![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I understand what you are trying to tell me, but I alredy know this and I'm alright with that. What does stresses me out is that Russians just can't let go off of it. I mean, there were many tyrants, cruel rulers and bloodthirsty leaders in some countries, but those countries were forgiven. Example: Japan was one of the countries that was on rampage and killing a lot in Asia, but after the war (well, at least 5 years) other countries were trading and communicating with Japan without a freaking problem. But Russians keep looking at Genghis Khan more as a mortal enemy, rather then historical figure. I don't think that isn't messed up. Kniaz March 30
I just wanted to let people know that and why I changed around the 'In Mongolia' section. I found the text convoluted, confusing, and redundant, so I tried as much as possible to make it clear and free-flowing while not changing significantly the actual content. There was a lot of subjectless 'there is concern that,' 'there is a feeling that,' 'is presently considered to be' kind of stuff, and I don't like that at all, so I tried to put subjects in when I could.
I did, however, just eliminate an entire sentence that claims that Gengis Khan's 'military genius is undervalued'? I'm sorry, by whom? Whenever an American makes a list of three or four of the world's most talented military minds, Genghis is invariably on the list alongside Napoleon and Alexander the Great - remember Bill and Ted's Excellent Aventure? I'm not going to significantly change the content of the rest of this paragraph, even though it's the kind of thing that would get you arrested in Germany if you said it about Adolf Hitler, but I'm going to take this sentence out. In addition to being fairly incorrect, in the context of the rest of the paragraph, it is redundant. If anyone wants it put back in, please only do so if you have some sort of evidence supporting it.
And, of course, thanks to the people who worked on these paragraphs before me.
Look at the high percentage of red-haired people among the Central Asian Peoples of today. Khalka Mongols, Kazak, Kirgiz and Tatar are all known for their high percentage of red-haired people. Rashid ad-Din, who has met Genghis Khan, described him as having red hair and green eyes (especially Tatar and Kirgiz people are known for posessing these traits). I find it a little strange that it isn't mentioned that Genghis Khan most likely had red hair. Red haired people make up only 1 per cent of the world's population, therefore I think it should be mentioned that Genghis possessed it. Abu Musab al-Suri 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Genghis Khan was a battlefield genious(but did not put it in the article, I never edit article). At that time Genghis Khan had only few people(soldiers) and he always had to make sure that different tribes are in good relations with each other, since he did united them and they followed him. Also, China was superior in terms of tehnology and Kievan Rus (Rus was Bigger then modern Russia) was so much bigger then Mongolia at the time, having more people. Genghis Khan had many strategys, like keeping Rus ununited and his horsemen tactics. So how is it that he wasn't a genious of battlefield. Kniaz
Some of his tactics were unique but most of the horsemanship skills were aeons old.(read Attilla the HUN by John Man)I am not saying that he was not a brilliant tactician with lots of unique tactics.( laserpico)
I rewrote the introduction. I tried to keep as many structural elements and original phrases from the original text as I could. Overall, though, I simply felt that the sentences were too long and confused, and that a potential reader of the article would be better served by paragraphs that flowed a little more easily.
I did, though, eliminate most of the following paragraph almost completely:
'Modern history credits him with Pax Mongolica, contrary to the Mongols' proverbial reputation as barbarous and fearsome "vandals" in the West because of their merciless conquests and territorial expansion. However, Genghis Khan and the succeeding Mongol Khagans did cause considerable death and destruction.'
First of all, the existence of a 'Pax Mongolica' does not run contrary to the Mongols merciless conquests and territorial expansion. In fact, the entire point of the phrase 'Pax Romana' (and therefore the idea of a 'Pax Mongolica' that stems from it) was that the Romans were simply so brutal and complete in their conquest of other nations that no one would dare challenge them, thus leading to a situation of relative peace.
Second, if by 'Vandals' one means to suggest a tendency towards the destruction of cities and the merciless rape and slaughter of its inhabitants, I would say that this phrase actually describes the Mongols method of warfare fairly accurately.
Third, the 'considerable death and destruction' sentence is a little ham-fisted.
I think that the intro that I wrote says almost the same thing that the original one did, just more clearly and without unncessary redundancy.
I thank the author(s) of the original introduction and welcome any questions, suggestions, or corrections.
---
First of all, you should know that the culture of writing and revising Wikipedia articles is based around gentlemanly conduct. I introduced myself to you and the entire community though my use of a login name; I also made it very easy for you to contact me personally by setting up a 'mail to' section in my user page. I did these things out of respect, and I would ask you in the future to show the same degree of respect by using your name when you respond to my changes.
Clearly you and I differ in our analysis of certain historical facts. But what is most disturbing to me is not so much the content of the introduction that you have written (and your defense of it above), but the fact that they are written in incredibly poor English. The grammar and syntax that you created is so improper that many of the sentences you wrote do not actually have any literal meaning. I will use the first sentence of your response as an example.
You say that my introduction 'tries to contradict his proverbial reputation as a barborous and vicious conquerer.' Now, I gather from the rest of your comments that you mean to say that I am emphasizing his brutal nature and not focusing enough on his positive qualities. But the English word 'contradict' means 'to speak in opposition to,' so the literal meaning of the phrase you just wrote is that my introduction suggests that Genghis was *not* just a terrible conqueror. Also, the first comma you use is redundant, the sentence is a run-on, and you misspelled both 'barbarous' and 'conqueror.' So you see that no one who reads this sentence will finish it actually understanding what you meant to say.
I will not bother with a similar analysis of the other sentences you have written, but I assure you that if anything their grammatical structures are even more incorrect.
Now, Wikipedia is based on the spirit of compromise, so I suggest the following: You will write me (by clicking on this link [1]) and tell me what you want the introduction to say. And since I can actually write proper English, I will write for you the things that you want expressed. This way we both get what we want, no? You get your ideas expressed to others, and Wikipedia doesn't become an embarrassment to all those who have such high hopes for it.
I will wait a week for a response before reverting to my revised introduction. Thank you.
Cal
21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? These changes are self explanotory. See the articles of the link to main pages and you will see what I'm talking about. Read and then comment and revert. These are very minor changes. Be reasonable and stop reverting stuff if you don't read more about it and get a grip of what we are talking about. At least read one of the linked aricles, especially Mongol invasion of Rus. 71.196.154.224 15:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC) These small changes shouldn't need talk.
I don't know why you are reverting this info. Urdu spelling should be included, as well as clarification on Mongol invasion or Rus. 71.196.154.224 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What also do you mean "who cares?", Who cares if we delete the Chinese spelling, don't be bigoted towards Chinese and revengeful towards Mongols. NPOV. Your edits and comments look very pro-China, and will be reverted all the time if you make any Chinese and against Mongol (Genghis) assumptions. Genghis Khan is part of a lot of different culture, not just Chinese and he is well regarded in Mongolia and elsewhere, so people are not trying to eat your China. Relax. Your reverts should be made with description, and I just gave description to my revert. Don't be close minded. 71.196.154.224 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine article, could easily make featured article. One issue though – the article says "[T]he shah had all the men shaved and all but one beheaded before sending them back to Genghis Khan. Were they all behaded or not? -- Ezeu 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think all but one were killed, but I am not sure whether it was beheading or not. Olorin28 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop writing non-sense and attacking Mongols for blatant lies, contradictions, reverts. We already addressed the negative things in consequences of Mongol conquests. Acknoledge the good and the bad. Stop it!. 71.196.154.224 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In China kubilai khan was called the Great Builder and sponsored at least 200 plays. Pottery, art, architecture and the theatre flourished under his rule.Genghis is venerated (at least in some parts of China) about as much as in Mongolia.This is because his grandson Kubilai founded the Yuan dynasty. (source from Storm From The East and Genghis khan by John Mann )(laser pico)
I do have another source: http//afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/.
folks,this is not a pissing contest. You need to provide verifiable sources for both positive and negative information. And please remember that other Wikipedia pages don't count as sources on their own. If anything, then you should refer to the external sources that were used to write them. -- Latebird 08:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Just want to ask you, Lao Wai. What is the biggest contiguous empire? Olorin28 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The Mongols ruled Persia long before it splitted up.Kubilai's brother Hulegu conquered the little they didnt already own at least 10 years before the khanates truly became independent.Excuse any grammatical or spelling mistakes.(laser pico)
Lao Wai, you are welcomed to write the negatives as long as you provide sources and references as much as you want, you know that right? 71.196.154.224
This discussion seems to be running around in circles, and patronizing comments, as well as throwing around terms like "bigotted" are not helping anything. Not taking a position either way, Lao Wai does have a point that the "positive assertion", that is, claiming that the Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire in the world, does require a source. Similarly, bickering over it in this fashion is not getting as anywhere, as any result that comes from that is OR. If it's decided to include this particular claim, we need to have a source (or sources) that indicate clearly either that a) the Mongol Empire was the largest, or b) that the Mongol Empire was of size X, and its competitors (e.g. Soviet Union, Roman Empire, Qing Dynasty) were of sizes y, z, and q that are smaller than X. Option b would obviously need to be laid out more clearly in a footnote, as this much information is not appropriate for the introduction. siafu 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Another source that says that Alexanders empire was a fifth of the size of the Mongols is Storm From The East
This appears to be a clear cut case of "emipire envy". Of course, you know what they say:"It's not the size of the emipire that matters but the length of its rule."
The intro states that "[s]everal centuries of Mongol rule [...] catalyzed the emergence of modern nations such as [...] Turkey, Germany [...]." What is the basis for such a claim? It is common knowledge that Germany was never ruled by the Mongols while modern Turkey "emerged" after WWI. 203.167.67.208 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
How tall he was?
I changed the statement that read,
'8% of a large region of Asia (or about 0.5% of the world if extrapolated).'
To remove the mention of extrapolation. I figure that extrapolation governs extending an hypothesis beyond the region in which it was devised. An extrapolation of the '8% of a large region' comment, when generalised to a global scale, would just be 8% of the world population. So the fact given must have been calculated by population proportions and not actually extrapolation.
I just want everyone to know that I am very grateful for this website. I had to do a report on Genghis Khan and that as I had been looking for a website that will give me in depth info on the Khans, I couldn't find anything. I was almost in tears when I came across this site and I could just hear the Hallelujah chorus. Thank you for helping me!!
P.S. Because of all this info, I got an A!!
Do you anyone of you guys know why did this article got "B" in the assessment ranking? Any ideas or reasons. I'm just curious and thinking of taking care of those? What is it?
Also in general, how should this article get improved? I think source and reference is one of them and any information on him is really poor or almost nonexistant which is no good.? Any ideas or opinions? 24.9.78.176 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Lao Wei stop being disruptive. Understand WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Baikal 08:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not usually get annoy about anons vandalising the page, but come on, there's a limit. The Mongols conquered Bhutan? Taiwan? The source given is http://www.taiwanho.com/print.php?sid=274
Here is what is says,
Who does that "they" refer to? Well "they" conquered the Ming, you know, the Chinese dynasty that ran from 1368-1644. Who could "they" have been I wonder? 71, your own source claims the Manchus did it, not the Mongols. What do you think you are doing? Lao Wai 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A source that the mongols conquered Vietnam and Bhutan is the Atlas of World History but I am not sure if it is accurate or not.( user Laser Pico)
Do anyone of you guys can translate from Vietnamese to English or is there already tool on the web that does that? It would be nice to understand what is written in the vietnamese wikipedia? Any ideas and clues? 71.196.236.162 05:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that an authentic portrait of Genghis Khan? If not, shouldn't the picture be noted as an artist's interpretation?
There were some extensive additions from an anonymous contributor today that included several potentially very encyclopedic facts about Genghis Khan, including factual information about his standing in the minds of modern Mongolians, and an anecdote about the seizure of Baghdad (which, actually, took place after Genghis Khan's death). I reverted the changes as none came with citations, and I have no idea where to find any references, but I do think that much of it would be valuable. To that end, has anyone seen any of that info before, and know of a source to cite for it? siafu 03:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I just want to supply the reference that was asked about the 10,000 group of soldiers. Here it is in Mongolian with hard translated and typed in English characters.
1. 1 - neg (one)
2. 10 - arvan or arvanii (10th) ('arvanii tsereg', or in translation to English, 'Soldiers of 10')
3. 100 - zuu or zuutiin (100th) ('zuutiin tsereg', tsereg meaning "soldier" in Mongolian)
4. 1000 - myanga or myangatiin (1000th) ('myangatiin tsereg')
5. 10,000 -
tumen ("tumnii tsereg"), see that article there is no confusion and problem with using
tumen as identifier of 10,000 soldiers with one leader of 10,000th. see also
Tumen, it's common name in Mongolia and also see
Tumen River, etc.
6. 100,000 - zuun myanga or "zuun myangatiin tsereg") ("myanga" meaning "thousand")
168.253.20.90
04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
is there any legend about genghis to be lame like his descendant timur. or him being blind by one eye. nids 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In the Property and Culture section on the destruction of the conquests (just above "Death and Burial") there's a mention of the Iranian cities Ray and Tus being destroyed by order of Genghis Khan. Since someone put a {{fact}} tag on the sentence, I was trying to find a reference for it but I'm having trouble locating anything on these cities in particular. Their destruction during the war with Khwarezmia does not at all seem unlikely, but we also need a reference for the other claim in the sentence, which is that they were the most populous cities in Iran and cultural centers. I'll keep looking, but anyone else have anything we can put in? siafu 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This picture seems to be incorrect for it includes the territory of Belarus, which was a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which in its turn was independent of the Mongol Empire... Bacian 00:16, 01 September 2006 (UTC)
It also conflicts with the Ottoman Empire territory in the Anatolia.
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed two unsourced passages. The first seems to be speculation, the second mud slinging. I have searched for references, but was not able to find any. It's a shame for "citation needed" tags to be hanging on a fine article like this.-- Rudjek 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"the family of his future wife Borte, members of the Onggirat tribe." & "Temüjin married Börte of the Konkirat tribe around the age of 16". Both from the childhood part, which one is right ? I mean, Borte's family was from Onggirat tribe but she was from Konkirat? Did she created a tribe ? Which one is right ?
And also, did they married 3 times ? I mean, once when Temujin is 9, then at 12 he's at the marriage age, and then when he is 16 ?
Thanks ! Nerval 12:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did that section that included uniting the mongol tribes, early life and all that stuff. That was a huge section. If someone is going to delete that much information, should enter info in the discussion page. Where is it? What happened? Was there consensus? Talk to me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.154.124 ( talk) 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
The first four lines are incredibly cluttered. This is the English wikipedia, so why is there an incessant need to show how his name is written in so many different languages? It is simply difficult on the eyes and unclear. Supertigerman 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
???? Mr. Nash has purportedly taken the place of the honourable Khan in the article. Somebody should fix.
Goryo was never completely conquered by the Mongols. It was forced to be a vassal state to Yuan, but never lost its national identity. 66.214.242.93 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I had a stab at addressing some of the problems in it, but honestly it appears to have been written by someone that was too POV and/or had a poor command of English. The section needs to be a fair bit longer, with citations and better explanations of how Genghis Khan is regarded in China. I can't believe everyone loves him to bits, either now or in the past, even if he is a popular icon. Does no one criticise him for his looting of China?
The bit about there being more ethnic Mongolians in the PRC thus he is Chinese is exceptionally weird. That doesn't seem like a rational argument to me - maybe it could be explained a little better. John Smith's 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In "Loyalty" section it is mentioned about GK having argument with his son Batu. Isn't Batu his grandson? If it was refeering to Wang Khan's son, I think his name is Sengum or "Nilha" Sengum. Temur 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is to write about how Kazakh people perceive GK, either in Kazakhstan or Mongolia, since if not anything, Kazakhs are the most influenced by GK and the Mongols. Temur 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah You are right Batu was Chengis's grand child (Chengis is right way to pronouce in Mongolian way )
"Genghis Khan was born between 1150 and 1160. In his early childhood, he learned how to masturbate while riding a horse. Later when he was over six years old he lost his virginity and also he was allowed to participate in uniting expeditions with his clan/tribe. At around the age of nine he had is first threesome but his tribal leader father was poisoned and he and his household was driven away by his clan that thought he was too young to rule."
Now I know Ghengis Khan was an OG, but come on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.149.192 ( talk) 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
This applies to other articles about Mongol Empire as well. Why is there not an "Invasion of East Asia" or "Invasion of China" section? This is obviously very important to the Mongols. I read somewhere that they actually consider their triumph over the Jin their greatest achievement in "Secret History of the Mongols." Remember it's their triumph over Jin that decided the future master of China. There should be a whole page for it, not one paragraph. In addition, the decisive battle between the Mongols and Jin is NOT called the Battle of Badger Pass. Just think, that's an English name, how can that be the name of a pass in China and Mongolia? (There's an actual battle of Badger Pass, I think it's between the Native Americans and British or something, but it sure isn't a Mongol battle) According to my research (Chinese books) the battle is called the battle of Ye Hu Lin. If Ye Hu is badger (not sure about that) it should not be pass but forest. Anyhow it's decisive. According to the book it's between 450 000 Jin troops and 100 000 Mongols, and it decided the master of China. I would have written an article on it but :1 I have no time right now, 2 all my sources are in Chinese books and I neither know how to site them nor if they are accepted. If I have time I'll probably go to the library and get some english books on this and put it up. Anyways someone help me do this whole Conquest of East Asia. Afterall, without consolidating their power in East Asia, ie defeating Jin, they wouldn't have set out to conqueor the Khwarezmian. ParallelPain 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)ParallelPain ParallelPain 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have heard varying accounts of how he died. Most agree that it was in a fight with Temujin, but there are conflicting opinions over what that fight was over. I have heard:
A tussle over food as dictated in this aricle.
That Bekhter was spying for the tribe that eventually kidnapped Temujin.
That Temujin was helped by another brother.
That Temujin had heard that, by some weird Mongol loophole, Bekhter, as eldest male, was allowed to force himself on his mother.
That Temujin killing Bekhter was just a rumor.
Also, I could find no source for Temujin not feeling any remorse after killing Bekhter. I slapped a citation needed on that sentence. Regards, Belgium EO 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it strange that his birthdate is stated as c. 1162, but later is said to be between 1150 and 1160. Shouldn't 1160 be changed to 1170 to give a better range? 71.208.214.95 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
( First, pardon my spelling in the following for I have read all of my GK stuff in different languages. This is also my first ever contribution to wikipedia. )
I agree. To me, this is a recurring problem in wikipedia. Many wikipedian articles about "ancient times" suffer from inaccuracies such as this. From what I've read in the Genghis Khan article, I believe, unfortunately, that you guys should completely correct this and pass the word to other language versions of GK for the articles are covered almost systematically with wrong dates, false affirmations and chronological mistakes which make the whole thing hardly understandable as a reader. All of this caused by the different sources.
First, there are two things everyone should agree to:
- ALL of the dates of Temudjin's childhood, up until his 20s, are, to all serious historians, still under debate. There are no proof as to when he was actually born, although we can guess and speculate according to the different later feats Genghis Khan is related to. I admit this is explained in the Childhood part of the article although it seems to be forgotten in the following sentences.
- There are many different sources when it comes to the Khan dynasty. There is, along with some others; The Secret History of the Mongols, the works of Rachîd ed-Dîn, the ( and pardon my poor chinese to english translation! ) Huan-yuan cheng-wu ts'in-tcheng lou chronicles and the later works of Marco Polo... Each of these works countain differences from one to another. The different dates, the number of people involved in battles and the number of deaths in those battles and even some subtle or sometimes legendary feats are not confirmed in all of what has been written during the Khan dynasty. It should also be noted that the Secret History of the Mongols is mostly a " romanesque " version. I believe this is not a very good source if you want to get the real facts about GK. I have read many books about the GK era and I warn people: Do not believe everything that is written. Some of the writters think they have some " magic power " and that they know the dates such as the killing of GK's father or the mariage of Borté & GK or something like that. I repeat: Everything in GK's childhood, teenage years and even later is UNSURE!!!
I could complain about many things in this article, but, as I said, it is one source vs. another source and would be neverending. In this case I believe that it should be made clearer that many of the facts and dates of his childhood are still unsure. For each unsure facts ( mostly dates ), it should be said " according to ( source ) it is said that... [...] while ( another source ) states that... [...] ".
Thanks! ( I just hope I did this right...! )
-- 207.253.53.24 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking through the archives to see if there were any discussions about perhaps making the official page for what is now Genghis Khan into Chingis Khan. Now that it is acknowledged by most historical scholars that Chingis Khan is the proper form of the western misnomer Genghis Khan, I propose that we move the contents of this article and acknowledge on Wikipedia what has been accepted by historians. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa!kh4n ( talk • contribs) -- Latebird 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
God, this page reads like it was written by a forth grader. One of the most significant men in all of history, and this is what he gets? Bravo, Wikipedia, your ineptitude shines through again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.166.83.175 ( talk • contribs).
According what i saw on the History Channel, Genghis Khan's first descendant had a curse to give on his deathbed. He said whoeevr disturbs his tomb will face a power that will cause hell to break loose abnd effect us forever, and guess what? They found it. The next day Hitler went and declared war! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raghav03 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
If "Ghenggis Khan" is the title of Temujin and "Temujin" is really his name, why don't we call this article "Ghenggis Khan Temujin" or just "Temujin"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Temurjin ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Because most people know him as Genghis Khan. Yaan 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I understand what you are trying to tell me, but I alredy know this and I'm alright with that. What does stresses me out is that Russians just can't let go off of it. I mean, there were many tyrants, cruel rulers and bloodthirsty leaders in some countries, but those countries were forgiven. Example: Japan was one of the countries that was on rampage and killing a lot in Asia, but after the war (well, at least 5 years) other countries were trading and communicating with Japan without a freaking problem. But Russians keep looking at Genghis Khan more as a mortal enemy, rather then historical figure. I don't think that isn't messed up. Kniaz March 30
I just wanted to let people know that and why I changed around the 'In Mongolia' section. I found the text convoluted, confusing, and redundant, so I tried as much as possible to make it clear and free-flowing while not changing significantly the actual content. There was a lot of subjectless 'there is concern that,' 'there is a feeling that,' 'is presently considered to be' kind of stuff, and I don't like that at all, so I tried to put subjects in when I could.
I did, however, just eliminate an entire sentence that claims that Gengis Khan's 'military genius is undervalued'? I'm sorry, by whom? Whenever an American makes a list of three or four of the world's most talented military minds, Genghis is invariably on the list alongside Napoleon and Alexander the Great - remember Bill and Ted's Excellent Aventure? I'm not going to significantly change the content of the rest of this paragraph, even though it's the kind of thing that would get you arrested in Germany if you said it about Adolf Hitler, but I'm going to take this sentence out. In addition to being fairly incorrect, in the context of the rest of the paragraph, it is redundant. If anyone wants it put back in, please only do so if you have some sort of evidence supporting it.
And, of course, thanks to the people who worked on these paragraphs before me.
Look at the high percentage of red-haired people among the Central Asian Peoples of today. Khalka Mongols, Kazak, Kirgiz and Tatar are all known for their high percentage of red-haired people. Rashid ad-Din, who has met Genghis Khan, described him as having red hair and green eyes (especially Tatar and Kirgiz people are known for posessing these traits). I find it a little strange that it isn't mentioned that Genghis Khan most likely had red hair. Red haired people make up only 1 per cent of the world's population, therefore I think it should be mentioned that Genghis possessed it. Abu Musab al-Suri 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Genghis Khan was a battlefield genious(but did not put it in the article, I never edit article). At that time Genghis Khan had only few people(soldiers) and he always had to make sure that different tribes are in good relations with each other, since he did united them and they followed him. Also, China was superior in terms of tehnology and Kievan Rus (Rus was Bigger then modern Russia) was so much bigger then Mongolia at the time, having more people. Genghis Khan had many strategys, like keeping Rus ununited and his horsemen tactics. So how is it that he wasn't a genious of battlefield. Kniaz
Some of his tactics were unique but most of the horsemanship skills were aeons old.(read Attilla the HUN by John Man)I am not saying that he was not a brilliant tactician with lots of unique tactics.( laserpico)
I rewrote the introduction. I tried to keep as many structural elements and original phrases from the original text as I could. Overall, though, I simply felt that the sentences were too long and confused, and that a potential reader of the article would be better served by paragraphs that flowed a little more easily.
I did, though, eliminate most of the following paragraph almost completely:
'Modern history credits him with Pax Mongolica, contrary to the Mongols' proverbial reputation as barbarous and fearsome "vandals" in the West because of their merciless conquests and territorial expansion. However, Genghis Khan and the succeeding Mongol Khagans did cause considerable death and destruction.'
First of all, the existence of a 'Pax Mongolica' does not run contrary to the Mongols merciless conquests and territorial expansion. In fact, the entire point of the phrase 'Pax Romana' (and therefore the idea of a 'Pax Mongolica' that stems from it) was that the Romans were simply so brutal and complete in their conquest of other nations that no one would dare challenge them, thus leading to a situation of relative peace.
Second, if by 'Vandals' one means to suggest a tendency towards the destruction of cities and the merciless rape and slaughter of its inhabitants, I would say that this phrase actually describes the Mongols method of warfare fairly accurately.
Third, the 'considerable death and destruction' sentence is a little ham-fisted.
I think that the intro that I wrote says almost the same thing that the original one did, just more clearly and without unncessary redundancy.
I thank the author(s) of the original introduction and welcome any questions, suggestions, or corrections.
---
First of all, you should know that the culture of writing and revising Wikipedia articles is based around gentlemanly conduct. I introduced myself to you and the entire community though my use of a login name; I also made it very easy for you to contact me personally by setting up a 'mail to' section in my user page. I did these things out of respect, and I would ask you in the future to show the same degree of respect by using your name when you respond to my changes.
Clearly you and I differ in our analysis of certain historical facts. But what is most disturbing to me is not so much the content of the introduction that you have written (and your defense of it above), but the fact that they are written in incredibly poor English. The grammar and syntax that you created is so improper that many of the sentences you wrote do not actually have any literal meaning. I will use the first sentence of your response as an example.
You say that my introduction 'tries to contradict his proverbial reputation as a barborous and vicious conquerer.' Now, I gather from the rest of your comments that you mean to say that I am emphasizing his brutal nature and not focusing enough on his positive qualities. But the English word 'contradict' means 'to speak in opposition to,' so the literal meaning of the phrase you just wrote is that my introduction suggests that Genghis was *not* just a terrible conqueror. Also, the first comma you use is redundant, the sentence is a run-on, and you misspelled both 'barbarous' and 'conqueror.' So you see that no one who reads this sentence will finish it actually understanding what you meant to say.
I will not bother with a similar analysis of the other sentences you have written, but I assure you that if anything their grammatical structures are even more incorrect.
Now, Wikipedia is based on the spirit of compromise, so I suggest the following: You will write me (by clicking on this link [1]) and tell me what you want the introduction to say. And since I can actually write proper English, I will write for you the things that you want expressed. This way we both get what we want, no? You get your ideas expressed to others, and Wikipedia doesn't become an embarrassment to all those who have such high hopes for it.
I will wait a week for a response before reverting to my revised introduction. Thank you.
Cal
21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? These changes are self explanotory. See the articles of the link to main pages and you will see what I'm talking about. Read and then comment and revert. These are very minor changes. Be reasonable and stop reverting stuff if you don't read more about it and get a grip of what we are talking about. At least read one of the linked aricles, especially Mongol invasion of Rus. 71.196.154.224 15:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC) These small changes shouldn't need talk.
I don't know why you are reverting this info. Urdu spelling should be included, as well as clarification on Mongol invasion or Rus. 71.196.154.224 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What also do you mean "who cares?", Who cares if we delete the Chinese spelling, don't be bigoted towards Chinese and revengeful towards Mongols. NPOV. Your edits and comments look very pro-China, and will be reverted all the time if you make any Chinese and against Mongol (Genghis) assumptions. Genghis Khan is part of a lot of different culture, not just Chinese and he is well regarded in Mongolia and elsewhere, so people are not trying to eat your China. Relax. Your reverts should be made with description, and I just gave description to my revert. Don't be close minded. 71.196.154.224 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine article, could easily make featured article. One issue though – the article says "[T]he shah had all the men shaved and all but one beheaded before sending them back to Genghis Khan. Were they all behaded or not? -- Ezeu 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think all but one were killed, but I am not sure whether it was beheading or not. Olorin28 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop writing non-sense and attacking Mongols for blatant lies, contradictions, reverts. We already addressed the negative things in consequences of Mongol conquests. Acknoledge the good and the bad. Stop it!. 71.196.154.224 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In China kubilai khan was called the Great Builder and sponsored at least 200 plays. Pottery, art, architecture and the theatre flourished under his rule.Genghis is venerated (at least in some parts of China) about as much as in Mongolia.This is because his grandson Kubilai founded the Yuan dynasty. (source from Storm From The East and Genghis khan by John Mann )(laser pico)
I do have another source: http//afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/.
folks,this is not a pissing contest. You need to provide verifiable sources for both positive and negative information. And please remember that other Wikipedia pages don't count as sources on their own. If anything, then you should refer to the external sources that were used to write them. -- Latebird 08:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Just want to ask you, Lao Wai. What is the biggest contiguous empire? Olorin28 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The Mongols ruled Persia long before it splitted up.Kubilai's brother Hulegu conquered the little they didnt already own at least 10 years before the khanates truly became independent.Excuse any grammatical or spelling mistakes.(laser pico)
Lao Wai, you are welcomed to write the negatives as long as you provide sources and references as much as you want, you know that right? 71.196.154.224
This discussion seems to be running around in circles, and patronizing comments, as well as throwing around terms like "bigotted" are not helping anything. Not taking a position either way, Lao Wai does have a point that the "positive assertion", that is, claiming that the Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire in the world, does require a source. Similarly, bickering over it in this fashion is not getting as anywhere, as any result that comes from that is OR. If it's decided to include this particular claim, we need to have a source (or sources) that indicate clearly either that a) the Mongol Empire was the largest, or b) that the Mongol Empire was of size X, and its competitors (e.g. Soviet Union, Roman Empire, Qing Dynasty) were of sizes y, z, and q that are smaller than X. Option b would obviously need to be laid out more clearly in a footnote, as this much information is not appropriate for the introduction. siafu 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Another source that says that Alexanders empire was a fifth of the size of the Mongols is Storm From The East
This appears to be a clear cut case of "emipire envy". Of course, you know what they say:"It's not the size of the emipire that matters but the length of its rule."
The intro states that "[s]everal centuries of Mongol rule [...] catalyzed the emergence of modern nations such as [...] Turkey, Germany [...]." What is the basis for such a claim? It is common knowledge that Germany was never ruled by the Mongols while modern Turkey "emerged" after WWI. 203.167.67.208 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
How tall he was?
I changed the statement that read,
'8% of a large region of Asia (or about 0.5% of the world if extrapolated).'
To remove the mention of extrapolation. I figure that extrapolation governs extending an hypothesis beyond the region in which it was devised. An extrapolation of the '8% of a large region' comment, when generalised to a global scale, would just be 8% of the world population. So the fact given must have been calculated by population proportions and not actually extrapolation.
I just want everyone to know that I am very grateful for this website. I had to do a report on Genghis Khan and that as I had been looking for a website that will give me in depth info on the Khans, I couldn't find anything. I was almost in tears when I came across this site and I could just hear the Hallelujah chorus. Thank you for helping me!!
P.S. Because of all this info, I got an A!!
Do you anyone of you guys know why did this article got "B" in the assessment ranking? Any ideas or reasons. I'm just curious and thinking of taking care of those? What is it?
Also in general, how should this article get improved? I think source and reference is one of them and any information on him is really poor or almost nonexistant which is no good.? Any ideas or opinions? 24.9.78.176 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Lao Wei stop being disruptive. Understand WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Baikal 08:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not usually get annoy about anons vandalising the page, but come on, there's a limit. The Mongols conquered Bhutan? Taiwan? The source given is http://www.taiwanho.com/print.php?sid=274
Here is what is says,
Who does that "they" refer to? Well "they" conquered the Ming, you know, the Chinese dynasty that ran from 1368-1644. Who could "they" have been I wonder? 71, your own source claims the Manchus did it, not the Mongols. What do you think you are doing? Lao Wai 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A source that the mongols conquered Vietnam and Bhutan is the Atlas of World History but I am not sure if it is accurate or not.( user Laser Pico)
Do anyone of you guys can translate from Vietnamese to English or is there already tool on the web that does that? It would be nice to understand what is written in the vietnamese wikipedia? Any ideas and clues? 71.196.236.162 05:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that an authentic portrait of Genghis Khan? If not, shouldn't the picture be noted as an artist's interpretation?
There were some extensive additions from an anonymous contributor today that included several potentially very encyclopedic facts about Genghis Khan, including factual information about his standing in the minds of modern Mongolians, and an anecdote about the seizure of Baghdad (which, actually, took place after Genghis Khan's death). I reverted the changes as none came with citations, and I have no idea where to find any references, but I do think that much of it would be valuable. To that end, has anyone seen any of that info before, and know of a source to cite for it? siafu 03:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I just want to supply the reference that was asked about the 10,000 group of soldiers. Here it is in Mongolian with hard translated and typed in English characters.
1. 1 - neg (one)
2. 10 - arvan or arvanii (10th) ('arvanii tsereg', or in translation to English, 'Soldiers of 10')
3. 100 - zuu or zuutiin (100th) ('zuutiin tsereg', tsereg meaning "soldier" in Mongolian)
4. 1000 - myanga or myangatiin (1000th) ('myangatiin tsereg')
5. 10,000 -
tumen ("tumnii tsereg"), see that article there is no confusion and problem with using
tumen as identifier of 10,000 soldiers with one leader of 10,000th. see also
Tumen, it's common name in Mongolia and also see
Tumen River, etc.
6. 100,000 - zuun myanga or "zuun myangatiin tsereg") ("myanga" meaning "thousand")
168.253.20.90
04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
is there any legend about genghis to be lame like his descendant timur. or him being blind by one eye. nids 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In the Property and Culture section on the destruction of the conquests (just above "Death and Burial") there's a mention of the Iranian cities Ray and Tus being destroyed by order of Genghis Khan. Since someone put a {{fact}} tag on the sentence, I was trying to find a reference for it but I'm having trouble locating anything on these cities in particular. Their destruction during the war with Khwarezmia does not at all seem unlikely, but we also need a reference for the other claim in the sentence, which is that they were the most populous cities in Iran and cultural centers. I'll keep looking, but anyone else have anything we can put in? siafu 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This picture seems to be incorrect for it includes the territory of Belarus, which was a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which in its turn was independent of the Mongol Empire... Bacian 00:16, 01 September 2006 (UTC)
It also conflicts with the Ottoman Empire territory in the Anatolia.
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed two unsourced passages. The first seems to be speculation, the second mud slinging. I have searched for references, but was not able to find any. It's a shame for "citation needed" tags to be hanging on a fine article like this.-- Rudjek 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"the family of his future wife Borte, members of the Onggirat tribe." & "Temüjin married Börte of the Konkirat tribe around the age of 16". Both from the childhood part, which one is right ? I mean, Borte's family was from Onggirat tribe but she was from Konkirat? Did she created a tribe ? Which one is right ?
And also, did they married 3 times ? I mean, once when Temujin is 9, then at 12 he's at the marriage age, and then when he is 16 ?
Thanks ! Nerval 12:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did that section that included uniting the mongol tribes, early life and all that stuff. That was a huge section. If someone is going to delete that much information, should enter info in the discussion page. Where is it? What happened? Was there consensus? Talk to me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.154.124 ( talk) 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
The first four lines are incredibly cluttered. This is the English wikipedia, so why is there an incessant need to show how his name is written in so many different languages? It is simply difficult on the eyes and unclear. Supertigerman 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
???? Mr. Nash has purportedly taken the place of the honourable Khan in the article. Somebody should fix.
Goryo was never completely conquered by the Mongols. It was forced to be a vassal state to Yuan, but never lost its national identity. 66.214.242.93 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I had a stab at addressing some of the problems in it, but honestly it appears to have been written by someone that was too POV and/or had a poor command of English. The section needs to be a fair bit longer, with citations and better explanations of how Genghis Khan is regarded in China. I can't believe everyone loves him to bits, either now or in the past, even if he is a popular icon. Does no one criticise him for his looting of China?
The bit about there being more ethnic Mongolians in the PRC thus he is Chinese is exceptionally weird. That doesn't seem like a rational argument to me - maybe it could be explained a little better. John Smith's 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In "Loyalty" section it is mentioned about GK having argument with his son Batu. Isn't Batu his grandson? If it was refeering to Wang Khan's son, I think his name is Sengum or "Nilha" Sengum. Temur 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is to write about how Kazakh people perceive GK, either in Kazakhstan or Mongolia, since if not anything, Kazakhs are the most influenced by GK and the Mongols. Temur 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah You are right Batu was Chengis's grand child (Chengis is right way to pronouce in Mongolian way )
"Genghis Khan was born between 1150 and 1160. In his early childhood, he learned how to masturbate while riding a horse. Later when he was over six years old he lost his virginity and also he was allowed to participate in uniting expeditions with his clan/tribe. At around the age of nine he had is first threesome but his tribal leader father was poisoned and he and his household was driven away by his clan that thought he was too young to rule."
Now I know Ghengis Khan was an OG, but come on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.149.192 ( talk) 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
This applies to other articles about Mongol Empire as well. Why is there not an "Invasion of East Asia" or "Invasion of China" section? This is obviously very important to the Mongols. I read somewhere that they actually consider their triumph over the Jin their greatest achievement in "Secret History of the Mongols." Remember it's their triumph over Jin that decided the future master of China. There should be a whole page for it, not one paragraph. In addition, the decisive battle between the Mongols and Jin is NOT called the Battle of Badger Pass. Just think, that's an English name, how can that be the name of a pass in China and Mongolia? (There's an actual battle of Badger Pass, I think it's between the Native Americans and British or something, but it sure isn't a Mongol battle) According to my research (Chinese books) the battle is called the battle of Ye Hu Lin. If Ye Hu is badger (not sure about that) it should not be pass but forest. Anyhow it's decisive. According to the book it's between 450 000 Jin troops and 100 000 Mongols, and it decided the master of China. I would have written an article on it but :1 I have no time right now, 2 all my sources are in Chinese books and I neither know how to site them nor if they are accepted. If I have time I'll probably go to the library and get some english books on this and put it up. Anyways someone help me do this whole Conquest of East Asia. Afterall, without consolidating their power in East Asia, ie defeating Jin, they wouldn't have set out to conqueor the Khwarezmian. ParallelPain 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)ParallelPain ParallelPain 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have heard varying accounts of how he died. Most agree that it was in a fight with Temujin, but there are conflicting opinions over what that fight was over. I have heard:
A tussle over food as dictated in this aricle.
That Bekhter was spying for the tribe that eventually kidnapped Temujin.
That Temujin was helped by another brother.
That Temujin had heard that, by some weird Mongol loophole, Bekhter, as eldest male, was allowed to force himself on his mother.
That Temujin killing Bekhter was just a rumor.
Also, I could find no source for Temujin not feeling any remorse after killing Bekhter. I slapped a citation needed on that sentence. Regards, Belgium EO 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it strange that his birthdate is stated as c. 1162, but later is said to be between 1150 and 1160. Shouldn't 1160 be changed to 1170 to give a better range? 71.208.214.95 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
( First, pardon my spelling in the following for I have read all of my GK stuff in different languages. This is also my first ever contribution to wikipedia. )
I agree. To me, this is a recurring problem in wikipedia. Many wikipedian articles about "ancient times" suffer from inaccuracies such as this. From what I've read in the Genghis Khan article, I believe, unfortunately, that you guys should completely correct this and pass the word to other language versions of GK for the articles are covered almost systematically with wrong dates, false affirmations and chronological mistakes which make the whole thing hardly understandable as a reader. All of this caused by the different sources.
First, there are two things everyone should agree to:
- ALL of the dates of Temudjin's childhood, up until his 20s, are, to all serious historians, still under debate. There are no proof as to when he was actually born, although we can guess and speculate according to the different later feats Genghis Khan is related to. I admit this is explained in the Childhood part of the article although it seems to be forgotten in the following sentences.
- There are many different sources when it comes to the Khan dynasty. There is, along with some others; The Secret History of the Mongols, the works of Rachîd ed-Dîn, the ( and pardon my poor chinese to english translation! ) Huan-yuan cheng-wu ts'in-tcheng lou chronicles and the later works of Marco Polo... Each of these works countain differences from one to another. The different dates, the number of people involved in battles and the number of deaths in those battles and even some subtle or sometimes legendary feats are not confirmed in all of what has been written during the Khan dynasty. It should also be noted that the Secret History of the Mongols is mostly a " romanesque " version. I believe this is not a very good source if you want to get the real facts about GK. I have read many books about the GK era and I warn people: Do not believe everything that is written. Some of the writters think they have some " magic power " and that they know the dates such as the killing of GK's father or the mariage of Borté & GK or something like that. I repeat: Everything in GK's childhood, teenage years and even later is UNSURE!!!
I could complain about many things in this article, but, as I said, it is one source vs. another source and would be neverending. In this case I believe that it should be made clearer that many of the facts and dates of his childhood are still unsure. For each unsure facts ( mostly dates ), it should be said " according to ( source ) it is said that... [...] while ( another source ) states that... [...] ".
Thanks! ( I just hope I did this right...! )
-- 207.253.53.24 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking through the archives to see if there were any discussions about perhaps making the official page for what is now Genghis Khan into Chingis Khan. Now that it is acknowledged by most historical scholars that Chingis Khan is the proper form of the western misnomer Genghis Khan, I propose that we move the contents of this article and acknowledge on Wikipedia what has been accepted by historians. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa!kh4n ( talk • contribs) -- Latebird 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
God, this page reads like it was written by a forth grader. One of the most significant men in all of history, and this is what he gets? Bravo, Wikipedia, your ineptitude shines through again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.166.83.175 ( talk • contribs).
According what i saw on the History Channel, Genghis Khan's first descendant had a curse to give on his deathbed. He said whoeevr disturbs his tomb will face a power that will cause hell to break loose abnd effect us forever, and guess what? They found it. The next day Hitler went and declared war! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raghav03 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
If "Ghenggis Khan" is the title of Temujin and "Temujin" is really his name, why don't we call this article "Ghenggis Khan Temujin" or just "Temujin"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Temurjin ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Because most people know him as Genghis Khan. Yaan 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)