Talk:Timurid dynasty

message: The Timurid map showing the supposed "greatest extent" takes no account of Timur's conquest of Anatolia. He defeated Bayezid the Thunderbolt at Ankara in 1402 and later went on to take Smyrna. These conquests are not highlighted. Western Anatolia should be included. Also, where there any conquests made in China? The following source:  says that Timur died laying siege in China from drinking too much iced water. Gabr-el 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is too small. In addition, the map should also include Goldern Horde's territory, Levant, Egypt, and Ottoman's dominion in Balkan. Alagos (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I know he fought campaigns in those areas, but were they actually part of his empire? MAJackson1 (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timurid map too small an area 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Flag of the Golden horde.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: There has to be a better way to describe the dynasty in the introduction without jumping directly to "Persianate". Is this the way a professional encyclopedia starts an article? This is ethnocentric point of view pushing. This is the most ridiculous introduction I have ever came across, just try to read it and you'll probably agree and laugh too.  One must read this like 50 times or so to be able to understand it.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopedic introduction

message: I've noticed that :File:Timurid.svg is used in several articles, to represent "Timurids", in one sense or another. However, that flag image is based on the Catalan Atlas; an outstanding piece of history in its own right but it's not a reliable source for faraway places, whose western-style flags are likely to be invented or at least fanciful. So, I propose that the flag should be removed from places where it's currently used as a flagicon just like some kind of modern national flag. Comments/complaints? bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no solution? I've removed it. bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Honestly, the Timurds were turko-mongolic in origin which came in and created a new culture by merging Chagatai and Persian traditions. Why is the article called the Timurid Dynasty instead of say the Timurid Empire? Naming the article as dynasty implies it was just one in a natural progression of rulers that ruled a set state. This isn't the case. The Timurids were outside invaders that then created a new state. The Safavids were the ones to really re-establish Persian identity in the area. And that's another thing, the Timurids didn't just disappear and get replaced by the Safavids, the surviving Tumrids eventually turned into the Timurid Emirate and then the Mughal Empire which is completely separate from Persia/Iran. I know Iranian nationalism likes to claim everything in one natural progression, even calling Elam as part of Indo-Aryan culture, but I mean we don't call the Mughal page the Mughal Dynasty (of India). We call it the Mughal Empire.207.237.208.153 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split it into Timurid Empire for the empire. This article is now about the actual dynasty. The sub-section for the list of rulers of the Mughal Empire in this article is copied from the respective section from the Mughal Empire. --Cartakes (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I agree with the split.71.190.228.146 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Timurid Dynasty and not Timurid Empire 

message: Reference/ note 25 and 27 are the same - just different formatting. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate reference/ note 

message: It seems to me that someone has removed mentions of the "Gurkani" title (with citations) from the intro to the article. The Timurids did not call themselves "Timurids", they referred to themselves as the "Gurkaniya" or Gurkani Empire. Similarly, the Mughals did not refer to themselves as Moghuls or Mongols, they too called themselves the "Gurkaniya". An easy to understand analogy would be the Byzantines referring to themselves as the Roman Empire, and not actually "Byzantine". These were all terms labelled by outsiders, and which eventually stuck (in history books). If any editor has some idea why the term/title was removed, then please share with us.  DA1 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought it back, you are actually very correct, this is something new I learned while researching "Mughal Empire", they don't call themselves Mughals, they probabaly hate that word. Both the Mughals and Timurids called themselves Gurkanis which means son-in-law. I'm doing some research finding about how is Timur a son-in-law to the Mongols. In the mean time you should edit the infoox, because I'm not good at it and emulate the Mughal Empire's infobox RussianDewey (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the term because I researched a good bit and couldn't find any sources confirming that the Timurids (as opposed to the Mughals, who are a bit too remote to consider Timurids) actually self-designated as Gurkaniya. If you can find some, so much the better!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gurkani 

message: :File:Timurid.svg states: !This flag, as well as other fictitious flags, is fictitious or proposed but not adopted. This flag is named as it would be an official flag of a national or subnational entity, and probably has some visual elements that are similar to official logos or coats of arms of certain entity, such as colors or some symbol, but they are NOT official and don't have any official recognition." and "WARNING: This image is highly speculative. The main source pointing to this design is the Catalan Atlas, which as a historical primary source cannot be considered a reliable reference, especially if it is the only source used. This image should not be added to articles without clearly indicating its speculative nature. Note that FOTW (where most of those images on Commons are taken from) is based on user contributions like Wikipedia, and hence not authoritative either." Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timurid flag 

message: Babur became ruler of Ferghana on June 1494, at the age of 11 and some months, this is the date where his father died Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Timurid dynasty. 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) 10:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi . Can you please explain your revert? Also, if you have a source that support the Mughals being considered a continuation of the Timurids, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I see no reason to keep something like this (WP:OR). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: from Mughal Empire: The Mughal designation for their own dynasty was Gurkani (, Gūrkāniyān, meaning "sons-in-law"). I doubt they saw as a different dynasty. Beshogur (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant in modern scholarship. Timur saw himself as a Chingizid, yet that doesn't mean we should we should see the Timurids as an extension of the Chingizids, no? The Mughals no doubt were aware of their origins, I'm not denying that, but calling the dynasty a continuation of the Timurids? Do scholars consider that as such? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Timur never saw himself Chingisid. He saw himself restorer of the Chingisid traditions. Quickly found something like this . Also a question, (I don't know exactly), what did the Mughals call their own dynasty? Beshogur (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

text: You ought to now by know not to complain if any very drastic undiscussed edit to an important article is reverted for achieving consensus. You have not produced any evidence whatsoever for your edit, nor showed awareness that you should. You might consider this painting, done for Humayan.  It is surely well-known that the Mughals were direct descendants of Timur, and not very remote. The article describes them somewhere as a cadet branch of the Timurids, which seems about right. I doubt you are very familiar with our numerous articles on European dynasties - the treatment here seems very compatible with those. Normally cadet branches are included in their own sections. What do you think is OR? Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You ought to know by now what a source is, Johnbod. Some random painting has zero importance. 'What do you think is OR?'? I don't think you're showing awareness enough, please my read comment(s) again. Anyhow, this is not worth the hassle, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some random painting has zero importance" - right! This is an imaginary group portrait commissioned by the 2nd Mughal emperor, showing him at the centre of a group of his Timurid ancestors and relatives. Later Mughal emperors added their own portraits.  This shows very clearly how the Mughals saw themselves. No historians have been produced showing anything else. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mughals