Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 8

Semi-protection?
Since the start of September there have been 39 edits to the article. It has mostly been vandalism and reverts, with a couple of good faith edits that just weren't helpful. Given the high visibility of this article and the fact that it's frequently vandalised, I think it would be a good idea to semi-protect but I thought I'd ask for input on the talk page in case people think it's worth keeping editing open to everyone. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 39 edits in two weeks seems entirely manageable, especially since there appear to be several editors monitoring the page for vandalism and unhelpful but good-faith edits. Semi-protection, IMHO (and in the opinion of the community in general) is reserved for cases in which it is becoming impossible to maintain a vandalism- or tendentious editing-free article with the available "workforce" (aka frequent and attentive editors).  I think we'll be fine as it is. siafu (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Genghis Khan was a Chinese National!
I don't know why there is this argument above about Genghis Khan being white. He was a Chinese National and this is a fact. I don't even think many of you on this discussion are even Chinese. It is due time to read the correct history from the Chinese perspective. We have been united as China for 5000 years, never divided. And never WHITE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.174.192.202 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are silly, this doesn't mean that others are silly too. If you are a dodgy chinese, this doesn't mean that others are or have been such a dodgy national too. Keep your dodgy chinese nationalism with yourself. Nobody wanna be a funny chinese except you. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's really clear to anyone why there was an argument above to the effect of Genghis Khan being "white". In fact, if you look it over you'll find that nobody actually supported this position in the first place. siafu (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The nationality of one of Genghis Khan's early successors is stated here. Not "Chinese" as far as I can see. Yaan (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

it's somewhat baffling to me why a Chinese national would advocate for the notion of Genghis as a chinaman , I was under the impression that the chinese wholeheartidly despised  the mongols. However, I do agree with the OP that the section on Genghis Khan's birth is suggestively patchworked and ambiguous. The particular section - which references Rashid Al-din Hamadani's supposed statements about Genghis' glittering ancestors - doesn't sufficiently elaborate on exactly what ethnicity Genghis Khan could have been. Kyrg is inadequate as much of their ethnic makeup is the result of mixing (via concubines perhaps) between the Mongols and whatever caucasian ethnicities were unfortunately in the geographic line of the Mongol campaign.

We have all been able to agree thus far on one point, that Genghis Khan was a Mongol. However , it seems that some people want to make a play on what exactly constitutes a Mongolian. I'm not implicating either Siafu or Yaan here, but quoting statements about the glittering ancestors of Genghis in such a clustered and disorganized fashion without explaining upon it adequately is dubious and will only lead to outrageous discussions and controversy.

Whoever is responsible for that particular section based on Rashid Al-din Hamadani's supposed statements about Genghis Khan's ancestors needs to clarify and elaborate further upon the possible meaning of those statements. The particular editor in question needs to build upon those statements.

''' Since we've agreed that Genghis Khan was a Mongol ... Here's are some central follow up questions ....'''

Were the original Mongols (before the unification and the concubine campaigns) of an exclusive ethnic group that was homogenous such as the Chinese were and was Genghis Khan simply a Mongoloid with red hair ? Were the original Mongols an actual founding and homogenous ethnic group with deep ethnic roots via ancestor worship - as the japanese, koreans , chinese - or rather was the term Mongol more superficial as in a situation where it is simply a term adopted by a gang composed of mixed ethnic people that simply identified themselves as " Mongols " similar to  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols_(motorcycle_club) ?

Maybe the mongoloids of asia aren't really " mongoloid " ...

In addition to this there needs to be more collaborative work on the presence of the actual ancestral line of Genghis Khan in this article. Wernergerman (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed them
Dont feed trolls,, dont react to their provocking Monkh Naran (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of Khwarezmia
When Genghis Khan became obssesed with the Khwarezmian Empire. I don't get it. Why will the persians and Khwarezmians destroy genghis khan diplomats. But the invasion was just revenge of avenging his caravan and envoys.

A 200,000 force marched to Modern Uzbekistan and took it. They just marched there and took. Did the Khwarezmians just give it do the Mongols by running south? Then Genghis Khan thinks that Khwarezmia is just giving him their land. But even though he won the march and raid into the land, he was still wrong. Eventually his armies reached Urgench and just ran through it and burned and sacked it to the ground. Then he just fought and wiped out region after region in the Khwarezmian Empire.

The Shah had no matter in the invasion and fled west until his empire was added to the Mongol Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esamhk12 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Harold Lamb goes into great detail about the invasion of Kwarezm. The Sultan considered the Mongols as barbarians having nothing worthwhile and infidels besides. The story is Ghenghis wanted to open trade (to spend the money they were getting from their new lands in western China), which was the reason for the ambassadors. The Sultan had them beheaded and skulls filled with silver as a show of wealth on top of the insult.  Genghis took the insult so personally, he called off his attacks on Xia and moved against Kwarezm. Subotai attacked from the north with a smaller force, as expected, and the Sultan's army held them at the mountain passes.  Genghis, however, took the main force, and traveling hundreds of miles in a western arc, crossed the desert and hit the Sultan's army from the western flank, taking them completely by surprise, overruning the weaker defenses, and routing the army. The Sultanate had inherited the aqueducts in place since ancient Persia had ruled over the region.  Genghis' rage was such that he not only burned the cities, but he destroyed the water systems, turning once lush farmland back to sparse high desert steppes.  It was recorded that if any city resisted, the citizens were massacred, sparing no one.  Afterwards, some of the Khan's loyal followers were granted lands in these 'vacated' areas.  Reputedly, some Afghan tribes trace their lineage to these Mongol ancestors.  Lamb, Harold, Ghengis Khan: Emperor of All Men, Bantom Books, 271 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 1963. First edition, Robert M. McBride & Company, 1927. DTavona (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Birth date?
Was he born c.1162 or in 1162? Both dates are mentioned in the article and should be reconciled. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just not known exactly. Most commonly, 1155, 1162 and 1167 are thought to be possible birth years, with 1162 being the most likely one. Yaan (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Morgan thinks it likely that he was born in the year 1167 (55), with which Fairbank concurs (163). Lamb (5) and Hannam (58) make the date out to be 1162. However, both Morgan and Lamb mention the tradition that Temujin (Genghis) was born in the Year of the Pig, which Morgan says occurred in both 1155 and 1167, and he chose the latter as such would make his age a more credible one.
 * SOURCES
 * Fairbank, John K., Edwin O. Reischauer, Albert M. Craig, East Asia, Tradition and Transformation, Houghton Mifflin Company, One Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02108, 1989, pp.152-176 (Chapter 7).
 * Hannam, Peter, "Tyrant or Hero? The Search for Gengis Khan," Asia Week, Volume 19, number 5, February 3, 1993, pp.56-63.
 * Lamb, Harold, Ghengis Khan: Emperor of All Men, Bantom Books, 271 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 1963. First edition, Robert M. McBride & Company, 1927.
 * Morgan, David, The Mongols, Blackwell Publishers, 238 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142, 1992. First printed 1986.
 * DTavona (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Oct. 30, 2010 revisions
I believed the changes I made on Oct. 30, 2010 were self-explanatory but since an explanation for each component was demanded, here they are:


 * The Tanguts were the people who founded the Western Xia Dynasty. The two terms are synonymous for the purpose of identifying the target of Mongol conquest in present-day northwestern China.  Indeed the article later makes the connection.  Since the previous paragraph already mentioned Genghis Khan as having conquered the Western Xia, it is more familiar to the reader to learn that he died after the conquest of the Western Xia than to be introduced a new term that many may be unfamiliar with (and those who do know the Tanguts will also know about the Western Xia).  This is the introduction.  We want to give a concise and clear overview.  If we say, GK conquered A, B, C, D, and E in his life, and want to note that he died after conquering E, why say that he died after conquering X (when X = E)?  If you want to emphasize X in the intro, say that he conquered A, B, C, D and X and died after conquering X.
 * Objectively speaking, the Yuan Dynasty and the Han Dynasty do not have a basis for confusion with each other. No disambiguation page exists for Yuan and Han.  The two dynasties a thousand years apart in time and their official histories have no overlap.  This is not like the Jin Dynasty (265–420) and the Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) where an objective basis for confusion could arise just from the romanization of the dynastic names.  To the few who might think that Yuan could plausibly sound like Han, the link to the Yuan History is right there for them to click on.  The reference to the Han Dynasty is unnecessary to the article and that is why I removed it.
 * As for the statement that Genghis Khan's invasions "were not viewed positively". It's simply not a helpful or suitable description of the way in which Genghis Khan is remembered. First, this encyclopedic article of history should avoid simplistic characterizations of good or bad -- it should deal with only what happened and the significance of what happened.  Second, to the extent that one wants to mention the Mongol conquests as not being fondly remembered in local histories -- "not viewed positively" is a terribly imprecise characterization.  Rather than to say how he is not viewed, why not describe how he is regarded and remembered?  But to say he is remembered negatively for having killed lots of people sounds silly.  That is why I drew reference to his feared reputation.

ContinentalAve (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Toofewopinions and Weasels discussion on the birth section of this article
" No accurate portraits of Genghis exist today, and any surviving depictions are considered to be artistic interpretations. Persian historian Rashid-al-Din recorded in his "Chronicles" that the legendary "glittering" ancestor of Genghis was tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and green-eyed. Rashid al-Din also described the first meeting of Genghis and Kublai Khan, when Genghis was shocked to find that Kublai had not inherited his red hair.[10] Also according to al-Din Genghis's Borjigid clan, had a legend involving their origins: it began as the result of an affair between Alan-ko and a stranger to her land, a glittering man who happened to have red hair and bluish-green eyes. Modern historian Paul Ratchnevsky has suggested in his Genghis biography that the "glittering man" may have been from the Kyrgyz people, who historically displayed these same characteristics. Controversies aside, the closest depiction generally accepted by most historians is the portrait currently in the National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan (see picture above).[citation needed] "

This section ,

- gives undue emphasis on one point of view that has its supposed basis soley on one source.

- it's not clear exactly what that " point of view " is because it's not clear what the contributing editor is arguing for here. He or she needs to elaborate upon those supposed quotes by Rashid Al-din Hamadani instead of just randomly pasting various statements belonging to him without any subsequent explanation whatsoever - at the moment it seems that this contributing editor just wants us to explore the remote possibility that Genghis Khan was anything other than a Mongoloid ... if he indeed was of mixed ethnicity, then elaboration upon this POV is required as it goes against the prevalent POV of Genghis Khan being a " pure-blooded " Mongoloid. In other words, just implying that Genghis Khan was of mixed ethnic background invites controversy , the editor needs to be specific in exactly what he or she means.

Also, there's too much of a play on the terms " mongolian " and Mongol. There are Mongolians that are the root ethnic peoples of Mongolia and then there are Mongols who joined or became forcibly integrated during the campaign. It would be helpful if the author would explain whether he or she believes that the original birth existence of Genghis Khan took place within that of an organized gang ( such as the " Mongols " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols_(motorcycle_club) ) or within a homogenous ethnic group such as the " Mongoloid " Japanese, Chinese , Koreans , as such pertains to the popular perception of Mongolians http://cominganarchy.com/2005/11/21/bush-in-mongolia-ii/ ...

Wernergerman (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * re. the 'undue weight' concern, AFAIK there are only two important primary sources about Genghis Khan's ancestors, both of which mention Alan-goa and this glittering guy. So the existence of this legend is completely uncontroversial. It is also reasonably relevant because Alan Goa is not only the mother of the alleged ancestor of the Borjigid clan, but supposed to be the ancestor of all Mongol tribes. If anything, the "Also according to al-Din" in the fourth sentence could be removed.
 * I also still don't see the problem with mentioning green eyes or his supposed hair color. 'Red hair' does not necessarily have to look like this (not a european, btw.).
 * Re. whether the Mongols at the time of Genghis Khan's birth were an ethnic or a non-ethnic group, my impression is that they were a bit of both, just like later-on.
 * Yaan (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a bit before delving in this discussion, in case others want to contribute. From my experience so far, it isn't going to be many... not too many people seem to be interested in the topic of Genghis Khan. As for now, some of what you mentioned seems more on the side of an opinion to me and definitely subject to debate ... and not necessarily your opinion by the way , for example , Alan Goa being the ancestor of all Mongol tribes. Seems along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea

others

" AFAIK there are only two important primary sources about Genghis Khan's ancestors "

again, definitely subject to debate.

I would be very interested to hear what an actual Mongolian has to say about this matter, not a Mongol (which seems to habitually be used as a loanword) ... I for one don't believe that the Mongols are simply comprised of a sudden gathering and intermixing between ethnic groups , I believe that they all source from a root ethnic group that were frontrunners of the campaign (the nobility , that is) and that root identity is obviously Mongoloid. Thus the particular usage of the term " Mongoloid " and why it has been denoted towards Asiatics. Turkic peoples will vehemently argue that the original roots of the Mongolians source from the Slavic Turks, however , this is obviously debatable since

- there are no pure Turks that belong to the Mongolian ethnic group, that is no such thing as a pure caucasian Mongol ... period. However, the majority of the people within Mongolia are distinctly Mongoloid or East Asiatic. There are pure " Mongoloid " Mongols however there are no pure Caucasian Mongols.

- In fact, all Mongols , that is all of the people that have historical connections to the Mongol movement , have Mongoloid features. There is only one way that this can happen, that is by mixing with a Mongoloid , Mongoloid features are impossible to mimic in other races.

- the Turks are a minority in Mongolia

- there are other obvious arguments, but I'll cease here.

Again, this article needs to have other points of views about this matter , for instance an explanation of genghis khan's appearance as relevant to the one displayed in the main picture is noticeably absent. And again, the contributor of that particular content of information about Genghis' glittering ancestors needs to actually explain further on Al-din's statements in a specific fashion , instead of just pasting quotations and relying on the reader's imagination. Wernergerman (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "I would be very interested to hear what an actual Mongolian has to say about this matter, not a Mongol (which seems to habitually be used as a loanword) ." - Mongol is actually the word that people in Mongolia use to refer to themselves. And most Mongols will probably tell you that there is only one source that matters (the Secret History). A source which also happens to mention this glittering visitor.
 * Actually, this Alan-goa-and-visitor related stuff seems to have been absolutely important to the compilers of the Secret History, in any case she and her sons are the only ancestors of Genghis Khan (besides his parents) that get more than just a few words. And of course every child in Mongolia knows her story. That you don't seem to have heard of her suggests that you need to read up a bit.
 * Also I would finally like to hear what having green eyes and/or reddish hair has to do with being 'white'.
 * Yaan (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wernergerman, if you add tags like this to an article, then you must back them up with facts, eg. by presenting reliable sources that are currently inored in the article. All you are currently saying is that you don't like the way the section is presented, but without proposing a valid alternative. While it would be great to have more information on Genghis' descent and birth, reality is that such information is simply not available. This is clearly stated at the beginning of that section, and the remaining text explains what the existing sources (both mythical and factual) tell us. You have not given us any information that would help in improving the article. Because of that, I'm going to remove your tags. Please do not add them again unless you can present additional reliable sources that we can use to add more information. --Latebird (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So, what ... the section is going to remain as it is?

" No accurate portraits of Genghis exist today, and any surviving depictions are considered to be artistic interpretations. Persian historian Rashid-al-Din recorded in his "Chronicles" that the legendary "glittering" ancestor of Genghis was tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and green-eyed. Rashid al-Din also described the first meeting of Genghis and Kublai Khan, when Genghis was shocked to find that Kublai had not inherited his red hair.[10] Also according to al-Din Genghis's Borjigid clan, had a legend involving their origins: it began as the result of an affair between Alan-ko and a stranger to her land, a glittering man who happened to have red hair and bluish-green eyes. Modern historian Paul Ratchnevsky has suggested in his Genghis biography that the "glittering man" may have been from the Kyrgyz people, who historically displayed these same characteristics. Controversies aside, the closest depiction generally accepted by most historians is the portrait currently in the National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan (see picture above).[citation needed] "

What on earth exactly is this section implicating? I'm asking that either the contributing editor or some other qualified individual explain and elaborate, otherwise it is merely comprised of random ill-placed quotations... Do you believe that this is adequate? I for one could come up with several different explanations on the meaning of the passage ...

- genghis khan was a red haired mongolian of mongoloid lineage.

- genghis khan was tocharian and was caucasian, a very small percentage of stormfront idiots (yes they actually had a poll about this) believe that he was caucasian ... little do they realize that they are taking the blood that's on others hands and taking it up as their own.

- genghis khan had a little bit of slavic blood, however was mostly mongoloid.

- genghis khan was of a half breed caucasian/mongoloid.

What is that passage implying ? Answers should be backed by credible mainstream sources and not one that's obscure. The current state of the passage is inadequate ... even if it consists of one perspective which is albeit not very prominent it should be composed of as an actual article and not just as some pasted statements as if a 4th grader wrote it. I plan on contributing to it by stating some opposing arguments in the future, in the meanwhile , someone has to expand upon the meaning of all of those statements. If the contributing editor believes that genghis khan was tocharian then be a grown man about it and just state it ... don't hide behind randomly pasted statements as a kindergartner would do. The intent of this article is not to be speculative, wikipedia is not a place to suggest ideas. Again, state what you mean , and state it firmly and then back it up with credible and mainstream sources. Don't be feeble about it. If the contributing editor isn't able to attend to these requirements, then don't state such things at all. Wernergerman (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What we personally believe is not what's important-- what is in the sources is. I can't fathom how anyone would draw the conclusions you suggest from the passage; all it says is the plain truth, which is that very little is known about Genghis Khan's specific ancestry beyond what is written in the Secret History (very prominent) and al-Din Hamadani (also very prominent), and a theory by the most prominent modern historian of Genghis Khan, Paul Ratchnevsky (the very model of "mainstream source").  It doesn't say anything about caucasians or ethnic groups at all.  The story of the glittering ancestor is not presented as absolute truth, but as a story given in the historical account by al-Din Hamadani, and even goes so far as to label these theories as controversial.  What is the problem here? siafu (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Here's the problem. You're making it out to seem that soley two credible statements about Genghis Khan's appearance within the entire universe itself as we know it draw from one source that stems from outside of Mongolia itself -note that there aren't any portions of the wikipedia Births section that draw from the Secret History. There are ALWAYS other sources... no matter what subject in relevance. In fact, there are numerous written statements or pictures within Al-din's book that either refer to or imply Genghis Khan's appearance in the same way as these two statements. You're being real selective, in a biased fashion , about the information that you deem to be credible when there are other sources out there that claim his appearance in the same fashion as Al-din's book does. For some reason, the majority of Mongolian accounts (which exist in numerous amounts) are discredited. You deem Ratchnevsky as being credible when there are many others that have written similar books and were well researched in the formal sense. There are other sources out there that directly state the ethnicity and physical appearance of Genghis Khan in a bold fashion however you claim that the entirety of this man's existence is reduced to these two feeble statements that are unclear and then you don't even bother to explain upon them ... Genghis Khan might have well not even existed...  It's not appropriate in any forum of discussion or formats of article construction to merely paste quotations and not explain your perspective that's based on those quotations. It's simply not appropriate.

Stand behind your statements, be firm about it , state who he really was .... if I were to go to Mongolia right now I bet that I could find numerous sources on his appearance that stem from his time period that boldly and firmly state his ethnicity and appearance. However these sources would not be deemed credible here since they aren't of Western origin. Julius Caesar has his appearance based on a Roman historian ... because he was Roman. Why aren't we drawing from Mongolian sources to describe a Mongolian man's appearance. Why is it that all Mongolian accounts besides the Secret History are not deemed credible?

This is supposed to be a factual article and is not meant to be speculative or a place for original research. soley pasting statements and having others infer from it invites speculation.

1) The following passage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_khan#Birth doesn't draw at all from anything else other than those two statements within Al-din's book.  In fact, it doesn't even mention that all of the pictures , whether of old or new versions of the text , depict genghis khan with black hair and mongoloid features.  Why isn't this part about his appearance mentioned in the particular section that we're discussing at the moment ?  There are numerous accounts of Genghis Khan's appearance in Al-din's book , whether of written or pictorial form , however , the book was written as a part epic and part historical manuscript.  Not all of it is to be taken literally.  What this Births section does is draw entirely soley from those two statements (of the validity which I have yet to prove) and not the other accounts within the same book.  Again , this is an opportunity for other perspectives to be presented and yet you selectively disregard them with bias even if they are in the same book.  Don't even go on about how some statements are more credible than others or on how other people had painted the paintings. Al-din directed the paintings and there are times when others wrote the book for him. However, the book itself in its entirety is credited to him , so picking it apart isn't permitted here. You're being biased, just admit it.

2) Why aren't there any portions of the Births sections that draw from the Secret History or Mongolian sources ? The Secret History does describe Genghis' appearance, in fact , there are numerous other Mongolian sources that describe Genghis' appearance either in written form or paintings or of statues and etchings on the mountain side ... why does this article obliviat this fact? the wikipedia source on Julius Caesar cites a Roman historian in describing a Roman figure , there are numerous Mongolians that describe Genghis Khan however their credibility is questioned since most historians deem the Mongolians as habitual criminals.   I could ask this question over and over again... why are we entrusting the existence of Genghis Khan to an outside source and that of a Jewish man whom everyone knows had the bad tendency to skew facts in to epic? Why does a Jewish man qualify for Genghis Khan when a Roman man is for Julius Caesar? When a future article on Hitler is written, will we draw upon Mongolian sources or German sources? Seems very skewed and awkward to me.

So again, the list for the project is as follows so far - will be updated in the future

- current passage on the Births section needs to be explained further, simply pasting quotations from the source does not qualify for any standard format of writing that exists out there. You're not being bold here, that's another problem. State who he really was, and if such statements don't exist in your world then don't state anything at all. Be bold or go home.

- sources from the Secret History must be cited (don't tell me that there are none because there are)

- alternative perspectives must be included ... again don't say that there are none, the picture of Genghis Khan here on the article itself counts as one.  there are ALWAYS  alternative perspectives , no matter what subject. the current version is way too simplistic, it needs improvements , the list goes on.

Wernergerman (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of actual fact, I think you would have great difficulty obtaining "Mongolian sources" from Genghis Khan's time period, as the Mongol alphabet was developed during the lifetime of Genghis Khan. The Mongols, during his time, were not a literate people, and did not write things down.  This is actually the primary reason that Chinese and Persian sources are so often referenced-- there are very, very few appropriate Mongolian sources, and the only one of real note is the Secret History.  We also do not entrust anything to al-Din Hamadani (I'm still puzzled by your obsession with the fact that he was of Jewish descent-- he was a Muslim, not a Jew, also), in fact, the only thing we entrust to him are his actual words.  Pasting quotes from the source is in fact one of the best ways to do this, as it avoids an endorsement of a particular view in a controversy by wikipedia itself.  I suggest you review WP:QUOTE.


 * Also, the reason the article doesn't describe Genghis Khan as a black-haired man with asian features is because the picture, prominently placed at the top of the article, SHOWS him as such, and the passage you are complaining about explains that while controversies and differences of opinion exist, that picture is generally accepted as the best representation of Genghis Khan available (this DESPITE Rashid describing the red hair, which is NOT in the picture).


 * The real problem here, Wernergerman, is that it is not the responsibility of other editors to do the legwork for you, or to "be bold" for you. If you believe that that there are sources that are being ignored, you must present them for us, not simply demand that others do this for you.  If there are alternate, verifiable, and notable views that are not represented in the section, or in the actual image used to represent Genghis Khan, then we can and should alter the article to include them. siafu (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum: your dismissal of Ratchnevsky also does very little to make others belive that you know what you are talking about. His book is viewed by many historians as the definitive scholarly work on the life of Genghis Khan.  He's also not the only source used in this article by far, but his perspective on al-Din's comment is quite notable. siafu (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Werner, can you please point out where exactly the Secret History mentions Genghis appearance (beyond basic stuff like 'fire in his eyes' and 'I am just an [ordinary] black person')?
 * The reason Rashid-ad-Din is a better source than most of the Mongolian chronicles known today is that Rashid-ad-Din lived one, not five or six, centuries after Genghis, and that he had some access to the archives of the Mongol royal family.
 * Re. mountain edgings or statues of Genghis, can you point out one that is not from the 20th or 21st century, let alone one of any value for the purpose of this discussion?
 * "if I were to go to Mongolia right now I bet that I could find numerous sources on his appearance that stem from his time period that boldly and firmly state his ethnicity and appearance". Good luck. Seems you are about to find the holy grail of Mongolian studies. Make sure to call in a press conference when you succeed.
 * Yaan (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point siafu, I'm going to be making some good edits in the future based on actual sources. This man is from the east and the one source that is deemed credible by both you and yaan is the western text of Rashid Aldin's book Chronicles. This book was written to unify the Mongolian empire, particularly within the western hemisphere , to quell dissent for the most part so as to maintain a relatively stable empire.

'Note however, the apparent glitches within some of Rashid Aldin Hamadani's statements, in particular , where he describes Genghis being shocked that Kublai didn't inherit his red hair. '

- Just how heritable is red hair? Red hair is only inherited when both parents have red hair and even in this situation the chances are small that the offspring will inherit red hair. ''' How does a red haired man who fathered millions of children in his lifetime not know that red hair isn't inherited easily? ''' Why is he shocked that his son didn't inherit his red hair ? This particular statement by Aldin seems completely nonsensical and it seems demeaning if not insignificant. Shouldn't Rashid Aldin, who was of Jewish origin and in the western hemisphere have known that Red hair isn't easily heritable for any ethnic group? Especially when the father has red hair and the mother is a Mongoloid? With interracial marriages between caucasians and mongoloids, red hair is almost never inherited ...

'If Genghis Khan had red hair he would have known that his son wouldn't have inherited his red hair since he had already fathered millions of children by this time. ' so how was he so utterly surprised that his son Kublai did not inherit his red hair? This statement may seem plausible for a Mongoloid in China however, with a caucasoid , it seems non-sensical that Genghis would be surprised that his red hair wasn't inherited with a child that he had with his Mongoloid wife.

Rashid Aldin was commissioned to write his book the way the Khans wanted it ... the purpose of the book was to unify the Mongol empire. The political purpose of the book was to help the Khans to remain in power. It became easier for people of that region to respect a man who had unique features such as red hair as opposed to a man who had mongoloid features. Aldin was commissioned to write the book in a way so that the people would hold the Mongols and Genghis Khan in good regard and so he altered Genghis Khan's appearance ... HOWEVER .... he did so cunningly, because he did not want to be historically inaccurate.

so he presented Genghis Khan as an epic figure with Red hair that would go well with groups that didn't know anything about the heritability of red hair, however he added that Genghis was shocked so that this statement would apparently be dubious to groups who knew about the heritability of red hair and thus groups who knew that Genghis should have known that his red hair wasn't easily heritable especially when he had fathered millions of offspring ... that is .... should he have actually had red hair.

More to come. Wernergerman (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Genghis Khan did not father "millions of children". I'm not sure how that would even be possible, as it implies impregnating more than one woman literally every single day of his adult life.  Where do you even get this claim?  He did have several wives, and probably fathered other children outside of his marriages, but "millions" is simply preposterous; thousands is doubtless far too many as well.


 * 2. Considering that the rules of trait heritability were not understood by anyone in this time period, much less to the level of differentiating between recessive and dominant traits, this discussion is completely useless. Gregor Mendel was not to be born until six hundred years after Genghis Khan's death, five hundred after Rashid al-Din's death, and far too late to inform this conversation or any conversation about what Genghis Khan and his contemporaries may have believed.


 * 3. All the above doesn't matter because it constitutes original research and does not fit with the mission of the encyclopedia. This is not the forum for expounded or developing new perspectives, insights, or knowledge-- an encyclopedia merely reports faithfully the current understanding of the subject in the field of expertise.  We have already done that in the paragraph in question, reporting the fact that not much is known, stating what is given in the primary source, and including a notable comment from a renowned expert.  What you seem to be doing is winding down a strange path of supposition about what the relevant parties might have thought or believed; I can't see how this can produce any improvement in this article, or even a useful result in discussion.


 * Wernergerman, I still can't figure out what your beef is with this paragraph. No one else seems to even consider the conclusions you are leaping to, much less do they appear in any way implied by the text.  Really, this is one of the better-written passages you will find in this article, or any article, and does not warrant this criticism, or this endless rehashed debate.  Let it go already: this has been going on for months, and not one -not one- editor has seen your argument and been swayed by it. siafu (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my questions and your points (1 and 2) completely disregard information that's already out there ...

For the first point that you made, you should be able to visit the link here if you're truly that oblivious of Genghis Khan's reputation with women

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

even should Genghis have had four children he should have known about the non-heritability of red hair.

To address your second point, individuals didn't need to master the work of Gregor Mendel to come to the realization that the trait of red hair was rare , so rare that even the offspring of two parents with red hair has a minor chance of inheriting the red hair. what matters here is the truth that red hair is a relatively non-heritable trait, and relatively speaking to other types of hair ... it's almost never inherited.

I don't really have a " beef " with that paragraph, I find that particular paragraph in question to be conspicuously awkward especially since it's suggesting that a statement that is obviously epic in form is literally true. Also, why on earth is wikipedia emphasizing the notion that Genghis had red hair and emphasizing this notion alone and not the prevalent one where he has black hair?

For those of you that are fretting - or perhaps working up some excitement - over Rashid Aldin Hamadani's references to what seems to be caucasoid ancestors of Genghis Khan should note that all of his statements aren't meant to be taken literally. There are some out there e.g. Earlson that are distorting statements that are actually epic in origin into something to be taken literally. The Chronicles is part epic and part historical, when Rashid Aldin meant for a statement to be taken in an epic sense , he employed Jewish forms of writing from his earlier training as a Jew. Take for example, his statement " Genghis was shocked that his son Kublai didn't inherit his red hair " ... there are some blatant flaws with it that need to be addressed should one want to take it literally :

- red haired people don't expect their offspring to inherit red hair, red hair is one of the least heritable traits out there. They certainly wouldn't be shocked over it , unless the individual is a lunatic , because it make no sense for anyone to even want their son to inherit their red hair that badly.

- Genghis fathered more children than any other individual in history. Thus, if he had red hair , he would have known that red hair isn't inherited easily. Thus he wouldn't have expected his son Kublai to have inherited his red hair ; this is in direct contradiction to what Rashid Aldin claimed to have happened - that Genghis was shocked that his son Kublai didn't inherit his red hair.

- Genghis being " shocked " seems out of character for a man of his stature. Genghis drew upon his information masterfully, so it matters little whether he had red hair or not , the bottom line is that he wouldn't have been overwhelmed by a matter so trivial and obvious as that of red hair.

So it matters very little whether Rashid Aldin claimed that Genghis' ancestors were glittering or whether Genghis was shocked that his son Kublai didn't inherit his red hair ... because none of it happened, Rashid Aldin was writing in an epic manner , a fact which is obvious when his statements don't fit the standards of something that was meant to be taken literally. Genghis was not shocked, and his ancestors were not actually " glittering " . Again, I have much more to bring up , this entire argument is just one piece of the pie , meaning that there are many other simple ways to attack and discredit the notion that Genghis Khan had red hair or was part Caucasoid. Wernergerman (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Kublai was his Grandson, not his son.

Wrong year, concerning the Keraits?
In the section "uniting the confederations" it says
 * "Toghrul, who was Khan of the Kerait, and is better known by the Chinese title Ong Khan (or "Wang Khan"), which the Jin Empire granted him in 1197."

However, on the wikipedia page about Kerait, the year is given as 1183. That also seems more plausible in light of the timeline of the ascend of Genghis Khan. Can an expert confirm this and correct if necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbar (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

temudjin's father was not a chief!!!
he was not a chief, that is why he had to kidnap hoelun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.97.0 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Record of daughters nonexistent" inaccurate.
See The Secret History of the Monghol Queens: How the Daughters of Genghis Khan Rescued His Empire by Jack Weatherford Gwytherinn (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khan is not white!
It's not surprising to see white historians try to claim an Asian figure that changed the world as white. If anything this just illustrates the need for Asians to take control of telling the history of their heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.158.114 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khan is 100% Asian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.134.194 (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC) ( I really do not know why people really do consider the race or the color of the skin.... He was a HUMAN and he had just believed in himself and that's it... I was very very lucky to be born as a MONGOLIAN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerguich (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was Asian. But that doesn't necessarily mean East Asian.  Historian Harold Lamb asserts most of the Mongols were originally Caucasian.  It wasn't until they conquered the Chinese states of Xia and Jin as well as the southwestern Turkic states that the Mongols gained their current physical features.  Kublai Khan was Mongol-Chinese.  Ghenghis Khan was white, red-haired, and had grey eyes.  Evidence of this pre-historical proximity of Caucasians can be found in several recently discovered archeology sites in western Chinese.  Lamb observed that some Afghan tribes trace their ancestry back to the days of Genghis Khan, when he rewarded some of his loyal men with women from the conquered state of Kwarezm. There is evidence of Caucasians -- blondes and redheads found in archeology digs in the western and northwestern area of China.  Articles on the digs -
 * http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226735.htm
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjqK_IOhz_8&feature=player_embedded (YouTube excerpt of National Geographic show, first of multi-part video series)
 * Mair also asserts that current inhabitants of the region to be an East Asian-Caucasiod mix (see YouTube excerpt above)


 * I wonder how reliable your 1927 source is. I also wonder about the source for his grey eyes - so far we had two sources for green (Rashid ad-Din, and Juvaini's 'cat's eyes'), but none for grey. Green eyes are not that unheard of in Mongolia, in fact one of the best-selling novels of recent years is about a green-eyed guy.
 * That there were blonde people around the Tarim basin 2500 years ago is 1. not new and 2. has no obvious relation to what Mongols 800 years ago looked like. Similarly, Lamb's observations in Afghanistan do not seem to have much to do with Mongols at all (maybe I am missing something). Last not least Khubilai was the son of Tolui and Sorghaghtani Beki, i.e. probably did not look significantly more 'Chinese' than his famous grandfather. Yaan (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several primary sources that strongly suggest Genghis's close ancestors are white with blue eyes and perhaps blond hair, although he might be a mix himself.

1) His family/tribe name is Borjigin. In modern Turkish, this word means "Blue eyes", and in Mongol, it means gray eyes. However, according to "Compendium of history" that include an autography of biography of Borjigin family written by senior Persian officers of Mongol Empire, the author clearly indicated the word Borjigin come from Turkish that means "blue eyes". 2) According to "Secret history of Mongols", also written as official book of Mongol Empire, Borjigin is the name of an direct ancestor of Genghis Khan, who has blue eyes, "he has another name which means "silly guy". This person is the fourth son of his mother, who was born after her husband was dead. According to the book, when her other sons questioned the father of Borjigin, as an attempt to oust of his right of inheriting family's property, their mother answered, the son come from a "man-like-god" with "golden hairs" that came to her tent and mate her. IMO, it is likely an attempt to describe her love affair with an person with blond hair and blue eyes as an holy thing in order to protect his fourth son with similar characters. Therefore, the direct ancestor of Genghis Khan, Borjigin's father should be a Caucasian. 3) In the book “notandum for Mongol-Tartar”, written by a Chinese ambassador who met Genghis Khan, the author described face feature of the Tartars, which is extremely similar to modern Mongolians. However, he noted, The face feature of Genghis Khan is completely different from the others Mongol-Tartars, that seem to support the idea Genghis Khan himself might have a root of Caucasians, but his slaves/followers in his original tribe are much more similar to modern Mongols. Mongol is an tribe that contains slaves and masters. According to "Secrete history of Mongols", the slaves and their masters have different roots and even among the nobles, there might be different roots, e.x. Borjigin clearly have different roots from others. 4) I lost my memory about where this source come from, but I remember, Genghis Khan allegedly said the feature of his grandson, Kublai, did not show resemblance of his family, but of the mother of Kublai. He said the skin of Kublai was much darker among other dissimilarities. According to his portrait that available today, Kublai's had a typical face that we can see among modern Mongolians. Hisfun (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1.) In modern Mongolian, 'grey-eyed' means 'saaral nuden'. 'Bor' means 'brown', but still 'brown-eyed' means 'bor nuden', not quite similar to 'Borjigin'. As pointed out elsewhere, there are a few sources for Genghis being green-eyed ('nogoon nuden'), but I have seen none for him being blue-eyed.
 * Both green and brown eyes occur among ordinary present-day Mongolians.
 * "However, according to "Compendium of history" that include an autography of biography of Borjigin family written by senior Persian officers of Mongol Empire, the author clearly indicated the word Borjigin come from Turkish that means "blue eyes"" - source? Weiers translates 'Borjigid' as 'wild duck people' - is he wrong?
 * 2.) It seems you are conflating Bodonchar 'the stupid' and Borjigidai 'the clever'. Or at least my translation of the Secret History (Haenisch) does not give Bodonchar any alternative name, it only makes him the ascendant of the Borjigin clan (section 42). My translation also mentions nothing about either Bodonchar's or Borjigidai's blue eyes.
 * According to the Secret History, Bodonchar is the fifth child of his mother, not the fourth (sections 17 and 19).
 * My translation of the Secret History mentions nothing about Bodonchar's father's eyes or hair. It also does not compare him to 'god'. The mother only calls he visitor 'golden' and his children 'children of heaven', and compares him to a yellow dog (section 21).
 * 3.) I guess it would be rather helpful if you could dig up this work that you call “notandum for Mongol-Tartar”, or at least he name of its author.
 * That different noble families trace their origin to different ancestors seems a rather trivial observation. Even then, the origin of e.g. the Taiji'ud seems not very different of that of the Borjigid at all, and one might even ask why the ancestors of the Borjigid are better than those of the Oirad?
 * 4.) The usual portrait of Genghis Khan can be found here. It does not look that much whiter than Khubilai's portrait here.
 * Yaan (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In modern Turkish "blue" is "mavi" (Persian ابی), "eye" is "göz".
 * In modern Kazakh, the language of the closest Turkic neighbours of Mongolians, "blue" is "kök", "eye(s)" is "köz(der)".
 * In modern Mongolian, "blue" is "höh", "eye" is "nüd".
 * "bor" is "brown" in both modern Turkish and modern Mongolian. "boz" is "brown" in modern Kazakh.
 * However, we should not speculate that the first syllable is any separate word with independent meaning. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to those books anymore (and I don't want to go to a library), but I can find the source by google for those who are interested enough.
 * 1) The Russian translation of the book "Compendium of history" is

Рашид ад-Дин. Сборник летописей / Пер. с персидского О. И. Смирновой,редакция проф. А. А. Семенова. — М., Л.: Издательство Академии Наук СССР, 1952
 * here is the link http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8_%D0%B0%D1%82-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%85
 * I am 100% sure it mentioned clearly that the name Borjigin means "Blue eyes" in that version in its records about the ancestors of Genghis Khan (I think in its vol.1) and that gives me strongest impression that Genghis Khan's ancestor might have eyes. If any English translation gives other meaning, one would have to check the original Person text to make sure.


 * 2) I was wrong, due to lack of the book at hand, but not conflating about Bodonchar, the 5th son of her mother, not the 4th. I also misremembered some other things, but that did not mislead my idea. The exact words of the Bodonchar's mother (probably called something like Alan-Hoa, red-beauty in my memory) said a "a gold man" visit her tent and mate her without mentioning his hair. However, it is same when we call someone a blond girl without mention the blond color is her hair not her skin or eyes. In another language, blond girl could be called yellow girl or golden girl because the are just similar color. I also read the slaves of Genghis call themselves "black head" in the "secret history" (I don't remember where bcus no book at hand), and got a strong impression that it might be translated as black hair, namely, could be a suggestion that the slaves are Asians with black hair in contrast the the "golden family" that might have different color.
 * Dog was used repeatedly in "SHoM" as a imageries of "brutal warriors". When the priests from Europe talked to the Mongols, the "Eternal Heaven" was translated as god. When Bodonchar's mother talked about son of heaven, it was quite possible either she or the "later mongol historian" made a story that this warrior with yellow hair is a son of god. This is of course a speculation, and other possibilities exist. However, there are quite a number of other similar things that support this idea and it would be quite a increditable accident that all these material exist together while the speculation does not fit the fact.
 * I remember in a seminar, A Mongol Scholar said the word "golden family" exclusively means direct descendants of  Bodonchar, that includes the uncles or cousins Genghis that he killed.  That also remind me it might be a character Bodonchar's hair. My memory is not a RS of course, but I believe one soon or later could find the source, if interested enough.
 * Now "Blue eyes" and "The stupid" In the society of Mongols, as well as all the other nomad tribes, the so-called family names were just from the name of the chief or previous chief. When a chief was dead, if his sons divide his slaves, they became several clans and the tribes names changed into the one of the new chief. But if the sons still were kept in the same tribe, like brothers of Genghis, they kept the old family name. The slaves share the same "family name" that was actually the tribe name. As a typical example,Genghis has two "family names", 1) Borjigin from "the stupid" 2) something like Kijan, the second one is his father's name.
 * According to the "SHoM",the stupid" was very despised and bullied by his brothers. IMO, this name reflected the despising, however, he became a powerful noble after he captured plenty of slaves and other properties and he owns his won tribe. It is hard to imagine he would like to keep his obedience and in the same time he remind his followers he was the bullied stupid guy by keeping his despised name as his clan name. I would say, a name of "blue eyes" and "golden families" would work much better if he had the color in his eye and hair, over the other "black head" Asians in his society.
 * 3)In one English translation on internet, the correct English name of the Chinese book is: Zhao Gong, “A Complete Record of the Mong Tatars”. This book
 * 4) I do not see the picture of Genghis supports he was a white too, but that picture also does not support he had "eyes of cat"
 * 5) There are many cats that have blue eyes. especially kittens. Persian breed of cats are known for their much higher distributions of blue eyes comparing to ordinary cats, http://designerpersiankittens.net/images/Persian_Kitens_for_Sale_5lg.jpg. Juvaini was a Persian.
 * Also, there are quite many other ordinary cats of mixed breeds have blue eyes although much less popular than Persians cat. My own cat had blue eyes when she was kitty but green eyes after grown up. In fact I have never seen a East Asian have green eye. Any picture?
 * 6) I never say the above are the solid evidence, but again, if only one or a few of them appears, it might be nothing, but all together, they would be a quite rare coincidence if the ancestors of Genghis did not have any features of Caucasians.Hisfun (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alan Qoa's "glittering man" was not Kyrgyz nor was he blond haired and blue eyed. I highly suggest revising this there is no evidence its just speculation. Glittering man was a metaphor and is more symbolic/mythic than anything. As written in the Secret History of the Mongols, the most likely speculation with most evidence is the Bayad family servant Alan Qoa's husband adopted. Alan Qoa's sons even speculated that this Bayad(Mongol) man was the most likely father. Who here has proof that there was a random Kyrgyz or non-Mongol man walking around her pastures with her sons in the middle of Mongolia. Rash's claims are very biased but even if he happened to have a red tinge to his beard his Bayad ancestor is just as likely to have contributed than a Kyrgyz or divine messenger. I hope that people with actual editing rights have actually read the Secret History of the Mongols. I can't understand how anyone could take Rash's work seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.63.254 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

TO SAY THAT GENGHIS KHAN OR THE MONGOLS WERE ORIGINALLY CAUCASIAN IS AS FAR FETCHED AS IT GETS

As mentioned before numerous amounts of times (one of the editors here seems to have erased my contributions completely), references to Rashid Aldin Hamadani's statements don't count as a literal source. In other words there was no such " glittering " man and Genghis Khan was certainly not " shocked " to find that his son didn't have red hair - red haired people don't get shocked when their children don't inherit their red hair because they don't even expect them to inherit it (recessive mutation - very unlikely that red hair is passed on), Genghis should he have been a man with red hair would have known about the heritability of red hair since he fathered a lot of children. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html
 * As I said before, the book "Secret History of Mongols" confirmed that this "glittering " man exist, or in its original man, "golden man" that very likely means "golden hairs". Furthermore, Bodonchar's tribe Borjigin means "blue eyes" as Rashid pointed out. I recommend to add this translation of "blue eye" into the article. It does not necessarily means Genghis Khan is a white for sure, but the suggestion was written by the more than two primary sources for sure.Hisfun (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the people in power within Mongolia are all of plain Mongoloid features, there's no telling them apart from the Chinese or other asiatics. Mongolians are Mongoloids or asiatics so to speak, if you want to change the notion of the Genghis Khan's ethnicity you'll need to alter the ethnic makeup of Mongols. I've noticed that this has already taken place in Wikipedia, Mongols , according to Wikipedia , are no longer the majority of East Asian people who reside and have lived in Mongolia , but mostly a race of mixed individuals outside of Mongolia itself who actually have expressed no desire to be labeled as Mongols. To say that Mongols were originally caucasian is as far fetched as it gets, especially when descriptions of Mongol appearance by ALL accounts (be it that they were caucasian or persian) were that they were grotesque , slant , larged headed , small stature.

Germans, Russians , people from Finland , Norwegians , Central Europeans , Slavics have East Asian DNA

All of the countries that were affected by Mongol invasions have been contaminated with East Asian DNA.

http://www.kerchner.com/pa-gerdna.htm. Heck even Rashid Aldin's text has all of people in the paintings with Mongoloid features.

East asians don't even have traces of caucasian DNA  China was raided more than any other country by the Mongols and yet none of them possess even traces of caucasian DNA. So how is it that Mongols were originally caucasoid, should they have been caucasoid then people of Chinese descent would reportedly have caucasian DNA ... just as we would expect Europeans to have East Asian DNA should the original Mongols be of East Asian ancestry and this is exactly what we find with modern day DNA tests.
 * It is different thing that Genghis khan is Caucasian and modern Mongolians are Caucasians. It was clearly written that Genghis khan have very different face feature from others in his tribe, as in the source from Chinese ambassador mentioned above. It was well documented that the Mongols in its nomad history always captured women and small children as slaves from China and Korea for hundred years, each time the numbers of captured people reached as many as hundreds of thousands, which means it is more than millions during the hundred years until Qing dynasty, hundred or even thousands times more than original Mongol ethnics. The slaves might had lower surviving rate from their masters but it certainly has given impact, or in your word DNA contamination, on genetic composition of Modern Mongolians. It might a good wish and worthy proud to be descendants of Genghis Khan, but we are talking about facts in history. The modern feature of Mongols is not necessarily a proof for the root of a man in early history.

Hisfun (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.kerchner.com/pa-gerdna.htm
 * Even if your source is really based on a serious scientific research (I strongly doubt), that does not means it supports your idea, because the the DNAs result just suggest they have common roots, but there is no proof they come from Genghis Khan. If one find all the all the Georgians have a common DNA root with Stalin, that does not means all Georgians are grand grand children of him. People live nearby could have common roots in thousands ways, to assign the common DNA to a Genghis Khan is just one unreliable (in fact quite unreasonable) interpretation. Hisfun (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to say more? To say that caucasians orginated the Mongol territory is far fetched. It can be dispelled with common sense. Even the so called " tocharian mummy " was a mix of genes from Europe, Mesopotamia, Central Asia, Mongolia, India, and Siberia. The composition of Europoid content was very little compared to East Asian genetic content and the presence of all of these other ethnic dna content is due to the fact that Xinjiang was a crossroad trade location.
 * Beside whether Genghis Khan is a Caucasians or not, your argument does not support your idea, because there are different and more likely interpretation. If you read how many slaves that Genghis Khan and his descendants have captured, you might find many other more reasonable options of speculations and interpretations for same phenomenonsHisfun (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WHO ARE THE ADVOCATES FOR THE ETHNIC ALTERATION OF GENGHIS KHAN AND WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVATIONS?

It's pretty obvious where all of these distortions of Genghis Khan's ethnicity is coming from. It's from people who call themselves the " white people ", the slow alteration of Genghis Khan's ethnicity is part of a campaign to add significance and to make sense to the made up notion of a " white history ".

It's all a small but successive accumulation of mongrel creations. One white lie after another. Once established, this " white history " becomes an equalizing factor within the caucasian community , where picts are no longer " white slaves " but equal with the Nordics. The schemes goes something like this

Genghis Khan is part Nordic --> Genghis Khan was " white " --> His greatness is attributed to the fact that he was " white " or part " white " --> Picts are " white " (nevermind everything else) --> " white people " privilges have now substantially increased due to Genghis Khan

Please, please open up your own ancestry book instead of mongreling around in the affairs of countries that are at the other side of the world.

Wernergerman (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not matter at all who suggest Genghis Khan was a Caucasian or not (In fact, I don't think he is a pure Caucasian, but I only think his ancestor, namely the golden/glittering man, the farther of Bodonchar, is a Caucasian. Based on blue eyes and "golden hair" he is more likely Nordic or Russian related than Kyrgyz). The only thing matter is whether there are primary documents to support the idea, and as a matter of face, there are more than one. Beside, there is no one here who advocates the "greatness of Genghis Khan" attributes to his Caucasians root, at least, I did not see any.Hisfun (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well "golden family" means "important family" or something like that, it does not refer to hair color. Also, even if there was a blond ancestor of Genghis Khan, this hair color would have completely disappeared after a couple of generations. Temur (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All contemporary paintings of the Mongols (especially from the Islamic world) depict the Mongols with Asian looks. The idea that Genghis Khan was white seems pretty far-fetched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.140.235 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Khan appeared in the film Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure. This should be listed under film.

Stevenellingson (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Khan is not a surname, and this isn't really an important addition. siafu (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you not know who I was talking about? It would have taken about as long to make the edit as it did to make your condescending response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenellingson (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have a "Depictions in modern culture", but any material in it really should to be a bit notable. Not just him showing up, but he has to at least be the focus of the work.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. With a historical figure like Genghis Khan, one could take up pages listing all his various appearances. And he is not referred to as "khan", anymore than one would refer to Henry VIII as simply "King". Boneyard90 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. But if I went to Henry VIII's page, and said that "King" played a prominent role in an American classic film, it would have gotten listed on his page. Stevenellingson (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Genghis is also part of his title ("Universal Khan"), and most Westerners associate the title Khan with him (or Khan Noonian Singh, who was named for Genghis Khan). The Henry VII comparison really should be addressed to anyone not refering to Genghis Khan as Temujin. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. So we all agree that one should use both terms, Genghis Khan (or "Chinggis Khan" which I understand is more phonetically correct), when referring to the man, especially after his ascent to power, or Temujin. (In this context, since we're only talking about one person, could one refer to him as "the Khan"?) Now, what about Mr. Stevenellingson's issue? Should any or all of the various portrayals of Genghis Khan in popular culture be listed? If we mention Bill & Ted, then it may be fair to add the depiction of Genghis Khan in the Star Trek episode, "The Savage Curtain". Boneyard90 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bhwinkgirl, 11 April 2011
STU SMITH ISNT REAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhwinkgirl (talk • contribs) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nothing to change: there's no mention of Stu Smith anywhere in the article, including reference tags. —C.Fred (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to know about meaning of the word Qinggiz/Chenggiz/Genghis? What does it mean? Every body knows Khan means king. I know when he was born his name is not Genggiz. Is Qinggiz Monggolian, Turkish, or Uyghur word? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.161.198 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BurderBurd, 13 April 2011
In addition to pop culture, Genghis Khan is portrayed as a Pokemon, Kangaskhan. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Kangaskhan_(Pokémon)

BurderBurd (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not a significant pop culture reference, and the source is not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"The invasions of Baghdad, Samarkand, Urgench, Kiev, Vladimir among others caused mass murders, such as when portions of southern Khuzestan were completely destroyed. His descendant, Hulagu Khan destroyed much of Iran's northern part and sacked Baghdad although his forces were halted by the Mamluks of Egypt. According to the works of the Persian historian Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, the Mongols killed more than 70 million people in Merv and more than 190 million in Nishapur. In 1237 Batu Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, launched an invasion into Kievan Rus'. Over the course of three years, the Mongols destroyed and annihilated all of the major cities of Eastern Europe with the exceptions of Novgorod and Pskov."

70 million in Merv and 190 million in Nishapur? Wow this just goes to show you how unreliable and preposterous wikipedia can be. Really now? 190 million people was probably half the population of the world during this time. How can wikipedia be taken seriously when they allow such non-sense like this to be displayed? And I wondered why my history professor was so strict against using wikipedia as a legitimate source, I understand completely now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.150.78 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khan and the race war against the Nordics
Why is it that we even argue about Genghis being part Nordic when we all know that he was an essential agent in organizing the Mongol movement - a sequence of important events with each event effectively serving the purpose of eliminating Nordic expansion to the East and then pushing the Asiatic territorial possession to the West ... a race war.

1) Cease the Nordic expansion into Russia - bury the Nordic princes and have dinner right above the buried site with his Mongol compatriots . The Nordics were gaining control of Russia over the Slavs.  It's a fact that without the Mongol movement, Russia may have been composed mostly of Nordics/Germans.

2) Enslave the Slavs, build a war machine e.g. " The Mongol Yoke "

3) Racially modify to the West - the " pushing " of East Asian genes to the west - according to recent research some parts of China were once composed of Caucasoids, however , as of this point even the Germans have been injected with East Asian DNA http://www.kerchner.com/pa-gerdna.htm

4) Increase the prevalence of East Asian DNA in the world over Nordic ones.

So is there an essential point in claiming that Genghis Khan was part Nordic? How can that be made significant since the entirety of the Mongol movement itself was a hellbent race war for the spread of East Asian genes at the cost of Nordic genes? Calmly ask yourself the following questions :

- How insane is it that a Nordic man would facilitate a race war against the Nordics ?

- How insane is it that East Asians, who practice ancestry worship , would be so inspired by a Caucasian Genghis so as to unite because of him when all of the contemporary examples of war in East Asia were fought by East Asians for the sole purpose of Asian supremacy and Asian defense ?

LMAO, a Nordic man slaying Nordic princes and then commanding East Asians to claim Western lands for East Asian offspring by raping German women. Just how degenerately sad and lackadaisical have some of us become with respect to ancestry that we prey on the ancestry of others and make up our own - all for the sake of enjoying a little bit of delusional euphoria induced by rewriting history the way we want it to be?

The prevalence of Eurasians, the traces of East Asian DNA in the Deutch , the anger towards East Asians and suspicions that the rape of German women resulted in some children being born with  East Asian characteristics ... Europeans have been cornered genetically speaking by his campaigns , East Asians control and surround the heartland ....  The Mongol movement was an anti-Nordic movement. There's no point in even saying that Genghis was Nordic because we all know in the definitive sense what the Mongol movement actually was - a movement that was undeniably not Nordic.

Again, the Mongol movement was a sequence of important events with each event effectively serving the purpose of eliminating Nordic expansion to the East and then pushing the Asiatic territorial possession to the West ... a race war. The Mongol movement is what's significant. Genghis could have been a 7 year old blonde pig tailed German girl and it wouldn't matter because the Mongol movement was effectively an anti-Nordic campaign.

Please erase the ridiculous remarks about Genghis having red hair and of his " glittering " ancestors. Genghis didn't have red hair and he wasn't surprised to find that Kublai didn't inherit it because red haired people don't expect their sons, or anyone else for that matter , to inherit red hair. Red hair isn't inherited easily.

Wernergerman (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is really very simple. You said: "Why is it that we even argue about Genghis being part Nordic..."  There is only one reason we argue about this and that is that you keep bringing it up.  There is absolutely no one here, except for you, who has suggested that Genghis Khan was anything other than a Mongol. siafu (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet the births section of the wikipedia article has seemingly been dedicated towards attributing Genghis with caucasoid features. Why are all of the descriptions of him as a Caucasian still there? Especially when Aldin's statements are contradictory? Just to clear things up, is this what you meant by a " Mongol " ? Is your definition of a Mongolian someone whos part Caucasoid? I'm just asking because the wikipedia article on the Mongols seems to have been altered and skewed to portray the Mongols as part Caucasoid.

The Mongolians - the majority of the people who actually reside in the country of Mongolia and the members of the Mongolian government - are pretty clear on their race as well as the race of Genghis ... as simply East Asiatic. But they obviously don't know what they're talking about right? Because according to you they're actually part caucasians ...  I mean despite the fact that they appear exactly like other Asians e.g. Japanese, Korean , Chinese. Would you appreciate it if a foreign group of a distinctly separate ethnicity, who obviously have no business in meddling in your ancestry , were spreading propagandas about your ethnicity e.g. Scottish are Africanoid , with the intent of altering it for the sake of serving their own delusional campaigns and fantasies? I'm sure that such an intrusive and mongrel endeavor would irk you ... somewhat, wouldn't it?

A Nordic man leading a race war against Nordics for the Asians. A Nordic man kills his own kind in order to help spread Asian genes all across Europe. Pure insanity. Again, the importance of Genghis Khan pales in comparison to the Mongol movement , a movement that was responsible for literally murdering Europe while it was still in its crib. You can play around with Genghis' ethnicity as much as you like, but the Mongol movement itself is in the definitive sense - anti-Nordic.

Wernergerman (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Amazing how those straw men fall in the face of your stinging rebukes. siafu (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede and infobox
The lede was an absolute disaster of clutter, so I moved everything to the infobox. Now the infobox is cluttered, but I'll leave that to the people here. Generally when we have vital info, but which the reader doesn't need to know up front, or which the infobox does not accommodate well, we used  to move it to a note section at the bottom of the article, but kept separate from generic footnotes. If you need to add footnotes to the notes, instead use, which is available in your 'Wiki markup' edit window. — kwami (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Restored the reference, as in the context of the film he's one of the more important characters - he's (obviously) one of the borrowed historical figures, his actions - where he adapts modern sporting goods into armour & weapons - are a major contributor to him and the rest of the group being arrested and locked up. He also assists in the kidnap of George Washington, and finally, he loves Twinkies, because of the excellent sugar rush they provide.

My grounds for inclusion is always "would the plot deviate should a character be removed?" and in this case - yes it would, or at the very least another character would need to provide the actions of Khan instead of Khan himself - such as going berzerk in the store, or kidnapping Washington. a_man_alone (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that while Genghis Khan may be important to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Bill & Ted are not very important to Genghis Khan. The latter is the criterion for inclusion here in this article, not the former. Also, FYI, "Khan" is not a surname, it's a title, so saying "the actions of Khan" is like saying "the actions of Queen" when referring to the doings of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. siafu (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree; The former can also be valid criteria for inclusion, when the former places significance on the character. Bill & Ted are important to Genghis Khan in that they introduced an albeit caricatured version of him and his history to a mainstream audience, in the same way that any of the other films did.  Moreover, your statement is again only your opinion - Please elucidate why Bill & Ted is any less important than some of the other entries - such as almost all the Video Games, for example - "Medieval II: Total War, his name is mentioned."  His name is mentioned?  Honestly.  How does that qualify for being important to Genghis Khan?  How are any of the musical entries important to Genghis Khan?  Some other potentially viable entries are equally brief and unhelpful - the ATV TV entry doesn't even tell us what the programme name was.   a_man_alone (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the other entries, and I do not serve as a proxy defender for them. It's also not merely my opinion that the overall relevance to Genghis Khan is what is important; please see WP:IPC.  In general, these sections tend to bloat as fans of various pop cultural objects insist on their inclusion, but these exhaustive lists add basically nothing to the article itself. siafu (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, wait, I'm not commenting on you as an editor, however, I do insist that you serve as defender, simply because you cannot apply a set of rules to remove a given instance, then not apply the same set to other similar instances. I'm not that bothered about the addition or removal of Bill & Teds really - I'm always a believer of consensus - but what I am bothered about is the apparent application of criteria when it suits, and not when it doesn't.  The trouble is that by your own definition "The problem is that while Genghis Khan may be important to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Bill & Ted are not very important to Genghis Khan.  The latter is the criterion for inclusion here in this article, not the former" you have effectively cast judgement on several other sections as well.  If we agree to remove one instance on those grounds, then the others should go as well by proxy agreement.  I also accept, incidentally, that nobody before has queried the addition of the other sections, and also agree that fan-bloat is a never ending battle (you might want to have a look at Sleeper Agent for some awful past examples of fan addition, and my zeal in removing them), yet the question has now arisen, and I suggest that if your criteria is accepted, then some serious pruning should be done elsewhere, as well as just the film section.   a_man_alone (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Insist all you want, but defending the other additions is not really my job. Feel free to apply the standards to the other entries, it is somewhat relevant considering that it's come up in discussion here, but you implication that my taking a position on this one instance means that I have given the others my approval is simply wrong.  After all, nobody here is getting paid to this, so it's kind of hard to argue that this is somehow any one editor's responsibility. siafu (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, true, of course it's not your job by default. Perhaps when I said "Defender" I should have said "Judge and executioner", as your input and turn of phrase was what prompted the other instances to be brought into the discussion.  And no, it is not wrong to assume that you agree and approve with the removal, because the removal is based on your input and turn of phrase.  If I remove them and you don't revert - you agree and approve.  If I remove them and you do revert, then on what grounds?   a_man_alone (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The failure of others to object is not an indication of acceptance; it could just be an indication that others are busy with other things or might not have noticed yet-- this is the point of the "not being employees" comment. Really, though, if you want to include Bill & Ted, the best way to do it is to find and identify a secondary source demonstrating the reference's notability.  By all means feel free to clean up the remainder of the list based on the same criteria. siafu (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept that you (and others) may be busy, but to imply that the removal of the gaming (or any) section - given the conversation we're currently having - may not be noticed, has amused me and brightened what is looking to be an otherwise dull day.  a_man_alone (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's alot of conversation in a short time, but I've noticed now. As to the topic at hand: as with the last discussion, I object to the Bill & Ted reference. If that movie was included, then we should include the Star Trek episode where he makes an appearance, but I don't think either is really necessary. As for the video games, I think one or two is justified, say, the first, or the largest retailing game, or the one or two that feature him most prominently, but after that, stating that he appears in "many other games" should suffice for the average reader (which may not include dedicated fans of one particular game). I'd like to cull the list (and I might), but I'm probably not the best-qualified to choose which few video games warrant inclusion based on the criteria I made. The bottom line: Count me as a vote against the Bill & Ted reference. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept consensus against Bill & Ted, and plan on looking at the video games. I haven't done anything yet, as I'm not familiar with any of them, so will have to delve a little - some of them may indeed be relevant; campaigns using Genghis Khan, etc.   a_man_alone (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the amicable cooperation here. I took a look at the video game section, which really wasn't too bad compared to other articles I've seen. I removed three, I think. After reviewing the article on one, I found Genghis Khan wasn't even mentioned; in another he was only "mentioned", and one listing was redundant. In the others, his characterization seems to have a prominent role, but I certainly won't argue if someone deletes more of the listings.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once agreement has/had been reached I wasn't going to double-barrel the entries, because as I said I'm not familiar with them, so I was going to check review sites, and a couple of places, such as Gamefaqs, to see if they mentioned Genghis in any depth. I may come across as antagonistic, but that's only when defending my own viewpoint - as I always say, consensus is the rule I live by, and if it goes against me, I subsequently honour it and hold nothing against the article or editors.  That's how Wikipedia improves.  However, I see you beat me to it, and the Games entry looks pretty good now - although I reordered it in literal alphabetic. Hm - Does Civilization come under "C" for "Civ", "S" for "Sid", or "M" for "Meier"?  I plumped for "C" in the end.   a_man_alone (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

which wikipedia article is weirder? Genghis Khan (as a caucasoid with red hair) or Jesus Christ's Japanese brother
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing%C5%8D,_Aomori#Tomb_of_Jesus_Christ

Jesus didn't actually go to the cross, his Japanese brother was crucified while Jesus enjoyed his life in Japan. So sayeth some Japanese apparently.

So which of the following articles is more insane?

A Japanese brother of Jesus Christ doing the honor of being crucified for Jesus Christ while Jesus Christ gets all the credit.

or

A caucasian man, so aptly described as Genghis Khan in this wikipedia article , with red hair amongst other things (Nordic) seeks to cease the Nordic invasion of Russia , enslaves Russians with the Mongol yoke , and then genetically spreads Asiatic genes in lands that once belonged to caucasoids. Yes folks, these three events actually happened. Genghis Khan was the central agent in organizing the Mongol movement which was effectively an anti-nordic movement in favor spreading Asiatic genes at the cost of Nordic ones. Yet, according to this article , he was Nordic. How insane is it that a Nordic man seeks to endow caucasian lands with asian genes even at the cost of genocide of the Nordic, the Nordic noble princes , and the caucasian slavs of Russia. How insane is it to even imagine that a Nordic or even a partly caucasian man had a dinner table filled with Asiatics and ate, drank , celebrated ... on a dinner table that was set right above the Nordic princes who were buried without being injured or killed and were perishing all the while this caucasoid Genghis Khan celebrated with the Asians above their incapsulated realm of darkness and misery?

So what's the utmost credible source that was selected by the lovely wikipedia editor who inserted this rather insane statement about a caucasoid genghis khan ? Here it is, it's a historian by the name of Rashid Aldin - an ethnically Jewish historian with Jewish training in writing who frequenlty had the habit of employing a partly epic storytelling fashion (a fashion meant to captivate the reader at the cost of portraying truth accurately). He had written, in an epic fashion , that an aged Genghis Khan , a red haired man supposedly , was surprised to find that his son Kublai Khan didn't inherit his red hair. The wikipedia editor that's in question here has instead taken it all literally, to include it in his/her  revisionist version of history , at the cost of bastardizing the ancestry of the Mongolians.

Genghis Khan fathered more children then anyone else in history, and yet , a red haired man with lots and lots of children doesn't know that red hair isn't inherited very well. LMAO and INSANITY.

Wernergerman (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly, yes, by quoting the sources directly, we are insane, as opposed to your endless repetitive ranting against a position that nobody actually holds. Definitely not insanity there. siafu (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes clearly it's insane and bias, since all the mongolians with light hair and eyes with varieties of colors all look completely asiatic. How come the wikipedia editor doesn't have the guts to mention this? instead of misleading everyone like he was an caucasian man. Here check out the mongols with 100% asiatic/mongoloid face with red hair,blue eyes, green eyes,blonde hair...whatever you want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:31 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rashid al Din is considered an insider in the Mongol Empire's bureaucracy who would have personally known Kublai Khan's brothers, Hulegu and Mongke. You act like Rashid al Din is some Goldhagen guy at Harvard, trying to make a name for himself in the 21st century by writing some inflamatory revisionist piece of tripe. Good try, buddy. Juzjani is a Northern Indian historian who saw Genghis Khan face to face. Maybe you should check out what he said in his Tabaqat i Nasri written during Genghis Khan's lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.159.210 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So is that an good excuse to mislead everyone into thinking he's caucasian? when his dna haplgroup ancestry is proven to C3, this an mongoloid paternal marker. Also...why didn't the wiki editors have the guts to mention the 100% asiatic/mongoloid face with red hair,blue eyes, green eyes,blonde hair? The editing sound so misleading...sorry to break your dream of genghis khan being an aryan when you watch this video...you''l all the mongolians inherit such traits today look like mongoloid people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY - WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:34 15 September 2011 (UTC)

=
What is this video supposed to show? Its common sense, and accepted that asian people do not have light eyes and hair, it is not natural occuring in their race UNLESS their are white ancestors for those people, thousand of years ago. The Tocharians and Yuezhi, as well as the Cumans all had caucasian features - they were caucasian (Iranic) and lived in the area inhabitted by chinese and mongols, so it is petty logical to figure that they would have mixed and left their genes among the people. What is so difficult to understand. It is difficult for people who are nationalistic or racist to understand. Go read up carefully on the history of caucasian presence in these areas. Also, these people in the video could have mixed with Russians or Cumans long ago, when the Russian empire existed. So it is possible that Genghis Khan had caucasian features, since the caucasian nations which I mentioned inhabitted the area, if past reports say he had caucasian features than why do you put down those reports? If there are such reports then it is reporting what the people saw, what is so unbelievable about that?

=
take a look at this from another site: According to the Persian historian Ab ul Ghasi, the tribal clan to which Temujin belonged, were known as the Bourchikoun (Grey-Eyed Men).

The ancestral mother and founder of this clan was known as Alan goa (beautiful Alan; Alans were iranic with caucasian features). According to the Mongol and Chinese legends on the subject, she was said to have been visited in her tent by a divine being, who possessed golden hair, a fair complexion and grey eyes. Shortly after this visitation, she gave birth to the first member of the Bourchikoun clan.

Temujin himself was noted in Chinese descriptions of him, for his tall stature and heavy beard.We should also note the following depiction of Temujin's appearance, as given by Harold Lamb, in his biography of the great Khan:

"He must have been tall, with high shoulders, his skin a whitish tan. His eyes, set far apart under a sloping forehead, did not slant. And his eyes were green, or blue-grey in the iris, with black pupils. Long reddish-brown hair fell in braids to his back."

Ab ul Ghasi also observed that the family of Yesukai, the father of Temujin, were known for the fact that their children often had fair complexions, and blue or grey eyes.

Temujin's wife, Bourtai, bore a name which means "Grey-Eyed".

As both Günther (1934) and Lamb (1928) note, Temujin's relatives and descendants also possessed fair features: Temujin's son and successor Ogadei (1229-41), had gray eyes and red hair; Temujin's grandson Mangu (1251-9), had reddish eyebrows and a red-brown beard; Subatei, who conquered China, had a long, reddish beard. Indeed, it was said that people were surprised Kubilai Khan had dark hair and eyes, because most of Genghis Khan's descendants had reddish hair and blue eyes.

Another of Genghis Khan's descendants, the great conqueror Tamerlane (1336-1405), also inherited Nordish racial characteristics. According to a contemporary, Ibn Arabshah, Tamerlane was tall and strong, with broad shoulders, a large head and high forehead, he had a heavy beard, was white-skinned and had a ruddy complexion. He also seems to have been fair-haired. This description has been confirmed in recent times. In 1941, the Soviet Archaeological Commission opened the tomb of Tamerlane, which resides in the city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Within it, Tamerlane's physical remains were discovered: they proved that he had indeed been a man of strong build and imposing stature. Most interestingly of all however, the last few hairs of a reddish-brown moustache were found adhering to the skull.

===I dont see why these reports are ignored? So what if he had caucasian features - what is so bad about that? That does not diminish his achievements; which leads one to think that maybe the people with negative comments are racist to caucasians or something, with bias and prejudice. I dont understand, what is so bad if he had caucasian features? Here we have reports but people ignore them, which is biased and erranous and unscientific. If there were caucasian tribes such as the Tocharians, Yuezhi and Cumans then why cant some Asians have white ancestry - is that hard to understand or something. Think clearly on what I said and despel any biased, nationalistic and racist views that you might have as that will get no results. One must examine ALL evidence and make hypothesis/conclusions as such

Because Asians don't have bits of caucasian dna like the caucasians do, Germans have Asian DNA, the Chinese , Mongolians, Japanese , don't even have traces of Caucasian dna.

Most of the insistence on behalf of the European nations that Genghis was East Asian comes from assessments of his actions. The actions and behavioral patterns of Genghis Khan and the cultures and genes that he so explicitly and dramatical spread throughout the world - is East Asian.

Genghis Khan's Mongol movement and its contributions are of the following

- spread of East Asian genes to the west at the cost of Nordic genes (Nordics were moving towards Russia at that time)

- spread of East Asian culture

- a buffer zone of Eurasians from European invasions

- Forcing Europeans to move westward in their endeavors

So, why some Nordicists , want Genghis Khan to be partially or wholly " white " doesn't quite make sense to me. He did so many things for the Asians, he even set up a dinner table above a spot where Russian princes were buried alive, and enjoyed a feast with his Mongol compatriots there. How insane is it to even imagine a scenario where a Nordic man is being merry in the company of East Asians all the while knowing that people of his own kind were perishing right beneath him. It's a wonder why some people can't be content with one ancestry, they have to claim every ancestry that's prominent. It's completely mongrel behavior.

Rashid Aldin's text, ironically , is filled exclusively with pictures of East Asiatics , the book is essentially a world history text with the focal point of East Asians , how dominant would they have to have been at the time in order for historical texts to be completely based on them?

And again, Aldin's statements e.g. Kublai and red hair, are inherently contradictory. He was a Jewish writer employing Jewish forms of writing towards composing an epic styled text. Wernergerman (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

= Racist propaganda and Bias views =

Even if he had red hair and blue eyes he would have looked completely 100% mongoloid. Check out this link where you can see variety of mongols with 100% asiatic face with blonde hair, red hair blue eyes, green eyes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

Yet for some reason the wiki editor doesn't want to mention this? how more misleading can you get to make people think that genghis khan was an nordic man with that post? WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsPride6565 (talk • contribs)

= 100% Mongoloid face with blue eyes and red hair =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

The description on Genghis Khan birth section is very misleading, while I don't deny historical records. The description make's it sound like was an white people, when in fact some modern mongols today also display these physical characteristics and yet look 100% mongoloid in appearance. Also genghis khan belong to the genetic haplogroup C3, this means his paternal ancestry was mongoloid for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsPride6565 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

====Read the above comment (at the bottom) - there were caucasian people that lived in the area long ago and mixed with certain people, that is where the light eyes and hair comes, obviously not a natural mongol trait. Also how would they know Genghis Khan's haplogroup if his grave was never found - then there will be no genetic sample

Vandalism
Could the author please fix footnote nr. 3. "Also known as Thomas Du" (very funny) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.168.4 (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Laughable Nordicist claptrap
I deleted the Nordicist joke from the section on his birth. First of all, it's about his birth, not hearsay mythology from a non-contemporary historian. Second, the source ITSELF doubts the account. Third, his paternal DNA marker is Northeast Asian - C3.

It's surprising (not really) that this stood for so long. I will be checking back frequently, and it will be deleted once more if any resident Nordicists want to bend Wiki conventions yet again. Huaxia (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If we were to start stripping out information sourced from non-contemporary historians, Wikipedia would be a very barren place. I think the phrasing of the passage in question leaves a lot to be desired, but it does not actually claim that Genghis Khan was Nordic.  Given the apparent breadth of his work, I'm not sure that al-Din's writings on the ancestry of Temujin should be ignored.  Obviously this 'Glittering Man' legend has been floating around for quite some time, and should be addressed in the article - and there is a certain logic in addressing it in the section dealing with Genghis Khan's ancestry and origins.  Maybe somebody more familiar with al-Din's work could have a go at fixing the phrasing?  Gabhala (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes republicanchina.org (the source used to support the material removed) a reliable source? Nev1 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Second the above. The fact of a man's physical appearance and especially his birth are things that tend not to carry well over time. al-Din's work may have been far more authoritative on other subjects but even he, according to the source (Republican China) does not attempt to pass off this speculation as fact.

Furthermore the supposed "ancestress" is a legend as well. The framing of the traits the ancestor was supposed to have possessed in such an especially unrelated topic misleads the reader into believing Genghis Khan was some kind of Aryan posterboy. Thus the passage fails to meet standards on yet another aspect, and this time it's "relevance" - beyond the unreliable secondary source, and unreliable primary source. The mythological origins of the Borjigit clan have no place in a section detailing Temujin's birth or even his early life - nor does his alleged surprise at his son's alleged complexion.Huaxia (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My bad - I was referring to Al-Din's work, and assumed that the source also did so directly. I think my points above still stand, though. I'm no expert in the subject, but I have encountered this fair-haired theory elsewhere before, and from what I've seen, it seems to have originated not long after his death, if not in his lifetime. I'm still in favour of including the information, but fixing the phraseology to avoid directly implying a Caucasian heritage. Gabhala (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To be fair imperialchina.org does mention Al-Din, but I'm not sure if the website can be relied upon. There may be a place in the article for legends about Genghis Khan's ancestry and whatnot, perhaps framed from a historiographical angle, but there are academic sources that should be used rather than this website. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Huaxia, I can accept your proposal (in your edit summary) that the information be addressed in a section on 'Physical Appearance' - it still needs a re-write, though, and I don't think I'm familiar enough with Al-Din's writings to make the attempt. Any suggestions?
 * Nev1, what about this Juzjani (Northern Indian historian) mentioned above? Is there any credibility there? Gabhala (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, while I find the subject of this article interesting I know nothing of the sources, primary or secondary, so can't comment on Juzjani. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, why would you want a man who did so many bad things to the Europeans at the cost of doing good things for the Asiatics, to be European or even partially European. If the Europeans would have even had a hint that he was caucasoid, there would be no telling how many books we would have had over investigations on such a sensational topic. Genghis Khan was responsible for the spread of Asiatic genes and Asiatic culture, why , my god why would we want him to be Caucasian?

Genghis Khan and his Mongol movement was the responsible for the pinnacle events of mass introduction of East Asian culture and ethnicity to the European sphere. Before him, not many in Europe were concerned with the Asiatics, after him however, it was the introduction of Asiatic fear to the Europeans. Wernergerman (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Other considerations

- The Mongols were responsible for initiating the pan-european movement (renaissance) in the European sphere. As well as anti-asiatic campaigns. The Mongols, and all of the connotations of the word Mongol , have been in references to people with Asiatic features. The word itself invokes strong - antiasiatic - emotional reactions for Europeans everywhere. The notion of the Mongols is essentially synonomous with the entire notion of who the Asians are for all of the Europeans. This isn't a learned notion fed to the people via textbooks, EUROPEAN FEAR OF THE ASIATIC IS AN INGRAINED REACTION. This immense emotional reaction of fear as well as the realization on the need for awareness of what's going on in Asia has been established into the European people themselves after the Mongol raids to make certain that Europeans don't have to encounter situations of possible extinction again. Now ask yourself, would a people of bigger stature, more magnificient appearance , and an elite culture really come to fear Asians just by being brainwashed via an unrelenting regimen of reading textbooks and listening to speeches? No , this fear is of greater importance , it has been ingrained.  Because Europeans have come to the realization that the matter of their existence is at stake when dealing with the Asians. Remember the central lesson of the Mongol raids, Europe was essentially destroyed after the battle of Battle of Legnica.

- should the Mongols have been caucasian or even part caucasian before, they are certainly not at this point , an overwhelming majority of them are plain and simply Asiatic. I don't believe that I've ever encoutered a case where one ethnic group takes over another and then subsequently steals their ethonym. And to suggest that these Asiatics stole the ethonym by outcompeting what supposedly was a caucasoid ethnic group is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS.

Wernergerman (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

early life correction
in the section of his early life, the sentence "They abandoned Olen and her children" is written incorrectly, and 'olen' is highlighted as a link incorrectly. the reference should be to "hoelun", which is mentioned in the next sentence. the correct mention of "hoelun" instead of "olen" is not highlighted as a link as it should be.Patric627 (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2011
In the article on Genghis Kahn, it states that the Mongols "...sacked the Genoese trade-fortress of Caffa in Crimea...". Based on the Wiki artical on Feodosiya, Caffa was actually ruled by the Republic of Venice during the time of the Mongolian invasion.

R larocque (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a look around and it is confusing, I found this http://history.cultural-china.com/en/46H2406H11140.html - which supports Genovese. But like I say, it is confusing and they seem to have swapped around a bit. I looked at the other wiki articles and the detail there was uncited. It's around 1219 or 1220 that we are discussing yes? Could you please provide a WP:RS for your claim as another wiki article is not a reliable source. I will watch this article for further discussion - Also feel free to provide a reliable source for your desired alteration and make another edit request, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2012
Probably H.G. Wells´Outline of History, or Plantagenet Somerset Fry´s "Children´s History of the World" refer that Chinggis Khan had established a customs´union and sought to suppress vendettas at a rather young age and that therefore the Kin Emperor objected and threatened him with an action which could in those days could already have meant a fate comparable to that of the ambiguously named Dzungars still laterDeborahaltar (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deborahaltar (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes very little sense at all, no idea what edit you're requesting-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Cengiz Han
in Turkish. Böri (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Already covered. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted that people know how the Temujine made Chinggis Khan phenomenon started he wanted to stop vendettas as
a rather young man and make common trade between nomads and all towns possible and help women and the poor, this was mentioned I think in the Children´s History of the World by Plantagenet Somerset Fry or the Outline of History by H.G. Wells, it is important to make a subject when at world history level not a fetish but close to the facts as possible and fully revealing its advancement for its period of history and the nature of the people wherever, otherwise people at large will set no store by it as international heritage and part of humanity. Furthermore secondary wives were merely described in the Old Mongol language of the Niucha Mongqol-un Tovcha´an as Noekegin, feminine of Noeke translated as similar to "drug/druzhinhki" in other words as "Friend", "Freundin", "Amie", "Amiga". The upheaval of the Great Mongol State as under the meanings of Mongol "brave" or "Mengwu Shiwei" cost about less than twenty percent of the lives of some twentieth century progress, without such sacrifices ordinary people would not manage to effect this transformations. DeborahAltar77.54.181.54 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.181.54 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this really doesn't make any sense. What are you suggesting, exactly? siafu (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean that the Children´s History of the World by Plantagenet Somerset Fry or the Outline of History by H.G. Wells did clearly mention his intent of a customs union and to stop vendettas, this has also appeared in 20th century accounts of Temujine. I also mean that this topic is one of world history, and therefore should be presented clearly and consistently, including all the amazing advanced progress it contained in a simple structure from some points of view. I also want to differentiate via linguistic evidence of the times, Mongol gender relations as being rather closer to the friend basis, also being transferrable, and later openly reported even to have at times women with discreetly more than one male partner but visibly so, in the least humanly developed and complicated fashion. The upheavals associated with the Great Mongol (meaning brave or Mengwu Shiwei) State a term close to that of the Great Mongol Army or it might be Great Mongol Fighters being by the Plantagenet Somerset Fry estimate lower than that of some of the 20th century upheavals, although some estimates vary but appeared to be based on some phobias. These sacrifices are needed for such transformations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborahaltar (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Under Chinggis Khan there was also the 1224 Battle of the River Khalka
Still in 1224 there was also the 1224 Battle of the River Khalka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborahaltar (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Addition of a novel on Genghis Khan
Hi, The section in the page that collates the fictional works about Genghis does not contain an American Novel called "The Earth Is the Lord's (1941)" by the American novelist Taylor Caldwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Caldwell). This should be added. Regards. Baidurya chakrabarti (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)BaiduryaBaidurya chakrabarti (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Name and title (section) suggest edit
The sentence: "The name would imply skill as a blacksmith.", and the sentence beginning the next paragraph: "More likely, as no evidence has survived to indicate that Genghis Khan had any exceptional training or reputation as a blacksmith..." is illogical, since (in the lead) he is "born Temujin" (newborns don't have any skills (except pooping and crying) ). These two paragraphs should merge so that it reads something like:
 * According to the Secret History of the Mongols, Temüjin was named after a powerful warrior of the Tatar tribe that his father Yesügei had taken prisoner. However, the name "Temüjin" is believed to derive from the word temür, meaning iron (modern Mongolian: төмөр, tömör); indicating an implied lineage in a family once known as blacksmiths. This is supported by the names of Genghis Khan's siblings, Temülin and Temüge, which are derived from the same root word.

There is no point in discussing what it DOESN'T mean. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Also, this section (and others) seem disordered, usually the 'In popular culture' stuff goes after the informational stuff.

Suggested link
There is a documentary by ORF (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) in their Unversum Documentary series titled Genghis Khan: Rider of the Apocalypse. I haven't tracked down a 'reliable source' for this, but it can be found on Hulu: [http://www.hulu.com/orf-universum-documentaries ORF Universum Documentaries / Season 1 : Ep. 19  (52:52)]

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tidy up
This article needs to be tidyied up. A lot of it is badly written. What, for instance, does "This incident cemented his position as a prisoner for manslaughter" mean? What do the dates on this page mean? Are they BCE or CE? Gregorian (or Julian) calendar or Chinese? GeorgeHarnish (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article could definitely benefit from one of these tags, but since it is 'Semi-Protected', we are unable to add tag.

cleanup Copy_edit
 * ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I second the complaints. Where are the footnotes? and use primary source material if you are going to make outrageous idiotic claims. This article is infuriating beyond belief.

Misc.

 * "...considered the symbol of Mongolian culture." -- Is there only one? I believe there might be other symbols as well. Suggest "primary" or "most prominent" ? ~Eric F [Special:Contributions/184.76.225.106|184.76.225.106]] (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "...but modern times have seen the latter's official reinvention as a Chinese hero." -- In the paragraph containing this phrase, there is no establishment of a former/latter relationship. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Problems with this sentence: "After he died, his body was returned to Mongolia and presumably to his birthplace in Khentii Aimag, where many assume he is buried somewhere close to the Onon River and the Burkhan Khaldun mountain (part of the Kentii mountain range). "
 * 1.} Weasel words: presumably ... many assume ... somewhere close ...
 * 2.) Lack of citation(s)
 * 3.) There are other accounts (sorry, don't have references at hand) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4.) "After he died, his body..." -- Redundant (the fact that he died had previously been discussed; and they wouldn't bury his body BEFORE he died!)


 * There are many redundancies, e.g.: "and also" ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "...friction between his sons (particularly between Chagatai and Jochi)" -- First instance of "between" is incorrect; should be "among " [four sons]. Note: this error occurs elsewhere, e.g.: description of the image under Succession heading: "A very Mughal-looking Chinggis Khan with his wife Börte, dividing his Empire between his sons."
 * Also relating to the image above, the article's description misrepresents the description on the image file: "Mughal-style picture..." rather than Chinggis Khan as being "very Mughal-looking". In addition, it is unclear from the file's description that he is "dividing his Empire...".


 * Update -- See: Incorrect image below.

My apologies for being such a grammar-nazi, but somebody has to do it! ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

White supremacists and nordicist, from stormfront ect
There seems to be some white supremacists trying to claiming national Mongolian hero by taking advantage of the fact that this wikipedia mentioned of Al Rashidi descriptions about Genghis Khan. At the same time the editor is bias to remove any information of him being Mongoloid creating so much confusion and misunderstanding among some forum. I would have to tell others to report to the Wikipedia admins and moderator on this page. Evidence of Mongolians and Hmong who inherit green eyes, blue eyes, red hair, blonde hair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY Please do not remove information that I have edited to counter Euro-centrist racist and wild claims of other's people history. WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 11:06, 8 march (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm deleting everything citing al Din as he was not a contemporary of Temujin and never met him. His word is about as good as mine. Huaxia (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still at a loss as to how Rashid al-Din's description is "nordicist", but leaving that aside, the claim that His word is about as good as mine is absurd. He may not have been a contemporary, but he was a historian writing in a period much closer to the time he was describing, for him a time still in living memory (he was born ~27 years after the death of Temujin).  His work is the exact type of secondary source favored by wikipedia; removing it is entirely inappropriate. siafu (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect (erroneous) image
The image used to depict Ghenghis Khan (Chingiz Khan) and his family (wife and four sons) is in fact: "Tumanba Khan, His Wife, and His Nine Sons" (English title of painting). It is from a Chingiznama (Book of Genghis Khan); a Mughal painting  from the illustrated manuscript, folio : Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, author: Basawan. Artist: Bhim Gujarati; (ca.1596); commissioned by the court of the Emperor of Hindustan, Akbar the Great.


 * I don't know if this secure link will work from here (try it?)

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: that image is actually a modern copy by artist Kailash Raj, and was sold as Item Code: ME80 -- This reproduction (copy) is derived from a Chingiznama, an original can be seen at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it has the following description (emphasis mine):
 * The text of the Chingiznama records the life of the legendary conqueror Chingiz Khan (Genghis Khan) and his family. The emperor Akbar (r. 1556–1605) commissioned many historical manuscripts in the 1590s, but because the Mughals claimed descent from Genghis Khan, this book must have had particular resonance for him. This illustration depicts the ruler Tumanba Khan, an ancestor of Genghis Khan, with his wife and nine sons. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please try to see this from the perspective of the artist: Imagine creating a work of art requiring considerable skill, talent, time and effort -- only to see an image of your work in the wrong context and attributed to another artist. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sections linking to Main article
Some of the sections linking to a 'Main article' need to be more concise in summarization, especially the 'Khwarezmian Empire' section. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2012
Please change

"Accounts of Genghis Khan's life are marked by claims of a series of betrayals and conspiracies. These include rifts with his early allies such as Jamuhha (who also wanted to be a ruler of Mongol tribes) and Wang Khan (his and his father's ally), his son Jochi, and problems with the most important shaman, who was allegedly trying to drive a wedge between him and his loyal brother Khasar. His military strategies showed a deep interest in gathering good intelligence and understanding the motivations of his rivals as exemplified by his extensive spy network and Yam route systems. He seemed to be a quick student, adopting new technologies and ideas that he encountered, such as siege warfare from the Chinese. He was also ruthless, as demonstrated by his measuring against the linchpin tactic used against the tribes led by Jamukha."

in the section _Uniting the confederations_

The (unreferenced) statements above are sandwiched between two contiguous paragraphs of much greater relevancy. The information within is also detailed in other areas of the article.

97.83.30.92 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Change to what? —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - please remove the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.  elektrik  SHOOS  (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Kazakhians please
Khazakhians please, theory is a theory , fact is fact. Don't try convince theory is a fact. Use indepenedent refers. WWW.nobodynothis site.kz is not a proof. Scientist should have worldwide trustworth .Refers should be in English. Sirmolenko (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Kazakhians please
Khazakhians please, theory is a theory , fact is fact. Don't try convince theory is a fact. Use indepenedent refers. WWW.nobodynothis site.kz is not a proof. Scientist should have worldwide trustworth .Refers should be in English. Sirmolenko (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

=
It must be said, that there are many pro-Chinese and Persian falsifications of the "wild nomads" etc. about the origin of Genghis Khan and his Power in the official History. Primarily we should know the truth about the meaning of the names "Mongol" and "Tatar" (“Tartar") in the medieval Eurasia: the name "Mongol" at least until the 17th-18th centuries meant belonging to a political community, and was not the ethnic name. While “the name "Tatar" was “the name of the native nation of Genghis Khan …”, “… Genghis Khan and his people did not speak the language, which we now call the "Mongolian”…"''' (Russian academic-orientalist V.P.Vasiliev, 19th century). All of this is confirmed by many little-known facts from Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Tatar, Turkish and West European historical sources. Only this theme about Genghis Khan, rather, the truth about his origin, his native ethnos and his affairs was  taboo - as in official history of the Romanov's, so and during the Soviet-Bolshevik regime. A well-grounded rebuttal of these chinese-persian myths about "incredible cruelty of nomadic mongol-tatar conquerors", and about "a war between the Tatars and Genghis Khan", as well as a lot of from the real Tatar (Turkic) History you can learn in the book "Forgotten Heritage of Tatars" (by Galy Yenikeyev), published by Smashwords. There are a lot of previously little-known historical facts, as well as 16 maps and illustrations in this book. This e-book you can easily find in the Internet, on Smashwords company website: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/175211

On the cover of this book you can see the true appearance of Genghis Khan. It is his lifetime portrait.''' Notes to the portrait from the book says: "...In the ancient Tatar historical source «About the clan of Genghis-Khan» the author gives the words of the mother of Genghis-Khan: «My son Genghis looks like this: he has a golden bushy beard, he wears a white fur coat and goes on a white horse» [34, p. 14]. As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which have come down to us in this ancient Tatar story. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the appearance of Genghis-Khan...". Antonio von Horde (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Antonio von Horde (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * While this may be interesting, wikipedia is not in the business of being at the forefront of historical research. If this is all true, it will percolate into the secondary sources in time, at which point the article will be updated to reflect that.  However, in this case I'm not even really sure what you're advocating for, and there are numerous nationalist or ethnocentric attempts to "lay claim" to Genghis Khan by modern groups, all of which are motivated not be historical discovery or reality, but rather by wishful thinking.  The consensus among historians is that "Mongol" is an ethnic designation, applied since the time of Genghis Khan, prior to which it was a tribal designation, and that the Mongols were a nomadic people of the steppers north of China, who were frequently at war with each other (often stirred up and egged on by their Chinese neighbors).  The article reflects that. siafu (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. But it must be said that many facts prove, that the thesis "the Tatars were the enemy of Genghis Khan" was invented by Chinese historians-ideologists in the second half of the 14th century. These Chinese historians were ideologists of those of Chinese politicians, who fought then against the Tatars of the Horde in China. After anti-Tatar data of the composition "about the war Tatars against the Chingiz-Khan" etc. was repeated by Persian politician Rashid ad-Din, who was an enemy of the Tatars of the Golden Horde. I.e. the ideologues of enemies of the Tartars Horde was cleverly used the name of a political community "Mongol" and the ethnic name "Tatar" - after all, these two names were often used together - for example, as the names "Russian" and "Soviet" not so long ago.

Actually, Tatars knew and remembered that Genghis Khan was their ancestor and tribesman since ancient times. Besides, this is stated in many ancient sources - about it is spoken as in the Tatar historical sources, so in many sources of other Nations: Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Turkish and West European. For example, many sources of those times reported that "Tatars are a Turkic tribe, and their king is the Chingiz-Khan" (Arabic Ibn al-Asher, 1219), "in 1187 Tatars had elected a King for themselves, whose name was Genghis-Khan" (Marco Polo, 13-th century), "Tatar's Khan Temuchin declared himself as Emperor and Tatars named his "Genghis-Khan" (a lot of Chinese sources). Such sources, I repeat, are very much, but they are not very known to the General public at the present time. And many of them have been interpreted wrongly.

“…As reported a medieval Persian author, in 1219 the Khorezmshakh's troops went on their last campaign "against the people of Tatar Kadir-khan, the ruler of the Kimak Khaganate". And soon the whole huge army of the Khorezmshakhs was defeated, and their state was destroyed. This happened because "Tatars, led by their King of Chingiz-khan, entered into this war and attacked the troops of the Khorezmshakh" -  tells a contemporary of those events, the Arab Ali ibn al-Athir. Many ancient sources report, that the Tatar states were in those days also on the territories of modern China - on Eastern Turkistan, or Uyghurstan - and further east. There the Tatars settled along the Great Silk Road. This was also reported by Ibn al-Athir. He also wrote that Kharezmshakh, before his army and state were defeated by the Tatars, gave the order to rob and kill the Tatar merchants, which came with the goods from China, and thereafter «undertook a campaign to the Tatar dwelling places, and captured their women and children». (75), (37).

The rulers of several states, located then on the territories of modern China, apparently, also could not tolerate competition from the side of the Tatars on the Great Silk Road. At that time the most aggressive was the Jin Empire in this region.

In 1219 certain Maine-hun was in the General Headquarters of the Tatars as an ambassador from Southern China. He wrote: "Jhin Emperor every three years sent troops far to the West for the plunder and destruction of the Tartars". <…> Finally, the Tatar Emperor Ginghis, who had long suffered from the annoyance of those attacks on his people, gathered a great army and in a single year smashed those robbers of the Jhin" (translated by V. Vasiliev) (20) (37).

So before the "era of Chingiz-Khan", as we see, the position of the Tatars was pretty heavy. It turned out so, that Tatars were competitors for the nobility of the Middle and Far East on the Great Silk Road. Thus, they sent their troops against the Tatars from the south-west and from the east.

But then the situation had changed. The above-mentioned Armenian chronicler Maghakia (XIII century) wrote: "From the Tatars we heard, that at one time, when they were very exhausted by troubles, they suddenly struck a sensible idea: They called on the help of God, and gave Him a great oath to keep His commandments forever. Then came to them an Angel from God in the form of an eagle with golden wings, and, speaking their language, summoned their chief, whose name was Chingiz. The Eagle told him all the commandments of God in their native language”. Further Maghakia reports: “Among these divine laws, which the angel ordered to Genghis, were these: "First is this: to love one another, and secondly: do not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness, do not betray anyone (not deceive placed his trust); respect the aged and poor. And the angel commanded the Tatars to rule over many regions and countries and to multiply in huge quantity. And so it happened. These divine laws, which brought the angel from God, Tatars called "Yasak" in their own language”. (52).

It should be explained that "Yasak" this is a slightly distorted old Tatar word "Yazug", another version of this word is "Yazu". In the modern Tatar language is applied the following variant of this word: "Yazu". It literally means "the Scripture ".

Maghakia, as we can see, reports from the words themselves Tatars that Chingiz-Khan united them into a powerful state on the basis of fair and humane laws set out in the Great Yazu. Many facts speak about this, when considered them objectively (38). The Great Yazu of Chingiz-Khan was the main Code of the Great Horde, which can be called the first Constitution in the history of Eurasia. This code of honor, dignity and excellence of virtue, above all, established the following: "One must honor and respect the innocent, fair, scholars, and wise men, to whatever people they may belong; and to condemn the vile, wicked and the unjust people" (Ab-ul-Faraj). And “first of all Chingiz-Khan himself strictly observed the norms of the Great Yazu” (Akhmet Zeki Validi Togan)…” (from the book "Forgotten Heritage of Tatars" - by Galy Yenikeyev). See on Smashwords company website: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/175211Antonio von Horde (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Antonio von Horde (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinggis Romanization
Contemporary Mongolians clearly prefer Chinggis over Genghis, not only because it reflects Mongolian pronounciation more closely, but also because it matches the Cyrillic version, Чингис хаан (see for example, http://mn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%81_%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B0%D0%BD) much better. The Genghis pronounciation is one that - to my knowledge - does not exist in Mongolian and is misleading, even though it is somewhat established in English. The Chinggis romanization is begining to be used more widely, see for example the Wikipedia page on Chinggis Khaan Intl Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinggis_Khaan_International_Airport). At the very least, I would suggest acknowledging the misleading romanization of Genghis somewhere on the page and pointing to the contemporary preference for Chinggis would be helpful. This is like moving from Peking to Beijing in usage, it takes some time, but is the appropriate thing to do. Jdierkes (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Czardom of Horde (царство Ордынское) in ancient Russian chronicles
It must be noted at the head of the article that it's ancient name in Russian chronicles - Орда (Horde, Army) and царство Ордынское (Czardom of Horde) or царство Татарское (Tatar Czardom). There was no such term as "Mongol Empire" - this is modern term. Serge-kazak (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Multinational/multicutural society
Society of Czardom of Horde is classical example of multinational society like modern society of Europe (Western Eurasia) or many other societies of the world. It it not the society of "Mongol nation", "Tatar nation" or "Kazak nation" because under terms "Mongol", "Tatar", "Kazak" designated people of different nations, religions and social classes just the same as in time of Russian Empire all it's people in European sources were "Russians" and in Soviet Union all it's people were "Soviets". Serge-kazak (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Military nation" created by Gengis
Czar Gengis in fact created new multinational "military nation" from people of different nations who became the warriors of his multinational Army-Horde and thats why citizens of his new state (Czardom of Horde). In different sources represantatives of this "nation" is known under the names Mongols, Tartars (Tatars) or Cossacks which in beginning meant the same - "free people", "free people by the will of God", "free warriors", "free citizens of Horde society". Later this model was sucessfully used in Russian Empire and in Soviet Union (creation of "Soviet nation" by Soviet leaders, among them - Joseph Stalin). This model also has parallels with society of Roman Empire where all free citizens of different origin were "Romans" or modern Europe (society of European Union) where all citizens are "Europeans". It must be mentioned in article. Serge-kazak (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Name spelling
The article is inconsitent in Temüjin vs Temujin. Which is correct?

Temüüjin is the correct form, Темүүжин AptitudeDesign (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Jengiz
AS Jengiz or Chingiz Чингиз Хаан is known only to Anglophones who cannot recognise Italian orthography { Genghis}, as "Ghenghis", I see no point in encouraging the mispronounciation. AptitudeDesign (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We go with most commonly recognized spelling. There's a Wiki-policy for it, and I'm pretty sure the issue has been addressed before. Please run a search of the archives. - Boneyard90 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:COMMONNAME. siafu (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the origin of the 1200 AD map in the article?
This map shown in article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_1200ad.jpg

Where does it come from? Thanks

Al Hendrike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.154.7 (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

From here: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/maps.html. -- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Descendants of Gengis
Among the descendants and distant relatives of Gengis you can see people of many religions, nations, countries and social classes. Among his descendants - famous political leaders of different epochs in the countries of Central Eurasia (among them first of all - Russian Empire but also Chineese Empire, Crimean Khanate, Zaporozhian Cossack Army etc.). Among his descendants - famous Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Buddhist saints, teologists and philosophers, poets and writers, founders of new cities, travelleres and military leaders. Russian (Moscow) great princes and czars beginning from Ivan Kalita to Ivan the Terrible are direct descendants of czar Gengis. So we must say about the descendance of dynasties between Czardom of Horde and Czardom of Russia (Russian Empire). It must be also mentioned in the head of the article i think. Serge-kazak (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A "direct descendant" is someone descended through the direct male line. The Russian rulers were not. "Direct descendant" - "прямой потомок". Это те, кто происходят по прямой мужской линии. Русские правители не происходили по прямой мужской линии. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"identified a Y-chromosomal lineage present in about 8% of the men in a large region of Asia (about 0.5% of the world total). The paper suggests that the pattern of variation within the lineage is consistent with a hypothesis that it originated in Mongolia about 1,000 years ago. Because the rate of such a spread would be too rapid to have occurred by genetic drift, the authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan, and that it has spread through social selection"The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols -- It is impossible that there are 15 million descents.Don't you think that it is too dubious estimate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.4.251 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That haplotype was mostly found in small tribes, not large peoples, so: 1) it most likely has no relation to Genghis Khan, 2) it is not "8% in a large region", 3) it is not 15 million. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)