Talk:Timur/Archive 3

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Restoring verified info. Tobby repeatedly restores the article to the misinformation I proved was false on the talk page, apparently using stealth edits." I think it is relevant and should be included. Hunan201p (talk · contribs), please explain your edits to other editors.

Gerasimov reconstructed the likeness of Timur from his skull and found that his facial characteristics displayed "typical Mongoloid features".^[1][2] It was determined that Timur was a relatively tall and broad-chested man with red hair and beard.^[3][4]

Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In regards to @Visioncurve:'s revert, the "Mongoloid features" quote was from the second citation, the Özcan work, not Oshanin's. Personally, I see nothing wrong with Tobby72's edit, though you are correct about the French map.
Alivardi (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you revert Oshanin's citation, when it clearly says nothing about Timur? The Routledge reference mentions quotes from a 1940s article by Gerasimov that was not a scientific study or a formal document. It is not acceptable as a source on biomedical incormation like phenotypes, per WP:SCIRS. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCIRS is an essay. Link to the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#Using_of_primary_genetics_sources_at_Uyghur_(and_many_other_Eurasian_pages). I think there is still no consensus on this particular issue. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I understand now. You're arguing that the Oshanin citation serves no purpose here. In my defence, you did not clearly state that issue until long after my revert, having initially only asserted that it was "vandalistic". However, I am still baffled by your implication that Gerasimov is not qualified to comment on a reconstruction which he himself had performed.
Alivardi (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad we are on the same page regarding Oshanin. However, Gerasimov did not comment on his reconstruction, but the skull of Timur. As seen in Özcan's footnotes, the comment was made in Kratkiye soobscheniya Instituta istorii material 'noy kul'tury, in English, "Brief Communications on Papers and Field Research from the Institute for the History of Material Culture". This was not a peer-reviewed journal in the 1940s, nor was it internationally recognised as a notable publisher. Gerasimov was allowed to entertain a great deal of his taxonomic racial theories in this document, as was the norm in that era. To allow a weighted classification of Timur as "Mongoloid", based on a 70 year old snippet from a report on his own field research that was never subject to peer review, or even explained by the author in great detail, is WP:UNDUE. Classifications of human beings in to taxonomic races like "Mongoloid" requires high quality secondary sources. One author's pet theory published in what is basically a 20th century blog for anthropologists doesn't cut it. - Hunan201p (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I'm sorry, but I'm still not understanding your opposition to this work of Gerasimov's. The paper in question, Portret Tamerlana, appears to have been his primary work for his research on Timur. Five minutes of googling shows that it has been used as a reference in many notable publications. These include Jackson and Lockhart's The Cambridge History of Iran, in the Journal of World History by Beatrice Forbes Manz and by Dr. Elena Paskaleva in the Central Asian Survey, all peer-reviewed academic journals (the last of these specifically states that "throughout his article Portret Tamerlana Gerasimov refers to Timur as a 'Mongol' and concludes that Timur had 'typical Mongoloid features'"). My point is that if this "one author's pet theory" in a "20th century blog" received this level of high-quality academic attention, it is ridiculous for us here on Wikipedia to deride it as not being enough.
Alivardi (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the authors' attention to Gerasimov. When Özcan or Paskaleva describe Gerasimov's opinions, in scare quotes, they are not endorsing his theory or his work. Özcan is quite critical of Gerasimov. Hence it would be ridiculous if Wikipedia were to include simplistic overgeneralizations about the race of Timur, taken from quotes that actually reflect negatively on Gerasimov.

By the way, Portret Tamerlana was not Gerasimov's primary work on Timur. It is just an essay that was published in a non-notable Soviet journal. He wrote other works about Timur, such as in 1971 (published posthumously).- Hunan201p (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Whether or not Paskaleva agreed with Gerasimov is irrelevant. As I stated previously, my point was that using Portret Tamerlana as a source is perfectly appropriate. The question now is that which I had originally posed: whether we can quote Gerasimov on a project he had performed. Of course, if quotes can be found from his subsequent works which show that he changed his stance on Timur's racial grouping, then that view should take precedence.
Alivardi (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have found another source, published by Cambridge University Press.-- Tobby72 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC) ^[1]

Alivardi, if that was your point, you failed to provide a compelling reason for it. The simple fact that something was cited in a book doesn't make it a reliable source. I can find all kinds of citations from Carleton Coon's anthropological works and personal communications, published by prestigious presses, authored by big names like Chris Stringer. That doesn't make Carleton Coon's opinion on who is a "Negroid", or whether bigfoot is real, relevant or due. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And lest you think I'm unfair in comparing Gerasimov to Carleton Coon, please be aware that some experts in his field have "cast aspersions on the honesty of Gerasimov's work".^[1]

@Hunan201p: I'm sorry, but I don't see continuing the discussion as we currently are as being useful to resolving our disagreement. I've therefore placed a request for a third opinion. I hope this can help us to reach an amicable solution.
Alivardi (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The cranium of Timur is predominately of South Siberian Mongoloid race ^[2]Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

If you're not satisfied. How about a Russian source aswell. Nauchnye trudy, Issues 232-235 (V.I. Lenin nomidagi Toshkent davlat universiteti) ^[3] Тимура относится к монголоидной расе южносибирского типа. Реконструкция Герасимова полностью подтверждает этот вывод, полученный на краниологическом материале. Translation: Timur's skull belongs to the Mongoloid race of the South Siberian type. The reconstruction of Gerasimov fully confirms this conclusion, obtained on craniological material.

Gerismov reconstructed the face of and concluded Timur had 'typical Mongoloid features' (Gerasimov 1947, 18). ^[4] Shinoshijak (talk) ,14 April 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: @Alivardi and Hunan201p: As long as the statement is clearly attributed (which I would say it is in the original edit) and relevant (i.e. mentioned in reliable secondary sources, which it seems to be), its accuracy is secondary to its inclusion in the article. If anyone can find a recent (post-1980s or so?) characterisation of the description or some historical context, it would be fair to include that too to give some indication of whether the system used by Gerasimov is still accepted. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 06:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @ReconditeRodent:, your input is really appreciated. What do you think @Hunan201p:? I'm thinking we restore the content and perhaps also add one of those caveats on Gerasimov's accuracy that you mentioned. Or maybe some mention of how the terms he uses are somewhat antiquated? Would that be an acceptable solution with everyone? Pinging @Tobby72: and @Shinoshijak:.
Alivardi (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. I know the others have already seen my message so I'll assume there's no objections. On a separate note, I'm gonna keep the Oshanin citation since upon review, it's become evident that it was associated with the info from the first sentence, i.e that Oshanin had been involved with the exhumation.
Alivardi (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

People questioning on Gerasimov's accuracy must not be based on pseudo-science. There must be anthropologist when talking of Gerismov accuracy, not just people with their own pseudo-science opinion. This is accurate Illustrated History of the Islamic World^[5] M. M. Gerasimov was able to reconstruct what Timur's Mongoloid face must have looked like when he was alive. ^[6] a “[p]ortrait head of Timur [was] made by the Soviet scholar M. M. Gerasimov. This sculpture is very accurate as it is based upon the skull found in Timur's grave. By closely studying such skulls and then working out the exact position. -Shinoshijak (talk) , 17 April 2020

@Shinoshijak: Not gonna be a problem. I decided I was just gonna include a comment on Gerasimov's terminology being outdated for now.
Alivardi (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

How can a person be "Persianate". Isn't the source about the dynasty? Don't see anything about Timur itself. Either he was Persianized, or not. Which isn't case by Timur itself. Beshogur (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's wrong. Added in this revision and it was copied from the lead of Timurid Empire. It should be removed. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. But let's ping @Kansas Bear: Could a person be Persianate or that term only applies to dynasties/societies? --Wario-Man (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a person can not be a culture, which is what Persianate is. Turco-Persian is also a culture. They could say, in the article not the lead, that he established or patronized the Persianate culture. Good call, Wario-Man! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The proper name is Turkestan LordAgincourt (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Maveraunahr = Transoxania. Beshogur (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

“Known from arabic sources” is not a source LordAgincourt (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur this is not unconstructive in case of grammmatical problems that disruptive and distracting to the reader. Like with Dul Chand being locked out..of what? The section on the war Elephants has the same issue. How did he know they would by frightened? Why do you need to state 3 x that the camels charged etc. LordAgincourt (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur In the Tokhtamysh war what do you mean he was pulled away? This is confusing. Can you fix this please LordAgincourt (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rubbish. The term "Transoxiana" occurs over virtually thousands of historical/geographical sources in English, and it completely acceptable. You've been blocked for disruptive edits many times for things like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.11.25 (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Taimur's genocides, killing of massive populations in India, Persia and Anatolia is missing. I will say Hitler was a great conqurer as well but you need to reflect upon his ghastly acts and stop romanticization of him just because his kindom was large. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead literally says that his conquests caused the death of a great deal of people. Timur is famous for his cruelty, no one is trying to romantize him as I far as I'm aware. If you feel something is missing, feel free to add it yourself if you have reliable sources that support it. Also, we can't judge people such as Timur through a modern point of view, but we can indeed do that with Hitler, as he lived not so long ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course we can! That's pure sophistry. 50.111.52.57 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As he lived not so long ago... Thats nonsense! He lived in era of colonialism and racism which was quite different than present era, rather era changed because Europeans overdid these things. So we can judge both Timur and Hitler as non of them belong to our era, and fact is people see things with wisdom of present. So Timur or Genghis should be judged in same way as people judge Hitler. Belonging to past does not give a free pass. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that stuff which we today deem evil/barbaric were often viewed differently back in the day? And no, I'm not trying to protect anyone here, it's simple facts. Also, since when did the 1930/40s become an era of colonialism? It's still pretty close to this era and not that significant in terms of morality and such. Anyhow, I'm not interested in continuing this silly discussion, add the information yourself (with sources) instead of expecting other people to do it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That is such a common cop out. Yes, there were things that were considered more acceptable back then than today. But even despite different moral standards throughout history there are still things and people that are considered baseline 'brutal'. The Viking raid on Lindisfarne for example. The slave trade had staunch critics even within its day. Ghengis Khan and Timur were definitely also considered to be far more merciless than the moral standard of their day, if you want a primary source, read Yahya's account of Timur's invasion of Delhi, it describes how he broke his promise not to sack the city and how he appeared to enjoy killing anyone regardless of their religion. --82.26.153.73 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Does no one else think this article sucks the ghost of timur a little too hard? It paints him as some Marcus Aurelius style scholar-king when in reality he was a bloodthirsty merciless psychopath who appeared to care little for anything outside of warfare and slaughter. This is the same man who promised the inhabitants of a city 'I will not spill your blood if you surrender', upon their surrender he had them all buried alive so he could have his satisfaction without breaking his promise. The same man who, upon capturing Baghdad asked each of his soldiers to bring his two heads so that he could construct 5 macabre monuments. The same man who promised not to sack Delhi if they swore him their ruler, and then immediately sacked Delhi and slaughtered everybody. I have no idea how this article ties him to 'art and architecture' but from what I know of his history he had no such interests. He was fascinatingly intelligent, to be sure, but in the same way that Ted Bundy was intelligent, not the way Mithridates was. I believe this article portrays him in a way that borders on factually incorrect for no apparent reason. --82.26.153.73 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you feel something is missing, feel free to add it yourself if you have reliable sources that support it. Complaining is not gonna fix anything. Also, the art and architecture bit is sourced, so there's that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont really know how to add sources, etc, but for the guy above, here are a couple: “You see me here a poor, lame, decrepit mortal. Yet by my arm has the Almighty been pleased to subdue the kingdoms of Iran, Turan and the Indies. I am not a man of blood, and God is my witness that in all my wars I have never been the aggressor, and that my enemies have always been the authors of their own calamity.” During this peaceful conversation the streets of Aleppo streamed with blood and re-echoed with the cries of mothers and children, with the shrieks of violated virgins. The rich plunder that was abandoned to his soldiers might stimulate their avarice, but their cruelty was enforced by the peremptory command of producing an adequate number of heads, which, according to his custom, were curiously piled in columns and pyramids.’

EDWARD GIBBON, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

"In the words of the fifteenth-century Syrian historian Ibn Taghri Birdi: ‘Seizing its armed men, three thousand individuals, he dug for them an underground vault into which he threw them and then covered them with earth. This was after he had sworn to them that he would shed the blood of none of them; and he then said: “I have kept my oath, since I have not shed the blood of any of them.”’

The Tatar, who had long aspired to recognition within the Islamic world as the greatest defender of the faith, took pains to inflict miserable deaths on the city’s Christian community. While the Sipahis were buried alive, others had their heads tied between their thighs before being thrown into the moat to drown. According to Johann Schiltberger, the Bavarian squire captured by Temur in 1402, nine thousand virgins were carried off into captivity. Those who were fortunate enough to escape the slaughter fled from Sivas in horror. As for the city itself, it was, reported Arabshah, ‘utterly destroyed and laid to waste’."

Timur Father Origin : Amir Taraghai also known as for Taragay He was The Father of Mongol - Conquer Timur and The son of Burgul Noyan He was the Family member of Barlas Clan in Start of 14th Century. He was The First Barlas Tribe Member who was Accepted Islam To Buddhism. He was The Greatest of All Social Administrator of The Mongol Empire in Chagatai-Khanate and The armies court's Leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iam.i.120 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The point is to remove words that romanticize, like "widely regarded as one of the greatest military leaders " - first of all, who is "widely" and why does it matter? I'm sure there are a subset of people who consider him one of the most ruthless military leaders, mass murderers. Second, "greatest" is a problem. As Pinker points out, if a military leader kills millions of people and gets away with it, they are "great," but why? So we should disregard all opinions and value-added labels, and just say something like "highest conquering," or something to that effect.

I agree with the other commenter here. Just replace a word or two and you see the problem which is true but condones bad behavior--notice the language is in the present too:

"Hitler is regarded as a military genius and as a brilliant tactician with an uncanny ability to work within a highly fluid political structure to win and maintain a loyal following of nomads during his rule in Germany. He was also considered extraordinarily intelligent—not only intuitively but also intellectually."

And its generally against my personal policy to edit important articles on wikipedia because I'd rather the community make a decision and apply it instead of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That particular statement is cited to two separate reliable sources. We should know what those sources actually say before we pass judgment on that statement. Unfortunately they are apparently not online.

However, I have no objection to removing "widely" and rephrasing to "regarded as a great military leader". It's more neutral and doesn't risk misrepresenting the cited sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Rage90 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Amir Taraghai

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Amir Timur.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Iam.i.120 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am just give the sources of his father Amir Taraghai and new information and ancestory and Descendents but i am not Changing anything i am just giving the articals and also i am giving the new info' about his mother if you give me permission to writing to edit

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am planning to put such a section in legacy section. What do you think, does it sounds ridiculous to include these? Beshogur (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Give me the timur parents edit permission and ancestry i am not harm anything Give me the permission. Iam.20.M (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Blocked sock. Alivardi (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• All historical buildings on Registan Square in Samarkand were built after the death of Timur. Ulugbek madrasah was built in 1420, Sherdor and Tillya-kari madrasahs were built in the 17th century.Khorazmiy (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Haldir Marchwarden: I think you don't understand what the differences are. Could you put the direct quote by Woods here? Both texts linking the same citation, one of them has to be wrong. Beshogur (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I Also found this: First of all, Timur's genealogy gives him a common ancestor with Chinggis Khan in Tumbinai - sechen or Tumanay Khan not sure, who is senseless. You have no idea about what you are editing. Same article mentions: Timur could not claim the title of khan or rule the Mongol Empire because he was not a descendant of Genghis Khan. Beshogur (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. Based on statements such as "Tamerlane , or more correctly Timur - iLang (Timur the Lame) was the Central Asiatic Turkish prince who claimed unwarranted direct descent from Genghis Khan" (Eastern Horizon - Volume 11 - Page 58), I had taken it that he claimed direct descent too. It remains unclear whether he claimed a common ancestor or direct descent on his father side. I believe a common ancestor is plausible, but it's not clear whether he claimed direct descent on his father's side too. There are other sources that point to direct descent on his mother's side (that is, biographers claimed direct descent on his mother's side for him). Also, while you are right, a common ancestor and direct descent are by all means different things, by not mentioning the alleged common ancestry and limiting to exclude "descent", the lead seemed to obscure any possible relation to Khan, while I think that the common ancestry is worth mentioning. I'm working to suitably edited the lead.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone elaborate on this point in the introduction? The inline citation posits Marozi pg. 91, but I have that book at hand and my version of it doesn't seem to talk about Timur's religious overtures to the 4 septs of Chinggis Khaan's descendants, even though it does touch significantly on Timur's Islamic and Turko-Tatar bona fides. As far as I'm aware, most of the Borjigin rulers of Central Asia with the exception of the Chinese Toluids (and even the Yuan Dynasty nearly got a Muslim Khagan at one point) had already been long converted to Islam since the conversion of Berke Khaan and in the Golden Horde in the 1240s. Could this line be referencing the conversion of various Northern Yuan Princes to Islam in preparation for Timur's war against the Ming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.183.229 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an ephitet, rather than an title. Should we include this to the lead? Sources from Timur's period calls him Sahib Qiran instead of his personal name. Beshogur (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

According to historical texts Timur devasted lots of Hindu Temples and Monuments which shows the dexterity of Indian architectures and arts representing the culture of India; but, Why it is written that he was a preaser and appreciater of good architectures and arts by denying the truth of his genuine nature of robbery and sinisterity? 2409:4062:2D9E:6AF8:99AC:D02B:FBCF:F046 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a shared view that Timur's real motive for his campaigns was his imperialistic ambition. However, Timur's following words: "The whole expanse of the inhabited part of the world is not large enough to have two kings" explains that his true desire was "to amaze the world", and through his destructive campaigns, to produce an impression rather than to achieve enduring results. This is supported by the fact that besides Iran, Timur simply plundered the states he invaded with a purpose of enriching his native Samarqand and neglected the conquered areas, which may have resulted in a relatively quick disintegration of his Empire after his death.

How many historians share this view of Timur? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that the vast majority of specialists in this area agree with that view to greater or lesser extent. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.86 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Amir Timur was a Borjigid Dynasty Prince through his Father paternal-ancestor Tumbinai Setsen who was a Mongol Borjigin Khan in Mongolia 1100s & Chenghis Khan Make Great Mongol empire in 1206 c. So Timur remove both Turkic and Mongol titles and claimed Islamic Title (Emir) which is Arabic word for commander or, warlord. To he view himself the Leader of Mu'mins. 103.115.157.90 (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources? Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To the extent that Timur's ancestor, Qarachar Barlas, is discussed in the Secret History as a Borjigid and a relative of Chinggis Khaan, calling him a member of the Borjigid family is entirely appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.183.229 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur Timur and Temujin both have same D.N.A of Paternal-dynasty so don't neglect Mongol editors Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you add how many of his troops were killed in the wars he caused 82.215.102.176 (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel this would be an interesting addition because these archeologists found his tomb with a message on it that literally translated to whoever finds this will have a worse invader than I ever was. 2 days later Germany invaded the USSR. Brettc310 (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's already there, click here. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

According to historical sources he was also defeat bis brother-in-law hussain in December 1369 in many sources so it would be also added and as his title he proclaimed to be a Sword of Islam as his title, his coronation in capital also source stateted as in January of 1370 AD. so it also added and his birth-date according his bio-datas he was like Tuzuke-Timuri he was a born around 1332-34 when he was died he approximately a aged of 70-72 but secondary and major soyrces say he born in 6-9 April 1336 so both should be added, and his full named was also mentioned as Muhammad because his father Taraghai accept islam in early ages and learning islam he give his Name Shuja-ud-din Muhammad Timur and Beg and Barulas/Barlas bith his birth name, as i read his biography writer claim he was memorizer of Quran which we Muslims know as Hafeez-e-Quran and in eras he lived in 14th Century to his maximum ages and die untile 15th Century, in religion i stated Timur and both his descent follow the mazhab of Hanafi of Sunni-Islam The Mughal Dynasty follow also Hanafi Sunni-Muslim and i added his military career in module.

It’s my personal oppinion for how to looked templates but i Don't interfare for edit, but sir Administrator of this lines should be do that. Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Tuzukat Timur is hoax. It's not his book. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No Timur-Nama was autobiography of Timur Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

The claim that Timur's campaigns killed 17 million people has no clear source and should be deleted. The sources currently cited are a Chicago Tribune article with no citation and page 147 in The History of the Mongol Conquest which does not make the claim that Timur's campaigns killed 17 million people, only that they were brutal and did not create a lasting state. JarkThornbeard (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As per WP:RS, reliable sources (such as the Chicago Tribune) do not necessarily need to cite further sources to be considered reliable. If you believe that the Chicago Tribune is generally unreliable, or that this specific article is unreliable, please establish consensus around this before requesting an edit. The second source indirectly supports the statement in the article by stating that "millions" were killed. I agree that the article could be improved by a further source that also provides a specific number. However, the claim is well-sourced enough to stay up. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think his alternate name of "Tamerlane" ought to be right front in the first paragraph of the lede, and bolded. It could say "formerly known in the West" if you like, I suppose. And I mean after all he is actually just called "Tamerlane" in a few places in the text, with the explanation for this buried in the text. And I mean it Tamerlane is, or used to be (which counts) a common name for the guy, look at the refs, Tamerlane is all thru them. This Google Ngram gives Tamerlane as being used about half as much as Timur, which isn't chopped liver, granted a fair number of the Tamerlanes are probably for the poem.

I'm just a driveby here, so I haven't done this, but I think it probably should be done. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Per MOS:BOLDSYN and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT it should be in the lead. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added it.AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@AlphabeticThing9: I'm not your "mate". Read wp:civil. Also I added Tamerlane, as other users wished. Still your removal of sourced content + names is not justified. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I attempted to make a grammatical correction to this page, but was unable to do so since it appears to be locked from editing. Please correct this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately the constant target of disruption, hence why it's protected for IPs (and new users too I think?). What did you want to correct? I'll gladly do it for you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

(The claim that Timur gave himself the title "gurugen" or "son-in-law" could be mistaken with the title "Gur-khan" that was assumed by non-royal blood kings of Mongols. First, in the Secret History of Mongols, Jamukha a non-royal blood given himself the title "Gur-Khan", while Temujin assumed "Chingiz-Khan". Second, Chingizid king Ligdan khan from the 16th century addressed himself as Chingiz-Khan in a letter he sent to Nurkhachi baatar of Manchuria. Third in the Mongolian language someone giving himself the title gurugen or son-in-law is unintelligible considering that mongolian language mostly kept its originality since 13th century. Sarahyoungasian (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sarahyoungasian: This has nothing to do with gurkhan, which comes from Turkic kür (whole). Gurkan is Persianized version of Mongol khüregen (хүргэн). I don't understand what's the issue here? Beshogur (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Nashville whiz (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No one uses Timur. Why is this article using this name. Are we going to change Plato to "Platonas", write Napoleon with an "é"? this is ridiculous. can we proceed to a name change? 212.72.139.134 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Beshogur (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is the year of Timur's date of birth listed as 1336 in the infobox, but 1325 at the beginning of the article? I can't edit the page as it is semi-protected. Thanks! 2600:6C64:5800:2B4:D0DD:428:66BC:8B03 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@AgisdeSparte: can you elaborate your edits? Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur @2600:6C64:5800:2B4:D0DD:428:66BC:8B03 Hello, I have made changes to the beginning because in the subsection regarding the origins of Timur, the date traditionally provided in both primary sources is heavily criticized by a scholar who suggests a more plausible date between 325/330. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't see 1325 either. Where did you get this number? Beshogur (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

1336, although fabricated, is the most accepted birth date. I don't see 1325 as a consensus among scholars. Beshogur (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

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

He was not muslim, He is Nasiry one of the Shia. According to all scholars of Islam, He ruled with genkiz khan rules only and he wasn't a muslim. Please fix it 41.37.133.94 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No WP:RS to support this. Also, Shias are also Muslim, see Shia Islam. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that the category is appropriate? On Category:Genocide perpetrators I see historic personages like Attila and Genghis Khan. However the terminology is apparently new. Otherwise I'll revert back. Beshogur (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." Systematic killing of populations as performed by Timur in several cases, including Delhi, Armenian territories, etc. corresponds to the definition of genocide. It shall be referenced as such for the sake of consistency.

The sources regarding the estimates of victims of Timur's campaigns are missing and shall be completed. Here are the three most recent and recognised references: - In "The History of the Mongol Conquests", John Joseph Saunders (1971) the author estimates that Timur's conquests caused the death of 17 Million victims. - In "Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World", the author Justin Marozzi (2004) estimates that Timur's conquests caused the death of 20 Million victims. - In "Armies of the Ottoman Turks, 1300–1774.", the author David Nicolle (1983) estimates that Timur's conquests caused the death of 17 Million victims.

The figures mentioned in the summary shall be updated to 20 Million as the higher limit. Suggested wording would be: "Estimates vary from 1 to 20 million with several Historian estimating the total number of victims to be around 17 Millions." with the above mentioned sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by As97wiki (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Helen Fein, one of the editors of Teaching About Genocide, is described as a scholar specializing in genocide on her Wikipedia page. In addition, the page Genocides in history (before World War I) has a section about Timur's campaigns that cites sources labeling them genocidal. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: just checked that, it's poorly sourced actually, page nrs are not even present. Beshogur (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Timur ancestors were From Barlas tribe which are from Eastern turks like Uygurs & Karluks . But his mother is Iranian and according to his forged family tree for his mother he connects his mother blood line to Epic Iranian Shah of Shahnameh (book of the kings) Mannouchehr . According to his letters to Muzaffarids he claims the Throne of Iran clearly and suggests to Muzaffarids to Open the the way for the Dignity of Iran (Timur). 3rd document about Iranian Prajudice of Timur is his biography book by the pen of his Iranian Lord Chancellor Nizam-i-din Shami who was originally from Tabriz . Inside Zafarnamah on page 10 in the last Paragraph he writes a Poem for timur and Calls him Shah_e_Darvishdoost means king protector of people and serfs Then the author proceeds and says Iran and Turan are under his Command. Here's the original poem : Tony.k95 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"according to his forged family tree" do you know what the word "forged" means? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur It seems to be reliably attested in many sources, not sure what you mean "given by whom?" (Referring to the epithet). Noorullah (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we compare this to Sahib-i Qiran? I wonder what's the original version of this, if you can provide it. Beshogur (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur Sure, I can try to look for it. As of now, I've only seen it in WP:RS secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, not to disrespect you, but these kind of names were given to all kind of tyrants. I'm not sure how appropriate this is since, Timur doesn't even identify like that unlike "Lord of Aspicious Conjuction". Beshogur (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a little evidence that He was Sunni but not all of historians consider him as Sunni, Sunni Historians in Ottoman and Mamlukid Empires like Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Arabshah consider him as Rafedi even his allience with Christians in the west against Ottomans, Mamlukids and even Abbasid Caliphate in Cairo is similar to Safavid allience with The west, more important that ibn Khaldun in his memoirs narrated that He don't respect Abbas and his household even He only respect Ali and his household, His destroying and lotting of Damascus, and even some historians notes that He has destroyed Mu'awiyah's tomb all of this will let us consider him as Pro-Shia even if He don't curse 3 Caliphs and even if we don't consider him as main sect of Twelvers thought his era was full of Pro-Shia Sufis who considers all of the Twelve Imams as true caliphs of Islam even Timurids in an unknown considered their dynasty as Alid Dynasty back to Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib and the tomb stone of Timur is an evidence for that Alid connection with Alanqua and this Alid ancestor is a mysterious one, maybe they once considered him as the Twelfth Imam himself not a descendant of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyah the famous Hero in middle ages. 94.252.141.71 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Any reliable sources to match the "Religious views" section? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur Hello , I hope your doing fine and enjoying a nice time. Could you tell me why you reverted my edit on Timur Khan GamerHashaam (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Although I am not Beshogur, I suspect it's because an 1859 translation of a medieval text is not a reliable source, and because a narrative which involves Timur somehow teleporting from the Oxus to Sistan to the Arabian Sea in 1362, when he was nothing more than a warlord, is complete nonsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, these stories are nonsense. Like Chechens defeating him, etc. Beshogur (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Its a medival text GamerHashaam (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If I am correct then the translation was from 1859 and at the time balochs didn't know English and per sandeman despatches they conserved in hindustani with him to communciate meaning the book was translated by a British scholar at the time GamerHashaam (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sir Clements Robert Markham translated the page not to mention that Baluch Nationalism started in 1920s and 1930s thus I don't think it is biased not to mention that it was published by Hakluyt Society GamerHashaam (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If I remenber correctly at the time he served in Iran? GamerHashaam (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sir Clements Robert Markham translated the page not to mention that Baluch Nationalism started in 1920s and 1930s thus I don't think it is biased not to mention that it was published by Hakluyt Society GamerHashaam (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to rewrite your comments so they are a) intelligible and b) in one paragraph, rather than five seperate comments? Really helps with collaboration. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright

If I am correct then the translation was from 1859 and at the time balochs didn't know English and per sandeman despatches they conserved in hindustani with him to communciate meaning the book was translated by a British scholar at the time.Sir Clements Robert Markham translated the page not to mention that Baluch Nationalism started in 1920s and 1930s thus I don't think it is biased not to mention that it was published by Hakluyt Society. GamerHashaam (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

...okay? Still doesn't change the basic fact that an 1859 translation of a medieval text which claims that Timur managed to teleport from the Oxus to Sistan to the Arabian Sea in 1362, when he was no more than a warlord, is nothing less than nonsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah, he is right. I also saw Timur teleported. 46.221.150.123 (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

By about 1360, Timur had gained prominence as a military leader whose troops were mostly Turkic tribesmen of the region. He took part in campaigns in Transoxiana with the Khan of the Chagatai Khanate. Allying himself both in cause and by family connection with Qazaghan, the dethroner and destroyer of Volga Bulgaria, he invaded Khorasan at the head of a thousand horsemen. This was the second military expedition that he led, and its success led to further operations, among them the subjugation of Khwarazm and Urgench. GamerHashaam (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the wiki page in 1360 Timur lead 1000 horsemen to invade Persia and he might as well headed for sistan most likely the northern region of zaboul GamerHashaam (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur@AirshipJungleman29 I am awaiting a response otherwise I would need to revert the edit , I request you to respond in 24 hours GamerHashaam (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe you did get a good response. Ruy González de Clavijo lived in the 13-14th centuries. Please see WP:RS, WP:PST, WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"he might as well headed for sistan most likely the northern region of zaboul" oh I see we've decided to completely forgotten about the source saying he reached the Arabian Sea. Anyone mind explaining how? "Well, he might have headed into central Sistan, and then he might have headed into southern Sistan, and then he might have headed south of southern Sistan, and then he might have reached the sea, and then he might have teleported back again." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps he found Aladdin's flying carpet at the Arabian sea! @AirshipJungleman29 Noorullah (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

In his childhood, Timur and a small band of followers raided travelers for goods, especially animals such as sheep, horses, and cattle. Around 1363, it is believed that Timur tried to steal a sheep from a shepherd but was shot by two arrows, one in his right leg and another in his right hand, where he lost two fingers. Both injuries disabled him for life. Some believe that these injuries occurred while serving as a mercenary to the khan of Sistan in what is today the Dashti Margo in southwest Afghanistan. Timur's injuries and disability gave rise to the nickname "Timur the Lame" or Temūr(-i) Lang in Persian, which is the origin of Tamerlane, the name by which he is generally known in the West.

this is from the offical wiki page Timur#Military leader GamerHashaam (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for remembering which page we're discussing. Would you mind remembering where the Arabian Sea is GamerHashaam? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Its on the coast of Baluchistan , Sindh and Part of Gujarat GamerHashaam (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. More to the point, it's 1000km away from Zaboul. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

863 km and 8 days of walking can get you there like from zaboul to chah bahar GamerHashaam (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent use of Google. Now that I know you're capable of reasoned thought, would you mind reading the links HistoryofIran posted above? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ruy González de Clavijo is a third party to this source meaning he is neutral rather then pro timur or pro baloch , also I would like you to present some sources contradicting him which could imply the source of his work is unreliable for now. GamerHashaam (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter if he is a third party. He was a Castilian who spent two months in Samarkand in 1404. That means he is not a reliable source. If you want to know why, read the links above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

of course to document he has to spent time there GamerHashaam (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Amir Timur was born in Hoja Ilgor, Yakkabag region. Your info him being born in Shahrisabz is wrong. His graveyard is also in same village where he was born. I will request a picture of his shrine. 84.54.86.106 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)