Talk:Timur/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.. 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)

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)

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) and page 497 here and the mention of tribute on page 48 here. 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)

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, Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations: In Comparative Perspective, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State, 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, ...

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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))

This edit request to Timur has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Timur has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Timur has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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 :) --Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)