Talk:Anushtegin dynasty

message: Khwarezm is a Turkmen Empire. Northern Turkmens had war with Southern Turkmens (Seljuks) and Northern Turkmens built this state. It is not Persian or Iranian.
Turkmen is a Modern word and it cannot belong to 1000 years ago.Maybe you know these Persians were turk but they called their Kingdoms as Persian Empire to the world so we can not change it if they called themselves persian ?!
>   >1:Nader Shah King of Afshar.2:Seljuks of Persia 3:KhwarazmShah 4:Mozaffar 5:Safavied Empire 6:Ghaznavied 7:Qajars
please remember that Persia is a word who belongs to over 20 today countries that they did not existed 1000 years ago.If you think Persian means who speaks Persian or who is Iranian you are wrong ,these are today uses because of politics .--94.74.151.227 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkmen 

message: The origin of the dynasty is unknown. Anush-Tegin is not a Turkic name, but of Persian origin. It means prince Anush - Anush is a Persian name while Tegin is a Turkish title. 
  According to a legend, the name Anush was for one of the first people in the Earth, who was a son of Shith and grandson 
  of Adam (look: Abu Hanifa ad-Dinawari, p. 3). Khusraw I Anushirwan had been named anushak-ruban, what means in Pahlawi 
  “of Immortal Spirit”. His son with his Chriatian wife had been named Anusha-zadh, i.e. the descendent of Anusha. 
  Look: Browne E.G. A Literary History of Persia, pр. 107, 135, 181, 168. The same name had the ancestor of Khwarizmshahs 
  dynasty Anush-tegin Garcha’i (ruled in 1077 - 1097). Look: Buniyatov Z.M. Gosudarstvo khorezmshahov-Anushteginidov, p. 223.
Is this opposition to the Turkic origin of the Khwarezmian rulers based upon nothing more than the fact that the dynasty's founder had a Persian name? /The Phoenix 09:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is indeed important. We are talking about 1000 years ago in Central-Asia. The name "Anoush" is a Zoroastrian name. It is implausible that islamized Turkish nomads had zoroastrian names. The ending "tegin" is a title, like "Khan" or "Beg". Besides that, the dynasty was Persian-speaking. The Khwarizm-Shahs are known for their interest in Persian language and culture. Some the greatest poets of Persian literature lived during Khwarizmid rule, like Rumi (who was a descendant of the Khwarizm-Shahs), Hafiz or Sa'adi. Anything else except a Persian heritage would not make sense. The Seljuqs were not Persian-speaking, but this dynasty was. I think we should at least state that their heritage is not known. Other Encyclopaedias do not mention their heritage (like the Encylopaedia Britannica).
----
When i was a little girl i read a book which took place in Khorezm Empire. It's like a fairy tale and cought me with it's magic. Since then i wanted to go to Urganj to see the Tilali Garden (i found out that it's still lies under the ground in Turkmenistan and old palace of Jelal Ed Din is not excavated yet).
I was looking for something about the woman called Turkan Hatun. I wanted to now more about the characters in the book and i learned a lot about Jelal Ed Din, Muhamed II... But data i found about her were very confusing.
According to that book, she was very cruel, ruled the great Khorezm Empire and she was a mother of shah Muhamed II, grand mother of a brave prince Jelal Ed Din but not very fond of him. She promoted the people of Kipchak but majority in Khorezm were Turkmenian. There was also mentioned very brave turkmen hero Kara Konchar and his maid... And that lasted untill Mongols conquered Khorezm 1221.
But now i found the information that she lived centuries ago and she was a wife of Sultan Melikshah who died in 1092.
As my country was under the Osman Empire for 500 years and their language had a great influence, i am aware that Turkan Hatun was not her real name, it's more like Turkish Lady and probably was used to describe more than one woman who had ipmact to the history of muslim people.
I would really apreciate if you know something about the Turkan Hatun who lived in Khorezm or where to find something about her.
Thanks a lot. Boka
*Reply to Boka: This undated question may be old. But anyway I'd like to contribute:What Boka learned from books about Turkan Hatun seems to be correct. She was of Kypchak origin and  she used every opportunity to promote Kypchaks. (Although Kypchaks  also spoke a Turkic language, their dialect was not the same as Turkmen dialect. Turkmens spoke south west dialect and Kypckacks spoke north west dialect.) She was trying to force Khwārazm-Shāh armies to Kara Khitay dynasty. As for Malik Shah, the name of her wife was Terken. But this coincidance is not confusing, for Turkan (or Türkan) is always a popular name in Turkic speaking countries. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Others 

message: Executed implies a legal verdict.  This is not in sources which I have read.  The word commonly used for this incident is maasacred.
*
* patsw (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment of the envoys from Ghengis Kahn 

message: This proves to me you're a pan-Turkist liar. If the term "Persianate" was used to describe the Great Seljuq Empire then why did you remove that term from the Seljuq article? 
Learn what a Persianate society means. Persianate society means a nation that is predominantly Persian-speaking and practices the Persian culture as its number one culture. For that reason, all these aforementioned nations, regardless of the ruling elite's ethnic backgrounds, were Persianate societies. If you want to add Persian-speaking instead of Persianate go ahead, but it means the same thing. 
You have an agenda and it's as clear as daylight.94.128.139.98 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a Pan-Turkist, but you might be a pan-Iranist liar. You're accusing me of that unfairly. Anyway, I don't want to answer against such unfair accusations of yours because it's not the case. BozokluAdam (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not a pan-Turkist then answer my question. You said that the Great Seljuq Empire was Persianate due to the sources. Then answer me... If you are admitting that the Seljuq Empire was Persianate then why did you remove that piece of information from the Seljuq article? It's obvious you're distorting history. Why the hell should I side with either positions. I'm an Arab so I don't care about your biases. I want to read the truth on wikipedia and not zift information. Unfortunately there's too many zift information around here thanks to nationalists.94.128.139.98 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ====

message: According to Central Asia:Pre-Historic to Pre-Modern Times, Vol.2, p 358; It states, Turkic language with no mention of Oghuz Turkic, instead Komanian is mentioned. If Gafurov means Cumanian, then it is not Oghuz Turkic, but Kipchak Turkic. Gafurov also states, that Khwarezmian and Tajik were also being spoken as late as the 1240s.
Edits such as this, reek of cherry picking and are typical of priority driven editors. Instead, all the information, not just what a certain editor prefers, should be presented. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: I remain unconvinced of the Khwarazmian dynasty as a Persianate. If anyone can bring some sources and information indicating the Khwarzamians patronized Persian culture, that would be beneficial. I, also, will be seeking out sources and information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After one week, no responses, no sources and no information, I will be removing Persianate from the lede. IF anyone can provide reliable source(s) for Persianate, please post them here. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persianate revisited 

message: Look what i found, i found it on Military history of Iran, this says that the dynasty had Tajik origins too, i can't click on the site because there is something wrong with my computer, perhaps you guys can check and see if it's good enough? here it is: M.A. Amir-Moezzi, "Shahrbanu", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK) --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tajik origin. 

message: Hi all, I registered this account to correct the abysmal pronunciation guide at the top of this page, only to find the semi-protection still locks me out!  So forgive me if this isn't the way to do this, but could someone correct that terrible IPA and replace it with this?:
If you want to use opaque Merriam-Webster pronunciation guides fine, but don't call it IPA.
First time contributing to a Talk page, so let me know if I made any major faux pas.  Thanks!
TheIPAguy (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone do something about that pronunciation? 

message: I have removed another questionable flag by another unreliable source. I see nothing stating that Mello Luchtenberg  is an authority on flags. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another unreliable source 

message: The Urgench shown on the map is a modern city that did not exist in the time of the Khwarezmshahs. It should show the location of Konye-Urgench, which is not in Uzbekistan, but in Turkmenistan.--Peterk2 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that is an excellent catch, I was about to ask you how on Earth did you now, since the city are near to each other (about 150+ km), then I see that the Old Gurganj is in a different country than the new one. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgench 

message: I read in the article: "The city's citadel, the Tower of David, surrendered on August 23, the Crusader Christian population of the city was expelled. "
I can read a different history: "In 1244, some six thousand Christians (presumably mostly Latins) were reported to have attempted to flee in the wake of the Khwarazmian invasion, but they were set upon by local Muslims and then by the Khwarazmians so that only about three hundred actually survived to arrive in Frankish territory. As for those Christians who had remained behind in Jerusalem, most of them sought refuge in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The invaders apparently had a particular hatred for Christians and destroyed as much as they possibly could... Al-Maqrīzī records that: ‘The Khwārizmians fell upon Jerusalem, and made strenuous use of the sword upon the Christians within the city. They exterminated the men, led away captive the women and children, destroyed the structures in the Church of the Resurrection [Holy Sepulchre], and ransacked the graves of the Christians and burned their bones.’They also destroyed the kings’ tombs and sent the carved marble columns that had stood in front of the Holy Sepulchre to Mecca, the holiest site in Islam. Indigenous Christians did, of course, suffer at the hands of the Khwarazmians as well."(https://www.academia.edu/2643175/The_Indigenous_Christians_of_the_Arabic_Middle_East_in_an_Age_of_Crusaders_Mongols_and_Maml%C5%ABks_1244-1366_)--93.150.139.198 (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian population of Jerusalem 'expelled'? 

message: I think this article should instead be two articles, similar to Timurids and Timurid Empire. In my modest opinion, the "Khwarazmian dynasty" page should be solely about the dynasty, while the other one should be about the "Khwarazmian state" (state apparatus, culture, population and etc).  I would like us to reach consensus on this. Waiting for your decision. --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 08:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might be useful if this was a large and unfocused article, but the current article is quite short and splitting would make it even shorter. CMD (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate that. Regarding your concern, I would like to assure you and all other interested editors that if we reach a positive consensus on this issue, I will personally take care of expanding both pages as I'm planning to direct all my attention and efforts within the Wikipedia solely to this matter. Thank you! --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 05:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the split, but imo the name of the dynasty should be something like "Anushteginids" (the actual name of the family and used in sources by historians such as Gyselen, Bosworth, Stewart etc), and not Khwarazmian dynasty, which is too vague. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also support the split proposal and will try to help out to write two articles.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also support Visioncurve's & HistoryofIran's proposals. Erminwin (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the split proposal. But as far as I know Khwarazmian was not the name of the dynasty, but it was the title of the post (governor of the Khwaraz region) Thus there may be a problem in naming the dynasty. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So should we proceed with splitting and renaming the original page into the "Anushtegin dynasty" simultaneously? --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 07:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

text: honestly I'll support a move to Khwarazmian Empire or Khwarezmian Empire, definitely more common name. As I told in my talk page, don't support the split much. Beshogur (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal 

message: , , , , , . I have just created a new "Khwarazmian Empire" page, that begs extensive copy-editing, addition of more content, reliable sources, and relevant pictures. Moreover, linking the new page to proper links in different articles impatiently awaits its time. Therefore, I invite all of you and any other interested editors, to come together and try to improve the new article and contribute to the parent article as much as possible, as soon as possible. Any feedback will be appreciated. Thank you very much! --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 15:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably wasn't best practice to close the above yourself, but given the start, I have added the attribution templates. This split should probably also be noted at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, they may want to swap the entries. CMD (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry for the urgency of that action, but it seemed the discussion had been more or less over by that time, and I had a new page ready. I will proceed with Wikipedia talk:Vital articles stuff immediately though. Thank you! --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 04:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a lot of bad redirects that needed fixing. I think I got them all. All titles with empire/kingdom/sultanate in the title go to the empire article, all with dynasty/shah/king go here. Most ending in -ian/-ians go to the disambiguation page. There is still a problem, however, in that the title Khwarazmshah is not exclusive to the Anushtegin dynasty. We should probably have a disambiguation page listing all the dynasties that used it. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed splitting