Talk:Genghis Khan

Khagan (Great Khan) vs Khan
Why is Genghis Khan referred to as only a khan in the article? What is the rationale behind this? Genghis Khan was the first Khagan (Great Khan) of the Mongol Empire. For so many years he was correctly described as khagan or great khan. This is also inconsistent with the titles of subsequent Mongol emperors, who are correctly called khagan in their articles. Civciv5 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you refer to reliable sources styling him as khagan? Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this count? "The Secret History of the Mongols" - Urgunge Onon (2001)
 * https://www.google.be/books/edition/The_Secret_History_of_the_Mongols/2Pdu0mogJ2QC?hl=en&gbpv=1
 * Page 6: "was raised first to the position of a tribal Qan in 1189, and then to the exalted role of Great Qahan of Mongolia in 1206"
 * Page 26: "This second stage was completed during the reigns of the four great Qahans: Chinggis (1206-1227)..."
 * Also, his title is already is in his Mongolian name: Chinggis Khagan (Чингис хаан). The word khagan (хаан) is a supreme khan and is a different word than khan (хан).
 * At the succession box at the bottom of the article, Genghis is already called "Great Khan of the Mongol Empire". Civciv5 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source, a translation of the primary source. Perhaps, secondary sources dedicated to his life should be cited to verify the use of the khagan title. Borsoka (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Civciv5, it may be a WP:COMMONNAME issue, with the other articles being less adherent to policy. This is an English-language document, and the most common accurate terms should be used: if most English-language sources usually refer to his title as 'khan', then so should we. Remsense  留  04:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question; allow me to clarify as the article's primary author. Essentially the word "khagan"/"qa'an" is a later construction, which was never used in Genghis' lifetime, and which varied significantly in meaning through the years. For reasons of consistency and precision, I chose to use the chronologically-accurate title "khan", but I am open to explaining the distinction in the article.
 * The earliest peoples to use the term "khan" were the Xianbei between c. 200 BC and c. 400 AD. Even then, there were two terms with "an uncertain etymological relationship", which we know as "khan" and "khagan". In the Old Turkic of the steppe empires of the first millennium AD, "khagan" was a title and "khan" an abstract definition of a monarch. However, usage of "khagan" declined, and the word eventually merged with "khan" between the 10th and the 12th centuries.
 * As such, Genghis never used the title "khagan". He used "khan", with the appelation "Genghis", which we don't know the meaning of. His successor Ögedei, however, did revive and use the title "khagan" but only as a name (he is only referred to as "khagan", not Ögedei, until the 14th century). "Khagan" came to be seen as a higher-tier title than "khan", and so "khagan" was used retrospectively for all Mongol rulers, including Genghis and Guyuk, who both did not use the title. It is uncertain what title Mongke used, but Kublai preferred the term "khagan" which he passed on to his successors.
 * It is important to note, at this point, that "Great Khan" is not a translation of "khagan". "Great Khan" was used in Marco Polo's works; it probably has a Chinese origin, as the word "Great" can normally be taken as referring to imperial concepts.
 * So to conclude, the first writers who used the word "khagan" to mean "title of the rulers of the Mongol Empire/Yuan dynasty" came under the rule of Kublai. None of the previous four khans used the title in that precise context, and Genghis certainly did not. For this reason, the vast majority of modern reliable sources refer to him only as "khan", and so that is the title and spelling used in this article. The above is sourced to the historians Atwood and Buell. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This brings to mind a whole lot of inconsistencies. For example, on his Wikipedia article, Ögedei is called the "2nd Khagan of the Mongol Empire". This would be confusing for readers as Genghis is not referred to as Khagan on his article. Where's the first Khagan? Secondly, Genghis is called "Great Khan" and "Khagan" in the succession box at the bottom and navigation templates respectively.
 * This issue seems comparable to the use of pharaoh for Ancient Egyptian kings. The title was first used by Akhenaten or possibly Thutmose III. Yet on every Wikipedia article about kings before them, the title of "pharaoh" is used, even though monarchs like Khufu or Narmer never used this title.
 * Another comparable instance is the Roman ruler Augustus. Augustus was never officially emperor of Rome. He was princeps, merely the first citizen. His successors for several generations also were officially merely the first citizen of the "Roman Republic", and historians conventionally give them the title of emperor.
 * So even though Genghis may not have used the title of khagan in his lifetime, later historians or writers did ascribe the title to him like to all emperors of the Mongol Empire. Civciv5 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is very comparable, . The critical difference here is that unlike with the pharoahs or Augustus, it is not the historical convention to refer to Genghis with an anachronistic title.
 * I think this may do with the comparative lack of longevity of the Mongol Empire, compared with the Roman emperors or Egyptian pharoahs—there are not enough successors who actually used the title to justify applying the title retroactively to the earliest rulers. There were really only five true rulers of the Mongol Empire—Genghis, Ögedei, Guyuk, Mongke, and Kublai. Genghis and Guyuk never used the title. Ögedei used the word as a personal name, while Mongke used the word as one of many titles. Kublai was the only one who used the title in the way you refer to it.
 * Sadly, inconsistencies across Wikipedia are part and parcel of the site. Non-Western subjects such as Mongol history are rarely updated and often incorrect. I simply do not have the time to go through every article to find and correct individual inconsistencies. I hope you understand. That being said, I will take a look at the specific inconsistencies you pointed out. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have undone your edit on the article of Ögedei Khan. There is no agreement yet for the use of a singular title on all articles on rulers of the Mongol Empire, especially since you stated that Ögedei used the title of khagan, if only as a name.
 * It seems clear to me that the later Mongol rulers, historians and writers did retroactively ascribe the title of Khagan (or Great Khan) to earlier ones.
 * So I propose that all rulers of the Mongol Empire simply be referred to as either Khagan or Great Khan with a note for those rulers who may not have used the title during their lifetimes, but to whom it was bestowed by later generations. Civciv5 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not "the later Mongol rulers, historians and writers". The Mongols did not follow a consistent titling system, reliable sources reflect that, and our job is to reflect the reliable sources. Why should we refer to the five rulers of the Mongol Empire by the title that one of them used, when we could instead use a title that all five of them used? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I can find "reliable sources" that ascribe the title of Khagan or Great Khan to the Mongol rulers. How many would be necessary to establish the title of Khagan or Great Khan as the title for all rulers of the united Mongol Empire? Civciv5 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, it may become clear that there is a clear preference for one or the other in the relevant reliable sources. If not, tertiary sources such as other encyclopedias are consulted to gauge whether the use of one term is DUE over another in a given context.
 * (Also, WP:NCROY may be relevant here.) Remsense  留  15:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe NCROY is near-totally biased towards British/Western rulers, and basically says "do whatever you want" in regard to other places. I should note that my above comments are primarily based on Atwood's 2004 Encyclopedia of the Mongol Empire and Buell's 2003 Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I have also provided references to encyclopediae and dictionaries that explicitly define the title and usage of "khan" vs "khagan", you probably also need to find references with similar levels of detail, rather than cursory references to "Great Khan Genghis" or similar. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I should also note that if you believe retrospective Mongol sources are enough to give the title "khagan" to Genghis, as they are also willing to ascribe the title to his ancestors (Yesugei, Ambaghai, Khutula and Khabula), you have to be willing to say "Genghis was the fifth khagan of the Mongols" in the first sentence. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Descendants
There is a discrepancy as to how many children Ghengis Khan had. The article List of people with the most children states he had over 1,000 up to 3,000 children (although the reference is a blog). Should the article and the list not consistently have the same number of children listed? And what is the validity of the claim that he had thousands of children? Cltjames (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On whether the two pages should match, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. I am inclined to view the number on the other page as pure speculation. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As you say, the blog is the only source provided, presumably because reliable sources do not dare make such assertions. Yes the author is a professor contemporary global politics, but this certainly does not translate into expertise of 13th-century Mongolian history.  Aza24  (talk)   18:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Per WP:RMEC and WP:SNOW, not moved. Thanks for such a strong consensus! (non-admin closure) &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Genghis Khan → Chinggis Khan – I intend to nominate this article for FAC in the future, and would like to know if there is consensus for such a move; I have no preference, and will not !vote. Evidence for both sides can be found below.
 * Background: "Genghis" is the traditional English romanisation, first adopted in the 18th century after scholars misread Persian texts. "Chinggis" has been increasingly used in recent decades because it better reflects the name's pronunciation in Mongolian. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * General sources:

Google Trends

Google Scholar: 50,000 results for "Genghis", 10,000 results for "Chinggis"
 * Since 2020: 9,000 results for "Genghis", 2,000 results for "Chinggis"

Google ngrams


 * High-quality scholarship, by age:
 * The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire (Biran & Kim 2023): "Chinggis"
 * From Genghis Khan to Tamerlane: The Reawakening of Mongol Asia (Jackson 2023): "Chinggis"
 * The Mongol World (May & Hope 2022): "Chinggis"
 * The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World (Favereau 2021): "Chinggis"
 * The Mongol Empire (May 2018): "Chinggis"
 * Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire (Broadbridge 2018): "Chinggis"
 * The Mongols and the Islamic World: From Conquest to Conversion (Jackson 2017): "Chinggis"
 * The Mongol Empire: Genghis Khan, His Heirs, and the Founding of Modern China (Man 2014): "Genghis"
 * Defending Heaven: China's Mongol Wars, 1209–1370 (Waterson 2013): "Chinggis"
 * Chinggis Khan (Biran 2012): "Chinggis"
 * The Mongol Conquests in World History (May 2012): "Chinggis"
 * Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Empire (Fitzhugh, Rossabi, Honeychurch 2009): "Genghis"
 * The Cambridge History of Inner Asia (di Cosmo 2009): "Chinggis"
 * Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (Atwood 2004): "Chinggis"
 * Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule (Lane 2004): "Genghis"
 * Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection (Man 2004): "Genghis"
 * Imperial China, 900–1800 (Mote 1999): "Chinggis"
 * Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy (Ratchnevsky 1991): "Genghis"

Some examples of discussion in RS: Atwood 2004: Jackson 2023:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. By a long shot ngrams.  Modern academics may have their odd spelling preferences, but Wikipedia is written for the general public, not academics. Walrasiad (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME. Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The common name remains Genghis Khan.  O.N.R.  (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Jackson book uses Genghis in the title and Chinggis in the text, which might be an acceptable compromise here. I think any move away from Genghis is going to compromise recognizability for one of the most recognizable figures in history. (I pronounce Genghis with a soft g, so the difference between it and Chinggis seems quite minor considering I am completely uninformed as to the proper Mongolian pronunciation.) Srnec (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close, Genghis Khan remains the common name. Killuminator (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Genghis Khan is the common name. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

reference to "military-industrial complex"
Just a very small thing, but I believe that the concept of a 'military-industrial complex' is anachronistic, being a 20th century term referring almost exclusively to American politics. The Mongol polity at the time didn't have 'industries' in the modern understanding of the word. In the context, it could perhaps be replaced with a reference to the dual pastoral-military function of these units, or cut altogether as the next sentence is more to the point, saying that these units were also social units. However, if a historian has compared the reformed system to a 'military-industrial complex', this could be included, with a reference, and perhaps explicitly with a phrasing such as '[...] of households, in what x has called "a defined military–industrial complex."' I believe its current, unmarked, uncited use is misleading and gives a false idea of Mongol society at the time. Apologies if I have expressed this in the wrong place; I've never worked on a protected or semi-protected page before. Q1w2e3r4t5y6u (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I checked the source and there is no reference to any sort of "industrial complex" in it. I'd say you're looking at an anachronism, please feel free to revise. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , p.39 of May 2018 clearly states "a military-industrial complex evolved". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will double-check then. Because I did a search for the phrase "industrial complex" in May and it turned up no results. Thank you for the page reference. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well... lol... I looked at the wrong reference. Please go ahead and trout me for that one. It passes verification. Maybe attribute to May though. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for your comment ; as noted above, May has made explicit reference to a "military-industrial complex". I will shortly incorporate a defined attribution into the article—I can see why it might be needed. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @AirshipJungleman29 for the swift response. Great that there will be a defined attribution. Have a great day! Q1w2e3r4t5y6u (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Turkic tribes
has twice edited the lead paragraph from to, justifying it with  While the Mongols certainly continued the Turkic steppe tradition of a nomadic empire, Genghis cannot in any way be said to have spent the first half of his life "uniting the Turkic tribes". By this point in time, the Turkic peoples had dispersed throughout most of Eurasia, and they were never "united" again. By comparison, reliable sources describe him as "uniting the Mongol tribes", who are not generally defined by their ethnic origin (some were Turkic, some were Mongolic) but instead by their geographical position.

I will revert to the GA-approved version of the article; per WP:ONUS, if you wish to revert, please present evidence supported by WP:RS on this talk page. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is also no mention of Turkic tribes in the article. Mellk (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that reliable sources be provided for uniting Turkic tribes prior to inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image of drawing.
How is it possible for there to be a representation of khan in 1270 when he died in 1225. He wasn’t even close to looking that aged. 2607:FEA8:7D1A:800:8416:FF5B:E614:8069 (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1270 is the year it was painted. As stated, it is based on an earlier depiction. Remsense  诉  09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
Remove the link to cat eye syndrome in the section describing his appearance. If 13th century Persians had a name for the condition, it wouldn't be the same as the 21st century English one. InherentDogma (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not how things are done here. We follow reliable sources and what they call the condition. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood me. The original source described Genghis Khan as having cat's eyes, as in the eyes of a cat. That's the literal translation of the original Persian.
 * You obviously cannot conclude from this that Genghis Khan had Schmid–Fraccaro syndrome simply because 21st century English speakers call Schmid–Fraccaro syndrome "cat eye syndrome". The cited book did not draw this conclusion, it is a piece of blatantly wrong WP:Original research.
 * Of course Genghis Khan was not a cat, so there had to be some metaphorical meaning. I don't think there is any consensus as to what that was. InherentDogma (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me look... Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe cat's eyes referred to the epicanthic fold common in Mongolian people, you may want to add something mentioning that if there's a good source for it. InherentDogma (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Some sources put August 18 as Genghis's death date. Why is it not considered in the article?
Said sources are Britannica, World History Encyclopedia, and History.com. Neocorelight (Talk) 08:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The History of Yuan (Yuanshi), one of the Twenty-Four Histories of China, has it that between the 18–25 August 1227 Khan was feeling unwell with fever, which ultimately killed him within eight days after the disease’s onset.
 * This is ambiguous for me. It could mean that the disease's onset was on 18 and he died on 25, but that would make his death only 7 days after the onset; or it could mean the onset is anywhere between 18 to 25 and he died eight days after it.
 * Does anyone have an explanation? Neocorelight (Talk) 08:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you have accurately summarised the source of the confusion. I'll include the 18 August date in the article; I see that May had even mentioned it, but I didn't see it. Thanks for the note . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who's May? Neocorelight (Talk) 10:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Timothy May, preeminent Mongol Empire historian, authored e.g. The Mongol Empire (2018) and The Mongol World (2022). &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice
This is such a good article on an important topic. Wikipedia's a great website. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Identification of Genghis Khan with Minamoto no Yoshitsune
Can you translate it from ja.wiki? Thank you.
 * No, it's quite clearly a mess of WP:OR, and most importantly it hasn't been mentioned in high-quality scholarship. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I take that back; I've found a paper which discusses it and added a line in the "Elsewhere" section. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's better to create that very important page: there are all sources and explanations. Venier63 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll put it on my to-do list. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Don't forget it when you'll have time. Venier63 (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Venier63 is a sock. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you do it anyway, AirshipJungleman29? 82.48.142.53 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably, when I'm in the mood. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The IP above was a sock as well, one that often requests proxy edits. Dekimasu よ! 13:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it seems to be a notable topic. Anyway, if I ever get around to creating it, it'll be on my own terms. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29, I was sent a link here, what's with the block evasions? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A sockmaster wants the above page to be created. I think it's notable enough, but intend to do it in my own time, so as to not be a proxy. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)