Talk:Genghis Khan

Lede and infobox

The lede was an absolute disaster of clutter, so I moved everything to the infobox. Now the infobox is cluttered, but I'll leave that to the people here. Generally when we have vital info, but which the reader doesn't need to know up front, or which the infobox does not accommodate well, we used <ref group="Note"> to move it to a note section at the bottom of the article, but kept separate from generic footnotes. If you need to add footnotes to the notes, instead use {{#tag:ref||group="note"}}, which is available in your 'Wiki markup' edit window. — kwami (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Restored the reference, as in the context of the film he's one of the more important characters - he's (obviously) one of the borrowed historical figures, his actions - where he adapts modern sporting goods into armour & weapons - are a major contributor to him and the rest of the group being arrested and locked up. He also assists in the kidnap of George Washington, and finally, he loves Twinkies, because of the excellent sugar rush they provide.

My grounds for inclusion is always "would the plot deviate should a character be removed?" and in this case - yes it would, or at the very least another character would need to provide the actions of Khan instead of Khan himself - such as going berzerk in the store, or kidnapping Washington. a_man_alone (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that while Genghis Khan may be important to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Bill & Ted are not very important to Genghis Khan. The latter is the criterion for inclusion here in this article, not the former. Also, FYI, "Khan" is not a surname, it's a title, so saying "the actions of Khan" is like saying "the actions of Queen" when referring to the doings of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. siafu (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree; The former can also be valid criteria for inclusion, when the former places significance on the character. Bill & Ted are important to Genghis Khan in that they introduced an albeit caricatured version of him and his history to a mainstream audience, in the same way that any of the other films did. Moreover, your statement is again only your opinion - Please elucidate why Bill & Ted is any less important than some of the other entries - such as almost all the Video Games, for example - "Medieval II: Total War, his name is mentioned." His name is mentioned? Honestly. How does that qualify for being important to Genghis Khan? How are any of the musical entries important to Genghis Khan? Some other potentially viable entries are equally brief and unhelpful - the ATV TV entry doesn't even tell us what the programme name was. a_man_alone (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the other entries, and I do not serve as a proxy defender for them. It's also not merely my opinion that the overall relevance to Genghis Khan is what is important; please see WP:IPC. In general, these sections tend to bloat as fans of various pop cultural objects insist on their inclusion, but these exhaustive lists add basically nothing to the article itself. siafu (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I'm not commenting on you as an editor, however, I do insist that you serve as defender, simply because you cannot apply a set of rules to remove a given instance, then not apply the same set to other similar instances. I'm not that bothered about the addition or removal of Bill & Teds really - I'm always a believer of consensus - but what I am bothered about is the apparent application of criteria when it suits, and not when it doesn't. The trouble is that by your own definition "The problem is that while Genghis Khan may be important to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Bill & Ted are not very important to Genghis Khan. The latter is the criterion for inclusion here in this article, not the former" you have effectively cast judgement on several other sections as well. If we agree to remove one instance on those grounds, then the others should go as well by proxy agreement. I also accept, incidentally, that nobody before has queried the addition of the other sections, and also agree that fan-bloat is a never ending battle (you might want to have a look at Sleeper Agent for some awful past examples of fan addition, and my zeal in removing them), yet the question has now arisen, and I suggest that if your criteria is accepted, then some serious pruning should be done elsewhere, as well as just the film section. a_man_alone (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Insist all you want, but defending the other additions is not really my job. Feel free to apply the standards to the other entries, it is somewhat relevant considering that it's come up in discussion here, but you implication that my taking a position on this one instance means that I have given the others my approval is simply wrong. After all, nobody here is getting paid to this, so it's kind of hard to argue that this is somehow any one editor's responsibility. siafu (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, true, of course it's not your job by default. Perhaps when I said "Defender" I should have said "Judge and executioner", as your input and turn of phrase was what prompted the other instances to be brought into the discussion. And no, it is not wrong to assume that you agree and approve with the removal, because the removal is based on your input and turn of phrase. If I remove them and you don't revert - you agree and approve. If I remove them and you do revert, then on what grounds? a_man_alone (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The failure of others to object is not an indication of acceptance; it could just be an indication that others are busy with other things or might not have noticed yet-- this is the point of the "not being employees" comment. Really, though, if you want to include Bill & Ted, the best way to do it is to find and identify a secondary source demonstrating the reference's notability. By all means feel free to clean up the remainder of the list based on the same criteria. siafu (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept that you (and others) may be busy, but to imply that the removal of the gaming (or any) section - given the conversation we're currently having - may not be noticed, has amused me and brightened what is looking to be an otherwise dull day. a_man_alone (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's alot of conversation in a short time, but I've noticed now. As to the topic at hand: as with the last discussion, I object to the Bill & Ted reference. If that movie was included, then we should include the Star Trek episode where he makes an appearance, but I don't think either is really necessary. As for the video games, I think one or two is justified, say, the first, or the largest retailing game, or the one or two that feature him most prominently, but after that, stating that he appears in "many other games" should suffice for the average reader (which may not include dedicated fans of one particular game). I'd like to cull the list (and I might), but I'm probably not the best-qualified to choose which few video games warrant inclusion based on the criteria I made. The bottom line: Count me as a vote against the Bill & Ted reference. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept consensus against Bill & Ted, and plan on looking at the video games. I haven't done anything yet, as I'm not familiar with any of them, so will have to delve a little - some of them may indeed be relevant; campaigns using Genghis Khan, etc. a_man_alone (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the amicable cooperation here. I took a look at the video game section, which really wasn't too bad compared to other articles I've seen. I removed three, I think. After reviewing the article on one, I found Genghis Khan wasn't even mentioned; in another he was only "mentioned", and one listing was redundant. In the others, his characterization seems to have a prominent role, but I certainly won't argue if someone deletes more of the listings.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Once agreement has/had been reached I wasn't going to double-barrel the entries, because as I said I'm not familiar with them, so I was going to check review sites, and a couple of places, such as Gamefaqs, to see if they mentioned Genghis in any depth. I may come across as antagonistic, but that's only when defending my own viewpoint - as I always say, consensus is the rule I live by, and if it goes against me, I subsequently honour it and hold nothing against the article or editors. That's how Wikipedia improves. However, I see you beat me to it, and the Games entry looks pretty good now - although I reordered it in literal alphabetic. Hm - Does Civilization come under "C" for "Civ", "S" for "Sid", or "M" for "Meier"? I plumped for "C" in the end. a_man_alone (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

which wikipedia article is weirder? Genghis Khan (as a caucasoid with red hair) or Jesus Christ's Japanese brother

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing%C5%8D,_Aomori#Tomb_of_Jesus_Christ

Jesus didn't actually go to the cross , his Japanese brother was crucified while Jesus enjoyed his life in Japan. So sayeth some Japanese apparently.

So which of the following articles is more insane?

A Japanese brother of Jesus Christ doing the honor of being crucified for Jesus Christ while Jesus Christ gets all the credit.

or

A caucasian man , so aptly described as Genghis Khan in this wikipedia article , with red hair amongst other things (Nordic) seeks to cease the Nordic invasion of Russia , enslaves Russians with the Mongol yoke , and then genetically spreads Asiatic genes in lands that once belonged to caucasoids. Yes folks , these three events actually happened. Genghis Khan was the central agent in organizing the Mongol movement which was effectively an anti-nordic movement in favor spreading Asiatic genes at the cost of Nordic ones. Yet , according to this article , he was Nordic. How insane is it that a Nordic man seeks to endow caucasian lands with asian genes even at the cost of genocide of the Nordic , the Nordic noble princes , and the caucasian slavs of Russia. How insane is it to even imagine that a Nordic or even a partly caucasian man had a dinner table filled with Asiatics and ate , drank , celebrated ... on a dinner table that was set right above the Nordic princes who were buried without being injured or killed and were perishing all the while this caucasoid Genghis Khan celebrated with the Asians above their incapsulated realm of darkness and misery?

So what's the utmost credible source that was selected by the lovely wikipedia editor who inserted this rather insane statement about a caucasoid genghis khan ? Here it is , it's a historian by the name of Rashid Aldin - an ethnically Jewish historian with Jewish training in writing who frequenlty had the habit of employing a partly epic storytelling fashion (a fashion meant to captivate the reader at the cost of portraying truth accurately) . He had written , in an epic fashion , that an aged Genghis Khan , a red haired man supposedly , was surprised to find that his son Kublai Khan didn't inherit his red hair. The wikipedia editor that's in question here has instead taken it all literally , to include it in his/her revisionist version of history , at the cost of bastardizing the ancestry of the Mongolians.

Genghis Khan fathered more children then anyone else in history , and yet , a red haired man with lots and lots of children doesn't know that red hair isn't inherited very well. LMAO and INSANITY.

Wernergerman (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, yes, by quoting the sources directly, we are insane, as opposed to your endless repetitive ranting against a position that nobody actually holds. Definitely not insanity there. siafu (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes clearly it's insane and bias, since all the mongolians with light hair and eyes with varieties of colors all look completely asiatic. How come the wikipedia editor doesn't have the guts to mention this? instead of misleading everyone like he was an caucasian man. Here check out the mongols with 100% asiatic/mongoloid face with red hair,blue eyes, green eyes,blonde hair...whatever you want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:31 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rashid al Din is considered an insider in the Mongol Empire's bureaucracy who would have personally known Kublai Khan's brothers, Hulegu and Mongke. You act like Rashid al Din is some Goldhagen guy at Harvard, trying to make a name for himself in the 21st century by writing some inflamatory revisionist piece of tripe. Good try, buddy. Juzjani is a Northern Indian historian who saw Genghis Khan face to face. Maybe you should check out what he said in his Tabaqat i Nasri written during Genghis Khan's lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.159.210 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So is that an good excuse to mislead everyone into thinking he's caucasian? when his dna haplgroup ancestry is proven to C3, this an mongoloid paternal marker. Also...why didn't the wiki editors have the guts to mention the 100% asiatic/mongoloid face with red hair,blue eyes, green eyes,blonde hair? The editing sound so misleading...sorry to break your dream of genghis khan being an aryan when you watch this video...youl all the mongolians inherit such traits today look like mongoloid people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY - WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:34 15 September 2011 (UTC)

=====What is this video supposed to show? Its common sense, and accepted that asian people do not have light eyes and hair, it is not natural occuring in their race UNLESS their are white ancestors for those people, thousand of years ago. The Tocharians and Yuezhi, as well as the Cumans all had caucasian features - they were caucasian (Iranic) and lived in the area inhabitted by chinese and mongols, so it is petty logical to figure that they would have mixed and left their genes among the people. What is so difficult to understand. It is difficult for people who are nationalistic or racist to understand. Go read up carefully on the history of caucasian presence in these areas. Also, these people in the video could have mixed with Russians or Cumans long ago, when the Russian empire existed. So it is possible that Genghis Khan had caucasian features, since the caucasian nations which I mentioned inhabitted the area, if past reports say he had caucasian features than why do you put down those reports? If there are such reports then it is reporting what the people saw, what is so unbelievable about that?

===== take a look at this from another site: According to the Persian historian Ab ul Ghasi, the tribal clan to which Temujin belonged, were known as the Bourchikoun (Grey-Eyed Men).

The ancestral mother and founder of this clan was known as Alan goa (beautiful Alan; Alans were iranic with caucasian features). According to the Mongol and Chinese legends on the subject, she was said to have been visited in her tent by a divine being, who possessed golden hair, a fair complexion and grey eyes. Shortly after this visitation, she gave birth to the first member of the Bourchikoun clan.

Temujin himself was noted in Chinese descriptions of him, for his tall stature and heavy beard.We should also note the following depiction of Temujin's appearance, as given by Harold Lamb, in his biography of the great Khan:

"He must have been tall, with high shoulders, his skin a whitish tan. His eyes, set far apart under a sloping forehead, did not slant. And his eyes were green, or blue-grey in the iris, with black pupils. Long reddish-brown hair fell in braids to his back."

Ab ul Ghasi also observed that the family of Yesukai, the father of Temujin, were known for the fact that their children often had fair complexions, and blue or grey eyes.

Temujin's wife, Bourtai, bore a name which means "Grey-Eyed".

As both Günther (1934) and Lamb (1928) note, Temujin's relatives and descendants also possessed fair features: Temujin's son and successor Ogadei (1229-41), had gray eyes and red hair; Temujin's grandson Mangu (1251-9), had reddish eyebrows and a red-brown beard; Subatei, who conquered China, had a long, reddish beard. Indeed, it was said that people were surprised Kubilai Khan had dark hair and eyes, because most of Genghis Khan's descendants had reddish hair and blue eyes.

Another of Genghis Khan's descendants, the great conqueror Tamerlane (1336-1405), also inherited Nordish racial characteristics. According to a contemporary, Ibn Arabshah, Tamerlane was tall and strong, with broad shoulders, a large head and high forehead, he had a heavy beard, was white-skinned and had a ruddy complexion. He also seems to have been fair-haired. This description has been confirmed in recent times. In 1941, the Soviet Archaeological Commission opened the tomb of Tamerlane, which resides in the city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Within it, Tamerlane's physical remains were discovered: they proved that he had indeed been a man of strong build and imposing stature. Most interestingly of all however, the last few hairs of a reddish-brown moustache were found adhering to the skull.

===I dont see why these reports are ignored? So what if he had caucasian features - what is so bad about that? That does not diminish his achievements; which leads one to think that maybe the people with negative comments are racist to caucasians or something, with bias and prejudice. I dont understand, what is so bad if he had caucasian features? Here we have reports but people ignore them, which is biased and erranous and unscientific. If there were caucasian tribes such as the Tocharians, Yuezhi and Cumans then why cant some Asians have white ancestry - is that hard to understand or something. Think clearly on what I said and despel any biased, nationalistic and racist views that you might have as that will get no results. One must examine ALL evidence and make hypothesis/conclusions as such

Because Asians don't have bits of caucasian dna like the caucasians do, Germans have Asian DNA , the Chinese , Mongolians, Japanese , don't even have traces of Caucasian dna.

Most of the insistence on behalf of the European nations that Genghis was East Asian comes from assessments of his actions. The actions and behavioral patterns of Genghis Khan and the cultures and genes that he so explicitly and dramatical spread throughout the world - is East Asian.

Genghis Khan's Mongol movement and its contributions are of the following

- spread of East Asian genes to the west at the cost of Nordic genes (Nordics were moving towards Russia at that time)

- spread of East Asian culture

- a buffer zone of Eurasians from European invasions

- Forcing Europeans to move westward in their endeavors

So , why some Nordicists , want Genghis Khan to be partially or wholly " white " doesn't quite make sense to me. He did so many things for the Asians, he even set up a dinner table above a spot where Russian princes were buried alive , and enjoyed a feast with his Mongol compatriots there. How insane is it to even imagine a scenario where a Nordic man is being merry in the company of East Asians all the while knowing that people of his own kind were perishing right beneath him. It's a wonder why some people can't be content with one ancestry , they have to claim every ancestry that's prominent. It's completely mongrel behavior.

Rashid Aldin's text , ironically , is filled exclusively with pictures of East Asiatics , the book is essentially a world history text with the focal point of East Asians , how dominant would they have to have been at the time in order for historical texts to be completely based on them?

And again, Aldin's statements e.g. Kublai and red hair , are inherently contradictory. He was a Jewish writer employing Jewish forms of writing towards composing an epic styled text. Wernergerman (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Racist propaganda and Bias views

Even if he had red hair and blue eyes he would have looked completely 100% mongoloid. Check out this link where you can see variety of mongols with 100% asiatic face with blonde hair, red hair blue eyes, green eyes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

Yet for some reason the wiki editor doesn't want to mention this? how more misleading can you get to make people think that genghis khan was an nordic man with that post? WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsPride6565 (talk • contribs)

100% Mongoloid face with blue eyes and red hair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

The description on Genghis Khan birth section is very misleading, while I don't deny historical records. The description make's it sound like was an white people, when in fact some modern mongols today also display these physical characteristics and yet look 100% mongoloid in appearance. Also genghis khan belong to the genetic haplogroup C3, this means his paternal ancestry was mongoloid for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsPride6565 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

====Read the above comment (at the bottom) - there were caucasian people that lived in the area long ago and mixed with certain people, that is where the light eyes and hair comes, obviously not a natural mongol trait. Also how would they know Genghis Khan's haplogroup if his grave was never found - then there will be no genetic sample

Laughable Nordicist claptrap

I deleted the Nordicist joke from the section on his birth. First of all, it's about his birth, not hearsay mythology from a non-contemporary historian. Second, the source ITSELF doubts the account. Third, his paternal DNA marker is Northeast Asian - C3.

It's surprising (not really) that this stood for so long. I will be checking back frequently, and it will be deleted once more if any resident Nordicists want to bend Wiki conventions yet again. Huaxia (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If we were to start stripping out information sourced from non-contemporary historians, Wikipedia would be a very barren place. I think the phrasing of the passage in question leaves a lot to be desired, but it does not actually claim that Genghis Khan was Nordic. Given the apparent breadth of his work, I'm not sure that al-Din's writings on the ancestry of Temujin should be ignored. Obviously this 'Glittering Man' legend has been floating around for quite some time, and should be addressed in the article - and there is a certain logic in addressing it in the section dealing with Genghis Khan's ancestry and origins. Maybe somebody more familiar with al-Din's work could have a go at fixing the phrasing? Gabhala (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes republicanchina.org (the source used to support the material removed) a reliable source? Nev1 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Second the above. The fact of a man's physical appearance and especially his birth are things that tend not to carry well over time. al-Din's work may have been far more authoritative on other subjects but even he, according to the source (Republican China) does not attempt to pass off this speculation as fact.

Furthermore the supposed "ancestress" is a legend as well. The framing of the traits the ancestor was supposed to have possessed in such an especially unrelated topic misleads the reader into believing Genghis Khan was some kind of Aryan posterboy. Thus the passage fails to meet standards on yet another aspect, and this time it's "relevance" - beyond the unreliable secondary source, and unreliable primary source. The mythological origins of the Borjigit clan have no place in a section detailing Temujin's birth or even his early life - nor does his alleged surprise at his son's alleged complexion.Huaxia (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad - I was referring to Al-Din's work, and assumed that the source also did so directly. I think my points above still stand, though. I'm no expert in the subject, but I have encountered this fair-haired theory elsewhere before, and from what I've seen, it seems to have originated not long after his death, if not in his lifetime. I'm still in favour of including the information, but fixing the phraseology to avoid directly implying a Caucasian heritage. Gabhala (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair imperialchina.org does mention Al-Din, but I'm not sure if the website can be relied upon. There may be a place in the article for legends about Genghis Khan's ancestry and whatnot, perhaps framed from a historiographical angle, but there are academic sources that should be used rather than this website. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Huaxia, I can accept your proposal (in your edit summary) that the information be addressed in a section on 'Physical Appearance' - it still needs a re-write, though, and I don't think I'm familiar enough with Al-Din's writings to make the attempt. Any suggestions?

Nev1, what about this Juzjani (Northern Indian historian) mentioned above? Is there any credibility there? Gabhala (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I find the subject of this article interesting I know nothing of the sources, primary or secondary, so can't comment on Juzjani. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, why would you want a man who did so many bad things to the Europeans at the cost of doing good things for the Asiatics , to be European or even partially European. If the Europeans would have even had a hint that he was caucasoid, there would be no telling how many books we would have had over investigations on such a sensational topic. Genghis Khan was responsible for the spread of Asiatic genes and Asiatic culture , why , my god why would we want him to be Caucasian?

Genghis Khan and his Mongol movement was the responsible for the pinnacle events of mass introduction of East Asian culture and ethnicity to the European sphere. Before him, not many in Europe were concerned with the Asiatics, after him however , it was the introduction of Asiatic fear to the Europeans. Wernergerman (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Other considerations

- The Mongols were responsible for initiating the pan-european movement (renaissance) in the European sphere. As well as anti-asiatic campaigns. The Mongols , and all of the connotations of the word Mongol , have been in references to people with Asiatic features. The word itself invokes strong - antiasiatic - emotional reactions for Europeans everywhere. The notion of the Mongols is essentially synonomous with the entire notion of who the Asians are for all of the Europeans. This isn't a learned notion fed to the people via textbooks , EUROPEAN FEAR OF THE ASIATIC IS AN INGRAINED REACTION. This immense emotional reaction of fear as well as the realization on the need for awareness of what's going on in Asia has been established into the European people themselves after the Mongol raids to make certain that Europeans don't have to encounter situations of possible extinction again. Now ask yourself, would a people of bigger stature , more magnificient appearance , and an elite culture really come to fear Asians just by being brainwashed via an unrelenting regimen of reading textbooks and listening to speeches? No , this fear is of greater importance , it has been ingrained. Because Europeans have come to the realization that the matter of their existence is at stake when dealing with the Asians. Remember the central lesson of the Mongol raids , Europe was essentially destroyed after the battle of Battle of Legnica.

- should the Mongols have been caucasian or even part caucasian before , they are certainly not at this point , an overwhelming majority of them are plain and simply Asiatic. I don't believe that I've ever encoutered a case where one ethnic group takes over another and then subsequently steals their ethonym. And to suggest that these Asiatics stole the ethonym by outcompeting what supposedly was a caucasoid ethnic group is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS.

Wernergerman (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tidy up

This article needs to be tidyied up. A lot of it is badly written. What, for instance, does "This incident cemented his position as a prisoner for manslaughter" mean?

Vandalism

Could the author please fix footnote nr. 3. "Also known as Thomas Du" (very funny) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.168.4 (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Done. Thanks for the heads up. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)