Talk:Omar Khayyam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pupils[edit]

User:Telementor: I have removed the line that says: "For decades, he also taught the philosophy of Avicenna in Nishapur". Khayyam was known to dislike teaching. There are a few figures alleged to have studied with him (Al-Khazini, Nizami Aruzi of Samarcand, and Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani). But it is purely conjectural if they had been pupils of his.

dab: You were right to remove the "for decades" bit, as it was not properly referenced. But then you go on to state "Khayyam was known to dislike teaching" -- please, again, tell us on whose authority we are told this. Then suddenly you become critical and question the reliability of the tradition naming his students. Well, ok, but you cannot be selective in being sceptical of medieval tradition just when it fits whatever you wish to emphasize. Question this tradition as "conjectural", but apply the same standard to the tradition that he was "disliked by Sufis".

Heliocentrism mistranslation, OR, and citogenesis[edit]

I've removed a passage claiming that Omar Khayyam's association with heliocentrism stemmed from a mistranslation of FItzgerald [1]. In reading the two citations, I found that one was simply text of the poetry (along with some general discussion of Fitzgerald's poetic liberties), while the other (Olson) was not about mistaken heliocentrism, but rather Fitzgerald's translation incorrectly alluding to zodiacal light with the phrase "false dawn" (a mistranslation of the Persian Sahari). Looking to the original edit [2], I found that the Olson source was simply used to substantiate the idea that Fitzgerald's translations were often anachronistic, and only later was the citation moved to support the statement as a whole. The claim that Omar Khayyam's association with heliocentrism stemmed from the quoted passage of poetry is not supported anywhere, and appears to have been supposition on the part of the original editor. Unfortunately, I did find a number of websites written since 2012 which now repeat the claim using similar language, so future editors should be wary of possible citogenesis. Darth Coracle (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the ethnicity[edit]

I am struggling to find a way to rewrite the ethnicity into the first paragraph in Life section.

"Omar Khayyam was born in 1048 in Nishapur, of Persian ancestry. Nishapur, was a leading metropolis during medieval times under the Seljuq dynasty and had been a major center of the Zoroastrian religion, and it is likely that Khayyam's father was a Zoroastrian who had converted to Islam."

Thoughts?

I had thought about;

  • "Omar Khayyam was born,of Zoroastrian Persian ancestry, in Nishapur in 1048. Nishapur, was a leading metropolis during medieval times under the Seljuq dynasty and had been a major center of the Zoroastrian religion."

Thoughts? Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I did a rewrite, still not happy with the flow or wording. Any ideas would be appreciated.

P.S. The IP owes me two six-packs of Guinness Foreign Extra Stout. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I am going to move some sentences around, so if I lose or misplace a reference or two, please add them back. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the people they are related to is mentioned on the lead section (first paragraph) of articles such as Ibn al-Haytham, William Shakespeare, Avicenna and Napoleon. The word "Persian" (historically) does not necessarily refer to the ethnicity of the person. It refers to being part of the Iranian people.[1](or according to Merriam-Webster [2]: Meaning of "Persian": "one of the ancient Iranians who under Cyrus and his successors founded an empire in southwest Asia

b: a member of one of the peoples forming the modern Iranian nationality") MOS:FIRSTBIO clearly states that usually "nationality" should be mentioned. His religion is also of dispute so I changed it to Khorasani on the life section. Ehsanbasafa (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persian is not a nationality and therefore should not be in the lead.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Persian" does refer to nationality. Please read the previous and the current sources I mentioned. Merriam-Webster: "b: a member of one of the peoples forming the modern Iranian nationality". Iran has always been called Persia throughout history in the Western world. Up until 1935[3] in English, historical sources have always referred to Iran as Persia.[4] This article is about a historic person and not a contemporary one. According to the article Persians on the Wikipedia itself "In historical contexts, especially in English, "Persian" may be defined more loosely (often as a national identity) to cover all subjects of the ancient Persian polities, regardless of their ethnic background....
Although Persis (Persia proper) was only one of the provinces of ancient Iran,[3] varieties of this term (e.g., Persia) were adopted through Greek sources and used as an exonym for all of the Persian Empire for many years.[4] Thus, especially in the Western world, the names Persia and Persian came to refer to all of Iran and its subjects.[4][5]
Some medieval and early modern Islamic sources also used cognates of the term Persian to refer to various Iranian peoples and languages, including the speakers of Khwarazmian,[6] Mazanderani,[7] and Old Azeri.[8] 10th-century Iraqi historian Al-Masudi refers to Pahlavi, Dari, and Azari as dialects of the Persian language.[9] In 1333, medieval Moroccan traveler and scholar Ibn Battuta referred to the Afghans of Kabul as a specific sub-tribe of the Persians.[10] Lady Mary (Leonora Woulfe) Sheil, in her observation of Iran during the Qajar era, states that the Kurds and the Leks would consider themselves as belonging to the race of the "old Persians".[11]
On 21 March 1935, former king of Iran Reza Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty issued a decree asking the international community to use the term Iran, the native name of the country, in formal correspondence. However, the term Persian is still historically used to designate the predominant population of the Iranian peoples living in the Iranian cultural continent.[12][13]" Ehsanbasafa (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At historic times when a Persian Empire, such as the Achaemenid one, was extant, one could refer to the denizens of said empire as "Persian", i.e.: Persian commanders, soldiers, scribes, etc., as if it were a nationality, but in the context of being born into the Seljuk Empire, it become a bit more murky. Persian in this context is more of a ethnicity or supposed identity, since in many sources it is unclear whether the sources imply Persian ancestry or simply that Khayyan spoke and wrote principally in Persian, which is the more indisputable information. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your argument is on point and I have no further arguments to make. If the consensuses is that the word "Persian" should not be used, then I recommend using the words "Khorasani" or "Iranian". Ehsanbasafa (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend neither Persian, Iranian, or Khorasani. None of these are nationalities of Khayyam's time. I recommend the article be returned to:
  • "Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm Nīsābūrī(18 May 1048 – 4 December 1131), commonly known as Omar Khayyam (Persian: عمر خیّام), was a polymath, mathematician, astronomer, historian, philosopher, and poet." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again. I would like to know your arguments against using the demonym of Khorasani instead of Persian in the lead section. (MOS:FIRSTBIO clearly states that usually "nationality" should be mentioned so I recommend this word as a form of replacement for the word "Persian" which might also refer to ethnicity.) The consensus seems to be to not use the word Persian @LouisAragon (My previous argument was that it is used for referring to nationality and not ethnicity). I recommend this because I think that wp:weight is not considered in the current lead section of this article. In according to the historical context of Khayyam, he was born in Nishapur which is itself historically a part of a region called Khorasan (Abbasid Revolution was ignited in Khorasan). The current lead is vague, and the clear identity of Khayyam remains a guessing game for the reader. At the time of Khayyam Khorasan was an important region politicly due to the de jure rule of Abbasid caliphs with Arab Khalifs. Khorasani people have had a great importance at the time of Khayyam in the political tensions of the time. I recommend using the demonym of Khorasani for Khayaam. This demonym will also not refer to any specific ethnicity and it should be of no dispute. This is the change that I am recommending in the first pargraph of the lead: "...was a khorasani polymath, known for his contributions to..." @LouisAragon @HistoryofIran @Iskandar323 @Kansas Bear Ehsanbasafa (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the value of using "Khorasani"? If is was deemed an important part of his identity, he would have been nicknamed 'Khorasani' at some point. Why do we need to belabor a particular geographical identifier, and even assuming there is a reason for that, why 'Khorasani'? Why not Nishapuri, which is actually in his name? Other tertiary sources seem to tend to either just refer to him as 'Persian' or just drop the ethnicity altogether, which is possibly the best option and what we already have. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to change the wording of the lead as it now stands.

  • "Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm Nīsābūrī (18 May 1048 – 4 December 1131), commonly known as Omar Khayyam (Persian: عمر خیّام), was a polymath, known for his contributions to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and Persian poetry."

As yet, I find no compelling reason to add anything else to the lead.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It stops other nations who hates persians from claiming notable figures like they do with Avicenna and Rumi 115.70.22.143 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]



References

  1. ^ adjective: Persian relating to ancient Persia or modern Iran or its people or language. (Source:Oxford Languages)
  2. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Persian
  3. ^ Wilson, Arnold (2012). "The Middle Ages: Fars". The Persian Gulf (RLE Iran A). Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-1136841057.
  4. ^ a b Axworthy, Michael (2017). Iran: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0190232962.
  5. ^ Xavier de Planhol (24 January 2012). "FĀRS i. Geography". Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. IX. pp. ?–336. The name of Fārs is undoubtedly attested in Assyrian sources since the third millennium B.C.E. under the form Parahše. Originally, it was the "land of horses" of the Sumerians (Herzfeld, pp. 181-82, 184-86). The name was adopted by Iranian tribes which established themselves there in the 9th century B.C.E. in the west and southwest of Urmia lake. The Parsua (Pārsa) are mentioned there for the first time in 843 B.C.E., during the reign of Salmanassar III, and then, after they migrated to the southeast (Boehmer, pp. 193-97), the name was transferred, between 690 and 640, to a region previously called Anšan (q.v.) in Elamite sources (Herzfeld, pp. 169-71, 178-79, 186). From that moment the name acquired the connotation of an ethnic region, the land of the Persians, and the Persians soon thereafter founded the vast Achaemenid empire. A never-ending confusion thus set in between a narrow, limited, geographical usage of the term—Persia in the sense of the land where the aforesaid Persian tribes had shaped the core of their power—and a broader, more general usage of the term to designate the much larger area affected by the political and cultural radiance of the Achaemenids. The confusion between the two senses of the word was continuous, fueled by the Greeks who used the name Persai to designate the entire empire.
  6. ^ For example, Al-Biruni, a native speaker of Khwarezmian, refers to "the people of Khwarizm" as "a branch of the Persian tree". See: Al-Biruni (2001). Al-Athar al-Baqiyya 'an al-Qurun al-Khaliyya [The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries]. Tehran: Miras-e Maktub. p. 56. و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس (...). (Translation: "The people of Khwarizm, they are a branch of the Persian tree.")
  7. ^ The language used in Marzbān-nāma was, in the words of the 13th-century historian Sa'ad ad-Din Warawini, "the language of Ṭabaristan and old, ancient Persian (fārsī-yi ḳadīm-i bāstān)". See: Kramers, J.H. (2007). "Marzbān-Nāma". In Bearman, P.; Bianqui, Th.; Bosworth, C.E.; van Donzel, E.; Heinrichs, W.P. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brill. Retrieved 18 November 2007.
  8. ^ 10th-century Arab Muslim writer Ibn Hawqal, in his Ṣūrat al-Arḍ, refers to "the language of the people of Azerbaijan and most of the people of Armenia" as al-fāresīya. Yarshater, E. (18 August 2011). "AZERBAIJAN vii. The Iranian Language of Azerbaijan". Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. III. pp. 238–245.
  9. ^ Al Mas'udi (1894). De Goeje, M.J. (ed.). Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf (in Arabic). Brill. pp. 77–78.
  10. ^ Ibn Battuta (2004). Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354. Routledge. p. 180. ISBN 0-415-34473-5. We travelled on to Kabul, formerly a vast town, the site of which is now occupied by a village inhabited by a tribe of Persians called Afghans. They hold mountains and defiles and possess considerable strength, and are mostly highwaymen. Their principal mountain is called Kuh Sulayman. It is told that the prophet Sulayman [Solomon] ascended this mountain and having looked out over India, which was then covered with darkness, returned without entering it.
  11. ^ Sheil, Lady Mary Leonora Woulfe (1856). Glimpses of Life and Manners in Persia. J. Murray. p. 394.
  12. ^ "Persian". Merriam-Webster. 13 August 2010. Retrieved 10 June 2012.
  13. ^ Bausani, Alessandro (1971). The Persians, from the Earliest Days to the Twentieth Century. Elek. ISBN 978-0-236-17760-8.

Nationality[edit]

Subject's Nationality Should be cited in the lead. since it is directly relevant to subjects Notability. Removing Nationality from the lead and introduction section is pointless. Khayyam is famous because of his Persian Poetry. Thus he should be Introduced as a "Persian" or "Iranian" Poet. Removing His Nationality is meaningless and Unhelpful. However, the decision to remove his nationality from the lead is Racist and Anti-Iranian too. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Removing His Nationality is meaningless and Unhelpful."
Persian is his ethnicity not nationality. When he was born in Nishapur(1048), it was part of the Seljuk Empire.[1][2] Ergo, his nationality would be more Seljukian....
  • "Khayyam is famous because of his Persian Poetry."
Exactly. Not for being Persian. Which means MOS:Ethnicity applies here.
  • "However, the decision to remove his nationality from the lead is Racist and Anti-Iranian too."
LMAO. Iran, as a nation, did not exist during the time of Omar Khayyam. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1- Seljuk Dynasty Was a Dynasty of Persia/Iran, with Turkic Origin. They Were Persianised, Spoke Persian, Converted to Islam and Adopted Iranian Culture. So Seljuks Themselves Must be called a Persian/Iranian Dynasty With Turkic Origin.
2-Khayam is famous exactly for Being a Persian. So his Ethnicity Must be cited in the lead.
3-Iran as a Nation has more than three Thousand years of history, and always Existed as such. Iran As a Nation Existed at the time of Khayyam, as is evident from works of Ferdowsi, Nizami and Other Writers.
4- "Iranian" Refers to the Iranian people, not only Nation state of Iran.
4- So It is Anti Iranian to remove His Ethnicity/Nationality From the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not anti-Iranian, please stop saying stuff like this, doesn't make sense and would make me anti-Iranian as well for reverting you earlier in the other article. Iran was not a political entity at the time. And Omar Khayyam is not famous for his ethnicity, but his other work, as yourself said earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1- Certainly Iran was a political entity at the Time, And Seljuks Belonged To this Political Entity. But regardless of existence of Iran as a nation at the Time of Khayyam, It is Evident that Khayyam was an Iranian Person. so, in the first place, "Iranian/Persian" refers to "Iranian People" and Khayyam's "Ethnicity," rather than his "Nationality," and Khayyam WAS Famous for being Iranian/Persian. I said it is meaningless and unhelpful to remove his Ethnicity from the lead, Because there is no reason to do that.
2- By removing his Iranian/Persian Ethnicity from the lead, The People who visit this site will not notice his Origins Immediately. because many people do not read the entire article and just look at the lead and first few Paragraphs. so by this removal, his ethnic Identity as an "Iranian/Persian" person Becomes less known to the public. and because, it serves against the interest of Iranian People, it is Anti-Iranian.
3- I suggest, Revise the decision to remove the ethnicity from the lead and add Iranian/Persian. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) No; "As noted above, and by several scholars,51 the concept of Iran (former Eranshahr) as a political entity disappeared from view after the collapse of the Sasanian Empire in the seventh century, although it remained a component of Iranians’ ‘national sentiment’ that was most clearly preserved in the Persian language." - page 42, Melville, Charles (2019). "Concepts of government and state formation in Mongol Iran". In Babaie, Sussan (ed.). Iran After the Mongols. Bloomsbury Publishing. The book goes on to say that it was revived under the Mongols. I can send it to you if want.
2) Sorry, but that does not make any sense. I agree the lede could better, but MOS:ETHNICITY still applies.
3) No, MOS:ETHNICITY. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1-We are talking about "Iranian" in an Ethnolinguistic Concept. We are talking about Iranian people, not Iranian Empires.
2-That Exactly makes sense. In MOS:ETHNICITY It is Stated "...Unless Relevant To Subjects Notability." Medieval Iranian Scientists, Philosophers, Poets, ETC were Notable for being "Iranian/Persian," Just Like Ancient Greek Philosophers and Poets such as Plato, Aristotle, Pindar, ETC, are Introduced as a "Greek" Philosopher, Poet, ETC, In the Lead Section of their Wikipedia Pages. What is the difference Between Persians and Greeks in this Regard?
3- Yes. You provide absolutely no reason. It is Exactly According To the MOS:Ethnicity , For Example, Dante is introduced as an Italian Poet in the lead, but Italy did not existed at that time. he was born in the Republic of Florence.
4-So I believe The decision To remove the Ethnicity from the lead, is politically motivated and should be revised. Every other Ethnicity is cited in the lead. only Iranians/Persians are removed. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Then MOS:ETHNICITY applies again.
2 No, Omar Khayyam was notable for his contributions to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and poetry. Not for being "Persian". If you can't demonstrate why its notable, then please stop repeating it.
3) See WP:WHATABOUT. We're talking about this article, not the article of Dante. If you have concerns about how the Dante article is written, take it to its talk page, not here.
4) Please read WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA and WP:DROPTHESTICK. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Peacock, A. C. S (2015). Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press. The striking of our first Seljuk coins at Nishapur in 428 and 429/1037–8..
  2. ^ Daniel, Elton L. (2012). The History of Iran. p. 78. Omar Khayyam, Moezzi, and Anvari are among the best known poets who flourished in Seljuk times.
There is clear anti-Iranian bias in many Iran-related pages on Wikipedia. The fact that the ethnicity of Avicenna, Khayyam and many others is removed from their lead paragraphs is a disheartening development that must be addressed by the admins. The fact that they are ethnically Persian is important given that they contributed to the survival of the Persian culture, language and identity. Without these people, Persian would have been another lost ethnicity/language, just like the dozens that were erased after the Islamic conquest. While the article does not need to open with a statement of their ethnicity, it can at least elaborate on it in the following line or paragraph in the introduction. - 24.225.217.56 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article to "Khayyam"[edit]

Hi, the main application of "Khayyam" refers to "Omar Khayyam". So I think "Omar" in the article name is redundant and we can move the article to "Khayyam". Please discuss. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omar_Khayyam&oldid=1212687937"