Talk:Genghis Khan

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

Images

WHERE'S KHAN'S PICTURE? THERE'S A PICTURE OF HIS WIFE, HIS GRANDSON(S), BUT NOT HIM. KHAN'S PICTURE SHOULD BE THE LAST TO BE DELETED. ---srry for the caps, just wanted attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZhuKeeper (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

death

I think there are various explanations on how chinggis died in the different sources. Some say he fell from a horse, others allege a connection to a XiXia princess, one(?) goes into detail and sais that this princess severed the small Genghis. I think incorporating this into the article would be better than leaving it at the current "unknown reasons". I'll try to find the exact citations until tomorrow. Heissig's Ein Volk sucht seine Geschichte should be OK, I assume? Yaan (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of name

The article says:

"Genghis" as popularly spelled and pronounced in Western media and text is supposedly derived from the original Persian reports of an invading army, led by a man in 1219 against the Khwarezmid Empire. The Persian people pronounced the man's name "Genghis", as there was no "ch" sound in the Persian tongue. Henceforth, the Persian version of the name of the leader of the Mongol Empire became known and widespread in the Western hemisphere as "Genghis".[citation needed]

This is absolute nonsense. There is a "ch" sound in Persian (e.g. chahar, four). The spelling "Genghis" is more likely to have come from Marco Polo attempting to render the sound of Chinese. It might be worth pointing out that, in that case, the initial G should be pronounced j or zh, and not like "get" as so many people do. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source either way? If not, then this kind of speculation is Original Research, and needs to be removed (that's why there is a [citation needed] there in the first place). --Latebird (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found a review that attributes the Genghis/Persian theory to Weatherford, and also refutes it based on historical documents. Therefore I've fixed the text in the article to explain that disagreement and pointing to the relevant source. --Latebird (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Genghis is not Western but the English, French and Spanish spelling, note it's written and pronounced with a "ch" [ʧ] in Russian (Ч), Mongolian (Ч), Tartar (Ç) and also German (Dsch-). The English spelling should follow the Russian, Mongolian and Tartar for this word, IMO. --Atitarev (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

German pronounciation is actually more like Jingis, with J as in Jungle. Yaan (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The English name is and remains Genghis. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether it "should" be or follow anything different. --Latebird (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Above statement is wrong. Genghis is almost never used in newly published (scholarly) books and articles in English these days. Most common spelling is Chingiz. Chingis also used. Genghis is now reserved for childrens' books and journalists, Wikipedia should change to reflect this.

I have never seen anyone use Chingiz. Chinggis, Činggis etc. yes, but not Chingiz. Yaan (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looked at some sources and I was wrong above - Chinggis is most common, followed by Chingis and Chingiz in roughly equal second place. No matter how commonly Genghis is used in English, there's no escaping that it's wrong. 212.135.195.50 (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just repeating such a statement doesn't make it true. What are you verifiable published sources to support such a claim? --Latebird (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is one verifiable published source: CIA World Factbook: Mongolia.G8briel (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So the CIA makes a statement about which spelling is most commonly "used in newly published (scholarly) books and articles in English these days"? Because that would be necessary to support the statements made above. If it's just a random example, then it doesn't help much on its own (and by experience, the World fact book does use rather random spellings for most names). --Latebird (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Short of finding a literature review that addresses which spelling is more commonly used (unlikely), I think we'll have to rely on zeitgeist here. I am not an expert in the field of Mongolian studies, but I have been working in it lately and almost all recent scholarly work I've read prefers Chinggis. I think that there is increasing shift this way because the Romanization is just a little too far off, kind of like the way Beijing used to be spelled Peking. I will say though that Google turns up many more hits for Genghis over Chinggis, but this may be in part due to Mongolian BBQs and video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G8briel (talk • contribs) --Latebird (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA write Chinggis. But they also seem to indicate (by writing "Khan" in all-caps) that he should be referred to as Mr. Khan, which is just wrong. It not only does not help much, it also seems to have it wrong. Yaan (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image of Genghis Khan

The image of Genghis Khan in this article is a later Chinese interpretation of what he may have looked like.

The preponderance of evidence actually suggests he looked more central asian(like a pashtun) than east asian. A more accurate picture should be put up in it's place.--Ironzealot (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no accurate pictures preserved (if any ever existed). Every image you'll ever see is based on pure speculation. Btw: The image you uploaded is a clear copyright violation, and the Public Domain tag you added is incorrect. The photograph is obviously less than hundred years old, and most likely still enjoys full copyright protection. The age of the statue doesn't matter in this context. --Latebird (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Morgan probably said that Khiyad borjigons were a vassal of Khereids. In fact, they were allies. See the secret history of mongols. --Enerelt 11:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please he didn't look like Pashtun of all people. Get some reality. He was Asian. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

wrong image

File:Cheboer.jpg

The image on the right does not show Borte Ujin, but Chabi, a wife of Khubilai Khan. For comparison, see Image:YuanEmpressAlbumChabi.jpg with a caption in the upper right corner. The caption says that the portrait is of a wife of Khubilai (chinese 世祖 Shizu), and with some imagination one can also read her name as 徹伯爾 (cheboer), which does sound as if it could be a chinese version of Chabi, but hardly a chinese version of Börte. Lest anyone claims this is original research, the description given in the source (Dschingis Khan und seine Erben (exhibition catalogue), München 2005, p. 308) also makes this woman Chabi, wife of Shizu, not Borte, wife of Taizu. Yaan (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

Some sources say he died on 18 August 1227. Are these accurate? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Weiers in Geschichte der Mongolen, Stuttgart (?) 2004 says something like "probably in the second half of August" (can look for exact quote and page number if you want). I would say Weiers is generally reliable, more so when he is not dealing with Mongolia's modern history. He does not give a source for his date of death, let alone a source for the very precise "August 18th". The Secret History of the Mongols mentions almost nothing on Genghis' death. Yaan (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So, at this stage, it's just a conjectural date, not a confirmed date. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Movie about Great Khan

I added the sentence:The descendant of Gray wolf, japanese-mongolian blockbuster, released in 2007. Do not remove it, please! --Enerelt (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is overcrowded. We now have movies where Genghis Khan plays only a rather minor role (Heir to Genghis Khan a.k.a. Storm Over Asia, and probably that movie about the Mongol invasions of Japan as well), as well as TV documentaries, of which one could probably find dozens if one looked hard enough. Few of these movies seem to be very notable in the context of GK, and I would like to narrow the list down to maybe The Conqueror, plus the most recent movies (Mongol and the one added by Enerelt). any opinions? Yaan (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of such lists in general, but this one is truly ridiculous. If we can't get rid of it entirely, I'd suggest to implement the following restrictions: List only items that have their own article (which makes them notable), and only those where Genghis is portrayed as a central character (which makes them relevant). All other entries are just cruft. --Latebird (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Genghis Khan" be used instead of "Temujin" in the article?

Just wondering... --221.220.22.226 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Temüjin before 1206, Genghis Khan afterwards. Cf. Pope John Paul II. Yaan (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Taoist Monk

Contrary to what the article stated, Genghis did not lose interest in Qiu Chuji, the Taoist monk he summoned. Besides saying that there are no elixirs for immortality, Qiu also gave Genghis additional advices that seemed to have a positive impact on Genghis. As a result Qiu gained tremendous favor from Genghis. According to Isabelle Robinet's book "Taoism: Growth of a Religion," he used Genghis' favor to save the lives of millions of Chinese. I don't have time right now, but I'll try to edit the article to reflect this later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MengTzu622 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Genghis never actually got very far into China (for various reasons unrelated to religion), it may be that your source overstates the influence of that monk a bit. Is that really a reliable source about history? Or does it just try to promote taoism? --Latebird (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the famous "dead people don't pay taxes" stuff? I always thought it woulld be due to Yelü Chucai, but I may be wrong. Yaan (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a text called "Xuan Feng Qing Hui Lu" that reports the meeting between Genghis and Qiu. According to the article for Qiu Chuji in the Chinese version of the Wiki, Genghis ordered Yelu Chucai to make the record (the link to the article is http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%98%E5%A4%84%E6%9C%BA). The record doens't seem to report how many people Qiu saved, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MengTzu622 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Before you try to add any of this, please make sure that you have historically reliable sources available, and not just some popular legends. I'm not ruling anything out, but let's avoid the rumour mills. --Latebird (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this to the article: "However, the Yuan Shi (the official historical record of the Mongolian Yuan dynasty) paints a very different picutre, portraying Genghis as favoring the Taoist monk and being interested in his teachings. The Yuan Shi states that the Taoist monk Chang Chun advised Genghis to honor the Heaven, treat the people with compassion, and have a pure heart free from desire. In response, Genghis stated that the Heaven had sent him an immortal to strengthen his will. He ordered his officials to write down the monk's advices to teach his children. Chang Chun also advised Genghis to guide the people in the way of filial piety, and Genghis agreed. After Qiu returned home, he ordered his students to seek out the survivors of war, such that twenty to thirty thousands were freed from slavery or recovered from near death. Genghis ordered monastery where Chang Chun resided to be renamed Chang Chun. Genghis sent a message to the monk, stating that he always kept him in mind, and asked him to always keep him in mind." I also wonder if the statement about Genghis' lack of interest should be removed since it does not have a citation now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MengTzu622 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

With this addition, you entirely rely on a primary source, which you interpret yourself. This is considered Original Resesarch, and entirely unacceptable. You will need to find a scholarly secondary source presenting such interpretation, and then just report on their findings. Among other things, such a secondary source should explain how reliable this "yuan shi" can be relating to Genghis, given that it was written several generations after his death. Until then, your addition will have to be removed again. I don't care about the other statement (about losing interest). Since there are conflicting views, we can just leave it away as well for the sake of neutrality. --Latebird (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

May I present the text of Yuan Shi with a translation that I've already made? (I can send you this translation if you like) In addition, can you explain why an assertion regarding a historical event with no citation at all is allowed because it is a viewpoint, but an interpretation of a primary source regarding the same event is not permitted? The paragraph I posted is my summary of the relevant portions of the text. Even if one considers all summaries to be interpretative, you stated that we should avoid the rumor mills, and it seems that allowing an assertion without citation is more detrimental to achieving that goal than an interpretative summary of a primary source is. In addition, the Bible is cited in some wiki articles, and the Bible is certainly a primary source. I'm not trying to challenge your authority on this matter. I simply wish to contribute to wiki and present helpful information. I understand that there are guidelines to follow, and I'm more than happy to comply.

I've changed the whole section now, to give a more balanced view overall. The fact that Ghengis was interested (and highly tolerant about) all other religions is well known. But I have yet to see a source that confirms a special affinity with taoism beyond that. As long as that is the case, expanding on Qiu Chuji here more than by mentioning his name would mean to give him undue weight. --Latebird (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I think that's a brilliant decision. I never intended to argue that Genghis favored Taoism in particular. His respect for Qiu was probably more due to his admiration for Qiu as a cultivated and spiritual Taoist than for Taoism itself. My only concern in seeking to edit the article was only that it previously portrayed the relationship between Genghis and Qiu in a way that is contrary to official historical records and has no support whatsoever. Whether official historical records is accurate is a different issue; it's simply illogical to assert something without any evidence when there is clear and contrary evidence. Again, good call, and thanks for the edit. One suggestion, though: you wrote that Genghis consulted with Christian missionaries, Muslim merchants, OR the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji. I think you meant to say Christian missionaries, Muslim merchants, AND the taoist monk Qiu Chuji, as I think you meant to say that he consulted with all of them.

I must admit I'm a bit unclear about the and/or distinction here. I thought when listing examples, the two were mostly equivalent. But then, that may just be my German language background shining through... --Latebird (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to say that he consulted with all of them, then "and" is appropriate. "And" may be used when listing examples.

Could you clarify what you mean by "Genghis never actually got very far into China"? Genghis Khan personally led the conquest of Jin Dynasty and crossed the Yellow River. The Taoist monk mentioned here is Qiu Chuji, who was based at a Taoist monastery at present day Beijing. The monk's area of activity was well within Genghis' domain during his lifetime. Snowybeagle (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the relevant map, then you'll see that the Jin Dynasty only covered about the northern third of "China" (not even counting the western territories of the modern country). The Yellow River and what later became Beijing were proportionally located just next to the Mongolian border. Genghis didn't get much farther south than that himself. The remaining ~80% of the territory were later conquered by his sons and grandsons. --Latebird (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But that still shows Qiu Chuji's home base to be well within Temujin's area of personal activity, so Temujin not personally going further south would not be at odds with the suggestion that if Temujin heeded Qiu's advice, many lives were spared. To call them as Chinese lives might be anachronistic since there was no nation known as China then, but much of the region we're looking at - the territories of the Jin and Xi Xia, are part of present day PRC. Snowybeagle (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is that Genghis did not need to have conquered much of China to have heard of Qiu. Fame can often spread beyond boundaries, and there is all the more reason to believe that Genghis had heard of and was impressed with Qiu's reputation as a wise religious leader. It's possible that Genghis' advisor Yelu Chucai, who was a pracitioner of Taoism according to the wiki article about Yelu Chucai, told Genghis about Qiu. It's also possible that the information about Qiu was brought to Genghis by someone from China, possibly one of his officers who had been on a campaign in China. Since Genghis summoned Qiu to visit him at a place outside of China, it does not matter whether Genghis was in China or not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MengTzu622 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that the two guys met and talked. The question is just how much weight to give the details in this article here. If there are scholarly secondary sources confirming the tales from the Yuan Shi, then the article Qiu Chuji might be a better place to expand on the topic. --Latebird (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources agreeing with the Yuan Shi. They include same details about the event that are included in the Yuan Shi. If you're satisfying with these, then I have some questions about copyright laws and whether referencing them would violate copyright laws. Also, Yuan Shi states the event in plain language, so there is little need to interpret it, and I believe that is certainly very weighty evidence, since Yuan Shi is an official record for Chinese dynastic history and is often relied on by historians of Chinese history. I'm not suggesting, however, that we simply believe the Yuan Shi without a critical study of its claims. It is, nonetheless, a respected source. Further, I cited it as it is strong evidence against the unsupported claim previously included in the article. In response to your question how much weight we can give to it: even without looking at secondary researches, it is certainly far more weighty than an unsupported claim, such that if an unsupported claim is allowed as a viewpoint, then including the Yuan Shi's description is far, far more justified and reasonable. (I know the article is now fixed so that the unsupported claim that contradicts the Yuan Shi is not removed; I'm just explaining why I decided to cite the Yuan Shi). Another thing to keep in mind is that the Yuan Shi is not saying that Genghis favored Taoism over other religions. It appears that he consulted Qiu the same way political leaders consult respected wise men.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MengTzu622 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing information from sources is not a copyright issue. You just can't copy text verbatim (except for very short citations). The need of interpretation has little to do with plain vs. unclear language. But you already seem to understand that the claims of the Yuan Shi need to be verified by modern scholars, so we probably already agree about this. --Latebird (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If I have time, I'll start adding this information in the Qiu Chuji article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MengTzu622 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Genghis speak Turkic?

"In addition to Mongolian, Temüjin also spoke Turkish, possibly as part of his effort to consolidate Turkic tribes within the confederation." So says the article, with a footnote (12). However, this appears in Harold Lamb, Genghis Khan (1927) pp. 232-233. In the reign of Genghis' third son and successor Ogotai, a Buddhist told Ogotai that Genghis Khan had appeared to him in a dream and commanded the extermination of all Muslims.

Ogotai meditated for a while.
"Did Genghis Khan address thee by the words of an interpreter?" he asked at length.
"Nay -- O my Khan, he himself spoke."
"And thou knowest the Mongol speech?" persisted Ogotai.
It was an evident fact that the man honored by the vision spoke nothing but Turki.
"Then thou hast lied to me," retorted the Khan, "for Genghis Khan spoke only Mongol." And he ordered the antagonist of the Muhammadans to be put to death.

Since the story probably comes from one of the primary sources, the question calls for research. The footnoted source (Spuler, Bertold (1985) Die Mongolen in Iran, 491) may be incorrect. 216.113.219.67 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Some further research reveals this. The reference of footnote 12 is to Bertold Spuler (1911-1990), Die Mongolen in Iran: Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1250-1350 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), 494 pages. Consulting that edition at books.google.com, one finds that page 491 is in the index (which runs from page 461 to page 494) and consists of index entries from "Raqaba" to "Seelenmess". The specific citation in the footnote is therefore false.

The Encarta[1] article on Genghis Khan makes the bald statement, without documentation, "Genghis Khan knew no language but Mongolian". 216.113.219.12 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The original edition of Spuler's Mongolen im Iran was in 1939. Another edition (marked "3rd") came out in 1968. Might the p.494 reference refer to a different edition than the 1985 one? Yaan (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Genghis Khan didn't speak Turkic nor Chinese. He spoke Mongolian only. Anyone who says Genghis Khan identified himself as Turkic and spoke Turkic is lying. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hero or monster?

I don't really understand ,why he's named hero? He ruined all those great civilizations, the most valuable libraries and cities, etc. and then you call him hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.187 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said he is a hero? 71.237.70.49 (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

hes a hero to the mongols, a monster to everyone else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.152.86 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor's (or readers') opinions on the matter are of no relevance. If reliable published sources state he is seen as a hero by some people, then we mention that. End of discussion. --Latebird (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gengis khan promoted literacy,made roads,made hospitals,librays,and the so called 'fact' that hes a 'monster' is something that only ignorant fools say,not my words the words of others Luke12345abcd (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Short?

i heard somewhere that i dontrecall saying that he was shorter than 5 foot does anyone have any sources for this? Luke12345abcd (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)