Talk:Timur/Archive 2

Confusing

The exigencies of Timur's quasi-sovereign position compelled him to have recourse to his formidable patron, whose reappearance on the banks of the Syr Darya created a consternation not easily allayed. The Barlas were taken from Timur and entrusted to a son of Tughluk, along with the rest of Mawarannahr; but he was defeated in battle by the bold warrior he had replaced at the head of a numerically far inferior force.

This paragraph is really confusing - I can't work out the promoun referents at all. Suggest cleaning it up and clarifying things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded!

Sentence 2 implies that the Barlas was a region not a tribe! I have rewritten to say 'One of Tughlugh's sons was entrusted with the Barlas's territory, along with ...'

Who defeated whom? Who had the inferior force? This is very poorly written The logical assumption is that Timur's force defeated the more numerous force under control of that particular son of Tughlugh. But the next paragraph, seems to suggest that Timur defeated Tughlugh.Glevum (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So what percentage of Mongolian genes did he have, was his appearance recognisably Mongolian or did he look Turkish or Middle Eastern? Shouldn't the Mongolian script be utilised in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong map?

The name of the map image used in the article is Timurid Dynasty 821 - 873 (AD).PNG, whereas Timur lived about 500 years later. Is it a wrong map, or is its name incorrect? 83.24.60.54 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the name of the map is incorrect. The area shown in the map matches the main article's description of the lands under Timur's influence at their greatest extent. 198.231.23.241 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The map is correct, however I believe the caption is confusing. The map is the greatest extent of the Empire before the birth of Timur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.27.142 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The dates are not wrong - the annotation of "(AD)" is - it should be "AH" anno Hegirae (in the year of the Hijra) - which was 622 AD/CE - so add 622 to 821 (1443 AD/CE) and 622 to 873 (1495 AD/CE)

I recommend the filename of the image needs to be changed - the AD to AH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.247.19 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The date on File:Timurid Dynasty 821 - 873 (AD).png is misleading. The map is correct, but the date is an Islamic calendar date and thus, should be labeled (AH), as in anno Hegirae, not (AD), as in anno domine. I believe the convention in the English language is to write both dates like this: 821/1419 - 873/1461 This has caused confusion: see discussion for this file in wiki commons, and discussion at wikipedia: Timur. Could an administrator please change the file name?Mloafness (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see many Islamic dates on English Wikipedia. I think the dates should be standard Anno Domine. To start a new precedent for Timur, while quaint, makes it confusing for your average Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.59.209 (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

About TURKICness

Seemingly the article has been subject to an edit war between different kind of nationalists considering it say how very Turkic he and his troops were in every single sentence. One time would be more than enough. Just look at the article about other leaders.79.216.232.135 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is ridiculously long and contains repeated information, partially misleading infos, and also factual mistakes. A direct translation from the German Wikipedia (which itself is a direct translation of the Encyclopaedia of Islam article) would be much better than the present form. Tājik (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend you to state what's misleading. About the Turkicness of Timur, there are more than dozens of cited references used in the article. I'm removing the tag. E104421 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to shorthen the intro by moving some of the paragraphs down. The article still requires a clean-up. E104421 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I support improvement of this article. Lets see what E104421 can do. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is not his "Turkicness", as "Turkic" is just a linguistic description and - in a historical context - refers to barbarian Central Asian steppe nomads who were distinct from the "civilized" settled populations of Persia, India, China, and Mesopotamia. By that definition, he was very much a "Turk".

However, I suggest to remove the long unsourced reference to his alleged names. First of all, because other important informations are missing. His Persianized self-designation "Gurkani", for example, is attested by his contemporary Rashid al-Din who also explains that its Chinese translation is "fu ma", having exaxctly the same meaning: "son in law". It was the title adopted by Mongol clan chieftains who married into Genghis Khan's family. Many local rulers of his time were known by the title "Gurkani", but he became the most powerful of all. I also suggest to move any refernce to his "Turkicness", "Persianess", "Arabicness" or whatever out of the intro into the main body of the text. Tājik (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the intro a little bit, removed double links, and wrong wiki-links (Chagatay is a Turkic language, but NOT a dialact of the Oghuz Turkish language that was literally developed 500 years after Timur's death). As for the claim that "Turkic culture floursihed" under his rule, some reliable sources are needed to define "Turkic culture" in this case. Since at that time, "Turkic" was essentially a synonym for "nomadic" and "tribal" life-styles, I do not think that this is not what the author meant with "Turkic culture". Tājik (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may interrupt. Chaghatay was neither a Qipchaq nor an Oghuz Turkic language. It was a Qarluq one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

well its kinda right but

words like 'turkish' should be changed to 'turkic'. altho turks do not diffrentiate themselves by turkish or turkic(simply Turk), its more appropiate..

Turks

well its kinda right but

words like 'turkish' should be changed to 'turkic'. altho turks do not diffrentiate themselves by turkish or turkic(simply Turk), its more appropiate.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.1.174 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil

Please use talkpage. I am not sure where Tajik distorted sources for this comment to occur: "rv.: do not distort the sources!)"--Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it's Tajik who has to use the talk pages, since his edits do not one-to-one corrresponds to the sources. He simply reduced the status of Turkic to a tribal one. That's the distortion. Regards. E104421 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had used the talk page before. The current introduction is too long and contains many minor infos that do not fit in it. Also, there is no need to cite 14 (!) different sources for his Turkic identity, save for the exaggerated and overstretched focus on his "Turkishness" - be it so, I had actually organized all 14 sources into one reference. Also, there is no need to mention 3 times (!) that the Barlas were "Turkic". First of all, because it is misleading (see Manz, Boswoth, and Britannica: only isolated members of this tribe had become Turkic in terms of languages and habits, while others remained Mongols or adopted some other language, religion, or identity), and secondly, because it is totally unecessairy. There is an article Barlas, a simple Wikilink is totally enough.

The entire section about languages and so forth should be removed from the intro. And you, E104421, should not blindly revert and accuse others of something the have not done. I did not distort any sources. The article "Timur" in Encyclopaedia of Islam clearly states that he was a descendant of Mongol conquerors and, even despite his Turkic language and/or identity, was fully aware of it. I also criticize your methods. While you claim that you only revert edits, you actually smuggle once more the word "Turkish" or "Turkic" into a sentence, while removing the fact that many Mongols had also adopted Iranian languages and customs (of which the modern Hazara people are the living proof!) In the section "Early life", you have added the word "Turkic" to a sentence, although it was not there previously, and you have removed the reference to Iranian customs. You simply copied and established the wrong and POV version of an anon IP while you revert the edits of known Wikipedia members. Tājik (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tajik. The facts are that Timur's root (or as he himself believed) were Mongolian, but was Turkified. The User E104421 then says this means that Timur and his empire were Turkic. At the same time he says that they had adopted Iranian costumes and culture. This means according to E104421's own logic they were Iranian. Any how you all say the same facts but E104421's edits are biased and try to over-promote its Turkicness at the expense of its Mongolian and Iranian connotations, while those of Tajik are more balanced. Try to reach a comcensus. I think it will be easy in this article. Just name the facts without too much interpreation about whther it was Mongolian, Turkic or Iranian.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are 14 sources given there including the quatations. The Turkic and Iranian culture related parts were already mentioned in the second paragraph. Tajik is just ignoring them and misrepresenting in order to reduce the status of Turkic to tribesman. Wikipedia edit histories is quite clear, if you check you simly see that his accusations are not correct. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you compare the diffs, you see that Tajik's claim about reverting to an anonymous ip (which is dated 19 december 2008) is wrong. Tajik, you must stop misrepresenting the cases. This is against the policy. Try to edit and discuss yours with a cool head. If you do so, we can reach a consensus. Just try. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your problem is. The Turkic identity was limited to tribesmen of which Timur and his father were the leaders. Timur's policy was - at least in the beginning - essentially against the urban centers and his rule was marked by the growing influence of nomads. Like Genghis Khan, he and his military expeditions were responsible for the massacre of millions. We have first hand accounts by contemporaries, such as Rashid al-Din (giving an insight into the pre-Timurid Il-Khanate) and ibn Khaldun. Timur definitely identified himself and his tribe as "Turks", and his descendants, such as Baysunqur, even identified Genghis Khan's sons as "Turks". At the same time, they explicitely identified the Ghaznawids and Seljuqs as Persians ("Farsi"), as one can witness in the writings of Alisher Navai. Be it so, there is absolutely no reason why this should be mentioned 5 times in the first 3 paragraphs, and why 14-20 duifferent sources should be mentioned. 2-3 good ones are totally enough. In case of the Barlas, there is no need to call them "Mongols", "Turks", or whatever. The only thing that is important is that he belonged to that tribe - nothing more and nothing less. everything else is explained in detail in the respective article. As for the consensus: I do not think that you are able to reach a consensus. As for the edit: YOU were the one who removed the reference to Iranian languages and customs. Even the version from January 10th contained this information. You removed it without any explanation. This is called POV. Tājik (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're missing in between edits. I removed the following sentence: "many of whom had embraced Turkish or Iranian languages and customs". As i stated above Turkic & Iranian culture related information was already mentioned in the second introductory paragraph in detail. There is no need for a repetition. That's not a big deal. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You only removed the part relating to Iranian peoples, while you kept "Turkic" and put it after "Barlas". If three is no need for repetition, then I do not understand why the word "Turkic" is being mentioned so many times?! You have double standards, E104421. Tājik (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, you're again missing the previous version. It was previously written as "Barlas, a nomadic Turkish tribe in the steppes of Central Asia", and i changed "[[Turkish]] to [[Turkic peoples|Turkic]]" in that sentence. I just corrected the wikification there. BTW, Persian is written 6 times in the second introductory paragraph. Yes, the article still requires a good job, and maybe this time we do fix it together. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a good job in changing Turkich to Turkic.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not correct, E104421. You have "covered up" the edits of an anon IP: [1] The original version was Timur was born in Transoxiana, near Kesh (an area now better known as Shahrisabz, 'the green city,'), some 50 miles south of Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan. His father Taraghay was the head of the Barlas, a nomadic Turkic-speaking tribe in the steppes of Central Asia. They were remnants of the original Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan, many of whom had embraced Turkic or Iranian languages and customs.. That's why I have restored this section. Tājik (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tajik, you're creating artificial problems. Wikipedia edit histories/summaries clearly represents the differences between the edits. As i stated above, there is no need for repeatative arguments/statements. That's the reason of my removal. Regards. E104421 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is once again blocked, by the intro is certainly better than what used to be there previously. Still, I think that this part needs to be removed from the intro and placed somewhere else in the article: Timur's short-lived empire also melded the Turko-Persian tradition in Transoxiania, and in most of the territories which he incorporated into his fiefdom, Persian became the primary language of administration and literary culture (diwan), regardless of ethnicity.[9] In addition, during his reign, some of the greatest contributions to Turkic literature were penned, with Turkic cultural influence expanding and flourishing as a result. A literary form of Chagatai Turkic came into use alongside Persian as both a cultural and an official language.[10] It is too long and is way too much for the intro. I also suggest to take at the German wikipedia who have solved the problem by directly translating the intro of the "Timur" article in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tājik (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pesianized in culture and religion?

This phrase is just wrong. As for the Religion, Islam was not the religion of persians. It emerged from Arabia and was shared with Turks and many other ethnicity as well as Persians. As for the culture, naming this a "Persian" culture is overly nationalistic. The dominant culture was a blend which included turkish, persian, arab, etc. elements. --70.54.51.128 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

By this time, most Persians (Iranians) were Muslim. The 'culture' as adopted by the Timurids was definitely Persian in character, while the Timurid Empire contained Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc., not all of whom adopted Persian culture - however, the Timurids used Persians in their administration as they themselves were far too primitive to perform these duties themselves. Also, as a result of Timur's raids, artisans, scholars, etc., that survived his atrocious massacres were brought back to Samarkand and other places and used to enhance the local culture, which greatly enhanced the Persian character of these cities. So there was a Persian veneer/flavor to the Empire. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

7-20 million killed by Timur's conquests

See here [2] and here: List of wars and disasters by death toll. This should be included, and considering all the people he killed - the "military genius" comment should be tuned down. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? You can't be an effective military leader if you kill people? Would we not call Napoleon a military genius? How many did he kill? Chingis Khan? How many did the Mongols kill? Hannibal killed people; is he not a military genius either? How many military geniuses has history produced who didn't kill anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.246.76 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Amir Timur's grave's curse first incidence

Tamerlane is buried in the Gur Emir mausoleum in the crypt. Above it, inside the mausoleum his resting place is marked by a single piece of dark, almost black jade. The jade is cleaved and the story goes that Nadir Shah who conquered Samarkand in 1740 wanted to take it back to Persia. He had a dream warning him of the dreadful consequences of such an act, which his advisors and astrologers echoed, reminding him of the tomb’s inscription; “he who disturbs my peace will unleash a scourge more terrible than I”. But like many powerful men before and since, he ignored all advice and instructed his son to take it. The jade crashed to the ground, his son died and thus did Nadir Shah become a victim of Tamerlane’s curse from beyond the grave. See here [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swashbucklingbuccaneer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The above, as well as most of the exhumation section in the article are anecdotal accounts full of superstition, without a proper encyclopedic framing. A historically famous 'curse' can be noteworthy, but it isn't necessary to attempt to prove it. See Curse of the pharaohs for a good article regarding a curse.

Here's the relevant paragraph from the Exhumation section:

Timur's tomb is protected by a slab of jade in which are carved the words in Arabic: "When I rise, the World will Tremble". [33] It is said that when Gerasimov exhumed the body, an additional inscription inside the casket was found reading "Whosoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I."[34] In any case, two days after Gerasimov had begun the exhumation, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, its invasion of the U.S.S.R. Timur was re-buried with full Islamic ritual in November 1942 just before the Soviet victory at the Battle of Stalingrad

Junuxx (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Turkic literature

The intro says- "In addition, during his reign, some of the greatest contributions to Turkic literature were penned, with Turkic cultural influence expanding and flourishing as a result." What this great literature is should be mentioned in the main body of the article.

I'm also making a change in early life section by adding the statement that he was a Muslim to the paragraph arguing about what type of Muslim he was. Nitpyck (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think people need to consult the times in which Timur lived. The concept of nationalism in the modern sense did not yet exist. It is not correct to tie Timur with a specific modern group in that sense. Timur's army was itself of urban and rural origin and somewhat multiethnic. His motives were partly imperial (to restore the Mongol Empire, even by proxy), partly religious (a Muslim influence was paramount though Jenghiz was of the old religion) and partly to seek glory. The arguements seen here are modern reflections of the controversial man. I wonder if Timur thought of the contraditions himself.Mtloweman (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'Invade'

... Timur began a trek starting in 1398 to invade the reigning Sultan Nasir-u Din Mehmud....

-- The way this is constructed, it reads as if he invaded a person.

As to Timur being a "national hero" of Uzbekistan: Another bloodthirsty killer honored just because he's famous — as with Stalin in Georgia. Pity poor humankind in its need for such "heroes." Sca (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please specify

Please specify where there is POV dispute going on. The template is on the top and looks like the whole article is in NPOV dispute. 75.171.193.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

I have not seen this page until now. It seems to me that a big POV issue is the lack of information on the true nature of his "conquests". Nothing about cities exterminated to the last baby, towers made of skulls, nothing about cities turned into deserts, nothing about the "100,000" (typically exaggerated figure from the chronicals) Hindu captives massacred on a whim. Zero^talk 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I am just a passing reader of the article on Timur. I find that the article needs to be cleaned up further for the ease of reading for persons unfamiliar with this subject area. Regarding this issue, I have some comments that I hope would be helpful. (1) I find that the sections a bit disjointed in its entire form at the moment. Throughout the article different terms, e.g. Tartar vs. Turkic vs. of Mongol descent, has been used to describe the military entity under Timur. Similarly different spellings were also used for the same term, emir vs. amir.

(2) I also find that the form/structure/style of written English used in the various sections are disjointed. The introduction is clearly written in basic communicated English, and are thus straightforward and simple to read. But as the article progresses, it feels as if the sections have been cut and pasted from a literary article, adopting a more literary flair in its presentation. In my opinion, Wiki articles should be presented as simple and straightforward as possible, so that the information can be digested by people from different backgrounds and varying degrees of written English comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.219.239 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Name forms

I notice the article doesn't reflect the proper Chagatay form which is Temür. The form given here is the Persianised Tīmūr. The Turkic Temür should also be included to reflect his name in its native form Xaghan (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can user Tajik explain this edit[[4]]? The correct Turkic form is Temür, the persian form may be how its written in Persian script but the script isn't suited for the complex vowel harmony system in Turkic languages and also lengthens the vowel which doesn't exist in its native form. Temür is the proper romanisation of his name whereas Tīmūr is the transliteration of its Persian form which as i just explained doesnt reflect its native form Xaghan (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What you call "vandalism" is the standard used in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Beatrice F. Manz, the leading scholar on Timur, writes: TĪMŪR LANG (“Timur the Lame”) b. Taraghay Barlas, the founder of the Tīmūrid dynasty[q.v.] which ruled in Central Asia and eastern Iran from 1370 to 1507. The birthdate commonly ascribed to Tīmūr, 25 Sha’bān 736/8 April 1336, is probably an invention from the time of his successor Shāh Rūkh [q.v.], the day chosen for astrological meaning and the year to coincide with the death of the last Il-Khān (Manz, Tamerlane and the symbolism of sovereignty, in Iranian Studies, xxi/1-2 [1988], 113-14 n.) Tīmūr rose to power in the Ulus Čaghatay, a tribal confederation forming the western section of the Mongol Čaghatay Khānate [q.v.] He was a member of the Barlas of the Kish region. This was an important Mongol tribe within the Ulus, tracing its leadership back to Činggis Khān’s commander Karačar, who shared a common ancestor with Činggis, and was later attached to his son Čaghatay. Tīmūr descended from Karačar but was not of the chiefly lineage, and gained power through skilful politics and the help of a personal, non-tribal following.

Besides that, the Chagatai language had lost the Turkic vocalic harmony to a great extent (comparable to modern Uzbek). Read the respective article in Iranica. Tajik (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Besides that, the Chagatai language had lost the Turkic vocalic harmony to a great extent (comparable to modern Uzbek)" Wrong era. During the late Old Turkic and early Middle Turkic stage, the Turkic language can be classified into 4 distinct languages. Eastern Turkic, Kypchak, Bolgaric and Oghuz. The Eastern Turkic language is probably the best documented with a huge corpus of Karakhanid and Uyghur texts in various scripts including Runiform, Uyghur, Arabic, Brāhmī, Tibetan. An important document is the Divanu Lugat-it Turk. Spoken Chagatay was similar to Old Uyghur with some lexical difference (still retaining harmony) due to geography and loan words for terms adopted from Hindu, Tibetan and Sogdian being the only differences. It wasn't until the later periods with the sole adoption of the Persio-Arabic script did written Chagatay begin to differ from spoken Chagatay, written Chagatay didnt emerge until the 18th century. Kind of similar to English where the written language isn't phonetic. So the written form of Chagatay, with an inadequate script, was different to the spoken form. In modern Uzbekistan 4 dialects are spoken. Two are Khwarezm dialects, one a Kypchak dialect the other Oghuz Turkmen. The other 2 dialects are the northern Uzbek and southern Uzbek. Northern Uzbeks still retains the vowel harmony system whereas southern Uzbek it's weaker possibly because of larger cohabitation with Tajiks and the more widespread use of literary Chagatay. In the 1930s, written Uzbek was based on the northern dialects but from the 1940s onwards it was based on the southern dialects in Cyrillic (probably due to political as well as pragmatic reasons) which is why modern Uzbek has weak vowel harmony. So the modern Uzbek language was quite different to the Karakhanid based dialects spoken in Timur's time. Instead of relying so much on specialised Persian and Islamic encyclopedias read some scholarly works such as A Grammar of Old Turkic by Marcel Erdal, particularly the introduction, Modern day Turkic Peoples and their Languages by Talat Tekin, a good overview of all the Turkic dialects and languages spoken today and The Formation of the Uzbek Nation-State A Study in Transition by Anita Sengupta, particularly chapter 4 The Making of a Linguistic Identity: Language and the Uzbek State for a good look at the politics and identity of modern Uzbek. Xaghan (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I rely on specialized scholarly encyclopedias, because that's what Wikipedia requires. As for Chagatay, you should read Tom Everett-Heath, Central Asia: History, Ethnicity, Modernity, Routledge Curzon, 1st ed., 2003, p. 94:

"... Bearing remarkable similarity to the gradual 'distortion' of Ottoman Turkish, Chagatay had lost many of its 'pure' Turkic qualities, such as vowel harmony, as a result of the assimilation of Arabic and Persian grammar, vocabulary, and literary styles. ..." Tajik (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote but i am not refuting that vowel harmony has weakened as i have already stated that, so the quote is irrelevant. What is being disputed is your insistence that the persianised form of Turkic Temür is the proper form. No single Turkic language today has lengthened vowels in any form of temür. This only happens in ther persio-arabic script because they have too few symbols for vowels and no symbols for short front vowels making it unsuited to handle Turkic vowel complexities. In modern Uzbek the only sound change that has taken place from old Chagatay in Temür is the last vowel which has gone from being a closed front rounded vowel to becoming a closed front unrounded vowel, temir (in Istanbul Turkish t>d demir). Still front vowels and harmonious. This is common in the majority of Turkic languages where temür is (t/d)emir. In Uyghur, the closest to Uzbek and also descendant of Chagatay, the first vowel has gone from being unrounded front to rounded front, tömür. Still harmonious. In no present day language in Turkic has the vowels in the variations of temür lengthened as in the Persian script. As i said, the only reason its spelt that way in the persioarabic script is because it has too few letters for vowels and persian vowels lengthen.
Some features of which may explain the vowel harmony weakness in present day Uzbek are the vowel ɪ has dissapeared unless associated with q and ğ, f.e., yaxshɪ > yaxshi, yɪl > yil. The dissapearance of the vowels ö and ü, becoming o, u or i, f.e., ölüg >olik, ölüm > olim, tüşün > tuşun. Vowel harmony hasn't gone in modern Uzbek, its weaknesses in modern Uzbek are a result of the disappearance of those 3 sounds and the labialisation of a. I see you take an interest in Uzbek, i hope you find this information useful as it is a rare inclusion in certain encyclopedias and english language pop history books. Xaghan (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

the lead paragraph is an adequate summary of the article content. Ideally, it should not have any footnotes at all, it should summarize the content of the article body, and the references belong in the body, not the lead.

There is no reason whatsoever to clutter the first sentence with seven footnotes. Wikipedia articles do not consist of their lead exclusively. People should stop bickering over the lead and build the article body. Once the article body is stable and well-referenced, deriving the lead summary from it should be simple. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Do you think the inclusion of a general Timeline would be a good idea? It could be used as a guide for building the body up. Xaghan (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tuzuk-i Taimuri

Timur's supposed "autobiography" has been demonstrated to have been a later writing and not his own memoirs. The article mentions this toward the end. However, in the section on the India campaign this text is cited over and over again as "Timur describes this in his memoirs," or "Timur said that in this autobiography." No, he didn't. The article should be edited to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.246.76 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Which, in any case, is a primary source and its use must be very sparingly applied - the use of good scholarly secondary sources is what's required. Currently the article has no citations to speak of and needs rewriting. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I have tagged the coatrack article Timurid relations with Europe to be merged here to the Timur article. It was created as a copy/paste of some POV information which had been inserted into the Franco-Mongol alliance article. It really doesn't need a full article of its own though, and can probably be handled with just a couple lines. Some of the sources will also need to be stripped out, as they are questionable. --Elonka 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Timurid relations with Europe article is quite detailed, mentionning the various exchanges, ambassadors etc... with many interesting sources. In actual fact, only a short summary was present in the Franco-Mongol alliance article. This level of detail could be considered as Undue Weight by some editors if it were to be included into the Timur article. By the way, Timurid relations with Europe does not only relate to Timur, but to the Timurid dynasty in general. Should it be compressed into "a couple of lines" in the Timur article? Certainly not, this would be contrary to Wikipedia's ambition to be the sum of all knowledge and to its specific rules regarding detailed content: "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." (main principle in Wikipedia:Summary style) Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

When information is challenged, anything which is not a modern (preferably within the last 50 years), reliable, verifiable secondary source, should be removed. Anything which is thus left unsourced, should also be removed. For example, these sources are not appropriate.[5][6] --Elonka 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's another rationale then, and it is actually marginal to the article. I agree for Gifford [7], which is used only once, but I am not so sure about your anathema of Attiya [8]. It's an easy matter then: all that is described is well-known stuff, and we can easily find supplementary sources where these two are used. As soon as I will resume editing on the topic, this will be solved in a minute. Thanks Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you supply a year or ISBN for the Attiya source? The Google link that you provided lists neither (and isn't even clear about the author). Just because something is listed on Google Books, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a reliable source. As for better sources, there is no need to wait, simply list them here at the talkpage, thanks. --Elonka 22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Attiya is ASIN B0006AOBRM

For other online sources to replace Attiya if need be (I would rather not delete Attiya though, as doing so is disputable [9], but rather add to it):

• "Timur against the Ottomans and the Mamluks" [10][11]
• "Battle of Ankara" [12][13]
• "Friendly relations with Europe" [14][15][16][17][18]
• "Relations with Spain" [19]
• "Clavijo mission" [20]
• "Colombus and the Great Khan" [21][22][23][24]
• To replace the Gifford ref: [25][26]

Hope this helps! Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to: "When information is challenged, anything which is not a modern (preferably within the last 50 years), reliable, verifiable secondary source, should be removed. Anything which is thus left unsourced, should also be removed." That seems rather extreme. I find myself citing folks like Henry Yule and Jan Jakob Maria de Groot all the time (and sometimes, oh horror, du Halde as well!), and for all I know, there some subjects which nobody has covered since them in English (or French), at least not in sources available on line. Obviously if the newer author B says essentially the same thing as A, it would make sense to replace the A-ref with a B-ref (or maybe keep both, for the benefit of readers who only have A on their bookshelves...). If B says "A was wrong", or just says something obviously contradicts A, then I'd understand replacing the "reality according to A" with the "reality according to B" - but even then, if A's view was influential enough in his day, one may want to say somewhere (in a footnote maybe) that "in the past it was thought, e.g. by A, that [fact A], but in the view of modern scholarship [fact B]." (That may be beneficial e.g. for readers who happen to have read A - or some apparently modern source derived from A - and wonder why the Wikipedia article says otherwise.) Just removing a fact because you can't find a recent source for it boders on vandalism, methinks. Even though in some areas people may "rewrite history" every 50 years, it's certainly not the case in all domains... Vmenkov (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vmenkov, yes, I agree for the most part. In PHG's case though, he is under mentorship, and has been specifically (and harshly) admonished about using poor sources. In fact, he was banned by the Arbitration Committee from the entire medieval topic area for a year (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance), though this was later reduced to simply a ban on articles related to the Crusades and the Mongol Empire (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG). Unfortunately, PHG's ban expired on February 2nd, and he appears to have immediately launched back into the POV-pushing which led to the ban in the first place. That's one of the reasons why I (and others) are insisting that he use only modern reliable sources. For the latest on the case, and the attempts to have his topic ban renewed, see the current request for amendment. --Elonka 14:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

PHG, just looking through your Columbus refs, I'm not seeing anything there that has to do with Timur or the Timurid Dynasty? Columbus was going to a completely different part of Asia, nearly a hundred years after Timur's death. Just because a letter was being sent to the "Great Khan", doesn't mean Timur. --Elonka 15:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A propos Columbus: Clavijo's visit to Samarkand enabled him to met Chinese envoys (as well as Samarkandians who had purportedly been to Cambalu (Beijing)) and to tell the Europeans about the glories of Cathay - as well as that it's still 6 months travel from Samarkand to Cambalu. So if Clavijo's account was available to Columbus and the scholars at the court of los Reyes Católicos (Clavijo died 80 years before Columbus sailed; I don't know how widely, if at all, copies of his manuscript circulated in Spain at the time, but I'd imagine they'd have at least one copy at the royal court...), it would be one more incentive for Columbus to go specifically to Cathay... Vmenkov (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Vmenkov for your nuanced defense of sources which are not necessarily the most recent! Elonka: the sentence about Columbus is only part of the conclusion, as a note regarding the continued desire of the Europeans to link up with East (described in this case as the Mongol "Great Khan"): "Contacts failed to develop much further thereafter, although Spain's desire for rapprochement with the Mongols remained until the time of Christopher Colombus in 1492, whose objective was to reach the Great Khan in China.". This gives perspective to the article, something you would usually do in a conclusion. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to pare it down to just a couple of lines, but I do wonder why Timurid relations with Europe can't just be copy/pasted into the section of this article title "Exchanges with the West"? PHG's article appears better-sourced than this article as of now. (Which I suspect explains why he created a separate article... unnecessarily in this case, I believe.) Srnec (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On some consideration, I would think that merging Timurid relations with Europe into some other article is not very advisable. Among the reasons that come to mind:

• Yes, it could be merged into Timur (or more precisely, perhaps, into Timurid dynasty, since some events took place under Timur's successors); but it could just as well be merged into Henry III of Castile or Kingdom of Castile or France–Asia relations or even Foreign relations of Spain (if that article were to be developed into covering the early history, and not just the modern post-Franco state)... So it seems more reasonable to keep it on its own and to refer to its from other, more general articles, especially since it can and should describe events in both Timurid and European contexts.
• I was surprised to see that the Timur article is still of a manageable size - really, still on the smallish side. But considering how eventful Timur's reign was, I reckon that if we have more interested contributors, it easily could grow to the size of the article Victoria of the United Kingdom and beyond; so we'd come to the point where we need to pare it down and move some sections into separate articles anyway. For example, I am certainly tempted to write an article on Ming-Timurid relations (plenty of sources there, and a rather fascinating topic: basically, a rare case of a Chinese imperial dynasty learning to deal with another state as an equal, rather than a tributary), and I would do it, if I did not have a few other projects in the task queue already.
• The article is already pretty self-contained, and obviously can be expanded sufficiently by someone with expertise and dedication: there are many publications dealing just with the Clavijo embassy's alone, after all.
• We do have quite a few articles on bilateral relations of modern nation states (e.g., People's Republic of China – France relations). Despite a certain amount of debate in the past, I believe that articles of this kind, if well written, can be quite useful: they can provide a very useful overview of the subject, as they can provide links to individual articles on specific events and persons involved, and, importantly, give the reader a general context. I think that similar articles involving bilateral relations between states (or cultural regions) of the past can be just as useful, for similar reasons. -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a bad idea. The article in its current form extends beyond his lifetime, and should be developed further with material specific to diplomatic history that would be inappropriate and disproportionate in the biographical article. Greg Grahame (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose-The conqueror and his actions are notable enough to warrant two separate articles. Smallman12q (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Torebay - Tempering with sourced statements

User:Torebay keeps changing the sourced description of Timur's origin from "Mongol" to "Turko-Mongol". The cited sources for origin, which can be found in the footnotes, all use the adjective "Mongol" to describe Timur's mother clan/tribe. Torebay's insistence on changing this and tempering with a sourced statement, is a violation of WP:OR. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? Do you mean "tampering"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.168.61 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

introduction paragraph

Uh, this is just me, but the second intro paragraph (quoted below) seems to be trying to be on two opposite ends of the spectrum to make it sound bad, but good. This isn't written like other Wiki articles. Is it suppose to be like this?

Born into the Mongol[6][7] Barlas tribe who ruled in Central Asia,[8][9] Timur was in his lifetime a controversial figure, and remains so today. He sought to restore the Mongol Empire, yet his heaviest blow was against the Islamized Tatar Golden Horde. He was more at home in an urban environment than on the steppe. He styled himself a ghazi yet some Muslim states, e.g. the Ottoman Empire were impacted severely by his wars. A great patron of the arts, his campaigns also caused vast destruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.141.129 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mongol only in ancestry not identity

This article needs to be clear that Temur only had Mongolian roots but did not identify as such. In fact he had a mixed ancestry which also included Mongolian, just like the people of the Modern Central Asia - majority of whom speak a Turkic language, culturally are Persian and have a mixed ancestry that includes Mongolian, Turkic, Persian, Arabic and many other roots. Though these people acknowledge that they have a mixed ancestry that possibly includes Mongolian, they do not identify themselves as Mongolian, and they may argue of being either "more" Turkic or Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.120.127 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Could not have said it better, myself. The Scythian 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kurgan

In section Military leader it reads "Allying himself both in cause and by family connection with Kurgan, the dethroner and destroyer of Volga Bulgaria, he was to invade Khorasan''. I couldn't quite get the connection between Temur and Kurgan. I looked up the link. It was a geographical feature and even the disambiguation page didn't help. So I cleared up the link. Well I wish somebody helps to clarify the Kurgan connection. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the 'destroyer' of the Volga Bolgars was Jenghiz's old general Subotai - he directed the armies that extirpated this polity in the 1230's during Batu's expedition. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

See also: Who was "Kurgan" ?

Peaceray (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Found a conflict regarding source of his nickname "Timur the Lame"

--Gkashtan (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Gkashtan

In the second section titled Name the source of his nickname appears to come from injury to his foot.

Various Persian sources use a byname, Tīmūr-e Lang (تیمور لنگ) which translates to "Timur the Lame", as he was lame after sustaining an injury to his foot in battle.

Later in the article under Exhumation the source of his "lameness" is cited as a hip injury.

Timur's body was exhumed from his tomb in 1941 by the Soviet anthropologist Mikhail M. Gerasimov. From his bones it was clear that Timur was a tall and broad chested man with strong cheek bones. Gerasimov reconstructed the likeness of Timur from hisskull. His height was 5 feet 8 inches (1.73 meters), tall for his era. He also confirmed Timur's lameness due to a hip injury.

Perhaps it was both as this book suggests.Smallman12q (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Timur according to Encyclopædia Britannica

"Timur, also spelled Timour, byname Timur Lenk or Timurlenk (Turkish: “Timur the Lame”), English Tamerlane or Tamburlaine (born 1336, Kesh, near Samarkand, Transoxania [now in Uzbekistan]—died Feb. 19, 1405, Otrar, near Chimkent [now Shymkent, Kazakhstan]), Turkic conqueror,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.35.251 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tertiary source - Wiki strives to use scholarly secondary sources which are more 'expert' and detailed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of death

When exactly did he die? In the info box it is Feb. 14, in the text Feb. 17, in German Wiki Feb. 19, in Romanian Wiki Feb. 18, in Dutch, Italian Wiki Jan. 19.--Mycomp (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

According to sources, he died on the 17th of Sha'ban, 807. By Tarih Çevirme Kılavuzu, the 17th of Sha'ban, 807 is equal to the 18th of February. But The Cambridge History of Iran: The Timurid and Safavid Periods says Timur died in the night of 17 Sha'ban 807. In the Islamic calendar days begin at sunset. I think some people counted the night of the 17th of Sha'ban, 807 as 18th February, others counted it as 19th February. I'm not sure :) Takabeg (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear explanation.--Mycomp (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Middle Turkic ?

I've searched terms with google books Chagatai "Middle Turkic language" "(Middle Turkic)" must be removed from this article. Takabeg (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Turkic rulers

Category:Turkic rulers is too ambiguous and category is too crowded. So we created subcategories. Let's use subcategories. Takabeg (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

About Timurs Turkic origin, the Barlas tribe, mothertongue and culture.

Timur was an muslim central Asian ruler, who claimed to be from Mongol ancestry, But his tribe had already been living for centuries in central asia, and so he was Muslim who spoke a turkic language as his mothertongue (A history of inner Asia, Svatopluk Soucek, page 123) He was culturally and linguistically a Turkic ruler native to Central Asia, he didnt spoke mongolian (A history of inner Asia, Svatopluk Soucek, page 123) or was shamanistic or related to Mongolian culture, he was also not ethnically Persian, or spoke Persian as his motherlanguage(A history of inner Asia, Svatopluk Soucek, page 123), but he can have been influenced by persian culture but this doesnt change the fact that he was in the first place a Turkic ruler before Mongolian or persian.

But what happens now is very weird. This historical persons article is edited in such a way by certain users That his Turkic origin is not clear at all from the article, historic facts are erased only because some users have an allergy to the word Turk. If you look at the edits the word Turk is deleted, why? What is the point of ignoring and deleting the entire Turkic side of Timur and instead only focusing on his supposedly mongolian or Persian side? Ofcourse Persian and Mongolian have to be written in the article, but so Turkic must also be written because that is a historic fact. But for now the Turkic related parts are deleted instantly by some users. Sadly this is not a neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Turkic ogirin but Mongol origin

Timur was not "Turkic origin" but "Mongol origin". However, he was a Turkified Mongol.

No, he was not. He neither spoke Mongolian, nor was he culturally a Mongol. He was Turk who spoke Turkic and was entirely Turkic in character - the claims he made to be a descendent of Genghiz Khan were self-serving to obtain his ends. His mother had some Mongolian blood, but it made no impact on him culturally.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

But the sentence "The Barlas were remnants of the original Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan" would mislead readers.

Because:

He was born into the Barlas, a Turkified Mongol tribe. Though not a Chinggisid, clearly sought to evoke the legacy of Genghis Khan's conquests during his lifetime.

I think we have to mention and give links to Turkification, Qara'unas, Descent from Genghis Khan (Chinggisid or Chingisid principle, in place of link to Genghis Khan etc...

Now let's go back over thsose sources. All of them prove the sentence "The Barlas were remnants of the original Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan" ??

• B.F. Manz, The rise and rule of Tamerlan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989, p. 28: "... We know definitely that the leading clan of the Barlas tribe traced its origin to Qarchar Barlas, head of one of Chaghadai's regiments ... These then were the most prominent members of the Ulus Chaghadai: the old Mongolian tribes - Barlas, Arlat, Soldus and Jalayir ..."

• M.S. Asimov & C. E. Bosworth, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, UNESCO Regional Office, 1998, ISBN 9231034677, p. 320: "… One of his followers was […] Timur of the Barlas tribe. This Mongol tribe had settled […] in the valley of Kashka Darya, intermingling with the Turkish population, adopting their religion (Islam) and gradually giving up its own nomadic ways, like a number of other Mongol tribes in Transoxania …"

• Secret History of Mongols

• "Islamic world", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timur (Tamerlane) was of Mongol descent and he aimed to restore Mongol power...."

• "Central Asia, history of Timur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. (Quotation:"...Timur first united under his leadership the Turko-Mongol tribes located in the basins of the two rivers.")

• "Timurids", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timurid dynasty (fl. fifteenth–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."

• 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. http://www.oxuscom.com/cahist1.htm"

• "[27]", Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Academic Edition, 2007. Quotation: Turkic conqueror, chiefly remembered for the barbarity of his conquests from India and Russia to the Mediterranean Sea and for the cultural achievements of his dynasty.

• Gérard Chaliand, Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube translated by A.M. Berrett, Transaction Publishers, 2004. (p.75) Quotation:..."Timur Leng (Tamerlane) Timur, known as the lame (1336-1405) was a Muslim Turk from the Umus of Chagatai who saw himself as Genghis Khan's heir."

• G. R. Garthwaite, "The Persians", Malden, ISBN 978-1-55786-860-2, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. (p.148) Quotation:...Timur's tribe, the Barlas, had Mongol origins but had become Turkic-speaking ... However, the Barlus tribe is considered one of the original Mongol tribes and there are "Barlus Ovogton" people who belong to Barlus tribe in modern Mongolia.

• K.Z. Ashrafyan, "Central Asia under Timur from 1370 to the early fifteenth century", (p.320)

• Chaliand, Gérard (2004). Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube translated by A.M. Berrett. Transaction Publishers, p.75. ISBN 0-7658-0204-X. Limited preview at Google Books. p.75. "Timur Leng (Tamerlane) Timur, known as the lame (1336-1405) was a Muslim Turk. He aspired to recreate the empire of his ancestors. He was a military genius who loved to play chess in his spare time to improve his military tactics and skill. And although he wielded absolute power, he never called himself more than an emir."

Some scholars who used the term "Turk":

René Grousset, e was no Mongol, but a Turk.

Gérard Chaliand, Timur was a Muslim Turk from the Umus of Chagatai who saw himself as Genghis Khan's heir.

He wrote that Timur was a Turk, but his identity is "Genghis Khan's heir"

G. R. Garthwaite, Mongol origins but had become Turkic-speaking

His claim is equal to "Turkified Mongol" and/or Turkic speaking Mongol

And I cannot find that Mark Dickens mentioned Timur's origin in his "Major Events Relevant to Central Asian History"

Fake

In current edision by User:DragonTiger23:

However there are sources who refer to him as a muslim Turk(ic)[16] [17] [18] [19][20] [21]

Sources [16] [17] [18] [20] [21] written by same author Gérard Chaliand, and most of them are same book Nomadic Empires.

[19] was written by G. R. Garthwaite. He mentioned Mongol origins but had become Turkic-speaking and he didn't use the term "Turkic ruler" etc. He explain Turkic-speaking Mongol. As long as we know, the mother tongue of Abdullah Öcalan is Turkish. But we cannot define him as "Turkic leader". Takabeg (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkic speaking means here Turcified. Timur did not know Mongolian at all. Also Abdulla odjalans's mother tongue is Kurdish not Turkish. This is anachronism actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.170.218 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

First of all there are sources who describe him as a Turkic ruler. I use sources and not my own POV. And I do not try to disprove sources. If you find sources which describe him as a Mongol ruler or Persian ruler or something what you like, you can add that, but do not remove the source about his Turkic roots.

Sources: 1. World and Its Peoples, Marshall Cavendish, page 753, 2006 .......had come under a new and ambitious Turkic ruler Timur,.....'

2. Empires of Ancient Persia, Michael Burgan, page 132, 2009 .....Timur.....had Turkic roots but also claimed a family tie to Chinggis Khan....Turkic influence continued to grow in the region....

3. Iran: a short history : from Islamization to the present, Monika Gronke, page 64, 2008...Timur....came from the nomadic tribe of Barlas, which was probably Turkish, in Transoxania...

4. Tajikistan in the new Central Asia: geopolitics, great power rivalry and radical islam, Lena Jonson, page 30, 2006...Timur, a muslim Turk........

I will add category Category:14th-century Mongolian monarchs, and the Category:Monarchs of Persia is already in the article,

Abdullah Öcalan is not related to this article and your own theories Wikipedia:No original research about him being a Turkic ruler or not is also totally irrelevant to Timurs life or comparisons between them. DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Monarchs of Persia is one of the sub-category of Category:Persian people. It's very clear that Timur was not Persian people. Is there contradiction here ? Takabeg (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And very few books/articles said clearly that Timur was muslim Turk. And those books/articles are very old. In this situation, we cannot add Category:Turkic rulers to this article. Takabeg (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of the sources I have found consider him to be purely a Turk - the Mongol connection is very thin; additionally, four out of four history professors from three different universities I have asked all identified him as being of Turkic origin. His claims to Genghiz were for political reasons (and probably self-glorification.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit on July 6th

Manually I reverted user Dragon's edit here to previous one by user Lysozym. The point is that user dragon's edit is just nationalism propaganda. For example, that chaghatai language is a middle turkic languae is not related to this article or categorizing Timur as a Turkic ruler is obviously wrong, because if it be so, some Iranians must categorize Saladin aws an Iranian ruler or everywhere in Wikipedia where for example Kurdish language is mentioned, some sources should be cited to emphasis it's an Iranian language!.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We don't have to mention "middle Turkic languages" in this article. And categorizing Timur as a Turkic ruler is wrong. Because this is nothing but claim. Furthermore Category:Turkic rulers and concept of the "Turkic ruler" is too ambiguous to be beneficial for readers of this encyclopedia. Some users want to add this category to everywhere. But their behaviors are counter to the primarily purpose of categorization. Takabeg (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources: 1. World and Its Peoples, Marshall Cavendish, page 753, 2006 .......had come under a new and ambitious Turkic ruler Timur,.....

Only a claim? This is a old source?? You are such a POV editor and again and again you proof it. You deny, delete and neglect sources because you dont like it. The only reason you remove the word Turk is because you dont like the word Turk, so you remove it and find excuses for that, is it normal if someone would be obsessed and delete the word Persian from Persian related articles only because he doesnt like them? Or finding other names or categories to hide the word Persian?? But I see no other users doing that kind of edits so it seems that only you and your friends have achieved the honour of your pathetic actions.

The article chokes with the word Persian, but they can not accept the word Turkic language even once, it has been added only to give more information about the Chagatia language and it is totally related to the article, naming it once has no harm to anyone it is not added for a nationalistic reason, you people are so obsessed and anti-Turk it is amazing.

You guys try at one point to divide all Turkic articles but on the other hand they merge all Persian Iranian articles in to a unity.

If you want to add Iranian rulers to Saladin do what you like, it is already written that he is Kurdish leader, but you hatefull persons can not even accept that Timur was a Turkic ruler but Mongolian rulers and Monarchs of Persia, (which is a ridiculous anachronistic category) is added.

Monarchs of Persia is the most crowded of all categories in the Timur article, so accoriding to Takabeg logic categorization it should be removed. But if Turkic rulers should not be added to Timurs article then it should certainly been added to the Timurid dynasty, but not suprisingly it is deleted even there.

My suggestion is let the categories Turkic rulers be deleted and instead of that lets make a category Rulers who knew at least one Persian word and let us add that to all rulers of the middle east. So we can pretend like everybody is persian. And then we should name Wikipedia into Persianpedia. pathetic..DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose to Category:Turkic rulers. Because it is not obvious whether he was concerned as turkic or not. If someone wants to make him a "Turkic ruler", we can find some sources except Marshall Cavendish's World and Its Peoples, which is not specific research and a kind of travel guide without dipnotes. In short this is debatable. In the same way, if someone wants to make him a "Persian ruler", we can find some sources except travel guides. For example, Encyclopedia of Asian History, "Persian ruler Timur". So such like Category:Turkic rulers is not suitable for debatable and disputable situation like Timur. And for now nobody supports your arguement. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I stopped discussing but not because you were right in your argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bengali language ?

Is it necessary to add alternative name of Timur in Bengali language ? Takabeg (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be. I'm sure he has names in many more languages. I'd say the important languages to include would be based on the regions he affected or influenced. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Bengali entry. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Page protected

Work it out on the talk page, guys. WP:BRD, you know? Edit warring in the article won't accomplish anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica says "Turkic conqueror"

Hi guys. Good article but I see NO ONE word 'Turkic' here, though article itself says Timur is a national hero of Uzbekistan - a Turkic country (1). Also, Encyclopædia Britannica says "Turkic conqueror" here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596358/Timur (2). And of course, his name also is Turkic, according to this article Temür means Iron (3). So with your kind permission I am adding one word :). Stokastik (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See discussion above. Takabeg (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have seen the discussion. Let's summarize my arguments. First, the discussion seems to be a research debate and personal conclusions. Let's respect Wikipedia:No original research. Second, I used the most recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, which is the most reliable and comprehensive source, made after decades of research. You are not opposing that, I hope? Third, the page Turkic peoples has a passage [...]Babur (reigned 1526–30), who was descended from the Turkic conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) on his father's side[...]. So this page could be under the violation of the not contradict each other rule in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Again, fourth, Uzbeks are a Turkic people and consider Timur as a national hero, so it's pretty fair to recognize this fact. Again, fifth, his name also is Turkic, article itself says Temür means Iron. (Also, Timur spoke Chagatai language, a Turkic language). I can't believe there is not even ONE reference to Turkic ties in this page. It obviously violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. So we have to put "Turkic" mention there unless you can disprove all of my arguments. Stokastik (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source and should only be used if a secondary source can not be found.

• The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, By Clifford Edmund Bosworth, p.271, "Timur arose from the Barlas clan of Turkicized Mongols which had nomadised within the Chaghatayid ulus.".
• Agricultural and pastoral societies in ancient and classical history, By Michael Adas, American Historical Association, p.105, "The last great wave of nomadic conquest is associated with the Turko-Mongol Aqsaq Temur, the great amir of the Turko-Mongolian Barlas clan."
• G. R. Garthwaite, "The Persians", see above.
• M.S. Asimov & C. E. Bosworth, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, UNESCO Regional Office, 1998, ISBN 9231034677, p. 320, see above.
• B.F. Manz, The rise and rule of Tamerlan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989, see above.

Also, any changes need to have consensus, since you have clearly been reverted. And, since there are secondary sources that say he was Turko-Mongol, Mongol from the Barlas clan, etc, you may have to find a compromise. Cheers --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I see relative importance of Turco-Mongol claims in research materials. This is also further said in the "Early history" section of the page: he was a member of the Barlas clan, which is considered Turko-Mongol. I propose then "Turco-Mongol conqueror". The page Turkic peoples also needs to be modified accordingly, it says "Turkic conqueror". Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokastik (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You might have a conversation with Takabeg. I do not know what his opinion is on this. As for me, I can see "Turko-Mongol from the Barlas clan", since that covers all the sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey for a Turco-Mongol Timur ;)

Thanks guys for a great debate. I want to poll for a conclusion which seems obvious to me. In the intro, I want to put "Turco-Mongol conqueror". Why?

• We know that Timur was a member of the Barlas clan
• We know that Barlas clan was Turco-Mongol
• We know that the term Turco-Mongol exists, and used as such in research.

So put your words here. Stokastik (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading the arguments on this page for about a year now. This proposal still looks like original research. Saying he was a Turco-Mongol conqueror implies that he did his conquering as a representative of the Turco-Mongol people to further Turco-Mongol aims, or even the aims of his clan. Is that what you mean to imply? Is that what the secondary sources say? It looks to me like they say that was his origin, but not that was how he identified himself in his campaigns.

This proposal would be analogous to claiming Walter Krueger was a "German General" just because he was born in Germany, in spite of serving as General in the United States Army. He was of German descent, that's all. Similarly, all we can say about Timur, based on sources, is that he was of Turco-Mongol descent.

See the comment above from last year by 174.89.120.127, in section #Mongol only in ancestry not identity: This article needs to be clear that Temur only had Mongolian roots but did not identify as such. In fact he had a mixed ancestry which also included Mongolian, just like the people of the Modern Central Asia - majority of whom speak a Turkic language, culturally are Persian and have a mixed ancestry that includes Mongolian, Turkic, Persian, Arabic and many other roots. Though these people acknowledge that they have a mixed ancestry that possibly includes Mongolian, they do not identify themselves as Mongolian, and they may argue of being either "more" Turkic or Persian.

I have no problem saying Timur was a conqueror of Turco-Mongol origins, but saying he was a Turco-Mongol conqueror? No, that's too much of a stretch. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written

Considering the historic importance of Tamerlane, we need to at least fix up the grammar and basic style of this article.Kdammers (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Timur reconstruction03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Timur reconstruction03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Link between Nasruddin and Timur Lenk

I have read several books filled with Nasruddin jokes, and one book filled with discussions between Nasruddin and Timur Lenk when they were both in Samarkand. The style of the jokes seems to be consistent in both the jokes books and the book with discussions between Nasruddin and Timur Lenk, which makes it likely that there was a real person called Nasruddin, Mulla Nasruddin, Nasreddin, and he was in close contact with Timur Lenk in Samarkand. This connection between these two men seems to have been overlooked in both the wp articles about Nasreddin and Timur. Google for this expression timur lenk nasruddin and you will find 154,000 results in many languages. Roger491127 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Name

I don't want to raise a hornets' nest over some-thing that may have already been adequately discussed in stuff that is archived some-where, but I wonder why the article is titled "Timur" instead of "Tamerlane"? I thought Wik policy was to use the most common acceptable name, regardless of official and original variations. It was my understanding that Wik waits until the scholarly and/or general population has made corrections before adopting these. 202.179.16.76 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The majority of the cited sources in the article appear to use the spelling Timur or Temur. Some that use both Timur and Tamerlane refer to the man primarily as Timur. Of course we can't survey all reliable sources out there, but just from the citations, it seems WP:COMMONNAME is being observed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is Tamerlane is a medieval European appellation that is no longer in use in modern English.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No. He is still referred to as such. It comes from Timur the Lame because he was a cripple. No one calls Ghengis Khan "Ghengis". Why would anyone call Timur the Lame simply Timur? As if you were on a first name basis with him. I Like Tamerlane better. Not to mention the book Tamerlane: The Sword of Islam. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to argue your case based on WP:COMMONNAME. The fact that a revisionist history book uses Tamerlane isn't enough. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe also calls him Tamerlane. Search "timur" in google and you find this page, and a bunch of random people named Timur and some "Tamerlane" too. Search Tamerlane and you find this page, and everything else is Tamerlane. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edgar's been dead quite a few years. Can you point out his scholarship and degrees in Central Asian medieval history?HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Google's Ngram book-search tool clearly shows that "Timur" has been the most common name in books since 1944, with "Tamerlane" coming in second and "Temur" a distant third. That's as close to a survey of all the reliable sources as you're going to get. If you want to argue against WP:COMMONNAME you will need to present some data supporting an assertion that an alternative name is more common. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tamerlane%2C+Timur&year_start=1500&year_end=2012&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share= and it's Tammerlane by a mile. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This one is less conclusive. http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tamerlane%2CTimur&year_start=1773&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= I call bullhoey though because Timur is indeed a name that is somewhat common as is evidenced by a non Tamerlane coming up as "timur" when you search for timur in google. There are many Timurs but there is only one Tamerlane. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=timur&oq=timur&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.1120.1580.0.1755.5.5.0.0.0.0.464.748.2-1j0j1.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.suMbOtEpnoM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=8235ac65df7283a3&bpcl=38093640&biw=1517&bih=741 Observe the film director named Timur. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=ByQoyWnIjUAC&pg=PA15&dq=%22Timur%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JgeiUO-IJK7cigLq54CQBw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw Timur held a meeting in the year 2000? Now how did he do that? Oh wait, its not Tamerlane. Now, I am willing to settle for Timur the Lame because that is where Tamerlane comes from. But you can see how your results are watered down by these imposters? PortlandOregon97217

This one is just for fun. Look what happens when you search for Timur but omit Tamerlane. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=Timur+-Tamerlane&oq=Timur+-Tamerlane&gs_l=hp.3...14074.17478.3.17680.16.12.0.0.0.0.730.1862.2-3j1j6-1.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.JHU2fw27Pk8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=8235ac65df7283a3&bpcl=38093640&biw=1517&bih=741 (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned Tamerlane: The Sword of Islam - whose author wrote "Tamerlane was in fact Temur (or Timur). The longer name by which we in the West know him was a corruption of Temur the Lame. He was a Chaghatay (or £aghatay if you like your diacritic" and uses the Temur spelling in his book, not Tamerlane, etc. 11:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

That doesn't mean that he isn't more well known as Tamerlane as Edgar Allen Poe would agree. Your Ngram google theory is flawed because others who arent Temur/Tamerlane are in fact named Timur as their given name in modern times. So to avoid all of the confusionj I propose to change the title to Tamerlane. He is referenced as Tamerlane in that books title. Sure he is referred to as Temir as a biography on Bill Clinton might refer to him as temir. and I have no problem with Temir/Temur being referred to wherever through the article. I would like to see it changed to Tamerlane and no one can seem to present a case for Tamerlane being more well known as Temir. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact remains that the majority of sources cited in this article refer to him as Timur, and even with the flawed ngram analysis, it does suggest that Timur is the modern usage. This is a search on Google books, and of course some will come that refer to someone else, but I see nothing to suggest that Tamerlane is the more common usage (and why keep harping about Poe, who is not an historian concerning this subject?). Perhaps it was more common 200 years ago, but why is that relevant compared to now? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Something seems to be wrong with the editing function or my interface with it. First, when I made two changes, a separate part of the text disappeared. Then, when I tried to undo my edit, I got a blank page when I went to edit. Here is what needs to be put in: His greatest military achievement is having defeated some of most powerful empires on three continents, {Instead of something about his having conquered empires on all continents. also, I believe middle east should be capitalized. 202.179.16.76 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavily rewritten?

This seems entirely different from the last time I read it. I've read this page multiple times in the past, before it painted Tamerlane as an opportunist who used hatred against the Hindus and piety to his advantage in the East before he came back west and slaughtered the populations of major Muslim cities. But now the article says that he was religious? I remember before it said that he was reported by his closest advisors as being nonreligious. It wouldn't make sense for him to be.

And near the end, under the legacy section, it says that he has a positive legacy in the Arab and Persian worlds? How, when he massacred their people? That'd be like saying Hitler is popular amongst the Russians and the Polish.

I'm just confused. How did the facts change so dramatically over such a short period of time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.162.83 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What's best to remember is that "popularity" is just a point of view, and has never been actually proven. You'd have to poll a significant portion of the peoples involved, and I'm sure 95% of them would have no idea of who he is. Secondly, he claimed to be a Muslim, doing Allah's will. In practice he broke much of the law as specified in the Quran - the reader, if we write the article properly, can determine from the facts the difference in what someone like Timur claimed to be and what he actually was - a man whose desire for conquest and inhumanity bordering on megalomania place him amongst the most bloodthirsty and ruthless conquerors in history.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the book Tamerlane: The Sword of Islam he was very religious. And it paints him in a fairly positive light. Especially with regards to his fostering culture in his capital Samarkand. He would bring back artists and sculptors and such from his captured cities. If i remember correctly from reading it he also gave every city the chance to surrender and swear allegiance. You know the penalty for not swearing allegiance to the King of Kings. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess there's a reason the book is referred to as revisionist. There are different perspectives on him. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"bloodthirsty"? "Inhuman"? Did you know the man? Compared to his contemporaries he is on par. That Rhetoric has no standing PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"He was a complex figure. A brilliant military commander and politician, he was also capable of extraordinary savagery. Devastation and slaughter awaited those who did not surrender promptly." Central Asia in World History By Peter B. Golden, Oxford University Press.[28]. I don't think you knew him either, so that's irrelevant, what is relevant is that we use reliable sources (see WP:RS and write it according to our WP:NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is relevent because despite what you or this author thinks you cant just copy and paste ""He was a complex figure. A brilliant military commander and politician, he was also capable of extraordinary savagery. Devastation and slaughter awaited those who did not surrender promptly." Central Asia in World History By Peter B. Golden, Oxford University Press." into the article. Thats plagiarism. And saying that he was capable of extraordinary savagery is true of any human being. So while it is a fact of all human beings it does not give due weight to his more scholarly and pious side. Saying his savagery was extraordinary? Then what is ordinary? That is NOT a npov even if a author says it in some book. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quotations aren't plagiarism although excessive quotation from one source would be considered a copyright violation (copyvio). And by capable of extraordinary savagery Golden means he committed savage acts. Are you actually saying that he didn't? That he was a really good guy? You don't understand NPOV but you might want to know that we have a board where you can discuss NPOV issues, see WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You would do well not to assume what I am thinking. What was extraordinary about his savagery? Is that how all other biographies read? as a bunch of quotes? Doesn't seem encyclopedic. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't find mounds of skulls extraordinary? This article isn't a bunch of quotes, but it is useful to quote at times. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sons of Umar Shaikh Mirza I

I noticed this edit from June 11, 2012, and while I have no knowledge on the subject, it seems like a very strange edit that might not be legitimate. Can someone confirm or deny this? Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Although he preferred to fight his battles in the spring, Timur died enroute during an uncharacteristic winter campaign against the ruling Chinese Ming Dynasty. It was one of the bitterest winters on record; his troops are recorded as having to dig through five feet of ice to reach drinking water. Records indicated though, that for part of his life at least, he was a surreptitious Ming vassal and that his son Shah Rukh visited China in 1420.[52]"

What is this obscure book that is cited for the last sentence? How is it possible to claim that you are not a vassal of someone but then secretly/surreptitiously be thier vassal? I will delete if no objections. This article needs alot of love. Tamerlane is the man. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Needham's book? It's hardly obscure. And it's easy to lie. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence above is outright bizarre. There is plenty of discussion of the Timurid-Ming relations in the literature (see e.g. the literature list in Ghiyāth al-dīn Naqqāsh; Morris Rossabi and Bellér-Hann both have a good discussion). Basically, the relations between Timur and the Hongwu Emperor were anything but good (Hongwu may have asked Timur to become his vassal, but Timur responded by imprisoning and executing the Ming envoys and making plans to conquer China). During the Shah Rukh - Yongle period, the relations improved, but of course it was not Shah Rukh himself, but rather his envoys who went to Beijing. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Vassalage

I don't think the Needham book supports that (and the reference was added after the text, not with the text, but see this discussion (not a source we can use but a guide to sources)[29] and page 497 here[30] and the mention of tribute on page 48 here[31]. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

While we must assume good faith. I see the same thing going on with Atilla's article as well. People destroying it to bring it in line with their viiews/agenda. It has something to do with their interactions with the Chinese too. I could see the modern Chinese state having workers make changes to articles where they donm't historically win or look good all the time. As is the case with kings like Tamerlane and Atilla. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

citation 18 and Hitler comparison.

So this line early on about Hitler is way out of left field as is not neutral. Especially about the part speaking of the pointlessness of his campaigns. everything has a point, and Tamerlane was trying to get paid. He didn't invade Europe because the Europeans were broke. So he Turned towards the east. It really needs to be rewrittten. I'll see with what I can come up with. Maybe leave the citation but change the wording to include what I said? I'll try and get my old book The Sword of Islam and see what I can do... PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are clear about our policies and guidelines. The source is a clearly reliable one, whether or not you agree with him or whether or not it is 'neutral'. Please make sure anything you add from that book is attributed and cited correctly, eg page number, etc. And you might want to read WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is just one man's rant. Comparing Tamerlane to hitler, is certainly not in mainstream academic thinking. I question the intentions of the editor who included this. It is not only laughable, but disingenuous. The Scythian 10:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It suggests Hitler was worse, but in fact the comparsion isn't unusual. This quote is also used in a recent book, "Different eras have naturally judged Marlowe's Tamburlaine - as well as the real-life conqueror - through different prisms. Nineteenth- century military historians, not least the British, tended to lionise the Tatar for his prodigious military skills, and wrote admiringly of his successful campaigns while downplaying his cold-blooded mass- acres. In the twentieth century, his career was viewed less enthusiastically. John Joseph Saunders wrote in 1971 that 'Till the advent of Hitler, Timur stood forth in history as the supreme example of soulless and unproductive militarism.' In 1996, the historian I.eo de Hartog judged Temur a parochial sadist." Ironically this is from p.59 of PortlandOregon's favorite book on Timuir, The Sword of Islam, where Marozzi points out that different cultures have very different views on him. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A claim isn't neccessarily true just because its published. And even if you can spin Tamerlane into Hitler it doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. You can spin him into a pragmatic ruler. I really think Hitler In this Tamerlane article has got to go. The Hitler comparison takes any neutral perspective out of it and gives undue weight to his military campaigns as being somehow sinister or inherantly evil. If I put into print tommorow that [[George H.W. Bush was the modern day Julius Cesar I dont think it would make the article. Unless it was going to recieve a C rating. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a point of view. 'Truth' doesn't come into it as this is a subjective statement. I'm not clear why you are now rejecting something used by the book you said was so good. We don't try to write neutral articles, we try to write articles from a neutral point of view which is quite different. This article needs to portray all significant viewpoints. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, then why make an exception for this article? What about Genghis Khan, or Attila the Hun? Are there Hitler references for them, as well? Could not the same be said from the Spanish conquest of the Americans, such as under Francisco Pizarro, and his annihilation of the Inca Empire? My trouble with the Hitler comparison is just that...It's Hitler. Sort of like Godwin's Law. Bringing Hitler into the argument, just ends any argument. Tamerlane did not single out a single race of people for systematic racial extermination. Including a Hitler reference in this article, will put just such an image into an uninformed reader's head. I for one, am for removing the reference. I believe more opinions on this matter are needed, and should be called in, and a vote taken. The Scythian 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's a significant view for those subjects represented in reliable sources, of course it should be in those articles. You talk as though it's editors making such comparisons, but it's not. Whst would you replace it with? The quote in the article is requoted in another book - I'll repeat it: "Different eras have naturally judged Marlowe's Tamburlaine - as well as the real-life conqueror - through different prisms. Nineteenth- century military historians, not least the British, tended to lionise the Tatar for his prodigious military skills, and wrote admiringly of his successful campaigns while downplaying his cold-blooded massacres. In the twentieth century, his career was viewed less enthusiastically. John Joseph Saunders wrote in 1971 that 'Till the advent of Hitler, Timur stood forth in history as the supreme example of soulless and unproductive militarism.' In 1996, the historian I.eo de Hartog judged Temur a parochial sadist." The point of that is to show the range of opinion, and puts it in context.

And a number of reliable sources refer to Timur's massacres as genocide, eg The Dictionary of Genocide[32], Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations: In Comparative Perspective[33], Genocide in the Age of the Nation State[34], and more. And I'm surprised there's no mention of the mountains of skulls he piled up in front of cities, would you object to those being mentioned? Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bringing Hitler into the article skews it too much toward a negative perspective. Hitler has got to go. How can anything objective be drawn from a Hitler comparison? I'm not saying he wasn't ruthless, and I have no problem with skulls being piled high in the article. Vlad The Impaler is another example of a figure who left his mark on the battle field using the enemies bodies and was known for his ruthlessness.. But It doesn't warrant a Hitler comparison. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand. It isn't up to us to decide whether the Hitler comparison is right or fair, the question is whether it is a significant view. Including it in the article isn't endorsing it, it's just adding it as a significant point of view, ie one put forward by reliable sources per WP:RS. And we cannot get an objective view of his actions in any case, that's just not possible. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is a valid POV. I will have to do some digging to see if I can find him being compared to Hitler several times. In any event a rewrite of "The historian of Islamic Asia John Joseph Saunders summarized that "Till the advent of Hitler, Timur stood forth in history as the supreme example of soulless and unproductive militarism".[18]" is in order. This direct quote is doesn't present a neutral POV even if it is followed up by some nice words about our man Tamerlane. "On the other hand, Timur is also recognized as a great patron of art and architecture, while he interacted with Muslim intellectuals such as Ibn Khaldun and Hafez.[19]" The first statement about Hitler is not balanced in the least. If your going to insist on keeping this it must be rewritten. i also like this quote better "Hitler's Mongolian attitude is "prefigured by the great Mongolian leaders Genghis Khan and Tamerlane" Explaining Hitler, Ron Rosenbaum. also read page 174 for another significant POV that I feel needs included and will include shortly http://books.google.com/books?id=eeze4_wGViMC&pg=PT192&dq=Timur+Hitler&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pwKjUK32Ou32igKS94HAAw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that already, but p. 174 isn't very useful. It compares him to Hitler (at least has them in the same list of what the author calls villains), but the rest is irrelevant to this specific article as it isn't meant to be about Timur or Hitler but about a different subject. Most of your quote from Rosenbaum is actually from Rosenberg, and you left out the next sentence which more or less dismisses it: "Gerlich argues in a more serious vein.". The last part of the lead says: "Timur is regarded as a military genius and a tactician whose prowess made him one of the world’s great conquerors. Timur's armies were feared throughout Asia,[15] sizable parts of which were laid to ruin by his campaigns.[16] Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population.[17] The historian of Islamic Asia John Joseph Saunders summarized that "Till the advent of Hitler, Timur stood forth in history as the supreme example of soulless and unproductive militarism".[18]. On the other hand, Timur is also recognized as a great patron of art and architecture, while he interacted with Muslim intellectuals such as Ibn Khaldun and Hafez."

Is it any surprise that a man who killed upwards of seventeen million people, about whom it is said that "In Persia, for instance, he left a pyramid of 70,000 skulls on the ruins of Isfahan and another of 90,000 on the ruins of Baghdad.", who in one instance killed 100,000 prisoners, is compared to Hitler? An NPOV position needs to make it clear that from one perspective he was savage, brutal, genocidal, while others still see him as a hero. You wrote " Tamerlane is the man." I'm not clear what you meant by that. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the reference to Hitler merged with the one below it to say something like "Timur's conquests are at times comapred to the actions of Hitler,Mussolini, and Ghengis Khan. Others show him as a pragmatic leader who was equally so when dealing with armies and cities. He was also known for fostering culture in his capital Samarqand. Timur is also the national hero of Uzbekistan". Then keep all the citations. plus some new ones if neccessary. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits

"It was in the second phase of the conflict that Timur took an easier route against the enemy, invading the realm of Tokhtamysh via the Caucasus region. The year 1395 saw the Battle of the Terek River, when Tokhtamysh's power was finally broken, concluding the titanic struggle between the two monarchs." is now

It was in the second phase of the conflict that Timur took a different route against the enemy by invading the realm of Tokhtamysh via the Caucasus region. The year 1395 saw the Battle of the Terek River concluding the titanic struggle between the two monarchs.

All unsourced, but why remove " when Tokhtamysh's power was finally broken,"? Especially when the next paragraph says he was unable to restore his power, which no longer makes sense as we don't say he lost it.

"Timur during the course of his campaigns destroyed Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde, and Astrakhan, subsequently wrecking the Golden Horde's economy based on Silk Road trade. The Golden Horde saw political disintegration after such losses, with Mongol unity in the region shattered permanently."

is now

During the course of Timur's campaigns his army destroyed Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde, and Astrakhan, subsequently disrupting the Golden Horde's Silk Road. The Golden Horde no longer held power after the coming of Tamerlane.

That's a very different paragraph. It claims that the Silk Road itself was disrupted, not just the trade, and leaves out anything about political disintegration or Mongol unity. Why is information being removed? Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not hung up on the facts as history knows them. I just want it to read better so we can get Tamerlane out of the C rating. So add what you will add. It just does not look encyclopedic to copy and paste quotes from a book. since you would appear to have physical possession or these books in some way it would be great if you could word it so it reads like a biography rather than a bunch of quotes jumbled together. Maintainging the same citations of course.

Oh and why call it an 'easier' route when you can just say 'different'? That seems to be more neutral than "easier"

A citation please for

"Tokhtamysh was not able to restore his power or prestige. He was killed about a decade after the Terek River battle in the area of present day Tyumen, by agents of an emir named Edigu."

Wasn't tradethe primary purpose ofThe Silk Road? If trade was disrupted then the whole thing is disrupted. disrupted does not neccessarily mean destroyed. It just had some troubles as a result of Timur's campaigns. if you must include the disintigration part fine but it seems like it is out there and not neccessary to include inthis biography. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute

While Timur ,like any world conquering person, would go to no end to win his campaigns it is not neccessary to place direct quote after direct quote detailing atrocities. We get it. He built huge towers of skulls and was responsible for the deaths of millions. It also draws comparisons to Hitler which is definitely giving undue weight to that POV. I don't see lengthy copied and pasted quotes about his pious or cultural side. The parts detailing his atrocites would warrant their own section within this encompassing all of his Hitler comparisons and the references to the skulls piled high. It doesn't make sense to recount every siege of a city he ever ordered. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We use attributed quotations to show who says what. It's standard and helps ensure there is no fudging what someone said, and also where it is an opinion makes that clear. The Hitler comparison is made by many reliable sources and meets our NPOV policy - if you disagree take it to WP:NPOVN. Sure it is a pov, but it's a significant one and thus has to be in the article to make the article NPOV. I don't think we recount every siege he ordered, do we? And it would depend upon how many sieges there were whether it made sense to recount them all. If there were only a handful, yes, if there were 20, maybe a list with amplification of some key ones as reflected in the literature. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can find a better quote that compares him to "evil" historical figures. Clearly I understand about the POV being included. You might not being paying close attention to my recent posts. Anywho, I think the Hitler comparison in the interim belongs in the legacy portion of his page. This is because You couldnt draw a Hitler comparison until well into the 20th century. I also like your recent addition "This has been described as a "systematic use of terror against towns...an integral element of Tamerlane's strategic element" which he viewed as preventing bloodshed by discouraging resistance. His massacres were selective and he spared the artistic and technical (eg engineers) elites.[38]"" except the resulting sentence with the ellipsis is incorrect. Plus putting sentences together like that takes them out of context. For all we know those sentences are from two different paragraphs and you spliced them together. I'm not saying you did. I'm just saying that if you turn it into a full sentence without the ellipsis it would at least be correct; even if it is a short direct quote. BTW all of the commas in this are making me ill. The way its written there are supposed to be semi-colons were the commas are because theres no conjunction. So I'm trying to fix it. I under stand that commas seperate a thought within a sentence but those are the exception to what I was talking about on this page. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation tags

Asking if the editor who added these tried to find sources first. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Manz states on page 18 and 19 in The Rise And Rule Of Tamerlane that the book doesn't talk about any of his goals because there arent any reliable sources available from the time to record any details of his administration. That conflicts with the claim by the asian historian of "unproductive militarism". How can you call his means of controlling the population unproductive if there aren't any records to verify that? Sure it is his "pov". But that is just a fringe opinion and I do not believe worth including in this article. Sure you can maybe bring up a few which cite him in relation to hitler. But there are many, many more that say all of his armies doings was to keep them happy so he could remain in control. Nothing Hitler-like about that except for some recent authors. Of which I would like to see more if they are out there. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't call Saunders a fringe writer. And recall that he's quoted by the writer of your favorite book on Timur. Reliable sources often disagree on various subjects, especially history. We frequently cite opinions and interpretations in articles, that's one of the things our readers expect. If you have loads of sources saying that his massacres and piling up of skulls was just to keep his armies happy, let's see them. The Hitler comparison is a significant one and thus should be included. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

HUH? Fringe opinion. Open your eyes man. So yes I changed around your heavily weighted statement about hitler to include a citation from Manz that really does a good job in stating that there just isn't alot of info about the reasons behind his campaigns. So to catagorize them as pointless militarism is not giving due weight to this fact. I'm sure you will approve. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Saunders is a reliable source and I can find no reliable sources calling him fringe - your book certainly doesn't suggest it's fringe. You don't understand WP:UNDUE and there are other problems I don't have time to deal with at the moment. And your removal of "The historian of Islamic Asia John Joseph Saunders summarized that "Till the advent of Hitler, Timur stood forth in history as the supreme example of soulless and unproductive militarism" seems to have more to do with your discussion of Hitler comparisons than anything else. You can add in an appropriate place Manz's statement perhaps, but this isn't the way to do it. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

turkic

Firstly tjere have been many discussions of Temur'a origin. As İ know dn İ am pretty sure of this, Amir Temur all hıs life claimed to be khan to largen his ruling limits. And he marries to a prenses whoose originity goes to Chingiz Khan. But he couldn name himself khan. He always stayed as a Amir that means prime ministr. Nd during his time he signed as a prime ministr. But suyurtgamısh khan was as a khan, he was responsible for khan. he was really mongol. Nowadays Tumar is known as a national hero of uzbeks that also Turkic tribe. Secondly His grandson Bobur also was a Turkic not mongolian. Both they speak Chagatai that now is known as Uzbek language. They were unbeliveble clever people nd a sponsor of art nd religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.199.197 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

reply

Firstly, with due respect, Timur's being the national hero of this or that ethnic group is irrelevant, what is relevant are the entho classifications of the time. Uzbek did not exist then, Uzbek is not Chagatai. "Chagatai that now is known as Uzbek language" is utterly incorrect, Uzbek is a derivative language from Chagatai Turki, but Chagatai is dead.

Also note that Babur called himself a Moughal, the truth that modern nationalists hate admitting because they are all invested in their own silly identity claims is that ethnic and linguistic identities of the past were often far more fluid and nuanced than today. Uzbeks are descended from certain Turks and Mongols alike, just as Timur and Babur both were descended from people who had admixtures of both Turki and Mongol descent.

Lastly the relevance of Timur's being sponsors of art and religion has been stated through the article and in the talk section. He also slaughtered more Muslims in his age, and more ruthlessly, than any non-Muslim enemy so bringing up his sponsorship of religion is rather dubious - at best. Arabs certainly have a not very good view of him, the same with Persians. — Kemal s added by 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.18.213 (talk)

removed sentence from the lead

I removed:

throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, sizable parts of which were laid to ruin by his campaigns.

Aside from the fact that the sources for that don't look particularly reliable or authoritative, it seems to the very least rather misleading if not outright nonsensical. Timur's army never reached any part of Europe other then Caucasus region and the wolga delta nor any part of Africa, so the notion that he laid waste to sizable portion of Europe or Africa is plain nonsense. The second weaker claim that his armies were feared throughout Africa and Europe strikes me still as rather questionable. First of all Africa at best refers to Northern Africa (certainly nobody in South Africa of Congo was in fear of Timur). Even for Northern Africa, the only country which was shortly directly threatened or maybe felt threatened was Egypt. Europeans knew him mostly for his victory over the Ottomans (which was more welcomed than feared). He might have been eyed with some fear by Byzanz or some crusaders in with possessions in the East, but hardly throughout Europe (though he was well known of course).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Who was "Kurgan" ?

The article mentions Kurgan as a person who was murdered, "family connection with Kurgan, the dethroner and destroyer of Volga Bulgaria," but we have no article about such a person, only regions in Central Asia: ?? Wwheaton (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Amir Kurgan perhaps? You're right, it's definitely unclear who this dude was. This may not be a reliable source (they might have copy/pasted an old draft of the Timur article for all I know) but maybe it's a good start for research(?) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In the Dutch Wikipedia, this is a featured article. In the nl:Timoer Lenk#Afkomst en opkomst [Tamerlane#Origin and Rise] section, there is a portion that reads:

Dutch: Timoer, zelf van Turks-Mongoolse afkomst, woonde in het westelijke deel waar in 1347 de Mongolen de macht hadden verloren aan een lokale emir, Kazgan. Gedurende diens heerschappij ontwikkelde Timoer zich tot een agressieve jongeman, vaardig in paardrijden en vechten. Vanwege zijn vaardigheden en intelligentie werd hij aan het hoofd van een klein leger geplaatst. Toen Timoer 21 jaar was, werd Kazgan vermoord. Na deze moord, in 1357, ... English: Timur himself of Turkish-Mongol descent, lived in the western part where in 1347 the Mongols had lost to a local power emir, Kazgan. During his reign Timur developed into an aggressive young man, skilled in riding and fighting. Because of his skills and intelligence, he was placed at the head of a small army. When Timur was 21 years Kazgan was murdered. After the murder, in 1357, ...

— Dutch Wikipedia:Tamerlane#Origin and Rise

The article in en.wikipedia, Qazaghan is a redirect page to Amir Qazaghan. I think that Kurgan was a corruption of Kazgan or Kazğan, which may be an alternate spelling to Qazaghan.

At any rate, I would give more credence to the historical dates in the Dutch version since is one of the Wikipedia:Etalage [Wikipedia:Featured articles] .

Peaceray (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Capture of Delhi, Alexander the Great/ Genghis Khan comparrisons

Claiming his capture of Delhi is greater than both of the achievements of Alexander and Genghis Khan is somewhat laughable and absurd. Both Empires were much larger, Alexander's being close to a million Km² larger, and built in mere fractions of the time, with more archaic technology. The source is obviously trying to elevate Timur's achievements and is not accurate of neutral. The comparison should be removed as it's factious at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.72.77 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mughal Empire 1707?

The Mughal Empire lost most of its power in 1707 with Aurangzeb's death, however, the Empire did not truly end until the events of the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Should this be corrected in the intro section? GSMR (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Timur is not mongolian

How come is that he is mongolian? Timur was Turkic and dozens of references state this. Please can you change that ethnicity part, I see persian faschism here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.46.127 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everything is a conspiracy. The little numbers that appear in brackets (^[22]) at the end of sentences are links to references. Accessing these references should explain why the preceding sentence says what it says. So in this case, find the sentence that claims he is Mongolian, and take a look at the references. If you wish to present a contrary opinion, find reliable, non-niche sources and re-write the statement to present a neutral point of view. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Exhumation para written as though to promote the 'curse'

"It is alleged that Timur's tomb was inscribed with the words, "When I rise from the dead, the world shall tremble." It is also said that when Gerasimov exhumed the body, an additional inscription inside the casket was found reading, "Who ever opens my tomb, shall unleash an invader more terrible than I."[94] In any case, two days after Gerasimov had begun the exhumation, Adolf Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, the largest military invasion of all time, upon the U.S.S.R.[95] Timur was re-buried with full Islamic ritual in November 1942 just before the Soviet victory at the Battle of Stalingrad.[96]"

This para really caught my attention. Despite it being sourced properly at first glance, the way it's written lacks the disinterested tone an encyclopaedic article should have. I did a quick search of 'Timur's curse' and numerous polemic websites emerged. Any ideas on how to rewrite this para to a more neutral fashion? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

European Views on Timur: what does this line mean?

Timur arguably had the most impact on the Renaissance culture and early modern Europe.

Is that saying Timur had more impact on Europe that he had on any other part of the world? Or is it saying that Europe was influenced more by Timur than by anyone else? Either seems implausible, and the section doesn't explain the claim (and the cite isn't readible online). Iapetus (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, but it would seem that if something is "arguable", a clear case should be made for what the argument is. While the statement is sourced, there is no context or quotation provided, so it's impossible to understand what the contributor meant by that statement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Timur's campaign in the Near East

http://apworldhistory101.com/history-of-india/delhi-sultanate/

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/sack-damascus

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/9452/tamerlane-in-damascus

http://syrianoor.net/article/1724

http://books.google.com/books?id=pGX9uEzy6b4C&pg=PA5&dq=tamerlane's+bastards&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j-7pUvT9NcT4yQGK5YCoCg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tamerlane's%20bastards&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=t8S7xpb8dVwC&pg=PA6&dq=tamerlane's+bastards&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j-7pUvT9NcT4yQGK5YCoCg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tamerlane's%20bastards&f=false

http://www.shlama.be/shlama/content/view/3/4/

http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=3804

http://www.sullivan-county.com/islam/u3.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=35YhAQAAIAAJ&q=tamerlane's+bastards&dq=tamerlane's+bastards&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j-7pUvT9NcT4yQGK5YCoCg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA

http://www.amazon.ca/Tamerlane-Timur-Great-Muhammad-Arabshah/dp/1578986923

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1387309695&searchurl=bsi%3D0%26amp%3Bds%3D30%26amp%3Btn%3Dtamerlane%2Bor%2Btimur

http://www.paperbackswap.com/Tamerlane-Timur-Great-Ahmad-Ibn-Muhammad-Ibn-Arabshah/book/1578986923/

http://www.biblio.com/book/tamerlane-timur-great-amir-ahmad-ibn/d/256726666

06:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Timur's use of religion

Timur was a religious opportunist, using different and contradictory forms of religion for personal gain.

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/timur.shtml

08:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Timur vs. Chagatai War

http://books.google.com/books?id=KX4SWvPd5PwC&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ObyOZa_JU1IC&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lew5IC5piCwC&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3KTqLaFkO8C&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency with article Fu An

We have here "He summarily had the ambassadors Fu An, Guo Ji, and Liu Wei detained. He then had them and their 1,500 guards executed." with a cite to Tsai, Shih-Shan Henry (2002), Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle (2 ed.), University of Washington Press, pp. 188–189, ISBN 0-295-98124-5 but the Fu An article has Fu An dying in 1429 in retirement. Fu An seems to have been one of 17 that were freed and returned to China (in 1407). I don't have Tsai et al (2002) or the Fu An reference (Herbert Allen Giles, A Chinese Biographical Dictionary, p. 229. ) to compare. Fromthehill (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

After looking at both sources it appears there is a mistake in this article. Tsai says: "Following Tamerlane's death in 1405, his grandson Khalil Sultan released Fu An, Guo Ji, and the seventeen surviving Ming escorts", and goes on to say that they returned to Nanjing in July 1407 (p. 188). There is no mention of Liu Wei. Giles confirms the same story (imprisoned until 1407 and released with 17 survivors), except has no of mention Guo Ji, but a eunuch named Liu Wei. Duffit ^talk 10:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Timur was a Turk

Timour, dit Timour lenk (le Boiteux), mot dont nous avons fait Tamerlan, naquit en Transoxiane le 8 avril 1336 à Kech, l’actuel Chahr-i Sebz (la Ville Verte), au sud de Samarqand. Les historiens timourides ont cherché à le faire descendre d’un com¬pagnon de Gengis-khan, voire à le rattacher à la famille gengis¬khanide. En réalité ce n’était nullement un Mongol, mais un Turc. Il appartenait à une famille noble de Transoxiane, ratta¬chée au clan Barlâs et possessionnée autour de Kech, dont elle avait le gouvernement.

René Grousset L'empire des steppes Attila, Gengis-khan, Tamerlan (1938) Editions: Payot, Paris, quatrième édition, 1965, pages 1-620 (première édition : 1938). Page 502 http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/grousset_rene/empire_des_steppes/grousset_steppes.doc

Turkish Translation

Aksak Timur 8 Nisan 1336 tarihinde, Semerkand'ın güneyinde şimdiki Şehr-i Sebz olan Keş şehrinde dünyaya gelmişti. Timur devrinin tarihçileri onu Cengiz Hanın bir silah arkadaşının sülalesinden hatta doğrudan Cengiz soyundan gelmiş gibi göstermişlerdir. Aslında kendisinin Moğollukla hiç bir alakası yoktu, çünkü Türktü. Maveraünnehir'de keş civarına hakim olan soylu Barlas aşiretinden geliyordu.

René Grousset Bozkırlar İmparatorluğu Attila,Cengiz Han,Timur Ötüken Neşriyat 1.Basım 1980 Sayfa 386 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.100.13 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was thoroughly a Turk ethnically/culturally/linguistically without any Mongol blood/ancestry, but as long as some (otherwise usually very good) historians' works remain in-print without an update edition stating otherwise, the "turko-mongol" description will continue to appear in the article. Don't sweat the small stuff. No modern university teaches he was anything other than a Turk in lectures during classes. Except perhaps at some nationalist school in Mongolia (and that is a big 'if').HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

banknote

It will be good, if someone add to article this picture.MrErgashev (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

The Uzbek banknote 500 soums statues depicting Timur

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrErgashev (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Circumstances of death?

Having no prior knowledge of this man, I found this a fascinating read. Flawed perhaps, regarding that entire books have been written about Timur, this is still a worthy introduction. But I do have a problem. I simply could not find anything that explained the circumstances of how he died. The time and place are there, but the how and why? Please supply this info, or correct me if I'm wrong. - Thanks! (Nimbus8 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC))

Tamerlane was an enemy of Islam not a Warrior of Islam

His conquests and attacks on Persia, ottoman turkey (battle of ankara) and mamluke syria(battle of aleppo) led to Tamarlane being publicly declared as an enemy of Islam. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/timur

I have not found any source.. apart from this wiki page that states he was known as.. or referred to himself by 'ghazi' or "Warrior of Islam" as asserted by the wiki page. 118.138.191.73 (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - Wikipedia does not consider other wikis as a reliable source. Due to lack of availability of reliable sources, -I'm unable to make the requested change. Please find some reliable source/s and re-open the request. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Legacy: Exhumation: "Mongoloid and Caucasoid"

The article talks about Temur being "classified as Mongoloid" with "Caucasoid" features but these are outdated pseudo-scientific racialist theories of classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.245.220 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Timur was not the last great ruler of the nomadic steppe. Simply the last male congueror.

According to John Weatherford in his book "Secret Lives of the Mongol Queens" Manduhai Khatun, the queen of Dayan Khan untied the steppe from Russia to China and from Siberia to the Silk Road between 1470 and 1500 (p 100) She led the armies of her invalid, child husband who had been declared Great Khan and ruled with such grace that she was called Manduhai the Wise, and Manduhai the Good. Altho misogynistic historians tried to remove the record of her rule in Persian and Mongol histories, some references remain in the Chinese and most of all in the poetry and songs of the Mongol and other Central Asian peoples. When she died at age 60 her husband went on to rule the steppe and Central Asia in his own right. Bintari, Oct 10, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bintari (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The short reply to that from a professional's viewpoint would simply be 'rubbish.' More revisionist history without any firm foundation. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Allempires.com/forum - "The question regarding Timurlane's ethnicity can easily be determined by what he wrote: "Biz ki M�l�k-i Turan, Emir-i T�rkistan'ız: (We are the possessors of Turan and Emir of Turkestan) Biz ki T�rk oğlu T�rk'�z; (We are real Turks that are the sons of Turks) Biz ki milletlerin en kad�m� ve en ulusu (We are the members of the oldest and the highest nation) T�rk'�n başbuğuyuz!..." (We are the leaders of Turks) Polaer (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That tells us what he considered to be his ethnicity, but other sources may have a different viewpoint that needs to be considered in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

For now i've found only forum link. Polaer (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where this passage comes from, but I guarantee you it's unreliable; we don't have any documents written by Timur himself (the Malfuzat-i Timuri in particular is almost certainly a 17th century forgery).—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference/portrayal in Might & Magic IX

In this 2002 PC game, one of main antagonists is Tamur Leng, a warlord and descendant of old Empire's ruling bloodline with quintessential Asian appearance, who's gathering the hordes to conquer game's Scandinavian-like continent Chedian because, as it revealed later in the game by him, he has a "writ of fate" - a destiny to accomplish that mission. Player's initial objective is to unite clans of Chedian to repulse the onslaught of Tamur Leng. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_and_Magic_IX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.54.108 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

The quote from the Independent (61) is illiterate and wrongly transcribed. The actual source gives it as "Whomsoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I." 204.65.74.31 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

Timur conquered 43 out of 58 major areas of his time. Dconald (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Turkic or Mongolian? An End to the Edit wars and extra details of Timur?

Trigger Warning

I think there is some issue with some people when they call this man Mongolian or Turkic. The reason I'm writing this, I want to add extra information about the Barlas Tribe in which he is descendant from in this article in his Early Life. Timur is not of "direct Chinggisid descent", he is Son-In-Law(kürgän)or Gurkani of the Chinggisd through his marriage, yet he is Mongolian. It is simple, one of his ancestors of the Barlas was named Qarachar Noyon who was "head of corps" for the House of Chaghadai and by this became "Chaghadai Khan’s chief administrator as well as chief judge of the yarghu, or court of investigation, through which Mongol law was enforced".

Do you think it is appropriate to increase his backstory by mentioning Qarachar Noyon, my source is The New Cambridge History of Islam, in which each chapter is written by an expert in their respective studies. RussianDewey (talk)

Captive painting must be anachronistic

The captive painting of Bayezid ı by Timur must be anachronic, because Timur is approximately 30 years older than Bayezid. But in painting Bayezid I seems obviously older than Timur :) [35] --Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)