Talk:Chagatai Khan

name
the spelling of his name goes back and forth even in the same paragraph. I don't know which is right or why, but this is a bit silly.

Untitled
The two sections need to be articles on their own. I am on Wikivacation and trying hard to stay that way. Might add stuff when I get back, if no one else has by then. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 09:54, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty to fix much of the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors within the two articles. Xym 02:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is supposed to be about Chagatai Khan. If there's not enough siting of sources I can live with, but what's with over half the article being about his decendent? It's suppose to be about Genghis Khan's sedond son Chagatai. The part about his decendents should only be a minor section in the article. ParallelPain-

I read that some people think Chagatai khan was murdered, but he was not. --Enerelt (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1294 map
Why is the Ilkhanate labeled "Domains of Timur" when he wasn't born until the mid 1300s? 76.173.0.112 (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

missing page numbers
The source A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia: The Tarikh-i-Rashidi is the most used source in this article. The had cited only page 696, which is invalid because there are only 538 pages in the book. Furthermore, it doesn't seem likely that all of that information would have been found on just one page. Unfortunately, it appears the original editor who added that source is no longer active. — howcheng  {chat} 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

1225/1226/1227
Which year did his reign begin? Article states both 1225 and 1226, while Genghis Khan died in 1227. H2ppyme (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The first section is lifted directly from the cited text, as you might suspect from the antiquated style. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The book is in the public domain because it was published in 1895 and the author died more than 70 years ago . Of course it would be better to summarise the source in Wikipedia's style, but we allow using relevant public domain text as a starting point or placeholder. For now, I'll add a template to make the attribution clearer. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

terribly outdated source ...
Dughlat's A History ... was written in 1840 - and for all intents and purposes, should be looked at as a primary source - although a work full of good information, we've picked up a thing or two over the past 180 years or so. This is just ridiculous. Compare with the Cambridge History of Inner Asia, for example. This book is used as the main source of this article. Needs to be re-written to match modern scholarship's most up-to-date outlook. Just ... awful. 50.111.19.21 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)