Talk:Ilkhanate

The use of "coffee table" type references - in this case, Chris Atwood's Mongol encyclopedia, should be looked at carefully to see if they conflict with more scholarly sources. This reference has it that Hulagu self-proclaimed himself as "Il-Khan" in one part of the article, where another has it that Kublai granted him the title. I will copyedit to fix the problem. I've found errors in other general works on the Mongols where the editors either were careless or had some editorial POV with more specialty works on the subject.50.111.24.39 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Until when were they a division of the Mongol Empire?
• Was their religion shamanism (not a religion) or Tengrism?
• Why is the Mongol name (not even Middle Mongol) in bold? I propose to change it to: The Ilkhanate, also spelled Il-khanate (Persian: ایلخانان, Ilxānān; Mongolian: Хүлэгийн улс, ᠬᠦᠯᠦᠭ ᠦᠨ
  ᠤᠯᠤᠰ, Hu’legīn Uls)

opinions? Beshogur (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Eh dunno about the first two, but I do agree with the third. Ilkhanate-related articles generally need a rewriting, I hope to begin with it sometime soon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?

I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

My edits were deleted by Houser historyofiran due to the capitals I added aren't cities/capitals but residences. But here some reasons they have to be accepted as capital: Firstly, Maragegh the city which written as capital between 1256-1265 was an Ilkhanate city after 1259 so it is impossible to be the capital. And the state was established in 1256 so untill 1259 there must be a headquarter. Secondly, Hulagu, his army and some officers of him were nomads in these years and they settled down later so they ruled the country from the places where I added. I highly recommend my informations must allowed to be added for the sake of inaccuracy. Ultimete (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Err.. thanks but I'm not a houser (?). If they're residences, then they shouldn't be added under 'capitals', due to the simple fact that they weren't capitals. Feel free to add it in a relevant place in the body of the article, with properly cited, reliable sources of course. The sources you mentioned in your edit summary, did not seem WP:RS. This is not the first time you have done something like this [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

while sources may call these palaces "summer capitals," they were just residences that the khans went to when the weather was favorable - don't get too worked up over the term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.39.61 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please do not delete date and timeline of ilkkanate Pervezmusk. (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Golden_Horde#Edits_done_by_@Pervezmusk.: Beshogur (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AirshipJungleman29: any thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Am I missing it somewhere or do sources not mention this name? Source 10 says land of Iran while source 11 only says Iran.

Also "Hülegü Ulus" barely appears on [2] google, while Mongol ᠬᠦᠯᠦᠭ ᠦᠨ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ text doesn't even appear single time. Similarly Chagatai Khanate has such names. Beshogur (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can find no evidence of "Iran-zamin" being a formal name. Hülegü Ulus is however noted in RS as being the Mongol term, which is what the article and accompanying source say. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Hülegü Ulus" barely shows anything on google, as well as "Hulagu Ulus". Also Qulug-un Ulus appears nowhere. I propose it to remove both names. Beshogur (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter if it shows anything on google, if reliable sources say that Hulagu Ulus is what the Mongol term is, then we must say it.

For example: "The Il-Khanate was a Mongol state that ruled in Western Asia c.1256–1335. It was known to the Mongols as ulus Hülegü, the people or state of Hülegü (1218–1265), the dynasty's founder and grandson of Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan)." (Biran, Michal (2016). "Il-Khanate Empire". In Dalziel, N.; MacKenzie, J. M. (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Empire. doi:10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe362.).

Or: "The Formation of ‘Hülegü Ulus'" (chapter title) (Hodong, Kim (2019). "Formation and Changes of Uluses in the Mongol Empire". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 62 (2): 269–317. JSTOR 26673132.)

I don't know about Qulug-un Ulus, but transliteration issues are prominent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AirshipJungleman29: can change the date 1256–1335 on the infobox, with the source? Beshogur (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AirshipJungleman29: can you provide the page? Beshogur (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is Ilkhanate, pl. Ilkhanates, a valid academic option? Ilkhanid, Ilkhanids is common and logical. A khanate is the state run by a khan, cf. emirate, so the use of the word Ilkhanates for its people or the members of the ruling dynasty isn't logical, but maybe it has nevertheless become accepted in English-language academia. If it hasn't, it must be replaced throughout enWiki. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ilkhanid (sometimes hyphenated as Il-Khanid) is the generally-used term, in my experience; I have just checked half a dozen top-quality sources, and all use the same Arminden. Where have you seen "Ilkhanate" used on WP as a demonym? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

​Just search for "Ilkhanates" :) I searched too on Google and did find it used in a few academic publications, but always by what seem to be non-native speakers of English. That's why I posted it here. Arminden (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it seems to be people unfamiliar with the common academic designation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you're sure, then you confirm what I thought. Ilkhanid is definitely correct, so I'll go ahead and change it. Arminden (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Further: I would suggest

• Ilkhanate, Il-Khanate = the state; to be used with article, the Ilkhanate.
• Ilkhan, Il-Khan = the ruler or khan
• Ilkhanid, Il-Khanid = the members of the dynasty; by extension, the demonym for all subjects of the khan, adjective usable for the army etc. of the Ilkhanate.

QUESTION:

What about the title Ilkhan/Il-Khan, when must it be written with upper case I/I and K and when not? When part of the name is easy ("Il-Khan Ghazan said"), but what if by itself ("the Il-Khan said" or "the il-khan said")? I can never remember the rule, plus English, unlike French or German, has no central regulatory authority. Same again when referring to the modern tribal leader of Iranian nomads who revived the title. Arminden (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This remained unanswered:

What about the title Il-Khan, when must it be written with upper case I and K and when not? Example: "X wrote to the emperor of Y and the Ilkhan (or 'the il-khan'?) of Iran, asking them..." Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I see the article Il khan offers all options, without caps as well - il khan = tribal leader, nothing more. Arminden (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

AirshipJungleman29 hi. I checked PadFoot2008's edit as well, and it is supported by the rules. Plus it makes sense. I support his edit, although it looks wrong at first sight (Iran sounds too general, too unspecific): read the lead, that WAS the official designation. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arminden, the "conventional_long_name" parameter of the infobox is not for the official name the state had for itself, but for its full English name. You can see this from the word "conventional", or by checking the template documentation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @AirshipJungleman29 and @Arminden, I was about to start a topic on this when Arminden did so. This is what the template documentation for Template:Infobox country says:

{{Infobox country
|micronation = <!--yes if a micronation-->
|conventional_long_name = <!--Formal or official full name of the country in English-->

Here you can clearly see that it mentions "formal or official" name.PadFoot2008

PadFoot2008 you are looking at the wrong part of the documentation. Instead of expanding the "Country or territory" syntax, if you scroll down to the relevant "Former country" collapsed text, you'll find:

|native_name = <!-- Name in a modern syntax of native language(s). Leave blank if name is only in English. Separate with line breaks<br/> or use Template:Plainlist. If language uses Latin characters, place name(s) in italics. -->
|conventional_long_name = <!-- Full name in English -->
|common_name = <!-- Name to be used in constructing links and category names; not for display -->

The confusion seems to have arisen from the fact that the former country infobox has merged with the normal country infobox, but they still have different documentation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AirshipJungleman29, that's most likely an oversight or a deliberate compression to avoid writing everything twice for no reason (or maybe the author considered it self-understandable). If you'll go to the Ottoman Empire, Mongol Empire or Pahlavi Iran, you'll see that the official name is used. It's a long-standing convention. PadFoot2008 13:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

PadFoot2008, as I just said, the former country infobox had its own documentation (which you can see here) which merged later with the normal country infobox. Thus it could not have been a "compression to avoid rewriting everything". The articles you have cited have not undergone any form of review and are fairly low-quality, meaning that "long-standing convention" could equally well be termed "someone changed it and no-one bothered to think about it". If you look at Featured Articles, such as Ancient Egypt, Kingdom of Mysore, or Parthian Empire, you will see that they use the parameter correctly. We should always try for higher quality, rather than accept low-quality "long standing conventions". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AirshipJungleman29, your comparisons are very bad. Ancient Egypt is clearly mentioned as a "civilisation" in the lede. The Kingdom of Mysore and Parthian Empire, I believe, already use the official (self-designated) name or don't have an official name. Look at Soviet Union, Rhine Confederation, Austro-Hungarian Empire, West Germany, East Germany or Polish People's Republic. It is clearly the established convention to use the official name in the conventional_long_name parameter of the infobox of former countries. PadFoot2008 13:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright, you've convinced me. I'll self-revert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Pad, I've learned something - and thank you Airshipman, for making me double-check.

Have a great day! Arminden (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @AirshipJungleman29. You're welcome @Arminden. PadFoot2008 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"By 1256, under Hülagü Khan, Armenia became a vassal of the Persian Ilkhanate, which at its largest extent spanned from central Asia to central Anatolia"

Malik-Al-Hind, notwithstanding the fact that a book titled The Art of Armenia is nowhere near what you'd want to source a statement on territorial history, this does not mean that the Ilkhanate was at its largest extent under Hülagü, as clearly indicated by the presence of the "which", indicating a subordinate clause. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

it clearly mentions:

By 1256, under Hülagü Khan, Armenia became a vassal of the Persian Ilkhanate, which at its largest extent spanned from central Asia to central Anatolia"

so I still don't understand the problem here.

Moreoever:

"as clearly indicated by the presence of the "which", indicating a subordinate clause. "

Isn't that WP:OR? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If OR is the capability to understand English, we might as well delete Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hulagu Khan opposed Emperor Ariq Böke.^[1]

When Kublai convened his kurultai to confirm his status as Great Khan, none of the three other khans attended. Berke and Hulagu continued fighting, until Hulagu died in 1265.^[2]

The Ilkhanate based in Persia and the Yuan dynasty based in China had close diplomatic relations, and shared scientific and cultural knowledge, but military cooperation between all four Mongol khanates would never occur again — the united Mongol Empire had disintegrated.^[3] Hiu789 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hiu789 why are you copy-pasting this text without explanation here (and here)? This is a discussion page: please ask a question or explain the purpose of your apparently redundant edit in the article ([3]), over which you keep edit-warring. R Prazeres (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The main purpose is to identify the date of separation of ilkhanate from mongol empire. Hiu789 (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which the article does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply