Talk:Genghis Khan

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

fix the spelling error in the sentence: "The Mongol army he built was renowned for its flexibility, discipine, and organisation, while his empire established upon meritocratic principles." Cuboidism (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Mongolian Chinggis Khan was born in 1162. 203.231.145.72 (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox caption

Efforts of a sockpuppet

Bermandolaoro, please stop your efforts to add Kublai Khan to the infobox caption. It is not "essential" as you claim, especially as the issue is discussed so thoroughly in the depictions section. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC) I do not understand why for 5 days you had not removed "Kublai Khan" from the caption, but now for some reason you choose to remove. For 2+ years the caption even had 5 lines of description and no one removed it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1152600465 (this was from 1st of May 2023) At first I though it was like you claimed that it was because no more than 3 lines so that people can read it easier. I manage to made it into 3 lines but you still choose to remove it? That means it wasn't just about the 3 lines, it was the way how you wanted the caption edit it. There is no reason to remove it as long as it was in 3 lines and based on facts. It is a fact that the portrait was made 50 years after Genghis Khan death and Kublai Khan authorized the existence of the portrait. I wanted this point to be made very clear. The depiction of course mentions it but what's wrong with mentioning a tiny detail in the caption too? Also with all the international media and headlines with Cleopatra and netflix, you still hadn't do anything to remove the huge 6 line caption of Cleopatra. Why is 6 lines allowed in Cleopatra? You put no effort in reducing Cleopatra caption but instead only choose Genghis Khan caption. Nobody had removed the Cleopatra 6 lines caption for a very long time. Bermandolaoro (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:LONGTIME-type arguments—you seem to think that no improvements can be made to articles if other articles have mistakes and this one has existed for a while. Kublai Khan has only an incidental relevance to the portrait—the painter would certainly come before him in any case. At Last Supper, we do not say "Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan's commission", we say "Leonardo da Vinci's late-1490s mural painting". You wanted your point to be made very clear and against consensus from me, Re Packer&Tracker and others. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC) You gave me wiki reasons for removing the previous info caption was [1] [2] which is "Trimming captions" and "further trimming captions". You wanted it trimmed in 3 lines, I managed it anyway despite knowingly know other historical figures had 5-6 lines for decades. But what wiki rule says I can't mention Kublai Khan. The portrait of Genghis Khan and all Yuan emperor album existed because of Kublai Khan. He authorized Genghis Khan portrait and commissioned a painter to paint his portrait. He was nearly in his early teens when Genghis Khan was still alive. I already explained to Re Packer&Tracker, [1], I also was reverted good faith edit. The reason for the revert is because I edited with 4 lines, Bermandolaoro (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC) That wiki rule would be MOS:CAPSUCCINCT ("More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting; instead, further information can be provided in the article body."). Questions for you now: what wiki rule says that after five days no revert can happen? What wiki rule says that nothing should be done if other articles break policies? What wiki rule says that image captions must include not the painter, but the one who ordered the painter to paint? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Okay, I abided by your MOS:CAPSUCCINCT but I doubt anyone is doing the same for Cleopatra. I still managed to make it no more than three lines. You asking me all these wiki rules but there's no rule you found that I was breaking wiki policies for Kublai Khan, the man that is responsible for the entire portrait of Yuan album and authorized the painting of Genghis Khan when even Genghis himself didn't allow it.Bermandolaoro (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC) If you wish to do the same for Cleopatra, fix it. And now you learn about what you fall back upon when there is no wiki rule—consensus, although it's sort of unneeded when changes are riddled with grammatical errors. Incidentally, the IP account that posted here and on Re Packer&Tracker's page is you editing logged-out, correct? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Oh I see what's going on here. Moved on from Red hair, have we @Bermandolaoro:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Is there really no way to mention Kublai Khan in the caption? Yes by accident. I already explained in the depiction section that he didn't have red hair. I personally still don't understand why you choose to remove Kublai, he is the only person we know who seen Genghis Khan alive and the person who authorize the drawing of Genghis Khan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#AirshipJungleman29:_May_9,_2023 Is this the reason why removed it? ] To win some award, I don't understand.Bermandolaoro (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I can see you don't understand many things. You may wish to review WP:CIR, WP:SOCK and WP:CONSENSUS, and perhaps also read the page you linked without understanding it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Firstable you created your own consensus and second you cannot provide a Wikipedia rule that says your not allow to edit Kublai Khan. I will tell other wikipedia users what your doing. That Optional_RfA_candidate shows your just trying to earn point by editing Genghis Khan. You think your improving but your not, your whole purpose is something else. I've already send message to the other wikipedians, you want to block me so bad because you can't find me a reason for not allowing to mention Kublai Khan in a caption. This is simply you CHERRYPICKING editing. Is this the best you got? WP:CIR, WP:SOCK and WP:CONSENSUS? Can you find a reason that justifies removing Kublai Khan (the reason for the existence of the Genghis Khan portrait)?Bermandolaoro (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Cherrypicking and being bias is not going to help you win a adminship. So now I understand why you are tampering where you not suppose to. No one since the last decade trimmed Cleopatra lines either, they only increased. If this allowed than so can the Genghis Khan caption, if your going to be admin you would know what to do with Cleopatra instead of telling me to something about it. If you can trimmed Genghis Khan likes you can do the same for Cleopatra. I need tell others you just trying to win points, you don't care about improving article. Bermandolaoro (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Feel free to tell whoever you want; perhaps then you'll learn what consensus is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct name first

How about using the correct-name first then aka incorrect-name instead of incorrect-name aka correct-name. It should not matter if the mistaken form is more popular in foreign countries or not. Correct form should come first. Incorrect form should come second and also redirect to correct form. Chinggis should be primary. Zectbumo (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"Genghis, which was introduced by 18th-century French scholars who misread the original texts." Zectbumo (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME, Zectbumo. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that link Airship, so it seems that we need to have a discussion about this because the examples that is listed is common names used by English sources but it says "reliable English-language sources" and as you can see the French scholars made a mistake thus any English source that copied from this mistake is automatically unreliable by definition so it wouldn't count as a reliable source. Zectbumo (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sources guideline, Zectbumo, if you want to know what constitutes a "reliable source" on Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed passage in medieval depiction

I've removed a passage with circular references to Weatherford in the medieval depiction section. I've noted to AirshipJungleman29 before that Weatherford is not a historian, his works rarely use citations, and contain many mistakes according to Timothy May. It should be OK to use Weatherford in conjunction with other supporting citations imo, but in this case, both citations reference Weatherford. Qiushufang (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2023

Please correct the spelling typo of "organisation" in paragraph 4, line 3, word 1, to "organization" Keep the comma (: Thank you, your work is appreciated! BrasherBarb (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:ENGVAR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)