Talk:History of Mongolia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 More linx needed 2 needs work 3 Xiongnu period 4 Non-English references 5 Camp of Mongolian tribe 6 Medieval population of Mongolia 7 Zasagtu Khan crisis to Khalha-Oirat war 8 Temporary storage 9 NPOV policy

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)