"

 Once again, you are proving that you lack the ability to understand. If you had payed attention, you would have had realised that I actually removed that paragraph, because their Turkic origin is NOT disputed in mainstream sources. 
 I think that 90% of the people are not interested in their ethnic background, and especially not in their Turkic ethnic background, because they did not rule in the name of Turks, not had they any influence or some other kind of nationalst involvement in the history of the Turkic peoples. Not even Encyclopaedia Britannica (your favourite source) mentions their ethnic background: . 
 What's important is that the dynasty was started by a former slave, and that it rose out of the chaos that followed Seljuqid decline in Central Asia. It's absolutely unimportant whether Anushtigin was a Turk, a Mongol, a Chinese, or a Brazilian, because his descendants ruled as the ""Shahs of Khorezm"" and not as the ""Turkic rulers of Turkistan"". If someone is interested in Anushtigin's background, he can click on the link. The dynasty was certainly not ""Turkic"", as you claim (and this is indeed bad faith), but only the dynasty's founder was (most likely) of Qipchaq origin. 
 In the article Mughals we agreed not to mention any ethnic lables, because the Mongolian origin of the dynasy's founder has no importance - the Mughals came from a Mongol background, but they were not Mongol rulers (in contrast to their Gengghizid ancestors). 
 I do not dispute authoritative sources, such as Iranica, who describe Anushtigin as a Turk. That'S why I have modified the Anush Tigin Gharchai article. But I do dispute POV claims that try to ""Turkify"" a dynasty that was neither Turkic in language, nor in culture or identity.  "