Talk:Ulugh Beg

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TinkerRunner22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Response to User:Johnstevens5's constant pan-turkist vandalism

Truly a good astronomer and maths chap. Had also Mongol-Turkish mixed genes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Johnsteven is constantly changing "Persian" into "Turkish" and is pushing for a Pan-Turkist, anti-Persian, and anti-Shia propaganda. This time, he even claimed to have changed the article according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is VERY OBVIOUSLY a lie.

Taken directly from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911:

"... ULUGH BEG, MIRZA MAHOMMED BEN SHAH ROK (1394-1449), Persian astronomer, son of the shah Rok and grandson of Timur, succeeded his father as prince of Samarkand in 1447, after having for years taken part in the government, and was murdered in 1449 by his eldest son. He erected an observatory at Samarkand, from which were issued tables of the sun, moon and planets, with an interesting introduction, which throws much light on the trigonometry and astronomical methods then in use (Prolegomenes des tables astroncmiques d'Oidoug Beg, ed. by Sedillot, Paris, 1847, and translated by the same, 1853). The serious errors which he found in the Arabian star catalogues (which were simply copied from Ptolemy, adding the effect of precession to the longitudes) induced him to redetermine the positions of 992 fixed stars, to which he" added 27 stars from Al Sufi's catalogue, which were too far south to be observed at Samarkand. ... This catalogue, the first original one since Ptolemy, was edited by Th. Hyde at Oxford in 1665 (Tabulae longitudinis et tatitudinis stellarum tixarum ex observatione Ulugbeighi), by G. Sharpe in 1767, and in 1843 by F. Baily in vol. xiii. of the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society. ... See Delambre, Histoire de lastronomie du moyen dge; PoggendorfF, Biographisch-litterarisches. ..." [1]

Taken from the 2005-edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"... Ulugh Beg, born 1394, Soltaniyeh, Timurid Iran died Oct. 27, 1449, Samarkand, Timurid empire [now in Uzbekistan]

grandson of the Asian conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) and one whose primary interest was in the arts and intellectual matters. Under his brief rule the Timurid dynasty of Iran reached its cultural peak.

His father, Shah Rokh, captured the city of Samarkand and gave it to Ulugh Beg, who made it a centre of Muslim culture. There he wrote poetry and history and studied the Qur'an. His greatest interest was astronomy, and he built an observatory (begun in 1428) at Samarkand. In his observations he discovered a number of errors in the computations of the 2nd-century Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy, whose figures were still being used.

Ulugh Beg was a failure in more mundane affairs. On his father's death in 1447 he was unable to consolidate his power, though he was Shah Rokh's sole surviving son. Other Timurid princes profited from his lack of action, and he was put to death at the instigation of his son, 'Abd al-Latif. ..." [2]

Both sources do not say anything about "Turkish scientist" or whatever. And both sources were purposely changed and falsefied by Pan-Turkists like this User:Johnstevens5.

Tajik 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pan-Persian VANDALISM - Ulugh Beg was obviously a Turk

This is getting beyond a belief, do these people have no respect for historical fact? I'm sorry but you cannot invent a history just because it doesnt suit you.

Ulugh Beg was a Turk why can't you accept this? what is so difficult to comprehend, this anti-Turk hatred and biggotry is spoiling the site.

Lets look at the FACTS.

Ulugh is a Turkish word meaning Great-Big-Powerfull etc

Beg/Bek/Bey is a Turkish word meaning Leader/Lord...

Muhammed Taragai Ulugh Beg (1394-1449) was a Turk who ruled the province of Transoxiana (Maverannahr), a region situated between the River Oxus (Amu Darya) and the River Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the principal city of which was Samarkand. Ulugh Beg's grandfather was the famous conqueror Timur (1336-1405). Ulugh Beg became the ruler of Transoxiana in 1447 upon the death of his father. But his rule was of short duration. Two years later he was killed by an assassin hired by his son 'Abd al Latif.

Kevin Krisciunas[1][1] Member, International Astronomical Union, Commission 41 (History of Astronomy).

Britannica says the same so do all other credible sources because that's the reality.

Now the rest of your comments are ridiculous, Ulugh Beg wasn't a Shia, wasn't an Iranian and wasnt' a Persian.

He cannot be put on "Iranian Scientists", however, he can be put on Turkic Scientists or Turkish Scientists.

Thats the reality, if you don't like it tough.

Regards

If we go by name meanings, then Qazi Zadeh (which John changed to Turkish) is Iranian because his name is Persian. "Zadeh" is not an Arabic nor Turkic word. Furthermore, Ulugh Beik's father's name was "Shahrokh", also pure Persian. Why cant we just say these people "have been specified as Turkic according to some sources, and Iranian according to other sources"? That should be a compromise. Furthermore, Iran in that time did not have its current boundaries.--Zereshk 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this is even being argued ITS RIDICULOUS, this is an encyclopedia not a Pan-Persian nationalist site.

1. Zade may be Persian but then again Kadi is Arabic but then again he was born in Bursa in a Turkic Beylik and was a Turk.

2. Ulugh Beg was a Turk, his grandfather was a Turk and he was ruler of Turkistan was born in a Turkic region we could go on and on.

He wasn't "Iranian" that's a simple reality. He was Turkic so will be under "Turkic Scientists", I don't think there can be any arguments about that.

Remember this is an encyclopedia.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

John,

• The fact that you refuse to accept to put in "both Turkic and Iranian" shows who is having a "Pan" agenda here.
• The fact remaisn that Qazi Zadeh is not a Turkish word. Zadeh is Persian. Qazi is Arabic in origin, but also part of the Persian vocabulary.
• Tamerlane (his grand father) has a Persian name too. Tamerlane (Teymor-i Lang) means "Teymour the limping". Fact: He was Mongolian by geneology, and not a Turk. Unless of course you mean to say that Turks are Mongolian (!)

I suggest that you agree to the compromise and let us state that he is claimed by both (even though I think he was much closer to Persian than to the Europeanized Turks).--Zereshk 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This "Johnstevens5" is very obviously pushing for an extreme anti-Persian and pan-Turkic agenda - this goes faaaar beyond ANY scholarly research. We had the same problem in the article Babur in which this person purposely ignores authoritative sources (including Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Columbia Encyclopaedia, etc) and still keeps on saying that "Timur was a Turk", although EVERY RELIABLE SOURCE confirms that Timur was N O T a Turk, but an ethnic Mongol and chief of the Berlas clan. He denies ANY relationship of the Timurids or Mughals to Persian ancestry, culture, or language (which is very well documented), and here, he claims that "Ulugh Beg was a Turk", only because the title he got in Turkistan ("Ulugh Beg") is a Chaghatai-Turkic word. The funny part is that his name was not even "Ulugh Beg", but Muhammad bin Shahrukh, his mother was no one less that the famous Persian noble Gauhar Shad. NONE of his works is written in Turkic, ALL of them are written in Persian and Arabic.

This guy is trying to turkify everyone and everything. Sooner or later, he will also claim that "Albert Einstein was in fact a Turkish-speaking Turk from Turkish-speaking Germany, because everyone knows that Jews are in fact Turks". This is REALLY getting hillarious!

The Timurids were an ethnically MIXED dynasty with the paternal line being DEFFINITLY Mongolian. Timur himself had many wives, including ethnic Persian women, one of them being the mother of Shahrukh Mirza. Shahrukh Mirza's favourite wife was also an ethnic Persian: Gauhar Shad, daughter of the famous Giath ud-Din Tarkhan, member of a well-known Persian "vezir" family who once received the Mongolian title "Tarkhan" from one of Gingiz Khan's powerful commanders in Iran.

This Johnstevens is writing nonsense, and he is even changing the information of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in order to "underline" his false claims. Maybe we should contact an admin! Because purposely falsefying sources (like in this case, in which Johnstevens and some others changed the information of the Britannica) in order to push for a nationalistic and false view IS vandalism.

Tajik 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, if you have sources that clearly specify something, then dont worry, just put it in the article, and if he erases and refuses to discuss, then simply revert. If youre sourced, you basically have all the cards.--Zereshk 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, this is not only about presenting sources, but about how this guy is purposely changing historical documents in order to push for his nationalistic and clearly anti-Persian agenda. In the article Nedîm, for example, he even changed a historical poem and added wrong paragraphs to it just to make Nedîm look like someone who hated Persia and Persians: [3] This was corrected by User:Saposcat. Someone needs to keep an eye on this guy. Tajik 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, the whole my life I've been teached, informed that Ulughbek is an Uzbek astronomer (i'm Uzbek and my brother's name is Ulughbek). I've read many books by historians (not only Uzbek, but Russian and English) that Ulughbek's scull analysis identifies him as Southern Turkish (alas, I couldn't find the source on the net) which is Uzbek, although his grandpa - Timur was Mongol. And I wonder that you're believing Tajik (which means pseudo-Persian nation), and he, thinking that he is "crystal clear" Persian, tries to put into your mind that Ulughbek, brilliant astronomer, was Persian pal. LOL...--uz:user:Abdulla~~

Ulugh Beg being an Uzbek? The biggest nonsense I've ever heared. In fact, Uzbeks were enemies of the Timurids and reponsible for the fall of their empire (see Babur). Ulugh Beg (which was not his real name) was son of a half-Persian father (Shahrukh Mirza) and Persian mother (Goharshad). All of his works are written in either Arabic or Persian.

And I do not want to comment on the stupid quote regarding his skull (that's some weird pseudo-scientific BS). If we were to classify peoples by the shape of their skulls, then there would have been no Turks at all. Tājik 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense is it or not, USSR education system decided so. Just look to the postmark with Ulughbek's profile. There's a note, which says: "Узбекский астроном...". I think that's enough to be a fact that the idea, such "Ulughbek was Uzbek" exists. Whatever we suggest, we cannot change or even know the nationality of Mirzo Ulughbek. Uzbek is he or Tajik, let's talk about him firstly as a humanbeing, great humanbeing (and Asian:)).--uz:user:Abdulla

Comments with regards to entire discussion

I decided to give my own two cents to this discussion as it obviously is dealing with a number of very sensitive issues.

First of all, let me note that the tone of the whole discussion is getting far out of the civilized argument and turning into something very ugly. A comment left by 195.158.27.66 ("Ulugh Beg being an Uzbek? The biggest nonsense I've ever heared") can be taken by some individuals as an offense and I would appreciate it for the sake of the Wiki community as a whole if such language and manner was not repeated.

Second of all, a lot of arguments used are superficial.

1) Language in which Ulugbek spoke - in this context can not be used as a definitive argument due to the fact a number of famous people in the history of the world were accepted as part of one nation without speaking or indeed writing in the language of the country. Mannerheim of early XX century Finland is today accepted as a hero of Finish nation nonetheless to his last days he used a interpretor when performing military and political affairs. Redyard Kipling wrote his novels and stories in English and is widely acclaimed as part of the Indian writer, Rafael Sabatini - italian by birth wrote exclusively in English. Entire Romanoff family of Russia originally spoke exclusively in French, Ryurikovichi dinasty's original language was closer to Vikings speech than Russian. The list can go on... A final example is the Alisher Navoyi - persion writer who wrote a lot of his works in Persian but nonetheless was a founder (and widely accepted as such, today) of the Uzbek language.

2) As a next argument let me ask you a question: what was the nationality of Richard III Lionheart? Or William the Conqueror? Or Charlemagne (Charles the Great), or Hitler, or Stalin, or Alexander the Great? Using your argumentation these people are all of the same nationality as their parents. French, Norman, French, Austrian, Georgian and Macedonian... But at the same time they all ruled and created history of totally different nations. States may appear and dissappear during the course of history and that only leaves us one possibility: we should try to present objectively both sides of the argument suggesting to the reader that even though Alexander the Great for example was Macedonian by birth, he formed part of Greek culture and it was the Greek state that he empowered in the course of his life. Indeed using your argument Taj Mahal of India is part of the Persian culture as it was commissioned by a grandson of Bobur, and American (as in the US) culture and history is non-existent.

3) Tajik allowed himself a very offense comment with regards to skull argument - fair enough the argument is weak but nonetheless it is worth considering. Perhaps, Tajik, you should go away and do some research (even another wiki article like Caucasian race or Mongoloid race would do) and then come back with more rational and polite argument. Rudeness never results in anything and for that matter can worsen the situation rather than improve! Skull structure can suggest the race of the person, even though the particular nation may be out of the question. If this is a "some weird pseudo-scientific BS" (it is actually Biological Anthropology just so that you know) then I suggest you take that up, for the time being, with writers of above mentioned articles and their sources.

4) One of the argument is using the correct historical fact (tribes of Uzbeks were in fact enemies of Timurids at some point - Tamerlane's "auto"biography has numereous mentions of that) in order to argument a wrong conclusion. Various tribes of Native Americans were both allies and enemies of other Native Americans - but that does not mean that Pocohantas or Chief Red Jacket or Tecumseh were not Native American. Ulughbek could have easily been Uzbek or Kazakh and still fight against other Uzbek and Kazakh tribes.

5) This discussion in general obviously came of the rails of the original point - vandalizm. No matter how debateful a particular fact is, if it is supported by good research and if it reprents a valid point then it is worth including in the article. In this particular case, I support Zereshk's advice: state both sides of the argument and let the reader decide for himself.

P.S. In the future, I think signing underneath one's comments should be upkept as sign of mere politeness. Uzgen 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

---

1) Mir Ali Shir Nava'i was not the founder of "Uzbek literetaure", he was the founder of Chaghatay Turkic literature. Calling him the "founder of Uzbek literature" is like claiming that Goethe founded Dutch literature! I know that modern-day Uzbeks - for some totally unknown reason - claim him as an "Uzbek". 600 years ago, it would have been the biggest insult to Nava'i to call him "Uzbek", since the Uzbeks were the biggest enemies of the Timurids and settled Turks of Centralö Asia. The reason why Nava'i's language sounds familiar to Uzbeks is because he was of Uyghur background, and Uyghur and Uzbek are related languages (comparable to Scandinavian languages).

2) "Karl der Große", Hitler, and so forth were all ethnic Germans. In here, you are clearly confusing modern nation-states and the concept of citizenship with the feudal, ethno-linguistic societies of the past. Today, the nation may be called "Österreich" (Austria), but not even 50 years ago, it was called "Deutsch Österreich" ("German Eastern Empire"), and Hitler was an ethnic German because ALL ethnic Austrians are Germans! The "Franks" were also a branhc of the Germanic peoples. Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia, but he was an ethnic Greek who considered himself a direct descendant of the mythical Greek hero Achilles. I don't really understand your point in here. You are trying to claim credit for someone who lived in that region BEFORE any Uzbeks had yet arrived. The Turkic scholar Mahmoud al-Kashgari, for example, was born in Kashgar (in modern day China). Following your logic, we should call him "Chinese" instead of "Turkic", only because his birthplace is NOW located China. Total nonsense! And in case of Nava'i, he wasn't even born in present-day Uzbekistan, was born in Herat (modern-day Afghanistan, which - according to your logic - would make him an "Afghan" and not "Uzbek").

3) Where did I use that "skull" comment?! In fact, I was the one who OPPOSED it. Get your facts right before accusing others!

4) What are you talking about? "Native American" is a general term applied to a wide variety of different peoples and tribes in America who - in the eyes of European conquerors - seemed similar. The term "Uzbek" is NOT a general term, it is in fact a very special name applied to ONE SINGLE people. The overall term would be "Turkic", or - if Mongols are included - "Altaic". Claiming that Ulugh Beg was"Uzbek", is like claiming that German Albert Einstein was an "ethnic Kurd", because the Germans, like the Kurds, are Indo-Europeans. That's pure nonsense. Ulugh Bey was totally unaware of a people called "Uzbeks", who attacked the Timurid Empire many years AFTER his death. It was Babur who had to deal with the Sheybanid Uzbeks, and he called them "enemies of unknown origin" in his autobiography (Timur did not have an autobiography). Ulugh Beg was partly "Altaic" (because of his Mongol grand-father), and that way, he fought other "Altaics" ... but he was NOT an Uzbek.

5) Wikipedia is a collection of rteliable sources. Reliable and authoritative sources have been presented that Ulugh Beg was NEITHER a Turk, NOR an Uzbek in particular. He was part of the heriditary line of Mongol amirs (his title "Ulugh Bey" is the exact Chaghatay Turkic translation of the Arabic title "Amir al-Kabir", which was the title of his grandfather Timur), and he was born into the Perso-Arabic culture of Central-Asia. He was bilingual, speaking Persian (the language of his mother) and Chaghatay (the language of the Barlas Mongol amirs), and it's very likely that he also knew Arabic.

Tājik 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that it is not possible to argue with a very narrow mind due to the fact that superficial arguments are remaining superficial and the point of the oppositing arguments is not understood. I was not argueing for or against any of the points of view presented above - I was only indicating problems with your arguments. I apologise for even trying - good luck my friend! :-) Uzgen 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

Well, take it the way you want. People who believe that the Aztecs were "Spanish", only because their ancient lands are now being controlled by Spanish-speakers, or people who believe that Mozart was Persian, because both Persians and Mozart were Indo-Europeans, are not really the right discussion-partners in complicated issues like this one. Tājik 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you say he was bilingual and spoke Chagatai language as well (which was a Turkic language) would you agree to add Ulug Bey to Turkish scientists category as well as Persian ones? Filanca 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I would rather leave both out. "Persian scientist" is wrong, because he was not really a Persian by ethnicity (though his mother was a Persian-speaking noble from Herat). "Turkish scientist" would be totally wrong, because it is associated with modern Turkey; and modern Turkey has nothing to do with the Chagatay language or with Ulugh Beg. "Iranian scientist" is the best categorization, because it is a reference to a geographical area (see Greater Iran or Iranian plateau), not to an ethnic group. Tājik 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha.. Keep trying. Iranian scientist is a reference to a geographical area? Righhht. No political overtones there? Greater Iran? You know, in the light of Slavic Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, I am really tempted to create a Turkic Eurasia article. I am sure big parts of Iran (or "Greater Iran) will also fall into the scope of that article. That way, I can also create a Cat:Turkic Eurasia and tag all of northern Iran with it maybe since they seemed to speak Turkic languages? There won't be any Iranian scientists cat. Iran is a country as defined by intl law, any such categorization will mislead the uninformed reader.Baristarim 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tājik, I did not propose "Turkish scientist" category in relation to modern Turkey of course. As you said, Ulug Bey spoke Chagatay language and his very name was in that language. If you check the article about Chagatay language, you'll find people who spoke that language are called Chagatai Turks (I copy that term from the article). Hence I believe we are justified in putting "Turkish scientists" category. I would not object to Iranian scientists, but I doubt central Asia even at time could be considered as "Iran". Wikipedia seems to share this view, see Timurids: "Timurid Empire included the whole of Central Asia and Iran" which suggests they were different countries. Filanca 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

@ Baristarim: an article Turkic Eurasia is certainly more relevant than the current List of Turkic states and the biased Turko-Persian Tradition pages. Go for it. You have my support. I myself will work on Persianate and try to turn it into a well-sourced and good article. As for Greater Iran: I have already asked users like Ali doostzadeh and others to change the name to "Iranian Cultural Continent", because that's the name that is used for the region in scholarly articles (most of all in Iranica). If I had the time to put foreward a vote for a name change, I am sure that most users will agree. However - as you know - most of the time I am busy to remove nationalistic POV from Turks-related and Afghanistan-related articles.

@ Filanca: Ulugh Beg was not his real name, but Muhammad Taraghay bin Shahrukh. Ulugh Beg was only his title in Turkic-speaking Central Asia - it's simply the Turkic translation of the Perso-Arabic title of his grandfather Timur: Amir-e Kabir. As I have said many times: titles and names do not define ethnicity. If that were the case, then his father would have been an ethnic Persian, as well as his uncles, descendants, etc. His own official title was Mirzā, the shorter form of the Persian nobility-title Amirzād "son of the ruler". All of his works are written in Persian, except for a few in Arabic. None in Turkic. I am absolutely not denying his Turco-Mongol Barlas origin - like his ancestors, he was a proud Timurid, and he spoke Chaghatay as good as Persian. But he certainly was not a "Turkish scientist". As for Iran: I am the one who has written the article Timurids, and I used Central Asia and Iran as a reference to modern terms. The historical Iran of course extended into Central Asia, into modern Pakistan, and into Anatolia. That's what the medieval Ilkhanid historian Hamdollah Mostowfi writes:

• "... Some cities of Iran are better than the rest, these have pleasant and compromising weather, the wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Isfahan as well, Merv and Tus in Khorasan, and Konya (Aqsara) too. ..." (from Nuzhat al-Qolub (نزهه القلوب))

According to this tradition, the historical Iran reached from Konya (now in central Turkey) to Balkh and Kabul ("Khorasan", now in Afghanistan). That's what the Encyclopaedia Iranica calls the Iranian Cultural Continent.

Tājik 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If Ulugh Beg was his real name or a title, if that was his "real" title as opposed to a translation of a Persian title is of secondary importance since you do not deny this person was ethnically Turco-Mongol and spoke Chagatay as a native language. That makes him a Chagatai Turk (again, a term copied from Chagatay language article) which justifies a Turkish scientist category. As for Iran stretching from Pakistan and Central Asia to Anatolia, certainly that was the region where Iranian cultural influence extended (as in your reference, "cultural Iranian continent") but those regions also had influences from other cultures as well (Indian, Turkish) and I am still not sure if we are justified to call all those areas as "Iran" politically. Filanca 05:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the point you do not get. The Timurids were neither Turks nor Persians, and - at the same time - they were both. To me, it's really interesting that Turks always point to the Turkic language of the Timurids, claiming that "they were Turks because they spoke Turkic". However, when it comes to the Seljuqs, Mughals, or others - all them evidently not Turkic by language - they suddenly change their minds and claim that "language does not define ethnicity".

The term "Iran" is not used as a political name, but as a cultural name. It is an ancient name that was used by medieval poets and scholars - it just happens that the name is used today politically.

Besides that, you people really exeggerate the influence of Turks on Iranians and others. The truth is: Turks had virtually no influnece on Iranians. It was the other way around. There is nothing "Turkic" in modern Iranian cultures, except for some titles and names ("Khan", etc). On the other hand, the very fundamental bases of modern Turkic cultures are taken from Iranian and Perso-Islamic sources: music, clothing, food, way of life, religion.

Only that would justify the term "Iranian" on all those cultures - not only the Persian one, but also the Turkish, Central Asian, Kurdish, Afghan, and NOrth-Indian cultures, to a certain extent also on Arabic countries (for example Iraq and Syria).

It's not true for the other way around. That's why Richard Nelson Frye says:

• "... Iran's glory has always been its culture. ..."

Tājik 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tājik, yes, Iran has a fascinatig culture. Yet we can not say every place that was influenced by Iran becomes a part of it. Ottoman culture had strong Iranian elements, yet it is impossible to say Ottoman Empire was a part of it. Besides, this has nothing to do with Ulugh Beg's ethnicity. As it is, this article does not mention this person being a Chagatay Turk and I think this we should add this. You also said "Seljuqs, ... evidently not Turkic by language", see the article on Seljuks, there is enough information there about them being Turkish. I'd agree that they are also Iranian culturally, when they ruled in Iran. Filanca 18:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Noone has ever claimed that "the Ottomans were part of Iran" ... yet, other dynasties, such as the Seljuqs or Ghaznavids were indeed part of Iran, and they considered themselvs part of Iran (unlike the Ottomans). You forget that Iran's national epic - the Shahnameh - was written during the reign of the Ghaznavids. Sultan Mahmoud was the patron of Ferdousi and his wrok - personally. This tells alot about the early so-called "Turkic kingdoms", namely that they were not Turkic at all.

I am against adding "Chaghatay Turk" to this article, because that would not be correct - most of all because the term "Chaghatay Turk" is already controversial. Besides that, the Timurids were not Turks, they were Chaghatayid and Genggizid Mongols.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 describes him even as a "Persian":

• "... MIRZA MAHOMMED BEN SHAH ULUGH BEG (1394-1449), Persian astronomer, son of the shah Rok and grand-son of Timur, succeeded his father as prince of Samarkand in 1447, after having for years taken part in the government, and was murdered in 1449 by his eldest son ..." originally appearing in Volume V27, Page 574 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

This is a highly controversial issue and therefore I believe that no ethnic lable should be mentioned in the article.

As for Seljuqs: I have contributed to the Seljuqs article, and I have added all the sources clearly proving that the Seljuqs had given up their original Oghuz Turkic language in favour of Persian, the language of the leading nobles and advisors at their courts. As early as the Malikshah era, they Seljuqs had already become Persian in culture and language. They even tried to link their own family-tree to the Sassanids, that's why they gave their princes ancient Persian names, such as Kay-Kawus, Kay-Khusrow, Kay-Qubadh, etc. The Seljuqs are the classical example for a Persianate dynasty - a dynasty of originally Non-Persian origin who became extremely Persianized in culture and language ... to an extent that they were even regarded as "Persians" by their contemporary commentators:

• "... From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears: namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation, forsooth, which has neither directed its heart nor entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by sword, pillage, and fire. ..." - Pope Urban II, Proclamation at Clermont, 1095

In this famous speech, the pope is talking about the Seljuq armies invading Anatolia. The "race" he is talking about is the Turkic army of the Seljuqs ... at that time, the Asian-looking Turks were quite different from the Europeans ... yet, it's clear that with "Persian kingdom", he means the Seljuq sultans.

Tājik 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From pope's point of view, I think it is not easy to distinguish persians, turks, afghans, and other eastern nations clearly. Just like Easterners considered western nations as "Frenk" as a whole. 1911 editions of encyclopedias does not reflect recent knowledge, we must be cautious using them. And Seljuks could not have left their Turkish identity since Ottomans (who are also Turkish) are their descedents. Seljuks in Anatolia spoke Turkish for sure, some (like Karamanli) made Turkish their official language. But we must keep our focus to this article. Although Timurids were originally Mongol, they have accepted the use of Turkish language and customs. This was also the case for Ulug Beg. His name is not coincidentally a Turkish one. If you think the very term Chagatai Turk controversial, you should explain this in Chagatay language article. But I think it is beyond doubt that Chagatay was a Turkic language so Ulugh Beg was a Turk. Filanca 20:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1000 years ago, the situation was different than today. It was very clear by the looks that someone was Persian (=Caucasian looks), Turk or Mongol (Asian look). You are right that the 1911 version of Britannica is not up-to-date, but you forget that there ARE authoritative, up-to-date scholarly sources that do NOT support your view. The most important being the works of Prof. Dr. B.F. Manz, the leading expert on Timurid and Turco-Mongol history. Her article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam - usually only available to academics - is THE standard reference to Timurid history. And she makes it very clear that the Timurids were NOT Turks. They were Barlas Mongols, and they regarded their Mongol heritage as a divine legitimacy to rule. Over the centuries, the Barlas Mongols changed their language and culture (first Turkic, then Central-Asian Turco-Persian, and later Persian and Indo-Persian), but they never gave up their Chinggizid heritage or their pride for this noble heritage. Muhammad Taraghay Ulugh Beg was such a Chinggizid Timurid - Turkic and Persian in language, Perso-Islamic in culture. But what was important to him and his family was not his Turkic language or his Persian culture ... important was ONLY his Chingizid Mongol heritage (the same way many Muslims take pride in their Sayid heritage, meaning that they are descendants of the prophet Muhammad, although many of them are now either Persians or Turks or Indians). In anyway, labeling Ulgh Beg a "Chaghatay Turk" would be wrong. You also forget that his father was half-Persian and his mother full-Persian. Check the article Goharshad. Your point that his name proves his Turkic origin is totally irelevant, because his father did NOT have a Turkic name, but a Persian name: Šāhrukh. As you can see, names do not define ethnicity. Another good examples: ALL sons of Timur had Persian names.

As for the Seljuqs: the Ottomans were NOT descendants of the Seljuqs, they were part of the Oghuz army of the Seljuqs. They were beyliqs. NOT the Seljuqs brought the Turkish language to Anatolia, but the beyliqs. The Seljuqs did NOT promote Turkish language or identity.

Let me quote the Encyclopaedia Iranica in this case:

• "... The transmission of Persian culture to Anatolia begun with the foundation of the Saljuq state in the 12th century and gained speed after the Mongol invasion of Persia in the 13th century. Many Persian scholars, writers, and poets fled to the empire of the Saljuqs of Rum, following the Mongol onslaught on the Iranian lands. These highly educated men played an important role in the revival of Persian culture and literature, which had begun already at the beginning of the 13th century. Subsequently, many works in Persian, dealing with history, literature, philosophy and Sufism, were produced in Anatolia in the 13th and 14th centuries. As a result, Persian became the language of instruction at several madrasas, and Persian words were often used for place-names, personal names, and occupational activities, as well as in certain religious, legal, and official records. As a result of those developments, in the 13th century, Anatolia was thus intensively influenced by Persian culture. Intellectual life developed very effectively in the cities, where scholars copied or created religious works. [...] Scholars of Persian origin who had emigrated to Anatolia continued their activities in the cities of their new home (Aya Sofya, no. 3605), and many of them stayed in contact with their native lands. Students of the scholars active in Anatolia generally consisted of youngsters from princely families and palace officials [...] During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the COLLAPSE of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. ..." "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries" by O.Özgündenli in Encyclopaedia Iranica

Thus, your argument is pointless.

You totally overestimate to role of the Seljuqs in regard of the Turkification of Anatolie, and you totally overestimate the number of Oghuz Tuks and/or their influence. Let me quote the Encyclopaedia of Islam:

• "... We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). ..."

Only 64,000 Oghuz Turks IN TOTAL ... in a time when Baghdad alone had more than 300,000 inhabitants! Do you really think that these 64,000 Oghuz Turks - most of them still barbaric nomads in the eyes of Muslims - were able to have ANY influece on the settled population?! And do you really think that a ruling family, such as the Seljuqs, who NEEDED the support of Muslim nobles (in fact, the Seljuqs intermarried with Muslim families, mostly in Persia), were able to keep some kind of a "Turkic identity"?! In the middle of millions of Non-Turks?! I doubt that. So the question remains: why then did Anatolia become Turkish in language?! The answer is easy: unlike the Persianized Seljuqs, the beyliqs were still Turcoman nomads. They had not mixed with the noble families of Iran and Anatolia. They were still nomad warriors, comming from a traditional Turkic culture. After the fall of the Seljuqs, these beyliqs conquered Anatolia, wherelese Persia remained in Persianate hands: Timurids, Ilkhans, Khwarezm Shahs. These beyliqs promoted their own tribal cultre, in contrast to the Seljuqs or others who were patrons of the Perso-Islamic high culture. This is the ONLY reason why Anatolia is Turkish-speaking today.

Tājik 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply most of the things you wrote an answer for. About Seljuks being Turkish and share the same origin with Ottomans see corresponding Wikipedia articles: "House of Seljuq was a branch of the Kinik Oghuz Turks" and "The Ottoman Empire in its core, the Kai tribe of Oğuz Turks" so they were both Oguz Turks. Oghuz was not the army of Seljuks, it was Seljuk Turks themselves. Beyliks were not a people, they were fiefdoms of Seljuk Turks in Anatolia. And your picking of words like "high culture" and "noble" together with Persian is is becoming more and more reflective of a POV. I propose we focus on the subject of this page, Ulug Bey. About the naming, just as Persians used Arab names, but Arabs didn't use Persian ones, Turks used Persian names but Persians didnt use Turkish ones. So if someone had a Turkish name, this is an evidence of his Turkic origin. And I think we are of the same opinion here: Ulug Bey was a Timurid, of Mongolian origin, whose ancestors influenced from Turkish culture, spoke Chagatay Turkish as native language, and were also influenced from Persian culture. Filanca 18:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is really the point you do not understand or - maybe - do not want to understand. Ulugh Beg was NOT his name! His name was Muhammad bin Shahrukh! Ulugh Beg is a title, given to him in the Turkic-dominated Central Asian parts of the Timurid Empire.

And, btw, it is not POV to say that the Persian culture was the "high, noble culture" of that time ... it is a known fact. The same way nowadays the European or Western culture is considered "high culture".

I see no reason for labeling Muhammad Taraghay bin Shahrukh a Chaghatay Turk ... he was NOT a Turk, he was a Mongol.And the influnece of Turkic culture on Ulugh Beg was most deffinitly not as much as the influence of Persian or Perso-Islamic culture. That's the reason why he wrote ALL of his works in Persian and Arabic, and NONE of them in Turkic.

Tājik 19:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "names do not define ethnicity", I wrote an answer to that. The same goes with titles. Currently the article says he was Mongol and Persian, there is nothing about him being Turkish. If you say he was only Mongol, you'd agree with removing Persian mathematicians category. If you agree (as you already did) he had Mongol, Turkish and Persian influences, you'd also agree to write his Turkish background as well. Since his native language was Chagatay Turkish, this is important. Yes he wrote in Arabic and Persian because those were the scholarly languages of that time. That does not make them more "noble" than others or make the other cultures "low". Filanca 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The current article says that he was a Timurid, and that his mother was a Persian noble (she was NOT a Timurid). The dual culture of the Timurids is explained in the respective article Timurids). What else do you want?! Ulugh Beg did NOT have a "Turkish background" (see the meaning of Turkish people), and he did NOT speak the Turkish language. I really do not understand what you want?! Tājik 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed his native language was Chagatay. Those who speak it natively are called Chagatay Turks. I propose we explicitly state this in the article. Filanca 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we did not agree, because this deffinition is wrong. A "Chaghatay Turk" was Turk who lived in the domains that were ruled by Genghis Khan's son Chagatai Khan, the so-called Chagatai Khanate. Not everyone who spoke that language was a "Chaghatay Turk", the same way not everyone who spoke Persian (for example the Seljuqs) was automatically a Persian. And you also totally fail the point that the Timurids did not have a "native tongue" ... they were fluent in Arabic, Persian, and Chaghatay. Tājik 12:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody has at least one "native tongue" ... The opposite is contrary to psycholinguistic knowledge. And that is how ethnicity is usually defined (not race). Being fluent in other languages is not related. So you deny that Ulugh Bey was not a native speaker of Chagatay, is that so? Filanca 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Ulugh Beg identified himself with the Chaghatay language, keeping in mind that his mother, Goharshad, was a native Persian-speaker and responsible for the "Persianization" of the Timurid court in Herat. Are you saying that Ulugh Beg's mother-tongue was not that of his mother (or father) but that of his grand-father?! Tājik 21:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He was a Chagatay and they spoke a Turkish dialect, and he is known by his Chagatay name (or title) hence the name of this article. Why do you say his father was not a native speaker of Chagatay? Filanca 21:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I say that his father was NOT ONLY a native-speaker of Chagatay. What you fail to understand is that the Timruids did not really have a "native tongue". This is a common phenomenon among many peoples who grow up with two or three different cultures and languages. I really do not understand why you persist on calling him a "Chagatay TURK", although he was neither a Turk in ethnicity nor in identity. His mother-tongue - meaning the native tongue of his mother - was evidently Persian. That's why ALL of his works are written in Persian - the language of his mother, with some exceptions in Arabic, the traditional language of science. As for Shahrukh Mirza: he was the 4th and youngest son of Timur, born to a Persian mother. That's why Timur had to appoint his grand-son Pir Muhammad - son of Jahangir Mirza - as his successor instead of his other sons, because only Pir Muhammad (through his father Jahangir) had the royal Chingizid blood. Jahangir was born to Bibi Khanum, a dierct descendant of Genghis Khan. Shahrukh, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Mongol nobles as a ruler because he was neither born to Genghis Khan's family nor to the Turco-Mongol noble families of Central-Asia. His mother was a Persian concubine of Timur. That's also the reason why he was forced to move his capital from the Turco-Mongol dominated Central-Asia to Persian-dominated Herat. Tājik 14:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down please. As I said, everyone has at least one native language according to psycholinguistics. "Timurids" may had more than one, which makes them bilingual (or polylingual). "Chagatay Turks" is a term I copied from the article of Chagatay language, they are the people who spoke it as a native tongue. Ulugh Bey wrote in Persian and Arabic, because those were the scholarly languages of the times. Like, say, Bacon, being English, writing in Latin. If Ulugh Bey spoke Chagatay language natively, that makes him a Chagatay Turk. His mother being a Persian concubine does not change this fact. Ottoman Sultans were born to many non-Turkish mothers, yet they all spoke Ottoman Turkish language. Ethnicity is not defined by blood lineage. Filanca 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know Ulugh Beg's mother-tongue?! The point is: you are just ASSUMING that his mother-tongue was Chaghatay Turkic. Besides that, you are contradicting your own message by saying that "language defines ethnicity", because in the case of Seljuqs, you do NOT accept them as "Persians", although it is a FACT that the Seljuqs - starting with Malikshah I, were native Persian-speakers. The same goes to the Ghaznavids - originally od Turkic descent - who had become totally Persianized in culture, identity, and language. Would you - as a supporter of the thesis that "language defines ethnicity" - also accept that the "Seljuqs were Persians"?! Would you accept that the "Ghaznavids were Persians"?! I mean, a recent archaeological discovery in Afghanistan has also reveald that the Ghaznavids considered themselvs diecr descendants and successors of the Sassanids and other Iranian kings of the past. Now, how comme the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs are considered "Turks" although they neither spoke Turkish nor promoted any "Turkic identity" or "Turkic culture"?!

You see, the point is that that language does NOT define ethnicity. If that were the case, than Michael Jordan and Will Smith would have been ethnic English, ethnic Germanics, and ethnic Indo-Europeans. Half of Africa would have been ethnic French. And historical oriental dynasties, such as the Seljuqs, the Timurids, and most of all the Ghaznavids and Mughals would have been ethnic Persians.

Persian has always been the native tongue of royal families and nobles. That'S why Persian in Central Asia is known as Dari which means language of the kings. Chaghatay Turkic did have some importance in the Timurid era, especially in the works of Ali Sher Nava'i. But it never had the same status as Persian - the language of kings. Ulugh Beg was born to a Persian mother and raised by a Persian mother. Thus, the very first language he learend was Persian. He was later introduced to Chaghatay Turkic, the language of the Turco-Mongol nobles. But since Persian - his mother-tongue - was also the official language of ALL royal courts in Iran, he was - at least - equally at home in Persian. I think you are not able to understand this simple fact because you are from a country which has only one official language and which usually does not accept or allow any other language beside that one official language. Maybe you should go to Afghanistan which is a classical bi-lingual country. Almost ALL Afghans - except the Persian-speaking elite of Kabul and other larger cities - are bilingual. They speak either Persian and Pashto or Persian, Pashto, and Uzbek - all at native level. The Uzbeks of Afghanistan are raised bi-lingual, the Pashtuns of Kabul are also bi-lingual, native to Pashto and Persian. I am from Afghanistan, born and raised in Kabul, and born to a mixed family of Tajik and Pashtun origin. Although I was taught only Persian, my parents speak both languages at a native level. My cousins (who have a Pashtun mother) speak both Persian and Pashto as their native tongues - they speak Persian with my uncle and Pashto with their mother.

And I am pretty sure that Ulugh Beg was in the same situation - keeping in mind that his father was ALSO a native Persian-speaker.

BTW: a "Chaghatay Turk" is not a speaker of the Chaghatay language. A "Chaghatay Turk" is a Turk who is subject to the Chaghatay Khaqanate. Both the language and the peoples got their name from Chaghatay Khan. The people are not named after the language, and the language is not named after the people. The Timurids - who belonged to the Barlas Mongol clan - were not "Chaghatay Turks", they were Chaghatayid Mongols. That'S the reason why they became known as "Mughals" (which means "Mongol" in Persian and Hindi) in India and not as "Turks".

Tājik 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are"pretty sure" that Ulugh Bey was in the same situation with you? :) That is not very scientific. If he was not a Chagatay speaking person, though, that would be contrary to our knowledge of his time and place. You yourself accepted he spoke Chagatay competently. If you dont mean his native language, what else could it be? That he learned Chagatay in a foreign language school? Hardly so. Of course Seljuks were Turkish speakers (although some might as well speaking Persian competently) but let us not us not fall in the same trap once again and divert our discussion from the the topic of this article. After all, this is not a place for general debates about Persian culture. Surely native language is a good indicator of ethnicity (did I ever contradict with this?) Filanca 21:01, 28 December 2006 (U

This is getting ridiculous. People claiming that Ulughbek was a Persian because he was born in Iran during one of his grandfather's military campaigns. Let me ask you people, if a dog was to give birth in stables would the puppies be dogs or horses? Ulughbek was Turkic. I don't care what Britannica says about it. The same Britannica misspelled his name. His father was Shahruh, son of Timur. Timur himself identified himself as a Turk. Ulughbek's mother, Gauhar Shad Agha also was from a noble Chagatay family. Some people on this website call her "a Persian noble". It is not true. Her father was Ghiyasiddin Tarkhan. Turkic title Tarkhan was given to her ancestor by Genghis Khan himself for a good service. Read Zafarnoma written by a persian historian Nizam ad-Din Shami. It can clarify a lot. I agree that Shahruh's mother was a Persian or a Tajik. So what. My grandmother was a Tajik. But I am still Uzbek. Now, speaking of Chagatay and Uzbek being "different languages". Of all Turkic languages Chagatay is closest to modern day Uzbek and Uighur. Chagatay was a language of all settled Turkic population of Central Asia. The same population that today is called Uzbeks after a group of nomadic tribes that conqured Central Asia in 16th century A.D. So Chagatay is so to say "old-Uzbek". Todays Uzbek completely understand Chagatay poetry because it is essentially the same language they speak, with the exception of some archaic words that are not in use anymore. Just like todays Tajik language is not 100% same as Tajik language of the 14th century.

Ulugbeg is turkic name

Ulegbeg never been persian, even if you look to the ending "beg" is truely Turkic ending. Every names with ending "beg" are turkic. Also iran was part of Temurid empire not Temurid empire part of the Iran. As it known to everybody Temurid Empire was rules by turkic or turko-moghuls.

Also why iranians claim everybody who was born in asia to be persian. In future you will see, they will claim that Gandi was Persian who liver in India. It is pity no scienties was born in iran, they so desperate that they began stealing turkic scienties, claiming they are persian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buriwolf (talk • contribs) 11:30, 28 December 2006.

Samarqand and Khorezm being part of medieval "Persia"

I am going to remove the "citation needed" tag, because it's a fact that the area around Samarqand and Bukhara was considered "Persian" and "Persia". This is even attested by Ibn Khaldun who was a contemporary of Timur and Shahrukh:

• "... Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent […] they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar […] great jurists were Persians […] only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' […] The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them […] as was the case with all crafts […]This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture. ..." - Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), in: The Muqaddimah, Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye (p.91).

So, there is actually no dispute!

Tājik 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yap, "there is actually no dispute" as there was during the time before Copernicus that Earth was flat... And using the quotations in the way you do is highly misleading. Tajik, if areas around Samarkand and Bukhara were indeed Persian - then I wonder why the states around this area fought so often against the Persia and were Sunni as oppose to Persians... The dogmatic nature of your posts suggests that you are not interested in the truth but rather ensuring that the rest of the world admits that YOU are right! And as obviously majority of people arguing against you are far less stubborn than you are, you will always win by ittrition... ru:Uzgen

Sextant or Quadrant or two different instruments?

The large mural instrument in the photo on the left is stated to be a sextant. However many illustrations of the large instrument shows it to be a mural quadrant (e.g. the Soviet stamp). Was it in fact a 90° or 60° instrument or are there two instruments at the site (one of each) and the various illustrations not differentiating them clearly? Michael Daly 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection Helped Vandalism

please;

{{editprotected}}

I requested protection against IP Vandalism and blanking. But you protected the article after vandal edited the article.

please UNDO LAST ACTION of anonymous IP user 82.83.133.161.

N Declined. See meta:Wrong version. Sandstein (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed misleading categories. Tājik (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

... and I have removed an irrelevant edit by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Beheaded by his oldest or third son?

The lemma 'Abd al-Latif says he was the third son of Ulugh Beg, but the section on Begs death calls him his oldest son. What is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.88.114 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ulughbeg was a Turkic ruler

Why change this? If we today should chose his ethnicity than we can not say he was a Persian or a Mongol, but was he than? Ofcourse Turkic. Timurid dynasty which was a Central Asian empire created by Turkic speaking Timur, and he is his descendant. Doesnt matter how much he is influenced by Persian culture.

I do not say he was not influenced by Persian culture but still his ethnicity was Turkic. Ottoman sultans wrote Persian poems are they Persian too? No, because Persian was a important language in that time, like English is today, but millions of people who speak english today are not English people.

The medieval scientists of Europe all writed in Latin but this doesnt make them all Italian or Roman. Not accepting that he was Turkic is just racism. Really why did wikipedia change into persian nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Move away the Iranian people from category of an Ulugh Beg

Ambiguous sentences

The article says: "It was only possible to use this device to measure the declination of celestial objects." I presume it means, and should read: "The declination of celestial objects could only be measured using this device." J27325 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)J27325

And this sentence is unclear too:

"From an early age, astronomy piqued his interest after he paid a visit to what was still present of the Maragheh Observatory located in Maragheh, Iran."

Does this mean (1)... after he paid a visit to what still remained of the MO .. or (2)_ he paid a visit to the MO which is in today's Mar.. .Iran..