Talk:Genghis Khan

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 05:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Genghis Khan

• ... that modern Mongolians view Genghis Khan (pictured) as the founding father of their country? Source: See "Mongolia" subsection, fourth paragraph, final sentence.
  • ALT1: ... that Genghis Khan (pictured) was extremely charismatic and renowned for his generosity towards his followers? Source: See "Character and achievements" section, second paragraph, third and fifth sentences.
  • ALT2: ... that Genghis Khan (pictured) discouraged flattery and encouraged his companions to criticise his mistakes? Source: See "Character and achievements" section, third paragraph, third sentence.
  • ALT3: ... that Genghis Khan (pictured) hated luxury, proudly stating: "I am from the barbaric North. I wear the same clothing and eat the same food as the cowherds and horse-herders"? Source: See "Character and achievements" section, quote box.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ngwa people
  • Comment: A selection of surprisingly positive hooks about an extremely ruthless conqueror. Not sure about the punctuation in ALT3.

Improved to Good Article status by AirshipJungleman29 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Genghis Khan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice work on this page. I prefer ALT3 and, to a lesser extent, ALT2. I'm hesitant about ALT1, given that the article also mentions that he was ruthless toward enemies—but maybe the phrase "extremely charismatic" means "extremely charismatic [...] towards his followers" (not toward the world at large), in which case ALT1 would be fine as a quirky hook. ALT0 is a pretty well-known fact, though, and might not be as interesting as the others as a result. The image is fine; it also appeared on DYK a few months ago, however, so the promoters may or may not want to run the image again. Everything else looks good to me.

Incidentally, I revised the punctuation in ALT3 a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Khagan (Great Khan) vs Khan

Why is Genghis Khan referred to as only a khan in the article? What is the rationale behind this? Genghis Khan was the first Khagan (Great Khan) of the Mongol Empire. For so many years he was correctly described as khagan or great khan. This is also inconsistent with the titles of subsequent Mongol emperors, who are correctly called khagan in their articles. Civciv5 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you refer to reliable sources styling him as khagan? Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this count? "The Secret History of the Mongols" - Urgunge Onon (2001)

https://www.google.be/books/edition/The_Secret_History_of_the_Mongols/2Pdu0mogJ2QC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Page 6: "was raised first to the position of a tribal Qan in 1189, and then to the exalted role of Great Qahan of Mongolia in 1206"

Page 26: "This second stage was completed during the reigns of the four great Qahans: Chinggis (1206-1227)..."

Also, his title is already is in his Mongolian name: Chinggis Khagan (Чингис хаан). The word khagan (хаан) is a supreme khan and is a different word than khan (хан).

At the succession box at the bottom of the article, Genghis is already called "Great Khan of the Mongol Empire". Civciv5 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, a translation of the primary source. Perhaps, secondary sources dedicated to his life should be cited to verify the use of the khagan title. Borsoka (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Civciv5, it may be a WP:COMMONNAME issue, with the other articles being less adherent to policy. This is an English-language document, and the most common accurate terms should be used: if most English-language sources usually refer to his title as 'khan', then so should we. Remsense留 04:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Civciv5 Thanks for the question; allow me to clarify as the article's primary author. Essentially the word "khagan"/"qa'an" is a later construction, which was never used in Genghis' lifetime, and which varied significantly in meaning through the years. For reasons of consistency and precision, I chose to use the chronologically-accurate title "khan", but I am open to explaining the distinction in the article.

The earliest peoples to use the term "khan" were the Xianbei between c. 200 BC and c. 400 AD. Even then, there were two terms with "an uncertain etymological relationship", which we know as "khan" and "khagan". In the Old Turkic of the steppe empires of the first millennium AD, "khagan" was a title and "khan" an abstract definition of a monarch. However, usage of "khagan" declined, and the word eventually merged with "khan" between the 10th and the 12th centuries.

As such, Genghis never used the title "khagan". He used "khan", with the appelation "Genghis", which we don't know the meaning of. His successor Ögedei, however, did revive and use the title "khagan" but only as a name (he is only referred to as "khagan", not Ögedei, until the 14th century). "Khagan" came to be seen as a higher-tier title than "khan", and so "khagan" was used retrospectively for all Mongol rulers, including Genghis and Guyuk, who both did not use the title. It is uncertain what title Mongke used, but Kublai preferred the term "khagan" which he passed on to his successors.

It is important to note, at this point, that "Great Khan" is not a translation of "khagan". "Great Khan" was used in Marco Polo's works; it probably has a Chinese origin, as the word "Great" can normally be taken as referring to imperial concepts.

So to conclude, the first writers who used the word "khagan" to mean "title of the rulers of the Mongol Empire/Yuan dynasty" came under the rule of Kublai. None of the previous four khans used the title in that precise context, and Genghis certainly did not. For this reason, the vast majority of modern reliable sources refer to him only as "khan", and so that is the title and spelling used in this article. The above is sourced to the historians Atwood and Buell. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This brings to mind a whole lot of inconsistencies. For example, on his Wikipedia article, Ögedei is called the "2nd Khagan of the Mongol Empire". This would be confusing for readers as Genghis is not referred to as Khagan on his article. Where's the first Khagan? Secondly, Genghis is called "Great Khan" and "Khagan" in the succession box at the bottom and navigation templates respectively.

This issue seems comparable to the use of pharaoh for Ancient Egyptian kings. The title was first used by Akhenaten or possibly Thutmose III. Yet on every Wikipedia article about kings before them, the title of "pharaoh" is used, even though monarchs like Khufu or Narmer never used this title.

Another comparable instance is the Roman ruler Augustus. Augustus was never officially emperor of Rome. He was princeps, merely the first citizen. His successors for several generations also were officially merely the first citizen of the "Roman Republic", and historians conventionally give them the title of emperor.

So even though Genghis may not have used the title of khagan in his lifetime, later historians or writers did ascribe the title to him like to all emperors of the Mongol Empire. Civciv5 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is very comparable, Civciv5. The critical difference here is that unlike with the pharoahs or Augustus, it is not the historical convention to refer to Genghis with an anachronistic title.

I think this may do with the comparative lack of longevity of the Mongol Empire, compared with the Roman emperors or Egyptian pharoahs—there are not enough successors who actually used the title to justify applying the title retroactively to the earliest rulers. There were really only five true rulers of the Mongol Empire—Genghis, Ögedei, Guyuk, Mongke, and Kublai. Genghis and Guyuk never used the title. Ögedei used the word as a personal name, while Mongke used the word as one of many titles. Kublai was the only one who used the title in the way you refer to it.

Sadly, inconsistencies across Wikipedia are part and parcel of the site. Non-Western subjects such as Mongol history are rarely updated and often incorrect. I simply do not have the time to go through every article to find and correct individual inconsistencies. I hope you understand. That being said, I will take a look at the specific inconsistencies you pointed out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have undone your edit on the article of Ögedei Khan. There is no agreement yet for the use of a singular title on all articles on rulers of the Mongol Empire, especially since you stated that Ögedei used the title of khagan, if only as a name.

It seems clear to me that the later Mongol rulers, historians and writers did retroactively ascribe the title of Khagan (or Great Khan) to earlier ones.

So I propose that all rulers of the Mongol Empire simply be referred to as either Khagan or Great Khan with a note for those rulers who may not have used the title during their lifetimes, but to whom it was bestowed by later generations. Civciv5 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Civciv5, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not "the later Mongol rulers, historians and writers". The Mongols did not follow a consistent titling system, reliable sources reflect that, and our job is to reflect the reliable sources. Why should we refer to the five rulers of the Mongol Empire by the title that one of them used, when we could instead use a title that all five of them used? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I can find "reliable sources" that ascribe the title of Khagan or Great Khan to the Mongol rulers. How many would be necessary to establish the title of Khagan or Great Khan as the title for all rulers of the united Mongol Empire? Civciv5 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally, it may become clear that there is a clear preference for one or the other in the relevant reliable sources. If not, tertiary sources such as other encyclopedias are consulted to gauge whether the use of one term is DUE over another in a given context.

(Also, WP:NCROY may be relevant here.) Remsense留 15:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe NCROY is near-totally biased towards British/Western rulers, and basically says "do whatever you want" in regard to other places. I should note that my above comments are primarily based on Atwood's 2004 Encyclopedia of the Mongol Empire and Buell's 2003 Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Since I have also provided references to encyclopediae and dictionaries that explicitly define the title and usage of "khan" vs "khagan", you probably also need to find references with similar levels of detail, rather than cursory references to "Great Khan Genghis" or similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I should also note that if you believe retrospective Mongol sources are enough to give the title "khagan" to Genghis, as they are also willing to ascribe the title to his ancestors (Yesugei, Ambaghai, Khutula and Khabula), you have to be willing to say "Genghis was the fifth khagan of the Mongols" in the first sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Descendants

There is a discrepancy as to how many children Ghengis Khan had. The article List of people with the most children states he had over 1,000 up to 3,000 children (although the reference is a blog). Should the article and the list not consistently have the same number of children listed? And what is the validity of the claim that he had thousands of children? Cltjames (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On whether the two pages should match, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. I am inclined to view the number on the other page as pure speculation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As you say, the blog is the only source provided, presumably because reliable sources do not dare make such assertions. Yes the author is a professor contemporary global politics, but this certainly does not translate into expertise of 13th-century Mongolian history. Aza24 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Per WP:RMEC and WP:SNOW, not moved. Thanks for such a strong consensus! (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Genghis Khan → Chinggis Khan – I intend to nominate this article for FAC in the future, and would like to know if there is consensus for such a move; I have no preference, and will not !vote. Evidence for both sides can be found below.

Background: "Genghis" is the traditional English romanisation, first adopted in the 18th century after scholars misread Persian texts. "Chinggis" has been increasingly used in recent decades because it better reflects the name's pronunciation in Mongolian. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

General sources Google Trends Google Scholar: 50,000 results for "Genghis", 10,000 results for "Chinggis" Since 2020: 9,000 results for "Genghis", 2,000 results for "Chinggis" Google ngrams High-quality scholarship, by age The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire (Biran & Kim 2023): "Chinggis" From Genghis Khan to Tamerlane: The Reawakening of Mongol Asia (Jackson 2023): "Chinggis" The Mongol World (May & Hope 2022): "Chinggis" The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World (Favereau 2021): "Chinggis" The Mongol Empire (May 2018): "Chinggis" Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire (Broadbridge 2018): "Chinggis" The Mongols and the Islamic World: From Conquest to Conversion (Jackson 2017): "Chinggis" The Mongol Empire: Genghis Khan, His Heirs, and the Founding of Modern China (Man 2014): "Genghis" Defending Heaven: China's Mongol Wars, 1209–1370 (Waterson 2013): "Chinggis" Chinggis Khan (Biran 2012): "Chinggis" The Mongol Conquests in World History (May 2012): "Chinggis" Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Empire (Fitzhugh, Rossabi, Honeychurch 2009): "Genghis" The Cambridge History of Inner Asia (di Cosmo 2009): "Chinggis" Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (Atwood 2004): "Chinggis" Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule (Lane 2004): "Genghis" Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection (Man 2004): "Genghis" Imperial China, 900–1800 (Mote 1999): "Chinggis" Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy (Ratchnevsky 1991): "Genghis" Some examples of discussion in RS: Atwood 2004: "It should be noted that the spelling of the great conqueror commonly known as Genghis Khan is given here throughout as Chinggis Khan, a usage that is historically correct and strongly preferred by the Mongolians themselves and increasingly by Western writers on Mongolian history. The old spelling "Genghis" was occasioned in the 18th century by a misreading of the Persian sources. Pronounced in English with a completely unwarranted hard g at the beginning, this spelling has now become quite misleading. Jackson 2023: "'Genghis' is a bastardised spelling with a convoluted pedigree that goes back to a faulty transcription of the title in the early eighteenth century. The founder of the Mongol empire (d. 1227), whose personal name was Temüjin, will appear here as 'Chinggis Khan' in accordance with the Mongolian spelling (rendered in Persian texts as 'Chingīz'). "

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. By a long shot ngrams. Modern academics may have their odd spelling preferences, but Wikipedia is written for the general public, not academics. Walrasiad (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME. Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The common name remains Genghis Khan. O.N.R. ^(talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Jackson book uses Genghis in the title and Chinggis in the text, which might be an acceptable compromise here. I think any move away from Genghis is going to compromise recognizability for one of the most recognizable figures in history. (I pronounce Genghis with a soft g, so the difference between it and Chinggis seems quite minor considering I am completely uninformed as to the proper Mongolian pronunciation.) Srnec (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close, Genghis Khan remains the common name. Killuminator (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Genghis Khan is the common name. JIP | Talk 20:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reference to "military-industrial complex"

Just a very small thing, but I believe that the concept of a 'military-industrial complex' is anachronistic, being a 20th century term referring almost exclusively to American politics. The Mongol polity at the time didn't have 'industries' in the modern understanding of the word. In the context, it could perhaps be replaced with a reference to the dual pastoral-military function of these units, or cut altogether as the next sentence is more to the point, saying that these units were also social units. However, if a historian has compared the reformed system to a 'military-industrial complex', this could be included, with a reference, and perhaps explicitly with a phrasing such as '[...] of households, in what x has called "a defined military–industrial complex."' I believe its current, unmarked, uncited use is misleading and gives a false idea of Mongol society at the time. Apologies if I have expressed this in the wrong place; I've never worked on a protected or semi-protected page before. Q1w2e3r4t5y6u (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked the source and there is no reference to any sort of "industrial complex" in it. I'd say you're looking at an anachronism, please feel free to revise. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223, p.39 of May 2018 clearly states "a military-industrial complex evolved". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I will double-check then. Because I did a search for the phrase "industrial complex" in May and it turned up no results. Thank you for the page reference. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well... lol... I looked at the wrong reference. Please go ahead and trout me for that one. It passes verification. Maybe attribute to May though. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you for your comment Q1w2e3r4t5y6u; as noted above, May has made explicit reference to a "military-industrial complex". I will shortly incorporate a defined attribution into the article—I can see why it might be needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @AirshipJungleman29 for the swift response. Great that there will be a defined attribution. Have a great day! Q1w2e3r4t5y6u (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Turkic tribes

Akaan327 has twice edited the lead paragraph from uniting the Mongol tribes to uniting the Mongol and Turkic tribes, justifying it with "He literally recognised himself as a descendant of ancient huns and Turkic khaganate." While the Mongols certainly continued the Turkic steppe tradition of a nomadic empire, Genghis cannot in any way be said to have spent the first half of his life "uniting the Turkic tribes". By this point in time, the Turkic peoples had dispersed throughout most of Eurasia, and they were never "united" again. By comparison, reliable sources describe him as "uniting the Mongol tribes", who are not generally defined by their ethnic origin (some were Turkic, some were Mongolic) but instead by their geographical position.

I will revert to the GA-approved version of the article; per WP:ONUS, if you wish to revert, please present evidence supported by WP:RS on this talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is also no mention of Turkic tribes in the article. Mellk (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that reliable sources be provided for uniting Turkic tribes prior to inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image of drawing.

How is it possible for there to be a representation of khan in 1270 when he died in 1225. He wasn’t even close to looking that aged. 2607:FEA8:7D1A:800:8416:FF5B:E614:8069 (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

1270 is the year it was painted. As stated, it is based on an earlier depiction. Remsense诉 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Remove the link to cat eye syndrome in the section describing his appearance. If 13th century Persians had a name for the condition, it wouldn't be the same as the 21st century English one. InherentDogma (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not how things are done here. We follow reliable sources and what they call the condition. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. The original source described Genghis Khan as having cat's eyes, as in the eyes of a cat. That's the literal translation of the original Persian.

You obviously cannot conclude from this that Genghis Khan had Schmid–Fraccaro syndrome simply because 21st century English speakers call Schmid–Fraccaro syndrome "cat eye syndrome". The cited book did not draw this conclusion, it is a piece of blatantly wrong WP:Original research.

Of course Genghis Khan was not a cat, so there had to be some metaphorical meaning. I don't think there is any consensus as to what that was. InherentDogma (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me look... Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually I believe cat's eyes referred to the epicanthic fold common in Mongolian people, you may want to add something mentioning that if there's a good source for it. InherentDogma (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, done. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Some sources put August 18 as Genghis's death date. Why is it not considered in the article?

Said sources are Britannica, World History Encyclopedia, and History.com. Neocorelight (Talk) 08:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The History of Yuan (Yuanshi), one of the Twenty-Four Histories of China, has it that between the 18–25 August 1227 Khan was feeling unwell with fever, which ultimately killed him within eight days after the disease’s onset.

This is ambiguous for me. It could mean that the disease's onset was on 18 and he died on 25, but that would make his death only 7 days after the onset; or it could mean the onset is anywhere between 18 to 25 and he died eight days after it.

Does anyone have an explanation? Neocorelight (Talk) 08:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have accurately summarised the source of the confusion. I'll include the 18 August date in the article; I see that May had even mentioned it, but I didn't see it. Thanks for the note Neocorelight. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Who's May? Neocorelight (Talk) 10:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Timothy May, preeminent Mongol Empire historian, authored e.g. The Mongol Empire (2018) and The Mongol World (2022). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

1. original："秋七月壬午，不豫。"

1. translation：August 18, 1227, Genghis Khan fell ill because of a serious illness.

2. original："己丑，崩於薩里川哈老徒之行宮。臨崩謂左右曰：「金精兵在潼關，南據連山，北限大河，難以遽破。若假道於宋，宋、金世仇，必能許我，則下兵唐、鄧，直搗大梁。金急，必徵兵潼關。然以數萬之眾，千里赴援，人馬疲弊，雖至弗能戰，破之必矣。」言訖而崩，壽六十六，葬起輦谷。"

2. translation：August 25, 1227, Genghis Khan died of illness. Before his death, he told everyone that would borrow a road from the Song Dynasty to destroy the Jin Dynasty. After finishing his words, he died at the age of 66.

So there is no ambiguity A1472583698025 (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A1472583698025, please see the above discussion before reverting again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Tao Zongyi's "南村輟耕錄" from the late Yuan Dynasty also records that Genghis Khan died on August 25, 1227.（至宋寶慶三年丁亥，七月己丑，崩于薩里川，在位二十二年，壽六十六，葬起輦谷。）

2. Let's put it this way, most of the contents of Song Lian's "History of Yuan" are copied from the official records of the Yuan Dynasty "Veritable Records of Yuan" comes, this is already the most credible information. A1472583698025 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The History of Yuan is not a reliable source, as it is a 700-year-old chronicle with many known errors. On Wikipedia, we go by what the modern scholarship says—and there is no consensus on that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So what do you think of Tao Zongyi's "南村輟耕錄"?

Rashid al-Din's "Jami' al-tawarikh" also records that Genghis Khan died of illness on August 25, 1227.

"New History of Yuan" by Ke Shaomin, a historian of the Republic of China, also records that Genghis Khan died of illness on August 25, 1227.

Next, "History of Yuan" is already the closest Chinese official historical material to the Yuan Dynasty. Even though there are many errors, the original data basically comes from "Veritable Records of Yuan", and about the death of Genghis Khan and Rashid al-Din's "Jami' al-tawarikh" is the same, this is already consistent and credible information from both the East and the West. A1472583698025 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I like how you presumably read the sentence "we go by what the modern scholarship says" and then decided that talking about four medieval chronicles was relevant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, your so-called “modern scholarship” is all based on studying these historical documents.

The majority of documents record Genghis Khan’s death on August 25, 1227, and modern historical works also mainly focus on August 25, 1227.

So I don’t think the date of Genghis Khan’s death is controversial, at least the Chinese historical data are first-hand information

Also, why did you restore Yesugei's Wiki? That picture is the official portrait of Yesugei painted by the Yuan Dynasty. A1472583698025 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The original version of the article had 25 August, but there is enough disagreement that it is not certain. Every source that describes his death was written several decades after—none are "first-hand information". I am happy to be corrected on that image of Yesugei, but I have not been able to find any evidence that it is an authentic depiction and not a modern interpretation. You are welcome to provide that evidence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think you have to point out which document or modern historical work says that Genghis Khan died on August 18, 1227, I provide the information to prove that Genghis Khan died on August 25, 1227.

But I know that the documents that say Genghis Khan died on August 18, 1227 are all documents from outside China. In terms of credibility, they are no more credible than Chinese historical materials. A1472583698025 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As you wish:

• Curtis Wright, David. "The Mongol Conquest of Xi Xia". In May, Timothy; Hope, Michael (eds.). The Mongol World. Routledge. p. 94. On 11 August 1227 Chinggis Khan began to feel indisposed, and on 18 August 1227 he passed away. This cites the Chinese source Xu Zizhi Tongjian.
• May, Timothy (2018). The Mongol Empire. Edinburgh University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-7486-4237-3. Chinggis died on 18 August 1227.
• You may also see the lengthy discussion in Pelliot, Paul (1959). Notes on Marco Polo (PDF). Vol. I. Imprimerie nationale. pp. 305–309.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link), which can be summarised as: Juvaini says August 18, the History of Yuan says August 25, and Rashid al-Din does not give a specific date of death.

Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

David Curtis Wright's "The Mongol Conquest of Xi Xia" cites the "Xu Zizhi Tongjian" stating that Genghis Khan died on August 18, 1227? I'm sorry, but I can find the original text in the "Xu Zizhi Tongjian" which says, "秋七月己丑，蒙古主殂於薩里川。", indicating Genghis Khan died on August 25, 1227.

I still need to think about the other two books you mentioned, but I dare say that there are absolutely an overwhelming number of historical documents or modern historical works saying that Genghis Khan died on August 25, 1227. A1472583698025 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

秋七月己丑，蒙古主殂於薩里川。 contains no specific date, just "autumn, seventh month, Jichou year". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"秋七月己丑，蒙古主殂於薩里川。", "七月己丑"=July 12th in the lunar calendar corresponds to August 25th in the Gregorian calendar. In China, the sexagenary cycle (Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches) is often used for dating years or days. A1472583698025 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have communicated with Chinese speakers who disagree with you. Please provide a citation to a WP:RS for the above statements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"A Lost Civilization: The Mongols Rediscovered" Author：Walther Heissig Publisher ：Basic Books Year of publication：1966 PP.43 "25th August 1227 , when Jenghiz Khan died after several bouts of fever which began with a fall from his horse" A1472583698025 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

...??? Dude, have you even read Genghis Khan#Death and aftermath? There are citations to sources far more reliable than a pop-cult book from 1966 that support 25 August. The issue is that other authors support 18 August. If you are arguing that Curtis Wright's translation of the Xu Zizhi Tongjian is incorrect, please provide a reliable translation that support that. If you can't, I see no point in continuing this conversation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I can provide numerous Chinese historical works proving that Genghis Khan died on August 25, 1227. However, since you might not understand Chinese, I just casually picked an English book. I can present another one if needed.

"Encyclopedia of World Biography: 6"

Author：Suzanne Michele Bourgoin

Publisher：Gale Research Inc

Year of publication：1998

PP.265

", in the Liupan Mountains in Kansu on Aug. 25 , 1227 ." A1472583698025 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I have already provided the original text from the "Xu Zizhi Tongjian." Can you verify if the book you mentioned correctly translated the original text?

Here is the conclusion:

Practically all Chinese historical records (from China, Mongolia, Tibet) that document Genghis Khan's date of death state it as August 25, 1227.

In contrast, foreign historical records are quite inconsistent, so it is preferable to trust Chinese historical sources. A1472583698025 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, Rashid al-Din's 'Jami' al-tawarikh' records Genghis Khan's date of death not as August 25, 1227, but as September 29, 1227.

Juvayni's 'Tarikh-i Jahangushay' records it as August 18, 1227, but 'Tarikh-i Jahangushay' contains quite a few errors.

I don't think the second-hand information obtained by Persia would be more accurate than the first-hand records from China. A1472583698025 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

First-hand records from China? Which ones are those? If you recall, the History of Yuan was published in 1370, and the Xu Zizhi Tongjian in 1801! By contrast, Juvayni was published in 1260, and Rashid al-Din in the 1310s.

Also, why do you keep citing weird sources to support August 25? There are around five in the article, which you would know if you had read it. As I said above, I am now thinking you haven't read more than the first sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason is simple. The 'History of Yuan' was transcribed from the Yuan dynasty's official document, the 'Veritable Records of Yuan.' Although the 'Veritable Records of Yuan' has been lost, we can still see most of its contents in the 'History of Yuan.' This makes it more of a first-hand source compared to the two Persian historians.

Furthermore, Tao Zongyi's 'Records of the Southern Village's Farming Pause' from the late Yuan dynasty also records Genghis Khan's death as August 25, 1227, similar to the 'History of Yuan.'

Juvayni and Rashid al-Din's records of Genghis Khan's death differ significantly from each other, making it unlikely that their information came from Chinese documents; it was probably based on hearsay.

So, why do you only consider the date of the writing but not the source of the information? A1472583698025 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"內蒙古大事記"

Publisher：Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House

pp.61

"秋七月十二日（公元1227年8月25日），成吉思汗病逝於軍中。"

"成吉思汗評傳：一代天驕"

Publisher：Guangxi Education Publishing House

pp.143

"1227年七月十二日（公歷8月25日）安祥地在薩里川行宮去世，結束了他那叱吒風雲，馳騁疆場的一生，終年66歲。"

"劍橋中國遼西夏金元史（907-1368年）"

Author：Herbert Franke、Denis Crispin Twitchett

Publisher：China Social Sciences Press

pp.302

"8月25日成吉思汗的死，使金朝得以從蒙古人的壓力下享受到一段短暫的喘息時期。"

The Chinese historical works I have found so far all record that Genghis Khan died on August 25, 1227.

Herbert Franke's writings also record August 25, 1227 A1472583698025 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep going down this weird track where you list sources as if someone is arguing "no-one has ever said that Genghis died on August 25". That is not the problem. The problem is that others have stated he died on August 18. Do you any sources where a historian explicitly says that the August 18 date is incorrect? If you do, I will happily adjust the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I know that all the claims stating Genghis Khan died on August 18, 1227, come from Juvayni, but he is the only one to record it this way, and Western sources do not all agree on August 18.

However, Chinese sources unanimously state that it was August 25, 1227. Especially the early Ming Dynasty's official "History of Yuan" and the late Yuan Dynasty civilian Tao Zongyi's "南村輟耕錄" are consistent and can be cross-referenced.

Can Juvayni's account be cross-referenced with other documents?

If anything, why did it take until this year to find the date of Genghis Khan’s death controversial? A1472583698025 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Tibetan historical record "Hu lan deb ther (紅史)", written in 1363 during the late Yuan Dynasty, also records Genghis Khan's death as occurring on August 25.

Chinese and Tibetan historical records can be cross-referenced, confirming that Genghis Khan died on August 25. A1472583698025 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

In 1959, Pelliot extensively cross-referenced the sources and concluded nothing concrete (see link above). Ratchnevsky came to the same conclusion in 1991. This controversy is not new. The Chinese sources are consistent because they derive from the same original source. That does not mean the original source is correct.

To repeat: do you have any sources where a historian ‘’explicitly says’’ that August 18 is incorrect? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You said that "History of Yuan", "南村輟耕錄" and "Hu lan deb ther" all have the same original source of information on August 25?

Especially "Hu lan deb ther" is a Tibetan document A1472583698025 (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. ’Tshal pa Kun dga’ rdo rje, the author of the Hu lan deb ther, was able to extensively use Chinese sources because Tibet had been conquered by the Mongols. For the parts concerning the lives of the Mongol imperial family, he used the Yeke tobčiyan, which was also the source for the corresponding parts of the History of Yuan. See Van der Kuijp 1996, p. 45. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is very likely that the record of Genghis Khan’s death on August 25, 1227 was obtained directly from the Mongolian royal family. A1472583698025 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, definitely—all the Mongol chroniclers had to have access to the imperial family. For example, Juvaini was a companion of Hulegu Khan, Genghis's grandson, and wrote his history when travelling with Hulegu from Karakorum to Persia in the 1250s, before he became governor of Baghdad.

Of course, the imperial family also removed embarassing incidents or manipulated the history to suit their agenda. See e.g. the issue of Jochi's disputed birth—all the Chinese sources omit the incidents totally, Rashid al-Din twists it to appear positive, and only the Secret History reports something accurate. So their involvement is no guarantee of reliability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Tao Zongyi is a civilian, does he also have the opportunity to contact the Mongolian royal family? A1472583698025 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

He lived for many years in the Mongol capital of Beijing and conducted his own historical research there: his information on Genghis would have come from the Veritable Records/Yeke tobčiyan, which the "History of Yuan" was based off. As I said, same original source for all the Chinese sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t that mean that the records in Chinese historical materials and Tibetan historical materials of the same period about Genghis Khan’s death on August 25, 1227, all come from the records of the Mongolian royal family? A1472583698025 (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I said that in this comment. I can already tell what your next reply is going to be, so do me a favour and read all of that comment again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nice

This is such a good article on an important topic. Wikipedia's a great website. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hear hear! Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Identification of Genghis Khan with Minamoto no Yoshitsune

Can you translate it from ja.wiki? Thank you.

No, it's quite clearly a mess of WP:OR, and most importantly it hasn't been mentioned in high-quality scholarship. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I take that back; I've found a paper which discusses it and added a line in the "Elsewhere" section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's better to create that very important page: there are all sources and explanations. Venier63 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll put it on my to-do list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Don't forget it when you'll have time. Venier63 (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: Venier63 is a sock. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you do it anyway, AirshipJungleman29? 82.48.142.53 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably, when I'm in the mood. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP above was a sock as well, one that often requests proxy edits. Dekimasuよ! 13:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems to be a notable topic. Anyway, if I ever get around to creating it, it'll be on my own terms. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I was sent a link here, what's with the block evasions? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A sockmaster wants the above page to be created. I think it's notable enough, but intend to do it in my own time, so as to not be a proxy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Do what you think it's better. 79.44.236.216 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, the more you badger, the further it goes down the to-do list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The article begins with a typo

Born born New nullptr (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see this typo New nullptr; can you point it out? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have fixed it. Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy

The lede states:

• When Temüjin was eight, his father [Yesügei] died and his family was abandoned by its tribe.

However, the Adolescence section states:

• Yesügei's death shattered the unity of his people, which included members of the Borjigin, Tayichiud, and other clans. As Temüjin was only around ten and Behter around two years older, neither was considered old enough to rule.
  

So was Temujin 8 or 10 when his father died? Also isn't Behter supposed to be Temujin's younger half-brother, since he was born to Yesügei's second wife? Billcipher123 (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Temüjin was eight when his father died, but the succession was decided after an indeterminate period of time, which is why the article says "around ten". Temüjin was the son of Hö'elün, Yesügei's second but primary wife, and Behter was the son of Sochigel, Yesügei's first but secondary wife. We do not know if Behter was born before Yesügei married Hö'elün, but regardless he was born two years before Temüjin. I will adjust the article to clarify these points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, the "second but primary" and "first but secondary wife" parts got me. Really convoluted stuffs. Billcipher123 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

On the Chinese transcriptions

@AirshipJungleman29 What do you think about including Middle Chinese transcription (the Baxter's transcription for Middle Chinese) of 成吉思 and 鐵木真? Something like dzyeng kjit si and thet muwk tsyin for example. I feel it's a bit anachronistic to only show the pinyin transcription, which is the modern Mandarin pronunciation of these names, hence doesn't actually reflect how the ancients might have pronounced them. Billcipher123 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose this fairly strongly. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so what lexical information we include in articles not specifically about language or linguistics should be minimized, with useful terms taking priority. It's also anachronistic for Baxter to use the Latin alphabet for his transcription system, but that doesn't matter because it's what's useful in context. It's pretty common to stick to pinyin in rendering Chinese (etc.) terms from all eras, since that's what is known and useful for both Chinese speakers and non-Chinese speakers; it simply doesn't matter enough to non-linguists what we think it sounded like before in nearly all cases. Frankly, I don't think any reconstructed pronunciation or other technical convention should ever appear in a non-linguistics article. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Fair enough. Billcipher123 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Genghis Chan ...

Genghis Chan murdered millions of people in the most cruel ways, burning women and children, babies, raping and plundering , so do not describe him as you do, you lie and falsify the facts! He was like Hitler, Hamas and Hezzbolah put together as they are murderers and terrorists so was he 2A06:C701:420A:7900:1194:BDE5:B7EB:6D4A (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You lie and falsify 2A06:C701:420A:7900:1194:BDE5:B7EB:6D4A (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a specific example of a source that is misrepresented, then. —C.Fred (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What does posthumous name mean?

What does posthumous name mean? Why is it in Chinese language? Also, what is temple name and why is it in Chinese? Isn’t it supposed to be in Mongolian? Who owns this page? Chinese people are trying to twist the history of Mongolia and whoever the person or organization that owns this page is up to no good. Moreover, there should be no Chinese names or explanations in brackets. If there have to have explanations, it should be in Mongolian. B0123456i (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

B0123456i, see posthumous name and temple name. No one owns this page, least of all China, which is so upset it cannot control Wikipedia the website has been totally banned in the country. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for the behaviour, I didn’t knew about it. Yet, there should be no reason to put Chinese explanations and names as Genghis Khan was king of Mongol Empire. When someone search for other countries Kings or Queens from wikipedia, it does not show information in any other languages other than in English or its own language. It looks like someone is trying to do something wrong. Also, if wikipedia is banned in China, I do not see any reason to put information in Chinese. Especially, when the information is about other countries history. B0123456i (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know why a language other than English or Mongolian is considered important for explaining the subject, you should read the article to find out. All of the connections you've drawn to characterize this as an artificial imposition ("no other articles are like this at all!") just aren't the case, so we shouldn't have to spend our time debunking them.Remsense ‥ 论 13:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not say other languages is not important. If you think all the languages should be in the article, then why not put all the languages in the brackets with the names and explanations. If it is that important in this article, the information should have posthumous name in all the languages around the world. B0123456i (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can't read what I said or peruse the links Airship posted for you above, then I'm not going to discuss this with you further, and no one else should either. It seems you posted this question because you wanted to complain and argue (the sense I got that this was the case is why I originally removed this), and not because you actually wanted an answer rooted in history or scholarship. Remsense ‥ 论 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt that way. I wasn’t trying to argue with anyone. I was just curious why there is Chinese language in the bracket. Now I truly understand why there is posthumous name and temple name in Chinese after reading the information. At a glance, it didn’t look right for me because I have searched the information before and there was no Chinese kanji in there previously. Could you please explain why the posthumous name and temple name information is relevant? Thanks. B0123456i (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that your argument is near-totally flawed, but you have managed to stumble vaguely near to a point. Per MOS:INFOBOX, it should supply key facts about the article subject, and I am not sure that I would classify Genghis's posthumous/temple names as "key facts", although they are certainly worthy of being in the body. Rambling about other languages and countries is completely irrelevant, though. (For example, Charlemagne's native language was some form of German, and yet "Charlemagne" itself is not German in the slightest). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I have understood now. Sorry for the previous behavior. I am a Mongolian citizen and I am just little bit protective about the history of Genghis Khan as he is the most important historical figure we have. I think I have gone too far by saying things like that, I apologize and embarrassed about my actions. B0123456i (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand and accept your apology, and in light of recent events such as [1] I don't blame you for your protectiveness. I think MOS:INFOBOX supports removing the posthumous and temple name parameters from the infobox, so I will do so shortly. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best wishes for you too :) B0123456i (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Genghis Khan's death date

Last I checked this article, it said that he died of 25 August 1227. It now simply says August 1227. Why was the death date removed? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Because there is a dispute over whether it was 18 or 25 August. See #Some sources put August 18 as Genghis's death date. Why is it not considered in the article? above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)