Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 4

Modern Descendents

The section was deleted as 'pseudo-genetic rubbish.' See above section (DNA Legacy) for the citation to the research into this. Ff123 19:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added a blurb under the 'Legacy' section. It's kind of stuffy, but it's pretty much what the abstract of the paper says. Ff123 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So far from what I have seen the new section is not too bad but 1. there is no evidence whatsoever that this is GK's Y chromosome, 2. it is not even a reasonable inference that it is GKs', 3. there is no evidence about how it spread and 4. there is no evidence it is even Mongol. Lao Wai 10:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a collection of lineages (star cluster) which the researchers deduced, using two different methods, to have originated ~1,000 years ago, with high confidence. It is likely to have originated from Mongolia, based on the frequency of the star cluster characteristic. So yes, there is no hard evidence that it is GK's, although there is good evidence as to the time of its origination and some evidence to support the lineage being Mongol. The authors then go on to three ways that the lineage could have spread, and say that two of the three scenarios are unlikely, leaving the third way, which is that the line was restricted to GK and his close male-line relatives. Again, no hard evidence, but a reasonable inference, IMO. In any case, I think the section is worded to indicate that this is a conjecture (based on evidence), and not a proven fact. Ff123 14:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a big, and definitely non-obvious, jump from stating that the line originated in central asia ca. AD 1000 to stating that it was restricted to Genghis Khan and his male relatives. How, exactly, do the authors justify such a leap? siafu 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

From the paper -- Different scenarios to explain the rapid spread of the star cluster chromosomes: Scenario 1 - all populations carrying star-cluster chromosomes could have descended from a common ancestral population in which it was present at high frequency; deemed unlikely because these populations do not share other Y haplotypes. Scenario 2 - many or most Mongols at the time of the Mongol empire could have carried these chromosomes; difficult to reconcile with the high Y-haplotype diversity of modern Mongolians. Which leaves Scenario 3 - it could have been restricted to Genghis Khan and his close male-line relatives, and this specific lineage could have spread as a result of their activities. The historically documented events accompanying the establishment of the Mongol empire would have contributed directly to the spread of this lineage by Genghis Khan and his relatives, but perhaps as important was the establishment of a long-lasting male dynasty. Ff123 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with scenario 3 is that it remains just as likely that the origin of the cluster was any one of millions. The dynasty was not nearly so long-lasting as many, either, but there aren't any papers about the spread of genes from Tang Shi Min. This still seems very conjectural, and I have to say that I'm not too happy with its inclusion. siafu 13:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a random one of millions. Since the spread was so rapid it would have had to have been the result of selection, but not biological selection. That's the point. I would say that the section should be included in part because of the notoriety of the idea, not just because of its arguable merits. Newbies like me who visit the page may say, "Well I heard that GK spread his genes to 16 million men, what's the scoop on that?" The article should at least point to the source and put it in proper perspective. Ff123 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The paper isn't the source of the belief, naturally, since this idea has been swimming around for some time. The problem I have is that the article is not putting it into perspective; we don't include every theory on Genghis Khan (or any topic, for that matter), because some of them are simply crackpot foolery. I'm not necessarily assigning such a label to this paper or theory (though as above I clearly hold my reservations), but there should be some fuller justification for, and investigation of this idea and its inclusion. siafu 16:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the idea has been around longer than the paper; however the numbers batted around in many different places on the web, such as 16 million men, or 8% of the asian male population, or 0.5% of the world male population, are traced directly to this paper. At least from what I am able to dig out from google. What would you suggest as an improvement to the section? Ff123 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest actually putting it into perspective. This is a conjectural theory without any solid evidence whatsoever, that hangs not only on some rather imprecise dating and localizing, but also on a weak inference and historical accounts of questionable reliability attesting to Genghis Khan's personal behavior. We don't have any information on peer response to this paper either, and since I can't seem to be able to view the paper itself (keeps telling me to enable cookies when they are already enabled), I'm not sure I can start on finding it. siafu 15:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another link to the paper in PDF format [1]. I don't know why that cookie message comes up, but it's happened to me too one or two times. As for the section, you can change it to suit your tastes, but obviously I would argue that it belongs in some form on the page. Ff123 16:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a fairly good journalistic handling of the paper from Science News [2]. It has a short section on reactions from colleagues which might be useful for modifying the section. Ff123 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, first off. I read the report presented, but it's somewhat dry on a lot of the methodology and actual data so the amount that can be gleaned is a bit slim. However, there are a couple of problematic issues that spring out. First off, the authors state that they determined the origin of the star cluster to be Mongolia because it was where the "largest number of different star cluster haplotypes is found." But if you look at the figure referred to and count the number of haplotypes, the same number is found in Inner Mongolia, and in fact from fig. 2 you can clearly see that the Han Chinese of Inner Mongolia posess the star cluster in greater proportion to the Mongolians (in both Outer and Inner Mongolia). Another problem is the treatment of the Hazara, who believe themselves to be descended from Mongol settlers, and in fact "many consider themselves to be direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan". It's my understanding that folk beliefs do not a constitute implicit truth; Timur also claimed to be a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, though he was not. However, the authors use this claim by the Hazaras, who carry the star cluster, to state that therefore Genghis Khan personally must have done so; a circular argument unless they can actually prove the Hazaras were descended directly from GK, which they have not and cannot. This is related to another problem; the actual number of children that Genghis Khan had isn't well documented. We know how many "legitimate" sons he had by Borte (Jochi, Chagati, Ogodei, Tolui), but have no reliable information on the number of daughters or illegitimate children. It's not unreasonable to assume that there were quite a few, but it's not clear that the were so many that he was personally able to spread his own specific genes across Asia by means of being prolific. Considering that there were quite a few males to accompany the Mongol horde wherever it went, and many of them presumably spread their genes around as well, so GK would have to have outcompeted all of the ones who did not carry the star cluster combined in his promiscuity, as well.

The other problem is that the article in Science News is somewhat bland in its coverage of reactions, basically limited to three paragraphs (out of 13), but the following quote seems to share some of my concerns:

"It's a bit melodramatic," says Peter Underhill Of Stanford University. The Y chromosome data are "consistent with a recent Mongolian expansion. That's fine," says Underhill. "It's a question of if you want to imply that this is Genghis Khan's Y chromosome and that he left all these living descendants. It's hard to prove that."

It also states that "at least one" journal rejected the paper for submission, but unfortunately doesn't say which one.

Given all that, I'm going to go over the (admittedly short) section and try to reword it to be NPOV, where and if necessary. siafu 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In reference to Fig. 1, the number of different lineages for Mongolians is 6 (at least 5 represented by the small circles, and 1 by the big circle). The number of different lineages for Inner Mongolians is 4 (one represented by a small circle, two by a medium circle, and one by the big circle). The color is hard to distinguish on my laptop, and the number might actually be 7 for Mongolians. So the statement "largest number of different star cluster haplotypes is found [for Mongolia]" is correct.

The number of different lineages for Inner Mongolia appears to be 5, and that for out Mongolia also 5, maybe 6. It's difficult to tell because the two Mongolias are different shades of red, and even harder because another shade of red is for Kyrgyz and the text of the paper does not explicitly say what the numbers are. From my view, it looks like the same numbers for the two Mongolias. siafu 07:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am on my desktop now (with a CRT), where I can see the colors more clearly. The numbers are 6 for Mongolia, 4 for Inner Mongolia, and 2 for Kyrgyz. Ff123 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Fig. 2, the proportions shown do not differentiate between star cluster chromosomes from one lineage or star cluster chromosomes from different lineages. So while the proportion of star cluster chromosomes in Inner Mongolia is higher than the proportion in Mongolia, it might be that there was only one lineage to make up that proportion in Inner Mongolia (as an extreme example). The point is that the authors' criterion for establishing point of origin was to count the different number of lineages (i.e., Fig. 1). Fig. 2 was drawn to show the geographical distribution of the star cluster lineages.

I know what the proportions indicate; there was a great pravelence of the identified star cluster in the Inner Mongolian Han than any other population. siafu 07:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But greater prevalence does not necessarily indicate point of origin. In fact, the authors clearly do not use that as a criterion. Ff123 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hazara link is striking because it is geographically separated from the rest of the distribution. But the Hazaras carry the star cluster lineage (whereas other Pakistanis do not) *and* they also claim to have descended from GK. Worth mentioning in the paper because it fits together nicely. Ff123 06:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the Hazara: "We... wished to compare Genghis Khan's Y profile with the star cluster. It is not possible to examine his reamins directly, but history provides an alternative. The Hazaras of Pakistan have a Mongol origin, and many consider themselves to be direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan. A genealogy documenting these links has been constructed from their oral history. A large proportion of the Hazara profiles do indeed lie in the star cluster, which is not otherwise seen in Pakistan, thus supporting their oral tradition and suggesting that Genghis Khan carried the star-cluster haplotype."

My objection is that, aside from Genghis Khan's likelihood of carrying the haplotype simply purely by dint of being Mongolian, this does not support the claim that he carried the star-cluster haplotype. The oral tradition is not exactly a reliable source of information (the Mongols have an oral, and written, tradition of genealogy to the doe and wolf, for example), and they're treating as if it is. That is, the argument goes like this:

1. Hazaras claim to be descendants of Genghis Khan.

2. Hazaras posess the star cluster, while people from the rest of Pakistan do not.

Concl: Genghis Khan carried the star cluster.

Since the only real evidence for premise 1 is, in fact, premise 2, this isn't a sound argument. It DOES confirm that the Hazaras are right in claiming to be descended from central Asians, and Mongols in particular, but nothing further than that; from above, from the evidence in the paper alone they could just as easily be descended from the Inner Mongolian Han population. siafu 07:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're skipping one element of the argument - that given the time-frame for the spread of the star cluster, GK is the most parsimonious source. Guettarda 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording on the page should include "Genghis Khan and his close-line male relatives," which is a more cautious statement still supported by the wording of the paper, although the authors do "suggest" that GK carried the star cluster chromosomes based on the Hazaras. Ff123 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can sum this all up in that clearly I'm reserving a much more skeptical attitude than some. Apparently, my count from fig. 1 was off, though it can't really be seen on the printout I have. However, all this resulted in in the paragraph was a tweak to one sentece to attribute a statement instead of simply stating it and removing the {{fact}} template and putting in the actual cite. siafu 16:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh... Has anyone here seen the movie version of The Shadow? 202.81.178.91 16:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Map- Eurasia on the eve of the Mongol invasions.

The position of the Tatars on the map appears to be wrong; the map shows them living west of the Mongols, while the article itself, as well as other sources I've checked, says they lived to the east.--Rob117 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Borte's Rape

Possibilly? Well, what are the other possible scenarios? that she willingly had sex with the Merkits? Olorin28 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe she didn't have sex with any of them at all. Alternately, she was raped by/had sex with one of the Merkits and was not impregnated by him, but by Temujin upon their reunion, who therefore would be Jochi's biological father. It's most likely that she was raped (in the same sense that Hoelun herself was "raped" by Yesugei) by one of the Merkits and that Jochi is the product of that encounter, but there is no existing evidence to conclusively decide either way. This situation is similar to that of Qin Shi Huang, who was most likely the son of Lu Buwei and not his "father", Qin Zhuangxiang. In that case, as in this one, we can only "presume", but not say for certain, despite it being a very reasonable inference. siafu 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with him on this. We really need a factual evidence that it actually happened and it was a "rape." If we don't have evidence, it's really impossible to say that it was. It's pretty strong assumption too and therefore it should have evidence. 67.190.113.165 06:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not that strong an assumption, really. The same tactic led to the birth of Temujin. It's just a little bit too strong, since if we're challenged for factual evidence there isn't any. siafu 13:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article has really changed quite a bit since I last looked in. Any negative information about Genghis Khan has been surpressed, the legacy section now simply has a "Positive" header filled with original research, and the whole article is now heavily biased towards a heroic view of this military conquerer. Take a look at the difference between an older version and the current. Every negative thing is played down with unsourced mentions like "modern scholars argue that their historians exaggerate the numbers of deaths." There are many sources that say otherwise, say, about Genghis Khan and genocide:

• 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."[3]
• 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

We don't need to say that he committed genocide in the article, but the strong bias here needs to be turned back, the legacy section needs to be revamped, and the intro needs to talk more about the negative side of his conquests. --Goodoldpolonius2 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are couple of problems with presenting the way you want. First of all, there are no factual numbers on how many people were killed. In one national geographic reporter said, there couldn't have been 1.2 million people in Bakteria town. There is no factual information available and let's account for the centuries of old bias from these scholars. Everything written about the Mongols are from their opponents, there is no question about that and we should look with skeptical eye. The numbers of casualties have no substantial evidence. Once people start saying that they killed 20 million people, there is no other way to argue opposite it and in general people don't like them, especially Genghis Khan. Secondly, the negative aspect in the legacy section has been discussed and it was on the way of being inserted into the legacy section (please see above). There was some argument, but it was going to be written of course. My final point is that, let's not rush to judgment on this topic; i agree there were a lot of killings and possibly intentional killing because of long centuries of refusing to be ruled by Mongols, like the Chinese ethnic groups; but let's not make this article the one that was earlier that says, Genghis was gay, feudal conquerer, rapist, barbaric. Let's not tilt in anyway. I strongly support this article to be as accurate as possible. Thirdly a section about consequences of conquest. It looks at what happened to civilians and properties. There is special section for that, and final point is this article should include everyone, especially the Mongols. The whole problem with Mongol sources is that they are so biased (mostly) that it it's hard to find the truth. I'm opposed to calling Genghis Khan rapist, man eater, head chopper, barbaric man first of all. 67.190.113.165 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course we should look at the high levels of casualties with a critical eye, but the key here is to include sourced opinions by verifiable, credible experts. I provided some of those opinions about high levels of casualties above, and it (or material like it) should go in the article. Similarly, you have a good point that some people argue strongly against Genghis-as-mass-murderer, so the arguments against should be similarly sourced. Either way, this is a critical part of Genghis's legacy, and it is relegated to a small section at the end in an article heavily tilted towards a heroic view, based on original research, that includes almost entirely positive aspects of his conquests without sources. My suggestion is that sources shoild be made clear, and the views of historians included to make it clear that there is debate over the legacy, but that many people (including important historians) primarily DO view him as responsible for some of the worst massacres until the 20th century, rather than as the inventer of the Mongol written language, which is all that is in the intro. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. I'm with you 100% to do what you want to do. Please be bold in editing the article and do what you have to do. I made some changes. 67.190.113.165 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

1227

Genghis Khan died in about 1227,not August 1227.

That is the consensus that he died in august 1227. I'v never heard of any arguments against it in the web or any other place. 71.196.154.224 I think it's pretty well understood.

Nomination for fac

Ok we got to start thinking about what it will take this article to make it become a FAC article. What are your guys opinions? What is the thing that you don't like about this article? What can be the improvements? What are the good areas? What would you like to see? Please write, write, say what you want to say. Thanks. More opinions the better. 71.196.154.224 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For me 71.196.154.224 04:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC) I think this article matured a lot and become a very impressive and abundant and striking article on the topic of gk than any others that is out there covering all areas saying things in all areas that is written about him. One problem I still see and I don't know how we can fix and bring it to consensus is the factual numbers that historians wrote about them many centuries ago. I think we need to resolve this one way or another. I general it has become good article, but I still want negative things about him to be written in matter of factly and without any insult and coherently in a new section or the existing section. 2) I would like to see the sections organized nicely, and maybe pictures removed or anything like that. 3) I would like stuff about the other wikipedia articles to be included in here especially Conquest of Europe, khwarezmid empire, yuan stuff to be included in here also, etc. etc. 71.196.154.224 04:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of attention on "neutrality" on this article, at the expense of sufficient information. Too much of it (relatively speaking) is on subjects surrounding Genghis Khan, and not enough on the man himself. siafu 04:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that's why we have to start moving some of the extra sections into the main articles themselves, instead of convoluting gk article with mongol empire and military generals. i agree. 71.196.154.224 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's make this article about Genghis Khan specifically

Let's not write about in general Mongols and mongol empire stuff into this gk article. This article should be about GK exclusevily, that is why mongol empire of gk, mongol military generals is not needed and I moved military generals section to military advances of gk. let's make this about him, even if it turns out small.71.196.154.224 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Any great general/ruler's life is very strongly connected to the history of that nation.

Recent edits

The series of rapid-fire edits being made by 71.196.154.224 are not helpful. The timeline of Mongol conquest is essential for the lay reader, otherwise it can become excessively confusing. Additionally, the following are seriously problematic:

• Changing the heading of "Genghis Khan as a hero" to "Genghis Khan as a great military leader". The section is about his long-lasting legacy in Mongolia and on the Mongol people, not about his specific military prowess. The new title is inaccurate.

He is not seen as a hero to Mongols, it was a patriotic sentences. Many Mongolians don't appreciate his killing and destructions, so he is not really a hero or a savior. He is just someone that is played significant role, which doesn't make him a hero. He is little shameful in some ways. 71.196.154.224 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"The achievements of Genghis Khan have disappeared, but their memory remains alive among the Mongolian people. The national consciousness of sharing a common destiny, never completely extinguished among the people despite the struggles which broke out on the steppes after the demise of the empire, has been revived in modern times. From the days of Genghis Khan onwards, Mongolia became Mongolian." - Ratchnevsky

"After all, they are still the children of the Golden Light, the offspring of a wolf and a doe, and in the wispy coulds of the Eternal Blue Sky of Mongolia, the Spirit Banner of Genghis Khan still waves in the wind." -Weatherford

"I found Mongolians to be delirious at their freedom from centuries of foreign rule, and much of the excitement centered on honoring the memory of their founding father, Genghis Khan." -Weatherford

Do you have any sources that indicate a national feeling of shame over Genghis Khan? siafu 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to look at both sides that he was destructive and he founded "Mongol nation" 71.196.154.224 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at both sides is good, but in order to parley that into actual content you need to have sources to cite. Andrew Jackson was the perpetrator of genocide and disliked by many, but is still regarded as a hero in the United States. You have to demonstrate, through references, that he "is a little shameful" in the general feeling of the people of Mongolia. siafu 05:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Changing the heading of "Consequences of Mongol conquest" to "Negative views on Genghis Khan" also inaccurate, but mostly a step in the wrong direction. The section is about the consequences of the actual conquest and war, not about views on the man's character, skills, or personal charisma.

I'm trying to parallel this with "Genghis Khan as a great military leader" (see above) 71.196.154.224 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Regardless, if the section is negative, then it's unbalanced and needs positive rejoinder, not a rename. siafu 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This second section doesn't need positive stuff, because it is about his negative perception, see Christopher Columbus article.

The section is entitled "consequences" -- it can have both. Christopher Columbus actually has it set up this way, with a "Perceptions of Columbus" heading and "Columbus as hero" and "Columbus as villain" sub-headings. siafu 05:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Changing the "Notes" section to "Genghis Khan's age"-- this section is called "Notes" because it's where the FOOTNOTES go. There's only one at present, there should be many as inline citations are preferred. See Wikipedia:Footnote3 for standards (notice that it calls the section "Notes", as do all FA's).

"Notes" doesn't make sense. I think we should make the title much more understandable. If we have to change that inline note thing, we should handle it differently or move it up.71.196.154.224 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How can "Notes" not make sense for the title of the section containing the FOOTNOTES!? What else should we call it, exactly? The only thing we have to change is to cite sources inline and have more footnotes. The placement of the section is per the style guide I referred to. Perhaps you should read it? siafu 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well what I was saying was that Genghis Khan's age should be another section, instead of just a note71.196.154.224 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For starters, if that's your belief, do NOT rename the Notes section. Secondly, it's really best in a footnote because all it's explaining is the fact that the accepted date is uncertain for a few reasons. It's not at all central to the article, as the exact date of Genghis Khan's birth doesn't really matter otherwise. siafu 05:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Changes to the second paragraph make it much more convoluted. As explained in the "Genghis Khan as a hero" section, he IS seen as the father of the nation, and "conventionally known" is two words and six syllables to say exactly the same thing as "regarded" in one word and three syllables.

He is not the founder of Mongolia, but someone that founded the "Mongol nation" which applies to the Mongols, but not necessarily for Mongolia and Mongolians. "Mongol nation" and "Mongolia" are totally different, considering the time difference, legitamicy etc.71.196.154.224 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See above quotes about being "regarded as" the founder of Mongolia. siafu 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly without being to Mongol and Mongolian-biased, I'm looking at "regarded as" the founder of Mongolia a little off, because he didn't establish Mongolia and it continued today. Mongolia was founded and established with help from Soviet and others as a country, but he is acknowledged that he founded the "Mongol nation" 71.196.154.224 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Help from Soviet" is rather inaccurate. More look "despite Soviet efforts and wishes". He's not the literal founder of the modern nation of Mongolia, but Mongolia sees him as the founding father (see quote above), and even put him on stamps saying so. siafu 05:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So far the only change that's been made that seems to even make sense is the removal of the list of generals; this is the sort of material that may be better in Mongol Empire. But, since we're talking about more than twenty lines of text just axed without discussion, we should allow the other regulars the opportunity to at least voice an opinion on the matter. siafu 04:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to flesh out what the neutrality concern is

We need to figure out what is NPOV about this article and work towards removing the npov tag? What is it? Goodoldpolonius? and perhaps others 71.196.154.224 07:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism report

someone has vandalised the section about the kwarezimid conquest and written brian der was here fool!

i am enraged

SHANE WAS HERE

If Borte was one of her wifes, how come his other children from other wives wasn't even mentioned strongly than Borte? How come Borte's sons were the only ones legitimate for Great Khan promotion? Are you making sh*t up? 168.253.13.134 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not making shit up, and it would probably be a good idea to review WP:Civil before you continue. Borte was Genghis Khan's first wife and primary empress (which is why her sons were in line to inherit), but he had many other wives. Yesugen and Yesui, for example, he married after assimilating the defeated Tatars into his enclave:

Temujin wanted the surviving Tatars taken in as full members of his tribe, not as slaves. To stress this, he not only adopted another Tatar child for his mother, but also encouraged intermarriage. Until this time he had only one official wife, Borte, who bore him four sons and an unknown number of daughters, but he now took the aristocratic Tatar Yesugen and her elder sister Yesui as additional wives.(Weatherford, p.51)

They were clearly wives, and clearly existed, according to sources. siafu 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok but just to let you know nothing about who he was and what he was is highly contested and not known in almost anyway. He is very enigmatic figure I hope you keep that in mind and think about it if you are copying from anything else. Use your own brain when you can and the edit, just imho. Thanks for the edit though but don't make personal attack on GK. I made this article the way it is like this from like a year ago when it was 1/5 what it was, and now I'm happy that people are contesting stuff and writing about it. When this article first started, he was called barbarian. 168.253.13.134 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Genghis Khan is an "enigmatic figure" does not impress me to ignoring research. Unless you have sources to back up any of your claims, we can't use them in the article; I'm not making any "personal attacks" on Genghis Khan (?), I'm just stating facts; and finally, the fact that you've edited this article in the past (as have I, for over a year) does not imply ownership -- see WP:OWN. siafu 07:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with WP:OWN, but one person's source is not enough to be included in this article. We are making approximations and estimations with the information on this article. Nobody possibly can say that this article is factually accurate and is not even close to Adolf Hitler or Napoleons because he is very old historic figure and there is very little information about him and when there is one, it's their enemies writing about him (most of the time). I'm just skeptical and cautious about making bold claims, and I highly contest any writer's knowledge of Genghis Khan except that ones that saw him in person like Juziani. I don't have any evidence for myself for this reason. I hope you keep that in mind, but let's improve it. Good work. 168.253.13.134 07:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am improving it. Unless you can provide any references or citations for anything, you are not. What bold claims, exactly, are you contesting? That he had many wives? This is recorded in the Secret History, as well as elsewhere. That he had daughters? Information on a few of them survives through other sources, but the fact that they aren't mentioned in the Secret History makes it clear that we can't conclusively say how many. I'm still not sure what you're objecting to and calling a "personal attack" on Genghis Khan, or what you think is POV about the article. All you've said so far is that we don't know as much about Genghis Khan as we do about more recent historical figures, which is obvious and clear from the article. siafu 07:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

About Genghis Khan's other wives: Kulan was the accompanying empress for Genghis Khan's campaign against Khwarzmid Empire, and her son was recognized the most beside Borte's four sons, receiving an army of 4000 men when Genghis Khan died. Yisui the empress accompanied Genghis Khan on his final campaign against Western Xia. There is no way that Borte was recognized as the only wife of Genghis Khan. To do so would fly against Mongol traditions. Olorin28 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Map image

A nicer-looking map than Premongol-copy.png that we have would be appreciated, if anyone can get their hands on one. siafu 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Which map? I don't understand 168.253.21.156 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Genghis Khan to Columbus

Is this really appropriate? I don't really know of anyone(Chinese) who would compare Genghis Khan to Columbus... Most either 1. Consider Genghis Khan as a great Chinese emperor (since Mongols are considered an ethnic group of China) or 2. Genghis Khan = barbarian hero who killed many innocent people. Olorin28 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the implication sounds like it is intended for western audiences, because they will know who Columbus was and can relate the sentence to him. I don't think it is really needed in the article to mention Columbus, because not a lot of people around the world knows about Columbus and what he has done. Also on the Mongols being ethnic group in China, China has many ethnic groups, many, many, and Mongols are one of them. They are officially recognized by the government. But Mongols have a nation and independence. Genghis Khan is never considered Chinese emperor and even the Chinese knows it, but Kublai is considered Chinese in China and Mongolia in general public, not necessarily Mongolian because he transferred his culture and adopted Chinese lifestyle in a major way. Genghis Khan is definitely the outcast for Chinese compared to Kublai, and China is proud and big and Mongols and Chinese are like the Irish and English, never really got together well with each other, tention, etc. 168.253.21.156

The Columbus reference should not be in this article...

Here are the different viewpoints offered by the Chinese Wikipedia concerning the ethnicity of Genghis Khan: 1. Genghis Khan and his descendants are Chinese because they are a frontier power of Song Dynasty and eventually conquered it, unifying the country. The Chinese Wikipedia also noted that the "Mongol" ethnic group never existed until Mongol Empire, much like the Han ethnic group and Han Dynasty. Mao Zedong named Genghis Khan as one of the five most outstanding emperor in Chinese history and called him the "Proud Son of Heaven".

2. Genghis Khan is a barbaric emperor of another nation which conquered Song Dynasty and subjugated the Han ethnic group. Therefore he should be considered as a foreign national.

3. Only Khubilai and his descendants who established Yuan Dynasty should be considered Chinese, despite the fact that Khubilai crowned posthumously his grandfather Genghis Khan. Olorin28 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

O_0*

When I was learning in Russian schools, Genghis Khan was described as a "most unpure", "devil", horrible tyrant", etc. He was described as an "force of great evil". Now, I can understand Genghis Khan being called a bastard* by others, because in fact Genghis Khan did kill a lot of innocent people ( though he was doing it to rule the lands and make his Empire stronger) and used brutal force, but what I can't stand, that the same Russian textbook calling Ivan the Terrible "perhapes stricktest ruler of Russia, but a great help and father to Russia". What the hell*!!! Ivan the Terrible killed almost as much as Genghis Khan, and he killed his own just because he felt like it. Genghis Khan never killed any of his own unless there was a good or mere reason for it. Who can see the really messed up fact?!

• Pardon me Wikipedia for the kind of words I used, but other wouldn't fully describe the anger and hate I felt.

Kniaz 6:07 pm. Tuesday 3/28/06

I hear you we are trying to put it matter-of-factly as possible and the whole world history is Western biased and we are trying to change that and Wikipedia helps. More power to equality and fairness at least in history. People view different things different ways, it's just how humans are. But we are striving for world-wide point of view including Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Middle Eastern to give wholesome article, which this article is becoming day to day. Don't get stressed, it's changing. 71.196.154.224 06:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit and expand templates

I put a lot of expand and copyedit templates in the article. The military campaign section should be expanded and copyedited very heavily, or perhaps re-written. It doesn't contain anything useful and the wording and structure is just messed up and like rough draft. Someone please expand and improve the military campaign. It looks like crap. Thanks 71.196.154.224 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)