Talk:Genghis Khan

Legacy

The legacy section speaks about general negative attitude in modern Muslim world, but the source rather describes how modern scholarship thought Muslims would have seen Genghiz Khan. What are the merits about this? If there is something to say about the modern Muslim world, the source should cover the attitude of Muslims and not a scholastic perspective on how Muslims could see this matter. It should also be beyond the Arabian Peninsula, and including Central Asian, Turkish, Persian, and South Asian Muslims to make a claim about Modern Muslims in general. Alternatively, it is a regional attitude, not a modern Muslim one. Further, I think my edit is important to understand the political and social dynamics, and should be added somewhere else. Since I am new to editing this article, and the advise to consult the talkpage, I would appreciate further input, since I don't want to be disruptive. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether information on contemporary reactions should be included (a topic worthy of consideration), the main problem with your edit is WP:Synthesis. You are giving selected quotes from selected scholars of the muslim world, and summing it up as "The Muslim world has mixed views regarding Genghis Khan" (what seems to be an unsourced statement). This is the kind of thing a secondary source would do, not a tertiary source like WP. We would need sources that say "the muslim world had mixed views, for example, this person said this and this person said this". Aza24 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my edit entirely. My edit summary pointed out that the sourced claim is not backed up by the source in question. My edit has been a summary of the different viewpoints from that source, in addition to, I think it was one other source. The "mixed views" are directly from the source provided here. As mentioned in the edit summary, the sources states that the idea that Muslims viewed Genghiz Khan in a negative light, was quoted by the source only to refute it. It happens in the very introduction, and then the paper talks about the rather positive depictions with ibn Taimiyya a well known exception. I would recommand to read the paper, since I think it has been heavily misquoted. It isn't urgent, I would provide a more extensive answer, with references to the paper in question, not earlier than about a week myself, probably. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle, your edit replaced the last paragraph of the article with the following (citations included):

The Muslim world has mixed views regarding Genghis Khan. Arab commentators and historians like ibn al-Athīr saw the Mongols as divine punishment on a sinful Muslim world. Proto-Salafi scholar ibn Taymiyya regarded the Mongols as generally infidels. Aflaki and Abu Bakr Rumi, expressed favour for the Mongols' conquest of Islamic states and subjugation of Muslim rulers to their military and political power, considering the Mongols and Turkic peoples from the Eurasian Steppe as more pious than the Muslim scholars, ascetics, and muftis of their time. Aflaki quotes, in his Manaqib al-`Arifin, a hadith stating that the Turks are an army created by Muhammad's wrath as means of punishment for those who neglect his command. Al-Nuwayri states that, although Genghiz Khan was not a Muslim in the strictest sense, he had divine approval and lived in accordance with the strictures of Islamic law.

This is an extremely flawed edit:

1. You will note that the information about the Western world is completely removed, for no reason at all.
2. The cites to Biran are incorrect: on pages 151 and 152, she is discussing Genghis' position in 20th/21st century China. I presume that you wished to cite p. 120 for the sentence on ibn Taymiyya, but I cannot fathom where the al-Athir sentence is meant to be cited to.
3. The opening statement "The Muslim world has mixed views regarding Genghis Khan" bears no relation to the rest of the paragraph, which discusses the positions of medieval scholars.
4. I wholeheartedly reject statements such as "the sourced claim is not backed up by the source in question" and "[the paper] has been heavily misquoted". I am willing to add a sentence on what Biran defines as the more ambivalent views of Central Asia, but anything more than that, such as adding three (not one) sources on what individual authors stated seems explicitly WP:UNDUE to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, but it is not a major subject of mine, and now I am not mentally involved into the paper anymore. I appreciate your explanation, althoguh I vaguely remember there have been some issues. Nontheless, given that you seem to know more about thus subject, I assume that the mistake is on my behalf. sincery VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

Obsolete content on contemporary Chinese historical assessment

The sub-heading on 'Legacy and historical assessment' contains outdated content on China. Under Xi Jinping, Genghis and his origins have been censored by the authorities within China alongside and accompanied by government attempts to censor them outside of the country. The current wording in this section is no longer accurate. - Amigao (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Amigao (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Two things:

1. The Chinese reception to Genghis Khan has a 800 year history. The articles you sight are only a few days old. We need due weight here, which makes any "update" as of this moment very dubious.

2. If the change is actually as relevant/pertinent as you say (which again, seems very dubious), there should be academic sources on it that we can site. Two news columnists just won't do for evaluating historiography. – Aza24 (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Aza is right in that two news sources don't count as the academic sources that should be used in a GA/FA-quality article; however, as one of them contains a quote from the Mongol historian Christopher Atwood, it is reasonable to suggest that scholarly sources will start to cover Xi Jinping's policies within the next couple of years. Until we get those, I've pared down the sentence "In modern-day China, Genghis Khan has become a hero". I might add a note, if the subject crops up in a journal article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 26 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)