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