Talk:Genghis Khan

Is "Secret History" the only reliable book on Genghis Khan or something? This article relies on it heavily. A search for "Secret History" on the page yields 21 results. 173.222.1.142 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

See Genghis Khan#Sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Should be a see also link to Genetic_descent_from_Genghis_Khan 71.206.10.155 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Link already present in navbox; no need to add as hatnote to section which does not discuss the topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 There im here now happy? now why did you remove it Shadow. 547 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Some of the same reasons as always, e.g. pointless infobox clutter. Here, you've added an entire additional infobox, which can't be said to actually help readers at all. Instead, it seems designed to satisfy your particular want to collate particular data, without thought to balancing what information is presented prominently by the article or what readers actually need to know the most. Consider keeping spreadsheets on your local computer instead, as they seem largely of use to you. Remsense ‥ 论 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Dude then what about Abbas the Great from the safavids (Safavid Iran) that has it so why cant Genghis Khan have it? Shadow. 547 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

What about it? That's another article with different sources that I've never contributed to. It could be wrong for the same reasons also, why is pointing to it an argument here? (See WP:OTHERCONTENT.)Remsense ‥ 论 10:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Because if it’s there why cant Genghis Khan article have it? Shadow. 547 (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Because we care about writing articles that are actually of value to readers and serve the needs of each topic in its own right, not ones where we look for excuses to do whatever we want. Remsense ‥ 论 10:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"Another article has X, why can't this one?" is totally backwards. Generally, we care about making positive cases for each article, i.e. "in terms of site policy, why should this article have X?" Remsense ‥ 论 10:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense okay whatever so what happens to Abbas the Great then since genghis khan article cant have it which it should because it’s useful so people know what battles/sieges he was involved in Shadow. 547 (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's as vacuous an argument there as it is here. We're talking about this article. Stop pointing to what another article says unless there's an underlying argument that applies in both cases. It's wasting others' time. Remsense ‥ 论 10:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

alright then so if you guys dont want me doing here should i do it on other articles? Shadow. 547 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't your playground. If you're not even going to try to think in terms of serving each individual article subject, and instead insist on adding your particular gadget to the top of as many articles as possible, then please refrain. It's disruptive. Remsense ‥ 论 10:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

okay Shadow. 547 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Shadow. 547, Per MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox summarises the major points of an article in a way that is helpful to readers. "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose. In the case of Genghis, adding an incompete and confusingly-selected list of battles does not help with summarising the key facts on one of the most prominent figures in history.

In addition, this is a Featured Article, meaning all additions should be high-quality. If you edit this or other FAs in the future, please do the bare minimum of ensuring that your additions are actually correct: Genghis was not present at the Siege of Gurganj or the Battle of Parwan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The English pronunciation of his name should start with the J sound, not the G sound. I've seen this in a lot of sources. It seems a large number, or a majority, of English-speakers pronounce with the G sound. Shouldn't there be a pronunciation section at the start? Maybe emphasizing this common mistake? OsamaBinLogin (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

At the end of the second word in the article is a footnote with the IPA pronunciation OsamaBinLogin. Also, my congratulations on the excellent username. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: Genghis Khan[a] (born Temüjin; c. 1162 – August 1227), also known as Chinggis Khan,

To

Chinggis Khan[a] (born Temüjin; c. 1162 – August 1227), also known as Genghis Khan.

"As Persian and Arabic sources render the name closer to Jinghis, when these were made accessible in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it seems the initial consonant was misunderstood by the public at large. As the Mongols and Chinggis Khan had little bearing in popular culture or memory of the anglophone world, and there was even less access to Mongolian speakers to correct them, Genghis has stuck and become the dominant form in popular media"

According to the Secret history of the Mongols

Chinggis is combination of word Chin+ gis. According to the writer gis has roots in proto-mongolic, old turkic word meaning "mysterious, undecipherable, secret, transcendending human wisdom or reason".

Chin is quite commonly used word meaning "true, straight, right, just". It is not used alone but always used with another word.

The word before Khan must be an adjective that describes persons quality.

Sources:

https://imgur.com/FCOdfz4

https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/pop/genghis/genghis_pop.htm

https://www.medievalists.net/2022/03/name-genghis-chinggis/

Berkshire Dictionary of Chinese Biography from Kerry Brown

The Secret History of the Mongols: The Life and Times of Chinggis Khan

https://www.youngpioneertours.com/chinggis-khan/

https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/figures/figu_geng_legacy.htm LarzPie (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: We generally use the most commonly recognizable forms of names on the English Wikipedia. Remsense 🌈 论 07:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

· does it show he really was a freedom fighter or was he just trying to survive? 125.253.102.143 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what this means, as neither "freedom fighter" nor "hastry" are mentioned in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire", change "dysentry" to "dysentery" Willtachau (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Juan Eller, thanks for your (no doubt well-intentioned) advice to search the Galician Wikipedia and Google, but both sources are not reliable, especially for a featured article which took two years to write. Instead, please pay attention to the tier one, high quality reliable sources cited in #Death and aftermath. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

CMBGAMER 2018, the same applies to you, but with the high-quality reliable sources in #Early life. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Please only revert the parts you consider problematic rather than the whole edit, as you also included the bit about China and Central Asia without stated reason. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I did consider the whole edit problematic GOLDIEM J, because it is not supporterd by the article and sources. You have changed "Arab world" to "the Middle-East"—might I enquire why, when the article and cited sources specifically make reference to the former, in reference to Arab nationalism? Meanwhile, "Central Asia and China have viewed him more favourably" implies a steady pattern of favourability that the article and cited sources make clear is not the case. This is a featured article, which has been through extensive review from several editors, much of which has focused on the important lead section; please take try to discuss perceived issues on the talk page before editing per WP:FAOWN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Then please make that clear in your edit summary. GOLDIEM J (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You say China viewed him positively. And yet there is no academic consensus supporting these "positive views". If anything, Genghis Khan is either viewed as a hero or villain in China. MadNomadist (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The writing in that second paragraph makes it sound like he kills his brother when he was 8. It then goes on for a while describing things without dates which (amusingly) makes it all sound like he was 8 the whole time. ~2025-38716-73 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think context quickly makes it clear that that is not the case, amusing though the mental image is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It's clear there is a campaign of disinformation from Chinese side to claim Genghis Khan, and yet recent movies, historiographies and studies in China have shown it is not the case. Is this an attempt to claim Genghis Khan Chinese? MadNomadist (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If you cannot contribute without accusing other editors of spreading disinformation, please do not edit. Every word in this article is sourved to high-quality reliable sources and reviewed by a dozen editors across various reviews. Please bring similar sources when asking to make changes and do not make personal attacks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There are bunches of scientists and historians questioning Genghis Khan in China. Instead of parroting China's "positivity", why don't you write in a nuanced view that China views him "complex"? You are doing nothing outside disinformation in favour of the Chinese state.

Sources:

• https://grs.pku.edu.cn/jzlt/50118yjsy323951.htm
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asia-pacific-journal/article/chinggis-khan-on-film-globalization-nationalism-and-historical-revisionism/B5780018CF68B34C021F25A9D954B724
• https://www.smhric.org/E_Bulag.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387715687_3_Inner_Mongolia_The_Dialectics_of_Colonization_and_Ethnicity_Building
• https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2160534

Stop the narrative of China recognising him a hero and instead acknowledge Genghis Khan is a complex figure in Chinese history. MadNomadist (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Other evidences proving that China does not view Genghis Khan as a hero:

• https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/b8/f6/c18985a768246/page.htm
• https://www.sinoss.net/uploadfile/2013/0108/20130108105732374.pdf
• https://books.google.com/books/about/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E8%92%99%E5%8F%A4%E5%8F%B2%E5%AD%A6%E4%BC%9A%E8%AE%BA%E6%96%87%E9%80%89%E9%9B%86_1980.html
• https://www.academia.edu/121908193/%E4%BC%8A%E5%88%A9%E6%B1%97%E5%9B%BD%E6%97%A9%E6%9C%9F%E5%8F%B2%E6%96%99_%E8%92%99%E5%8F%A4%E6%B6%88%E6%81%AF_%E8%AF%91%E6%B3%A8_Translation_and_Annotations_of_Akhb%C4%81r_i_Mughul%C4%81n_2_

If that does not prove the editors that China view him far more complex than I give up with that. MadNomadist (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"Instead of parroting China's "positivity", why don't you write in a nuanced view that China views him "complex"?"

The article: "The rise of 20th-century Chinese nationalism initially caused the denigration of Genghis as a traumatic occupier, but he was later resurrected as a useful political symbol on a variety of issues. Modern Chinese historiography has generally viewed Genghis positively and he has been portrayed as a Chinese hero."

You will note that the sources you cite support these sentences. For example, the second source (pp. 11–17) discusses China's negativity towards Mongolia and Chinggis Khan during the Cultural Revolution:

• ". As Inner Mongolians’ loyalty to China came under suspicion, the Chinese denounced Chinggis Khan as “a brutal feudal conqueror” and a “nationalist.”" (p. 15)

followed by the turn towards a positive viewpoint which has portrayed the Mongols as Chinese:

• "Conquering dynasties, including those of the Mongols and the Manchus, hitherto regarded as “foreign,” are now considered “Chinese" (p. 13)
• "The television series supports China’s current narrative of the Mongols as part of the Chinese family" (p. 15)
• "In support of China’s official narrative as a “unified multinational state,” Chengjisi Han accentuates Chinggis Khan as a national hero of China Conclusion, p.18

Or the third source:

• " I argue that the adoption of Ordos is the result of ... Chinese promotion of Chinggis Khan as a Chinese national hero" (p. 217)

I suppose you'll now argue that the sources you cited are parroting disinformation of the Chinese government? Come on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Modern Chinese historiography has generally viewed Genghis positively and he has been portrayed as a Chinese hero.

I am telling this is where problem lies. Modern China does not glorify him, yet the page still insists modern China hails him like a hero. I want that correction, and just that. Throwing modern sources in China to contradict what editors are doing is a fact. Plus, I distinguish Chinese government and Chinese academic researches. MadNomadist (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"Modern China does not glorify him, yet the page still insists modern China hails him like a hero." That is what the reliable sources say, including one you helpfully provided. On Wikipedia we work from sources, not from original research. Again, please provide sources to support your argument, not a commentary about a lecture on the Golden Horde, or a professor's thoughts on Western historians.

"Throwing modern sources in China to contradict what editors are doing is a fact." I cannot understand this, please rephrase. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

That is what the reliable sources say, including one you helpfully provided. On Wikipedia we work from sources, not from original research. Again, please provide sources to support your argument, not a commentary about a lecture on the Golden Horde, or a professor's thoughts on Western historians.

It's clear you only read from the sources you deem to be parroting what you only want to edit, not reliable Chinese historians, academists or experts who judge Genghis Khan in a balanced view and how Genghis Khan is truly seen in China. You are clearly disinterested in being convinced to fix your editing from "Modern China view him as a hero" to "Modern China view as a nuanced and complex figure". I give up with that.

• https://www.china.org.cn/english/2006/Jun/170354.htm
• https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/bpl_images/content_store/sample_chapter/0631189491/GK_sample_chap.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269989506_The_Perilous_Frontier_Nomadic_Empires_and_China

MadNomadist (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you've read a single one of the links you've provided; if you have, please provide quotes from them that support your argument. If you do not do this, I will not reply further to this discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 you reverted my copyedits by saying thanks, but the article received extensive copy editing on its way to FA status... however, just because the article is FA does not mean it cannot be farther improved, and I think the edits I made are useful. In fact, when I suggested I should be less likely to copyedit articles that are FA, @WhatamIdoing told me "maybe we should hide these [FA/GA symbols] from you" when arguing that FA articles could still be improved. So unless I'm missing something, could you please undo your reverts? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, I agree that FA status does not mean further (not farther) improvements are impossible, but it does mean you must take care that the changes you make don't degrade the article's quality. Nearly all of the changes you made were just moving links around for no reason; the only exception was an error, in changing the correct pluperfect tense of "who had been kidnapped by raiders" to the incorrect perfect tense of "who was kidnapped by raiders".

I am by no means an expert, having only spent a short time as an active GOCE editor, but copyediting articles whose prose has almost certainly been reviewed already seems a bit foolish. Wouldn't copyediting the numerous articles listed at the requests page or indeed the 1,700 tagged for the issue be a better use of time? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

were just moving links around for no reason There was a reason for each of them, here are some examples:

• Mongolia's link was removed due to MOS:OVERLINK, which explicitly states countries should not be linked
• Eurasia was linked for useful context
• Arthur Waley's link was moved so that sinologist could be linked without violating WP:SOB
• fratricide was replaced, as linking to a different section within the same article seems strange, also to avoid overlinking
• The article says Temüjin's newlywed wife Börte, so it sounds like it would be more consistent to have the other part be Temüjin killed his older half-brother Behter rather than Temüjin killed his older half-brother

As for articles needing it, it's also about what you enjoy, and I enjoy this one, among other reasons.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, just to take the first one, where does MOS:OVERLINK explicitly state countries should not be linked? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Right under the bullet list, it says: In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked:

Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)

Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, could you please clarify your understanding of the phrase "should generally not be linked"? Is it, for instance, identical to "countries should not be linked"? And if not, is there any guidance in MOS:OVERLINK on how you can tell the difference? For instance, in the first sentences of that section ... ?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The list gave examples of terms that should not be linked, and one of the biggest examples was countries. Mongolia is a country, so per the example it should not be linked.

If you're asking about "generally", if I had to guess, it is referring to some important distinctions: for example in the article for the History of Mongolia, in which the article is specifically about the country.

Is that satisfying, and if so, do you mind bringing back the changes I've made? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, you are arguing that the article on the most important figure in the history of a country should not have a link to that country. You are at this point intentionally ignoring the explicit guidance of the MOS to link relevant context. I do indeed mind bringing back the changes you've made, because quite frankly I do not trust you to properly interpret either grammar or Wikipedia WP:PAGs. This sort of conversation is the reason WP:FAOWN exists.

(As an example of useful copyediting for an FA, please see this, which just appeared on my watchlist.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Genghis Khan was known chiefly as the commander of the Mongolian Empire, not of modern-day Mongolia. There is a reason the word "Mongolia" isn't used until the very last part of the lead.

Also, one grammatical mistake does not invalidate someone from copy-editing an article; we're all human after all. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: Wikieditor662, some procedural notes: you're supposed to put a note in this discussion that you went to 3O, and your description of the dispute, while not exactly non-neutral, was written so that it was obvious that you filed it and not AirshipJungleman29.

AirshipJungleman29, I hope it's ok with you that I provide my opinion anyway. As always with this process you're free to take it or leave it. Once the changes are already made, whether or not the effort should've been spent on them, FAOWN, etc etc is kind of a moot point. The changes are either good or bad and I think the discussion should stop there. So here's a list of Wikieditor622's changes and my opinion on them:

• his older half-brother --> his older half-brother Behter: I like this. It's a little more transparent and I would guess, not knowing much about this guy, that the name of his half-brother is worth mentioning.
• Börte, who had been kidnapped --> Börte who was kidnapped: Disagree. Removing the comma makes the sentence more awkward to read.
• Unlinking Mongolia: reasonable minds could differ on this one, but I'm leaning unlink. See for example George Washington, which doesn't link United States, in a comparable spot in the lead to here. Note that in both articles there are many links to subarticles on the US and the Mongol Empire respectively.
• Link founding father: sure, I guess.
• Link Eurasia: Nah. If Mongolia should be unlinked this definitely should too. See the bullet just below countries on OVERLINK.
• "the 20th-century sinologist Arthur Waley" --> "Arthur Waley, a 20th-century sinologist," fine but not really necessary, it read fine before.
• Link Christian. No, that's also a bullet on OVERLINK.

Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Snowmanonahoe Thank you for your comment! And apologies for making procedural mistakes.

Anyhow, the main point was about whether I should be able to copyedit the article, what are your thoughts on that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are able to copyedit the article; I above cited this copyedit on another FA I wrote. But when you copyedit an article which gets a new viewer every ten seconds, you should take care to avoid basic errors, especially in the lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! And I could always ask here if I'm not sure whether an edit is appropriate, right? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)