Talk:Al-Khwarizmi/Archive 2

message: User:SouthernComfort has found http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm, the authorative, neutral and well sourced refrence I was asking everybody to provide (see User:Ruud Koot/al-Khwarizmi for what, mostly tertiary sources, have to say about it). This articles, written by an Associate Professor in Mathematics at the University of Indianapolis, who specializes in Arabic/Islamic mathematics clearly states al-Khwarizmi was Persian, not Arabic. I would kindly request everybody to thoroughly read it. Based on this I propose the following introduction for the articles. Could everybody say if they support or oppose it, so we can finally settle this dispute? Cheers, —Ruud 14:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The professor knows more about mathematics than he does about Middle Eastern history. The mathematics is OK, but the history is clearly a mishmash of secondary sources. Not to be considered authoritative on anything except math. Zora 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Some how I doubt that. But really, have your read http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm yet? It's not just some arbitrary website but written by by an associate professor in the history of mathematics with a specialization in the history of arabic/islamic mathematics. —Ruud 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This vote will show us howmany persians use wikipedia! LOL Jidan 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed introduction by [[User:R. Koot]] 

message: With all respect Ruud, but with voting we can even make Isaac Newton a persian. LOOL Jidan 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some how I doubt that. But really, have your read http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm yet? It's not just some arbitrary website but written by by an associate professor in the history of mathematics with a specialization in the history of arabic/islamic mathematics. —Ruud 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This vote will show us howmany persians use wikipedia! LOL Jidan 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Ok, a second attempt by me. This introduction clearly establish that al-Khwarizmi was of Persian ancestry (which we all agree on) and that he lived under Abbasid caliphate (which I think we also all agree on.
Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-KhwārizmīnamePersian: موسى خوارزمى (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either Khwarizm or Bagdad, and died around 850. Al-Khwarizmi was or Persian ancestry, however by the middle of the 8th century Pesia was under the rule of the Abbasid caliphate and al-Khwarizmi published his works in Arabic. Few details about his life are known.
* Support this one as well. —Ruud 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed introduction by [[User:R. Koot]] (2) 

message: Instead of adopting one of the three theories as to his ethnicity, we can present all three and let readers decide. That's NPOV. I rewrote the article to say that his ethnicity is a controversial topic and that there are three theories. Proponents of each theory should make sure that each entry gives the best possible case for their theory. OK? yes? Zora 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already left a comment at your talk page, but what you proposed is the version which started this dispute (people changing Muslim to Persian/Arab/Turk all the time). —Ruud 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I proposed the exact same introduction as you a while ago with exactly the same argument (let the reader decide) and see what happened... but if you are willing to keep an eye on this article that would help. —Ruud 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step back 

message: Zmmz edited the latest version, claiming that AK wrote in Latin (he didn't - he was translated into Latin) and inserting "Persian" before Khorasan. The ethnicity of Khorasan is debateable. I think we should refrain from making any claims as to its ethnic composition, and just give the political history, about which we know more. If Khorasan isn't indisputably Persian, then listing other scholars from Khorasan doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that there was a link between Khorasan and the Abbasids, which we know from history. 
I did leave the point re writing in Arabic not proving anything, which is a good one. Arabic in those times was the equivalent of Latin in European scholarship -- it was the lingua franca of the elite, and allowed people with many different mother tongues to communicate. Zora 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Khwarizmi didn't write in Latin 

message: The Iranian editors seem to prefer wording that turns the Arabs into nasty oppressors who didn't let the Persians use their own language. That is not the case. This was an issue in the earliest days of the Islamic empire -- one Umayyad governor of Persia was a notorious badass :) and he cracked down hard on what he saw as sedition -- which included Persian scribes using Persian for government documents. Only Arabic must be used! But that applied to government business, not to daily life. There is no evidence whatsoever that Persian merchants were punished for keeping their accounts in Persian, or that anyone was punished JUST for speaking Persian. You have also restored the boast that many Islamic scholars were from Khorasan and therefore Persian -- which is both irrelevant, and not demonstrable from the facts. Zora 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes you think that writing in Persian wasn't allowed? 

message: Here's what it says in the WP Khwaremia article:
: According to Biruni the area was ruled by the Afrigid dynasty from the 4th century to the 8th century CE. The resurgent kingdom was established around Khiva in 410 by Avar tribes possibly under Hephthalites influence. The inhabitants were called Khwalis or Kaliz by the Magyars after the eastern-most Kabars of Hungary, who dwelt in Carpathian Galicia. They were also called Khalisioi in Greek, Khvalis (and often associated with Khazars) in Russian, and Huālázǐmó (花剌子模) or perhaps Guali or Helisimijia in Chinese. The etymology of the name is unknown but may pertain to a kingdom of the Aral Sea or the Hua people.
The article also claims that Khwarezmi is Persian, but doesn't give any sources.
::I have Birunis book, and none of the above information about Avas and Hephtalites are there.  And the area could not have been ruled from 4th century to 8th century by the Afrigid dynasty since the Arabs took it was prior to that.  
: In the late 7th century, Khwarezmia was conquered by the Arab Abbasids and was the birthplace of the great Persian mathematician of the Abbasid period, al-Khwarezmi.
Four centuries of being ruled by Avars and the area is still "Persian"? 
:: Avars were not in this area.  Plus we have shown Biruni directly mention that the inhabitants of Chorasmia were Persian (Athar Al-Baghiya) and we brought the exact quote.  You need to bring exact quote or else keep quite.
It might have been heavily-influenced by Persian culture -- we don't know. We'd have to look at the archaeological results. I can google, but I doubt that I'll come up with anything I can read; most of the sources are probably Russian, if there are any. Zora 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go read the Iranica article on Chorasmia which is sufficient and complete. --Ali doostzadeh 06:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Zmmz, you can't accuse people who argue with you of being vandals and abusers. You're trying to intimidate people. I'm not easily intimidated. Zora 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, Zmmz ... that's copied from the Wikipedia article, which I wrote.  It's also true only of the time of Umar and Uthman. Ali moved the capital to Kufa -- out of Arabia -- Muawiya then moved it to Damascus, and the melding of the Arabs and their clients went ahead at full speed. Zora 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zmmz, that's sad. You went back and edited your note to erase the sourcing to answers.com and instead gave the source I got it from. Zora 07:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That source was provided by me. I own the book. I've read it. Have you? Zora 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? That was the early policy and it failed. The Arab conquerors were to live in garrison towns, such as the ones established in Kufa, Basra, Cairo, and Khorasan. They were to remain soldiers, not sedentary landowners. That didn't last long. It is supposed that one of the reasons that there was so much discontent with Uthman (leading to his assassination) is that the Arab tribesmen wanted to split up the conquered lands and settle down as nobles. Just because a government has a policy for a few decades doesn't mean that the policy endures forever!  Zora 08:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khwarizm as Persian? 

message: I should have thought to do this earlier -- I checked my copy of The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, by Hugh Kennedy. On page 125, he says:
: More Arabs settled in this area than in any other part of Iran during Umayyad times, and the settlement of large numbers of Muslims seem to have encouraged conversions among the local people. 
: In Khurasan there was considerable integration between Arab and non-Arab, many of the leaders of the Abbasid movement were of Arab origin but spoke Persian, and had intermarried with the local people ...
On page 133 he talks about the Khorasanis who led the Abbasid revolution:
: While many of their leaders seem to have been of Arab descent, and no doubt spoke Arabic, a large proportion of the rank and file were Iranian Muslims and Persian was widely spoken. 
So, we really can't tell from his name whether or not AK was Persian or Arab. He could have been Arab, or Persian, or Arabo-Persian. 
A trawl through my history of Persian literature (Aryanpur) found no mention of speaking Persian being punished. Instead, it gave me the name of Abu Nuwas, whose father was Arab, whose mother was Persian, and who was said to have used Persian loan words in his Arabic poems. More evidence for mixing. Zora 10:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your evidence's agree with the the sources i listed above. Jidan 10:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note those Arabs that were in Khorasan became Persianized and lost all trace of Arabness.  And we are here talking about Khawarazm and not Khorasan.  They are adjacent but not the same.  There is a list of cities that Arabs mainly settled in and Khawarazm is not one of them.  Also Abu Nuwas was from Baghdad and not Khorasan or even Khawarazm.  If you guys do not have any proof that there was Arab colonies in Khawarazm, which persisted after Abbassid times, then you should not just make hypothetical and unsound arguments with no refrences.  --Ali doostzadeh 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermarriage between Arabs and Persians, use of Persian language 

message: Zora's version was neither discussed here nor approved by anyone. User:R. Koot's version was put to a vote here and the majority reached a consensus on that version. Zora's version is full of speculations and unsubstantiated claims with no references. For examples, the user is speculating about Khwarizmi possibly being a Turk when there were no Turks or Turkic tribes in Khwarizm back in 700-800. Such speculations only confuse the readers and are not encyclopedic. Lets keep the version which was approved by a majority vote, at least for now, until a new version is proposed and approved/voted by a majority consensus here on talk. --ManiF 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, all I see is a vote where the majority agreed with the proposal. --ManiF 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that voting is not considered an acceptable method of finding consensus, nor can it be considered binding. --InShaneee 20:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's version 

message: I'm protecting this article for a few hours because things are getting a little heated.  Please use the time to cool off and discuss how best to describe thinking on Al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity by reference to reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief cooling off

message: Due to constant re-editing, manipulation of words and deletions by different users, I have put up the strong evidence of Khawarazmi's Persian origin here:
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/wikipedia/khawarazmi.htm
If the other side has proof (and not just hypothetical argument) from ancient sources to counter the claims of the above mentioned article, they should bring it forth.  Else, I believe the constant revision of the page should stop.  
--Ali doostzadeh 19:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks your reasearch together with Dr. Jeff Oaks's article should settle this. —Ruud 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful work. It is settle once and for all.Iranian Patriot 20:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhhh, SouthernComfort found that a few days ago... —Ruud 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is summary

message: Here is something that is so relevant to the discussion about Al Kwarizmi, and the ancient Persian city of Khwarizm (Transoxiana, modern Khiva, Uzbekistan).   It says a lot about the Persian Scientists in Islam, like Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, Al Tabari, Al Tusi, Sibawayh, al-Farisi, Al-Hamadani, Al-Karaji, Al-Ghazali and others.  As a historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD) who was an Arab is ranked among the best in history; truly one of the most respected scholars produced by the Arabs. To understand why Arab nationalists, or pan-Arabists feel uncomfortable with Ibn Khaldun, one has to read a direct quote from his work, The Muqaddimah Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R. N. Frye (p.91):
"…It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs…thus the founders of grammar were Sibawayh and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj.  All of them were of Persian descent…they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar…great jurists were Persians… only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the propher becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' …The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture".  [The Muqaddimah Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R. N. Frye (p.91)]Zmmz 08:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy of the Persian Scientist

message: * New York is an American city. Therefore New Yorkers are Americans, no matter where there ancestors come from. 
  * Baghdad is an Arab city. Therefore Baghdadi’s are Arabs, no matter where there ancestors come from.
  ** Al-Khwarizmi was a citizen of Baghdad. Therefore he is an Arab, no matter where his ancestors come from. IT'S THAT SIMPEL!! 
Being an arab is not an ethnic term, its a culture term. It may have been 1400 years ago an ethnic term, but now its NOT.
The Iranians are really wasting thier time. If they want to be proud of themselves, then they should instead look for scientists that:
* wrote in their language (NOT Arabic) or, 
* lived in their cities (NOT Baghdad) or,
* ruled by their kings (NOT the Arab caliphates).
It's that simple! We can speculate about everything,e.g. was alexander the great Iranian? or arab? greek? turk? But who cares??? (maybe the Iranians do) Alexander is affiliated to the greeks, he is greek. Its that simple. 
The problem is that Iranians want to start a "ethnic" war on every muslim scientist(e.g. Geber, Alhazen, Al-Farabi, etc). Most Arabs and Turks have agreed not to use ethnics, but instead to use just "Muslim" on all muslim scientists, but ofcourse the Iranians say: NOOOOOOOO, ....how dare you!!!. A scientific name for that behaviour is "inferior complex" .
Now, here we go AGAIN with another ethnic editing war....Thank you very much guys!!
Jidan 16:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The evidence is clear.  His asl(root origin) is from Khawarazm and not Arabia, he used Persian dates and calendar and formulations, he was into zoroastrian astrology, one his ephiphets is Al-Majoosi(Zoroastrian).  So his Chorasmian (Iranian/Persian) background must be mentioned in the article.  These are all sufficient evidences unless you have something against these evidences from ancient sources.  As per your claim, we do not have any text and writing from Khadijah (The Prophets first wife), indicating she was an Arab.  But we know she was an Arab since her roots was in Arabia.  Same from Khawarazmi.  We know so because his roots are from Khawarazmia (as Ibn Nadeem has mentioned) and this is sufficient to make him Iranian unless you have counter evidence from ancient sources that Ibn-Nadeem lied about this issue!  But you don't.  Khawarazmia was never Arabic and there is absolutely not even one iota of evidence of even a single Arab colony there.  The native son of Chorasmia Biruni clearly mentions that the people there are a branch of Persians and he has given the Months, Days and many other native words of Iranian origin in his chronicles.  So it is simple.  An Arab would not be into Astrology and the chances of an Arab using Persian days, years, formulations and calendar (meaning familiarity with Persian) is virtually null.  
--Ali doostzadeh 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another ethnic editing war 

message: The Arabic name and the Arabic text already implies that he was an Arab to the uniformed reader. That's why leaving it as "Muslim" is not a viable solution and almost the same as saying he was an Arab when overwhelming evidence suggest otherwise. Persian origin should be mentioned. --ManiF 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic name, Persian origin 

message: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi
http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm
http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AL/AL-/Al-Khwarizmi
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/al-khwarizmi
I can post hundreds of links that prove Khwarizmi was of Persian origin. His ethnic origin must be included in the article.
: I'm pretty sure you can, but are they all copies of the Wikipedia articles, just like three of the links above (see the small text at the bottom of those links). —Ruud 22:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: He was Persian

message: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1556432690&id=A8PzaQZwzZQC&dq=jabir++corbin&lpg=PA46&pg=PA44&sig=cIhkKYzppMd4ms9_upsOTSh9k6k
quote:
''
Muhammad ibn Musa Khawarizmi (died 847), the "father of arab algebra", who brought this science to Baghdad, was a Persian whose native Khwarizm (khiva today) is very far from Arabia.  He calculated his astronomical tables using the Yazdgard calenda(632).  It was not unt the year 1000 that maslma al-Majriti converted them into Hejira years. Khawarazmi also  bore the surna Majusi, indicating a Mazdean(Zoroastrian) origin. 
''
--Ali doostzadeh 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yazdegard calendar 

message: Zidan mentioned an article about Khawarazmi by Prof. Len Berggren:
http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/html/id.phtml?id=15655
I emailed Professor Len Berggren last week and he finally responded.  His email address is: berggren@sfu.ca and this is his webpage: http://www.math.sfu.ca/~berggren/main.html
Here is his email after I enquired about this mistake and told him that AL-Khwarizmi is Persian..
Dear Ali Doostzadeh,
Thank you for your letter. You are, of course, right and I make the same point myself in a book I published (with Springer-Verlag) in 1986, titled Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam. I write, on p. 6, speaking of the early period of Islamic science, that "the Central Asian scholar Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi came from the old and high civilization that had grown up in the region of Khwarizm . . . near the delta of the Amu Dar'ya (Oxus) River on the Aral Sea." (This book has been translated into Farsi, by the way, and is available in Iran.)
The article you wrote to me was one I wrote at a time when I was not as aware of the wide ethnic differences within medieval Islam as I was when I came to write my book.
Anyway, happy "Nau Rooz" and I wish you success in your researches. I was very impressed with the sources you have gathered and I look forward, when I have finished teaching this term, to having the leisure to read them carefully.
Yours sincerely,
Len Berggren''
I can forward this email to anyone that is interested (send me an email here alidoostzadeh@yahoo.com) or they may contact the Professor himself to verify it, if they wish.  So Professor Len Berggren has totally recounted his oversight since at least 1986.  This should also be a good general lesson that googling an article does not necessarily mean that the writer of that article has not corrected any errors. 
--Ali doostzadeh 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from Prof. Len Berggren 

message: How do you pronounce this Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Kwārizmī? Where is the guide for pronounciation of ū, ā, ī?  As far as I know major Encyclopaedias use the term Al-Khwarizimi, plain and simple as in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Moreover, it isnot Kwa at the beginning, rather Khwa with Kh being pronounced as ch in German Achtung. Heja Helweda 05:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Arabic transliteration and DIN 31635. The ﺥ/Ḵ/Kh is probably the most problematic letter in the Arabic alphabet as there is no letter in the English language which resembles the sound, unlike the German ch or the Dutch g. —Ruud 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't move the page. If I may be a stereotypical ignorant English speaker for a moment, these funny letters are completely nonsensical. Macrons on the vowels are one thing, but the underscored K and dotted H? Don't do that. It's perfectly fine to use those in the article (at least the first time...maybe not every time), but not in the article title itself. Adam Bishop 21:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhh... if you're not really interesed in a 1-1 transliteration between Arabic/Latin you can just ignore those diacritcs, it isn't IPA (that's non-sensical). —Ruud 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the title to "Al-Khwarizimi" Please! 

message: Please allow me to bring your attention to the vicious attempts of a certain R.Koot to delete the whole article about a very historically significant book without a slightest trace of discussion or votes for deletion.  Mukadderat 23:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like your the one that's deleting information . —Ruud 23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information irelevant to the person is moved into the article about the book  you happily deleted without bothering to preserve its content. Mukadderat 23:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I did not delete that article I made it into a redirect because what is currently in that article is simply a large part a copy of the text I origianlly wrote for/in this article. —Ruud 23:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are either didn't bother to read the article you deleted or pulling a red herring  . Mukadderat 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Jabr

message: I notice that Adam Bishop moved this page to the accent-free spelling it has now from Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī with the comment “moved Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī to Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi: give me a break, please use regular English letters for titles of articles)”. I disagree. Other names are located in at their full spelling. For example, it's Paul Erdős not Paul Erdos and Kurt Gödel not Kurt Godel. —Ben FrantzDale 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (mostly because it creates an inconsistency between the title and his name mentioned in boldface at the start of the article), however see the look a few topics up. —Ruud 23:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Hungarian and German use the same alphabet we do, so a dieresis is not really an unusual or unrecognizable part of the alphabet (although, yes, I know the thing on Erdős is not a dieresis). But this name was not originally written in a Latin script. Why is ḥ preferrable to h, or Ḵ preferrable to Kh? What is Ḵ anyway? Adam Bishop 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A K-underdash. Without de diacritics two of the letter in the Arabic alphabet would be mapped to the Latin "h" (and two to the "d", two to the "t", "s", "z") so using diacritics has at least two advantages: make figuring out how a word is pronounced easier if you are willing to spent some time learning and make it possible to derive the original  Arabic wrom the transliteration. Proper transliteration as almost always used by academic sources so I see little reason why Wikipedia shouldn't (and appears to be done more and more as Wikipedia grows). I don't really see why if we use diacritics in the articles, why we shouldn't use them in article titles? —Ruud 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't know how to pronounce these either. Like Ruud says, I think it's preferrable to have the page title match the bolded text. I stumbled upon this page because of a change on a page on my watch list, Quadratic equation. There Bduke removed the redirect by making it say Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī. It seems undesirable to require that every link to this page look like that. Having a redirect from the accent-free version to this page is useful for someone searching but if people agree that Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī is the most-correct spelling, then I don't see why that shouldn't be the title of this page as well as the text in pages that link here. —Ben FrantzDale 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "if you are willing to spent some time learning and make it possible to derive the original Arabic wrom the transliteration": 
This is not the purpose of the title. The purpose of the title as far as I undertand is to quickly identify/recognize the subject you are looking for. Once you have found the subject, you don't have to "derive" anything: the "original Arabic" is right here, in the article. Now, recalling that this is an English language encyclopedia, we must use rule number one: most common title of the subject. Also, please don't forget that on many computers many these non-English characters are unrecongnizable boxes and the name is virtually unreadable. So I am afraid, the insistence to write in a "most correct" way is driven not by the convenience of readers, but rather a national pride. Now, you may say "you can have a redirect from English spelling".  And I can say two things back: (1) in categories you see the main title and (2) there are quite a few "pipe warriors", who run around and replace redrects in texts with "corect" titles. Mukadderat 16:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My vote is strongly for Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī.  It's more linguistically correct.  --LakeHMM 02:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Erdős would be indicated by this test; Goedel might be preferable to Gödel, but it's close. Septentrionalis 19:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: _ _ The link Islamic mathematician is very bad, for a superficial reason and a very deep and misleading one.
_ _ The words iSLaM and muSLiM are much more closely related that non-Semites are likely to appreciate, bcz the three consonants mark them as inflections of a common root (S*L*M), all revolving around the concept of submission.  In Arabic, "Islam" literally means "submission" and "Muslim" means "one who submits". Thus Islam, Islamic, and Islamist are all focused on the religion and the associated culture and beliefs.  A Muslim is an individual person adhering to Islam. 
_ _ The term "Islamic mathematics" refers to a body of scholarship (drawing especially on and advancing beyond pre-Islamic Indian math and ancient Greek math), that was at one time the most advanced math in the world, and which is one of the important layers underlying virtually all of modern math. The term should be used in the article, bcz (whether or not he adhered to Islam), he participated in, and advanced, Islamic mathematics; when i finish this, i'm going to try and find a pretty good way to use it, even if it takes a lot of colleagues to settle on a more carefully refined way of doing so.
_ _ One of the things at issue about this article is whether the subject of the bio was a Muslim or not. If it were clear that he was, and if it becomes clear, it might be appropriate to describe him in the lead 'graph as a "Muslim mathematician", meaning a Muslim who advanced mathematics (tho i personally doubt it). "Islamic mathematician" doesn't mean that, nor does it mean "participant in Islamic mathematics" (as the piped lk suggests). It's just a bad phrase that has no good usages (and i guess we're lucky for the fact that unless (i suppose) someone has a special role in Islam (an Islamic official, an Islamic scholar whose pronouncements convince Muslims about what Islam requires), Islamic is not an adjective that describes you).
_ _ The deeper issue i referred to is that the relationship between his beliefs and this mathematics is highly PoV.  My own PoV is that Islamic mathematics is historically important bcz like any monotheism, Islam can be used for consolidating existing societies, welding otherwise diverse societies together, and motivating warriors, which tends to create levels of wealth and power that provide the means and motivation for advances in the arts and sciences; mathematics was ripe for Islamic culture to make its mark in that field, and he was the bright guy, or towering genius, who was there at the right time. Another PoV was expressed, IIRC on this talk page, some time ago: his being a Muslim made him capable of becoming the mathematician he was. I doubt either that PoV or my own can be verified, and i doubt this article is going to calm down until more editors admit that their PoV's can't be verified.
_ _ There's plenty of room in the article for describing the existence of differing PoVs, which clearly exist, about his ethnicity and his personal or public adherance to various belief systems. There just isn't room in the lead 'graph for that; and saying "Isalmic mathematician", and thus confusing participation in the mathematical life of a dominant culture with personal belief in the dominant belief system (let alone with that producing personal excellence in math) is a serious error, in the lead or elsewhere.
--Jerzy•t 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamic mathematician" 

message: Just like we use either the name of modern day countrys or their ancient regional names when speaking of events and persons. Persians are an Iranian people related to other Iranians such as Parthians, Bactrians, and so forth. Now unless someone can show that khwarizmi's ancestors actually migrated from Persia proper (Persia is a very very different concept than Persian empire), into Khwarizm, I suggest that we keep the reference of his nationality as Sogdian. Both Persian and Sogdian are occidental references afterall. To say that Persia included a vast region including Bactria, Sogdia is absolutely irrelevant. Because than we might as well consider other closely related dynasties/peoples like Medes, Bactrians, Parthians, scythians, sarmaians as persian as well. Neither does speaking a langauge mean much. Elseways Avicenna might as well be considered Arab (and many occidental texts do faultfully call him an Arab because of his works in arabic) and the Mughal (mongol) emperor of south asia as persian. 
This is for the sake of integrity of information. omerlivesOmerlives 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources explicitly calling him Sogdian? —Ruud 16:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to take into that there is also the possiblitly that he was born in Baghdad, so I'm very hessiant to make his etnicity any more specific than Persian. A more extensive discussion would belong in the "Biography" section. —Ruud 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your concerns but as you can see from the discussions above al-Khwarizmi's etnicity is a heavily disputed subject. Stating one without backing it up with external sources, no matter how well argumented, is not going to work. Just rembered, how paradoxical it may sounds, Wikipedia's task is not documenting the most accurate version of the truth, but only reporting on previously published material. —Ruud 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We indeed sift facts from scholary sources. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that we, as editors, do not add our own facts. Therefore the lack of accuracy of Wikipedia, would in fact reflect a lack of accuracy in scholarly knowledge. Looking at it more pragmatically, I would not object to calling him Chorasmian, but this would imply the two citations refering to him as Persian would have to be removed. This wil without a doubt result in the etnicity debate to start all over again. It may also be intersting to note that the student's edition of Encyclopedia Britannica does call him an Arab, while the academic edition refrains from giving an etnicity at all. —Ruud 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is what I proposed a few months, however a case can be made that he was Zorastrian and only Muslim by (forced) conversion and a large number of people are insistent on inserting the words "Arab" or "Persian" if an etnicity is absent. —Ruud 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We already discussed his ethnicity.  He is an Iranian Chorasmian.  Chorasmian is an Iranian language like Soghdian, Pahlavi, Avesta...See the entery on Chorasmian.  But Al-Biruni who is another Chorasmian clearly also states that the Chorasmians are a branch of Persians(Iranians).  Al-Majoosi denotes Zoroastrian ancestry.  Also Al-khawarizmi used zoroastrian dates and calendar as we discussed.  --Ali doostzadeh 05:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sogdian is a more proper term

message: Those maps indicate South America? Not only 15th century Florence, but also 9th century Baghdad had detailed knowledge of the coast of South America? Does the insanity of this even need to be pointed out? Adam Bishop 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the information in that section comes from , but I have some doubts about it's reliability. Would love to see a copy of "Hubert Daunicht. Der Osten nach der Erdkarte al-Huwarizmis : Beiträge zur historischen Geographie und Geschichte Asiens.", though. —Ruud 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole theory was apparently coined by one Paul Gallez in America Del Sur En Los Mapas Antiguos, Medievales Y Renacentistas. I'm going to remove most claims, unless it can be confirmed that this is an accepted theory. —Ruud 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the library here, I could look it up if you want...but yeah, some guy on the Internet is probably not a reliable source :) Adam Bishop 23:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See these two posts on the maphist list:  . Definitly something we do not want to deal with in this article, if at all. —Ruud 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps