Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 9

What !! ??
The battle description are baseless and really from a fiction y authors from west needs serious re-write, night mare Shrikanthv (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looked it over, and don't see a problem. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

e.g

1) No such mentions in the reference provided

"" Some accounts say that Genghis Khan was castrated by a Tangut princess using a hidden knife, who wanted revenge against his treatment of the Tanguts and stop him from raping her.[25][26][27] After his castration, Genghis Khan died ""

2) Below the writer also claims not even cats and dogs were left alive !! (literally), this is usually a source of exageration than an arguble historical fact link

"" The people of Samarkand were ordered to evacuate and assemble in a plain outside the city, where they were killed and pyramids of severed heads raised as a symbol of victory.[22] Ata-Malik Juvayni, a high official in the service of the Mongol empire, wrote that in Termez, on the Oxus, "all the people, both men and women, were driven out onto the plain, and divided in accordance with their usual custom, then they were all slain".[22] ""

3)Ghost claims ! : sort of claims are written it down as seemingly facts (please the reference link here )

Some accounts say that Genghis Khan was castrated by a Tangut princess using a hidden knife, who wanted revenge against his treatment of the Tanguts and stop him from raping her.[25][26][27] After his castration, Genghis Khan died, and the Tangut princess committed suicide by drowning in the Yellow River according to the legend.[28][29] In some mythical legends, it is claimed that Genghis fell into a trance after being castrated and is waiting to be sent back to the Mongol people.[30][31]

4) claims below hysterical with no reference

"" including not only royal buildings, but entire towns, populations, and even vast swaths of farmland. According to legend, Genghis Khan even went so far as to divert a river through the Khwarezmid emperor's birthplace, erasing it from the map...

""

"" Persian scholar Juvayni states that 50,000 Mongol soldiers were given the task of executing twenty-four Urgench citizens each, which would mean that 1.2 million people were killed. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, the sacking of Urgench is considered one of the bloodiest massacres in human history. ""

Shrikanthv (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, don't see the problem. Much of what you quote is referenced. I have no problem believing that Genghis Khan had a river diverted. Something similar was done by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 16th century Japan, and the Chinese flooded a river valley in World War II. There's nothing "hysterical" about it. The "castration" description is notable, and referenced, and does not put forward the event as "fact", but says "Some accounts..." These "accounts" are notable. If you have a source that disputes some of these statements (I went to the Google link, it was not active), then you can add something like: ..."but this is disputed [REF]." That is what I recommend. But just because you don't like information, or don't believe information, doesn't mean it's not true. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No personnel stigma, I really do not have any personnal stigma on castration or river divertion but the reference cited is also not all disputed but the interpretation of the reference has been week that was my concern ,

e.g regarding castration ,the reference states it as a ghost story and not real, (it also goes on to talk about two female ghosts hanging breasts which are put behind its back were ridden of by priests....) and here its been written in a manner as the reader can presume it to be an historical fact as one of the accounts (which i am against for), may be the ghost stories are also accounts of some one .. : ) Shrikanthv (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. As far as the castration account, I added some wording to make it clear that it's not confirmed, there's no evidence, it's all legend. Hope that helps. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014
== Depictions in Modern Culture ==

=== Poetry === 193.39.159.73 (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 'The End of Genghis', a poem by F. L. Lucas, in which the dying Khan, attended by his Chinese counsellor Yeliu Chutsai, looks back on his life.
 * ✅ Accepting page number and title in good faith - no online version available ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 16:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
Change "and at nine years old f age he was delivered by his father " to "and at nine years of age he was delivered by his father "

81.144.225.140 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous "Hitch" quote
An IP user (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=511159216&oldid=511138143) added this line to the Preceptions section:

"He is credited with the popular quotation: "it's not how many breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away." used in the 2007 film Hitch starring Will Smith. "

What an embarrassment. Can somebody remove this vandalism before it turns two years old?

70.189.106.251 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Good catch, thank you.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 02:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Reforestation
I'd like to edit this in somewhere, but I'm not sure where:

http://carnegiescience.edu/news/war_plague_no_match_deforestation_driving_co2_buildup

Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes had an impact on the global carbon cycle as big as today’s annual demand for gasoline (...) ''But in the case of the Mongol invasions, which had the biggest impact of the four events studied, re-growth on depopulated lands stockpiled nearly 700 million tons of carbon absorbed from the atmosphere. This is equivalent to the world’s total annual demand for gasoline today.''

--Gerrit CUTEDH 03:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that would fit better in the Mongol Empire article. Be sure to include exactly who did the study.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. That article has a Legacy section that discusses a number of long-term consequences of the Mongol Empire. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014
The date of the conquest of Western Xia in the section on that kingdom is slightly misleading: "Despite initial difficulties in capturing its well-defended cities, Genghis Khan forced the surrender of Western Xia by 1209." In fact the Mongols failed to take the Tangut capital, but the emperor did offer his daughter to be Genghis Khan's wife, and sign a peace treaty. However the Western Xia later allied themselves with the Mongol's enemies, and were not finally conquered by the Mongols until 1227 (details are given in the Wikipedia page on Western Xia). The later date is mentioned later in the present article in the section Death and Burial. As it stands, there appears to be a contradition in the date of the conquest of Western Xia. I would be happy to add these details but can't edit this article. The simplest thing might be to amend the line to "Despite initial difficulties in capturing its well-defended cities, Genghis Khan forced the surrender of Western Xia in 1227." A reference could be added to the following article: Kychanov, E.I. The State of Great Xia (982-1227 A.D.) in Lost Empire of the Silk Road, ed. M. Piotrovsky, Milan: Electra, 1993.
 * The first invasion convinced the emperor to agree to vassal status under the empire, so that's what I changed the text to. The subsequent rebellion and the Mongol response, resulting in the destruction of the empire in 1227, is documented further down in the article.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Names of Kin
According to Jack Weatherford, the name of Genghis Khan's half-brother is Begter, not Behter. This information is obtained from "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" c.2004 published by the Three Rivers Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseablogger (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

How ridiculous and bias can you get
1) The original version which was painted in 1275 was in black/white and the wikipedia shows a colored version of 14th century portrait.

2) In Chinese historical sources including in Russia, it clearly mentions the portraits was drawn under supervision of Kublai Khan who would have known how Genghis Khan looked like

3) YET the wikipedia misleads people by adding un-sourced claims  like " no accurate portrait of Genghis Khan exist " including adding un-sourced claims about him having red hair and blue eyes based on one persian historian who was born after 20 years after Genghis Khan died.

WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your addition stole from the book, that's why it was removed. Paraphrase instead of plagiarizing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not a friend of any of the pupils to my knowledge at the Center for Self-Knowledge Studies with free courses in legislation, history, anthropology, psychology, self-knowledge, cosmology, mythology and alchemy. I hope it was not taken from me.


 * I just paraphrased but it got removed again. It's amazing to this English wikipedia allows misleading claims with non-reference source of Genghis Khan ancestors being related with some Green eye-blue eye (whatever it was man ) including misinterpretation of " No accurate portraits of Genghis Khan exist today, and any surviving depictions are considered to be artistic interpretations. " when in fact it was supervised by Kublai Khan and the people who had met him.


 * How can wikipedia had deliberately ( or on purpose ) tried to ignore these facts?


 * http://www.googida.com/momapa/mongolia/mn/022.html


 * Physical description of Genghis Khan''


 * "Trustworthy persons have related that Chinggis Khaan, at the time that he came into Khorasan, was 65 years old, a man of tall structure, of vigorous build, a robust body, the hair on his face scanty and white, with cat's eyes, possessed of great energy, discernment, genius and understanding, awe inspiring, a butcher, an over-thrower of enemies, sanguinary and cruel ?He was an adept in magic and deception and some of the devils were his friends."


 * " The only existing portrait preserved until today was painted in 1278, almost a half a century after his death. Khublai Khaan, the grandson of Chinggis Khaan, ordered artist Khorisun to paint the portrait, and asked some of Chinggis Khaan's few remaining trusted men to overlook the painting and make sure it reflects the true image. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldCreaterFighter (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So, all that you can find on this is a self-published book and a website - take a look at the index for that website. If this is true, then I doubt that only 2 people know about it. It should be well known to historians so you should be able to find a source that meets WP:RS. And please don't attack editors for insisting that you follow our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Better than editing a text of propaganda from white-history.com and yet no one had bother to removed it. You're going to have to at least let me edit this " The portrait of Genghis Khan in 14th century was drawn by the Mongol court of Yuan dynasty under the rule of Kublai Khan who was his grandson " . This is simple fact that everyone should already know but it must made more clear so that ain't any interepretation not based on any source or reference, it is simply commonsense that can't be denied but it must be mentioned. Otherwise that portrait of Genghis Khan in 14th century might aswell be removed. - WorldCreaterFighter (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any material from white-history.com. If something really is a "simple fact that everyone should already know," it can be found in a reliable source.  Even the statement "The sky is blue" would need a source (our article on sky gives at least four sources).  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Khagan may have been a priestly honour title since it was conferred after life.

Additional entry to 'Depictions in modern culture'
Noekege in Mongolian is friend ekhner is wife, so that all women in the company of Jingiz Khan beyond Burte were described as the former. The Mongols declared themselves impossible of some of the most beautiful women of the cities, and presented these to their Khan, he apparently had similar opinion.

Television commercials:

Genghis Khan appears in Nissan Australia's television commercials for the Nissan Juke vehicle. In the television commercials, he is portrayed by actor Khanh Trieu, see bio at:

www.imdb.me/khanhtrieu

See the official television commercials at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai1PLjliDJc&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZUZvMcu9a4&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRINn0mVd10&sns=em

120.19.248.4 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how notable those particular commercials are, seeing as many, many ads use Genghis Khan.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"reportedly"
"...reportedly with a cangue,..."

Is "reportedly" a meaningful word in an encyclopedia article? Since no original research is allowed, EVERYTHING in an encyclopedia article is based on a report from something or someone.

What makes this factoid more reported than anything else in this article?

--23.119.205.88 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It says to me, or it implies, "reported but not completely accepted" or "reported but not confirmed", or something like that. As long as there is an explanation on why the data is "reportedly" something, as in, why is the record incomplete or who is doing the reporting (there might be a bias), then I'm mostly ok with it, as long as it's used sparingly. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It was likely intended to say "purportedly." Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Death and burial
If you would like to consolidate the death and burial discussions, that would be useful. But you seem intent only on removing sources you don't agree with or like. This is improper unless you can find consensus for their removal. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is already an entry regarding a princess in the Death and Burial section. And there is no sources or books that says Genghis Khan was castrated. It is clearly an insult added by someone (you?). The links to this source are non-existing. What is your problem with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are seven books and articles linked as sources, many of which are available to read on-line. If you disagree with those sources or believe they are not WP:RS, then you need to state a clear reason and find consensus for their removal. But removing those sources because you don't agree with them is improper.  (Also, I did not add this content, but the sources linked appear to support the discussion of the legend. Meanwhile, your characterization of the legend as an insult suggests your own objection is POV.)  Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was also previously involved with this particular aspect, the sources says its a kind of legend or may be a story and is not from any historian or notable author. would not suggest to use this in the main article until we find some reliable secondary sources on such claims Shrikanthv (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * to help you guys out check here, under What!!! Shrikanthv (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is my point. It is just a legend. You can't find any historical record, book. Just a guy write about a legend after 800 years and that will be regarded as a historical claim and should be posted on wiki? That is just a bullshit. There are too many legends about him. If legends are allowed to be posted in here, other legends should be posted too. But some people love only this one.Uniquark9 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone really wanted to post this, he should've create a different article.Uniquark9 (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * hi Uniquark9 please add citation to your changes, currently the article is missing lot of citations Shrikanthv (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014
I would change the expression "destructive and genocidal warlord who caused enormous damage and destruction to the population of these areas" into something like a "destructive conqueror": the current paragraph is long winded, repetitive ("destructive", "damage and destruction", etc.) and frankly not particularly objective. Furthermore, the term "genocidal" itself is controversial: from what I can tell, it was not an arbitrary, unmotivated phenomenon intentionally aimed at the elimination of an entire population out of ethnic/religious hatred, for its own sake, but rather something that is to be understood in the context of anchient battle/war/warfare, so unless we are merely talking bodycount (which does not seem to me to be what genocide is about, rather the intentional pursue of the destruction of a whole ethnic group for its own sake), I do not see how it would differ from ordinary anchient warfare, except for the scale: I would say that it is rather anacronistic when used in reference to anchient civilizations (sacking was essentially universal), therefore in that sense, every single battle (even up to modern times with firebombings and atomic bombings in WWII) would be considered a "genocide".

95.249.110.135 (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I propose: "resilient and influential pastoralist chieftain who conquered vast territories and kingdoms, causing serious destruction and depopulation in some regions. His military campaigns have had long-term cultural and historical repercussions." - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is true. Many parts of this article have clearly biased tones. Truman nuked 2 large cities and killed all of their citizens (+all animals) and its radiation poisoning has effected millions of people and it happened just 70 years ago. And you don't see almost any article that condemned Truman on english wiki, instead you will find that he saved many american's lives and 2 billion dollar by the nuking. But people love to condemn Genghis, whose army was always outnumbered by his enemies' and who fought fairly and crushed all of his enemies. Genghis simply couldn't leave any hostile enemies on his back because his army was small and there was no backup. And that happened more than 800 years ago when a war was just everyday's business. Uniquark9 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * edit request closed due to ongoing discussion. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014
Change everything from Genghis Khan to Chinggis Khaan, as Chinggis Khaan is correct.

107.204.250.20 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chinggis Khan is the academically correct Anglicization of his name, but it is not the most common. The average reader is going to search for "Genghis Khan," not "Chinggis."-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 23:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Great Environmentalist
As per the American Research in 2011 by Carnegie Institution 260 Panama street, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A. under the Guidance of Post- Doctoral Research Scientist Julia Pongratz, Mongolian Warrior and Ruler Genghis Khan is termed as the World's Greatest Environmentalist as he had occupied 22% land of the earth and thus reducing 70 Crore ton of Carbon from the Earth's Environment coz he killed 4 Crore people during his era due to which a large area of farms was turned into forests. In The Words of Julia Pongratz- "Because of Genghis khan carbon level in the environment has reduced, the same amount of which is increased per year by the use of petrol and diesel." For More Details See the References

Mohammedzk (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)mohammedzk


 * I think this would be mis interpretation of the article and has nothing to with his bio pic as I think Mongols were not thinking about co2 emission then!! Shrikanthv (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Plus, the term "environmentalist" or "environmentalism" refers to a motive and a philosophy. The motive is to benefit the environment, through a philosophy of reducing your own carbon footprint as well as educating others to voluntarily take measures to reduce their carbon footprints. Genghis Khan was none of this. His actions were in the interest of himself, his family, and his people. It was a philosophy of territorial and political conquest, with limited cultural integration. The result on the environment was serendipitous. To assert otherwise is an ex post facto attribution of motives and mindset that nobody can rationally justify. Calling him an "environmentalist" is a touch of humorous, ironic hindsight - an attention getter for a research grant or a dissertation - but it is not an accurate description under the context of history. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jamukha
The article says that Jamukha said "there can only be one sun in the sky" as a reason why he shouldn't be left alive. That's not in the Secret History, even though it's the only source named in the paragraph. I can't tag it because of the semi-protection, but it should be sourced or removed. Also, the remark about his boiling people alive as contrasted with his easy death seems too pointed, as if the editor is trying to say that Jamukha had it coming or got a lesser punishment than he deserved, or something in that vein. That kind of sentiment, while natural for us today, is not found in the sources either, so it seems OR-ish and POV-ish.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems there is not the exact sentence in the Secret History. But there are statements with closer meanings, we may edit it little bit. Check the Secret History (translated by Cleaves) on page 138, http://altaica.ru/SECRET/cleaves_shI.pdf.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I had checked that translation, and while Jamukha's speech is long and may be difficult to interpret at times, I just don't see anything there that means the same as "there can only be one sun in the sky" - i.e. "both of us are striving to become the Great Khan and since there can only be one Great Khan, one of us must die". Instead, his arguments seem to boil down to "I'm useless to you now, I will always be a nuisance to you, and I'm also a failure BTW, so you had better kill me". For the "two suns" argument to be true, Jamukha would have to mean that he still wants to become the Great Khan and therefore can't or won't serve Temujin, whereas in fact he sounds rather humble and self-effacing (not surprisingly, given that all these repliques are reported by a Genghisid historian). He does mention that he has tried to become what Temujin is, but emphasizes that he has failed.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. We have to change the statement. According to his speech, it seems he gave up his ambition to become a khan. Weatherford's statement is much better : “The Secret History offers a lengthy confession and repentance by Jamuka, but both the grandiose prose and the detail of its account invite suspicion regarding its accuracy. “Now, when the world is ready for you,” the text quotes Jamuka as saying, “what use is there in my becoming a companion to you? On the contrary, sworn brother, in the black night I would haunt your dreams, in the bright day I would trouble your heart. I would be the louse in your collar, I would become the splinter in your door-panel.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Motive for the murder of Bekter
That the murder of Begter was motivated by some kind of Oedipal "no-one dares **** my Ma" feeling is a personal speculation by Weatherford. Sure, it could be true; historian Timothy May acknowledges, in his review of Weatherford's book, that this is an "interesting possibility". But the text of the article should state clearly that this *is* one author's guess, not something indisputable and explicitly stated in the primary sources or enjoying a consensus among scholars. (If such a motivation existed, the Mongol authors of the Secret History don't seem to have been aware of it; and, BTW, if these rules applied to Begter, then they should have applied likewise to his surviving brother Belgutey, who never married Hoelun). --91.148.130.233 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not only Weatherford, he's just quoting others. You are missing that Begter would've become head of the family, not only husband of Oulen and that is the main point of Weatherford. Levirate marriage was a tradition in that time, so the Oedipal thing is not a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Belgutei was younger than Temujin. Temujin was the second son of Yesugei. That means it was not possible for Belgutei to become head of family or marry Oulen. Uniquark9 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Films and other cultural references
Needs to be expanded, lots of things missing like this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3176304/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.136 (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese posthumous names and titles
Chinese posthumous names shouldn't be included in the info box of the Great Khans before Khubilai. They were not chinese emperors and they weren't called nor known by the posthumous names. It just gives a wrong impression. And no one (except chinese historians) knows what a posthumous name is. So it is irrelavant content.Uniquark9 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I suppose if it's notable in China, it could be included elsewhere in the article, like in the legacy section. But it doesn't need to be in a prominent location such as the infobox. I'm sure every nation he conquered had their own name for him, that doesn't mean we need to include them all in the infobox. - Boneyard90 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I think that the Chinese posthumous titles for Genghis Khan, Ögedei Khan, Güyük Khan and Möngke Khan are historically significant and their inclusion in the info boxes for these articles is useful for our readers. The arbitrary removal of this information from these four articles by Uniquark9 is not helpful, and the material should be reinstated. BabelStone (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Babelstone: Your reasons seem more arbitrary than the removal of the names. Can you explain how these names are "historically significant", or how readers will use the information? - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Babelstone: Posthumous names and titles are only used in chinese history writing, not in western history writing. A person, who doesn't know chinese history writing, just doesn't get what it is. Also you can't find any english/mongolian source which used this chinese names instead of "Genghis Khan". Why did you think it is so important? I am pretty sure there are many more important info instead of this irrelavant one.Uniquark9 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As you probably know, a lot of historical information about Genghis Khan is actually derived from Chinese sources - from the currently known versions of the Secret History of the Mongols to the image used in the infobox.
 * If such sources contain Genghis' temple name rather than some straightforward transcription, e.g. 元太祖 rather than 青古思汗, then whoever discusses such sources is likely to use the temple name, like this Mongolian scholar writing in English (on p. 14, just before footnote no.18).
 * Yaan (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yaan: As you probably know, the Secret History of the Mongols was transcription of the original Mongolian text with Chinese characters, not a translated chinese version. There is no mention of the temple/posthumous name.  Also there are many mongolian and persian sources like the Altan Tobchi, Erdeniin Tobchi and Rashid Ad-din's Jami' al-tawarikh. None of these main sources used or mentioned chinese name/title. What other important sources are you talking about?66.65.0.132 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really important, but according to wp (which of course is not a reliable source), "The only surviving copies of the work [the Secret History] are transcriptions of the original Mongolian text with Chinese characters, accompanied by a (somewhat shorter) in-line glossary and a translation of each section into Chinese" (emphasis mine). This seems to be the Chinese translation, and mentions Taizu as the guy with the blood clot in his hand. (btw. any idea where one could find more of the in-line glossary?)
 * This is the source for the birth date given in the article, so one might consider it reasonably important. This one is occasionally mentioned as a rather important source as well.
 * Would you agree that the source for the image in the info box is at least somewhat important? Would you agree that there are quite a lot of english-language sources that at least mention his temple name, and some that assume familiarity with it?
 * Yaan (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * All the sources you mentioned are in chinese. They are probably chinese translations and not the original one (I mean the one transcribed with chinese characters). Are you forgetting Altan Tobchi? It's written in 17th centry in Mongolian script and it contains 233 of the 282 chapters of the Secret History not only verbatim but with additional detail in certain parts. I suppose secondary chinese sources may have use or mention the temple name. But not in mongolian, persian and english sources (we probably won't find it in any other language except chinese). So I don't think it is important or useful. The whole concept of temple name is just unfamiliar to non-chinese readers. He wasn't a chinese emperor. Why are you trying to portrait him as a chinese emperor? We can't even say without debate that even Khubilai was an chinese emperor.Uniquark9 (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You questioned whether there are any important [primary] sources on Genghis in Chinese, and I gave you two, plus the nowadays not-so-important part of the Secret History that mentions his temple name.
 * Secondary scholarship that derives from Chinese sources will also mention his temple name. I already gave you one example from a Mongolian author above, but it is not hard to find more - which is not really surprising, because any serious historian writing about pre-20th century Mongolia will deal with Chinese-language sources regularly.
 * I do not really care enough about this warmonger to try to portay him as anything - I just do not like it when helpful information - in this case, that the name Taizu was created by Genghis' grandson in order to increase his legitimacy as a Chinese emperor - gets hidden because some touchy user does not like it.
 * Regards, Yaan (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yaan Which source you mentioned is from a Mongolian author? Yuanshi?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yaan: If so, Yuanshi was written by chinese authors during the Ming dynasty. People usually mistake that Yuanshi was written by mongols during Yuan.Uniquark9 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that Chinese dynastic histories tended to be compiled under the succeeding dynasty. I was referring to modern English-language sources, more specifically to this little paper already mentioned in my reply from January 27th. AFAIK the author is from Inner Mongolia. Again, the point was to show that authors who discuss Chinese primary sources are quite likely to mention Taizu, in fact they occasionally seem to assume that their readers are familiar with that name. Yaan (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

further discussion
I couldn't find the original with chinese characters. But here is book about it https://books.google.com/books?id=p9DUAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA17&ots=8hUa-ZzIPG&dq=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&f=false another study: https://books.google.com/books?id=zfKBAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA222&ots=CYt7l0vidY&dq=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&f=false
 * Chinese names important to China because China always wants to declare that Mongol Empire was Chinese state that created by Chinese king and all territories of the Mongol Empire must be Chinese land. See Han chauvinism, Sinocentrism, Chinese nationalism. Ceithe (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure whether Chinese posthumous titles given by Kublai Khan should be mentioned somewhere in the infobox, but Genghis Khan was definitely not a Chinese emperor. The claim by some Chinese that Mongol Empire was a Chinese state was simply ridiculous. --Evecurid (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not some Chinese, all of Chinese think that Mongol Empire was Chinese state and China must reconquer its "lost" lands. That is why all people dislike the Chinese nation and China.Ceithe (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I have seen there are indeed Chinese people who don't believe Mongol Empire or Yuan dynasty was Chinese at all (an example: original thread, English translation). That is why I did not say "all of Chinese" in my previous post. --Evecurid (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, all (or almost all - 99%) Chinese people. Did you see "good" Chinese who support independence of national minorities? All Chinese people think that China must conquer all world and that is why almost all people dislike them. Ceithe (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Almost all" - likely. I will basically agree with you with this. --Evecurid (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tran dynasty in Vietnam was ruled by Chinese from Fujian province and inflicted one of the worst defeats upon the Mongols at the Battle of Bạch Đằng (1288) and repulsed their invasion. Taylor 2013 p. 120[http://books.google.com/books?id=gyPjBevBHxcC&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false ed. Hall 2008 p. 159]. I clearly wrote Mongol armies were devastated by the Tran. Where did I say they were not Mongol?Rajmaan (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Chinese view, all national minorities were member of Great Chinese nation since ancient times and their history is part of Chinese nation. China always lies and always falsifies other nations' history to justify its criminal policy. This Chinese member an example of Chinese propaganda. Modern China is despotic country that violates hundreds of ethnic groups' rights. Ceithe (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no word for "Chinese" in China. "Chinese" is a foreign word. China calls itself 中國 (Middle country), and everyone in 中國 is called 中國人, since it has absolutely zero ethnic connotations, while the majority "ethnic Chinese" inhabitants are 漢人 (Han people). All ethnic minorities in the state of 中國, including Mongols living there, are called 中國人 (Middle country person). Only Han people are called 漢人. Both 中國人 and 漢人 are translated as "Chinese" people in other languages.


 * This is the same as in Russia. ALL people in Russia, including ethnic minorities like Buryat Mongols, Germans, and Tatars, are called "Rossiyane" (россияне). Rossiyane, means a citizen or subject of Russia (Россия). Actual ethnic slavic Russians are called Russkie (русские). BOTH Rossiyane and Russkie are translated as "Russian" in English and other languages.


 * Russia was ruled by German Czars. The Czar Peter III and Catherine the Great were both German. They are both Rossiyane, but not Russkie but both terms are translated into English as "Russian".


 * 漢人 is always translated by foreigners as "Chinese". China never claimed Mongols are 漢人. China said the Yuan Emperors regarded their country as 中國, and called them 中國人. The Yuan Mongols themselves referred to their state as 中國 (Middle Country). In the Yuan Shi, the son of Toqto'a (a Mongol) boasts about how powerful 中國 is compared to other lands.


 * ［元史］ 列傳第二十七 鐵木兒塔識


 * 鐵木兒塔識曰：「刺探在敵國固有之，今六合一家，何以刺探為？設果有之，正可令睹中國之盛，歸告其主，使知向化. 」


 * China always said the Yuan dynasty is 中國, it never described Mongols as 漢人. Its your own fault if you can't translate or read Chinese properly.


 * However the Tran dynasty which ruled 大越 (Dai Viet) was ruled by 漢人 "Han Chinese". They were not 中國人 but they were 大越人. If "Chinese" were to follow your logic, they would boast about how the Chinese Tran dynasty destroyed the Mongol armies at Battle of Bạch Đằng (1288).Rajmaan (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yuan dynasty can be said to be part of Chinese history (in addition to being part of Mongolian history), but that is totally different from the claim that Yuan dynasty as a whole is China or Zhongguo. Your quote in Yuanshi is not a proof that Yuan rulers regarded their country as Zhongguo. Even if a Yuan official ever did this (even this part is highly dubious, because sentences in Yuanshi are often simplified or paraphrased version of what they actually said), it does not mean Yuan rulers ever did so. If you still want to prove this, you need much more direct evidence, such as official documents by the Yuan government, although I highly doubt you will ever find one. --Evecurid (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 平章不忽木言：「蠻夷小邦，不足以勞中國. 張立道嘗再使安南有功，今復使往，宜無不奉命. 」 Another statement from the Yuan Shi again, referring to the Yuan state as 中國.Rajmaan (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again it was only a Yuanshi version of a statement said to be said by a Yuan official. It is not a direct proof of your claim as mentioned above at all. --Evecurid (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rajmaan Don't you know the difference between citizenship and ethnicity? There are many ethnic group in Russia and they are citizens of Russia. But they are not called Russians, they are called Buryats, Khalmyks, Tatars, Ukrainians by their ethnicity... Read this before further editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citizenship_and_nationality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They are called Russians. They identify as "Rossiyane" (россияне), which means a citizen of Russia, not Russkie (русские), which means an ethnic slavic Russian. The Tatar tennis player Marat Safin called himself a Russian. Manchus in the Qing referred to the Qing as 中國 (Dulimbai Gurun) and referred to themselves, Mongols, and Han people as 中國之人 (Dulimbai Gurun i Niyalma). 中國 (Middle Kingdom) is a country and 中國之人 means people (citizens or subjects) of the Middle Kingdom. Nobody ever said Mongols were 漢人 (ethnic Han people).


 * Read this note on how the term China is used in Inner Mongolia- Pan-Mongolism The official name of China in Mongolia is literally "People's Republic of Han" (Bügd Nairamdah Hyatad Ard Uls), and Inner Mongols are called "Southern/Inner Mongols" and "Chinese citizens" (Hyatadiin Irgen). By contrast, in keeping with Zhonghua minzu principles, the official Mongolian name for China inside China itself is Dumdadu Ulus, a translation of zhongguo, and the Inner Mongols call themselves Mongol. Rajmaan (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the same as in Japan and Vietnam.


 * The name of Japan is 日本国, which means "Rising Sun Country". In Japan, ethnic Japanese people are called Yamato people 大和人 or 和人. Japan also has ethnic minorities who are of other ethnicity, like Ainu people アイヌ人 and Ryukyuan people 琉球人. Ainu are unrelated ethnically, linguistically, and culturally to Yamato Japanese. However, all of these ethnic groups are called Japanese people 日本人 (Rising Sun People).


 * The name of Vietnam is 越南國 Việt Nam Quốc. Ethnic Vietnamese people are officially called người Kinh 𠊛京 (which means "People of the Capital", or "Capital People"). That name was invented several centuries ago to distinguish ethnic Vietnamese (alot of whom lived near the capital) from ethnic minorities (most of whom who lived in the countryside). Vietnam also has ethnic minorities which are totally unrelated to ethnic Vietnamese, like Tay people (Người Tày) and Nùng people (Người Nùng 𠊛儂). All of these ethnic groups are officially called Vietnamese people (người Việt 𠊛越).Rajmaan (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Come on, read the difference between citizenship and ethnicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citizenship_and_nationality. What we can discuss if you don't know such  basic concepts.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You aren't even paying attention to what I wrote. It is your language which is the problem. It is Outer Mongols who translate 中國 as Hyatad Uls, when 中國 means Dumdadu Ulus, and Outer Mongols who translate 中國人 as Hyatadiin Irgen instead of Dumdadu Ulus Irgen. In China if you are subject or citizen of 中國, you are called 中國人. Only Han people are called 漢人 in China. The real translation of Hyatadiin Irgen is 漢人. Inner Mongols are called 中國人. China does not call itself 漢國.Rajmaan (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the difference between citizenship and ethnicity. Welcome to the world. It is very different from your point of view. Stop bullshitting and learn what we mean citizenship and ethnicity in ENGLISH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citizenship_and_nationalityUniquark9 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again you are spamming the same drivel because you apparently can't read. '''YOUR language does NOT differentiate between a citizen of China and ethnic Chinese. It is YOUR language which calls ALL citizens of China regardless of ethnicity, including Mongol citizens, as "Chinese people" (Hyatadiin Irgen). In the Chinese language, citizens of China are clearly differentiated from ethnic "Han Chinese". Citizens of China including Inner Mongols are called 中國人 (Dumdadu Ulus Irgen) (Middle Country people), while ethnic Han Chinese are called 漢人 (Hyatadiin Irgen). NO ONE in China calls Inner Mongols or Yuan dynasty people as 漢人 (Hyatadiin Irgen). Chinese language clearly differentiates between citizens of China 中國人 and ethnic Chinese 漢人, it is YOUR language which obfuscates the two and calls both 中國人 and 漢人 as "Han Chinese" (Hyatadiin Irgen).Rajmaan (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Mongolian language differentiates between 'person' (hun) and 'citizen' (irgen). Also it is not really hard to find official Chinese sources (i.e. sources published by the PRC, not sources in Chinese and not necessarily sources created by ethnic Chinese) that take the distinction between Hyatad and Dundad uls very lightly. Yaan (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rajmaan, you should not say something like "it is your language which is the problem" in Wikipedia, which does not make any sense. --Evecurid (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That is why I gave him a link to read about citizenship and nationality. We aren't writing in chinese but in english. These words have different meanings in english. And he still doesn't get it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citizenship_and_nationalityUniquark9 (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Term "Chinese" mostly refers to ethnic Han Chinese. It's English Wikipedia so we will use terms which popularly adopted by in English-speaking countries.

Genghis exiled after Dalan Baljut?
There is no historical consensus that he was exiled. It is only in the movie "Mongols". Don't mix a fiction with history. According to the Secret History of Mongols, he wasn't exiled. And it is very stupid to think he was exiled. How could he unite many Mongol tribes and defeat Jamukh if he was exiled? It would've been much more magical if he'd done all that within only 2-3 years after his "exile". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 3family6, it is an excerpt from the Weatherford's book. You are also citing this book. Where did you find your "exile" theory? : “This display of unwarranted cruelty by Jamuka further emphasized the divisions between the old aristocratic lineages based on inherited power and the abused lower-ranking ones based on ability and personal loyalty. The episode proved a decisive turning point for Temujin, who had lost the battle but gained public support and sympathy among the Mongols, who were increasingly fearful of the cruelty of Jamuka. Temujin’s warriors had been routed, but they would slowly collect together again behind their young khan.” Excerpt From: Jack Weatherford. “Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.” iBooks. Uniquark9 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also don't cite non-existing or unknown books.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because you do not know of sources or they do not fit your POV does not mean they are not RS. You have removed several passages that were sourced over the past few hours. You have also violated 3RR. You scold others to discuss before editing, while you repeatedly remove content based on your POV.  Please cease your disruptive editing.  (Also, blanking your talk page does not erase the instances when you have previously violated 3RR and been blocked for creating a sock puppet.)  Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol. Why don't you go and see the books he cited before bullshitting?Uniquark9 (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Several books mention this. The Secret History of the Mongols is the foremost source documenting this time period, but it is problematic, and just because something isn't mentioned in it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Also, because one academic source doesn't mention the incident doesn't meant that it should not be discussed when other sources do mention it. You would need to find a source challenging those, and then we would mention on Wikipedia that this is a disputed issue. Right now you are aggressively owning this article. The burden is not on me to convince you that you should accept these sources as reliable. As you have challenged the reliability of these sources, it is on you to prove why this content isn't helpful to Wikipedia. I've tried removing the whole section now, since you are being so contentious about it, but now you are contending even that, even though I added it and it was that addition that caused this dispute. As for how did Chinggis defeat Jamukha, he did so about ten years later, after he returned from exile. Finally, I wasn't citing Weatherford. Here are my sources: [https://books.google.com/books?id=yVwsxl_OI18C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Hildinger, Erik (1997). Warriors Of The Steppe: Military History Of Central Asia, 500 BC To 1700 AD, pages 113-114]; [http://books.google.com/books/about/Genghis_Khan_and_Mongol_Rule.html?id=huM_5aNyO0QC Lane, George (2004). Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, page 63]; The Mongol Conquests in World History by Timothy May, page 32; Genghis Khan by James Chambers, page 26. And that's just from a Google Search. If you really want, I could try emailing my former college professor and ask what sources she's read about his exile - it's several, though, I know, because she mentioned both Chinese scholarship and Russian scholarship.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 06:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, calling other editors edits vandalism, when they were trying to restore the article to a stable version prior to the contention, is assuming bad faith, especially when it is their own edits they are removing.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 06:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You also removed my edits with yours. What else can I call?Uniquark9 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no other source except the Secret History of Mongols in this subject. All other books are just copied from it. And just because something isn't mentioned in it doesn't mean that it happened (this isn't your logic?). There is no historical source (show me if you find) mentioned that he was exiled. People can guess whatever they want but it doesn't considered as a historical fact. All of your sources are just wild guesses about the few years. There are many sources like Weatherford saying he wasn't exiled. Especially the main sources like the Secret History of Mongols, Altan Tobchi, Rashid Ad-din's Jami' al-tawarikh mentioned nothing likes of that. You can fill that void by creating stories like "he travelled to India and obtained some magical power." But they are just guesses. You have to mention that it is a "guess/hypothesis" if you want to write a guess.

Lets think he spent 10 years in exile. Then he came one day and Mongols just followed him like Jesus or Muhammed. So he defeated Jamukh the next day? Jesus hadn't had many followers when he was alive. Muhammed had spent years to gather his followers. Not in few years. It is not logical to think that he united the tribes within 1-2 years and won Jamukh. What would a historian write if nothing significant event happened? Even the births of sons of Genghis weren't mentioned. They just appeared as grown men. Uniquark9 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 3family6: All the sources you cited mentioned that it is just a hypothesis/conjecture. So why did you take it like a fact?Uniquark9 (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ogodei and Tolui were born between 1186 - 1192. So Genghis was able to father them while he was in exile?

Uniquark9 is right. All scientist have own opinion and Wikipedia is not collection of opinions. View of George Lane and other foreign writers is not mainstream view. Ceithe (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this another of your sock puppets Uniquark? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you see man who write message to himself? Ceithe (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I will briefly respond to this.
 * -Where on earth are you getting the idea that he unified the tribes in 1-2 year? He returned from exile around 1197, and defeated -Jamukha by 1205 or 1206. That's ten years there.
 * -When exiled, he probably took his family with him.
 * -I'm not sure exactly where these sources find the information about his exile. I don't know where to find many of the academic articles and such discussing this issue, so I tried to find some history books to support the addition. I know that it is the common, mainstream academic narrative. The part that's speculative is where he was exiled. I forget where my professor said that the Chinese scholarship says he went, but the Russian scholarship says that he was in China. She noted that the movie Mongols follows the Russian scholarship, since in shows Temujin in China.
 * -Whether the writers are "foreign" or not has no bearing on their reliability, and certainly doesn't affect whether they are "mainstream." But since you at one point on the Mongol Empire article reverted an edit supported by Encyclopeda Brittanica as "not mainstream," I don't think you know what "mainstream" means (in this context it means the majority global opinion of scholars, particularly scholars who are considered an authority on the matter).-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not Mongolian view and there is no such information on Mongolian historical sources. Ceithe (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS amd WP:NPOV. The pertinent standard is whether the view is based on "reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." The "Mongolian view" is not what is relevant; the view of reliable scholarship is. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Laszlo: So are you saying that there is actually a proof that Genghis was exiled? No, it is just a wild guess, a hunch. There was no source, even a word that can prove he was exiled after Dalan Baljut. It is just funny that you say about WP:RS and supporting some claims without any historical sources/proofs. Just like you were trying to leave the castration myth in the article. Uniquark9 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 3family6: Why don't you just read your sources? They all say it is just a conjecture, hypothesis. Ask your professor that if there is any proof that he was exiled or it is just a guess if you don't want to check by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They conjecture as to whether he was in China, not whether he was exiled.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Uniquark9: It is not for us to prove those theories, it is only for us to convey the scholarship on the subject. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, condensing secondary sources. We are not here to interpret primary sources; that is WP:OR. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" (WP:WPNOTRS). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Laszlo: Read again what you just wrote. You and 3family6 are trying to prove that he was exiled which is just a hypothesis like "he went to India and obtained magical power". Is not that against what you just wrote? There are many points that indicate he was in Mongol during that period: Genghis's 2 youngest sons were born during the period. More people joined him and he became more popular. And the main point is that there is no historical proof and all the "exile" thing is just a guess. Every source 3family6 cited mentioned that it is just a guess. And according to sources like Weatherford and many others, he wasn't exiled. Why are you supporting the "exile" hypothesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you go back and read what I just wrote. It is not our task as Wikipedia editors to prove any hypothesis -- I have no position on the exile theory whatsoever. It is our role to convey reliable scholarship on the issue, not to interpret the history ourselves. This speaks directly to why your editing so consistently gets reverted. You misunderstand the role of Wikipedia and of Wikipedia editors. You are arguing from primary sources and stating that this or that theory is correct and no others belong. I urge you to review the policies I have cited above: My view or your view of the historical record is not relevant. We are not reliable sources. If there are different scholarly views on a subject, we cover them. We look to reliable secondary sources, not to our own interpretation of the record. Until you digest this, your removal of sourced content will surely cause further conflict. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles are based on "reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."
 * "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"


 * @Laszlo Panaflex: User:3family6 is the one who stating it is a historical fact. Not me. All I am saying is that it is just a conjecture/hypothesis. Why don't you go to the sources he cited here and read if it says it is a historical fact or hypothesis? And what do you do when there are many conflicting secondary sources?  https://books.google.com/books?id=d2SWstj6j3AC&lpg=PP1&dq=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When there is disagreement in the sources, you state that and describe the different theories. If the author of the source evaluates the theory as conjecture -- or as legend in the earlier case -- you state that. If a source discusses the other sources and evaluates them, include that in the discussion.  But we do not evaluate the theory ourselves.  A source may cover issues that we decide to be not noteworthy, but if multiple sources discuss an issue, it is likely worth description. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Laszlo Panaflex I don't mind that if User:3family6 stops stating that it is a historical fact and add "it is one of many hypotheses to fill a certain period the Secret History didn't cover but there is no historical source to prove it!". And mentioning other hypotheses: "he was just gathering people and raising his influence peacefully in Mongolia", or "He went to India and obtained a magical item" etc. It seems the place he "exiled" is mentioned differently in the sources 3family6 cited. Jin, Tangut, Khara Khitan etc. It just shows how wild this guess is. And be clear that User:3family6 is the one who is stating it as a historical fact bcz his/her professor said so.Uniquark9 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:3family6: go to the following link and read your source, the Lane's book. It is clearly stated the whole "exile" thing is just a conjecture. https://books.google.com/books?id=d2SWstj6j3AC&lpg=PP1&dq=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He seems pretty certain that Temujin was exiled, and then returned to power. Where Lane says the obscurity lies is what happened between Temujin's exile (including where he went) and his return.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:3family6: Excerpt form the Lane's book: "Mystery surrounds this whole period in the sources, and a certain amount of conjecture is necessary to piece together a cohesive narrative." As you see, he didn't say the only uncertainty is the location. After this he just quoted Paul Ratchnevsky and Paul Ratchnevsky is the person who purposed this idea, according to a Harvard article http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1187655.files/D3-Pax%20Mongolica%20and%20the%20Yuan%20Dynasty/chinggis.pdf and another source states it is Ratchnevksy's suggestion: https://books.google.com/books?id=ndPZAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT35&pg=PT35#v=onepage&q&f=false Hope you can see that this can't be considered as a historical fact. It is just a PROPOSAL to fill a certain period in his life. I wish I could find a text online why Ratchnevsky proposed this hypothesis. Let me know if you find it online.Uniquark9 (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So, anybody couldn't answer. It's time to stop useless discussions. Here is Uniquar's question: Ogodei and Tolui were born between 1186 - 1192. So Genghis was able to father them while he was in exile? Ceithe (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um,, it's customary to give people a few days to respond, not just half an hour. I already addressed these points. Ratchnevsky proposed that Genghis could have been in China during his exile. No one really knows what he did. I certainly think this all is worth mentioning. My edit the other day was just a brief summary of period, and I'd hoped that myself or other editors, or both, would work on expanding it. As for Ceithe's question, again, Ogedai and Tolui would have been born during Temujin's exile. Since when does being exiled mean that you can't have kids? Not only that, but from the bits of evidence we have, Chinggis was gathering followers. We know that his return was quite grand, as he arrived with a Jin army.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text
Considering the discussion above, I'm proposing the following text, which is more detailed in its discussion of events after Dalan Baljut:


 * As Jamukha and Temüjin drifted apart in their friendship, each began consolidating power, and soon became rivals. Jamukha supported the traditional Mongolian aristocracy, while Temüjin followed a meritocratic method, and attracted a broader, though lower class, range of followers.[Hildinger 1997, pg. 113.] Due to his earlier defeat of the Merkits, and a proclamation by the shaman Kokochu that God had set aside the world for Temüjin and his descendents, Temüjin began rising to power.[Hildinger 1997, pg. 114] In 1186, Temüjin was elected khan of the Mongols. However, Jamukha, threatened by Temüjin's rapid ascent, quickly moved to stop Temüjin's ambitions. In 1197, he launched an attack against his former friend with an army of thirty thousand troops. Temüjin hastily gathered together his followers to defend against the attack, but he was decisively beaten in the Battle of Dalan Balzhut.[Hildinger 114; Lane 2004, pg. xxvii] Following his victory, Jamuka reportedly boiled seventy young male captives alive in cauldrons, which harmed his image and generated sympathy for Temujin. Temujin was exiled, but for the next ten his actions actions are shrouded in mystery, as records are very obscure on this period.[Lane 23] Historian Paul Ratchnevsky postulates that Temujin was held in the Jin empire, possibly as a prisoner, as Toghrul Khan, his patron, was a vassal of Jin.[Hildinger 114; Lane xxvii, 23; Biran 35]


 * Around the year 1197, Temujin returned from obscurity, leading a Jin army to quell the Tatars. Victorious in conquering the Tatars, he and Toghrul Khan regained the power and prestige they had enjoyed ten years earlier.[Lane 23] The Jin bestowed Toghrul with the honorable title of Ong Khan, and Temujin with a lesser title of j'aut quri.[Biran 35]

Hopefully the above will serve as an adequate compromise that best summarizes academic opinion.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:3family6: Why don't you accept it is just a hypothesis? It was clearly stated on your sources and additional books. Why are you being so blindsided? Here is my proposal:

...which harmed his image and generated sympathy for Temujin. Mystery surrounds the next few years, because there was no historical records to show what happened during that period of time. Most historians agree that he had been gathering more followers peacefully and strengthening his troops. But some historians proposed that he may had been in exile or even been prisoned somewhere ( Jin, Tangut or Kara Khitan).Uniquark9 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He wasn't leading a Jin troops, it was a joint attack of Khereids, Mongols and Jin. Ongin Chinsan, an Jin official was leading the Jin troops.Uniquark9 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not bad. I would clean up some of the wording, and remove the "most historians agree" and "but some historians," as that I don't see supported by the source material. How about "...which harmed his image and generated sympathy for Temujin. For the next ten years, Temujin disappeared into obscurity, as records for that time span are very obscure and are clouded in mystery. Some historians propose that he went took refuge, or was even been imprisoned, among the Jin, Tangut or Kara Khitan. He re-gathered strength, however, and in 1197 returned to power alongside Toghrul, commanding troops in a joint Khereid, Mongol, and Jin attack against the Tatars, who were soundly defeated. Temujin and Toghrul regained the power and prestige they had enjoyed ten years earlier. The Jin bestowed Toghrul with the honorable title of Ong Khan, and Temujin with a lesser title of j'aut quri."
 * That will need some additional citations to those I gave in my first proposal, but I think we're getting close to something.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 06:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't get why you are being so biased. Temujin didn't dissappear. There is just no record of what happened in the ENTIRE Mongolia during the period, not only Temujin. We could've assume that something happened to Temujin if only his records were missing and other Mongols were recorded. But that is not the case. There is no record of  entire Mongol tribes during that period. Why didn't you state that all Mongols were all exiled or disappeared into obscurity too?  Uniquark9 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Because many of the reliable sources indicate that Temujin was relegated to the political background for about ten years.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your POV is too biased and you just don't want to admit you were wrong. Adding your biased text will just make the page worse, so lets leave this subject. I think more people have to comment on this. Our conversation became too long and repeated same thing over and over again.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to make it clear that my professor might not have said definitively that Temujin was exiled. I remember that she said he was defeated, and that some historians think he was exiled in China. I don't have my notes available, as they're buried in storage somewhere, so my memory is a little foggy. I do know that she said that he largely disappeared from the scene and we don't really know what happened for the next ten years. What I put in the article a few days ago is what I'd encountered from research I did through a Google search. The edit war ensued when you aggressively reverted my edits, without providing solid reasons to doubt the sources. I'm sorry that I over-reacted and got into an edit war. I got frustrated because you've edit warred in the past, and still are doing so on the Turkic dynasties page, but that doesn't justify my behavior. I felt that you seemed to be against any mention that Temujin was defeated and probably relegated to the political sidelines, if not exiled to another power. I still think that may be the case, but now that we both have calmed down and are doing some good research we are able to work with each other. I don't see what your problem is with my latest text proposal, as I've left out mention of the word "exile," and indicated that might very well not have left Mongolia, we just don't definitively know.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding highly dubious text is not improvement. Ceithe (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:3family6: Historical sources: The Secret History of Mongols, Altan Tobchi, Rashid Ad-din's Compendium of Chronicles and Yuan Shi. The Secret History and Altan Tobchi have vey similar contents and Compendium of Chronicles was written by a persian historian during the Ilkhanate. Yuan shi is considered less reliable because it was written during the Ming dynasty by chinese historians and "it has been criticised by imperial Chinese scholars for its lack of quality and numerous errors, attributed to the haste with which it was compiled."(excerpt from its page) Except these few sources there is no other historical record. I really want to read the original proposal by Ratchnevsky, unfortunately nothing is found. Also theory is a very strong word, suggestion/hypothesis is more appropriate. I guess you couldn't find any other source which not quoted or mentioned Ratchnevsky's suggestion on this case. So the rule is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Ratchnevsky's claim can be be considered as a exceptional source? Probably not. So i am wondering if it's worth to mentioning?Uniquark9 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention Plano Carpini and William of Rubruck.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ratchnevsky's claims
Paul Ratchnevsky has made a lot of unique suggestions:

1.Genghis Khan's ancesters (the "glittering man") were Kyrgyzs.

2.Temujin was exiled after Dalan Baljut.

3.Jochi was secretly poisoned by an order from Genghis Khan

4.In 1224, having completed these arrangements for the administration of his new empire, Genghis moved eastwards to spend summer on the Irtysch... In spring 1225 he set off, back to the homeland in Mongolia..." (Ratchnevsky 139-140) - clearly wrong.

There is nothing to prove any of his suggestions and they are not the mainstream views. Are his claims are worth mentioning? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, right? In my view, this kind of made-up claims are reliable as myths and legends.Uniquark9 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC) 3family6 is just troll and vandal. Ceithe (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Paul Ratchnevsky was Emeritus Professor of Sinology at Humboldt University in Berlin. His work is clearly a WP:RS.  You disagreeing with him does not warrant removal of his work.  If you have sources that disagree with his view, then add them.  But as I have explained before, you not knowing who he is does not discredit him, nor is your viewpoint of what is mainstream dispositive. Ceithe: attacking other editors is highly inappropriate. I urge you again to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia norms and practices. Your increasingly disruptive editing goes directly against the spirit and objective of Wikipedia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Paul Ratchnevsky was Emeritus Professor of Sinology at Humboldt University in Berlin". Whoa, you forgot to mention that he was also prophet, world best professor and God. Ceithe (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You simply refuse to work within Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Your assessment of Ratchnevsky's work is not at issue. If you have sources that discuss his work or disagree, then add them.  I have explained repeatedly how this works, citing and quoting policies, and you ignore all of that. You and Ceithe appear intent on limiting the page to your own POV, and this is utterly against WP MoS.  Ratchnevsky is clearly a RS. You are not.  Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that we have to write all of his claims? Such as Genghis's ancestors were Kyrgyzs and Genghis returned to Mongol without going to Tangut in spring 1225 etc? And plus sources against them? Isn't that too much? Why should we only include only some of his claims and l exclude others? Also then why shouldn't we write every suggestions from any professors who wrote about Genghis? Every Kazakh professor wrote he was a Kazakh. So we have to include them? You don't know and can't decide what is the mainstream view and which is reliable. So do I. That why I am posting here. Or are you the one who decide? You are good at accusing others but think little bit what you are talking about.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak to other claims by Ratchnevsky, but his theory/hypothesis/proposal on Genghis Khan's exile is mentioned as a possibility in other reliable sources, none of which I saw directly doubt the validity of his claims. They certainly didn't state Ratchnevsky's proposal as fact, but they did allow it as a possibility. My point being, Ratchnevsky's proposal is not considered a fringe theory, but is instead inline with mainstream Mongol studies.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All scientists have different view. Only popular views should be mentioned in encyclopedia. WP must not be trash can. Ceithe (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex You clearly don't have distinction between historical facts and myths. Remember you defended the castration myth? All myths and made-up claims should be included? Or the only ones you like? Uniquark9 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Uniquark9 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have quoted at least twice above, articles include "reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." Please review these policies yourselves. You continue to edit disruptively and make no effort to understand why other editors keep chastising you for doing so. I've quoted the policies, I've cited them, I've linked to them. You clearly never go and read any of it and instead respond with childish remarks. Please stop fighting and start trying to learn how the encyclopedia works. I'm very busy and don't have time to tutor you, or inclination to continue fighting your disruptive editing. Please review WP policies and stop fighting with everyone. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is funny because you call a claim as a significant view only when you like it. Like the castration myth. Come on, it was a myth. Uniquark9 (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If a myth is widely discussed in reliable sources, it bears inclusion. Again you refuse to try to understand. I urge you yet again to read the policy pages I have cited repeatedly. Until you do, your editing will continue to draw resistance. Of course I said the same thing last week, but you make no effort to learn. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, claims #2 and #3 are discussed by R.P. Lister as well. siafu (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not wise to alter such an important article based just on opinion of the single reseacher. Unfortunately we have many articles related to mongolian history that based on so called "work" of so called "reseacher" with very weak credibility i.e. Хойты. Calmouk (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , if it was just Ratchnevsky, I wouldn't give the idea as much credence. But several other scholars seem to agree with Ratchnevsky's idea that Temujin being exiled to Jin or Kara-Khitan is plausible.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What was Ratchnevsky's claim based on? May be we can continue disscussion on the page Ratchnevsky's claim? Calmouk (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that some users just trying vandalize this page by adding rubbish contents. 1. Ratchnevsky may be good scholar but it does not mean that he is always right and others always wrong. He is just man like other people, not prophet. 2.Many scholars supports his view? Millions of Chinese scholars consider that Genghis was Chinese man and land of the Mongol Empire was Chinese land. What would say about this?Or their view is right because millions of the Chinese people support them? 3. For the mainstream, i definetly know what is the main views on Mongolian history. 3family lying. 4. Adding new dubious text is not improvement. If new text is dubious it is better to revert old version. 5. I didn't start edit war. I didn't add anything on the article. It is nonsense to blaming on me that "you violating rule". What did i do? I just reverted to old version. I suggested to discuss here. Ceithe (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All else aside, accusing your fellow editors of lying is not acceptable. siafu (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Genghis Khan's daughters
The section mentioning the children says there are no written records definitely proving the names of Genghis Khan's daughters. It says this while citing the book "The Secret History of the Mongol Queens: How the Daughters of Genghis Khan Rescued His Empire" by Jack Weatherford. Whoever wrote that section completely misinterprets Weatherford's book, which should be obvious just by the title. Also, if you go to the page of Genghis Khan's first wife, Borte, his daughters with her are listed.

I suggest that the listing Genghis Khan's children be changed to include his daughters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2780:C53F:B9B6:D94:DCFE:3C5A (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment originally made by ladyoflaurelandash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyoflaurelandash (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015
Gengis Khan's wife was kidnaped and led him to lead the mongols.REDTMR (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

REDTMR (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC) ❌ - As the article already says, his wife was kidnapped, and Temüjin rescued her with the help of then friend, but future rival, Jamukha and Toghrul Khan. - Arjayay (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghengis Khan and Hitler
Ghengis Khan was even brought up by Hitler. During one of Hitler's Speeches, he said that "Ghengis Khan had millions of women and children killed by his own will and with a gay heart." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderluce (talk • contribs)
 * . Also, relevance to article needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * would note support such a addition, just refelects a POV push on Ghengis Khan, other than putting both figures or possible grouping them brings about a wrong notion of the things. in actuallity they were noway related Shrikanthv (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced and unacknowledged quotation
These lines: "They were united only in their devotion to Khan and their oath to him and each other. The oaths sworn at Baljuna created a type of brotherhood, and in transcending kinship, ethnicity, and religion, it came close to being a type of modern civic citizenship based upon personal choice and commitment. This connection became a metaphor for the new type of community among Khan's followers that eventually dominated as the basis of unity within the Mongol Empire." under 7.2 Military are directly from Weatherford, p. 58. There are no quotation marks or a footnote. The only difference is that the writer changed Temujin to Khan in two places and the tense of "would eventually dominate" to "eventually dominated." I would change it myself, but I'm not very familiar with the functions of the wiki editor. 76.20.191.165 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I initially was just going to reword that section to remove the plagiarism, but then I realized that the whole paragraph wasn't relevant to that section, as the section is talking about the army as a whole and the Baljuna oath was a very specific oath among a specific band of Genghis Khan's followers.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"7.1 Politics and economics." There are no economics!
Only one brief line: "There were tax exemptions for religious figures and, to some extent, teachers and doctors." Needs more, or at least a link to somewhere. 173.72.80.57 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Title and styles section
While the Genghis Khan section is semi protected I recall reading somewhere that due to the translation of the name Temujin there are multiple spellings, such as, Tamojen, Tamujin and Temugen available. As such, I was wondering whether this should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiderCallan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 May 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "I recall reading somewhere" is not a reliable source to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias
This article seems to be extremely biased, the opening doesn't even mention he was the worst mass murderer in history, killing more than Hitler and Stalin combined. Fourteen million in war from China to India and Poland is not so much given Oriental collective people´s duty responsibility warfare, there was no such dividing line between civilians and soldiers as today neither existed between Bosniak Muslim sniper irregulars of Sarajevo and IS recruitment of the population in areas under its control, as instant troops including women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Need to add the following tag to this page
{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Systemic bias |date=__DATE__ |$B= {{Ambox
 * name = Systemic bias
 * subst = {{subst: substcheck}}
 * type = content
 * image = Unbalanced scales.svg
 * issue = The neutrality of this {{{what|article}}} is questioned because of its systemic bias.{{#if:{{{bias|}}}| In particular, there may be a strong bias in favor of {{{bias}}}.|}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk • contribs) 17:18, July 17, 2015


 * can you be more specific on what you think is not neutral before tagging anything ? Shrikanthv (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think he was talking about the "bias" as mentioned in the previous section . --Cartakes (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Seemed to me like a general belief statement of mass killing more than Hitler or stalin, would be interesting if he backs this up with reliable sources Shrikanthv (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of sources have you never been on google? here's one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html

here's another http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

And another http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-genghis-khan

Another http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9257921/the-mongol-empire-by-john-man-review/

yet more http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2679923/Bow-die-ocean-BLOOD-Why-Genghis-Khan-throat-slitter-supreme-nastier-thought.html

He was perhaps the greatest monster to ever live, if an article about Hitler was written with such hero worship it would be altered immediately because of the clear bias. Is it because he mostly slaughtered non white people, that this bias is allowed? and not even a warning tag is placed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk • contribs) 21:11, July 24, 2015

Please refrain from using any slang words in Wikipedia
Such as"The Mongols attacked Samarkand using captured enemies as body shields. After several days only a few remaining soldiers, die-hard supporters of the Shah, held out in the citadel" under Khwarezmian Empire of Military campaigns in the Genghis_Khan page. Instead It could be "loyal","devoted"or "faithful"(or any other synonyms for that matter) "supporters of the Shah". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.38.188.70 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"...and crushed several armies before being summoned back by the news of Ögedei's death"
I notice that this misleading bit of information is pasted on many Mongol-related pages. I'm posting my dispute here, as I think this is the talk page where most people are likely to see it. While the idea that Batu withdrew for this reason is parroted in many secondary sources, that doesn't make said sources right. Exactly one primary source supports this idea, and said source is contradicted by other, much more reliable primary sources. It also ignores the operations in other sectors of the empire, and the logistics involved, which make it essentially impossible for Batu to have heard when he began the withdrawal in March of 1242. Please look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols#Reasons_for_the_1242_withdrawal_from_Hungary --Nihlus1 (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

a mistake that should be edited
It says "spouse" and then lists a number of names. It should be "spouses" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.82.202 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a limitation built into Template:Infobox royalty. I'd suggest mentioning this on the template talk page.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How half-brother Behter got killed
According to "The secret history of the Mongols" (and also "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World") there are three reasons why Temüjin killed his half-brother:


 * 1) Bekter was going to marry his mother, (by Mongol tradition) which Temüjin opposed.
 * 2) Bekter kept pushing the younger brothers around, Temüjin did not like how Bekter used his inherited power.
 * 3) Temüjin did not like being under the reign of anyone, especially a mistreating older half-brother.

The current statement "Temüjin killed his half-brother Behter during a fight over hunting spoils." is incredibly misleading and gives the impression, that Temüjin was just a wild savage.

I thought this brother was formerly called Kaza, and I think my mother has descent from Kaza possibly via 17th century Buddhist Mongol troops, and she has a psychopathic abnormality of pertly eating up cake among others when left deliberately at home for eating later. Me, Inez you know who "Where is the rest of the cake?" Mother:"I ate it up!". Steppe Hunger is the answer for Temujine´s reaction with my father a descendant´s comment "This is enough," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.93.87 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Within this one page you can see that the killing was not a quarrel, but a planned out murder: http://books.google.ee/books?id=GKCtl8BLaEsC&lpg=PA19&vq=begter&hl=et&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false The part about Bekter marrying his mother is unfortunately hidden from this preview of the book.

Spelling
Where does the extra g in Chinggis come from? 2.104.130.203 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Bulgar kind defeat
Can we discuss here on defeat of Khan in Bulgar ?? with relevant sources Shrikanthv (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC) I think Genghis Khan was victor over the Bulgars, and had killed the people of one of their city states, possibly inclined to leniency on discovering they were not the area population.

Asian New Year
There is no such thing as "Asia New Year". Different cultures set different dates as New Year. --2.245.145.148 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC) This is an error there is a specially calculated Asian New Year, it is Tsagaan Saar in Mongolia, and is moon calculated by the traditional Chinese. Genghis Khan was Paramount Leader that is the modern usage of his title Genghis Khan, and wanted a United Revolutionary Governance, Ezent Mongol Gueren, but the Governance term resembling Realm may have been from later, he wanted The Mongols today modern usage would mean Revolutionaries, their early flag was traditional red, "hong" in Chinese, it was from the Money Spades Movement all works apparently represented labourers, workers and soldiers 1100 BC factory mechanization and agaist Money and no Food Value with earliest hammer and sickle known probably genuine, the Mongols Meng Shu Shi Wei may have had other meanings including Single Soldiers Committee millenary movement against Unjust War and for Peace and Love for all Mankind, in glorious struggle till the end of time, it is not a closed party but its sessions have closed and sections of action, it is to the end of time the Revolutionary~Mangqol correct transliteration Mongol Struggle the Mongols did not read or write Chinese characters so they may have written different ones, or represented the Joy as another common name for the Revolutionaries, Meng Shu Shi Wei probably means Revolutionary Food Coucnil or assembly but Wei means council in Song Chinese,

Song Chinese and Mongols have become victims of genocide by counter-revolutionary starvationist elements in China, Mongolia and Europe

Genghis Khan's grave found
Leaving this here for the regular editors. I'm sure a better source will appear in the next few weeks. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tracked this down and it originates from World News Daily Report, a parody website.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. My bad. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Another new paragraph
Genghis Khan´s wife was Bortei Chino-a Ulemjiin usually known as Burte, or Bortai, and all other women mentioned under spouse were his noekoeger his women followers with whom he had it was thought often by Tatars, physical relationships, and who stated to have daughters by him, he referred to his women followers noekoeger, followers masculine noekoer could have a friend dimension, as his ranks of admirers, and Ibaqa married another man. So this section should be made less assertive on spouses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.108.192 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible errors in Section 4.4: Khwarezmian Empire
Section 4.4 seems to have multiple misspellings of "Khwarezmia" and related terms. ("Khwarzemia," "Khwarazmian," etc.) I'm no expert so didn't want to make changes in case these were intentional differences in spelling. But wanted to alert the editors. 2600:100B:B106:1C0E:5823:239D:3AA6:3C3 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these spellings are correct, you can find sources for any of them. But for this article, the spelling should be standardized.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016
Please add to reference in Modern culture - in a new Fine Art section In 2015 Artist Hili Greenfeld exhibited, as part of 'Anagoge' exhibition, The 'Gengis Khan's Mausoleum' an installation room size 4X3 mr construction with pigments, two white flags, painted synthetic grass, concrete. The scene simulated a mausoleum for the infamous Mongolian leader Gengis Khan. It contained a painting of Khan, a gravestone, two white flags, concrete sculptures of sarcophagi and Madeleine cookies, with painted wooden totems on the sides. Set in a dark room, the installation was illuminated by custom-made lighting. Mongolian culture forbids the creation of a grave for the leader, supposedly so as to enable his soul to stay in the 'sulde', his warrior spirit flag. The white flags are the artists symbol of trying to make the infamous leader surrender. That is opposed to her feeling towards her leaders today. The work was meant to approach the relationship with strong leaders in a critical aspect. resources: http://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/art/newexhibitions/1.2605313 http://www.pryart.com/?p=13349 http://www.alfredinstitute.org/exhibitions/anagoge http://annabershtansky.com/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95-%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA-2-4-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%9F-%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%9C/

מאגיקרטל (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please provide independent secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, etc), not the artist's own website. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 07:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Genghis Khan was born named Timor or Timur
Genghis Khan was born named Timor or Timur 1. Malay compass bearing for east is Timor (China) 1.1 at that time China was held by the Mongols 1.1 west is Barat or Bharat (India) 2. Timur the lame - he saw himself as Genghis Khan's heir and pretending 2.1 Real name of Timur the lame is lost in history 3. Temujin is two words Timur + Jin meaning Honorable Timur 3.1 to add the suffix "ji" in Hindi is show of respect 3.2 to add the suffix "toh" in Japanese is reserved for the King 3.2.1 Japanese people will say moskeet instead of mosquito — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.141.155.216 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"while?"
Hijiri88 here. Don't ask.

The lead contains the text encouraged religious tolerance in the Mongol Empire while unifying the nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia. This seems somewhat weird to me. Is "while" used in its temporal sense or its contrastive one? If the former, it seems like a very weird point to make, since just about everything he did was "while" doing either one of these. If the latter ... it still seems really weird, since there isn't really a contradiction between encouraging religious tolerance and enforcing political unity, as anyone who has ever studied the Persians, Romans, Tang Chinese or any other long-lasting, geographically broad and ethnically diverse empire can tell you.

I'm mostly leaving this here as a note, as I will probably fix it myself next time I log in, but that won't be until I get home sometime tomorrow afternoon at the earliest.

182.251.140.189 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed this - changed "while" to "and."-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genghis Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306053246/http://www.accd.edu:80/sac/history/keller/mongols/empsub1.html to http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/mongols/empsub1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9308634
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118121401/https://faculty.washington.edu/modelski/CAWC.htm to https://faculty.washington.edu/modelski/CAWC.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014125732/http://www.infomongolia.com/ct/ci/2932 to http://www.infomongolia.com/ct/ci/2932
 * Added tag to https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518020854/http://www.accd.edu:80/sac/history/keller/Mongols/empsub2.html to http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/empsub2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Birth year debate
There are many debates among historians about the actual year. Harold Lamb says it was 1162 in his book (p5). However, David Morgan thinks it was 1167 (page 55, a date that Fairbank agrees with (p163)); Morgan's says Mongol tradition has Genghis born in the Year of the Pig, and that these years occurred in both 1155 and 1167, and he chose the latter year as such would make the age of Genghis a more credible one. Lamb also mentions this same tradition about Genghis' birth year. For me, Morgan's reasoning is pretty sound.

SOURCES:


 * 1) 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).
 * 2) 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.)
 * 3) Morgan, David, The Mongols, Blackwell Publishers, 238 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142, 1992. First printed 1986. DTavona (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"often pronounced"?
I'm sorry, but as much as I wish it was only "often" pronounced this way, I've almost never heard anyone under the age of 70 pronounce it like a "j" in English. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's not the correct pronunciation.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "correct". It's by far the most common pronunciation in contemporary English, so "often" is wrong. Which one is closer to the actual "correct" pronunciation (I assume you mean the modern Mongolian pronunciation rather than the English approximation that was in use in the 1950s) is irrelevant. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "often" isn't the right word, but I'm at a loss as to what word would be the right one.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Switch the two, and use "sometimes"? Or how about "usually"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Chinese picture of Genghis
Why do they always trot out ONLY the Chinese picture? The 1963 edition of historian Harold Lamb's work shows the Yuan picture, but also includes two pictures from non-Chinese sources, and unsurprisingly, the Persian rendition of Genghis looks Persian! And the picture from the Steppe tradition is similarly rendered. Twelfth century Mongolia was a mix of Caucasian and Turkic tribes. Lamb's book may be old, but modern archeology is showing more and more how widespread these early Caucasian tribes were across Asia. Xinjiang in western China has a lot mummies that are Caucasian. The Caucasians of Xinjiang were absorbed by eastward expanding Turkic populations before being colonized by China. Parts of Xinjiang were conquered during the Tang (c700 ce), but Chinese rulership was lost until the Qing dynasty. Confirmation source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasties_in_Chinese_history

Mongolia reveres Genghis as a hero. Before him, they were tribal. One was Naiman, Merkit, or any of a dozen other tribes. After Genghis, they were all Mongols.

Temujin was described as having red hair and grey eyes. It was only after thousands of women from Song dynasty China, Xi Xia, and Kwarezm regions were carted off to Mongolia that Mongolians gained their predominantly mixed Sino-Turkic look we know today. Khwarazm was originally Turkic, but Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan similarly have a mixed Turkic-Sino look because of that mixed heritage. My agenda here is academic accuracy. I'm a firm believer that neither color nor gender make the person, rather it's their character. That said, Ghengis was a white man, with red hair and grey eyes. The artist, being Chinese, made him look Chinese, just as the Persian artist made Genghis look Persian. Not saying something about it is disingenuous and sloppy scholarship.

Source: Lamb, Harold, Ghengis Khan: Emperor of All Men, Bantam Books, 271 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 1963 paperback edition. DTavona (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty out-of-the-mainstream viewpoint and goes against all of what we know about Temujin and Mongols in general - won't ever be accepted as gospel by historians, I'm afraid. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017
Narcalas (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  03:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017
Globalization: Military- They created battle tactics and used method to conquer. Mongolian army only carried what they needed mainly because the Mongol army carried knowledge which were information needed to conquer armies. Trebuchet ( make this bolded was an invaluable Medieval siege attack weapon, similar to a catapult, which was used for hurling heavy stones to smash castle or city walls. The mongols had employed arabs to travel with them to create this weapon when needed. As they approached battle grounds they used the knowledge they had brought along with them to create the trebuchet on site and take over cities and armies Narcalas (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017
Globalization: Military- They created battle tactics and used method to conquer. Mongolian army only carried what they needed mainly because the Mongol army carried knowledge which were information needed to conquer armies. Trebuchet ( make this bolded was an invaluable Medieval siege attack weapon, similar to a catapult, which was used for hurling heavy stones to smash castle or city walls. When traditional Mongols weapons and tactics no longer were effective when attacking cities Genghis Khan made changes, he adopted large weapons from the Persian, Chinese, and Arabs and developed new strategies according to the book “Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world” (pg 8) it states “The Mongols devised and used weapons from the different cultures with whom they had contact, and through accumulation of knowledge to they created a global arsenal that could be adapted to whatever situations they encountered.” They change message to catapulting, Trebuchet was an invaluable Medieval siege attack weapon, similar to a catapult, which was used for hurling heavy stones to smash castle or city walls. The mongols had gotten the knowledge from Arabs the mongols then employed arabs to travel with them to create this weapon when needed. Religion: Mongol were highly tolerant of most religions during the early Mongol Empire, and typically sponsored several at the same time. At the time of Genghis Khan in the 13th century, virtually every religion had found converts, from Buddhism to Christianity and Manichaeanism to Islam. To avoid strife, Genghis Khan set up an institution that ensured complete religious freedom, though he himself was a shamanist. Under his administration, all religious leaders were exempt from taxation, and from public service Narcalas (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genghis Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027092312/http://www.unesco.org/dialogue/en/Regard1debates.htm to http://www.unesco.org/dialogue/en/Regard1debates.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040813232348/http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/genghis/ to http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/genghis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Placement of "Name and title" section?
This information was famously removed from the lead sentence some years ago, but I'm wondering when and by whom it was decided that it should be placed between "Video games" and "Timeline" at the very bottom of the running prose of the article.

When I write (mostly quite short) articles on historical figures with multiple or complicated names, I usually place the "Names" sections between the lead and "Early life". There is currently a lot of detail in that section that would look weird at the beginning of the article, but maybe create a separate section on modern historiographic and scholarly debates?

Explaining his name at the very bottom of the article when it is used throughout seems really weird to me.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

some Iranians pronounce his name as "Ghengiss"
"Ghengiss" could represent several pronunciations. Please supply IPA transcription of what is intended.96.42.57.164 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genghis Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010095241/http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.2/br_may.html to http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.2/br_may.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional Clarity on Genghis's massacres and atrocities needed
Currently it's too easy for a new reader to get a wrong impression of Genghis Khan due to insufficient clarity and nuance in the article. Using such a loaded word as genocidal gives one the impression of a Hitler, who killed his own people, but that is very different than killing ones enemies like Genghis. Genghis's massacres were done strategically, not for enjoyment like a Tamerlane, and the large number of deaths was simply due to the large numbers of people he conquered. He was certainly no more ruthless than many of his contemporaries, such as the European slaughter of the Albigensians or the Muslims in Spain. Due to the lack of Mongol numbers, Genghis believed they to create a ruthless and fearsome reputation to both deter revolts (the Mongols incurred very few for an empire of their size) and to induce potential future enemies to surrender instead of fight. Genghis's policy was actually 'surrender or die,' and this should be mentioned at the bare minimum, because all of his opponents had a chance to save their lives and they chose to fight instead. Those who surrendered immediately were given a valued role in the empire, such as the Uyghurs. Those who fought him were treated to a varying degree depending on how long and how difficult their resistance was: the more of an obstacle they were, the worse they were treated; surrendering toward the end of a siege sometimes let them be spared, but not always. Those who betrayed him suffered the harshest penalties, as revenge was very important to the Mongols.

Except in situations of military urgency, he always spared artisans and skilled workers, while on the other hand he was always particularly brutal towards the nobility and ruling elite because they were viewed as more likely to revolt. Furthermore, Genghis deliberately spread rumors about supposed atrocities and ruthlessness because he believed it would help cow future opponents and save Mongol lives. These rumors often became widespread and ended up as 'facts' in his later history, such as Genghis supposedly killing the governor of Otrar by pouring molten silver on him, or supposedly killing the entirety of the Tangut population, and this heavily influenced his legacy.

Some sources: Frank McLynn, Genghis Khan (2015). Chris Peers, the Mongol War Machine (2015). Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Timothy May, the Mongol War Machine. 73.247.69.66 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Baldwin

Novels
In the mostly fictional historical wuxia novel Condor Heroes the main hero Guo Jing grew up in Mongolia and was a respected soldier, friend, student and sworn brother of the mongols. He became Genghis' son Tolui's anda and also Genghis' daughter Hua Zheng is betrothed to him as a reward. The Khan near the end of the first story tries to force Guo Jing to fight with him against China although he is chinese but fails to and they part on bad terms at the end of the story. The story mixes fiction with fact tying in with the Khan's rise to power, overthrowing the Jins later vs the early chapters where the Mongols are subservient to them but their potential as an enemy is not unnoticed. This should definitely get a mention of a novel depicting the Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1CFA:8100:EDE0:522D:8D79:234A (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)



--Manuel Riguera (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Mongolians don't just have a "positive view" of the guy
Currently Genghis Khan worship has to point at a subsection of Religion in Inner Mongolia and most of the actual discussion is at Mausoleum of Genghis Khan. I'll leave it to the people who maintain this page how to integrate a discussion of Genghis Khan's development into a buddha-like figure who receives plaques from Mao Zedong, gets animal sacrifices from PLA generals, and advocates world peace, but this page should certainly have some overview about it. It's something like the main theme of Man's book, which is currently one of the four sources being used for this article. — Llywelyn II   13:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Genghis Khan and three of his four sons.jpg

Genghis Khan - Mangol death
A plaque in Chinese language on the Great Khans grave said “Killed By Rana Jashraj of Lohergadh, this find mentioned in folklore , which say King of Mangol killed by Mirana , the Tiger of Multan Forte. His descendants who proudly carry the Surname of “Mirana” preserves the memories of great King Warrior. Ankitthakker (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is it you would like done to the article? --Ebyabe (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Early life and family section -- clarity edit
Hello!

Could someone with the appropriate credentials please improve the following sentence's punctuation?

"Temüjin was to live there serving the head of the household Dai Setsen until the marriageable age of 12." should be: "The young Temüjin was to live there and serve the head of the household, nobleman Dai Setsen, until he reached the marriageable age of 12."

It is somewhat vague as is, and a friend of mine erroneously thought there should be an "as" after "serving". Temujin was not serving as Dai Setsen, but serving Dai Setsen, the head of the household.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.192.54 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The birth of Genghis Khan
I want to add the birth of Genghis Kan sources from international news agencies such as Xinhua.

Quotation : The celebration was started after a group of researchers at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences concluded that Chinggis Khaan was born in the year A.D. 1162 on the first day of the first month of winter on the Mongolian lunar calendar. Therefore, that became the official date of the new holiday.

The date of Chinggis Khaan’s Birthday changes on the Gregorian Calendar, but it normally comes sometime in early November. Sevea15 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of Temüjin in article
I am changing Temüjin to Genghis Khan in a few places to avoid confusion. Tell me if this needs to be changed back. --GreyPage (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018
Change his name to Chinggis Khaan: That is how his name was pronounced and still is pronounced this way. It's incredibly offensive to Mongolian people and Mongolians shouldn't have to mispronounce their ancestors' names just so that English speaking people can understand what who they're talking about. Would you spell George Washington's name as Jorj Uashinton just because he is referred to as such in other languages. Not a perfect parallel, but the points is that at least names of historical should be kept as close as possible to their native language pronounciation. Khaliunn (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Wikipedia titles are based on common usage, and the majority of sources use "Genghis" as the Anglicization of his name.  AdA&D  00:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2018
This line is plagiarized from the NYT article it references and needs to be re-written... "Modern Mongolian historians say that towards the end of his life, Genghis Khan attempted to create a civil state under the Great Yassa that would have established the legal equality of all individuals, including women.[53]"

web archive for NYT article 73.78.64.221 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

"many other children"
How many children did he have that have known names? How many children did he have that were numbered but names are not recorded? How many declared consorts or wives did he have? How many sexual partners did he have overall? How many children can he be estimated to have fathered based on modern genetic research? "many other children" like how many? 500? 1000? How much sexual activity does all of this imply? Can a schedule of sexual activity be charted? How does this information reflect on the current historical record? What were his beliefs about sex, etc? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2019
Location of change: Section titled: "Name and spelling variations"; beginning of first paragraph of section

Change "Genghis Khan is spelled in variety of ways in..." to "Genghis Khan is spelled in a variety of ways in..." by adding the word "a" after "in" to make the sentence grammatically correct. Goman1 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! – Þjarkur (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Dubious
The section on Japanese thinkers who believe Ghengis Khan was actually Japanese may be brief but I question whether the inclusion of this WP:FRINGE claim is due mention. If it's the personal hypothesis of one Japanese lawmaker and propagandist from the early 20th century and has little reception elsewhere it probably isn't. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2019
Change the line that says that the creators of Infinity war said that Genghis Khan was like thanos because he wanted to kill half of the population, in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFuM1j1t7k0&feature=youtu.be in the minute 16:36 they compared him to Thanos because he was skilled. This could also be used as a citation 47.63.123.90 (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: We generally don't use YouTube as a reference so instead I used this reference In that statement, the IP user is correct that the half of everybody dead aspect is not what the directors were comparing. For anybody interested, the relevant actual quote is ...he’s sort of a cult figure, Thanos. He’s a world-conqueror like Genghis Khan. He’s been moving throughout the universe conquering worlds. He destroys half of a planet because that’s his goal... The repeated use of "he" clearly refers to Thanos, not Khan.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bluelink of Igor Rachewiltz's The Secret History of the Mongols
A full text PDF version of Igor Rachewiltz's The Secret History of the Mongols:

https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=cedarbooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunan201p (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Rapes?
When I was learning the history of this guy, what was mentioned was massive rapes by Mongolian soldiers of women all over the invaded territory. I don't see any mention of this here. Curious as to why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.54.97 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Because it's an old wives' tale with no basis in reality. Genghis Khan outlawed rape and there are no historical references to his soldiers raping anyone. The oldest reference to Mongol rape dates back to the time of Ogedei Khan, and it was actually men from a defeated Chinese garrison who were raped (apparently for insulting Ogodei). -- Hunan201p (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj takes oath on 10 July 2013.jpg

Wives and concubines
, has a point in this edit summary. "The Vintage News" is not something that should be cited here. The Women in Mongol Iran book is excellent, but you cite "p. 168"--that should be "p. 168 n. 37", and that note is no simple evidence of the fact you want it to verify. The Frank McLynn book is a bit sensationalist; you don't cite a page number, but I assume you are referring to the page where a footnote 90 is supposed to verify. I can't see that note, but McLynn seems to take old sources at face value. Chinese Imperial Women does not at all look like an acceptable book for our purposes. That entire section needs a thorough revision; the "morganatic wives" are sourced to, essentially, a TV program. But the more important question here is whether that section should start the way you wanted it, and whether the sourcing is strong enough to make that (the concubines etc.) the main point of it (I believe it is not strong enough). Drmies (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it. I've added a very reliable source that totally supports the statement. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Er, no, you added the same source Drmies clearly informed you was insufficient (a note outside the text of de Bruno), as well as the same old Broadbridge reference which doesn't back your OR. Please, a reference that states your claim definitively and in a single area. -- Hunan201p (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't remember ever using the Broadridge book as a reference before, especially not with the pages annotated. Did you read the whole book? I purchased the e-book, the first part of the book talks about Genghis's wives and concubines, especially in the chapter named "Conquered Women". The Women in Mongol Iran book does back my statement but it does so in a note. If you read the note then you would see that it points the reader to two references (with annotated pages) that support the statement. Perhaps if I used those two references along with the Broadbridge book (which 100% supports my statement) then those references would be enough to add the very simple and obvious proposed statement? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ogadai Khan.jpg