Talk:Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World

I just had six references terminated because someone saw fit to reintroduce the claim that my statements are unreferenced. please stay away from the article until I have typed in all the references. Thank you! Ojevindlang (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've done the legwork to improve the article - thank you. When I put in the unreferenced tag, most of those assertions were not referenced - so I'm sorry if our paths crossed.  May I suggest, to make the article more encyclopedia-like, that we change the wording of phrases like "this is incorrect" to something along the lines of "this is disputed by recognised scholars/researchers of the period"?  That will make that section look more professional - at the moment, it looks like something an undergraduate would write in defence of their favourite lecturer.  Cheers,  --Ossipewsk (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point, though unfortunately, the errors are errors, pure and simple - the claim about the postal service, for example. I'll try to phrase things more diplomatically. I'm afraid I had to do so much work on the article yesterday that I couldn't concentrate on the finer nuances of language. Ojevindlang (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would also be a god idea to give page numbers in your citations, avoid citing wikipedia (not a reliable source), and maybe also indicate where actual scholars have pointed out errors in Weatherford's book, and where it is just a WP author who has found the contradictions. For example, I don't think any scholar would claim that the first German translation of the Secret History was only published long after the war. I also wonder which scholar stated that all the wifes mentioned by Weatherford were actually sex slaves (haven't read Weatherford's book, though). Yaan (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read Weatherford's book, as well as the story of Rabban Sawma and William of Ruysbruk's account. The two last-named do not say what Weatherford claims they say. Still, I'll not quote Wikipedia if you think it's an unreliable source. Give me a couple of days, and I'll find other sources. A problem is that many of my books are not in English, so you would probably frown on me referring to those editions in English Wikipedia. I can. for example, give you the exact pages in Ruysbruk, but they are in a Swedish translation. Ojevindlang (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add that of course Genghis Khan and other Mongols had regular wives, but the ones they brought back from their campaigns in China, Europe or the Islamic world did not belong to that category. That knowledge is in the public domain, that is to say, it is not "indeopendent research". Ojevindlang (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Into what category would Hoelun, or even Yesui, belong? Neither of the two seem to have become wifes of Yesugei resp. Genghis Khan through romantic relationships.
 * This sourcing stuff is not about copyrights, it's about verifyability. Can you prove Weatherford is the one who is wrong, or that his interpretations are in contradiction to sources? You can probably prove that he is not be regarded as reliable source, or that a number of details have been criticized by other scholars, for example here (the relevant part begins on p.3), etc, though.
 * An english version of Rubruck's account can be found here. Is it really a "misrepresentation", or maybe something less serious, when Weatherford turns Rubruck's prior consultations with the Nestorians (after "Pentecost eve came") and the anticipated behaviour of the Saracens ("for the Saracens agreed with us in saying that there is one God: "So you have (in them) a help against the Tuins."", " ... but when they [the Nestorians, Yaan] wanted to argue with the Saracens, they [the Saracens] answered them: "We concede your religion is true, and that everything is true that is in the Gospel: so we do not want to argue any point with you."") into an alliance, or when he twists the sequence of events in the singing and drinking part a bit ("When this was over, the Nestorians as well as the Saracens sang with a loud voice; while the Tuins kept silence, and after that they all [J: everyone] drank deeply.")? Yaan (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to Rubruck! As for what Weatherford does to Rubruck's account, I do regard it as misrepresentation when he turns the debate into a drinking contest and claims that the Nestorians started to sing when they became drunk. All that he mentions in that respect is that afterwards, "they all fell silent and drank deeply." Ojevindlang (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

first inflation
Does this "as far back as the song dynasty" refer to emperor Ningzong? Yaan (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Ningzong was one of the Yuan (Mongol) emperors. Ojevindlang (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant this Ningzong. He seems to have had problems with inflation, but his rule was not that long before the Yuan Dynasty. Yaan (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Well, I suppose it depends on what one means by "long";, it happened generations before. Incidentally, the Tang dynasty (8th to 10th centuries) also used paper money during certain periods. I'll supply a link later but don't really have the time right now. Ojevindlang (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

secret history of the mongols in German
The first edition of the German translation by Haenisch was published in 1941. Just a technicality: the second edition was published in 1948, which is not exactly long after the war either. Yaan (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Weatherford not regarded as a reliable source
Yaan, I believe you are right that a section mentioning this (with references) should be added. I'll see if I have the time for it later on. Ojevindlang (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in "Major errors"
"...that the place was afterwards called Wahlstatt because that is a German word for "battle field""

According to the German Wikipedia and LEO Dictionary, the German word is "Walstatt", not "Wahlstatt". The latter is the name of a Polish city, though. --217.85.192.237 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * German WP has Schlacht bei Wahlstatt. That there may be different spellings seems not very surprising, it's a toponymic after all, and therefore does not have to follow the most recent orthographic rules. Yaan (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack's writing is always good --Enerelt (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

npov
this page seems to violate several time what with major errors. 173.161.2.238 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some editing for neutrality
I've read through a little, and i feel that the ones who wrote this article do not approve of the ideas presented in this book. One clear non-encyclopedic usage is in the introduction. Clearly, the use of clearly is not appropriate for encyclopedia writing.

I believe this article needs editing to be more "encyclopedic". --Tangerine!(also known as ashpotter) (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

oops accidental double post. i don't know how to delete this --Tangerine!(also known as ashpotter) (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article has neutrality issues present in its criticism of Weatherford. Although it is clear that Weatherford's book does contain various errors, this article lists as "errors" claims that are contestable rather than mistaken. Weatherford may very well be outside the mainstream in regards to certain characterizations of Mongol treatment of the Chinese, for example (or may contradict Chinese sources), but this does not necessarily constitute an "error." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.129.140 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Major errors
I am surprised that the section "major errors" has been tagged as possibly including "independent research". Every single point cites one source, or several sources.Ojevindlang (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do those sourcees actually say "Weatherford erred in writing this"? In this case your list would indeed be properly sourced. Or do they just report things differently than he does? In that case, you writing "Weatherford is wrong" may well be seen as Original Synthesis I have also just removed your unsourced speculation about whether or not he might have actually read his own sources. Such blatant violations make it clear that you have no intention of adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP here. What has he done to you that you persecute him so vigorously? --Latebird (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please - let us not get personal. As for my "persecution" of Weatherford, I am simply pointing out factual errors in his book.Ojevindlang (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also unreliable cites. Everybody knows China first introduced paper money. Even Jack notified it in his book "History of Money". However, the Chinese dynasties lacked the ability to use it widely because the Mongols circulated paper money more widely due to its large empire. They did it in China and Persia (though failed in Iran). The Mongol khans of the Golden Horde in Russia also received their share from appanages in China in paper money in the 14th c.--Enerelt (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment is as irrelevant as your other one to the effect that "Jack's writing is always good". The pertinent point is that the Mongols were not the first ones to introduce paper money. (Incidentally, the paper money became worthless both in Iran and in China because they printed too much of it.) I have also decided to remove the tag saying that the section "may include idnependent research" since it seems to have been inserted for the sole purpose of "defending Jack's name". Ojevindlang (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs sourcing that refer to Weatherford's work
As an outsider to this era, my impression in this article is that there was little academic review of Weatherford's book, nor even mainstream newspaper review or the NY Review of Books, for instance, which I would otherwise think would be interested in a revisionist work. It was not published by an academic press; was it considered a popular account? I'm not sure that there should be so many quotes from the book - that is the first source. What did people say about it? It appears that editors have read other books and pulled out sections that appear to disagree with Weatherford; they should be citing those other historians who argue for different points of view. The ISBN or NY Times bestseller status do not belong in the first sentence of the Lead. The Mongolian government recognized Weatherford, but what about major historians of this era? One would expect revisionism to get a reaction if it was considered a substantive challenge. This is a very strange article about a history book.Parkwells (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of reviews
Timothy May is cited from reviews published in two different places, Kirkus Reviews, and a shallow statement from the Washington Post. This seems limited treatment about a book ostensibly that suggests a major revision to elements of European/Western thinking about Genghis Khan and his influence on the West. Looks very weak. If the book was ignored, as it seems to be, perhaps that should be noted, as in, major newspapers and historical reviews did not cover it.Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead link in references
Reference 7. (The 5th Annual Tournament of Audiobooks. Audible.com. Retrieved on 2013-07-29.) is dead. A live version of the tournament results was not found upon searching Audible.com. Also, the date in the Reception section that this reference is attached to seems to be invalid: "In a tournament of audiobooks by Audible.com, the book was honored in 2001 as a champion, together with Karl Marlantes' Matterhorn.[7]" The book was published in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.41.19.61 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)