Talk:Khwarazm

message: I object at why Khanate of Khiva gets redirected to Khwarezmia. It was an independent entity and only part of ancient Kwarezm and deserves its own article. For instance Bukhara khanate does Abdulnr 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation needed 

message: "Khwar" (لحم), and "-razm" (حطب)
The former is read lhm not khwr, the latter htb, not rzm.
Can someone clear this ?
:I think it got jumbled up in the editor. The editor sometimes inverts the places of Arabic text. I dont know why.--Zereshk 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic transcription wrong? 

message: Well, actually saying that Khwarezm is and was Persian is wrong. Khwarezm was a part of Achaemenid Empire for some time. But after the fall of Achaemenids it was independent until the Arabs arrived. Ancient population was indeed Iranic, but it does not mean that it was Persian. If we follow the same logic then Shakespeare was German because English is a Germanic language, and Voltaire was Italian because French is a Romance language) So, it is an undeniable fact that Persian and Iranic are not the same thing. All Persians are Iranic. But not all Iranics are Persians. Even the languages of Khwarezm and Achaemenid Persia were different. Old Persian of Achaemenid Empire is a Southwestern Iranian language meanwhile Khwarezmian as well as Soghdian are Eastern Iranian languages, just like Pashto is today. No person with a minimum knowledge of history or current events can say that Tajiks and Pashtuns are the same thing. So why claim that Khwarezmians and Persians were the same. So, after the Achaemenids Khwarezm was independent, under its own local dynasty. Turkic tribes began gradually arriving soon after the Arabs. Some here mentioned that Turkification of Khwarezm began with Mongols. That is also incorrect. Khwarezmshahs who fought against the Mongols were a Turkic dynasty. Khwarazmshah Ala al-Din Muhammad had and Oghuz Turk (possibly Turkmen) father and a Qipchaq Turk mother. His son Jalal al-Din, the last Kwharazmshah, was born to Aychichak, a Turkmen woman. Majority of Khwazamshahs generals were also Turkic, Timur Malik from Turkic tribe of Qangli being the most famous. So, qualifying Khwarazmshahs as a Pesian dynasty is wrong, for they were Turkic rulers, from a non-Persian region who conquered Iran from last Seljuks. They did not move their capital to Persia, and ruled Persia from their capital in Khwarezm. Calling them a Persian dynasty is like calling Byzantine emperors at the peak of their power an Egyptian dynasty, simply because Egypt was a part of their empire. After Mongol conquest Khwarezm became a part of the Golden Horde. Though, Iranic (not Persian) language of Kwarezm could still be heard in XIV century, but by that time majority of population was Turkified. After the Golden Horde it was ruled by Turkic Timurids, after them by Turkic Uzbeks as a Khanate of Khiva. Today, no one in Khwarezm speaks Persian, or any Iranic language as a first language. It is entirely Turkic. Some here also mentioned that until the arrival of Russians it was under the influence of Persia, and some went as far as calling it a Persian territory. Let's take a look at the period from Timurids until the arrival of Russians. All during this period Kwharezm was a Sunni Muslim region, and still is today. It was not under Shia Persian rule, and thousands of Persian slaves were sold on the markets of Khiva. If it was indeed a Persian territory, I don't see a reason why would a Shia Shah of Iran allow Persian Shia citizens to be sold as slaves to Sunnis in his own empire). The only ruler of Iran that did take control of Khwarezm was Nadir Shah (who was a Turkmen himself), but his rule there was short, and he is still remembered in Khwarezmian and Karakalpak tales and legends as a symbol of cruel, invading tyrant. So, how in the world can some people state that "Khwarezm is an was Persian"? It is not Persian and it was not Persian. It was an Iranic, but not Persian province of the Achaemenid Empire, and was independent from Persia for the past 2500 years. Egypt was a part of Persian empire under Achaemenids. So, can anyone say today that "Egypt was and is Persian"? Qozi Kalon (UTC)
I wasn't paying attention. The article had been tagged by the Iranians -- Khwarezm is and was PERSIAN. Now it has been tagged by the Russian/Turkish side of things, ignoring the Persian heritage. Neither view is particularly balanced. I'm grotesquely over-extended, but I'll see what I can do later. Zora 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite sources if you want to add new historical arguments as per WP:NOR, and don't remove entire paragraphs just because you don't like them. Khwarezm has a Persian heritage, Turks and Russians came centuries later. --ManiF 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. "Khwarezm wasn't part of Persia from the Achaemenids until 1878" according to whom? Khwarezm was the center of the Samanids (819-1005) the first indigenous dynasty to rule in Persia following the Arab conquest.  --ManiF 12:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I just also point out the obvious that Achaemenids did not exist at 1878 and was ended many hundred years back =) -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am also quite concerned about the ammount of confusion of sources in this article. Much of it pertains not to Khwarezm, but to Chorasan. Chorasan was always Persian (not Iranian) and Khwarezm was always an independent kingdom to the north populated by "Huns". This article needs some de-POVing.Kaz 07:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article morphed! 

message: In the section Khwārazm Empire it is claimed that Around 1141 Yelü Dashi took control of Khwarezm, making it part of the Kara-Khitan Khanate. Well I am not exactly sure. As far as I know, Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty was not a part of Kara Khitans and reached its peak in early 13th century. (see  Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty) Year 1141 may refer to  Karakhitans' victory over East Kara Khanids. But that has nothing to do with Khwārazm Empire. (incidently, Khwārazm Empire conquered West Kara Khanids.) I think this section needs the attention of an expert. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Vassal of Kara Khitan  

message: This is all pseudo-history, much if of it is simply (and often incorrectly) summarising content in other articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.199.181 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what needs to be in the article is not there. First of all, Khwarezm is Amudarya delta oasis, and its history was run by the volume and course of the Amudarya. Civilizations appeared and vanished with Amudarya changes. From the 8th c. BC and before the 5th c. BC it was a land of pastoral Scythians/Saka/Massagetes/Masguts, in the 6th-5th c. BC they were raided by Achaemenid army, which stole all the nearby herds, and forced the impoverished pastoralists to settle, creating the Kuzeligyr culture. That was the beginning of the archaic Khwarezm. The article does not say when Achaemenids annexed Khwarezm and for how long, but ca. 400 BC Khwarezm became independent, later it was controlled by Kangar/Kanju, then Tochars/Yueji moved in ca 135 BC, creating 5 yabgu statelets, which grew into Kushan, then Ephtalite empires. In ca 170 BC for about 100 years it belonged to the Eastern Hun empire, that's when the Hun-type cranial deformation and burials appeared in the Khwarezm. In other words, the history is incompatibly richer then the one-dimention pseudo that appear in the article. See Tolstov 1962; Yagodin 1978; Kuznetsova 1988; Weinberg 1991; Rapoport 1996; Yablonsky 1996, 1999; Itina et al, 1996; Vishnevskaya et al, 1997; Dani, Masson 1999; Tsvetsinskaya 2002; Fry "Bukhara", and a ton of others. Barefact (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-history 

message: Hua word in Chinese is Hua "side, country, Pashtun/Pahtun country" (huayend "sleepery", huadzedel "to ask to be let off")word in Afghan language.Well-known, that in the most different languages of a word with value " the side, the party " can have the single-root variants in the form of "to slide, wander, pass, extend". For example in a Hebrew: 'eber "side of river", la'avor "To pass, be forwarded", 'avar "has passed".Thus we see full concurrence with oldiranian word varah/var " a side, the party " and modern iranian avardan "to bring",avare "wandering, the tramp". In Iran there is also a river Auhar and the city  Auhar.In Language of Caucasian Avars (<Auhar<Huar) hwa-deze is "to wander"/"-d" is a parameter of the speeded up action, and "-ze" the verbal termination/, and "hua-ze" to draw, spend a line, to draw " (the same value is available in Chinese). Old designation of the Caucasian Avars were "Auhar" (see W.Minorsky) is iranized form of Hua/hwar.On L.N.Gumilev Hua people (Hephthalites) is a part of chineze-tibetan (now it is possible with confidence and to tell more precisely that Sino-caucasian) caucasoid Di people.No doubt descendants of people "Di" are modern pashtuns (AparDi, Afridi) and the Caucasian Avars. The first having lost the language send on Afghani (Pashtun), the second on one of Nakh-Dagesthanian (Caucasian).
See also Omeljan Pritsak: "On the northern Caucasus, which was the border zone between the Sassanids (and latter the Islamic Caliphate) and the Khazar Kaganate at the time of its flower, we find the same Proto-Mongol structures that we find on the northeastern Chinese border. The main role there was played by the "true Avars" (*Ahwar /Wuhuan), the *Sebirs (Hsien-pi), the K'u-mo and the *Qay+lan/Qay+dag (Hsi)". ssvit.iatp.org.ua/sum/sum96~1.htm. This Hua/Hwa/Hoa people really was under strong influence of Protomongols. The chinese classic Liang chih-kung-t'u describes Hepthalites (Afu/Hua/Avar) as of the same origin as the Hua Country (Huaguo). Meanwhile the western Hvar branch migrated into Hualazimu (花剌子模 aka Kua-Li-kia) and still exist to this day in Daghestan (Northern Caucasus). From this location they launched the European Avar empire, and enjoyed their last flourish of prowess under Kuber before settling in Transylvania to join the Magyar federation as the Havar. Several central European family names derive from the name of this tribe.And besides, the Byzantian sources directly speak that Avars lived on coast of the river. "Khwarezm is iranian HuarZamin (The Land of Sino-Caucasian People Hua/Huar).--81.24.80.50 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research? 95.28.41.8 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hua/Huar were a branch of Sino-Caucasian Caucasoid "Di" People 

message: As others have already mentioned, this article needs a rewrite, mainly because it contradicts the Wikipedia entry on "Khwarezmid Empire" (or "Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty") to which it is linked. The main disagreement is concerning the ethnicity of these people but there are others.
Also, the long quotes from Mackay under the section titled "Khwarezmid Empire" are inappropriate. First, the page numbers referenced are wrong (at least compared to the version of the book I found online). Second, Mackay is clearly not an expert on the subject. He uses the name "Korasmins" (who others here have pointed out may be a people from another time/place) and calls their leader "Barbaquan" (a name I cannot find anywhere else). As suggested by the book title, his book is full of opinions about various times in history with only a couple references to "Korasmins". Third, the quotes stand alone with no explanation or context (other than the footnotes), and they exhibit clear, strong opinions about the "Korasmins" with no verifiable evidence. Can someone please replace these quotes with someone better? If not, I'm going to attempt to remove these quotes myself eventually.
Beck8888 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: *Khwarazm -Llc 15,200 results
*Khwarezm -Llc 4,940 results
Takabeg (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: In articles elsewhere about the Mongol conquest, one reads about Khwarezm's slaughter of emissaries as the instigation or rationale of Mongol assault and aggressive destruction.  all this is absent in the article here. 202.179.16.76 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mongols

message: Maybe it's just how it is for me today, but some portions are hard to read:
:The Iranian Chorasmian language survived for several centuries after Islam until the Turkification of the region, and so must some at least of the culture and lore of ancient Khwarezm, for it is hard to see the commanding figure of Biruni, a repository of so much knowledge, appearing in a cultural vacuum[11]....
....and. so. must. some. at least. of. the. what?
:The native Chorasmian(an Iranian language)[9][10] [11] speaker Biruni says that the land was first colonised 980 years before Alexander the Great, sc. before the Seleucid era, i.e. in 1292 B.C., when the hero of Iranian epic Siyavash came to Khwarezm, and his son Kay Khusrawwas established on the throne 92 years later, in 1200 B.C.
Can we get rid of the uses of some latins here? Again, maybe I'm just having a bad reading day. Aforementioned edits were introduced by Nepaheshgar.--JBrown23 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to read 

message: This article is almost all based on two sources (listed in the reference section) - Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam plus some additional articles written by Bosworth and McKenzie who are also cited as contributors to the encyclopaedic entries - 14 out of 27 entries, however this does not include their repetition (i.e. a,b,c,d etc) , if I do that I count 22.
Other references appear to be padding - for example:
 
* 23.  'A.A Simonov';
*  6.  No publishing info. or link;
*  10. I don't know what that is, some random quote from a book supposedly published in Calcutta in 1951 though it is presented in French and then translated by I don't know who, which makes reference to a preface in a book on drugs...
*  20. الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية (p47) translates to 'the remaining signs of past centuries'. That's it, no author, no publishing information nothing.
etc etc 
The items listed as sources are again doubling up sources and an encyclopaedic entry. I searched that encyclopaedia for the topic and I can't see any similarities to what is in this article.
Another source is a book by an historian - but it is a book on Alexander the Great, who is only mentioned in passing in a sentence discussing the guy no.10 reference.
This article appears to to be in breach of the following wikipedia policies:
1. Verifiable : referencing and source material makes the article unverifiable.
2. Neutral point of view : (just one example for you - by omission:  does not mention their invasion of Syria in 1246AD (after fleeing the Mongols) and their defeat of the Sultans in the Levant e.g. Aleppo, Damascus)
3. No original research : since material is not verifiable by following up references and sources do not appear to in fact be sources I can only assume it is either mythology, propaganda or 'original research'.
11/05/16
BlimeyOut (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy breaches :  

message: The article now says: "Persian compound of khwar (خوار), and razm (رزم), referring to the abundance of cooked fish as a main diet of the peoples of this area."
I do not speak Persian, and if I try to look up in the Internet some English meaning for the words,  I get "despicable, contemptible" and "combat, battle".  Huh?  Nothing about fish or cooked...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:682:4710:7DEF:548E:867D:4982 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanings of khwar and razm? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khwarezm. 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/20090714064908/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f5/v5f5a015.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f5/v5f5a015.html
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) 00:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose that Xorazm be merged into Khwarezm. I think that the content in the Xorazm article can easily be explained in the context of Khwarezm, and the Khwarezm article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Xorazm will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. pablohoney (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Ibn Khaldun says the area was inhabited by the Turks at the time of his writing The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. No mention of Persians. Please review the below passage and tell me what you understand from it:
 176.54.25.24 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did he say that? Seriously how did you interpret "...to the east of it the land of the Turks and Khuwarizm" as Khwarazm = land of the Turks?! And how is your claim has anything to do with Persians? The lead talks about Iranian peoples (e.g. Khwarezmian-speaking  groups like Afrighids) not Persian or people of modern Iran. And do you really think inhabitants of Khwarazm disappeared with the rise of Turkic dynasties? --Wario-Man (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: That makes no sense. And for the record, you're wrong (Template:History of Iran). Please don't turn into this into a forum discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Being under foreign occupation by turks =/= being inhabited by turks, otherwise everything from Slovakia to Algeria to Bengal would be turkic. And again, your statement has nothing to do with Khwarazm's ethnic demographics in 1300 AD. You've yet to provide any source whatsoever that Khwarazm was a turkic-majority land in that time period. That quote from Muqaddimah does not at all state that Khwarazm was turkic, the "and" in the phrase "the land of the Turks and Khwarizm" indicates that both are two separate things. Before trying to post authoritatively on English WP I recommend first learning the basics of English grammar. --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. WP:CIR and WP:FORUM are obvious. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhabited by the Turks by the 1300s 

message: The below is from Uzbeks#Turkification of Transoxiana:
"The dominance of Ghazna was curtailed, however, when the Seljuks led themselves into the western part of the region, conquering the Ghaznavid territory of Khorazm (also spelled Khorezm and Khwarazm).[45] The Seljuks also defeated the Qarakhanids, but did not annex their territories outright. Instead they made the Qarakhanids a vassal state.[47] The Seljuks dominated a wide area from Asia Minor to the western sections of Transoxiana in the 11th century. The Seljuk Empire then split into states ruled by various local Turkic and Iranian rulers. The culture and intellectual life of the region continued unaffected by such political changes, however. Turkic tribes from the north continued to migrate into the region during this period.[45] The power of the Seljuks however became diminished when the Seljuk Sultan Ahmed Sanjar was defeated by the Kara-Khitans at the Battle of Qatwan in 1141.
In the late 12th century, a Turkic leader of Khorazm, which is the region south of the Aral Sea, united Khorazm, Transoxiana, and Iran under his rule. Under the rule of the Khorazm shah Kutbeddin Muhammad and his son, Muhammad II, Transoxiana continued to be prosperous and rich while maintaining the region's Perso-Islamic identity. However, a new incursion of nomads from the north soon changed this situation. This time the invader was Genghis Khan with his Mongol armies.[45]"
176.54.25.24 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It just talks about the arrival of Turkic tribes and their dynasties. Where is the claims about "complete population replace" and Khwarazm = Land of the Turks? You better see what Turkification means. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: The only thing that template shows is the lands that turks invaded and subjugated through history. No mention of "inhabited by", unless you're trying to say that Egypt, Arabia, and India are/were ever turkic lands. Military occupation of a foreign land doesn't make it "turkic land". --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

text: By your logic being ruled by British Empire, Roman Empire, Russian Empire, Achaemenid Empire, or Mongol Empire is equal to being British/English, Roman, Russian, Persian, or Mongol/Mongolian. Stop spamming this talk page by forum-like comments. See WP:NOTFORUM. Your personal opinion does not matter. You need WP:RS. The only valid point of your claims is that we can re-write the lead section and mention the arrival of Turkic tribes and the rise of Turkic dynasties in Khwarazm. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkification of Transoxania 

message: Ibn Battuta says of its city that it is “one of the largest, most beautiful and most well-kept cities of the Turks”. Again, it was Iranian before but became Turkic both in culture and looks over time. 786wave (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibn Battuta was in the 14th century, not the 9th like your edit claimed. --Qahramani44 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Your edits and comments are very similar to this IP-user's. Read  and  again. You need WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for your claims. Wario-Man talk 11:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: If your idea of "reliable" is a random book in turkish by a no-name author, then no wonder you were reverted. Anyone with an agenda can write a book about history with a claim, whether its valid enough to be used as a source depends on if its endorsed or supported by someone reputable. Again, read WP:RS. --Qahramani44 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic according to Ibn Battuta 

message: Who were the "Khwarezmians" (Khwarezmian tribes/mercenaries) who took & destroyed Jerusalem in 1244 & helped the Egyptians defeat the Crusaders and the Ayyubid emirs allied with them at the Battle of La Forbie? I mean ethnicity, language, geographic origin. Were they just from Chorasan/Khwarezm, or from the much larger empire ruled by the Khwarazmian dynasty? All that's usually said is that they were fleeing the Mongols, which fits both options. Arminden (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who were the Khwarezmians of 1244 Jerusalem and  La Forbie? 

message: In the opening of the article it gives the Old Chinese equivalent *qʰaljɯʔmriɡ (呼似密) without citation. Axel Schuessler in contrast gives this "驩潛 	Huánjiàn 	huɑn-dziam 	107 B.C.E., ca. 	[SJ 123]	, Khwarezm (Pelliot, see Pulleyblank 1981:280)." So, quite a different citation. SJ is the Shiji of Simaqian, and the article by Schuessler is "Phonological Notes on Hàn Period Transcriptions of Foreign Names and Words"  Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 249-292. --Tibetologist (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Chinese equivalent