Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are extensive and more information about Genghis Khan at Genghis Khan/temp, someone please fact check and incorporate them to the article, if you know more about it.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Genghis Khan/Archive has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Chingis Khan is the actual way it is written and pronounced in rest of the world. Genghis Khan is the polluted version of his name, commonly used in the West. "...names Genghis Khan and Mongols are almost synonymous with unstoppability..."

Can people please help this article recover from a nasty attack of adjectives? I am sure you thing the guy was great, but saying it so many ways in the same sentence just makes it unreadable.Sandpiper 09:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Contents

Genius

Ok the thing I don't get is in wikipedia, Napoleon is described as possibly an administrative genius, why not Genghis Khan. What basis do you have to say he is not genius and Napoleon is genius. If Napoleon was genius, Genghis Khan is genius too, don't you see the problem here?

The convention is to add information to the bottom of talk pages, not the top, see my reply there, and please do sign your answers. --Goodoldpolonius2 8 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

Genghis Khan's Insane genocidal policy

How could you make such a disgustingly revisionist account of Genghis Khan, and glorify his persona even though he is a mass murderer?

This is absolutely insulting to the millions of lives, and the nations, that were destroyed by this ethnic cleanser.

Even by the standards of the day, his policies were considered brutal and genocidal. It was unprecedant even in that time to try to depopulate an entire region of the world, a region that had produced a number of the preeminent scientists of the world at the time (i.e. Al-Khwarizmi the so-called "father of algebra" who created of algebra, Omar Khayyám, famous mathematician, astronomer and poet, who discovered a method for solving cubic equations, which he put down in the Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra and wrote the famous Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam) no less, in order to create grazing ground for Mongol nomads and to ensure no resistance.

How could you sugarcoat such hate and venom?

This is disgusting.

    • First of all he there wasn't a genocide, read the term. Genghis Khan didn't go after one ethnic group to exterminate them. He didn't tried to wipe out an entire race, just like Hitler tried to do. There is no hate and venom and ethnic cleansing. Read more about Genghis Khan.
Could people please sign their comments? Actual, Genghis Khan did wage at least one war of genocide, against the Tanguts. The Secret History says of this, "The Conqueror of the world had for his funeral rites the massacre of an entire people." See, for example: Grousset, Rene: Conqueror of the World, translated from French by M. McKellar and D. Sinor, Orion Press, New York, 1966 and R. J. Rummel's site. --Goodoldpolonius2 6 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
I agree about signatures. I disagree on the authority of J R Rummell's site which seems to rely entirely on taking pre-modern historians absolutely literally in a way that is not justified by the reality. In relation to the Tangut issue even that site itself says: 'Quoted in Ibid., pp. 286-287. "The elimination cannot, however, have been quite total, since a considerable number of Tangut subjects were allotted to the Lady YesŸi." (Ibid., p. 287).' Historians writing in a pre-scientific age should not be cited as though they were writing with scientific precision. Even events as recent and well documented as the 1453 Siege of Constantinople are accompanied by gross exaggerations on both sides as to the forces involved and the number of dead. I obviously have no brief for genocide or for imperial conquest. I just do not see that reading a text according to an entirely different set of conventions from those under which it was written contributes much to real history. The death toll from the An Lushan Rebellion is estimated by modern authors at 36 million, but there is no demand to convict An Lushan of genocide. The death toll from the European invasion of the Americas was equally dramatic. Modern authors estimate that the population of Mexico fell by 90% within two generations of the conquest. We need to represent competing views where they exist. We do not need to exaggerate the precision of pre-modern authors or select Chingiz as the one conqueror to be drawn entirely in black. Alan 7 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)


After agreeing, you forgot to sign :) In any case, I was not arguing that we needed to insert that Genghis was genocidal, but merely to point out that his actions do meet the definition of genocide. You do not need to wipe out every human of a particular race in order to be accused of genocide -- the intention is important as well. If you don't like Rummell, take some other sources:

  • Le Monde Diplomatique: "The destruction began with the genocide of the Tangut people of the Western Xia empire in northwest China. The Mongols razed many prosperous towns and reduced provinces to arid steppes, killing as they passed through: eventually they slaughtered some 600,000 Tanguts."[1]
  • History of the Mongol Conquests, JJ Saunders, U. Pennsylvania Press, 1972: "The cold and deliberate genocide practiced by the Mongols, which has no parallel save that of the ancient Assyrians and the modern Nazis, perhaps arose from mixed motives of military advantage and superstitious fears..." From the really cool Google Print feature.
  • Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review edited by Israel W Charney, 1994, lists the invasion of Afghanistan by Genghis as a genocide
  • Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century by Benjamin A Valentino, gives the Mongols as one of the earliest examples

None of this indicates that we need to call it genocide in this article, the case is probably arguable, as you suggest, and ancient authors are unreliable. However, I think that Anonymous Guy #1 may have a point, even if the lanuage he used to state it is imprecise. --Goodoldpolonius2 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

      • I will sign, I will sign, I will sign. I query the le Monde article. Among other thngs the author states that Mongols 'did not take prisoners' which we know to be untrue. In fact not only did Chingis Khan take prisoners but he frequently incorporated them into his army and court. Yeh-lu Chu-tsai, his principal mnister, was a Uighur prince. The author also extrapolates the treatment of Merv and Nishapur into standard Mongol policy. The Genocide Convention Alan 7 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)
    • Ok I don't think you still don't understand the meaning of genocide, and you should look at other people when trying to portray someone as genocidal. Hitler can be considered the biggest genocidal leader in the world, and he did it to try to erase an well respected human beings that didn't attack them. First of all, there is no evidence that he tried to eliminate the Tanguts. Tanguts are probably well known of resistance to Genghis Khan's rule, but that doesn't me he tried to exterminate them just because he didn't like them. We should be very careful in using the word genocide in Genghis Khan's rule. He didn't persecute people on race, religion and culture, on the opposite he respected them and included all of them as Mongols. Mongols term if you read them, doesn't necessarily include Mongolians in Mongolia. There was possible attack against the Tanguts and there is no saying or writing that Genghis Khan tried to erase their lineage or quotes, maybe he got pissed off of continious resistance of Tanguts. Maybe Tanguts were like Mongols who were strong and stood what they believed in. Everyone that time thought they were the rightful ruler of the world and Genghis Khan is no exception, at least he was very good at it. We should be careful not to confuse Hitler and Genghis Khan.

Would people please sign their comments? I have no idea how many people are in on this debate. As for whomever wrote the last comment, again, your assertions that I don't know the meaning of genocide do not make sense. First, I quoted above from many well-known historians who called Genghis's actions genocide in their works. Second, his attacks aimed at wiping out the Tanguts qualify as genocide by any definition, see the Wikipedia entry genocide, or simply read the UN convention on genocide. Again, note that I have not inserted the word "genocide" into the article, nor have I called him like Hitler. At the same time, whitewashing is not needed either. If you are going to argue that he did not commit genocidal acts, than please cite some sources. --Goodoldpolonius2 7 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

  • Well my point is if Genghis Khan was white and was from Europe, he would be portrayed as the most successfull, powerful, influential and the founder of the largest empire. Please don't undermine and try to medicate centuries of Western-biased thoughts into this article. That's all I'm saying, if Genghis was white and killed all other non-Europeans he would be one of the greatest person on Wikipedia. By the way, how do you sign anonymously
You can sign (anonymously or not) with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). siafu 7 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by signing anonymously, but you can sign by clicking on the little signature box (second icon from the right above the edit window) [and thanks siafu!]. Also, our goal should not be to correct presumed Western historical bias by injecting bias in the other direction. Khan was a great conquerer and a builder of an empire - that is included in the article. He also caused a massive amount of destruction - that is also in the article. You cannot reject every source you don't like as Western-biased, and you need to provide some sources of your own if you want your arguments to hold a lot of weight. I appreciate your desire to give Genghis credit for his achievements, but we must also note the atrocities. If you have evidence that they did not happen, please present them, but otherwise don't just remove or water them down. Additional note: in case 168.253.21.2 is confused, I did not write the first unsigned comment that started this section above, I only chimed in later to clarify the point about genocide. --Goodoldpolonius2 7 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

Father's death (date)

The article for Yesugay Ba'atur shows his father's death to have occured in 1167, whereas this article says 1175. Which--if either--is correct? --Milkmandan 16:27, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

He died when Genghis was around 13 years old. So depending on which date of birth you think is correct (1155,1162 or 1165), you'd have different dates for Yesugei's death.

Literacy (see also #(Il)Literacy below)

I've added the word 'likely' to the description of his illiteracy in light of possible new developments. See Reuters Article. 23/Aug/04

Meaning of his name

To Menchi. The meaning of chinggis is not completely ascertained, but I've never heard that it means ocean. Don't you mixed it up with the Dalai Lama? (sorry) The leading theory is that chinggis derived from an archaic Turkish word that means valorous. The Mongols forgot its etymology, so various folk etymologies have made. --Nanshu, revised Nanshu 13:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights. --Menchi 02:27 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yes I agree. The word Genghis doesn't sound anything like Mongolian. Maybe I'm not sure. I don't really know whether it means "Oceanic Ruler" or "Universal Ruler." It definitaly shouldn't be interpreted in one way or another, before language specialist comes in here. So we just generalize and mean something I guess.
posted by 38.112.5.146

I have to correct my mistake. See:

de Rachewiltz, Igor: The Title Činggis Qan/Qaɤan re-examined, Gedanke und Wirkung: Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Nikolaus Poppe, ed. Walther Heissig & Klaus Sagaster, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp.281-298, 1989.

I knew that relatively new Mongolian chonicles like Altan tobchi and Erdeni-yin tobchi contain an episode: before the enthronement a bird sang, "chinggis, chinggis." [2] It is obviously a folk etymology which was created by those who failed to understand what chinggis meant. And according to Okada Hidehiro, chinggis was a loan word from ancient Turkish that meant "fierce." But I didn't know other theories.

In that paper, Igor de Rachewiltz (incidentally, he is a descendant of Chinggis Khan in maternal line) dealt with various theories that had been proposed by predecessors and drew his own conclution:

'Činggis Qan' would then no longer mean 'Universal Ruler', but rather 'The Fierce Ruler.'

Yes. There was/is "Universal Ruler" theory. Ramstedt and Pelliot claimed that činggis is, most probably, the palatalized Mongol form of Turkish teŋiz meaning 'sea, ocean', and by extension 'universal.' I feel ashamed of not knowing the big names' theory. As I said above, the author did not supprt this theory, and I don't know whether it is still widely supported or not.

He also examined the title of Khan/Khaghan. It is surely useful for expanding the article of Khan. --Nanshu 13:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Languages and scripts

We don't need Chinese characters here.

  • Chinggis and other words are Mongolian, not Chinese.
  • Chinese is only one of many source languages. Other than Mongolian and Chinese, Persian is indispensable in Mongolian history. Showing all these languages is cumbersome.
  • If you want to know Chinese representations, go to Yuan Dynasty.

--Nanshu 04:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Genghis Khan's name came across as the "The Very Mighty King." This is shown by the article "Genghis Khan establishes an empire c.1225." The article can be found on discover online edition. The link is http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/src.

I don't think this is correct. Your link is broken, and your edit to the death of Genghis Khan doesn't have outside reference. Do you have reference for the edit you made to the death section? I would be glad to see that, at least to verify that you didn't made that up. Thanks.

I think the meaning of Chinggis Khan is "Ruler of land and sea" or just "Oceanic Ruler"

Uniting the Tribes; Extent/size of conquests/empire

There is no information about uniting the tribes in this section.

Genghis Khan...was a Mongolian khan and military leader who unified the Mongolian tribes and then founded the Mongol Empire by conquering most of Asia, including China, Russia, Persia, and the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

Genghis Khan certainly did not conquer most of Asia (more than 50%): it was his sons and grandsons who did, not him. He did not conquer China -- at least the whole of it: his grandson Kublai Khan did. Neither did he take Eastern Europe: he merely sacked Caucasus and then left it alone. This section could do with some rewriting.

He certainly did take almost the entire Central Asia, parts of China and Afghanistan; but his legacy is in pointing the way rather than making the final kill. [[3]]. Mandel 16:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Trivia

Some (barely consequential) trivia: Genghis/Chinggis Khan, at the height of his rule, is said to have had over 500 wives and concubines. He is said to have had red hair and green eyes. (This from The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe; James Chambers). He died from internal injuries sustained from a fall from his horse. Modern Mongols anticipate their great Khan's return, he is a figure to them much like King Arthur of Britain. Andreia Wilson

Genghis didn't have red hair and green eyes. How many people of Asian heritage has red hair? Have common-sense, Europeans have red hair and green eyes.
While this is new to me, it isn't totally out of the question - the Tocharians of what is not Xinjiang were red-haired, green-eyed Indo-European-speaking people - the description comes from contemporary Chinese sources, their own illustrations and mummies. There were also nomadic people to the north of them who were reported to be red haired and green eyed, although there is no physical evidence of the appearance of those people (as far as I can tell). The Tocharians (and their neighbours) were probably absorbed by the surrounding Mongol and Turkic people, although some apparently migrated to Bactria.
I am not expressing an opion was to whether the trivia above is true or not - all I am saying is that it is not as implausible as it might seem. Guettarda 21:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Takla Makan Mummies, who were European and had red hair, were found in the Takla Makan Desert in China. They are 3000 years old and were found wearing a plaid-patterned material (a very old variation of The Kilt). They were found along the old Silk Road, along with some of their things: a horse's saddle, leather mittens, ornamental mirror and a baby bottle. One mummy had been sewn up with horse hair stitches. Also, near the Chinese city of K'u-ch'e in the Tian-Shan mountains cave wall paintings which have the Tocharians of three thousand years ago with red or blonde hair, long noses, blue or green eyes.

Google "Takla Makan Mummies baby bottle" for more interesting info. Here is a link with photos of the mummies :). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html

His dying of inernal injuries from falling of horse is alleged. We don't really know how he died. Some people say he died because of age, caught spiritually poisened by the Chinese, etc. We don't know for sure.

Military tactics

Shouldn't there be a section here about Genghis Khan's military tactics? I mean, he is considered the greatest general of all time and everything.

I wrote the Military tactics section with high reliance on outside source. I could definitely be expanded with more facts. We need reliable sources.

Also, there seems to be an inordinate amount of detail in the sections dealing with Genghis's Chinese campaigns, especially the final one. I think this either needs to be balanced out (more detail in the other military campaigns) or shortened. Brutannica 20:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Il)Literacy

Regarding Chinggis' (il)literacy, there have been reports in newspapers regarding the findings of an academician which confirmed a handwritten note as being written by Chinggis. The note was regarding a Taoist sermon by a famous monk, to which Chinggis wrote 'I will read it personally'. I will update the relevant section accordingly.

-TheSeez

Nanshu brought this up already. Brutannica 23:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Values of Genghis Khan?

The piece on the "values" of Genghis seems to contradict other portions of the article. Also it has horrible grammar.

I agree. Although I enjoy how it offers an opposing viewpoint to traditional Western images of Temujin being barbaric, it's a bit POV. I was considering editing it, but it might be deletable or at least moved to some other part of the article. Even better, someone knowledgeable could write about the "good/bad" views of Temujin -- see the Christopher Columbus article for an example. Brutannica 01:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
P.S.: Regarding the rodent post -- it came from The Cartoon History of the Universe III, which I believe to be a more reliable source than it sounds.
I would vote for capturing both sides of the discussion. That would provide the complete picture, no?—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:12, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
About eating rodents, yes Mongols and presently Mongolians eat rodents sometime, but I don't think it's necessary to say they only ate rodents. There are many other things that Mongols ate like drink milk, eat yogurt, etc. It seems a little biased, and I'll try that change that. Also Mongols doesn't eat all rodents, just specific ones without any diseases of course.
I wrote that article, and the reason why I did it is to try to eliminate the Western emotional POV that is so prevelant in the West. I try to be matter-of-factly as possible in writing Genghis Khan article, and somewhat be respectful the Mongolians who they respect Genghis very much. I'm a Mongolian so I know these kinds of things, and please, please don't introduce your emotional arguments into the article. Let's be respectful on both sides, because I will still continue to introduce "Eastern view" of Genghis Khan consistently. Read "Genghis Khan and the Mongols" - try google-ing it. We need balance in this article and it is filled with so much emotional gibbirish, and I try to edit-out that much as possible.
I like that Columbus model.
Also, I would advice not dismissing a contribution just because of the quality of the English. The way I see it, the whole idea behind the Wikipedia and the only justfication for my spending time here is to be able to collect and present a more complete picture than the mainstream encyclopedias have done—and that is only possible if we include and encourage voices from all perspectives and around the globe (and beyond?) Including encouraging people not to keep off posting if they can't do it in flawless English. Once they have posted, others of us can help copy-edit, etc. And if one of us sees an entry that has grammar issues, please help edit and improve the language. Or refer it for attention. Please see Wikipedia:Why aren't these pages copy-edited for details. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:37, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I like that suggestion. Columbus model is pretty good and we need it in this article than any other. I'll try to research it a bit and brainstorm it a bit.

Rodents

That is probably marmot, isn't it? Marmot is actually considered a delicacy, and they are quite common in most parts of Mongolia. Other common species are sqirrels and mice, but those are usually not eaten. 12:17, Feb. 28, 2005

Regarding Genetic Survey

Interesting fact. However, does anyone have a link or at least some information on who conducted the survey, etc? It'd be good to have that in the article. Jsan 21:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Guettarda 23:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Largest Contiguous Empire?

I find it curious that people see the need to say contiguous. The only non-contiguous empire that comes even close to rivalling the Mongol Empire is the British Empire and according to sources on this site it was less than thirty million square kilometres (considerably smaller than almost forty million for the Mongol Empire. The other empire that rivals this is Tsarist Russia/USSR but this is also contiguous and also smaller. I think it suffices to say "the largest empire" in history - this gives the full credit the Mongol Empire deserves.

I'm also curious as to why people feel the detail of the descriptions in the Chinese campaigns is a problem. Surely the more detail the better. Even if other campaigns aren't covered in as much detail we should be aiming to increase the detail on those campaigns, not decrease detail on the Chinese campaigns. Besides - China is by far the most populous, technologically advanced and all round most significant nation the Mongols invaded, so it makes sense to make the descriptions of the campaigns there more detailed. In the Napoleonic Wars article no one is suggesting we give the Carribean Campaigns equal detail to the German ones. The more important the area is the more people will wish to know about the campaigns there. This is common sense. 211.26.76.169

Well said. We need more articulate and bold people around here.
But then the problem could be that for such a large article, people don't notice such details when reading, or simply do not know enough details to add onto particular sections. Wiki is relatively new, and people who are actually THE experts in each respective field may not have yet come across wiki as they may be busy perfecting what they do. LG-犬夜叉 13:05, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

image copyrights

Some of these images - those not obviously 100 yrs old - may not in fact be PD or even fair use... particularly when they exist in high-res formats. Please double-check. Being 'from a museum' is not enough to guarantee they are PD. +sj + 10:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Error?

"In his funeral, as secrecy, it is said that 40 baby camels were buried in Genghis Khan's grave, so that their mothers could not even locate the location where the baby camels were buried"

This doesn't make sense at all, can the author of this clarify this?

I believe the intent was so that the camels would remember the spot.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese

I will later make a case for putting Chinese characters in this article. Colipon+(T) 03:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can somebody add pronunciation to all those names? Any discussion? I've always heard "jeen-ghees-haan" in Polish and in English usually "jin-ghis-kan". Which is the Mongolian pronounciation?

    • I think chi ng'g s han is the Mongolian pronunciation
Which is [ʧiŋɡis xaːn] in the IPA (I believe), which I'm going to add to the article. I have a semi-related question, which is, why is his name not transliterated <Chinggis Khaan>, and his true name <Temüüjin>? --Whimemsz 18:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Chinggis Khaan is definitely the Mongol pronounciation, with strong "gg" and long "aa" It's definitely not starts with "geng", it's more like "chin". Yes "Temuujin" is the Mongol pronounciation with long "uu" with strong "j". I hope that helps. Khaan is not pronounced like "Kaan", its more like hard "h" like "haan".
Unfortunately, terms like "hard", "soft", "long", "strong, "weak", and "short" don't help much outside of the context of the specific language (e.g., describing sounds in Mongolian as "hard" only makes sense to speakers of Mongolian). If you're familiar with IPA, would you mind explaining in those terms? siafu 00:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...due to the enormous amount of rape he committed

I have to put in a word for that—not my own suggestion. No, it's too blunt, too POV. But there must be some truth in it, cf. the famous quote--well famous to Conan the Barbarian fans anway, although from that Persian historian whose name slips my mind. Lectiodifficilior

There is definatly truth in it, its what he's well known for. For a actual source see the BBC documentary of last week. It was standard practice amongst even many of the nicer militaries of the time never mind the emperor of a horde rampaging around the place destroying all in its path. As it is without that it just says that there are some people with a chromosome from sometime around his life- so what? It needs to mention further into what this study actually means in relation to Genghis- that he got around in a bit in the women stakes.--Josquius 17:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Name in different languages

  1. af:Genghis Khan
  2. ar:جنكيز خان
  3. bs:Džingis Kan
  4. ca:Genguis Khan
  5. cs:Čingischán
  6. da:Djengis Khan
  7. de:Dschingis Khan
  8. es:Gengis Kan
  9. eo:Ĝingis-Ĥano
  10. fa:چنگیزخان
  11. fr:Gengis Khan
  12. fy:Genghis Khan
  13. ko:칭기즈 칸
  14. hr:Džingis kan
  15. id:Genghis Khan
  16. it:Gengis Khan
  17. he:ג'ינגיס חאן
  18. lb:Dschingis Khan
  19. lt:Čingis Chanas
  20. jbo:Tcingis xan
  21. hu:Dzsingisz kán
  22. ms:Genghis Khan
  23. nl:Genghis Khan
  24. ja:チンギス・ハーン
  25. pl:Czyngis-chan
  26. pt:Genghis Khan
  27. sl:Džingiskan
  28. simple:Genghis Khan
  29. fi:Tšingis-kaani
  30. sv:Djingis Khan
  31. tr:Cengiz Han
  32. tt:Çıñğız xan
  33. vi:Thành Cát Tư Hãn
  34. zh:成吉思汗

Yuan Dynasty

I'd contest the statement: 'Many Chinese revere him as the founder of the Yuan Dynasty.'

(1) The Yuan dynasty dates from 1271 when Kublai Khan transferred his capital from Mongolia to Beijing and took a Chinese dynastic name.

(2) I do not think the Chinese revere Genghis Khan, if anything they have the same attitudes as other nations conquered by the Mongols.

Alan 12:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While "revered" may not be the proper word, Genghis Khan is the founder of the Yuan dynasty, according to both Kublai Khan himself and Chinese historians. Our own article, Yuan dynasty says: Timüjin, later to be more prominently known as Ghengis Khan, was the first in the line of Yuan rulers. It's true that Genghis Khan never referred to his line as the "Yuan Dynasty", but this is actually common with the founders of Chinese dynasties (e.g. Cao Cao was only posthumously made emperor Wu of the Wei Dynasty). siafu 14:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cao Cao is a special case in that the Wei dynasty was a regional formation that did not achieve sole control. Far from being posthumous, most dynastic founders not only proclaimed their own dynasty but chose the dynastic name. At Genghis Khan's death he had gravely weakened the Jin in North China but the Southern Song remained in control of south China with a greater share of both population and wealth. Our own article on Genghis says that Ogodei finally destroyed the Jin in 1234. The standard academic histories do not list Genghis as a Chinese emperor or as the Yuan founder. I'll do some library research and post some citations in a day or so. Alan 00:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"De Facto" Chief?

Maybe someone who is familiar with this topic can answer this question: Upon his father's death, did Gengis become "de facto" chief, or "de jure"? Was he chief in fact--acting chief--or chief in law or custom--chief in name only? The sentence which follows makes it sound like he was chief in name only, so I have omitted the "de fact." If this was done in error, please do correct it .--Smallwhitelight 00:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added "de facto" without thinking about the possibility of saying "de jure"; I just meant that he was technically chief upon his father's death, but was not recognized as such by the tribe. De jure is probably better. siafu 02:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Future

This article has received a great deal of work recently; in recognition of this I removed the cleanup and copyedit templates from the main article. I think this article could be featured sometime in the future (hopefully near), but I think it would be good to put together a to do list first, and to do that we need to hear from more people than just me. In the humble opinions of my fillow editors:

  • Has this article been sufficiently copyeditted?
  • Has this article been sufficiently cleaned up?
  • Does it now represent a more global view?
  • Would a request for peer review be benificial?
  • What parts need expansion the most?
  • &c.

Please weigh in. siafu 02:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • I'm willing to check over the editing portion, but the content issues will need to be addressed by another user. What I corrected earlier seemed to be errors of haste--typos, wording, etc--none of the non-native English errors I was expecting from previous discussion. Someone must have gotten to that. I'll look over the entire thing very soon. I had intended to do that tonight, but I decided that I was neglecting the details of my non-wiki life. Funny, here I am again, but now I'm off to read paper books.--Smallwhitelight 02:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs much more work.

(1) Genghis was not present at the 1223 raid on the Crimea or at the Battle of Kalkha River.

(2) The section Uniting the Tribes omits anything between Genghis' adoption by Wang Khan and his election as khagan. There is no mention of Jamuga or of the rebellion against Wang Khan. The section is also unclear that 'Wang Khan' is a title the Jin granted to Toghril of the Kerait.

(3) The section on the invasion of North China needs more detail.

(4) The reference to the conquest of South East Asia should be deleted or it should be clarified as the work of his successors. Ditto the conquest of Russia.

(5) A number of subordinates - Yeh-lü Ch'u-ts'ai, Jebe, Subedei and so forth - should be included.

Alan 06:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Death and Burial v. Tangut

The Tangut's are here referred to both at the Tangut's and by their Chinese name the 'Western Xia' and perhaps more problematic is that there are links for both. Tangut is the normal English term, which got it from Russian. The indigenous term is Minyag. --Nathan hill 11:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Never mind, I think I have fixed it now. --Nathan hill 11:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RV

I reverted this paragraph from the article:

However, the view that the (objective) slaughtering of masses of people cannot justify a purely positive evalution of a historical figure is a genuine occidental one, which has partially its roots in the tradition upholding of human rights, most notably the right to life. This might in parts help to explain the the different views that "the West" and "the East" have of Genghis Khan. It should also be noted that Adolf Hitler (who is almost always portrayed as negative in western historical tradition) has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Genghis Khan and his ability to and achievement of having wiped out entire tribes.

If Hitler praised Genghis Khan, it would need a reference (and preferably a quote) to even be considered for inclusion (see reductio ad hitlerum). Also, claiming that upholding human rights is a purely occidental idea is rather a radical claim (presented here unsourced), and not necessarily relevant to the issue at hand. siafu 19:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would have reverted it as well, not because it's Reductio ad Hitlerum (if anything the writer seems to think Hitler is an authority) but because it's factually inaccurate. The Mongols may have practised a brutal warfare, especially aganst cities, but that is not genocide and there is no record of the Mongols seeking to deliberately exterminate an ethnic group. Alan 01:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One comment on this: it appears that Genghis did in fact do commit the occasional deliberate genocide -- I think the campaign against the Tatars shortly after 1206 should be counted as such -- it's even in the Secret History, if I am not utterly mistaken. --Dietwald 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reading bits of this article seems a LOT of it has come from Paul Paul Ratchnevsky's Genghis Khan: His Life ane Legacy I don't know how different it has to be for copyrights, but some of it is pretty close.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Talk%7EGenghis_Khan_Archive_2e17.html"