Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hö'elün/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 February 2024 [1].

Hö'elün

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to write a series of articles on the leading women of the Mongol Empire. There is no better person to start with than Hö'elün, the mother of Genghis Khan and thus the progenitor of the House of Borjigin. Her life was tumultuous but very interesting. I hope you enjoy.

This article received a GA review from Grnrchst in October last year. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from mujinga

[edit]
  • A series of articles on the leading women of the Mongol Empire sounds like an excellent project! I'll make some nonexpert prose comments to get the ball rolling on Hö'elün Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review
  • "When she grew up to be an "unusually beautiful" young woman" - who is being quoted here?
    • Anne Broadbridge: "She emerged in the historical record as an unusually beautiful young Olqunu’ut woman"
  • "As the couple were travelling back to Chiledu's homelands, they were ambushed by Mongols who were out hawking. They had noticed Hö'elün's beauty and good health" - second they currently refers back to the couple not the Mongols. Also, if the couple are also Mongols it seems strange to say the ambushers were Mongols rather than identifying them by tribe?
    • Hö'elün and Chiledu were not Mongols, who at this point were just one of innumerable tribes on the steppe.
      • can you make that clear then? i was wondering if that was the case, but when you say "According to The Secret History of the Mongols, a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, Hö'elün was born into the Olkhonud clan of the Qonggirad tribe. The Qonggirad lived along the Greater Khingan mountain range south of the Ergüne river, in modern-day Inner Mongolia, with the Olkhonud living near the source of the Khalkha River.[1]" it's easy (for a nonexpert like me) to infer that they are mongols since "mongol" is mentioned a few times Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had noticed Hö'elün's beauty and good health—the 17th-century Altan Tobchi chronicle notes" - noticed .. notes, suggest changing one
    • Done.
  • "The date is similarly controversial, as historians favour different dates: 1155, 1162 or 1167.[12] The historian Paul Ratchnevsky notes that the date may not have been recorded at all.[13] The boy was named Temüjin, a word of uncertain meaning.[14] Several legends surround Temüjin's birth. " - this is rather stop/start, suggest running some sentences together
    • Done.
  • "When Temüjin married Börte at around the age of fifteen, Hö'elün was gifted a black sable coat, which was immediately used to secure an alliance with Toghrul, khan of the Keraites." - this makes it sound like the coat is doing the work?
    • It was, to a certain extent. It was far more than your average wedding gift. Broadbridge again: [Börte] brought independent wealth into her marriage in the form of a luxurious sable coat, which she gave her mother-in-law as a gift...The coat immediately proved its worth, since Hö’elün let Temüjin use it to establish a political alliance with Ong Khan of the Kereits. Rephrased slightly nevertheless.
  • "During the difficult following years, when the locations and activities of Temüjin's family are near-completely unknown," - if not much is known how do we know they were difficult?
    • Well, we don't know for absolute certain, but Temüjin had been comprehensively defeated and forced to seek exile; it would be very improbable for their lives to be inexplicably easy.
  • "although some have criticised this as poetical melodrama" - some who?
    • Specified.
  • I'm counting six "howevers", which seems like a lot especially considering WP:HOWEVER
    • Reduced to one.
  • lead says " Hö'elün married Münglig, an old retainer of Yesügei, in thanks for his support after a damaging defeat in 1187", body says "After Jamuqa defeated Temüjin at Dalan Balzhut in 1187, many of his followers were repulsed by his cruel treatment of Temüjin's followers. These included Münglig and his sons; their earlier abandonment of the family was ignored and they were welcomed to such an extent that Hö'elün was given to Münglig in her third and final marriage.[31]" so I'm confused as to whether she was forced to marry Münglig or not
    • Don't worry, historians are too. Ratchnevsky says "given to", Broadbridge says "married". I've changed to "married" in both cases as I believe it also encompasses the first meaning.
  • why not roll the lead into one paragraph?
    • I think that would make it slightly too long for my liking, especially as there isn't an image/infobox. Plus, the first paragraph works as an introductory summary at the moment.
  • you mention the House of Borjigin above but not in article?
  • nice work, made a few followup replies Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in one of those weird coincidences that make life fun I was telling a friend about Hö'elün and they said they recently listened to a podcast about her (in german) - the link is here. The podcast featured an academic, Veronika Veit, and it recommends some further reading which might be worth checking:
    • Frey-Näf, Barbara: “Compared with the women-folk, menfolk have little business of their own”. Gender division of labour in the history of the Mongols. In: V. Veit (Hg.), The Role of Women in the Altaic World, Harrassowitz, Wiebaden 2007, S. 69-76
    • Lane, George: Daily Life in the Mongol Empire. Hackett, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2006
    • Taube, Manfred (Übers.): Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen, CH Beck, München 2005
    • Veit, Veronika: Die Stärke der Frau zur Zeit des Mongolischen Weltreiches, in: U. Barkmann, G. Altangerel (Hg.): Familie und gesellschaftlicher Transformationsprozess in der Mongolei, Lit Verlag Münster 2019, S. 107-130.
    • Veit, Veronika: „Mündliche Elemente in der traditionellen mongolischen Historiographie des 13.- 17. Jahrhunderts“, in: W. Heissig (Hrsg.), Fragen der mongolischen Heldendichtung V (= Asiatische Forschungen 120), Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1992, S. 188-191.
      • Ooh yes, the German school (I don't speak the language so I'm always a little behind on developments there).
        • Google Books is preventing me from seeing the last two pages of the Frey-Näf source, but it seems to be fairly general, with no specific references to Hö'elün (I don't want to be general and say "As a woman, she would have..." for SYNTH reasons)
        • Lane is good, but fairly conservative; he doesn't really say anything new.
        • The Taube source appears to be a German translation of the Secret History
        • Annoyingly, as they seemed to be the most promising, I can't find a way to access either of the Veit sources online, and as I'm not in Germany I doubt I'll find them lying around. If you or anyone else reading could send them to me, I'd be very grateful. Until then, I've posted at WP:RX
  • Looking through the different wikipedia pages on her, I started to wonder what the best way to refer to her is. I see Kusma had asked this more eloquently below as well.
  • a few more queries Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • giving this another readthrough... retainer is linked in body but not lead. I wonder if retinue is better to link to than Affinity (medieval) but I'm not that fussed, just would like it linked in lead Mujinga (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted.
  • It's "Qonggirad tribe" first then later "Onggirat tribe" Mujinga (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damn romanisations.
  • Tatar isn't linked Mujinga (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    done Mujinga (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link to Khan (title) and shaman?
    • Linked

Source review

[edit]
Source review

Since I was looking at the sources anyway .. Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to link publisher locations such as Cambridge and this needs standardising
    • I've standardised according to MOS:OVERLINK
  • The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century needs publisher and location. Say it's an anonymous author? At the moment the author on the cite looks like "de Rachewiltz 2015". also on "de Rachewiltz 2015, §76–78." shiuldn't it be pp?
    • There is no publisher or location—it is an online-only summary of de Rachewiltz's much longer translation and commentary, released for free online in order to aid Mongolian studies. There are multiple translations available (Cleaves, Onon, de Rachewiltz, and just last year Atwood) so a citation of "de Rachewiltz 2015" is clearer than just "Secret History"; I could change to "Secret History, trans. de Rachewiltz 2015" if that's better?
      • Hmm, tricky. Well someone/something has published it online. The preface says "The pages below represent a shortened version of the three volumes — totaling over 1700 pages — of Igor de Rachewiltz’s similarly-titled work published by Brill in 2004 and 2013". I'd say the publisher here is either Western CEDAR or Western Washington University? Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're not the publishers—the document is under a CC by 4.0 license, so they just have as part of their Mongolia and Inner Asia Collection. If anything, the publisher is John C. Street, the editor. Personally, I don't think the parameter has any useful meaning in the context of this, and so I've changed the citation to {{cite web}}.
          • I'm still puzzling over this, I do think that somebody/thing published it since it isn't just a website. Further, would it not be worth marking the author as anonymous? And for the SfnRef your suggestion "Secret History, trans. de Rachewiltz 2015" or "Secret History, ed. John C. Street" would be clearer Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the § refers to the sections, not page numbers, as is conventional for literature such as this (you don't say Shakespeare page 42 or Iliad page 87, you say "Macbeth 2.1.45" or Iliad 22.178–81).
  • page numbers for Brose chapter?
  • what makes https://altaica.ru/ a highquality reliable source?
    • It's not the website, it's the author—Paul Pelliot remains one of the pivotal experts in the study of Mongolia. The website, as far as I can tell, is just a repository for Central Asian linguistic texts.
      • I get it that the source itself is reliable, but I am worried if the website is hosting it illegally. I can't make much out of the website with autotranslate and the "english" link is 404, can you find an about section or similar? Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm fairly certain the work is in the public domain. Pelliot died in 1945, so French copyright law of both then (50 years after death) and now (70 years after death) has expired.
  • page numbers for Ratchnevsky, Paul (1993)?
    • Added.
  • I assume you have done a decent sweep of the sources, but can you say something about that since there must be a lot of sources about genghis that at least mention Hö'elün. stopping here for now Mujinga (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely the vast majority mention her, but few provide any significant detail. The study of the Mongol Empire is itself a young discipline, and so Broadbridge's 2018 "Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire" is itself the first reliable, book-length English-language discussion of women in the empire. A half-chapter dedicated entirely to Hö'elün is by far the most in-depth discussion we have of her. I eagerly anticipate fresh developments in the field, but I don't think this article is incomplete in any way.
  • " Ratchnevsky 1991, pp. 22–3;" should be 22-23
  • is there a reason for the lack of page numbers at " Broadbridge 2018, pp. 45–46; Ratchnevsky 1991." and "Broadbridge 2018, p. 47; May 2018."? Mujinga (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • added some replies, cheers and back to you AirshipJungleman29 Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facts on File can be linked Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more thoughts added Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still checking, just waiting on any additions, cheers Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 am I good to conitnue with the source review now after the additions? Mujinga (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you Mujinga. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having another look now Mujinga (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ke Shaomin citation has been discussed below, so that seems fine
  • You said you standardised publishers and location per MOS:OVERLINK, perhaps that needs revisiting again. Per MOS:REFLINK I'm not sure why Great Barrington is linked once and not linked once. Same for Oxford, as compared to Blackwell Publishing which is twice linked
    • Oops, my bad, corrected.
  • To stay consistent, Family and society: the transformation process in Mongolia should be in title case
    • Done
  • is there a translator for Ratchnevsky, Paul (1993)?
  • "The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century (Shorter Version; edited by John C. Street). Translated by de Rachewiltz, Igor. 2015. Retrieved 22 November 2022." - following on from above, Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Using_the_shortened_footnote_template_when_the_author_is_not_known justifies not needing to say the author was annoymous, so that's fine. Re-reading "The pages below represent a shortened version of the three volumes — totaling over 1700 pages — of Igor de Rachewiltz’s similarly-titled work published by Brill in 2004 and 2013", I thought perhaps the solution is to add a note to the citation saying it's a shortened version from the three volumes. That would solve the publisher issue and help people find the source.
  • For Pelliot, yes best to remove the link I'd say Mujinga (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

Support from Vami

[edit]
  • "However, the Tatars recognised their old enemy, and slipped poison into his food." First mention of any enmity between Yesügei and his people (or the Mongols generally?) and the Tatars.
  • "Rashid al-Din and the Shengwu" Who and what?
  • "during his break with Jamuqa" I know who Jamuqa is, but you can't assume that the reader does.

An unexpectedly short review. Bravo on the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Grnrchst

[edit]

I don't really have anything to add that I didn't already say in my GA review. Mujinga has already followed up quite nicely on some of the issues I spotted on my previous passes. You can consider me a support. Fantastic work on this article, I hope the rest of this FAC review proves helpful in improving it further. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

I'm planning to do a full review if I find the time. For the moment, I am curious about a factoid claimed by the German and Chinese Wikipedias, who say that Kublai Khan gave her the posthumous title of Empress Xuanyi 宣懿皇后 (not to be confused with Empress Fu the Elder, apparently, who is sometimes written with the same characters). The source given there is the History of Yuan, a Ming dynasty document in Classical Chinese that I have some trouble deciphering. Have you come across something like this about her posthumous recognition in any of your sources? —Kusma (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Review
Found a modern tertiary source: [2] but it uses "Empress Dowager Xuanyi" (should be 宣懿太后). There are some further scholarly sources given for her article in that biographical encyclopaedia that may or may not be useful, for example [3] (TWL). —Kusma (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't actually read Chinese of any kind, so I rely upon the knowledge of others who do: Folly Mox, is it possible for you to have a look at the above? Posthumous recognition wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, and neither would a mention in the poorly-compiled History of Yuan, which both includes lots of detail and is often confused. I'll have an in-depth look to the best of my abilities tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The de.wp citation is in error. The source for this posthumous name is the New History of Yuan, a 20th century work by Ke Shaomin (zh.wp cites this correctly: it's at juan 104). The subject does not appear in the "Empresses I" chapter of History of Yuan (juan 114), which starts with Börte.
According to stuff I just read ibides, Kublai was the Yuan monarch who adopted the Chinese imperial custom of assigning posthumous names to his deceased ancestors, and also constructed an ancestral temple in the Chinese elite manner. Sources disagree on the exact year.
I haven't read this article, so I don't know if the subject outlived Ghengis Khan's dad, but even if she did any appellation as "Empress Dowager" would have been necessarily anachronistic, so it's not really more accurate than "Empress".
As to posthumous names being shared across multiple figures, the words they were allowed to pick from came from a closed set passed down from one of the ritual classics: either Liji or Zhouli, which circulated together in a compilation since relatively early anyway. In addition to the set being constrained, there were guidelines as to which posthumous name to use based on the character of the recipient and their accomplishments in life.
Often, different posthumous names were proposed by different people, and it was an honour (or occasionally political necessity) to have the emperor choose your proposal, and a chance to curry favour by talking up his dead relatives.
The later dynasties dealt with the closed set of imperial name words by piling a bunch of overblown claptrap on top of them to create original permutations, which is how Qianlong ended up as (*deep breath*) "法天隆運至誠先覺體元立極敷文奮武欽明孝慈神聖純皇帝".
Anyway, I'm not sure if I answered anybody's question, but yes according to the reliable source New History of Yuan, the subject's posthumous name was 宣懿皇后, granted by Kublai Khan. If there's any classical or literary Chinese someone wants help with in this thread, I'm very easily sidetracked from other tasks if it's put in front of me. Folly Mox (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am happy to see confirmation (my Chinese is getting a bit rusty). It may be worth mentioning in the article, although this "he gave her a posthumous title" now sounds to me mostly to be part of the effort to turn Kublai Khan more into the sinicised Emperor Shizu of Yuan.
While we are on the topic of posthumous honours, there seems to be some modern Mongolian appreciation of her. For example, a statue close to the Equestrian statue of Genghis Khan, see ru:Файл:The Hoelun Monument to Genghis Khan's Mother at the Mother Hoelun Memorial Complex in Tsonjin Boldog 02.JPG. Whatever its significance, it seems to indicate to me that she isn't forgotten in Mongolia. —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image, I might use that. She certainly isn't forgotten in Mongolia—Genghis Khan is the symbol of the country, and so she's certainly well known, but I haven't found any RS talking about her. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the best way to cite the New History of Yuan Folly Mox? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after some snooping, I haven't been able to determine the publisher of the version present online either at Wikisource or at guoxue, but I do note that Zhonghua Shuju don't seem to have published a standard version, and Internet Archive have no copy available. The publisher can probably be omitted.
That said, I'd probably recommend:
{{cite book | script-title= zh:新元史 | title-link= :zh:新元史 | chapter= [[:zh:s:新元史/卷104#后妃|Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts]] | trans-title= New History of Yuan | author-link= Ke Shaomin | date=1920 | last= Ke | first= Shaomin | author-mask= Ke Shaomin | series = [[Twenty-Four Histories#Related works|Twenty-Five Histories]] |language=zh}}
This produces:
Ke Shaomin (1920). "Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts". 新元史 [New History of Yuan]. Twenty-Five Histories (in Chinese).
Pointing |title-link= to zh.wp avoids a redlink to the not yet created article New History of Yuan, but you could omit it entirely, also which produces Ke Shaomin (1920). "Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts". 新元史 [New History of Yuan]. Twenty-Five Histories (in Chinese).
Using |last= |first= |author-mask= allows the author's name to be displayed in the normal Chinese name order while allowing the work to be cited intuitively with {{sfnp}} like {{sfnp|Ke|1920|loc=vol. 104}} (this can also be accomplished with |author=Ke Shaomin |ref={{sfnref|Ke|1920}}).
I usually just use |chapter= when I'm linking to a public domain Chinese history work at zh.s, but if you're really concerned with metadata it's possible to do with |script-chapter= |trans-chapter=. In this case it's pretty unnecessary because the juan in question will be referred to in most academic citations solely by number. (In fact, you could leave out Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts and no one would care.) "Vol. / volume" has been the en.wp standard translation of 卷 for as long as I can remember, although some English language sources prefer "fascicle" or rarely "roll".
Lastly, yes Kublai establishing a Chinese style ancestral temple and granting his ancestors posthumous names in the Chinese elite fashion was 💯 politicking, which he appears to have been pretty good at. I had a paragraph digressing into this in my initial comment above, which I removed during proofread. Reminder though that "Shizu" was Kublai's own posthumous name. I haven't looked into this period deeply enough in the historical literature to know whether Kublai could have been referred to in life as "Kublai Huangdi" (as Ghengis was) or whether his personal name was already taboo at the time of his accession (seems likelier), and he would have been referred to just as "the emperor" and other honourific synonyms. Folly Mox (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want a publisher for the source, I can try to steal a pdf from somewhere, which would also give us a page number, although verification will almost always be processed through an online version. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General review:

  • I am surprised to see Mongolian script that isn't written vertically. I would prefer to see the name in vertical. If that is annoying, perhaps it could go into some box with all her names. (Is there a Mongolian variant of something like {{Infobox Chinese/Manchu}}?)
    • I don't think so; I had a play around with the basic infobox, but couldn't get it to do what I wanted; if you want to have a go feel free
      • I would really like to see her name in vertical somewhere, but I don't have a superb suggestion on how to do it.
  • What is the transliteration system used for Mongolian here and why is it "Hö'elün" in the title and "Ö'elün" in the other transliteration?
    • There is no consistent transliteration system for Mongolian, to the eternal exasperation of myself and every other scholar who has to use words from the language. However, in this case, Hö'elün is by far the most common transliteration in reliable English-language scholarship (the common name is often different in other languages—another quirk of the field). However, I'm fairly certain Ö'elün is closer to the actual pronunciation (Atwood certainly thinks so). It's all a giant mess. (Mujinga also relevant for you) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crazy thought: it might be easier to understand in Mongolian Cyrillic??
      • Less crazy thought: is it worth giving the Chinese transliteration as it is over at Genghis Khan?
  • "Knowing that her outnumbered husband would certainly be killed, Hö'elün urged Chiledu to flee" I don't fully understand: did she believe her husband would be killed no matter what he did, or did she believe he had a chance to flee? Later it seems he survived? I think I would prefer something like "As her husband was outnumbered and faced certain death if he stayed with her, Hö'elün urged him to flee".
    • Done.
  • Do we know when the legends surrounding Temüjin's birth started to be spread?
    • Nope.
  • Do we know who gave Hö'elün the black sable coat?
    • Clarified
  • A word or two on what Temüjin did between his defeat in 1187 and his coronation in 1206 would be good; an unobservant reader (say, me with not enough sleep) could assume that he spent the entire time in China.
    • I've added a sentence; its brevity is because I don't want to get too bogged down in Temüjin's activities.
  • "she also likely felt that her husband had been over-compensated" what compensation are we talking about here? Who compensated him for what?
    • Clarified

Very interesting article, I'll do another read through soon. —Kusma (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Kusma; more of your comments are welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliability of the Secret History of the Mongols should be at least touched upon in this article. While most readers will have read the Genghis Khan article, we should not assume that especially in a FA (people might come across the article from the Main Page and not from anything related) so it would be better to try to be as standalone as possible. You could also be explicit about this when you say "She also reportedly raised numerous foundlings as half-siblings for her children, although chronological problems seem to indicate that the most famous, Shigi Qutuqu, was in fact raised by Börte": as I understand it, in the Secret History it is claimed she was the one who raised Shigi Qutuqu, but later historians dismiss this as incompatible with other chronological assumptions.
    • Done and clarified.
  • Is the battle at Dalan Balzhut the same as zh:十三翼之戰=ru:Битва при Далан-Балджутах? Might be worth an {{ill}}?
    • There was actually an existing en:wp article, so I've merged the wikidata items and added a link.
  • "turmoil in Hö'elün's personal life" still confuses me a bit. She is disappointed that her husband gets compensated, and plots against some of her stepsons. Is this politics or a troubled personal life?
    • I have expanded that paragraph.
      • I don't think this is now accurately summarised by the lead section's "Her personal life suffered greatly after Temüjin's 1206 coronation as Genghis Khan". —Kusma (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Expanded.
  • The Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women I linked to earlier [4] also claims that Genghis Khan gave a lot of credit to his mother for his success, and said "My mother is the cornerstone of the state". I don't know where this quote is from and how it has been mangled i n translation Mongol->Chinese->English, but if something like this could be verified better it might be worth including.
    • The closest I can get is the Secret History, when Genghis is granting a (too-few, according to her) number of followers to Hö'elün, he is depicted as saying: "Mother toiled most in rallying the people", or something.
  • Overall my main (small) concern is how much it helps to read the Genghis Khan article to get background on all kinds of things (transliteration of Mongol, reliability of sources etc.) Some of this background would be good to include here, possibly as footnotes. —Kusma (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images (source comment contained therein)

[edit]

Do we have information on whether the depiction at File:Statue of Hö'elün at Tsonjin Boldog.jpg is a realistic depiction of what Hö'elün looked like? And for File:Mongol Empire c.1207.png, does the book show a similar map, or how does it present its information? The ALT text for the map says what the image is, without actually conveying its information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, as far as I am aware, this is as close to realistic as it gets because we have no literary depictions of her (and those would likely be more unrealistic—the famous 13th-century portrait of Genghis Khan at the top of his page deliberately portrays him as more Chinese than Mongolian).
Most recommendations for ALT text advise against going into too much detail, and you would need a full paragraph to adequately summarize that map. The sources for it show similar maps. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "At the time, the Mongolian plateau was subdivided into a large number of small polities" would be sufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done equivalent Jo-Jo Eumerus. Is all good? Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the "Map of..." part is necessary. The ALT text doesn't need to describe what the image is, but replace its information content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to do both Jo-Jo Eumerus. A screen reader will pick up the caption, but not what type of image it is. A visually impaired reader might think it is a painting of Mongolic tribes c. 1207, without the "Map of..." part. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems fair. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have these sources been mined? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have been looked at Jo-Jo Eumerus; I don't believe the ones I can access can offer anything new. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's all from me, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

[edit]
Review
Name and sources
  • Ö’elün: if this is an alternative English form of her name, why is it italicised?
    • I'm fairly certain that's the standard method, using the {{transl}} template, as I did at Genghis Khan.
The MoS: "proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also the MOS: "transliterations should instead use {{transl}}" (emphasis not mine, from MOS:LANG). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and initial marriages
  • The event was omitted...: perhaps "Hö'elün's kidnapping was omitted..."?
    • Done.
  • The event was omitted from most official chronicles and only appears in full in the Secret History... Is "in full" necessary? I understand the event is not mentioned at all in other sources.
    • Good catch.
Matriarch and advisor
  • On the other hand, other sources such as Rashid al-Din imply that Yesügei's brothers stood by the widow. It is possible that Hö'elün may have refused to join in levirate marriage with one,... Unclear: why did they stand by her if she possibly had refused to marry one of them?
  • ..., which she felt was a foolish imitation of their ancestors' heroic deeds Is this necessary? What were their ancestors' heroic deeds and how can fratricide associated in any way with heroic deeds?
    • Their ancestors' (Bodonchar and his brothers) heroic deeds were robbing, killing and stealing in order to secure their position. The difference is that they did it together, rather than against each other.
      • Perhaps "their ancestors' martial bravery/martial acts"? For me, both describing robbing, killing and stealing as heroic deeds, and associating the murder of one's own brother with heroic deeds are strange. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Mongols did not have the same concept of heroism as you, Borsoka. To serve your family and interests was a praiseworthy deed; doing so through killing your half-brother was not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps, but neither Ratchnevsky nor Veit verify the reference to "the ancestors' heroic acts". They both refer to the "words of the ancestors"/"Worten der Alten" cited by Hö'elün "to shower her sons with wild verbal abuse" (Ratchnevsky). Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Borsoka Veit p. 129: "Betrachten wir aber die vertrauten Bilder, die sie benutzte, mit welchen man urprunglich auch die Heldentaten der Vorfahren zu schildern pflegte - also positiv - sp erleben wir in der Schelte die Umkehr der kraftvollen Bilder durch die Mutter Hoelun, einen unerwarteten Paradigmenweschel also."
            • English translation: But if we look at the familiar images that she used, which were originally used to describe the heroic deeds of the ancestors - i.e. positively - then in the scolding we experience the reversal of the powerful images by the mother Hoelun, an unexpected paradigm shift. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Hö'elün was later commemorated by her grandson Kublai Khan, founder of the Yuan Dynasty. Is this necessary?
    • Not particularly. I'd thought to include it as the only "legacy"-type detail, but now removed.

An excellent article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • What makes Ke (1920) a high quality RS? And, given WP:RSUEC, what is in Ke that is not available in an English language source?
    • Gog the Mild, see the lengthy discussion in Kusma's comments above. It is solely in the article as a source for a Chinese name, which English sources generally don't bother themselves with.
I understand that. I don't see a discussion of what makes Ke (1920) a high quality RS. If I have missed it, apologies and feel free to point me back to it.
  • In 新元史/卷104 I see several references to Empress Xuan yi (宣懿皇后) but none seem to cover "from her great-grandson Kublai Khan after his foundation of the Yuan Dynasty." Could you point me to the text you are relying on? (In Mandarin for preference.) Thanks.
well, I've cut the "from her great-grandson Kublai Khan after his foundation of the Yuan Dynasty" bit, shortening it to what I know the New History of Yuan actually says. Does that work Gog the Mild? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that the source is a HQ RS, but given the context of what it is used for, I guess I can grit my teeth. Otherwise fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hö'elün married Münglig, an old retainer of Yesügei, in thanks for his support after a damaging defeat in 1187". Should there be a comma after "defeat"?
    • No.
      • In which case, is it known when Hö'elün and Münglig married?
        • Also no. Sorry.
Not to worry, if it's not in the sources, it's not in the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hö%27elün/archive1&oldid=1202070159"