Talk:Altan Khan

Not monarch, but a khan, though not a "Great Khan"
What do you mean with "monarch"? For me monarch equals to Khan of Mongolia, which you call "Great Khan". If he wasn't a "Great Khan", then he wasn't a monarch. But he WAS a Khan, a local ruler of Tumet with title "Khan". After him, many local rulers assumed the title "Khan" along the all-Mongolian Khan or "Great Khan". I have to remove "monarch". Gantuya eng (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Polyglotic naming
We don't need to show a proper name of a person in all possible languages to show up how many languages we know. Altan Khan is a Mongolian, he has a Mongolian name, that's it. We don't show the name of Peter the Great in Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Bantu and so on, do we? Gantuya eng (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I take your point, but many, if not most, of the historical records are in Chinese and keeping the Chinese here would make it much easier for readers to scan for his name through Chinese documents. Please let me know here if you still disagree and, if so, why. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also Manchu and Tibetan language sources, but you can't write the name in the Manchu. And you can't write it in Tibetan. At the same time, they deleted all the Manchu and Mongolian names from the pages on the Qing Emperors totally sinicising those pages. Why don't you go there and reinsert the Manchu names? Gantuya eng (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No Chinese name is written in the pages for Korean and Vietnamese kings. Did the treasurable Chinese sources fail to write about them? Gantuya eng (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the Chinese name is currently wrong. He seems to have two main names in Chinese, 俺答汗 and 阿勒坦汗. I'll leave it to people more knowledgeable than me to make the decision here. And I agree that we need the Chinese name. It's almost impossible to dig up further information about some of these people without the Chinese names. 92.25.193.62 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

1470
I guess 1470 might be the year that Dayan Khan was proclaimed Great Khan. I don't think Altan Khan was alive back then. I therefore removed that piece of info. Yaan (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Altan Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215070918/http://www.mandal.ca/mongolia/e/Erdene_Zuu_Monastery.html to http://www.mandal.ca/mongolia/e/Erdene_Zuu_Monastery.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213011855/http://www.discover.mn/mongolia/visit.html to http://www.discover.mn/mongolia/visit.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

To add to article
Basic information to add to this article: where was Bars Bolud Jinong, and where was his capital (where did he rule from)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Conversion to Tibetan Buddhism?
If we aim to be properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention that Altan Khan converted to Tibetan Buddhism, as well as when he did that? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Northern Yuan dynasty
If Altan Khan lived during the Northern Yuan dynasty, shouldn't we at least mention this dynasty at least once in the text of this article? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Serious help needed on "Becoming high official of Ming China"
I came to this article to get clarification on an article on the Dalai Lama, but this is so poorly written, I can't make sense out of it. I already added a tag for relevance on the random reference to Anda Feng Gong, which I can find nothing on. The next sentence isn't actually a sentence. It also makes reference to the 12th emperor of China by name and description, but the link to the name refers to him as the 13th emperor of China. Throughout it makes reference to "the Ming" or just "Ming" like it's a single individual. Are they referring to the Ming Dynasty altogether? There are 4 cites for several of these, three of them books and the fourth in Chinese, making it essentially impossible (or at minimum time consuming) to verify. Ghost writer&#39;s cat (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)