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)

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)

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? [3] 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)