Talk:Al-Altan

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al-Altan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 16:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah screw it I'll take this one too. Should be done in the next few days. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Generalissima, much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Lede is solid, and follows LEDECITE with a citation used to clarify the different versions of her name.
• The parenthetical statement in early life might work better as a footnote.
• Later life and death is well-written.
• Are Salindi and Ögünch also potentially sons or stepsons of Al-Altan? If so, it might be better to introduce them all as such at first so the rest of that paragraph seems more connected.
  • I mean yes, but isn't that explicit from "brother"? I didn't want to say "who was either a son or stepson" three times.
• but they did not marry before Genghis's death because Barchuk had a cherished wife at home—the Mongols would have been taken that as an insult! is fun but leans into editorializing a little bit. I would tone it down.
  • :( done
• I don't think as noted above is needed at the end.

Images are both good and properly licensed, with alt-text. Stable and neutral as far as I can see. Source check to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review:

• Atwood p. 456, 416-418, and 363 checks out.
• Broadbridge 2018 cites all check out - except cite 26, which is missing a page number. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Shouldn't be too much to correct. Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

Thanks for the review Generalissima; just one point above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok fair point on the brother thing. Everything looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 talk 02:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Mongol princess Al-Altan was rumoured to have poisoned her brother Ögedei Khan?

• Source: Broadbridge 2018, pp. 168–169.

• ALT1: ... that although the details of Al-Altan's 1246 execution were censored, an unintentional slip in a chronicle reveals who killed her? Source: Broadbridge 2018, pp. 187–188.
• ALT2: ... that although Eljigidei was originally rewarded for killing the Mongol princess Al-Altan, he was later hunted down and executed in revenge? Source: For his reward, Broadbridge 2018, pp. 187–188; for his death, pp. 220–221.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Diaspora Revolt (2nd nomination)

Improved to Good Article status by AirshipJungleman29 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 23 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC).

• I will review this nomination. – Editør (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• The article is new enough (GA passed on 30 October 2024), is long enough (8743 characters of prose), has no copyright violations (per GA review), and is presentable (per GA review and readthrough). The hook is cited to a reliable offline source (accepted in good faith) and interesting. ALT1 is too complicated and ALT2 centers around her executor. QPQ was done. – Editør (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What a farce!

In Jami al-Tawarikh, Altalun (zh: 阿儿塔隆), Genghis Khan's fifth senior daughter, is recorded as "Altālūn", "Altālūnqān", or "Altālūqān", while Al-Altan (zh: 也立安敦), also known as Altan Beki in the same source, Genghis Khan's a junior daughter who was married to Barchuq Art Tegin, the Idiqut of the Uyghurs, is recorded as "Al Altūn" in the same work. Due to the similarity of the two women's names, they are confused in Anne Broadbridge's book, where the descriptions do not distinguish them clearly. AirshipJungleman29 entries have also made such mistakes, conflating the two. It's really puzzling how such an absurd error in the English Wikipedia entry could pass the Good Article review. What a farce! 蒙古天骄 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

蒙古天骄, please provide citations to reliable sources, and note that Broadbridge discusses the censorship of the Persian sources, including the Jami al-Tawarikh, on pp. 119–120. As an aside, it's not a good look if a confirmed sockpuppeteer on zh.wp who has spent the last two weeks copying my work without attribution ([1], [2]) jumps in and starts labelling articles "absurd" and "a farce". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no dispute in the Chinese academic community that Altalun's husband was Taichu. See 邱轶皓（Qiu Yihao） (2019), 蒙古帝国视野下的元史与东西文化交流, Shanghai: 上海古籍出版社, pp. 129–130, ISBN 9787532591626：“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。”

Similarly, it is also undisputed in the Chinese academic community that Al-Altan died on the way to marry Barchuq and they never got married. See 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：“元太祖六年（1211年）春，成吉思汗从西夏回师漠北，巴而术阿而忒的斤携带贡物至怯绿连河（今蒙古国克鲁伦河）朝觐成吉思汗。巴而术阿而忒的斤奏请：“陛下若恩顾臣，使臣得与陛下四子之末，庶几竭其犬马之力。”[（明）宋濂：《元史》卷122《巴而术阿而忒的斤传》，中华书局1976年点校本，第3000页。]成吉思汗为他的诚恳所感动，使其尚公主也立安敦，且得序于诸子。成吉思汗不仅把巴而术阿而忒的斤列为第五子，还让他继续担任高昌“亦都护”，领有原来的居民，拥有一定的政治权利。成吉思汗对亦都护的优厚待遇，与西辽残暴苛刻的统治形成了鲜明的对比。大汗的信任与恩宠赢得了巴而术阿而忒的斤的效忠与诚意。此后，巴而术阿而忒的斤一直追随成吉思汗西征，为他奔走效劳。不久，海押立与阿力麻里两地的哈剌鲁首领阿儿思兰汗、斡匝儿，也效仿巴而术阿而忒的斤，脱离了对西辽的臣属关系，转而归附蒙古，从而为成吉思汗扫灭西辽铺平了道路。成吉思汗给予亦都护尚蒙古公主、列为五子的殊荣，是对其最早归附的奖励。通过联姻关系，亦都护成为蒙古统治者在政治、军事上重要的盟友。“正因为成吉思汗对功臣宿将待之以诚，交之以心，使将士们能够勇往直前而无后顾之忧。”[靳玲：《成吉思汗用人政策探微》，《内蒙古民族大学学报》2003年第4期，第20页。]巴而术阿而忒的斤曾多次跟随成吉思汗参加蒙古的出征。元太祖十三年（1218年），他亲自率畏兀儿士兵，配合蒙古大将哲别征讨乃蛮部王子屈出律。元太祖十四年（1219年），蒙古军开始西征花剌子模等国，他又率部万人至海押立，与成吉思汗大军会合。后来他参加攻克讹答剌、镬沙地区和你沙卜里等地的战役。他率领的畏兀儿军经常担任先锋部队，“与者必那颜征罕勉力、锁潭、回回诸国，将部曲万人，以先启行。纪律严明，所向克捷。”[（元）虞集：《道园学古录》卷24《高昌王世勋之碑》。《元文类》卷26。]元太祖二十一年（1226年）巴而术阿而忒的斤又率部，跟随成吉思汗征讨西夏。在历次战役中，他的部队纪律严明，所向克捷，取得了卓著的功勋。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。”

In the English academic community, the confusion of Altalun and Al-Altan as one person is because W. M. Thackston, in his translation of Jami al-Tawarikh, mistook Altun Beki and Altalun as the same individual. As a result, Broadbridge also made the same mistake and conflated the two. I have read Broadbridge's book, and the discussion about Al-Altan's marriage in it is completely untenable. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the above comment asserts that "there is no dispute"/"it is undisputed in the Chinese academic community", but fails to give any historiographical analysis which supports that. On the other hand, Broadbridge does provide historiographical analysis and explicitly does not take the often-censored primary sources at face value, which renders her analysis more reliable. If a reliable source clearly said that the account in Broadbridge is "completely untenable", then it would have to be included, but Wikipedia editor's talk page opinion is sadly not considered reliable. Still, we can probably include Wang Hongmei's account somewhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

When I said "it is undisputed in the Chinese academic community", I meant that in the Chinese academic circle, Altalun and Al-Altan have never been confused with each other; they have always been regarded as two separate individuals. Presumably, Thackston was the first to mistake them as one. Since Broadbridge used Thackston's translation of Jami al-Tawarikh, she was misled and also wrongly considered the two to be one person. In the Chinese academic community, there is absolutely no dispute that Altalun married Taichu of the Qongirat tribe and was executed by Güyük Khan, while Al-Altan died on her way to marry Barchuq. It's as self-evident as the fact that no one would feel the need to prove that Chagatai Khan and Ögedei Khan are two distinct individuals rather than one. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, you mistake that Broadbridge has analysed the account which claims they were two separate individuals, and found that it is flawed (pp. 119–120). To summarise the arguments: Rashid al-Din also claims that Qojin, Genghis's eldest sister, married Taichu of the Qongirat, while also admitting she married Butu of the Ikires. Then he goes into the whole "other daughter" tall tale you relate above, but everything he says is rather improbable, and relies on Genghis not minding that Barchuk wasn't in a hurry to marry into the altan urugh (imperial family) for a decade and a half. Even if Al-Altan died on the way to marry Barchuq in the 1220s at the latest, as you say Rashid al-Din claims, he then admits that Eljigidei was executed during Mongke's reign, thirty years later, for murdering her.

It seems to me, and presumably to Broadbridge, that the Chinese academic community needs to examine the "facts" they find to be "self-evident"; as for your last line, plenty of sources have confused the elder sons of Genghis—see the account in 中國歷史大辞典, which omits Chagatai and includes two other sons mentioned nowhere else, one of whom even has a non-Mongolian name. It is for this reason that the English Wikipedia does not regard primary sources, and accounts which uncritically regurgitate them, as high-quality reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The Jami al-Tawarikh doesn't record that Qojin married Taichu of the Qongirat. It just wrongly notes that Butu of the Ikires was "the brother of Genghis Khan's mother", "Butu Gürägän was the brother of Genghis Khan’s mother". You need to be clear that when Rashid al-Din referred to Altalun and Al-Altan, he used completely different terms. When Rashid al-Din mentioned Altalun's execution, he referred to her as Altalunqan. (See Rashid al-Din, Jami al-Tawarikh, 69, trans. Thackston, pp.33.) In Jami al-Tawarikh, Altalun has four appellations: Altan, Altalun, Altalunqan, and Altaluqan. In Jami al-Tawarikh, when referring to Al-Altan's death during the journey to get married, she was called Altun Beki.(See Rashid al-Din, Jami al-Tawarikh, 141, trans. Thackston, pp.69-70.) Rashid al-Din never confused the two. It was Thackston who mixed them up in the annotations of his translation of Jami al-Tawarikh.

Broadbridge doesn't even know that 忙哥台 was Kublai Khan's daughter(pp.238), a fact that has long been settled in the Chinese academic community. Broadbridge even overlooked 吾鲁真, one of Kublai Khan's daughters as recorded in the History of Yuan. She can even cast doubt on the fact that Begtütmish (别土出迷失) was Jochi's senior wife, a fact corroborated by both the Chinese and Persian sources. She is unaware of the record in the History of Yuan that during Kublai Khan's reign, Begtütmish was recognized as Jochi's senior wife. While her work does have some excellent aspects, I believe it should be treated with caution. It's really a pity that there is no Chinese involvement in the Mongol topics on En.Wp. But fortunately, after being pushed out of the Zh.Wp, I've come here. 蒙古天骄 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"I believe it should be treated with caution" that is your original research, along with everything else in this comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)