Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Biruni. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wikaviani ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't consider my changes disruptive, I consider them informative. Al-Biruni's grave is located in Ghazni which is present day Afghanistan. Al-Biruni himself supposedly claimed that he even did not know who is own father was. (source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Biruni) So why are you labeling him (very possibly innacurately, as an "Iranian", as if present day "Iran" is the only land mass producing high level scholars? This is false and misleading. He spoke multiple languages, most of the work that he is known for happened while he was in Afghanistan, not IRAN, and he himself NEVER claimed to be an Iranian apparently.
What classifies him as an "Iranian" scholar? According to what measuring stick? Correct this disruptive error of calling him an "Iranian" scholar.
-I did check those references at the bottom and most of those references refer to him as generally a PERSIAN in a broader-encompassing sense, not Iranian, so those references located in the article point to the fact that Al-Biruni should be called Persian, which encompasses a greater possibility of his origins, instead of narrowing it down to "Iranian", which is not correct. -Moreover, this supposedly extinct Khwarezmian language that he spoke was "replaced" by a language known as Dari, and Dari isn't spoken by Iranian's it is spoken by people in present day Afghanistan. Dari is the language that supposedly replaced the extinct Khwarizmian language --> [1]. Many people consider present day Dari a much older language/dialect than Farsi or "Iranian". -Moreover, there are other articles splattered across wikipedia providing reliable sources that point to the possibility that Al-Biruni easily be argued to have been from the region of the globe known as Afghanistan today. He was born in the Khwarezm region and that region is argued to be in what is present day Afghanistan [2]. -Moreover, there is a photo of a diagram and illustration made by Al-Biruni on his main wikipedia page which explains briefly the stages of the moon phases and how light from the sun affects these moon phases and how we see them. The writing used to explain it is not "farsi" or Iranian, it is Dari (although the two languages/dialects use a lot of the same alphabet so people who can read one can read the other but might find it weird or different after reading it). He knew multiple languages and was comfortable reading/writing/speaking/conveying his messages and many of them so this would be a moot point regarding his actual origins. -Moreover, I also provided my own reliable Britannica alternative encyclopedia reference which stated that Al-Biruni himself, in a poem that he himself wrote, said that he did not know who is own father was or what his actual origins were. What does wikipedia consider a reliable source? And where does a discussion take place to make the proper corrections to an article that has misleading or false information on it and needs to be corrected?
If his origins cannot be EXPLICITLY and factually (not by testimony) pin-pointed, and even based on the current citations and references, it cannot... then it would be more correct and proper and factual to keep it broad and simply say "persian scholar". Monsore ( talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
According to the dictionary definition of "ethnic group" [3], and applying those definitions; People who are ethnically Tajik, will not identify themselves as being ethnically "Iranian" and people who identify themselves as ethnically Pashtun or Afghan will DEFINITELY not identify themselves as being ethnically (or otherwise) Iranian either. Just because two different human beings from two different parts of the globe both eat and drink and breathe the same air, doesn't make them part of the same ethnic group, therefore lumping them all into one category of "Iranian" would not be accurate to reality. Otherwise, why not lump them all into one big category called "Afghan"? Who picked "Iranian" as the big umbrella that everything is supposed to fall under. "Persians" and the earliest sources referring to persians, showed up apparently around 10th century BC [4]. The Pashtuns have been around in their exact current location apparently since about 50,000+ years ago [5]. So...explain to me how the Pashtun ethnic group that has been around far longer apparently would fall into the "iranian" or even "persian" ethnic group when they have been around longer than both words even existed, and not the other way around?
Who is making up these categories?
The external references currently in the article suggest the phrase "persian" more than anything else so I would call Al-Biruni a persian..or better yet, just simply say where he is estimated to have been born, where most of his work took place and where he is currently buried at. The general population reading these articles don't know the differences between ethnic and citizenship etc, so why confuse them? Monsore ( talk) 22:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Wikaviani, unfortunately what you stated and what your reference stated does not match. Look here. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source . "Wikipedia should not be considered a source for 'fact-checking." Your reference states that wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and should not be considered a reliable source for fact checking. If Al-Biruni is called an "Iranian" scholar, I would agree with your reference stating that wikipedia is not a reliable source and would not reference wikipedia as a reliable source to anyone in the future either or consider it a reliable source if it is referenced to me. There is nothing wrong with being Iranian, IF that is actually what you are in reality and factually. The specific wikipedia article categorizes Pashtuns as "eastern Iranians" (and that may have to be edited as well then), and that's great, but the dictionary does not, and neither does numerous other sources that I've referenced that are also "well-sourced facts" that show that Pashtuns have been around far longer than "Iranians", so this misleading categorization is unwarranted and false. Why are you ignoring many of my numerous references (far more numerous than yours)? Is there something wrong with being Afghan or non-Iranian? If Britannica calls him Persian, call him Persian (your (i.e. Iranian) addition is not relevant to what Britannica states.)
( edit conflict) I'm not ignoring your sources, but they don't contradict what i'm saying to you and i have by no mean any problem with being non Iranian. Al-biruni is a 10th century scholar, there was no "afghanistan" at that time, the region called Afghanistan was a province of numerous Iranian dynasties (Samanids, Saffarids, etc ...) therefore, calling him "Afghan" is nothing else than a wrong statement and your remarks are under WP:OR. The only legit question is : DO YOU HAVE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE CALLING bIRUNI "AFGHAN" EXPLICITELY ? As to your remarks about Pashtuns being "older" than Iranian, i can only disagree with it, because you seem to be thinking that Iranians only exist since 1000 BC, this is wrong. Iranian languages invaders came to what is Iran today ca 1000 BC and imposed their languages to local peoples, this does not mean that Pashtuns have 50000 years and Iranians only 3000 years, i hope you can understand this. Saying that Tajiks, Pashtuns are not Iranians is tantamount saying that Algerians or Syrians are not Arabs. To make it short, do you have a reliable source EXPLICITELY stating that Biruni is Afghan ? if the answer is no, then this discussion is over. However, i would be happy to help you if you need more help. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The majority ethnic group that makes up the "afghans" is the group that is called Pashtuns. Pashtuns have been around longer than any "Iranian" categorization has been around. source is the follow, /info/en/?search=Pashtuns#History_and_origins [9]. According this reference no one is 100% clear of the origins of the Pashtuns because their origins supersede recorded history, including any "Iranian" categorization. Al-Biruni spoke a dialect and wrote in a dialect similar to the Dari language presently, and this language is spoken where Pashtuns and present day Afghans exist, not where Iranians exist or what Iranians currently speak. Since Al-Biruni was likely born where Pashtuns currently are located, since he spoke the dialects more closely related to what Afghans do today, since most of his work that he is known for was carried out in what is now present day Afghanistan, and since he grave is currently in Afghanistan, I find it absolutely ridiculous that he is being called an "Iranian scholar" on his page. The difference between Tajiks and Pashtuns is that they don't consider themselve or identify as "iranian" ethnically, while Algerians and Syrians don't have a problem ethnically calling themselves Arabs, this is not rocket science (which I can also do).
All current articles and outside sources call him out as a PERSIAN, not an IRANIAN. The change should be made to PERSIAN. It is FAR-less misleading to the reader. Monsore ( talk) 17:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
–––––––––
Those "12 reliable sources" don't all explicitly state that Al-Biruni was "Iranian", they more generally state that he was PERSIAN, and for clarity for the reader this is an important difference.
David C. Lindberg, Science in the Middle Ages, University of Chicago Press, p. 18:
And regarding the reference that shows that human beings have been around in present day Afghanistan far longer than any "iranian" categorization, why did you stop copy pasting the very next sentences conveniently? source, /info/en/?search=Pashtuns#History_and_origins.
Since no one knows where the Pashtuns came from, academically or otherwise, and since they have been around in the area far longer than any "Iranian categorization", then it can very safely be concluded that Pasthuns have been around 50,000 years, since recorded history, in the area. Who else was there if not the Pashtuns? Magical fairytale creatures? The Iranian categorization didn't exist 50,000 years ago and has nothing to do with the Pashtuns. And I don't know of any "iranian invasion" of the region in Afghanistan, and if it did occur it was definitely not successful. What I do know is that many people have tried to "invade" the region, and all of them have been unsuccessful, including the Greeks, Alexander the great, the mongols, russia, usa, etc. Evidence of this is that no invasion has ever lasted, there are no greeks there anymore, there are no mongols there anymore...so, so much for any so-called "invasions". They all got kicked out and sent back to wherever they came from and humiliated. The people in the region in present day Afghanistan don't like being invaded and are proud of their origins and don't want it to be tainted or tarnished by any foreign forces (and they have proven it all throughout history), including Iranian or otherwise. Pashtuns speak Pashto, not farsi. Do you think a person speaking Pashto will understand a person speaking Farsi? I will tell you, the answer is no. This doesn't mean that being Iranian is bad, but people need to stop trying to claim everything as Iranian, because that can be considered delusional.
Al-Biruni spoke a dialect and wrote in a dialect similar to the Dari language presently, and this language is spoken where Pashtuns and present day Afghans exist, not where Iranians exist or what Iranians currently speak. Since Al-Biruni was likely born where Pashtuns currently are located, since he spoke the dialects more closely related to what Afghans speak today, since most of his work that he is known for was carried out in what is now present day Afghanistan, and since he grave is currently in Afghanistan, I find it absolutely ridiculous that he is being called an "Iranian scholar" on his page. The difference between Tajiks and Pashtuns is that they don't consider themselves or identify as "iranian" ethnically, while Algerians and Syrians don't have a problem ethnically calling themselves Arabs. This combined with the fact that the majority of the current references in the article call him PERSIAN, not IRANIAN (this makes a difference, regardless of your potentially dissident and inconsistent stance).
His article needs to call him a Persian Scholar, not an Iranian Scholar, based on the majority of references that are already being referenced in the article...there is a difference, and keeping it what it currently is, is very misleading to the reader. Regards Monsore ( talk) 19:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You personal feelings have nothing to do with reality and facts. I've provided relevant reliable sources, multiple actually and you still refuse to make the change. Noted. Yes, they were "failed" Iranian attempts. Just because maps show pretty colors that include certain areas in those pretty colors doesn't mean the region was "invaded" and "conquered". It is also a possibility that the Pashtuns in the region didn't care what you want to write in your delusional history books and just keep doing what they want, while Iranian historians lie about reality, because it seems like Iranians like to draw all sorts of delusional colors and maps and history books. Noted. If corrections are not made, I will attempt to mark this and other articles as "disputed" or something. Thanks bud. Monsore ( talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikaviani ( talk) 20:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Monsore! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC) |
Hi Monsore! You created a thread called Archival by
User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Biruni. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wikaviani ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't consider my changes disruptive, I consider them informative. Al-Biruni's grave is located in Ghazni which is present day Afghanistan. Al-Biruni himself supposedly claimed that he even did not know who is own father was. (source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Biruni) So why are you labeling him (very possibly innacurately, as an "Iranian", as if present day "Iran" is the only land mass producing high level scholars? This is false and misleading. He spoke multiple languages, most of the work that he is known for happened while he was in Afghanistan, not IRAN, and he himself NEVER claimed to be an Iranian apparently.
What classifies him as an "Iranian" scholar? According to what measuring stick? Correct this disruptive error of calling him an "Iranian" scholar.
-I did check those references at the bottom and most of those references refer to him as generally a PERSIAN in a broader-encompassing sense, not Iranian, so those references located in the article point to the fact that Al-Biruni should be called Persian, which encompasses a greater possibility of his origins, instead of narrowing it down to "Iranian", which is not correct. -Moreover, this supposedly extinct Khwarezmian language that he spoke was "replaced" by a language known as Dari, and Dari isn't spoken by Iranian's it is spoken by people in present day Afghanistan. Dari is the language that supposedly replaced the extinct Khwarizmian language --> [1]. Many people consider present day Dari a much older language/dialect than Farsi or "Iranian". -Moreover, there are other articles splattered across wikipedia providing reliable sources that point to the possibility that Al-Biruni easily be argued to have been from the region of the globe known as Afghanistan today. He was born in the Khwarezm region and that region is argued to be in what is present day Afghanistan [2]. -Moreover, there is a photo of a diagram and illustration made by Al-Biruni on his main wikipedia page which explains briefly the stages of the moon phases and how light from the sun affects these moon phases and how we see them. The writing used to explain it is not "farsi" or Iranian, it is Dari (although the two languages/dialects use a lot of the same alphabet so people who can read one can read the other but might find it weird or different after reading it). He knew multiple languages and was comfortable reading/writing/speaking/conveying his messages and many of them so this would be a moot point regarding his actual origins. -Moreover, I also provided my own reliable Britannica alternative encyclopedia reference which stated that Al-Biruni himself, in a poem that he himself wrote, said that he did not know who is own father was or what his actual origins were. What does wikipedia consider a reliable source? And where does a discussion take place to make the proper corrections to an article that has misleading or false information on it and needs to be corrected?
If his origins cannot be EXPLICITLY and factually (not by testimony) pin-pointed, and even based on the current citations and references, it cannot... then it would be more correct and proper and factual to keep it broad and simply say "persian scholar". Monsore ( talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
According to the dictionary definition of "ethnic group" [3], and applying those definitions; People who are ethnically Tajik, will not identify themselves as being ethnically "Iranian" and people who identify themselves as ethnically Pashtun or Afghan will DEFINITELY not identify themselves as being ethnically (or otherwise) Iranian either. Just because two different human beings from two different parts of the globe both eat and drink and breathe the same air, doesn't make them part of the same ethnic group, therefore lumping them all into one category of "Iranian" would not be accurate to reality. Otherwise, why not lump them all into one big category called "Afghan"? Who picked "Iranian" as the big umbrella that everything is supposed to fall under. "Persians" and the earliest sources referring to persians, showed up apparently around 10th century BC [4]. The Pashtuns have been around in their exact current location apparently since about 50,000+ years ago [5]. So...explain to me how the Pashtun ethnic group that has been around far longer apparently would fall into the "iranian" or even "persian" ethnic group when they have been around longer than both words even existed, and not the other way around?
Who is making up these categories?
The external references currently in the article suggest the phrase "persian" more than anything else so I would call Al-Biruni a persian..or better yet, just simply say where he is estimated to have been born, where most of his work took place and where he is currently buried at. The general population reading these articles don't know the differences between ethnic and citizenship etc, so why confuse them? Monsore ( talk) 22:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Wikaviani, unfortunately what you stated and what your reference stated does not match. Look here. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source . "Wikipedia should not be considered a source for 'fact-checking." Your reference states that wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and should not be considered a reliable source for fact checking. If Al-Biruni is called an "Iranian" scholar, I would agree with your reference stating that wikipedia is not a reliable source and would not reference wikipedia as a reliable source to anyone in the future either or consider it a reliable source if it is referenced to me. There is nothing wrong with being Iranian, IF that is actually what you are in reality and factually. The specific wikipedia article categorizes Pashtuns as "eastern Iranians" (and that may have to be edited as well then), and that's great, but the dictionary does not, and neither does numerous other sources that I've referenced that are also "well-sourced facts" that show that Pashtuns have been around far longer than "Iranians", so this misleading categorization is unwarranted and false. Why are you ignoring many of my numerous references (far more numerous than yours)? Is there something wrong with being Afghan or non-Iranian? If Britannica calls him Persian, call him Persian (your (i.e. Iranian) addition is not relevant to what Britannica states.)
( edit conflict) I'm not ignoring your sources, but they don't contradict what i'm saying to you and i have by no mean any problem with being non Iranian. Al-biruni is a 10th century scholar, there was no "afghanistan" at that time, the region called Afghanistan was a province of numerous Iranian dynasties (Samanids, Saffarids, etc ...) therefore, calling him "Afghan" is nothing else than a wrong statement and your remarks are under WP:OR. The only legit question is : DO YOU HAVE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE CALLING bIRUNI "AFGHAN" EXPLICITELY ? As to your remarks about Pashtuns being "older" than Iranian, i can only disagree with it, because you seem to be thinking that Iranians only exist since 1000 BC, this is wrong. Iranian languages invaders came to what is Iran today ca 1000 BC and imposed their languages to local peoples, this does not mean that Pashtuns have 50000 years and Iranians only 3000 years, i hope you can understand this. Saying that Tajiks, Pashtuns are not Iranians is tantamount saying that Algerians or Syrians are not Arabs. To make it short, do you have a reliable source EXPLICITELY stating that Biruni is Afghan ? if the answer is no, then this discussion is over. However, i would be happy to help you if you need more help. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The majority ethnic group that makes up the "afghans" is the group that is called Pashtuns. Pashtuns have been around longer than any "Iranian" categorization has been around. source is the follow, /info/en/?search=Pashtuns#History_and_origins [9]. According this reference no one is 100% clear of the origins of the Pashtuns because their origins supersede recorded history, including any "Iranian" categorization. Al-Biruni spoke a dialect and wrote in a dialect similar to the Dari language presently, and this language is spoken where Pashtuns and present day Afghans exist, not where Iranians exist or what Iranians currently speak. Since Al-Biruni was likely born where Pashtuns currently are located, since he spoke the dialects more closely related to what Afghans do today, since most of his work that he is known for was carried out in what is now present day Afghanistan, and since he grave is currently in Afghanistan, I find it absolutely ridiculous that he is being called an "Iranian scholar" on his page. The difference between Tajiks and Pashtuns is that they don't consider themselve or identify as "iranian" ethnically, while Algerians and Syrians don't have a problem ethnically calling themselves Arabs, this is not rocket science (which I can also do).
All current articles and outside sources call him out as a PERSIAN, not an IRANIAN. The change should be made to PERSIAN. It is FAR-less misleading to the reader. Monsore ( talk) 17:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
–––––––––
Those "12 reliable sources" don't all explicitly state that Al-Biruni was "Iranian", they more generally state that he was PERSIAN, and for clarity for the reader this is an important difference.
David C. Lindberg, Science in the Middle Ages, University of Chicago Press, p. 18:
And regarding the reference that shows that human beings have been around in present day Afghanistan far longer than any "iranian" categorization, why did you stop copy pasting the very next sentences conveniently? source, /info/en/?search=Pashtuns#History_and_origins.
Since no one knows where the Pashtuns came from, academically or otherwise, and since they have been around in the area far longer than any "Iranian categorization", then it can very safely be concluded that Pasthuns have been around 50,000 years, since recorded history, in the area. Who else was there if not the Pashtuns? Magical fairytale creatures? The Iranian categorization didn't exist 50,000 years ago and has nothing to do with the Pashtuns. And I don't know of any "iranian invasion" of the region in Afghanistan, and if it did occur it was definitely not successful. What I do know is that many people have tried to "invade" the region, and all of them have been unsuccessful, including the Greeks, Alexander the great, the mongols, russia, usa, etc. Evidence of this is that no invasion has ever lasted, there are no greeks there anymore, there are no mongols there anymore...so, so much for any so-called "invasions". They all got kicked out and sent back to wherever they came from and humiliated. The people in the region in present day Afghanistan don't like being invaded and are proud of their origins and don't want it to be tainted or tarnished by any foreign forces (and they have proven it all throughout history), including Iranian or otherwise. Pashtuns speak Pashto, not farsi. Do you think a person speaking Pashto will understand a person speaking Farsi? I will tell you, the answer is no. This doesn't mean that being Iranian is bad, but people need to stop trying to claim everything as Iranian, because that can be considered delusional.
Al-Biruni spoke a dialect and wrote in a dialect similar to the Dari language presently, and this language is spoken where Pashtuns and present day Afghans exist, not where Iranians exist or what Iranians currently speak. Since Al-Biruni was likely born where Pashtuns currently are located, since he spoke the dialects more closely related to what Afghans speak today, since most of his work that he is known for was carried out in what is now present day Afghanistan, and since he grave is currently in Afghanistan, I find it absolutely ridiculous that he is being called an "Iranian scholar" on his page. The difference between Tajiks and Pashtuns is that they don't consider themselves or identify as "iranian" ethnically, while Algerians and Syrians don't have a problem ethnically calling themselves Arabs. This combined with the fact that the majority of the current references in the article call him PERSIAN, not IRANIAN (this makes a difference, regardless of your potentially dissident and inconsistent stance).
His article needs to call him a Persian Scholar, not an Iranian Scholar, based on the majority of references that are already being referenced in the article...there is a difference, and keeping it what it currently is, is very misleading to the reader. Regards Monsore ( talk) 19:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You personal feelings have nothing to do with reality and facts. I've provided relevant reliable sources, multiple actually and you still refuse to make the change. Noted. Yes, they were "failed" Iranian attempts. Just because maps show pretty colors that include certain areas in those pretty colors doesn't mean the region was "invaded" and "conquered". It is also a possibility that the Pashtuns in the region didn't care what you want to write in your delusional history books and just keep doing what they want, while Iranian historians lie about reality, because it seems like Iranians like to draw all sorts of delusional colors and maps and history books. Noted. If corrections are not made, I will attempt to mark this and other articles as "disputed" or something. Thanks bud. Monsore ( talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikaviani ( talk) 20:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Monsore! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC) |
Hi Monsore! You created a thread called Archival by
User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|