Al-Altan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Al-Altan/archive1

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A daughter of Genghis Khan, a princess of the Mongol Empire, the queen of the Uighurs, an intermediary between two peoples, an alleged murderer, an executed criminal, an object of censorship, a symbol of revenge. Interested yet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments to follow soon. MSincccc (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)~[reply]

Lead

• ...Genghis Khan, founder of the Mongol Empire,... Can a "the" be placed before "founder" to avoid false titles?
• She was rumoured to have poisoned Ögedei, and remained under suspicion until the accession of her nephew Güyük Khan five years later. The comma after "Ögedei" could be dropped.
  • I advise against dropping the comma: without it she was rumoured to have remained under suspicion.
• favourite daughter of Genghis Khan Could you please justify this statement? (I cannot access the sources.) Also since it is mentioned twice in the article's body, can it be dropped from the lead?
• This rounds off my suggestions for the article's lead. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done the first two; sources for the third include Broadbridge 2018 p. 191 ("the executions of Chinggis Khan's youngest brother and favourite daughter"), or p. 206 ("Chinggis Khan’s favorite daughter, Al Altan"), but I am more confused by the suggestion that something emphasised in the article body should not be emphasised in the lead MSincccc? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @AirshipJungleman29 No it's fine. I just wanted to confirm whether the sources mentioned Al-Altan being his favourite daughter as I myself could not access the ones cited nor could I find similar information on the web. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

• ...who lived along the Greater Khingan mountain range... Can only "Greater Khingan" be included in the link and "mountain range" outside it?
  • Done.
• and Al-Altan and her sisters took important administrative roles in large tribes, in addition to serving as the link between their father and his new son-in-law vassals. If the gaining of loyalties of large steppe populations and Al-Altan and her sisters taking important administrative roles were parallel, could "even as" be used in place of "and" before Al-Altan in the highlighted phrase above?
  • Assuming you mean the first "and", I don't think that makes sense, as there's no implicit contrast.
• Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but why she was present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain. This sentence could be rewritten as:

  Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but whether she was present in the Uighur lands or not is uncertain.

  • No, that chnges the meaning of the sentence from "why was she present?" to "was she present?"
    • Then it could be written as: Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but her reason for being present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain/uncertain. This is just a suggestion. You can stick to the original one or change "why she was present" to "her reason for being present".
      • I prefer the current wording MSincccc; let's see if other reviewers agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • AJ, you are right to prefer the current wording. This reviewer has yet to learn, despite being told by at least two editors, that reviewers (particularly those with shaky drafting skills – see next bullet point) are not here to impose their personal stylistic preferences on prose that is already fine. Tim riley talk 09:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ...in the Secret History of the Mongols, a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters,... Dropped the "which" before "described" for concision. It's unnecessary.
  • No, it introduces a subordinate clause. The main verb is "was excised", so "described" needs a preceding conjunction.

This rounds off my suggestions for the article's body for the time being. Looking forward to your response @AirshipJungleman29. MSincccc (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments MSincccc, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 The article is a fine one overall. I will be happy to extend my support to its FAC nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airship continues his Genghisine conquest of the Mongol topic area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "when Eljigidei and her surviving accusers" this may just be lack of sleep, but this briefly made me think "her" was referring to "Eljigidei" (also, the whole sentence is fairly long)
  • Sentence split and reworked.
• "On the other side..." this sentence is lengthy, I might split it at "bloodshed"
  • Split at "large tribes" instead.
• "the fatal party" it's not often you get to use a phrase like this in seriousness, I hope you cherish it
  • Agatha Christie missed a trick by not writing about this.
• "(Barchuk had previously died)" this feels oddly placed where it is, although admittedly I'm not sure where else to put it. Maybe slightly earlier with "Al-Altan and her family"?
  • The issue is the chronology—it is unknown whether Barchuq died before or after the imperial administration began to interfere with the Uighurs, but he was definitely dead by December 1241.
    • What about putting it in the previous section entirely, after the sieges he participated in? It just feels really out of place where it currently is.
• "unintentional slip in a medieval chronicle accidentally reveals" I'm not sure we need unintentional, slip, and accidental
• Also, how do we know it's unintentional? This feels like opinion, as does "which raises questions" regarding Eljigidei - who is raising the question?
  • Reworked the sentence.
• "that stretch the limits of believability" according to who? this is opinion and needs attribution
• Can I ask why The Secret History of the Mongol Queens isn't used? It mentions Al-Altan under the alt spelling of Al-Altun a few times. Appears reliable, by a reliable scholar, and has some interesting details that aren't here.
  • Weatherford is not a reliable source in the slightest. This review of a previous book by a far superior historian is enlightening, and my personal correspondence with that historian (although of course unpublished) maintains the same viewpoint for his later works.
    • Fair enough, I read it several years ago and am not remotely a historian, so wasn't aware of the issues.

That's all I've got. As usual, engaging and well-written. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments Premeditated Chaos! Responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks good, just the one thing about Barchuq's death. I might also hold off and comment on the Historiography section if you make it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Premeditated Chaos, I've had a couple of attempts at a historiography section, and none seem to work without coming across as WP:SYNTHy; I've adjusted the line about Barchuq's death. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, looking good to me. Happy to support, and looking forward to the next one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was rumoured to have poisoned Ögedei and remained under suspicion" – as I say above, I think the intended meaning would be clearer if you restored the comma before "and"
• "a process which culminated in him being acclaimed as Genghis Khan" – "being acclaimed" here is a gerund – effectively a noun. In this case it is grammatically the same as "acclamation" and needs "his" rather than "him" before it.
• "An unintentional slip in a medieval chronicle" – as opposed to an intentional slip?
• "In the purges that commenced – merely a stylistic preference, and I don't press the point, but I agree with the advice in the current edition of Modern English Usage: It is a sound rule to use begin in all ordinary contexts unless start is customary (the engine started straight away; he starts work at 9 a.m.; the game started on time). Commence has more formal associations with law (to commence an action) and procedures, combat (hostilities commenced on 4 August), divine service, and ceremonial ... As a general rule it should be reserved for such contexts." (I sympathise with the Noël Coward character who says, "I just can't abide the word testicles. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words. If you have piles, say so!")

• "unlawfully interefered in the Uighur administration" – typo
• "This was likely to obscure the unjustice" – two points here: first, it is ambiguous: it could either mean "there was a strong chance that it would obscure the unjustice" or "this was probably intended to obscure the unjustice". Secondly, the OED admits "unjustice", but it is hardly a familiar word and one might expect "injustice" instead.

That's all from me. A fine article and I look forward to supporting its elevation. Tim riley talk 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the thorough stylistic picking-over Tim riley; all should be actioned by myself and helpful others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review.

• "to defend her Uighur subjects." That's not what the main article says
  • Clarified.
• "ruler of a new Mongol Empire". There was an old Mongol Empire?
  • Good point.
• "On the other side, Genghis gained the loyalties of large steppe populations without unnecessary bloodshed, and Al-Altan and her sisters took important administrative roles in large tribes, in addition to serving as the link between their father and his new son-in-law vassals." This sentence is probably trying to do too much.
  • Split.
• "some enemies of the Merkit tribe." Enemies of the Merkits, or enemies who belonged to the Merkits?
  • Good catch, clarified.
• "Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime". Really? Any further information on this?
  • Not really.
• "An unintentional slip in a medieval chronicle accidentally reveals". Do we need both "unintentional slip " and accidentally"?
  • Rephrased.
• "after Möngke repelled a Ögedeyid coup attempt". I don't think one can repel a coup attempt. Perhaps 'foiled'?
  • Replaced.
• Which variety of English is this written in?
  • Should be BrE?
• "a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, which described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters". Is it possible to avoid the repetition of "which"?
  • Rewrote these sentences.
• Injustice is usually preferred to "unjustice".
• "make the Persian narratives very unlikely". Maybe "unlikely" → 'untrustworthy'?
  • Done both. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild This suggestion has been made my me as well:

• ...in the Secret History of the Mongols, a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters,... Dropped the "which" before "described" for concision. It's unnecessary.

Airship's response:

No, it introduces a subordinate clause. The main verb is "was excised", so "described" needs a preceding conjunction.

Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weell, I am actually with ASJ on that one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild What do you mean by this then:

"a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, which described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters". Is it possible to avoid the repetition of "which"? MSincccc (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just what it says. The current sentence is grammatically correct and simply removing either "which" would not be; but I feel the repetition is a tad not "engaging and professional", so could the sentence be rephrased "to avoid the repetition of "which"?" Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Gog the Mild: responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ...in his being acclaimed as Genghis Khan... Could it be rephrased?
• ...some enemies of the Merkit tribe... Of or from?
  • Adjusted both.
• They also participated in the conquest of the Western Xia state in 1226–27, and in the invasion of Europe in 1236–42. Is this highly relevant?
  • No, it's mostly relevant—it details operations which Al-Altan would have had some administrative or logistical influence on.
• ...repelled a Ögedeyid... Why not "an Ögedeyid"?
• ... near Herat... Is this relevant? If yes, introduce it as a city.
• ...which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, which described the inheritances of Genghis Khan's daughters, was excised from the text Rephrase.
  • Done all.
• ...as such a wife would almost certainly remarry within the first tribe... Why? Attribute this PoV to a scholar. Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthropological reasons; not a PoV, but an accepted mechanism for how Mongol tribal systems worked. If a widow was to remarry to a man in another tribe, that would create divided loyalties and tensions between her old responsibilities and subjects and the new, especially considering Mongol noblewomen were expected to take on leadership positions. It is for this reason that we see reference to levirate marriage all over the place—you may remember it at Genghis Khan#Adolescence. Practically every case we have of a widow remarrying has her doing so within her dead husband's tribe.

Thanks for the thought-provoking comments Borsoka; replies above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting article. Thank you for it. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's completely farcical. It's a farce that confounds Altalun (阿儿塔隆/Altan, Altalunqan, and Altaluqan), the fifth daughter of Genghis Khan and Börte, who was married to Taichu, a brother of her grandmother Hö'elün, with Al-Altun (也立安敦/Altun Beki), a junior daughter of Genghis Khan, who was married to Barchuq Art Tegin, the Idiqut of the Uyghurs. It's already a huge joke that this article was selected as a good article. If it were to be selected as a featured article, where would Wikipedia's credibility lie? What on earth are those folks up there doing, seriously offering suggestions on revising this article? If the editor is hellbent on endorsing Broadbridge's preposterous interpretation, there's absolutely nothing I can do. I firmly believe this article should be put up for a reassessment for GA.
  • As I said on the article talk page 蒙古天骄, it's not a good look when a confirmed sockpuppet on zh.wp (who before their block was translating without attribution the articles I've edited on en.wp, many of which use Broadbridge extensively) arrives and starts labelling everything they don't like "completely farcical" and "a huge joke".
    I reject your WP:ASPERSION that I am "endorsing an interpretation" and therefore pushing a POV. Broadbridge's "preposterous interpretation" has been accepted in academic publications such as The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire (2023), Routledge's The Mongol World (2022), and will shortly be the subject of a dedicated article titled "The Linked Deaths of Great Khan Ögedei and His Sister, Princess Al Altan, Queen of the Uighurs" in Brill's forthcoming Festschrift for Paul Buell. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this makes her one of the highest-quality sources on the Mongol Empire.
    Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs or publish original research. If, as you say, you have a watertight argument that Broadbridge's work is flawed, you should have no trouble getting your analysis published by a reliable source. Until then, we rely on what the foremost modern scholars of the Mongol Empire have to say. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if Google Translate is reading this correctly, your zh.wp block was not just for sockpuppetry but for purposely manipulating medieval primary sources to push a POV on names—in that case, titling Genghis as "Emperor" rather than "Khan". I note that your unattributed copy-paste of the en:wp Genghis Khan article onto the Chinese version is blighted by a ridiculous amount of detail on names in the first sentence, all sourced to medieval primary sources. I am seriously concerned that you are now conducting the same actions that got you blocked on zh.wp on this Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have also started insulting me on zh.wp with another sockpuppet: "直到今天和我翻译的那几篇条目的主编AirshipJungleman29交流，才知道他的水平是有多低，他对蒙古史的学识是有多差 ... 我对自己把AirshipJungleman29创作的几篇低质量条目翻译成中文感到抱歉，", translating to something along the lines of "Today I talked to AirshipJungleman29, the author of the articles I translated, and I realized how low his level is and how little he knows about Mongolian history ... I feel sorry for translating several low-quality articles created by AirshipJungleman29 into Chinese." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese, the Khan name of the emperors of the Yuan Dynasty is "皇帝" (Emperor), which is also recorded in Ke Shaomin's New History of Yuan, rather than "汗" (Khan). I'm puzzled as to what reliable sources the List of emperors of the Yuan Dynasty is based on when it writes the Chinese names of "薛禅皇帝", "完泽笃皇帝" and so on as "薛禅汗", "完泽笃汗" and so on. Moreover, Naimaĵin is the clan name of Töregene Khatun. As a female, she doesn't have a Temple name. No matter what I said on the zh.wp, at least I recognized you as the author of your articles, didn't I? 蒙古天骄 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly not—others added the necessary attribution templates after you failed to do so. If you want to know what sources other articles are based on, you can look at their reference sections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that this article is well-referenced. If it hadn't accepted Broadbridge's absurd claims, including conflating two daughters into one and identifying Eljigidei as her executioner, I would support this article as a featured article. In the passage from Jami‘ al-Tawarikh where Kublai Khan refutes Eljigidei, the "you" refers to the people related to the Ögedeyid house and their supporters. Judging from the context, "you" here is in the plural form. It is not directed at Eljigidei alone, but rather an accusation against the Ögedeyid house and their supporters for their violation of oaths and Yasa, covering those from the Ögedeyid house and their supporters involved in the relevant events. The statement "her executioner was Eljigidei" in this article is also inappropriate. However, since Broadbridge holds these views, I can't be overly critical of this article. But I'm sorry, out of respect for historical facts, I can only oppose this article being a FA. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to look through the article more later, but I was confused by the above so did some looking around. At a quick glance, modern Western scholarship seems pretty confident that the two people mentioned in the section above are the same (for example, The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire mentions both names and refers to Broadbridge here; you could cite that to show you are not the only person who believes in what she says). But the existence of articles such as mn:Алталун and mn:Алалтун бэхи shows that there is an alternative view (or at least has been), and perhaps it would be worth discussing name and identity of the person a bit more. In the commentary to the de Rachewiltz translation of the Secret History (vol. 2 pp. 848–849) we have a few interesting bits that seem to me to point towards one person. On the topic of names, there are also theories on meaning and transliteration in that source that could be added here. (Maybe her name means "Flamescarlet Gold"?) Perhaps you could turn the paragraph about the Secret History of the Mongols into a new "Historiography" section and contrast newer and older scholarship there? —Kusma (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely forgot my other comment: is it worth including a Mongol version of her name and the (posthumous) Chinese Yuan princess name (高昌公主, Princess Gaochang if I read zhwiki correctly)? —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the former—thanks very much for the de Rachewiltz tip, I think your idea about the "Historiography" section has merit, and I will see what can be done. On the latter, I would quite like to, but I don't know if we have a Mongol version. As for the posthumous name, would a citation to Shaomin Ke's New History of Yuan (as was done at Hö'elün) work? Thanks again, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm. Searching a bit, this thesis has "altun" as "gold" if I understand it correctly. And p. 78 cites Boyle's translation of the Tarikh-i Jahangushay and seems to provide yet another story (is this part of your Persian sources providing contradictory statements?) There are a separate Altun, daughter of Genghis, and Alajin Beki, possibly a daughter of Ögedei. After Altun's death, Alajin Beki was supposed to marry Barchuq instead of her, but then ended up with Barchuq's son. zh:阿剌真 is that Alajin? I am quite confused now. It would be good to establish clearly whether zh:也立安敦 and zh:阿儿塔隆 are indeed the same person (note that both articles have recently been heavily edited by your friend 蒙古天骄). I think you are absolutely right to go with Broadbridge, but perhaps you can make it clearer what exactly she rejects and how that compares to earlier scholarship. If there is earlier scholarship actually trying to establish what really happened instead of just translating the source texts.

    Anyway, citing the New History of Yuan for the posthumous title should work (if it is in there, I haven't checked). —Kusma (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    this Chinese thesis also endorses the story that Al-Altan died on her way to marry Barchuq. The New History of Yuan records: "太祖女阿儿塔隆公主，适斡勒忽讷部长泰赤子札费图儿薛禅塔出古列坚，为宣懿皇后兄弟之子。定宗时，阿儿塔隆坐事赐死。太祖女也立可敦，封高昌公主，适畏兀儿亦都护巴而术阿儿忒的斤。​" Clearly, Ke Shaomin regards these two as two different daughters, not one. If we cite the Princess Gaochang (高昌公主) from the New History of Yuan, we cannot consider the two to be the same daughter. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is a general section on historiography discussing the identity and other interpretations of the sources, we can certainly use the New History of Yuan and say that it has two daughters of Genghis Khan in this story, with the second one retrospectively named as Princess Gaochang. It would be odd though to not have a Yuan princess name for Börte's daughter, but for one of the other daughters. Do we know what sources Ke used or is there any commentary from him? —Kusma (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The fifth daughter of Börte might have held a Yuan princess name. However, during the early Ming Dynasty, when the History of Yuan was compiled in a rather hasty manner, the compilers perhaps failed to find relevant records, thus failing to document her princess name. Even the Chinese name of Altalun has never appeared in the transmitted Chinese historical materials. The name "阿儿塔隆" was even transliterated by Ke Shaomin from the Persian name "Altalun" in Jami' al-Tawarikh. The History of Yuan only recorded the existence of this princess, the name of her husband Taichu, and the number of households in the fiefdom of her husband Taichu in Zhengding. Ke's account of Al-Altan follows the records in the History of Yuan. His information regarding the identity of Altalun's husband and the fact that she was executed during the reign of Güyük Khan was derived from Jami' al-Tawarikh. However, Ke mistook Taichu for a son of Hö'elün's brother. According to Jami' al-Tawarikh, Taichu was Hö'elün's brother. Perhaps he thought it was too astonishing that Genghis Khan married his daughter to his mother's brother. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So overall, the History of Yuan is not a good source for this? —Kusma (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In the History of Yuan, the Princess Gaochang and the princess who was married to Taichu are listed as two daughters. However, to learn more about the two princesses, one has to rely on Persian and European sources, as the History of Yuan doesn't provide more details. Al-Altan's Yuan princess name of Princess Gaochang is recorded only in the History of Yuan. So far, the sole existing original historical record of this matter is the History of Yuan. The New History of Yuan merely follows the account in the History of Yuan. However, the fact that Altalun was Genghis Khan's favorite daughter and was executed during the reign of Guyuk Khan was recorded by Rashid al-Din. Jean de Plan Carpin witnessed Altalun's execution and documented it. Both Ata-Malik Juvayni and Rashid al-Din recorded that Al-Altan died on the way to her marriage with Barchuq. I'm a native Chinese speaker and I'm more familiar with the retrieval of relevant Chinese historical materials. Before the records of Rashid, Juvayni, and Plan Carpin were cited in Chinese books in the late Qing Dynasty, the Chinese-speaking world was completely unaware of these events. The History of Yuan did not record that Al-Altan and Barchuq failed to complete their marriage, nor did it record that Altalun was executed during the reign of Guyuk Khan. These details were not known in the Chinese-speaking world until the late Qing Dynasty. The Secret History of the Mongols only records that Genghis Khan betrothed Al-Altan to Barchuq and regarded Barchuq as his "fifth son", but it doesn't mention whether the two got married. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Broadbridge mentions all these sources, points out contradictions and constructs a fairly coherent narrative. There is also an Alajin Beki in her version. For the article, it could be nice to include the alternative view by Cheng mentioned in Broadbridge p. 120? It would also be nice to mention Carpini (who may be an important source for the "poisoning" claim?) to give a clearer picture of the primary sources. Overall we need to follow the modern secondary sources and can't pick and choose between the conflicting primary sources. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Altalun:

    In Jami' al-Tawarikh, 69, trans. Thackston, pp.33: "In reply Qubilai Qa'an objected, saying, "That was the stipulation, but you acted contrary to the conditions of the pledge and the ancient Yasa before we did. First, Genghis Khan commanded that if anyone from his family acted contrary to the Yasa, he and his elder and younger brothers were not to be molested unless a council was convened. Why did you kill Altalunqan? Second, Ögödäi Qa'an said that Shirämün should be emperor. How then did you make room in your hearts for Güyük Khan to be emperor?""

    In Jami' al-Tawarikh, 162, trans. Thackston, pp.80: "The Olqunu'ut clan is all from the bone of Olqunut. The Taichu Gürägän who married Genghis Khan's youngest daughter, Altan, was of this clan. ... Olar Gürägän's son Taichu Gürägän, who married Genghis Khan's youngest daughter Altaluqan, was also of this clan. He was the brother of Ö'älün Füjin, Genghis Khan's mother."

    In Jami' al-Tawarikh, 274, trans. Thackston, pp.129: "Taichu Gürägän, to whom Genghis Khan gave his youngest daughter, Altalun, was Ö'älün Ekä s brother."

    In Jami' al-Tawarikh, 302, trans. Thackston, pp.141-142: "The fifth daughter was Altalun, also called Altaluqan. She was given to the son of Taichu Gürägän of the Olqunu'ut tribe. [Genghis Khan] called him Cha'ur Sächän. Taichu Gürägän was Genghis Khan s mother's brother, and Genghis Khan loved this one more than any of his other daughters. There are many stories concerning her that will be given."

    In Jami' al-Tawarikh, 597, trans. Thackston, pp.290: "The regiment of Taichu Gürägän of the Olqunu'ut clan, the brother of Genghis Khan's mother. He married Genghis Khan's youngest daughter, Altaluqan Aqa. Genghis Khan used to call him Cha'ur Sächän. "

    In Jami' al-Tawarikh, 821, trans. Thackston, pp.394: "Taichu was married to Genghis Khan's youngest daughter, Altalun, and was of "Olqunu'ut bone"."

    In History of the Mongols by John of Plano Carpini (Collected in Dawson, Mission to Asia), pp.65: "The mistress of the Emperor had been arrested; she had murdered his father with poison at the time when their army was in Hungary and as a result the army in these parts retreated. Judgment was passed on her along with a number of others and they were put to death."

    In the History of Yuan, chapter 109: "□□□公主，適塔出駙馬。" (Princess □□□, married to Taichu Gürägän .)

    Al-Altan:

    In Secret History of the Mongols, trans. Atwood: "The Ïduqut of the Uyghurs sent envoys to Chinggis Khan. The238 envoys sent to deliver the message, Adġiraq and Tarbai, addressed him as follows: As when clouds clear and mother sun appears, as when ice thaws and river water is drawn, I heard of the glorious fame of Chinggis Khan and rejoiced greatly. Should Chinggis Khan favour me and I obtain but a ring hung on his golden belt or a rag cut from his glittering robe, I shall become a fifth son and devote my strength to him. Chinggis Khan showed favour to these words and sent a reply, saying, I will give him a daughter. Let him be a fifth son. Let the Ïduqut come hither, bringing gold, silver, subut-pearls, tana-pearls, našiš-brocades, darda-brocades and silks. When the message was received, the Ïduqut rejoiced that he had been favoured and, bringing gold, silver, subut-pearls, tana-pearls, silks, našiš-brocades and darda-brocades, the Ïduqut came and paid homage to Chinggis Khan. Chinggis Khan favoured the Ïduqut and gave him Al-Altun."

    In Tarikh-i Jahangushay, 33-34, trans. Boyle, pp.47-48: "In recognition of these praiseworthy services Chingiz-Khan distinguished him with extraordinary attentions and favours; and betrothed one of his own daughters to him. Owing to the death of Chingiz-Khan this daughter remained behind; and he returned to Besh-Baligh. When Qa'an ascended the throne, in fulfilment of his father's command he bestowed Altun Beki upon him; but he had not yet arrived at Court when she died. After some time Qa'an betrothed Alajin Beki to him, but before she was delivered up to him the idi-qut was no more. His son Kesmes then presented himself at Court became idi-qut and married Alajin Beki. After a short space the idi-qut Kesmes likewise passed away; and at the command of Queen Téregene his brother Salindi took his place and was called idi-qut. He was firmly established on the throne and held in high esteem; and the giver of success is God ."

    In Jami' al-Tawarikh, 140-141, trans. Thackston, pp.69-70: "When Genghis Khan descended in his original yurt with the great ordu and then set out against Tangqut, the Idiqut moved out of Beshbaliq, as commanded, to join Genghis Khan with his soldiers. He was rewarded for those pleasing services, and [Genghis Khan] affianced one of his own daughters to him, but [the marriage] was not completed due to the death of Genghis Khan. The [Idiqut] returned to Beshbaliq, and after Ögödäi Qa'an mounted the khan s throne, in accordance with his father's order, he offered him Altun Beki. Before his arrival, however, Altun Beki died. Some time later he affianced Alajai Beki to him, but before she could be turned over to him, the Idiqut died. His son Käsmäs went before the Qa'an, became Idiqut, and was given Alajai Beki. Shortly thereafter he died. His brother Salindi took his place by order of Törägänä Khatun, became Idiqut, and was powerful and respected."

    In The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, trans. Peter Jackson: "THOSE Iugurs who live interspersed with the Christians and Saracens, through frequent disputations, as I believe, have reached the point of having no belief but that in a single God. These Iugurs used to inhabit the cities which first obeyed Chingis chan, who therefore gave his daughter to their king."

    In Yu Ji (虞集)'s 高昌王世勋碑: "是時，巴而术阿而忒的斤亦都護在位。亦都護者，其國主號也。知天命之有歸，舉國入朝。太祖嘉之，妻以公主，曰也立安敦，待以子道，列諸第五。"(At that time, Barchuq Art Tegin was the Idiqut, and "Idiqut" was the title of the ruler of his Uighur nation. Aware of the mandate of heaven, he led his entire nation to pay homage to the imperial court. Emperor Taizu (Genghis Khan) commended him and betrothed a princess to him, named 也立安敦. He treated him as his fifth son. )

    In the History of Yuan, chapter 109: "高昌公主位：也立可敦公主，太祖女，適亦都護巴而述阿兒忒的斤。" (Princess Gaochang: Princess 也立可敦, daughter of Emperor Taizu (Genghis Khan), married to Idiqut Barchuq Art Tegin.)

    The primary sources do not conflict. In fact, it was Broadbridge who confused the two daughters, turning the originally clear primary sources into a state of great confusion. Chinese academic research has never confused the two, and it seems that Russian academic research has not either. In Jami' al-Tawarikh, Altan, Altalun, Altalunqan, and Altaluqan all refer to Altalun, while Altun Beki refers to Al-Altan. In Tarikh-i Jahangushay, Al-Altan is also called Altun Beki, and there is no mention of Altalun. What is "untrustworthy" is not the Persian narratives, but Broadbridge's opinion. At present, this article still conflates the two daughters into one. It may seem to be well-cited and reasonable, but in fact, it fails to convince readers. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As before, please write a paper on this analysis and have it published in a well-regarded historical journal. Then we can cite it in this article, but we cannot cite original research. To repeat, for hopefully the last time, on Wikipedia we go by what the reliable sources say. Deciding what is right and wrong is not the job of the Wikipedia editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What he said. It is not up to us to interpret the primary sources; Broadbridge uses additional context including dates and other research about the customs of the people in question to come to her conclusion. I've searched on GScholar among papers citing her book and did not find anyone explicitly disagreeing with her. If there are any (Chinese or Russian or whatever-language) secondary sources that put the primary texts into context and try to establish a timeline but come to a different conclusion, it would be great to cite them here. We can use primary texts, for example to illustrate the conclusion of the secondary sources, but we can't draw conclusions from them. See WP:PSTS for some general guidance. —Kusma (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through snippets from archive.org's un-borrowable copy of The Secret History of the Mongol Queens (a less scholarly work than those cited here), I am getting pretty confident that it is not necessary to discuss potentially incorrect identifications of people. I still think "historiography" might be a good subheading, but I don't know whether there is enough sourcing to do it properly. I'm happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 郑天挺（Zheng Tianting）; 谭其骧（Tan Qixiang） (2007). 中国历史大辞典. Shanghai: 上海辞书出版社. ISBN 9787532622740.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

àn: "按塔伦　成吉思汗女。嫁斡勒忽讷惕氏母舅斡剌儿之子塔出驸马。"

bā: "巴而术阿而忒的斤　又译八儿出阿儿忒。畏兀儿亦都护。臣属西辽。西辽天禧三十二年(1209)，杀西辽监国。次年，遣使降蒙古。成吉思汗许以公主也立安敦（未娶）​，叙为第五子，仍为亦都护，统领畏兀儿地。元太祖十四年(1219)，率畏兀儿军随从西征。二十一年，随攻西夏。太宗时病死。"

In 王红梅（Wang Hongmei） (2009), "元代蒙古王室与畏兀儿亦都护家族联姻考", 兰州学刊: 2009年第6期总第189期: 7–8: "巴而术阿而忒的斤之所以成为成吉思汗西征战争中重要的军事力量，这与他和蒙古公主的政治婚姻有着密切的关系。关于巴而术与也立安敦公主的婚事在史籍的记载中却有不一致之处。在汉文《高昌王世勋之碑》中仅记载了“太祖嘉之，妻以公主，曰：也立安敦,待以子道，列诸第五。”[（元）虞集：《道园学古录》卷24《高昌王世勋之碑》。]也立安敦，回鹘文应转写作El-Aldun，《元史》中也称她为也立安敦，没有明确记载她与巴而术结婚的确切时间及具体情况。在《新元史》中将这位蒙古公主写作“阿勒可敦公主”，记载较为详细。太祖感其言，字以皇女阿勒可敦公主，序在第五子之列。十四年车驾亲征西域，巴而术阿而忒的斤率万人从行，与皇子术赤同克养吉干城，奉命率所部先归。后又从征西夏，有功。初，太祖以阿勒可敦公主字巴而术阿而忒的斤，其正妃妒不令娶。迨妃死，太宗即位，方议遣公主下嫁。公主旋卒，未几，巴而术阿而忒的斤亦卒。[柯绍忞：《新元史》卷110《巴而术阿而忒的斤传》，中国书店，1988年，第524页。]从《新元史·巴而术阿而忒的斤传》的这段史料中，我们可以详细了解到成吉思汗虽然许诺将爱女嫁给巴而术阿而忒的斤，但是由于亦都护原配妻子的妒嫉，他们的婚期一再被推迟，最终，巴而术与也立安敦双双不幸离世，未能如愿。在波斯文献中对与此事的记载与《新元史》的记载较为吻合。依据波斯文的著述，这位蒙古公主并没有嫁入高昌亦都护的王府，巴而术阿而忒的斤也没有真正成为成吉思汗的女婿。在《世界征服者史》中记载：为表彰这些值得称赞的功绩，成吉思汗对他（指巴而术阿而忒的斤，笔者注）恩宠备至，把自己的一女嫁给他。因成吉思汗之死，此女没有嫁成；故此亦都护返回别失八里。合罕（指窝阔台，笔者注）登上帝位，遵照其父遗命，将阿勒屯别吉（Altun Beki）配给他；他尚未抵达宫廷，阿勒屯别吉就死了。过了些时候，合罕又将阿剌真别吉（Alajin Beki）下嫁与他，但在把她送给亦都护之前，亦都护已不在人世。[ [伊朗]志费尼著、何高济译：《世界征服者史》（上册），内蒙古人民出版社，2005年，第37页。]从波斯文的材料可知，这段颇为曲折的政治婚姻最终没有成功。成吉思汗在位时，巴而术阿而忒的斤没有真正与也立安敦成亲。窝阔台即位之初，准备把公主也立安敦嫁给巴而术，不幸的是公主去世了。"

It is the mainstream view in the Chinese academic community that Altalun and Al-Altan were two different daughters of Genghis Khan, and that Al-Altan did not marry Barchuq Art Tegin. This view has not been refuted in the Chinese academic community to this day. At least, this is the opinion presented in the entries of "按塔伦" (Altalun) and "巴而术阿而忒的斤" (Barchuq Art Tegin) in 《中国历史大辞典》 (The Great Encyclopaedia of Chinese history), as well as in Wang Hongmei's 元代蒙古王室与畏兀儿亦都护家族联姻考. I've read Jack Weatherford's book, in which he also confused these two daughters, Altalun and Al-Altan. Moreover, Weatherford's interpretations are overly speculative and truly do not make for a reliable source. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, 蒙古天骄 is correct in that Weatherford is not a reliable source (see my response to PMC above). Needless to say, however, any argument which cites sources from the 2000s, ten years before Broadbridge's analysis, to prove what "is the mainstram view" and what "has not been refuted" in a vaguely defined "Chinese academic community" is disingenous, to say the least. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Here is a review of Broadbridge's book that mentions "Al Altan—Börte’s youngest daughter", by a Chinese scholar [1] who laments Broadbridge's under-use of Chinese sources, but seems to have no issue with the identities of the people. —Kusma (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing that review—and if I may expand that quote, "A case in point, covered in chapters 6 and 7, was the dramatic death of Princess Al Altan—Börte’s youngest daughter—at the hands of Töregene and her son Güyük Khan in 1246; the latter attempted to use this event to increase imperial control over the territory of Uighur, which was ruled by the princess and her husband." Contrary to 蒙古天骄's claim, this seems to be the vaguely-defined "Chinese academic community" accepting Broadbridge's argument. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 邱轶皓 （Qiu Yihao） (2019), 蒙古帝国视野下的元史与东西文化交流, 上海古籍出版社, ISBN 9787532591626 p. 129-130: "在此种背景下，伴随着争夺汗位而不断上演的政治清洗一再改变分封的格局。例如，成吉思汗幼女阿勒塔伦（Altalun）公主，被冠以鸩弑窝阔台合汗的罪名而遭处死[《史集》卷一，第二分册，第88页；卷二，第144页。汉译者质疑此则记载的可靠性（见注3）​，但同时代的欧洲使节Carpini嘉宾尼见证了此事：​“他们囚禁了皇帝（贵由）的姑母，因为她在鞑靼人大军在匈牙利作战时鸩杀了皇帝的父亲……被处以死刑。​”韩百诗（Louis Hambis）法译：​《柏朗嘉宾蒙古行纪》​，耿昇汉译，北京：中华书局，2002年，第104页。另参考Peter Jackson，The Mongols and the West，1221-1410，Harlow：Pearson Longman，2005，p．72．]，故在《食货志·岁赐》记载中，其名下仅系有壬子年（1252）重新分配的真定畸零民户二百余户，与成吉思汗所出另几位公主所封数相去悬绝[阿勒塔伦所获封户，被系与其夫塔出驸马名下。为真定畸零二百七十户。而下嫁弘吉剌驸马的郓国公主秃满伦获封濮州民三万户；下嫁亦乞列思部驸马的昌国公主火臣别吉获封东平民一万两千六百五十二户。​《元史》卷九五，第2426页。又参考《元代分封制度研究·续编》第五章，第469—474页。]，而其此前所拥有的分地封民无疑在其死后为贵由汗所吞没。"（Against this backdrop, the political purges that constantly unfolded in the struggle for the khanate repeatedly altered the pattern of fief - enfeoffment. For example, Princess Altalun, the youngest daughter of Genghis Khan, was executed on the charge of poisoning Ögedei Khan [Jami' al-Tawarikh, Volume 1, Part 2, p. 88; Volume 2, p. 144. The Chinese translator questioned the reliability of this record (see Note 3). However, Carpini, a European envoy of the same era, witnessed this event: "The aunt of the Emperor had been arrested; she had murdered his father with poison at the time when their army was in Hungary and as a result the army in these parts retreated.... and she was put to death." Translated into French by Louis Hambis, and then translated into Chinese by Geng Sheng (耿昇), 《柏朗嘉宾蒙古行纪》​，Beijing：中华书局，2002, p. 104. Also refer to Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410, Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005, p. 72.]. Therefore, in the records of 《食货志·岁赐》 of the History of Yuan, only more than two hundred scattered households in Zhengding, which were re-allocated in the Renzi year (1252), were listed under her name. This was a far cry from the number of households enfeoffed to the other princesses born to Genghis Khan [The households enfeoffed to Altalun were listed under the name of her husband, Taichu Gürägän. There were 270 scattered households in Zhengding. Tümelün, Princess Yunguo (郓国公主), who married a Gürägän of the Onggirat tribe, was granted 30,000 households in Puzhou. Qojin Beki, Princess Changguo (昌国公主), who married a Gürägän of the Ikires tribe, was granted 12,652 households in Dongping. See Volume 95 of the History of Yuan , p. 2426. Also refer to Chapter 5 of 《元代分封制度研究·续编》, pp. 469 - 474.]. Undoubtedly, the fief-lands and subjects she had previously owned were seized by Guyuk Khan after her death.）

Qiu Yihao, in his 2019 work, clearly pointed out that Altalun's husband was Taichu, and it was also Altalun who was executed by Guyuk Khan. Qiu Yihao is a top-tier Mongol history scholar in China, and his perspective cannot be overlooked.

Jinping Wang was evidently led astray by the errors in Broadbridge's book, being misled. Therefore, her book review cannot be regarded as reliable.蒙古天骄 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I can't comment on 蒙古天骄's issue, it looks like all sources are consistently formatted and reliable. I dunno if any is being omitted. Image licence, use and source is fine, I wonder if File:Mongol Empire c.1207.png could get somewhat more detailed in the ALT text department. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]