Talk:Family and descendants of Genghis Khan

Untitled

It is extremely stupid to limit this article to one descent only. Descent generally from Genghis is a legitimate topic. Maed 14:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You should move it back, then, as the current title doesn't match the content. siafu 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it has been moved. The title Descent from Genghis Khan matches now the content. Maed 10:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy of England are of Mongol Decent?

Granted that if this article is somewhat accurate, does it mean that the brothers, Prince Harry and William share a bloodline with Genghis Khan?

That can be disputed. following the Mongol concept of spiritual descent absolutely yes. In the concept of genetic descent it is not yet evident. Wandalstouring 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Timur Lenk

Timur Lenk was no descendant of Ghenghis, he had a descendant of the Khan as formal head of state. Wandalstouring 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoof. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Timur claimed descent from Genghis Khan, but this claim was rather tenuous as it involved descent "through marriage". Whether or not he actually was descended from the first Khagan, he did attempt to use this descent to establish some measure of legitimacy for his rule. siafu 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed Timur from the introduction, and wrote a few remarks about him in a new section "Unproven claims". Most of the information is from de:Timur Lenk. Btw: The english language article Timur is still quite ambiguous about this point, and should probably be improved as well.

There are a few more statements in the second half of the introduction that don't really belong there. Some of them may not be useful at all, others should probably be expanded on elswhere in the article. --Latebird 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Khalkha Khans

Some of the Khalkha Khans (I know of the Tusheet Khan, see Jebtsundamba, but maybe some of the others did too) at least claimed to be descendants of Chinggis. I don't know if they have any surviving descendants, but since they were there rulers of Mongolia for a while mentioning them sure would be warranted? Yaan 14:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More on Chromosomes of GK

Here is the 5/18/07 News summary. Here is the abstract of paper on PubMed titled "Distribution of the male lineages of Genghis Khan's descendants in northern Eurasian populations"; article is in Russian. And finally, some comments about the paper are here. Seems like some of this could be incorporated into this page Ff123 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Poetic and genetic study

I included a paragraph that Genghis Khan raping 500 billion women and all claiming poetic descent from Genghis Khan should be taken with grain of salt. Let's not forcefully say that Genghis Khan raped 100 million women and there are 10 billion Genghis Khan children nonsense. That is just ridiculous and child won't even understand that. Many accounts are not from Genghis Khan, he didn't claim to raped so many women, and many are poetic and sounds nice arguments and assumptions to justify their accounts in history. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia just reports the information we find in the sources, our personal opinion about it doesn't matter. Because your addition was essentially a statement of opinion, I've removed it again. --Latebird (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Source is included now. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That source only touches on some minor points of what you wrote. And those points (the history of Mongolian names) are really off-topic here. The rest is still just your personal opinion and without sources. --Latebird (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I will add rest of the sources soon including the genetics study. Just hold on man. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the existing article? The genetics study is already explained there, and in more depth in a seperate article. Please do not add redundant or off-topic material to Wikipedia articles. Thanks. --Latebird (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree some words on the scientific soundness of those genetic studies, as well as on the legitimacy of other claims, would be a worthwhile addition to the article, however I also think we need relevant sources, not just some random observations. I also do not really see what those clan names have to do with it, most people do not seem to be very serious about them. Yaan (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I will remove this section again. It does not treat the topic in an encyclopedically neutral manner, and most of the material is either redundant or doesn't belong here at all. Apparently the author is trying to "protect" Genghis from invalid claims of descent. This is NOT a good reason for editing anything in Wikipedia. The specific reasons for removal are as follows:

• The first sentence already shows that the author didn't think it through carefully enough. A topic can't be "speculative", only opinions about it can.
• There are many other ways (eg historical records) to reliably determine descent besides DNA evidence. The DNA topic is already explained in more detail in its own section of the article, and doesn't need to be repeated.
• The borjigin discussion is off-topic in this article. The borjigiin already were a big clan when he was born, so that being one doesn't imply direct descent from him.
• Timur and his claims are already covered elsewhere in the article, and in more detail in his own article.
• The sources given don't support the opinions voiced. The fact that Genghis' DNA wasn't found doesn't prove anything (as explained), and the Clan names story is off-topic.

Please do not add this unsuitable material again without first getting consensus about it here on the discussion page. Thanks. --Latebird (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention of rape?

Obviously the reason why he has 12 million descendents is because he raped every woman in sight. Here's a tidbit from nationalgeographic.com:

Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.

Leaving it out is just ridiculous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.14.92.12 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite the topic of this article, as no dynasty was originated that way. All the same, mentioning it in the "Genghis Khan Effect" section was probably appropriate. I'll fix the phrasing though, it was not the cities that were raped, after all. --Latebird (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

None of this remotely suggests there was any rape involved. Women are frequently only too keen to marry a powerful suitor. Evadeluge (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Clean-up needed

This is an interesting article but it's badly in need of clean-up in the copyediting sense. Parts of it apparently were written by contributors whose first language is not English and therefore read rather awkwardly. I'm an experienced copyeditor and have a broad background in history -- but not for central Asia. Someone who knows this topic better than I do needs to give it a thorough working-over for grammar, punctuation, word choice, and smoothness of the narrative. --Michael K Smith^Talk 13:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mongolian society is patriarchal society

There is a huge difference between "direct" (real) and "mixed" (assimilated) descents.Mongol khans and qaghans were real descents, and Qing kings weren't direct descents. -- Khereid (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed unbelievable hypothesis

Removed false information (The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols. It is impossible that there are 15 million??? Genghis' male descents in the world, now, there are approximately 11,000,000 Mongols! 182.160.14.108 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am mystified by the above comment and the removal of the citation. The paper "The genetic legacy of the Mongols" does not say that there are 15 million Mongol descendants of Genghis Khan. It says there are 16 populations throughout Asia that carry a specific Y-DNA lineage. They propose three scenarios that could have caused this effect, one of which (they think the most likely) is that this could have come from Genghis Khan's lineage because of selection based on social prestige. This paper, was published in a prestigious journal (he American Journal of Human Genetics) and was presumably peer reviewed - the gold standard for inclusion as a reference in Wikipedia. This article attracted widespread attention worldwide in the mainstream media. To exclude this because anonymous user 182.160.14.108 thinks this is an unbelievable hypothesis to me breaks several rules in Wikipedia. I think it should be re-inserted. SylviaStanley (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted that IP's edit because it's quite clear he had absolutely no idea what he was talkng about. Thunderstone99 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thunderstone99: "The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols" is a bad work. First of all, the "star-cluster" is mostly present among numerically small ethnic groups. However, the authors neglect that and count all ethnic groups together, and then divide the figure by a plain QUANTITY of ethnic groups. Second, the "star-cluster" is in reality much older than the times of Genghis Khan. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Descent from Genghis Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130222062351/http://old.surag.net/viewArticle.do?method=viewArticle&id=4028815d0db98e1f010dd8aab4420053 to http://old.surag.net/viewArticle.do?method=viewArticle&id=4028815d0db98e1f010dd8aab4420053

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit dispute between DerekHistorian and Hunan201p

So Hunan201p keeps removing me from editing this ---->

Numerous studies by teams of biochemists led by M. V. Derenko (2007), based on the Y-DNA of people who claim to be modern descendants of Genghis Khan, have indicated that Genghis Khan may have belonged to a subclade of Haplogroup C-M217 (C2) such as C-F4002 (C2b1a3).[13] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225393495_Distribution_of_the_male_lineages_of_Genghis_Khan's_descendants_in_northern_Eurasian_populations

and

The remains of all 5 bodies belong to the Mongoloid physical type and are believed to be possibly related to members of the Mongol "Golden Family", at around the time of Genghis Khan,[17]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

I want anyone to tell me is anything wrong with adding those information. Everything is from those links. DerekHistorian (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously everything is wrong with this information, as there is only one study by M.V. Derenko, and it is the low-quality primary research reference which does little but mimic the Zerjal, et. al reference which was already right there. So your statement clearly reflects your bias toward the C theory and constitutes undue weight to a low quality paper.

As for your biased description of the Lkhagvasuren (2016) paper, let's look at your rationale in your recent edit summary:

I do not understand why Hunan201p keep removing the "Numerous studies by teams of biochemists led by M. V. Derenko (2007) " aswell as study clearly stating 5 Mongoloid. Is to make things more clear and accurate as people tend to associate R1b with west Eurasian genetics although not always - DerekHistorian

This again is your personal bias and POV. The paper states numerous times that the R1b in these Mongols is a "West Eurasian" haplogroup and that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies are Mongoloid because they are mixed with East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups D and CZ:

The mixing between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups inherent in the genetic structure of modern-day Mongolians was also observed in the Tavan Tolgoi bodies. The Golden family members carried mtDNA haplogroups D4 and CZ, mostly found in Far Eastern and Northeastern Asia, respectively, whereas male members of Golden family carried the Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, dominant in Western Europe [41–43]. That is, although members of Golden family were physically Mongoloid, their molecular genealogy revealed the admixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid ethnic groups. Thus, it is likely that their Mongoloid appearance would have resulted from gradual changes in their appearance from Caucasoid to Mongoloid through generations from their ancestors. Their physical appearance was largely attributed to D4-carrying Mongoloid females who were indigenous peoples of the Mongolian plateau, rather than an R1b-M343-carrying Caucasoid male spouse who had initially moved from Europe to the Mongolian plateau and his male descendants; it is, however, uncertain how and when the admixture between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups originated in the Mongolian plateau.

The paper also states:

Thus, Genghis Khan may have carried Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, which is prevalent in West Eurasia, and not haplogroup C3c-M48, which is prevalent in Asia. This is based on Genghis Khan’s physical appearance, which exhibited some features of Caucasoid ethnic groups and the geographical distribution of modern-day R1b-M343 carriers

Therefore, your contribution is POV, whereas mine is consistent with a neutral summary of this primary research paper, which states emphatically that the paternal haplogroup in the Tavan Tolgoi skeletons is of West Eurasian (European) origin, and that Genghis Khan himself was "Caucasoid". --Hunan201p (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Lkhagvasuren (2016) https : //journals.plos.org/plosone/article? id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

Before I discredit all your errors, I want to point out that all your edits seem to be entirely focused in distorting anything related with East Asian/Central Asian ancestry.

I'm ethnic Mongol and a true carrier of R1b-M343 (through 23andMe ) and from MyAncestry I basically came out 94.6% Mongoloid ( If I add all the Mongoloid related components). I look 100% Mongoloid. My parents who are both ethnic Mongolians and they look 100% Mongoloid racially. Genetically speaking East Mongols are 95.6% Mongoloid/East Asian and West Mongols are 81.8%, Mongolians are not pure Mongoloid genetically just in looks we are. This is the same with African Americans who are genetically (70-85% African , 15-30% White American) speaking far more mixed racially than Mongols are but everyone still calls them black people because that's what they are.

GENGHIS KHAN LOOKED 100% TYPICAL OF MONGOLS, MONGOLOID

First let me start with Genghis Khan portrait which anyone can see looks 100% Mongoloid.

1) Source: Britannica " The closest depiction generally accepted by most historians is the portrait currently in the National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan, which was drawn under the supervision of his grandson Khubilai during the Mongol Yuan dynasty and depicts Genghis Khan with typical Mongol features." Source

2) Source: Khorisun painter Genghis Khan portrait was drawn in 1278 under the Supervision of grandson Genghis Khan who was alived. The portrait was drawn by painter Khorisun. Kublai Khan ordered artist Khorisun to pain the portrait and asked some of Genghis Khan's few remaining trusted men to overlook the painting and make sure it reflects the true image

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hONCAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Khorisun+painter&source=bl&ots=l9Ibhfjpgu&sig=ACfU3U3GAcQhrcXbFjiNuxEdCqnW-ailtA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI6uuMmqnnAhUOQxUIHTouB6sQ6AEwCnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Khorisun painter&f=false

Source no.3: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00613828/document "Chinese experts believe this portrait is older than the ‘Taipei portrait’ and could be the portrait commissioned in 1278 by Qubilai to the Mongolian court painter Qorγosun (Ch. Heli Huosun 和禮霍孫) for the Hanlin Academy 翰林院 (Yuan shi, “zhi” 志, juan 75, “jisi 祭祀 4—Shenyu dian 神御殿”, p. 1876): "

Source 4: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Kublai_Khan " The painting of Kublai Khan was drawn in 1294 by a Nepalese painter. Kublai Khan was 100% Mongoloid facially aswell "

Born: 23 September 1215 Died: 18 February 1294

Kublai Khan was 13 years old when Genghis Khan died in 18 August 1227. He looks 100% Mongoloid facially

Source 5: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Yesugei The drawing of Yesugei Baghatur or Yesükhei is also 13th century and he looks 100% Mongoloid.

" Yesükhei, 13th century portrait " looked 100% Mongoloid just like Kublai Khan and Genghis Khan and same with all the Khans because that's how they all looked like.

NOW AS FOR ALL YOUR DNA STUFF

As for your biased description of the Lkhagvasuren (2016) paper, let's look at your rationale in your recent edit summary:

This genetic paper from 2016 is only good in terms of genetics. the rest are all interpretations, they are not historians but still you can make interpretations.

You missed out these important things that are mentioned, written, stated on 2016 paper

- " All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid (S2 Table). "

- "Tavan Tolgoi bodies may have been the product of marriages between the lineage of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and the lineage of either the Ongud or Hongirad clans, indicating that these individuals were members of Genghis Khan’s immediate family or his close relatives. "

- "That is, although members of Golden family were physically Mongoloid, their molecular genealogy revealed the admixture between Caucasoid and Thus, it is likely that their Mongoloid appearance would have resulted from gradual changes in their appearance from Caucasoid to Mongoloid through generations from their ancestors "

- "it is, however, uncertain how and when the admixture between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups originated in the Mongolian plateau. "

-"Tavan Tolgoi bodies would be Golden family members from qudas between the female lineage of Borjigin clan and the male lineage of rulers "

SO LET ME SET SOME FACTS FOR YOU. The paper states only makes two hypothesis based on historical, archaeological, physical anthropological, and molecular archaeological evidence obtained,

1) The bodies dated back from 1130 to 1250 are all anthropologically Mongoloid. Doesn't matter if their male line ancestry is haplogroup C or R. The point is they are racially anthropologically Mongoloid and so I see not a damn reason why you couldn't the mention of all the bodies being Mongoloid.

2) Most of the hypothesis and interpreations is that put the Golden family is the result of clan marriage between the Ongud R1b clan (ruled by the) Mongoloid female lineage of Genghis Khan Borjigin clan.

MY THROUGHS OF THIS 2016 STUDY.

The 2016 study isn't that bad come think of it. Quite frankly as a R1b male ( discovered it through my 23andMe ) I have always believed the spread of haplogroup C-M217 in Eurasia is due 200,000 of Mongolian armys DNA to central Asia, East Europe, Caucasus, Middle east. It's impossible that the massive haplogroup C percentages spread by Mongols are due to imperial male families and their male relatives spreading this DNA it's still impossible. although it's 100% possible it's spread by both imperial Mongol royalty males and Mongol soldiers

The spread of Haplogroup C-M217 most likely spread by army of 200,000 Mongol soldiers or even 100,000 of Mongol-Turkic or Turkic soldiers that carried C-M217. To be honest the 0.5% (1 in 200 ) people related with Genghis Khan is way too exaggerated.

The same DNA paper also stated that a large portion spread of R1b is due to Mongolian khanates . Hazara apparently has 32% R1b, I wonder wondering why they have such high R1b despite living in Middle east and South Asia region where frequencies of R1b are low.

This again is your personal bias and POV. The paper states numerous times that the R1b in these Mongols is a "West Eurasian" haplogroup and that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies are Mongoloid because they are mixed with East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups D and CZ:

Except that you missed this out on purpose

" All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid (S2 Table). "

ALL OF THEM WERE MONGOLOID AT THE END OF THE DAY and so were the R1b males from Mongolian invasion era that were genogically Mongoloid-Caucasoid but physically Mongoloid. You don't claim African Americans are Caucasoid even though they have 19-31% of R1b

This is what it also says

" Eastern Russian Tatars, Bashkirs, and Pakistani Hazara were found to carry R1b-M343 at unusually high frequencies of 12.65%, 46.07%, and 32%, respectively, compared to other regions of Eastern Asia, which rarely have this haplotype (Fig 3) [40, 42, 43, 49–53]. Interestingly, ancestors of those 3 populations were all closely associated with the medieval Mongol Empire. "

"Similarly, the high frequency of R1b-M343 in geographic regions associated with the past Mongol khanates including the Golden Horde (from Ural Mountain to Western Siberia, which includes Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan), Ilkhanate (Iran and neighboring territories including Armenia, Turkey, Georgia, Afghanistan, Syria, and Tajikistan), and Chagatai Khanate (from the Aral sea to the Altai mountain, including Pakistan (Hazara), Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, India, and China), strongly suggest a close association between the Y haplotype R1b-M343 and the past Mongol Empire "

I personally don't mind this. I had no idea that my male lineage was so alpha lol. But this is Mongolians R1b-M343, bottom like it was done by Mongolian males who look like Mongoloid Mongolians. This is proven by the fact from the Tavan Tolgoi bodies

The mixing between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups inherent in the genetic structure of modern-day Mongolians was also observed in the Tavan Tolgoi bodies. The Golden family members carried mtDNA haplogroups D4 and CZ, mostly found in Far Eastern and Northeastern Asia, respectively, whereas male members of Golden family carried the Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, dominant in Western Europe [41–43].

Like it says in the study " That is, although members of Golden family were physically Mongoloid, their molecular genealogy revealed the admixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid "

Again

" All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid (S2 Table). "

This is what it says about Tavan Tolgoi bodies FROM YOUR VERY OWN STUDY

Tavan Tolgoi bodies.

" That is, although members of Golden family were physically Mongoloid, their molecular genealogy revealed the admixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid ethnic groups. Thus, it is likely that their Mongoloid appearance would have resulted from gradual changes in their appearance from Caucasoid to Mongoloid through generations from their ancestors. Their physical appearance was largely attributed to D4-carrying Mongoloid females who were indigenous peoples of the Mongolian plateau, rather than an R1b-M343-carrying Caucasoid male spouse who had initially moved from Europe to the Mongolian plateau and his male descendants; it is, however, uncertain how and when the admixture between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups originated in the Mongolian plateau. "

Yes physically Mongoloid not Euro-Mongoloid, not Eurasian, not part Mongoloid.

Do I need to use your own source against you again

" All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid (S2 Table). "

Keyword: Mongoloid

They didn't use racial classification like Caucasoid which is predominant in Europe, Middle east, North Africa. They didn't use Turanid with is Mongoloid-Caucasoid mix typical of Central Asians, they didn't use Aralid which is also typical of Central Asians but extremely of Kazakhs, Kyrgyz who are predominant Mongoloid with some Caucasoid.

The paper also states:

Thus, Genghis Khan may have carried Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, which is prevalent in West Eurasia, and not haplogroup C3c-M48, which is prevalent in Asia. This is based on Genghis Khan’s physical appearance, which exhibited some features of Caucasoid ethnic groups and the geographical distribution of modern-day R1b-M343 carriers

Therefore, your contribution is POV, whereas mine is consistent with a neutral summary of this primary research paper, which states emphatically that the paternal haplogroup in the Tavan Tolgoi skeletons is of West Eurasian (European) origin, and that Genghis Khan himself was "Caucasoid". --Hunan201p (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you are everywhere accusing people of original research yet you're the one clearly doing it.

Also read

READ PROPERLY AGAIN. " exhibited some features of Caucasoid ethnic groups "

-Since when did " some " represents pure/full or even half. -Can you call Mongoloid guy with 22% Caucasoid admixture as Caucasoid -Some can mean anything from 21-27%.

It's not even implying anthropological facial features like some Caucasoid facial features. In Mongolian chronicles it always recorded some Mongolians have blonde hair, blue eyes, red hair, green eyes and all of these people still exist today and they all look 100% Mongoloid.

Wether it's due to genetic mutation, recessive genes, caucasoid admixture the point is every light eyes, light hair Mongolians look Mongoloid or predominant Mongoloid. Nobody looks Caucasoid. Hmong have 0% Caucasoid admixture have these same light eyes traits

The point is their bone structure and anthropological facial feature reflect the populations of the absolute majority (never mind if they had light hair or eyes ) h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

About Genghis Khan what would you rather believe ?

His grandson Kublai Khan (born in 1215 ) was 12-13 years with Genghis Khan who died in 1227 , he would surely have seen his face and also Khorisun who had seen Genghis Khan and draw the painting of his face in 1278. Both of them were born in Mongolia with Genghis Khan and saw their faces

Or would you rather believe controversial Persian historian Rashid-al-Din who was born in Born: 1247, Hamedan, Iran who never had the chance to see Genghis Khan face, in fact Genghis Khan already died 20 years after Rashid Al Din.

You suggested you would have discredited all of my errors; yet all you do is attempt to discredit Lkhagvasuren (2016). It's pretty clear you disagree with that author's paper; yet you are enthusiastic about including a specific statement from that paper, that the Tavan Tolgoi anthropological measurements appear Mongoloid; inspite of the fact that this was attributed to admixture with mtDNA D and CZ females, and not to the hypothesized Genghis Khan haplogroup, and your strong opinions against the authors' suggestions that Genghis Khan himself was "Caucasoid." Yet I avoided all of this mess by removing racial terms like Mongoloid from this paper's description, thus neutralizing this primary research paper, and keeping the Y-DNA section more in line with what it already is (a genealogical article - not a racial anthropology article). We don't get to pick and choose the minutia of primary research papers as we see fit and its best to keep them as neutral as possible. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing dispute between DerekHistorian and Hunan201p part 2

The section above is a complete mess and I don't know where to and how to reply that so I'm making a new section for discussion

I'm editing the page using this source. It clearly says https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225393495_Distribution_of_the_male_lineages_of_Genghis_Khan's_descendants_in_northern_Eurasian_populations

1) By DERENKO et al (2007). . Wefound the central haplotype corresponding to the male lineage originating from Genghis Khan in almost every fourth Mongol (24%), 5.6% of Altaians Kazakhs, 1.7%of Kalmyks, and 0.5% of Buryats (Table 2).Thus, our data agree with the results of earlier stud-ies, where the highest frequencies of the cluster of male

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF GENETICS        Vol. 43        No. 3        2007 DISTRIBUTION OF THE MALE LINEAGES OF GENGHIS KHAN’S DESCENDANTS 337 lineages of Genghis Khan’s descendants were found inMongols and Kazakhs. Although southern Siberian eth-nic groups have been studied in detail, the cluster ofGenghis Khan’s descendants was found (with low fre-quencies) only in populations bordering on Mongolia,from which the Mongol Empire began to expand in1206. It is known that the Mongol Empire expandedover a considerable part of Eastern Europe by 1248 dueto the khan Batu’s conquests. Russian principalitieswere vassal states of the Mongol Empire until 1480.However, we found no genetic traces of the Mongolsovereignty over Russia (in the form of male lineages ofthe cluster of Genghis Khan descendants) in the Rus-sian population. We believe that further studies on theY-chromosome variation will substantially extend ourknowledge on the evolution and history of ethnicgroups of Russia, as well as the origin of individual lin-eages constituting them.

So I see no problem in editing what I previously edited, by I will improve to edit and make it more accurate like this ----> Study by teams of biochemists led by M. V. Derenko (2007), based on the Y-DNA of people who claim to be modern descendants of Genghis Khan, have indicated that Genghis Khan may have belonged to a subclade of Haplogroup C-M217 (C2) such as C-F4002 (C2b1a3)

2) Study Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen’s Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

Like the study ---> All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid I see no reason why this shouldn't be edit next to the controversial 5 bodies

Also the study of R1b in the study is more about (like it says on the study ----> Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and men of the ruling lineages of the Ongud, to solidify her political power and to extend her rule over the Ongud Kingdom [2, 3] more than it has to do with anything about proposing Genghis Khan have R1b DerekHistorian (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)