Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2020
Please remove

several tribes of confederation, including Naimans, Merkits, Tatars, Khamag Mongols, and Keraites, that were all prominent and often unfriendly towards each other

and add

several prominent tribal confederations, including Naimans, Merkits, Tatars, Khamag Mongols, and Keraites, that were often unfriendly towards each other

64.203.187.75 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sentence removal?
"Because of this brutality, which left millions dead, he is considered by many to have been a brutal ruler." This sentence is tautological: he is considered brutal on the grounds that he was brutal. The sentence is also awkward: if his brutality left millions dead, why write "considered by many," as if to emphasize that there are also people who don't consider him a brutal ruler, despite that record? If there is such an alternative viewpoint, it should be reported as such, not elevated to the status of a legitimate opinion. The crimes against humanity do not appear to be in question, at least not in this sentence. There is no neutral position to maintain on matters like genocide, mass murder, war crimes. My advice would be to stick to the one uncontested fact, for example by writing: "The brutalities committed under his leadership left millions dead." 2601:85:C380:49F0:70FB:7786:FF5A:8B40 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Bop Camino, 7 October 2020

Recognition Title
Moreover the Yasa forbade maruan that is spies but probably only if determined against the Mongols (also Councils of Wang Mang)

Video game reference
Maybe add the reference to "World Heroes" game saga (where another historical characters appear, with changed names too) in the video game apparitions? He appears as Jenghis Carn (or Julius Carn, region variations).

Someone with editing powers please include this relevant quote
Genghis Khan's legacy in military strategy, by Douglas MacArthur:

"Were the accounts of all battles, save those of Genghis Khan, effaced from the pages of history ... the soldier would still possess a mine of untold wealth from which to extract nuggets of knowledge useful in molding an army for future use ...[his] successes are proof sufficient of his unerring instinct for the fundamental qualifications of an army. He devised an organization appropriate to conditions then existing; he raised the discipline and the morale of his troops to a level never known in any other army,... he spent every available period of peace to develop subordinate leaders and to produce perfection in training throughout the army, and, finally, he insisted upon speed in action, a speed which by comparison with other forces of his day, was almost unbelievable. Though he armed his men with the best equipment of offense and defense that the skill of Asia could produce, he refused to encumber them with loads that would immobilize his army. Over great distances his legions moved so rapidly and secretly as to astound his enemies and practically to paralyze their powers of resistance.... On the battlefield his troops maneuvered so swiftly and skillfully and struck with such devastating speed that times without number they defeated armies overwhelmingly superior to themselves in number... he clearly understood the unvarying necessities of war. It is these conceptions that the modern soldier seeks to separate frum the details of the Khan's technique, tactics, and organization. So winnowed from the chaff of medieval custom and of all other inconsequentials, they stand revealed as kernels of eternal truth, as applicable today in our efforts to produce an efficient army as they were when, seven centuries ago, the great Mongol applied them to the discomfiture and amazement of a terrified world."

Source: Christopher D. Bellamy, The Evolution of Modern Land Warfare (London: Routledge, 1990), p. 195.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020
Please remove the fifth note under the Chinggis Khan (or Genghis Khan) Wikipedia page. Completely delete ", also officially Genghis Huangdi,[note 5]" and the subsequent fifth note as there is no verifiable claim that Chinggis Khan was called Genghis Huangdi. This is a very recent addition that seeks to sinicize Mongol heads of state without any proof. The Khagans of Ikh Mongol Uls NEVER used the Chinese title of Emperor in the Chinese language. As a Mongolian of Mongol descent who has strong ties to one's culture and identity, the phrase "Genghis Huangdi" is unheard of, except maybe in contemporary China. Moreover, the fact that Genghis is not the correct spelling is another beast itself, but that's a spelling problem, not a historical inaccuracy. Please delete the fifth note. Thank you. SteppeTundra (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy citation
Looking at this diff, we appear to be making things worse. The template invocation is:



But the ISBN doesn't match the title, I see no indication that the University of Australia acted as publisher, and "Cedal Books Publications" doesn't appear to exist ("Cedar Books" does). I suggest to treat this as a web resource rather than a book, and to use the citation suggested in the publication.

Should I be bold and do this?

Eelworm (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is: Eelworm (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"also officially Genghis Huangdi"
Please remove this. Chinese people may have called him "Huang Di" as it is the Chinese word for Emperor but the Mongols never used this title for him when he was alive. This makes people wonder whether it is another attempt by the Chinese government to misinterpret history to support their own narrative, similar to this one - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/14/china-insists-genghis-khan-exhibit-not-use-words-genghis-khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.254.57 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Chinggis Khan Statue Complex (22310875634).jpg

So called empire
Some would disagree with that statement since most of the land that was conquered was sparsely populated. Khan was never able to conquer China, Persia, India or Europe which all were established countries or monarchies. Jensen2783 (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Temüjin Borjigin" and etymology
We sure this is a proper name? Yes he is from Borjigin, but is this a surname? I think not. I propose to remove Borjigin from the name and only leave Timujin. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

what do you think? Also can you look at "Emperor Genghis" or "Genghis Huangdi" thing? (there's another topic above) Also seems like in older versions (randomly picked) there is no "Temujin Borjigin" but "Temujin" alone. Beshogur (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I remembered there was a text about his etymology but apparently found it: One theory suggests the name stems from a palatalised version of the Mongolian and Turkic word tenggis, meaning "ocean", "oceanic" or "wide-spreading". (Lake Baikal and ocean were called tenggis by the Mongols. However, it seems that if they had meant to call Genghis tenggis they could have said, and written, "Tenggis Khan", which they did not.) Zhèng (Chinese: 正) meaning "right", "just", or "true", would have received the Mongolian adjectival modifier -s, creating "Jenggis", which in medieval romanization would be written "Genghis". It is likely that the 13th century Mongolian pronunciation would have closely matched "Chinggis".

not sure who removed this and if this is legit. Perhaps better to replace it, instead of placing possible etymology to the lead. Beshogur (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * why add the point of view of one/some researches if we have such an authoritative resource as Big Russian Encyclopedia, where the only etymology is given at the very beginning (tengis in Mongolian is a late loan word from Turkic) Devlet Geray (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021
Please delete reference 4 and "temple name". These are both foreign concepts that are not known to Mongolians or the Mongol diaspora. SteppeTundra (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Posting more edit requests won't get them answered faster, it will only bother other editors. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
I noticed the spelling of the name of Genghis Khan.The real spelling of "Genghis" Khan is actually Chinngis Khan.So please edit the page to show Chinngis Khan instead of Genghis Khan. Quantum Cpu (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅: However, I placed it as bold in the note section, Genghis Khan is a more common spelling in English. Beshogur (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021
Hello. If you look on the right side under Chinggis's picture, born/died/spouse etc, you'd notice someone had included a posthumous name called "Emperor Fatian Qiyun Shengwu (法天啟運聖武皇帝)[4]" and "Temple Name". Mongolians don't have this posthumous name or a temple name for Chinggis and a foreign name such as this is a plain rewriting of history for the benefit of another non-Mongol government. This [4] was retrieved on January 10 (today) and refers to an article named "Tradition, Innovation and the construction of Qubilai's diplomacy" by an Italian author. It's recommended that both of these references are omitted from his page. SteppeTundra (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. A name that's used, even if by non-Mongols, should still be included. Referencing is not an issue here. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020
-Requesting to remove "note 5" on Genghis Khan's page. The note reads "Before Kublai Khan announced the dynastic name "Great Yuan" in 1271, Khagans (Great Khans) of the Mongol State (Ikh Mongol Uls) already started to use the Chinese title of Emperor (Chinese: 皇帝; pinyin: Huángdì) practically in the Chinese language since Genghis Khan (as 成吉思皇帝; 'Genghis Huangdi')." The source isn't verified.

-Requesting to revise the sentence “Genghis Khan[note 4] (Genghis Khan is an honorary title ascending from the Turkic "tengiz" — sea;[6] born Temüjin,[note 1] c. 1158 – August 18, 1227), posthumously named as Genghis Huangdi,[note 5] was the founder and first Great Khan and Emperor of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death. He came to power by uniting many of the nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia.

to

Genghis Khan[note 4] (Genghis Khan is an honorary title ascending from the Turkic "tengiz" — sea;[6] born Temüjin,[note 1] c. 1158 – August 18, 1227), was the founder and first Great Khan and Emperor of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death. He came to power by uniting many of the nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia. "

1. Genghis Khan died in 1227, 44 years before 1271, when the Yuan Dynasty was officially established under Kublai Khan. There are no sources to verify the Huangdi title was used to refer to Genghis Khan.

2. The title of an imperial rank in Mongolic/Turkic language stands as Khan " Mongolian Script: ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ ; Chinese: 可汗; pinyin: Kèhán or Chinese: 大汗; pinyin: Dàhán; Persian: خاقان‎ Khāqān, alternatively spelled Kağan, Kagan, Khaghan, Kaghan, Khakan, Khakhan, Xagahn, Qaghan, Chagan, Қан, or Kha'an" as more phonetically familiar. < Vovin, Alexander. 2010. Once Again on the Ruan-ruan Language. Ötüken'den İstanbul'a Türkçenin 1290 Yılı (720–2010) Sempozyumu From Ötüken to Istanbul, 1290 Years of Turkish (720–2010). 3–5 Aralık 2010, İstanbul / 3–5 December 2010, İstanbul: 1–10.> TheKhatunSur (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this article has many problems. I think the best thing is to mention as Khagan or Great Khan and remove the title emperor. "first Great Khan or Emperor" sounds weird because Genghis didn't spoke English and Kaghan already means emperor, or Khagan/Great Khan (Emperor). Beshogur (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has changed significantly from when request was filed, and sentences proposed to be changed can't be found. Closing. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Square Ulan Bator (Mongolia).jpg

Spam out of this
We are told in the second paragraph about the "incredible spread of culture". Could someone delete this drivel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:BC68:9EA2:525D:4338 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Some correction on Physical appearance
I'm pretty sure the word Mandarin in Genghis Khan does not mean Mandarin Chinese the language of Chinese people. We should fix the disambiguation link to Mandarin (bureaucrat) which is Chinese bureaucrat scholar. It was to legitimize Genghis Khan as a Chinese emperor.

Also Kublai Khan was born from 1215, Genghis khan died in 1227. There is at least 11-12 years of them meeting eachother. Kublai Khan would know what Genghis Khan looked like, so how can his portrait just be just a essentially arbitrary rendering ? Vamlos (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you've raised this both HERE and here, but yes, you're right on the first count, and I've already amended it. On the second, perhaps 'arbitrary rendering' is the wrong phrasing (not mine), but the broader point is that none of the renderings were made, in person, while Genghis Khan was alive, so none are first hand, and also, none of the artistic styles from the period are naturalistic, so a true likeness is elusive. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wanted this to be a much broader discussing so I started the talk page but I than I realized others who started questions on here don't necessarily get replies, I waited and din't get any reply either. So I made the question on your talk page aswell hoping you reply back to my question.


 * Okay it's good that the Mandarin had been fixed. I don't know why describe it as Mandarin sage when Mandarin should mean bureaucrat scholar.


 * Even if none of the rendering were made in person. Kublai Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan person was with Genghis Khan for 11-12 years (1215 - 1227). Kublai Khan would know how his grandfather looked like. There is even a special occasion recorded between Genghis and Kublai. Genghis Khan performed a ceremony on his grandsons Möngke and Kublai after their first hunt in 1224 near the Ili River.[8] Kublai was nine years old and with his eldest brother killed a rabbit and an antelope. After his grandfather smeared fat from killed animals onto Kublai's middle finger in accordance with a Mongol tradition, he said "The words of this boy Kublai are full of wisdom, heed them well – heed them all of you." The elderly Khagan (Mongol emperor) Genghis Khan would die three years after this event in 1227, when Kublai was 12. This is evidence Kublai Khan had seen Genghis Khan when he was 9 years old.  Vamlos (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kublai Khan almost certainly knew 'roughly' what his grandfather looked like, sure. But this painting, by the only estimate we have was created in 1278, some 50 years after the death of Genghis Khan. Even disregarding the questions of the realism of this style of painting, it is simple commonsense that a 12-year-old's memory, aged by 50 years, would be of somewhat dubious fidelity. A source that recollects facts 50 years later is nowhere near as authoritative as a source recording the facts at the time. And this is far worse - we have a painter painting their subject not first hand, but based on the memories of others 50 years later. Think a facial composite, but recreated 50 years after the fact. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How could he only roughly had knew. I can understand that if he was 12 months old, or anywhere from 1 to 5 years old  or 6 years old. Psychology studies have shown everyone who was 9-10 years old, 11-12 years old should remember their close friends, close classmate, especially their relatives. I remember everyone's faces when I was in primary school ( 8 to 11 years) and secondary school (11 to 16) just not nursery school.  When it comes to relatives, I remember everyone's face 100% when I was 9-12 years old, and everyone should be able to do the same. You telling you couldn't remember a face of your relative when you were 9-12 years old ? Not to mention Kublai Khan was with Genghis Khan for 12 years. This is not remember a friend or a random person, this is remembering a relative. How can anyone can forget the faces of their own grandparents when they lived together for years or decade. Even all the people I know aged by 90 years, they remember their grandparents faces at 10 years old. It's only those below 7 years old that memories of people's appearances are weak. There's no way that people can forget the faces of their close relatives from remembering back when 9-12 years. They are kids, but not little kids, at 12 they are closer to becoming a teenager. A teenager couldn't possibly not remember someone close to him/her. Vamlos (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have photographic memory, but that is not particularly common. However, even if Kublai Khan's memory was perfect, he still was not the painter, who could only create an impression of the descriptions he was being given. Also, we have no source that says that Kublai Khan described his grandfather to the painter - only that associates of Genghis Khan were told to work with the painter. Finally, the painting is still not naturalistic; it is stylized: as such, it can only ever be an approximation of a realistic portrayal. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say. Even if he knew how his grandfather's appearance, this doesn't mean anything. No wp:or. Beshogur (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no photographic memory but I remember all my relatives as a kid (not as a baby, or as a child). All of our minds should begin to develop strong memories after crossing 8 and half years old. Is there really anyone can say they don't remember a close relative they have lived with several years at least... say 9 to 12 years old.
 * I want to add this too. The Culture of the Mongols. Publisher:Rosen Publishing Group, By Vic Kovacs, 2016. Source--> Click Here] Here is what he said about Kublai Khan and Genghis Khan.  " Genghis Khan's grandson, Kublai Khan had a portrait of Genghis Khan painted 50 years after his death. it is the only portrait of the leader that still exist today. Kublai Khan asked some of Genghis Khan's warriors to make sure the portrait was accurate."  Surely the warriors who fought side by side with Genghis Khan should know how he looked like.


 * And to reply to Beshogur. If he knew his grandfather's appearance it means the portrait is accurate. Is not like he is going to draw somebody he doesn't know with no resemblance. Kublai Khan must have remembered what his grandfather Genghis Khan looked like but not 100% so he asked for other people's who had seen Genghis Khan to help draw the portrait. Kublai must have also took part in trying to reconstruct his appearance. Vamlos (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the broader point that Beshogur is trying to make is that it is not our place to guess how well the warriors remembered, or how well the painter painted. There is no proof of accuracy. There is not even a source asserting accuracy. It says that the warriors were instructed to ensure the likeness, but we do not have a source saying they succeeded, or any source saying that Kublai Khan checked the results. We cannot assume parts of a story that we have no evidence for. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I get his point. My point is the strongest evidence to knowing Genghis Khan appearance is the fact that Kublai Khan and the painters, and people who helped the painter were all people who saw Genghis khan during his lifetime. Is not like the painting from 1278 or half century after his death, were drawn by people who never seen him or met him. Even if the portrait accuracy is not 100%, it should at least be 70% to 90% accurate based on the fact it was created by all people who was with him for years. Only two living historians have bother to record Genghis Khan's physical appearance during his lifetime, not even Genghis Khan's own relative bother to record his appearance, because they feel there's no need to since lived with him side by side as a family. The other problem is people like Jack Featherford and a source ( I don't know who) decided to call the portrait of Genghis Khan as arbitrary rendering but is edited on the wikipedia anyway. I have not seen these two words mentioned anywhere on Genghis Khan's portrait. Even though they don't deny the fact that the painting was commissioned by Kublai Khan. Essentially we can say the face of Genghis Khan is accurate because it was created by Kublai, and his followers who lived side by side with him.Vamlos (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't say any of this. We have sources saying Kublai commissioned the painting, and that warriors who knew Genghis were involved. That is it. No more. We can't make guesses about the accuracy. But only a colour photo would truly be accurate; a highly stylised painting from 50 years later cannot even approach accurate. But it doesn't need to, because it doesn't really matter what Genghis Khan looked like. It's interesting to discuss, but that is the only purpose of the article - to convey the scope of the be discussion about the subject: not to come to conclusions or the solve the mystery. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, not an investigative history book. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay I don't have any evidence to say the portraits are 100% accurate but you make it sound like it's impossible to be 100% accurate. The chances for accuracy is extremely high. You said 50 years later cannot even approach accurate, how do you know that ? People have memories. The fact is the portrait is still made by the people who saw him for years. If it was people who were not born in his lifetime, than I can understand, but it was drawn by people who had seen him for years. Let's not forget Genghis Khan was a strong figure and would have left a strong lasting impact of his image on it's family and also on the warriors who served him. You make it sound as if their memories have faded 50 years later. So what if it's 50 years. Kublai Khan was 12 years old when Genghis Khan died, but 62 years old when the portrait was created. The warriors who followed Genghis Khan would have been around his same age, younger or even or few decade younger, but have seen him for years or even several decades. Anyway, like I said, I don't have any evidence to say the portrait is 100% accurate but we can definitely say chances are very high. So is extremely exaggerated to say that can't make a more accurate guess. It's certainly not 0% like other descriptions of Genghis Khan from 14th century historians, or people who were born after Genghis Khan died. I agree with your other points but not the 50 years part.Vamlos (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, look, the passage of time is bad, but still not the worst thing. This would be fine for people giving descriptions of a person of providing other information, but for producing an actual image, there is a huge amount of subtlety in the features of the human face that mere description of the person can never hope to accurately capture. You could sit in a room with an artist describing a person you love until the end of time and they might still never produce an accurate rendering of the one you love. This is the nature of any "facial composite", which, just like police sketches, are fundamentally limited by the processes of both recollection and (mis)communication - relative to the superior scenario of having a painter sit in a room in front of their live subject. Perhaps this new wording is more conciliatory though: "This portrait is often considered to represent the closest resemblance to what Genghis Khan actually looked like, though it, like all others renderings, suffers the same limitation of being, at best, a facial composite." Iskandar323 (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Our opinions are really just assumptions. Nobody can prove that the portrait isn't accurate, it's purely assumption to think they didn't get the image 100% accurate or very close to accurate. Nobody can prove that Kublai Khan, the painter and his warriors wasn't accurate with Genghis Khan's appearance. You said I have photographic memory but you can say the same to Kublai, painter and Genghis followers. Comparing facial composite of Genghis Khan portrait (seen by his grandson and his trusted followers) to a mere criminal in a police sketches isn't nowhere near the same. Some people remember the faces of their criminals even after half a century while Genghis Khan is no any random guy, he was a grandfather to Kublai and emperor to his followers. We always remember the faces of important figures but they leave a strong impression in our minds.Vamlos (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything is an assumption, but you are assuming slightly more by suggesting that the picture is accurate, when we have no reason to believe that. We don't even know if Kublai Khan ever saw the image. And you really are ignoring the most important point, which is that the picture is not even painted in a naturalistic, i.e.: realistic, style. Earlier, you were trying to add the point about the picture being sinicized - an idea that implies how the picture looks was altered to present a certain image. This is directly at odds with the idea that it is somehow accurate. The picture obviously looks more like a cartoon of a person than anything even closely resembling a realistic portrait. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes everything is assumption. I'm suggesting the picture is far more accurate than what you believe. It is equally correct to assume the picture was also 100% accurate or very close to accurate. I said it many times, it's not like the portrait was drawn by people who didn't know him, it was drawn by all people who knew him and saw him. It's a totally different story if the portrait was drawn people who was not even born in his time. Of course Kublai Khan saw the images, he was the one that commissioned the Yuan portraits. Kublai Khan started a process of sinicization.  By sinicization, it doesn't mean they made their faces look Chinese because their faces look typical of Mongols. The art of those Mongol emperor portraits looks sicinized in its' dress, styles customs. Kublai khan started this process to sinicized their emperor so he can legitimated claim Genghis Khan as a Chinese emperor. Kublai Khan who drawn by Nepalese artist shortly after his death 1294, and another portrait of him when younger drawn by Nepalese artist Araniko. Also the portrait of Odegei Khan and Genghis Khan was both drawn during his rule. Portrait of all other Yuan emperor was drawn during Yuan rule.


 * Realistic style ? All historical figures portraits look a bit carttonish during medieval times. People in the past do not have the same advance drawing techniques like today but drawing of the people's appearance/phenotypes are clearly humanoid. They look far more realistic than many other older Chinese paintings. Drawing of individual portraits advances and improved in every new era.


 * This is the image of Kublai Khan drawn shortly after his death in 1294 by Nepalese artist not Chinese. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/YuanEmperorAlbumKhubilaiPortrait.jpg/1200px-YuanEmperorAlbumKhubilaiPortrait.jpg Vamlos (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, can I ask why you are so passionate about this? I'm genuinely curious at this point. Secondly, if you really want to insert some sort of line about how accurate this portrait is, there is a very simple way to do it, and that is to find a source that says that this rendering of Genghis Khan can be considered accurate and/or realistic. It's as easy as that. Job done. But until we have a source saying that, we can't say things like: "Of course Kublai Khan saw the images..." and assume accuracy. That is WP:OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really passionate about it. Just totally disagree with the assumption that Genghis Khan portrait can't be accurate or realistic, only because it was made 50 years later after his death. People that are still alive from WW2, born from 30's can remember the faces people from 1940's, 75-80 years ago. There are people who are 90 years old and able to draw people they remember from 90 years ago. If that's possible why can't they remember the faces of someone from 50 years ago especially if it's a relative or a important figure. Since it was Kublai Khan that commissioned the portrait of Genghis Khan, it seems unreasonable and unrealistic to say that he didn't see it. I will try find a source if I can.Vamlos (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Jack Weatherford on Genghis as a Mandarin sage?
This seems to directly contradict sources elsewhere both on wikipedia and in a book I possess from an exhibition on the Yuan portraits. Before getting into the sources, I have a few personal issues with the premise. According to Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan in his iconic portrait is portrayed more akin to a Mandarin sage than a Mongol warrior, which poses several problems. One, it is not clear at all the emperors wished to be portrayed as warriors, whether Mongol or Chinese. They most likely wished to be portrayed as rulers and not a common warrior or soldier regardless of their cultural portrayal. Two, a Mandarin sage does not make much sense and I think this is a problem with Jack being a somewhat pop cultural writer. A Mandarin is a Chinese bureaucrat as pointed out above. They can be portrayed as sages, but the two are not the same, and Genghis and Kublai themselves never instituted the imperial examinations, a trapping of Mandarin institutions.

Now the sources. According to the description of Kublai Khan's portrait, which is the only one in the album portrayed in the same style of clothing as Genghis: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kublai_Khan.jpg&oldid=9871447

How can Kublai Khan's white robes reflect that of a religious Mongol shaman while Genghis Khan's identical robes represent that of a Mandarin sage? Or does Jack Weatherford mean to say that he is drawn as a Mongol shaman while portrayed as a Mandarin sage? This needs clarification or else it seems contradictory. It seems obvious to me that Kublai Khan wished for himself to be compared to Genghis, hence they are the only ones drawn in a similar way.

Furthermore, the book I possess: Cultural Relics of the Mongols in the National Palace Museum Collection also contradicts Weatherford. In a preface by the Minister of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, Ms. Jaclyn Y.L. Tsai, she says:

Page 29 describes the different painting style of the portraits compared to Chinese:

Qiushufang (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The caption on the Kublai Khan picture is not, in of itself, a source. That is simply the text that the user that performed the upload chose to place alongside the image. We have no way to know if that came from a source and if so which one in order to verify it. I also don't see the other two sources as contradicting Weatherford. The first says nothing about style and the second only points out stylistic variations. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * How can be portrayed as both Tengri, the Heavenly One, as well as a Mandarin sage? Are the two synonymous? The second part clearly claims that the art style had significant divergences from what was considered Chinese portrait art at the time. How likely is it that a portrait painted with non-Chinese styles portraying Genghis as Tengri can also be portraying him as a Mandarin sage? Qiushufang (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Jaclyn Y.L. Tsai is, or if they are even a scholar, but Genghis Khan worshipped Tengri - the idea that the portrait of him somehow depicts the God that he worshipped is palpably nonsensical. I have seen no sources suggesting that within 50 years of his death, Genghis Khan was deified by his grandson. If Jaclyn Y.L. Tsai is not an academic then this preface itself needs to show signs of proper sourcing - book prefaces are typically a form of opinion - in this case, coming from the "Minister of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission", probably with a particular nationalistic agenda. A book by a government on cultural matters could potentially by highly POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it any more nonsensical than a portrait of Genghis Khan in non-Chinese clothing and non-Chinese hairstyle a representation of him as a Mandarin sage as opposed to a Mongol warrior, neither of which are clearly defined in juxtaposition to one another. Jack Weatherford is a pop historian and his statement is also an opinion. He is not an expert on the history of Yuan art nor is the source focused on it, like the text I have quoted is. As for nationalistic POV, Jack Weatherford himself was awarded the "Order of the Polar Star, Mongolia's highest national honor," according to wikipedia, so he can't be that far off from what the "nationalistic agenda" is. Again, what other sources besides him consider the portrait a depiction of a Mandarin sage, whatever that is? This seems like a a situation of WP:WEIGHT and there are clearly other opinions, like his, which need to be represented. Jack Weatherford is not the be all end all of Yuan art history, especially when the source for which the statement is based off of mentions it as a mere footnote. Qiushufang (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Weatherford is a professor and respected historian of Mongol history. The juxtaposition is that Genghis Khan was a Mongol warrior and retained the trappings of a Mongol warrior to the end of his life - living in a yurt and abiding by Mongol customs: thus to present him as something else is obviously a deviation from the palpable reality. A minister is, by the nature of the office, a transitory political appointee. Who says she is an expert? There is no evidence that the preface is not opinion. Are there footnotes explaining it? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the other portraits depict the Mongol rulers as warriors in yurts and abiding by "Mongol customs" either. Nor does any of that prove he is portrayed as a Mandarin sage as I have pointed out many times. You haven't answered how he is portrayed as a Mandarin sage or what that is. This is the clear problem. He is neither portrayed as Chinese nor as a a Mandarin or as a sage. It is not hard to understand this problem facing us. I am not claiming the writer is an expert just like I am not claiming Jack Weatherford is not a professor or historian of Mongol history, but that he IS a pop historian writing history for easy digestion meant to engender interest in a subject. He is not a professor or expert on Yuan art history or depictions and portraits of emperors. There are clear issues with his interpretation that I have pointed out and questioned. Namely, what is a Mandarin sage and what does that look like and how does a portrait of a man in Mongol clothing and Mongol hairstyle represent that figure? As I have not found that answer, I think it would be prudent to offer other interpretations in other sources as well. It's not an either or situation where both opinions can't be represented. Qiushufang (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AndUpon further research, it does not seem Jack Weatherford is considered a "respected historian": Qiushufang (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough - this certainly means we should scrutinize statements by Weatherford - I suppose in this instance, it would be good to ascertain whether or not his commentary on the picture is in turn supported by other sources. However, there is still no reason to consider the statement of a Taiwanese politician as being more reliable. I do not know how he is portrayed as a mandarin sage, and it is not my job to say - that would be WP:OR. Weatherford says that, and the text reflects this. I don't have to explain how he looks like a mandarin sage. The WP:ONUS is on you to provided a source that demonstrates that he is NOT portrayed in a "Mandarin" style, whether we are talking sages, scholars or whatever. Mongol shamans tends to wear feathers . Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Qiushufang - please don't forget to fill out the citations properly where you can. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Mandarin sage??? It seems like the portrait commissioned by Kublai Khan portrays him as a Mongolian shaman rather than a Chinese Mandarin. A Chinese Mandarin would look like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Portrait_of_Jiang_Shunfu.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021
92.96.247.103 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC) GENGHIS KHAN IS THE BEST PERSON IN HISTORY OF MONGOLS
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1000 Tugriks - Recto.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021
I would very much appreciated it if you in the sentence "Wanyan Jiujin, the field commander of the Jin army, made a tactical mistake in not attacking the Mongols at the first opportunity" added ",during the the second engagement of the battle of Yehuling" after opportunity for clarification. I think this will make it easier to understand the sentences before and following. Lessgodababyhistory (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've partially done this - adding some material from the Battle of Yehuling page. I haven't mentioned it as being related to the "second" engagement, because I can't actually see any references to a first engagement, so I'm not sure what that is in reference to. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Applicability of old Uyghur/Yugur vs Uyghur in the Mongol period
I reverted this edit due to the fact that old Uyghurs/Yugurs/Yellow Uyghurs are said to have fled south (to Gansu by some accounts) in 840 following the dissolution of the Uyghur Khaganate (according to the Yugur page), while Qocho, the nation around in the 12th-century at the time of Genghis Khan, is said to have formed in situ following the dissolution of the Khaganate and appears to be more closely associated with the Uyghur identity, not the old Uyghur or Yugur one. If there are sources suggesting that the historical context is to the contrary however, I would be happy to see them. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2021
The first photo of Genghis Khan that states:

Genghis Khan as portrayed in a 14th-century Yuan era album; now located in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan. The original version was in black and white; produced by the Mongol painter Ho-li-hosun in 1278 under the commission of Kublai Khan.

Should specify that the image portraits that of the second Genghis Khan. So it should say something like:

The second Genghis Khan as portrayed in a 14th-century Yuan era album; now located in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan. The original version was in black and white; produced by the Mongol painter Ho-li-hosun in 1278 under the commission of Kublai Khan.

The way it is written currently makes it seem that this was the only Genghis Khan to exist when in fact there where multiple. GrayJackel (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @GrayJackel: Unless you can justify your "multiple Genghis Khans" theory with some fact, that's a no. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022
Megaknight 3 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) I wanna change something
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Mongol Empire extent
The Mongol empire never reached Poland. Check the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a level of ambiguity here about where the Mongol Empire reached in terms of administrative control versus the limits of its raiding. I have sought to further clarify this in the lead. However, please remember to provide sources or at least link to another article or article section when you make sweeping claims or seek to overturn existing material. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There seems to be plenty of sources supporting the fact that they attacked Poland (see e.g. all of First Mongol invasion of Poland), which is what you seem to be erasing. Are you contesting that, or just the wording? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes they attacked Poland, but they never occupied it. Anyway here is another link https://www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead no longer says they occupied it. It says Mongol raids extended into it, which is evidenced by the entire page provided by @VernoWhitney on the Mongol invasion of Poland. The recent source you attempted to add still says nothing relevant to your point, merely referencing the Danube River, which runs West to East, and tells us very little. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ, the link clearly shows the extent to which the Mongol empire reigned. Then it should be reworded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't beg. Demonstrate it. And if you want it reworded, suggest a re-wording. And please also sign your talk posts so that the bot doesn't have to. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tried a rewording. You are correct that he did not conquer most of Eurasia, but that's not actually what it said. It said that the Mongol invasion that he started ultimately conquered most of it...which I looked through our other articles for sources and discovered it was still wrong. At its greatest extent, the Mongol Empire was ~24 million km2, while Eurasia is ~55 million km2. So you're correct that it's not "most", but I feel like the sheer extent of it is worthy of a mention in the lede, so how do you feel about using the word "much"? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Mariam
Mariam was a member of his family but he doesn't know her because he was married for lot of women's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.40.169.96 (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You need to provide more details of what you are referencing and also provide reliables sources for the changes you want to make. The Meta Boi (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Genghis Khan Burial Site ?
First, sorry, I don't know how to sign this and am ignorant in general of how-to regarding Wikipedia. (I'm disabled and have trouble learning new things. Prior to being disabled I was a year from completing the academic work for my Doctorate. Undergrads: Philosophy & Sociology, Masters in Clinical Psychology, ABD Marriage and Family Doctorate. But again, sorry.) In any event, don't know if this is a reliable source, it appears to be? https://archaeology-world.com/archaeologists-unearth-tomb-of-genghis-khan/?fbclid=IwAR0cn2wOuDo5sT6HjTDTMP0ZwQ0ZFMUI-gR3SRr-c3XBjgcE1HDE6enDyrg

If it is a reliable source, maybe add something to Genghis Khan's Wiki page? - Shannon ShannonMcStormy (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it is reliable before seeing the actual study. Many claims have been made for 'the true location' — see Burial place of Genghis Khan. It would be wise to wait until the actual researchers release their results. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The find, assuming the description is true, sounds promising, but, as mentioned above, the study does not appear to be out yet. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023
Please include Mongolian spelling of name: Чингис Хаан. 103.252.202.14 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not done. It's already included in both the infobox and immediately after his name at the beginning of the lead in "note 4" - unfortunately there are so many different transliterations and spellings of Genghis Khan's name in different scripts that this material has had to be condensed into notes to avoid cluttering the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023
fix the spelling error in the sentence: "The Mongol army he built was renowned for its flexibility, discipine, and organisation, while his empire established upon meritocratic principles." Cuboidism (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Infobox caption
, please stop your efforts to add Kublai Khan to the infobox caption. It is not "essential" as you claim, especially as the issue is discussed so thoroughly in the depictions section. Best wishes, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why for 5 days you had not removed "Kublai Khan" from the caption, but now for some reason you choose to remove. For 2+ years the caption even had 5 lines of description and no one removed it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1152600465 (this was from 1st of May 2023) At first I though it was like you claimed that it was because no more than 3 lines so that people can read it easier. I manage to made it into 3 lines but you still choose to remove it? That means it wasn't just about the 3 lines, it was the way how you wanted the caption edit it. There is no reason to remove it as long as it was in 3 lines and based on facts. It is a fact that the portrait was made 50 years after Genghis Khan death and Kublai Khan authorized the existence of the portrait. I wanted this point to be made very clear. The depiction of course mentions it but what's wrong with mentioning a tiny detail in the caption too?


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

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


 * "Genghis, which was introduced by 18th-century French scholars who misread the original texts." Zectbumo (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:COMMONNAME, . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link Airship, so it seems that we need to have a discussion about this because the examples that is listed is common names used by English sources but it says "reliable English-language sources" and as you can see the French scholars made a mistake thus any English source that copied from this mistake is automatically unreliable by definition so it wouldn't count as a reliable source. Zectbumo (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the reliable sources guideline,, if you want to know what constitutes a "reliable source" on Wikipedia. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2023
Please correct the spelling typo of "organisation" in paragraph 4, line 3, word 1, to "organization" Keep the comma (: Thank you, your work is appreciated! BrasherBarb (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per MOS:ENGVAR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding back removed sourced contents
Explanation: The section in the medieval depiction is way too biased. It removes historical facts such as the dates that envoy Zhang and Juz eyewitness met Genghis Khan in 1220 and 1221 also the part that writes him with red hair, blue eyes was dated in 14th century by Rashid al Din. Also a lot of historical facts removes that is essential.

1) According to sinologist Herbert Allen Giles, a Mongol painter known as Ho-li-hosun (also known as Khorisun or Qooriqosun) was commissioned by Kublai Khan in 1278 to paint the National Palace Museum portrait.

Source: Allen Giles, Herbert (1918). An Introduction to the History of Chinese Pictorial Art. London, England: London, B. Quaritch. https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00gileuoft/page/162/mode/2up?q=ho-li-ho-sun

2) The story goes that Kublai Khan ordered Khorisun, along with the other entrusted remaining followers of Genghis Khan, to ensure the portrait reflected the Genghis Khan's true image.

Source: Currie, Lorenzo (2013). Through the Eyes of the Pack. Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris. p. 171. ISBN 978-1-4931-4517-1. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hONCAwAAQBAJ&q=Through+the+Eyes+of+the+Pack+By+Lorenzo+Currie+genghis+khan+kublai+khan&pg=PA171&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Through%20the%20Eyes%20of%20the%20Pack%20By%20Lorenzo%20Currie%20genghis%20khan%20kublai%20khan&f=false

3) However, according to John Andrew Boyle, Rashid al-Din's text of red hair referred to ruddy skin complexion, and that Genghis Khan was of ruddy complexion like most of his children except for Kublai Khan who was swarthy. He translated the text as “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

Source: Andrew Boyle, John (1971). The Successors of Genghis Khan. New York: Robert Bedrosian. p. 241. https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245/mode/2up

We must include these historical facts back, too much essential facts has been removed which makes the article bias.~

Sengoku-lord (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , how is the removal of any of this information biased? A source from 1918 is not considered reliable, neither is a 2013 self-help book, and Boyle's translation of a 14th-century is possibly the least. In any case, if you read the article you will see an extensive description of the Jami al-tawarikh which describes both the date and its unreliability:  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased because it had neither the date of the people who lived during the time of Genghis Khan ( Chinese envoy 1221 and Persian historian 1220). There was also no date of Jami' al-tawarikh which was from 14th century and no mention the author was Rashid al Din (born in 1247, 20 years after Genghis Khan). Why are the dates not mention? You mixed them up as if they were all recorded in the same time. Not to mention they are challenged by John Andrew Boyle which claims the translations of red hair was of ruddy complexion and also by 14th century Arabic historian Shihab al-Umari which also disputes Rashid al-Din's translation of the origin of Borjigin clan.

This paragraph right here is biased itself. " Another written description is found in the Jami al-tawarikh, which states that Genghis Khan and his Borjigin ancestors had blue-green eyes and either red hair or a ruddy complexion which Kublai Khan did not inherit. " - Why are you not explaining in more full detail that the red hair was a misinterpretation of Genghis Khan's and his son ruddy complexion.

"14th century Arabic historian Shihab al-Umari also disputed Rashid al-Din's translation and claimed Alan Gua falsified the origin of her clan.[125] Some Historians such as Denise Aigle claimed that Rashid al-Din mythicized the origin of Genghis Khan ancestors (the Borjigin clan) through his own interpretations of The Secret History of the Mongols. 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"

Source-Aigle, Denise (October 28, 2014). The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality: Studies in Anthropological History. pp. 126, 127. ISBN 978-90-04-28064-9.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o44cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Why would this be wrong? How is a source from 1918 by " Herbert Allen Giles (/dʒaɪlz/, 8 December 1845 – 13 February 1935) was a British diplomat and sinologist who was the professor of Chinese at the University of Cambridge[2][3] for 35 years. "-- By your logic many sources that relied on early 1900's from WW1 historians and and other events that happen in the lifespand of 1850's to 1920's recorded by witness and historians should all be removed.

What about a 2016 book-https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Culture_of_the_Mongols/EJlhDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kublai+Khan+50+years+later+portrait&pg=PA7&printsec=frontcover

" Vic Kovacs. Genghis Khan's grandson, Kublai Khan, had a portrait of Genghis Khan painted almost 50 years after his death. It is the only portrait of the leader that still exists today. Kublai Khan asked some of Genghis Khan's warriors to make sure the portrait was accurate" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord (talk • contribs) 12:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may not have read the article,.
 * is demonstrably false, as can be seen in the following extracts:
 * "Zhao Hong, a 1221 ambassador from the Song dynasty"; "The most important Persian source was the Jami' al-tawarikh, compiled by Rashid al-Din on the order of Ilkhan Ghazan in the early 14th century"; "the Persian chronicler Juzjani, who relied on Khorasani eyewitnesses", etc.
 * Who is challenged? The description in the Jami al-tawarikh is unclear and refers to red hair or ruddy complexion—this is in the article. You yourself say Boyle "claims"—we do not explain claims of misinterpretation on Wikipedia, we just describe. See the neutral point of view policy.
 * I don't really see the relevance of the following paragraph, to be honest.
 * And no, a 2016 "Children's non-fiction literature" book does not count as a reliable source—try and find something written for adults this time. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you not see your edit in the "Medieval depictions and assessment"?. You mention Zhao Hong from Song dynasty but neither stated the date from Zhao Hong or Juzjani Khorasani eyewitnesses. The same goes for your Jami al-tawarikh. None of these historical dates which are all facts are seen. What is purpose of removing the dates? A average person who happens to read that section will fall for the idea that they all occurred in the same year.
 * You say the description in the Jami al-tawarikh is unclear and refers to red hair or ruddy complexion but your edit does not explain fully enough. That sentence that you edited does not fully explain what Andrew Boyle was referring, and that is Genghis Khan didn't also said his others sons and relatives have ruddy complexion and that and there was no conversation of him having red hair, it's not all just about how Kublai Khan.
 * Forget about the 2016 book but you can't cut out the others that historical sources. I'm going to have to report all of this if there's no progress, there's way too much information based on historical sources/facts being removed and all that was for the sake of trimming. I seen the archives history and all of the changes was made from you justifying trimming this article. The 'Succession' section has massive long paragraphs just like many section of the article. There's still a lot we can still edit Medieval depictions and assessment section. Sengoku-lord (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As previously mentioned, the dates have been stated in the article. If you do not want to read that, I cannot help.
 * This sentence does not make grammatical sense, or any sense at all for that matter. Please write comprehensibly.
 * please do,.
 * no, it was because of WP:WEIGHT issues. It turns out that for whatever reason, reliable sources aren't really interested in whether Genghis had red hair, and whose genetic ideology that proves. They are much more interested in fundamental questions of history. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * no, it was because of WP:WEIGHT issues. It turns out that for whatever reason, reliable sources aren't really interested in whether Genghis had red hair, and whose genetic ideology that proves. They are much more interested in fundamental questions of history. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023
Please change Some traditions place his birth in the Year of the Pig, which was either 1155 or 1167.[18] While a dating to 1155 is supported by the writings of both Rashid al-Din and the Chinese diplomat Zhao Hong, to Some traditions place his birth in the Year of the Pig, which was either 1155 or 1167.[18] Part of the reason his birthdate is in question is that there was no written version of the Mongolian language which only had an oral tradition until around 1204 when Mongolian writing system was developed. While a dating to 1155 is supported by the writings of both Rashid al-Din and the Chinese diplomat Zhao Hong, MultiplicitySmith (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ having an oral tradition does not preclude remembering dates if a culture wishes to remember. The Mongols did not. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) 14th century of  Jami al-tawarikh  should be stated
 * 2) Mongol with red hair, blue eyes does not indicate non-Mongolic ancestry. Red hair - Wikipedia (it's found in Turkic, Mongol, Hmong)
 * 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
 * 3) There should be a better description of boyle interpretations. Sengoku-lord (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is 2) Who cares? not WP:RS 3) WP:UNDUE. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It still important to state "century later" or closer to a 100 years later and not just " A much later description is found in the Jami al-tawarikh".
 * The Compendium was completed between 1307 and 1316 where as the description of Genghis Khan by Song and Juz was 1220 and 1221, there's huge difference in their timing and so we should describe it a lot better. Sengoku-lord (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is. Read the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know in the sources section it says " Jami' al-tawarikh, compiled by Rashid al-Din on the order of Ilkhan Ghazan in the early 14th century " But still it would be better to change the sentence to this " A description from a century later is found in the Jami al-tawarikh " or something "A much later description is found in the Jami al-tawarikh (completed between 1307 and 1316). I see no problem with either of them. This section needs to be more accurate so it doesn't mislead people. A much later description could mean some years, a decade, a few decade or a century. The reality Jami al-tawarikh was made a century later. Sengoku-lord (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm tired of this. I'll be rewriting the rest of the article shortly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Frankly neither User:AirshipJungleman29 or User:Sengoku-lord's edits have been helpful. The issue is clearly the contention over whether Genghis Khan was Caucasoid or Mongoloid looking. AJ keeps editing the summary to better balance the article but unnecessarily emphasizes the "eyes" of Genghis Khan whereas in the full passage from the source it was paired with other parts of the description such as a "lively face" or other traits. Other parts of the description such as a powerful brow, long beard, and lack of grey hair were also deleted, which are just as, if not more important parts of the description. The emphasis therefore falls on the eyes "flashing" or "cats like" which is another implication that Genghis may have have had Caucasoid traits. Frankly the previous version giving the descriptions in full was better and the incessant editing and changing of the description is undue, rather than its existence being WP:UNDUE. Either give the descriptions in full or don't have them at all. I'm not sure what AJ's intention is but it is not any more helpful than Sengoku Lord's. Qiushufang (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no such contention in WP:RS, . The only sources to draw attention to Caucasoid/Mongoloid/red hair/any of that nonsense are Weatherford 2004, which we have agreed is unreliable, and Lkhagvasuren et al. 2016, which relies for historical sourcing on Weatherford and is therefore also unreliable. The only other source to discuss appearance is Ratchnevsky (Mote just duplicates him). He emphasises two points: an imposing figure, and lively eyes. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an interpretation and WP:SYNTH. He gives three descriptions:
 * Genghis was an imposing figure. 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.’ Genghis’ eyes bespoke a lively spirit. ‘Your son has flashing eyes and a lively face’, Dai-sechen said to Yisugei when he saw the eight-year-old Temuchin for the first time. Despite the strains of the wars which he fought throughout his whole life, Genghis Khan kept his robust health even in old age. Juzjani comments that, according to the evidence of witnesses who saw him during the fighting in Khorasan, Genghis Khan was distinguished by his height, powerful build, strong constitution, his lack of grey hair and his cat’s eyes.
 * Nowhere are the eyes given more emphasis, combined, or mentioned as more important than other features. They are clearly part of their directly quoted passages nor implied to have any connection with each other. The description of broad brow and long beard were also removed. Why? What is the purpose of this? Qiushufang (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are Ratchnevsky's non-quoted statements: "Genghis was an imposing figure", "Genghis’ eyes bespoke a lively spirit", "Despite the strains of the wars which he fought throughout his whole life, Genghis Khan kept his robust health even in old age"
 * Since you ask, the purpose is to write a good article. Since you and Sengoku-lord seem to only care about this one paragraph, how about I leave you to slow-edit-war over that, and I'll get the rest up to FA standard. Sound good? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You were the one who tagged the article I created without adding anything to it in favor of just changing this one. I don't see how that constitutes only caring about "this one paragraph". I also did not change the version back to the one which Sengoku preferred, nor was I the one who started this "slow-edit-war" that you and sengoku have been engaged in. The issue is not WP:RS, as we have those already, but their interpretation. The issue is that clearly many people have a stake in the description of Genghis Khan and are therefore motivated to edit it in their favor. The solution to this in agreement with the sources is to give the descriptions in full rather than bandying about trying to interpret the sources, or not give them at all per agreement in talk. I would prefer the former as the latter seems unfeasible. People will just re-add them to favor of their side eventually anyways as editors lose interest and stop paying attention. I'm not sure why you or anyone else is against just having the statements by the individual descriptors in full. Qiushufang (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's agreement somewhere in there, so I'll just nod and leave that be. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And as for that collage you want to add back in: as the last six images are near-completely irrelevant to the article and the first two are already in the article, it conveys a grand total of nothing. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are so vitriolic. Per edit summary, they are part of a series of portraits drawn in the same style during the Yuan dynasty, probably inspired by each other, and overseen by the same branch of Genghis' successors. Qiushufang (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Article complete!
Well, after a year of work, I think this article is essentially complete. By comparison, the pre-changes version had 7933 words, 144 citations (many of them to non-specialist sources), and a massive amount of uncited material. Now, we have 9877 words, 225 bundled citations, and a thorough and representative summary of the entirety of recent academic scholarship. A look at the statistics shows that most of what is present is written by me, but I do have to thank everyone who helped/pushed/annoyed(!) me into finishing, mostly and.

My aim has always been to get this article to FA status. I'll shortly put this up for WP:GAN, and probably open a peer review too, where anyone's opinions will be welcome. Many thanks, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Commercial and cultural interchange
responding to the edit summary no the conquests were. I agree - the most direct cause of the commercial and cultural interchange was the conquests, not the killing, but the sentence can be interpreted in both ways (and in fact is how I interpreted it on my first reading). In grammatical terms, the subject of the dependent clause which created... is ambiguous. Replacing which with and is a simple fix, although I recognize that it changes the meaning, so perhaps you could come up with a better alternative? Sunrise (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks, I see your POV now. I've made a slight change; does that work? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does, thanks! Sunrise (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

*Zhao Hong
In the section, the article mentions Song diplomat Zhao Hong, sourced to Buell 2010, which has By 1221, when the envoy Zhao Hong 趙珙, the author of the 蒙韃備錄, "Record of the Mongols and Tatars," was in the area...However, the author of that work appears to have been Meng Gong (孟珙). I suspect Buell is incorrect, not least because "hong" is not even listed as a reading for 珙 (I was wondering why it wasn't showing up in my pinyin keyboard; I had to draw it). Zhao (趙) was the surname of the Song imperial clan, so that might have been where Buell got that bit.Not sure what the appropriate fix is for this. I would put "Meng Gong" in the prose, "Meng Gong (孟珙)" in the footnote, and add a clarification to the reference to the footnote that Buell has misidentified this individual, but sometimes when an RS is wrong like this, silent correction can be the thing to do.Excellent work by the way,. If I come across any more errata like this would you prefer them here or there? Folly Mox (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; your comments will always be appreciated; if they're in-depth, perhaps the PR is best, but otherwise here is perfectly fine. On the individual in question, his name might be a mis-transliteration, but that is how he is referred to not only by Buell but by other authors—see his mention in the "Early campaigns" section. This source outlines it explicitly; you'll probably be able to dive deeper into the details than I. Very interesting stuff, though. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh, looks like I'm wrong again (as is zh.wp). According to unreliable user-generated source baidu, which I had been avoiding, "Meng Gong" is an old error, and "Zhao Gong" is correct. They cite 中國歷史大辞典, a work I no longer have access to. Folly Mox (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Legacy
The legacy section speaks about general negative attitude in modern Muslim world, but the source rather describes how modern scholarship thought Muslims would have seen Genghiz Khan. What are the merits about this? If there is something to say about the modern Muslim world, the source should cover the attitude of Muslims and not a scholastic perspective on how Muslims could see this matter. It should also be beyond the Arabian Peninsula, and including Central Asian, Turkish, Persian, and South Asian Muslims to make a claim about Modern Muslims in general. Alternatively, it is a regional attitude, not a modern Muslim one. Further, I think my edit is important to understand the political and social dynamics, and should be added somewhere else. Since I am new to editing this article, and the advise to consult the talkpage, I would appreciate further input, since I don't want to be disruptive. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether information on contemporary reactions should be included (a topic worthy of consideration), the main problem with your edit is WP:Synthesis. You are giving selected quotes from selected scholars of the muslim world, and summing it up as "The Muslim world has mixed views regarding Genghis Khan" (what seems to be an unsourced statement). This is the kind of thing a secondary source would do, not a tertiary source like WP. We would need sources that say "the muslim world had mixed views, for example, this person said this and this person said this".  Aza24  (talk)   22:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my edit entirely. My edit summary pointed out that the sourced claim is not backed up by the source in question. My edit has been a summary of the different viewpoints from that source, in addition to, I think it was one other source. The "mixed views" are directly from the source provided here. As mentioned in the edit summary, the sources states that the idea that Muslims viewed Genghiz Khan in a negative light, was quoted by the source only to refute it. It happens in the very introduction, and then the paper talks about the rather positive depictions with ibn Taimiyya a well known exception. I would recommand to read the paper, since I think it has been heavily misquoted. It isn't urgent, I would provide a more extensive answer, with references to the paper in question, not earlier than about a week myself, probably. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , your edit replaced the last paragraph of the article with the following (citations included):
 * "The Muslim world has mixed views regarding Genghis Khan. Arab commentators and historians like ibn al-Athīr saw the Mongols as divine punishment on a sinful Muslim world. Proto-Salafi scholar ibn Taymiyya regarded the Mongols as generally infidels. Aflaki and Abu Bakr Rumi, expressed favour for the Mongols' conquest of Islamic states and subjugation of Muslim rulers to their military and political power, considering the Mongols and Turkic peoples from the Eurasian Steppe as more pious than the Muslim scholars, ascetics, and muftis of their time. Aflaki quotes, in his Manaqib al-`Arifin, a hadith stating that the Turks are an army created by Muhammad's wrath as means of punishment for those who neglect his command. Al-Nuwayri states that, although Genghiz Khan was not a Muslim in the strictest sense, he had divine approval and lived in accordance with the strictures of Islamic law."
 * This is an extremely flawed edit:
 * You will note that the information about the Western world is completely removed, for no reason at all.
 * The cites to Biran are incorrect: on pages 151 and 152, she is discussing Genghis' position in 20th/21st century China. I presume that you wished to cite p. 120 for the sentence on ibn Taymiyya, but I cannot fathom where the al-Athir sentence is meant to be cited to.
 * The opening statement "The Muslim world has mixed views regarding Genghis Khan" bears no relation to the rest of the paragraph, which discusses the positions of medieval scholars.
 * I wholeheartedly reject statements such as "the sourced claim is not backed up by the source in question" and "[the paper] has been heavily misquoted". I am willing to add a sentence on what Biran defines as the more ambivalent views of Central Asia, but anything more than that, such as adding three (not one) sources on what individual authors stated seems explicitly WP:UNDUE to me. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but it is not a major subject of mine, and now I am not mentally involved into the paper anymore. I appreciate your explanation, althoguh I vaguely remember there have been some issues. Nontheless, given that you seem to know more about thus subject, I assume that the mistake is on my behalf. sincery VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete content on contemporary Chinese historical assessment
The sub-heading on 'Legacy and historical assessment' contains outdated content on China. Under Xi Jinping, Genghis and his origins have been censored by the authorities within China alongside and accompanied by government attempts to censor them outside of the country. The current wording in this section is no longer accurate. - Amigao (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Amigao (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Two things:
 * 1. The Chinese reception to Genghis Khan has a 800 year history. The articles you sight are only a few days old. We need due weight here, which makes any "update" as of this moment very dubious.
 * 2. If the change is actually as relevant/pertinent as you say (which again, seems very dubious), there should be academic sources on it that we can site. Two news columnists just won't do for evaluating historiography. –  Aza24  (talk)   22:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Aza is right in that two news sources don't count as the academic sources that should be used in a GA/FA-quality article; however, as one of them contains a quote from the Mongol historian Christopher Atwood, it is reasonable to suggest that scholarly sources will start to cover Xi Jinping's policies within the next couple of years. Until we get those, I've pared down the sentence "In modern-day China, Genghis Khan has become a hero". I might add a note, if the subject crops up in a journal article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)