Talk:Mongol Empire/Archive 3

Error: Size given of Mongol Empire
The source given to suggest that the Mongol Empire is 34 million km squared does in fact, if read, describe its size as 24 million km squared. May I suggest it is revised to be in line with the soure. Or, listed as 33 million km squared so it is in line with the article on the world's largest empites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.72.124 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed. This appears to be a bone of contention given the fact that the British Empire was 33.7m km sq. Lord British (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Korean History Revisionism and Nationalism that Distort History
You obviously don't have abundant unbiased wealth of information in East History.

Picking on Koreans that is not nice.

Your information is speculation. If you want to make sure they are right have sources.

You must be European. We all know the Mongol Empire was greater than the British.

100 million in the Mongol Empire? Where do you get that information.

Unlike the British, the Mongols did not have enemies powerful enough the challenge them.

Our time is coming, we will rewrite history as you have in the last 200 years.

See how you like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyface1234 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I myself am a business analyst and provide technical solutions especially with respects to corporate structure in Asia. I have an abundant and unbiased wealth of knowledge in history in Asia and Europe. Let me start by saying that his comment is not meant to discriminate or bash against people of any national origins whatsoever. But I write this for the sake of understanding and learning history from an unbiased MODERN perspective.

Many Koreans, usually nationalists, have tried to change information on this Mongol Empire page along with others to "glorify" their history. I have not done much in the past but because of the extent and the influence on other Wiki users, I feel like I must start by complaining. Korean editors are also influencing other editors to become nationalistic with Wiki. Guys, this is wikipedia not Stalingrad.

The Mongol Empire history is very complex and let me by giving you a summary. Hopefully, we can make a collective effort to change this article along with others to REMOVE NATIONALISTIC VIEWS.

My summary: The Mongol Empire started with the unification of nomadic tribes in the Gobi Desert region under the leadership of Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan became the ruler of an unified Empire in 1250.
 * 1250? Your date is a little off.  LOL.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Genghis died and passed his rule to many relatives*. Many "relatives" would start invading other states during the 13th century. After Genghis, the Mongol Empire existed but it was not SINGLE EMPIRE LEAD A BY A SINGLE RULER. It was many empires but they all had Mongol rulers. Disunity eventually helped to accelerate the collapse of each INDEPENDENT EMPIRE or "Khanate."
 * This is not an accurate statement. Genghiz left nominal territories to his sons, yes, but the 'office' of Great Khan existed in reality until the death of Monke, and the empire was united at least until this time.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

One of Genghis Khan's relative was Kublai Khan who invaded China successfully. Kublai Khan made himself the Emperor of China and put the capital of his empire at Beijing. In 1260, Kublai accepted the Mandate of Heaven and declared himself as the ruler of China. In 1254, even before he conquered all of China, Kublai had learned from Confucian scholars about Chinese culture. In 1254, he thought of a new Dynasty name: The Yuan Dynasty. What ambition! Even before he conquered all of China, he knew the name of the Dynasty he would initiate.

Now, with relations to Korea and to put this nationalistic stuff to sleep!

When Kublai declared himself as the Emperor of China, he through CONFUCIAN PRINCIPLES wanted Korea to become a VASSAL of China. In the Song Dynasty, Korea submitted itself as a Vassal State of China. Confucian theory "appreciates" the flow and continuity of nature and law. Kublai Khan appreciated Confucian ideology greatly and wanted to further expand his control and wealth.

Korea submitted and allowed the marriage between a Mongol and a princess. Or was it a prince with a princess? Oh well! That should not affect this history.

Kublai Khan, the Emperor of China, through force and diplomacy made Korea a vassal state of China. He demanded tribute.

In this case, Korea was part of the Mongol Empire. Keep in mind that the Mongol Empire was NOT A SINGLE ENTITY AFTER THE DEATH OF GENGHIS KHAN. The Mongol Empire was many empires; all of which had Mongol emperors. Korea belonged to the one that the Mongol Kublai Khan.

ON A SIDE NOTE, the Dalai Lama states that when the Mongols (Kublai Khan) ruled China, they DID NOT put Tibet as part of China. But, Dalai Lama claims Kublai put Tibet as a tributary state to China like Korea! Tibetans refer to this as Priest-Patron relationship. Please to all Chinese nationalists, this is a side example. I am not arguing anything at all about Tibetan independence.

Please. correct this article from nationalism. Also, to nationalist Koreans, the Mongol Empire is not MODERN Mongolia. In other words, Korea was never ruled by Mongolia. Mongolia is MODERN nation state. Mongol Empire to Mongolia is like Ancient Greece to Modern Greece. Pertook15 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

TRUE HISTORY OF KOREA
Korea was a vassal i guess. People in the South usually.

Koreans in the North were integrate with the Manchus. Same with Jin dynasty.

Founder or Jin came from Korea. This information is in written in the History of Jin dynasty written by Yuan.

Chinese had to wear their hear and shave it. it was direct occupation.

Korea was not. It was a vassal but it was independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyface1234 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Korea was under Mongol Empire, its VASSAL. Then it was vassal of Ming. Then it was vassal Ching. Then it was colony of JAPAN. Then north korea was satellite of Russia and China, south Korea became satellite of america. That's it. This is the answer to the many insults of korean users against mongolian users. Monkh Naran (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * South Korea was never a 'satellite' of the USA. South Korea is an independent democratic state with many military allies, including America, which is de facto the most important of them.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
 * South Korea is a 'satellite' of the USA just like their old master Japan. Sovereign states don't have foreign armies on their lands, don't have foreign countries sign their armistices, don't have foreign countries write their constitutions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.55.147 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no, the American military are there as ALLIES to Korea, and the Koreans want them there! Anon, you may want to study the definition of 'satellite nation.' HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Size of Mongol Empire
How big was the Empire 33 million or what Kai4 says 34 million? This information would determine if the British or Mongol Empire was bigger. User:Blood3 18:04, 4th January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You probably can find the exact value in the Mongol Imperial Statistical Yearbook 1292. Yaan (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Largest Empire
The Mongol Empire was the largest Empire, with 36 million http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/Latitude.pdf--Mr nonono (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some users try to change the size of the empire so often in the page. If we ignore the useless sea territory and small islands of the British Empire, the Mongol Empire is the really largest in the human history.--Enerelt (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no 'really largest' about it, the Mongol Empire is second in total land mass. Those sea territory and islands however small all played their role in the collective hyperpower that was the British Empire, they certainly were not useless.--SuperDan89 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the term "largest" is not something that needs to be decided by Wikipedia editors. The general rules are this:
 * If there are reliable sources which refer to it as the largest empire, we can reference those sources.
 * If there are no sources which make that claim, then the Wikipedia article should not be making such a claim
 * If sources give differing descriptions as to whether it was the largest, 2nd largest, etc., then the Wikipedia article should simply report neutrally what the sources say, i.e., "It is often described as the largest empire", or "some sources describe it as the largest empire", or "it is occasionally described as the largest empire," etc.
 * If the sources are so split that it's not even possible to agree on terms such as "often" or "some", then just quote specific sources, such as, "The Cambridge series on Medieval History describes it as ", "Academic Peter Jackson says ", etc.
 * Hope that helps, --Elonka 13:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this appears to be a point with a lot of attention on it, what do others think about creating a section of the article entitled "Size"? That way we can cover the range of the Empire, and the various discussions about how to measure it.  Plus we can get some of the details out of the lead, which per WP:LEAD should be strictly a summary of what's already elsewhere in the article.  Thoughts? --Elonka 00:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Elonka, This is a good suggestion in my opinion. The lead needs to be shorter but it should have something like "...grew to become possibly the largest empire the world has ever known" with appropriate citations. Then the other details can go in the Size (Extent might be better) section June 29, 2024
 * Sounds good. BTW, to sign your posts, the easiest way is just to add four tildes, ~, which will automatically sign and datestamp for you. :) Using the time template always posts the current time, rather than the time that the post was written. --Elonka 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement
Since this is such an important topic, I am thinking of eventually improving and nominating this article for featured status. This would be a several step process that could take months. It would start with either nominating the for Good article status, or perhaps requesting a formal peer review. Before doing any of those though, I wanted to check with the regular editors on this page: Do you think the article is ready for "Good" status? Or are there sections that would need substantial improvement first, and if so, which? Thanks, --Elonka 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is really good idea. I think our active users: Yaan, Elonka, and Gantuya eng should give their comments and assistance. I am ready to help.--Enerelt (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the suggestion. Needs a little bit of work just to polish the article up ready for submission. June 29, 2024


 * Sounds good! I've added a section below with notes from the automated peer review program.  Other things that will need to be addressed include:
 * Fixing ambiguous links. Here's a report showing what needs to be changed or reviewed:
 * Adding alt text to all images. Here's a tool that helps with this:
 * Reviewing all external links to make sure that they're valid and appropriate. Here's a tool for that as well:
 * Checking references. Right now several citations refer to an author and book, but nowhere do we have the expanded listing of the book, such as ISBN, publisher, date, etc.  Every single reference on the article needs to be checked and use a standardized format.  There are several ways to do that, but one system that I like is what can be seen at Franco-Mongol alliance, if you'd like to use that as a template. In short, we can have a simple page reference in the footnote, and then provide the full book listing in the "References" section further down on the page.  Book references must include author(s), title, publisher, location of publisher, year of publication, ISBN, and, where appropriate, notes on anything in a non-English language and whether we used a translation.  So quite a bit of work here, but let's just pick a spot and start working through it.
 * Every single paragraph needs at least one citation, and every paragraph needs to end with a citation. If we can't find a citation for a paragraph, then either tag it with cn, or remove the information.  By the time we get to our nomination for Good Article status though, all tags need to be addressed.
 * Looking forward to working with you, --Elonka 18:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Names
I think the article needs to make clear which of the two names (mongolyn ezent guren, ih mongol uls) are modern and which were already used at the time of its existence. And of course at least the historical name should be given in traditional letters. Yaan (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "ih mongol uls" is used in the seal of the Guyuk's letter in the picture given in this article. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, I wasn't aware of that. I just thought I'd cite some paper by F.W.Cleaves when someone wants to delete ih mongol ulus. Actually, I was more concerned about that mongolyn ezent guren. Is it something that was already used in the 13th/14th centuries, or is it something historians invented? Yaan (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yekhe Mongol Ulus (Ih Mongol Uls) is mentioned in Guyuk's seal. I also heard it in Chinggis Khaan's bilig surgaali. The Yuan court used Ikh Yuan Mongol Uls, confirming it was the continuation of the Yekhe Mongol Ulus. The term - 'Ezent guren' (Empire / a state ruled by a lord) is very modern.--Enerelt (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is so (that ezent guren is modern), then it should probably be reflected in the article. I.e. the first sentence should be changed into something like "The Mongol Empire (Их Mонгол улс Ikh Mongol Uls or, in modern literature, ) was an empire from the 13th and 14th century spanning from Eastern Europe across Asia."
 * Yaan (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Automated peer review
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. All , Many, All, All , All , All , All , Many, all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , any , any , any , any , any , many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many,A number of,Some ,Some ,Some ,Some ,Some ,Some ,a few,a few,a few,a few,a number of,a variety of,several,several,several,several,several,several,several,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some " were found. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] 2
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 cm, use 50 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50&amp;nbsp;cm.[?]
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * As per Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?] ===Middle East===
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?] ====The Mongol Empire during the reign of Kublai Khan====,===Pan Mongolism of the New Mongol Empire===
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it is claimed
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), armor (A) (British: armour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favorite (A) (British: favourite), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), counterattack (A) (British: counter-attack), traveled (A) (British: travelled), travelled (B) (American: traveled),  gray (A) (British:  grey).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” 99: "
 * Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.[?] 2
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

--Elonka 18:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

one of every sheep?
in the "Great expansion under Ogedei Khan" section

at the end of the third paragraph it says "Ogedei showed heroic generosity to his subjects and decreed one out of every sheep[29] should be levied for poor people."

which is meaningless! perhaps someone could change it to to "decreed a proportion of all sheep" which is better but not perfect.

this of course is pending a reference check?

i'm pretty sure my local library doesn't have the history of the mongol empire etc!

thanks all Tek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.33.183 (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ogedei
It is not necessary to merge the part "Great Expansion under Ögedei Khan" with the article "Ögedei Khan". Some scholars like C.P.Atwood, Rene Grousset, Thomas J.Barfield, and George Lane mention the Mongols during his reign in a separate chapter when talking about the Mongol Empire because of his achievement.--Enerelt (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should definitely be a section on Ogedei. The reason I suggested the merge though, is that currently the Mongol Empire article is very long, 136K. I'd like to see it quite a bit shorter, per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SIZERULE, to perhaps half that size. The section on Ogedei right now seems overly long, in context with the other Mongol leaders. For example, there seems to be much more information on Ogedei than there is on Genghis or Kublai.  Ogedei should definitely be covered, but we should try to keep coverage of the various leaders in the proper proportion.  This does not mean deleting any information about Ogedei, but simply to move some of it to other articles. --Elonka 03:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Extension
Maybe this article should be extended up to 1636 or 1691?? ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Mongol influences in European art
I am proposing through an RfC (Requests for comment) that the sandbox article Mongol influences in European art be introduced in the mainspace as a regular article. Interested users, please give your comments here.  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  02:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Orda / horde (structure)
I've stubbed a key concept in the history of East/Central Asian nomads, the Orda (structure). I am having trouble finding sources defining this term properly, perhaps some of the editors who contributed to this FA could help? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See this map dated of 1227
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/97/genghis/khanmap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picaballo (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Mongol empire 1290.jpg Deleted
An image used in this article,, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Jcb for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/maps in History and Commercial Atlas of China You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
 * What should I do?

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikify notice
Please clean-up the article to respect notably MOS:Ety and CAPS.


 * Foreign words that have not entered the English language should be italicised such as kurultai and noyan
 * There is a lot of confusion as to capitalization, for example,
 * "By the time of Kublai's death, the Mongol Empire had fractured into four separate khanates or empires, each pursuing its own separate interests and objectives: the Golden Horde khanate in the northwest, the Chagatai Khanate in the west, the Ilkhanate in the southwest, and the Yuan Dynasty based in modern-day Beijing."


 * So is it a khanate or Khanate? I suspect the former but then again we write empire (generic) but the British Empire when referring to a specific era or universally-acknowledged reign or dominance of some force (cf the Roman Empire).
 * Finally, this is an example of what I am implying about consistency to the article:
 * "What is referred to in English as the Mongol Empire is described in the modern Mongolian language as "Mongolyn Ezent Guren" (Монголын эзэнт гүрэн) literally meaning "Mongols' Imperial Power" and as "Ikh Mongol Uls" (Их Монгол улс), "Greater Mongol Nation/State".
 * Which I would render as -
 * What is referred to in English as the Mongol Empire is described in the modern Mongolian language as Mongolyn Ezent Guren (Монголын эзэнт гүрэн) literally meaning "Mongols' Imperial Power" and as Ikh Mongol Uls (Их Монгол улс), meaning "Greater Mongol Nation/State". (for information the slash is unnecessary so decide which term State/Nation best fits the translation given the context).


 * Elsewhere, there are ancient Mongolian (I assume) phrases that are "" speechmarked and the translation bracketed, or italicized, so the idea of my tag is to try and harmonize the conventions used in the article.  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)