Talk:History of Mongolia

Untitled

A fuller series can be made with the public domain text at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/mntoc.html. --Jiang 00:12, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More linx needed

More linx needed – there are lots of articles relating to the Mongolian history. Piece of cake to make more linx. Rursus 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

needs work

This article is in sore need of attention by an expert. It's hard to divide the article when it doesn't have enough information TO divide. It's a big country, and therefore must have an extensive history, with many rulers and political happenings. I think to model the article layout (but it will be a tad shorter just because the country is a bit economically smaller on the global scale) after the History of Japan would be a good idea ('tis a really nice article, in my opinion)... so it needs a very general introduction; pre-history; ancient Mongolia; nomadic Mongolia; unification under the title 'Mongolia'; etc. And then Religions; Politics; current issues. Yay or nay? Sedonaarizona 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay indeed. --Gimme danger 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Xiongnu period

I don't know why my reference link doesn't work properly. Will deeply appreciate if someone fixes the problem. Gantuya Eng

I've added the necessary code to make the references visible at the bottom of the article.

Note that we already have an article about the Xianbei (please use the names that are established on Wikipedia unless you have good reason to change them). Judging from that article, the available source material about them is very thin, and their possible connection to the Mongols is unproven, so that most of what you wrote looks like speculation. In particular, I have never heard of Mongolic languages being documented until many centuries later. If you write in articles, please always make it clear which parts are theories proposed by some researcher, and which are established historical fact. --Latebird 17:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Latebird. I always follow your advice. Gantuya Eng

Non-English references

1.Non-Enlish sources are as valid as English sources. It is true that they are difficult to verify for those who don't know that language. But this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used. Not every information is available in English.
2. http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en has a capability to translate from 10 languages into English. It allows to tranlsate a whole web page by providing the web address as well as selected sentences by pasting those sentences into the corresponding boxes on the screen. Gantuya eng 00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Camp of Mongolian tribe

This image looks like not completed in Photoshop. What is near the watch tower - canon? car? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does it look now? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Medieval population of Mongolia

If anyone knows researches on the medieval Mongolian population, please share your knowledge. The calculations in the article are only based on an assumption that every adult man had to serve as a warrior. In times of peace, they continued raising livestock and in times of war they were called to the army. Is it right? Or were there people, who didn't have to serve as warriors? Then the population could have been higher. Based on the pasture capacity, and therefore, number of livestock that provide food for the humans, it is a common perception that the population never exceeded 1 million before the 20th century. However, there are scientists, who state that the climate was different from now and there was much more vegetation. This should mean the pasture capacity was much higher. If that's the case, the country was able to accommodate a higher number of livestock, and the human population could have been much higher too. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Zasagtu Khan crisis to Khalha-Oirat war

The processes preceding and leading to the Khalha-Oirat war 1688 are very complex and may inflate the article. After completion of the section, if it seems short, we can elaborate that part. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Temporary storage

It was briefly occupied by a Chinese warlord in 1919, and then by the Russian White movement warlord Ungern von Sternberg in 1920. The Red Army backed native partisan units led by Damdin Sühbaatar and the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP, the recently-founded local communist party), which defeated the forces of Ungern von Sternberg.

These sentences are being kept here temporarily to be used later. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV policy

As clearly stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a place for asserting any opinions. There are a lot of disputes on the subject of Tibet. We should not assert either the view of Chinese government or the view of Tibetan Government-in-Exile. User "Gantuya eng" clearly violated the NPOV policy of Wikipedia by putting biased wording in the article and also stated "Tibet is NOT part of china and will never be. It's barely occupied territory. Free Tibet". While I certainly tolerate any views and opinions as everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, I'm also a strong defender of NPOV, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. Again, Wikipedia is NOT a place for asserting opinions, and never will be.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User 207.112.34.108. Judging by how you are teaching us about NPOV, you are not new to Wikipedia. Why do you edit anonymously? Why don't you login? Why are you afraid to reveal your identity? I'd advise you to login first, then participate. If you know history, then you should realise that in the 13th century Tibet and China were both separately conquered by the Mongols and became equal parts of the Yuan Dynasty. Your addition of the tag "proper" to "china" is biased. It implies that Tibet (and maybe some other countries as well) has always been part of china. You demanded to use the tag "proper" or not to list Tibet. You are jealous about Tibet. Addition of the tag "proper" doesn't make the article neutral either. Don't distort history. I see you have changed your PC several times. Is it you who used a different PC (218.28.8.102 ) to vandalise the section "Democratic Mongolia" on 2nd of June? Gantuya eng (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User 207.112.34.108 was me. You are right that I'm not new to Wikipedia. But I'm not anonymous because I'm afraid to reveal my identity, but it's simply because I did not login (in English Wikipedia). However, that I did not login should not be used as a reason for you to revert my edits and assert your opinion (which will be discussed soon). No, I have not changed my PC several times! I'm always using this same PC, whose IP address however changes periodically (usually in several days) as it's dynamic. Yet, the IP for my PC always starts with 207 or 209, and not others. I don't know who 218.28.8.102 was, but that was certainly NOT me. I agree with you that his/her edit on June 2 was simply vandalism and should be reverted.

Now back to the topic of Tibet. Yes, according to a significant view, "in the 13th century Tibet and China were both separately conquered by the Mongols and became equal parts of the Yuan Dynasty". HOWEVER, it's still a view, not an undisputed fact. While I personally have no objection to this view, the view of Chinese government is different and is something like "in the 13th century Jin, Tibet, and Song were conquered by the Mongols; the Mongols founded Yuan Dynasty of China, and thus all of these territories became integral parts of Yuan China". The main dispute here is obviously the nature of the Yuan. It's actually not that easy to define it exactly. Columbia Encyclopedia, for example, describes the Yuan Dynasty as "A Mongol dynasty of China that ruled from 1271 to 1368, and a division of the great empire conquered by the Mongols. Founded by Kublai Khan, who adopted the Chinese dynastic name of Yüan in 1271". I am very aware that it's difficult to give an exact and undisputed definition for Yuan, but Wikipedia should avoid asserting any disputed opinions. Both "Tibet became integral part of Yuan China" and "(Tibet and China) became equal parts of the Yuan Dynasty" are examples of such disputed opinions and should be avoided.

Now finally back to part of the addition of "proper". Your version is "The Yuan Dynasty included Mongolia proper, China, Tibet and some adjacent territories ..", which exactly implies that "(Tibet and China) became equal parts of the Yuan Dynasty", a biased view. And why add "proper" for Mongolia but leave "proper" for China out? To tell the truth, during Yuan Dynasty, there were 11 provinces set up by the Yuan government, where Mongolia was under control of one of these provinces called Lingbei Province (lit. "Montain-North Province"). On the other hand, adding "proper" for China (it will then read "The Yuan Dynasty included Mongolia proper, China proper, Tibet and some adjacent territories ..") will make the statement much more neutral. It is neutral because contradictory to what you said, it does NOT make implications whether Tibet (as well as other items in the list) was part of China at all, and thus avoids the dispute. Unlike your version, it's not biased since it did not imply which is part of China and which is not (for example, one possible interpretation is that China includes some other territories such as Xinjiang, which was not a part of Yuan, but not Tibet). I demanded to add "proper" or not to list Tibet explicitly because in the latter case (where it reads "The Yuan Dynasty included Mongolia proper, China and some adjacent territories .."), it can either be interpreted as Tibet was part of China or Tibet was part of these "some adjacent territories", but not of China, thus unbiased. It had nothing to do with "jealous" at all. A similar example is Taiwan in the 20th century. Simply listing "China and Taiwan" is POV as it implies Taiwan is not part of China, but listing "mainland China and Taiwan" is NPOV as it does not imply whether Taiwan is part of China. According to NPOV policy of Wikipedia, your version clearly should be modified.--Wengier (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for logging in. I used "proper" after Mongolia to avoid implying the whole empire that emerged around Mongolia and was built by the Mongols. It is only used in that historical context. But "China proper" sounds to me explicitly biased and, in my opinion, it doesn't fit the historical context. By the time of the Mongol conquest, China was limited the Song and Jin (although ot was founded by Jurjens on the territory of the former Khitan Empire) and didn't include Tibet. Tibet cannot be excluded from the list under any condition as it has always played an independent role in the Mongolian histroy (maybe until it was conquered by the Qing Dynasty). Gantuya eng (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

China proper is not a political concept, but as stated in its article, it refers to the historical lands of China where the Han Chinese are the majority ethnic group. This concept was probably created in the western world, and was in fact never used by the Chinese government, since it claims that Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet are integral part of China, which is a biased view. It is certainly true that "by the time of the Mongol conquest, China was limited the Song and Jin", which is an undisputed fact, but as already discussed in my last reply, the major problem is that the nature of Yuan Dynasty is disputed. For example, the Chinese government considers Yuan a Chinese dynasty, thus they regard the incorporation of Tibet by the Yuan as incorporation of Tibet into China, rather than Yuan includes China and Tibet, which is just the opposite view. That's why the Chinese government claims that Tibet became a part of China since the 13th century (i.e. Yuan Dynasty). We should avoid disputed statements in Wikipedia, thus both "Tibet became an integral part of China in Yuan Dynasty" and "(Tibet and China) became equal parts of the Yuan Dynasty" should be avoided.--Wengier (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saying "China and Tibet" sounds more natural. While "China proper" adds a flavour, texture and bias to it. "China proper" is frequently used by Chinese historians and that implies once there's "China proper", there are also "Chinas peripherial". It's a harmful term. Isn't it sinocentric?

The statement "Tibet became an integral part of China in Yuan Dynasty" is just a propaganda aiming to justify 1959 occupation of Tibet. Also this propaganda aims againt the freedom, independence and democracy of Mongolia once it also "claims integration of Mongolia into China in the Yuan Dynasty. In fact, Mongolia conquered China in the 13th century, not vice versa.

With the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty, China remained limited within the Ming Dynasty which didn't include Tibet and Mongolia. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the statement "Tibet became an integral part of China in Yuan Dynasty" is controversial and mainly used for justifying PRC's rule over Tibet. Yet, we should avoid asserting PRC's claim is wrong in Wikipedia. Whether Ming includes Tibet is also debatable, and that's why the article Tibet during the Ming Dynasty exists. While this article lists many historical facts and different views, it does not directly reach a conclusion.

As for the concept of "China proper", contradictory to what you said, it is actually virtually NEVER used by (modern) Chinese historians. As stated in China proper article, there is not even single widely used term corresponding to "China proper" in the Chinese language. They consider Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet as integral parts of China, just like the core part of China, thus do not contrast "China proper" and "China peripheral". While the concept of "China proper" is not used by PRC itself, I agree it's controversial if not interpreted in a historical or cultural sense. I'm glad if there is a non-controversial replacement for it. Your current version is fine. Thanks for it.--Wengier (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw "China proper" in a book by a Chinese historian in the context of relations of the Ming Dynasty with the Oirats, which was unfair. Maybe that was a "self-initiative" of the translator. (Unfortunately always translators get blamed at the end, sorry the Translator). That instance created an impression that they use this term to show the other nations as "subordinated to 'China proper'". Gantuya eng (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the section Foreign Rule I found this phrase, "Brutally revenging the Oirat people for their love for freedom, the Qing army committed a genocide" Now, that is NOT NPOV. I mean, seriously? Genocide, etc? I am erasing this phrase. Rad vsovereign (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at Genocides_in_history#Qing-dynasty_China. Yaan (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rad vsovereign, Have you got an evidence that the Oirat people didn't love freedom and the Qing army didn't commit a genocide against them? The Qing commanders ordered their soldiers to annihilate each Oirat they see. The small but courageous Oirat people inhibited Qing expansion into Central Asia for 100 years and saved Central Asia from the Manchu enslavement. True, they couldn't save it from the Russian expansion, but that's the fault of the Central Asians themselves. The Qing understood they'll never manage to enslave the Oirats. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have any evidence that Oirat people is not freedom-loving but come on! Combining the freedom-loving with genocide is definitely NOT neutral. Does Operation Iraqi Freedom sound neutral to you?

There's a lot of alleged genocides in the world. Darfur, Bosnia, Armenia, etc. But people have been fighting over that term for years! In this context the word freedom-loving is added to give weight to the term genocide. After all, if the people is warlike instead of freedom-loving, than it wouldn't be a genocide, wouldn't it?

Example: Since the Nazis were warlike, etc then the expulsion of germans from eastern europe was never considered ethnic cleansing. I am in NO WAY comparing the Oirats to the Nazis. Just to be politically-correct here. Rad vsovereign (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII has been called an ethnic cleansing. These guys even claim the term "ethnic cleansing" was invented back then (p.1). Yaan (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you expert in genocide? I don't know of your examples anything because completely uninterested in them. This is history of Mongolia. Mongolian youth must read it and know it. I will also write it in the Mongolian Wikipedia for those young Mongolians who prefer reading in Mongolian.

Did you read history of Mongolia after all?

Are you just hunting for the sentences with the word "genocide"?

Please don't disturb our work. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is stating that "if the people is warlike instead of freedom-loving, than it wouldn't be a genocide". Only you are saying that. If the Chechens are warlike, then it's good to bomb them (their women and children)? What a strange thinking to compare Oirats with Nazis. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

cont.

When reading this whole article you cannot help but feel this is not a NPOV article. The underlining theme of this article is China is weak and always attacks innocent Mongolia and unjustly attacks them but Mongolians always defeats 'evil and weak' China. Mongolia has a very rich history and I was really looking forward to reading about it along with the history of battles (including loses).

Example from the article, it talks about how Mongolia has never shown aggression towards China only their "actions were dictated by their needs, not by aggressive and destructive behaviour". That is an opinion. There is no possible way you can know what the sole purposes of 'all' the raids (which includes murder) were caused by. Why was the poster even mentioning aggressive and destructive behaviour? To take an indirect opinionated attack against China.

example of NPOV.  "Economic needs influenced their actions and raids on China."  That is a statement.

"The invaders were brutal towards the Mongolian population." That is another opinion from the article which I deleted because it had absolutely no factual value.

Someone really needs to go through and edit or redo this entire article. It is borderline propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.136.204 (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You can find evidence that "China was strong, but never attacked its northern neighbors", "Mongols were aggressive and destructive without any economic needs", "Invaders were not brutal, but very friendly and brotherly to the Mongolians. They took thousands of Mongols to entertain them in China". Is this what you want? Gantuya eng (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The point that the Mongol raids on Northern China during the Ming dynasty were provoked by the Ming refusal to trade is, I think, made quite often. That still doesn't mean this is the whole truth (maybe raiding is still cheaper than buying?), but it is far from propaganda. That said, "dictated by their needs, not by aggressive and destructive behaviour" looks a bit like a red herring: quite probably most conflicts have something to do with "needs".

I kind of agree that someone needs to go through the article and check its claims. To give just one example (maybe not a representative one) from two paragraphs:

"Ming Dynasty began aggressions against Mongolia from the year 1372."

"aggression" sounds POV. Certainly one could interprete these actions as part of a dynastic succession struggle or as attempts to eleminate a direct military threat?

"Warlord of Mongolia Köke Temür defeated a 150,000 Chinese army on the river Orkhon in 1373."

would like to see a source for the Chinese getting that far in 1373

"The Chinese army invaded Mongolia again in 1380 and looted Karakorum and other cities."

would be nice to have names of those "other cities" (Etsina/Khar Khot?). Did they just loot Karakorum or did they destroy it? The Karakorum article seems to say that this happened in 1388, did the Ming capture Karakorum twice or is one date wrong?

"Ming armies invaded Mongolia again in 1381, 1392, 1410 and 1414, but were expelled each time."

Were they really expelled or did they just retreat because they were never meant to stay in Mongolia for long?

"The cultural progress achieved by the Mongols during the empire was devastated."

I guess this is true, would still be nice of we could find some relevant person that says so.

"Also Ming China systematically exterminated those Mongols that were unable to flee to Mongolia and were trapped in China."

Definitely needs a source. I could bring up a source for systematic attempts at assimilition, but killing (systematic or not) is quite a different thing. Maybe something can be found here, In Serruys' "The Mongols and Ming China" or in some paper by W. Franke.

"200,000 Mongols led by Nagachu were blocked in China In 1387."

relevance is not entirely clear

"Ming Emperor Yongle invaded the country again in 1409 and 1422, but was chased out by Buyanshri Khaan (1405-1428)."

Actually, he invaded Mongolia five times, not just twice. The Yongle articles gives a somewhat different image of how successful the expeditions were, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle (source for "rather mediocre" successes can be found, I think)

"Mongolia remained powerful even after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty. As the Ming Dynasty understood its own disability of conquering Mongolia by military force, it started a policy of provoking the groups of Mongolia to quarrel with one another, as well as economic blockade."

Again, I think saying what motivated the Ming was the conquest of Mongolia seems a bit too easy, and in any case would need a good source. Also there is no mention of the defensive strategy that the Ming eventually began to follow.

Of course bitching is always easy, unfortunately I am a bit to busy at the moment to really go through this. Of course more footnotes are no cure-all, I just think the quality of the article could be improved. Yaan (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's my personal thought, but raiding is in no way cheaper or easier than buying. Raiding costs human lives, not only on the party being raided but also on the assulting party too. Raiding is risky, difficult and very scary. It requires long, expensive and patient training, brave heart and courage. Yet, helmets, armours, and swords are very-very expensive. It is the last resort to be used in extreme situations. Buying is always cheaper and safer.

The absolute majority of history books printed in USSR and RF create a negative image of nomadic peoples as aggressive and destructive. The Russians or Slavs have been so good--they built cities and developed culture--while the Hunns, Pechenegs, Khazars and Polovtsi have been so bad always raiding and destroying the Rus cities. One book even called the Khazar Kaganate a "parasitic state". Then the Mongolo-Tatars came and destroyed everything, they have been soooooo bad that they became the reason for all problems and backwardness of Russia for the remaining 500 years. When you go to the pages of those books concerning Asia, then again: China has been so good building cities and developing culture, while the evil nomads Hunnu, Turks, Mongols have been so bad, aggressive and destructive always raiding the peaceful and friendly China and destroying its precious cities. Didn't Chinese literature also refer to nomads as barbarians?

There sould be justice and fairness to oppose the primitive and negative image of the nomads including the Mongols and their predecessors propagated by the powerful and civilised neighbours of Mongolia.

It should be made clear that not aggressiveness and passion for adventure but real needs pushed them to raids. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is not someone connected to the boss, maybe human lifes are expendable? In most societies, and even today? But of course either way as long as we say this it's just personal opinion either way.

I didn't mean to say this article should try to paint a "bad" or "good" or "just" image of 15th/16th century Mongols, I just thought a better job should be done to write this article based on reliable sources. I appreciate it is a lot of work to bring the article to its current state, and I certainly don't think I could have done much better. I just wanted to point out that a lot more could (and maybe should) be done. I admit I picked what I thought to be a particularly easy target for trying to point out some shortcomings.

Yaan (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Prehistory

I removed some rather unencyclopedic material from that section, and added stuff from a short text by Eleonora Novgorodova. She seems to have done some serious work on the topic, though I have no idea about how accepted her dates for the deer stones are (she says something to the effect that her dates are the result of new (as of 1989) research). Yaan (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

notable Mongolians

Since this is an article about History (judging from its title), is it really appropriate to include Boxers and Sumo wrestlers? I completely agree they are notable on their own, I just wonder if they really are notable in the context of Mongolian History. Yaan (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How significant is Tsogtu Taiji ? Is he more significant than Gushi Khan Baibagas ? Gantuya eng (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Tsogt Taij is pretty notable when talking about Mongol History, as is Güshi Khan. I don't really see how George Foreman would be notable when talking about American history. Yaan (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable politicians

May I ask what exactly makes Magnai, Battsandan, Lu Bold (and some others) notable in this article? Tsogt Taij at least had a movie produced about him, I guess one can also find his name in a number of books dealing with Mongolian and Tibetan history of the 17th century. Yaan (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you guys have better things to do than entertaining in a pissing contest about such trivial matters? At first I tried to reduce that section to the essentials with ten people of exceptional impact and international relevance. But in reality such a list is entirely inappropriate in a history article, so I've removed it completely. --Latebird (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to do. Thank you, Latebird. Everybody would want to add their favorites to the list of notable persons, if there is any. I think others would agree with your action. --GenuineMongol (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The initial idea was to include a couple of representatives of the 1911 movement (Khanddorj and Namnansüren), a couple of representatives of the 1921 revolution (Bodoo and Danzan), a couple of representatives of the 1990 movement (Zorig and Bat-Uul) and a couple of representatives of the "colour revolution" period (Batzandan and Magnai). Once this becomes a competition in which everybody wants to include his favourites, it may be a good idea to remove the list at all. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better to mention those people (and what they did) in the respective sections of the text. A seperate list presents the names out of context, which is much less helpful for the reader. --Latebird (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Khaan and Khan are different titles

GenuineMongol, please don't behave like that. It was already discussed with Latebird last year. It wasn't discussed in the discussion page, but it was discussed in the edit summaries. It's the result of my long-term study. Please don't ignore that. Beg you. Beg you. Beg you. All history books printed in Mongolia differentiate between Khaan and Khan. The most obvious example is Хан-Уул district. Why don't we spell it with 2 "a"? Because the mountain was initially called "Хан", not "Хаaн" by Tooril. The stamps of aimag khans spell khan with 1 "a". They don't spell it as "Khagan". Because they are NOT KHAAN, they KHAN. I have to restore my hard work, sorry. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Please also read article Mongolian nobility.

I am not behaving against the rules. I strictly follow the Wiki rules. I don't remember the participants agreeing on the spelling of "Хаан". Let's wait what others will say on this subject. --GenuineMongol (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Study the history of edits for this article.

When you name them all "Khan", then it becomes unclear who is a local ruler "Khan" and who is an All-Mongolian ruler "Khaan". This has to be differentiated. Thus, Altan Khan of Tumet (not of Mongolia) lived at the same with Tumen Khaan of Mongolia. If they are both named with the same title, it will be unclear which of them was the suzerain and which of them was the vassal. It was easier in case of, for example, history of Rus. There was no different word but all of them were "князь". They only used adjectives before this title to distinguish between the suzerain and vassal: великий князь and удельные князья. But the Mongolian language is different. It has local "khans" and "khan of khans" who is "Khaghan", or "Khaan" with the modern pronunciation. Thus Bogda Khaan was "khan of khans" for the "aimag khans". Therefore, he was the Khaan but not Khan. Not differentiating them can be seen somewhat illiterate by modern Mongolian historians. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither WP:COMMONNAMES nor WP:NCNT seem very specific about this, and they both also do not seem very authorative in the first place. I guess one could try to find out what respectable English (French, German, Russian)-language authors do and just follow their model.

As for Genghis specifically, I think it was already discussed elsewhere that just "Khan" might actually be more accurate. In some other cases, I guess it might be reasonable to use Khaan or Khagan or Khaghan or Qaɣan - actually, I think I personally would prefer one of the letter three over "Khaan" whenever we are dealing with names transliterated from the traditional script. But I would like to see sources for those names that are younger than 1368. Yaan (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the details of the edit summaries mentioned (those aren't meant to replace discussions on the talk page anyway). How common is the distinction between Khan and Khaan in English language sources? I suspect that in place of Khaan, most of them will write Khagan, if they make the distinction at all. If this can be confirmed, then we should do the same. In the case of Genghis, the standard English spelling is Khan, no matter what his actual status was. --Latebird (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

they tried, but did not really succeed

Do you mean the influx of Chinese in the early 20th century. Then this is planned to be told by the end of the Foreign rule section, to mention the change in the course of the late Qing policy. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that Chinese trade was commonplace, through technically illegal, throughout the 19th century, maybe already in the 18th. Also interethnic marriages were not that unheard of among the Chinese in Outer Mongolia. At least that's what I understand, I'll try to find a source. For the end of the 19th century, Pozdneyev might be relevant, for example everything below "The Mai-mai-ch'eng".

Re. the policy changes after 1905, the Qing did away with these regulations, but the immediate effects were, I think limited. At least when discussing Chinese trade, agriculture maybe a different matter. Yaan (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Source is C.R. Bawden, Modern History of Mongolia (1968), p. 82/83 and 94-100. He says Chinese trade began already in the early 18th century. It seems that part of the trade was actually licensed, i.e. not illegal, and seasonal, but there were also a lot of traders who did not at all bother with licenses. Bawden also cites an 1805 decree by the general of Uliastai that contains regulations that very obviously deal with Mongol wives of Chinese traders (on p. 98). Yaan (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think Bawden is very clear about whether the Manchu really wanted to keep Chinese traders out of Mongolia. Maybe it would be more correct to state that they created legal regulations against movement of Chinese into Mongolia, and against inter-ethnic marriages, i.e. weaseling around any hint of the Manchu's real intent. Yaan (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"hint of the Manchu's real intent": during Communism they taught at school that the Manchus intentionally isolated Mongolia from China and Russia to keep her backward and dark, to prevent the Mongolian labourers from joining any class and revolutionary struggles. In the post-Communist time, it is heard more often that the Manchus were so good or Undur Gegeen made with them such a good agreement that the Manchus pledged to keep the Chinese away. Whatever, they shouldn't have fully forbidden Chinese trade because that would be against the interests of both Mongols and Chinese. The Mongols have always needed to buy the Chinese goods and the unhindered opportunity to buy Chinese goods should have been one of the advantages of being part of the Qing Empire. No longer they had to risk their lives to raid China to force it to open trade stations or to pay/accept tribute. The restriction of the movement of the Chinese to Khalkha was mainly against mass migration to settle in Khalkha to live. These are just my personal thoughts. I agree with you to state what actions the Manchu governance actually took and not to comment on their intention. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bogda Khaanate section

There are two main problems that I see with the section right now:

1. The language (which is not well-written, anyway) read like anti-Chinese propaganda. While some of it might be justified, it should be rewritten in an NPOV manner.
2. There needs to be citations to sources, which should, again, be NPOV in nature.

This is out of my expertise area, but I am sure that there are people here who are capable of accomplishing both of these things. --Nlu (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is no propaganda, this is history. You may not like it, but we cannot change history for your taste. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then make supporting citations. Further, correct the grammar. --Nlu (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's a constructive suggestion. We'll check it at nearest opportunity. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the section for grammar and for any statement that could be interpreted as anti-Chinese propaganda. As for me, there is no grammatical error except maybe a preposition "in" which may confuse the reader about the sequences of the events.

As for me, there's no statement insulting the Chinese or China. Is it not true that Chinese troops occupied Mongolia in 1919? Is it bad to describe how the Mongolian people struggled for their freedom and independence. Don't they deserve to be independent?

If we describe how the Chinese people struggled against Mongol yoke in 1368, will this be anti-Mongolian propaganda?

If we describe how the Chinese people struggled against Manchu yoke in 1912, will this be anti-Manchu propaganda?

If we describe how the Chinese people struggled against Japanese colonisation in 1945, will this be anti-Japanese propaganda?

Similarly, if we describe how the Russian people struggled against Napoleonic invasions in 1812, will this be anti-French propaganda?

If we describe how the Soviet people struggled against Nazi invasions in 1945, will this be anti-German propaganda?

Why should not the Mongolian people defend their freedom? What is wrong in their struggle?

I agree that the section lacks references. I will provide them soon. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording is a major problem (both in terms of grammar/diction and in POV). Examples:

After an intense storming attack supported by the local people, they liberated the city of Kobdo on the 7th of August 1912.

Assuming that "intense storming attack" and "liberated" are not POV (and I think both are), "intense storming attack" is grammatically wrong.

Also 35 of the 49 khoshuus of Inner Mongolia, the Mongols of Qinghai (Kukunor) and Xinjiang (Jungaria) announced joining the Bogda Khaanate of Mongolia.

Again, assuming factual accuracy, this sentence has diction issues.

By its significance, the establishment of the Bogda Khaanate of Mongolia is only comparable with the foundation of the unified Mongol Khaanate in 1206.

Clearly not NPOV by anyway you look at it — certainly, I think many of the khans in the past would clearly disagree with that statement, if no one else.

With the national liberation, Mongolia woke up from the medieval darkness and stepped on to the path of modernisation.

How can this sentence be considered NPOV?

An unequal Kyakhta treaty of 1915 between the Czarist Russia, Mongolia and the Republic of China reduced the independence achieved by the Mongolian people to an autonomy within China.

Grammatical issues. And the statement of it being an unequal treaty is clearly POV. The article should explain why the treaty is unequal, not simply make an unqualified assertion that it is unequal. (Indeed, some Chinese people will argue that the treaty is unequal from the Chinese point of view — which would be equally POV without explanation.)

The invaders installed a dictatorial regime full of robbery and murder.

This sentence, even if arguendo correct, is grammatically and dictionally wrong, and makes no sense. At the very least, it needs to be rewritten such that it does not look like a campaign poster.

Russian White Guard troops led by Baron Ungern von Sternberg defeated in the Civil War in Russia invaded Mongolia in October 1920 at the invitation of the displaced Bogda Khaan, Mongolia's civil and religious ruler.

The Bogda Khaan's role has been explained multiple times above already; the phrase "Mongolia's civil and religious ruler" is redundant.

Basically, these issues need to be fixed before the section can be considered not completely POV and poorly written. I have no interest in seeing history being silenced. I have interest in seeing history fairly presented and, perhaps more importantly for an encyclopedia, written in an encyclopedic and dignified manner, not in the manner of how a schoolboy/girl yells slogans. --Nlu (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing untrue in this section. It's solely a matter of your taste. I can treat Chinese related pages in the same manner too. Don't you find "anti-Russian propaganda" in section Mongolian People's Republic"? Yet you just complain that these sentences are grammatically incorrect, but you don't tell me how they are incorrect. I studied English grammar too. If you mean stylistics, then grammar and stylistics are different branches of linguistics.

"schoolboy/girl yells slogans" is a personal attack. Gantuya eng (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. They were incorrect (and since then, thanks to Bathrobe (talk · contribs), a good number have been modified). And I really think you need to read WP:NPOV again.

Something can be at least arguably true and POV — indeed, if something is not arguably true, then very few, if any, person will hold such a view. But something like, "Barack Obama was the first American president with African ancestry" is factual and NPOV. Something like, "Barack Obama's election to the presidency ushered a new era of racial equality in the United States," which may or may not be true but is at least arguably true, is not NPOV — and that is no more POV than the statement of "With the national liberation, Mongolia woke up from the medieval darkness and stepped onto the path of modernisation." The fact that you can't realize that that latter statement is not NPOV shows the depth of POVness that permeated the entire section. --Nlu (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the bit about medieval darkness and path of modernization is very much academic consensus. Maybe some authors argue if modernization started earnestly in 1911 or in 1921, but AFAIK no-one doubts that Mongolia during the late Qing had very very serious social and economic issues. Yaan (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To back up the statement above, here is an excerpt from what C.R.Bawden, certainly one of the more respected scholars of Mongolia and less sympathetic to communism than some others, has to say on pre-modern Mongolia (Modern History of Mongolia, 1968, p. 388:

"To put it at its bluntest, the Mongol race was dying of inanination and syphilis. Every traveller noted the apathy of the people, their enslavement to a church which at the top may have produced some fine scholars, but which, where it impinged on daily life, held the people at large in ignorant dependence on itself and on its corrupt ideals. Filth, disease and ignorance marked the Mongol. [...] The sores on so many a Mongol body were true symbols of the decay and corruption of the society where they were so common as to be the norm."

IMHO, until some (serious) authors can be found who believe that Mongolia under the Qing was much better off than stated above, the word "medieval" is not POV.

Re. the connection between independence and modernization, it is at least a quite common opinion (for example by Bawden, cited above, p.17/18), though personally i'd wonder if not Russian influence, and later investment, was not just as important. Yaan (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Medieval definitions:

• "1. of or relating to the Middle Ages; 2. informal derogatory very old-fashioned or primitive" —Oxford American Dictionary
• "1. Relating or belonging to the Middle Ages; 2. Informal Old-fashioned; unenlightened" —American Heritage Dictionary

It's not that the word is necessarily wrong per se, it's that it's wrong in the context of a Wikipedia article because it's either plainly inaccurate (first definition—outside the specific time period) or inappropriate (second definition—informal language strongly deprecated, derogatory language even more so). If it were part of a direct quote from a reliable source, it would be a different story. For instance, if Bawden used the word, it probably would be okay. Otherwise, it's editorializing and violates policy. Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the NPOV status of the Bogda Khaanate section

Is the Bogda Khaanate section, as written currently, NPOV? (See above discussion for partial details.) --Nlu (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There are some neutrality issues, certainly, although I think the root problem is more the lack of sourcing than NPOV per se. I see that the linked main article, Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919, appears to be adequately sourced, so it should be relatively easy to find sources for this section. Some specific thoughts:

• "In its significance, the establishment of the Bogda Khaanate of Mongolia is comparable only with the foundation of the unified Mongol Khaanate in 1206." Significance is rather subjective and hard to quantify. So, with no reference cited, this does suggest NPOV and OR.
• To say that "Mongolia awoke from medieval darkness" is a colorful and nicely metaphoric turn of phrase that paints a vivid picture, but it's probably inappropriate in a WP article. The word "medieval" either refers specifically to the Middle Ages or is informal and derogatory.
• "Negotiations continued for eight months as the Mongolian representatives firmly defended the independence of the country, but finally Mongolia was forced to accept Russia's position." The modifier "firmly" is non-neutral without a reliable source (and probably undesirable even with one). Similarly, "was forced to accept" could be rephrased more neutrally as simply "accepted".
• "Leaders of Mongolia's national liberation movement, such as Magsarjav or Damdinsuren (died in the prison under brutal torture) were arrested and imprisoned, and the Bogda Khaan was placed under house arrest. The invaders installed a dictatorial regime marked by robbery and murder." The parenthetical phrase is problematic. It's unclear whether it refers to both leaders or only Damdinsuren, but in either case it interrupts the flow of the sentence and seems like an awkward editorial comment. The word "brutal" is inappropriate. Actually, it's silly: is there such a thing as non-brutal torture? The second sentence is problematic because robbery and murder (1) are hallmarks of most or all dictatorial regimes but (2) were probably not literally the case in a legal sense if the acts in question took place under the auspices of the government.

With a little more careful wording and some decent sources, I think this section will be okay. (There are also some issues of style and clarity. I did some minor copyediting and may have more to say later in a new section.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re. murder and robbery, both of them were rather typical for Chinese armies of the time, and (contrary to your point (1)), much less typical for, say, post-stalinist Soviet-bloc regimes. Your point (2) presumes that whatever authorities do is legal, which is not an obvious fact (see trials against Milosevic, East German border guards etc.) In any case, the behaviour of the Chinese should be mentioned because it helps explaining why so many Mongols supported Ungern-Sternberg. Yaan (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote and what I wrote aren't mutually exclusive or even particularly contradictory, so I think you may have missed both of my points. Blame me; I was trying to condense my thoughts too much, I guess. You may well be right in what you say, but the content of the section must be properly sourced, and sourcing is most critical in places where the accuracy or neutrality of the wording has been questioned. Rivertorch (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start an argument, just wanted to point out that the problematic part in "The invaders installed a dictatorial regime marked by robbery and murder.", however problematic the sentence may be, is definitely not the "marked by robbery and murder.".

I agree the sentence about Damdinsuren and Magsarjav is not really clear. The one who died in prison is Damdinsuren, Magsarjav survived and later became minister of defense. There is a wp article about him. Yaan (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Came here from the RFC noticeboard. I agree with the points stated above. I think the main issue here is the lack of in-text referencing and the use of weasel words. Sentences such as after fighting a huge battle, he drove the Chinese out of town. and Mongolia awoke from medieval darkness and entered the path of modernisation are clearly inappropriate.-Reconsider! 06:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You described the use of the word "brutal" as "silly". D'you mean that the author of that sentence is silly as well? What are the criteria and indicators of silliness? Gantuya eng (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. Why would you think that? By "silly", I meant that it was illogical and absurd. I also said the word was "inappropriate", and I'll state for the record that I didn't mean the author was inappropriate, either. What a strange question! (Disclaimer: my use of the word "question" in the phrase "strange question" is intended to refer solely to the question itself, not the asker.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Campfire tactic

I don't know who added the sentence about campfires burnt by Baron Ungern troops to deceive the Chinese. It's well known that this tactic worked well in the 13th century and yet against a weak warlord Tayan Khan who was laughed by his heir as "timid and female Tayan who hasn't stepped farther than the distance of urination of a pregnant female". Don't remember clearly whether this tactic was used yet in ancient Roman time. Remember the film "Mandukhai Khatun" shows Queen Mandukhai (15th century) loudly ordering her warriors to burn 10 fires each person. The Oirat warlords hear about it from their spies and laugh: "Haha, the naive female warlord tries to fool us with that old-fashioned method. Do they have any decent warlord?". But later it turns out in that film that the Queen intentionally created an impression of naiveness in order to dull the vigilance of the Oirats. So it's very doughtful that this tactic worked in early 20th century. If the editor who added this sentence reads this, please explain it or provide a source. Monkh Naran (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one who added the sentence. However, I read about it in Baabar's "History of Mongolia". Baron Ungern probably used the tactic. --GenuineMongol (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Chinese officers didn't know much about the Secret History of the Mongols. But does Baabar mention his source, and is he, anyway, really a reliable source for pre-WWII Mongolia? Yaan (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Geleta, who says he left Khüree a few days before Ungern took it, writes nothing about fires on Bogd Uul. Moreover, he writes the Chinese did not at all expect an attack from the south and that Ungern's attack took them off-guard. I find this somewhat incompatible with the campfire story (except if the Chinese thought Ungern was trying to fool them or create a diversion). I am not sure how reliable Geleta is, in any case it would be good to know where the campfire story originates from.

Also, Geleta does not make it sound as if there was a "huge" battle. Can we have a source for that statement, too? Yaan (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Memoirs of Ungern's men indicated that these big fires were made in the last night before the main assault of Urga. They were used as pointer marks for Ungern's detachments.---SK

Please, don't change Bogd to incorrect "Boghda". Mongolian "Богд" is traditionally transcribed into English as "Bogd" or "Bogdo".---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.29.197 (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think yours is correct then? ᠪᠣᠭᠳᠠ is transcribed as "Boghda" according to the rule where "gh" is to distinguish it from feminine "g" such as ᠦᠭᠡ᠂ ᠨᠢᠭᠡᠳᠡ etc. Therefore, 'Boghda' is correct. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The transcription "Boghda" never used in the English-language literature (please, see also references on Mongolia). English transcriptions "Bogd" or "Bogdo" are generally accepted and it is not necessary to construct new transciption (of course, the Cyrillic-based script and Uighur-based Mongolian scripts may be transcibed also otherwise). Encyclopedies should use generally accepted transciptions.--SK91.76.29.197 (talk)

Never? Yaan (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

simply type in Google "Bogdo", then "Boghda" and compare number of results.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk)

I always thought wikipedia is trying to align more with specialized academic sources. Yaan (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You may check English-language sources quoted after Wikipedia articles on Mongolia.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Tibet a part of China during the Yuan Dynasty?

I wasn't sure how to handle, this edit. Since it involves Mongolia only indirectly, I decided it would be better to discuss it at the article on the Yuan Dynasty. I have left a comment here: Talk:Yuan Dynasty#Tibet a part of China during the Yuan?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mongols conquered North China ruled by Jin Dynasty first (1230s), then Tibet (1240s), and finally South China ruled by Song Dynasty (1270s). There was no unified China at the time of Mongol invasions. Just say "the regions under former Jin and Song dynasties, Tibet ..." will be good enough and can avoid disputes. However, more serious issue is that someone recently claims that Tibet was not at all part of Yuan, as will be mentioned below. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tibet within Yuan

Someone recently added the statement explicitly claiming Tibet was not a part of the Yuan (see here). Obviously this is a biased statement and not at all an undisputed view. Without consensus such claim should be avoided in the article. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely no consensus: Tibet was not included in either of 12 provinces of the Yuan Empire; it is considered not a part of China regarded as a part of Yuan empire; or it is considered not a part of Yuan empire but subject of Yuan state (for discussions and sources see reviews: Sperling E. 2004. The Tibet–China conflict: history and polemics. — Policy Studies, v. 7 (Washington, East–West Center). — http://www.eastwestcenterwashington.org/publications/publications.htm; The Mongols & Tibet, DIIR Publications, 2009). Neutral view will be a dependent state. 91.76.6.246 (talk)

So, if there is no consensus, how can you add the statement explicitly claiming Tibet was not a part of Yuan? You are saying that if it was not a province of Yuan, then it was not part of Yuan? But Mongolia was also not a province of Qing, then is it a part of Qing? Further, your link simply returns a "Page Not Found" error. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Try this link indirectly, it does work.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.6.246 (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is probably here. Not really sure where he writes that Tibet was not part of Yuan, though. Yaan (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

article is in need of serious work .... grammar, etc., are pretty poor

Since I've read several books on the Mongols, I knew what is meant by (most) of this article, but it reads like gibberish in many places - probably by editors who have a poor command of English. Any novice reading it is going to be bamboozled. Where to begin? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Maybe you are a native speaker of English, but do you not think you expressed your worry in a way that maybe perceived as a personal attack? "gibberish"???? "bamboozled"???? "poor command of English"???? "pretty poor"???? Please give certain examples of the sentences and phrases with these characteristics and we'll analyse them. How you express yourself offends. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical Dictionary of Mongolia By Alan J. K. Sanders

http://books.google.com/books?id=5JN83EDDLl4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire By Christopher Pratt Atwood

http://books.google.com/books?id=I9dzQgAACAAJ

Rajmaan (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Soviet-influenced historiography

An interesting but undercovered topic on this article is how the Soviets' wresting of Mongolia from China and subsequent colonization influenced Mongolian history-writing and nationalism. For example, according to Uradyn Bulag, Mongolian nationalism under the Iron curtain (much like Japanese fascism) posited the country as a "Western", rather than an "Eastern" country (of course, China is the ultimate archetype of the effete and degraded "East"). The reference is to pages 4-5 of this book, of which I can only get snippets for now, which include the ideas that the Gobi desert was a place where culture "migrated" eastwards from the Middle East and Soviet Central Asia, and that Mongolia was an "independent ethnic and economic-cultural center of civilization", in contrast to China.

Peter Purdue notes how MPR historians slandered China's Qing Dynasty by denying the Dzungars' aggression (an interpretation which goes not against Chinese but also European historiography), but more importantly for Wikipedia, denies and ridicules what we mockingly call "Zhonghua minzu". "For Mongolian and Soviet historians, the idea of China as a unified multinational state including the Mongolians constitutes that 'Maoist falsification of history,' which... [constitutes] Sinocentrism". However, as the nationalists would much like to forget, Mongolian historians weren't always Sinophobes: "[the Inner Mongolian historian] Injannashi presented Chinggis Khan [in his 1871 Blue Chronicle] largely as a Chinese dynastic founder, rather than as a Buddhist world monarch, and prefaced his history with a violent critique of both the decadent nobility and the obscurantist Buddhist clergy." Shrigley (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Who would have thought that [insert people here] were actually less nationalistic when they were still under feudal rule!

More specifically, I think it has long been pointed out by bourgeois historians that the more Chinese the Qing dynasty became, the more did the Mongol elites seek independence. That Injanashi cherished the memory of a China ruled by Mongols is actually a case in point. Yaan (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The word "colonization" would fit much better for what happened in Inner Mongolia over the 19th and 20th centuries and what the Chinese tried to do in Outer Mongolia after 1905: massive population transfers, exploitation of natural resources at the expense of the local population, marginalization of local culture - factors that certain Chinese historians choose to conveniently ignore when trying to explain the emergence of Mongolian nationalism. Yaan (talk)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/asia/mongolia.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

TAFI setup

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Bananasoldier (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Planning to Standardize Medieval Period Clan, Tribe, Confederacy Names

The pages relating to the early conquests made by Genghis Khan often use misleading, confusing, or otherwise counterintuative names to refer to the political entities of Mongolia. I propose that the references, especially links, be standardized to reflect the page title it links to, and for those name variations to be mentioned in the article of that clan or tribe. This would reduce potential confusion related to those names. --Barbarian of the West (Seiban) (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia s*cks at grammar

(I had to censor the word negatively describing Wikipedia because it identified it as "potentially unconstructive"

“The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses and some scholars, including Paul Pelliot and Byambyn Rinchen, insisted on a Mongolic origin.”

Later, in the same subsection…

“The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses and some scholars, including A.Luvsandendev, Bernát Munkácsy, Henry Howorth, Rashpuntsag,[14] Alexey Okladnikov, Peter Pallas, Isaak Schmidt, Nikita Bichurin and Byambyn Rinchen, insisted on a Mongolic origin.”

Really Wikipedia? 2602:306:CE62:8430:1DE2:D0E3:5AED:F175 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Mongolia. 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/20131226092610/http://www.archaeology.mas.ac.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=64 to http://www.archaeology.mas.ac.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=64
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424122009/http://www.beyondtoday.tv/booklets/US/scythians.asp to http://www.beyondtoday.tv/booklets/US/scythians.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20061121.163131/public/02Whole.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj takes oath on 10 July 2013.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BCE/CE vs BC/AD in the article

I have noticed that the article switches between BCE/CE and BC/AD era styles throughout without particular reason for doing so. This does not follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style and as such, I was wondering whether we could reach a consensus as to what style we should use?

Given that throughout history, Mongolia and its people were not predominantly Christian, I see no reason not to use BCE/CE as the standard for this article. GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree as well. Anastrophe (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Purge victims statue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Change dating system to Common Era

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system.  This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India.  If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)