Talk:Chughtai

Arab or Turkic Roots References

I've removed the following text from the entry that is floating the idea that the name has either Arab or Turkic roots.

Although there are claims that this name came from South Asia, it has been proven that it started from the arabian peninsula. The Chughtai were also one of the clans/ tribe in areas of Saudi Arabia and many claim to be from that ancestry.

The reason for doing so, is that, the name itself is a Mongolian name and there are where the roots belongs to. If, historically, the name moved to Arabian peninsula or anywhere else in the world, that does not prove that it is Arabic. If there's a claim that it is Arab and not Mongolian i.e. not related to Chaghadai Khan, then please cite the reference and create a separate entry for such name. This topic is strictly related to the surname that is based on the lineage of Chaghadai Khan.

If there are any objections, please post here before editing the original article.hameed (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that aswell, you see it was also a name which came from the arabian peninsula. And many people still carry the name in that area. I have read that it was a tribe in Arabia called Chughtai and people to this day still carry the last name in arabia and that name has status as arab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.66.7 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite any out-of-wikipedia sources for your Arab reference? I am just wondering 'cause the Chaghatai Khanate was in south and central asia, and if the family line extended to Arabian penisula then it would be interesting to know that how it happened?.hameed 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the Arab references to Variants section as its more appropriate. Also, could i ask, whoever, added the line of arabic people claiming lineage from Chaghatai Khan, please provide the correct reference? If not, the information will be removed since its been marked for "Citation required" for 3 years now. hameed (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Please avoid contributing elements of bias as it risks polluting the historical information. For instance, I have removed the following statement: “Chughtai's are originally Caucasoid Turks of Central Asia with some Mongoloid mixture.” This is problematic at many levels – Chughtai is neither a pre, proto or parallel to Mongolian and/or ethnic group. Insofar as the name stemmed from and coupled with the Chaghatai Khan, any claim of its objective reality without taking the root phenomenon into account will be erroneous and misleading. However, it is possible that, over the centuries, the Chughtai tree is split into many branches, but that should be acknowledged and stated explicitly. An example is presence of Chughtai surname in Eastern Europe such as Hungary, but it doesn’t mean that one should go on to jump to conclude that Chughtai is a Eastern European phenomenon.

Please also avoid accumulating personal information or praising the surname. For instance, simply mentioning a famous historical figure, authors, celebrities, royal family, is a poor contribution and shows lack of scholarship.

Merger

I oppose the merging of the article about Chaghatai language, which is of greater importance for the cultural history of Central Asia and beyond, with the article about the family name Chughtai. I do not see why there shouldn't be a separate entry on the family name if people wish to have it, but that should be it. Otherwise one could easily come up with a para on the family name English under the entry for the language of the same name or a para on family names in the articles on virtually any historic person on Wikipedia (Bismarck, Bhutto, Bayazid, Blake...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Züccaciye (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger as both language and the surname are directly related to Chaghatai Khan; one is the legacy and other is the lineage. I'll support to an extent that most articles with common source to be merged in order to maintain consistency. I would also like to emphasize that the pronunciation and written form of Chughtai (the lineage) is not different from Chaghatai, cultural factors around south-asia are responsible for linguistic distortions; but reflects the same root i.e. Chaghatai hameed (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose such a merger per Züccaciye. Otebig (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I Support this most probable merger as per Hameed. Both the language and the surname are linked directly to Chaghatai Khan. 62.17.141.34 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I OPPOSE the merger of this article with Chagatai language. Language articles are not about family histories or common surnames or history in general, they are about Languages. This surname is Mongolian and the language in question (Chagatai) is Turkic. They are not related language families (except as part of the generally discredited Altaic family), so any reference to a Mongol name in a Turkic language article is inappropriate. The ONLY relevance to the Chagatai language article is if this particular surname is the origin of the name "Chagatai" for the language. If so, then it is relevant. If the language and the surname both happen to have the same origin, then it is irrelevant (see above comment about "English language" versus the "English" surname). Both of them coming out of a common milieu is irrelevant, one is a language and the other is a family name. (Taivo (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Off Topic Contents

I have removed the following section from Origin section as it has nothing to do with Chughtai surname and/or lineage. Please do not add contents that are not directly related to the original topic.hameed (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Many Mughals including Chughtai Mughals in India and Pakistan also claim to be Mughal Kayanis where Kayan is alternate way of spelling Qayan. Turning Kayan into Kayani in Hindi and Urdu forms gives rise to meanings as son of Khan which is like relationship of word Raja meaning king or Chief to word rajput meaning son of raja. Besides Mughals who claim to be children of Mughal Qayans, Ghakhars who are children of Ghakhar Kings also use word kiani, kiyani or kayani for the same reason. That is to express their descent from kings of Persia.

Personalized and Localized Information

There is quite a lot of junk information in the background section which is written from a personal perspective. Thus, the article tends to suffer from pride and not historical accuracy. All the information which shows Chughtai as a localized ethnic entity separate from Mongols is absolutely wrong insofar as Chughtai surname only appeared AFTER Chaghatai Khan. If someone think that Chughtai was a tribe which was either supporting or campaigning Mongols (i.e. they are not descendents of a Mongol Khan) than a historical reference needs to be produced. chughtai (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

References

No to merger: please reinstate useful information

This article has been stripped of some useful information, which is perhaps why it's been suggested that the bare remnants be merged into the Chagatai language article. That would be a pity, since the topics are quite distinct and of interest to quite different audiences. The information that used to be in the Chughtai article was as follows:

"This is a Family name/clan in South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the associated diaspora) that claims descent from Chagatai Khan, as thus status as a Chagatai Turk. The names of (especially) male members of the clan often carry the prefix Mirza and the suffix Beg, and are thus usually of the form Mirza Beg. The Mughal Emperors of India claimed to be of the same lineage. Babur consciously made a decision to drop the Mirza from his name. The names of minor, and some times even major, princes of the dynasty continued to carry the prefix and/or the suffix. The nomenclature is common today. For example, Mirza Aslam Beg was a recent Chief of Army Staff in Pakistan. Modern variations include the use of Beg or even Mirza as a family name. The family name Chughtai is also used. See also Bey."

When I first read this, I was intrigued as it explained something of interest (the relationship between the common names Mirza, Beg and Chughtai for male members of the clan), gave a topical example (the former Pakistani chief of staff named above) and linked it to a historical context (Chagatai Turks and Mughals). It could have been improved by expanding a little on the use of Chagatai and Chughtai (e.g. one British historian titled his book about the Mughals "The Chaghtai Kings" - I don't recall the exact spelling), and by listing a few of the better known Chughtais (e.g. writer Ismat Chughtai and artist Abdur Rehman Chughtai).

Instead, this article has been edited into mediocrity. The remaining line about Babur dropping the name Mirza doesn't make sense anymore because the relationship with the name Chughtai isn't explained so it becomes an isolated, irrelevant fact. Please reinstate the useful information, and let's expand this article in a constructive way rather than losing useful knowledge.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheenx (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts here:
Could you find out either name of the British Historian or the book details? (of The Chaghtai Kings), it could be a great asset to this article.
The whole claim around Mirza and Beg, is there any (non-original) research work as a reference?193.120.236.36 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Necessary references restored to make more sense

As per the above posting, I've added two sentences, the one beginning "In South Asia..." and the one beginning "These honorific names..." As a result, the next two sentences, referring to emperors "claiming the same lineage" (though the earlier necessary reference to "lineage" had been deleted), and Babur dropping Mirza (although the previous necessary mention of "Mirza" had also been deleted) now both make sense. Shaheenx (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the very same reason I added the Citation Needed tag around that claim.193.120.236.36 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical Fact Vs Belief

Mirza/Beg: Instead of referring to a current figure i.e. Aslam Beg, please provide concrete references to support the claim that Mirza+name+Beg is equivalent to Chughtai. Since there's no mention of any reference (book, article, encyclopedia, research material), it seems more like a personal belief than a fact. Could I ask you to please avoid floating such ideas.193.120.236.36 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Variation

Please note that Chughtai is a mongolian name and since there's no exact phonetic translation it could be either Chughtai, Chaghatai, Chaghadai, etc.193.120.236.36 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing References

Mughal Empire Seal of Honor

I once read somewhere that, during the course of Mughal Empire in India, one of the highest seal of honor (or title) was named after Chaghatai Khan. The title was called, along the lines of, Nishan-e-Chughtai (or something like that). If anyone knows about it and can produce a reference, it would be a great addition. chughtai (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is right history, that was named Nishane Chughtai

History confirms 2404:3100:1CA2:4ED0:1:0:C52F:2948 (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Central Asia , it's tribes a great history

In central Asia Manny tribes ruled over centuries 2404:3100:1CA2:4ED0:1:0:C52F:2948 (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)