User talk:AirshipJungleman29/Genghis Khan

Hey!—this is really nice to see. I don't know if we've properly met, but I often work on Chinese history topics, having brought Cai Lun to FA last year. If you're at all open to it, I would very much be interested in assisting with Genghis. Though I should note that my preexisting knowledge on his period is more orientated towards the Chinese interactions (thus, I am more familiar with Kublai). I do not mean to overstep, if you'd rather work alone then you have my complete understanding. Best – Aza24 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, thank you very much for the offer! I had intended that Genghis would be a really long-term project which I would gradually work towards, especially as I will be rather busy during the next month, until mid-December. However, as the Chinese interactions are, if anything, my weakness (I approached from the other direction), I think I would be an idiot not to accept. I look forward to working with you!

P.S. incidentally, just curious as how you found the page in the first place? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I had assumed it would be a slow-paced project, which makes total sense. Its really the only way to go about such large projects without getting burned out or overwhelmed. Glad our interests re Genghis will complement each other—his article deserves much better than its current state.

As to how I found it, I was a frequent reviewer at FAC, but haven't been for a few months. I still follow the newest nominations though, and was impressed by Ai-Khanoum, so went to see who the nominator was and thus found the "Current long-term project" tab via your userpage. Aza24 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does deserve much better (and I had completely forgotten about that tab). I've never really collaborated with others on Wiki—how would you recommend we go about it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with a topic this big I like to look closely-at/collect the best sources (which you seem to have already begun). There's a great Oxford bibliographies entry on Khan, which you should have access to through the Wikipedia library. Then we might try and create a general structure of the article?

As far as splitting actual content creation, we could do so by subsection, or general areas? I suspect it might make sense for me to work on the South Asian campaigns and you on the Western Asian ones. The legacy/Impressions/reputation part will probably be the most difficult, but we can save that for later. Aza24 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, that sounds good. As you say, the legacy/reputation section will be difficult, but it can't be worse than what's in the article right now. Should we move general discussion to the sandbox talk page? I think something like that split you outlined will be most productive, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, will do so now. Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Aza24, I've done a brief section outline and some comments. Should note that I am fairly certain about the structuring of the upper parts, less so about the lower, but we can handle those later. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We may need a family section, otherwise I'm not sure how we can properly include his wives and some of the children like Alakhai Bekhi (his sons will be easier to integrate into the text)—though admittedly, I am not a fan of "family" sections, so perhaps we can find a creative solution. I suspect Legacy section will eventually need a few sub headers, but definitely not the inherently POV "positive-mixed-negative" scheme at the current article. Though he was not directly involved in some of the other Western Asian battles (George, Armenia etc.) it would be strange to leave them out of the "Mongol invasions" section entirely.

I am trying to look for existing WP articles on similar figures to get some ideas for structuring, but finding little luck. Articles for people like Kublai Khan and Timür are too undeveloped; something like the well-written Sargon II or Augustus might be worth taking inspiration from. The only Chinese emperor FA is Shunzhi Emperor, which is perhaps worth glancing at as well. Aza24 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other structural possibilities include Alexander the Great or Cleopatra (which I personally dislike). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and other stuff

Aza24, I think that's the sources section done to my satisfaction—what do you think? As noted at the HCRE review, I'm probably not going to be on-Wiki for most of this week, so please push on with whatever you think is best. I also noticed this nomination at FLC—thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking great for sure, though I'm considering adding a little bit from Wilkinson. I may get started on the early life section while you're gone, if that's okay?

Thanks for letting me know about the FLC nom, I've left a comment there and reverted the recent mass changes (which resulted in a huge loss of citations...) Aza24 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead! Do you know if that manual is accessible online, or is it print-only? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its a rather massive and pricey publication, so wouldn't be online at the normal sites (archive.org, google books etc.). I would point you to Z-Library, but you'd have to access it via TOR (though it only has the third edition) as it's not currently available on the surface web. Otherwise, if you email me I can scan you the relevant pages. It's more focused on the Yuan than Genghis specifically, so will probably only help with the legacy and sources sections. Aza24 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

;) I think you underestimate the wonders of archive.org .... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Glad it's there Aza24 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year

After trying to make the birth year confusion more concise, I am questioning whether we should be putting c. 1162 in the lead—maybe c. 1162/1167 is more appropriate. Also, I found this paper claiming some "conclusive result" but am frankly not convinced. Unesco is not known for their scholarship and I can't see that the article went through any real oversight. Of course, the author's research doesn't seem to be used by anyone either. Aza24 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that paper seems sketchy at best. Honestly, if we can just put mid-12th century or 1260s or something in the lead that'll probably be better. Still, it's a bridge we'll cross when we get to it. Sorry for my recent absence—RL got in the way.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]