Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 10

POV/misrepresentation of broken link reference in "physical appearance" section
The following is statement comprises a section of this article titled "physical appearance":

The reference [98] is this broken link to www.britannica.com:

https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/114991/Genghis-Khan-ink-and-colour-on-silk-in-the-National

Judging from the Wayback Machine archives, the last time this britannica.com page was active was March 7, 2015.  The Wayback Machine archive of the page says nothing about "typical Mongol features",  nor does it say anything similar to "most scholars think tbis portrait is accurate":

https://web.archive.org/web/20150307183620/https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/114991/Genghis-Khan-ink-and-colour-on-silk-in-the-National

All available archives of this webpage from 2011-2015 give only the following description:

Using the search function at Britannica.com, I can find nothing on their website about Genghis Khan having "typical Mongol features". Nor could I find anything on that website about the National Palace Museum portrait being considered by scholars as an accurate portrayal of him. The closest thing I could find anywhere on the net to anyone thinking that the National Palace Museum portrait was accurate, was in this paper by Lkhagvasuren et al. (2016):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

Furthermore:

In the introduction to his award-winning book on Genghis Khan, Jack Weatherford wrote:

Since the current "physical appearance" section is POV not supported by the broken reference link, or its archives, I've decided to re-write this section with more balance and multiple legitimate sources. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Please look at my edits. I backed up them up realiable sources but I also included some general concensus information so that everyone get a better understanding of the misconceptions. Yes, I also avoided copyrights.

In the introduction to his award-winning book on Genghis Khan, Jack Weatherford wrote: 

About that Jack Weatherford fella you mentioned, I just checked up on him and found his book.

He claims that Kublai Khan ordered his painters to draw all the portraits of the Mongol emperors. But I'm not sure if he knew the painter was Chinese or Mongol.

According to Herbert Allen Giles, Eli Lancman and Mongolian Professor Urgunge Onon the painter who drew the portrait of Genghis Khan was court painter Qoorisun ( also known as Khorisun, Ho li ho sun). Urgune Onon was also responsible for the translation of The Secret History of the Mongols.

There are obviously no portrait of Genghis Khan during his lifetime but there are still portraits of him during the Yuan dynasty (1270-1368). How accurate was the painting of Genghis Khan remains the only question.

'''"Although the factual nature of the statement is controversial, Persian historian Rashid-al-Din reported in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century that most Borjigin ancestors of Genghis Khan were tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and bluish green-eyed, suggesting that the Genghis Khan’s male lineage had some Caucasoid-specific genetic features [44]. He also said that Genghis Khan looked just like his ancestors, but Kublai Khan, his grandson, did not inherit his ancestor’s red hair, implying that the addition of Mongoloid-specific alleles for determining hair color to the genetic makeup of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan was probably from the grandmother or mother of Kublai Khan, that is, the wife or daughter-in-law of Genghis Khan."

The biggest problem with Rashid-al Din is that he was born in 1249 (and Gazan Khan was born in 1271) that mean he never existed during Genghis Khan lifetime. If Genghis Khan really did have red hair why wasn't this recorded in the The Secret History of the Mongols or by any other Mongolian emperors? In the Secret History of Mongols it only mentions that the ancestors of Mongol who is Alan Guo was impregnated by a ray of light. Rashid Al Din interpreted this as Alan Guo was impregnated by a genie (spirtual creature ) and as a result have blue eyes ?

The only thing that supports Rashid-al Din account is some Mongols (event today ) do in fact have red hair, green eyes. That portrait of Ogedei Khan also seems to have blue-gray eyes with brown-reddish hair.

For example look at this image of Mongols red haired-blue eyes(or with green) https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-177386c54b4650c6b346a77d245203f3

The closest thing I could find anywhere on the net to anyone thinking that the National Palace Museum portrait was accurate, was in this paper by Lkhagvasuren et al. (2016):

According to the genetic study you posted there's a chance his paternal was haplogroup R1b ( Can we include that in the physical appearance section? Although the study mostly emphasizes the R1b in Golden family were a result of Genghis Khan's female clan marrying male Onguds clan ). R1b would serve a good evidence for red hair genetics but that shouldn't be the only good evidence since Mongolians also have 10-15% Caucasian mtDNA ancestry such as mtDNA H, U

Assuming it's been proven that Genghis Khan was indeed green-blue eyes with red hair and had the western eurasian haplogroup R1b. We still have to ask these questions

Was Genghis Khan a ethnic Mongol ? Did he looked like a white european or some light colored Mongolian Asian ? If he was R1b, did he have Mongoloid mtDNA or Caucasoid mtDNA

According to that 2016 study you posted, the Golden family are all haplogroup R1b but physically Mongoloid in appearance but what about Genghis Khan? Was he a Mongoloid R1b guy or a Caucasoid R1b because the most important thing is his anthropological data. That study only states he may have had some Caucasoid genetic in his male lineage and that he looked just like his ancestor, but how do they even know what their ancestors looked like ? Did his ancestors looked like Mongoloid with some Caucasoid genetic ? Like a Kyrgyz or something ?

For example King Tut was red head and may have been haplogroup R1b, sharing same paternal lineages with western European but in no way he looks European but some middle eastern caucasoid

Problem to these questions would be all solved if someone finds the burial of Genghis Khan but I see no reason to remove the accounts of Rashid Al Din.

While there is no evidence that can prove the accounts of Rashid Al Din of Genghis Khan were correct. The existence of Mongols with fair skin, light eyes and hair have long been reported, a occasional number of Mongols, especially among the minority groups from Mongolia have been either recorded or reported display light coloured physical traits.

The Olot people, a Mongol-Oirat subgroup were reported as being fair skinned with blue eyes and light hair. The Tuvans, a Turkic or Mongol-Turkic ethnic group were reported to have blonde hair or red hair . While most Tuvans have black hair, some also have chestnut brown hair but ocassionally showing blue-green eyes with blonde and freckles.

According to a journal of Northern races, the Tungus and some Mongols are considered to be lighter colored with more hair color variation in comparison to the average ethnic Chinese people despite all of them belonging to the same racial type.

TelephoneBaby (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This Xlibris source is self-published by a non-expert. A lot of the stuff you are posting here is not relevant and of undue weight. And of course Rashid never saw Genghis Khan, but he authored the Universal History withnthe assistance of Bolad and under the supervision of Ghazan Khan. So it's a credible historical document that was approved by the Borjigin elite at the time. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of Herbert Giles' 1905 book, as well as Eli Lancman (1966), stating that the portrait of Genghis Khan was made by a Mongol named "Ho-li-ho-sun" is dubious. The National Palace Museum where the painting is held says that it is anonymous:


 * https://theme.npm.edu.tw/khan/article.aspx?sno=03009223&uid=03009127&lang=2


 * Jeanette Shambaugh and her husband David also peg this portrait as having an anonymous author. Peer reviewed source:


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=2-_-CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA30 - Hunan201p (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed the description of Ogodei Khan's portrait, as well as the claim that it is unclear if it's accurate or not. Without a refrence this is just original research. Also, it is impossible for the section on Oirats and Tuvans, etc to have any relevance to Genghis Khan's appearance, and this can't be interpreted as anything but original research; undue weight and WP:SYNTH. A lot of these sources are also dubious and referenced dubiously, as many of their observations are not being made in a physical anthropological context, but as a kind of diarial note, with no relation to Genghis Khan. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The multiple references to Urgune Onon here are WP:UNDUE. From what I can tell, Urgune Onon is the only guy in the world, besides the self-published Xlibris reference by Lorenzo Currie, saying anything about a "Qoriqosun", and the reference uses Urgune Onon. This is a fringe theory of Onon's that is not backed up by anything, and isn't the stance of the National Palace Museum or of Jack Weatherford, or Jeanette and David Shambaugh. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020
He used to cut off villagers ears and make a pile if you resist him 2607:FEA8:5960:262:9CC4:6E0D:8C55:B66 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 April 2020
Genghis Khan never did conquer the Southern Song dynasty of China and was never the Emperor of China. His grandson Kublai Khan did in fact complete his conquest of China. Also, he did not rule the largest land contiguous empire as the Mongol Empire split in 1279 into the Yuan Dynasty, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde Khanate. RaymondKhan26 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Nowhere in the article does it say that Genghis Khan became the Emperor of China. It states very clearly in the beginning that he became the emperor of the Mongol Empire. The Mongol Empire DID become the largest land empire ever but nowhere in the article does it say that Genghis Khan ruled the empire at its greatest extent. In fact it states the exact opposite. Though he did conquer a large part of it, perhaps the largest. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello, I wanted to inform you that there is seems to be misinterpretation of a reference linked to Rashid al-dins work. He did not state that Genghis had red hair (or blue eyes). Here is the direct quote from Rashid al-din:

“It so happened that two months prior to Mögä’s [the son of Kublai’s nurse] birth, Qubilai Qa’an [Kublai Khan] was born, and when Genghis Khan’s gaze fell upon him he said, “Our [Chinggis Khan’s] sons are all of a ruddy complexion, but this boy [Kublai] is swarthy, just like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqaghtani Beki [Kublai’s mother] to give him to a good nurse to be brought up by.”” -Rashid al-Din/Thackston translation, 415.

“It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan’s eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared.”” -Rashid al-Din/Boyle translation, 241.

Here the link to the reference:https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245

Ruddy skin means reddish skin not hair. And nowhere are blue eyes mentioned. Can someone please correct this misinterpretation. Thank you.38.121.43.37 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but banned sockmasters don't get to make edit requests, and nowhere in your quotes is the word "skin" mentioned. "Complexion" refers to anything, and just because blue eyes aren't in your quotes doesn't mean they aren't in the Compendium of Chronicles.


 * The reference used for the statement about Genghis Khan is a peer-reviewed study in a prestigious journal. However, there are of course tons of other references mentioning the red hair of Genghis Khan. Here's one:


 * "But Dai Sechen was content. He was now not just quda to Temujin – a potential fatherin-law – but the real thing, with a good-looking, red-haired son in law" - Frank McClynn, Genghis Khan, His Conquests, His Empires, His Legacy. pp.43


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=jcQzCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43 Hunan201p (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The archive.org links posted above are not even translations of the Compendium of Chronicles. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p sourced Rashid-al-Din but is from Lkhagvasuren (2016), the study is full of assumptions rather than accuracy

May I ask where are the quotes for Persian historian Rashid-al-Din reported in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century?

There's real life physical description of Genghis Khan According to biographer Paul Rachtnevsky https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SQWW7QgUH4gC&pg=PA433&dq=Zhao+Hong+genghis+khan+Paul+Ratchnevsky+tall+long+beard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDi_Ge_dDoAhVRQEEAHYlvCQ8Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Zhao Hong genghis khan Paul Ratchnevsky tall long beard&f=false}}

The Chinese, Zhao Hong, writes: “The ruler of the Tatars [sic], Temuchin, is of tall and majestic stature, his brow is broad and his beard is long. His courage and strength are extraordinary. :

" Juzjani comments that, according to the evidence of witnesses who saw him during the fighting Khorasan of witness who saw him during the fighting in Khorasan [in northwest Persia, in 1220, when he was in his late fifties] Genghis Khan was distinguished by his height, his powerful build, strong constition, his lack of grey hair and his cat's eyes. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenplz (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in the world did Rashid al-Din stated in his 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan had red hair. If this was really true than why is it so hard to find.


 * Hunan uses this journal study from 2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/.


 * The quote itself says " Although the factual nature of the statement is controversial, Persian historian Rashid-al-Din reported in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century that most Borjigin ancestors of Genghis Khan were tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and bluish green-eyed, suggesting that the Genghis Khan’s male lineage had some Caucasoid-specific genetic features [44]."


 * I checked the reference [44] and the only that showed up was this Blair S. A compendium of chronicles: Rashid al-Din's illustrated history of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar] [Ref list]


 * I clicked here but nothing came out

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A+compendium+of+chronicles:+Rashid+al-Din%27s+illustrated+history+of+the+world&author=S+Blair&publication_year=2005&


 * NOTHING WAS FOUND so I googled it and the only work I found was this Academic work from Shelia Blair on Rashid_al-Din_and_his_Compendium_of_Chronicles (nothing about red hair on Genghis Khan)

https://www.academia.edu/32365632/Illustrating_History_Rashid_al-Din_and_his_Compendium_of_Chronicles


 * The only thing I could find from Compendiums of Chronicles (Jami’s al-tawarikh) is this "gaze fell upon him he said, "Our sons are all of a ruddy complexion, but this boy is swarthy, just like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqaghtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be brought up by." He was given to Moga's mother, Saruq by name

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n6VmAAAAMAAJ&q=compendium+of+chronicles+ruddy+complexion&dq=compendium+of+chronicles+ruddy+complexion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4lK6UnfPoAhUjpHEKHWRwBQUQ6AEIKDAA


 * Hunan uses Marie-Félicité Brosset who translated The Georgian Chronicles ( aka Georgian Royal Annals but the chronicle itself is controversial and there's doubt on it's authencity as stated in it's own wikipedia.)


 * Hunan201p had failed to provide any quotations from Rashid al-Din claiming he had red hair.


 * The fact that Rashid al-Din was assisted by Bolad and authored it under emperor Gua does not mean the translations of red hair is correct.


 * "I changed the misleading edits of Hunan sourcing 1 fact with another fact that can't be proven together


 * Please stop making these misinformed edits. You have not posted links to the Compendium of Chronicles. Your first link relating to Sheila Blair is not her translation of the Compendium of Chronicles, but an article titled "Illustrating History: Rashid al-Din and his Compendium of Chronicles". Your second link is a narrow search query (which is visible in the hyperlink itself) from a google preview book which does nothing to prove that the mentioning of Genghis Khan's red hair in Lkhagvasuren (2016) is somehow fraudulent.


 * Lkhagvasuren (2016) is a peer reviewed study in a high-impact factor journal. There is no need for "verification"; the bluelink itself verifies that these statements are in the study. Multiple other authors have noted Genghis Khan'a red hair. You are not justifiednin removing and obscuring this text just because you don't like the facts.


 * And finally, there is nothing controversial about the Georgian Chronicles. You have not cited a single source to indicate that anything in it is controversial, and I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a source.


 * The following quote is from the Wikipedia article on the Georgian Chronicles:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Georgian_Chronicles#Authenticity


 * "Some modern scholars, such as Ivane Javakhishvili, have questioned the authenticity of the early components of "The Georgian Chronicles" and have called for extreme caution when working with them. Indeed, strict historical facts are frequently intermingled with mythical ones, making it sometimes difficult to discern true historiography and mythology. However, critical analyses against other sources, including the Classical authors, and a series of recent archaeological studies have proved the trustworthiness of many of the Chronicles' accounts. These texts relate evidence not only for the history of Georgia, but also Armenia and the Caucasus in general, Iran, Syria, Anatolia, the Roman Empire, the Khazars, and the Turks.[1]"


 * So the authenticity of the early accounts of the Georgian Chronicles was questioned by some, but defended by others. But most importantly, the Genghis Khan physical description is taken from the final installment in the Georgian Chronicles. The authenticity of this document has never been questioned by anyone and does not merit a disclaimer by a clearly biased POV editor, who tries to obscure it.


 * Finally, I am removing the disclaimer behind the Lkhagvasuren study, since it is being misinterpreted as casting doubt on the accuracy of Rashid's statements, which are facts. I am also adding yet another reference to Genghis Khan's red hair. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits changes are far more misinformed and manipulative than the previous edits you made. You acknowledged is controversial but yet still incorrectly replaced the quotes from the study of Lkhagvasuren (2016) with McLynn, Frank (2015) quotes, not even mentioning that it's controversial anymore.
 * You still added some last parts of the 2016 study, claiming Rashid noted Kublai khan did not inherit red hair. You are selectively piecing up one sources with one with another to reach to a conclusion you want, this is against wikipedia's policy.
 * "With McLynn, Frank (2015) you quoted "According to legend, the original Mongols were said to have been tall and bearded with light-coloured hair and blue eyes, but by systematic intermarriage they emerged as the people so well known for their short stature, black hair and black eyes."
 * Is he citing this from Rashid-al-Din, if that's true than why does he need to say "according to legends" ? Legends are regarded as historical but not authenticated. If there's no quotation for Rashid al-Dins making such a statement than why do you need to make it seem like McLynn, Frank (2015) have claimed that
 * What does he mean by "original Mongols ? He is talking about Genghis Khan mongols in the 13th century or the ones from the 5th century, 9th century, 11th century ?
 * " However, critical analyses against other sources, including the Classical authors, and a series of recent archaeological studies have proved the trustworthiness of many of the Chronicles' accounts. . "
 * It only means that many of the chronicles accounts is accurate but not all of it is accurate. It also means some of it are not accurate. Also the Mongols info is from the Chronicle of a Hundred Years written by a 14th century anonymous author.
 * " These texts relate evidence not only for the history of Georgia, but also Armenia and the Caucasus in general, Iran, Syria, Anatolia, the Roman Empire, the Khazars, and the Turks." (https://books.google.com/books?id=nCFwaxMumWkC)
 * THE LAST PART says nothing about Mongols and Genghis khan. This means there is no way to tell if that statement for Genghis Khan is accurate.
 * Until you can finally find quotations for Rashid al-Din, do not edit it the way you like, you yourself have been telling people not to do original research but you are clearly doing it in many of your published edits.
 * There is archives of translation for Rashid al-Din by Boyle, why aren't you doing the same by finding it. If you cannot find a quotation why did you also removed Boyle's translations.
 * As for S.Blair, there's nothing about her academic work that even mentions red hair on Genghis Khan or even his ancestors, childrens. If it's that important how could she not have wrote it in one of her academic works. (Queenplz (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC))


 * Stop removing content from this article. You have made it very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and that your only purpose here is to censor the well-documented historical fact that Genghis Khan didn't look the way you wanted him to. As I already showed you, you never accessed Sheila Blair's translation of the Compendium of Chronicles. You found a 2017 article that studied a handful of pictures Rashid drew. And there is nothing controversial or contested about the later installments of the Georgian Chronicles; Genghis Khan's description is from the final installment. You have not found, and will not find, quotes from any person on Earth besides your uneducated self which question the authenticity of the Georgian Chronicles documents written in the late 1st/early 2nd millenium. And your archive.org Boyle link is NOT a translation of the entire Compendium of Chronicles!


 * And yes, the Frank McLynn quote referenced Rashid. Again, don't remove such high-quality material from this article just because it doesn't suit your fancy about whatever you thought Genghis Khan looked like. If you continue to edit war around here it won't end well for you. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what I'm talking about Hunan201p, you are breaking wikipedia's policy by linking up two different references together to reach to a conclusion in the way you wanted it to be like. You included the text from Lkhagvasuren (2016) and REPLACED IT with McLynn, Frank (2015) quotes, right after 12 days of failing to find a quotation for Shelia Blair claim on Rashid al-Din which was referenced from the 2016 study. You are also deliberately removings words like "controversial " and " Legend" which are clearly mentioned in your references, you are again breaking wikipedia's policy by trying to manipulating your references to make them seem authentic.


 * The Lkhagvasuren (2016) which you originally stated as:
 * " Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial, the Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards. Rashid noted that Kublai Khan, Genghis' grandson, did not inherit the red hair.[102] "


 * You REPLACED IT with McLynn, Frank (2015) quote"
 * "According to legend, the original Mongols were said to have been tall and bearded with light-coloured hair and blue eyes, but by systematic intermarriage they emerged as the people so well known for their short stature, black hair and black eyes."


 * One reference (with no verification) talks about the controversial statement of Genghis Khan himself and his descendants and ancestors, as being tall, long beard with red hair and blue eyes. The other reference is according to legends, the original Mongols were tall, bearded (not long), light haired (didn't mention red ) and blue eyes. But makes no mention of Genghis Khan descriptions and about his descendants. There's no such thing as black eyes either (only dark brown eyes ). Your references doesn't match, as it doesn't state what century of Mongols and doesn't state the descendants of Genghis Khan and himself which was stated in Lkhagvasuren (2016).


 * Your Lkhagvasuren (2016) study cited A compendium of chronicles: Rashid al-Din's illustrated history of the world. S Blair - 1995
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A+compendium+of+chronicles:+Rashid+al-Din%27s+illustrated+history+of+the+world&author=S+Blair&publication_year=2005& ( NOTHING WAS FOUND )
 * So I googled it and the only work I found was this Academic work from Shelia Blair on Rashid_al-Din_and_his_Compendium_of_Chronicles (nothing about red hair on Genghis Khan)
 * https://www.academia.edu/32365632/Illustrating_History_Rashid_al-Din_and_his_Compendium_of_Chronicles
 * The only thing I found for Compendium of Chronicles Rashīd al-Dīn Ṭabīb
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n6VmAAAAMAAJ&dq=compendium+of+chronicles+ruddy+complexion&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=ruddy
 * Type in red hair and 0 results Type in ruddy complexion 1 result shows up, same for swarthy.


 * As for the Goergian chronicles, you will and not find anything about Genghis Khan's description being claimed as accurate. Your translation comes from a french language, a language that I don't understand. It may even be possible that Brosset have mentioined the translation may have been wrong or inaccurate, or he himself stated it was controversial. The 14th century chronicle were written by anonymous athours so before you try to make it seem like it's completely authentic, either remove it or state it clearly that it's authenticity is controversial


 * My reference " The Successors of Genghis Khan by Rashid al-Din; John Andrew Boyle, translator. This is only translations I could find about Rashid al-Din. https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245

You on the hand have failed to provide a verification requested by AnomieBOT ((Dating maintenance tags: )), in the 15th April 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=951103968&oldid=951101063


 * Also stop placing your unverified 14th century controversial statements, chronicles above the 13th century descriptions of Genghis Khan by Zhao Hong and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani. In every article the oldest is always placed on the top first, the youngest date is always last.

I'm currently in a editing dispute. Please help out to our edit disputes Queenplz (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You are not in an editing dispute; you are actively edit warring by continually refusing to read and understand the information I am trying to teach to you.
 * I want you to turn away from the computer, right now, and write the following sentence on a piece of paper:
 * '''"The Successors of Genghis Khan by Rashid al-Din" by John Boyle is not a translation of the Compendium of Chronicles, but a "medieval history of the khans from Ogedei through Temur, 1229-1307", which contains exctracts of Rashid-al-Din's Compendium of Chronicles. Sheila Blair's 2017 paper "Illustrating History: Rashid al-Din and his Compendium of Chronicles" is also not a translation of the Compendium of Chronicles. I will never cite these works again as evidence that Lkhagvasuren, et al. falsified Sheila Blair's 1995/2005 translations of the Compendium of Chronicles, which have never been digitized, and are currently selling for |for over $900 on Amazon.com".
 * After you write that sentence, take a picture and post it here, and I will consider any concerns you may have about this article. Until then, you are essentially screaming at yourself. You seem to be incapable of realizing that nothing you have brought to the table is relevant to anything I have ever posted. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a edit dispute and edit warring; you keep removing my edits and incorrectly placing information dating from 14th century information above 13th century on Genghis Khan and even insist on removing a part of your sourced references( Lkhagvasuren 2016, Frank McLynn 2015 ) and also placed them together out to manipulate the conclusion of the outcome.
 * There is clear double standard in how you are editing. You have not answered why you insist on removing words like "controversial" and "legend" which are clearly from the references that you cited. You removed those words like they never existed.
 * John Boyle is still translating a text from the Rashid-al-Din's Compendium of Chronicles and it's in English. You admit Lkhagvasuren (2016) have falsified S.Blair works than why are you still including a large portion of the text written from it, while removing the beginning of the part which clearly says "although the statement of this nature is controversial"
 * All I see is display of disregard for wikipedia rules, placing date information in wrong order, adding up one sourced reference with a different one. You recently included this von Erdmann, Franz (1862), you haven't provided a quotation and to make things more difficult it's in German, just like the Georgrian chronicles, is writen in french. They may have even said that the text are controversial and may not be accurate themselves.Queenplz (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

, ,

,, this time I corrected my notifying links. Please help us on the editing disputes and edit warring. Hunan201p keeps doing original research and having it's own point of view. He keeps removing essential words from it's own reference and also placing 14th century information on top of 13th century. I don't know what I can do except revert it's edit. Queenplz (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best thing to do is for everyone to to calm down and get an admin involved in this. Tensions are already high so I fear that if another editor gets involved then things are going to get even worse. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't revert edits, that's edit warring. The best thing you can do is stop lying and stop reverting the page. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

please help out sort out this problem. Hunan201p keeps doing original research with vandalism and manipulating text references. He keeps removing important essential words like "controversial" and "legends" from it's references and also placing 14th century date info above 13th century, they are all in wrong order. Despite admitting Lkhagvasuren (2016) was falsified he keeps most of the part Lkhagvasuren (2016) text and mixing it with Frank McLynn, and the Erdmann, Franz which doesn't go together. Also they are based on Rashid al-Din translations of Alan Guo from the Secret of History of Mongols. John Andrew Boyle translated a text of Rashid al-Din and make no mention of red hair. Italian historian Igor de Rachewiltz, Denise Aigle, 14th century Arabic historianShihab al-Umari all claim Rashid al-Din mythicized the origins of Genghis Khan boridjin clan and his ancestors from The Secret History of the Mongols. The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality: Studies in Anthropological History https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o44cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false, I have changed by also including a mystical section because the source that Hunan201p keeps using have many mystical elements Queenplz (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you are pinging me. If you thinbk I would unprotect the article to facilitate the edit-warring, no, I will not.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he pinged you so that you could possibly help sort out the edit conflict as admins often do. But at this point it's become pretty long and complicated. Multiple conflicts are happening right now and all of them have been introduced by Hunan201p. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Admins do not reaolve editing conflicts. You can not really expect me to go now and read all the books mentioned in this thread, no? What admins can do is to sort out behavioral problems, including applying blocks and protections, and here so far I do not see anything which would require admin intervention. If there is consensus at some point that Hunan201p is wrong but they would refuse to asbide to consensus, then I can do something. But not at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to keep debating too much, please tell us who is correct. There is evidence of STRONG behavioural problem by Hunan201p. I asked him the reason and ignores all my question but still insisting in placing wrong order date information, removing essential words/text in his cited references, his Brosset reference is unverified date and Frank McLynn cited from 14th centuryr eplacing the 2016 study (which he originally cited with the correct reference) with now these unrelated reference from 2015. If this is not bad behaviour problem than I don't know what it is. Simply look at how manipulative the edits he made from date to date. Here is Hunan201p Genghis Khan editing history. I tried to correct his edits many times but he doesn't allow it and doesn't explain.

Long list of history of Hunan201p doing vandalism, removing my edits and ongoing doing original research and neutral point of views

Hunan201p  04:19, 17 March 2020 His original reference Lkhagvasuren, Gavaachimed; Shin, Heejin; et al. (September 14, 2016) and original edit:


 * Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial, the Persian historian Rashid al-Din said that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards.[99] Rashid al-Din authored these statements under the auspice of Mongol emporer Ghazan Khan, with the assistance of Pulad Khan.[100]

User:AnomieBOT 14:15, 15 April 2020 requested (Dating maintenance tags: ), told Hunan201p to provide a verification (which he didn't and deleted it) Hunan201p 19:33, 18 April 2020 He added The Georgian Chronicles description (authenicity in doubt, written by aunymous authoir ) it's in french, DID NOT not verify and provide a date and just placed it above Zhao Hong (1221) and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani (born 1193 ) both which are 13th century people.

Hunan201p 16:22, 20 April 2020  IN THIS EDIT, BREAKING 2 WIKIPEDIA POLICIES IN 1 EDIT. He claimed that he added Rashid al-Din. He clearly said " Added McLynn reference to Rashid paragraph And we all know Rashid text on Genghis Khan is from 14th century just like it says..... 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh' (Compendium of Chronicles ).... but he still again placed a 14th century history above 13th century history.

After finding how the Lkhagvasuren (2016) study falisfied S.Blair. He made it worst by REMOVING the front text that says..... "Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial".... while still keeping the original reference for Lkhagvasuren(2016), and keeping most of the text it. So now it's like this
 * "The Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards. Rashid noted that Kublai Khan, Genghis' grandson, did not inherit the red hair.[109] "

Hunan201p 17:37, 20 April 2020 He uses most of the text of Lkhagvasuren (2016) but REPLACE THE REFERENCE with McLynn, Frank (2015) Genghis Khan, His Conquests, His Empires, His Legacy.... which says nothing about Genghis Khan or his descendants. More importantly, the beginning of the reference " Again, According to Legend" he doesn't mention it just like how he did for beginning of the text for Lkhagvasuren(2016)
 * "Again according to legend, the original Mongols were said to have been tall and bearded with light-coloured hair and blue eyes, but by systematic intermarriage they emerged as the people so well known for their short stature, black hair and black eyes"

Hunan201p 23:39, 22 April 2020 He removed the verify source requested by AnomieBOT

, I provided evidence of extreme editing behavioural problem by Hunan201p, please correct me if I'm wrong or tell me how it is. According to wikipedia rules and policy, No original research and having Neutral point of view which is what his doing. Mixing the text and links incorrectly with the text and also discplacing wrong order of the time of date which is not correct either according to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. He doesn't provide a date, while I did for Zhao Hong (1221) and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani from 13th century. He uses a translated text of The Georgian Chronicles of Genghis Khan ( but no exact date mentions, authenicity question and written by anonymous author ) and the Frank Mclynn, even if we assume that it's related with Rashid al-Din it should be in the 14th century meaning below 13th century. He included French and German text that I have no way of understand to read the whole chapter or book, for all we know it could about they disagree with the mythical claims of Genghis Khan. So how is this not corrected is unbeliable, because it's quite clear that Hunan201 broken several of wikipedia's policies, unless someone corrects me and tells me those are not part of wikipedia's policy Queenplz (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

( Note: The section of " Edit request " is very messy and difficult to focus. It's also not the right place to make complains of edit violations. Also easier for third opinions to read, less mistakes, less headache, no broken link, and easier to concentrate. I also added more examples of Hunan201p edits)

I want to know if there is any problem with Hunan201p current version ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Physical_appearance

Hunan201p keeps removing my edits times and times again, and I don't want any edit warring.Some of the things that I believe Hunan201p is doing I want to know if I'm correct about him breaking wikipedia rules. The problem is times and times again he doesn't answer any of my questions so I'm seeking advice from experienced users and admins.
 * Removing or not including important essential words and text from the references he sourced
 * Placing unverified date sources and 14th century history references above 13th century history
 * Replace a text from a original sourced reference, removes it and than replace it with another reference that doesn't match ?

Hunan201p  04:19, 17 March 2020 ORIGINAL EDIT: His original reference Lkhagvasuren, Gavaachimed; Shin, Heejin; et al. (September 14, 2016) and original edit:
 * Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial, the Persian historian Rashid al-Din said that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards.[99] Rashid al-Din authored these statements under the auspice of Mongol emporer Ghazan Khan, with the assistance of Pulad Khan.[100]

User:AnomieBOT 14:15, 15 April 2020 FAILED TO PROVIDE: (Dating maintenance tags: ), AnomieBOT requested told Hunan201p to provide a verify text for his Lkhagvasuren, Gavaachimed; Shin, Heejin; et al. (September 14, 2016), which he didn't and deleted it ,which he didn't and deleted it.

Hunan201p 19:33, 18 April 2020 MISPLACING HISTORICAL DATE: He added The Georgian Chronicles description (authenicity in doubt, written by aunymous authoir ) it's in french, DID NOT not verify and provide a date and just placed it above Zhao Hong (1221) and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani (born 1193 ) both which are 13th century people.

Hunan201p 16:22, 20 April 2020  MISPLACING HISTORICAL DATE AGAIN: He clearly said " Added McLynn reference to Rashid paragraph And we all know Rashid text on Genghis Khan is from 14th century just like it says from... 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh' (Compendium of Chronicles )...but he still placed the 14th century history above 13th century history.

Hunan201p 17:37, 20 April 2020 REMOVING TEXT FROM ORIGINAL REFERENCE: After finding how the Lkhagvasuren (2016) study falisfied S.Blair. He made it worst by removing the front of the text that says..... "Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial".... while still keeping the original reference for Lkhagvasuren(2016), and keeping most of the text it. So now it's like this
 * "The Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards. Rashid noted that Kublai Khan, Genghis' grandson, did not inherit the red hair.[109] "

Hunan201p 17:37, 20 April 2020 REPLACING WRONG REFERENCE: He uses most of the text of Lkhagvasuren (2016) but replaced the reference with McLynn, Frank (2015) Genghis Khan, His Conquests, His Empires, His Legacy.... which says nothing about Genghis Khan or his descendants. More importantly, the beginning of the reference " Again, According to Legend" he doesn't mention it just like how he did for beginning of the text for Lkhagvasuren(2016)
 * Again, according to legend, the original Mongols were said to have been tall and bearded with light-coloured hair and blue eyes, but by systematic intermarriage they emerged as the people so well known for their short stature, black hair and black eye

Hunan201p 16:09, 22 April 2020 Hunan201p CLAIMING NOT CONTROVERSIAL: Hunan201p remove my edits again and again, claiming there is nothing controversial about all his edits.

Hunan201p  22:17, 22 April 2020  POSSIBLE QUESTIONABLE SOURCE: He sourced von Erdmann, which is all in German for the 2016 study. But the source he references nothing about Genghis and his descendants being tall and having long beards. I'm not against other languages for references but there is really no way to tell if Hunan201p just cherrypicked some parts. It may even be possible that von Erdmann questioned the authenticity of these text.

Hunan201p 23:39, 22 April 2020 REMOVED REQUEST TO VERIFY: Hunan201p removed the verify source requested by AnomieBOT

Is removing references of original text, removing essential words/text from it's own reference not a No original research and Neutral point of view ? Isn't placing 14th century above 13th century also a violation ? Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Zhao Hong (1221) and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani from 13th century as described from the book soure references. While The Georgian Chronicles of Genghis Khan ( no exact date given, authenicity question and written by anonymous author ) and the Frank Mclynn, even if we assume that it's related with Rashid al-Din it should be in the 14th century meaning below 13th century.

I believe this the correct section and no need to read everything from the "Edit request" which is a nightmare. Tell me, is there nothing wrong or is Hunan201p breaking wikipedia rules Queenplz (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 3O Response: I'm currently in a editing and content dispute with Hunan201p about Genghis Khan's references and date of time. TrynaMakeADollar also said here Hunan201 is in dispute with 3 (possibly) 4 editor. We could make so many dispute sections of Hunan201p if we want. I found both of you on the Timur page in dealing edit dispute with Hunan201p, so please help.Queenplz (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Iranian perceptions of Genghis Khan
The "Negative" section contains numerous statements regarding Iranian and middle eastern perceptions of Genghis Khan, which aren't supported by their references. I've already mentioned the payvand.com reference before, but now I'd like to examine the following statement:

"Among the Iranian peoples, Genghis Khan, along with Hulagu and Timur are among the most despised conquerors in the region.

Again, there's nothing in these references to support this claim in this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131027092312/http://www.unesco.org/dialogue/en/Regard1debates.htm

The name "Genghis" occurs 9 times in this link. His name is mentioned, only in passing, by three people: Oleg Grabar, Roberte Hamayon, and Doudou Diene. Grabar is ethnically European, Hamayon is a European Iranian, and Diene is Afican. None of them claim that Genghis Khan is despised by Iranian peoples.

Interestingly, Oleg Gabar even says that one of these "brutal genociders", Tamerlane, is viewed as a hero by some.

Oleg Gabar quote:

"The case of Genghis Khan, and especially of Tamerlane (Timur), is slightly more complicated. Tamerlane proclaims himself a descendant of Genghis Khan on the funerary inscription on his tomb, but as he also claims to be the descendant of Ali (nephew of the Prophet) the inscription makes him a Muslim. This brings me to the modern world: nobody speaks of Alexander today, whereas Tamerlane is to be found everywhere, in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. He has become a national hero in places where he never was before. Why? That is a different story. I believe in the notion that the king is Other because his own people cannot have a king, and so it is the foreigner that becomes king"

This is essentially a falsified reference. Nowhere does it say that Genghis Khan is despised by Iranian people.

Now, this reference:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071214061743/http://www.iranchamber.com/podium/history/040702_tale_of_book_iran.php

...mentions Genghis' name once. It does not say he is one of the most despised among Iranian peoples. It really doesn't even mention him, just his "forces", who as I have already shown before, exacted much of the legendary barbarism on the orders of his children and his grandchildren, in his absence. The extent to which this is a reliable source is questionable. It is not written from a neutral point of view, and is essentially an opinion piece which, although sympathizable and not extremist, does not offer us any evidence at all about Genghis Khan's reputation among Iranian peoples.

Finally, I just want to say that my recent discussions here are not motivated by any desire to cover up genocide or to minimize human suffering. I also do not take any stance on the number of people killed by these events. I am simply concerned about what I see as a potential bias in the article, using references that don't support what is written in the Wikipedia.

Crucially, Genghis Khan is being described here on Wikipedia as genocidal, when really and truly, the strongest reference in the article leaning in that direction, John Man's biography of Genghis Khan, declares his forces responsible for 1 "ethnocide". This gives the article elements of hoax, in spite of the fact that many high quality sources defend Genghis Khan against claims of brutality.- Hunan201p (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * New sections and large walls of text are unhelpful when there are already existing and developing disputes in this article that you're currently involved in. It's best to take it one at a time or else it becomes annoying for other editors and rather tedious. Furthermore, I think that your concerns in this new section have largely been addressed in the comments by editors above. You currently have 3 disputes (possibly 4) in this talk page with 3 different editors taking opposing positions to yours. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you can subtract 1 editor from your tally (3family6), because he's been doing an awesome job cleaning up the article. Public thanks to you, 3family6. Even if we never see eye-to-eye on Genghis Khan's perception, you have already gone a long way in improving the article by cutting a lot of the chaff. I really appreciate the attention TrynaMakeADollar and 3family6 have brought to the talk page. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

3RR warning
I have placed a 3RR warning on 's talk page. The only thing that stopped me from filing a report on the Edit Warring Admin board is this editor has not received a 3RR warning yet. Now there is one. One more revert without current talk page agreement first and I will file this report. I have five diffs already and I think there is one or two more.

I think you are very close to a 3RR violation or you have already surpassed it, but I can't tell if that is the case yet. I think you need to slow down as well. RFC's are available for content disputes. I recommend doing one or two of these.---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, I was aware that I was getting close if not already there.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 13:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Extremely low quality content in Physical appearance section
The section for Physical appearance is strewn with extremely low quality content verging on outright falsehood. In the first sentence it says that unlike most emperors, Genghis Khan never allowed his image to be portrayed. However no source is given for this and neither sources in the second sentence say that either. The second sentence says the portrait of Genghis Khan was produced half a century after his death, but again, neither of the sources actually say this. The National Palace Museum only says that the portraits of the Yuan emperors, Chinggis included, were produced during the Yuan dynasty. The Odyssey of China's Imperial Art Treasures says that Genghis Khan's portrait was produced by Anonymous during the 13th century. The third sentence is a third hand reference referencing a site referencing Weatherford referencing... nothing? It links to an article on the molecular structure of Mongols which references Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, but no page number is ever given. I suspect the exact reference is the following:

These two paragraphs from Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, which he never gives a source for, are essentially the only source provided for the first paragraph of Physical appearance, but for whatever reason, has been diluted or obscured by the use of numerous references, perhaps to give the content more legitimacy. The sentence "These earliest images were commissioned by Kublai Khan and intentionally sinicized Genghis Khan as a Mandarin, in order to posthumously legitimate him Chinese emperor." is not supported by the source given either. Pages 24-25 of Weatherford's 2005 book only say that the Chinese portrayed him as a wispy bearded Chinese sage. No mention of either mandarins or Chinese emperors. I suspect that the source for this is actually Chapter 8 of Making of the Modern World which says that Kublai ordered portraits of all previous Great Khans made in the Chinese style to look like Mandarin sages rather than Mongol warriors. No source for this is given by Weatherford nor is "Chinese emperor" ever mentioned, except that the office was posthumously awarded to Kublai's brother, Mongke. In the Notes section of Weatherford's book, he makes no mention of the appearance of Genghis Khan or the two paragraphs above.

Similarly the description of Genghis Khan from Rashid al-Din's Jami al-Tawarikh uses the article on the Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen's Family, which cites A compendium of chronicles: Rashid al-Din's illustrated history of the world, but gives no page numbers. The last sentence is based on a French source with no translation.

Editors should stop inundating the article with redundant and poorly sourced references and pare down the section where appropriate. Qiushufang (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , please discuss this in the talk page section "Physical appearance" above.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Physical appearance
Okay, there's been an edit war for over a month on this. Reach a consensus here, first. And please remember WP:TLDR - there's giant walls of text here that are impenetrable for other editors.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 02:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You recently reverted the article to a version which had already been exposed as falsified. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genghis_Khan#POV/misrepresentation_of_broken_link_reference_in_%22physical_appearance%22_section
 * All the information about Genghis Khan's appearance, currently in the physical appearance section, is reliably sourced and verified. The edit warring coming from Queenplz, who is | an extremely seedy individual who has likely been banned before, who assaults the article and its talk page. I restore its quality, | and had already been granted post-war consensus by Ymblanter on April 11th. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You've said this. Because it is being challenged, you need to establish a consensus, and you NEED to get outside input here. Doesn't matter how right you think you are. I know what it's like, I've edit warred myself recently. It still is against Wikipedia guidelines. Get consensus first.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 14:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally, hunan201p we are close to ending this dispute. Ymblanter wasn't helping you btw. You still removed 3family6 edit like it was nothing, and in the end you still had to remove something, you are used to doing this. You already reported me as sock 2 times and investigation shows I'm not related. Also I can show a long list of you threateting, accusing against many editors, including admins and respected editor.


 * In the Georgian Royal Annals, Genghis Khan is described as a large, good-looking man, with red hair.[106] Similarily, British historian Frank McLynn describes Genghis Khan as a good-looking man with red hair.[107]
 * You have not verified their date since last month. Zhao Hong (1221) and 13th century Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani, both a lot older yet you it place it above them in the section. Your Frank Mclynn quotes came from Rashid which you admitted, that means is 14th century where. Your Georgian Royal Annals, you cannot verify the date, and is written by anomynous authors, nobody knows how accurate it even is.


 * "The Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his 14th-century Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards.[111][112] Rashid noted that Kublai Khan, Genghis' grandson, did not inherit the red hair.[113] Rashid al-Din authored these statements under the auspice of Mongol emperor Ghazan Khan, with the assistance of Bolad.[114]:
 * You removed the beginning of the text that clearly says "Although the factual nature of this statement is controversial " while keeping the reference for [113]]. You than replaced original sources of the text with Frank Mclynn (2015)... that says " according legends, the original Mongols...." which says nothing about red hair, nothing about Genghis Khan himself, his descendants. And Von Erdmann Franz (1862) which only mentions Genghis Khan's father Yusegei, nothing about them being tall, long bearded. You added source A and source B to reach to a conclusion to the original source C (while also removing some of the important text deliberately)


 * Rashid al-Din mythical claims of Genghis Khan origin have been disputed and rebuked by. Historian Denise Aigle, Italian historian Igor de Rachewiltz, 14th century Arabic historian Shihab al-Umari disputed and claimed that Rashid al-Din transform the origin of the Genghis Khan clan, mythicized their origins from animals to human forms. Source is from " The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality: Studies in Anthropological History, page= 126, 127 (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o44cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false ) Please stop removing reliable sources.Queenplz (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do have consensus for these edits. | Queenplz has already made his case before multiple admins, who have never acknowledged his concerns, and Ymblabter preserved and locked my material, which is one of the strongest forms of consensus.
 * Furthermore, you yourself have gone against consensus by restoring material that has no consensus. | I demonstrated a month ago that there was falsified material in this section, which no one ever disputed or attempted to restore. It is a fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica reference (a broken link with no archive) never contained anything that supported those POV statements that I removed. Please do not restore this info, because no one has disputed that it was falsified, and bluelinked archives of the Encyclopedia Briannica page this article cited have been available on this talk page for over a month now. Thank you.
 * | Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen’s Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan is a peer-reviewed research paper that notes, using Sheila Blair 2005 work on Rashid al-Din, that Genghis Khan had red hair and blue-green eyes. Though I did not cite this anywhere in the article, the authors of the paper themselves also state as a matter of fact that Genghis Khan looked this way, when they stated: "Thus, Genghis Khan may have carried Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, which is prevalent in West Eurasia, and not haplogroup C3c-M48, which is prevalent in Asia. This is based on Genghis Khan’s physical appearance, which exhibited some features of Caucasoid ethnic groups and the geographical distribution of modern-day R1b-M343 carriers".
 * Although it is redundant to mention him, as the above paper is sufficient, Franz von Erdmann also translated much of Rashid-al-Din's work. He provides word-for-word quotations, in German as well as in the original Arabic, corroborating the statements about the physical appearance of Genghis Khan and his brothers, over 100 years before the above paper was written. Note that this is not the only statement about physical appearances in the book. Not all the statements, such as those about his beard, are located in one location. I have provided page 516 here only because it describes his red hair and blue-green eyes.
 * An sourced illustration of Genghis Khan from Rashid-al-Din's Jami-al-Tawarikh is on Wikimedia. Although it was never stated in the article, | the illustration depicts Genghis Khan with reddish-brown hair, a full reddish beard, and blue-green eyes. Several of his children standing next to him also have reddish hair and light-colored eyes. The illustration is a visual proof that Rashid al-Din made the previously aforementioned statements, and that the authors of Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen’s Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan did not falsify the statements he made, as repeatedly suggested by Queenplz. His removal of this photo from the article also demonstrates his desire to censor rather than to provide constructive contributions to the article, since there is nothing to dispute about the photo itself.
 * Frank McLynn is the author of Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy. It is an acclaimed biography of Genghis Khan, which had already been cited elsewhere in the article. On page 43 he states, in a matter-of-fact way, that Genghis Khan was "| a good-looking, red-haired, broad-shouldered warrior".
 * In The Georgian Chronicles, it is written that Genghis Khan had reddish hair. This translation has survived over 100 years across multiple languages, from French to Bulgarian to English. Contrary to the fallacious claims of Queenplz, the installment this quote is located in (The 100 Years' Chronicle) has never had its authenticity questionee by anyone, and continues to be cited in historical works to the present day.
 * All of Queenplz's complaints about these references are falsified. No one has ever rebuked Rashid-al-Din's statements about the physical appearance of Genghis Khan, as he has repeatedly suggested. These statements were made at the commission of the Mongol ruler Ghazan Khan, with the assistance of Bolad. Frank McClynn did, in fact, describe Genghis Khan as red-haired, as seen in the blue link. The 100 Years' Chronicle from The Georgian Chronicles does describe him as reddish haired, and is an accurate, valid historical document authored under a Mongol government. As the latest installment in The Georgian Chronicles, it has never had its authenticity questioned by anyone.
 * These are the facts. Multiple high quality independent sources describe Genghis Khan as red haired. This is noteworthy, and has never been rebuked, refuted, or questioned by anyone. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that still does not justify edit warring. Get consensus from outside editors. And the ANI discussion you mentioned was a question about the Manual of Style for galleries, NOT about the content.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are talking this ....drawn under the supervision of his grandson Khubilai during the Mongol Yuan dynasty and depicts Genghis Khan with typical Mongol features.[71] < for your info the book source you chose ( Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, By Jack Weatherford https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC&pg=PA197&dq=) says Kublai Khan ordered all the painting which also means Genghis Khan, just read the lower section.


 * 'You have not provided a date verification for the Georgian Royal annals, and your Frank Mclynn quotes you admit is 14th century from rashid, you cannot prove they are are older than Zhao Hong and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani. So acknowledge that they shouldn't placed above 13th century history.


 * Okay you already admitted the source your study referenced from S.Blair was falsified but than why are you using a falsified text and manipulated it the way you want. The biggest problem is you included that reference at the end [113] but you replaced your references of [111][112] after removing the beginning of the text which says the statement is controversial.


 * Your Franz von Erdmann doesn't mention them being tall, long bearded. It talks of Genghis Khan father and his tribe boridjin-kiyat having red hair, blue eyes, not his ancestors. ( Can't read the german text for all I know he could have refuted this claim same with the Brosset french translation of Genghis with red hair ). your Frank Mclynn quote are PURE ASSUMPTION. ALL FROM RADSHID OPINION.


 * Rashid al-Din mythicized the origins of the Boridjin is very clearly. Historian Denise Aigle claimed that Rashid al-Din mythicized the origin of Genghis Khan ancestors (the Boridjin clan) was conveyed from legends in a humanized form. Italian historian Igor de Rachewiltz claimed that the Mongol origins of the early ancestors of Genghis Khan were animals born from the blue eye wolf (Borte Chino) and the fallow doe (Qo'ai Maral) that was described in the early legends, that their ancestors were animals (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o44cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127) Queenplz (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Rashid al din made a explanation on Alan Gua based on the The Secret History of Mongols, being only slightly different to that of the original version with the "yellow dog" being reffered to as " fawn colored being ": :::::::“Yes, every night I dream I sawn a fawn [-coloured] being softly, softly it would draw near to me; slowly, slowly it would leave again [...], these sons Busqun Qutaqi (Buqu Qadagi), Busun salji ( Buqatu Salji) and Budhunjar ( Bodonchar Mungqaq), came to me in different way, and that is why they will be great khans [padishah-i-khan), Rashid al-Din


 * 14th century Arabic historian Shihab al-Umari from the Mamluk dynasty gave a different translation of Rashid al-Din and that Alan Guo falsified the story of Mongol origins to escape her death sentence. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o44cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127
 * "I was not made pregnant by anyone (ma hamaltu min aha). I was sitting down; my window was open. A light came in through it, three times. As for me, I was pregant with these three sons, for that light enteres each time with a boy [They say that] these sons were concived in sole womb (fi batn in wahid)" Buqun Qataghi, Busun Salji and Budhunjar. They are called nuraniyyun because of the light that penetrated their mother. That is why Genghis Khan is called the son of the sun - Shihab al-Umari "


 * John Andrew Boyle translated a text of Rashid al din't and did not claim it was red hair that rashid noted. And it seems far more accurate Frank Mclynn
 * ” It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan’s eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared.”” -Rashid al-Din/Boyle translation https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245/mode/2up


 * You have no reason to remove all of these if you're going to try to claim Radshid al-Din mythicized text as facts. Like Huangdi, he is clearly a mythical figure mentioned only in the Warring states (475 BC) while his existence dates back at 2697–2597 BC. Nothing about him being for 1.700 years yet you claimed him as a real person. For the Rashid al Din, there his text is from the 14th century about Genghis Khan which talks about Alan Gua (origin of Boridjin clan ), she claim to be impregnated by a ray of light, that cannot be considered as facts. They are mythical not based on facts. Queenplz (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you are 100% mistaken. | Queenplz interjected himself at the MOS discussion with his off-topic complaints, as he often rudely does. No one at the MOS discussion acknowledged his complaints, and two admins backed me.
 * Furthermore, Ymblanter has repeated their support of me on this talk page. On 19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC), YMblanter said:
 * "Admins do not reaolve editing conflicts. You can not really expect me to go now and read all the books mentioned in this thread, no? What admins can do is to sort out behavioral problems, including applying blocks and protections, and here so far I do not see anything which would require admin intervention. If there is consensus at some point that Hunan201p is wrong but they would refuse to asbide to consensus, then I can do something. But not at this point.--Ymblanter (talk)".
 * So, I already have strong consensus from outside editors for my contributions. You were in the wrong when you reverted the page back to March, because the page as I had it was backed by multiple investigations. My references show that there is scholarly consensus that multiple historical documents describe Genghis Khan in a certain way, and that modern historians and bio-science researchers accept these descriptions as factual. Queenplz has attempted to censor this information using falsified references (every single reference he offers, including Boyle and Aigle, do not suppprt his arguments and have been misrepresented by him). He continues to blatantly lie by putting words in to my mouth saying that I "admitted" Sheila Blair/Lkhavasuren falsified anything (I have obviously defended their good names since day 1 here). I am not obligated to wait for Queenplz to stop lying and covering up my contributions with his fallacious POV edits using falsified references, because I already have strong consensus for my edits here. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I can't make head or tail of either of you. You both are accusing the other of improper reading of the source material or of improper synthesis of the sources. And from what I can gather of the sources mentioned it seems best to leave off descriptions of Chinggis Khan all together.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 02:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest include only the early 13th century description of Genghis Khan by Zhao Hong ( 1221) and Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani (born in 1193) including the witnesses that met Genghis Khan in his campaign of Persia in 1220, they all existed during his lifetime and is the most convincing physical description, they never said anything about red hair, blue eyes. Rashid al Din are 14th century text (disputed as mythical), born in 1247 where as Genghis Khan died in 1227, he never saw him. The Georgian chronicles (Chronicle of a Hundred Years) written in 14th century by anonymous author. No mention of Genghis Khan having red hair in the English translation, only one that did is Brosset in his french translation, but I don't understand french, is possible that he even refuted it. The fact is it's from 14th century aswell


 * There are more than enough historians like Denise Aigle, Italian historian Igor de Rachewiltz, 14th century historian Shihab al-Umari that claims Rashid al-dyn mythicized the origin of Genghis Khan, and translators like Jackson and John Andrew Boyle doesn't claim Rashid al-Din text is claiming Genghis Khan have red hair. Historian Edgard Blochet, said that the legend of the claim is straightfoward copy of the Gospel, as Mongol had religious tolerancem.. Also Rashid al-Din mentions that the reason Yesugei has blue eyes is because the being was a génie or a celestial spirit of yellow color ( Histoire des campagnes de Gengis Khan, p. 118) translation.So I would say this blue eye, red hair need not be in the physicall appearance section since nobody had him with those physical traits in the 13th century (Genghis Khan died in 1227). I don't mind if they are created in a mythical section of Genghis Khan.


 * Also can we change " They are considered as arbitrary interpretations rather than accurate images.[112] to " The portraits of Genghis Khan was drawn at the order by Kublai Khan. Images depicting Genghis Khan were produced half a century after his death and each culture projected their own particular image of him.[104] ".......... made by me and other editors, Ymblanter also didn't remove it either. Since the images of Genghis Khan were made half a century, that means roughly 50 years. Kublai Khan Born: 23 September 1215 where as Genghis Khan died in 1227, that means he was roughly 12 years old, and Kublai Khan did see Genghis Khan as described in Kublai wiki page (in the 'early' sections) Genghis "Khan performed a ceremony on his grandsons Möngke and Kublai after their first hunt in 1224 near the Ili River ( by Jack Weatherford of the book in Secret History of the Mongol Queens. "Kublai was nine years old......" to say that the image is considered arbitrary interpretations rather than accurate images is really a huge assumption


 * Hunan201p, your interpretations are exaggerated about two admins backed you. Ymblanter wasn't supporting you, I was the one who told them to remove those galleries. Ymblanter and Moxy from 11 April agreed is Best drop gallery, which was requested by me aswell. Even if you really believe it, I doubt they still have that same opinion of you after seeing you editing wrong historical dates (unable to prove verification dates), or about you removing and cherrypicking text from the source you cited, or mixing source A with source B to come with a conclusion (source C). Queenplz (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Queenplz, Ymblanter clearly told you, and I quote: "here so far I do not see anything which would require admin intervention. If there is consensus at some point that Hunan201p is wrong but they would refuse to asbide to consensus, then I can do something. But not at this point." That means there is no merit to your concerns, despite being exhaustively reviewed by more than 5 admins, on multiple talk pages, ANI noticeboards, and an SPI investigation. Furthermore, | Ymblanter restored my material and locked it for three days. My edits had therefore already had consensus since April 11th, while you have never even been taken seriously around here. All of your posts have been disorganized ramblings, based on misinterpretations, falsifications, and outright lies, putting words in to my mouth that I never even said before.
 * To recap, multiple historical documents describe Genghis Khan as red-haired and light-eyed. The veracity and factual nature of this historical evidence has endured to the present day; historians accept Genghis Khan's appearance as that of | a good-looking, red-haired, broad-shouldered warrior", and geneticists | cite historical documents describing Genghis Khan as having red hair and blue green eyes, in the discovery of a European genetic heritage in the Borjigin clan of the Mongol empire.
 * There is nothing in any reference, not Aigle, Rachewiltz, Umari, Jackson, Weatherford, or Boyle that precludes this information here in the physical appearance section of Genghis Khan. None of these authors have ever rebuked the historical fact that Genghis Khan was red haired and blue-green eyed; found in two historical texts commissioned by Genghis Khan's Golden Family. Queenplz has lied and played dumb about the work he cites, as I have shown over and over again. His accusations are not even consistent. He has even denied that Rashid made these statements in the first place (and had the audacity to tell me that I agreed with him!). He does not have a clear and concise point; but merely wants to stall the progress of the article, because he doesn't like it.
 * So that's that. I've had the consensus here all along, and no one has brought anything that supports Queenplz. He is the one who has to get consensus for his edits, and his every attempt has failed. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for those two links. They do confirm what you say regarding the speculated appearance of Chinggis. However, I did notice that the content you've been restoring plagiarizes the content from the journal article, since it is an exact quote but not attributed as such. I'll make the changes.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 16:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you comment here?--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 15:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think I supported anybody on this page. I just said that admins do not resolve content disputes. If this is not a content dispute but an editing behavioral dispute please go to WP:ANI and make the case there (but try not to use walls of text).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are trying to gain points with these pointless edits. I'll only reply to 3family6 after this since we both such different opinion. What general concensus ? It is not a mainstream fact and you simply created this opinion yourself. You be restoring your work, ignoring edit warring.


 * You are misinterpreting Ymblanter , Yamblanter said " You can not really expect me to go now and read all the books mentioned in this thread, no? " Meaning he hasn't checked all the sources or checked at all, so you are wrong about him checking all are book sources, it was not his job. He is charge of edit warrings and violiations not in charge of interefering in our content dispute. Same with you and Qiushufang, in his edit summary he simply stated " reverting to the pre-war version" and "Edit warring / content dispute".. You are exaggerating of being reviewed by many admins (or even 1), which has nothing to do with your sources besides, this is way after the time, you dyou have already changed and many manipulated many things, the admins won't know.

If you had find a 13th century description of Genghis Khan, describing him with red hair and blue eyes than our opinions might changed already, but all of yours come 14th century text which are considered mythical and questionable by many, especially Rashid himself explain the gliterring visitor as a blue eye genie glowing with yellow light beams. I strongly suggest in the physical appearance edit only 13th century physical description of Genghis Khan which are all recorded by historians and people who had lived in his time and saw him ( Zhao Hong, Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani, persian witnessess), are all attestment for a strong evidence of physical appearance. According to wikipedia, sources must be as accurate and as close to the time used to describe historical figures. They are all from early 13th century, from EXACTLY the same time as him, and all of them said nothing about red hair, blue eyes. 'So I don't see why strong and powerful evidence not be mentioned.Also I would like to include Kublai Khan ordered the paintings and each culture had a image of him (like your book suggest Hunan201p), since Kublai Khan was up to 12 years old when Genghis Khan died, and they met, this means those portraits were only half century, not questionable.


 * "a good-looking, red-haired, broad-shouldered warrior" < this is from Frank Mclynn, based on rashid reference which you have stated in your edit summary : " Added McLynn reference to Rashid paragraph".


 * Also your genetic study of PLoS One... Lkhagvasuren (2016) actually mostly contradicts your claim about R1b belonging Genghis Khan and his clan. Like 9 out of 10, they write that Y-haplogroup R1b-M343 is from the Ongud clan rather than the Boridjin clan
 * The Abstract of your study says this " Tavan Tolgoi bodies may have been the product of marriages between the lineage of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and the lineage of either the Ongud or Hongirad clans, indicating that these individuals were members of Genghis Khan’s immediate family or his close relatives. and also says " Genghis Khan’s second strategy was to use quda, the traditional marriage alliance system of Mongolia, to marry his sons and daughters into the ruling lineages of neighboring kingdoms such as the Ongud [3, 5]."
 * "Tavan Tolgoi bodies are Golden family members from marriages between the lineage of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and either the lineage of Ongud clan as guregen or the lineage of Hongirad clan as khatun"
 * "Accordingly, R1b-M343 of Tavan Tolgoi bodies reveals the Y-haplogroup of rulers of Eastern Mongolia in the Mongolian era, not that of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan "
 * " We cannot entirely exclude the possibility that R1b-M343-carrying modern-day individuals are descendants of Genghis Khan’s generals or relatives who had no genetic relationship with Genghis Khan and his Borjigin clan"


 * Really historical fact? ? If it was historical he had blue eyes and red hair, you would think that at least one historian or even one witness who had seen him during his lifetime would have described with such traits during the 13th century. Edger, Aigle, Rachewiltz, Umari, Jackson, Boyle all refuse the mythical claims of Rashid al Din. You don't really have evidence that can strongly prove Rashid al Din are facts, if there was you would have 13th century evidence, not 14th century which Genghis didn't exist or by people who never met him describing him such traits.Queenplz (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article content I added, and the journal article, explicitly say that the factual veracity of Rashid al-Din's claim is disputed. It's NOT really disputed that Rashid said this - there are academic sources going back to 1972 at least that mention that he said this.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If you had looked at my entire editing history on this Genghis Khan page. I never onced removed his 14th century persian historian or his Georgian chronicles, all I asked is that he place the correct date, correct century. For the Georgian Royal Annal chronicles, translation of red hair is found ONLY in Brosset translation, there's no English translation. Also a authencity section is questioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Georgian_Chronicles#Authenticity, it doesn't say anything about the authencity of Genghis Khan is realible, only about Khazars, Turks mostly so I included ( authenicity in doubt) I had searched for like 55 minutes, no mention of red hair except for Brosset. As for Rashid al-Din, many academic sources consider his translations to be mythical and added sources


 * So now that you have edited his 14th century work. Can we also edit 13th century text of Genghis Khan of Zhao Hong aswell as the 13th centry witnesses who met Genghis Khan?


 * Hunan201p had no problem with it. He said " Placed quotation mark after Zhao Hong statement ", he didn't remove it except that he placed it at the bottom below 14th century


 * According to biographer Paul Rachtnevsky: The Chinese, Zhao Hong, writes: “The ruler of the Tatars [sic], Temuchin, is of tall and majestic stature, his brow is broad and his beard is long. His courage and strength are extraordinary." Zhao Hong was a envoy of the Southern Song dynasty sent to the Mongols in 1221.


 * Hunan201p didn't removed those part either.


 * Also the part you edited "These portraits intentionally sinicized Genghis Khan, portraying him as a Chinese emperor.", yet it was intentionally sinicized but can you also mention that Kublai Khan ordered it like it says in the reference ?


 * Reading the physical appearance section, it looks extremely whitewashed There is no mainstream view that Genghis Khan had those traits, not in any historical documentary or in the past 10 years of this page, now it's made out to look like that based on a mythical text, accept that it says the statemen is controversial. Which many academic sources claim is mythical. The history of The Secret History of Mongols is the history when Genghis Khan writtent it, which Rashid al-Din drew it sources from, never mention any red hair and blue eyes. Queenplz (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll work on implementing these descriptions into the article. The difficulty for outside editors here is that you and Hunan201p have been writing big walls of texts, which make things dense and hard to read.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 22:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good evening, just wanted to say thanks for your participation on the talk page. I'd like to comment on Lkhavasuren, et al. (2016). They do not say that the factual veracity of Rashid's statements are disputed, but rather that the factual nature of the statements is controversial. What that means is that the statements are factual; --they are written in the most authoritative historical document of its time--, but that they cause certain people to get pissed off. Kind of like how there is factual genetic evidence that Cheddar Man had dark skin, | which is controversial, since a lot of people (especially white and British nationalists) want him to be light skinned. However there's absolutely nothing in Lkhagvasuren, et al. (2016) which says Rashid's statements are disputed. They reiterate that Genghis Khan looked that way, and they use his Rashid's statements to explain the presence of a European genetic lineage in these Borjigin Mongol graves, so in this paper, it's a matter of fact that Genghis Khan was red haired and blue-green eyed. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

To state that the factual nature is controversial means that it is challenged. The means that there is dispute as to the factual veracity. This is not the only source that questions this description, and it remains that these claims were made after Genghis Khan lived.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 00:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3family6, that is absolutely not the case and Lkhagvasuren does NOT question the veracity of Rashid al Din, it states they are factual and it reiterates them as fact when it states: "Thus, Genghis Khan may have carried Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, which is prevalent in West Eurasia, and not haplogroup C3c-M48, which is prevalent in Asia. This is based on Genghis Khan’s physical appearance, which exhibited some features of Caucasoid ethnic groups". So, again, in Lkhagvasuren, Rashid's statements are factual, and reiterated as fact. What "controversial" means is that the statements make some people mad, kind of like how | the depiction of the diversity of the Roman Empire is "controversial" because some people don't want black people to be a part of their history. But that does NOT mean that any scholar disputes the factual veracity of black Romans or a red haired Genghis Khan, and indeed neither you nor Queenplz have found any source to dispute Rashid's statement that Genghis Khan was red haired. There is nothing in Lkhagvasuren mentioning any scholar disputing that and they say nothing about the fact that Rashid lived after Genghis died; a fact not relevant as the Jami-al-Tawarikh is an authoritative historical document authored by Rashid al-Din and the Borjigin Mongol elite. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like that - you can't pick just one source and say that it's definitive. And the source doesn't even claim that - it says that he exhibited some features deemed Caucasoid (incidentally, this kind of racial science has proven to often be inaccurate in categorizing people - genetics are far more reliable), and that Rashid made a claim whose factuality is controversial. They don't specify who challenges it, but they explicitly mention that the factual veracity of Rashid-al-Din's claim is controversial, meaning that it has been challenged. And I added another source which mentions that his statement is not without dispute. "the Jami-al-Tawarikh is an authoritative historical document." - No, it's not. NO document is EVER taken like that in the discipline of history. Documents are ALWAYS subject to criticism, this one is no exception. Also, please respect the outdent of the text.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you don't yourself decide unilaterally what stays and what goes. I've been trying to help you reach consensus here, but any and all content which you personally disagree with you will go ahead and remove, despite REPEATED requests from other editors to find a consensus.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 00:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you are, ironically, doing everything you accuse me of doing. You are deciding, unilaterally, that a reference isn't making statements that it blatantly is. You're twisting the words of Lkhagvasuren and inserting points that weren't even there, based on your POV. The "Caucasoid features" they speak of are precisely the red hair and blue green eyes they cite from Rashid al Din. The "other source" you added was a TV network trivia page, which is not even an acceptable reference. Leave Lkhagvasuren (a peer reviewed paper) alone and remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source without regards for whatever we think is the 'truth'. And please remember that no matter what you say, i already had consensus for my edits since April, before you removed them without consensus.


 * Jami al-Tawarikh is an authoritative source, and the source for at least 40% of this article's content, and recall that you yourself cited material derived from him without prejudice just days ago. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No source is authoritative to the point where it should be taken without any critical evaluation. "You are deciding, unilaterally, that a reference isn't making statements that it blatantly is." They literally say that the factual nature of Rashid's claim is controversial. Even if they agree with his statement, they still LITERALLY say that. That is in the source. They don't claim that Why are you blanking the content rather than simply changing the word to "controversial"? This sounds exactly like WP:IDONTLIKE. You don't get to omit things because the disagree with your point of view. WP:NPOV is relevant here - present what sources say in a neutral and balanced fashion. That means criticism of sources needs to be included. "Jami al-Tawarikh is an authoritative source, and the source for at least 40% of this article's content." This article is a mess all over the place. Rashid al-Din shouldn't be used without analysis from historians. He is among the best primary sources for the Ilkhanate, but should not be taken without historical analysis. "The "other source" you added was a TV network trivia page, which is not even an acceptable reference." I'm going to look up if History.com is considered reliable.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me  &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the section even more in hopes of achieving a compromise. Note: The archaeological study does not definitively claim that Rashid al-Din's claims are correct. It says that Genghis Khan might have had some features considered Caucasian along with those considered Mongol, but it doesn't even definitively link the bodies examined to Genghis Khan personally. It says that they could have been from one of his generals or some other important personage. I've also used the word "controversial" rather than disputed. Last I knew, History.com, although not an academic source, is generally reliable. I've posted a question at the reliable source noticeboard to be sure.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 02:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are making POV edits and drawing conclusions about Lkhagvasuren, et al. (2016) there is nothing in that paper that says Genghis Khan had any features associated with "Mongols". It says, definitively, that he had red hair and blue-green eyes, and implies, directly, that he looked European. This is what the paper said about Genghis Khan. I'm adding boldface emphasis to the crucial details:
 * Although many regard the portrait at the National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan, as the depiction most closely resembles Genghis Khan, all existing portraits, including this one, are essentially arbitrary interpretations of Genghis Khan’s appearance by historians living generations after Genghis Khan’s era [2, 6]. Although the factual nature of the statement is controversial, Persian historian Rashid-al-Din reported in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century that most Borjigin ancestors of Genghis Khan were tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and bluish green-eyed, suggesting that the Genghis Khan’s male lineage had some Caucasoid-specific genetic features [44]. He also said that Genghis Khan looked just like his ancestors, but Kublai Khan, his grandson, did not inherit his ancestor’s red hair, implying that the addition of Mongoloid-specific alleles for determining hair color to the genetic makeup of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan was probably from the grandmother or mother of Kublai Khan, that is, the wife or daughter-in-law of Genghis Khan."
 * These statements can only be interpreted as suggesting that Genghis Khan was of a European appearance. They cast aspersion on the National Palace Museum portrait, because it looks Mongoloid, and therefore, unlike Genghis Khan. They then state that Rashid al Din implied that Genghis Khan had Caucasoid-specific features. Finally, they say that Rashid's statements imply that Mongoloid-specific genetic material did not enter the Borjigin clan until the birth of Kublai Khan.
 * Just 5 paragraphs later, the authors state, definitively, that Genghis Khan had these Caucasoid-specific features:
 * "Thus, Genghis Khan may have carried Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, which is prevalent in West Eurasia, and not haplogroup C3c-M48, which is prevalent in Asia. This is based on Genghis Khan’s physical appearance, which exhibited some features of Caucasoid ethnic groups"
 * This means that Lkahvasuren (2016) accepts the factual nature of Rashid'a statements, and they state that he looked as Rashid described him: Caucasoid. You can't show me any place in the paper where they say he could have had some features associated with Mongoloids. You're way overreaching here.
 * You said the authors did not conclusively link the human remains from this study to Genghis Khan. That is true. After all, Genghis Khan's remains have never been found. However, they do conclusively link these remains to Genghis Khan's Borjigin clan, based on archaeological evidence found associated with the bodies.
 * "Thus, the appearance of R1b-M343 in Tavan Tolgoi bodies reflects that the genealogical structure of the Genghis Khan’s Golden family consisted largely of a Caucasoid paternal genetic pool, and the distribution of modern-day R1b-M343 carriers at a high frequency in the past Mongol khanates supports that they are direct descendants of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan."
 * You see, you're assuming things that have nothing to do with my edits. I only ever posted this study as a reference for Rashid-al-Din's description of Genghis Khan's appearance. I never cited it for its genetic or archaeological content. By examining that deep in to the article, you're tipping the scales towards your POV, when my edit was neutral. It is simply a hiatorical fact that Rashid-al-Din said Genghis Khan was red haired and blue eyed. That's worth mentioning and should be respected. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you contesting of the new content that I added?--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 02:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a personal opinion here as to what Genghis Khan looked like. I'm trying to accurately summarize what is said in reliable sources.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 02:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, regarding the admixture, there's a section in the article entitled "Golden family members of Tavan Tolgoi reveal the genealogical admixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid ethnic groups".--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the statement to be that, according to this article, Genghis Khan has some Caucasian features.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 02:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I just contested was the quoted material from this diff yours:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=954365793&oldid=954358205
 * "The factual veracity of this claim is controversial. Rashid-al-Din's description is debatable because was not a contemporary of Genghis Khan, although such features were not unknown among Mongols. A 2016 archaeological study of the genetics from graves identified with the Genghisid family suggests that Genghis Khan's appearance might have had features considered Caucasian as well as those considered Mongol. However, no direct genealogical link between the bodies examined and Genghis Khan himself was definitely established"
 * This is not at all an accurate summary of the cited material. You're not being the least bit honest here and it's very obvious you are pushing your own POV. Additionally, a history.com trivia page is not a reliable source. A reliable source is something written by a known expert in a field, published in a peer-reviewed work, such as by a respectable publishing company or a journal.
 * Lastly, you are responding too fast to have even read my post. It's also showing in the extremely low quality of your brash contributions, which are riddled with POV. Please calm down, because the world isn't going to turn over on its axis just because you didn't edit this article by the minute. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How was this material not a neutral point of view? How is mentioning that the article says that Rashid al-Din's statement is controversial (something you agree that the article says) a violation of NPOV? And what you quoted above is not the content you have now removed. I changed it to say "A 2016 archaeological study of the genetics from graves identified with the Genghisid family suggests that the family was a mixture of West Eurasian Caucasian ethnicities as well as those considered Mongol - although with a Asiatic appearance - and said that Genghis Khan himself exhibited some Caucasian features." History.com IS a reputable source, just not as preferred as journal articles or books. "Please calm down, because the world isn't going to turn over on its axis just because you didn't edit this article by the minute." Okay, you yourself take a minute here: But the world WILL turn over on its axis just because YOU didn't edit this article by the minute? You and Queenplz got into an edit war. I restored the article to before it had any of the contested content, and started this section here. I then implemented content with citations based on these discussions. And then you started reverting my work. Why is it that everyone else except for you is wrong, that everyone else must concede to you, that only you have the right to edit the article at any time, and if people challenge you, it's only them who are at fault? You said that you are listening to me and others, but you aren't. I mean this gently and not as an accusation - do you have an issue with reading comprehension?--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 03:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that History.com is deemed unreliable. It's not in the article currently and thus doesn't need to be removed.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 16:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 3family6, I have some suggestion.
 * Portraits of Genghis Khan. To say the image comissioned by Kublai Khan, is essentially an arbitrary rendering, is a huge assumption. " According to Herbert Allen Giles it says painter Khorisun (ho-ni-ho-sun) painted the portrait of Genghis Khan, commissioned by Kublai Khan in 1278. Painter Khorsun (Qoriqosun) was ordered by Kublai Khan to paint the portrait of Genghis Khan in 1278. He ordered the entrusted remaining followers of Genghis and made sure it reflects it's true image. The painting is commissioned by Kublai Khan in half century later. Kublai Khan met Genghis Khan when he was 9 years old, was 12 years old when Genghis Khan died in 1227. What are the chances that his image is 100% arbitrary rendering ?
 * Thank you, those are good references and should be included.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, actually, no, the second source you have there,, is through a self-publishing service. It's not reliable.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 16:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So according to Jack Weatherford " in Persia he was portrayed as a Turkish sultan ", what a huge assumption. All Persian images of Genghis Khan look just as Chinese looking as the Yuan portrait. All of these are portrait from the 14th-15th century illustation by Jami-atawaikh manuscript and Rashid al-din. (so let's not mix up facts with self opinions and assumptions )
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#/media/File:Djengiz_Khân_et_Toghril_Ong_Khan.jpeg
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#/media/File:CoronationOfOgodei1229.jpg
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#/media/File:Genghis_Khan's_enthronement_in_1206.jpg
 * Persian miniature "The conventions of Persian miniatures changed slowly; faces are normally youthful and seen in three-quarters view, with a plump rounded lower face better suited to portraying typical Central Asian or Chinese features than those of most Persians ".
 * That's your opinion, Weatherford is the scholar whose work was published. You can't arbitrarily pick which reliable sources to accept and which ones to reject.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Authencity of Goergian Chonicles. Can we add if the ( authencity or accuracy in doubt, written by anoymounous author ) next to " In the Georgian Chronicles, in a passage written in the 14th century, Genghis Khan is similarly described as a large, good-looking man, with red hair.[118] "


 * There is many concerning information about the Georgian Chronicles especially in the "100 years of chronicle" that is used as reference by Hunan201p. Is full of mythical stories about Genghis Khan. I mean there are authencity problems with Georgian chronicles mixing western christian and persian text. For example The Georgian language: short review - Page 60 ''" contains an old cycle (up to the fourteenth century) and a new cycle (14th — 17th cent). In the eighteenth century new historical records were made and included in the "Georgian Chronicle".


 * The Literature of Georgia: A History By Donald Rayfield " From the Hundred years of chronicle in the form of miraculous relevations: Genghis Khan is credited with a vision of Christ on the mountain in China, the Virgin forces a Persian, the true murtdered of Chaghat Noin "


 * From The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality: Studies in ... - Page 62 "A Georgian chronicle repeats al-Juwaynī's account but with Genghis Khan himself taking Teb Tenggeri's part. The Great Khan says: Went up to a high mountain where Jesus Christ Lord of the World revealed himself, teaching him justice, the true religion, purity" ( (Al-Juwayni is a Persian historian born in 1028)


 * Although the authencity section says in wikipedia says " Some modern scholars, such as Ivane Javakhishvili, have questioned the authenticity of the early components of "The Georgian Chronicles" and have called for extreme caution when working with them. Indeed, strict historical facts are frequently intermingled with mythical ones, making it sometimes difficult to discern true historiography and mythology. However, critical analyses against other sources, including the Classical authors, and a series of recent archaeological studies have proved the trustworthiness of many of the Chronicles' accounts. These texts relate evidence not only for the history of Georgia, but also Armenia and the Caucasus in general, Iran, Syria, Anatolia, the Roman Empire, the Khazars, and the Turks < (doesn't say all are trustworthy, nothing about Mongols or Genghis Khan is trustworthy)


 * Military History of Late Rome 361–395 By Ilkka Syvänne It says that the information provided by Georgian Chronicles unrealible and confusing. and full of legendary material, although this is about Huns and Khazars, but al sthe events described here do agree with what the the other more realible sources state.


 * With so many evidence of confusion I don't think we can just claim that chronicle of Genghis Khan with red hair is correct since Georgian chronicle takes influences from persian text.Queenplz (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The accuracy of virtually every account of the Mongols from the medieval period is questionable on a lot of things. Heck, have you read The Secret History of the Mongols? If there's a specific critique of the Georgian account of the Mongols in particular being basically unreliable, that would be important to include. This Wikipedia article as is wasn't claiming that the Georgian Chronicle is correct, rather that this is what it said. And alternative descriptions are included as well, indicating that this question is far from settled.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the physical appearance of Genghis Khan
What should be included in the "Physical appearance" section of Genghis Khan?--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 14:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

These are the different versions which are being contested:

pre-contested version

Original Hunan201p version

Original Shinoshijak version

Original Queenplz version

Later Hunan201p version

Latest 3family6 version

Later Hunan201p version

Current version per Shinoshijak


 * No section. I don't see why Khan's physical appearance is important enough to merit a section. Just mention somewhere "Unlike most emperors, Genghis Khan never allowed his image to be portrayed in paintings or sculptures". Various renditions can be shown in images, that accompany the article anyway, with comments captions if needed.--Vici Vidi (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening this section. So far I think the section edited by is good. It seems to build on 's earlier version . But I think the point is, to have a section that has multiple descriptions based on the reliable sources - which the latest Shinoshijak version also seems to do.  --- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version as edited by  is certainaly acceptable ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Known for his brutality and a genocidal ruler?
Taken from the introduction:

"Known for the brutality of his campaigns, Genghis Khan is considered by many to have been a genocidal ruler."

Only one reference is given for the claim. It's a quote from one guy in a BBC article:

"Beheadings and mass slaughter are the hallmark of IS—whole villages massacred, women cast into slavery. But this butchery is not random. It is callous and calculated, as former British intelligence officer Alastair Crooke points out: 'They in fact in some ways copy Genghis Khan and the Mongol approach to military conquest. You create an absolute fear deliberately in your enemies, and the first time you come to a village you kill everyone, the dogs, the cats, everything. Destroy it down to the ground.'"

^ Although brutal, this does not describe a genocide, and the individual doesn't mention any specific examples of Genghis Khan ever doing something like that. Furthermore, there's the ridiculous suggestion about Mongols killing dogs and cats; which could even be construed as a racist stereotype. Dogs are highly revered creatures in Mongolia and it is considered an egregious sin to harm them.

All I'm saying is that this is a really low-quality reference for this allegation and if a better one can't be found, preferably backed by a mainstream historian, the statement should probably be removed. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources for this claim, Genghis Khan is considered one of the worst perpetrators of atrocity in history.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 14:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing that reference and replacing it with the new ones, 3family6. However, I'm afraid there are still problems with these references. I'll start with Steven Ward's book. There's nothing in it linking this incident in Nishapur to Genghis Khan. There's also nothing there describing it as a genocide. And as we see on pages 75-76 of The Secret History of the Mongol Queens by Jack Weatherford, this mass homicide, often misattributed to Genghis Khan, is actually linked to Genghis Khan's female progeny:
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=FZ4xHb9bCZAC&pg=PA76
 * I'm not aware of anything linking this massacre to Genghis Khan. As we see in "The Secret History of the Mongol Queens", a Mongol princess is identified as the source of the order. As far as I am aware, Genghis Khan is not thought to have even been present there.
 * Since there is no evidence Genghis Khan had anything to do with this, do you still feel it accurate to give it as a reference for his alleged brutality and genocide? - Hunan201p (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd add a litte something:
 * Over at Nishapur, this "skull pyramid" incident is described thus:
 * "The city was destroyed by Mongols in 1221, after the husband of Genghis Khan's daughter was killed at Nishapur. She requested the death of every resident of the city to avenge her husband's death, and over the course of 10 days Khan's troops killed, and beheaded the entire population. Their skulls were reputedly piled in pyramids by the Mongols.[8]"
 * The sole source for this statement ([8]) is a HowStuffWorks article. Below, an important fact from the article:
 * Exactly how many died at Nishapur during the siege is questionable, but it does appear that a great many people were killed and beheaded. There is no evidence that Genghis Khan was at the city when the massacre took place, however.
 * Putting aside my objections to HowStuffWorks as a reference, this statement is indeed accurate. Genghis Khan really wasn't responsible for this massacre. This was the handiwork of a group of soldiers sent to Iran by Genghis Khan, under the leadership of one of his female descendants. He never gave any order to massacre anyone in Nishapur. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add my 2 cents here; It's certainly true that Genghis Khan was and is known for some of his vicious and brutal campaigns (as conquerors tend to be) but it is also true that some people view him too one dimensionally and think that everything he did was for the purpose of murder, which is obviously not true. Either way I think that an RS for the brutality of Genghis Khan's campaigns can easily be found. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would now like to turn your attention to the other reference added by 3family6 to this "brutality" and "genocide" claim:
 * http://www.payvand.com/news/03/jun/1074.html
 * This link is basically a "post" on Payvand.com, an Iranian-American news website. It is authored by Ahmad Jabbari, who is President of Mazda Publishers, Inc. Mr. Jabbari has a Ph.D in Economics and claims to have published "over 250 scholarly books on a variety of subjects related to Iran". I have found several links to his books, and the majority of them are published by his own company. The one exception I have found is a paper called "Distribution of Income and Expenditures in Iran", published at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1978. I am not saying that there are no other examples of independently published works by Mr. Jabbari, but that I have yet to find them.
 * In this post, Mr. Jabbari criticizes something called a "Legacy of Genghis Khan" exhibition, which is the creation of Linda Kamaroff, another Ph.D who is the head of the "Ancient and Islamic Art Department" at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
 * In the Payvand link, Mr. Jabbari has also published a response made by Mrs. Linda Kamaroff, in which she points out some important errors he made in attributing various invasions of Iran to Genghis Khan. Notably, she does not acknowledge any genocide or brutality attributed to Genghis Khan.
 * Now with that in mind, it disturbs me that anyone could think this is a valid reference for a Wikipedia article; much less evidence that "many" people associate Genghis Khan's rule with brutality or genocide. First, even if we assume Jabbari is a qualified expert on the subject, his post on payvand.com is not a valid source. Kamaroff's rebuttal further diminishes his position. As she points out, much of what he describes as "genocidal" wasn't even the work of Genghis Khan, but that of his children and grandchildren. He makes the astounding claim that "Nearly three million perished in an act of genocide that finds its parallels only in the extermination of Jews and the Armenians in the 20th century", yet he doesn't tell us the name of this act, or how he came to that exceptional estimate of 3 million murders.
 * Speaking of which, why hasn't anyone named the genocide Genghis Khan was responsible for? Genocide is a big deal. There should be an article or a book about one of Genghis Khan's "genocides", if such a thing ever happened. I'm not aware of a single archaeological find that indicates such a genocide ever happened, either.
 * If this is all the evidence anyone can find for Genghis Khan's genocidal tendencies, the statement must go, or get a manicure. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're addressing me directly or everyone who is involved in this talk page. But either way I was careful to not mention "genocide" in my statement above. I also did not check the sources, and never claimed that they were reliable. If the sources are clearly unreliable then they should go. Feel free to remove the sources. But the statement should be given a "citation needed" tag. If a cite is not added within a certain period of time then the statement can be removed. The genocidal part of the statement will probably be removed but a source can definitely be found for the brutality part. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, TrynaMakeADollar. I was not addressing you and I'm sorry for not making that clear. Regarding finding an RS for Genghis Khan's brutality: several authors say that his brutality is exaggerrated, and often by the Mongols themselves for psychological warfare purposes. In his lifetime Genghis Khan made several humanitarian actions, including criminalizing war rape and expanding civil rights, to illegitimate children, for instance. Link below are just a few examples of historians putting to rest the idea that he was particularly brutal.
 * Persian death toll likely exaggerrated, Page 421:
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=yJPlCpzOY_QC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA421
 * "their achievements lay forgotten, while their alleged brutality and crimes became magnified"
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PR25
 * "The distortion was further increased when the Mongols colluded in exaggerated stories about their brutality, hoping to scare the enemy into giving up without a fight, out of sheer terror. There are no signs in Genghis of a mindless or ..."
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=RBZpCQAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT334
 * These references show that Genghis Khan's brutality is by no means an historical certainty.- Hunan201p (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that another editor has added some sources for the statement. I haven't done a deep dive on the sources to check for their reliability because I haven't got the time for that. But to address your statements above; two things can be true at the same time. As a person who has studied Mongol history I know that Genghis Khan was not mindless and was actually very intelligent and has done several things that are seen as positives. But it is also true that Genghis Khan was a brutal leader. Just because someone has done "positive" things does not mean that they haven't also been brutal and vicious. No serious historians (including the ones listed above) will deny aspects of Genghis Khan's brutality. Anne F. Broadbridge makes this quite clear in her book. Apart from that, it is really difficult to imagine how a conqueror in the high middle ages could not have to rely on his brutality and viciousness at times. Just look at his campaigns against the Merkits. That's normal and to be expected. For example, William the Conqueror (King of England) is often considered to be a brutal leader. And in a lot of ways he was. But he is also credited with a lot of positive things like commissioning the creation of the Domesday book. This article should clearly and fairly state Genghis Khan's obvious brutality and his obvious positive qualities and actions. And in an ideal world there would not be so much edit warring. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the section in question. That Genghis Khan was brutal and murderous is without doubt. For instance, I took a class under Broadbridge, she detailed some of the massacres and the execution strategies. This is reflected in her books as well.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 23:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Euro-centrism. Alexander regularly killed every man and sold every woman to slavery. So did Rome. That's how they got the popular slave trade. Mongols, meanwhile, spared everyone who surrendered. Anyway, "genocide" is a word invented in 1945. No culture at that time period thought that way. Otherwise, they would have a word. "His campaign were marked by brutality toward those who didn't surrender" would be more neutral and fair. Otherwise, it's a typical Eurocentrism on Wikipedia: just read articles like the British Empire. Everything Europe did was "fair" and "civilized." Everything others did was barbarism. Sherwilliam (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate POV in "Negative" section -- genocide
I see several problems with the "negative" reputation section and its multiple references to genocide and mass murder in general. Below I have pasted the specific paragraphs, in boldface, with my views about why they don't belong there, due to issues like relevance or SYNTH.

"The conquests and leadership of Genghis Khan included widespread devastation and mass murder, and he, along with the Mongols in general, is widely considered a perpetrator of ethnocide and genocide.[95][96][97]"

This appears to be a bad case of POV and WP:SYNTH. None of these authors cite anything indicating there is a widespread acknowledgement that Genghis Khan participated in genocide. The closest any one of them got was John Man, and he is sloppy in his statements, as I will show below.

"In the Middle East, and particularly in Iran, Genghis Khan is almost universally condemned as a destructive and genocidal warlord who caused enormous destruction to the population of these areas.[98]"

In the previous section of this talk page, I demonstrated why the reference for this statement (Ahmad Jabbari's statement on payvand.com + Linda Kamaroff's rebuttal) fails WP:RS.

"Steven R. Ward wrote that "Overall, the Mongol violence and depredations killed up to three-fourths of the population of the Iranian Plateau, possibly 10 to 15 million people."

Steve Ward never ascribes this violence to Genghis Khan in any of his books.

"The invasions of Merv, Samarkand, Urgench, Nishapur, Bamyan, Balkh and Herat among others caused mass murders, such as when large portions of Khorasan Province were completely destroyed"

Which mass murders can be ascribed to Genghis Khan's orders?

"His descendant Hulagu Khan destroyed much of Iran's north and sacked Baghdad, although his forces were halted by the Mamluks of Egypt. Hulagu's descendant Ghazan Khan once returned to beat the Mamluks and briefly gain the control of Syria, but were eventually defeated. According to the works of the Persian historian Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, the Mongols killed more than 70,000 people in Merv and more than 190,000 in Nishapur."

This has nothing to do with Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan's reputation is being defined here by the actions of his children (Hulagu Khan) and great-great grandchildren (Ghazan Khan), when he was a dead man. This should go.

"According to the works of the Persian historian Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, the Mongols killed more than 70,000 people in Merv and more than 190,000 in Nishapur."

Genghis Khan was not responsible for these murders and Rashid-al-Din does not link them to Genghis Khan.

"In 1237, Batu Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, launched an invasion into Kievan Rus'. Over the course of three years, the Mongols annihilated all of the major cities of Eastern Europe with the exception of Novgorod and Pskov.[102] Giovanni de Plano Carpini, the Pope's envoy to the Mongol Great Khan, travelled through Kiev in February 1246 and wrote:"

Genghis Khan died in 1227, ten years before this happened. Like many paragraphs in this section, this seems like filler intended to boost the genocide perspective. I think someone should remove it.

"'''The second campaign against Western Xia, the final military action led by Genghis Khan, and during which he died, involved an intentional and systematic destruction of Western Xia cities and culture. According to John Man, because of this policy of total obliteration, Western Xia is little known to anyone other than experts in the field because so little record is left of that society. He states that "There is a case to be made that this was the first ever recorded example of attempted genocide. It was certainly very successful ethnocide."[97]'''"

John Man does very little to implicate Genghis Khan in the destruction of the Xi Xia. The closest he gets is in saying "Genghis did his best to wipe state, culture, and people off the face of the Earth".

Yet as we can see in the Smithsonian Institute's "Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire", Genghis Khan was already dead when this incident happened:

https://archive.org/details/genghiskhanmongo00medi/page/34/mode/2up/search/entire+population

"Perhaps the biggest mystery of the Mongol story concerns Genghis Khan’s death and burial. Rashid al-Din ascribes his death to an unspecified illness, possibly resulting from a fall from a horse—shortly before the Xi Xia king surrendered and its capital city and entire population was destroyed in 1227"

Genghis died in August of 1227, the Xi Xia capitol was pillaged in September.

Nobody, including John Man in his book, has ever provided any evidence that Genghis Khan ordered the mass murder of the Xi Xia people, and indeed he spared the capitol city during his lifetime.

This one claim from John May, describing the Xi Xia's destruction by Mongols as ethnocide, and sloppily suggesting Genghis Khan "tried his best" at it, is not evidence of Genghis Khan's genocidal tendencies being widely accepted. It is simply his idea in his book, which while certainly notable, isn't consensus of genocide.

"Although the famous Mughal emperors were proud descendants of Genghis Khan and particularly Timur, they clearly distanced themselves from the Mongol atrocities committed against the Khwarizim Shahs, Turks, Persians, the citizens of Baghdad and Damascus, Nishapur, Bukhara and historical figures such as Attar of Nishapur and many other notable Muslims.[citation needed] However, Mughal Emperors directly patronized the legacies of Genghis Khan and Timur; together their names were synonymous with the names of other distinguished personalities particularly among the Muslim populations of South Asia.[citation needed]"

Pure POV, and without even a single reference. I say delete.

Final comment: The claims of genocide or ethnocide need verifiable quotes linking them to Genghis Khan. So far I haven't seen anything from any of these sources or elsewhere linking a genocide to Genghis Khan. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Genghis Khan is literally mentioned in books about genocide. Numerous other books mention the murder and destruction of his conquests. My university professor who taught an entire course on the Mongols and Timurids described some of the mass execution and mass murder strategies and techniques. You are right that the books in question here don't say "widely acknowledged" or something. They just say that this is what he did. I'll make that change.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 18:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Murder and destruction aren't genocide. It's a word invented in 1948 to describe Nazi Germany's atrocities in the Holocaust.

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:


 * 1) Killing members of the group;
 * 2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * 3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
 * 4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 * 5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The keywords here are "national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Genghis Khan never tried to kill because people are Christians, Turks, Whites, or anything. At worst, he killed those who rebelled. He killed those who didn't surrender. There's no religious, national, or racial affiliations. Everything was based on actions people took. Of course, since there are literally thousands of books about Mongol conquests, you can find whatever sources you need for whatever description you want to make, especially since few would explicit deny that was a genocide. Most those disagree simply call him brutal. Since the term is obviously inaccurate, we need to use editorial discretion. Sherwilliam (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I searched on google about some famous destructions along with the word genocide. Clearly, you can find reliable sources on ANY war. That's why editorical discretion is needed on an obviously Western-centric and anachronistic term. Here are a few.

The First Genocide: Carthage, 146 BC https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/first_genocide.pdf

Athenian Genocide at Melos https://www.ancient.eu/article/485/genocide-in-the-ancient-world/ Sherwilliam (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020
Genghis Khan's exact birth date is totally unknown, so the 16th April date is a speculative information and needs to be removed. It's agreed by historians as his birth year to be around 1155-1162, but the exact Date and Month are not known. There is no reliable website or book citing any information regarding his month or date of birth. Also, it's important to not whether it's New Style Gregorian date of Old Style Julian dating.

However, according to UNESCO, his birth date is speculated to be either 31st May 1162 or 1st May 1162. Here's the link:https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/knowledge-bank/birth-date-chinghis-khaan-determined-through-mongolian-astrology

All in all, the whole thing speculative information with no grounded evidence and the best thing would be to remove this information.

2402:3A80:A09:96BC:C80E:DF2C:78F3:F0A0 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. The date was added on June 14, 2020 by (diff) but with no sources added at all. I also find the date dubious and a quick Google search didn't turn up anything, so I've removed it for now. If anyone has a reliable source for the April date please add it back in.  ◢ <i style="background-color:#d103ac; color:#fff"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 12:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No mention of rapes he did?
It's a common knowledge that today 1 out of about 200 or 300 descendents are his, he raped so many women! Legallybrown (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * See Descent from Genghis Khan. But if you're a "proof based historian" as you claim, then we can only talk about his genealogy, known descent, and DNA connections. Claiming he "raped so many women" would be an inference, a supposition, a probability, or a hypothesis, but we can't include "proof". However, reliable sources that state he indeed raped women, or a source outlining prevailing customs, etc., would of course be appropriate. - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

New article needed: Darhut
New Wikipedia article needed: Darhut (the tribe of Mongolians who guard the legacy of Genghis Khan). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)