Talk:Al-Biruni#Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024 (2)

i don not why they call biruni iranian, he is a turk, written books in arabic nothing to do with Iran.its shamfull and a big lie Irani2024 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The name section says his name came from a persian word birun while its totaly a big scandal becasue bituni is the city he was born in him not outskirt. Irani2024 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

:Because its based on WP:RS, unlike your claims. Though it's clear that you don't care about WP:RS, and that despite being named "Irani"2024, you're clearly not one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Biruni&diff=prev&oldid=1221524458]. Have you edited here before? HistoryofIran (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

::There is a lot of damaging revisionism of descriptors of historical 'Persian' figures; this being one of them Onpoint12 (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::There is evidence to suggest he was of Turkic origin. Just because he wrote in the Persian language does not make him Persian, just as your writing in the English language doesn't make you English. So please stop it with the Perso-Centrism. It has no place on Wikipedia. Wikimicky1 (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Al-Biruni|answered=yes}}

This section "Al-Biruni's name is derived from the Persian word bērūn or bīrūn ("outskirts"), as he was born in an outlying district of Kath, the capital of the Afrighid kingdom of Khwarazm.'

should be changed to

'His name originated from the word 'burun', which means nose, because he had a very big nose. Hence his facial feature was the cause of speculation among his contemporaries.'

https://arboblar.uz/ru/people/abu-rajkhan-beruni Usgoblin (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

:File:Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Edit probably should be made, but I have to go soon. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

::{{done}} ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 10:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

:::File:Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that source looks good enough William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

:Wait, really? I don't see how this is user-generated or potentially biased. (Probably because I speak none of the languages the site is available in, forcing me to use google translate to verify.) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

::I'm sorry. I couldn't find a source in English. All the available sources are in Russian. Usgoblin (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Sources in foreign languages usually aren't an issue at all. They don't need to be English (although encouraged). ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

::::The language isn't the problem, that page's author is anonymous and it cites no source for that claim. Hi! (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{edit semi-protected|Al-Biruni|answered=yes}}

this person ‘s background is not from actual Iran , when it’s written iranian the reader can misunderstand the origin of him. he was an uzbekistani from uzbekistan or precisely Afghanistan .

thanks for your attention and efforts to spread correct information.

change his background from iranian to uzbekistani/Afghanistani please. میلاد مولایی (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:WP:RS contradicts you. Wikipedia is a not a place for revisionism. Please also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoryofIran/Sources#Uzbek]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

::I would agree with the original comment that 'Iranian' is confusing for a lead paragraph given that its most obvious meaning correlates to the modern nation state. 'Persian' is the clearest term to use, as attested to in multiple sources. It appears consensus is lacking. Onpoint12 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Consensus is not lacking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_4#RfC_on_the_nationality_of_Al-Biruni]. And scholars routinely use "Iranian", nothing confusing about it. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If some pro-Iranians want to push the agenda that he was of Iranian origin, then we should also mention that he was probably of Turkic origin too. After all, there is evidence for both cases. Wikimicky1 (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:If you think these so called "pro-Iranian" users that want to push an "agenda" exists, by all means, report them to WP:ANI. If not, then please it keep to yourself (WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA/WP:SOAPBOX). Also, WP:RS and the WP:CONSENSUS that was based on it is heavily against you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_4#RfC_on_the_nationality_of_Al-Biruni]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

::I would report a case if necessary. For now it is reasonable to assume you are editing in good faith, just like myself. I do not see a consensus against him possibly being of Turkic origin too. Again, if there are claims that he was of Iranian origin then there are also claims that he was of Turkic origin. If you want to mention him being Iranian then it is only fair that you also include that he was Turkic. Wikimicky1 (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::As you were just told, WP:RS and the WP:CONSENSUS that was based on it is heavily against you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_4#RfC_on_the_nationality_of_Al-Biruni]. We base our info on WP:RS, not our own personal opinion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Why would I make any edits based on my own opinions on Wikipedia? You need to meet in the middle and be compromising. As I mentioned above, I don't see a consensus on him being Persian. Kwarazmian Iranian just means he is from that area. Even if that was the case, it can be challenged as I will provide at least two (not one) reliable source for his possible Turkic origins. Wikimicky1 (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Clear WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:IDHT signs. You're getting reported, you've had enough WP:ROPE. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

:An RfC (Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_4#RfC on the nationality of Al-Biruni) was held around three years ago which came to a clear consensus. If you wish to overturn that result, per WP:CONLEVEL, you will need to start another RfC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you for the heads up ~~ AirshipJungleman29. Does this grant HistoryofIran the removal of information referenced with reliable sources? Wikimicky1 (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Yes, as per consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:::"Thanks for the heads up"? I literally mentioned the RFC twice. And cherrypicking a non-expert citation and an obscure, seemingly non reliable citation does not exactly count as "reliable sources". HistoryofIran (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni, also known as al-Biruni was born in city called Kat in Khwarezm (now part of Uzbekistan). He was of Khwarezmian nationality, not Iranian. In the region of Khwarezm the main nationalities were Turkic and Persian mixed, nowadays called Uzbek nationality. He wrote his books mainly in two languages: Arabic and Persian. Reason for this was those languages were commonly understood by many people. There's no point in calling him Iranian cause he was neither of Iranian nationality nor born there. It would be closer to reality if called Uzbek or Khwarezmian scholar. Sevinch.su (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

{{cait}}

:It is important to acknowledge a historical reality: modern Uzbeks are neither Persian nor Iranian, and they are not the cultural or civilizational heirs of the Iranian peoples who once flourished in Central Asia. Claiming descent from the Khwarizmians or other Iranian civilizations—despite some genetic admixture and geographical overlap—is historically false. It is no different than claiming that Armenians and modern Turks are the same people, simply because they now inhabit overlapping geography.

:The Iranian peoples of pre-Islamic Central Asia—such as the Sogdians, Bactrians, and Khwarizmians—spoke their own Eastern Iranian languages, distinct from Persian but still within the Iranian family. Over time, especially under Persianate dynasties like the Samanids, Persian became the dominant literary and cultural language. This was a result of cultural cohesion, not erasure. These people were Iranian in both ethnic and civilizational terms long before the region was transformed by Turkic and Mongol invasions.

:Modern Uzbeks are primarily the descendants of Turkic and Chagatai Mongol tribes, formed during the post-Mongol era under leaders like Uzbeg Khan and the Shaybanids. They emerged in the vacuum left by the destruction of Iranian cities and populations during the Mongol conquests. Ironically, many Uzbeks today celebrate Tamerlane, a Turko-Mongol warlord whose massacres in Persian cities like Isfahan are well documented, and yet simultaneously try to claim Al-Khwarizmi, a Persian-speaking scholar of the Iranian Khwarezm civilization, as “Uzbek.” This is a clear case of historical appropriation through geography, not cultural inheritance.

:If Uzbeks truly saw themselves as heirs of Khwarazm, then the question must be asked: Why hasn’t modern Uzbekistan, after more than 30 years of independence, replicated any of Khwarazm’s former cultural or scientific brilliance? Why hasn’t it produced a globally recognized scientific institution, breakthrough technology, or even a single internationally respected tech company?

:Consider this:

:📊 Comparison Table: Technological Output

:Country

:Technological Milestone

:Afghanistan

:Built and unveiled its first indigenously made sports car, the Mada 9, with a team of local engineers. Despite war and instability, it showcased innovation under pressure.

:Uzbekistan

:No comparable technological innovation or major tech firm known internationally. The country remains largely absent in global tech, innovation, and high-level scientific output.

:Even Afghanistan, despite decades of war, managed to design and showcase an original car. Uzbekistan—stable since the fall of the USSR—has not produced a single piece of innovative tech or world-class company. Why? Because Uzbekistan was built not on the legacy of Khwarazm, but on the ruins of it.

:The painful truth is that when you replace a civilizational population with conquering nomadic groups, you do not inherit that civilization—you extinguish it. Germany, after being bombed to rubble in WWII, rebuilt itself because its people and institutions remained. But when a region’s original population is annihilated or marginalized—as happened in Central Asia under the Mongols and Turkic expansion—you cannot rebuild what was lost. You can only fabricate narratives to claim its memory.

:This is not about attacking individuals, but about rejecting historical revisionism. Uzbeks are the cultural descendants of conquerors, not of the scientists, poets, and philosophers they now claim through historical proximity. The real legacy of Khwarazm belongs to the Iranian world, not to those who destroyed it. 2607:FEA8:FC60:769A:2D1D:A0F4:3759:2702 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Moreover, it is simply false for the Uzbeks to claim the heritage of the civilizations their ancestors destroyed. The Khwarizmians and other Iranian peoples built a rich and sophisticated culture that was obliterated by Turkic and Mongol invasions. The Uzbeks did not inherit this legacy through any genuine cultural or ethnic continuity, but through conquest and replacement.

::This deliberate rewriting of history serves to legitimize their rule over lands they never originally belonged to and to silence the true descendants of the Iranian peoples, such as Afghans and Tajiks. Claiming the legacy of Khwarazm is a calculated attempt to erase the brutal realities of genocide and colonization carried out by their forebears.

::The truth is clear: you cannot claim as your own what you destroyed. Any attempt to do so is a distortion meant to cover up violent history and prevent rightful recognition or restitution for those whose ancestors were wiped out.

::I also find it revealing—and frankly ironic—that Wikipedia has championed the concept of a “Hazara genocide” while refusing to label the Mongol and Turkic destruction of Central Asia as genocide, arguing that the term didn’t exist at the time. Yet, anyone who understands the history of the Iranian peoples should ask why modern Uzbeks, Turks, or Turkmens have never nationally acknowledged any persecution of the Hazara people in Afghanistan. Is it because they fear being linked to the legacy of the Mongol invaders? That is a question worth considering. 2607:FEA8:FC60:769A:2D1D:A0F4:3759:2702 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{caib}}