Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alberonius?

Al-Biruni's works were virtually unknown in medieval Europe - so what is the origin of his supposed Latin name Alberonius?

A search in Google Books does not give any hits earlier than 2012. AstroLynx (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Jim al-Khalili, The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance (New York: The Penguin Press, 2011), pp. 172-173: "In fact, remarkably, and unlike many of the great scholars of Islam, there does not exist a Latinized version of his [al-Biruni's] name." Note that neither the French or the German versions of this WP article mention a Latinized name for al-Biruni. Unless someone objects, I will remove the Alberonius citations within the next 24 hours. AstroLynx (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Alberonius citations. AstroLynx (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

translation

This is an old translation should be free some where Sachau, C.E. The chronology of ancient nations. Рипол Классик. ISBN 9785871979549. Retrieved 19 July 2015. J8079s (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Al-Biruni → Biruni – "Al-Biruni" is the Arabic form of his actual Persian name "Biruni". Being a Persian, I believe his correct Persian name needs to be used here, without the Arabic "Al-" attached to it. According to the GBooks ngraph, "Biruni" ranks on top and is on the rise in recent times. Credible sources such as Encyclopædia Iranica also use "Abu Rayhan Biruni". Biruni means "one who is from the outer-district" in Persian, and derives from the Persian word birun meaning outside, itself derived from bērōn in Middle Persian (Please see MAcKENZIE, D. (1971). A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (p. 18). OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS). Grinevitski (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Apparently there is a technical problem in the Google Ngram, because clicking "Search lots of books" automatically replaces "Al-Biruni" with "Al - Biruni". We can also be sure that the graph for "Biruni" in Google Ngram also includes all results got for "Al - Biruni", among other things that may include "Biruni" in their names. The graph for "Biruni" is not restricted to only results for "Biruni" without the prefix Al-, which makes the graphical comparison misleading. Khestwol (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Al-Biruni's first language was Khwarezmian, not Persian, which makes the whole rationale of this RM based on Persian nationalism as invalid. Also quoted from the article: Most of the works of Al-Biruni are in Arabic. Furthermore, this is English (not Persian) Wikipedia. Most English reliable secondary and tertiary sources use the form "Al-Biruni". As an example, Encyclopædia Britannica also uses "Al-Biruni" [1]. The lunar crater named after him is also named Al-Biruni (crater), hence the academic name is "Al-Biruni". Khestwol (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The minor planet 9936 is also named Al-Biruni (not Biruni). AstroLynx (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment We use common names and terms in English. Al-Biruni is common in English sources and references. His ethnicity, original name (non-Arabic form), and his spoken languages are not important for this case. For example, see Avicenna. We don't use Arabic/Persian variant of his name. We can't use uncommon names, even if those uncommon names are more accurate than common names. Because the article's content should match with cited references. --Zyma (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Khestwol: Your point is flawed. There is a crater on the moon called Albategnius but the man is currently called Al-Battani in Wikipedia. Other examples include Abul_Wafa_(crater), Alfraganus_(crater) and Alpetragius (crater) whose namesakes in Wikipedia are named Abu al-Wafa, al-Farghani and al-Bitruji respectively.

The prefix al- does NOT exist in ANY Iranian language, including the one spoken in the medieval land of Choresm (Khwarezm). He is called "Abu Rayhan Biruni" (ابوریحان بیرونی) in every Iranian language. As for the language of his published works, that has no bearing on his name (which is clearly Iranic). The scientific language of the Muslim world at the time was Arabic, much the same way in Europe scientific work was published in Latin (Principia Mathematica of Newton, Disquisitiones Arithmeticae of Gauss, etc.).

Encyclopædia Iranica, not Britannica, is the most relevant source here because it is in line with modern works especially among Iranologists. Furthermore, there needs to be consistency; if you want to keep Latin names such as Avicenna and Averroes, then we'd have to move Al-Biruni to Albirunius, Al-Farabi to Alfarabius, Al-Razi to Rhazes, etc. But if you want Arabic, then we must move Khayyam to al-Khayyam, etc. The trend in modern scholarly sources is NOT to Arabicize (or Latinize) names. I can cite many contemporary authors who have begun using the correct Iranian names (C. E. Bosworth, T. Daryaee, etc.). That is the increasingly established modern practice in all historical fields. Grinevitski (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I do not see relevance of any of your points about Persian version of names, as this is English Wikipedia. Regarding your comment "then we'd have to move Al-Biruni to Albirunius": "Albirunius" is uncommon in English reliable sources, hence the current title is best. Khestwol (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the "Alberonius?" section last year, al-Biruni's works were unknown to medieval European scholars and you will therefore not find early Latinized versions of his name. Modern Latinized versions of his name, such as Alberonius, first show up in the early 2010s [but see below]. AstroLynx (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I must correct myself here, the Latin version of this WP article cites a 1796 publication which uses the name Albirunius. Although we are not obliged to follow other WP's, note that most of the other European-language WP's also adopt al-Biruni as title. AstroLynx (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment User:AstroLynx: Please note that most of those European WP pages cite the same English reference (namely Encyclopaedia Britannica), nevertheless some have adopted the correct name (Latvian, Swedish, Polish, for instance). Literally all Iranian WP pages (Persian, Dari and Tajiki dialect, Kurdish, Balochi, Pashto) use "Biruni". He was an Iranian from former realms of Persian speaking world (Persian existed in Khwarezm since Achaemenid times). He probably even considered himself "Persian"; as Biruni himself states in his The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries that "[Choresmians] are a branch from Persian tree". While the term "Biruni" is Persian, the Chorasmian variety would have been very similar nevertheless. Linguistically Choresmian is similar to Sogdian, and in Sogdian outside is byqkr'n, which shares the same root as Pahlavi bērōn, probably from Avestan paru (پَرو), itself derived from pra- (same as in Lithuanian and Sanskrit, pro- in Greek, fra- in Pahlavi). Please see the Avestan dictionary (فرهنگ واژه های اوستا) by Fereydoun Joneidi, Sogdian-English Dictionary by B. Gharib. Grinevitski (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Khestwol: The relevance is that nowadays in English most works with a background in Iranian studies use transliterated forms of the actual Iranian names. I can see why for instance, correcting "Aristotle" to "Aristoteles" would be impossible given its wide usage in credible sources. But the situation with the Iranian scholars of the Islamic era is not the same. In particular, "Biruni" is not uncommon in English reliable sources. And if the sole criteria for a move was prevalence or usage in the real world, "Alberuni" is more common than "al-Biruni" according to Ngrams. Grinevitski (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Khestwol. This looks like the name predominately used by tertiary sources in English. He wasn't really 'Persian', and mostly wrote in Arabic (cf. Frédéric Chopin and Joseph Conrad), so I'm not seeing any kind of case for changing the article's name. —innotata 23:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• 2nd comment Why all of you argue about his ethnicity? His ethnicity is not related to this issue. Even if he was a Chinese, we should use his common name in English sources and references. His common name is Al-Biruni. Wrong or correct, we're not here to decide about it. We only represent sources and scholary views not our own original researches or povs. If op thinks he's right and others are wrong, he should request a third opinion. --Zyma (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Secondary sources in English language also mostly use "Al-Biruni" to refer to him. In Google Books, the titles of books on Al-Biruni also mostly use "Al-Biruni". Khestwol (talk)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus for the lead section: older revision (his ethnicity)

Should we restore this revision of lead section? An editor changed it to current revision, see the related diff. I think the older revision is more accurate than the current revision. For example, Iranica article mentions that he was related to Khwarezmian Afrighids. The old revision (Persian-Khwarezmian) matches with all cited references. Also, it was an accepted revision for a long time. --Zyma (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Even more accurate would be just "Khwarezmian". That should cover both his mother tongue and place of birth. As for his ethnicity, we know nothing about it and has been a subject of speculation even in the early biographical dictionaries. More recently Persian, Iranian, and Turkish nationalists have been claiming him as one of their own. Thus I would avoid using terms with ethnic connotations in the lead, i.e., avoid Persian/Iranian. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The suggested lead statement does include the pseudo-Latinized version of his name (Alberonius) which never existed in any Western source (see my earlier comments). AstroLynx (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I just mentioned that revision for the ethnic part of lead section. We won't restore the whole old lead or that "Alberonius". We may edit current lead section based on consensus. --Zyma (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Why we should avoid/ignore sources? It's obvious that he was Iranian (Iranian-speaking, meta-ethnicity). See both cited references and talk page archives. It was discussed many times. We can't remove/censor his ethnicity just because some people don't like it or they want their own version of history, or we can't write our POV/OR/personal analysis and commentary instead of what sources say. Some sources mention his Persian background. We can't interpret that "Persian" (Medieval Persians) by our personal opinions. I saw some editors try to replace the Persian with Iranian (nationality, from Iran), Afghan, Tajik or even non-Iranic modern ethnic groups. Such edits are anachronism and wrong. This problem usually caused by unfamiliar editors with these topics (e.g. ethnicity and history), or ethnocentrists with nationalistic propaganda. The nationalistic pov-pushing attempts are not related to current lead or Iranian/Persian. They're as old as this article. Even if we accept Khwarezmian-only lead, all of those ethnic warriors will return again. For example, see the edits in the recent months. How many times those pov-pushers tried to add their modern ethnicities to this article? Per WP:WEIGHT and cited sources, I think it' better to restore the older revision of the lead section. Or a new revision with better representation of his ethnicity/background. Suggest, write your opinions, and we will decide. --Zyma (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just like the lede of the related Afrighids, we can remove "Persian" as per WP:NPOV, and write: "... was a [[Khwarezmian language|Khwarezmian]] [[Iranian peoples|Iranian]] [[Muslim]] scholar and polymath." Khestwol (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So how we should deal with the sources about his Persian stock? How to represent them? Move them to Life section? Your suggestion? --Zyma (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Zyma. I think those sources can be moved to Life section. I find the wording "Khwarezmian Iranian" to be neutral for the lede. Khestwol (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "Iranian" is that it ignores another theory about Biruni's origin, namely that he or his family stemmed from a province of Sindh called Birun. Historians have linked that Indian province to Biruni from as early as the 14th century. See, for example, his entry in Safadi's (d. 1363) al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyat. Also several Orientalists considered it a valid alternative to the "outskirts of Khwarezm" theory. We shouldn't ignore these sources and theories and proclaim him as "Iranian" in the lead (per npov). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi55, that is not a popular theory among academics. If Al-Biruni's first language was Khwarezmian. and he was from Central Asia, then I think it is not possible for him to be an Indian or Sindhi. Wikipedia is not a place to give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE ideas, so we can ignore the Indian theory in the lede. Khestwol (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting disputed information as truth is always a bad idea. We know that some of his early biographers linked his epithet to an Indian province. We should report this. It isn't fringe by any measure, as extensive scholarship on the topic of Biruni's ethnicity does not yet exist. Also his first language has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Are you suggesting that a native speaker of English (in England) 'must' be white? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Biruni was not a Persian. "Iranian", on the other hand, would be a correct description. As his name already explaines, he was from Khwarezmia. The historical Khwarezmians were eastern Iranian, distantly related to modern Pashtuns and Ossetians. We can't call them "Persians" the same we we cannot call modern Kurds, Pashtuns or Ossetians "Persians". --Lysozym (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, he was probably not Persian, and Iranian is more plausible. But we can't be sure either way. Based on his epithet "Biruni", it has been suggested that he was not a native of Khwarezm, but an outsider. His place of birth and origin has also long been disputed in the primary sources, e.g., see note in [2]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Henry Miers Elliot and his outdated 1850 book are WP:FRINGE. Per WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSTS and WP:OR; you must find expert sources to support such claims. How many expert historians cited the Elliot's claims about al-Biruni? Or do they have similar views like Elliot? You need these reliable/expert/scholary sources: First, prove a different birth place. Second, prove a non-Iranian/Iranic origin of al-Biruni. Otherwise we can't change a whole article just because of such dubious single outdated source or similar sources. Bogus claims, personal analysis/commentary, original research, fringe theories and pseudo-science are against WP:SOAP. --Zyma (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Khestwol. I think Khwarezmian Iranian (just like Afrighids article) is better. Because it matches with references (his native language and ethnicity). Unfortunately, we don't have an article about ethnic Khwarezmian-speaking. Only language article is available. If someone write an article for them, there is no need to mention ethno-linguistic/meta-ethnicity term (Iranian/Iranic). Anyway, if other editors prefer [[Khwarezmian-only revision, I have no problem with it. But "Khwarezmian" should link to Khwarezmian language article, because both Khwarezm and Khwarezmian do not clarify his ethnicity. --Zyma (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think just "Khwaraziman" is more suitable in the lede, while claims like "Iranian" and "Sindian" should be discussed later in the article. By the way, it was his earliest biographers who mentioned Sindh, with some describing him as Sindian born. Elliot was just pointing out to this fact, which is verifiable. Other details may also shed light on his ethnicity. For instance, Shahrazuri, based on earlier accounts, described him as "dark skinned" (ara. asmar al-lawn). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The term "Persian" has to be kept in the article, since in the medieval Islamic era Iranians from the former dominions of the Sassanid empire were often collectively called "Persians". Biruni himself writes in his The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries that "Choresmians are a branch of the Persian tree" (أهل خوارزم کانوا غصناً من دوحة الفرس و نبعه من سرحتهم). Therefore he self-identified as Persian. In this context, the term does not mean "one from the Pars province (Persis)". Furthermore his native name needs to be added at the beginning of the lead paragraph; in both Persian and Choresmian it is "Biruni" without the Arabic prefix (full name with with macrons: Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī; Perso-Arabic script: ابوریحان بیرونی). There is no reason to omit this from the article. Grinevitski (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Grinevitski:: The sentence you quoted is taken out of context. Read the start of the paragraph and you'll see that Biruni was not referring to all Chorasmians, but only to the Zoroastrians of Chorasmia, a minority. Moreover, he was discussing calendars, not race. His point is that the Chorasmian Zoroastrians were a branch of the Persians in their religious/cultural practices. In any case, several historical sources that we often rely on for this type of information state that his origin is Sindh. Thus we're not sure that he is Persian or Iranian. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Per The Encyclopaedia of Islam', Vol I, page 1238, "He[Biruni] is known as al-Ustadh, "the Master". He was born of an Iranian family in 362/973, in the suburb (birun) of Kath, capital of Khwarizm (the region of the Amu-Darya delta, now the autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan on the southern shores of the Aral Sea)." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Iranian" claim turned out to be just one theory (a common problem with EI2, especially the first and early volumes). See my last few posts for other theories. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi: Yes. But in Biruni's time most "Persians" were Muslim not Zoroastrian, even in Pre-Islamic times much of Sasanian Persia was already Christian, especially in the western regions. I believe he was using "Iranian" and "Persian" interchangeably here, as in the preceding paragraph he collectively refers to Iranians as "people of Persia" or "ahle fārésa" (أهل فارس). He was referring to the larger Iranian identity (not only religious and cultural affinities, but also linguistic affiliations and historical ties). I've read the paragraph again, it does not explicitly say "Zoroasterians of Choresm", but just "inhabitants of Choresm". Grinevitski (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Grinevitski:: It is true the Zoroastrians were a minority in Chorasmia, which is why Biruni's statements about their practices should not be generalized to include all Chorasmians. You can see where he explicitly limits his discussion to Zoroastrians (Majus) in how he introduced the "inhabitants of Chorasmia": ثم أذكر شهور مجوس ما وراء النهر وهم أهل خوارزم والسغد وشهورهم كشهور الفرس. (Fliescher, p.45) Translation: "Then I discuss the months of the Zoroastrians of Transoxania, and they are the inhabitants of Chorasmia and Sogdiana, and their months are the same as those of the Persians." This quote is either in the same paragraph as your quote or in a previous page, depending on which edition, but it clearly indicates that his discussion of the "inhabitants of Chorasmia" is confined to Zoroastrians. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi: Yes, true. But the sentence that I have quoted was referring to the people (all Chorasmians and Persians, the people). The sentence you have quoted is from another paragraph (I believe in Chapter XI), mine is from Chapter V. This is a translation of the entire paragraph by Edward Sanchau:

“ Months of the Chorasmians: The Khwarizmians, although are a branch of the great tree of the Persian nation,
imitated the Sogdians as to the beginning of the year and the place where they add the Epagomenae. ”

As I stated previously, at the time terms such as "Persian" or "Ajam" were used to collectively refer to Iranians in general, in this context it should not be restricted to speakers of Persian/Dari/Pahlavi. In many Pre-modern nations a dialect would not produce a separate nation; Iranians just like Greeks or Chinese had many related dialects (some hardly mutually intelligible) who all self-identified as a single nation and were recognized by classical historiographers as one nation. Therefore, we cannot omit "Persian/Iranian" from the lead paragraph; because this is akin to omitting "Greek" from the biographies of Plato and Pythagoras in favour of "Athenian" and "Ionian" respectively. Grinevitski (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Grinevitski:: Both sentences are in the same section. But in the Eduard Sachau translation there are headers which are not found in the Arabic original (you can read it here). So just ignore the header "Months of The Sogdians" and read the sentence after it: "Now I shall mention the months of the Magians [Zoroastrians] of Transoxiana, the people of Khwarizm and of Sughd." He then mentions the months of Sughd followed by the months of Khwarizm (where your sentence is). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi: Ah, I see where it is... I don't doubt that he is discussing pre-Islamic festal calendars of Zoroastrians. But I emphasise that the sentence I have quoted is comparing Persian and Chorasmian people in the most general sense. He states that even though Chorasmians are a branch of Persians (their kinsmen), their calendar differed from theirs regarding the place of the five epagomenal days. Later on he attempts to explain this with reference to the common origin of the two Iranian groups. Grinevitski (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest adding his native name to the lead as follows:

(Chorasmian/Persian: ابوریحان بیرونی Abū Rayḥān Bērōnī; New Persian: Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī)

In Middle Persian (check MacKenzie's dictionary), East Iranian languages, as well as (early) New Persian, his name was pronounced as Bērōnī, and was gradually garbled into Bīrūnī. Interestingly, Edward Sanchau also points this out in the intro to his book:

“ In our time the word is pronounced Biruni (or Beerooni), e.g. in Teheran. but the vowel of the first syllable is majhul, which means that in more ancient times it was pronounced Beron (or Bayroon)... That the name was pronounced in this way in Central Asia about the author's time, we learn from indisputable statement regarding our author from the pen of Alsam'ani, a philologist and biographer of high repute. ”

It is best to include both the more archaic form, as well as the more recent and commonly used transliteration (as given in Encyclopædia Iranica). Grinevitski ✍ 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the intro

To avoid the danger of oversimplification, and to be consistent with the articles on other scientists, I am removing his religion from the opening paragraph. It is often an oversimplification to describe a scholar with a simple and value-laden label. Religious convictions are typically more complicated and need to be discussed at length in the article itself, and they do not appear in the opening. Telementor (N.M.) ✍ 02:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, there is no danger of oversimplification since Islam was his religion and it revolved around him 24/7, one his usage of science was to find the Qibla, Islam was integral part of Biruni's life. I can add more references to show you.

Hind is not really 'India'

Hind cannot be 'India' as the word is currently understood. It can even be Pakistan and north India (Hindi hinterland).

It is possible that his work on the native scholarship connects mainly to the minuscule percentage higher castes, who might be good in Sanskrit. If that be true, he might have missed totally the presence of the so-called lower castes who were not allowed admittance into 'Hindu' temples and right to learn or listen to Sanskrit scriptures.

Beyond that, the work might be about the north and north-western parts of the subcontinent. To translate 'Hind' into India, might require the help of a lot of years of Indian schooling system.

The article seems to miss pointing out whether the social issues of the non-Hindu (Non-Arayan) castes has been discussed by Al Baruni.

A book that does take that also into focus is a relatively recent work by Edgar Thurston's OMENS and SUPERSTITIONS OF SOUTHERN INDIA. Here also the word INDIA is a misnomer, if attempts are made to connect the book to the nation of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.95.52 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get tangled up about this. All we need to do is to say in a footnote: "as it was then". In fact, I'll do that now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Coining "second"

The Wikipedia article on Second credits Al-Biruni with coining the term (as a unit of time), but this isn't mentioned in this article. 87.198.117.91 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That statement was not supported by the source and I removed the unsourced claim. Eperoton (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Death Date

Although his death date has been largely known as 1048, according to more recent publications he died later. According to some in 1050, according to some others in 1061. Would it be possible to consider updating the article accordingly?--Basak (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Basak, i think it's better to ask LouisAragon and Wario-Man for an isight.---Wikaviani (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is that "Riaz Ahmad"? Emine Sonnur Ozcan is an academian but the source is in Turkish and I don't know if she qualifies as an expert historian for this topic or not. Could you provide English version of her work? Also Iranica says his death was after 1050.[3][4] @Kansas Bear: Your opinion? --Wario-Man (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In this kind of case, when sources give different dates, is it possible to include 2 or 3 dates in the article ?---Wikaviani (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

According to The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 1, page 1236, "The date of his death, usually fixed in 440/1048, according to al-Ghadanfar, must therefore be put back a little. Al-Biruni must have died after 442/ 1050, probably at Ghazna."

I would have his date of death as c.1050 --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Kansas Bear, i changed the date in the infobox. However, in the lead, another date is given (the source is also Encyclopedia of islam), would you suggest to change this one too ?---Wikaviani (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Both cited sources are not reliable. What is this "Encyclopedia of Islam. Lahore, Pakistan. 1971. p. 264."? And this one is an unreliable Wiki. Who added them to this article? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. Clearly his date of death is estimated, and the EoI reference I have presented includes a quote. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned the lead and infobox. More details about his life (birth and death) should go to Al-Biruni#Life. Does that 1061 death date worth a mention (first comment, 2nd PDF)? --Wario-Man (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, i haven't noticed that it was a "false" Encyclopedia of islam !---Wikaviani (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It was an old edit. Not unusual. Plus that was not your edit. Such stuff happen here and we may not find them instantly. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please let me share what i found in another Turkish source (Turkish Encylopedia for Islamic Studies, related article published in 1992). In this encylopedia article written by Prof. Günay Tümer, it's explained that there were different dates given for Al-biruni's death date. Tümer says "Since Biruni himself told that he was over 80, the hijri year 440 (1048) could not be his death date. He must have lived the year hijri 443 (1051). The death date given by Yaqut al-Hamawi is 403 (1012). If we accept that it was a copying mistake and change it to 453, we could accept that the death date is 1061." You can find the document here (in page 209).Wikaviani, Wario-Man, Kansas Bear --Basak (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's here and it sounds WP:FRINGE and non-reliable. I used Google Translate and the author invented a Turkic background by writing stuff like this: "Bîrûnî is Arabic or Iranian, or even more, based on any of his writings about the Arab or Persian race, and the views that are considered Iranian nationalists are unstable. Because Bîrûnî has both favorable and unfavorable evaluations for both races... are important signs of Turkishness and Turkishness. As a result, it can be said that Bîrûnî is not a "real Hârizmiler" by his own expression and belongs to a Turk family that has been "inhabited" by the city of Kâs or immigrated from the outside. Before the birth of Bîrûnî the Turks had migrated to these regions and there were deep relations between the locals of Hârizm and the Turks." Very WP:OR and fringe. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i have never seen a reliable source claiming that Biruni was Arab or Turkish. More, Günay Tümer is a historian of religions and therefore unreliable for the biography of Al-Biruni. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Another reason why we should avoid such sources. We already have reliable history sources like Encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica written by experts. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I found other sources which states the date as 1051: Asirov, Duman. I am surprised to hear your comments about İslam Ansiklopedisi. Actually, since each article was written by an academician who has an academic work on that subject i have been considering it as a reliable source and i believe Günay Tümer was commisioned Al-Biruni article because he had a doctorate thesis on "Biruni's thoughts on religions" -though I don't know if this would make him an expert on Biruni's biography or not-. Anyway, it's good to be open to hear what different sources say. Thank you for remarks on the national background issue as well! For historical characters from Khwarezm, the discussion about their background never-ends; it's not suprising to see unclear "evidences" being put forward on this by researchers in any source. I wouldn't consider that as a reason to label the source/author as "non-reliable" as a whole. But it's up to you of course; what is most important is avoiding from sources like this one. .--Basak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not WP:RS and date of death requires reliable history sources written by experts. I didn't check your other links because I don't understand why all of your sources are in Turkish?! This is English WP and the this article is about a famous medieval scholar. There are many English sources about him. If your claim about his date of death is legit, you can find enough sources written in English for that. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I think i've been misunderstood. I am not suggesting to add these sources to this English article or change anything. I am willing to edit/improve Turkish article and therefore searching for Turkish sources. When i first saw that EN WP states that the death date is 1048, i hesitated whether i should change TR WP as well. Because i thought the reader might get confused when s/he see different dates in Wikidata, TR WP and diffrent language versions of Wikipedia. Therefore i wanted to share the sources i've found and get comments from English Wikipedia editors. I am sorry if i bothered you.--Basak (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Basak, Not a bother, we're supposed to work together on this community encyclopedia. I cannot read your Turkish sources, but i'd say that if they're written by historians specialized in medieval islamic era, then your sources would be perfectly reliables for this topic. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

External links

Hi IamNotU and thank you for your recent contributions to this article. I added back one of the two "Gomez links" since it appears to contain some referenced content, please let me know if you think i'm mistaken. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani, thanks for reviewing my edits. I wanted to address the issues in the external links section so the template could be removed. You're correct that the linked article contains some content that's referenced to reliable sources. But I don't see how that makes it eligible as an external link.

Anyone can write an article, include some scholarly citations, and post it on their web page or upload it to a social networking site, as the author has done. That's commonplace in pseudo-scientific articles. I'm not saying that's what it is, as I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the science and methodology presented, nor the conclusion that he has discovered the never-before-determined point from which Al-Biruni took his measurements. But that's exactly the point - the external links guideline stresses that such links should contain accurate information, and I have no way of knowing if it's accurate. The author doesn't have a degree in math or science and his one book is self-published.[5] His work has never been published or cited in a peer-reviewed journal or reputably-published book that I can find. That certainly doesn't meet the recommendation in WP:ELNO #11 for a "recognized authority", which is "meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people".

Add to that the fact that the author Alberto G. Gomez, and Albert Nestar, the editor who added the link, clearly have a close relationship. The edit history of the latter shows an account with a nearly single purpose of adding citations to the work of the former. When citations have been removed, they were added back as external links. I don't think this is the purpose of the external links section, and WP:ELMAYBE #4, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" does not mean "if it's unsuitable as a reliable source because you can't get it published even in a weird fake journal, just go ahead and add it as an external link". I don't have confidence that the article is up to the standards for endorsement by a link from Wikipedia.

As I said though, I'm not qualified to evaluate its methodology and conclusions, so if others are confident they can vouch for the science, despite the amateur status and apparent conflict of interest, I'm open to discussing it further. Maybe it should be brought up at WP:ELN? But failing that I recommend that it be deleted... --IamNotU (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@IamNotU: I checked the source again and it appears that you're right about it, the author and his qualifications are quite dubious. When in doubt, leave it out, therefore i self reverted to your version. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Persian is wrong, Iranian is correct in my opinion.

He is descendant from Central Asian Iranian People speaking Iranian language. As you all know, Turkic Tribes started migrating after Biruni died, that is why some people think he is Turkic which is wrong? What do you think between the terminology here? Especially we get edits from Uzbek people, modern Uzbek people are not the same as Khwarezmian people.

Similar people to Khwarezmians and the Sogdian people. They are also Iranian people. I would love to hear some feedback Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. Though he mostly wrote in Arabic, and spoke in Persian to communicate with Ghaznavids and other Persophones in the region; his native language was Khwarezmian which qualifies him as ethnically Iranian. Khestwol (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In his writing he called Khwarezmians Persians, but I believe he meant to say IRANIAN. There is no word distinguish Persian and Iranian at that time. Just lump them as Persians. I was wondering if a Sogdian Muslim was the scientist would you call him Persian? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

best answer: Sock puppetry, fake russian. don't waste your time because they will block your account and Biruni is not related to your arab or turkish kin or your pan-islamist fantasy world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.130.230.24 (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Who you calling fake russian? Did you see me claim he was Arab or Turkish, I'm not even Arab or Turkish nor are they my kin. Where is the pan-Islamist fantasy world. This is your first edit in Wikipedia and you start like this Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No Beruni was Uzbek.Not persian not iranian.he had a turkic descent Turano'g'lu (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Although he wrote in arabian or he spoke persian he was a uzbek turk.Persians were not in Uzbekistan Turano'g'lu (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source to support your view.Chewings72 (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Modern Uzbeks have nothing to do with ancient Khwarazm. And the area where he was from was ruled by the Afrighids, a dynasty who spoke Khwarezmian (an Iranic language), so there were no turkics there. Biruni himself wrote poems and letters in his own native Khwarazmian language, and not a single piece of writing in any turkic languge. Keep your pan-turk hands away from other peoples' history. Qahramani44 (talk) 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Qahramani44, Biruni, of course, was not an Uzbek, but he had something to do with Uzbek culture. Khorezmians became one of the sources of the formation of the Uzbek people (but were not the source of the formation of the Iranian). In this sense, it has even more to do with Uzbek culture than with Iranian culture (here there is a confusion of terms "Persian"-"Iranian" and "Iranic"). In terms of their influence on the development of cultures, Biruni is equally important for both Uzbek and Iranian and Iraqi cultures. In my humble opinion, the most correct formulations would be the phrase "Central Asian" (as in Soviet sources) or "Iraniс". And the wording "Iranian" is not so accurate. More successfull, we could argue that Vercingetorix is an Irish historical figure in no way associated with the French people (in their periods the difference between Iranian languages was greater than between the Celtic languages, while Vercingetorix also opposed the Romanization of Gallia). I don’t think that constructively without a strong need to throw a klice: “pan-Turkist”, “pan-Iranian”, “Aryanism”, etc.Üzgäreş (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your theory would work if said Uzbeks or Turks claiming Biruni's legacy had actually acknowledged his Iranic roots. However, they rarely if ever do so, instead fabricating such myths that he was Turkic, and you can see the effects in the archives of this very talk page. And no, I disagree Biruni has equal weights in all cultures; his lifestyle was very close to the other settled Iranic peoples like Persians/Tajiks, Sogdians, etc, and he later studied under the Samanid state alongside Ibn Sina. Uzbeks (and Turkics in general) have always had a mostly nomadic element in their culture, in massive contrast to settled Iranic people; hence why there was constant conflict between the two. The fact that he and his people "affected" Uzbek culture does not make him theirs; Byzantium affected the culture of Turkey and the Tatars/Golden Horde affected Russian culture (the entire Cossack lifestyle for one is a product of that), still those legacies belong to their respective native ethnicity. As for Vercingetorix, his culture would undoubtedly be closer to modern Irish culture than to French culture (even the name "Gaul" is like what the Irish call their language: "Gaeilge"), so yes, the Irish would unironically have a better claim to his legacy than the French. I also believe in using "Iranic" vs "Iranian" ("Iranian" includes non-Iranic people like Turks/Azerbaijanis, Arabs, etc.), but that's a recurring issue extending beyond this page. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank god that the theories of Wikipedia users don't count as a reliable source. Al-Biruni was Iranian, hence he should be described as one in the article, end of. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a slogan. You want to say that the statement that the native language of Biruni was Khorezmian (Iranic) is a theory of Wikipedia users, not a fact?Üzgäreş (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Iranian is the predominant term, not Iranic. Also that's not how a slogan works. Aren't you the same guy who removed tons of sourced information in another article because it didn't support your opinion? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In essence, this is a confusion in terms (convenient for some people), similar to the one that was erstwhile with terms "Turkic"/"Turkish".

No, I never did something like that. And it would be nice if you apologized for such accusations.Üzgäreş (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? i don't know what all your above babbling about Vercingetorix means. Biruni was definitely not a Turk or an Arab, but it's obvious that a civilization like the Iranian civilization influenced many areas and peoples all around Iran and the Turks are not an exception. Keep in mind that all the great Turkish dynasties, like Ottomans, Seljuks, Ghaznevids, etc ... were persianate and deeply influenced by the Iranian civilization. Let's follow what reliable sources say about this and please drop your nationalistic stick.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep to yourself your imputation of nationalism. You are shift the conversation to the discussion of the identity of the interlocutor, and attribute me something that I did not say. Did I call Biruni a Turk or an Arab? No. I denied the great value of Iranian culture? No. I wrote thet "Iranian" and "Iranic", however, are different definitions. The Central Asia of that time was influenced not only by Iranian culture. Al-Biruni wrote in Arabic, and he also wrote not too flattering words about the Persian language and its possibility of being used in science. Persia had a significant impact on Iranic cultures of Central Asia, but there was also the revers (albeit less) influence. Biruni is a vivid example of this influence. Desire to reduce this culture to zero can hardly be described as anti-nationalism.Üzgäreş (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Its endearing to see how people are still trying to ignore what the reliable sources state, a core Wikipedia policy, anno 2019. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's just better to ignore and move forward. If this user is able to provide something else than his own POV (something like reliable sources), maybe we can discuss, but for now, he just sounds like another POV editor. We're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Impartial but court astrologer of Mahmud?

This contradiction does not make sense to me. I can agree that Al-Biruni's insights about India were very detailed (hence his title 'Al Ustaad'), but since he served to the patronage of a ruler who left a very polarised legacy in India (Mahmud of Ghazni), how reliably can we say that his judgement was impartial? I've discussed this with a famous Indologist; his take on this is that some of Al-Biruni's writings have some very negatively-biased details against certain Indian groups. Please do have a look at this and let me know. I'll search for resources to support this claim if we can have a consensus here that this matter is worth a look (I'm not too active here these days, hence this request for consensus first).

Ayan.rakshit (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

"he attacks the immutability of the celestial spheres;[44] and so on"

"and so on" is not factual. It should be removed or elaborated. Else, it could mean he proved the 70% dark energy in the universe. 83.227.96.139 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done DarthFlappy 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Persian vs Iranian misleading citations

Half of the sources cited next to the word "Iranian" call Al-Biruni "Persian".... Come on people... clearly they are not interchangeable, or the Persian is wrong, Iranian is correct in my opinion thread above wouldn't exist. Can we just write "Persian/Iranian" (or "Persian or Iranian") to reflect the difference in sources?? It is complete OR to be supporting information like this. Aza24 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Half of the cited sources say Iranian and the other half say Persian, however, being Persian implies being Iranian, so "Iranian" is the correct word to use here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet Persian is the more specific term, so why would we needlessly avoid specificity? Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Persian is more specific, but according to half of the cited sources (those supporting an Iranin ethnicity), he was Iranian, not necessarily Persian.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't he Chorasmian actually? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but anyway, Chorasmians are an Iranian people too.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but if we are looking for precision, isn't "Chorasmian" better than the more general "Iranian", and certainly more exact then "Persian"? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, you certainly know that we go by what reilable sources say, we have a dozen sources in the article calling him Iranian/ Persian, isn't that enough ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that all the sources agree that he was a native of Choresmia, and many favour this descriptive. There is the "Choresmian scholar and scientist, al-Biruni" per Victor H. Mair [6], or "Al-Biruni, Islamic scholar of Chorasmian origin" per Károly Simonyi [7]. For the sake of both precision and exhaustiveness, I would think "the Kwarezmian Iranian Al-Biruni" is most appropriate as per Stephen Dale [8]. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The article already mentions that he was a native speaker of the Khwarazmian language (which is what some of the sources say actually), that's fair enouh IMHO, no need to go further on this path. Also, who are Károly Simonyi and Victor H. Mair ? a physicist and a sinologist ? what expertise do these people have for this topic ?? The only acceptable source given by you is Dale and he calls Al-Biruni Kwarezmian Iranian.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly: "Kwarezmian Iranian" is an excellent way of putting all these sources in agreement. Al-Biruni himself says he's a native of Kwarezmia (in "The Book of Drugs"), so there is no doubt on that. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, the article already mentions that he was a native speaker of the Khwarazmian language and the word "Iranian" encompasses both "Persian" and "Khwarazmian", so the most consensual word used by expert sources is Iranian, not Persian nor Khwarazmian.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the nationality of Al-Biruni

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 debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Should the Muslim scientist Al-Biruni (973–1050) be described in the lead as "Khwarazmian" or "Kwarazmian Iranian" rather than just "Iranian" as is the case currently [9]? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. The current article says that Al-Biruni was "Iranian". This is ambiguous as "Iranian" is also the modern name for the inhabitants of Iran, too broad as Al-Biruni was more precisely Khwarazmian ("Chorasmian"), and just using "Iranian" has undue pan-Iranian nationalistic overtones. In effect, Al-Biruni was Khwarazmian ("Chorasmian"), an Iranic people ("Iranic" is often used to avoid the confusion with the modern "Iranian" nationality, as for Turkic vs Turkish) . A few sources do say that he was "Iranian", most of the time with the qualifier "Khwarazmian", but about the same amount of sources actually say that he was "Persian" (the historical term) or just "Chorasmian". Overall, I would say "Iranian" is an undue simplification, and would favour "Kwarizmian Iranian", as does the most recent source Stephen F. Dale (2018) "The Kwarezmian Iranian Al-Biruni", as a compromise and the best description of his nationality/ethnicity in the lead, taking into account that "Persian" is probably a bit dated. To make a parallel, when we have a Sogdian ruler such as Divashtich, we don't simplify by saying he was "Iranian", we usually describe him as "Sogdian", first and foremost. What sources say:

3 sources for Chorasmian/ "Khwarezmian"

• L. Massignon (1951) citing Al-Biruni himself who self-describes as "native Khwarezmian".
• Antonio Panaino (2021) "Choresmian scholar"
• Victor H. Mair (2012) "the Choresmian scholar and scientist, al-Biruni"

2 sources for "native Khwarezmian language"

• Strohmaier (2006) "his native Khwarezmian"
• A.L. Samian (157) "his native language was the Khwarizmian dialect"

4 sources for "Iranian", including 3 with the qualifier "Khwarazmian":

• Stephen F. Dale (2018) "The Kwarezmian Iranian Al-Biruni"
• C. E. Bosworth (1968) "The Iranian scholar al-Biruni", but he also says later in the same chapter "the Khwarazmian al-Biruni".
• Richard Frye (2000): lists "Al-Biruni, from Khwarazm" among the "The contribution of Iranians".
• D.J. Boilot "born of an Iranian family"

4 sources for "Persian"

• M. A. Saleem Khan (2001) "Persian by origin, and spoke the Khwarizmian dialect".
• H. U. Rahman (1995) "A Persian by birth".
• David C. Lindberg (1980) "A Persian by birth".
• J.L. Berggren "The Persian polymath"

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Khwarazmian should cover both his birthplace and language. For readability I'd go with "a scholar and polymath from Khwarazm ...". Also "Iranian" can be misconstrued as an ethnic claim, hence should not be in the lede per MOS:ETHNICITY. Apart from his birthplace, other claims about his ancestry aren't known to be true, as E. S. Kennedy explains: "About his ancestry and childhood nothing is known."[10] Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Khwarazmian Iranian: I would personally prefer 'Khwarazmian', but since there is no article for them simply as a people (or at least a well-written Khwarazm article) and they are quite unknown to the average reader, I'd go for 'Khwarazmian Iranian'. Al-Biruni is indeed notable for being Khwarazmian, as he has provided much of what we know about his native Khwarazmian heritage, history, culture and language. Also, omitting mention of al-Biruni's ethnicity due to a single source which goes against the vast majority of WP:RS is WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV. Anyways, the same source also says "His mother tongue was khwārazmain, an Iranian language". Islamica calls al-Biruni of "Persian extraction" yet the term is seemingly used as a synonym for Iranian throughout the work, as obvious non-Persian Iranian figures are also referred to as such, such as Kushyar and Abu Nasr Mansur. EI3 says that his "mother tongue was a Khwārazmian dialect of Persian", obviously also used as a synonym for Iranian. While Persian and Iranian are much less used as synonyms nowadays, it still seem still to occur to a certain degree. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:ETHNICITY applies to "Iranian" regardless of it being disputed or not. Also a search for "Khwarazmian Iranian" in GB/GS returned extremely few results. Unlike Khwarazmian/From Khwarazm, only some sources describe Biruni as Iranian, often not in the lede. In most sources Iranian is just a modern linguistic classification of the Khwarazmian language. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Khwarazmian Iranian: With these exact hyperlinks. The comment by Wiqi about "unknown ethnicity" is disproven by Biruni's own statements that Khwarazmian language is his mother tongue, as well as the countless reliable sources in the article that mention him as ethnically Khwarazmian/Iranic. The main argument for "Persian" or "Iranian" is mostly that the average reader likely wouldn't know what country or people Khwarazmian refers to, so having some explanation (native Iranic people of Khwarazm region) would also help, if not in the lede then in the "Early Life" section. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Khwarazmian Iranian: Per HistoryofIran. I also find Qahramani44's suggestion of those specific wikilinks persuasive. Fieari (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Khwarazmian Iranian per very well made arguments above, especially by पाटलिपुत्र Pat and HistoryofIran. But also a question. Is there a specific reason for which there is no Khwarazmian people article? The link to a disambiguation page is a very inelegant solution. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Khwarezmian as per above. We should also create a separate article for Khwarezmians, the Iranian-speaking people from ancient Khwarazm. Khestwol (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Iranian is enough. Since Khwarazmians were an Iranian people, saying "Khwarazmian Iranian" sounds redundant and does not add any useful information to the article, especially when the lead already mentions that he was speaking the Khwarazmian language.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Khwarezmian as per above. Iranian does seem to have modern nationalistic overtones, not applicable to someone from the 10th century. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Summary. Thank you all. It looks like "Khwarazmian Iranian" is the preferred term per community consensus. @Wikaviani: are you OK to close this RfC? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, you can close it. I edited the article accordingly. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References

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 3 June 2022

I have a small edit in the info box Al-Biruni He had many professions, you didn't mention some of them So I will rewrite Al-Biruni's professions again : Philosopher, chemist, geographer, encyclopedist, mathematician, cartographer, astronomer, translator, anthropologist, physicist, astrologer, historian, Linguist, Indologist, writer, pharmacist and botanist

If you are wondering how true I am, I have a source , You can go to search ( البيروني ) On Wikipedia once you paste it And if you do not understand the words, you can translate it on Google and it will show you the same as what you wrote Good luck!Lamo jostar 2 (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

change Astrolabe in his works to a better one. Shahpour Nosrati (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2022 (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. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect actual radius of Earth

The article says, "His calculated radius for the Earth of 3928.77 miles was 2% higher than the actual mean radius of 3847.80 miles." Yet in the article Earth radius (and elsewhere in Wikipedia) the actual mean radius of Earth reported is 3959 miles. None of the 21 "published values" given in a table converts (from km) to less than 3936 miles. Unfortunately I don't have access to the cited reference to examine. Nonetheless, the mean radius should be uniform across Wikipedia, and some clarification or attribution given when it is not. Additional reliable sources might also be explored. As we all know, factual conflict reduces the credibility of the encyclopedia. — βox73 (৳alk) 07:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Worse than that! Al-Biruni's (local) radius of curvature used the Abbasid Caliphate's cubit, so (12 803 337cubit)*(0.4825m/cubit)= 6 177 610m . This value is only 97% of the 6370km appropriate for Punjab latitude (ie, he was 3% low, not 2% high).

[the earlier Islamic legal cubit was 0.498m => 6 376 061m, but that was over 200 years out-of-date!]

Al-Biruni did not estimate his uncertainty, so the ±20% number has zero validity, pulled out of thin air along with "alter by about 1/6"

[1/6 = 17% ... but reference 55's author admits in print (pg 216) that he did not know Biruni's measurement method nor his sightline]

[mirage-type refraction effects would be an absolute angle error, not proportional to a measured value, so that author is an idiot]

So yes, someone needs to fix this paragraph ... but I don't see any "edit" links! - lightgrav- 2601:542:103:A1F0:90B2:8D74:37FB:4D2A (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)