Talk:Genghis Khan

How half-brother Behter got killed

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

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

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

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.

"reportedly"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death and burial

@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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014

I would change the expression "destructive and genocidal warlord who caused enormous damage and destruction to the population of these areas" into something like a "destructive conqueror": the current paragraph is long winded, repetitive ("destructive", "damage and destruction", etc.) and frankly not particularly objective. Furthermore, the term "genocidal" itself is controversial: from what I can tell, it was not an arbitrary, unmotivated phenomenon intentionally aimed at the elimination of an entire population out of ethnic/religious hatred, for its own sake, but rather something that is to be understood in the context of anchient battle/war/warfare, so unless we are merely talking bodycount (which does not seem to me to be what genocide is about, rather the intentional pursue of the destruction of a whole ethnic group for its own sake), I do not see how it would differ from ordinary anchient warfare, except for the scale: I would say that it is rather anacronistic when used in reference to anchient civilizations (sacking was essentially universal), therefore in that sense, every single battle (even up to modern times with firebombings and atomic bombings in WWII) would be considered a "genocide". 95.249.110.135 (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

edit request closed due to ongoing discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014

Change everything from Genghis Khan to Chinggis Khaan, as Chinggis Khaan is correct. 107.204.250.20 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Great Environmentalist

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

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

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

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

Chinese posthumous names and titles

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

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

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

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

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

As you probably know, a lot of historical information about Genghis Khan is actually derived from Chinese sources - from the currently known versions of the Secret History of the Mongols to the image used in the infobox.

If such sources contain Genghis' temple name rather than some straightforward transcription, e.g. 元太祖 rather than 青古思汗, then whoever discusses such sources is likely to use the temple name, like this Mongolian scholar writing in English (on p. 14, just before footnote no.18).

Yaan (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Not really important, but according to wp (which of course is not a reliable source), "The only surviving copies of the work [the Secret History] are transcriptions of the original Mongolian text with Chinese characters, accompanied by a (somewhat shorter) in-line glossary and a translation of each section into Chinese" (emphasis mine). This seems to be the Chinese translation, and mentions Taizu as the guy with the blood clot in his hand. (btw. any idea where one could find more of the in-line glossary?)

This is the source for the birth date given in the article, so one might consider it reasonably important. This one is occasionally mentioned as a rather important source as well.

Would you agree that the source for the image in the info box is at least somewhat important? Would you agree that there are quite a lot of english-language sources that at least mention his temple name, and some that assume familiarity with it?

Yaan (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

All the sources you mentioned are in chinese. They are probably chinese translations and not the original one (I mean the one transcribed with chinese characters). Are you forgetting Altan Tobchi? It's written in 17th centry in Mongolian script and it contains 233 of the 282 chapters of the Secret History not only verbatim but with additional detail in certain parts. I suppose secondary chinese sources may have use or mention the temple name. But not in mongolian, persian and english sources (we probably won't find it in any other language except chinese). So I don't think it is important or useful. The whole concept of temple name is just unfamiliar to non-chinese readers. He wasn't a chinese emperor. Why are you trying to portrait him as a chinese emperor? We can't even say without debate that even Khubilai was an chinese emperor.Uniquark9 (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You questioned whether there are any important [primary] sources on Genghis in Chinese, and I gave you two, plus the nowadays not-so-important part of the Secret History that mentions his temple name.

Secondary scholarship that derives from Chinese sources will also mention his temple name. I already gave you one example from a Mongolian author above, but it is not hard to find more - which is not really surprising, because any serious historian writing about pre-20th century Mongolia will deal with Chinese-language sources regularly.

I do not really care enough about this warmonger to try to portay him as anything - I just do not like it when helpful information - in this case, that the name Taizu was created by Genghis' grandson in order to increase his legitimacy as a Chinese emperor - gets hidden because some touchy user does not like it.

Regards, Yaan (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yaan Which source you mentioned is from a Mongolian author? Yuanshi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yaan: If so, Yuanshi was written by chinese authors during the Ming dynasty. People usually mistake that Yuanshi was written by mongols during Yuan.Uniquark9 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that Chinese dynastic histories tended to be compiled under the succeeding dynasty. I was referring to modern English-language sources, more specifically to this little paper already mentioned in my reply from January 27th. AFAIK the author is from Inner Mongolia. Again, the point was to show that authors who discuss Chinese primary sources are quite likely to mention Taizu, in fact they occasionally seem to assume that their readers are familiar with that name. Yaan (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

further discussion

I couldn't find the original with chinese characters. But here is book about it https://books.google.com/books?id=p9DUAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA17&ots=8hUa-ZzIPG&dq=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&f=false another study: https://books.google.com/books?id=zfKBAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA222&ots=CYt7l0vidY&dq=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=The%20Secret%20History%20of%20Mongols%20original%20chinese&f=false

Chinese names important to China because China always wants to declare that Mongol Empire was Chinese state that created by Chinese king and all territories of the Mongol Empire must be Chinese land. See Han chauvinism, Sinocentrism, Chinese nationalism. Ceithe (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure whether Chinese posthumous titles given by Kublai Khan should be mentioned somewhere in the infobox, but Genghis Khan was definitely not a Chinese emperor. The claim by some Chinese that Mongol Empire was a Chinese state was simply ridiculous. --Evecurid (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not some Chinese, all of Chinese think that Mongol Empire was Chinese state and China must reconquer its "lost" lands. That is why all people dislike the Chinese nation and China.Ceithe (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, from what I have seen there are indeed Chinese people who don't believe Mongol Empire or Yuan dynasty was Chinese at all (an example: original thread, English translation). That is why I did not say "all of Chinese" in my previous post. --Evecurid (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

"Almost all" - likely. I will basically agree with you with this. --Evecurid (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tran dynasty in Vietnam was ruled by Chinese from Fujian province and inflicted one of the worst defeats upon the Mongols at the Battle of Bạch Đằng (1288) and repulsed their invasion. Taylor 2013 p. 120ed. Hall 2008 p. 159. I clearly wrote Mongol armies were devastated by the Tran. Where did I say they were not Mongol?Rajmaan (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Chinese view, all national minorities were member of Great Chinese nation since ancient times and their history is part of Chinese nation. China always lies and always falsifies other nations' history to justify its criminal policy. This Chinese member an example of Chinese propaganda. Modern China is despotic country that violates hundreds of ethnic groups' rights. Ceithe (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

漢人 is always translated by foreigners as "Chinese". China never claimed Mongols are 漢人. China said the Yuan Emperors regarded their country as 中國, and called them 中國人. The Yuan Mongols themselves referred to their state as 中國 (Middle Country). [3] In the Yuan Shi, the son of Toqto'a (a Mongol) boasts about how powerful 中國 is compared to other lands.

［元史］ 列傳第二十七 鐵木兒塔識

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

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

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

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

平章不忽木言：「蠻夷小邦，不足以勞中國。張立道嘗再使安南有功，今復使往，宜無不奉命。」 Another statement from the Yuan Shi again, referring to the Yuan state as 中國.Rajmaan (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Again it was only a Yuanshi version of a statement said to be said by a Yuan official. It is not a direct proof of your claim as mentioned above at all. --Evecurid (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is the same as in Japan and Vietnam.

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

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

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

You aren't even paying attention to what I wrote. It is your language which is the problem. It is Outer Mongols who translate 中國 as Hyatad Uls, when 中國 means Dumdadu Ulus, and Outer Mongols who translate 中國人 as Hyatadiin Irgen instead of Dumdadu Ulus Irgen. In China if you are subject or citizen of 中國, you are called 中國人. Only Han people are called 漢人 in China. The real translation of Hyatadiin Irgen is 漢人. Inner Mongols are called 中國人. China does not call itself 漢國.Rajmaan (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the difference between citizenship and ethnicity. Welcome to the world. It is very different from your point of view. Stop bullshitting and learn what we mean citizenship and ethnicity in ENGLISH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citizenship_and_nationalityUniquark9 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Again you are spamming the same drivel because you apparently can't read. YOUR language does NOT differentiate between a citizen of China and ethnic Chinese. It is YOUR language which calls ALL citizens of China regardless of ethnicity, including Mongol citizens, as "Chinese people" (Hyatadiin Irgen). In the Chinese language, citizens of China are clearly differentiated from ethnic "Han Chinese". Citizens of China including Inner Mongols are called 中國人 (Dumdadu Ulus Irgen) (Middle Country people), while ethnic Han Chinese are called 漢人 (Hyatadiin Irgen). NO ONE in China calls Inner Mongols or Yuan dynasty people as 漢人 (Hyatadiin Irgen). Chinese language clearly differentiates between citizens of China 中國人 and ethnic Chinese 漢人, it is YOUR language which obfuscates the two and calls both 中國人 and 漢人 as "Han Chinese" (Hyatadiin Irgen).Rajmaan (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mongolian language differentiates between 'person' (hun) and 'citizen' (irgen). Also it is not really hard to find official Chinese sources (i.e. sources published by the PRC, not sources in Chinese and not necessarily sources created by ethnic Chinese) that take the distinction between Hyatad and Dundad uls very lightly. Yaan (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Rajmaan, you should not say something like "it is your language which is the problem" in Wikipedia, which does not make any sense. --Evecurid (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Genghis exiled after Dalan Baljut?

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

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

Also don't cite non-existing or unknown books.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Several books mention this. The Secret History of the Mongols is the foremost source documenting this time period, but it is problematic, and just because something isn't mentioned in it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Also, because one academic source doesn't mention the incident doesn't meant that it should not be discussed when other sources do mention it. You would need to find a source challenging those, and then we would mention on Wikipedia that this is a disputed issue. Right now you are aggressively owning this article. The burden is not on me to convince you that you should accept these sources as reliable. As you have challenged the reliability of these sources, it is on you to prove why this content isn't helpful to Wikipedia. I've tried removing the whole section now, since you are being so contentious about it, but now you are contending even that, even though I added it and it was that addition that caused this dispute. As for how did Chinggis defeat Jamukha, he did so about ten years later, after he returned from exile. Finally, I wasn't citing Weatherford. Here are my sources: 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)

Also, calling other editors edits vandalism, when they were trying to restore the article to a stable version prior to the contention, is assuming bad faith, especially when it is their own edits they are removing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You also removed my edits with yours. What else can I call?Uniquark9 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Uniquark9 is right. All scientist have own opinion and Wikipedia is not collection of opinions. View of George Lane and other foreign writers is not mainstream view. Ceithe (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this another of your sock puppets Uniquark? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you see man who write message to himself? [4] Ceithe (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I will briefly respond to this.

-Where on earth are you getting the idea that he unified the tribes in 1-2 year? He returned from exile around 1197, and defeated -Jamukha by 1205 or 1206. That's ten years there.

-When exiled, he probably took his family with him.

-I'm not sure exactly where these sources find the information about his exile. I don't know where to find many of the academic articles and such discussing this issue, so I tried to find some history books to support the addition. I know that it is the common, mainstream academic narrative. The part that's speculative is where he was exiled. I forget where my professor said that the Chinese scholarship says he went, but the Russian scholarship says that he was in China. She noted that the movie Mongols follows the Russian scholarship, since in shows Temujin in China.

-Whether the writers are "foreign" or not has no bearing on their reliability, and certainly doesn't affect whether they are "mainstream." But since you at one point on the Mongol Empire article reverted an edit supported by Encyclopeda Brittanica as "not mainstream," I don't think you know what "mainstream" means (in this context it means the majority global opinion of scholars, particularly scholars who are considered an authority on the matter).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not Mongolian view and there is no such information on Mongolian historical sources. Ceithe (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS amd WP:NPOV. The pertinent standard is whether the view is based on "reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." The "Mongolian view" is not what is relevant; the view of reliable scholarship is. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

3family6: Why don't you just read your sources? They all say it is just a conjecture, hypothesis. Ask your professor that if there is any proof that he was exiled or it is just a guess if you don't want to check by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

They conjecture as to whether he was in China, not whether he was exiled.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

No, you go back and read what I just wrote. It is not our task as Wikipedia editors to prove any hypothesis -- I have no position on the exile theory whatsoever. It is our role to convey reliable scholarship on the issue, not to interpret the history ourselves.
This speaks directly to why your editing so consistently gets reverted. You misunderstand the role of Wikipedia and of Wikipedia editors. You are arguing from primary sources and stating that this or that theory is correct and no others belong. I urge you to review the policies I have cited above:

• Articles are based on "reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."
• "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"

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)

@Laszlo Panaflex: User:3family6 is the one who stating it is a historical fact. Not me. All I am saying is that it is just a conjecture/hypothesis. Why don't you go to the sources he cited here and read if it says it is a historical fact or hypothesis? And what do you do when there are many conflicting secondary sources? https://books.google.com/books?id=d2SWstj6j3AC&lpg=PP1&dq=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

When there is disagreement in the sources, you state that and describe the different theories. If the author of the source evaluates the theory as conjecture -- or as legend in the earlier case -- you state that. If a source discusses the other sources and evaluates them, include that in the discussion. But we do not evaluate the theory ourselves. A source may cover issues that we decide to be not noteworthy, but if multiple sources discuss an issue, it is likely worth description. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

So, anybody couldn't answer. It's time to stop useless discussions. Here is Uniquar's question: Ogodei and Tolui were born between 1186 - 1192. So Genghis was able to father them while he was in exile? Ceithe (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not bad. I would clean up some of the wording, and remove the "most historians agree" and "but some historians," as that I don't see supported by the source material. How about "...which harmed his image and generated sympathy for Temujin. For the next ten years, Temujin disappeared into obscurity, as records for that time span are very obscure and are clouded in mystery. Some historians propose that he went took refuge, or was even been imprisoned, among the Jin, Tangut or Kara Khitan. He re-gathered strength, however, and in 1197 returned to power alongside Toghrul, commanding troops in a joint Khereid, Mongol, and Jin attack against the Tatars, who were soundly defeated. Temujin and Toghrul regained the power and prestige they had enjoyed ten years earlier. The Jin bestowed Toghrul with the honorable title of Ong Khan, and Temujin with a lesser title of j'aut quri."

That will need some additional citations to those I gave in my first proposal, but I think we're getting close to something.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jamukha

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

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

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

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

Motive for the murder of Bekter

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

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

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

Films and other cultural references

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

Ratchnevsky's claims

Paul Ratchnevsky has made a lot of unique suggestions: 1.Genghis Khan's ancesters (the "glittering man") were Kyrgyzs. 2.Temujin was exiled after Dalan Baljut. 3.Jochi was secretly poisoned by an order from Genghis Khan 4.In 1224, having completed these arrangements for the administration of his new empire, Genghis moved eastwards to spend summer on the Irtysch... In spring 1225 he set off, back to the homeland in Mongolia..." (Ratchnevsky 139-140) - clearly wrong.

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

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

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