Talk:Ilkhanate

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 [1]. --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#Edits_done_by_@Pervezmusk.: Beshogur (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: 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 [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)

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)." (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)

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

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

Too much false nationalism here. It is true this period revived the idea of Iran among locals but in the larger Mongol empire, it was just one of many Mongol uluses. There is no proof that a simple Persian peasent called the regime or the political terriotry Iran. Persian Iraq, Arab Iraq and other names were still used Ortaq (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

See RS among others: The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire, p. 236, "the Mongols called their Persian kingdom "Iran": the ancient name of the country, which had hardly been used since the Muslim Arab invasions of the seventh century. At the time of the Mongol conquest, no polity called “Iran” had existed for 600 years"; or Ilkhanid Rule and its Contributions to Iranian Political Culture, 2006, p. 72, "It was roughly at the same time that their territory eventually acquired officially a very prestigious denomination, full of almost legendary historical power-Iran, or, according to the proper wording, Iran-zamin ... the Ilkhans proclaimed themselves as the rulers of Iran (padishahan-i Iran). There is no proof that a simple Persian peasant called the regime anything, because what a simple Persian peasant thought of anything was not recorded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Why dont we just say it was used among the Persian intellectuals? there is no mention of usage of the term Iran as polity before Oljeitu whose reign is special for many reasons. He and his successors sponsored the shah-name and the idea of Iran. For the Mongols, the Ilkhanate was just one of many uluses of the Mongol Empire. I wrote about it in the Ilkhan section with citations. Ortaq (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Where are Persian intellectuals mentioned in thr sources?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (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 Arminden. Where have you seen "Ilkhanate" used on WP as a demonym? ~~ 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. ~~ 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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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. ~~ 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"

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)

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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ilkhanate seperation from Mongol empire

Hulagu Khan opposed Emperor Ariq Böke.

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.

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. Hiu789 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

@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)

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

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

Atwood 2004,p.458 Hiu789 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

A page on Kublai's career between 1253 and 1274, completely irrelevant to the Ilkhanate. Please pay attention to which article you are talking about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the hulagu part where he opposed Ariq boke Yuiguai (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is on that page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

that event took place in 1260. And he reject Ariq boke as emperor of Mongol empire that means he declare separation of ilkhanate from mongol empire in a informal way. Hiu789 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

And after Toluid Civil War, Kublai khan convened his kurultai to confirm his status as Great Khan but none of the three other khans attended.

Source: Rossabi 1988, p. 62. Hiu789 (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

[4]. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

References

March 2025

Some recent edits have introduced nationalistic perspectives related to countries the Mongols ruled. To ensure a balanced representation of different viewpoints and historical accuracy, I have included information on the meaning of 'Ilkhan' and the historical use of Mongolian political legitimacy theories.Ortaq (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The statement you added about "Mongolian theory of the political legitimation" ([5]) does not clearly follow from the source you cited, or not the pages you cited (324-325) at any rate, which are focused on the content of coinage and don't make some sweeping generalization of this nature. There seems to be a more relevant passage on p. 323 of the same source ([6]), but it refers specifically to Ghazan's coinage reforms, not Ilkhanid practice in general. Wikipedia must be careful not to include interpretations or generalizations beyond what the sources themselves explicitly say, per WP:OR. R Prazeres (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Added more citations to prevent from your vandalism. Ortaq (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Since you've only replied with personal attacks, I'm not sure you understood the feedback I gave you, but the new edits don't look bad at a glance. I don't have further time to devote to this right now, so I encourage other editors to check your main addition, which I've moved to a more appropriate section, and revise it if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't do undo with multiple accounts. You do not have evidence to counter historical facts Ortaq (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I've reported you for edit warring [7], though it should really have been taken to WP:ANI. Feel free to try to convince the admins over there that me and R Prazeres are the same person (so far I only see one person editing with more than one account [8]). HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Since they've chosen to be completely anti-collaborative, I came back and quickly checked a couple of their aforementioned edits and they again failed to respect WP:V and WP:OR. Their claim here that the "source says both girls and boys (very young)" is simply false: the cited source ([9]) mentions "pederasty" and nothing more. Their main addition about Mongol political legitimation ([10]) still appears to fall into WP:SYNTH as before, as they cite various disconnected details from multiple sources that do not clearly state this general point. There is certainly more to say about Mongol practices that persisted in the Ilkhanid state and plenty of reliable sources about them, including even some of the sources they cited, but the editor seems more interested in pushing a vague generalization for POV reasons (their out-of-the-blue complaint about "nationalistic perspectives" betrays that) than adding precise details supported directly by the sources. R Prazeres (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for looking into it R Prazeres. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible Flag of the Ilkhanate

Hello! I’ve been seeing a possible flag of the Ilkhanate floating around the web, and was wondering if it is legitimate or not.

Flag in Question: TJ Kreen (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It is derived from what the Catalan Atlas, a Spanish map of the fourteenth century, seems to depict. It is possible that this was the flag of the Ilkhanate but is not certain. It may simply have been a stock literary cliche in western European travellogues of that time. There is a similar situation for all other Mongol-dominion flags on the Catalan Atlas. In Wikipedia terms, while a couple of sentences in the body discussing the possible flags might be WP:DUE, adding it to the infobox would certainly be not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like AirshipJungkeman29 beat me to it, but yeah, these things float around the web because at some point they were displayed on Wikipedia or published on amateur vexillological sites and then they spread everywhere. The source, as mentioned abvoe, is a European medieval cartographical document dated to around 1375. This is mentioned in the body of the article with citations (see image caption in Government seciton), but it does not belong in the lead unless there is common support in reliable sources for considering it a real historical flag of the khanate. Given that this is a pre-modern state and that western European cartographers would have had only vague knowledge of it (again as mentioned above), I doubt we'll find that kind of support. R Prazeres (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Uncited genealogical charts

Why do we have two near-identical family trees, under two different but near-identical headings, and neither of them is sourced and one of them has been tagged as such since 2021? Can we clarify if any of these are based on reliable sources? If not, then I don't see the point in keeping two large unsourced charts cluttering the bottom of the page, right below a list that is much easier to read and probably much easier to verify. R Prazeres (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)