Talk:Timurid Empire

message: As I remember, previous revisions of this article had name of empire in Chagatai, just like Timur. Also, that language mentioned as an official language in infobox. So should we add Chagatai name too? --Zyma (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Chagatai language was not an official language in the empire yet had a widespread use, but all the official documentation was done in Persian. Including Chagatai everywhere where possible is due to the fact that modern version of Chagatai is Uzbek which is the official language of Uzbekistan comprising most of the empire's heart. --Lingveno (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree with the addition of Chagatai name to the article, since the Timurids were of Chagatai heritage. BerkBerk68 18:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in [[Chagatai language]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Timurid Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205073939/http://bartleby.com/65/ti/Timurids.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ti/Timurids.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132016/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wanted to raise a concern about the flag. The one which is presented in the article looks more like a fan-art rather than a historical flag. In any source you will find that the flag was light-blue with the silver circles, and not black with red. The same blue flag you will find in the Timur museum in his hometown of Shahrisabz. --Lingveno (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Reading it, I would think this was some average period in history. Nothing about the utter destruction and brutality Timur inflicting on civilization. 50.111.19.21 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede is missing something ... 

message: , we are two peas in a pod here. I understand your point, frankly, because "Turan" has not previously caught my eye as the name for the Timurid state (which perhaps means that it is deeply unpopular in academic circles), but the fact that it was mentioned in the ancient message ordered to be carved out on the stone by Timur himself (and probably dictated personally by Timur as well ), makes it worth mentioning at least somewhere, true perhaps, not in the lead section of the page. I am also under the impression that "Turan" may have been used as an endonym, just as Deutschland is used nowadays by Germans. Likewise, it is similar to the extravagant titles used by the Ottoman sultans for themselves, such as "Kaiseri Rum" and etc, unpopular with the comtemporaries and modern historians, but still considered worthy of mention in the relevant pages. 
PS: Besides Karsakpay inscription, "Turan" is mentioned as a preferred name by Timur and Timurids for their state in Sharif al-Din Ali Yazdi's "Zafarnama" and the reasons beyond it throughly analyzed in the following books:
*Ando, S. (1995): Die timuridische Historiographie II – Saraf al-Din Ali Yazdi. Studia Iranica 24, pp. 219–246.
*Anwari-Alhosseyni, S. (1986): Logaz und Moamma. Eine Quellenstudie zur Kunstform des Persischen Rätsels. Berlin.
*Bartold, V. V. (1973): Novyi istochnik po istorii Timuridov (New source on the history of Timurids). In: Bartold, V. V.: Sochineniia. Moscow, Vol. 8, pp. 546–574.
*Melville, C. (2012b) : The Mongol and Timurid Periods. In: Melville, C. (ed.):  Persian Historiography. London, pp. 155–208 (A History of Persian Literature X).
*Storey, C. A.– Bregel, Y. E. (1972): Persidskaia Literatura. Bio-bibliograficheskii obzor. Moscow.
*Woods, J. E. (1987): The Rise of Timurid Historiography. JNES 46, pp. 81–108.
Please, hit me up when you post a reply to my message. Thank you! --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 04:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I only have access to the Melville and Woods source, where there is not a single mention of Turan there (well, there is, but not regarding that), unless I've misunderstood something. Do you have a reliable source that states Turan was the name of the Timurid realm? Regarding Yazdi's work, I would be vary of WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. With all due respect, I think you're misunderstanding the difference between claiming rule over a region and it being actually the name of a realm. For example, Mawarannahr (Transoxiana) would certainly not be the name of the whole state  (which is stated by the Soviet historian Chekhovich I assume? Seems dodgy). That also begs the question, is  even reliable? What is it exactly supposed to be? I can't read Russian and I'd rather avoid delving into it through translation and whatnot. The Ilkhanate ruler Öljeitü is also referred to as the ruler of Turan, yet that wasn't the name of his realm (per The Timurid century, page 56). --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Timur assumed the title Sultan of Turan, but I doubt that's a thing for a state. More like Suleiman calling himself Caesar of Rome. Doesn't make Ottomans, Rome. Don't know what the original source says, but instead saying "the state was also called as Iran-u-Turan", we could say "the realm was referred to as" instead. Beshogur (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's what I tried to do in the end. I removed Turan from the lead and instead created a new section further down the page, which I thought would be an ideal place to provide info not only on the Turan name, but also all other names some way or another attributed to the state of Timur. I guess I correctly used wording there as well (such as: "according to Yazdi or in the Timurid literature and etc"), though I agree with Beshogur on his suggestion of exploiting more liberal "the realm was referred to" phrase. At the end of the day, I'm trying to bring you guys into this: it is a fact that these names were allegedly used in some capacity by starting with Timur and ending with Timurid poets and men of letters, which alone should make them worth mentioning in this article. --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 03:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also interesting:  Also noticeable that Nawai also uses Čagatay ḫalqï (i.e. the 'Chagatay community') in order to . See János Eckmann (1966). "Chagatay Manual", pages 3-4. It doesn't directly state that it was an altername name to the realm, but the people I suppose. The author doesn't provide translation here for Čaġatāy el(i), but it literally means Chagatay nation/country. Therefore I don't think we can add this, just wanted to give some info. Will search into more. Beshogur (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not? I consider it a very interesting piece of information. Would've loved to encounter it somewhere in the article. Give it a thorough thought! ;-) --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 12:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't explicitly state such a thing. Beshogur (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Stuff like this is indeed worth mentioning, not to mention it's quite interesting as well. But that's not my main gripe here. I'm really questioning the WP:OR and WP:RS here. Please tell me what you think of my comment, and if you want, I'll gladly send you some high quality sources about the Timurids which I recently found (not sure if this sounds patronizing - well, it's not meant to). --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , that would be greatly appreciated, really. Sources I use for the Timurids page seem to be getting older, which in my opinion, impacts their quality and perhaps, their reliability. Moreover, most of them are in Russian. So, yeah, that would be indeed, helpful. Thank you in advance! --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 04:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   It's not really much about their age, but their overall quality and reliability (doesn't seem WP:RS), and thus I suggest that they get removed until we find better stuff. Please reply to my mail so I can send the files. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , Yeah, I share your opinion on that. Some of the mentioned sources may not well be WP:RS unfortunately, however, a few of the Russian sources seem to be the only available sources out there. This is chiefly due to the fact that most of the area was first under Imperial Russian, and then under the Soviet control, hence, substantial parts of the area's history was studied "behind the iron curtain" solely by Russian/Soviet historians. Nonetheless, I think we should not get bent out of shape by this fact. It brings us to the place where we have to give them the benefit of the doubt (some specific works of Soviet historians deserve respect). So my suggestion is not to remove them until we find better stuff (your suggestion), but remove them perhaps after we find better sources. What do you think? --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 05:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Could we at least get the WP:VERIFY issue out of the way for starters? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , in my opinion, the sources that were employed to source "Names of the State" section of the article are in line with the rules specified in WP:VERIFY. These are:
 1. Yazdi, Sharaf al-Din (2008). Zafarnama. Tashkent: San'at. p. 254.
 2. Grigor'ev, A.P (2004). "Timur's Inscription, 1391". Historiography and source study of the history of the countries of Asia and Africa. Saint-Petersburg State University. p. 24.
 3. Chekhovich, O (1960). "Defence of Samarqand in 1454". Social Sciences of Uzbekistan. 4: 37–38.
 4. Husain Syed, Muzaffar (2011). Concise History of Islam. New Delhi: Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. p. 197.
 5. Ghosh, Amitav (2002). Imam and the Indian. Orient Blackswan. pp. 103–380.
IMO, the above-mentioned, cited sources legibly support the material as presented in the article. Some of them may not be easily available in the internet, but WP:VERIFY states that editor should not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult to access.  It also states that Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
*University-level textbooks
*Books published by respected publishing houses
*Magazines (regarding "San'at" magazine of Uzbekistan)
*Mainstream newspapers
Moreover, as per WP:VERIFY, citations to non-English sources are also allowed on the English Wikipedia. Subsequently, I think this should do it, but of course, we may all have different opinions about respective sources.
BTW, I have replied to your email and am waiting for the promised sources. Thank you in advance. --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 13:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

text: That begs the question, what is 'reliable' exactly? These sources makes claims that are not even remotely mentioned in any prominent source, even those that deal with that subject. Dunno about the sources but Muzaffar Husain Syed and Amitav Ghosh aren't even historians, thus they should imo certainly be removed per WP:RS. What about the rest? Are they historians? Could you send me the sources (except the Ghosh and Syed one)? And it seems my mail got rejected because it was too large. Two mails to the Ocean mail inc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

text: , well, the cited Uzbek magazine can be accessed through this link, while the Grigoryev's (who BTW was a Soviet/Russian orientalist, turkologist, specialist in the history and source study of the Golden Horde (1930-2010)) article about Timur's inscriptions can be downloaded here, unfortunately, the work of Olga Chekhovich (Soviet orientalist, historian, specialist in the study of sources on Central Asia (1912-1982)) is only on paper (presented to me years ago by a fellow student, don't ask to scan it, pls). Regarding your sources you wanted to send me, is there any other way I can get'em? I'd really like to go through them. Kheili khoshkhaal misham!  --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 05:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Uzbek magazine doesn't seem one bit WP:RS. Sorry, but it looks more like a school project. I looked at the authors profile, it says that she is a faculty member of the Tashkent Architectural Building Institute. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, the author is Ms. Zukhra Rakhimova, Candidate of Art History, Professor of the Department of Museology of the National Institute of Arts and Design of Uzbekistan, according to the UNESCO website. --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 12:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh okay, I assumed the uploader Elena Barsukova was the author. Still, it seems more like this is more a specialist in art-related stuff than history. I'll later ask at WP:RSN. Btw, that was not all the sources, I will send more today. Hotmail is wack, so I can't really include that many files, and it takes ages to load. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, really. I've already started paging through Timurids in Transition. --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 13:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   perhaps they really meant (ruler of) Iran and Turan, because the same name appears in  Kitab-i Diyarbakriyya regarding Shahrukh Mirza. Calling him "padishah of Iran and Turan". Considering Timur assumed this title as well, more likely as a geographic region rather than a state name. Beshogur (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the name "Turan" 

message: May I propose that we make the list of rulers a single column? It will help in seeing the sequence of rulers.
We can add years, or approximate years, of rule after that.
— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 05:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Emperors: Remove columns? 

message: Hi . With all due respect, I think you're misunderstanding the word 'demonym';
"the name used for the people who live in a particular country, state, or other locality:"
Which would mean that your current addition indicates that all denizens of the Timurid Empire, non-Turk alike (and Turks who were non-Chagatay as well), were called "Chagatay". Moreover, Nava'i is clearly talking about the Timurid family here, not all the people ruled by them. And even if he didn't, just because he used x to refer to all the denizens, doesn't mean that was actual the official designation of the people of the country. Looking forward to your response. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In modern terminology, I guess almost, a country citizen is considered of x nation, despite the ethnicity. I don't think there's a way to make distinguish non-Turkic and Turkic citizens of the Timurid Empire. But that's not the discussion here I suppose.  If you have the pdf of Chagatay manual, author clearly says:  Thus giving example of another author.  I guess it applies to my addition?  as my edit summary, the author shows that the term Chagatay was even used in Chagatay version of Zafarname (Yazdi) in order to designate the Timurids. If my addition isn't WP:OR, which I think isn't, because the author clearly states who is designed as whom, and not a primary source, why is this such a problem? Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with @HistoryofIran that the phrasing of the quote is ambiguous. I would instinctively interpret that as referring to the core of the Timurid state, which, logically, was made up of Chagatai-speaking tribesmen of the former Chagatai Khanate.  I do not think the author clearly extends this to all denizens of the diverse Timurid Empire. There are other problems here. Who says Nava'i is correct? (Also, who is Nava'i?) In the quotation, the author merely states that "Nava'i uses X", he doesn't say he agrees with it or believes it to be correct, or that this constitutes a clear demonym. I think it is an overreach based on the sourcing to firmly categorise the populace of an empire on the basis of this slightly shakey, ambiguous source. Additionally @Beshogur, your argument about modern terminology and modern countries is anachronistic. We do not seek to apply modern nation state terminology to ancient empires. People residing in the Timurid Empire were not citizens or residents. If we termed them, it would be as denizens or subjects. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I did not say demonym was only used for modern countries, I said the concepts of citizenship and residency are. You are taking a term, Chagatay, applied to the Timurids in a fairly vague way, and assuming that this extends to all Timurid subjects in a sort of citizen-like manner. Not all Mongol subjects were called Mongols. They were called Mongol subjects, with the term Mongol reserved for the ruling elite drawn from the nomadic tribespeople, even if this term later broadened from the original Mongol tribes to include other tribes with originally different names. "Chagatay authors", to me, means authors that write in the Chagatai language, nothing else, but I'd be happy to look at the source. Lastly, you do not have a single source that actually says "Chagatay is a demonym"; you are deducing that information from an array of disparate and not particularly clear sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the two main examples in your edit summary are hardly clear. The Zafarnama example of the Timurid army being referred to in terms of Cagatay cerigi (soldiers) can obviously be explained by the fact that the majority of the soldiers were in indeed Chagatai-speaking tribesmen, just as the Mongol army was made up of Mongolic tribesmen. The use of the phrase Cagatay eli (land) works in just the same way. Territorial claims are also referred to generically, e.g. Mongol territory - this has nothing to do with everyone on the land being known as Mongols. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, Chagatay has nothing to do with Mongols, but rather Turki speakers.  If we would take everything that had to be literary written in the source, we have to remove a lot of stuff. In my case, the author clearly speaks about the designation of Timurid people at that time, so there is no WPOR in my case. If the Cagatay cerigi is ok, this should be ok as well. Also the author gives an example that the "Chagatay ethnicon" also appears in Ottoman sources at that time. If Timurids were a Turkic dominated state, why does that word bother so much? Beshogur (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you could provide some direct links in talk to the examples that you are providing, so that they can be properly discussed. An ethnicon is not a demonym, and is linked far more closely with race and ethnicity. I wouldn't disagree that Chagatai is an ethnicon. I also don't disagree that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that does indeed need removing because it is synthesized from material rather than actually written anywhere. I find your use of the phrase "Timurid people" interesting - to most people, the Timurids are a dynasty, but you are appear to be coming at this from the perspective that whatever terminology is applied to the ruling family or class can be drawn down over the entire populace. This is I believe the essence of what we are contesting. I see Timurid royalty, a Chagatai military elite and subjects. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: The Timurid empire was also very specifically a bilingual and multiethnic entity, with the Persian language actually slightly favoured at the level of the court, so part of the reason for not using the sweeping 'ethnicon' if you like of Chagatai is that it is a very poor descriptor for the substantial population of Persian subjects, as well as the numerous other tribes and ethnicities, of the Timurid Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Beshogur, you have two users who are more or less saying the same regarding your addition, please at least consider. Nava'i is not referring to the inhabitants of the Timurids, nor to all the Turks who lived under the Timurids, but the Timurid family (and perhaps the rest of the Chagatay elite as well). This is WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: You might be correct that the Russian Empire page should not have a demonym in the infobox - the article uses the phrase 'subjects' not citizens, it was a feudal system with semi-enslaved 'serfs' and much of the populace would be better described by their constituent ethnolinguistic groupings, e.g.: Polish, Finnish, etc. ... would a Khazakh-language peasant farmer at the time be considered Russian at the time? Quite possibly not. I checked multiple empire pages and demonym is left out of the infoboxes for most - certainly for the Mongol Empire, Persian Empire and Roman Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   are we reading the same thing? Where exactly? Also I don't see what's exactly WP:Or. Beshogur (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not, it seems you are reading something entirely else than me and Iskandar. This is dragging on for too long, I will open a WP:THIRD. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's fine for me. Beshogur (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: TLDR; Some high-class bloke from the 15th-century had his personal own way of adressing the Timurid royal family to distinguish them from other Turkic groups, thus he called them Čaġatāy ḫalqï (Chagatay). However, Beshogur added it as a demonym into the infobox, which would mean that all the denizens of the empire were officially known as 'Chagatay', while in reality it was just a way of one person to adress a certain group per the quote in the source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry but you're wrong again. The word halq is actually "people", not any indication that it was said to the Timurid family. Can you show me the quote of Janos Eckmann please? Also not single person, but Janos Eckmann giving more examples about the ethnonym "Chagatay". The book can be easily found online, I would request to 3rd persons to read pages 3-4. Beshogur (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly read WP:CIR, I'm not going to attempt to explain it further to you. And what do you mean by showing his quote? You literally added it on the infobox. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean , this doesn't answer my question, because see previous quote , which  doesn't match yours  quote. Beshogur (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I understood 0 of that. And as I already said I'm not going to attempt to explain it further to you, i.e. I'm not interested in discussing further either. Let's not make this thread any longer so others can read it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

text: @Beshogur: With all due respect, taking a word that broadly means 'people' used by an author in the 15th century without clarification and assuming that you clearly know what that author was defining is a bit of a stretch of the imagination. 'People' is an incredibly broad concept. People could  be an immediate tribe, a race, a society or more or less any level of social grouping. In modern terminology, saying 'my people', can mean people who simply share the same interests as you. Fluid terms used like this, as I said, without clarification, are hardly definitive. And, a word being an ethnonym does not make it, without contextualisation, a demonym. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This:  simply tells us about certain literary innovations spreading among Turkic and Chagatai language speakers at a certain time. It does not even mention the Timurids in this specific given context. It does seem a little like you are drawing together disparate sources that do not make your point in their own right and deciding to join up the dots. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my opinion: I think the demonym should not appear in the infobox, because two editors (Iskandar323 and HistoryofIran) oppose having it there, and only one (Beshogur) supports having it there; and also for other reasons. This didn't need to be posted to WP:3O. Because two editors agreed and only one opposed, the version the two editors supported should have stayed and there should have been no more reverting. I apologize for taking up your time by lengthening the discussion, but note that when you post to WP:3O you should at least state on the talk page what edit you're discussing, and preferably summarize the discussion. In general, if an edit is reverted back to the original version, don't put it back in; discuss it on the talk page and only put it in if there's consensus on the talk page. In this case: if more sources are found or more arguments are made, or a compromise edit is proposed, still don't put it back in until consensus or at least a majority of editors supporting it is achieved on the talk page. Please keep article page histories short by not repeatedly reverting. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  Where is the previous sentence? I'm not connecting, Janos Eckmann does. I'm not interpreting something, but the author does. If you want to remove, go on. I'm not going to argue anymore. Beshogur (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Beshogur: I'm sorry, I didn't read the pages of the book you mentioned. Also, as far as I'm aware you've only listed one source. Sorry if I have that wrong. If you want to try to convince me (or possibly others), I suggest listing your sources e.g. "source 1: year, author, title etc. and quote; source 2: ... etc." because the way you discussed it above it looks as if you're just mentioning one source but I'm not sure. What Navai wrote was a primary source. You have a secondary source that says something about Navai. For the demonym you would need at least one, or maybe you would need several, sources. The sources should be secondary sources and should either use the word, or say that it's the right word to use. The quote you gave didn't do either of those things. It only said that Navai used it. It didn't say whether Navai was using the proper word. Also: one of the editors above said there was a mixture of ethnic groups. So, it would take more discussion and more sources etc. to resolve that. So you can consider me to be a 3rd editor agreeing with removing the demonym based on the discussion up to this point. Maybe a compromise might be putting something in the text of the article if it isn't already there; discuss it on the talk page and get consensus first. Maybe something like "The word Chagatay has sometimes been used ..." I don't know whether that would be appropriate or not or where in the article it would go. You can discuss this with each other if you want. Thanks for editing Wikipedia, everybody! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonym 

message: Under status should we not include more than just Emir, considering the titles Timur himself held at his death as well as that of all his successors.
Could we also please have a more comprehensive list of rulers under Government, if not an exhaustive list at least  for key ones like Shah Rukh and Ulug Beg. In the Government section I'm also not sure why Emir is hyperlinked to send to the Timurid dynasty wiki page
Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'emir' 

message: Isn't "Gurkani" the dynastic name of Timurids? is there any reference on Gurkani being used as the official state name? BerkBerk68 19:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should use the state name instead of dynastic name of Timurids. BerkBerk68 12:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should use the supposed state name under Timur for a realm that lasted 100 years after his death..? Fyi; The long period of Turkish rule in Iran could itself be divided into a number of distinct periods in terms of Iranian identity: the Ghaznavid transitional period with the continuity of Samanid tradition (see above); the Saljuq period, marking a complex situation for Iranian identity; the Mongol and Timurid phase, during which the name “Iran” was used for the dynastic realm and a pre-modern ethno-national history of Iranian dynasties was arranged --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gurkani 

message: Hello, i saw that my map is deleted. My references are:
- The Empire of the Steppes - René Grousset
- Tarikh-i-Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat
- An Historical Atlas of Central Asia - Yuri Bregel
- History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Volume IV - Theage of achievement:A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century 
- Manz, Beatrice Forbes, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-521-34595-2.
- The Cambridge History of Iran - Volume 6 - The Timurid and Safavid Periods - Edited by Peter Jackson
- Emir Timur Tarih, Siyaset, Miras- Prof. Dr. A. Ahat Andican
- TÜRK ANSİKLOPEDİSİ – cilt VIII - Timur ve Seferleri / Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gürsoy Solmaz
- The Cambridge History Of India Volume III by  Wolseley Haig
- Mamluk Cairo, a Crossroads for Embassies - Studies on Diplomacy and Diplomatics - Edited by Frédéric -Bauden & Malika Dekkiche
- Practising Diplomacy in the Mamluk Sultanate - Gifts and Material Culture in the - Medieval Islamic World - Doris Behrens-Abouseif
- Sharafnama by Sharafkhan Bidlisi – vol 1/ Şerefname - Cilt 1 - Kürt Tarihi
- نقش هرموز در تجارت عصر تيموري (The role of Hormuz in Timurid trade) - rasekhoon.net
- بازخوانی تاریخ/ملوک هرمز و یورش تیمور (Re-reading the history / king of Hormuz and the invasion of Timur) - tabnakhormozgan.ir
- تعیین حدود مغستان، خاستگاه ملوک هرموز (Determining the boundaries of Maghistan, the origin of the kings of Hormuz) - jhr.ui.ac.ir
-تعیین حدود مغستان، خاستگاه ملوک هرموز   (Determining the boundaries of Maghista, the origin of the kings of Hormuz) - journals.ui.ac.ir
- La campagne de Timur en Anatolie (1402) by Marie-Mathilde Alexandrescu-Dersca
- AKKOYUNLULAR VE ERZİNCAN (Uzun Hasan Devrine Kadar) Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ahmet TOKSOY 
Vif12vf
Afshar-beg (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Afshar-beg, please see WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:CITEHOW. The references could be lined up a lot better, and not one of those references of books have a page cited, some of them seem non-reliable (eg tabnakhormozgan), some are primary sources (Sharafnama), and so on. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: Hello, I have read on "The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane" by Beatrice Forbes Manz that administration was Persian - Chagathai (Turkic) collaborative work, but do we have any reference on that either of these languages had official status?
editors that might be interested: @HistoryofIran, @Visioncurve @Beshogur BerkBerk68 23:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, seems like HistoryofIran already gave his response. BerkBerk68 23:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So far I have only seen Chagatai appearing as a language in literature and obviously, the mother-tongue of the Timurids. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah alright, but why don't we use native language on the native name section of the template? BerkBerk68 23:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no rules for such thing. If we are to take things literally, the name of the infobox is 'Former Country', not 'Former dynasty'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: There has been a flag newly added before a couple of months which is relied on the Timurid coins as it's source. I didn't delete this change in order not to start a start an author's conflict. Nevertheless, it can not be argued being accurate to be considered as the state flag but something to support the three circle symbol in the flag of the Timurid Empire since it has already known as a red flag with those three circle from the Catalan atlas and other contemporary and modern sources. I can give the "Catalan Atlas" as a contemporary source and a long and satisfying discussion about Timurid flag in "History, Polotics and Legacy, Amir Timur" by A. Ahad Andican. Further sources could be given easily. I want to appeal the change i mentioned above and bringing back the old Red and Black flag with three circle. Afshar-beg (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no Timurid flag in the Catalan Atlas (1375), simply because the Timurid Empire does not appear in that map, probably because its creation was too recent (1370). Please check the Catalan Atlas article if in doubt. The only known symbol of the Timurids is the "Three annulets" symbol, per sources given in the article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not too recent because it had been at least 5 years. If you look carefully, you can see it is easily distinguishable from the other Eastern Chagatai flags with white colors in the Atlas. Also, the Transoxianian state, which Timur took over in 1370, was separated from the Eastern Chagatai Khanate in 1362. Therefore, it was not too recent and can be expected to use another flag to differentiate themselves from the Eastern Khanate, which we can also see in the Catalan Atlas. I believe that the three annulets issue was put forward just to be seen as an innovator, contributor, or trailblazer, and this mistake must be rectified immediately. Afshar-beg (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such flag in the Catalan Atlas (and no mention of Timur or the Timurid Empire either). See for yourself , and look at the sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one flag similar to the commonly known timurid flag in the second page from righ. Afshar-beg (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you mean this flag , but this is the flag for China (Yuan dynasty), not the flag of the Timurids, which don't appear in the map. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right. The flag in the Catalan Atlas was mistakenly considered the Timurid Empire's flag. However, I found a new and reliable source confirming that the Timurid Empire had a red flag. If it will change something, if there's a chance to bring the old Timurid flag back in this article, I am going to share the source wherever I should. Afshar-beg (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please share your source here... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We already know from many sources that the Timurid flag has the three annulets symbol on it, as Yuka Kadoi also stated. However, we have further information about the accuracy of widely accepted former flag that Zeki Velidi Togan, who has an indisputable reputation in the science of history and known with his works in Russia, Turkey and worldwide, confirms in his book "Turkestan, nowadays Türk-ili (original name: Türkistan, Bugünkü Türk-ili)". I have the book's second edition (1981) physically as paperback. The first edition, if I am not mistaken, was in 1945-1947. This book was also used by many notable historians such as Martin B. Dickinson and many which became sources of many Wikipedia and Encyclopedia of Islam articles. Afshar-beg (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New so called flag in this article 

message: Hello @Nashville whiz, you recently reverted my edit in the infobox native name, so I opened this discussion to discussing about that. In my edit, I did change the name in Perso-Arabic script in infobox native name parameter. Is there any other place needing the change I missed? PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @PadFoot2008, I owe you an apology since it seems that I somehow missed that part. I'm restoring your edit. Take care, Nashville whiz (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's alright. Mistakes happen. Thanks! PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native name in Perso-Arabic Script 

message: I recently added a detailed map showing the greatest extent of the Timurid State  and also stated that I can provide sources about any issue concering the map. However, my edit was reversed by पाटलिपुत्र without specifying any reason. I would like to either reapply my edit or be given a valid explanation. Afshar-beg (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User:Afshar-beg. Your map seems quite inflated compared to standard published maps (such as this one). You would have to make a case that your version is the standard one... Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more accurate map of the Timurid State