Talk:Ilkhanate

Early Mongol rule
>> Möngke Khan prohibited ortog-merchants and nobles from abusing relay stations <<

What are/were ortog-merchants? -- Picapica (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Muslim merchants contracted by the Mongols - I will effect repair to the article today. - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.24.39 (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

caution with tertiary sources
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)

Few problems
opinions? Beshogur (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 (, Ilxānān; Хүлэгийн улс,, Hu’legīn Uls)


 * 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)

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period
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 Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?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)

Capital
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)
 * 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 . --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

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


 * See Talk:Golden_Horde Beshogur (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * any thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Iran-zamin + Hülegü Ulus
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 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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).".
 * Or: "The Formation of ‘Hülegü Ulus'" (chapter title)
 * I don't know about Qulug-un Ulus, but transliteration issues are prominent. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * can change the date 1256–1335 on the infobox, with the source? Beshogur (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * can you provide the page? Beshogur (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Demonym, name of dynasty members
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)
 * 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 . Where have you seen "Ilkhanate" used on WP as a demonym? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, it seems to be people unfamiliar with the common academic designation. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"(Land of) Persia" as self-designation is correct
hi. I checked '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)
 * , 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. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * {{quote| {{Infobox country  |micronation =          |conventional_long_name = |multiline=yes}}


 * Here you can clearly see that it mentions "formal or official" name. 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:
 * {{quote| |native_name           =   |conventional_long_name =   |common_name            = |multiline=yes}}
 * 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. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * {{u|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". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * Alright, you've convinced me. I'll self-revert. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks @AirshipJungleman29. You're welcome @Arminden. PadFoot2008  14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"Greatest extent"
"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"

, 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. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * If OR is the capability to understand English, we might as well delete Wikipedia. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)