian. The famous scientist Biruni, a Khwarezm native, in his Athar ul-Baqiyah (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية) (p.47), specifically verifies the Iranian origins of Khwarezmians when he wrote (in Arabic): "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا, من دوحه الفرس"Translation: "The parents (forefathers) of the Khwarezm were a branch from a [region] of Persia."''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezm Hans

Poem about Khwarezm by Al Biruni
Well, what do you know, I found a poem by Al Biruni about the province of Khwarezm, written by the man himself centuries ago. It is written in Arabic because it was the language of the invading Arabs who required their subjects to speak it (Persians were discouraged from participating in their own culture). It says, ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian".

I know it seems very disappointing to many Turkish poeple, but fact is fact, during Biruni's time the language of poeple as well as their ethnicity in Khwarezm was Persian, later Turkic and Mongolic tribes attacked the region, killed most inhabitants and some of them escaped to today khorasan province of Iran, so it's a bit strange to give the honor to the poeple who forced the great culture of this region to be vanished! by the way, as a human we all can be proud of such persons who tried to find sciennce in dark ages and it doesn't matter much which ethnicity or langauge they were. (Arash, from all spots of the globe.)

All of my Turkish and Arab brothers should consider the fact that the name of Al biruni is a Persian word."birun" in Persian means Out. Also all of turks should know that the persian cultural impire has very deep roots in centeral Asia.I dont realy know, why some people insist to Change the identity of a person  with Persian family, Persian culture and Persian language to somthing like arab or turk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.5.147 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Al-Biruni may have been from mixed Persian-Arab descent
During Ummayad period, large numbers of Arab soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province (old Khorasan included Khwarizm as well). This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people in 8th century CE. The speacial circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,pp.213-214).Heja Helweda 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that says nothing specifically about Al Biruni. Secondly, that may have been written by an unverifiable author, or an Student Encyclopedia because first of all Islamic law prohibited Arab Muslims from mixing with ``gentiles``(non-Arabs). Also, I clicked on the link you provided, it takes you to an empty page, then asks you to download an Adobe file. It may have been written by a student, but that certainly is not of encyclopedic magnitude. That seems to be the [only] source you have, and although hard to label something, but with all due respect that Adobe file could be written by anyone. Don`t you think an important thing about a culture`s race would be written in at least one Encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica or a dictionary? In fact, I searched Encyclopedia Britannica and it says, “Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R”. Note that Arabs invaded it when the Persian Empire fail, yet the Romans invaded Greece at the same time, but still most of scientists and artists in Rome were Greek. Same analogy applies here.Zmmz 02:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m just curious what evidence you have that Al Biruni was mixed, I guess? I could say Alexander the Great was a mix of Greek and Turk. But you need to provide valid sources. So, why didn`t Al Biruni ever mention this in his poem about Khwarezm, and said that the city`s inhabitants are Persian? Why didn`t other historians mention this? I don`t get your logic. Zmmz 02:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence and I said the same thing in Al-Kharazmi talk page. It does not change anything since we are not suppose to write our facts based what we think might have been. We can not change his ethnicity only because there is a possibility that a lot of interracial marriages was going on at the time of his birth. I am sure if it was unclear Britannica would not call him Persian. After all what reason would they have to be pro Persian?

Gol 04:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghaznavids, Turko-Persian_Tradition,Farabi Ferdowsi, Mahmud_of_Ghazni, Seljuks articles have a wealth of information of this period in Khwarezm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.51.95 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting
No discussion since the day it was protected. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Angle trisection
I rm trisection of the angle from the list of this person's works. I'm unfamiliar with the subject of this article and he may have written on the subject of angle trisection; it is possible that he published either a false construction using compass and straightedge or a correct construction using other tools. However, the classic problem of angle trisection has been proven definitively impossible.

Reinsert this text after researching this person's actual contributions and rephrase this point so as to remove the misleading suggestion that he sucessfully trisected an angle with compass and straightedge. John Reid 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Elliptical orbits?
Covington's article in Aramco World (which is not a scholarly journal) appears to misrepresent al-Biruni's thought on the nature of the planetary orbits. I do not have access to the text which Covington cites, but some correspondence between al-Biruni and Avicenna makes it clear that
 * 1) al-Biruni's concern was with the nature of the Aristotelian Celestial spheres, not the planetary orbits and
 * 2) Although he argued that it was possible that the celestial "spheres" were oval or lenticular, he believed that they actually were spherical.

An excerpt from this correspondence, as published in Islam and Science, can be found at :


 * 33) The Sixth Question: [Aristotle] has mentioned in Book II that [the shape of the heaven is of necessity spherical because] the oval and the lenticular shapes would require space and void whereas the sphere does not, but the matter is not so. In fact, the oval [shape] is generated by the rotation of ellipse around its major axis and the lenticular by its rotation around its minor axis. As there is no difference concerning the rotation around the axes by which they are generated, therefore none of what Aristotle mentions would occur and only the essential attributes of the spheres would follow necessarily. If the axis of rotation of the oval is its major axis and if the axis of rotation of the lenticular is its minor axis, they would revolve like the sphere, without needing an empty space (makan khal). This could happen, however, if the axis of [rotation of] the oval is its minor axis and the axis of [rotation of] the lenticular is its major axis. In spite of this, it is possible that the oval can rotate around its minor axis and the lenticular around its major axis, both moving consecutively without needing an empty space, like the movement of bodies inside the celestial sphere, according to the opinion of most people. And I am not saying this with the belief that the celestial sphere is not spherical, but oval or lenticular; I have tried hard to refute this theory but I am amazed at the reasons offered by the man of logic.

Attempts to make Islamic scholars more "modern" than they were do a great disservice to their actual achievements. This article should try to identify al-Biruni's actual concerns were and how he dealt with them. The text cited above makes it clear that he (and Avicenna) were discussing a problem in Aristotle's "proof" in his De caelo that the celestial spheres were spherical; they were not at all concerned with planetary orbits in the sense that Kepler was. --SteveMcCluskey 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for evidence
I have recently looked for sources supporting and criticizing a number of myths appearing in discussions concerning the History of astronomy. If you know of any sources related to these myths, please add them to the discussion at Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions. --SteveMcCluskey 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Great article
This is an incredible article, it was well worth the read as a reference, and I have enjoyed reading of him elsewhere. I have included info about Biruni in my edits to the article on the Chinese scientist Shen Kuo, a contemporary polymath who was only 17 when Biruni died.--PericlesofAthens 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ you though it is still considered as a "start article". -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

origin
As his name already states, his origin was Khwarazm. According to his own works, his native tongue was Khwarezmian and not Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.180.16 (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He also states the people of Khwarazm are a branch of Persians. In this sense Persian is used in a wider sense an that is why Iranian was put in paranthesis.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni
Editors of this article may not be aware that a stub article by the name of Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni was created in June 2007, with recent editing activity. There seems to be a dispute on the correct name of the subject/article (redirects and rv of redirects to this page). I've placed a note on the newer article's talk page &mdash; Talk:Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni &mdash; proposing a merge and requesting that the discussion on the name take place on this page. &mdash; User: (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * His name is Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni‎. If to merge the articles then let's do it to correct name.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not do this unilaterally, wait for consensus then do what the majority dictates. -- Web H amster  15:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are redirecing a title of which the name is even untypable by computer keyboard. Romanised name of Al Biruni was there. please undo your last action and redirect this page to Al-Biruni.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's survived this way for 5 years, it can survive a little longer whilst consensus is reached. Until then the status quo is the way to go. -- Web H amster  15:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the current title is correct.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination?
After reading the comments of PericlesofAthens and FayssalF from back in June (which I've only just noticed now), I am thinking about nominating this article for Good Article status, but would like to know what other users think of the article first. Jagged 85 (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * excellent job. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So do you think this article should be nominated for a GA review? Jagged 85 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Overall, it's fairly well-written and informative, although some minor repetitions could be removed without loss. yoyo (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Al-Biruni and Khwārizmī are Turk Scientist
1)-Al biruni is a turk scientist.Tashkent(meaning is rockcity)is a turk city. 2)-Khwarizmi is a turk scientist. He was born around 780 in Khwārizm (now Khiva, Uzbekistan) (see english wikipedi Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī)uzbekistan is a turk country khiva is turk city and Khwarizmi is a turk people okey ?

And examples... Kanuni Sultan Süleyman,Faith Sultan Mehmet speak Ottoman Language (persian+arabic+turkic a language) mevlana speaks and write persian but Kanuni Faith and Mevlana were Turk. They arent Persian okey? We Turks spoke ottoman and wrote arabic(science and religion) or persian(literature) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.231.236 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uzbekistan is still not a Turkic speaking country (20% is Tajik specially in the historic cities of Bukhara and Samarkand). Uzbek ethnic group did not exist at the time of Biruni and the natives spoke Chorasmian.  On Biruni check here:.  Biruni clearly states he does not know the order and meaning of Turkish months and he does actually get it wrong.  On the other hand, he says the people of Chorasmia are a branch of Persians and his native Chorasmian is known mainly through three authors, one of whom is Biruni.  On Khwarizmi Majusi, note his title "Majusi" (Zoroastrian) and he was from the same era (alittle before actually) of Biruni so he was Iranian too.  Also sufficient to look at what Biruni says himself about the people of Chorasmia.  Also Rumi was definitely not a Turkic speaker, his son admits to not knowing Turkish/Greek three times despite living in Anatolia.  Anyhow I have referred to the original Arabic and brought it.  Also Encyclopedia Britannica, Islam, Iranica and etc. are all reliable sources.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Arabic definite article "Al"
In numerous cases on Wikipedia, including this article, the Arabic definite article "Al" has been added to the names of people who were not Arabs. Not even their names were Arabic.

It seems the Wikipedian authors of these articles are either acting unawares or being delibrately malicious towards obviously Persian world heritage.

No one in Biruni's home country, Iran, calls him Al-Biruni. The fact that Biruni wrote in Arabic has nothing to do with him having Arabic ancestry or inclinations. He wrote in Arabic because it was the lingua franca as well as the scientific language of his time and place.

To sum up, it is extremely inapprorpriate to add an "Al" to the beginning of every non-English/non-Latin/non-European name you see, without understanding its etymology. The man's name, transliterated, is Abu Raihan -e- Biruni (-e- being the Persian preposition) and that is very probably the same thing his Persian contemporaries called him.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.209.102 (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On Biruni's Ancestry/Background
To Polysynaptic , Welcome back. See also my message in Ghaznavids. Like the Ghaznavid article, you also removed valid and very up to date scholarly sources. On Biruni, he was a native speaker of the old Chorasmian (Iranian language). In fact Biruni is one of the few (three or four) authors who provides information on this Iranian language. He has also self-admitted in his own work that the old Chorasmian is his native language. In his work Saydanah, he compares various languages and starts with his native language Chorasmian and specifically mentions that Chorasmian is his native language. In his chronicles of nations, he has brought many terms from Chorasmian. There is enough texts, sentences and even a legal book in Chorasmian that it is classified as an Iranian (Iranic/Indo-Iranian) language. Biruni also alludes to this, "The people of Chorasmia are a branch of the Persian tree". I have written on Biruni here: [[] and the original Arabic is also provided for all statements. He also has a direct statement that his language is the native Iranian language Chorasmian in his book Saydanah. And he also admits he does not know Turkish in his chronicles of the nation and does not even know the meaning of the months in Turkish. I invite you to read here: [[] where I have sourced all statements. --alidoostzadeh. (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I refer to the short but very significant contribution of the late French Orientalist to the al-Biruni Commemoration Volume published in India :

In a celebrated preface to the book of Drugs, Biruni says: It is through the Arabic language that the sciences have been transmitted by means of translations from all parts of the world. They have been enhanced by the translation into the Arabic language and have as a result insinuated themselves into men's hearts, and the beauty of this language has commingled with these sciences in our veins and arteries. And if it is true that in all nations one likes to adorn oneself by using the language to which one has remained loyal, having become accustomed to using it with friends and companions according to need, I must judge for myself that in my native Chorasmian, science has as much as chance of becoming perpetuated as a camel has of facing Kaaba.. See also here: --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Test vs. Experiment
In the section entitled Experimental mechanics, there is a section of the aricle edited as:
 * "He also introduced the method of checking tests during experiments..."

The link to 'test' leads to a disambiguation page for Test, which itself links to the article for Experiment. So, essentially in Wikipedia these terms are synonomous. Is there someone more familiar to the cited source for this statement possibly reword it so that these paired synonyms could be reworded to remove any ambiguity? LeilaniLad (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Iran
Biruni was not born in "Iran". He was born in Abbasid-controlled Persia. Before the Abbasids, Sassanian-ruled Eranshahr existed; however, the link to Iran leads to the modern Islamic Republic of Iran, which came into existence in 1978-9. It is anachronistic to say he was born "in Iran" when he was born in a predominantly Chorasmian-speaking region controlled by the Arabic Abbasid Empire. No one argues that he wasn't ethnically Persian... it's explicit that he was a Chorasmian-speaking Persian, a person who was a member of what we call the "Iranian Peoples" today, but just because Persians lived in an Abbasid province doesn't make them residents of Iran.

If you want to be pedantic, he was born in Uzbekistan. Except that he wasn't, because neither "Iran" nor "Uzbekistan" existed when Biruni lived, no matter his ethnic affiliation. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 20:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the premodern era (before the establishment of the nation-states), citizenship doesn't make much sense. Instead, the ethnicity/culture should be mentioned. The situation is similar to that of Thales or Apollonius of Tyana or Apollonius of Perga. Avicenna was Persian in the same sense that Thales or Apollonius were Greek or Leonardo da Vinci and Petrarch were Italian. It is about their ethnicity and culture, not about their citizenship, and it should be mentioned in the lead. It should be noted that even in the current manual of style, referring to Petrarch as an Italian is mentioned as a correct example, while there was no Italian citizenship at that time. You can argue that Thales was born in Miletus (currently, part of Turkey), or Greece didn't exist as a country at that time, but it doesn't change anything (Thales was Greek and this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of his article). You can also argue that "Italy" (as a state) didn't exist at the time of Petrarch. Alefbe (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps
This man knew Greek, Persian and Arabic, perhaps he recognised a common origin of all three languages and discovered hundreds of years earlier a common ancestor? Anyone who is well acquainted with his work on India, did you encounter any such observation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarandir (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

correction
That Khwarezmian_language(see its own wiki entry) is an Iranian language akin to sogdian as Biruni has left words in it and scholars classify it as an iranian language and there us wiki article on it. Biruni also says people of khwarizm are a branch of Persians. So he was Iranian but his native language was the Iranian Chorasmian language. []

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepaheshgar (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Some one had removed a mention of today's Afghanistan from the post stamp and the place of death; I restored it. (The country is usually mentioned with the city, so that the city can be located on the map.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.247.24 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

about biruni statment of the origin of Khwārizm.
in the statement that he said about Khwārizm: The parents (forefathers) of the Khwarezm were a branch from a [region] of Persia, it doesn't mean that precisely in Arabic what it precisely means is (the people of khwarizm even if they were a branch of Persia)it doesn't have full meaning in Arabic so i please any one who have the full text write the full paragraph in Arabic so it can make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.209.132 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Arabic is in the page..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * \Biruni Native Language .--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i have searched for it he mentioned it when he was talking about months after bringing months in the Persian order he writes "about the people of khowarizm in spite of being part of the Persian wood and a stream of its river thier systems are closer to sogdania.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.4.4 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Something to add
I found the complete text of his book on India in Arabic on Google Books. Someone should add it here: http://books.google.com/books?id=YThbAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=-+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A+%D9%81%D9%8A+%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82+%D9%85%D8%A7+%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF&ei=oPP8SoDvFqWkyAS4xKnJDA&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.76.47 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits
Why does the article include the fact that he was Muslim in the introduction. I think we should go on every single article regarding Western scientists and include the word CHRISTIAN in the introductions. We assume that he was Muslim but how do we even know if was a practicing muslim or was even religious? Why cant the article just say that he was Persian because that is a proven fact not an assumption.Dariush4444 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should refer to him as a muslim scholar not a persian. For Dariush4444, you can refer to his books to see the religious insight. Also refer to دار الأرقم بن أبي الارقم، باب السلف الصالح صدقوا ما عاهدوا الله عليه - حكماء وعلماء وفلكيون وأدباء ومفكرون وخلفاء ومبدعون مسلمون. --Asd1815 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The orientalists use this word in the beginning as it was they who brought into light the works of muslim scientist and thus they named them as muslim scientist.Moreover there are scholars who are not muslims but have arabic or persian names,for example "Thabit ibn Qurra" "Dr.Abdus Salam" etc,so in my opinion it's important to write muslim.You have also said that how can we know that he was a religious person or not,so in the same article it is written that he was a theologian and i think that it's enough proof to accept that he was a prctising muslim.One more thing it's kind of a nice thing to write muslim because the world may also come to know that muslims are not only terrorists as a lot of tv channels and a many articles over here say about alleged terrorists as muslim terrorist,extremist or islamic jihadist.In the last i would accept here that the most important thing that we should value is the work of al-biruni or any other scientist and it's for everyone whetehr muslim or non muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humming20 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont get it, why is there such a great article written on Galileo, while this kind of small article written about an inventor who made more discoveries than Galileo and Newton combined. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.182.194.29 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC).


 * There is no Eurocentric conspiracy in WP. Whoever feels they can give it a shot, Be Bold and expand it. Alexander 007 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alexander 007 but would like to add that I find comments like "more discoveries than Galileo and Newton combined." indicate bias and a desire to bring an agenda to the table. Whilst I happily admit that the debt owed to Arab and Persian scientists and philosophers is often overlooked in the west, those most vocal in complaining about it run the risk of doing the same thing in reverse. Not many people fully appreciate the contibution Newton made to human knowledge. For example I only learnt that he is supposedly the first recorded person to have conducted a "Time and Motion" study by reading Michael White's "Newton, the last Sourcerer". If I had a "pro-Newton adgenda" then I might be tempted to update the WP page on the Time and Motion Study to point out that he performed one and site "Newton, the last Sourcerer" as my source. But I don't have such an agenda, and I think that it's entirely correct, if not necessarily fair, that that page mentions "Frank and Lillian Gilbreth" rather than Newton since Newton's study was lost in obscurity and I seriously doubt the Gilbreths would have heard of it. Ideally contributions to Wikipedia should be motivated by a desire to disceminate knowledge regardless of wheather that knowledge fits comfortably with your world view. If you only post knowledge which fits comfortably with your world view then you are contributing bias, even if every word you post is true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.206.251 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree why this article has no say in Biruni's greatest works when he has made vast discoveries far beyond those of Galileo. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.163.166 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Once again: this is an open encyclopedia. If you see something wrong, you can fix it yourself. Alexander 007 1
 * The page is locked we cant edit.--Asd1815 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

8:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Mathematician
El Biruni is a Turkish Mathematician not Persian. He is from Harezm, Uzbekistan which is a Turkic State. The Persian Empire was governing the area but that doesnt mean that the people there were Persian. In fact Turks controlled the region in 11th century. Ands there was a local Turkish population there beforehand. Resid Gulerdem 06:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone reverted back without discussion. I will change it to the correct version. Resid Gulerdem 06:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says that Biruni was a Persian. Each and every other encyclopedia I have ever seen refer to him as Persian or Iranian ( when they say Persian they do not mean necessarily someone of the Persian ethnicity they might mean Persian nationality since Iran was called Persia until 1935 in western countries but it was called Iran by its own people)

I have not change anything but I strongly suggest changing it back to either Persian or Iranian Gol 07:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He has also a persian book: The Mas'udi Canon (Persian قانون مسعودي). Bidabadi 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know how much you know about history of science? I am working on philosophy of science and related to history of science a little bit. Briuni is from Khwarism which is a historically Turkish state and region. Persian controlled the place for some time but local people there were Turks all along the history.


 * Persian controlled the region for some time. But, we cannot call Gandhi an English just becase England occupied India for some time, right? There is no evidence of him being Persian at all. If nationality is specified, it should be Turkish: the most strong possibility. His being Persian is incredibly weak statement coming from nowhere...


 * The last thing is this: Unfortunately, some people -most likely Persian- just naming Turkish or sometimes some Arabic scientists as being Persian. They are even calling Rumi as Persian too, although it is clear that he is Turkish. It is simple not acceptible.


 * Please note that many Turkish states in the history has Persian as their official language for a long time. I realized the same mistake in Al Khawarizmi article too. He is also from Khwarism, and Turkish. It is stated otherwise in the article. I do not know if 'calling some famous scientists from different nationality as Persian' bring any honor to these people...


 * The last thing is, if it is somehow not acceptible to call him with his true nationality, we should just call him a Muslim scientist, and leave the rest to the curiosity of the reader. Resid Gulerdem 03:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When Biruni was born in Khwarazm, that area was under the Samanid rule (an Iranian Dynasty). About the history, before that time, there wasn't any turkic state in Khwarazm. Also, the local people of Khwarazm were historically related to Scythians and soghdians whose language was one of the Iranian languages. Bidabadi 06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI,

The native language of Abu Rayhan Biruni was Khawrazmian which is an Iranian language. So calling him Persian (Iranian) in the wider sense is fine. But he was not Turkic and he even messed up the sequence of Turkic months. Khawarzmian was a close relative of Sogdian and an important trade and scientific language,spoken primarily in the upper Oxus River region. Evidence of Khwarazmian can be found in the works of Biruni,and also the Khawarazmian-Arabic dictionary of Zamakhshari,which testify to its continuous importance in Central Asia after the conversionof that region to Islam.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Biruni"


 * Khawrazmian a Persian language?!? Are you kidding? It is a Turkic language, the best proof is to actually go to Khiva, Uzbekistan (Where I'm from) and see for your self.
 * At least read the Wikipedia article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezmian_language" before writing things here. Have you ever read any of the Biruni's books? Do you know the meaning of the word "Biruni"? Is that word even synthesizable in Turkic? Anything I hear from a Turk is always a claim. CLAIMS, CLAIMS, CLAIMS, from people who do not even know their own history!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratemahmood (talk • contribs) 10:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkic/Persian
There are so many sources stating that he is Persian, and so many stating that he is Turkic. Almost all of the proofs are correct about him, and have a point for either one of those. Since his culture, his birth location, his native language and all other proofs suggest both, I'll just change it to Turkic/Persian. No biggie.


 * Actually he clearly states that the people of Khwarizm are branch of Persians. In his book also says he does not know the meaning and the order of the turkish calendar whereas he discusses the Khwarzmian and Zoroastrian calendar extensively.  --alidoostzadeh 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezm was a part of Persian empire at one point of time. So was Egypt. Does it mean that say late president Nasser of Egypt was a Persian? Ancient Khwarezmians did speak Iranian language. Iranian does not mean Persian. Pashto is Iranian language, but are Pashtuns Persian? For Christ's sake Bukharan Jews speak Persian, but does it make them Persian? Truth is Khwarezmians were Iranian just like Sogdians or Massagets, but not Persian, and were completely Turkified later. So, if Biruni identified himself as Khwarezmian, it would be fare to call him Khwarezmian. Claiming that he was a Persian based on the fact that Khwarezm was a part of Persian empire for a short time during pre-Islamic period, is the same thing as to claim that Hafiz was a Mongol based on the fact that Iran was a part of Mongol empire. How about great "British" scientist Thomas Edison, or famous "Roman" writer William Shakespear? Excuse my sarcasm. I deeply respect Persian culture and history, but I strongly believe that in this article Biruni should be identified as "Khwarezmian" or "Central Asian", because both ways are correct, meanwhile "Persian" is questionable.


 * Wrong on many counts. Khwarezm was part of the Persian empire for many centuries, from Achaemenid times (c.500 BC) onwards to the Samanids, who were a Persian dynasty who enforced the Persian language, while also patronising Arabic. It was during this time that Al Biruni was born and, as mentioned himself, he identified himself with an Iranian people and language. I see no sources claiming he was Turkic (which incidentally can refer to the ethnicity of people from Asia Minor to Siberia and thus is hardly helpful). --Venerable500 00:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Biruni as an Astrologer
Biruni was one of the most influential astrologers of the time period. He wrote a book "Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology" which is still consulted today by both practicing astrologers utilizing traditional methods and historians of astrology, and was extremely influential at the time. The following link details some of his major astrological influence and contributions.

Despite this, the article is couched within a whig history of science sort of outlook, and takes Biruni to be one of the original champions of the modern science of astronomy which discourages attaching meaning to astronomical configurations, now called astrology. Biruni may have distinguished astrology from astronomy, but such a distinction between mathematical and observational accuracy on the one hand and the meaning attributed to configurations on the other is natural and uncontroversial, and as such it is difficult to say that anyone could have "created" or "initiated" the distinction - rather, both were seen as two very different but necessary aspects of the astrological pursuit. There is no evidence given that Biruni was trying to excise astrology from natural philosophy, and in fact he wrote texts not just on astronomy but on astrology, the significance attached to them, as well. The attitude of the article and statements about Biruni's life should reflect that Biruni was an astrologer as well as astronomer, and that his textbook on the subject made him as influential to astrologers of the time as he has become to modern astronomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twanjf (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Persian scholar info-box
I don't think a Persian scholar info-box should be used. Use a standard info-box like Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton articles. You don't see ethno-nationalists claiming those guys. Please stop claiming people as this or that and write about their individual accomplishements and lives. EasternAryan (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Biruni / Al-Biruni
Pardon my ignorance, but the article seems to sometimes use "Biruni" and sometimes "Al-Biruni". Are both correct, and which is preferred? Shreevatsa (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He was shia or sunni?
The website which has been qouted to say that Al-Biruni was Ash'ariyya-Sunni, is un-reliable. As you read that it becomes clear that the author considers Muslim philosophers to be either Ash'ariyya or Mu'tazila. e.g. if you read the article it seems as if Al-Farabi was a Ash'ariyya, while he was Shia.

So it seems as Al-Biruni was also Shia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.244.73 (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One's religious affiliations must be taken from his beliefs and as we see in tag "Islamic History" on this article, Biruni seems a Shia. Becuase, not fasting on Ashura, calling Ali as "prince of believers" commemorating Husain bin Ali are Shia beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.200.24 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

tags
The reason I tagged this article is that its greatest contributor is a user that has been proved as a tendentious editor. He basically did all sorts of things to hype and exxagerate the contributions of medieval islamic scholars, and one of his favourites was Avicenna. A serious revition needs to be done in all the biographies of islamic scholars he contributed, and until then, the articles should be tagged. Before removing the tags, please see [this] and [this] Notice that the editor who did all this is by far the top contributor to the article, with 468 edits!!!. The second has only 34. I hope you will agre with me that this article is probably full of issues.--Knight1993 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That may well be the case or not.. but it seems many statements are sourced. He is not the only editor who wrote the article.. So this is guilt by association for other editors. So in this case it is better to assume good faith and put a fact tag for sentences that you think contain weasel words and etc.. In other words please do not just tag it without giving detailed reasons on the statements that you are incorrect.--Pahlavannariman (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Biruni's quotation concerning Islamic Theology?
I expected to see a quotation following the colon, not just a reference tag. What's up here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.167.30 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the gap. The quotation was removed in June, presumably by accident. I have replaced it now. Grafen (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Circumference of the Earth and Jim Al-Khalili
There are three sources used here for the mathematics. Two of them use the law of sines with the aid of some other geometric logic and sums. At least 3 separate equations and identities were brought to bear. The result of this approach is the following equation, as shown in our article.

$$ \frac{HT}{ \sin{O} } = \frac{OT}{ \sin{THO} }$$

However according to my eyes, and using my original work (see WP:CALC) this equation simplifies to the following:

$$R = \frac{HT } {\tan{\theta}}$$

It cannot be made to look like the following, as our article implies:

$$R = \frac{h \ \cos{\theta} }{1 - \cos{\theta} }$$

The above equation comes from a third source, Jim Al-Khalili on the BBC. I was able to derive this equation using a much more direct method, beginning with

$$ \sin{(90-\theta)} = \frac {R} {R + h} $$

This method does not use the law of sines whatsoever. I find this BBC equation to be very nice. It's a single equation and thus, very "slick." But we have a problem, because we've improperly synthesized the BBC equation with the multiple-step equation methods of Beatrice Lumpkin and Behnaz Savizi. (i.e. law of sines used in two separate triangles, plus the Pythagorean theorem, plus a tangent identity. It's a very messy method.)   I can find no way to arrive at one equation using the other, as our article implies. They appear to be mutually exclusive. I suspect that Lumpkin and Savizi are more authentic to Biruni, because the methodology seems more archaic and inaccessible. It's more convoluted, requiring many more equations and identities. I suspect that Jim Al-Khalili, working in a television medium, was pressed for time and needed a single, short equation to satisfy viewers, (television is such an unforgiving medium) and so he used a modern equivalent to the archaic Biruni method. In describing the equation on the show, Al Khalili used both present and past tense. I found him hard to pin down on this issue. Is the BBC formula an original Biruni equation or is it not? I suspect it isn't. While the video evidence from Al-Khalili is compelling, it is not as definitive as I would like. I think we need to consider the source as suspect. I don't mean to imply that Al-Khalili was attempting subterfuge. I just am unsure if he is really concerned about the difference. I think his prime concern was to present the audience with a workable equation. Toward that end, he may have sacrificed a level of authentic detail. That's okay for him, but for our purposes, in our medium, I think we can afford to be more clear. I like the BBC equation. It is very, very good. Very very useful. Much easier to use than the method described by Lumpkin and Savizi. But there are two potential problems with putting it in the article. If the BBC equation is not an original Biruni equation, then it probably shouldn't live in an article about Biruni. And the second problem is that the distinction between the two mutually exclusive methods is unclear. Even if both are authentic Biruni equations, they need to be separated better in our article. I'm struggling to come up with verbage that will do that. I'd appreciate some input. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace Persian with Khwarezmian/Iranian
Simply because this 11th century figure makes the mistake of claiming Khwarezmians are descendants of Persians does not mean we must repeat it verbatim. It is abundantly clear that what when he refers to his stock as "Persian", he equates the term with Iranian. There's rather a big difference, I would say, between Persians and Khwarezmians, such as the vast Eastern/Western Ir. linguistic gulf which in itself is irreconcilable. I'd go so far as to say it's tantamount to a Persian cultural appropriation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanLJackson (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)