This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ulugh Beg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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)
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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:
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
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)
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.
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)
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
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..
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ulugh Beg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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)
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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:
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
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)
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.
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)
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
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..