![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
== Depictions in Modern Culture ==
=== Poetry ===
193.39.159.73 ( talk) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
An IP user ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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 C U T E D H 03:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
Khagan may have been a priestly honour title since it was conferred after life.
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)
"...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)
@ Uniquark9: 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)
If someone really wanted to post this, he should've create a different article. Uniquark9 ( talk) 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change everything from Genghis Khan to Chinggis Khaan, as Chinggis Khaan is correct. 107.204.250.20 ( talk) 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
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 [1] [2]
Mohammedzk ( talk) 06:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)mohammedzk
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)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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: Hildinger, Erik (1997). Warriors Of The Steppe: Military History Of Central Asia, 500 BC To 1700 AD, pages 113-114; 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 | See what I have done) 06:29, 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)
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)
Did you see man who write message to himself? [5] Ceithe ( talk) 15:11, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Considering the discussion above, I'm proposing the following text, which is more detailed in its discussion of events after Dalan Baljut:
Hopefully the above will serve as an adequate compromise that best summarizes academic opinion.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
...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)
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)
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". Whoa, you forgot to mention that he was also prophet, world best professor and God . Ceithe ( talk) 06:25, 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)
IIRC, claims #2 and #3 are discussed by R.P. Lister as well. siafu ( talk) 20:26, 11 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Not done - 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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
{{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Systemic bias |date=__DATE__ |$B=
{{Ambox
| name = Systemic bias
| subst =
| type = content
| image =
| issue = The
neutrality of this article is
questioned because of its
systemic bias. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.41.41.184 (
talk •
contribs) 17:18, July 17, 2015
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/
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
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)
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: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols#Reasons_for_the_1242_withdrawal_from_Hungary -- Nihlus1 ( talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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.
Where does the extra g in Chinggis come from? 2.104.130.203 ( talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9308634{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Narcalas ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
"Ghengiss" could represent several pronunciations. Please supply IPA transcription of what is intended. 96.42.57.164 ( talk) 16:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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. — LlywelynII 13:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
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)![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
...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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
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) 01:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
TrynaMakeADollar, Hunan201p 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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:26, 9 February 2020 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
== Depictions in Modern Culture ==
=== Poetry ===
193.39.159.73 ( talk) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
An IP user ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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 C U T E D H 03:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
Khagan may have been a priestly honour title since it was conferred after life.
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)
"...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)
@ Uniquark9: 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)
If someone really wanted to post this, he should've create a different article. Uniquark9 ( talk) 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change everything from Genghis Khan to Chinggis Khaan, as Chinggis Khaan is correct. 107.204.250.20 ( talk) 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
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 [1] [2]
Mohammedzk ( talk) 06:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)mohammedzk
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)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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: Hildinger, Erik (1997). Warriors Of The Steppe: Military History Of Central Asia, 500 BC To 1700 AD, pages 113-114; 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 | See what I have done) 06:29, 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)
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)
Did you see man who write message to himself? [5] Ceithe ( talk) 15:11, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Considering the discussion above, I'm proposing the following text, which is more detailed in its discussion of events after Dalan Baljut:
Hopefully the above will serve as an adequate compromise that best summarizes academic opinion.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
...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)
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)
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". Whoa, you forgot to mention that he was also prophet, world best professor and God . Ceithe ( talk) 06:25, 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)
IIRC, claims #2 and #3 are discussed by R.P. Lister as well. siafu ( talk) 20:26, 11 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Not done - 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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
{{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Systemic bias |date=__DATE__ |$B=
{{Ambox
| name = Systemic bias
| subst =
| type = content
| image =
| issue = The
neutrality of this article is
questioned because of its
systemic bias. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.41.41.184 (
talk •
contribs) 17:18, July 17, 2015
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/
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
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)
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: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols#Reasons_for_the_1242_withdrawal_from_Hungary -- Nihlus1 ( talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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.
Where does the extra g in Chinggis come from? 2.104.130.203 ( talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9308634{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Narcalas ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
"Ghengiss" could represent several pronunciations. Please supply IPA transcription of what is intended. 96.42.57.164 ( talk) 16:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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. — LlywelynII 13:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
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)![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genghis Khan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
...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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
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) 01:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
TrynaMakeADollar, Hunan201p 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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)