Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
Chingis Khan is the actual way it is written and pronounced in rest of the world. Genghis Khan is the polluted version of his name, commonly used in the West.
"...names Genghis Khan and Mongols are almost synonymous with unstoppability..."
Can people please help this article recover from a nasty attack of adjectives? I am sure you thing the guy was great, but saying it so many ways in the same sentence just makes it unreadable.Sandpiper 09:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: There is no information about uniting the tribes in this section.
:Genghis Khan...was a Mongolian khan and military leader who unified the Mongolian tribes and then founded the Mongol Empire by conquering most of Asia, including China, Russia, Persia, and the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
Genghis Khan certainly did not conquer most of Asia (more than 50%): it was his sons and grandsons who did, not him.  He did not conquer China -- at least the whole of it: his grandson Kublai Khan did.  Neither did he take Eastern Europe: he merely sacked Caucasus and then left it alone.  This section could do with some rewriting.
He certainly did take almost the entire Central Asia, parts of China and Afghanistan; but his legacy is in pointing the way rather than making the final kill.  [].
Mandel 16:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniting the Tribes; Extent/size of conquests/empire

message: Shouldn't there be a section here about Genghis Khan's military tactics? I mean, he is considered the greatest general of all time and everything.
:: I wrote the Military tactics section with high reliance on outside source. I could definitely be expanded with more facts. We need reliable sources.
Also, there seems to be an inordinate amount of detail in the sections dealing with Genghis's Chinese campaigns, especially the final one. I think this either needs to be balanced out (more detail in the other military campaigns) or shortened. Brutannica 20:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Military tactics

message: Regarding Chinggis' (il)literacy, there have been reports in newspapers regarding the findings of an academician which confirmed a handwritten note as being written by Chinggis. The note was regarding a Taoist sermon by a famous monk, to which Chinggis wrote 'I will read it personally'. I will update the relevant section accordingly.
-TheSeez
:Nanshu brought this up already. Brutannica 23:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: (Il)Literacy

message: Interesting fact. However, does anyone have a link or at least some information on who conducted the survey, etc? It'd be good to have that in the article. Jsan 21:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Guettarda 23:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Genetic Survey 

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

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

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

message: I have to put in a word for that—not my own suggestion. No, it's too blunt, too POV. But there must be some truth in it, cf. the famous quote--well famous to Conan the Barbarian fans anway, although from that Persian historian whose name slips my mind. Lectiodifficilior
There is definatly truth in it, its what he's well known for. For a actual source see the BBC documentary of last week. It was standard practice amongst even many of the nicer militaries of the time never mind the emperor of a horde rampaging around the place destroying all in its path. As it is without that it just says that there are some people with a chromosome from sometime around his life- so what? It needs to mention further into what this study actually means in relation to Genghis- that he got around in a bit in the women stakes.--Josquius 17:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...due to the enormous amount of rape he committed 

message: I'd contest the statement: 'Many Chinese revere him as the founder of the Yuan Dynasty.'
(1) The Yuan dynasty dates from 1271 when Kublai Khan transferred his capital from Mongolia to Beijing and took a Chinese dynastic name.
(2) I do not think the Chinese revere Genghis Khan, if anything they have the same attitudes as other nations conquered by the Mongols.
Alan 12:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While "revered" may not be the proper word, Genghis Khan is the founder of the Yuan dynasty, according to both Kublai Khan himself and Chinese historians.  Our own article, Yuan dynasty says: Timüjin, later to be more prominently known as Ghengis Khan, was the first in the line of Yuan rulers. It's true that Genghis Khan never referred to his line as the "Yuan Dynasty", but this is actually common with the founders of Chinese dynasties (e.g. Cao Cao was only posthumously made emperor Wu of the Wei Dynasty). siafu 14:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cao Cao is a special case in that the Wei dynasty was a regional formation that did not achieve sole control. Far from being posthumous, most dynastic founders not only proclaimed their own dynasty but chose the dynastic name. At Genghis Khan's death he had gravely weakened the Jin in North China but the Southern Song remained in control of south China with a greater share of both population and wealth. Our own article on Genghis says that Ogodei finally destroyed the Jin in 1234. The standard academic histories do not list Genghis as a Chinese emperor or as the Yuan founder. I'll do some library research and post some citations in a day or so. Alan 00:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuan Dynasty 

message: Maybe someone who is familiar with this topic can answer this question:  Upon his father's death, did Gengis become "de facto" chief, or "de jure"?  Was he chief in fact--acting chief--or chief in law or custom--chief in name only?  The sentence which follows  makes it sound like he was chief in name only, so I have omitted the "de fact."  If this was done in error, please do correct it .--Smallwhitelight 00:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "de facto" without thinking about the possibility of saying "de jure"; I just meant that he was technically chief upon his father's death, but was not recognized as such by the tribe. De jure is probably better. siafu 02:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "De Facto" Chief? 

message: This article has received a great deal of work recently; in recognition of this I removed the cleanup and copyedit templates from the main article.  I think this article could be featured sometime in the future (hopefully near), but I think it would be good to put together a to do list first, and to do that we need to hear from more people than just me.  In the humble opinions of my fillow editors:
* Has this article been sufficiently copyeditted?
* Has this article been sufficiently cleaned up?
* Does it now represent a more global view?
* Would a request for peer review be benificial?
* What parts need expansion the most?
* &c.
Please weigh in. siafu 02:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future

message: The Tangut's are here referred to both at the Tangut's and by their Chinese name the 'Western Xia' and perhaps more problematic is that there are links for both. Tangut is the normal English term, which got it from Russian. The indigenous term is Minyag. --Nathan hill 11:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death and Burial v. Tangut 

message: I reverted this paragraph from the article:
However, the view that the (objective) slaughtering of masses of people cannot justify a purely positive evalution of a historical figure is a genuine occidental one, which has partially its roots in the tradition upholding of human rights, most notably the right to life. This might in parts help to explain the the different views that "the West" and "the East" have of Genghis Khan. It should also be noted that Adolf Hitler (who is almost always portrayed as negative in western historical tradition) has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Genghis Khan and his ability to and achievement of having wiped out entire tribes.
If Hitler praised Genghis Khan, it would need a reference (and preferably a quote) to even be considered for inclusion (see reductio ad hitlerum).  Also, claiming that upholding human rights is a purely occidental idea is rather a radical claim (presented here unsourced), and not necessarily relevant to the issue at hand. siafu 19:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RV