Suppose the article was about the greatest boxers of the 20th century, and it talked about the Arab boxer Muhammad Ali. Would you object to someone pointing out that Ali was not Arab, but rather an American Muslim? His being Muslim is relevant not because it is his religion, but because it explains why an American of his era has such a foreign name--he changed his name when he converted to Islam.
Same thing is going on here. The article says al-Khwarizmi was an Arab. He was actually a Persian who followed the Arab religion (Islam), which probably explains the Arab-appearing aspects of his life and work.
Does it matter if he was Arab or Persian? Some might argue that all that matters is what he discovered. The counter argument is that by mentioning things like nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc., in these kind of articles, it helps reinforce the idea that science transcends national borders, ethnic boundaries, religion, and so on. I believe I read something by Asimov once where he said that was the reason he always included the nationality of scientists he wrote about.
So is it somewhat equivalent to saying someone is protestant when they are catholic, and being outraged at such a mix-up? I still don't quite understand why it has emoted such apparent disgust as to stop reading, but then I am not a religious person.
I doubt it has anything to do with religion. He is inferring from the mistake of saying a Persian Muslim was an Arab that the author did not put much effort into research for the article, and so has decided it is not worth reading.
The article's statement in the second sentence that al-Khwarizmi was an Arab is an error. The person you're responding to was almost certainly not being bigoted, he was reacting to a factual error in the introductory paragraph of the article.
Fair enough. I commented because it seemed very unfair that he was downvoted. People are too eager to do that. The point he made might not seem very important, and might be misunderstood, but it's true.
