Talk:Timurid dynasty/Archive 1

Why is the contributions to Turkic culture ignored!

I'am Turk but Timur empire is mongol not Turk.(Sipahi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.27.196 (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Culture section totally ignored any contributions to Turkic culture, all that is mentioned is Persian.

During the Timurid era, one of the earliest Turk Sufi saints Ahmad Yasavi's tomb was rebuilt and new complexes added its cultural significance was expanded upon and it became a place of pilgrimage.

The Timurid era restored Turkic culture in Central Asia and developed it, during this era Turkic literature joined Arabic and Persian as being one of the great language in the Islamic world.

The arts such as painting styles of Siyah Qalam, styles such as Ebru and incorporating new architectural influences.

Also while now its "finally" being acknowledged that the Timurids contributed to Turkic literature its just glossed over in the article. The article claims that the literature was only given importance in the "beginning", this is historically wrong. From the beginning to the end when Babur left the Timurid homelands Turkic literature flourished. In addition to this, the article claims that the literary greats of the period just used existing Persian style and applied it to Turki. This again is totally one sided, while Arab and Persian styles were used, there is also the Turkic styles, writting in "dortluks"....

--Torke (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Timurid flag

I'm not sure what do about this, but I don't think the flag that is listed as the Timurid flag from the Catalan atlas is accurate. I did some research into the catalan atlas (including viewing a printed copy) and here’s what I’ve found:

The images on wiki are slightly discolored. Many of the flags had black on them that is not present in the wiki images. Most importantly, the flags above the caravan are on paper black flags with attributions on top. The only flags that somewhat resemble this black and red disk design are the flags with the red markings in the top right corner. Let’s though for the sake of argument assume that those flag are the same as what we are calling the “Black/Red Timur design.”

With that assumption here is the litany of reasons that I don’t think those flags are supposed to represent Timur’s holdings:

Also, to follow along here is the link to the wiki image of the plate that concerns us. http://up.wiki.x.io/wikiped...7/78/Delli.jpeg

• The map, as many maps at that time, is a compilation of information from a variety of sources. In fact, basically all of the text and most of the figures depicted, on the plate that concerns us, are derived from the journey’s of the Polo brothers approximately 1271. (Here's a good site (in French) that details out the text.) With that in mind then, everything depicted on this map shows the state of the world roughly some time between the mid-13th century and 1370-1380 when the map was created. Also useful to keep in mind is the location of several relevant cities. Tashkent, or on the map Congicanti, is the northernmost city with a red and yellow flag, right near the caravan and a major intersection of lines. Samarkand (Smarchati on the map) is the next red and yellow flag city below and slightly to the right of Tashkent; to the right of Samarkand is a city with no flag.

• Now timeline-wise, Timur’s first major holding was Balkh in 1365. Balkh is located south of Samarkand, which means it would lie somewhere near the depicted mountains. That is nowhere near the black/red Timurid design. After Balkh, Timur went on to grab Samarkand in 1370 which he then made his capital. If the atlas was depicting the region 1365 or later, we should see the black/red flag flying somewhere near those mountains. It also seems very unlikely that the mapmakers would have had such recent (<10 years) information about Timur’s conquests, seeing as how Timur was only a minor player at that point in time.

• Secondly, with regards to time, the map depicts a large empire that stretches from the west side of the Caspian sea, through all of Persia, to the Samarkand area. That large empire can’t be the Timurid Empire as it didn’t get that large till after the timespan when this atlas was supposedly created. The only logical conclusion then is that the red/yellow flags depict the Il-Khanate and empire that vanished about a year after Timur was born.

• Also, if you look closely there is some text written near the cities that are flying the black/red flag in the upper right corner. Roughly translated, that text says, the mountains from which the Volga river springs. Geographically, we know that the Volga river isn’t anywhere near Timurid holdings.

• Basically, the black/red Timur flags are flying in the completely wrong location, if we read the explanatory text on the plate, those flags are flying around the Volga river. We should see those flags flying over Samarkand or at least Balkh if they were to represent the Timurids, but they aren’t there.

This map largely seems to relate the state of the middle east/Persia/central asia around the late 13th-century to early 14th-century, before the fall of the Il-Khanate. That being the case, the red/black flags cannot be the flag of Timur, as he wasn’t born yet.

Garbon (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)garbon

Timurid

This article has no idea what it is about... It talks about the 'Timurid Dynasty' in theory, and yet Timurid Empire directs here as well... So it should talk about that too... It dosen't really- It skips a hundred years with, "After the end of the Timurid Empire in 1506" and starts talking about Mughals- who have their own article anyway... 125.237.60.139 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, a seperate Timurid Empire would be verrrry helpful. oooooooooowheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 19:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

confusion

Turkic refers to a language group; Turkish refers to an ethnic group. the Timurid dynasty was formed by Mongols from central asia but over time they began to speak the Turkic language, hence the Turkic designation. They shouldn't be confused with Turkish (people in turkey) Steelhead 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Timurids were not "Turkish".--Zereshk 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Christ, not here as well. See the dispute on the Talk:Babur page - you can't describe the Timurids as "Turkish", that's simply idiotic. There seems to be no limit to the number of nationalist morons out there who feel it incumbent upon themselves to "claim" important historical figures for one nationality or another in an entirely anachronistic way. Stop it! Sikandarji 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• As far as i understood from the protected version, it does not describe as Turkish but Turkic. I checked the source, now directly copying the paragraph from Britannica here:

Timurid Dynasty: (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia. After Timur's death (1405), his conquests were divided between two of his sons: Miranshah (d. 1407) received Iraq, Azerbaijan, Moghan, Shirvan, and Georgia, while Shah Rokh was left with Khorasan. ...

You see, if this is wrong you should correct and provide sources rather than accusing. This is not a mental problem of anyone. Furthermore, in my opinion, Turkic refers to the language family not the nationality. Regards. E104421 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How can a dynasty belong to a linguistic family? In any case by the time of Akbar the Timurids only spoke and wrote in Persian (Akbar had to have Babur's memoirs translated from the Chaghatai because he couldn't read them). If you must give them an ethnic label (and I think that's a bad idea) then call them Turco-Mongols, but they represent such a mixture of ethnicities and languages that it doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's an elite identity, not a national or ethnic one. That's the point. I suggest you read Beatrice Forbes Manz "The Development and Meaning of Chaghatay Identity" in Jo-Ann Gross (Ed.) Muslims in Central Asia. Expressions of Identity and Change (Duke University press) 1992 pp27-45, plus the relevant articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Sikandarji 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, a dynasty cannot belong to a lingusitic family, but it's written there as Turkic dynasty. I'm not a native English speaker, but as far as i understood, it means either Turkic speaking dynasty or dynasty of turkic people. In Britannica, there are Turkic people and Turkic languages entries both refering to each other. In my opinion, better to use the Turkic term in the context of language cause Turkic is a relatively new term for etnic labelling that doesn't correspond to anything precisely. In this way, Turkic dynasty means Turkic speaking dynasty or their descendents. For the etnical labelling, i'm strongly agree with you. For Timurids article, as you said, better to call them Turco-Mongols. For me, etnical labelling is not necessary. However, in my opinion, it's worth noting the language spoken by both the elite and the people, in addition, the language of literature. Since these contitutes an important part of the culture. I'll have a look at the sources you mentioned. Thanx. Sincere regards. E104421 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that turkic is being used to describe both a language and a culture. You can see this clearly in the bit under culture! While ethnic descriptions do open a whole can of unnecessary worms, perhaps a closer geographical description might be useful? This isn't my area, so I leave it up to others to add this. I'd just add that there's a lot of intelligent debate here that should perhaps be incorporated into the page at a later date. Certainly the exact use of the word turkic ought to be dealt with and justified. Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sikandarj, even though I respect your opinions, please do not forget that in wikipedia, we can only cite sources, and Britannica is definitely a valid source. Even if it cannot be cited as a stand-alone source, it definitely merits a mention. Half of Wiki was created from Britannica's 1911 edition :)) It is not up to us to judge if Brittanica is wrong or right.. I mean, half the articles on wiki are cited to various blogs, forums and self-referenced web-sites, if we cannot even cite Brittanica, how the hell are we supposed to build an encyclopedia in the first place? Brittanica describes them as Turkic, and it definitely warrants more than a simple mention.. That's all. Baristarim 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you like Britannica, then you should respect Britannica's information and accept that the Timurids were NOT Turks. Let me quote Britannica:

• "... The first Mughal, or Mongol, emperor of India (1526–30) and founder of the Mughal Dynasty there was Baber. As ruler of the principality of Fergana in Turkestan, his birthplace, Baber first tried to recover Samarkand, the former capital of the empire founded by his Mongol ancestor Timur Lenk (Tamerlane) ..." [1]

And it's totally laughable that you people want to put Britannica's controversial and self-contradicting infos above excellent works, such as the work of Prof. Dr. B. Manz, the author of the article "Timur" in Encyclopaedia of Islam. You people simply do not understand the difference between "sources", such as Britannica, and "excellent scholarly sources", such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tājik 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the Timur article, Timur wrote that he was a Turk and as its a first hand historical account its the final say on the matter, we can only argue when its not 100% known, however, since Amir Timur gives us the convenienve of telling us what he is, he saved us a long boring debate.

--Torke (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May I say...

The fact is that the Seljuk Turks and the peoples of Central Asia were called Turks. There is no nation. The chances are, they are all the same people. Think about it. Before they were united into various factions, they were warring tribes that occasionally interbred.

Timurids were not "oringally" Mongolian

This sentance is unlogical. When Timur who wasn't even a Mongol founded the state he didn't found it as a "Mongolian" state, Timur was Turkic and the official language used in the state was Turkic, Mongolian was never used and they never referred to themselves as Mongols either. Timur did unite the Mogonlian and Turkic tribes in Central Asia therefore often its called a Turco-Mongol state. But to claim that it was solely "mongolian" in origin is nothing but a historical fabrication. The Timurid's as a family were Turkic, the dynasty was originally formed out of a union of Mongol and Turkic tribes.

This is yet again an attempt by some to distort history and delete anything that mentions "Turkic".

No need to discuss this again and again and again ... All sources are given. Case closed. Tājik 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tamerlane And His Descendants Were Of Turkish Origin

It is just simple fact that they were of Paternal Turkish Origin and Maternal mongolian origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.18.200 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

The "chronological order" proposed by E104421 was wrong, thus I reverted his changes. The Timurids were adopted the established Persian literary tradition. Chaghatay literature developed much later, most of all with Mir Ali Sher Nava'i (who belonged to the last generation of Timurid nobles in Herat, short time before the dynasty was removed by invading Uzbeks). The era of Chaghatay poetry was important, but also very short. It eventually ended with Babur. This is what Britannica says:

• "... After his school companion, the sultan Husayn Bayqarah, succeeded to the throne of Herat, Nava'i held a number of offices at court. He was also a member of the Naqshbandi dervish order, and under his master, the renowned Persian poet Jami, he read and studied the works of the great mystics. ... Nava'i devoted the latter part of his life to poetry and scholarship, writing first in Persian and then in Chagatai. ..."[2]

E104421 also removed the sentens "based on Persian literary tradition". This is POV. Britannica, for example, explains:

• "... With conversion to Islam, the Turks gradually adopted Arabo-Persian metres and literary traditions. ... In the earliest, preclassic period, spanning the 14th and 15th centuries, the influence of the Persian classics was paramount. ..." [3]

Other changes were more or less POV edits. E104421 removed the words "Persian high culture" (although this is mention in many scholarly sources), etc.

Please do not make any major edits without consulting others in the talk-page. Thank you. Tājik 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

E104421 , please stop changing information from Iranica! Here are direct quotes:

• "... [Babur's] origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Ba@bor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results. ..." [4]
• "... After Timur's invasion (1398), which marked, especially for northern India, a deep hiatus in cultural activity, the age of the first six Mughal rulers (1525-1707) represented the heyday of Indo-Persian literature; it was replenished by fresh waves of talented émigrés from Safavid Persia and by increasing Hindu participation in Persian writing, particularly with the advent of Lo@di (Lodi) rule (1451-1526), when the knowledge of Persian language and literature began to filter through to the Hindu administrative class. [...] After contributing enormously to the birth of Urdu language and literature, Persian, which had been the official language of the empire from 1582 to 1835, was ousted by English.For about eight centuries Persian represented "the strongest factor in the unity and coherence of the Muslims of the subcontinent" (Bausani, p. 65) and, one may add, even of the entire elite taken as a whole. ..." [5]
• "... Persian-language scholarship stagnated after Timur destroyed the Delhi Sultanate in 1398, but revived and expanded exponentially during the years of the Timurid-Mughal dynasty (1526-1739). In this later period Indo-Persian historiography became a vibrant, multi-faceted tradition of scholarship, including autobiography, collections of poetry, ethical treatises, belles-lettres, and manuals of technical prose and administration, conversational discourses, and advice literature (diva@ns, akòla@q, enæa@÷, malfuzáa@t, and nasáiháat literature), literary and Sufi biographies and anthologies (tadòkeras), gazetteers, and innumerable political histories. These were produced at the Timurid-Mughal court in Agra and Delhi and at the independent courts of Persian-speaking rulers in Bengal, Gujarat, the Deccan (qq.v.) and elsewhere, including semi-autonomous Timurid-Mughal provinces as far south as Madras. Indo-Persian historical literature continued to be produced throughout the 18th century; but, as Muslim political power declined following the collapse of Timurid-Mughal rule, patronage decayed, and simultaneously Urdu displaced Persian, first in verse and then, by the mid-19th century, in prose as well. ..." [6]

See also: [7]

So, when the Timurids/Mughals established their rule over the subcontinent, they extended the Persian cultural influence into India. Besides that, the part you are chaning is about the culture of the Timuirds, and as such, it is about the Persian part of it. Tājik 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tajik, you should stop accusing. I made the changes according to Britannica article Timurid Dynasty. You classified the references wrongly, cause in your last revision Timurids reference redirects to Babur article of Britannica. I already explained this to you in your talk page. In addition, you're misrepresenting the Britannica article. "Adopting the literary tradition" is different from "derived from Persian". You're trying to exaggarete the Persian influence as if they were totally Persian. You're also ignoring Chagatai Turkish literature. The Iranica is not a holly book, but mostly written by iran influenced scholars. For this reason, i'm not surprised that if the iranica article exaggerate the Persian influence. Second, i removed just the word "high" not the whole argument as you stated above. On the other hand, this article is focused on Timurids era not the Babur's. You should not mix or combine the two. Furthermore, Timurids and Babur expanded their own culture influence which is affected by many factors including the Persian culture. Regards. E104421 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

E104421, it is you who is accusing, not me! If you discovered a wrong link, then why didn't you just change the link?! You changed the entire article, changed direct quotes from Iranica (which is SUPERIOR to Britannica; this was explained to you so many times, even by specialist User:Sikandarji, but somehow you still do not understand this). If you consider the Encyclopaedia Iranica to be "influenced by Iranians" - which is a totally absurd accusation - only because you are somehow hurt in your Turkish nationalistic feeling, that it's your problem,. not that of Wikipedia or the academic world.

As for the "expansion of cultural influence", the answer is directly given in the Iranica article. The Timurid culture was highly Persianate, and it was this Persianate culture that was expanded into India (in fact, the Persian culture was already present in India since the very beginning of Muslim rule of the subcontinent). The Chaghatay literature is already mentioned in the article. I did not ignore anything. In fact, it was me who added the section about the Chaghatay literature to the article.

Once again: your comments in regard of the Iranica prove once again that you really are no expert on the subject, and that you should be careful about what you say. The Britannica is not written by scholars, and the Britannica is not specialized on the subject. Tājik 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, "influenced by" was a wrong description (poor choice of the words), better would be "fascinated by". Iranica is not a holly book. The entries in Iranica differs from other reference materials in many cases. Even the terminology differs within Iranica itself (As i pointed out before, the Chionites [8], Hephtalites [9], Sassanids [10] articles for the Chionites from iranica. You'll see all differs. For the Chionites, the CHIONITES article says "a tribe of probable Iranian origin", HEPHTHALITES articles says "the second wave of "Hunnish" tribal invaders", SASANIAN DYNASTY article says "a Hunnic people who by the early fourth century had mixed with north Iranian elements in Transoxiana and adopted the Kushan-Bactrian language, threatened Persia". Then what should we do? Should we rely on iranica as a holy reference or search for other references? That's not my fault.) In my opinion, you're underestimating all components other than Persian. Is this a reflection of your nationalist feelings? or mine? Anyways, lets calm down. Regards. E104421 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had already explained that to you. When Iranica speaks of "Huns", it has a totally different meaning. Just check the article "Huns", and especially the part about "Iranian Huns": [11] Direct quotes:

• "... HUNS, collective term for horsemen of various origins leading a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. ..."
• "... The term "Huns" was also used for several tribes who posed a continuous threat to northeastern Iran and northwestern India from the 4th century C.E. [...] Altheim assumed a Turkish origin for all these tribes [...] However, this far too simplistic perspective has been succeeded by a more discriminating view based on Robert Göbl's research. According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement. A prominent characteristic, which they shared with all other Central Asian power constellations, was their ethnic mixture, among which the elite was said to be Iranian, or at least expressed itself as such through its coinage (Göbl, 1978, p. 107). It is noteworthy that the tribes in question deliberately called themselves "Huns" in order to frighten their enemies (Frye, pp. 345-46) ..."

So, it's you who is confused, not the sources. As for the Chaghatay literature, you are deffinitly exeggerating its improtance. Chaghatay and Turkic literature in Central Asia had a short "golden age" - less than 50 years! Nava'i was the beginning and Babur the end. It was - for a very short time - succeeded by Azerbaijani Turkic literature in India, for example the divan of Bayram Khan Qezelbash. However (keeping in mind that 2/3 of Bayram Khan's poems were in persian; see Iranica), this was absolutely no comparison to the vast literature composed in Persian. The Timurids produced more literature in Persian than any other dynasty. They created more than 1800 books about science in the Persian language, opposed to less than 1200 in Arabic and ZERO in Turkic (see the Iranica link posted above). So what are you arguing about?! Tājik 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the 14th century?

As with this article's top-poster, I read the history and it details how the dynasty conquered so many land, then gives a quick, "A hundred years later, they were gone"-type blurb. Timur doesn't do any better. It would be nice if someone informed were to fill in the missing century here, perhaps will some help from the articles linked from Timurid Dynasty#Rulers of Timurid Empire. Calbaer 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

History

"In addition,he transformed Samarqand into the Center of the World." (last sentence, first paragraph, History)That seems unnecessarily confusing. I assume it means he made it into a great city, which he did, but why not just say so? And, why the italics? Am i missing something here?MennoMan 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Timurid Empire is Turk Empire

Timur Empire was a Turkic Empire and Sultan Timur was a Tatar Turk.The grandchild of people of Timur Empire is nowadays Uzbek. Turkish=Uzbek=Azeri=Kazak=Turkmen=Gagauz=Tatar=Kyrgyz=Bashkirt=Chuvash=Uygur(or Uigur) all Turk People . I'm Turkish and I stay in Ankara--88.224.196.43 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

End?

There's no info about how the Timurid empire ended.--91.148.159.4 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurkani is NOT the self designation of the Timurid Dynasty

this is an edit war. please stop it. The IP (which is the blocked user Tajik and reproved user Phoenix2 at german wiki) does manipulate the referenced literature of Thackston. See Thackston "The Baburnama" page 12. Alternative: here is a source written by Amitav Ghosh: http://www.amitavghosh.com/essays_html_indv.php?essay_no=43. Ghosh corresponds to Thackston and tells: In his useful and informative introduction Dr Thackston informs us that 'Mogul' is a misnomer for the dynasty that Babur founded. Babur and his descendants identified themselves as 'Gurkani' (sons-in-law), the Timurids being in-laws of the line of Genghis Khan.. Please stop this pov- pusher who manipulates via persianising each asian subject 85.178.161.243 17:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mughals were Timurids from Ferghana. B. Manz reports in Encyclopaedia of Islam that Timur called himself Gurkani, that his name means son-in-law, and that Gurkani was also the name of the dynatsy. Timur's children were also known as Gurkani, and that name is carved on their graves in Herat and Samarqand. Stop vandalizing article, you stupid Turkish racist! You already vandalized Timurid article in german Wikipedia and you insulted Armenians in the Armenian Genocide article! You were also blocked by admin for insulting a woman who disagreed with you! Shame on you! --82.83.137.125 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Timurs own title is not Gurkani but it is Gurkan! Babur's dynasty is then called Gurkani.(Thackston page 12). why do you exploit so many dead people of the Armenian Genocide for your cheap lies to be able to persianise the article? Shame on you. You are a real psychopathe. 85.178.161.243 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gurkani is the same as Gurkan. Gurkan means "son-in-law", and Gurkani means "from son-in-law". Beside Thackston, Beatrice Manz gives the name of the dynasty as Gurkani as well. Manz and Thackston are the leading scholars on Timurid and Mughal history. Another scholar who uses the name Gurkani is Lehmann who wrote the article Babur in Iranica. Stop vandalizing the article! Why do you only mention Thackston and do not comment on Manz and Lehmann? And I am not exploiting the dead people. It is you who is insulting them by glorifying their murderers. You slur the genocide! --82.83.137.125 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gurkani is the same as Gurkan ? *lol* Thackston tells something completely different at page 12: History has conspired to rob Babur not only of his fame as a Central Asian sovereign over the kingdom of Kabul for much longer than he was in the subcontinent, but also of his primary identity as a Timurid by labelling him and his successors as 'Mughals' - that is, Moghuls, or Mongols - an appellation that would not have pleased him in the least. In India the dynasty always called itself Gurkani, after Temür's title Gurkân, the Persianised form of the Mongolian kürügän Stop exploiting so many dead people for your dirty motives 85.178.161.243 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are an uneducated Turkish racist who hates and insults millions of dead Armenians, brutally massacred by your heroes! Because you have no idea of the Persian language, you do not understand that Gurkan and Gurkani mean the same thing. And his name was Gurkan, as one can see in this original coin, and not "Kurkhan", as you uneducated Turkish racist claim! It says GurKan, with a G and a K! Stop vandalizing! And stop posting your history falsifications! --82.83.137.125 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

well I don't know why you begin to talk about "kurkhan"? uneducated Iranian racist. (and I know you hate me right now because I have found a very important information in Thackston that shows how pov pushing you are.) 85.178.161.243 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not found anything important, but you have confirmed that the Timurid family (Babur was the son of Omar Sheikh and thus a Timurid) was known as Gurkani. Even the coin says Gurkani. You stupid Turkish racist have no idea of history. Contemporary sources confirm that the Timurids were known as Gurkanis, for example this:

• ... The collected letters in this book number four hundred and fifty eight (458) out of which twenty six belong to those who have put down for Abd al-Rahman Jami. Jami addressed different figures in these letters, including sultans, rulers, Sultan Hosayn Bayqara-ye Gurkani, Sultan Mohammad Fateh,Sultan Bayazid Sani Uthmani and Jahansah Qaraqoyunlu. ...

This is a direct translation of "NAMEHA VA MONSHA`AT-E JAMI" by Jami who worked at the Timurid court! Here: http://www.iranfarhang.com/Lit12.htm Once again, you have been proven wrong, you stupid racist! --82.83.137.125 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

*LOL* an Iranian outsider has written Baykaras name in persianised form and this shall be a proof? Are you unable to read the statement of Thackston and Manz and Amitav Gosh?? read it several times perhaps one day you understand it. 85.178.161.243 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL Of course, the Turkish racist does not want to read the poems and writings of one of the greatest Sufi masters in history ... simply because he was Persian. LOL Turkish idiot! Even Ulugh Beg's observatory was named "Gurkani Zij": de:Ulug Begs Observatorium. Idiot! Since you little racist do not accept Non-Turkish sources, here is a Turkish source: [12]. Idiot! --82.83.137.125 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Persian Idiot, well Thackston, Manz and Ghosh are one the main historians on this field. I really don't to waste my time with your theses about "coins" shown on any pan-iranian web pages or any other mysterious web pages that someone has perhaps manipulated. You are not Thackston, Manz or any orientalist you are only a little blocked Tajik because of disruptive use of sock puppets. (Thanks for so much articulation of "idiot") 85.178.161.243 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Turco-Mongol designation more appropriate?

I hate to start this up again, but I think it is inappropriate that the Timurids are referred to as pure Mongols. The article on Timur himself classifies him as a Turco-Mongol; I think this would be a better term used on this page.

Timur and his successors tried extremely hard to paint themselves as Mongols, to justify their status as amir of the Chagatai Khans who theoretically ruled during Timur and his successors' lifetimes. They also tried to establish a link between their family and Genghis Khan. That is why many writers in the past have referred to them as Mongols. The fact of the matter is though that many prominent families within the khanate had at least some Turkic blood in them. Even the Genghisids of neighboring Mughalistan were noted as looking like Turks in the 15th century. Since many writers in the present day classify Timur and his successors as Turkic-Mongolians, I think it is ridiculous to completely ignore this side of their ethnicity. In scholarly circles they are accepted as such; why do we refuse to do the same?

I know there is some concern that readers of this article would confuse "Turkic" with "Turkish". Perhaps, but that is no reason to ignore the truth. Besides, a reader interested in the ethnic background of the Timurids should make an effort to learn the difference; if they don't, that is a failure on their end, not ours.

Bottom line, given the evidence of the mixed identity of the Timurids, I see no reason other than petty nationalism as to why the Timurids are not referred to as Turko-Mongols. Their designation should be changed immediately.

I would be glad to provide any sources to support my point for those interested.

Ro4444 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The origins of the Timurids were Barlas-Mongol. Timur's father, Taraghay, was the chief of the Mongol Berlas. I have already addressed to Padishah5000 that the article of B. Manz in the Encyclopaedia of Islam is to be considered authoritative, and she states that Timur, although Turkic speaking, was Mongol in origin. This is also confirmed by another expert on Central Asian history, Prof. C.E. Bosworth who writes that Timur was Mongol and belonged to the Mongol Berlas tribes. See also Gene Ralph Garthwaite's "The Persians", who writes that Timur was Mongol but his tribe had adopted a Turkic language.

Anyway, 3 sources have been removed (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopaedia Britannica) just to add a weak source in favour of the claim that the Timurids were Turkic origin. The origin of the Timuird family was evidently Mongol. Their culture and identity, however, shifted to Central Asian Turkic and then to Persian and Indo-Persian (Mughals). We cannot claim that they were Turko-Persian-Mongol. The best thing is to say that they were Mongols who have later adopted Turkic and Persian languages and culture.

Unsourced information

1. Timuriyan is the name for the Timurids in Persian sources. The Timurids did not call themselves "Timuriyan".
2. I am not sure, if the self designation of the Timurid dynasty was Gurkani. But I know that the given source (Thackston) does not document this edit. Thackston tells in the given source (which is an elaboration about the Memoirs of Babur) that the self designation of Baburs Empire (which is known in western sources as Moghul Empire) was "Gurkani". He does not tell that the Timurid dynasty would have also used this name though it seems possible because Babur was himself a Timurid. But it is unsourced. This is the problem. The other sources (the contemporary witness Clavijo and Balfour) also do not source Gurkani as the self-designation of the Timurid dynasty. They talk about Timurs surname (which was Gürkan)
All these wrong or unsourced information come from the banned user User:Tajik or his sockpuppet User:DerDoc, who wants to persianise all central asian history. Please have an eye on his edits. 85.178.133.13 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Main page: WP:Sockpuppetry

All Wikipedians have a main account from which they may edit. The main account (or primary account) is a prime username that may be the most important account to that person. It may be chief in size as far as number of edits or otherwise perceived by others to be the leading account of that person.

Although not common, some Wikipedians create alternate accounts. An alternate account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. There are limited, acceptable uses for alternate accounts. For example, a prominent user might create an alternate account to experience how the community functions for new users. If someone uses alternate accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them.

Multiple accounts include the main account and all alternate accounts. While use of the main account is encouraged, use of alternate accounts is not encouraged. In particular, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making controversial edits with one account and non-controversial ones with another, or otherwise stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternate account may result in blocking of that account and will affect that Wikipedian's ability to operate alternate accounts.

A sock puppet (or sockpuppet) is a username used for purposes of multiple account deception. The actions of the sock puppet account typically are prompted or otherwise coordinate with the actions of a second account. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden. Where misuse of an alternate account may result in the blocking of that one account, abuse of a second username account may result in all access to Wikipedia being blocked.

Please, see Meatpuppetry section, too. E104421 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources and quotations

I do not see how removing Iranica and some other sources can be disguised as editing. Also part of the quote from Columbia Encyclopedia was not inserted:"This cultural rebirth had a double character; on one hand, there was a renewal of Persian civilization and art (distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese), and on the other, an original national literature in the Turk-Jagatai language, which borrowed from Persian sources". Which is also supported by this : [13]. and here: [14] (In almost all the territorties which Temur incorporated into his realm, Persian was the primary language of administration and literary culture." and highly "Iranicised Chagatay Turkish " [15]. I think the current version of the article is fine (and if there is any needed citations), then it should be inserted. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't minimize what Iranica or any other Encyclopedia says and re-interpret it.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should edit sections instead of the whole article. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing was removed. The iranica reference (iranica 2) is already mentioned in Ulug Beg related paragraph. The quotation from iranica 2 is about Ulug Beg. On the other hand, you deleted the Britannica quotations:

1."Timurids", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Qotation: "Timurid dynasty (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia."

2."Babur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character."

Spend some time before reverting other users edits. Keep also in mind that i'm not reverting, each time i'm reading your edits, then adding necessary information according to your comments and suggestions. You do not want to understand, since you do not want to co-operate. I will not edit this article anymore, since your manner is totally incivil. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not incivil. You can add the relavant quotes. But you are also changing different sentences nothing to do with the above sources while adding legitimate sources. You know what I am talking about. What does adding Britannica have to do with removing "Persian literary and High culture" and stuffing it into "Turko-Persian tradition" which is a separate manner. Turko-Persian tradition means primarily Persianate culture supported , adopted and expanded by Turkic rulers. So I am puzzled why you should remove the expression "Persian literary and High culture" at all. So make the necessary edits, but I think the removal of those words are incivil. thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

--alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Turko-Persian tradition is a more proper terminology. It's not clear what's exactly meant by "high culture". Better to explain this in the culture section, and that's already done. Have you ever read the culture section? Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

High culture means the culture of the elite. Turko-Persian is not proper since Turko-Persian tradition is not by definition "culture" but rather "Persian Culture supported by Turkish rulers". So Turko-Persian tradition is a concept for dynasties that combine "reliance upon military(Turks)+spread/promulgation Culture(Persians)" . It is not the same Persian culture. The Iranica source by the German author says: "Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarqand until the Russian revolution 1917 ". So changing the sentence is not factual. Also if we are to mention Chinese influence (mainly on miniature paintings), then we should also mention Irancized Chagatay as well. So you took part of Columbia Encyclopedia and ignored the other part ;) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • No, i did not ignored. I'm editing in a sequence. I cited previously removed sentence here first. The "high culture" definition in the article is still doubtfull, is it the high culture of Persian elite or high culture of the ruling elite? or the composite high culture in Persian? This should be mentioned in detail in the culture section. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Persian elite" was part of the "ruling elite" (all viziers of the Timurid dynasty were Persians), and the Non-Persian "ruling elite" was highly Persianized in culture and language. The Timurids were bilingual and not simply "ethnic Turks who sometimes spoke Persian". Writing poems in a language means that one identifies himself with that language. The Timurid sultans wrote in both, Persian and Chaghatay. Even Babur's Baburnama is a mix of Chaghatay and Persian.

• The "bilingual" claim is a very strong one. Timurid rulers, of course, use all the languages, but this does not mean that local people is capable of speaking the two. There are viziers of Persian origin, but this was possibly for contacting/ruling the Persian people. If so, this can be interpreted as an administrative usage of Persian, not the influence of Persian "high culture". Regards. E104421 (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The majority of the local people were Persian speakers specially in Ferqaneh, Bukhara and Samarqand and etc. Interpretations is not needed, if needed we will just cquote it. High culture has multiple meaning including the language of culture, literature, administration, letters, educated and etc. So we will let the users decide for themselves if there is a problem with definition. Anyways I brought some other quotes from sources that points to all these. See the first comment on this section. Regards--alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's why i confused with that usage. Actually, "high culture" seems like a restricted concept, as for Persian speaking ruling elite. Maybe better to explain where the local people settled in according to their native language and to write couple of words on the important cities and their cultural life. In this way, we can also mention the migrations and their effects throughout the Timurids era. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You did the same thing again but reintrepreting those sources and summarizing it into an unscholarly article. You can add legitimate sources to the article, but removing sources or changing their meaning is not correct. I am going to have to make a section with cquotes so that this does not occur in the future. I will do that sometime this week. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I added the sources. Almost all the sources are mentioning the dual nature of the Timurid culture. This is the same thing as Turko-Persian tradition. This is not an interpretation. See the Columbia Encyclopedia, for example, ... His domain was the focal point of trade between the East and the West, and it attained a spectacular prosperity. Because all the Persian cities were desolated by previous wars, the seat of Persian culture was now in Samarkand and Herat; these cities became the center of the Timurid renaissance. This cultural rebirth had a double character; on one hand, there was a renewal of Persian civilization and art (distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese), and on the other, an original national literature in the Turk-Jagatai language, which borrowed from Persian sources ... It does not have to cite Turko-Persian all the time. Btw, you're removing other sourced information and cited references and quotations. Do not revert but add the ones you claimed to be changed. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you did interprete this one. Secondly, you moved sentences and gave certain passages the way they please you. What you forget is that Persian culture and literature was still the base of all Timurid culture. The Timurids first revived the Persian civilization, and then, for a very short time, managed to create a unique Timurid-Turkic literature based on the Persian literary tradition. Basically, that Turkic literature had only 3 leading characters: Nava'i, Hussayn Bayqara and Babur (and all three also wrote in Persian). Despite its importance for the Turkic literature, this is no comparison to the achievements of the Timurids in regard of Persian literature and culture, which gave birth to legendary characters such as Jami and Behzad or revived the works of Hafez and Saadi, etc. You also ignore that Persian was already the official language of the Timurids during the reign of Timur. All of his letters to foreign kings were written in Persian (see here: "7. 30 juillet 1402. Lettre de Tamerlan à Charles VI, roi de France, pour l'engager à envoyer des marchands en Orient. -- Orig. (en langue persane). - Document conservé au Musée de l'Histoire de France sous la cote AE III 204"). You also claim that Timurid architecture was based on "Seljuq architecture", not mentioning that "Seljuq architecture" was itself a variant of the established Persian architecture, having its origins in old Sassanian architecture. In that regard, you purposely deleted a source. This is disruptive editing, E104421. Please quit it and try to work for improvements. -82.83.141.78 (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I think I will have to make a subsection for Persian culture under Timurids. Sourced information is fine but intrepretation of some sentences and their contraction is not good. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Culture section for Timurids would be fine, but this should not be restricted to Persian (Tajik's style) as if they were Persian. Actually, there is quite good information in the article on this. Maybe better to state them in more clear and explicit way. In my opinion, the Timurids history section requires much work at the beginning. Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Turko-Mongol

• See, for example, Jean-Paul Roux's "Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée", Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000" or Gérard Chaliand's book "Les Empires nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995". Encyclopedias reflect the consice compilations of the published works of mainstream scholars. See the references of the Britannica article for "Timur", "Central Asia, history of Timur", "Islamic world", "Babur", Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Academic Edition, 2007. All these articles have "Additional Reading" sections. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

culture and deadlink

the britannica article seems like a dead link but here is all of it:

Timurid Dynasty Encyclopædia Britannica Article

(fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia.

After Timur's death (1405), his conquests were divided between two of his sons: Miranshah (d. 1407) received Iraq, Azerbaijan, Moghan, Shirvan, and Georgia, while Shah Rokh was left with Khorasan.

Between 1406 and 1417 Shah Rokh extended his holdings to include those of Miranshah as well as Mazanderan, Seistan, Transoxania, Fars, and Kerman, thus reuniting Timur's empire, except for Syria and Khuzistan. Shah Rokh also retained a nominal suzerainty over China and India. During Shah Rokh's reign (1405–47), economic prosperity was restored and much of the damage wrought by Timur's campaigns was repaired. Trading and artistic communities were brought into the capital city of Herat, where a library was founded, and the capital became the centre of a renewed and artistically brilliant Persian culture.

In the realm of architecture, the Timurids drew on and developed many Seljuq traditions. Turquoise and blue tiles forming intricate linear and geometric patterns decorated the facades of buildings. Sometimes the interior was decorated similarly, with painting and stucco relief further enriching the effect. The Gur-e Amir, Timur's mausoleum in Samarkand, is the most notable example. The tiled dome, rising above a polygonal chamber, is fluted and slightly bulbous. Of the Ak-Saray, Timur's palace built between 1390 and 1405 at Kesh, only the monumental gates remain, again with coloured-tile decoration.

The schools of miniature painting at Shiraz, Tabriz, and Herat flourished under the Timurids. Among the artists gathered at Herat was Behzad (d. c. 1525), whose dramatic, intense style was unequaled in Persian manuscript illustration. The Baysunqur workshops practiced leatherwork, bookbinding, calligraphy, and wood and jade carving. In metalwork, however, Timurid artistry never equaled that of earlier Iraqi schools.

Internal rivalry eroded Timurid solidarity soon after Shah Rokh's death. The years 1449–69 were marked by a constant struggle between the Timurid Abu Sa'id and the Uzbek confederations of the Kara Koyunlu (“Black Sheep”) and Ak Koyunlu (“White Sheep”). When Abu Sa'id was killed in 1469, the Ak Koyunlu ruled unopposed in the west, while the Timurids receded to Khorasan. Nevertheless the arts, particularly literature, historiography, and miniature painting, continued to flourish; the court of the last great Timurid, Husayn Bayqarah (1478–1506) supported such luminaries as the poet Jami, the painters Behzad and Shah Muzaffar, and the historians Mirkhwand and Khwandamir. The vizier himself, Mir 'Ali Shir, established Chagatai Turkish literature and fostered a revival in Persian. --alidoostzadeh 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:E104421 is once again falsifying sources. While the authoritative Iranica article says entirely integrated into the Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, he has reduced this source to a simple the Timurids [were] also influenced by the Persian culture in Islam. He also makes a wrong allegation in the following: The Turko-Mongolian tradition became predominant throughtout the territories of Timurid Empire. The spoken-language of this new culture was Turkic, its religion Islam, its political legitimation Mongolian. I know B. F. Manz book and her excellent article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and nowhere does she claim such a thing. Even during the Timruid rule, the dominant language of Central Asia was Persian and not Chaghatay (E104421 wrongly linked the word "Turkic" to "Turkic languages" instead of "Chagatai language"). This is even more clear when analyzing the Chaghatay language. According to scholars, up to 60% of Chaghatay was derived from Persian and Arabic, while at the same time, Central Asian Turkic did not have any influence on Persian:

• "... For example, when Ali Sher Nava'i (844-906/1441-1501) wrote Mohakamat al-loghatayn in order to prove the superiority of Turkish over Persian, he used a language that contained 62.6 percent Persian and Arabic words (sample: 122 of 195 words). ... Persian literature from Central Asia, on the contrary, contains very few Turkish elements. For instance, Navai's contempo­rary, the poet Abd-al-Rahman Jami (817-98/1414-92), still another protege‚ of Sultan Hosayn, used no Turkish words ... Persian literature from Central Asia, on the contrary, contains very few Turkish elements. For instance, Navai's contempo­rary, the poet Abd-al-Rahman Jami (817-98/1414-92), still another protege‚ of Sultan Hosayn, used no Turkish words (Brockelmann, pp. 159-60, 186-87, 196-97, 393-427; Kales, pp. 13-15). ..." (Doerfer, Elemente; idem, 1967; quoted in Encyclopaedia Iranica)
• "... Translation of Persian works into Chaghatay was common, for instance, Navai's translation of works by Jami, while, in comparison, translations of Chaghatay works into Persian were rare. ..." (Eckmann, 1964a, pp. 293-96; idem, 1964b, pp. 309, 366-69; Köprülü, in ËA II, pp. 296, 301, 321)

Finally, it was not the Timurids but the Shaibanid Uzbeks who made Chaghatay the predominant language of Transoxania:

• "... Under the Shaibanids (832-1007/1429-1598) Cha­ghatay became the predominant literary language of Transoxania and was used by some of the great khans themselves ..." (Eckmann, 19646, p. 361; Köprülü, in ËA III, p. 318) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.141.208 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Beatrice Forbes Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, p.3: "... As the Mongol rulers had adopted to the needs of the individual regions they ruled, they had not abandoned their nomad heritage, but had created a new culture combining steppe principles with strong elements of their subject populations - both Turkic nomads of the western steppe, and the settled peoples of their agricultural regions. The spoken language of this new culture was Turkic, its religion Islam, its political legitimation Mongolian. Turko-Mongolian tradition became predominantly throughout all the western Mongol domains from Central Asian to Russia, with only Mongolia and China remaining apart. In most of the lands it affected the Turko-Mongolian heritage was not the only cultural system. It coexisted with Persian culture in the Middle East and with the Russian culture in Russia and Ukraine, but it affected all aspects of political and military life throughout the large area of its influence. ..." E104421 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

E104421, that part of the text (which is on page 5 of my copy of the book, which is the German translation) is not about the Timurids but about the pre-Timurid, Turko-Mongolian Chaghatayid nomads ("... turko-mongolische Nomaden aus der prä-timuirdischen Epoche ...", B. Manz, p. 5, german translation). The Timurid dynasty was different. while Timur himself was most certainly an integrated member of the Turko-Mongolian nomadic confederations, his successors were not. Here is also another source from Iranica:

• "... During this period of struggle the last important Timurid ruler, Hosayn Bayqara (q.v.; 875-912/1470­-1506), controlled large portions of eastern Persia and Central Asia from his capital at Herat. He encouraged the development of Persian literature and literary talent in every way possible ..." [16]

You should also read the entire Iranica source:

• "... Timur's successors, who were, unlike him, essentially peace-loving, devoted themselves to the support of culture, the arts, and religion and to the preservation of his territorial legacy. His fourth son, Shahrokh (807-­50/1407-47), succeeded him as ruler of Transoxania, though he lived in Herat, and earned a great reputation as a friend of scholars and poets and as a patron of architecture. He installed his son Ologh (Ulugh) Beg as governor at Samarkand, where, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, he enlarged his palace and took steps to prevent the deterioration of many of his ancestor's monuments. His personal interest was astron­omy, to which he made significant contributions (cf. Barthold, 1935). Like his father, Ologh Beg was entirely integrated into Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarkand until the Russian revolution of 1917. Many works of poetry, history, and other learned subjects were composed there in Persian (as later in the empire of the Great Mughals in India). By contrast, Persian was disappearing in Anatolia at the same period, increasingly supplanted by Ottoman Turkish. ..." [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.141.208 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks pre-Timurid to me too. It is speaking about the Turkification of Mongol tribes.[18]. Also I brought all of Britannica and I did not see the words that the article is describing. Also note the sentence "spoken language", which is about the Mongolian groups becoming Turkified. Indeed interesting enough, Navai considers Seljuqs a Persian dynasty and the Mongols as a Turkic dynasty. By the way the same book makes it clear:"Persian was the primary language of administration and literary culture". --alidoostzadeh 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• It was the Diwan language of the dynasty. Ali, could you please quote the whole paragraph, instead of a single sentence, since the context is important. Regards. E104421 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note the Columbia Encyclopedia mentions the Chinese connection with regards to Persian art (Miniature) (a well known fact that Chinese brought this art to the east). Not culture (like literature where there was no chinese influence). --alidoostzadeh 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Culture has a broad meaning, since its in the introductory sentence, it does not matter much, because all (art, literature, architecture) are mentioned just below. Regards. E104421 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Right but the Columbia reference is explicitly mentioning art (with regards to Chinese). Also the quote you brought from pg 3 has to do with the Turkification of Mongolian Nomads during the pre-Timurid dynasty and also speaks about spoken language. Obviously Timurid supported Turkish literature too and I'll re-add that based on the same Columbia. --alidoostzadeh 23:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, could you please explain why you deleted the Britannica reference? I already provided all the links related with Timurids from Britannica above. Please, do not remove the sources. You can request quotation. Regards. E104421 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I did not see the word "Turkic culture" Britannica (note all of Britannica is in this section), show me where it says it. Try Columbia. As per Diwan, note the quantifier "thus".. [[19]]. It is after the author says Persian was primary language of administration and literary culture. Then he adds "Thus the Diwan"..which is a consequence of the fist two facts. Literary culture is different than Diwan. And by numbers and statistics, using a reasonable figure, probably for every 10 Persian work from the era, you can find one Chagatay work. We can cquote it for all I care but it needs to be in the article.--alidoostzadeh 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

E104421, as I explained to you in details on your talk page, the vast majority of academic sources on the topic refer to Timur and Timurids as Mongols, none of the sources you've listed for "Turko-Mongol" are primary sources (they're not even secondary sources, they're all tertiary sources ie Encyclopedias which do not override primary sources) All the PRIMARY sources I have seen on the topic, take the mainstream position that Timur was a Mongol. This is a controversial issue, If you're going to change the lead based on selective tertiary sources, at least get a consenses for it on the talk page. --07fan 07:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm adding the cited references here again:

1. René Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, Rutgers University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8135-1304-9 (p.409) Quotation: "...In fact, he was no Mongol, but a Turk...."

2. Gérard Chaliand, Les Emp'res nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995.

3. Jean-Paul Roux, Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée", Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000.

4. Beatrice Forbes Manz. The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

5. G. R. Garthwaite, "The Persians", Malden, ISBN 9781557868602, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007.

6. "Islamic world", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timur (Tamerlane) was a Turk, not a Mongol; but he aimed to restore Mongol power...."

• I had already provided the sources and the quotations. The mainstream academicians call them Turko-Mongols. The references were also cited in the article. You never checked any of them but still complaining. I provided tens of sources on that. Please, do not remove the sourced information. Regards. E104421 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is a tertiary source and refuted, and I don't see a quotation from the other sources you're listing. Most of the sources listed in the article accept the view that Timurids were Mongols who spoke Turkic, but that does not make them Turkic people, that's simply your own interpretation of these sources. Encyclopedia of Asian History is clear that: "Although Timur was a descendant of a Mongolian tribe, he and his followers, like the other members of the Mongol ruling class in western Asia, spoke Turkic." Please get a consensus here before changing the lead and the definition of the article--07fan 13:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying "Turko-Mongol" instead of "Mongol". But it is indeed wrong if one puts the alleged Turkic culture of the Timurids above the established and predominant Persianate culture of Central Asia. All sources agree that Persian was the dominant and ruling culture and language of the Timurids. The later Turkic Chagatai literature was based on that Persian culture. Also, Seljuq architecture was a variant of Persian architecture. The Seljuqs themselvs were Central Asian nomads. They did not have any architects or any architecture. They patronized and developed the existing Persian architecture. E104421 has also remove a reference to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.151 (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Turko-Mongol terminology is a commonly used one, as i already said before. I provided the necessary sources and quotations but User:07fan still reverting the article into his POV version. User:Tajik, on the other hand, still continues baseless accusations as he did before. I did not remove anything. I do not remove cited references or quotations. You, two, simply ignore other editors and delete their contributions. People come here to contribute, but you're causing disruption. Be civil! Regards. E104421 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There neither accusations against you, nor are these so-called accusations "baseless". You changed a pretty good and sourced version simply because you hate the word "Persian". You could have simply inserted the word "Turko-Mongol", but instead you changed whole paragraphs without adding any valuable information. For example, you changed this good version of the "Literature" paragraph:

• The Timurid era revived the Persian civilization in Central Asia after the disastrous invasion by Genghis Khan[15]. The Timurid sultans, especially Šāhrukh Mīrzā and his son Mohammad Taragai Oloğ Beg, patronized Persian high culture.[10] Persian literature as well as the Persian language, the traditional vernacular of the Timurid courts, flourished throughout their empire. Herat and Samarqand became centers of a renewed and artistically brilliant Persian culture[13]. Among the most important literary works of the Timurid era is the Persian biography of Timur, known as "Zafarnāma" (Persian: ظفرنامه), written by Sharaf ud-Dīn Alī Yazdī, which itself is based on an older "Zafarnāma" by Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī, the official biographer of Timur during his lifetime. The most famous poet of the Timurid era was Nūr ud-Dīn Jāmī, the last great medieval Sufi mystic of Persia and one of the greatest in Persian poetry. The most famous painter of the Timurid court, as well as the most famous of the Persian miniature painters in general, was Ustād Kamāl ud-Dīin Behzād. In addition, the Timurid sultan Oloğ Beg is known as a great astronomer. After the foundation of the Mughal Empire, the Timurids successfully expanded the Persian cultural influence from Khorasan to India, where the Persian language, literature, architecture, and art dominated the Indian subcontinent until the British conquest.[14] The early Timurids also played a very important role in the history of Turkic literature. Based on the established Persian literary tradition, a national Turkic literature was developed, written in the Chagatay language, the native tongue of the Timurid family. Chagatay poets such as Mīr Alī Sher Nawā'ī, Sultan Husayn Bāyqarā, and Zāher ud-Dīn Bābur encouraged other Turkic-speaking poets to write in their own vernacular in addition to Arabic and Persian. The Bāburnāma, the autobiography of Bābur, as well as Mīr Alī Sher Nawā'ī's Chagatay poetry are among the best-known Turkic literary works and have fascinated and influenced many others world wide. However, the Turkic elements of the dynasty declined with the fall of the Timurids in Herat and the total Persianization of the Timurid family after Humāyūn's exile in Safawid Persia.

... to this version:

• The early Timurids played a very important role in the history of Turkic literature. Based on the established Persian literary tradition, a national Turkic literature was developed, written in the Chagatay language, the native tongue of the Timurid family. Chagatay poets such as Mīr Alī Sher Nawā'ī, Sultan Husayn Bāyqarā, and Zāher ud-Dīn Bābur encouraged other Turkic-speaking poets to write in their own vernacular in addition to Arabic and Persian. The Timurid era also revived the Persian civilization in Central Asia after the disastrous invasion by Genghis Khan.[5] Persian literature as well as the Persian language, the traditional vernacular of the Timurid courts, flourished throughout their empire. Herat and Samarqand became centers of a renewed and artistically brilliant Persian culture.[10] The Timurid sultans, especially Šāhrukh Mīrzā and his son Mohammad Taragai Oloğ Beg, patronized Persian culture.[13] Among the most important literary works of the Timurid era is the Persian biography of Timur, known as "Zafarnāma" (Persian: ظفرنامه), written by Sharaf ud-Dīn Alī Yazdī, which itself is based on an older "Zafarnāma" by Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī, the official biographer of Timur during his lifetime. The most famous poet of the Timurid era was Nūr ud-Dīn Jāmī, the last great medieval Sufi mystic of Persia and one of the greatest in Persian poetry. The most famous painter of the Timurid court, as well as the most famous of the Persian miniature painters in general, was Ustād Kamāl ud-Dīin Behzād. In addition, the Timurid sultan Ulugh Beg is known as a great astronomer. The Bāburnāma, the autobiography of Bābur, as well as Mīr Alī Sher Nawā'ī's Chagatay poetry are among the best-known Turkic literary works and have fascinated and influenced many others world wide. After the foundation of the Mughal Empire, the Timurids successfully expanded the their cultural influence from Khorasan to India, where the Persian language, literature, architecture, and art dominated the Indian subcontinent until the British conquest.[12]

You tore apart the previous version without even reading what you had changed. Your version had the sole purpose to mention the Turkic literature on top. That's all. It had no scholastic improvement, you did not add any new references or any new information. Not only that, you only moved one part of the text to the top pf the paragraph, leaving the second part at the bottom, making the paragraph look absolutely weird and illogical. This is disruptive editing, E104421. It shows that your edits are not good faith edits, but have the sole purpose to push for a certain ideology. In the first paragraph of the sentence, you purposely falsified an academic text by changing the sourced expression "Persian high culture" to your own interpretation "Turko-Persian tradition". This is again ideologically motivated and very disruptive behavior. In fact, it is you who is accusing others and who is repeating these baseless accusations always and always again. And once you are confronted with authoritative sources and facts, you run to the same corrupt admins.

comment

Do not remove references. Any statement is sourced. And also Persian was the language of Diwan but it was much more. It was the language of high literature as stated by the source. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Show what you mean by OR. I have already shown Persian was the language of Diwan, but also was the language of high literature as stated by another source as well the language of Major cultural centers (Persian culutre) mentioned in Herat and Samarqand. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• You misrepresented the sources and misquoted the Columbia Encyclopedia article which states that "...Because all the Persian cities were desolated by previous wars, the seat of Persian culture was now in Samarkand and Herat; these cities became the center of the Timurid renaissance. This cultural rebirth had a double character; on one hand, there was a renewal of Persian civilization and art (distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese), and on the other, an original national literature in the Turk-Jagatai language, which borrowed from Persian sources." In addition, your synthesis in the "origins section" is an original research. You should provide the full quotations, not the single words or sentences, here. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all I do not have even provide a full quotation, but if you are looking for a reference then ask for it on the talkpage instead of blindly reverting. I will gladly provide it. But just blindly removing stuff because you do not have access to it currently will not help the discussion. Secondly COlumbia is mentioned 4 times in the article and you have to show me exactly which sentence you have a problem with and is a synthesis! --alidoostzadeh (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I did not reverted your edit, see this. I just removed the combined sentences and corrected the misrepresented Columbia reference. That's it. The snythesis is "...After the Mongol conquest of Central Asia, the Barlas settled in Turkistan (which then became also known as Moghulistan - "Land of Mongols") and intermingled to a considerable degree with the local Turkic and Turkic-speaking population, so that at the time of Timur's reign the Barlas had become thoroughly Turkicized in terms of language and habits. Additionally, by adopting Islam, the Central Asian Turks and Mongols also adopted the Persian literary and high culture which has dominated Central Asia since the early days of Islamic influence..." plus "... Persian literature was instrumental in the assimilation of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture." If you quote B.F.Manz do it directly as we did in the Chionites article. The same staff repeats itself many times in the article. I do not understand why you repeat the same sentences many times in almost every paragraph of the article. If you want mention "Persian culture", you can do it in the "culture section" in detail. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That sentence is not referencing columbia enyclcopedia. It is referencing Iranica. The sentence "Persian literatur was instrumental in the assimilation .." is also a separate sentence and not joined with any other sentence. Also you tampered with some other sentences which had nothing to with columbia. If you feel columbia is not being quoted in full, just quote it in full. I have to go for now, but will be back later to look at your argument. But I can not just accept blind removal of sentences. For example removal of "Timurid artists refined the Persian art of the book, which combines paper, calligraphy, illumination, illustration and binding in a brilliant and colourful whole". Regards--alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, by saying Columbia reference, i meant "the one in the culture section - the dual character ..." as i quotated just above. I checked the iranica reference, too. It's about the Ulugh Bey period. Furthermore, the sentence you mentioned "Timurid artists refined the Persian art of the book, which combines paper, calligraphy, illumination, illustration and binding in a brilliant and colourful whole" was kept in [my version] (see the art section). It's obvious that you never take a look at my version. Now, you've proven your blind revert. Diffs are sometimes confusing, just read the article from the beginning. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. here is the sentence:"Although the Timurids hailed from the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, they had embraced Persian culture[16] and Persian art (distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese[6]), and also Chagatay Literature[6], converted to Islam and resided in Turkestan and Khorasan. Thus, the Timurid era had a dual character,[6] which reflected both the Turco-Mongol origins and the Persian culture as well the Persian language, which was also the [10](Diwan) language of the dynasty.". Yes the part about Diwan language comes from another source, it can be made into a seprate sentence if needed. It is not synthesis though, since the sources says Persian cultural centers (Samarqand, Herart), assimilated to Persian culture, main language of literature and etc. So adding it was the language of Diwan (administration) is not OR. Columbia doesn't say anything about Diwan if I am correct, but other sources do. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

another source from Iranica:

• "... The appearance of literature in this Turkic language has been taken as indicative of the contemporary intellectual milieu in Herat, which was a product of the cultural symbiosis of Persian and Turkic-speaking peoples. Although Persian was undoubtedly predominant, Turkic still managed to develop an independent identity ..." [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.143.172 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, i think you missed my statement here. The synthesis is the combination of selected sentences. I'm re-writing your combination here: "...After the Mongol conquest of Central Asia, the Barlas settled in Turkistan (which then became also known as Moghulistan - "Land of Mongols") and intermingled to a considerable degree with the local Turkic and Turkic-speaking population, so that at the time of Timur's reign the Barlas had become thoroughly Turkicized in terms of language and habits." plus "Additionally, by adopting Islam, the Central Asian Turks and Mongols also adopted the Persian literary and high culture which has dominated Central Asia since the early days of Islamic influence..." plus "... Persian literature was instrumental in the assimilation of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture". I'm not against any quotations but the combination. You directly cquote. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, I did an overall review. Firstly, i fixed the wikifications and reference links. Secondly, i moved the sentences after Barlas (which covers pre-Timur era) to the place mentioning the Timurid renaissance. Thirdly, i renamed the section Chagatay Literature as Original National Literature which is more informative and moved it above. Now, i'm waiting for your comments. The section "Founding the dynasty" requires much work. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You did it again. It says Art (Chinese), not culture. You can rewrite that sentence, but you have changed the whole article without providing any justification on the talkpage. Note Columbia does not say: "they had embraced Persian culture[14] (distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese[6]) ". It specifically mentions Art. I think if you want to change the article, you should provide justification for each step of the edit. For example you changed: "After the foundation of the Mughal Empire, the Timurids successfully expanded the Persian cultural influence from Khorasan to India, where the Persian language, literature, architecture, and art dominated the Indian subcontinent until the British conquest" to "After the foundation of the Mughal Empire, the Timurids successfully expanded the their cultural influence from Khorasan to India, where the Persian language, literature, architecture, and art dominated the Indian subcontinent until the British conquest. ". which is different meaning. Where-as it was Timurid that accelerated and brought about these dominations. Note the quotes: "Lehmann, F. "Zaher ud-Din Babor - Founder of Mughal empire". Encyclopaedia Iranica (Online). New York City: Columbia University Center for Iranian (Persian) Studies. 320-323. Retrieved on 2006-11-07. “... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ...” and Robert L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1991. pg 20: "The Mughals-Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strenghtened the Persianate culture of Muslim India". I think a series of small edits one by one that is justified is better. I have no problem with disjoining those sentences one to one (the one you said I synthesized) into three sentences (I am not sure if I was the one that even joined it, but joining sentences by themselves is not really synthesis unless it contains OR or tries to sythesize two different things into one sentence), but changing wording of columbia which mentions Art specifically (chinese minature) or other parts it not acceptable. Also as I mentioned Persian culture (mentioned by Columbia, Britannica and etc.) and high literature and art (mentioned by other sources), is complementing the Diwan (administrative) language. So putting solely Persian Culture (Diwan) without the others is not in any of the sources. I suggested we discuss each change we want to make sentence by sentence. No hard feelings, but under the cover of my alleged synthesis (see what is a synthesis), you changed many different parts of the article. Specially the Art part from Columbia after it was discussed should not have been changed, since Columbia Encyclopedia mentions Art specifically and not culture. Regards. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A small side note: the link to the article Turkification is wrong, because that article is not about adopting of Turkic languages and habits, but about adopting the Turkish language specifically in Anatolia and surrounding areas. A year ago, User:Khoikhoi suggested to create the article Turkicization dealing with Turkic influence, but nothing has happened since then. I suggest to link the words Turkicized and Turkified to the article Turkic languages. The article Turkification has the same function as the article Uzbekization, it deals with the dominant national identity of a modern nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.158.96 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, Why do you prefer to revert instead of editing the parts you object? I may write something wrong, but you can correct them, instead of reverting the whole article. The chronology of the article in your version is not correct. It mixes the pre-Timur, Timur and after Timur eras in to one other. That's why i separated them. I'll wait for a while, hoping that you read my version. I'm planning to add "totally disputed" and "rewrite" tags, if you continue reverting. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you changed major parts, why not do it step by step and lets discuss each step. I have no problem with chronology. The problem is changing actual sentences of Columbia, Iranica and etc in one big edit. So there may be parts of your edits that was good, but a big portion changed the wordings of primary sources. So I suggest editing in a series of steps. That is mentioning which part is wrong and then proposing the new change in the talkpage and finally implementing the change after feedback. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right making the changes step by step is better. Now, i'll do my last big edit, since i have been editing before reading your comment. In this last version, i corrected the Columbia reference (it's really difficult to edit that section, since the wiki cite-encyclopedia staff makes it complicated). In addition, i carried the culture related paragraphs to culture section. From now on, i'll edit in series. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not just columbia. There was other wordings. Each sentence that is changed should be discussed in the talkpage and then edited. For example the part about expansion into india which was totally changed. And etc. Let us discuss each sentence you are changing and then make edits. it is a long process but that is the best way. thanks --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source for the article (Robert Devereux (tr.), "Judgment of Two Languages; Muhakamat Al-Lughatain By Mir 'Ali Shir Nawāi"; Introduction, Translation and Notes: Leiden (E.J. Brill), 1966):

• Any linguist of today who reads the essay will inevitably conclude that Nawa'i argued his case poorly, for his principal argument is that the Turkic lexicon contained many words for which the Persian had no exact equivalents and that Persian-speakers had therefore to use the Turkic words. This is a weak reed on which to lean, for it is a rare language indeed that contains no loan words. In any case, the beauty of a language and its merits as a literary medium depend less on size of vocabulary and purity of etymology that on the euphony, expressiveness and malleability of those words its lexicon does include. Moreover, even if Nawa'i's thesis were to be accepted as valid, he destroyed his own case by the lavish use, no doubt unknowingly, of non-Turkic words even while ridiculing the Persians for their need to borrow Turkic words. The present writer has not made a word count of Nawa'i's text, but he would estimate conservatively that at least one half the words used by Nawa'i in the essay are Arabic or Persian in origin. To support his claim of the superiority of the Turkic language, Nawa'i also employs the curious argument that most Turks also spoke Persian but only a few Persians ever achieved fluency in Turkic. It is difficult to understand why he was impressed by this phenomenon, since the most obvious explanation is that Turks found it necessary, or at least advisable, to learn Persian - it was, after all, the official state language - while Persians saw no reason to bother learning Turkic which was, in their eyes, merely the uncivilized tongue of uncivilized nomadic tribesmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.158.96 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that statement. That can be incorporated along with canfield. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with adding new statements as long as it is sourced. But modifying pre-existing statements requires discussion and feedback on the talkpage. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I have added: "The Mughals, Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India" per Canfield. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Added State language per the ip above. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of you should also improve the wording. The current version says:

• Although the Timurids hailed from the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, they had embraced Persian culture[16] and Persian art (distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese[6]), and also Chagatay Literature[6], converted to Islam and resided in Turkestan and Khorasan. Thus, the Timurid era had a dual character,[6] which reflected both the Turco-Mongol origins and the Persian culture as well the Persian language. The Persian language was also the state language (also known as Diwan language) [17][10] language of the dynasty.

While the sources are excellent, the wording and writing style is awful. I suggest:

• Although the Timurids hailed from the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, they had become Turkic in language and identity after converting to Islam and embraced Persian high culture. They became great patrons of Persian literature and art <ref.>distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese</ref.> and also initiated the development of Chagatay literature. Thus, the Timurid era had a dual character, which reflected both the Turco-Mongol origins and the Persian high culture of the dynasty. The official and diwan language of the Timurid state was Persian, the lingua franca of the eastern Islamic world.

Yeah that sentence can be improved. Let me here E's suggestion --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the Persian Literature section should also be improved, for example to this:

• The Timurid era also revived the Persian civilization in Central Asia after the disastrous invasion by Genghis Khan.[15] Persian literature as well as the Persian language, the traditional vernacular of the Timurid courts, flourished throughout their empire. Herat and Samarqand became centers of a renewed and artistically brilliant Persian culture.[17]. The Timurid sultans, especially Šāhrukh Mīrzā and his son Mohammad Taragai Oloğ Beg, patronized Persian high culture.[10] Among the most important literary works of the Timurid era is the Persian biography of Timur, known as "Zafarnāma" (Persian: ظفرنامه), written by Sharaf ud-Dīn Alī Yazdī, which itself is based on an older "Zafarnāma" by Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī, the official biographer of Timur during his lifetime. The most famous poet of the Timurid era was Nūr ud-Dīn Jāmī, the last great medieval Sufi mystic of Persia and one of the greatest in Persian poetry. The Timurid sultan Baysunghur commissioned a new edition of the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi and wrote an introduction to it. The most famous painter of the Timurid court, as well as the most famous of the Persian miniature painters in general, was Ustād Kamāl ud-Dīin Behzād. In addition, the Timurid sultan Ulugh Beg is known as a great astronomer. After the foundation of the Mughal Empire, the Timurids successfully expanded the Persian cultural influence from Khorasan to India, where the Persian language, literature, architecture, and art dominated the Indian subcontinent until the British conquest.[16]

The first sentence is sourced. The Columbia encyclopaedia says: "... this cultural rebirth had a double character; on one hand, there was a renewal of Persian civilization and art ..." [21]

The sentence about Baysunghur's Shahnama can be found in the Iranica article about Baysunghur.

Thanks the Baysunghur shahnameh is also in the same source. Here is one on architecture: "Timur sacked Delhi in 1398 before he turned his army north and west to move against the Ottomons. His dominance of the region strengthened the influence of his capital and Persian architecture upon India" . Note this is a primary source on architecture (much more specialized than say Britannica). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Another one Architecture link about Timur's tomb, [22], here is one about Persian architecture of Timurid Royalty. [23] --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, the links you provided above are not working. Btw, i prefer to see the exact quotations here in the talk page. The selected sentences are confusing, since the context is also important. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

They work from my computer. But if you have a problem viewing them, I can send you the image (the whole page so the context is clear) via e-mail. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first link redirects to Great Architecture of the World by John Julius Norwich, and the second link redirects to The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed by Hugh Kennedy but no information given in these web pages other than the contents list. If you provide the chapter names or page numbers, that will be enough for now, since i may directly find the book and check the relevant section/page. Thank you. E104421 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers are provided in the actual wikipedia entry. "John Julius Norwich, Great Architecture of the World, Da Capo Press, 2001. pg 278","Hugh Kennedy, “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”, Da Capo Press, 2007. pg 237", "Banister Fletcher, Dan Cruickshan, "Sir Banister Fletcher's a History of Architecture ",Architectural Press, 1996. pg 606". Thanks--alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

More sources

From Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "... The distinctive artificiality of the manuscripts' [= Baysunqur's Shahnama] illustrations, with their tenuous links to physical reality, stands as a remarkably inventive embodiment of Timurid cultural aspirations. It can be viewed as a specific reaction in the wake of Timur's death in 807/1405 to the new cultural demands facing Shahrokh and his sons, a Turkic military elite no longer deriving their power and influence solely from a charis­matic steppe leader with a carefully cultivated linkage to Mongol aristocracy. Now centered in Khorasan, the ruling house regarded the increased assimilation and patronage of Persian culture as an integral component of efforts to secure the legitimacy and authority of the dynasty within the context of the Islamic Iranian monarchical tradition, and the Baysonghor Shah-Nama, as much a precious object as it is a manuscript to be read, powerfully symbolizes the Timurid conception of their own place in that tradition. ..." [24]

Not sure why E10... removed *Baysonghori Shahnameh in Encyclopedia Iranica from Further reading. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• T. Lenz reference link to the online article is already cited. I wrote this in the edit summary, too. See the reference no:19.^ T. Lenz, "Baysonghori Shahnameh" in Encyclopedia Iranica. (Online Edition). There is no need to dublicate the references and links. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is under external link (which people can access). It is different than a normal reference people can't access. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• In this case, we should provide all other reference links in the external links. What's the meaning of citing them? Interested reader would immediately check the cited reference. There is no reason to dublicate them. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

External links can be added. The referencing has to do with the article. External links have to do with stuff that can be read outside of the article. Some of the materials referenced are not readable outside of the article. Others are. It is not duplicate, since it is not being quoted many times in the article on the same information. You can other material from the article to external link. There is nothing in Wikipedia against it. Since external links are separate from the article and indeed here, it is a separate Encyclopedia.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Gurkan"

Regarding the recent vandalism by the IPs of User:Moorudd who is proxying for User:E104421.

The meaning of the title "Gurkan" is - according to all academic sources - "son-in-law". And it was not only the title of Timur, but also that of his sons and some other descendants, up to the time of Babur and the Mughals.

• "... Miranshah like his father, bore the title of gūrkān (son-in-law) ..." - Vasiliĭ Vladimirovich Bartolʹd, Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, 1963, [25]

Other historical sources confirm that a translation of this word was also used in China, there as "Fu Ma" ("son-in-law") and was given to all rulers who were allied to the family of Genghis Khan. That's why Chinese sources call Timur fu ma T'ie-mu-rh which is a direct translation of "Timur Gurkan". (E. Bretschneider, Mediæval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources: Fragments towards the knowledge of the geography and history of central and western Asia from the 13th to the 17th century, Volume 1, p. 256, [26]).

Michael Shterenshis (in Tamerlane and the Jews) gives a more detailed explanation: [27]

The Tarikh-i-Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haidar (The Tarikh-i-Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughl t. "A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia: An English Version", ISBN 1421249251), analyzed by Dr. Erdmann, confirms all of this - and the Tarikh-i-Rashidi is a primary source: [28] This source also explains why the translation given by Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo (who lived in Central Asia only for a few months) is wrong and contradicts authorities such as Rashid al-Din and Ibn Arabshah!

So, PLEASE, stop the vandalism.

User:Tajik (IP 82.83.), you are banned. It is not allowed that you write even a single word here. I have put you and your edit in question in a section above. you could not answer and you still cannot answer. because you are not able to answer you are now only edit-warring.

Now once again (because you cannot answer) you wrote a completely unrelated edit on the talk page which has nothing to do with my edit. You again are distorting the sources and the discussion. (My edit was not related to "son in law". Read my edit once again if your are too birdbrained [29]) The information that whole the dynasty would have called itself with Persian "Gurkani" IS NOT DOCUMENTED BY ANY SOURCE in the world. This is my problem with this pov-edit of you. Stop your pan-iranian distortion of wikipedia. Because you are banned and because you still are affronting people (see first sentence) I am deleting also this edit of you on the talk page. (In fact, it is your proxy User:Beh-nam who is now also indefinitely banned like yourself because of proxying for you.) 85.178.163.111 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

@User:Quebecer: I had deleted the above edit of User:Tajik after having answered to it because he is indefinitly banned. You made an "undo" to my deletion [30] I see in yor contribution list that you are "new" since today. But you have much knowledge that only insiders can have. (e.g. you know that one has to assume good faith[31] (which is in fact the most favoured argument of User:Tajik himself. with this argument he wants still edit the wikipedia though he is indef banned)). I know you are another sock puppet of User:Tajik. You are banned please leave the wikipedia alone with your edits which either are not documented at all or which say completely different things than the referenced dummy sources do. Furthermore, the edits of User:Tajik (resp. his IP 82.83..) can be deleted without further explanation because he is indef banned. 85.178.163.111 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the Fall of the Indian Mughal empire

"In the 16th century, Timurid prince Babur, the ruler of Ferghana, invaded India and founded the Mughal Empire - the Timurids of India - who ruled most of the Indian subcontinent for several centuries until its conquest by the British."

The last and major ruler of the Mughal dynasty by the name of Aurangazeb Alamgir was defeated in a series of battles called the Mughal-Maratha 27-year war in the Vindhya and Satpura regions of Central India (called Deccan) by the Marathas between 1680 and 1707. The ascendancy of the Maratha empire came at the cost of the Mughal empire. Aurangazeb died in 1707 actually in Deccan itself at a place now called Aurangabad in the midst of this war itself. After him, his heirs were puppets installed by the Marathas who collected tax from them, allowed them to rule the Delhi-Agra Yamuna doab region and asserted lordship over all of the previous Mughal provinces by 1761 until being defeated at the 3rd Battle of Panipat by Ahmed Shah Abdali. That defeat left them weak but not crumbling for sometime. Final defeat by the British in the 2nd and 3rd Anglo-Maratha Wars (years 1802-1804 and 1817-1818 respectively) paved the way for the establishment of British colonialism in India. Essentially, the British vanquished and replaced the Marathas to conquer India (from about 1802 till 1947, they were complete rulers of the Indian sub-continent) while the Marathas conquered the Mughals to rule over India for about 100 years from 1707 till 1802.

The above statement about the Timurid dynasty MUST be modified to reflect my accurate historical argument.

The following statement may be installed to replace the above Timurid statement by the Administrator: "In the 16th century, Timurid prince Babur, the ruler of Ferghana, invaded India and founded the Mughal Empire - the Timurids of India - who ruled most of the Indian subcontinent for several centuries until its conquest by the Marathas."

AndhraHindu (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Marathas didn't exactly conquer it from the Mughals, they became nominally Mughal vassals while taking overall control, on the other hand near the end the very consistency of a single Maratha Empire was nominal. The exact history of the era is pretty confused when you go into exactly who conquered who, after all until 1857, the British were nominally vassals of Mughals, but the British were the ones who actually deposed the last Mughal Emperor, and so I'd say to them goes the title of defeating the dynasty. For whatever its worth. You could also just say the Timurid Mughal Empire ruled India into the 18th century without getting into exactitudes, because I think we can all agree that statement is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Herat as a capital

Was Herat a joint or second capital along with Samarkand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.251.165 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was just another major city in the dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.173.91 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why is it included in the infobox? (208.102.251.165)--189.33.4.112 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove

Please do not remove sourced information about the Persianization of Timurid culture. You can add your own sources. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ali, please check your last version and the banned User:Tajik's version (here). If you see the last diffs, you'll see who's edit you're reverting to (i'm sure you already know). Tajik is a banned user and his edits are being reverted according to the WP:Enforcement by reverting edits. Wikipedia edit histories are clear enough if you'd like to check yours and the banned users contributions. You're just trying to misrepresent the case as if people are reverting yours. Edit histories clearly show your misrepresentation. You're re-inserting the POV of Tajik, while you're ignoring the information deleted by Tajik. I'll give you sometime before undoing Tajik's edits again. Tajik is banned by the WP:ArbCom. This is not something ignorable. In addition, proxying for the banned users is bannable! Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed many quotes that I had brought and you need to go further back to history. You can bring any sourced information, but you specifically removed Persianate from the intro and the first section. You can add any sourced information but do not delete sourced information. Many of those sources "Steeped in Persian Culture" and etc. where brought by me but you removed it to either a much later section or removed it totally. for example: Timur was also steeped in Persian culture[12] and in most of the territories which he incorporated, Persian was the primary language of administration and literary culture. Thus the language of the settled "diwan" was Persian, and its scribes had to be thoroughly adept in Persian culture, whatever their ethnic origin.. There is no execuse for the removal of that. It is sourced. And I brought those quotes into the article. And even if Tajik has brought something sourced, I will take credit for it per the same Wikipedia principle. Thus please bring anything sourced you have, but do not remove valid scholarly source informaiton. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's not correct. You just revealed that you never compared the changes but just reverted to the banned User:Tajik. If you check the culture section of this, you see:

Although the Timurids hailed from the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, they had embraced Persian culture[12] and Persian art (distinguished by extensive adaptations from the Chinese[6]), and also Chagatai Literature[6]. Additionally, by adopting Islam, they also adopted the Persian literary and high culture in Islam.[13] Persian literature was instrumental in the integration of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture.[14] Timur was also steeped in Persian culture[15] and in most of the territories which he incorporated, Persian was the primary language of administration and literary culture. Thus the language of the settled "divan" was Persian, and its scribes had to be thoroughly adept in Persian culture, whatever their ethnic origin.[16][13][17] Therefore, the Timurid era had a dual character,[6] which reflected both the Turko-Mongol origins and the Persian culture.

To sum up, there is nothing removed as you claimed. On the other hand, Tajik removed other users contributions. Now, you are supporting Tajik's POV with your reverts and baseless allegations. I recommend you to review other users contribution before reverting them. This is in violation of the wikipedia policies WP:OWN, WP:BAN, and WP:ArbCom decisions. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You moved down several sections. The execuse was you are undoing Tajik's edit, but it was not Tajik who put it in that section. Anyhow as long as nothing is removed (including even if it is Tajik's but it is sourced, I'll take credit for anything that is properly sourced), I have no problem with any sourced edit and additional material. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, nothing is removed, so you do not have to revert to Tajik's pov wording. Now, i'm reverting to pre-Tajik wording/style. If you have any objection let's discuss the changes here. I do not want to take banned users edits as a basis. Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I removed one tag, since it was very relevant. It is about decorative arts in manuscripts which started around the Timurid era. As long as nothing is removed, I have no problem with it. The overall article is fine, as long as nothing sourced is removed. The origin of Timurids is not too important of an issue for me. But the origin of the dynasty would technically be Mongolian (Mongolian Barlas tribe which probably became Turkified), but they were Turkified in speech. Both Turkic/Mongolian are Altaic, so I guess it is not a big issue. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

E104421, you also reverted the edits of several other editors with your sweeping revert. Discuss your edits one by one and do not make sweeping reverts of other editor's edits. --07fan (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the last good version from 1 February 2008 by Sevilledade [32], before all of Tajik's edits. From now on, please discuss your edits one by one, and do not make blind/sweeping reverts.--07fan (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• 07fan, i do not recommend you to skip all the edits in between to favor actually your version which you presented as 1 February 2008 by Sevilledade's. So, i'm reverting to Ali's last version. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"All the edits in between" were your only your edits which were made unilaterally, without consensus or any discussions whatsoever. Tajik's edits have been removed, now please discuss your desired/proposed changes here one by one, and we can build on the current neutral version through WP:consensus. --07fan (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys tell me what is the difference. If there is nothing removed from Sevilledade's version to Tajik, my version or E104421, we should go back to it. Then discuss the changes. I think that might stop the edit war if we go back to the old version where none of us were involved (E014421, Tajik, Me, 07fan) and then users incorporate their changes, gradually.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The only difference I see that Timurids are called Persianate in the introduction or not. That was Sevilledade's major change. If there is anything else, you guys can incorporate it. But in order not to get the article locked up again, I r.v.'ed back to Sevilledade who is a non-involved user. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted an IP anon who had deleted a word from the intro without any explanation. Tājik (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nawabs of Amb

The family of the Nawabs of Amb have long history of rule over the former Amb State also known as Mulk e Tanawul in pre-british rule documents, which is now a part of the NWFP, Pakistan. They are said to be descendants of Barlas tribe of the Mughals and this has been mentioned in many historical books, for example; The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia (1841), in the following words; "There is one chief who, though not an Eusofzye, yet from his position in the midst of, and intimate connection with, the Eusofzyes, and his singular history and character, must not be omitted in a description of the Eusofzye country. Paieendah Khan, of Tanawul, is a Mogul of the Birlas tribe, the same from which the Ameer Timoor was descended. All record of the first settlement in Tanawul of his family is lost, and it has long ago broken off all connection with the other branches of the Birlas, which are still to be found in Turkestan." (The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia Published by Parbury, Allen, and Co., 1841, Item notes: v. 39, Original from the New York Public Library, Digitized 1 Apr 2008, pg 220-224)

I believe this article must include these notable families which have Birlas descent, in what ever way it may look appropriate.Wikitanoli (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)