Talk:Mongol Empire

Needs contributions
I have done some foundation-building work here, expanding the Understand section and adding some links & redirects so people can find the article. Even that could use improvement, but anyway it is not the main point of the article.

The Destinations section really needs work to make this a useful article. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Genghis Khan.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png

Cutting down this encyclopedic history article
I just had a read of this article, and boy is this overly encyclopedic. In fact, I would say the ratio of encyclopedic content to travel content would be over 4:1. I'm no expert on the Mongol Empire, but here are my suggestions.

First up, I think the talk section can go entirely. I don't see how this is in scope; in fact, I don't even see how this is in scope for Wikipedia, for what it's worth. But if consensus calls to keep this section, here's what I propose. The left column is the existing wording as of September 17, 10:35 (UTC), while the right column is the wording I propose. I've numbered all the suggestions.

Suggestion 1 Frankly speaking, whether Mongolians in the 21st century speak Russian as a second language is almost wholly irrelevant to a travel guide or even an encyclopedia about the Mongol Empire.

Now coming back to the top, this is where it gets real hard. I'm having trouble trying to figure out what's useful and what's not, but we'll first start from the lede plus the first bit of text in "Understand". Suggestion 2 I don't see why we need to say what could be mentioned in a paragraph in two different paragraphs – it breaks the structure and readability and brings the article in line with many of our other "empire" articles. The legacy is what Wikivoyage's 21st-century readers and travellers will seek to find out about, not whether they were the largest empire or not.

Now time to start of with "Understand", "13th century conquests" can clearly be shortened. Suggestion 3 I'm not going to touch the rest of that section, but I don't think we need to go into too much detail about Genghis Khan. Additionally, whether Mongols today widely regard Genghis Khan as the founder of the Mongol Empire is really just an opinion that doesn't need to go in a travel guide.

Now to the next section: Suggestion 4 First of all, "empire" is not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalized per WV:CAPS, but otherwise I don't think we need to add fluffery about the legacy that the Mongol Empire has left on former Chinese dynasties. "Empire articles" should indeed be mentioning about the legacy, but they should not about other former empires that ceased to exist.

I don't know which bits of "After 1300" should go, so I'll leave that for someone else to look at.

So in conclusion, realistically, this article in its current state resembles more of an encyclopedic article than a travel guide. A lot of work is needed to clean this up, but these are some first steps that can be taken. Feel free to make minor tweaks to my proposed wordings if necessary; if you've got an alternative wording that you think suits the article better, by all means feel free to suggest it. The more choices, the better.

Other thoughts? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've also long thought this article is more encyclopedic than travel-relevant, but wasn't motivated enough to contribute or propose changes. Perhaps beefing up the "Destinations" section alone would be a significant improvement in getting it closer to a travel guide, but I'm not sure what more can be added from an essentially nomadic society better known for destructing, not building, things (maybe that's an unwarranted stereotyping, I don't know).
 * I think I'm in favour of all of your proposals, although I would keep the parts mentioning Genghis Khan as the founder of the modern Mongolian nation (as well as his birth name, Temujin, and the "Great Khan" epithet), and the descendant dynasties marrying into local nobility and keeping some influence centuries afterwards, which might be relevant to some articles linking this one (or likely to link in the future); e.g. any mention of the Crimean Khanate (wp) comes to my mind first. Vidimian (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, with its much larger contributor base and its requirements for references to reliable sources, provides much better history articles than can Wikivoyage. This article was substantively written by one person without any references. That contributor, Thedog 2, which well-intentioned, has a history of writing long history and politics sections that have included edits that are factually incorrect, not researched, or reflect personal opinion.
 * This article lists only two sites that travellers can visit.
 * I think we should be discussing either purging the Understand section as a personal essay, or deleting the article. The latter option would cut off the possibility of contributors adding other sites to visit, so cutting the Understand section down to one or two paragraphs would probably be better.
 * We do not want Wikivoyage to be a site where amateur historians can write their own versions of history. Ground Zero (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought most work was by User:Pashley, though (linking their username so they are notified of this discussion). Vidimian (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed was. I too don't think there's a lot more to add from not only a society that was known for destruction, but a society whose demise started around seven centuries ago. I'm sure $$destruction + a$$ $$society$$ $$that$$ $$is$$ $$old = not$$ $$many$$ $$travel$$ $$sites$$. Continuing onto 's point, it's worth noting that even those two sites aren't overly specific to the Mongol Empire (when I mean specific, something like how the several forts in Ghana are listed in Danish Empire or how Kristiansten Fortress is mentioned in Swedish Empire). Every country's national museum will have some sort of exhibit portraying the country's past history, and the Mausoleum of Genghis Khan is about Genghis Khan, not about the Mongol Empire. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 13:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I did not look far enough back in the edit history. I now see that the article has been here for six years. My apologies to Pashley.
 * I do still think that a long, unreferenced history article to support two sites that, as SHB2000 points out, are only generally related to the subject, does not belong in a travel guide. If there aren't more sites that can be added, then deletion may be appropriate. The article has had six years to grow into a travel article, and has not succeeded in doing so. Ground Zero (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * has added a few sites relating to the Mongol Empire in China so I guess deletion is now off the table. The "Understand" section is still very long and unwieldy, though. If we really don't want to lose the current text, I'm happy to move the text to Mongol Empire, which needs expansion. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not the main contributor to this article, but Genghis Khan was the founder of the Mongol Empire, so his mausoleum absolutely is related to this article. Modern-day Mongolians consider him to be the founder of their nation. The Talk section should remain too because it tells us which languages a traveller should know if they wish visit the sites here. And Russian is indeed the most widely-spoken foreign language in Mongolia, not English. The dog2 (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I wrote parts of this, including much of Mongol_Empire, & I think most of that should stay, though I agree it could be cut down some. This is not only a (barely) reasonable travel topic on its own, but also useful as something to link to from the articles on the many places the Mongols conquered.
 * Of course it is unreferenced since that is policy here; we might fix that by turning things like Ilkhanate into listings with WP links.
 * I cannot see why anyone would want to delete Mongol_Empire; this is useful information for anyone travelling in the region. I do think it could be shortened, but I'd keep the part about Russian being widely spoken & remove the stuff about scripts which is covered in Mongolian_phrasebook so not needed here. I'd have:
 * Mongolian was the main language of the Mongol Empire. Today, it is it sole official language in the independent country Mongolia, while in China it is co-official with Mandarin in Inner Mongolia and the ethnic Mongol prefectures and counties of the neighbouring provinces.
 * Russian is often spoken as a second language by educated people in Mongolia, while the ethnic Mongols in China usually speak Mandarin as well.
 * Pashley (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * " I cannot see why anyone would want to delete Mongol_Empire#Talk " – read my statement above, " Frankly speaking, whether Mongolians in the 21st century speak Russian as a second language is almost wholly irrelevant to a travel guide or even an encyclopedia about the Mongol Empire ". This information can simply go in Inner Mongolia, Mongolia, and wherever there are sites. Do we need to mention in Swedish Empire that Swedish isn't going to get you far in Ghana? Absolutely not. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I did read your statement & thought it was nonsense. Repeating it does not change my opinion. Pashley (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Information about languages that are spoken absolutely belongs in a travel guide instead of an encyclopaedia. That is precisely the information that travellers would want to know. So yes, information that Swedish is no longer widely spoken in the former Swedish colonies belongs in a travel guide. On the other hand, French is widely spoken in most of the former French colonies, so that absolutely could be mentioned too. The dog2 (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the article about travelling in Mongolia. And this information is not about the Mongol Empire. "Everything belongs in every article" is not how Wikivoyage operates. We put relevant information in the relevant article. Ground Zero (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pashley, are you now implying that my opinion is essentially invalid because you think it appears nonsensical to you? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)