Jump to content

Talk:Al-Khwarizmi/Archive 6

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to include "Persian." This is a dispute that has very clearly had a long and heated history. I have looked back at the talk page archives, as well as Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi/On Khwarizmi's background (which I've mostly disregarded as WP:OR but still has some useful references to academic commentary) to try and inform myself better of the history of the dispute. This issue has generated a lot more heat than light, with accusations of this and that being thrown left and right. There are clearly more !votes in favour of including Persian than removing it, but this does not necessarily mean that opinion should prevail. Wikipedia is not a democracy and RfCs are not polls. There is a risk with topics such as this that people merely !vote based on their own ideological lines rather than on policy, and that therefore the ideological group with the largest numbers triumphs. There is also a risk, that this dispute will continue after the RfC as it has for the past decade, with no resolution in sight. As such I will strive to give a full and clear explanation for why I have found a consensus here, with reference to Wikipedia's policies:
Tertiary Sources
One of the points raised by User:Wiqi55 in this RfC and past talk page discussions is that other encyclopedias such as Britannica and DSB are silent on the issue of ethnicity. Other users have countered by claiming that tertiary encyclopedic sources should be disregarded in favour of secondary sources.
WP:TERTIARY states:

Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

It is therefore clear that Wiqi55 is quite right to refer to these tertiary sources to find where the academic consensus lies, and his opponents are wrong to disregard them entirely. However, these encylopedic entries, as Wiqi55 states, seem to be mostly silent on the issue of al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity. They do not state that his ethnicity is disputed, or something other than Persian. They instead say nothing. There are various reasons this could be the case, including disagreement between academics, but without commentary pointing us to that conclusion, we shouldn't necessarily jump to it. The one exception to this seems to be The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers which notes uncertainty about Khwarizmi's birthplace. However, the uncertainty highlighted in that article is attributed to Toomer's 1990 article, which ultimately states Khwarizmi was of "Iranian origin." As tertiary sources are used to illuminate the consensus of academic secondary sources, the conclusion of the secondary source is that which should be followed. Further, Brentjes' statement in the BEA and Toomer's are not contradictory, as it is still possible to describe Khwarizmi as "Persian" based on his lineage, even if potentially born nearer to Baghdad (which is exactly what Toomer has done).
Secondary Sources
I have admittedly only skim read the talk page's archives, but there seems to be very little in the form of secondary sourcing provided, referring to al-Khwarizmi as Arab. One source I noticed that did refer to Khwarizmi as Arab is Professor Berggren. After being contacted by one of the editors on this page in 2006, he stated that his article was written "at a time when I was not as aware of the wide ethnic differences within medieval Islam." In his later book he describes Khwarizmi as "Central Asian."
The point of Khwarizmi being described as "Khwarizmian" or "Central Asian" in various secondary sources is raised by User:Wiqi55 as casting doubt on the "Persian" epithet. Unlike with the "Arab" descriptor the secondary sourcing here seems much stronger. However as User:HistoryofIran has pointed out, these descriptors are by no means mutually exclusive. Indeed in his email Professor Berggren seems to view the two terms as compatible. Wiqi55 makes the point that "Khwarizmian" is potentially the safe option, and the most likely of the descriptors to be accurate on the sparse primary source material. While the point is one that borders on WP:OR it is still one that would be important to take into account if the academic sources were equally split on how they describe Khwarizmi. In such a scenario the issue Wiqi55 raised is one that would tip the balance in favour of using Central Asian/Khwarizmian as the descriptor. However, on the secondary sources cited both in this RfC and elsewhere in the archives, there seems to be a clear preference, where a descriptor is actually used, to refer to Khwarizmi as Persian.
Conclusion
This has been an annoying RfC to close. The relevant information is spread around everywhere in the decade of archived discussions, and very little of it has been summarised in the RfC. It is completely possible that I have missed some important source mentioned in 2010 or something, and come to the wrong conclusion. It is also completely possible that the majority of secondary sources do prefer "Central Asian" or "Khwarizmian" to describe Khwarizmi, and that the information simply hasn't been posted on this talk page yet. Consensus can change, and I have 0 doubts that attempts to change it will continue after this RfC. If any users wish this question to be re-assessed I would strongly recommend they compile a summary of the academic sources, and how they describe Khwarizmi (e.g. whether the preference is for Central Asian or Persian) Hopefully then the next person who has to assess consensus will have an easier time of it. Brustopher (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

For many years, al-Khwarizmi is said to be Persian in the first sentence of the lead. For many years also, there are lengthy discussions in this talk page about his ethnicity. It appears that the only fact that is really known about this is the part "al-Khwarizmi" of his Arabic name. On the other hand, al-Khwarizmi lived and worked in Baghdad, and all his known writings are written in Arabic. Thus, whichever was his ethnicity, al-Khwarizmi was an Arabic scholar. Thus presenting al-Khwarizmi as Persian in the lead is "stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (see WP:YESPOV), and breaks Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. By this edit, I have tempted to fix this; my edit has been reverted, although it has been supported by two other editors, and this led to a week of full protection of the article. It must also be mentioned that his ethnicity is discussed in the section "Life".

My question is thus: Should the first sentence be my version

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمی; c. 780 – c. 850), formerly Latinized as Algoritmi, was a scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad who produced works in mathematics, astronomy, and geography during the Abbasid Caliphate.

or the previous version

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمی; c. 780 – c. 850), formerly Latinized as Algoritmi, was a Persian scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad who produced works in mathematics, astronomy, and geography during the Abbasid Caliphate.

or something else? (I have removed the notes from the quotes; this does not imply that they should be removed from the article.) D.Lazard (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment How is "writing in Arabic" is related to his background? It's not a valid argument, it's your POV. Arabic was used by almost all medieval Muslim scholars. The status of Arabic was similar to Latin in Europe. What would you do by that "Arabic scholar" logic in the future? Removing the ethnicity and background of other medieval Muslims scholars just because their works were written in Arabic?! Per previous discussions and archives, my current vote is Keep but I may change it when I read other editors' comments. Let me ping another user who is familiar with articles like this and participated on here before. @Kansas Bear: What is your opinion? Do you think the sources about his background are weak or unclear and we should move them to "Life"? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment, this has been discussed ad naseum[1], with Wiqi55 using primary sources, synthesizing an answer that suits him and ignoring any other source(s) and/or editors that disagree with him(Ruud Koot, Athenean, Wario-Man, etc). What I have learned is that when these type of editor(s) do not get what they want; IPs and vandals like Siktirgir start popping out of the internet and information is deleted, regardless. That said, I don't believe this "Rfc" will solve anything. The same tired OR will be pushed and information supported by secondary sources will be ignored and swept under the rug. As another editor stated some time ago, "It's very easy to find lots of sources that support the fact that Khwarizmi was Persian. The mental acrobatics required to deny this fact are comical. Athenean (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2015". --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I have cited secondary sources that use other terms, including Central Asian (p.6) and Khwarizmian (p.7),[2] not mentioning the countless of sources that refer to him as Arab or the more reliable sources that omit any reference to his ethnicity. Why should we ignore those sources? Also, a factual examination of a prmiary source is well within WP:PRIMARY. "Any educated person" (to quote that policy) can verify that Ibn al-Nadim uses "Khwarizm" for al-Khwarizmi, and "Persia" for Persian scholars. You can verify this either from the Bayard Dodge translation (pp.651-2, Columbia University Press, 1970) or from the Arabic original.[3] Wiqi(55) 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
      • J.L. Berggren, a historian who specializes in mathematical history. Definitely a top class source when it comes to discussing the ethnicity of a person. Well, al-Nadim using Khwarazm for al-Khwarazmi could mean... wait for it; that he was Khwarazmian, which doesn't sound too wrong, as the region was still populated by Khwarazmians at that point. Also, what (reliable) sources refer him as an Arab? I'm sorry, but I find it rather comedic that you consider a person from Khwarazm (then populated by Iranians), with probable Zoroastrian connections, whose ethnicity is not at all disputed in academic sources, an Arab. Sounds like your own POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
        • The article already cites J. L. Berggren for biographical information. It's where I got the source from. I have no reason to question his motives or conclusions. As I have explained to you many times, my preference is for "Khwarizmian" or "originally from Khwarizm"; per Ibn al-Nadim and the many secondary/tertiary sources that refer to Khwarzim. "Arab" is just one random ethnicity given to al-Khwarizmi without a shred of evidence. It's no different than "Iranian" or "Persian". All can be supported by Google Books results that contain no evidence or analysis. Wiqi(55) 14:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. It is clear that the mainstream academic consensus is that he was "Persian", regardless of whether he might actually have been Khwarezmian or whether that would have at the time been regarded as a separate ethnicity from Persian. There seems to be no debate that his family origin was from Persia, and not much over whether he himself was born there. Saying "Persian" in the lead seems good enough as a summary. If there are quibbles or significant minority views, they should be clarified later in the article; the lead is not the place for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @David Eppstein: I'm curious but what criteria have you used to determine the mainstream academic consensus? Last time I checked other encyclopedias omit any factual references to his ethnicity, with no mention of "Persian" anywhere. For instance, see EI2 (vol.4, p.1070), Britannica[4], BEA[5], Mactutor, DSB, etc. It's rather clear that there is no academic consensus on "Persian". It's also worth highlighting that the current lede links to Persian people, a Western Iranian ethnicity, not "Persia" as a geographic designation. Wiqi(55) 13:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at what I have seen, and at the academic Mactutor bio [6], I think the article text should say that some sources report him to be Persian, while others feel there is inufficient evidence. That would be easy to source. The issue is too complex for the infobox, so we should leave the birth place out of the infobox entirely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe that the analogy with Richard le Breton is a poor one. "le Breton", like "DiCaprio", is a surname, passed from father to son for generations, and indicating remote origin, not immediate origin. Whereas "al-Khwarizmi", like "al-Baghdadi" and "da Vinci", is a designation, or distinguishing name, assigned in the person's lifetime, and indicating his actual place of origin. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - Persian I tried to look for sources prior to 2000s and it seems he has been described as Persian in most cases, though sometimes also described as Iranian. Encyclpaedia Americana 1965 says "A Persian, al-Khwarizmi (al-Khwarizmi, 780-P850), produced in Baghdad (c. 830) a mathematical work whose title included the word al-jabr,..." The 1971 UNESCO courier [7] says "...transmitted through Iranian mathematicians such as al-Khwarizmi". Also from [8] and [9] I think it is OK to describe him as Persian.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The phrasing of version 2 is itself slightly ambiguous as to whether 'Persian' in "Persian scholar' refers to his origins, his area of study, or the language in which he wrote. If I had not read the above discussion, it would not be clear to me which meaning was intended. I know nationality-profession is the standard form, but wonder whether a clearer phrasing could be found. On the broader question, if there is significant doubt "believed to be Persian" or somesuch would satisfy any doubt. Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Comment on closing statement

A couple of issues with the closing statement. First, some of the sources Brustopher claims to be silent aren't completely silent. To the contrary, they explicitly mention our lack of knowledge about al-K's biography (e.g, EI2, MSTM:E -quoted above-, MacTutor, etc), which entails that specific ethnicity claims such as Persian people shouldn't be stated as fact. Second, most sources mention his origin as Khwarizm. This has been omitted from the lede in favor of Persia despite Khwarizm being the more common term mentioned in almost all sources. Wiqi(55) 02:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I did not read through all the sources you referenced, only the ones you linked. I was basing that statement of what you wrote about the sources "ommiting and factual reference to his ethnicity." Having read through more of the sources it is clear that there is uncertainty about the facts of his past (and indeed this is referenced in the Life section of the Wikipedia article). However, all of the uncertain sources I've been provided either seem to settle on Central European/Khwarizmian or Persian as his probable origin. So there is a common consensus of sorts, but it's one of "probably" rather than certainly.
Therefore I make a slight modification to my close. It should be made clear in the lede when speaking of his Persian origins that these are his probable origins. It shouldnt be stated as a certain fact. I leave it to the people editing this page to work out the exact phrasing. I'm not making any further changes, so if you're still unhappy you can appeal to WP:AN. But I think a better idea if you're still unhappy would be to spend some time compiling a list of reliable academic sources, with quotes from each on Khwarizmi's origin. While this would take a while, this dispute has been dragging on for 10 years so time is hardly of the essence. When all the sources and quotes are in one place, it should be quite clear to all the editors which way the evidence points. If it isn't clear to the editors, it should at the very least be clear to any future RfC closer. Brustopher (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive

After reading this entire article, it seems to be extremely repetitive. In the "Life" section an entire quoted paragraph is listed twice. It mentions the origin of the word "algebra" and "algorithm" three times each. At the end of the Algebra section is also some quoted text which also re-hashes what has already been said. I'm reticent to delete anything because of how contentious this article appears, but it does seem like some cleanup could help readability significantly. --Sam (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The orgin of al-Khwarizmi

Al-Khwarizmi was from Uzbekistan, so he is not Iranian, and he is called "Al-Khwarizmi because he was from Khwarizm which is now not a part of Iran but from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

At that time there were no Turks or "Uzbekistan" in that area (Turks came there some 2 centuries after the death of this scholar) and we have numerous reliable sources stating that al-Khwarizmi was Iranian.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
But Iranian doesn't mean Persian. He could have been Pashtun, Kurd or something else. What is the proper evidence for him being Persian? It's also well-known that the historical Greater Khorasan region was a multi-ethnic one. Not to forget that "After the assassination of the king, Khorasan was conquered by Arab Muslims in 647 AD. Like other provinces of Persia it became a province of the Umayyad Caliphate. [...] The first independent kingdom from Arab rule was established in Khorasan by Tahir Phoshanji in 821, but it seems that it was more a matter of political and territorial gain". 93.132.10.46 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The proper evidence for him being Persian is the cited sources. Sources like H. Corbin, G. Saliba, Clifford A. Pickover etc ... Also, the first independent dynasty from the Ummayads was Samanids, in 820 and the region being conquered by Arabs does not imply anything about the ethnicity of this scholar, please read WP:OR.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Still, that's no proper evidence. Some western sources and especially persian ones merely claim someone iranian being persian. So these sources aren't appropriate, as long as they don't provide any factual matter. 78.49.49.80 (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources state that he was Iranian, end off. Khwarazm was populated by Khwarazmians at that time, a Eastern Iranian group. Although there were some Persian immigrants as well. That is the academic consensus (see History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume 4 for example). Also, Khwarazm wasn't part of Greater Khorasan, which was populated by Iranian Khorasanis (also mentioned in the source). Your opinion is irrelevant, you're not a academic historian. Claiming that he was Ubzek is anachronistic/revisionism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Religious Infobox

@Wcherowi:

Why do you think a religious infobox is "inappropriate"? I would strongly argue the academic infobox, which seems more suited to modern academics, is inappropriate, the religious infobox allows for specifying religious denomination, creed etc. Important points for a figure from that region and era of history. ParthikS8 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not writing an encyclopedia for "that region and era of history". What he is known for today is his academic achievements. He was not, as far as I can tell, a religious leader, so making this a religious infobox is really very inappropriate. We do not use a religious infobox for say Galileo, even though he was quite definitely Catholic. There have been many attempts to bring up al-Khwarizimi's religion, yours being the most brazen that I have seen. These have all been denied due to WP:UNDUE, putting undue weight on a minor attribute. Granted, this might be important to you, but it is not to the general readership.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wcherowi:
The reference to Galileo did give me a laugh, considering he was excommunicated.
Anyway, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, was/is referenced by al-Tabari and he himself talked on other religious topics e.g. the three schools (sourced content which you have removed in your reversal of my edits). As stated by Toomer, he starts his seminal mathemical work by praising God. I think though the problem between us here is a method of thinking. Al-Ghazali, a Sunni Ash'ari theologian, writes that the study of mathematics is "fard al-kifayah" - a communal religious obligation - i.e. the study of mathematics itself is a religious topic from the Muslim perspective. Perhaps this idea is hard to understand from a secular western context which views Mathematics as a secular pursuit having nothing to do with religion.
I think you need to bring evidence that my specific edit has been denied in the past due to it being undue as your words contradict the reality of the article. Even in your reverted version, his religious views are clearly discussed at length under the views section.
Now why specifically would I argue for inclusion of the religious biography infobox?
I would argue for its inclusion solely on the basis that it allows useful information on him, some of which is found in the article, to be immediately viewable from a glance (such has his jurisprudence, creed etc.) Note that this would not apply to Galileo so the other stuff exists argument would not apply.
I would not push for the inclusion of the infobox if we could include his religion, denomination, jurisprudence, creed etc. in the current infobox. Ultimately an infobox is what readers of the article see - not what they are named etc.
Also, from a very minor (and mainly irrelevant) aesthetic view, the academic infobox is bland and colourless - a bit of colour to the article wouldn't hurt and the religious biography infobox assists in this.
Here is a compromise I would suggest: We include the infobox as you have put it, but embed the religious biography infobox allowing his religion (already discussed at length in the article), jurisprudence (sourced content which you removed) and creed (if I find reliable sources stating it - I would hazard a guess that he is either a Mutazili or Ash'ari but would need a reliable source to make these claims) to be included in the article.
Hope we can arrive at some kind of understanding/compromise. ParthikS8 (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping that other editors would chime in on this discussion, but it doesn't seem to have caught their eyes. My choice of Galileo as an example was serendipitous but upon consideration I see that the case for including religious information about him in the infobox is much stronger than what we have here. And, just to set the matter straight, he was not excommunicated and was buried in consecrated ground.
I am generally open to compromise solutions to conflicts, but in this case I don't see it. Infoboxes are meant to convey the most important information on the topic. They are meant to be small, real estate in them is at a premium. Your claim that his religious life is discussed in the article at length just does not hold water, there is barely a mention of it. Furthermore, very little about his personal life is known. What you want to include is not fact but rather speculation and I can see no justification for it.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
To whom are denomination, creed, etc. important? What reliable source documents these factoids? Does the source indicate whether they were an assumed automatic tag, or whether they actually had meaning for the subject? Did the subject ever write about the importance of their denomination or creed? Did the source document effects of the denomination or creed, or are they just labels like noting his height? Apart from that, anyone wanting to change an article needs to justify the change. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi → Al-Khwarizmi – In English he is best known as just "al-Khwarizmi". The present title Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi is not even his full name as explained in the first note. In Persian he is also known as just خوارزمی, with books using just that as his name. 92.184.116.138 (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: al-Khwarizmi simply means 'from Khwarazm', which was a nisba used by others as well. The current name is fine imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statue of Khorezmi

Yes I noticed that, but it certainly wasn't a better picture than the previous one, which has been in the infobox for some time now. Please try to reach WP:CONSENSUS instead of edit warring, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification?

'However, Rashed denies this'

Rashed who? Are all readers expected to know who Rashed is?

83.20.173.191 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

See note 26 in the article or Roshdi Rashed. AstroLynx (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Aryabhata

In the whole article the mathematician Aryabhata doesn't get mentioned. Which is somewhat strange since fe. al-Khwārizmīs book is based on his works. Some even argue that the term Algebra actually is derived from his name via arabization.--46.125.249.20 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

David A. King on al-Qutrubulli

David A. King is a leading expert on Islamic astronomy. In a 2018 lecture at the Centre for the Study of Islamic Manuscripts in London, he noted that "al-Qutrubulli" is an indicator of al-Khwarizmi's birthplace. Here is a transcript and a direct link:

I mention another name of Khwarizmi to show that he didn't come from Central Asia. He came from Qutrubul, just outside Baghdad. He was born there, otherwise he wouldn't be called al-Qutrubulli. Many people say he came from Khwarazm, tsk-tsk.[1]

I thought this would be an interesting counter point to Roshdi Rashed's hypothesis from the 1970s, which proposed that al-Qutrubulli to be a different astronomer (we have yet to discover any evidence for this). Currently the article is presenting Rashed's hypothesis as the only possible explanation. Per wp:npov, we must also present other views held by experts, especially more recently held ones. So I added this line, but it has since been reverted. Is there any policy-based arguments for that revert? Wiqi(55) 01:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David A. King (2018-04-05). Astronomy in the Service of Islam. Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation – Centre for the Study of Islamic Manuscripts. Event occurs at 20:51.
Fair enough [10], I retract what I said regarding his reliability. However, I still do not think that the citation is in line with WP:RS, as its a Youtube video, not an academic published article, where I'm sure he would make an actual argument supported by citations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
It's well within wp:sps: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert .... Same with expert blogs. So I guess there is no policy-based objection. Wiqi(55) 01:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
If "al-Qutrubulli" is added as a potential name then the full name from Tarikh Al-Tabari (the source that David A. King refers to) which is al-Khwārizmī al-Majūsī al-Quṭrubbullī should be mentioned too. Otherwise it will give the mistaken impression that David King is arguing against "Al-Khwarizmi" being his name. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
"Al-Qutrubulli" is already in the article. The point here is we need to counter Rashed's assessment with King's more recent take. Wiqi(55) 20:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
A Youtube video is not a 'Self-published expert source'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
It's a public lecture by an established expert. See WP:VIDEOREF. Also Youtube videos are found in many history articles, see Astrolabe, Spherical Earth, Automation, etc. If you're objecting on the use of Youtube videos feel free to raise the issue at WP:RSN. Wiqi(55) 01:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
X being used in other articles does not justify the use of X here, I believe there is a guideline for that. The video is still not WP:RS regardless. Feel free to take it to WP:RSN yourself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Official Youtube channels are considered reliable per WP:NOYT. The lecture is found in the official channel of al-Furqan Foundation and linked from their website.[11]. Also, from the RSN archive: Typically, recordings of spoken lectures by reputable authorities are reliable sources in general ...[12] Wiqi(55) 04:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Not at all, they may be considered reliable per the link, context is everything. Also, picking what you agree with from that long discussion is not really helping us here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I picked the part that no one disagreed with. Now, could you explain why this lecture isn't a reliable source for the views of David A. King? Wiqi(55) 19:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe I already explained that. Feel free to add a reliable, published source to the article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
No, you haven't. You spoke in general terms and later conceded that Youtube videos may be considered reliable. Now you need to be specific and explain how this particular lecture is not reliable for the views of David A. King. Just saying it isn't reliable without explaining why is not compelling. Wiqi(55) 22:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I never conceded anything regarding that. Youtube is still not reliable to add here, something which I have explained several times now. Please go back and read my messages. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOYT is clear enough: official channels of notable organizations ... may be acceptable ... as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher. The channel of al-Furqan Institute meets this criteria. Wiqi(55) 12:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
It is clear enough indeed. As I already said earlier, it says may. Again, context is everything. I feel like we're going in a circle at this rate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, so why do you think it's not acceptable in this case? I suggest you lookup "may" in a dictionary. By the way, your constant failure to answer questions directly is considered disruptive Wiqi(55) 13:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
May means possible. I suggest you look up WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ASPERSIONS, thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a guideline for that, it's WP:OTHER.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Although nobody asked me for that, here is a WP:third opinion:

Apparently, there is no historical source about the birth place of al-Khwarizmi, and the only information that historians have is its name. Many people believe that his name proves that he came from Iran, while others think that al-Khwarizmi refers to the origin of his family, and that, as all his professional life was in Bagdad, and all his writing are in Arabic, there is no indication that he was not born near Bagdad.

Wikaviani has added a more precise version of the second opinion presented by a recognized expert in a public conference, mentioning explicitly that it was the opinion of this expert.

Apparently, there is no historical source about the birth place of al-Khwarizmi, and the only information that historians have is its name. Many people believe that his name proves that he came from Iran, while others think that al-Khwarizmi refers to the origin of his family, and that, as all his professional life was in Bagdad, and all his writing are in Arabic, there is no indication that he was not born near Bagdad.

HistoryofIran disputes this edit. In this disputes, HistoryofIran uses only procedural arguments, whithout discussing whether King's opinion is notable enough for being mentioned in Wikipedia. Moreover the name "HistoryofIran" suggest that he is not neutral on this subject, and that he is here for pushing Iran's official point of view (possible WP:COI).

In summary, the policy WP:NPOV leads me to support Wikaviani's edits. D.Lazard (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I can have (almost) whatever name I want - that is none of your business, and I would like to remind you of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:ASPERSIONS. By 'Wikaviani' I assume you mean Wiqi. Instead of making bizarre accusations, would you kindly explain why the source is WP:RS? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"Many people believe that his name proves that he came from Iran"
Nobody here or in the article is saying he's from Iran, I've no idea where you've got that claim from. The question is whether he was born in Khwarazm or in Baghdad. There's no shortage of sources saying he's from Khwarazm and the argument here is not even whether the King source (which is saying he was born in Baghdad) is valid or not; the argument is whether a Youtube video is RS or not. If you want to cite King surely you can find a valid format (such as a book or journal article) that states the same opinion, why resort to Youtube?
And lastly I'm fairly certain accusing someone of being a stooge of the Iranian government (which is what your last phrase seems to imply) is a straight up personal attack. --Qahramani44 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@D.Lazard: I think you're confusing me with someone else as i never made the edit you're talking about.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I was just about to ask for a 3rd opinion, so thanks D.Lazard for chiming in. PS. It was me actually and not Wikaviani ;-) Wiqi(55) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The fact that you count a blunt personal attack towards me and no comment about the actual subject as a “3rd opinion” is concerning. HistoryofIran (talk)
Please stay on topic. User conduct issues are better handled elsewhere. Also we now have an official link to the lecture/conference in question, so your objection to Youtube no longer applies. Wiqi(55) 22:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
How am I not on topic? This was a direct reply your comment, no need to dodge it. So because the video is mentioned in the website itself (surprise) it is suddenly WP:RS? The fact that you attempted to reinstate your previous edit without any consensus is pure WP:DISRUPTIVE. Also, what Qahramani said should not be ignored either; the vast majority of sources acknowledge al-Khwarazmi’s link to Khwarazm (see WP:UNDUE) Incoming: HistoryofIran (talk)
The due policy doesn't apply to prominent adherents or viewpoints. King is a leading expert. And the Baghdad hypothesis is already covered in top-quality sources. See Toomer's DSB article or Sonja Brentjes's BEA, etc. Wiqi(55) 01:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

These sources took me around 10 minutes to assemble, I wonder how many more I could find if I spent more time?

"Either his ancestry or his actual birthplace must have been connected with the Central Asian region of Khwarazm, the classical Chorasmia", p. xi The Algebra, Hiroyuki Mashita, Taylor & Francis

"As his name implies, Khwarazmi came from Khwarazm, the great expanse of desert and rolling land on the northern border of Central Asia south and east of the Aral Sea." p. 32 Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane, S. Frederick Starr, Princeton University Press

"As this tradition grew, it came to be overwhelmingly dominated by Central Asian scholars and scientists. In fact, the most famous and greatest of the Classical Arabic scholars in the two centuries after the initiation of the Greek translations were largely from Central Asia. Besides the earlier scientists al-Khwārizmī (from Khwārizm)" p. 86, Chapter Five. Islamization in Classical Arabic Central Asia, Warriors of the Cloisters, Princeton University Press

"Further, al-Khwarizmi had an alternative kunyah, Abu 'Abdallah, as may be seen, e.g. on the title page of his Algebra, ed. Rosen. But this is given by Ibn Khallikan (English tr., iii, 315) as the kunyah of Ibn Shakir. Second, the pursuits of the two men are clearly similar. Both are represented as occupied with mathematics and astronomy. Third, they both studied at Baghdad, and apparently at the same establishment, the famous Baitu'l-Hikmah. (Fihrist, p. 274 for al-Khwarizmi; al-Qiftl, p. 441 for Ibn Shakir. See also Nallino, loc. cit., p. 7, n. 4.) Fourth, they appear to have originated in the same part of the world, for Khwarizm may be reckoned in Khurasan, in the neighbourhood of which Musa. b. Shakir practised highway robbery. Fifth, they are both mentioned in connection with al-Ma'mun" p. 250, Muḥammad b. Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Cambridge University Press

"He was born in the city of Karaj, near the present day city of Baghdad (just as al-Khwarizmi was born in the city of Khwarizm, now the modern city of Khiva, south of the Aral Sea in the Soviet Union)." p. 538, The Contributions of Karaji—Successor to al-Khwarizmi, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

"Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi was born around AD 780 in Khwarizm (Persia) and died around AD 850." p. 14, From Al-Jabr to Algebra, Mathematics in School

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Even your first source isn't sure: "Either his ancestry or his actual birthplace ...". The rest are school textbooks or not written by historians, which is exactly the type of poor sources we need to avoid. Wiqi(55) 01:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
So what? I did say “acknowledge al-Khwarazmis link to Khwarazm”. All of them are academic published sourced by experts with relevancy to the topic, contrary to the youtube link you insist on using. I highly insist you read WP:RS and WP:SPS.HistoryofIran (talk)

Comment We cannot put at the same level a youtiube video and numerous reliable published sources that contradict it, this would give an undue weight to the Youtube video. That's not how Wikipedia works.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the due policy more carefully. It doesn't apply to prominent adherents or viewpoints. King is a leading expert and the Baghdad-birth view has been covered in the best sources. See Toomer's DSB article or Sonja Brentjes's BEA, etc. Also contrary to what you're saying, there is no Youtube link in the edit being reverted.[13] Actually, it's a lecture in a public conference. That they have chosen to host the video on their official Youtube channel is not our concern and it's their business. Wiqi(55) 01:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, let's take a look at undue : "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". a Youtube video is not a reliable published source. As to the above sources, Toomer says that "so perhaps his ancestors, rather than he himself, came from Khwārizm". As to Brentjes, she only quotes Toomer's work. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Al-Furqan Foundation is a reliable publisher. They have been publishing King's work for many years, including joint publications with Brill.[14]. They recorded and published the lecture on their website.[15] It's rather disingenuous to keep referring to it as a "youtube video". Wiqi(55) 03:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the hosting site of a video is immaterial. The speaker is widely considered to be an authority and the venue is a conference held by a reputed institute. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like we have a disagreement here, there is no consensus for inclusion and the long-standing version should prevail unless more convincing arguments are provided.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Two impartial editors deemed this lecture reliable. Better to accept the community input on this one and avoid becoming disruptive. And you have yet to explain how the current version satisfies wp:npov. We know that an expert on an equal footing to Roshdi Rashed has expressed a different view, so why should we ignore it? Wiqi(55) 16:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"He was born into a Persian family" ??

@HistoryofIran:

1) Can you point me to the source that says "Persian cultural sphere"? Feel free to make it more based on the source, but kindly refrain from adding your own words.
2) Because that's not how you write a lede. If you have sources that calls him of native Khwarazmian stock, feel free to add it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
1) No problem, we can remove "Persian cultural sphere" (I was trying to explain in what sense he was Persian, and I think that's what is meant in this source [18]). But then you agree that you have no source saying "He was born into a Persian family", right? We should delete that if you're OK.
2) I did not say "native Khwarazmian stock", but there are plenty of sources in this article saying that he was "Khwarazm-born" or "born in Khwarzam" or "coming from Khwarazm". That's useful to clarify "Persian", like most sources do, including the last one you added [19]. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
1) Sure.
2) I know, but I thought that was what you indicated, something like the al-Biruni situation - my bad. Sure, vast majority of sources agree that he was born in Khwarazm, or at least had a connection to it. Though the article suffers from WP:UNDUE issues and doesn't really say that and I haven't really bothered myself. Perhaps the lede could be written into something like; "was a Persian polymath from Khwarazm, who produced vastly influential works in mathematics, astronomy, and geography." --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: OK with me. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is his ethnicity given as Persian? His ethnicity was, according to his name, Khwarazmian

Persians are a Western Iranian people, Khwarazmians are an Eastern Iranian people. The article shows no evidence that his parents have migrated from Western Iran to Khwarezm for him to be born there as a Persian. If the sources consider him a native of Khwarazm his ethnicity should follow from this and not assume a Persian background without any proof. It is good to remember that English language sources often falsely use the terms "Persian", "Iranian" and "Iranic" synonymously. This is a grave and un-academic error reflected in almost all Wikipedia articles using Western sources. Zimistani (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We should follow the best sources and none of them use Persian. For example, see his biographies in the DSB, BEA, MacTutor, the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd edition, vol.4, p.1070), etc. Wiqi(55) 21:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

al-Khwarizmi is not a Persian polymath at all! He's not even Persian! Urinboyev (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t it clear that he was khawarizmian not persian ?

His name means 'the native of Khwarazm', he was khawarizmian, the article itself confess that, it’s known that khawarizmians were iranians but they were not persians, no cited source or mentioned information ever claimed that any of his parents were persians or persians who moved to khawarizm Ibn Siwa (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

I guess those 6 citations supporting that he was Persian must be my imagination then? Please refrain from spamming talk pages with WP:SOAPBOX / WP:JDLI like comments, as you just did another talk page [20]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I debated your sources brother.Toomer just mistaken thats all. 88.245.245.245 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Why dont you argue with me about this? 88.245.245.245 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Why did I just tell History of Iran, "I have sources that Khwarizmi is Turkish, if you want, we can discuss it." the response I said was deleted? Moreover, there were no insults and curses. Why are you so scared? Ömeraasw (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't remove your nonsense, and the last thing I would be is being scared of you. An admin removed ur comment [21] - why? See WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. I'm not interested in discussions with you, your Toomer comment makes no sense, the so called historian (Besim Atalay) you based this bizarre "deduction" off is a random bloke, with zero reputation amongst scholars, you're also not a historian yourself, you're just a "regular" person like me. In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not our personal thoughts/deductions. The vast majority of WP:RS (which you, surprise, attempted to remove [22] [23] [24]) calls him Persian/Iranian, end off. See WP:POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

His nationality is not persian

Well, it looks like there's a misunderstanding here.Although I changed this page by stating with sources that Khwarezmi is Turkic, you insisted, so I will make my voice heard from here.All the sources that claim that Khwarizmi is Persian are based on Toomer, but the reason that Toomer thinks that Khwarizmi is Persian is because Toomer was mistaken that Khwarizmi believed in Zoroastrianism in his youth.Because Toomer misread the letter "waw" when reading Tabari's sources, he thought two different people were the same person,because Toomer incorrectly read the letter "waw",another Muhammad ibn Musa, who was a Zoroastrian, and Muhammad ibn Musa, whom we call Khwarizmi He confused Moses.The Khwarezmi were born in a place called Sogdia, and the Sogdians fled south during the Arab Invasion 200 years before the Khwarezmi, Turks and Sogdians lived in Transaxonia, the Sogdians migrated south, and the rest assimilated by the Turks(source: Divanü Lügati't Turk Vol. I, page 30).Again, in the Divan-ı Lugati't Turk, the place where Khwarezmi was born is also Decontaminated as the place where Turks lived, and there are only 200 years between them.Has the whole Transaxonia become a Turkic homeland in 200 years?I think you should research the word Turkification on the Wiki.I would like to ask the wiki authorities to take this comment into account and register Khwarezmi as Turkic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.166.144.239 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding clarifying his ethnicity as "Tajik/Persian"

Recently, I have been reading the book (https://cmes.fas.harvard.edu/publications/history-tajiks-iranians-east) where Prof. Richard Foltz clearly explains the origin of the early Islamic Renaissance in Persia. He states that under the Samanid empire, the classic (modern) Persian emerged and he connects it to Tajiks. Apparently, it is a term (Tajiks) that was used for Muslim Persians and/or to distinguish between nomadic Turkic/Mongol and native East Iranian inhabitants. Today, in the east, they still call themselves "Tajiks". For example, Yaghnobis who are only left in Tajikistan are direct descendants of Sogdians (they still speak the Sogdian language). Hence, the origin of the scholar needs to be clarified, along with the current name of his ethnicity as "Tajik/Persian". Wikihelperr134 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Iranian background

On Khwarizmi's Iranian(Persian) background from an involved reader of the concensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepaheshgar (talk • contribs) 13:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi → Al-Khwarizmi – This is the main application of this word. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Support: The current name is a mess. For a start, he is typically known by the kunya "Abu Jafar ..." before Muhammad, so the current title is neither first name + last name, nor his full name, but fairly arbitrarily includes his nisbah but not his kunya. Better, as suggested, to simply use the nisbah for which the subject is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Support: as per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME Abo Yemen✉ 09:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose “Al-Khwarizmi” is a broad term, a nisba that means “from Khwarazm” and is used by other figures from Khwarazm too, eg [25]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran Hi, «is a broad term» is true, but this is the main application of this range. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran Other uses should have full name, not this use. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Whenever someone says "Al-Khwarizmi", They 99.9% mean Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi and not Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. al-ʿAbbās al-Khwarizmi or Al-Khwarizmi al-Khati or Shuja al-Khwarazmi. The disambiguation page can be added to the hatnote (if it hasn't already been added there) Abo Yemen✉ 13:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Support as the common name. Killuminator (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - a. given its already a redirect, b. Britannica likewise just uses al-Khwarizmi, and that Ive gone at least 100 google results in web, books and scholar without seeing a single other target mentioned. While al-Khwarizmi may be part of other notable people's names, I cant see that any of them are known by al-Khwarizmi. Clear primary topic, leave the dab where it is. nableezy - 18:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

Who was the first Muslim mathematician who used zero? mathematician Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi About 773 AD the mathematician Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi was the first to work on equations that were equal to zero (now known as algebra), though he called it 'sifr'. By the ninth century the zero was part of the Arabic numeral system in a similar shape to the present day oval we now use. Fakeha yamna siddiqui (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a request. D.Lazard (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Hi,

Kharizmi was a Persian Mathematician and a polymath. The word, Khwarizmi is a pure Persian word and It is NOT Arabic. We have the alphabet (خ) in Persian or (Kh). The Persian name consists of Khwar (خور), which means "the sun" and Zm(زم) means "earth" and denotes "the land from which the sun rises", although the same etymology is also given to today's state of Khurasan in Iran as well . Another view is that the Iranian link for "lowland" stands for kh (w) ar "low" and zam "earth, land". Various forms of khwar / khar / khor / hor are also commonly used in the Persian Gulf to stand for watt, marsh, or tidal bay. Kharizmi was born in greater Persia in 727 AD and his ancestors were Zoroastrians. At that time, the today's new country of Uzbekistan did NOT exist and people who lived there were mainly Persians so the Turkic people of Uzbekistan migrated centuries later to the land that used to be part of the greater Persia. What is now Uzbekistan was part of the Iranian-speaking region of Transoxiana and Turan.Therefore, before the Mongols’ invasion and massacre, those people were Iranians/(Persians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3EC2:5160:A037:D796:B52C:1725 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

His ethnicity should be presented more clearly and he shouldn't be associated with the Caliphates.

Why should he be called "Abbasid polymath"? That's similar to saying Einstein was a "Nazi" physicist, just because he lived while Nazis had taken over many countries including his place of origin. Or that Newton was a Queen Annean Mathematician... But we don't do that, Newton was English and Khwarizmi was Persian. The fact that he lived during the time the Abbasids had conquered and ruled large parts of the world doesn't mean every person alive during that time and in that geography had "Abbasid" Identity.

Also his name is Persian and the language should be changed to Persian, not Arabic. All of these were edited recently together with a few other changes that were designed to present him as an Arab. Those were reverted this should be too. Monapsp (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read MOS:ETHNICITY. Skitash (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Khwarizmi/Archive_6&oldid=1256440798"