Talk:Descent from Genghis Khan
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Descent from Genghis Khan article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
It is extremely stupid to limit this article to one descent only. Descent generally from Genghis is a legitimate topic. Maed 14:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- You should move it back, then, as the current title doesn't match the content. siafu 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Monarchy of England are of Mongol Decent?
Granted that if this article is somewhat accurate, does it mean that the brothers, Prince Harry and William share a bloodline with Genghis Khan?
That can be disputed. following the Mongol concept of spiritual descent absolutely yes. In the concept of genetic descent it is not yet evident. Wandalstouring 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Timur Lenk was no descendant of Ghenghis, he had a descendant of the Khan as formal head of state. Wandalstouring 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Timur claimed descent from Genghis Khan, but this claim was rather tenuous as it involved descent "through marriage". Whether or not he actually was descended from the first Khagan, he did attempt to use this descent to establish some measure of legitimacy for his rule. siafu 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are a few more statements in the second half of the introduction that don't really belong there. Some of them may not be useful at all, others should probably be expanded on elswhere in the article. --Latebird 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The Khalkha Khans
Some of the Khalkha Khans (I know of the Tusheet Khan, see Jebtsundamba, but maybe some of the others did too) at least claimed to be descendants of Chinggis. I don't know if they have any surviving descendants, but since they were there rulers of Mongolia for a while mentioning them sure would be warranted? Yaan 14:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
More on Chromosomes of GK
Here is the 5/18/07 News summary. Here is the abstract of paper on PubMed titled "Distribution of the male lineages of Genghis Khan's descendants in northern Eurasian populations"; article is in Russian. And finally, some comments about the paper are here. Seems like some of this could be incorporated into this page Ff123 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Poetic and genetic study
I included a paragraph that Genghis Khan raping 500 billion women and all claiming poetic descent from Genghis Khan should be taken with grain of salt. Let's not forcefully say that Genghis Khan raped 100 million women and there are 10 billion Genghis Khan children nonsense. That is just ridiculous and child won't even understand that. Many accounts are not from Genghis Khan, he didn't claim to raped so many women, and many are poetic and sounds nice arguments and assumptions to justify their accounts in history. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia just reports the information we find in the sources, our personal opinion about it doesn't matter. Because your addition was essentially a statement of opinion, I've removed it again. --Latebird (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- That source only touches on some minor points of what you wrote. And those points (the history of Mongolian names) are really off-topic here. The rest is still just your personal opinion and without sources. --Latebird (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree some words on the scientific soundness of those genetic studies, as well as on the legitimacy of other claims, would be a worthwhile addition to the article, however I also think we need relevant sources, not just some random observations. I also do not really see what those clan names have to do with it, most people do not seem to be very serious about them. Yaan (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I will remove this section again. It does not treat the topic in an encyclopedically neutral manner, and most of the material is either redundant or doesn't belong here at all. Apparently the author is trying to "protect" Genghis from invalid claims of descent. This is NOT a good reason for editing anything in Wikipedia. The specific reasons for removal are as follows:
- The first sentence already shows that the author didn't think it through carefully enough. A topic can't be "speculative", only opinions about it can.
- There are many other ways (eg historical records) to reliably determine descent besides DNA evidence. The DNA topic is already explained in more detail in its own section of the article, and doesn't need to be repeated.
- The borjigin discussion is off-topic in this article. The borjigiin already were a big clan when he was born, so that being one doesn't imply direct descent from him.
- Timur and his claims are already covered elsewhere in the article, and in more detail in his own article.
- The sources given don't support the opinions voiced. The fact that Genghis' DNA wasn't found doesn't prove anything (as explained), and the Clan names story is off-topic.
No mention of rape?
Obviously the reason why he has 12 million descendents is because he raped every woman in sight. Here's a tidbit from nationalgeographic.com:
Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.
- That's not quite the topic of this article, as no dynasty was originated that way. All the same, mentioning it in the "Genghis Khan Effect" section was probably appropriate. I'll fix the phrasing though, it was not the cities that were raped, after all. --Latebird (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting article but it's badly in need of clean-up in the copyediting sense. Parts of it apparently were written by contributors whose first language is not English and therefore read rather awkwardly. I'm an experienced copyeditor and have a broad background in history -- but not for central Asia. Someone who knows this topic better than I do needs to give it a thorough working-over for grammar, punctuation, word choice, and smoothness of the narrative. --Michael K SmithTalk 13:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Mongolian society is patriarchal society
There is a huge difference between "direct" (real) and "mixed" (assimilated) descents.Mongol khans and qaghans were real descents, and Qing kings weren't direct descents. -- Khereid (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Removed unbelievable hypothesis
Removed false information (The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols. It is impossible that there are 15 million??? Genghis' male descents in the world, now, there are approximately 11,000,000 Mongols! 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am mystified by the above comment and the removal of the citation. The paper "The genetic legacy of the Mongols" does not say that there are 15 million Mongol descendants of Genghis Khan. It says there are 16 populations throughout Asia that carry a specific Y-DNA lineage. They propose three scenarios that could have caused this effect, one of which (they think the most likely) is that this could have come from Genghis Khan's lineage because of selection based on social prestige. This paper, was published in a prestigious journal (he American Journal of Human Genetics) and was presumably peer reviewed - the gold standard for inclusion as a reference in Wikipedia. This article attracted widespread attention worldwide in the mainstream media. To exclude this because anonymous user 220.127.116.11 thinks this is an unbelievable hypothesis to me breaks several rules in Wikipedia. I think it should be re-inserted. SylviaStanley (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)