Talk:Sorghaghtani Beki

message: How come Sorghaghtani Beki looks exactly like a 19th/early 20th century Khalkha woman?  Yaan 11:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the picture. The women shown wore a dress and hairdress typical for only one group of Mongolians. I have seen no sourced pictures of Sorghaghtani Beki, (nor any contemporarian wearing the same dress as in the picture), but those of the wifes of the yuan emperors show very different clothes, hairstyles, and hats (see catalogue of the Dschingis Khan und seine Erben exhibition 2005 - [edit: or Börte ]). Yaan 09:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the image should probably get a description along those lines as well. The source doesn't explicitly claim it's Beki, but just uses it as "decoration" next to some text about her. Maybe we should have a careful look at the other image uploads by the same contributor as well, as he doesn't seem to be very critical about his sources. He may also be interested to learn about the Commons. --Latebird 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better now? Yaan 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the monarch in the image in this article was Prester John. --Elonka 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's definitively not accurate. Prester John was/is a legend, and Toghrul is only one of the people brought into connection with it. Since it has no real connection to the rest of this article anyway, I've removed that statement. --Latebird (talk) 05:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  BTW, I'm not sure if you've been following the situation, but we're currently embarking on major cleanup because of an editor (PHG) who's been adding dubious information to multiple Mongol-related articles.  If you'd like to help, the list is at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review.  And a related ArbCom case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance (see the evidence/workshop pages for more info). --Elonka 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference and quote for the statement about Prester John, from *Marie-Therese Gousset, "Le Livre des Merveilles, Marco Polo", Bibliotheque de l'image, Paris, . This is apparently how he was called in the West: "Cet Ong Khan, plus connu en Occident sous le nom de Pretre Jean", in "Le Livre des Merveilles, Marco Polo", Marie-Therese Gousset, p.42. Besides this quote, it is otherwise well known that Ong Khan was thought to be Prester John in the West, so it is only normal to mention it. The contrary would be odd and inaccurate. PHG (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please re-check the ISBN? It's not pulling up for me.  The only Gousset book I'm finding, is one where she published Marco Polo's book Livre des Merveilles.  In which case we should be sourcing Marco Polo, not Gousset, or at least we should be sourcing both of them. Or if, as you say, Ong Khan was "well known" as Prester John, we can probably find a better source. Though, as Latebird said, it's not really something relevant to this article anyway. --Elonka 06:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISBN is OK. Her book is entitled Le Livre des Merveilles du Monde. Marco Polo but it is actually her making summaries of each of Marco Polo's chapters, with pictures. Of course the information is relevant. It is even highly relevant. For Westerners, she was the niece of Prester John... I'll be adding more references as I go, if you wish, but everybody who has read about the Mongols a bit knows about this. PHG (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You'll find a lot of references are already in the Prester John article. PHG (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PHG, your addition does not reflect the current state of knowledge. Yes, it is true that Wang Khan was one of the people who got "dressed up" as the legendary "Prester John" during a certain limited time. But it is also very clear that we're talking about a legend here, and such an assignment was therefore necessarily purely fictional. The way you state it in the article, it looks like it was real, which is much more wrong than omitting the information alltogether. Not to mention that a legend assigned to her uncle is not really relevant to an article about an entirely different person anyway. --Latebird (talk) 06:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, I don't know. Sorghaghtani Beki was known in the West as the niece of Prester John. This is a very important piece of information. I am not saying she was, only that she was known as such. I'm ok if you rephrase if you have an idea for a less ambiguous sentence though. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does your source specifically say that "Sorghaghtani Beki was known in the West as the niece of Prester John"? Or is that your own interpretation where it just says he was known that way? --Latebird (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is exactly my sentence in the article: "Sorkhokhtani was the niece of the Kereyid leader Wang Khan "Toghrul", described as "Prester John" in the Occident." The quote is used to reference the connection between Wang Khan and the legend of Prester John ("Cet Ong Khan, plus connu en Occident sous le nom de Pretre Jean", in "Le Livre des Merveilles, Marco Polo", Marie-Therese Gousset, p.42). For a reference connecting at the same time Sorkhokhtani, Wang Khan and Prester John see for example Genghis Khan, His Life and Legacy by Paul Ratchnevsky p.80 . PHG (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree with Latebird: mention of Ong Khan’s connection to the Prester John myth in this article is not really relevant; still less the inclusion of a wholly imaginary representation of Prester John from a western European manuscript. If Sorghaghtani Beki was known in the West as the niece of Prester John, this attribution was not widespread. Let us not place undue weight on a single comment by Marie-Therese Gousset. Aramgar (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Need some more? Just looking at Google Books, for authors refering to Sorghaghtani Beki (mother of Möngke Khan, Kublai Khan, Hulagu Khan and Ariq Boke) as the niece of Prester John, see:  China and the Far East by George Hubbard Blakeslee (p.251): "He was kindly received by the great Kublai Khan—whose mother was a Christian, a niece of Prester John",  China and Religion - Page 187 by Edward Harper. Parker: "the mother of Mangu (and of Kublai, a niece of "Prester John"),  The Call of Cathay by William Arthur Cornaby, S. George Tope Page 49: "Kublai Khan (whose mother was niece of "Prester John"). I think that's more than enough sources presenting Sorghaghtani Beki as the niece of Prester John. Actually, it would be quite a lapse not to mention that fact. PHG (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I never made "an absolute statement that Sorghaghtani Beki was the niece of Prester John". Look at what I wrote exactly: "Sorkhokhtani was the niece of the Kereyid leader Wang Khan "Toghrul", described as "Prester John" in the Occident." For more accuracy we could indeed correct to "sometimes described". It is important to remind this fact when talking about Sorghaghtani Beki, just as many historians do. PHG (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't explained the point. The books you cite that bring Sorghaghtani Beki more or less directly into connection with "Prester John" are all about a hundred years old, and they all at best mention the connection in passing. One of them is even badly enough researched to take the legend as fact. Remember that we're talking about an incorrect name that certain circles liked to assign to Wang Khan (as well as to several other people) during a very limited time. That was clearly not more than a side note to his life, if he took notice of it at all. It was (and is) entirely irrelevant to Sorghaghtani Bekis life. It is neither necessary nor encyclopedic to add such a tendentious tidbit to every article where Wang Khan happens to be mentioned. In fact, it looks more like a public relations campaign and POV pushing. --Latebird (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Need more sources? These 100 year old sources are all that were available on Google books. For a modern Internet source, please see for example John M.L Young: "Mangu's mother too was a Christian (a niece of Prester John), as was also his wife." (1984). I don't have the time to research print ressources on this micro-subject, and don't wish to spend energy on such a ridiculous argument, but it is just obvious that Sorghaghtani Beki has often been referred to as "the niece of Prester John", which is an obvious thing to state on an article about her. It is just a matter of common-sense to mention it: it is part of her history. It is like arguing that we shouldn't mention that king Louis XIV was called "Le Roi Soleil", on the grounds that it is a lie because he was not actually the sun: wouldn't it be totally ridiculous??? It is the same here. The way people are designated through history is part of their history indeed. PHG (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet more "sources" researched badly enough to present a legend as fact?  Toghrul then even becomes Ghengis' physical uncle... And Le Roi-Soleil is a blatant red herring, because that name was specifically coined for him as a unique synonym, which is not the case here at all. --Latebird (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "Toghrul then even becomes Ghengis' physical uncle"? PHG (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you want to actually read the "source" you just cited from? --Latebird (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Toghrul had allied to Yesugei the father of Ghengis Khan through a ritual that made him his "Blood brother" (or "Frere de sang" in French. By the way, this is mentionned in the Blood brother article.). It is well known and also reported by other historians such as Jean-Paul Roux. By the way Young does not say "physical" uncle, just "uncle", which is true by virtue of this ceremony. What is your problem with that? PHG (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My father's blood brother isn't normally called my uncle without qualification. It's very obvious that your "source" didn't understand the distinction (or blurred it deliberately). There's a lot more non-historical nonsense in that text, I just picked one of the most glaringly obvious examples. Not every text out there is a valid source, just because someone, somewhere has written it. To use it here, you need to show that it's reliable. You have been criticized for using "sources" inappropriately many times before, but apparently you are either unable or unwilling to learn from that. --Latebird (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that George Hubbard Blakeslee, Edward Harper, William Arthur Cornaby, S. George Tope and John M.L Young are all unreliable historians, but User:Latebird is right? This is ridiculous, Latebird. We are only saying that Sorghaghtani has been called the "niece of Prester John" through history, which is a pretty straightforward claim knowing that her uncle Wang Khan was himself known as Prester John, and which is documented (above) by numerous sources. This is a significant view, and per Wikipedia:NPOV all significant views should be represented: this is even considered as "non negotiable" . I have only relied on Google Books or Internet for this search, but it is quite obvious that numerous others books would present this queen as "the niece of Prester John", or "the niece of "Prester John"" as well. This is fully relevant to an article on Sorghaghtani. PHG (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prester John

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support. Both names are good choices, but Sorqaqtani seems to be in wider use among the academics currently writing about this topic. See also  the discussions in the above section under #Reorganization. --Elonka 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The girl that Genghis Khan asked to marry with Jochi was not Sorkhagtani. --Enerelt (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? --Elonka 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jochi

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=SQWW7QgUH4gC&pg=PA447&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=H103FlBPxfUC&pg=PA239&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iN9Tdfdap5MC&pg=PA414&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=gqviy7MRuIgC&pg=PA130&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=IRunTSqY7msC&pg=PA234&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=d2SWstj6j3AC&pg=PA49&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iFxGpHGMAZQC&pg=PA12&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=nNGC122cydQC&pg=PA68&dq=sorghaghtani+beki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxKnUL-WE8ux0AGc6YGIBQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=sorghaghtani%20beki&f=false
Guderyean (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing