Talk:Chagatai Khanate: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:47, 27 August 2008

Central Asia Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Chagatai Khanate is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chaghatai or Chagatai or Jagatai was a son of Jenghiz or Genhiz or Jinghiz Khan. To call his ulus or empire the Chaghatai or the Chagatai Khanate is like calling Jenghiz Khan's conquests the "Jenghiz Empire". "Ogodite" is commonly used as adjective for Ogodei, another son of Jenghiz. "Jinghizids" or "Jenghizids" is also used for the descendants of Jenghiz, or for those who claimed descent from him. The adjective for Chaghatai can properly be "Chaghataite" or "Jaghataite". Hence, Chaghataite's empire can and perhaps should be called the "Chaghataite Khanate".

Article Duplication

It looks like these two articles: Chagatai Khanate and Chaghataite khanate are about the same person. I added the merger tags at the top and will add them to the Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Even though the other article has more content the this one is included in the {{History_of_Mongolia}} and looks like the naming issue is addressed at the top so I indiacte that the articles should be merged here. Dalf | Talk 03:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citations please

This is not satisfactory, IMO, yet. Alerts for readers. Most of the sections go unsubstantiated.--Jhelyam (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it would possibly be nice to have "everything" sourced, this is only strictly necessary for statements that are actually disputed (or likely to be disputed). Plastering the article with tags only makes it look bad. It would be much more helpful if you could substantiate your criticism, and point out any actual flaws in the current text. --Latebird (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism is for poorly sourced material. For example, statements and paragraphs without sufficient substantiation. When an article or parfts of an article are in poor shape, they should look bad (Alerts). This is not an encyclopedia for original research of any kind; in fact, that is against the policy as I understand. When I read unsourced statements that me me tingle with curiosity and skepticism, alerts should be used. This isn't a blog, but an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia where original research should not be used.--Jhelyam (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually in the middle of rewriting this article when you put up the alerts. You are right, several parts of this article were either questionable or outright false. I made sure to thoroughly cite my edits. Hope this solves the problem. Ro4444 (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:47, 27 August 2008 edit Ro4444 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,629 edits m →‎Citations please ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:47, 27 August 2008 edit undo Ro4444 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,629 edits m →‎Citations please Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Criticism is for poorly sourced material. For example, statements and paragraphs without sufficient substantiation. When an article or parfts of an article are in poor shape, they should look bad (Alerts). This is not an encyclopedia for original research of any kind; in fact, that is against the policy as I understand. When I read unsourced statements that me me tingle with curiosity and skepticism, alerts should be used. This isn't a blog, but an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia where original research should not be used.--[[User:Jhelyam\|Jhelyam]] ([[User talk:Jhelyam\|talk]]) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)		Criticism is for poorly sourced material. For example, statements and paragraphs without sufficient substantiation. When an article or parfts of an article are in poor shape, they should look bad (Alerts). This is not an encyclopedia for original research of any kind; in fact, that is against the policy as I understand. When I read unsourced statements that me me tingle with curiosity and skepticism, alerts should be used. This isn't a blog, but an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia where original research should not be used.--[[User:Jhelyam\|Jhelyam]] ([[User talk:Jhelyam\|talk]]) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

	:I was actually in the middle of rewriting this article when you put up the alerts. I made sure to thoroughly cite my edits. Hope this solves the problem. [[User:Ro4444\|Ro4444]] ([[User talk:Ro4444\|talk]]) 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)		:I was actually in the middle of rewriting this article when you put up the alerts. You are right, several parts of this article were either questionable or outright false. I made sure to thoroughly cite my edits. Hope this solves the problem. [[User:Ro4444\|Ro4444]] ([[User talk:Ro4444\|talk]]) 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)