Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 5

Darn
I understand what you are trying to tell me, but I alredy know this and I'm alright with that. What does stresses me out is that Russians just can't let go off of it. I mean, there were many tyrants, cruel rulers and bloodthirsty leaders in some countries, but those countries were forgiven. Example: Japan was one of the countries that was on rampage and killing a lot in Asia, but after the war (well, at least 5 years) other countries were trading and communicating with Japan without a freaking problem. But Russians keep looking at Genghis Khan more as a mortal enemy, rather then historical figure. I don't think that isn't messed up. Kniaz March 30

'In Mongolia' Section
I just wanted to let people know that and why I changed around the 'In Mongolia' section. I found the text convoluted, confusing, and redundant, so I tried as much as possible to make it clear and free-flowing while not changing significantly the actual content. There was a lot of subjectless 'there is concern that,' 'there is a feeling that,' 'is presently considered to be' kind of stuff, and I don't like that at all, so I tried to put subjects in when I could.

I did, however, just eliminate an entire sentence that claims that Gengis Khan's 'military genius is undervalued'? I'm sorry, by whom? Whenever an American makes a list of three or four of the world's most talented military minds, Genghis is invariably on the list alongside Napoleon and Alexander the Great - remember Bill and Ted's Excellent Aventure? I'm not going to significantly change the content of the rest of this paragraph, even though it's the kind of thing that would get you arrested in Germany if you said it about Adolf Hitler, but I'm going to take this sentence out. In addition to being fairly incorrect, in the context of the rest of the paragraph, it is redundant. If anyone wants it put back in, please only do so if you have some sort of evidence supporting it.

And, of course, thanks to the people who worked on these paragraphs before me.

Red Hair
Look at the high percentage of red-haired people among the Central Asian Peoples of today. Khalka Mongols, Kazak, Kirgiz and Tatar are all known for their high percentage of red-haired people. Rashid ad-Din, who has met Genghis Khan, described him as having red hair and green eyes (especially Tatar and Kirgiz people are known for posessing these traits). I find it a little strange that it isn't mentioned that Genghis Khan most likely had red hair. Red haired people make up only 1 per cent of the world's population, therefore I think it should be mentioned that Genghis possessed it. Abu Musab al-Suri 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He is
Genghis Khan was a battlefield genious(but did not put it in the article, I never edit article). At that time Genghis Khan had only few people(soldiers) and he always had to make sure that different tribes are in good relations with each other, since he did united them and they followed him. Also, China was superior in terms of tehnology and Kievan Rus (Rus was Bigger then modern Russia) was so much bigger then Mongolia at the time, having more people. Genghis Khan had many strategys, like keeping Rus ununited and his horsemen tactics. So how is it that he wasn't a genious of battlefield. Kniaz


 * I have read that the small, sturdy ponies were not built for speed, but for endurance. If that were so, cavalry charges and the like would have to be rethought at bit. --BranePan23 07:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think greatest mind and genius is almost similar. Let me know if you still are not satisfied or have comments or questions. Thanks 71.196.154.224


 * At the best this is OR, at the worst nonsense, without a reference. He can't go expressing our own opinions here on wikipedia. siafu 12:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of his tactics were unique but most of the horsemanship skills were aeons old.(read Attilla the HUN by John Man)I am not saying that he was not a brilliant tactician with lots of unique tactics.( laserpico)

Introduction - Revision
I rewrote the introduction. I tried to keep as many structural elements and original phrases from the original text as I could. Overall, though, I simply felt that the sentences were too long and confused, and that a potential reader of the article would be better served by paragraphs that flowed a little more easily.

I did, though, eliminate most of the following paragraph almost completely:

'Modern history credits him with Pax Mongolica, contrary to the Mongols' proverbial reputation as barbarous and fearsome "vandals" in the West because of their merciless conquests and territorial expansion. However, Genghis Khan and the succeeding Mongol Khagans did cause considerable death and destruction.'

First of all, the existence of a 'Pax Mongolica' does not run contrary to the Mongols merciless conquests and territorial expansion. In fact, the entire point of the phrase 'Pax Romana' (and therefore the idea of a 'Pax Mongolica' that stems from it) was that the Romans were simply so brutal and complete in their conquest of other nations that no one would dare challenge them, thus leading to a situation of relative peace.

Second, if by 'Vandals' one means to suggest a tendency towards the destruction of cities and the merciless rape and slaughter of its inhabitants, I would say that this phrase actually describes the Mongols method of warfare fairly accurately.

Third, the 'considerable death and destruction' sentence is a little ham-fisted.

I think that the intro that I wrote says almost the same thing that the original one did, just more clearly and without unncessary redundancy.

I thank the author(s) of the original introduction and welcome any questions, suggestions, or corrections.
 * I reverted your change, because it was more inclined towards Western readers and it tries to contradict his proverbial reputation as barborous and vicious conquerer, which is not really important. Secondly, I think facts speak more than words and interpretations in encyclopedia. I put facts first. Thirdly, this article is for everyone in the world, Chinese, Arabs, Mongols, Japanese and most people in these countries doesn't say good things about him and Mongols. It is not only Western, this article should be very wholesome with little interpretation from other sources and just state facts as matter of factly as possible. Fourth, I'm more inclinded to write formal titles and conquests instead of interpretation like "Khan of Mongol Empire," his invasions, his policies, his conquests, tactics, more mater-of-fact. Please look at Napoleon article. That is good example that I want it to become. I don't think we need interpretation in a large degree, especially in the heading. I want formality and exactness and political terms. 38.136.6.221 05:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

First of all, you should know that the culture of writing and revising Wikipedia articles is based around gentlemanly conduct. I introduced myself to you and the entire community though my use of a login name; I also made it very easy for you to contact me personally by setting up a 'mail to' section in my user page. I did these things out of respect, and I would ask you in the future to show the same degree of respect by using your name when you respond to my changes.

Clearly you and I differ in our analysis of certain historical facts. But what is most disturbing to me is not so much the content of the introduction that you have written (and your defense of it above), but the fact that they are written in incredibly poor English. The grammar and syntax that you created is so improper that many of the sentences you wrote do not actually have any literal meaning. I will use the first sentence of your response as an example.


 * I reverted your change, because it was more inclined towards Western readers and it tries to contradict his proverbial reputation as barborous and vicious conquerer, which is not really important.

You say that my introduction 'tries to contradict his proverbial reputation as a barborous and vicious conquerer.' Now, I gather from the rest of your comments that you mean to say that I am emphasizing his brutal nature and not focusing enough on his positive qualities. But the English word 'contradict' means 'to speak in opposition to,' so the literal meaning of the phrase you just wrote is that my introduction suggests that Genghis was *not* just a terrible conqueror. Also, the first comma you use is redundant, the sentence is a run-on, and you misspelled both 'barbarous' and 'conqueror.' So you see that no one who reads this sentence will finish it actually understanding what you meant to say.

I will not bother with a similar analysis of the other sentences you have written, but I assure you that if anything their grammatical structures are even more incorrect.

Now, Wikipedia is based on the spirit of compromise, so I suggest the following: You will write me (by clicking on this link ) and tell me what you want the introduction to say. And since I can actually write proper English, I will write for you the things that you want expressed. This way we both get what we want, no? You get your ideas expressed to others, and Wikipedia doesn't become an embarrassment to all those who have such high hopes for it.

I will wait a week for a response before reverting to my revised introduction. Thank you.

Cal 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I put up your change. I'm sorry that I didn't know what I was saying. 71.196.154.224 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm sorry if I got a little snippy.  Take care.Cal 14:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lao Wai
What the hell are you talking about? These changes are self explanotory. See the articles of the link to main pages and you will see what I'm talking about. Read and then comment and revert. These are very minor changes. Be reasonable and stop reverting stuff if you don't read more about it and get a grip of what we are talking about. At least read one of the linked aricles, especially Mongol invasion of Rus. 71.196.154.224 15:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC) These small changes shouldn't need talk.

I don't know why you are reverting this info. Urdu spelling should be included, as well as clarification on Mongol invasion or Rus. 71.196.154.224 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What also do you mean "who cares?", Who cares if we delete the Chinese spelling, don't be bigoted towards Chinese and revengeful towards Mongols. NPOV. Your edits and comments look very pro-China, and will be reverted all the time if you make any Chinese and against Mongol (Genghis) assumptions. Genghis Khan is part of a lot of different culture, not just Chinese and he is well regarded in Mongolia and elsewhere, so people are not trying to eat your China. Relax. Your reverts should be made with description, and I just gave description to my revert. Don't be close minded. 71.196.154.224 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did you think that his name in Urdu is of any relevance? Genghis Khan is primarily part of mongolian culture. He has influenced many other cultures as well, but that doesn't mean he belongs to all of them. Otherwise we'd end up listing his name in several dozen different languages. Actually, as far as I am concerned, the chinese and turkish translations aren't really needed either. --Latebird 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Chinese translation at the very least is relevant, given that Genghis Khan actually conquered a large part of China, and there exists a theory that his name, Genghis, derives from a Mongolization of a Chinese word (see the notes). Additionally, given the paucity of sources in Mongolian, Chinese historians provide a good deal of the evidence on the life of Genghis Khan and the history of the Mongol Empire.  Urdu, however, seems completely unnecessary. siafu 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By Who cares? I mean what possible relevance is it? I could put in the Spanish and the German and the Swahili and the Eskimo (although I might have to use a dictionary for the last two) but who would care?  Urdu didn't even exist when GK was alive.  Who cares what his name is in some minor South Asian language?  Chinese is, as Siafu points out, useful as most of the sources are in Chinese. Lao Wai 07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to get excited anymore about Urdu. It won't come back. --Latebird 09:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but write reasonable and descriptive description when removing or changing it. Thanks. "Who cares?", just sounds very careless and ignorant 71.196.154.224 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Errata
Fine article, could easily make featured article. One issue though – the article says "[T]he shah had all the men shaved and all but one beheaded before sending them back to Genghis Khan. Were they all behaded or not? --Ezeu 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all but one were killed, but I am not sure whether it was beheading or not. Olorin28 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could it be that just the heads were sent back? Possibly carried by the sole survivor... --Latebird 09:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The sources (I'm turning to Morgan, Weatherford, and Ratchnevsky here, who are apparently relying on Juzjani, an-Nasawi, Juvaini, and Rashid) clearly indicate that the caravan (numbered at 450 persons) was massacred and the goods confiscated. Morgan goes on to state that one man escaped and reported back to Genghis Khan on what had happened (p. 68), but nobody seems to have anything to report on anything being sent back.  However, the emmissaries sent by Genghis Khan demanding an explanation were apparently sent back (two at least, one was killed) with their beards shaven.  Perhaps this is the "them" that was meant above? siafu 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Lao Wai stop being bigotted
Stop writing non-sense and attacking Mongols for blatant lies, contradictions, reverts. We already addressed the negative things in consequences of Mongol conquests. Acknoledge the good and the bad. Stop it!. 71.196.154.224 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What nonsense do you think I am writing? The negative aspects of the Mongol conquests are poorly addressed by this article and I have not done much about that as yet.  There is no good aspect worth acknowledging.  The Mongols were a dead loss for humanity.  But you will notice I do not put that in the article either.  What I do say is that the Mongols did not rule all that is claimed for them especially in Siberia.  If you look at what they actually ruled, as opposed to what apologists claim they ruled, their Empire shrinks a lot.  And that it is POV to call the Georgians crusaders. Lao Wai 08:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In China kubilai khan was called the Great Builder and sponsored at least 200 plays. Pottery, art, architecture and the theatre flourished under his rule.Genghis is venerated (at least in some parts of China) about as much as in Mongolia.This is because his grandson Kubilai founded the Yuan dynasty. (source from Storm From The East and Genghis khan by John Mann )(laser pico)

I do have another source: http//afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/.


 * Many sources do corrobrate that theater flourished under the Yuan, but as for "art and architecture", the former is not overly discussed, and the latter very much not true at all AFAIK. John Mann, as discussed elsewhere here, is one of the least preferable sources for information, btw.  Do you have a page ref? siafu 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

folks,this is not a pissing contest. You need to provide verifiable sources for both positive and negative information. And please remember that other Wikipedia pages don't count as sources on their own. If anything, then you should refer to the external sources that were used to write them. --Latebird 08:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am calm as calm can be. And as it happens, I do not think I need to provide any sources for anything.  What I think is clear and I have been clear, but I am not making the claims here.  71 is.  He needs to provide sources.  When I get around to making a positive claim, as I have done in the past, I will provide sources. Lao Wai 14:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have been saying this to you for a long time now, read ethnocentrism. You can don't like Mongols, but be mindful of other people that might disagree with you, and possibly disagree with you. So read ethnocenrism. 71.196.154.224 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. How are you any different?  People do disagree with me.  When I get around to making a positive claim I will provide evidence and we can have a discussion about ethnocentrism. Lao Wai 07:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Calm down, you are being very ignorant. Just answer Olorin28's question on the bottom, since you said it's not largest contigious. Just name the empire that's the largest contigious!!! We are waiting for your answer, and if you can't come up with one, we will revert your edit back, because there is none, since you know a lot about these topics and who is bigger. Just provide the alternative and we will shut up, else we will revert yours no question. What is the largest contigious???? Period. 71.196.154.224 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to ask you, Lao Wai. What is the biggest contiguous empire? Olorin28 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably the Soviet Union. Lao Wai 08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia list of Biggest Empire says Mongol Empire as having 41 million km, while this site says Mongol Empire having 33 million km. http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html Either way it is still bigger than the Soviet Union and is only smaller than the British Empire, which is not a contiguous empire. Olorin28 13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is interesting, but I would like some evidence. Any in fact.  There is no sign the Mongols ruled Siberia.  And by the time they ruled Persia, the Empire had broken up.  But knock yourself out.  Try to find some evidence of how much they controlled. Lao Wai 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mongols ruled Persia long before it splitted up.Kubilai's brother Hulegu conquered the little they didnt already own at least 10 years before the khanates truly became independent.Excuse any grammatical or spelling mistakes.(laser pico)
 * Consider the fact that the Golden Hordes was later split up into four different kingdoms, and one of them was called the Siberia Khanate. The Siberia Khanate was conquered by Cossacks and renamed Siberia. The Empire splitted up into four different parts. The Illkhanate hadalready controlled as far west as Palestine when Mongke died, which means they controlled Persia before the Empire splitted up. Olorin28 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Il-Khanate did not extend its control as far as Palestine. They briefly invaded Syria, but were unable to hold it.  In the main it did not extend further west than Mesopotamia. siafu 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops yes, you are right, Siafu. However Il-Khanate still controlled Persia prior to the breakup of the Mongol Empire.

Lao Wai, you are welcomed to write the negatives as long as you provide sources and references as much as you want, you know that right? 71.196.154.224


 * I will assume you did not mean that to be as patronising as it sounds. Lao Wai 08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No you are welcomed to right negative as much as you want, as long as you provide evidence and source. We will take it because it is fact. 71.196.154.224 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be running around in circles, and patronizing comments, as well as throwing around terms like "bigotted" are not helping anything. Not taking a position either way, Lao Wai does have a point that the "positive assertion", that is, claiming that the Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire in the world, does require a source. Similarly, bickering over it in this fashion is not getting as anywhere, as any result that comes from that is OR. If it's decided to include this particular claim, we need to have a source (or sources) that indicate clearly either that a) the Mongol Empire was the largest, or b) that the Mongol Empire was of size X, and its competitors (e.g. Soviet Union, Roman Empire, Qing Dynasty) were of sizes y, z, and q that are smaller than X. Option b would obviously need to be laid out more clearly in a footnote, as this much information is not appropriate for the introduction. siafu 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is well established that the Soviet Union before its collapse extends around 22 million km squared, since it is a "modern" empire. In a link http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Mongol_Empire, the Mongol Empire was cited as five times larger than Alexander's Empire, which was around 5 to 5.5 million km squared, which makes the Mongol Empire around 30 to 35 million km squared. This link http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html cites Mongol Empire at around 33 million km squared. This site http://mongolempire.4t.com/h1_overview.htm also cites the Mongol Empire as five times the size of Alexander's Empire. The National Geographic Magazine, though not providing an exact size, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9612/hilights_splash003.html, says that the Mongol Empire was the largest land empire in history, which also means contiguous. Olorin28 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So cite it in the article. siafu 22:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Another source that says that Alexanders empire was a fifth of the size of the Mongols is Storm From The East

This appears to be a clear cut case of "emipire envy". Of course, you know what they say:"It's not the size of the emipire that matters but the length of its rule."

Role in emergence of modern nations
The intro states that "[s]everal centuries of Mongol rule [...] catalyzed the emergence of modern nations such as [...] Turkey, Germany [...]." What is the basis for such a claim? It is common knowledge that Germany was never ruled by the Mongols while modern Turkey "emerged" after WWI.203.167.67.208 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * re: Turkey - The Turkic speaking (mostly) nomadic people in Turkistan in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc) bore the brunt of the Mongol invasion and much of the population of the region emigrated east or were incorporated into the Mongol-Turkic armies. Following Mongol conquest of Anatolia in the 1260s the Seljuks became vassals to Il Khanate, and the country was divided into states called beyliks. The eastern state of Osmanoglu, which eventually conquered the other beyliks and founded the Ottoman Empire, was itself populated by Oghuz Turks and the first king Osman I's grandfather had himself died fleeing the Moghuls in what is now Syria. The present boundaries of Turkey, straddling the european region of Trakya as well as Anatolia, was made possible by the weakening of the European Byzantine Empire which fell to the Ottomans in 1453. As for Russia, the whole landmass was unified only after the defeat of the Mongols at the battles of Kulikovo and Ugra River.  re: Germany - the large elite Polish-German force was massacred at the Battle of Legnica by a smaller mobile Mongol force in 1241.  This defeat of Poland-Germany's strongest army together with other Mongol incursions caused destabilization and a large influx into the regions (and courts) west, altering the demography of Bohemia, Silesia and other regions in present day Germany.  This effect was perhaps more prominent for Poland than for Germany. Of course, a wide swath of other nations (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, as well as Hungary) could be mentioned. In any event, I am re-instating this sentence, dropping Germany. Mukerjee 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that there's roughly half a millennium and two world wars between the Mongol Empire and the emergence of "modern states" in this area of the world. Drawing a direct line of influence between events that far apart in time is necessarily highly speculative. --Latebird 07:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is all speculative, and completely OR. It does not belong in the article. siafu 11:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it known...
How tall he was?


 * Nope. We could guess a range, based on the average height of men of modern Mongolian men, but that's just a stab in the dark. siafu 20:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is said that he was very tall, or considerably taller than average, if you read a quote in the article and vigirous build. 71.196.154.224 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I read in article somewhere stating that the average Mongol solider was about 5'2 to 5'4. Excavations of Timurlane showed that he stood 5'8 - and he was considered very tall for his time.

Lineage thingy...
I changed the statement that read,

'8% of a large region of Asia (or about 0.5% of the world if extrapolated).'

To remove the mention of extrapolation. I figure that extrapolation governs extending an hypothesis beyond the region in which it was devised. An extrapolation of the '8% of a large region' comment, when generalised to a global scale, would just be 8% of the world population. So the fact given must have been calculated by population proportions and not actually extrapolation.

THANK YOU!!!!
I just want everyone to know that I am very grateful for this website. I had to do a report on Genghis Khan and that as I had been looking for a website that will give me in depth info on the Khans, I couldn't find anything. I was almost in tears when I came across this site and I could just hear the Hallelujah chorus. Thank you for helping me!!

P.S. Because of all this info, I got an A!!


 * Young friend, I hope you did not just paste and copy, or your teacher might just give you an F after all:) But, yes, I agree -- this page is becoming really, really good. Dietwald 09:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Article B assessment
Do you anyone of you guys know why did this article got "B" in the assessment ranking? Any ideas or reasons. I'm just curious and thinking of taking care of those? What is it?

Also in general, how should this article get improved? I think source and reference is one of them and any information on him is really poor or almost nonexistant which is no good.? Any ideas or opinions? 24.9.78.176 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the comments left by the reviewer the article needs more sources. Galanskov 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing
Lao Wei stop being disruptive. Understand WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Baikal 08:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I flatly reject the claim of POV pushing or being disruptive. Indeed if there is any POV pushing going on it is not by me.  Thank you for the lecture on Wikipedia's rule, but I think you would do better to read those yourself.  If you want to produce evidence for your claims please be my guest, but NPOV comments should go.  I removed them.  You should not rely on Man.  It is an awful book.  But if you do you should use it properly.  Man makes it perfectly clear that all GK wanted from Qiu Chuji was the secret to immortal life and when he admitted he did not have it, GK dismissed him.  Read the book. Lao Wai 08:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * After this meeting why were Taoists given tax exemption? You have made it clear with your comment that you have not read the book.  Desist from further disruption.  I am reverting you and unless you provide documented evidence to your claims you are operating in vaporware and pushing your POV. Baikal 10:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All religious figures tended to be given tax exemption and the Mongols liked to rule through pliable religious leaders - see Tibet and Russia for instance. Revert away if you feel you need to, but your edits are not helping,


 * There is no evidence of Gk's love for anyone much less his wife Borte


 * The statement "Among nomads, the Mongol Empire did not emphasize the importance of ethnicity and race in the administrative realm, instead adopting an approach grounded in meritocracy. The exception was the role of Genghis Khan and his family. The Mongol Empire was therefore one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse empires in history, as befitted its size" is utter nonsense because it does not follow that the diversity was caused by the meritocracy.


 * This is not total nonsense, it makes sense in common sense. I know they killed a lot of people and they didn't put Mongols all the time in time to lead the war. There were a lot of Khans, a lot of intermarriages between Khans and Turks, Arabs, Chinese, Russians, etc. It's not disputed that the Mongols themselves became enculturated slowly and after the Mongol Empire break up they became the people. There is no absolute dispute about that, e.g. Hazaras. Meritocracy is not about someones ethnicity, I know Mongols were in top positions but leaders and soldiers, generals and commanders were Turks, Arabs, Russians, Chinese. 71.196.236.162 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement "Operating in massive sweeps, extending over dozens of miles, the fierce horsemen combined a shock, mobility and firepower unmatched in land warfare until the gunpowder age" is simply untrue. Early cannon were large and slow and hence armies in the early gunpowder period were slower than Roman Armies.
 * I agree I think this is little romanticized 71.196.236.162 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement "Along with their incredible speed, fear-inducing slaughters and city burnings were used perhaps in order to intimidate and diminish the morale of the resisting cities and in order to convince other cities and rulers to surrender without a fight" is Original Research, uses weasel words, and undocumented because the Mongols never said why they commited mass murder - and in fact did it where there was no resistance at all.
 * Give me the source and the fact and the example that they killed when there was no resistance. 71.196.236.162 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement "This lack of engagement was not because of a lack of desire rather it just so happened because the later Khagans were too focussed on expanding into China which was far more richer then the deserts of Egypt" is a-historic because it confuses the Il-Khanate with the main Mongol Empire.
 * Il-Khanate is part of Mongol Empire if you read Il-Khanate, Goldern Horde is part of Mongol Empire, but they drifted away from each other about a century later. 71.196.236.162 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC) What is the main Mongol Empire? After Genghis Khan died and assigned his children to different areas (Ilkhante, great khanate, goldern horde, etc.), it stopped being "Mongol Empire" or what? Make a little sense and describe what you mean 71.196.236.162 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you can claim I have not read Man's book when I give a clear reference to a page number that you have clearly ignored. But as to his credibility, can he read or speak Chinese?  Persian?  Armenian?  Turkic?  Arabic?  Russian?  Any of the main languages of the primary and secondary sources?  The man is not a scholar.  He pillages the works of people who can.  Be aware there is a real world of scholarship out there and Man is not part of it. Lao Wai 13:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a strong statement and don't attack people if you don't know anything about him. You know nothing and you are not in a position to judge it. This is highly opinionated and POV. "He pillages the works of people who can." Ok. Be calm and make sense. 71.196.236.162 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you assume I know nothing about him? It would be foolish to make comments like those you have just made about someone you do not know.  It may be highly opinionated and POV, but luckily (a) it is true and (b) this is the Talk Page.  Man knows nothing about anything other than travel.  His books are reminicent of being stuck watching your elderly uncles holiday snaps (although he does take better than average holiday snaps).  Which is fine until someone tries to pass him off as a scholar. He is not.  He reads scholars, he talks to some too, he takes their work and puts bits of it in his books.  It makes perfect sense to me. Lao Wai 07:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim regarding gunpowder being the undoing of the steppe army is supported elsewhere, e.g. in Hildinger. Heavy cannon provided an advantage against the horse archer because of its long range, and later the arquebus and musket were effective against horsemen because of range and ease of use; it took years of training to produce a Mongol soldier, whereas an effective arquebusier or musketeer could be produced in a few weeks.  Citing Borte as Temujin's "true love" is inherently POV, however, and the claim that meritocracy produced diversity is nonsense. siafu 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What produced diversity then? What is your counter argument? Please explain your opposition so that the counter argument can be not won. 71.196.236.162 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I don't need a counter argument-- the burden of proof is on you. IMHO, the ruling class of the Mongol Empire was not at all diverse, with the caveat that it tended to include local leaders in the bureaucracy (e.g. Confucian scholars in Yuan Dynasty China, Muslims in the Il-Khanate, etc.).  The diversity of the population was the natural result of a vast empire. siafu 00:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think it's not really nonsense to say that meritocracy played some role in it and maybe made the diversification much faster. 71.196.236.162 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that I've just stated that said diversity did not even exist, it seems pretty nonsensical to attribute it to anything. Unless you mean something else by "diversity"; just what do you mean in this context? siafu 14:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong on that factor. They didn't kill people exclusevly because of religion and army was pretty much based on meritocracy for sure. So I think it is flag wrong to say "diversity did not even exist." Diversity means including many different people and ideas whatever as part of the entity. 71.196.236.162 05:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly, but which entity are you talking about? The population?  The military?  The governing bodies? siafu 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not mind the claim that gunpowder undid the steppe armies (although you will notice that steppe armies continued to dominate much the world). Just not that the early gunpowder armies combined more shock, mobility and firepower than the Mongols.  Lao Wai 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan and Bhutan
I do not usually get annoy about anons vandalising the page, but come on, there's a limit. The Mongols conquered Bhutan? Taiwan? The source given is http://www.taiwanho.com/print.php?sid=274

Here is what is says,


 * After they conquered the Ming, they continued their conquest of the neighboring countries including Tibet, Mongolia and that of the Uighurs. They also occupied the island of Taiwan to prevent any Ming loyalists safe harbor there. Interestingly enough all of these conquered lands of Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan, and China etc. now became a part of China and not Manchuria. The Manchus like the Mongolians did not have good spin historians.

Who does that "they" refer to? Well "they" conquered the Ming, you know, the Chinese dynasty that ran from 1368-1644. Who could "they" have been I wonder? 71, your own source claims the Manchus did it, not the Mongols. What do you think you are doing? Lao Wai 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A source that the mongols conquered Vietnam and Bhutan is the Atlas of World History but I am not sure if it is accurate or not.( user Laser Pico)

Vietnam to English translation
Do anyone of you guys can translate from Vietnamese to English or is there already tool on the web that does that? It would be nice to understand what is written in the vietnamese wikipedia? Any ideas and clues? 71.196.236.162 05:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Authentic Portrait?
Is that an authentic portrait of Genghis Khan? If not, shouldn't the picture be noted as an artist's interpretation?


 * I don't believe there are any authentic portraits and as it is Chinese it is unlikely to be either. Lao Wai 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree I don't think they are any authentic pictures of him at all. In Mongolia, this one is said to be very close to reality http://www.mongolianculture.com/6-Genghis-Khan.gif 71.196.236.162 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No portraits were made of Genghis Khan until several decades after his death. The first portraits made of him were often based not so much on accounts of his appearaence, but on the individual artist's impression of him. Thus some portraits would portray him as a thoughtful sage (like the one used in this article), while some others would depict him as a bloodthirsty barbarian. My opinion is that this should be mentioned in the article and diffirent portraits should be included, or would this needlessly confuse the reader? Galanskov 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions
There were some extensive additions from an anonymous contributor today that included several potentially very encyclopedic facts about Genghis Khan, including factual information about his standing in the minds of modern Mongolians, and an anecdote about the seizure of Baghdad (which, actually, took place after Genghis Khan's death). I reverted the changes as none came with citations, and I have no idea where to find any references, but I do think that much of it would be valuable. To that end, has anyone seen any of that info before, and know of a source to cite for it? siafu 03:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Info about people in Mongolia adopting Borjigin name of GK is in the Borjigin article from wikipedia. It has an actual source in it.
 * 2. Mongol/Tatar imperialism can be found in the history of Russia. But this information is from a person that studied in Russia. I'm sure there are abundant source on the web that will back this information up
 * 3. The information about GTK in Mongolia today and why he is famous can be found anywhere in the web, especially after the 800th anniversary of founding of the Mongol Empire. Many of the publications in the world are writing about GK and the Mongols. I hope we keep this information alive and someone can resurrect this into the article if we feel that we have a appropriate source to back it up. Thanks for keeping it a live. 168.253.19.188 00:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongolian names for soldier formation
I just want to supply the reference that was asked about the 10,000 group of soldiers. Here it is in Mongolian with hard translated and typed in English characters.

1. 1 - neg (one) 2. 10 - arvan or arvanii (10th) ('arvanii tsereg', or in translation to English, 'Soldiers of 10') 3. 100 - zuu or zuutiin (100th) ('zuutiin tsereg', tsereg meaning "soldier" in Mongolian) 4. 1000 - myanga or myangatiin (1000th) ('myangatiin tsereg') 5. 10,000 - tumen ("tumnii tsereg"), see that article there is no confusion and problem with using tumen as identifier of 10,000 soldiers with one leader of 10,000th. see also Tumen, it's common name in Mongolia and also see Tumen River, etc. 6. 100,000 - zuun myanga or "zuun myangatiin tsereg") ("myanga" meaning "thousand") 168.253.20.90 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the terms I found in De Hartog for 10, 100, and 1000. I've never seen the 100,000 identifier before, and it was my understanding that the tumen was the largest functional unit.  Do you have a cite for it? siafu 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yeah traditionally during the 13th and 14th century tumen formation is the most famous. But in Mongolian language the number 100,000 (one hundred thousand) is "zuun myanga" It doesn't necessarily mean that there was a name for formation of 100,000. I was just translating it to Mongolian nothing more. But if you want to know what 100,000 is in Mongolian it is "zuu(n) (meaning "hundred") myanga (meaning "thousand"). I would agree that tumen is the largest famous formation. And everything was talked in terms of tumens. For example, GK would say, "I just sent two tumen [soldiers]" or "I just sent five tumen or ten tumen (100,000)". 168.253.10.142 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. I notice also the terms you have here are different from the ones I quoted; since you're apparently a speaker of Mongolian perhaps you can shed some light on that. siafu 19:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah the terms are also different and that's ok because Mongolian language has changed since 13th century especially the pronunciation and spelling. For example 100 was "jaghun" then now it's "zuun", so there is no "*gh*" in the words, just like how "Khan" is shortened from "Khagan." So there was almost always this extra character "g" occuring in the middle of vowels. So this is natural if the terms are different it's just matter of describing things the way they were talked about then or translating them to modern day Mongolian. The difference between the terms I wrote and the terms in other texts is just this. I would totally supporting writing the terms in the old way, the way there were called back then. 168.253.21.29 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Khan was shortened from Khagan? Is this true in all cases?  I was under the belief that "Khagan" was essentially "Great Khan" or "Khan of Khans", the title used for Ogodei, Guyuk, Mongke, Qubilai, &c., and "Khan" was a lesser title, used for the leaders of the other Mongol successor states like Batu, Orda, Hulagu, Chagatai, &c.  Is that wrong?  I'm starting to think we would benefit from having a footnote on the idiosyncracies of the Mongol language w respect to the things that have come up in this discussion.  While it's obvious to English speakers on the English wikipedia, for example, that words used in Middle English don't necessarily resemble their modern counterparts, it doesn't automatically come to mind (though it's obvious and sensical upon reflection) that the same process has occured in Mongolian. siafu 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes "Khan" is condensed version of "Khagan," but they are treated differently and is differentiated throughout the history. I really don't know the specifics, but "Khan" and "Khagan" are very different, the latter one being an emperor. Personally I don't think it's that important to differentiate wording of similar words between now and then since not a lot of people know Mongolian language, but if you are a speaker of Mongolian, it will make you think that words were different compared to their counterparts today, but we can create a footnote if it's necessary. It would be nice. Yes words and spelling have changed from 13th century, but if it becomes really confusing to readers, we definitely can include a footnote saying this is how it is pronounced and spelled then and now, but I don't think they will care that much. For example, Khan and Khagan difference is like in German language like the difference between "Fuhrer" and "Oberfuhrer". The root of the word is similar. I would think that "Khagan" is derived from Khan since there was no Khagan before Khan. And the title Khan was used way before GK in many different tribes and once the empire became huge, it was necessary to differentiate one with the paramount status. I would think Khan was used frequently and lossely throughout the years, similar to how commander or ruler is used freely throughout history. 168.253.13.137 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An alternative name for 100,000 is "buman". It relates to "zuun myangan" the same way as "tumen" to "arvan myangan". Temur 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

is there any legend about his physical inability
is there any legend about genghis to be lame like his descendant timur. or him being blind by one eye. nids 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. siafu 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ray and Tus
In the Property and Culture section on the destruction of the conquests (just above "Death and Burial") there's a mention of the Iranian cities Ray and Tus being destroyed by order of Genghis Khan. Since someone put a tag on the sentence, I was trying to find a reference for it but I'm having trouble locating anything on these cities in particular. Their destruction during the war with Khwarezmia does not at all seem unlikely, but we also need a reference for the other claim in the sentence, which is that they were the most populous cities in Iran and cultural centers. I'll keep looking, but anyone else have anything we can put in? siafu 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unable to find anything, I've just removed them. I also couldn't find a specific reference for the destruction of Merv (though I swear I've read about it), so I removed that one too for the time being.  Lastly, Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu Khan more than 30 years after the death of Genghis Khan, and as such cannot be properly attributed to him, so it was removed. siafu 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mongol Empireaccuratefinal.png
This picture seems to be incorrect for it includes the territory of Belarus, which was a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which in its turn was independent of the Mongol Empire... Bacian 00:16, 01 September 2006 (UTC)

It also conflicts with the Ottoman Empire territory in the Anatolia.

Cultural depictions of Genghis Khan
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, seeing as how cultural depictions (e.g., "X in fiction") sections tend to be added to by passers-by to the extent that they become burgeoningly large, I think branching it off is a good idea. siafu 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. I totally agree with this approach, since not a lot of detail is included in core biography. That's wonderful. 67.161.198.231 05:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Removals
I have removed two unsourced passages. The first seems to be speculation, the second mud slinging. I have searched for references, but was not able to find any. It's a shame for "citation needed" tags to be hanging on a fine article like this.--Rudjek 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Borte's tribe?
"the family of his future wife Borte, members of the Onggirat tribe." & "Temüjin married Börte of the Konkirat tribe around the age of 16". Both from the childhood part, which one is right ? I mean, Borte's family was from Onggirat tribe but she was from Konkirat? Did she created a tribe ? Which one is right ?

And also, did they married 3 times ? I mean, once when Temujin is 9, then at 12 he's at the marriage age, and then when he is 16 ?

Thanks ! Nerval 12:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Konkirat is just another, much less common, spelling of Onggirat. siafu 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In modern Mongolian spelling it goes like "Khongirad", and as I observed in English spellings of Mongolian words people write "K", "G", "Gh", and "Gg" interchangeably, and "Kh", "H", "K" and no letter interchangeably. In this case the first "H" is ignored. Temur 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did the background section go?
Where did that section that included uniting the mongol tribes, early life and all that stuff. That was a huge section. If someone is going to delete that much information, should enter info in the discussion page. Where is it? What happened? Was there consensus? Talk to me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.154.124 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

First sentence
The first four lines are incredibly cluttered. This is the English wikipedia, so why is there an incessant need to show how his name is written in so many different languages? It is simply difficult on the eyes and unclear. Supertigerman 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. I took care of this just now. I thought about this earlier and this has come up before. Thanks. 168.253.21.31 08:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Alastair Nash?
???? Mr. Nash has purportedly taken the place of the honourable Khan in the article. Somebody should fix.

KOREA
Goryo was never completely conquered by the Mongols. It was forced to be a vassal state to Yuan, but never lost its national identity. 66.214.242.93 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"In China" section
I had a stab at addressing some of the problems in it, but honestly it appears to have been written by someone that was too POV and/or had a poor command of English. The section needs to be a fair bit longer, with citations and better explanations of how Genghis Khan is regarded in China. I can't believe everyone loves him to bits, either now or in the past, even if he is a popular icon. Does no one criticise him for his looting of China?

The bit about there being more ethnic Mongolians in the PRC thus he is Chinese is exceptionally weird. That doesn't seem like a rational argument to me - maybe it could be explained a little better. John Smith&#39;s 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

GK's son Batu?
In "Loyalty" section it is mentioned about GK having argument with his son Batu. Isn't Batu his grandson? If it was refeering to Wang Khan's son, I think his name is Sengum or "Nilha" Sengum. Temur 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perception in Kazakhstan
My suggestion is to write about how Kazakh people perceive GK, either in Kazakhstan or Mongolia, since if not anything, Kazakhs are the most influenced by GK and the Mongols. Temur 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah You are right Batu was Chengis's grand child (Chengis is right way to pronouce in Mongolian way )

What the hell??!!!
"Genghis Khan was born between 1150 and 1160. In his early childhood, he learned how to masturbate while riding a horse. Later when he was over six years old he lost his virginity and also he was allowed to participate in uniting expeditions with his clan/tribe. At around the age of nine he had is first threesome but his tribal leader father was poisoned and he and his household was driven away by his clan that thought he was too young to rule."

Now I know Ghengis Khan was an OG, but come on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.149.192 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Why isn't there an Conquest of East Asia section?
This applies to other articles about Mongol Empire as well. Why is there not an "Invasion of East Asia" or "Invasion of China" section? This is obviously very important to the Mongols. I read somewhere that they actually consider their triumph over the Jin their greatest achievement in "Secret History of the Mongols." Remember it's their triumph over Jin that decided the future master of China. There should be a whole page for it, not one paragraph. In addition, the decisive battle between the Mongols and Jin is NOT called the Battle of Badger Pass. Just think, that's an English name, how can that be the name of a pass in China and Mongolia? (There's an actual battle of Badger Pass, I think it's between the Native Americans and British or something, but it sure isn't a Mongol battle) According to my research (Chinese books) the battle is called the battle of Ye Hu Lin. If Ye Hu is badger (not sure about that) it should not be pass but forest. Anyhow it's decisive. According to the book it's between 450 000 Jin troops and 100 000 Mongols, and it decided the master of China. I would have written an article on it but :1 I have no time right now, 2 all my sources are in Chinese books and I neither know how to site them nor if they are accepted. If I have time I'll probably go to the library and get some english books on this and put it up. Anyways someone help me do this whole Conquest of East Asia. Afterall, without consolidating their power in East Asia, ie defeating Jin, they wouldn't have set out to conqueor the Khwarezmian. ParallelPain 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)ParallelPainParallelPain 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Type your info and expand the article as you want, and people will change and copyedit if necessary. Just type your info in there and make sure there is no copyright infringement. Good luck! Just type it in and someone will help you after you type it in. 24.9.72.71 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bekhter
I have heard varying accounts of how he died. Most agree that it was in a fight with Temujin, but there are conflicting opinions over what that fight was over. I have heard:

A tussle over food as dictated in this aricle.

That Bekhter was spying for the tribe that eventually kidnapped Temujin.

That Temujin was helped by another brother.

That Temujin had heard that, by some weird Mongol loophole, Bekhter, as eldest male, was allowed to force himself on his mother.

That Temujin killing Bekhter was just a rumor.

Also, I could find no source for Temujin not feeling any remorse after killing Bekhter. I slapped a citation needed on that sentence. Regards, Belgium EO 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone has a copy of The Secret History of the Mongols at hand? That should answer this kind of questions authoritatively. --Latebird 09:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is pretty accurate that it was over hunting spoils for sure. He and his brother were hunting when their family was in tough situation near a river and had some argument over a hunting spoil and is mentioned that he killed him by a bow and arrow near the river bushes while his brother was sitting. He kind of sneaked behind him is how it is mentioned and talked about 168.253.19.246 01:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources I'm familiar with (Lister, Ratchnevsky, de Hartog, and Grousset) reference a squabble over hunting or fishing spoils that was representative of a power struggle between Temujin and Bekhter over leadership of the family and the clan. The story about Bekhter being able to force himself on Hoelun I've never seen in reference to this incident, but some authors have mentioned that as the eldest son, Bekhter was expected to take on many of the roles of the father, very possibly including the sexual one. siafu 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to mention that Temujin alone did not kill Bekhter, he was with Khasar and they shot Bekhter from back and front sides. If I understood correctly, what Belgium EO meant was that despite what was written in the Secret History about the apparent reason, the real reason why Temujin killed Bekhter may be different than just arguing over fish. Temur 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually wrote a paper in my free time about Genghis Khan, in an effort to help people I know understand him better (using Wikipedia as my primary source, of course!) It is five pages long. It consists of the following sections: a.) An introduction, exploring the classic "uncivilized madman" portraya of the Khan. b.) A biography, helped by this very page. c.) An analysis of the death of Bekhter using this source, which manages to paint both Temujin and Bekhter in a relatively positive light. d.) A look at misconceptions about Genghis Khan. e.) A list of people worse than Genghis Khan. And f.), a conclusion that states that we must look upom Genghis as a person rather than a piece of history. Another thing I would like to address is that I am elated to see a section on both positiva and negative opinions of him, but there seem to be several users who simply want to turn this article into a minefield of Genghis-bashing. Not only is this extreme POV, but, based on some comments left above, greatly offends some users, presumably Mongolian Wikipedians. The final thing I must say is that I would like to whack the redlinks and citation neededs, which, based on my readings of similar articles, deems to be all that is keeping the Khan from a spot on the main page. I am looking for help. Anybody in? Belgium EO 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article you mentioned seems to be incorrect about the reason Tatars poisoned Yesuhei. It is not because Yesuhei took Merkit man's wife. A consequence of Yesuhei's act came to Temujin when Merkits stole his wife Borte later. Temur 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Belgium, please expand the article in any way you want and people will edit it if necessary. The only way this article got this big and informative was that people contributed few sentence and section over time. Any change is not small enough. Just remember it. Please add, and then we can talk about it. Thanks for the interest. Just add something 168.253.22.77


 * Wow, the claim above about half-brother dallying or forcing himself on stepmom is just not right. I'd love to see these "authors". Please, for the love of Pete, crack open a book! In their society, levirate marriage rules mandated that a widow would marry a relative of the husband, usually a brother-in-law, but sometimes a son by a different mother. Mongol society is patrilineal, so the levirate marriage offers a way to keep the children in the same family. Some suggestions for further reading: Rene Grousset, Jack Weatherford, the Secret History of the Mongols. 67.10.133.121 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Birthdates
I find it strange that his birthdate is stated as c. 1162, but later is said to be between 1150 and 1160. Shouldn't 1160 be changed to 1170 to give a better range?71.208.214.95 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

( First, pardon my spelling in the following for I have read all of my GK stuff in different languages. This is also my first ever contribution to wikipedia. )

I agree. To me, this is a recurring problem in wikipedia. Many wikipedian articles about "ancient times" suffer from inaccuracies such as this. From what I've read in the Genghis Khan article, I believe, unfortunately, that you guys should completely correct this and pass the word to other language versions of GK for the articles are covered almost systematically with wrong dates, false affirmations and chronological mistakes which make the whole thing hardly understandable as a reader. All of this caused by the different sources.

First, there are two things everyone should agree to:

- ALL of the dates of Temudjin's childhood, up until his 20s, are, to all serious historians, still under debate. There are no proof as to when he was actually born, although we can guess and speculate according to the different later feats Genghis Khan is related to. I admit this is explained in the Childhood part of the article although it seems to be forgotten in the following sentences.

- There are many different sources when it comes to the Khan dynasty. There is, along with some others; The Secret History of the Mongols, the works of Rachîd ed-Dîn, the ( and pardon my poor chinese to english translation! ) Huan-yuan cheng-wu ts'in-tcheng lou chronicles and the later works of Marco Polo... Each of these works countain differences from one to another. The different dates, the number of people involved in battles and the number of deaths in those battles and even some subtle or sometimes legendary feats are not confirmed in all of what has been written during the Khan dynasty. It should also be noted that the Secret History of the Mongols is mostly a " romanesque " version. I believe this is not a very good source if you want to get the real facts about GK. I have read many books about the GK era and I warn people: Do not believe everything that is written. Some of the writters think they have some " magic power " and that they know the dates such as the killing of GK's father or the mariage of Borté & GK or something like that. I repeat: Everything in GK's childhood, teenage years and even later is UNSURE!!!

I could complain about many things in this article, but, as I said, it is one source vs. another source and would be neverending. In this case I believe that it should be made clearer that many of the facts and dates of his childhood are still unsure. For each unsure facts ( mostly dates ), it should be said " according to ( source ) it is said that... [...] while ( another source ) states that... [...] ".

Thanks! ( I just hope I did this right...! )

--207.253.53.24 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The confusion regarding Genghis Khan's DOB are pretty well discussed in the footnote. siafu 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we not make the Official page "Chingis Khan"
I have been looking through the archives to see if there were any discussions about perhaps making the official page for what is now Genghis Khan into Chingis Khan. Now that it is acknowledged by most historical scholars that Chingis Khan is the proper form of the western misnomer Genghis Khan, I propose that we move the contents of this article and acknowledge on Wikipedia what has been accepted by historians. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa!kh4n (talk • contribs) --Latebird 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia policy mandates to use english names when they exist and are in common use. It's not a matter of right or wrong, you better think of it as a translation. What you cite is a transcription of his Mongolian name, although the exact spelling according to Naming conventions (Mongolian) would be Chingis Khaan. --Latebird 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well by that logic the page on the Turk conqueror Timur should be renamed Tamerlane, which is how the English-speaking world knows him. Originally titled Tamerlane, the page now correctly redirects to Timur. I don't believe that in the 21st Century we have to use incorrect pronunciations of the 19th Century. I'm not a Mongol but I will strongly support the renaming of the page to "Chingis Khan" or "Chingis Khaan" or "Chingis Kha-Khan"Sarkar2 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well "Chingis Khaan" is only the modern pronounciation. I have no idea how they pronounced this name back in 12-th century. According to the Classical Mongolian writing, it is "Chinggis Khaghan" or something like that, but this writing itself might have evolved since Chingis's days. Temur 04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

God, this page reads like it was written by a forth grader. One of the most significant men in all of history, and this is what he gets? Bravo, Wikipedia, your ineptitude shines through again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.166.83.175 (talk • contribs).
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. +A.0u 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Everybody add did you know's
According what i saw on the History Channel, Genghis Khan's first descendant had a curse to give on his deathbed. He said whoeevr disturbs his tomb will face a power that will cause hell to break loose abnd effect us forever, and guess what? They found it. The next day Hitler went and declared war! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raghav03 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * We're trying to write an encyclopedia here. Please keep this kind of nonsense away. --Latebird 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * wasn't that tamerlane anyway? Yaan 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ghenggis Khan or Temujin?
If "Ghenggis Khan" is the title of Temujin and "Temujin" is really his name, why don't we call this article "Ghenggis Khan Temujin" or just "Temujin"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Temurjin (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Because most people know him as Genghis Khan. Yaan 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)