Jump to content

Talk:Al-Khwarizmi/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

It's not the "Jewish Calendar" it is the "BabylonCity Calendar"

"Babylonian Calendar" is what Post-Age-of-Mohammed European Roman Catholics introduced to avoid referring to the Baghdad, Headquarters of the Golden Age. "Babylonian" as a word has an etymology that starts in the 1400's AD well after the Inquisition started in 1184 AD. Also Babylon was a city in Iraq and not a nation, just as Israel was a city in Phoenicia. This latin and english mistake of exaggerating Biblical interpretation of "cities" as "nations" is ridiculous. The 19 year Calendar Predates the stories in the Book of Genesis. The other 4 books of the Torah were all written in Iraq. And the Rivers of Eden in Genesis 2 are also in Iraq. Noah's boat floated upstream and landed on a Mount Ararat in Iraq. etc etc. Europe failed at the Crusades so the best the Catholics could do was Corrupt Biblical Greek words that said "Babylonian City Calendar" instead of admit "Iraqi National Calendar" existed.

Egyptian artifacts in 1150 BCE phonetically name Palestine and (the 450 BCE Greek "Histories") confirm it predated King Saul and King David by hundred of years. Those Kings were Mayors of Cities, not Nations. The whole scale of information in the Bible is exaggerated and some authors are just plain wrong, stopping short of calling them lies. 108.196.192.38 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

al-Kawarizmi is Arab, NOT Iranian, NOT Persian

Greetings,

Some people are trying to distort history and claim that al-Khwarizmi was not Arab but Persian/Iranian. Without even looking at the sources cited by them in Wikipedia, which show that these books know little about him, you can clearly see evidences that he was an Arab person:

1- His full name is Arabic name, which logically indicate that he was Arab person. His full name have no indication whatsoever that he was a Persian. Some people claim that, because his last name was al-Khwarizmi and there was a region called Khwarizm in what is called now Iran (there was no Iran in 780 AD. Iran was founded in 1935 only), he must be a Persians and Iranian. This is false reasoning. If somebody's last name is similar to or exactly the same as a name of a region, this does not mean that this person is from that region. It could be coincident or just name-on-name. A well known family named the-Egyptians that lives in Saudi Arabia now and their ancestors never been to Egypt ever. However, the possibility that al-Khwarizmi was born in Khwarizm and moved later to Iraq remains a possibility. But without evidence that preclude evidences number 2 and 3 below, this possibility is less likely to be cogent/strong.

2- He wrote his entire book in in Arabic language and only in Arabic language. If he was Persian or Iranian as what some people claim, why did he write his book in Arabic language if his native language was not Arabic? I hope those who disagree with me can answer this question. Secondly and hypothetically, If he was a bilingual (Persian and Arabic language was his second language), why would he write his most important and complex book entirely in Arabic language with no single Persian letter or simple in it? Those are tough questions for those who claim that al-Khwarizmi was Persian or Iranian. Please answer them and show your resources and evidences.

3- He lived in Baghdad, Iraq. I hope nobody will disagree with me on that because all books agree on this.

To conclude, a person whose name is Arabic name, wrote his book in Arabic language, and lived in Arabic city, he is more likely to be an Arab person. Especially that little known about al-Khwarizmi and those who claim he was Persian or Iranian failed to back their claims with evidences.

Hassan Tam

1. Almost all non-Arab medieval Muslim authors were using Arabic names. Even medieval Persian poets -- most of whom wrote exclusively in Persian -- were using Arabic names, see Category:Persian poets.
2. He was not "a bilingual (Persian and Arabic language was his second language)". His native language was Khwarezmian, and like any other medieval Muslim author, he knew Arabic, which was the lingua franca of Muslim World back then. Not just Khwarezmi, but most of medieval Persian and other non-Arab authors wrote their works exclusively in Arabic language. There may be many Japanese authors who write in English, should we consider them as Angles?
3. He migrated to Baghdad, just like any other major Muslim scholar, since the House of Wisdom was over there. Regarding "Arabic city", many of the people in Iraq were Persians and non-Arabs such as Assyrians. Even the administrative language of Iraq was Middle Persian until the reign of al-Hajaj ibn Yusuf. (Iraq/Asurestan was part of Persian Empire for hundreds of years, it was called "The Heart of Eranshahr" during Parthian and Sassanian Empires)
Anyway: If you have any reliable source, you can integrate them in the article; otherwise be advised that Wikipedia is not a forum. --Z 12:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Groundless and False 19th century Eurocentric Claim that Khwarizmi Works are based on Greek Sources.

"In Renaissance Europe, he was considered the original inventor of algebra,although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources." This is very false and baseless to say that his work is based on Greek or Indian sources. There are NO legit sources that support this claim. This claim could only be made by a 19th century Eurocentric person. We would not possibly know what algebra is if it wasn't for the time and dedication that this man put in his works, also would not have no decimal system if it wasn't for this man. even if it was invented 100,000 years before him. It is very insulting to claim something based on groundless facts that his works that he worked hard to get done does not belong to him.

For those who claim that Khwarizmi was an Arab/Muslim because his writing was in Arabic. I should remind you that Arabic were official language of the Abbasid Empire which was FORECED upon people and also you could not possibly work in House of Wisdom and get support from caliphate if you were not a Muslim. Therefore it is possible that many scholars of the time especially Eastern Iranian origin had faked their religious beliefs or converted to Islam later in life before they join house of wisdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshtonBerlitz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

i agree with what you are saying, but the wikipedia has this policy of using only reliable sources which means you have to find a published source which agrees with your point of view before you can make the change. The current text you have quoted appears to be from a published source (rossen 1831) and hence will require consensus to remove. alternatively you could look for other sources which agree with you and feel free to remove this source as minority point of view. regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the <big> tags from your comment—we're all equal here! The fundamental problem is that there is an industry of "boosterism" where people put a lot of effort into adding stuff like "X is the father of Algebra" to further some personal interest. That happens everywhere, not just at Wikipedia. See #Misuse of sources above for a well-known case of an editor who put thousands of such edits in articles. I just checked each of Jagged's edits and it seems others added (April 2005) the "father of algebra" meme—before that it was "grandfather of computer science"!). As editors became aware of the silliness of X is the father of Y, the wording was changed to something more plausible, and a series of tweaks have resulted in what now appears. When someone writes a textbook they often want to include a paragraph or two of human interest, and they might copy anything that meets that need. That leads to a circle of "reliable sources" that quote each other to reinforce the meme. Only a super-specialist with extremely good language and history skills could reach a reasonable conclusion about what to say in an article like this, and that would take several years. If we can find a reliable source written by such a specialist, the article could be improved. Until then, there's not a great deal that can be done. If you would like to examine the sources in the article and report here on what they say (or find other sources), we could possibly improve the text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabari

Which "Tabari" "gave his name..."? The disambiguation page doesn't help.

clarification

Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī was not Zoroastrian, but he was a Muslim. So, please correct the information on religion belief from the unsure information that currently exists to "Muslim" Thanks.

Not Etnicity, but place

Best is: Cental Asian scholar!

Aztone

Persian or Khwarazmian?

There seems to be an edit war going on about this. I'd like to point out that none of the specialist sources I've checked mention anyting about his ethnicity. His article in the Encyclopedia of Islam starts with "mathematician, astronomer and geographer, who utilised the Arabic language. [...] We know that in his youth, during the caliphate of al-Ma'mun, he worked in the Bayt al-Hikma [q.v.] of Baghdad, but we know very few other biographical details." (2nd edition, vol. 4, p. 1070) Also in Britannica he is described as a "Muslim mathematician"[1]. There is no mention of his ethnicity anywhere. This is also the case for the other encyclopedias linked in Further reading; none of them use "Persian". Unless we know something about his biography that the other encyclopedias didn't know (seems unlikely), I suggest that we remove "Persian" from the lede. Wiqi(55) 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


I agree with Wiqi we should change the name , it seems that some people here have political motivated agendas to add and edit wikipedia for their one benefit and not for all readers and everyone,

Khwarazmi was a khwaramian which is a indo-european people, does this make all the rest of the indo-european in the world, germanics, slavics, kelts, and half of the world, persian, as they claim here some of the defenders of the persian theory, also their are claims of khwarazm being persian controlled but that was several centries ago befoer khwarazmian was born, that user seem to be very little informed, persian power ended in the arab conquest of central asia, and that was 200 years after khwarazmis death, before that turks and arabs controlled which according to his theory he should been an arab or turk, however, the majority of the natives in khwarazm was indo-european and not persian, its not the same thing, others claim that biruni said that khwarazmian and perians were the same , but thats doubtful , according to heredotus, there was one million soldiers of the persian army invading greece, which cant be taken seriously because the land cant feed one million soldiers, there arent one milliion perisian men avaiable , so history afterwards have to take in consideration what is likey or not likely even if the priamery source wrote this or that,

Also I have noticed aggresive opionions and allegations and accusations to other users for example by arya pars, who claims that their is only arabs nationalistics trying to make room for themselvs, its not appropriate but wikipedias guidelines to behave this way, the user should be warned or banned,

please give your opinions,--Siktirgitir (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir


Idealy, the editors who reverted you are now expected to explain their action. And yes, some people do push a nationalist agenda here on Wikipedia. This is usually done by citing poor-quality sources or ignoring ones that deal extensively with the subject and happen to be more faithful to the primary source (which I assume doesn't say anything about al-K's ethnicity). BTW, a similar problem also exists in the lede of Biruni. Wiqi(55) 23:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


thank you mr Wiqi, I really appricaite your opionions, you are a hero to mankind by spreading objective and true information, I wanted point out that,

as you say quote "This is usually done by citing poor-quality sources or ignoring ones that deal extensively with the subject and happen to be more faithful to the primary source" I totally agree, also in the biruni topic, thank you for enlighting this problem,----Siktirgitir (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir


One of the cited sources for his ethnicity obviously say that he was Persian:

Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm, in distant Transoxania. The Banu Musa, al-Mahani, and a host of others in the intellectual circle of ninth century Baghdad, were also Persians.

So you can't remove his ethnicity just by starting a section on the talk page and a removal just based on your personal claims. The article is clear and the reverts have no problem. I've reviewed this edit warring that started by Siktirgitir and if he/she continues, admins will decide about him/her. If you think "Khwarizmian" is something different than "Persian", use your reliable sources, but DO NOT delete current cited sources. Also remember Persian and Persian-speaking are Iranic, and Iranic is Indo-European. Khwarizmian is Iranic too. So your nonsense "Indo-European" claim is not helpful for this article. Can you define "Indo-Europeans"? Zyma (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Zyma, could you explain why the other encyclopedias (especially the ones with long and authoritative articles) do not use "Persian" anywhere in their articles? Also, the term Persian has multiple meanings. It can refer to Persian people, but it can also more loosely refer to anyone in Iran and parts of Central Asia who speaks an Indo-European language. To avoid confusion, some historians explain which sense of Persian they mean (e.g., [2], see n.21). Thus we can't just assume that any source which uses Persian automatically implies Persian people. That would be original research. Wiqi(55) 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Correction: and parts of Central Asia who speaks an Iranian language, not Indo-European language. For your information, under Indo-European languages there is a major family called "Iranian languages" and what you said about the people of Central Asia should use "Iranian language" not "Indo-European" language. Khwarizmians were Iranian/Iranic people in the first place (and yes, ultimately Indo-European). BrokenMirror2 (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Are there any policy-based objections to removing "Persian" from the lead? The best reliable sources I've seen make no claims about his ethnicity. Wiqi(55) 23:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the biography by Toomer in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography explicitly calls him "a man of Iranian origin". —Ruud 23:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
so, Wiqi, do you think removing "Persian" from the lead is normal and fine unless there is a policy against it?? BrokenMirror2 (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of Toomer's "in passing" statement. However, it isn't a positive claim, nor one supported by arguments or evidence. It would be more accurate to cite Toomer for al-K being of Khwarizmian origin, which Toomer discussed in detail citing Ibn al-Nadim. Given the little that we know, per Toomer, using "Iranian/Persian" instead of "Khwarizmian" assumes too much about al-K's ethnicity. Wiqi(55) 02:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There are more sources than Toomers. E.g. Oaks: "Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm ...". Modern scholars all seem to follow the Fihirst on this point. Monkey see, monkey do. —Ruud 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The Fihrist states that he was a "Khwarizmian" and nowhere mentions "Persian" (arabic: farisi). That's why it's best to use "Khwarizmian" per the Fihrist and Toomer, as "Persian" isn't used by these sources. As for Oaks, he made an error about the ethnicity of other Islamic figures which has since been corrected in more recent scholarship. We should stick to better sources, especially ones that refer directly to the primary sources for biographical facts. Wiqi(55) 05:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your ridiculous insistence on using "Indo-European" clearly shows that you are avoiding the use of "Iranian" at any cost! This is nonsense! Would you call Newton or Libnitz not English or German, rather an "Indo-European"?

In the historical context "Persian" is like "Roman" and does not necessarily denote an ethnicity, rather it means a politico-cultural identity of Iranian/Iranic. Would you say that Herodotus was "Turkish" and not Greek, because his hometown is now part of Turkey?? or would you say that Plutarch was not Roman?

Do you believe that when Biruni mentioned Khwarizmians are a branch of Iranian/Iranic people, he did not realize what he was talking about and he was confused about his own identity?

Also, the reference to Herodotus distinguishing the Chorasmian/Khwarizmians from Persians is out of context and irrelevant here. al-Khwarizmi and Biruni lived more than 1200 years after Herodotus. In Herodotus work, Persians sometimes means ethnic Persians when he distinguishes them from Saka or Medians or other Iranic poeple like Chorasmians/Khwarizmians. But in other places, for Herodotus Persians is equal to Iranian/Iranic.

Before the rise of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Turkism in late 20th century, nobody denied the Iranian background of scholars such as Khwarizmi, Biruni, Avicenna, and so on; it seems that followers of these two ideology are abusing Wikipedia as a tool to push their agenda of historical revisionism! so if they can't claim these scholars as "Turk" or "Arab" they at least attempt to deny their Iranian background and prefer either "Muslim" only or "Central Asian" or "unknown"! These are the same users who are causing all such edit wars. They want to impose their revisionism. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy to find lots of sources that support the fact that Khwarizmi was Persian [3]. The mental acrobatics required to deny this fact are comical. Athenean (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@BrokenMirror2:, not just Herodotus, even Ibn al-Nadim distinguishes the Persians from the Khwarizmians. In the fihrist, Ibn al-Nadim writes in al-Khwarizmi's biography that "his origin is from Khwarizm". By contrast, for Persian figures Ibn al-Nadim writes "of Persian origin" or "his origin is from Persia". You can verify this by reading the entries of al-Khwarizmi and, for example, Al-Fadl ibn Naubakht, in this link. You can also search a text copy of the fihrist for more examples. Since Ibn al-Nadim is the only primary source with information on al-Khwarizmi's origin, using "Khwarizmian" better reflects the primary sources. Wiqi(55) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Please note: Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not primary sources. See WP:PSTS. Secondary sources tend to use "Persian". Athenean (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I already noted that the secondary sources with the most substantial information on al-K do not claim to know anything about his ethnicity. To quote a modern secondary source: "As his name indicates, he was probably of central Asian origin, although little else is known of his early life."[4] Furthermore, the Persian claim is mainly found in the popular literature or in sources that did not bother to fact check al-K's origin. As for WP:PRIMARY, a careful handling of primary sources is acceptable, and any "educated person" can verify that what I said about the fihrist is true. Wiqi(55) 09:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Wiqi, how can you trust secondary sources that just throw the word "Persian", he is most likely of Iranic origin. I don't like these attempts that are being made to put a wedge between Turks, Persians and Arabs but these people Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a Meatpuppetry or Sock puppetry. Nice try to push your POV. --180.56.8.225 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015: fix link to Wiktionary in article

The quotation after the second paragraph in the section "Life" contains the bracketed text:

… between whom the letter wa [Arabic 'و' for the article 'and'] has been omitted …

The link and points to a nonexistent entry in the Arabic Wiktionary. Moreover, 'and' is a conjunction, not an article. I suggest replacing the bracketed text with:

[Arabic 'و' for the conjunction 'and']

which is the appropriate entry for the Arabic word in the English Wiktionary. Thanks. 189.30.253.246 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ruud Koot: the text changed in the brackets does not appear in the source quote; it's an editorial clarification per WP:BRACKETS. You may see the source on page 108 of this (end of first paragraph of note 1). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Stickee: I didn't notice that. Thanks for the clarification. —Ruud 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī → Al-Khwarizmi – Per WP:CONCISE, WP:DIACRITICS, and WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is redundantly too long to even type, and not as common as the proposed title. The shorter, "Al-Khwarizmi" is the COMMONNAME as per RS and even the article itself, and already redirects to the article. As for the diacritics, Google Books search shows "Al-Khwarizmi" and "Al-Khwārizmī" are both common in English language books, though "Al-Khwarizmi" (without diacritics) tends to be more common in the titles of books written about him. Furthermore, as per the policy on WP:MOSAR, standard transliteration is preferred over strict transliteration. "If there is no primary transcription, a standard transliteration is used". As per the table on WP:MOSAR#Long vowels, a standard transliteration should not use diacritics; only a strict transliteration may use diacritics. (Titles of other articles using standard transliterations also do not use diacritics, including Al-Biruni, Masjid al-Haram, etc.) Hence our title of the article using standard transliteration should not use diacritics either. Khestwol (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: the current name is not in a first name last name format. The current title includes a given name, a father name, and then a geographical name. Hence your comparison seems invalid. Khestwol (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
And the "da" in Leonardo da Vinci is neither a first, nor a last name, but a preposition. The same reasoning still applies. —Ruud 16:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Still no reason whatsoever has been provided why we should continue to use the diacritics in the title when the standard transliteration of WP:MOSAR doesn't use them. Khestwol (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The rejection of diacritics in what is the scholarly standard is confusing to me as they impart rather crucial information and they are widely-used for many other languages. This is a scholarly romanization that goes back a very, very long time. It's not like some newfangled fad and it's part of their name. Here's an example: "Huế (listenⓘ) is the capital city of Thừa Thiên–Huế Province, Vietnam. Between 1802 and 1945, it was the imperial capital of the Nguyễn dynasty." Ogress smash! 21:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not "scholarly." And no one off Wikipedia writes like that. Compare: "Hue (hwā) [key], city (1989 pop. 260,489), former capital of the historic region of Annam, Vietnam, in a rich farming area on the Hue River near the South China Sea."[5] ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it demonstrates the use of diacritics, and Vietnamese speakers write like that. We use diacritics for European languages. Somehow it's fine to use French diacriticals all over the place but add tone markers and "nobody writes like that"? Scholarly romanisation for Arabic is, in fact, most commonly the Hans Wehr transliteration used in the current title. Ogress smash! 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
As a English-language reference work, Wikipedia should generally follow a style similar to that of published English-language reference works. I don't know what to make of this post. The publishing industry is wrong to leave out tone marks and "Vietnamese speakers" are the ones who do it the "scholarly" way? Uh, run that one by me one more time. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Book titles most certainly do not commonly use the single name. See the long list of titles given at #Requested move (2011). —Ruud 16:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
A counter evidence can be found at the Google books link in the nomination post. Khestwol (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Google searches are unreliable, and WP:COMMONNAME states we should use reliable sources. The same argument could be used to argue that Ludwig van Beethoven should be moved to Beethoven, which we shouldn't. —Ruud 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Google Books search is our most reliable tool to determine WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources in English. Khestwol (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Other subject-specific encyclopedia's list him under the following names:
  • Toomer, Gerald (1990). "Al-Khwārizmī, Abu Ja'far Muḥammad ibn Mūsā". In Gillispie, Charles Coulston (ed.). Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. 7. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-16962-2. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Brentjes, Sonja (2007). "Khwārizmī: Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al‐Khwārizmī" in Thomas Hockey et al.(eds.). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, Springer Reference. New York: Springer, 2007, pp. 631–633. (PDF version)
  • Dunlop, Douglas Morton (1943). "Muḥammad b. Mūsā al-Khwārizmī". The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (2). Cambridge University: 248–250. JSTOR 25221920. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi", MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews
The ngrams result is useless (does not take alternate transliterations into account; same argument could be used to argue that the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart should be moved to Mozart, which it shouldn't). —Ruud 23:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
If you count with diacritics and without as two different styles, there are four naming styles in the four sources given above. One is a journal article from the 1940s and another is a website. Here are some book titles: Al-Khwarizmi: The Inventor of Algebra (2006), Al-Khwārizmī: The Beginnings of Algebra (2009), and A History of Algebra: from al-Khwārizmī to Emmy Noether (1985). The last title was the standard history of algebra for many years. He is given as "Al-Khwarizmi" in the index of Derbyshire's Unknown Quantity, currently the top selling history of algebra. See also this index listing. You won't see Obama listed under "Obama" in an index. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive
I agree. English language books (including in their titles) commonly call him "Al-Khwarizmi", more often than "Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī" or "Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi". Examples (other than already given by you) of English books which in their titles call him "Al-Khwarizmi" are: Al-Khwarizmi (2007), Classical Mathematics from Al-Khwarizmi to Descartes (2014), Gerard of Cremona's Translation of Al-Khwarizmi's "Al-jabbr": A Critical Edition (1986), Robert of Chester's Latin translation of al-Khwarizmi's al-Jabr (1989), From Al-Khwarizmi to Descartes (2006), Al-Khwarizmi's Contribution to the Development of Mathematics (1993). Khestwol (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Jenks24 you might as well close this one too; since after striking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive no need for relist. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
In ictu oculi: I agree it should be closed and I'd also say there isn't a consensus to move, but I'm still recusing myself from closing RMs that involve the addition/removal of diacritics. I can't even remember why I relisted it – I shouldn't have. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī → Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi – Per WP:TSC and WP:MOSAR: use of non-standard-keyboard/non-printable characters in article titles is discouraged. HyperGaruda (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Closed. See section above. —Ruud 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ruud Koot, that is not the same move. All opposition in the previous RM was against cutting out the first name. The current RM only proposes to remove the non-standard diacritics, leaving the name as it is. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No please read the discussion more carefully. Both the nomination and the arguments made for and against it also address the diacritics issue. Consensus can change, but not in two months. —Ruud 10:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
There was no consensus to begin with, neither for nor against. The diacritics arguments were made by only one editor for each side (not counting sock puppets), with Vietnamese as an example against. IMHO, Vietnamese is not that comparable to Arabic, since the former is natively written in the Latin alphabet. When looking at Chinese (Vietnamese is basically Chinese, but written in Latin), titles are also written explicitly without tone marks: The titles of Chinese entries should follow current academic conventions, which generally means Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks.
I am positive that the current RM is far less controversial than the previous one. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Fine... —Ruud 11:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The above cited WP:TSC only states that we should create redirects for articles titles that contain characters not commonly present on the keyboard. These are in place. The above cited WP:MOSAR failed to become an accepted guideline over this exact issue. All English-language scholarly sources in the history of science and mathematics use ALA-LC romanization. For example:
Even non-specialist reference works like the Encyclopædia Britannica use ALA-LC romanization nowadays (e.g. http://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Khwarizmi). The whole "dropping the diacritics from the romanization" thing was because of less than satisfactory Unicode support in days past. But these issues have long since gone away.
—Ruud 11:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:TSC also says that that is the case when there is a "most appropriate title", which according to most (if not all) Wikipedian transliteration conventions is a title without unusual characters. Not only because of Unicode support, but also out of convenience for the common man, who usually does not understand what all these macrons and underdots are, and for the editor, who would probably dislike having to click the special characters tab each time —of course this does not include the use in etymology sections, but we're talking the title here. WP:MOSAR has come a long way since that argument from 2006 and it is simply not true that "all English-language scholarly sources in the history of science and mathematics use ALA-LC romanization":
- HyperGaruda (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I categorically reject any claim that "the average reader will be confused by a small dot or stroke under or above a letter". This is nonsense. It's an insult to the intellect of the common person. The only coherent argument that has ever been made for dropping the diacritics from established romanization systems was a technical one: they were not rendered correctly in older browsers. This is no longer true today. The extra effort for editors is negligible (especially if, as you claim here, your objection to the diacritics is only to their use in the title). Using correct spelling and citing your sources also takes effort, and we don't compromise on that either.
Note how the sources I cited are actually used in the article. It's somewhat doubtful if any of the sources you managed to find would actually pass as reliable sources for statements in this article (they are either popular instead of scholarly sources, or are not specifically about the history of mathematics). And that's the first rule that we always apply on the English Wikipedia: we follow the sources we cite. According to the relevant guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters:

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works).

—Ruud 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, the Unicode and casualness arguments are busted, although I doubt people will be happy reading weird characters where it's not needed, considering my own experience in moving stuff to a stricter rendering.
In the end it always comes down to WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness., followed by the note "Common name" in the context of article naming means a commonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name. Plainly "Al-Khwarizmi" is too controversial per previous RM, so the current RM is more like choosing the lesser of two evils.
As far as I can tell, only source 4 (Rooney) seems somewhat more popular scientific than scholarly, but that's not the case for the other three. Especially Krantz's work seems to fulfill both your requirements, being both scholarly and about the history of mathematics. Looking at scholarly sources on Google Scholar, without patents or citations, we can see for the following searches:
  • ["al-Khwarizmi" -"al-Khwārizmī"] 4420 hits vs ["al-Khwārizmī" -"al-Khwarizmi"] 750 hits
  • ["Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi" -"Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī"] 408 hits vs ["Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī" -"Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi"] 79 hits
In both cases, there are about five times more scholarly sources for the versions without diacritics. Thus regarding WP:COMMONNAME and your demand that sources be scholarly, it seems to me that this article move ought to be made. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I started reading another book by Krantz yesterday. He is mostly known for his textbooks and popular texts on mathematics. And this particular book also looks like an instance of the latter. It's not something you could cite in Wikipedia or a serious scientific article. This article contains a fairly complete bibliography on the scholarly books and articles on al-Khwārizmī, and as you can see the vast majority of them use a romanization with diacritics (the German texts, of course, preferring DIN 31635 over ALA-LC).
A Google Books query isn't very useful as it doesn't distinguish between popular and scholarly sources, and doesn't take minor variations in spelling or transliteration into account.
I'm thoroughly confused why some people display such antipathy towards a few diacritics. They are invaluable to the serious scholar, and easily ignored by the layman. No one has been able to give a good explanation, other that misquoting a few policy pages. —Ruud 19:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The thing is, Wikipedia is not a serious scientific article. Sources need not necessarily be scholarly, as long as they are reliable, and relying on the (selectively added) sources of a wiki-entry for statistical claims is even worse than a Google query. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I had italicized Google Scholar on purpose. It's something different from Google Books, with Scholar being more akin to PubMed and other scientific journal search engines, i.e. the hits are unlikely to be "popular". What's wrong anyway in using the popular way of writing? That's what WP:COMMONNAME is all about... So far it seems that both in popular and scholarly literature the diacritic-less version is more prevalent. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Because of Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters again (emphasis mine):

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works).

Reliable sources that are written in the English language (such as as those listed in the article) use ALA-LC romanization. Encyclopedias and reference works (such as the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of Scientific Biography) use ALA-LC romanization. Thus we should use ALA-LC romanization. In particular, if another article links to this article they should do so using the ALA-LC romanized name. The "naturalness" criteria thus supports using the ALA-LC romanization in the title as well.
—Ruud 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Would you suppose we use it inside the article, only once, for accuracy measure.
    For example Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمی‎, transliteration: Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī)Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly how I imagine things should be. A diacritic-less title, a lead or etymology section with the original phrase and diacritic-including transliteration, and the diacritic-less in the rest of the main text. However, this RM only deals with the title, so let's focus on that first. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Quote by Toomer on al Khwarizmi's Religious orientation

It is an interesting information in the quote regarding his epiphet al Majusi, that indicate that he may got an Zoroastrian leaning. In fact it is probable. But the reasoning that follows (in the quote) is rather ignorant and makes me question if it should be removed, replaced with something more enlightening. If we were talking of the Ummayad-period I wouldn't have questioned the reasoning that it is unlikely he could have been a Magi, practician of the Zoroastrian religion, but this is the Abbasad with a totally different intercultural, multiethnic and open policy comared with a rather racist, Arab-nationalistic outlook. Although the Sunni-muslims are also proud of the Islamic Golden age, of course, it seems rather obvious that this period is much more linked to the Shia-legacy. In the Shia-branch of Islam, Zoroaster is venerated as a prophet. To be a pious muslim doesn't exclude a person from being a Zoroastrian. It is very important to remember that Muhammed (Peace), as muslims in general are very clear on that Islam is but the true Religion of all times. Muhammed (Peace) is not the founder of Islam. He is the last Prophet. ...at least until the coming of the Messianic Age. Xorasmia was also situated in the heartland of Zoroastrianism, it is even probable it was from here the original Magi came from. Before the Magi became the priestly caste, they were a tribe, according to my findings. Al Majusi may therefore not be rendered as The Magi, or The Magician, but rather the Magian. --Xactnorge (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

High-importance?

We list this article as a level 3 vital article in Mathematics, but it is still a high-importance article in WikiProject Mathematics? For context, we list biographies that are lower in the vital article strata as top-importance, such as Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing (the latter having his contributions fall more under theoretical CS). I changed it to top-importance in the WikiProject, but it was reverted. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I did the revert. I agree that this article is of vital importance among mathematician bibliographies, but not among the articles about mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Name correction

The name is "Kharazmi" pronounced "Khaarazmi" and not al-Khwarizmi. He was Persian and the name is Persian and not Arabic therefore there is no "Al" at the beginning of the name. "Kharazmi" is also the name of an area in northern Iranian Plateau.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2141:6F00:8966:15EE:DC3:D09B (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

He was from Persian origin, but he lived and worked in Bagdad, not in Persia. As all his work was written in Arabic, it is the Arabic version of his name which does matter. Similarly, the name of Richard le Breton indicates that he was originated from Brittany. However nobody has the strange idea of not considering him as English, neither of translating his name from French into Breton language or English. For the same reason, you are wrong when saying there is no "Al" in the name of the subject of this article. D.Lazard (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don t call our great turkic ancestors that they were persian!!!

Define and proof They were Turkic !!!! Turano'g'lu (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to support your view along with the views you have expressed on talk pages for other individuals.--Chewings72 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem is the modern understanding of nation states (Uzbekistan-Turkemnistan-Kazakhstan) and medieval states (Al-i Ifrigh) and ethnic groups (Iranian Khwarezmian People) residing in the area of Khwarezm. Also you need an understanding of the Turkic Migration from Central Asia into Khwarezm in mid 11th century, which by the way occurred after Khwarizmi's death by some centuries. If Turano can't understand this, then he can't edit this page Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Persian empire ended during Rashidun caliphate. After then we can't still say that khawarizm is a Persian city. The entire area devided to more than one culture and Khawarizm was ruled by Turkic. Back to abbasid history and wars between them and Turkic. I think khawarizmi must consider abbasid not Persian nor Turkic in terms that city was part of it ElqasimJ (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You should read history correctly before saying such nonsenses. After the Sassanid dynasty which ended with the Rashidun califate, there were many Iranian dynasties in the area : Samanids, Buyids, Tahirids and many others, so how could we say that all the people who lived in that region were not Persian ??? Wikipedia is a good place to learn, you should take advantage of it... Farawahar (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Contribution towards Algebra

The article quotes, "although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources", referencing a source from 1990, and then later in the article, references two later sources, that are contradictory to this, specifically highlighting the novel contribution central to Algebra (Completion and Balancing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:EF90:386A:843D:F048:641C (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This assertion is WP:OR, even if some part of his work is certainly based on earlier work (this is the case of every mathematical work). Moreover the influence of earlier work on his work has some interest, but is misplaced in the lead and requires to be sourced. I have thus edited the article accordingly. D.Lazard (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@D.Lazard: I think the change you made is unhelpful:
  1. We've been trying to get rid these semantically meaningless "x is the father of y" claims from lead sections for a while now.
  2. The original statement was sourced. Rosen: "[Al-Khwārizmī] was for a long time considered as the original inventor of Algebra. ... That he was not the inventor of the Art, is now well established; but that he was the first Mohammedan who wrote upon it, is to be found asserted in several Oriental writers." Continued with a discussion on whether his work is based on Indian or Greek sources. Toomer: "In modern times considerable dispute has arisen over the question of whether the author derived his knowledge of algebraic techniques from Greek or Hindu sources. ... Al-Khwārizmī's scientific achievements were at best mediocre, but they were uncommonly influential."
What Al-Khwārizmī produced was a popular textbook, not new mathematics. This "father of" statement may lead many readers to conclude otherwise. —Ruud 13:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
To editor Ruud: Firstly, the qualification of "father of algebra" is not mine. A Scholar Google search on "father of algebra" shows that many authors use this term to qualify Al-Khwārizmī. I agree with you that nobody may by qualified of "father of ..." by a WP article (see WP:PEACOCK). However, as soon as this qualificative has been used by several established authors, this must be mentioned in Al-Khwārizmī article. The article does not says "he is the father of algebra", which would be an opinion and would not been acceptable for an encyclopedia. The article says "he is often considered as the father of algebra", with a reference to Boyer, which is certainly a reliable source.
Apparently, the question of the importance of the scientific contribution of Al-Khwārizmī is not resolved, as Toomer and Boyer seem to have contradictory opinions (Rosen is too old for being a reliable source on this question). IMHO, Al-Khwārizmī did not solved any new equation, and in this sense his contribution was weak. On the other hand, it seems to be the first to have remarked that the systematic use of the two algebraic operations of the title of his treatise (removing equal terms on both sides of an equation and passing a term from one side to the other) allows solving all (or almost all) equations that were ever solved at this time. This is an immense contribution, that, as far as I know, has never been attributed to any earlier mathematician. In other words, it seems to be the first to have replaced ad hoc arithmetic methods by systematic algebraic method. IMHO, this (and the fact that the word "algebra" comes from the title of his work) qualifies him to be called the "father of algebra", even if I do not like such a terminology.
It should be noted that the meaning of "algebra" has evolved over the time. Until the 19th century, it was a synonymous of "theory of equations". In this sense, the first "father of algebra" was Diophantus. Nevertheless the equations that Diophantus solved only explicit equations, by ad hoc methods, and the equations that he considered are now called Diophantine equations, which, presently do not belong to algebra, but to number theory. A third mathematician has been called "father of algebra. This is François Viète, who was the first to introduce symbols (variables) for writing and solving equation. As, in modern meaning, "algebra" consists in computing with variables and other symbolic objects as if they were numbers, François Viète has also been called "father of algebra", but not exactly the same algebra as the one of Diophantus. The work of Al-Khwārizmī lies in between, introducing the systematic use of algebraic operations, but not yet the notion of variable.
All but the first paragraph of this post is WP:OR. But, IMO, this is the only way for explaining why three different mathematicians have been called "father of algebra". On the other hand, I am extremely dubious about people who use the terms of "algebra" and "algebraic methods" without defining them nor saying that their meaning has evolved over the time. D.Lazard (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@D.Lazard: Interestingly enough, Al-Qalasadi of Grenada seems to be credited here with developing an Arabic notation for variables and the equals sign in a book titled Clarification of the science of arithmetic in the 1400s. I don't know enough to judge whether that's an overstatement; but I suspect the debate will continue to rage until every last "revisionist" mention of Muslim mathematicians -- as anything other than "barbarians" sullying ancient texts (per the text on Viète) -- has been removed. As it has apparently raged since the last time I visited the history of math-and-science pages. Interestingly enough, Western attitudes toward such sources were much more favorably disposed back when the average scholar was only familiar with the source's Latinized name and text and had limited information on which to be biased about. Similar justifications were of course used for wiping out much Hellenic scholarship (in the late Roman empire) as pagan and hence barbaric. Today the debate is whether a source is sufficiently "Islamic" or not as to be somehow disreputable. PS -- if the text on Al-Qalasadi is accurate, the example notation given should be in Eastern Arabic numerals, as "would have been written using his notation" on that article. Yclept:Berr (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
(* The exact quote from Viète was:)
"Behold, the art which I present is new, but in truth so old, so spoiled and defiled by the barbarians, that I considered it necessary, in order to introduce an entirely new form into it ..." (emphasis original) The article on Viète is quite breathless; and does not challenge such assertion with reference to any prior antecedents to use of variable signifiers, (despite mentioning in the next paragraph that he was unfamiliar with the equality symbol, or with length as numbers) but instead repeats it at the end of the section, adding that Viète was the first to do so, thus bringing mathematics out of the Dark Ages of al-Khwarizmi (so-cited). It is worth pondering what reaction a similarly breathless (albeit so well-written) an article about a non-Western mathematician would receive. Which is not to criticize the other article (as mentioned, well-written) but to point out the implicit standard. Yclept:Berr (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I read the source number 7 (Toomer) and there is nothing about the claim of al-Khwarizmi beeing the father of algebra, there is only a part that has dealt with who he is indebted for his work (between the Hindus and the Greeks...). I also read Boyer page 252 as cited in the article after i found a link pointing to a PDF of his book to check the facts:

https://ia800706.us.archive.org/3/items/AHistoryOfMathematics/Boyer-AHistoryOfMathematics.pdf

I see that Boyer states: "Diophantus sometimes is called the father of algebra, but this title more appropriately belongs to al-Khowarizmi...", and a few lines further :"the Al-jabr comes closer to the elementay algebra of today than the works of either Diophantus or Brahmagupta...", so the source cited states that al-Khwarizmi is the father of algebra, not "one of the fathers of algebra" I will change the article in this way. Wikaviani (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I can see that my edit about al-Khwarizmi is reverted by Cherowi and William M Connelly, but could you please explain me why we don't write that for some others ? for example Hyppocrates is the father of early medicine "by some authors" ??? do you guys have a cite for that ? I'm a mathematician and i'm sorry to say that i see there a lack of logic and i would appreciate a clear answer from the people who reverted me... thanks. Wikaviani (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I did not revert your edit, but I did modify it. Your use of "often", "most" or even "many" implies that some quantification of various author's pronouncements on this issue has taken place, and if so, a citation is needed to support that claim. By using "some" and having two citations, the existence of the citations proves the claim and so nothing further needs to be done. As to the argument that this terminology isn't applied in other articles–one has to realize that Wikipedia is a massive undertaking with thousands of editors, so to expect uniformity across articles is taking a very simplistic view of how complex systems work. What happens in other articles is never a justification for what we do in this article. Finally, I agree with the editors at the beginning of this thread, in that I don't believe that these sobriquets are useful or meaningful and only serve to hide complex historical influences (and therefore do not belong in our articles), however if they are frequently used in the literature, we are duty bound to report on it. But we are obliged to be as accurate as possible to maintain a NPOV.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's true that William M Connelly reverted my edit, not you. However, your statement concerning "father of" "founder of" is contradictory with articles on Wikipedia listing people considered father or mother of some field like : List of people considered father or mother of a field or List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field... I try to be logic and rational in my edits that's why i compare different articles on Wikipedia, trying to standardize them, but i agree with you when you say that this task is very complex. I agree to let "some authors" but i'm going to try to change this claim for other similar articles. Thanks for clarifying. Wikaviani (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

On Khwarizmi's background

Some users seem to have a POV case for al-Khwarizmi's background, but it's important to note that there are very few sources for his life and scholars disagree on the available evidence. He's from a region that had large populations that would now be recognized as Turkish, but that also had Persian populations living there. But populations have moved extensively over time, back and forth, and much of what is given about him comes from his name, which may have long predated his life and ancestry even for several generations. Given one of his other names, it is possible that he was actually from the region around Baghdad, and that his remote ancestors came from Khorasem (contemporary Uzbekistan). So just a heads up that no one really knows and this is a matter of debate. It would help if the article reflected that debate rather than making one claim as if it's known for certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfriet (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. IF there is a "debate" concerning al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity/background then you should be able to provide reliable sources that reflect said "debate". --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, other than his nisba (Khwarizmian), nothing else is known about his ethnicity. Most reliable sources that cover al-Khwarizmi's life already make note of this. For example, the Encyclopedia of Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine states that "As his name indicates, he was probably of central Asian origin, although little else is known of his early life."[6] The same confusion is also mentioned by Sonja Brentjes in her BEA article: "There is some confusion about his origins." She further elaborates about the central Asian, Baghdad, or Zoroastrian cliams.[7] It would be more helpful if this article would reflect this lack of knowledge about his origin, as opposed to just stating that he was "Persian/Iranian/Turkish" without showing any evidence. Wiqi(55) 00:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Wiqi55! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfriet (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiqi... How many times do you want to repeat this stuff? This is discussed several times. Isn't strange that every time an IP, new account or sleeper account like this "Superfriet" (registered on 2008, last activity 25 June 2016 with 6 edits and suddenly came here on 2017) appears on this talk page and wants to remove his ethnicity, you appear here too and you agree with him/her?! You tried to remove Iranian/Persian origin of several medieval scholars since 2010 and you always ignore consensuses (e.g. editors can see your comments/activities on talk pages of Avicenna, Al-Biruni and this one). Even our last discussion on Talk:Al-Biruni proves that you just wanted to remove background/ethnicity of that person and ignored all of our comments/sources. Current revision is the accepted one based on previous similar discussion. And other editors told you why you can't remove/change his Persian background. However, if your sources pass as expert, we can mention them in the "Life" section. I like to here opinions of other editors like @HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, and Mazandar:. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a kazillion of these sleepers, and they all have "hOnEsT ConCerNz", and of course they all miraculously know how to find the right highway. What is more troublesome in my opinion, though they are perhaps less in number, are the "editors" that are active here for a pretty long period of time, and have, by walking a "thin line" with regard to WP policies, and perhaps in combination of editing low-profile articles, managed to avoid scrutiny to a relatively large degree. These are the ones that are an especially clear annoyance/disruption to this place.
Given that what is said about user "Wiqi55" is seemingly correct (about him, this page, as well as several other related pages), I'd say sanctions per WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TENDENTIOUS (around those lines) should be sought, the next time this happens. 1) he's not a rookie 2) concerns have been adressed to him, per Wario-Man's words, on numerous occassions 3) this is apparantly going on (intermittently) for a very long time.
Wikipedia is not supposed to succumb to all these muppet shows initiated by editors that have apparant IRL-related grievances about matters, and which they are borderline editorially obsessed about. And hence, become a clear disruptive factor in the building of this project. My 0.02$ about this. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I quoted reliable sources that explicitly mention the confusion and lack of knowledge of al-Khwarizmi's background. It was a reply to Kansas Bear's request. As any regular editor would tell you, we need to reflect a broader range of sources as accurately as possible. A claim such as "He was born in a Persian family" is not explicitly stated in the cited source (Toomer), and does not reflect the multiple theories about his origin mentioned in other sources. Wiqi(55) 04:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wiqi55: it doesn't make sense to me that you archived the earlier discussion about this issue. That had a number of possible sources. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: The earlier discussion was improperly archived by Wario-Man to a redirect page. I fixed that mess by moving the discussion to Archive5 where it should have been in the first place. It's easier to find now. Wiqi(55) 08:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The title of this topic gave me ebola. Anyways if it helps he was Khwarazmian, not Persian (like al-Biruni). Seems to be the typically confusion of scholars by calling non-Persian Iranians for Persians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Ops was reffeting to the Turkic related title

Per policy linked by Wiqi55, "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Thus, such claims cannot be cited to tertiary or primary sources."
So, Wiqi55's, "Encyclopedia of Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine" and "The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers"(Brentjes source) can not be used to analyse or evaluate Khwarizmi's ethnicity.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Most editors would disagree with your assessment and consider encyclopedias to be secondary sources. Also, my edit to another article is hardly relevant, and mentioned sources that contain no analysis or evaluation of their own (tertiary). For now, I have yet to see any compelling argument for Persia/Iran over Khwarizm. Perhaps just quoting Ibn al-Nadim's "His origin was in Khwārizm." (tr. Bayard Dodge, p.652) would be the most accurate and npov approach for the lede. What do you think? Wiqi(55) 23:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I see no compelling argument to change anything and I see no secondary sources presented to analyze or evaluate al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity.
  • "Most editors would disagree with your assessment and consider encyclopedias to be secondary sources."
"Most editors" would not edit war to remove referenced information they do not like. Wikipedia states Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Odd how you can pull up any policy and use it against something you do not like, yet quickly set aside this very same policy when it goes against you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, "most editors" would find Superfriet's editing pattern odd, if not suspicious.
  • 12:51, 2 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi ‎ (→‎On Khwarizmi's background)
  • 18:50, 1 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+922)‎ . . Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi ‎
  • 08:36, 25 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+482)‎ . . Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple ‎
  • 16:50, 2 September 2008 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Womanism ‎ (changed order of names (but kept all names) to reflect their significance to this topic)
  • 16:49, 2 September 2008 (diff | hist) . . (+629)‎ . . Talk:Womanism ‎ (→‎Africana Womanism)
  • 16:45, 2 September 2008 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . Womanism ‎
  • 16:44, 2 September 2008 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . m Barbara Smith ‎ (→‎History and activism: - fixed formatting typo)
  • 16:29, 2 September 2008 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m Combahee River Collective ‎ (took author's name out of italics (bleed over from italicized title))
"Most editors" would find it highly suspicious an IP that edit warred to remove referenced information, to which you arrive and do the exact edit whilst pouting Wikipedia policy and procedure. So, "most editors", like the ones that have posted above, are very suspicious of the activities surrounding your editing. That is what "most editors" "think"! Oh, and since you have re-initiated the edit war on Al-Hakam II you should be blocked! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Stick to the topic of this discussion, please. How come countless of encyclopedias are cited in many articles, including this one? (Mactutor, Brittanica here, EI2, Iranica and many more elsewhere). I just don't like the fact that we're ignoring multiple reliable sources that state nothing is known for sure about his background, other than being linked to Khwarizm. Wiqi(55) 00:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
We already cite tertiary sources for ethnicity information elsewhere. See al-Farabi, which uses Encyclopedia Iranica. Moreover, the J. L. Berggren source recently introduced describes al-Khwarizmi (and al-Biruni) as "Central Asian" and "Khwarizmian".[8] This matches the description of most encyclopedia articles quoted above and in the previous discussion, which, with the exception of Toomer's "in passing" statement, make no mention of Persia or Iran. Wiqi(55) 23:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


October 2017 changes: Lead and life sections

@D.Lazard: Did you read this discussion and other similar topics from the archives? Wiqi55 made these changes to the life section,[9] Then Persia2099 appeared and added his stuff,[10] again Wiqi55,[11] and then you decided to change the lead without consensus.[12] We discussed this too many times. You can browse the archives to see all discussions about the lead sections and ethnic background. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have only partly read these discussions. They show only that there is no consensus among editors, but also among sources. Moreover, no source is based on historical studies, they seem to be based only on the name al-Khwarizmi. Thus presenting al-Khwarizmi as Persian in the lead is stating seriously contested assertions as facts (see WP:YESPOV) and breaks blatantly Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. There is no need of consensus for applying a policy. Thus I'll revert your revert, at least for the lead. D.Lazard (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
D.Lazard's edit is absolutely the right thing to do. Great job! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
What about this, a 2009 discussion by one of the involved users: Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi/On Khwarizmi's background or this one Talk:Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi/Archive_5#Persian_or_Khwarazmian.3F (one of the editors said removal of his background from the lead is against WP policies). Are those discussion pointless? His background was in the lead for several years and many experienced editors reviewed this article. @Kautilya3: You said his edit is right. Then why we usually bring similar stuff to the talk pages? An example Talk:Ismail_al-Jazari#Sources_for_.22Kurdish.22_ethnicity. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole point of D.Lazard's edit is that all those arguments are irrelevant. There has been unfortunate Persian POV-pushing here which has propagated to all kinds of pages dealing with mathematics. Anybody that wanted to find out what is actually known was presented with reams and reams of POV debates. We don't need all this. Nobody has any conclusive evidence of his ethnicity. So out it goes. End of story. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Great job!... End of story... Yeah, sure. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading in the current information (the cities was Al Kwarizmi born and died in)

Firstly, the city that Al Khwarizmi died in is Baghdad, it should be added on the top because it is included in the Arabic version. Secondly, the city that he was born is Khawarezm, which is the old Khiva/Khiwa in the current Uzbekistan. However, it was under Abbasid Caliphate. Hence, I would like to suggest that the information in the bibliography box should be as follows: Born c. 780, Khiva Died c. 850, Baghdad Residence Abbasid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatim Abood (talk • contribs) 08:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:reliable source for these assertions? (No version of Wikipedia may be a source for Wikipedia). D.Lazard (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The article carried two sources for the birth place for quite a long time, until a recent change in February. I did verify that Struik directly states that al-Khwarizmi is from Khiva. I would be open to removing the birth location entirely, which seems like it may be the best solution. But for the time being I restored the longstanding version that was changed in February of this year. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion, assuming there is enough sourcing to show that different sources attribute his background differently, is to handle that in the text of the article and then to have nothing in the infobox. The Mactutor biography at [13] seems like a possible starting point. For those unfamiliar with it, this is a scholarly site by faculty from the University of St Andrews which has many professionally written biographies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A recent biography (2012) had this to say: "Born: c.780; place unknown; Died: c. 850; possibly Baghdad". They further explain that his epithet "al-Khwarizmi" could possibly indicate his birthplace, but we can't be sure. Wiqi(55) 20:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
"to have nothing in the infobox": For the same reason, we should also have nothing in the lead, that is, we should remove the ethnicity/citizenship of Persian from the lead. This is what I have done in my recent edits, see § October 2017 changes: Lead and life sections. Looking at the history, this is as soon as 2004 that his ethnicity has been changed from "Persian or Arab" to "Persian". Thus this cannot been solved by restoring an older version. D.Lazard (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We literally have several sources that confirm his Iranian origin, so I don't see that happening. Doubting his origin is somewhat like doubting Avicennas origin-his ethnicity is certainly not disputed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
He has certainly not an Iranian origin, as Iran did not exist when he lived. About a probable Persian origin, these sources are not reliable, as there are only based on his Arabic name, without referring to any historical source. As far as I know, the historical sources that we have are only his writings, al-Tabari, and Ibn al-Nadim, and none mention its origin or its ethnicity. Thus all source you mention are modern speculations. Again, his Persian origin is probable, this is not a historical fact. D.Lazard (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
-Persians are an Iranian people ethnic-wise as well. Also the name 'Iran' has been in usage since pre-Islamic times. With all due respect, if you're gonna take part in a certain topic like this, at least have some knowledge about it.
-Indeed, he had an Iranian/Zoroastrian name (al-Majūsiyy), and his nisba was 'al-Khwarizmi' (from Khwarazm, a region then populated by Khwarazmians, an Iranian people, per History of Civilizations of Central Asia) so let's assume he was Chinese. Seriously though, there isn't really a dispute regarding his origin (however, it seems like you're trying to make one), there are various reliable sources that support his Iranian origin, we can't just ditch that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We're not sure about "al-Majusi" though, read Rashed's explanation cited in the article. As a side note, Zoroastrianism existed in various cultures and among many ethnic groups (see, for example, accounts of Arab Zoroastrianism). Wiqi(55) 00:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
So you mean to tell me he was an Zoroastrian Arab from Khwarazm, a region in the corner of Central Asia then under native Khwarazmian rule? Even if he was (he wasn't) his family surely would have been assimillated. -HistoryofIran (talk)
I meant someone can be a Zoroastrian without them being Iranian. My position on using Iranian is 1) it introduces a term not used by the primary sources, and 2) it assumes too much about the ethnic and linguistic status of 8/9th-century Khwarazm. The Persian claim is also problematic, considering that the primary sources differentiates between Persians and Khwarazmians (rightly so). For example, compare the entries of al-Khwarizmi and Al-Fadl ibn Naubakht in the same page of the fihrist. This leaves us with "Khwarazmian", which sums up the little that we know without assuming anything. It is also used by the more careful secondary/tertiary sources mentioned above. Wiqi(55) 18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Bruh what am I supposed to do with that link, I can't read Arabic. Persian or Khwarazmian, isn't that much of a deal, both Iranian by ethnicity (I would put my money on him being Khwarazmian though), we could just write 'Iranian' instead of 'Persian' (like al-Biruni, who was also from Khwarazm). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
When J. L. Berggren was asked about it,[14] he used Central Asian (p.6) and Khwarizmian (p.7).[15] This is a trend in recent sources, especially the sources that fact checked his background. After the Muslim conquest, Khwarizm became more ethnically diverse. There were various non-Iranian elements involved, including an Arab settlement established by Qutayba ibn Muslim in 712AD.[16] In this case, a nisba doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that he or his ancestors were once in Khwarizm. To describe him as "Iranian" assumes we know something about his ethnicity, but actually we don't. Wiqi(55) 20:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well good thing that this Bergrenn is a not a really prominent scholar, and his work seem mainly to be related to maths or something like that. A Muslim garrison (which could have contained various ethnic groups, such as Khorasani/Central Asian Iranians who took part in the war) in Khwarazm is really irrelevant in this case, it's really just a assumption which is quite unrealistic. Also, Khwarazm wasn't ethnically diverse, per the source I wrote earlier. The only form for change of ethnicity in the Khwarazm was the slow Persianization of the region. His nisba means that he was from Khwarazm, and he seems to have had al-Majūsī in his name, which can only mean one thing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
They were Arab settlements though, not Muslim garrisons. Their influence and extent are better documented in some parts of Khorasan. Here is a quote from the Arab settlements in Iran article of Encyclopedia Iranica:

Although the evidence is open to different interpretations, it suggests that throughout most of the Omayyad period there were frequent movements of new Arab soldiers and colonists to Khorasan and that the Omayyads tried to keep a force of 40,000 to 50,000 Arab warriors (moqātela) in Khorasan at all times. Because of the distance from Iraq and the attractiveness of the country, large numbers of these soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province.

As you can see, they were full-fledged Arab settlements. What is the source you refer to earlier that "proves" Khwarizm wasn't ethnically diverse in the 8th/9th century? Also, a refutation of his disputed full name which contains "al-Majusi" is already in the article. Wiqi(55) 23:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Khwarazm is not in Khorasan though, it is in Transoxiana. I was referring to History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Age of Achievement, A.D. 750 to the end of the 15th-century (page 101 or something). --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The quote on Khorasan and the Iranica article illustrates what historians call Arab settlements. That there was an Arab settlement in Khwarizm is already confirmed, and both districts were under the control of Qutayba ibn Muslim. Didn't find anything in p.101[17], my guess you got the wrong page.Wiqi(55) 18:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Not it doesn't, that's just your assumption. You showed a long quote about Khorasan, what has that anything to do with Khwarazm? Yes, the Caliphate settled many Arab tribes in Khorasan, but not in Transoxiana, that's a well known fact. Yes, he controlled Khwarazm briefly, so what? Did his men put a baby in every belly? That's because you're looking at the 'Age of Achievement', never mentioned any book with that name. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the Arabs settled throughout Transoxiana. In Bukhara, Qutayba established a settlement that influenced events 40 years later: "By 750, the [capital of Bukhara] seems to have been predominantly Arab"[18]. Similarly, Arab rule in south-west Khwarazm continued for many decades, see EI2's "Gurgandj" (vol.2, p.1141)[19]. You say you never mentioned a book named "Age of Achievement", but here is a diff. I'd say it's impossible for a region like Khwarizm not to be ethnically diverse; especially considering the Arab incursion, intermarriages (e.g., Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak), slavery, etc. Wiqi(55) 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "I'd say it's impossible for a region like Khwarizm not to be ethnically diverse; especially considering the Arab incursion, intermarriages."
Well, you're not a academic historian, so what you think (same goes to everyone) doesn't really matter. Here you go [20], page 101. Also, no sources call al-Khwarazmi for an Arab, yet we have several sources who call him an Iranian, that's it really. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Page 101 is about the "Iranian peoples in ...", not all the inhabitants of Khurasan and Transoxania. Also I'm arguing for calling him "Khwarizmian/Central Asian", which is already supported by some of the best sources we have. Calling him "Arab" or "Iranian" is essentially making the same mistake. Both terms can be supported with several sources, but they suggest we know something about his ethnicity, even though we don't. Wiqi(55) 14:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's about the inhabitants of Khorasan and Transoxiana. It's a quite well known fact that Transoxiana was Iranian up until the late Turkic immigrations/Mongol invasion. Anyways, why do you care so much about his ethnicity? It's like saying Avicenna wasn't Iranian, just doesn't make any sense. I see lots a of your edits are in Arab-related articles, interesting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
We have indications that Avicenna's native language was Persian, which justifies calling him Persian. That's not the case for al-Khwarizmi though. Besides, most of your "facts" about the lack of Arab settlements in Transoxania turned out to be false. Wiqi(55) 11:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
So... because al-Khwarazmi only wrote in Arabic, which was back then the Latin of the Islamic east, he should be considered Arab? Alright. How did it exactly turn false? Hmm.. linking a source with no relevance to Khwarazm whatsoever, ignoring the source I just linked, and denying/ignoring all the sources that point out to an Iranian origin. I am smelling WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Khwarizmi/Archive_5&oldid=1169153247"