Talk:Al-Biruni

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

Al-Biruni was Khwarezmian, and his native language was Khwarezmian, an Eastern Iranian language, not Turkic. This is basic historical linguistics, not opinion.

He wrote mainly in Arabic because it was the scientific language of the time, just like many Iranian scholars did. Writing in Arabic does not make someone Arab or Turkic.

Turkic populations became dominant in Khwarezm centuries after Biruni. Projecting modern Turkic identity backward is anachronistic. ~2026-68286-4 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Because its based on WP:RS, unlike your claims. Though it's clear that you don't care about WP:RS, and that despite being named "Irani"2024, you're clearly not one . Have you edited here before? HistoryofIran (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

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

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

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

As you were just told, WP:RS and the WP:CONSENSUS that was based on it is heavily against you . We base our info on WP:RS, not our own personal opinion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your claim that Biruni could “also have been of Turkic origin” is historically unfounded. Here’s the full context:

Birthplace and ethnicity:

Al-Biruni was born in 973 CE in Kath, Khwarezm, part of the historical Iranian cultural world. At that time, Khwarezm’s population spoke Khwarezmian, an Eastern Iranian language closely related to other Iranian languages. This is confirmed by both his writings and medieval sources.

Historical context of Turkic populations:

Large-scale Turkic migrations into Central Asia, including Khwarezm, occurred centuries after Biruni, particularly under the Seljuks and later Turkic dynasties. There is no evidence that Biruni himself was ethnically Turkic, nor that he spoke any Turkic language. Applying modern ethnic labels retroactively is anachronistic and misleading.

Language of scholarship:

Biruni wrote most of his works in Arabic, the scientific lingua franca of the Islamic Golden Age, while also being familiar with Persian and his native Khwarezmian. Writing in Arabic does not indicate Arab or Turkic identity; it was simply the standard language for scholarly communication.

Cultural identification:

Biruni clearly identifies with the Khwarezmian/Iranic intellectual tradition, and his works preserve the Iranian cultural and scientific heritage of his region. This is why historians rightly describe him as Iranian (in the cultural-linguistic sense, not a modern nationalist sense). ~2026-68286-4 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

He was from Afghanistan ~2025-42230-10 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Biruni was born in Kath, Khwarezm (modern Uzbekistan), not Afghanistan.

He spoke Khwarezmian, an Eastern Iranian language, and was part of the Iranian cultural world.

Modern borders and ethnic labels don’t apply to medieval figures. ~2026-68286-4 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It should use the Soviet stamp in the infobox, if a cropped version of it. This is because Muntander Saleh is not someone who is notable, and the stamp is of historical value. Postage stamps of the Soviet Union is a notable topic. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @AstroLynx and others,

I would like to propose updating the infobox portrait for Al-Biruni.

Currently, the article uses the 1973 Soviet commemorative postage stamp. I propose replacing it with, or adding, the detailed pen-and-ink portrait of Al-Biruni, which was featured by the Iraqi Delegation during Expo 2020 Dubai.

Since both are modern, "imaginary" depictions (as no contemporary portraits of Al-Biruni exist), I believe the Expo 2020 illustration provides a highly clear, high-resolution, and artistic close-up of his face that is well-suited for a biographical infobox.

I welcome thoughts and feedback from other editors on which depiction is preferred for the lead image. Thanks 004bvan (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Both the current infobox portrait (1973 Soviet commemorative postage stamp) and the proposed infobox portrait (Expo 2020 Dubai) are of course based on imaginary depictions of al-Biruni. Nevertheless, my preference is for the current one as it clearly depicts a scholar at work while the proposed lead image is just a head with a nice full beard. I have no objection of using the image (with proper sourcing) elsewhere in the article but I believe it is less appropriate for an infobox portrait. AstroLynx (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @AstroLynx I completely see the appeal of showing him at work it definitely adds good context.

My main reason for the swap is that infoboxes usually favor a clean, unobstructed portrait over a wider action shot. The Soviet stamp also has quite a bit of heavy typography and postage overlays that clutter the thumbnail view.

Would you consider a reverse compromise? We could use the clean line-art in the infobox and move the stamp down to the "Legacy" section—which feels like a natural fit for a commemorative stamp anyway.

But if you and others strongly prefer keeping the stamp in the lead to show him working, I'm happy to go with your original compromise. We can leave the stamp at the top, and I'll just add the Expo 2020 portrait to the "Legacy" section as a modern tribute. Let me know what you think 004bvan (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)