Talk:Timur

Confusing

The exigencies of Timur's quasi-sovereign position compelled him to have recourse to his formidable patron, whose reappearance on the banks of the Syr Darya created a consternation not easily allayed. The Barlas were taken from Timur and entrusted to a son of Tughluk, along with the rest of Mawarannahr; but he was defeated in battle by the bold warrior he had replaced at the head of a numerically far inferior force.

This paragraph is really confusing - I can't work out the promoun referents at all. Suggest cleaning it up and clarifying things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong map?

The name of the map image used in the article is Timurid Dynasty 821 - 873 (AD).PNG, whereas Timur lived about 500 years later. Is it a wrong map, or is its name incorrect? 83.24.60.54 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the name of the map is incorrect. The area shown in the map matches the main article's description of the lands under Timur's influence at their greatest extent. 198.231.23.241 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The map is correct, however I believe the caption is confusing. The map is the greatest extent of the Empire before the birth of Timur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.27.142 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The dates are not wrong - the annotation of "(AD)" is - it should be "AH" anno Hegirae (in the year of the Hijra) - which was 622 AD/CE - so add 622 to 821 (1443 AD/CE) and 622 to 873 (1495 AD/CE)

I recommend the filename of the image needs to be changed - the AD to AH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.247.19 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

About TURKICness

Seemingly the article has been subject to an edit war between different kind of nationalists considering it say how very Turkic he and his troops were in every single sentence. One time would be more than enough. Just look at the article about other leaders.79.216.232.135 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is ridiculously long and contains repeated information, partially misleading infos, and also factual mistakes. A direct translation from the German Wikipedia (which itself is a direct translation of the Encyclopaedia of Islam article) would be much better than the present form. Tājik (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend you to state what's misleading. About the Turkicness of Timur, there are more than dozens of cited references used in the article. I'm removing the tag. E104421 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to shorthen the intro by moving some of the paragraphs down. The article still requires a clean-up. E104421 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I support improvement of this article. Lets see what E104421 can do. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is not his "Turkicness", as "Turkic" is just a linguistic description and - in a historical context - refers to barbarian Central Asian steppe nomads who were distinct from the "civilized" settled populations of Persia, India, China, and Mesopotamia. By that definition, he was very much a "Turk".

However, I suggest to remove the long unsourced reference to his alleged names. First of all, because other important informations are missing. His Persianized self-designation "Gurkani", for example, is attested by his contemporary Rashid al-Din who also explains that its Chinese translation is "fu ma", having exaxctly the same meaning: "son in law". It was the title adopted by Mongol clan chieftains who married into Genghis Khan's family. Many local rulers of his time were known by the title "Gurkani", but he became the most powerful of all. I also suggest to move any refernce to his "Turkicness", "Persianess", "Arabicness" or whatever out of the intro into the main body of the text. Tājik (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the intro a little bit, removed double links, and wrong wiki-links (Chagatay is a Turkic language, but NOT a dialact of the Oghuz Turkish language that was literally developed 500 years after Timur's death). As for the claim that "Turkic culture floursihed" under his rule, some reliable sources are needed to define "Turkic culture" in this case. Since at that time, "Turkic" was essentially a synonym for "nomadic" and "tribal" life-styles, I do not think that this is not what the author meant with "Turkic culture". Tājik (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may interrupt. Chaghatay was neither a Qipchaq nor an Oghuz Turkic language. It was a Qarluq one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

well its kinda right but

words like 'turkish' should be changed to 'turkic'. altho turks do not diffrentiate themselves by turkish or turkic(simply Turk), its more appropiate..

Turks

well its kinda right but

words like 'turkish' should be changed to 'turkic'. altho turks do not diffrentiate themselves by turkish or turkic(simply Turk), its more appropiate.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.1.174 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil

Please use talkpage. I am not sure where Tajik distorted sources for this comment to occur: "rv.: do not distort the sources!)"--Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it's Tajik who has to use the talk pages, since his edits do not one-to-one corrresponds to the sources. He simply reduced the status of Turkic to a tribal one. That's the distortion. Regards. E104421 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had used the talk page before. The current introduction is too long and contains many minor infos that do not fit in it. Also, there is no need to cite 14 (!) different sources for his Turkic identity, save for the exaggerated and overstretched focus on his "Turkishness" - be it so, I had actually organized all 14 sources into one reference. Also, there is no need to mention 3 times (!) that the Barlas were "Turkic". First of all, because it is misleading (see Manz, Boswoth, and Britannica: only isolated members of this tribe had become Turkic in terms of languages and habits, while others remained Mongols or adopted some other language, religion, or identity), and secondly, because it is totally unecessairy. There is an article Barlas, a simple Wikilink is totally enough.

The entire section about languages and so forth should be removed from the intro. And you, E104421, should not blindly revert and accuse others of something the have not done. I did not distort any sources. The article "Timur" in Encyclopaedia of Islam clearly states that he was a descendant of Mongol conquerors and, even despite his Turkic language and/or identity, was fully aware of it. I also criticize your methods. While you claim that you only revert edits, you actually smuggle once more the word "Turkish" or "Turkic" into a sentence, while removing the fact that many Mongols had also adopted Iranian languages and customs (of which the modern Hazara people are the living proof!) In the section "Early life", you have added the word "Turkic" to a sentence, although it was not there previously, and you have removed the reference to Iranian customs. You simply copied and established the wrong and POV version of an anon IP while you revert the edits of known Wikipedia members. Tājik (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tajik. The facts are that Timur's root (or as he himself believed) were Mongolian, but was Turkified. The User E104421 then says this means that Timur and his empire were Turkic. At the same time he says that they had adopted Iranian costumes and culture. This means according to E104421's own logic they were Iranian. Any how you all say the same facts but E104421's edits are biased and try to over-promote its Turkicness at the expense of its Mongolian and Iranian connotations, while those of Tajik are more balanced. Try to reach a comcensus. I think it will be easy in this article. Just name the facts without too much interpreation about whther it was Mongolian, Turkic or Iranian.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are 14 sources given there including the quatations. The Turkic and Iranian culture related parts were already mentioned in the second paragraph. Tajik is just ignoring them and misrepresenting in order to reduce the status of Turkic to tribesman. Wikipedia edit histories is quite clear, if you check you simly see that his accusations are not correct. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you compare the diffs, you see that Tajik's claim about reverting to an anonymous ip (which is dated 19 december 2008) is wrong. Tajik, you must stop misrepresenting the cases. This is against the policy. Try to edit and discuss yours with a cool head. If you do so, we can reach a consensus. Just try. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your problem is. The Turkic identity was limited to tribesmen of which Timur and his father were the leaders. Timur's policy was - at least in the beginning - essentially against the urban centers and his rule was marked by the growing influence of nomads. Like Genghis Khan, he and his military expeditions were responsible for the massacre of millions. We have first hand accounts by contemporaries, such as Rashid al-Din (giving an insight into the pre-Timurid Il-Khanate) and ibn Khaldun. Timur definitely identified himself and his tribe as "Turks", and his descendants, such as Baysunqur, even identified Genghis Khan's sons as "Turks". At the same time, they explicitely identified the Ghaznawids and Seljuqs as Persians ("Farsi"), as one can witness in the writings of Alisher Navai. Be it so, there is absolutely no reason why this should be mentioned 5 times in the first 3 paragraphs, and why 14-20 duifferent sources should be mentioned. 2-3 good ones are totally enough. In case of the Barlas, there is no need to call them "Mongols", "Turks", or whatever. The only thing that is important is that he belonged to that tribe - nothing more and nothing less. everything else is explained in detail in the respective article. As for the consensus: I do not think that you are able to reach a consensus. As for the edit: YOU were the one who removed the reference to Iranian languages and customs. Even the version from January 10th contained this information. You removed it without any explanation. This is called POV. Tājik (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're missing in between edits. I removed the following sentence: "many of whom had embraced Turkish or Iranian languages and customs". As i stated above Turkic & Iranian culture related information was already mentioned in the second introductory paragraph in detail. There is no need for a repetition. That's not a big deal. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You only removed the part relating to Iranian peoples, while you kept "Turkic" and put it after "Barlas". If three is no need for repetition, then I do not understand why the word "Turkic" is being mentioned so many times?! You have double standards, E104421. Tājik (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, you're again missing the previous version. It was previously written as "Barlas, a nomadic Turkish tribe in the steppes of Central Asia", and i changed "[[Turkish]] to [[Turkic peoples|Turkic]]" in that sentence. I just corrected the wikification there. BTW, Persian is written 6 times in the second introductory paragraph. Yes, the article still requires a good job, and maybe this time we do fix it together. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a good job in changing Turkich to Turkic.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not correct, E104421. You have "covered up" the edits of an anon IP: [1] The original version was Timur was born in Transoxiana, near Kesh (an area now better known as Shahrisabz, 'the green city,'), some 50 miles south of Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan. His father Taraghay was the head of the Barlas, a nomadic Turkic-speaking tribe in the steppes of Central Asia. They were remnants of the original Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan, many of whom had embraced Turkic or Iranian languages and customs.. That's why I have restored this section. Tājik (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tajik, you're creating artificial problems. Wikipedia edit histories/summaries clearly represents the differences between the edits. As i stated above, there is no need for repeatative arguments/statements. That's the reason of my removal. Regards. E104421 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is once again blocked, by the intro is certainly better than what used to be there previously. Still, I think that this part needs to be removed from the intro and placed somewhere else in the article: Timur's short-lived empire also melded the Turko-Persian tradition in Transoxiania, and in most of the territories which he incorporated into his fiefdom, Persian became the primary language of administration and literary culture (diwan), regardless of ethnicity.[9] In addition, during his reign, some of the greatest contributions to Turkic literature were penned, with Turkic cultural influence expanding and flourishing as a result. A literary form of Chagatai Turkic came into use alongside Persian as both a cultural and an official language.[10] It is too long and is way too much for the intro. I also suggest to take at the German wikipedia who have solved the problem by directly translating the intro of the "Timur" article in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tājik (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pesianized in culture and religion?

This phrase is just wrong. As for the Religion, Islam was not the religion of persians. It emerged from Arabia and was shared with Turks and many other ethnicity as well as Persians. As for the culture, naming this a "Persian" culture is overly nationalistic. The dominant culture was a blend which included turkish, persian, arab, etc. elements. --70.54.51.128 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

7-20 million killed by Timur's conquests

See here [2] and here: List of wars and disasters by death toll. This should be included, and considering all the people he killed - the "military genius" comment should be tuned down. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? You can't be an effective military leader if you kill people? Would we not call Napoleon a military genius? How many did he kill? Chingis Khan? How many did the Mongols kill? Hannibal killed people; is he not a military genius either? How many military geniuses has history produced who didn't kill anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.246.76 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Amir Timur's grave's curse first incidence

Tamerlane is buried in the Gur Emir mausoleum in the crypt. Above it, inside the mausoleum his resting place is marked by a single piece of dark, almost black jade. The jade is cleaved and the story goes that Nadir Shah who conquered Samarkand in 1740 wanted to take it back to Persia. He had a dream warning him of the dreadful consequences of such an act, which his advisors and astrologers echoed, reminding him of the tomb’s inscription; “he who disturbs my peace will unleash a scourge more terrible than I”. But like many powerful men before and since, he ignored all advice and instructed his son to take it. The jade crashed to the ground, his son died and thus did Nadir Shah become a victim of Tamerlane’s curse from beyond the grave. See here [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swashbucklingbuccaneer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The above, as well as most of the exhumation section in the article are anecdotal accounts full of superstition, without a proper encyclopedic framing. A historically famous 'curse' can be noteworthy, but it isn't necessary to attempt to prove it. See Curse of the pharaohs for a good article regarding a curse.

Here's the relevant paragraph from the Exhumation section:

Timur's tomb is protected by a slab of jade in which are carved the words in Arabic: "When I rise, the World will Tremble". [33] It is said that when Gerasimov exhumed the body, an additional inscription inside the casket was found reading "Whosoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I."[34] In any case, two days after Gerasimov had begun the exhumation, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, its invasion of the U.S.S.R. Timur was re-buried with full Islamic ritual in November 1942 just before the Soviet victory at the Battle of Stalingrad

Junuxx (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Turkic literature

The intro says- "In addition, during his reign, some of the greatest contributions to Turkic literature were penned, with Turkic cultural influence expanding and flourishing as a result." What this great literature is should be mentioned in the main body of the article.

I'm also making a change in early life section by adding the statement that he was a Muslim to the paragraph arguing about what type of Muslim he was. Nitpyck (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think people need to consult the times in which Timur lived. The concept of nationalism in the modern sense did not yet exist. It is not correct to tie Timur with a specific modern group in that sense. Timur's army was itself of urban and rural origin and somewhat multiethnic. His motives were partly imperial (to restore the Mongol Empire, even by proxy), partly religious (a Muslim influence was paramount though Jenghiz was of the old religion) and partly to seek glory. The arguements seen here are modern reflections of the controversial man. I wonder if Timur thought of the contraditions himself.Mtloweman (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'Invade'

... Timur began a trek starting in 1398 to invade the reigning Sultan Nasir-u Din Mehmud....

-- The way this is constructed, it reads as if he invaded a person.

As to Timur being a "national hero" of Uzbekistan: Another bloodthirsty killer honored just because he's famous — as with Stalin in Georgia. Pity poor humankind in its need for such "heroes." Sca (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please specify

Please specify where there is POV dispute going on. The template is on the top and looks like the whole article is in NPOV dispute. 75.171.193.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

I have not seen this page until now. It seems to me that a big POV issue is the lack of information on the true nature of his "conquests". Nothing about cities exterminated to the last baby, towers made of skulls, nothing about cities turned into deserts, nothing about the "100,000" (typically exaggerated figure from the chronicals) Hindu captives massacred on a whim. Zero^talk 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I am just a passing reader of the article on Timur. I find that the article needs to be cleaned up further for the ease of reading for persons unfamiliar with this subject area. Regarding this issue, I have some comments that I hope would be helpful. (1) I find that the sections a bit disjointed in its entire form at the moment. Throughout the article different terms, e.g. Tartar vs. Turkic vs. of Mongol descent, has been used to describe the military entity under Timur. Similarly different spellings were also used for the same term, emir vs. amir.

(2) I also find that the form/structure/style of written English used in the various sections are disjointed. The introduction is clearly written in basic communicated English, and are thus straightforward and simple to read. But as the article progresses, it feels as if the sections have been cut and pasted from a literary article, adopting a more literary flair in its presentation. In my opinion, Wiki articles should be presented as simple and straightforward as possible, so that the information can be digested by people from different backgrounds and varying degrees of written English comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.219.239 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Name forms

I notice the article doesn't reflect the proper Chagatay form which is Temür. The form given here is the Persianised Tīmūr. The Turkic Temür should also be included to reflect his name in its native form Xaghan (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can user Tajik explain this edit[[4]]? The correct Turkic form is Temür, the persian form may be how its written in Persian script but the script isn't suited for the complex vowel harmony system in Turkic languages and also lengthens the vowel which doesn't exist in its native form. Temür is the proper romanisation of his name whereas Tīmūr is the transliteration of its Persian form which as i just explained doesnt reflect its native form Xaghan (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What you call "vandalism" is the standard used in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Beatrice F. Manz, the leading scholar on Timur, writes: TĪMŪR LANG (“Timur the Lame”) b. Taraghay Barlas, the founder of the Tīmūrid dynasty[q.v.] which ruled in Central Asia and eastern Iran from 1370 to 1507. The birthdate commonly ascribed to Tīmūr, 25 Sha’bān 736/8 April 1336, is probably an invention from the time of his successor Shāh Rūkh [q.v.], the day chosen for astrological meaning and the year to coincide with the death of the last Il-Khān (Manz, Tamerlane and the symbolism of sovereignty, in Iranian Studies, xxi/1-2 [1988], 113-14 n.) Tīmūr rose to power in the Ulus Čaghatay, a tribal confederation forming the western section of the Mongol Čaghatay Khānate [q.v.] He was a member of the Barlas of the Kish region. This was an important Mongol tribe within the Ulus, tracing its leadership back to Činggis Khān’s commander Karačar, who shared a common ancestor with Činggis, and was later attached to his son Čaghatay. Tīmūr descended from Karačar but was not of the chiefly lineage, and gained power through skilful politics and the help of a personal, non-tribal following.

Besides that, the Chagatai language had lost the Turkic vocalic harmony to a great extent (comparable to modern Uzbek). Read the respective article in Iranica. Tajik (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Besides that, the Chagatai language had lost the Turkic vocalic harmony to a great extent (comparable to modern Uzbek)" Wrong era. During the late Old Turkic and early Middle Turkic stage, the Turkic language can be classified into 4 distinct languages. Eastern Turkic, Kypchak, Bolgaric and Oghuz. The Eastern Turkic language is probably the best documented with a huge corpus of Karakhanid and Uyghur texts in various scripts including Runiform, Uyghur, Arabic, Brāhmī, Tibetan. An important document is the Divanu Lugat-it Turk. Spoken Chagatay was similar to Old Uyghur with some lexical difference (still retaining harmony) due to geography and loan words for terms adopted from Hindu, Tibetan and Sogdian being the only differences. It wasn't until the later periods with the sole adoption of the Persio-Arabic script did written Chagatay begin to differ from spoken Chagatay, written Chagatay didnt emerge until the 18th century. Kind of similar to English where the written language isn't phonetic. So the written form of Chagatay, with an inadequate script, was different to the spoken form. In modern Uzbekistan 4 dialects are spoken. Two are Khwarezm dialects, one a Kypchak dialect the other Oghuz Turkmen. The other 2 dialects are the northern Uzbek and southern Uzbek. Northern Uzbeks still retains the vowel harmony system whereas southern Uzbek it's weaker possibly because of larger cohabitation with Tajiks and the more widespread use of literary Chagatay. In the 1930s, written Uzbek was based on the northern dialects but from the 1940s onwards it was based on the southern dialects in Cyrillic (probably due to political as well as pragmatic reasons) which is why modern Uzbek has weak vowel harmony. So the modern Uzbek language was quite different to the Karakhanid based dialects spoken in Timur's time. Instead of relying so much on specialised Persian and Islamic encyclopedias read some scholarly works such as A Grammar of Old Turkic by Marcel Erdal, particularly the introduction, Modern day Turkic Peoples and their Languages by Talat Tekin, a good overview of all the Turkic dialects and languages spoken today and The Formation of the Uzbek Nation-State A Study in Transition by Anita Sengupta, particularly chapter 4 The Making of a Linguistic Identity: Language and the Uzbek State for a good look at the politics and identity of modern Uzbek. Xaghan (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I rely on specialized scholarly encyclopedias, because that's what Wikipedia requires. As for Chagatay, you should read Tom Everett-Heath, Central Asia: History, Ethnicity, Modernity, Routledge Curzon, 1st ed., 2003, p. 94:

"... Bearing remarkable similarity to the gradual 'distortion' of Ottoman Turkish, Chagatay had lost many of its 'pure' Turkic qualities, such as vowel harmony, as a result of the assimilation of Arabic and Persian grammar, vocabulary, and literary styles. ..." Tajik (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote but i am not refuting that vowel harmony has weakened as i have already stated that, so the quote is irrelevant. What is being disputed is your insistence that the persianised form of Turkic Temür is the proper form. No single Turkic language today has lengthened vowels in any form of temür. This only happens in ther persio-arabic script because they have too few symbols for vowels and no symbols for short front vowels making it unsuited to handle Turkic vowel complexities. In modern Uzbek the only sound change that has taken place from old Chagatay in Temür is the last vowel which has gone from being a closed front rounded vowel to becoming a closed front unrounded vowel, temir (in Istanbul Turkish t>d demir). Still front vowels and harmonious. This is common in the majority of Turkic languages where temür is (t/d)emir. In Uyghur, the closest to Uzbek and also descendant of Chagatay, the first vowel has gone from being unrounded front to rounded front, tömür. Still harmonious. In no present day language in Turkic has the vowels in the variations of temür lengthened as in the Persian script. As i said, the only reason its spelt that way in the persioarabic script is because it has too few letters for vowels and persian vowels lengthen.
Some features of which may explain the vowel harmony weakness in present day Uzbek are the vowel ɪ has dissapeared unless associated with q and ğ, f.e., yaxshɪ > yaxshi, yɪl > yil. The dissapearance of the vowels ö and ü, becoming o, u or i, f.e., ölüg >olik, ölüm > olim, tüşün > tuşun. Vowel harmony hasn't gone in modern Uzbek, its weaknesses in modern Uzbek are a result of the disappearance of those 3 sounds and the labialisation of a. I see you take an interest in Uzbek, i hope you find this information useful as it is a rare inclusion in certain encyclopedias and english language pop history books. Xaghan (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

the lead paragraph is an adequate summary of the article content. Ideally, it should not have any footnotes at all, it should summarize the content of the article body, and the references belong in the body, not the lead.

There is no reason whatsoever to clutter the first sentence with seven footnotes. Wikipedia articles do not consist of their lead exclusively. People should stop bickering over the lead and build the article body. Once the article body is stable and well-referenced, deriving the lead summary from it should be simple. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Do you think the inclusion of a general Timeline would be a good idea? It could be used as a guide for building the body up. Xaghan (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tuzuk-i Taimuri

Timur's supposed "autobiography" has been demonstrated to have been a later writing and not his own memoirs. The article mentions this toward the end. However, in the section on the India campaign this text is cited over and over again as "Timur describes this in his memoirs," or "Timur said that in this autobiography." No, he didn't. The article should be edited to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.246.76 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I have tagged the coatrack article Timurid relations with Europe to be merged here to the Timur article. It was created as a copy/paste of some POV information which had been inserted into the Franco-Mongol alliance article. It really doesn't need a full article of its own though, and can probably be handled with just a couple lines. Some of the sources will also need to be stripped out, as they are questionable. --Elonka 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Timurid relations with Europe article is quite detailed, mentionning the various exchanges, ambassadors etc... with many interesting sources. In actual fact, only a short summary was present in the Franco-Mongol alliance article. This level of detail could be considered as Undue Weight by some editors if it were to be included into the Timur article. By the way, Timurid relations with Europe does not only relate to Timur, but to the Timurid dynasty in general. Should it be compressed into "a couple of lines" in the Timur article? Certainly not, this would be contrary to Wikipedia's ambition to be the sum of all knowledge and to its specific rules regarding detailed content: "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." (main principle in Wikipedia:Summary style) Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

When information is challenged, anything which is not a modern (preferably within the last 50 years), reliable, verifiable secondary source, should be removed. Anything which is thus left unsourced, should also be removed. For example, these sources are not appropriate.[5][6] --Elonka 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's another rationale then, and it is actually marginal to the article. I agree for Gifford [7], which is used only once, but I am not so sure about your anathema of Attiya [8]. It's an easy matter then: all that is described is well-known stuff, and we can easily find supplementary sources where these two are used. As soon as I will resume editing on the topic, this will be solved in a minute. Thanks Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you supply a year or ISBN for the Attiya source? The Google link that you provided lists neither (and isn't even clear about the author). Just because something is listed on Google Books, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a reliable source. As for better sources, there is no need to wait, simply list them here at the talkpage, thanks. --Elonka 22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Attiya is ASIN B0006AOBRM

For other online sources to replace Attiya if need be (I would rather not delete Attiya though, as doing so is disputable [9], but rather add to it):

• "Timur against the Ottomans and the Mamluks" [10][11]
• "Battle of Ankara" [12][13]
• "Friendly relations with Europe" [14][15][16][17][18]
• "Relations with Spain" [19]
• "Clavijo mission" [20]
• "Colombus and the Great Khan" [21][22][23][24]
• To replace the Gifford ref: [25][26]

Hope this helps! Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to: "When information is challenged, anything which is not a modern (preferably within the last 50 years), reliable, verifiable secondary source, should be removed. Anything which is thus left unsourced, should also be removed." That seems rather extreme. I find myself citing folks like Henry Yule and Jan Jakob Maria de Groot all the time (and sometimes, oh horror, du Halde as well!), and for all I know, there some subjects which nobody has covered since them in English (or French), at least not in sources available on line. Obviously if the newer author B says essentially the same thing as A, it would make sense to replace the A-ref with a B-ref (or maybe keep both, for the benefit of readers who only have A on their bookshelves...). If B says "A was wrong", or just says something obviously contradicts A, then I'd understand replacing the "reality according to A" with the "reality according to B" - but even then, if A's view was influential enough in his day, one may want to say somewhere (in a footnote maybe) that "in the past it was thought, e.g. by A, that [fact A], but in the view of modern scholarship [fact B]." (That may be beneficial e.g. for readers who happen to have read A - or some apparently modern source derived from A - and wonder why the Wikipedia article says otherwise.) Just removing a fact because you can't find a recent source for it boders on vandalism, methinks. Even though in some areas people may "rewrite history" every 50 years, it's certainly not the case in all domains... Vmenkov (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)