Talk:Timurid Empire

New Map

About two weeks prior I added a new map to replace the old one. It uses a reliable source, yet editors continue to take it down and replace it with unsourced maps. Before this devolves into edit warring I'd like some discussion on the talk page here. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@HetmanTheResearcher Not a bad map but some feedback. Khizr Khan remained governor of Delhi under Timur's suzerainty, meaning what remained of the Delhi Sultanate was under him. Noorullah (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Not talking about the Delhi Sultanate as it currently appears on your map, seems a bit inflated actually, but I don't fully know enough about that. I believe it was just from the Punjab-Delhi that Khizr Khan ruled. Noorullah (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, if you have a source that complies with WP:RS I can add this in. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Having given about ten days for the initial editors to discuss in the talk page I'll end the discussion here. Further arguments have shown the initial map, while inaccurate, is better than my proposed map, so I will withdraw my map proposal. Still, I believe some improvement to the map is needed needed, such as bringing it more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions using an orthographic map. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@HetmanTheResearcher:I don't think your new "red" map is an improvement, as the borders of the Timurids seem identical, but terrain is lacking. It is aesthetically rather inferior too (not very refined, a bit "cartoonish", and departing from the map style of germane articles). I am also having a hard time believing your source for the purple banner: it is different from any banner I have seen so far in miniatures, or possible banners described in the literature. What does your source use as reference (primary source) for this purple banner? Could you send me a scan of the page from "Les drapeaux de l’islam : de Mahomet à nos jours" (p.252-253) to verify? Thanks पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the other ones is simply a lack of sources per WP:VER. The old map has problems, like showing Aleppo as under Timurid control when it was only raided and omitting Timurid raids. Replacing the unsourced ones with a new, sourced one was needed to improve the quality of the article. For aesthetics I held back on details to not overcomplicate. The lack of terrain is an issue, future maps could improve on that (assuming they comply with WP:RS).

For the banner I can not since my faculty forbids the redistribution of copyrighted material, apologies. WP:SOURCEACCESS may be able to help regarding access to the source. I can get back in two days regarding the text of the source when I have access to it again. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@HetmanTheResearcher: For the source of the banner, just send me a scan through private e-mail (see "Email this user" in "Tools" on my user page): it will not breach anything. If I can certify the source is correct (and basing itself on proper data), I will be your best supporter. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I can send it when I have access to the source again HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HetmanTheResearcher:. Thanks for sending the source for the banner by e-mail (Les drapeaux de l’islam : de Mahomet à nos jours. Buchet-Chastel. P.252-253). I can confirm the general shape of your banner is correctly following the source. I have a doubt about the color though (especially since your scan is black-and-white): the text says "la couleur était rouge" ("the color was red"), which is more consistent with miniatures showing similar banners . Shouldn't the banner in your file be more vividly red, rather than the brownish color it is today? Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र You are right, I used a darker colour than than what the text shows. I'll upload a corrected version soon HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks HetmanTheResearcher! I added the banner to the infobox, with ref and quote. Thanks for finding this. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could contribute! HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Timurids See Their Ancestors As Mongols

https://www.irannamag.com/en/article/timurid-view-mongols-examination-mongol-identity-timurids/ Why Should We Believe a False Story Called Malfuzat Timury While There Are So Many Resources About the Timurids' View of the Mongols and Their Relations with the Mongols in This Source? Tamerlanon (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer to let other editors with more experience in this article determine consensus, but just an initial note after reading the first couple of pages of the linked source: this looks like information/context that can be added to the article, but it does not necessarily justify removing existing sourced material. Per WP:NPOV, all major perspectives in reliable sources are expected to be present on Wikipedia. The author of this source also makes clear at the start that she is offering a view slightly different from that of most historians, which means we should treat it accordingly.

Also, we might consider cutting the "Genealogy" section here altogether and moving its contents to the "Origins" section at Timurid dynasty, which seems like the more appropriate place to cover this issue in detail. It's not recommended for the same question to be covered independently in two articles; one should be the main article, with other articles including only a summary if needed, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

And While It Has Been Clearly Stated That Malfuzat Timury Is A Lie, This Article Has Been Originally Treated And Supported With Resources Tamerlanon (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

So can we add the article to the Family Tree section? Tamerlanon (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I would ask Tamerlanon to stop removing information that is reliably sourced. Also, the journal article appears to have useful information that could be added to the article. As R Prazeres suggested the "Genealogy section" should probably be added to the "Origins" section. --Kansas Bear 20:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Black and Red Timurid Flag?

Hello, I’ve been seeing a possible Timurid Flag popping up for some time, and I’m wondering if it’s indeed accurate. Help would be greatly appreciated.

Flag here: File:Timurid.svg TJ Kreen (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Make sure to scroll down to file history, you’ll see what I’m referring to. TJ Kreen (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Area

@BBJJKK: These do not look like academic sources. I am not sure if seshat-db can be considered reliable. Is there anything better? Mellk (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I would like to clarify that the previous figure of 4.4 million km² had no cited academic source. I updated the area to 5.5 million km² based on reliable references, including Seshat: Global History Databank and the preview from Profile Books. Both are academically accepted sources. Therefore, I believe the new figure is better supported and should remain unless a stronger, properly cited alternative is presented. Thank you BBJJKK (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

There are already three sources cited (in stat_year1). Mellk (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a source about the year it started, but a source that proves it was 4.4 million km². I changed the area of Temuriqar to 5.5 million km² because I couldn't find that source. BBJJKK (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If you would check the sources, they all say 4.4 million square kilometers. Mellk (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Seshat also appears to be citing Atlas of World Population History (1978) but there is no page number and I cannot find any mention of the area of the Timurid Empire. The source is also specifically about population. Mellk (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Seshat: Global History Databank is a reliable academic source. It is used by historians and researchers worldwide, supported by peer-reviewed studies and academic institutions. BBJJKK (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Seshat Global History Databank is a peer-reviewed academic source. It states that the Timurid Empire had an estimated population of 49 million around 1400 CE: https://seshat-db.com/core/polity/370. As a scholarly database, it meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. BBJJKK (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You have not explained why we should ignore the sources already cited, which are academic. Mellk (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

which one BBJJKK (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

One, two, three. Mellk (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Your first source is great, I admit, but some of the fields do not match other information on Wikipedia, and in your second source I could not find any information about the Timurid field, and your third source is just a copied version of the first source, now think about it, I gave you two sources that are clearly and strongly identical, but yours is very weak, and the remaining empire fields do not match Wikipedia. BBJJKK (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The table is based on Taagepera and multiple historians have cited it. For some reason, you insist on citing sources you found via ChatGPT. Either way, you have violated WP:3RR and if you do not self-revert, you will be blocked. Mellk (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

What will change if I return? Will the Timurid Empire remain the same, 5.5 million km²? After all, I also cited a source. This is unfair, if only this were true. As for Chatgpt, I don't really trust his information. BBJJKK (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:CON. Mellk (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I had a request from you, could you please correct the section "The Largest of Empires" by taking into account that the Timurid Empire was 5.5 million km²? BBJJKK (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This table is also based on Taagepera and I am not sure why you believe I would possibly make the same change to another article when I have already disputed this change here. Mellk (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

But I also cited a source, so what's going on? Please explain in detail. BBJJKK (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The article also cites Taagepera and you have given a poor reason to dismiss it. Sorry, but I have ran out of patience now. Mellk (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing him, I have no animosity towards him, I just need to make a decision. What advice do you have? BBJJKK (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Rein Taagepera did not directly present a figure of 4.4 million km² for the Timurid Empire. That number appears on Wikipedia’s “List of largest empires” table and is not cited in his original works. In contrast, the 5.5 million km² figure is based on academic data from Seshat and Profile Books, which directly model the Timurid Empire’s maximum extent. BBJJKK (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This is literally Taagepera... Mellk (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It is true that the Timurids do not have a place where 4.4 million m². BBJJKK (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Taagepara's data does not match at all, Wikipedia says the Tang Dynasty was 5.4 million km², but Taageparanjng's source estimates it at 5.2 million km², and the Golden Horde at 5.2 million km², but Wikipedia says 6 million km², and Byzantium at 1.5-1.6 million km², but in reality it is not that much. The Seshat.Com website you doubted was created by Turchin Peter, you called it unreliable, but the area of both the Macedonian Empire and the Ottoman Empire was taken from Peter Turchin's book "A Theory for the formation of Large empires", and here you are doubting Seshat.Com, which was created by Turchin, although Wikipedia used his books as a source. Taagepara said in his first book that the Timurids were 4 million km², but then in Wikipedia it is 4.4 million m². This does not match at all. The real source is the information provided by Peter Turchin and Daniel Hoyer in the book Profile Books, which is 5.5 million km² in the Temurid area. Seshat.Com, and they are consistent with each other. BBJJKK (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, these two studies related to Seshat.Com and Profile Book are also modern and new studies, so it would be better to leave the Timurid Empire as 5.5 million km², and it would be great if you could adjust the area of the Timurid Empire in the article The Largest of Empires to the same. The reason is that having two different, contradictory information in two articles leads to confusion and distrust. I hope you agree with me. The discussion needs to end as soon as possible. BBJJKK (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here. In short, BBJJKK is wrong and Mellk is right. The 4.4 million km² figure has strong sourcing—the Taagepera source in particular is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, which is just about the WP:BESTSOURCE we could get for something like this. Rein Taagepera also happens to be the world's foremost expert on the specific subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities. Taagepera's work on the subject of the territorials extents of historical polities is not just mainstream, it's the go-to source for other authors working on the same topic. The notion that the cited sources do not support that figure is incomprehensible to me—all you have to do to WP:Verify it is look at the sources. In particular, Taagepara's data does not match at all, Wikipedia says the Tang Dynasty was 5.4 million km², but Taageparanjng's source estimates it at 5.2 million km², and the Golden Horde at 5.2 million km², but Wikipedia says 6 million km², and Byzantium at 1.5-1.6 million km², but in reality it is not that much. is impressively wrong. Tang dynasty: Taagepera says 5.4 million km² on page 492. Golden Horde: Taagepera says 6.0 million km² on page 498. For "Byzantium" we have to look at another source by Taagepera, which covers the Byzantine Empire on pages 125–126, and doesn't say "1.5-1.6 million km²" (it gives the size as 2.7 million km² in the year 555 and 1.35 million km² in the year 1025, labelling both as peak sizes). For that matter, the proper course of action even if we accept the 5.5 million km² figure would not be to replace the 4.4 million km² figure, it would be to present them as a high-end and low-end estimate of the peak size, respectively (as with e.g. the Maurya Empire). TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You also pointed out on the other page that one of those sources says: "Estimated using Google area calculator and a map" (good catch, I missed this). Mellk (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but if you consider Tagapera to be so reliable, it's time to increase the area of the Portuguese Empire to 10 million, because Tagapera wrote in 1815 that it was 10 million km² | in 1820 it was 5.5 million km² BBJJKK (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Taagepera categorically did not say that about the Portuguese Empire (see p. 502). That's an outright lie. Why are you lying? TompaDompa (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you crazy bro?! BBJJKK (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The book "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia" contains information about the Portuguese Empire on the last page, and it is written that it expanded to 10 million km². BBJJKK (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a lie. Here's an excerpt from the source, specifically page 502:

Date	Area	Source	Notes
1780	4.0?	LK,E	Penetration inland
1820	5.5	LK,E	Effective control over coastal half of Brazil and coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique
1822	.5		Brazil independent

Where on Earth did you get 10 million km² from? Oh, and not that it matters too much, but it's not a book but a journal article. TompaDompa (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Why did you tell me to place the Timurids, like the Mauryan Empire, based on two different sources, but then you reverted them to their previous state? How fair is that? BBJJKK (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Nobody told you to do that. What I said was the proper course of action even if we accept the 5.5 million km² figure would not be to replace the 4.4 million km² figure, it would be to present them as a high-end and low-end estimate of the peak size, respectively (as with e.g. the Maurya Empire).—"if" is a key word there. The person who reverted you was also a previously-uninvolved (in this discussion) editor, namely R Prazeres. TompaDompa (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

So you won't consider it, but I thought you would place the two like the Mauryan Empire. BBJJKK (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If I thought the sources you provided were of roughly-equal quality to the ones already cited, I would be in favour of doing that. However, one of the sources you linked to does not provide a year and is consequently not usable, and when it comes to the other source it is not obvious to me that it is of comparable quality to—among others—a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. I see some indications that it should not be taken quite as seriously, for instance that the entry for the Timurid Empire says "Estimated using Google area calculator and a map" for the area, that it at times cites Wikipedia (!) for areas (e.g. the entry for Plantagenet England and the entry for the Macedonian Empire), and that the area data in the entry for the Yuan dynasty is fairly obviously polluted by data relating to the Mongol Empire. I'm sure you'll understand if I won't just take your word for it considering your above misrepresentation of Taagepera. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I ask you to review it again, Seshat.Com website can show not only the year of the Empires in their greatest period, but also the years of all periods, and at least with their area. In the General Description section, information about the Timurids is also given with sources, the Empire Area and Population, if you want to see other years, you just change the year and click on the empire map, and as a result, full information, including the area, will appear. The book I cited "Figuring Out the Past" has very good information, just like the books you cited as sources, and this also belongs to Turchin, so taking this into account, I ask you to review the area of the Timurid Empire and write it with two different sources, such as the Almohad Caliphate, Kushan Empire and Gupta Empires, and I hope you will. Thank you for your valuable time, be well BBJJKK (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Being authored by Turchin is no guarantee of being WP:Reliable or usable for our purposes. Sources need to provide a year for the area estimates to be usable in this specific context, which means that Figuring Out the Past by Turchin and Hoyer is unusable. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't really understand what year it was. BBJJKK (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. The Wikipedia article List of The Largest Empires is taken from a book by Turchin, the author of which is a world source. And you say that even if I cite a site that Turchin personally wrote and founded, you won't be able to do it. This is very strange, at least if I cite the evidence of some other foreign scientist. I cited his book "Figuring Out The Past". Just like you cited his book "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" in your article "List The Largest of Empires". At least you are talking about another year. And you are doubting Seshat.Com, maybe you don't understand, in your article "List The Largest of Empires" you also cited the book "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" by Turchin, the founder of Seshat.Com. About Seshat.Com: Seshat: Global History Databank is a scientific project founded in 2011. Founders: Peter Turchin, Harvey Whitehouse, Pieter François. Purpose: To analyze historical societies and empires using structured data. Sponsors: John Templeton Foundation, Horizon 2020, Evolution Institute. Reliability: Data coded by scholars, widely cited in academic publications. “Seshat” is named after the ancient Egyptian goddess of writing and knowledge. Overall, considered reliable by the academic community. This is unfair. Please reconsider. Don't you think this is unfair and illogical? I hope you will reconsider. BBJJKK (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

As I just said, a source is not necessarily either WP:RELIABLE or otherwise usable for our purposes just because Turchin is the author. The thing that makes "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires and Modern States" (which is not a book but an article in an academic journal) a WP:Reliable source is not that it was authored by Turchin (alongside two other authors: Adams and Hall). See if you can figure out what the actual reason it is deemed a reliable source is. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

However, the main author of the article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" is Turchin, published in the journal "Journals of World Systems Research" on August 26, 2006, the main author, analyst and first listed person of the article is Peter Turchin. Even in the article "List of The Empires" Peter Turchin is the first of the authors of the article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" and a separate link is included to him. Jonathan M. Adams and Thomas D. Hall acted as assistants to Peter, in short, this article is no different from the book "Figures Out the past". The main author of both is the same. I said earlier about the credibility of the Seshat.Com site. Please reconsider, the task of Wikipedia is to provide accurate information to users, if you consider Peter Turchin unreliable, then you should not have used his article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" either. Don't you realize that from the outside, these decisions and statements of yours seem very stupid, and to be honest, I myself think that you don't want to change this because you deliberately ignored the sources I cited. One of the main steps in editing the Wikipedia section is to cite a better source, and I always use another book by Turchin, the main author of the article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires", and Seshat.Com, which he founded, and you refuse. It is natural for anyone in my position to doubt and be surprised by this work of Wikipedia officials and reviewers. Please, my dear friend, I cited the source, and calling him and Peter Turchin unreliable is the same as calling the areas of many empires in the "List of The Empires" article unreliable, because the authors are the same. Please, my friend, don't give in to emotional and mental feelings and reconsider. It seems to me that you are making excuses for not accepting my sources. I expect you to reconsider and include two sources. Please, I hope your answer does not sound as illogical and excuse-based as your current answer. Think carefully. Thank you for your valuable time. BBJJKK (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You are very hung up on the author. That is not the only relevant factor. See e.g WP:SOURCEDEF for other factors that might be relevant. TompaDompa (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be making excuses, think logically, you said that Turchin's article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" is more famous than his other articles, but what if you don't understand that the articles that followed it were written by the same person, and it is a big mistake to ignore the second article, saying that this one is more famous and more extensive, and on top of that, Turchin's book "Figures Out the Past" is more modern and enriched with updated information than the article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires"? What if you don't understand that, and Seshat.Com is a site enriched with new modern information, and you said that you are clinging to one person, no, on the contrary, Wikipedia's Empires Area articles are clinging only to Taagepera, I don't think it's bad, but refusing to include another more modern article by Turchin, which has already been added, is very strange and incomprehensible, and I also ask you to change it to exactly 5.5 million km² I'm not asking, I'm just asking you to provide two different sources like the Maurya Empire, one of the sources for the Maurya Empire belongs to Turchin, to be honest, you seem to me like someone trying to find an excuse not to include the more modern source of Turchin, which is already on Wikipedia, please reconsider, I request you to include both sources and take my words into account, thank you for taking your valuable time. BBJJKK (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I looked at Seshat in more detail and it still cites Taagepera for other polities (some other claims are questionable but this is besides the point). For the Timurid Empire, it quite literally says that this 5.5 million sq km figure was calculated using "Google area calculator and a map" (this map being this website). Mellk (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI, in the mapping community, Geacron (the website you linked) is horrifically inaccurate and looked down upon. Noorullah (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I can see why. I took a quick look and I already noticed plenty of inaccuracies. Mellk (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I ask again, for the Timurid Empire field, please include two different sources, such as Khworazmian or Maurya Empire. There are already enough reliable sources from Peter Turchin, who has already made a good place in Wikipedia. I hope you will consider this and add two different sources. BBJJKK (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you think you will achieve by repeating the same thing over and over again? Mellk (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you notice the inaccuracies?! Taagepera has 3 books about empires, in the first part he described the Tang Dynasty as 5.2 million km², in the second book he made the Timurids 4 million km², the Seljuks 4 million km² and the Roman Empire 4.4 million km², there are many inaccuracies!? Portugal completely occupied Brazil in 1815 and the area of Brazil is more than 8 million km². But Wikipedia and Taagepera reduce the Portuguese Empire to 5.5 million km², here are the inaccuracies for you. I cited two sources, Turchin's modern book "Figures Out the past" also says that the Timurids were 5.5 million km² and the Mauryan Empire was 5 million km². You have provided two sources for the Mauryan Empire on Wikipedia, why shouldn't you do this for the Timurids, I have already shown you sources, Turchin's book "Figures Out the past" and the Seshat,Com website. Again, you are saying that Geacron.The website is completely false, don't forget that it is not an encyclopedia, it only answers visual and map aspects, and in these aspects it is much better than the Historic Borders website, which is reliable in every way, you can trust its information about the area, taking into account the visual aspects. You are not looking at the Seshat.Com website, information about Seshat.Com. Seshat: Global History Databank is a scientific project founded in 2011. Founders: Peter Turchin, Harvey Whitehouse, Pieter François. Purpose: To analyze historical societies and empires using structured data. Sponsors: John Templeton Foundation, Horizon 2020, Evolution Institute. Reliability: Data coded by scholars, widely cited in academic publications. “Seshat” is named after the ancient Egyptian goddess of writing and knowledge. Overall, considered reliable by the academic community. I know you are now saying that Turchin's sources are unreliable, don't forget that among all the Empire sources in the "List The Largest of Empires" article, which mentions the Macedonian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Kushan Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Achaemenid Empire, the Mauryan Empire, and almost all the Empire sources that are cited by double sources, there is Turchin's article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires". I gave you the source Seshat.Com, which Turchin founded (maybe it is unreliable for you), but what about Turchin's book "Figures Out the past"? If you added Turchin's article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" to Wikipedia as a source, why can't you include another book about the field of Empires, "Figures Out the past", written by the same scientist, as a source. Once again, I am not asking you to change the area of the Timurid Empire to the full 5.5 million km², I am just asking you to place both areas based on two different sources, such as the Maurya, Khworazmian, Kushan, Ayyubid empires, please review and think about this again. I hope you will consider my thoughts, thank you for your time. BBJJKK (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

As TompaDompa already said (who knows how many times at this point), Figuring Out the Past has no year so it is not usable. The quality is also not comparable so we cannot treat them as being equal. Mellk (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The reason we use "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires and Modern States" is that it is published in an academic journal, not that it is authored by Peter Turchin. Author isn't everything. TompaDompa (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The main author of the article "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" is Turchin. I searched for information again and again because of your words, but all of them say that Turchin is the main author. This is just an excuse. You just don't want to change it, you are making excuses because you don't want to. If you change this, you will also have to change the article "List The Largest of Empires", right?! BBJJKK (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

That's just plain WP:I didn't hear that. Read what I wrote again. TompaDompa (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

In the book "Figures Out the Past", it cannot be accepted as a source because there is no date?! Why are you so careless, before the Empires area was given, it was written that only the largest period area was shown, if it was written that it was the most powerful and largest empire of all empires, why are the dates needed for the area calculated for only one year. Once again, I ask you to accept this as a source. Place two different sources for the Timurid Empire, I hope you will accept my request creatively, thank you for your valuable time BBJJKK (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, this was not the only reason given. Secondly, we need to know when it was at its greatest territorial extent and the infobox requires a year. Considering that the territory of the Timurid Empire constantly changed during its existence, that seems pretty important, don't you think? Mellk (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

If you knew a little about history, you would know that the year Timur died, his Empire reached its greatest extent. BBJJKK (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:AUDIENCE. Also, Seshat says 1400, not 1405. Why is that? Mellk (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It is clear from this that you do not know history, which territory did Timur annex from 1400 to 1405? He only campaigned against the Ottomans and the Mamluks, but he did not annex either of them, so the Timurid territory did not expand at all from 1400 to 1405 BBJJKK (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

So you are saying the Empire reached its greatest extent when Timur died, but there were also no territorial gains in the years leading up to his death? Mellk (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It is clear from this that you do not know history. He expanded the empire until 1400. From 1400 to 1405, he did not add the territories he conquered to his empire. Be careful. The map of Timurids on Wikipedia does not show the Ottomans. So his greatest period was 1400-1405, because he did not add the territories he conquered to his empire. BBJJKK (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also not what I said. Please read what other editors are telling you more carefully, so we don't have to go in circles covering the same ground over and over again. It has been explained to you, repeatedly, that Figuring Out the Past cannot be used because it does not say what year the area estimate is for. It has also been explained to you, repeatedly, that there are other things that matter when it comes to source reliability than who the author is—one source by an author being reliable does not necessarily make other sources by the same author reliable. I'll quote WP:SOURCEDEF here:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Do you understand what this means? TompaDompa (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I wonder why the dates are needed if it says "Show the greatest era of empires"? As for your second explanation, yes, I understand. But is it so difficult to make both sides agree? BBJJKK (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

So what happens now? I hope you'll give me an answer that will make me happy. BBJJKK (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Absent any new voices entering the conversation, I would say that the two things that could happen is that you could present some compelling reason we should consider seshat-db.com to be a source of comparable quality to the peer-reviewed scientific articles on the topic here (sharing an author with one of them is not enough), or drop the issue (for now, at least). TompaDompa (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, my friend, but I had to write, I noticed a strange connection. You told me earlier that we can't use the book "Figures Out the past" because it doesn't have exact dates, and Seshat.Com because it doesn't have an exact article or book source. But I noticed something that makes my mind wander. This is an excerpt from the introduction to the book "Figures Out the past", and the strangest thing is that it mentions Seshat.Com and says that it is reliable. Here is the detail: "What was history's biggest empire? What was the tallest building ever constructed before concrete? What was the life expectancy in medieval Byzantium? Where did scientific writing first emerge? What was the bloodiest human sacrifice ever? We are used to thinking about history in terms of stories: who did what to whom. Yet we understand our own world through data: vast arrays of statistics that reveal the workings of our societies. Why not the past as well? Figuring Out the Past turns a quantitative eye on our collective trajectory. Behind the fleeting dramas of individual factions and rulers, it looks for large-scale regularities. The dog asks how key social and technological innovations spread around the world, and it pinpoints outliers from the general trends.As historians Joe Guldi and David Armitage wrote in The History Manifesto: "in a crisis of short-termism, our world needs somewhere to turn to for information about the relationship between past and future". The book in your hands draws on a vast reservoir of historical data that was collected precisely to serve that need. Seshat: Global History Databank was founded in 2011 with the long-term goal of collecting and indexing as much data about the human past as can be known or credibly estimated. Named after the ancient Egyptian goddess of scribes and record-keeping, Seshat is the work of a large international team of historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and other specialists. Inevitably incomplete and constantly being updated, it nevertheless has a strong claim to be the most comprehensive body of information about human history ever assembled in one place. (You can explore it at seshatdatabank.info) Much as contemporary economic data are used to test theories about the day-to-day evolution of economic systems, Seshat was created to test long-range hypotheses about the rise, workings and fall of societies across the globe. For example, what causes states to develop and spread in the way they have? Why have some socities experienced high levels of growth and well-being while others stagnated? What role have warfare, religion and technology played in the evolution of social institutions? What causes societies to collapse or fracture? The only way to answer questions like these is to test them against the historical record. Seshat, more than any other resource, collects as much of that record as possible, collated and formatted to make testing practical. The information presented in this book is intended to illustrate some key trends and patterns that emerge when you look at history from Seshat's dizzying vantage point.A caveat: the figures presented here are only a sample of the data compiled by the Seshat project, which in turn is only a subset of what is known about low societies. All the same, because of the databank's remarkable breadth of scope and through the collaboration of dozens of the world's leading historical experts, the rankings and comparisons that follow are collectively as reliable as could be obtained from any existing resource. They reflect the best, most accurate and most complete information available at the time of writing. As of 2020, Seshat holds information on over 450 historical societies (identified within the databank itself using the term "polities", to avoid ambiguity). It starts among the first West Asian farming communities in the Neolithic period about 10,000 years ago and ends in the 19th century ce.The Neolithic, described in certain regions as the "Agricultural Revolution", is the time when humans began to settle in one spot and build recognizably distinct communities.". As you can see, the reason for the lack of dates in this book has been explained, that is, it is the same as the Seshat.Com site and the two are complementary sources, so you can use the book "Figures Out the past" including the Seshat.Com site, because the sources on this site are taken from this book. You asked me for something more serious so that you could consider Seshat.Com a more serious source, and I found it. Now, in any case, it would be right to reconsider the Timurid Empire area. Thanks in advance for the answer. BBJJKK (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll admit to not reading the entirety of that wall of text. Anyway, we can't use the year from one source and the area from another—that's WP:Improper editorial synthesis. I think you can figure out why Figuring Out the Past by Peter Turchin and Daniel Hoyer is not the best source to consult about the reliability of Seshat where Turchin is the Chair of the Board and Hoyer is Senior Research Associate and Managing Director. TompaDompa (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

What's the point of this statement? You're useless except to take it away. You told me that we can't use it because the years in the book "Figures Out the past" are missing, but I showed you that its years are on Seshat.Com, and the two complement each other. So now you can't use the reason why you don't cite the book "Figures Out the past" because it doesn't have years. What other excuses do you find? You're just avoiding the point. When I find a new source and proof, you're making new excuses. Are you doing this on purpose? So, bye, bye. I didn't think Wikipedia admins would be so stubborn and inconsiderate that they would find excuses. Bye, I won't wait for an answer. BBJJKK (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on my suggestion, if you do not change the Timurid Empire article area due to the lack of years in the source I provided, I would like to ask one more thing, I hope you will allow this, with your permission, I would like to add the Timurid Empire Invasions article to one of the sections, as the Timurid Empire Area is 5.5 million km², because it does not require a year to put it, because it refers to Timur's campaign throughout the entire period, In addition, the Timurid Empires map area in the Timurid Empires Invasion article is much larger than the Timurid Empire map area in the Timurid Empire article (you can compare), which is why I would like to add the Timurid Empire area to the Timurid Empire Invasion article as 4.4 million km², and below it, the Timurid Empire (including territories and vassals that were invaded but were not annexed to the empire) as 5.5 million km², and as sources I will use Turchin's "Figures Out the past" and the Seshat.Com website (By the way, the campaign map is also added separately on the Seshat Com site) and for this, it is not necessary to put any year or change the Timurid Empire article and List The Largest Of The Empires article. Another thing I noticed is that in the Caliphs article, the total area attacked and occupied by the Umayyads is 13 million km², but the year is not mentioned, but in the Umayyad Caliphate and List The Largest of The Empires articles, it is 11.1 million km² with the years, I think that this number of 13 million km² probably reflects the scale of all the attacks and campaigns of the Umayyad Caliphate, I also want to add an edit to the Timurid Empire Invasions article in the same way, I hope that you will understand me very well this time and give me permission, Please do not refuse this permission at least, Thank you for taking your valuable time, I look forward to a positive response BBJJKK (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This wall of text is mostly just copy-pasted from Figuring Out the Past and is a waste of space. What was history's biggest empire? What was the tallest building ever constructed before concrete? What was the life expectancy in medieval Byzantium? Where did scientific writing first emerge? What was the bloodiest human sacrifice ever? We are used to thinking about history in terms of stories: who did what to whom -- what is the relevance of this and why do we care? Please keep your responses to the point. You could have made your point in one or two sentences. Mellk (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

What's the point of this statement? You're useless except to take it away. You told me that we can't use it because the years in the book "Figures Out the past" are missing, but I showed you that its years are on Seshat.Com, and the two complement each other. So now you can't use the reason why you don't cite the book "Figures Out the past" because it doesn't have years. What other excuses do you find? You're just avoiding the point. When I find a new source and proof, you're making new excuses. Are you doing this on purpose? So, bye, bye. I didn't think Wikipedia admins would be so stubborn and inconsiderate that they would find excuses. Bye, I won't wait for an answer. BBJJKK (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on my suggestion, if you do not change the Timurid Empire article area due to the lack of years in the source I provided, I would like to ask one more thing, I hope you will allow this, with your permission, I would like to add the Timurid Empire Invasions article to one of the sections, as the Timurid Empire Area is 5.5 million km², because it does not require a year to put it, because it refers to Timur's campaign throughout the entire period, In addition, the Timurid Empires map area in the Timurid Empires Invasion article is much larger than the Timurid Empire map area in the Timurid Empire article (you can compare), which is why I would like to add the Timurid Empire area to the Timurid Empire Invasion article as 4.4 million km², and below it, the Timurid Empire (including territories and vassals that were invaded but were not annexed to the empire) as 5.5 million km², and as sources I will use Turchin's "Figures Out the past" and the Seshat.Com website (By the way, the campaign map is also added separately on the Seshat Com site) and for this, it is not necessary to put any year or change the Timurid Empire article and List The Largest Of The Empires article. Another thing I noticed is that in the Caliphs article, the total area attacked and occupied by the Umayyads is 13 million km², but the year is not mentioned, but in the Umayyad Caliphate and List The Largest of The Empires articles, it is 11.1 million km² with the years, I think that this number of 13 million km² probably reflects the scale of all the attacks and campaigns of the Umayyad Caliphate, I also want to add an edit to the Timurid Empire Invasions article in the same way, I hope that you will understand me very well this time and give me permission, Please do not refuse this permission at least, Thank you for taking your valuable time, I look forward to a positive response BBJJKK (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BLUDGEON. Mellk (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't broken this rule yet Malik, you are being very aggressive, I accept that the area of the Timurid Empire cannot be changed, I agree, you were able to explain to me that there are no years, but you should allow me to change the Timurid Empire Conquests article, I am explaining to you with kindness Malik, you have not been able to substantiate anything, you are just pushing nonsense that I have no connection with, your friend is better behaved and more knowledgeable than you, I will say it again Malik, I am justifying you, in the Caliphate article it is written that the area of all the expansions of the Umayyad Caliphate reached 13 million km², and even the year and source are not indicated, I also want to add this to the Timurid Empire Conquests article, at least don't object to it, after all, there is no need for a year there, it is simply that the area of all the expansions and conquests of the Timurids is 5.5 million km² Please (with sources) if it's not humanly possible to understand this, don't give me the wrong impression of Wikipedia because of you. BBJJKK (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civilityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_Code_of_Conducthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_best_practices BBJJKK (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You wrote the same wall of text twice. In both of those you call other editors "useless" Mellk (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand, I am ready to agree, and that is why I am simply asking you to please agree with both sides and cite two sources, such as the Maurya Empire. (One of its sources belongs to Turchin) Please understand me correctly. BBJJKK (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Name of the State

GnuUserr, I recommend checking the articles on the Mamluk Sultanate and the Ayyubid dynasty for comparison. In both cases it also reflects how historians refer to the polity in history. --AbuAtrak (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)