This is an archive of past discussions about Inner Mongolia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I changed a statement because Outer Mongolia didn't really become part of the Qing empire before 1688/91, and the Inner Mongolian were not all subjugated by the Manchu - a number of them joined voluntarily because they felt alienated by Ligden Khan. Yaan12:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
When did Hohhot become capital of the IMAR?
The Hohhot article states that the city became capital of the IMAR in 1947. This article states that the IMAR initially only covered Hulunbuir. At least one of the two is wrong, and maybe both.Yaan17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Reminbi
Using it to denominate GDP numbers doesn't make much sense. Should just use US dollars like everyone else, so that meaningful comparisons can easily be made. Theige (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Theige
Government and Politics
I have deleted the second paragraph in the government and politics section. It was full of biased, and more importantly, unsourced opinions, and completely disregard the neutrality standard. The so called reference listed in the paragraph was a broken link to a non-existent website (www1.chinesenewsnet.com).
Example:
"...politics, however, has had a history of concentrating more on showpiece projects, such as widening roads, building architecturally exotic buildings, etc., as opposed to dealing with the needs of the overwhelming majority. The superficial development is often done to impress the central government."
-Where is the source for that, and who was the one giving that obvious biased opinion? How is infrastructure development that creates jobs and better living conditions, showpiece projects done to "impress the government?" Are all newly built buildings with contemporary designs different from the decade, maybe even century-old architecture considered exotic and unneeded? What is the "need for the overwhelming majority?"
Another example from the paragraph:
"As a direct result, Chu's governing style is known to be the new autonomy political wave where leaders in Autonomous Regions, Shanghai, and Guangdong in particular deviate policy in opposition to central government directives."
-His governing style is known by whom? Where did you get the fact that Shanghai and Guangdong deviates their policies?
Obviously my view on that matter is completely different, I apologize if my previous comments seem like I want to open a political debate, I don't, especially not here. It is important that personal opinions such as mine, or those contained originally in the deleted paragraph, cannot be included in the article. This problem is seen in many articles, and neutrality as well as removal of personal or unreliably-source opinions has to be enforced. Thus I removed the paragraph to make the article as neutral as possible. The first paragraph also needs editing but its tone and lack of neutrality is not as blatant. Please discuss before you make anymore changes in this section. Chen19711 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this issue on the talk page. I was the user who had made the bulk of edits to that section about two years ago, when Inner Mongolia was celebrating its 60th Anniversary. I had largely forgotten about it until now, and your concerns led me to do some serious digging on this topic. The source I used was from an overseas Chinese news network called "Duowei", a site known for its relatively impartial analysis on Chinese affairs. It has now disappeared from the Duowei webservers, but you can still easily locate them on sites such as boxun. The reference I used was entitled 内蒙书记储波用“内蒙神话”欺骗曾庆红 (I'm assuming you can read Chinese) and Duowei was the original author. Boxun later also published a piece branding the article as part of a pro-Hu Jintao political manoevering campaign before the 17th Party Congress. In any case I think the section needs a facelift, but I would hold reservations about removing everything altogether. I would be more than happy to hear your suggestions on this issue. Colipon+(Talk) 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt and courteous reply. I am not well versed in reading Chinese, as an American, but I am able to read it, although not at a speed of normal readers (I only had about 3-4 years of Chinese courses). It will take me awhile to finish reading those couple of articles, at least a couple of days since I have work during the day.
In the mean time, I suggest we find a middle ground between the two extremes: the typical CCTV bias that only reports the good and how much the government has achieved (which it has), and Western media and human rights NGOs that ignore those points but only point out the shortcomings (very much warranted). Although both viewpoints have their merits, we cannot allow one side to dominate the article, while ignoring the other. It is alright for human-rights or free-press websites to exclusively report those things, since that is their focus, but their articles cannot solely be the source for conditions or policies in an encyclopedia entry about a place or governmental body. What are your thoughts on this? Chen19711 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit wiki-fatigued so I will be away for a few days. Maybe this will give you the time you need to finish the articles. I'm sorry I could not find an equivalent source in English. I agree that a balanced perspective is the most important when dealing with these issues. This is precisely why I use sites like "Duowei" - so I can get an impartial perspective on Chinese issues. In English, I find that Willy Lam's analysis to be quite informative and unbiased. Colipon+(Talk) 22:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Abbreviation
I shortened the abbreviation to the Meng character, in accordance to how this is handled for the other parts of China, like Ningxia or Tibet. Yaan16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Have corrected the abbreviation. See [1] - which is consistent with the list of abbreviations in Chinese geography textbooks.
"Meng" is the abbreviation for Mongolia (according to the PRC) or the Mongolia Area (i.e. Outer Mongolia) (according to the ROC). Using "Meng" for Innter Mongolia is regarded as politically incorrect in the PRC in order to respect, ostensibly, the independence of Mongolia "Proper". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the single character 蒙 is used commonly as an abbreviation for 内蒙古, at least for things like license plates. Each province has a one-character abbreviation (see the table here). I think the Xinhua page just means that people refer to it as 内蒙古 instead of 内蒙古自治区, no? Because the rest of the province infoboxes just have the single character which matches that table. I think it is this abbreviation that the infobox is referring to, although I may be wrong. shoeofdeath03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is used on number plates, and sometimes in other contexts as well - but there is an official abbreviation of each provincial-level entity in China, and that of Inner Mongolia is 内蒙古, the only one that was not one-character.
I'm pretty sure of this, because I remember being made to memorise this stuff in primary school geography class in Communist China.
While the correct pinyin for 內蒙古 is of course Nèi Měnggǔ, the official PRC transscription for 內蒙古 (as used in passports etc) seems indeed to be Nei Monggol. The Chinese even had an asteroid named after it! So, which transscription should be used - Menggu, Monggol, or both? Yaan13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a mixture between Pinyin and Mongolian. Is there a way that can we deal with this Non-Pinyin within the current template? Yaan09:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the template says "pinyin" and not "official PRC romanization" we should use the pinyin (Nèi Měnggǔ). Also, what source did you find which states that pinyin is not used officially? There does appear to be an asteroid which was named Nei Monggol in 1978 but I couldn't find anything about what is currently considered "official". shoeofdeath21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I read it in someone's passport. As for less-official sources, it is used this way in some atlases as well as in the Langenscheidt German-Chinese Pocket dictionary. Anyway, there are books on how non-Chinese names are to be romanized in China, that's why we have articles for Urumqi instead of Urumchi, or Ulanqab instead of Ulaan tsav. Yaan16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What about the current version? All other ARs seem to give the full name in the local language in the infobox, and at least Ningxia and Xinjaing only there. Tibet is a special case because the Lemma title includes AR. Both Xinjiang and Tibet also seem to require special fonts to display the infobox correctly. Yaan16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is tough because although the full Mongolian name is clearly relevant, most readers will not even be able to see it (probably over 99% just see boxes). I think it makes sense to put it in the infobox as you have done, though. What would really be best is if someone could make an image for the full name similar what we have for the short version. shoeofdeath19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Nei Mongol Zizhiqu (with only one 'g', though) is used in the 1989 Atlas of the People's Republic of China by China Foreign Language Press and the China Cartographic Publishing House (page: 2). The same goes for the The national agricultural atlas of the People's Republic of China (more precisely, the English translation thereof) from the same year by the China Cartographic Publishing House (p: ~138). I guess this is official enough for the moment, unless you have newer info to confirms the contrary. Until then, I'm going to restore the mention of Nei Mongol (with one 'g' for the time being) in the intro sentence.
The Atlas of the PRC also lists as short name 'Nei Mongol', in contrast to all the other provinces and ARs that only use one-character short names. But since the table entry reads "Abbreviation", I think using only Meng is OK, since it is indeed a common abbreviation, for example on car plaques. Yaan15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Page 16 of ISO 3166-2:2002-05-21 lists pinyin as the official romanization system, which it is. However, "Nei Mongol" is also listed as an alternative, so I suppose it warrants inclusion here. It is certainly not the only correct name, though, and from my experience the pinyin is used much more frequently. I am also quite curious as to the origin of "Nei Mongol", I have never seen a name like this before (half Chinese, half non-Chinese).
The 2004 newsletter seems to list Nei Mongol as the only name. I think that the name used most frequently in western sources is Inner Mongolia, but maps, atlases etc. very often seem to use Nei Mongol. Maybe that name is more easily recognizable for a non-chinese reader.
Actually, Xinjiang Uyghur AR is also only half-Chinese, but then the short name is only Xinjiang.Yaan11:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the abbreviation, each province has a one-character abbreviation, and I think for Inner Mongolia it actually is 蒙, so your change was correct. shoeofdeath00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it "Nèi Měnggǔ" and not "Nèiměnggǔ"? The Pinyin rules for geographical names clearly states that commonly used proper names should be written together even if it includes parts that would normally be written apart (“通名已专名化的，按专名处理”). That's why it's "Hēilóngjiāng" and not "Hēilóng Jiāng", and "Nèiměnggǔ" should be exactly the same. Besides, I haven't seen any convincing proof that "Nèi Měnggǔ" is indeed "official". 85.180.65.236 (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added the official Mongolian names for most of the colleges and universities listed.
Just to clarify, Chifeng University is simply 'ulaγanqada degedü surγaγuli' - the genitive is optional in names of the form <proper noun> + <college>; it is only strictly necessary when a word between the proper noun and the word 'college' or 'university' needs to act attributively. Compare 'begejing yeke surγaγuli'/'ulaγanqada degedü surγaγuli' with 'öbür mongγol-un emnelge-yin degedü surγaγuli'/'öbür mongγol-un aju üiledbüri-yin yeke surγaγuli'. --emyrpugh (emyrpugh) (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2010
Would it be possible to transcribe these in the Mongolian language the same way it's done at the "administration" section? Having it in Latin transcriptions looks awkward. Colipon+(Talk) 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I partially reverted one edit in the polictics section, as Inner mongolia is not just any province of china. It's called an autonomous region, therefore the fact that the most powerful person is from somewhere else is somewhat special, even if this is normal for the provinces. Yaan (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As a hard rule, all autonomous regions are by precedent governed by Han Chinese. Not unlike the Qing Dynasty when you had a Han governor and a Manchu governor, and the Han was always below the Manchu. Colipon+(Talk) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
To User:Benlisquare: The name of Inner Mongolia should be shown in Cyrillic, because this is one of the modern scripts of the Mongolian language which is the language of the indigenous population of Inner Mongolia. I see that you don't know the Cyrillic alphabet. Yet I have seen you cannot read the Traditional Mongolian script. Because Mongolian is not your native language. Nevertheless, please put aside your xenophobia and cooperate to solve the issue in a friendly manner. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Cyrillic is used in the republic known as Mongolia. However, it is not commonly used or taught in Inner Mongolia, so it should not be used in this page, just as we don't use Cyrillic for the Serbo-Croatian language on the Croatia page because Cyrillic is a script that people use to write the same language in Serbia. There are more Mongols in Inner Mongolia than in Outer Mongolia anyway. Don't accuse contributors of xenophobia; that's a personal attack. Quigley (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
What if there are considerably more speakers of Mongolian in Outer Mongolia than there are in Inner Mongolia, though? And if you ever come to Ereen, you will see a lot of Cyrillic script used. I see a lot of trad. Chinese characters used in articles about the People's Republic of China, and a lot of simplified characters used in articles about Taiwan - although in the Chinese case, the conversion between the two scripts is pretty trivial for the general user. Just consult a random online dictionary or a random search engine. In the case of Mongolian, adding the cyrillic spelling is actually an extra bit of information, one that cannot be found from a simple google search. Yaan (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The naming conventions/style guides say we should include "native spellings" in the header. Since the cyrillic script has never been "native" in Inner Mongolia (and hardly anyone there can read it), it is not relevant for topics related to that region. Most other things brought up here so far are off-topic and won't change the rules. --Latebird (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Once the Mongolian language has adopted a considerable number of scripts in its history, it's not proper to judge about 'nativity' of any of its alphabets. Inner Mongolia took a course of shifting to the Cyrillic in 1950's which was halted simply because of politics. Many Inner Mongolians of that generation can read and write Mongolian Cyrillic. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Once upon a time...Well, same thing can be said about Taiwan, so should Taiwan have Japanese characters on their article too?--LLTimes (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The page about 台湾 already has the Japanese name of the island on it, it is just not indicated as such. And IMHO it is always a good idea to have 漢字 on pages that deal with China.
As for Inner Mongolia, I think the analogy brought up above does not hold: Cyrillic and Uighur are just two ways to write the same language, more like (as mentioned above) simplified and traditional Chinese.
Also as mentioned above, there is no shortage of simplified script on pages about Taiwan. If usage of non-"native" spellings is acceptable there (which I think it is), why not here? Yaan (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I've given a bad example since Japanese uses Kanji, however there were no indication of uses of Japanese pronunciation or character on that page. You can put it in the Name section of this article but I don't see any good reasons to put it on the top. Simplified and Traditional came out of same system and have high degree of mutual intelligibility between the two, while as Cyrillic is foreign as well as complete alien to Inner Mongolian script. I want to see more inputs from other Wikipedians, but Gantuya should stop reverting it back until this issue is solve. I don't think you can add in controversial lines there and tell people to stop reverting it until discussion is done when it doesn't even make sense on the first place. --LLTimes (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to use simplified chinese in exclusively taiwan-related articles. Just because people make this mistake there doesn't mean we have to do the same here (compare WP:OTHERSTUFF). Otherwise, we might also have to accept when peole include eg. the turkish spelling in Golden Horde. We need to treat such situations consistently, no matter what our personal perspective might be. --Latebird (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant here because adding the simplified characters to Taiwan-related articles is not a mistake at all. I think the relevant guideline here should be WP:DRDR. Most wp readers who can make any use of the Chinese characters (both native and non-native speakers of Chinese) probably are more familiar with the simplified ones. Same for Mongolian and traditional vs. cyrillic.
That cyrillic and traditional Mongolian are much more different than traditional and simplified Chinese is only the more reason to include both of them. If the transition between the two was trivial, giving both forms would indeed be pretty redundant. But since this transition is rather non-trivial, erasing the cyrillic form is really erasing information.
(dedent) Any language and any script would "add information", so that alone is not a valid argument to include any of them. WP:DRDR is a very obscure essay (the personal opinion of one editor), not a guideline. Since the vast majority of our "dear readers" can read neither cyrillic nor mongolian script, I don't quite see how it is relevant here. I also don't understand what you're trying to say with your last paragraph. A script is foreign to a place where the locals have never used it for their own purposes. No gut feeling is involved in that definition at all. --Latebird (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My last paragraph was in response to LLTimes. To elaborate a bit on that lack of alienness, if you look at romanizations like Hohhot or Xar Moron (people who read Cyrillic, don't get fooled by that 'X'), it looks almost as if the idea is to romanize the cyrillic spelling, not the traditional one. The real idea is probably to just follow pronunciation, but even then Cyrillic seems to be closer to the language spoken today than the traditional script. And rather useful for those who want to have an idea about how to pronounce a Mongolian name (though more useful if some rather obvious consonant shifts are kept in mind). Yaan (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
From a practical point of view, it is very nice for an encyclopedia to cover Cyrillic-Uyghurjin conversion for Mongolian proper names.
In the case of Serbo-Croatian, the switch between Cyrillic and Latin is just an expression of one's political affiliation (I guess; I am not familiar with Serbo-Croatian). But we cannot convert Cyrillic to Uyghurjin with a conversion table alone and vice versa. Uyghurjin spellings are conservative and do not pronunciation while Cyrillic spellings follow Khalkha Mongolian.
So we need a word-by-word conversion table to switch from one another. But Mongolian dictionaries often fail to cover proper names (in general; the word "Inner Mongolia" should be listed). It is an encyclopedia that is to cover proper names.
I wonder if it would be worth having an infobox template that allows users to hide any script that they don't want to see. Something like the Template:Chinese used under the Islands infobox in the Taiwan article. Yaan (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Reading abilities of Cyrillic in South Mongolia? I don’t have any reliable numbers either, but I would guess that less than 20% (but more than ten) percent of students in Mongolian studies have working proficiency in Cyrillic Mongolian, and I have no doubt that it is less than 5 percent of South Mongolians that can read Cyrillic. Ereen is different from any other place: even Chinese often can speak a broken Mongolian there (so that some teneg Khalkhas take them for South Mongolians and evaluate the state of South Mongolian accordingly), and given that Khalkhas also tend to have a very bad command of the Mongolian script, if you want to sell anything you have to write Cyrillic.
In spite of this, I support the inclusion of Cyrillic. Cyrillic and Mongolian script are just two scripts to write one language and their conversion is non-trivial (even M-C conversion sometimes requires orthographic knowledge). This approach is already in use on some pages on Taiwan. While it does not make sense to convert bolovsrol to bolbasural (because the South Mongolians are forced to use the Chinese loan translation Surγan kümüjil), any term that has very significant current relevance for all of geographical Mongolia should be rendered in both scripts. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The link to SMHRIC should be removed. To be clear, SMHRIC is not a general human rights clearinghouse, as some of the better known international organizations are. This is an organization with an exclusive focus on the ethnic Mongol minority, and that by its name and publications wants to annex this region to Mongolia, thereby disenfranchising the majority population of this region. Even if this organization were a well-respected human rights organization with a broad focus, and not a fringe ethnic separatist organization, the obviously biased presentation would still be odious to common sense and established policy. Also, HXL49's comparison between this group and the Inner Mongolia official website is a false equivalence, because links to official websites of the subject are encouraged, and they are always uniquely useful. This article should not be a vehicle for anti-CPC activism. Quigley (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Quigley, what I meant by my edit summary was that I was fine if both the SMHRIC and IMAR Gov't links were included, but if we we were to choose only one, then the IMAR Gov't link takes precedence due to ELPOV. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. What I am saying is that there are independent reasons for including the IMAR Gov't link and for excluding the SMHRIC one. Quigley (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that such links should be removed, as they are used to give WP:UNDUE weight to a point of view. I can recall something similar that happened on the equivalent Manchukuo article on the Japanese Wikipedia, where people repeatedly added an external link to a so-called "Manchukuo independence organization" which argued that the entire northeast of China should "declare independence from the PRC", under the argument that "the CPC is evil, and that ethnic Manchus have the right to national self-determination", despite that Manchus make up less than 5% of the population there. I had a look at the website, and it turns out that the group has about 4 members or something, all Japanese nationals, and that most of the advertising revenue of the site linked to other anti-China right-wing Uyoku dantai websites. Just because a website exists for something doesn't warrant that such a POV can be considered as a significant majority POV. There is a fine line between a credible political movement, and utter nonsensical rubbish; while I am not saying that the Inner Mongolia example is exactly the same, the inclusion of the SMHRIC link does warrant as WP:UNDUE. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail08:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Quigley, care to elaborate on how SMHRIC "by its name and publications wants to annex this region to Mongolia"? As you might know from reading the article, 'Southern Mongolia' is a rather straightforward translation of the Mongolian name of the region.
I also don't really see how linking to a voice of the titular ethnic group of the region is inappropriate for this article. Yaan (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
As you know, words have connotations, and even though Southern and Inner may be synonyms of an individual word in the Mongolian language, when paired with "Mongolia", the two adjectives have very different political meanings in English. If, as you imply, the translations are equivalent, then why does SMHRIC say that "Inner Mongolia" is a "mistaken" name? SMHRIC uses "Southern Mongolia" in the same way that China uses South Tibet for Tawang and the surrounding areas; to imply that these areas are rightfully a part of Mongolia (the former Mongolian People's Republic) or Tibet.
You have provided no reason for anyone to believe that SMHRIC represents any substantial opinion of Inner Mongolians or even Mongols in Inner Mongolia, any more than the "Manchukuo independence organization" represents anyone but a few Japanese ultranationalists. In fact, the passivity of the Mongols in Inner Mongolia in comparison to recent labor and other unrest in China suggests the opposite; that this group, as its links to Japanese and Tibetan exile websites suggest, is not important on its own and wants to piggyback on a well-known movement. Quigley (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
'Inner' and 'Southern' are not at all synonymous in Mongolian. 'Inner Mongolia' is the translation of the Chinese name of the region, 'Southern Mongolia' is the translation of the Mongolian name. As the people who make the site are (probably) Mongols, it seems quite natural that they use a translation of the Mongolian name of their home region.
In any case I don't really see how 'Southern Mongolia' has connotations that 'Inner Mongolia' does not.
You are really mistaken there. Can you at least be so nice to give some substance to your other allegation, that their publications demand the annecation of Inner Mongolia to Mongolia?
Whom smhric.org represent and whether they are important to anyone does not matter, according to wp:elpov. What matters is whether a link to them would give undue weight to minority viewpoints - minority as in minority of informed observers (P.S. or minority of respectable sources), not as in ethnic minority or minority of wp editors. Yaan (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course they are not synonymous in Mongolian, but "Southern Mongolia", according to what is said in the Names section, is a translation of the Mongolian name. Plus you really are confusing here. You first say that the two are "not at all synonymous" and then go on to say that "Southern does not have connections that Inner does not". Care to elaborate the discrepancy? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
To be precise, I said Southern Mongolia does not have connotations that Inner Mongolia does not. To be fair, I think people who use Southern Mongolia probably want to make a point of being close to the Mongolian name of the Region. Kind of like people who prefer to say 'Taibei' instead of 'Taipeh'. Yaan (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe that you don't see the connotations. "Southern" is relative; relative to the former Mongolian People's Republic. It's a much different vantage point from one centered in Inner Mongolia itself, which would regard Inner Mongolia as central and not southern, or one from Beijing, which would regard it as Northern or closer. Of course, SMHRIC operates in a way that gives it plausible deniability, but given the goals of pan-Mongolianism, its preoccupation with reporting on possibilities of uniting the "three Mongolias" (the third being Buryatia), ahistorical talk of "occupation", and the code word "self-determination", it's not a hard syllogism.
SMHRIC represents the viewpoint of an extreme minority. Mongols are a minority, yes, but SMHRIC is a minority of a minority. In fact, It is more likely that they operate out of Mongolia or Japan than in Inner Mongolia. The pointed lack of unrest among Mongols shows that SMHRIC's audience is more likely nationalistic Mongolians or those who fantasize about the balkanization of China than Inner Mongolians. Even the latter of the first group must realistically concede, however, that because of a lack of local interest, SMHRIC's is an extreme minority viewpoint. Regarding that journal article, it's not the publication that I have a problem with (although I have not looked at it closely); it is that it was also selected to promote the fringe Mongols-are-occupied-and-oppressed POV. Quigley (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Quigley, I still think you are confused.
Maybe it helps to state simple facts:
1. The official Chinese name of Inner Mongolia, as used e.g. on the region's website (banner on the top, third writing on the left) is, written in latin characters, Nei Menggu. This particular Nei can be translated as 'Inner'. 'Menggu' can be translated as 'Mongolia', 'Mongolian' etc.
2. The official Mongolian name of Inner Mongolia, as used e.g. on the region's website (banner on the top, first writing on the left) is, written in latin characters, Öbör Mongghol. Öbör can be translated as 'Southern'. In fact, 'Southern' seems to be a very sensible translation in geographic contexts, e.g. in names like Övörkhangai. 'Mongghol' can be translated as 'Mongolia', 'Mongolian' etc.
3. Not everyone who calls Northern Ireland 'Northern Ireland' is already a supporter of the IRA. Not everyone who calls Alto Adige 'Southern Tyrol' or 'Sud Tirolo' is already a separatist.
I certainly won't blame you for not speaking Mongolian, but please don't make up stuff and try to keep some common sense. This will also keep you from falling into traps like your musings about the vantage point 'centered in Inner Mongolia itself' - what do you think 'Ar Mongol' means from the vantage point of those living in the Mongolian State? 'Outside'?
Trying to not speculate too wildly will also keep you from confusing opinions and the publication of alleged documents about alleged opinions. By your logic, the NYT publication of the cable about King Abdullah's proposal to bomb Iran would be evidence that the NYT itself wants Iran to be bombed. It will keep you from being caught writing obviously extrapolated claims, like that smhric wants to annex Inner Mongolia to Mongolia, which you then have to defend with weak excuses like 'they operate on plausible deniability'.
To be honest, my impression is that smhric's POV is not so far from what can be found in any reasonably honest discussion about the status of Inner Mongolians: that Inner Mongolia is neither very Mongolian nor very autonomous, that China is pretty paranoid about ethnic separatism, that rural Inner Mongolians have to bear the consequences of the central and regional government's failures in agricultural/ecological management. That they cannot back up their POV with the results of representative opinion polls does not yet turn their POV into that of an extreme minority. Yaan (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for your patience. I didn't delete the link of the local administration. However, I cannot agree to leave the link of the local administration and at the same time remove the link of the human rights group. That will be too unfair. Government should be of the people, for the people and by the people. Because we cannot prove that the administration of Inner Mongolia meets these criteria, it is important to maintain balance keeping both links. If the Mongolian language link of the local administration is to be added, then a link to another human rights group will have to be added. That the people do not rebel, doesn't mean that they totally agree with everything. They have been completely frightened and "tamed". As for Li Narangoa link, IMHO it's quite neutral. It's not calling for any unrest, it's simply states that the Mongol ethnicity has been tamed in China.
In the Mongolian language, "Southern" and "Inner" are not synonyms at all. "Southern Mongolia" or "Өвөр Монгол" has geographical, and therefore, natural etymology. "Inner Mongolia" or "Дотоод Монгол" has a political etymology, which is not natural. Even "Southern Mongolia" is not a precise translation of "Өвөр Монгол", it's an approximate translation. Maybe I explained this somewhere before, but not tired to repeat. The word "Өвөр" in geographical names in the Mongolian language "Өвөр Хангай, Өвөр Кавказ, Өвөр Байгал etc" has connotation of the area being located to or at the south of/from something. Thus "Өвөр Монгол" is "Mongolia, located at the south of Gobi". And "Өвөр Монгол" IS the endonym of the region in the Mongolian language, the antonym of it being "Ар", approximately meaning "North", but more precisely meaning some area located to the north of something. Thus, the area of the Republic of Mongolia is "Ар Монгол" or "Mongolia, located at the north of Gobi". Because translators cannot find in foreign languages precise equivalents for these exotic Mongolian adjectives , they usually take "Southern" and "Northern". As for the direct meaning of "south" or "southern", there is a word "өмнөд". Thus, southern part of the Republic of Mongolia is called "Өмнөд Монгол", e.g. in geological reports.
OK, Let us get rid of nationalism here, as the claim that "Mongol ethnicity has been tamed in China" is certainly representing a view, not an unbiased fact. I'm not going to argue with this point though since I'm not interested in politics. I'm more intersted in discussing with the second paragraph above. Interestingly enough, in Chinese language there are also two terms that can be used to exactly or approxmiately refer to the region we know as "Inner Mongolia" in English. From the Government website (Chinese version), we know the Chinese term "内蒙古" is equivalent to "Inner Mongolia" in English. Yet there is also another Chinese term "漠南蒙古", which literally also means "Mongolia located at the south of Gobi". Clearly, The Mongolean term "Өвөр Монгол" is equivalent to the Chinese term "漠南蒙古" in meaning, both are not precisely equivalent to "Southern Mongolia" in English. On the other hand, there is another Chinese term "漠北蒙古" that means "Mongolia located at the north of Gobi", which is clearly equivalent to the Mongolean term "Ар Монгол" in meaning. Note however, despite that "漠南蒙古" and "内蒙古" approxmately refer to the same region (i.e. Inner Mongolia; note that there also exist counterparts for the region of modern state of Mongolia), they are not synonyms either, with the first ("漠南蒙古") as a geographical term mostly used in history works and researches. Nevertheless, while the Chinese term "漠南蒙古" (equivalent to Mongolean term "Өвөр Монгол" in meaning, literally "Mongolia located at the south of Gobi") does not have political connotations when used, the English term "Southern Mongolia" may have such connotations, and such terms are usually used by supporters of certain view. Apparently language differences are also an important factor to consider. As I'm not interested in political topics I'm not going to say more about this. But anyway Wikipedia should not become a "battlefield" for nationalism. --173.206.167.234 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are Chinese allowed to be nationalist and Mongolians not?
OK. Agree that WP should not be a political battlefield.
Then what was the motivation of removing the link of the human rights group, which was long ago added by someone else and has been perceived as integral part of this article?
Why tamper with an article with political motivations?
Please don't assume that political motivations behind any move aren't realised.
Of course, any politically motivated action inevitably receives a counter-action, which is then accused to be "nationalist", "racist" or whatsoever.
Why are you trying to forbid people being nationalist?
Everybody has the right to love their parents. Everybody has the right to love and protect their nation.
I certainly agree your statement above that everybody has the right to love and protect their nation. Indeed Wikipedia should be a place for people from different nations to communicate and cooperate, and no one is expected to start an action that is likely to meet opposition without proper communication. If someone has doubts or questions then (s)he is very welcome and encouraged to talk with other people in order to solve problems, and try to avoid acting directly (though I think for the first time everyone can be given a chance to fix such mistake). Let us try to make a better community together. --173.206.167.234 (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Gantuya let's see who is hardline here. Narangoa is certainly not "neutral", if it holds the "taming" viewpoint. Administrative information is obviously far more neutral, as long as it avoids politics. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
National Liberation Movement of the Inner Mongolian People MUST be mentioned in this article
This article is incomplete in the sense that it does not say anything of how Mongols are suppressed under long-hated Chinese yoke. How they we brutally tortured during the so-called "culture revolution" of that so called Mau zeetuun. Someone who knows the data please publicese in this article how many Inner MOngolians were killed, how many were jailed and how many disabled during MAuism at crude paws of han chinese. A few years a young Inner Mongolian poet died in jail. He was arrested only because he wrote a poem about his dream to see Kharkhorin. Another Inner Mongolian liberty seeker was kidnapped at the doors of the UN office in Ulaanbaatar by Chinese secret police, which doesn't hesitate to kidnap people at the territory of other soveeiring states. Such prominent fighters for freedom and independence of Mongols such as Ulaangerel and others must be named in this article. Wikipedia is reflection of truth, not an instrument of propaganda of Chinese COmmunist party, and chinese intelligence. The liberation movement IS part of the history of Inner Mongolia. THis is article is mere propaganda hiding that aspects. Monkh Naran (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And this link http://www.smhric.org must stay in this article. This organization must be mentioned explixitly because this is part of Inner Mongolia and of it's people. This is not the only organization. THere are many more. Their websites must be found and added to this article. Wikipedia is NOT for chinese taste. Sorry for this tough, strong, powerful, streigt forward Mongol tone. It comes from me natural. Monkh Naran (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not comment about the link in the above section? Personally I don't care if both the gov't and organisation links are on, but I will be bothered if only the organisation link remains.
If you wish to make such additions here, then similar additions need to be made in the Tibet AR and Xinjiang articles. It's not as if Mongols are more important than Tibetans or Uyghurs. Besides, such content needs to go into a separate "Human Rights in Inner Mongolia" article, not on this main page. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is everything in Wikipedia for you, for chinese? You are pushing 2 links of so called government, with Cinese leader. and you suppress one link of the liberty. This so called autonomy even fails to have a local leader. Stop then removing this important link http://www.smhric.org under pretext of adding your prpaganda link. Anyway, it will be proper to add to this documents about liberty movements in this region. I ask chinese intelligence to leave Wikipedia to normal people. Monkh Naran (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
another personal attack. You won't even read my reasoning. I said I will not bother any further if both or none of the two links are used. and I have grounds to believe that is a racist attack as well ("for you, for chinese"). --HXL's Roundtable, and Record02:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
@Monkh Naran (or should I say, "Kim Han Gul"... note the similar vocabulary, writing style, spelling errors, online times and way of thinking; but I'll leave it be for the time being): I don't quite understand your logic. From the posts you have given, all I have read is somewhat confusing to understand.
>Implying that all Chinese people are members of "the party"
>Implying that being a Chinese person editing Wikipedia automatically makes you a member of "Chinese intelligence"
>Implying that Chinese people are not "normal people", and hence they cannot be classified as Homo sapiens like all other varieties of human beings, because they are not normal human beings
>Implying that everyone else is wrong and evil, and that the truth and shining light is being attacked by said evils
and "paws" could imply dogs' paws. Given Mandarin phrases such as 狗屎 and 狗屁, dogs are held in a very bad light (traditionally) amongst Chinese. there you see the added causticity of the racism. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Gantuya, having a picture just for the sake of "decorating" an article violates our image use policy. And I simply won't tolerate accusations of censorship from pests like you who can't see a mention of several purges and other things at the bottom of the history section. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record15:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
A big picture of such a polarizing political figure is much more than "decoration". It is reminiscent of the gratuitous portraiture that abet totalitarian cults of personalities in fact. But speaking of censorship, how about this and this? Quigley (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Strange wordings
68.231.197.253 added some unnecessary, IMHO, wording to this article.
Chinese and Mongolian languages are spoken in Inner Mongolia, the Mongolian language being written with the traditional script. Perhaps that's the fact.
But why add such wording like "as opposed to the Cyrillic used in the Republic of Mongolia."? Who needs this? What's the gain from such statements? Who opposed what?
Gantuya eng's idea can be quoted as: a human rights link balance a administrative link, 2 human rights links balance 2 administrative links. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍14:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And yet none of the articles on Tibet, the Tibet Autonomous Region, or Xinjiang have human rights links, when I am sure the radicals would have attempted to add them there. And as I have not seen any such links on those articles, I have not tampered with them.
And Gantuya has very faulty logic. Government links by definition have far more information (useful or no) than human rights links, because they cover a far wider range of topics. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
1st, may I ask you to be a bit more polite and keep your judgment of my logic to yourself? Your statement may be perceived as sexism.
2nd, may I ask you not to delete the portrait of Hada. It's a very nice looking photo and this article lacks it. He is very handsome. Patriots are always handsome. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I can be brutal and harsh if I wish to be. Show that the information you wish to add at the end of history has clear and broad significance for the history of the IMAR. That you have not done at all.
I saw what you previously wrote... I was born in the US and continue yet to live there, so be less hasty with your words. And about the censoring statement, I am leaving it up to yours and others' interpretation. I don't think there is censorship present here... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record06:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, why not try to make Wikipiedia be a more pleasure and less political place? If Wikipedia is political-oriented, then North Korea and Soviet Union for example will contain a lot of such links, and the photos of all leaders and activists should be shown. It will be an excellent gallery. -:) --MettALS (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
This is definitely my first time to talk to you directly. However, it is my hope to help make Wikipedia a nice and friendly place without politics. Thanks. --MettALS (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Mongolian script
The script in the top of the infobox displays wrongly (vertically, but from right to left instead left to right) on the computer I currently use (Windows Vista, IE7). Also, the word Monggol looks strange - the ng, more precisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Found a workaround for the writing direction. But the alignment is not correct yet: it is now 'vertically centered', but should be 'top'. Also, the word Monggol isn't fixed yet (seems like it's really the γ that is wrong), and the genitive suffix -un is also missing. Yaan15:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
rewrote the monggol, added the -un suffix. however, the 'gamma' in monggol was taken from the Todo character set, and the (medial!) 'u' in -un from the extensions for Sanskrit and Tibetan, because I couldn't figure out how to display these letters probably with the original Mongol bichig character set. The latter may also look smaller than it should. But in any case it looks basically correct now. P.S. the alignment still doesn't look rigt. Yaan20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Replaced the script by a picture, and replaced the 'e'+'g' in öbertegen by a 'ng'. The 'g' also looked strange, and the 'ng' looks exactly like what an 'e' followed by a 'g' should lok like. The picture still looks not perfect because the background is white instead of transparent, but there seems no way to fix that with microsoft paint. Yaan23:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice job with the image. I think it is a significant improvement, even if not perfect, since the text can now be seen by everyone. This sort of thing should be done more often, especially with rare scripts like Mongolian that most people don't have the special fonts for. shoeofdeath07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
While I follow the reasoning, I was a little disappointed to find the image for this text just now, being a fan of language and being able to introspect on it inside the browser (I know, not a compelling reason for just me, and Mongolian speakers could presumably do searching or the like on the Mongolian page, but still). Incidentally, I proposed for Firefox a solution which I think could help with the font issue as I don't think an absence of fonts should ever be a reason not to be able to view some script: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=512619
Hello, I am a new user and i preferred to discuss the followwing matter in the talk page before editing it, or asking that anyone edits it.
Shouldn't the section "Languages and dialects" of the table updated with Chinese and Mongolian languages and maybe some minnor ethnic groups like russians or koreans?
Sure, as long as everything meets proper formatting and policy (sources, etc), it sounds fine to me. You might want to create it in a sandbox first at User:Breizhcatalonia1993/Sandbox, so that others can look over it and help you fix it up if it needs fixing. Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail10:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
'largest city'
Is there a reliable source that states that Baotou is still unambiguously the 'largest city' in Inner Mongolia, over Hohhot? Also, how do we define largest city? Are we incorporating the prefecture as a whole? The urban population? It may be better to write the lede with more nuance? Colipon+(Talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Generally, in English, we assume that a cities size is the population of the Metropolitan area rather than the physical dimensions. It would also be odd in English to count the whole prefecture as much of that is countryside and not what an English person would consider to be city. Looking at the data on the relevant cities wikipedia pages, which is referenced to the 2010 census, Hohhot has the larger metropolitan population, suggesting that an edit is required. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
In any case, without the authoritative census data, I decided to avoid the 'largest city' remark altogether in my latest edit. There's a lot of ambiguity depending on what criteria you use to assess "largest". Besides, things like this are fluid anyway. We don't always have to talk in superlatives just because we can. Colipon+(Talk) 11:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Question re. translations into Mongolian
After coming across this little list of some recent editions of foreign literature translated into Mongolian, I wondered if similar work is being done in Inner Mongolia? Any idea where on could find out? Yaan (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Chengde was detached from Inner Mongolia and Attached to Hebei by the Qing
The Qing Emperors noted the rising Han population in Chengde so they detached it from Inner Mongolia and attached it to Hebei instead.
A Sogdian Colony in Inner Mongolia
Edwin G. Pulleyblank
T'oung Pao
Second Series, Vol. 41, Livr. 4/5 (1952), pp. 317-356
Published by: BRILL
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4527336
Advocating to correct the result of wrong translation of Mongolian words "Öbür" and "Ar" and to use “Southern" and "Northern" instead of "Inner" and "Outer" for Mongolian divisions has its undeniable justifiability. Wikipedia has always been one-sided, in which the editing community largely lean toward Chinese propaganda side, due merely to the numeric advantage of Chinese presence fueled by Chinese national as well as imperial mindset. Wikipedia, mostly consisted of Westerners who are ignorant of oriental matters, out of convenience decided only to go by the Chinese propaganda and even cracked down on minority Mongolian attempts to make correction in this article several times. One of those imperial minded Chinese even put in this article the following line: "In Chinese, the region is known as "Inner Mongolia", where the terms of "Inner/Outer" are derived from Manchu dorgi/tulergi (cf. Mongolian dotugadu/gadagadu)" This is totally baseless, ignorant, ridiculous and most of all, outright arrogant. It's long overdue that this history should end, folks. Come to your sense and research the subject with humbleness, and enough thoroughness. Here is an article in which the author, a Mongol writer from Southern Mongolia, states the origin of the words and Mongolian side of the understanding of his own nation's names: 大清国把蒙古分成内、外两部，位于漠南并先于北方加入到大清国的部分叫“内蒙古”，这是以大清国为中心的具有殖民色彩的名称，因此当代蒙古人逐渐摒弃这一名称，取而代之，恢复原有的“漠南蒙古”，简称南蒙古。 Link: http://www.smhric.org/Chino_415.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.141.66 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"In Mongolian, the region is known as öbör mongγol where öbör can mean south, inner, front, bosom, breast."
In Turkish, which has some loan words from Mongolian, "öbür" means "other". Can Mongolian word have the same meaning which would make the "öbür mongyul", the "Other Mongolia"? - IIIIIIIII (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any information about religion in Inner Mongolia, even in the statistics. Buddhism was obviously a strong force in the area at one time. When did it come there and what place does it hold in modern Inner Mongolia?
Dadadaddyo (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It came with the conquest of Tibet and China (mainly Tibet as Mongolian Buddhism is basically Tibetan Buddhism). Its still a strong force but has been suppresed somewhat (barely to be honest) by the state due to connections to Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. There are monastaries near all the major cities and religious ceremony is still carried out. Due to the large number of ethnic Chinese in Inner Mongolia, there are many Chinese Buddhist ("blue" Buddhist as opposed to the "yellow" Tibetan Buddhism) Temples as well. (dont know how to sign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.37.150 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No religion statistics is ever reliable, simply because too many people who claim to be religious actually aren't religious at all. Colipon+(Talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Recently somebody have mentioned a term 漠南蒙古. Here I must say that the term 漠南蒙古 is different to “Southern Mongolia”. “Southern Mongolia”=Front Mongolia=Inner Mongolia include both 漠南蒙古 (Chahar, Ordos), 漠北蒙古 (Halh), 漠西蒙古 (Four Oirats) and Bargu-Buriat. 漠南蒙古 is a tribe/aimag name, rather than aregion name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It must be noted that it's incorrect or at least misleading to say that “Southern Mongolia” or Front Mongolia or Inner Mongolia include both 漠南蒙古, 漠北蒙古, 漠西蒙古 and Bargu-Buriat. The term 漠北蒙古 is also known as 喀爾喀蒙古 (as mentioned in that article) or 外蒙古 (mentioned also in the IM government website here), literally "Khalkha Menggu" or "Outer Mongolia" respectively, which clearly refers to the Khalkha people or regions north of Gobi (approximately corresponding to the modern state of Mongolia; note that the name "漠北", or "North of Desert" refers to the location north of the Gobi Desert), while 漠南蒙古 refers to the Mongol people or regions south of the Gobi Desert (that is where the name "漠南" comes from), and the article clearly states it approximately corresponds to the region of Inner Mongolia, as opposed to the region north of Gobi Desert (where Khalkhas are the majority of the inhabitants). Such terms can refer to the Mongol people inhabited in these regions as well as the regions themselves. --173.206.167.234 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The beginning paragraph originally only shows "s" and "c" for Mongolian script and Cyrillic. I have changed it to show "Mongolian script" and "Cyrillic" instead. --Cartakes (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
However, it should never say just "s" and "c". Not to mention that "Mongolian script" and "Cyrillic" are much more clearer than simply "Mongolian language". It's clear that both "Mongolian script" and "Cyrillic" are written forms of the Mongolian language; your statement "It should say Mongolian language, not script" makes non-sense at all. --Cartakes (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. You can't figure out what language you're reading just by looking at the script. Anyway, I think I found a solution. Tell me what you think of my recent edit. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to one external link on Inner Mongolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Inner Mongolia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
comment removed
Last edited at 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 18:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Inner 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:
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.
I have just modified 5 external links on Inner 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:
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.
I have just modified one external link on Inner 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:
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.
There is a large gap of history missing between when 'Inner Mongolia' as we know today were traditionally inhabited by Mongols (and ethnic Manchus to some extent in the north-east corner) to the colonization and settling of Han Chinese today which makes over 80% nowadays of the population. This narrative needs to be explained, specially under Qing Rule, yet someone keeps editing and minimising this important part of Inner Mongolian history to a mere 'revisionist' sentence or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you try to explain what you are trying to do when you are actually editing articles, then it will be fine for me. However, keep in mind this is only a summary article, and it is not recommended to copy large chunk of information from other articles. If you try to summarize them and fit them with the rest of the article, then it will be fine for me too. Although, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view should be satisfied at any rate. --Evecurid (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the template as the mass immigration to Inner Mongolia mainly happened from late-Qing to the ROC period. A template under the "Republic of China" would be more useful. Esiymbro (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Ordos, not a ghost city
These western media articles about Ordos do not mention any corruption or waste. There is no ghost town there. It's just a media phase used when Chinese do long-term urban development. See Under-occupied developments in China "Some journalists have pointed to the Ordos Kangbashi ghost city stories as an example of media hastily and often misinformed reporting of developments in China. Reporting that often eschews perspectives of local officials and experts in favor attracting readers unfamiliar with China’s development model and bemused at China's perceived backwardness". Having been to Kangbashi_District, it is a functioning city. This is all outdated. 220.240.17.118 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
HXL49
What do you mean you saw what I previously wrote? Do you spy my computer?
I don't care where you were born or whatever, you just edit during the East Asian time.
You are so jealously guarding the Mongolia related pages.
As for my observation as a long-standing Wikipedian, Mongolia related pages are frequently edited by:
1) by Mongolians themselves with all their love to Mongolian culture, history and language;
2) by foreigners who have passion to the Mongolian language, culture and history;
Mongolia related pages are occasionally edited by foreigners who see it their duty to wikify articles, spellcheck, repair links, etc. They don't stay at these pages for long as they are busy to wikify, spellcheck and repair thousands of other articles.
You don't belong to any of these. You don't have any interest or passion to the history, language or culture of Mongolia, you don't have any sympathy to the fate of the Mongolian people. You simply pursue your jealousy of the territories held by China. In other words, what you are doing here is not constructive in the best interests of Wikipedia. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
all ridiculous accusations.
There is something called a page history...
If I am jealously guarding any pages, which I am not, I am watching over many China-related pages. If you wish to see the full contents of my watchlist, I can e-mail it to you.
See point No. 2.
by occasionally, yes, I have edited at the Ulaanbaatar article several times. Check its page history, you -tard.
"don't have any...sympathy to the fate of the Mongolian people" is a blatant personal attack and attempt at mind-reading. I, for one, am very dissatisfied with Mongolia's lack of economic glamour.
And I saw that post about "China time". That's right...I edit from the Mid-Atlantic US (UTC-4/-5), which has many hours (i.e. when people would be expected to be awake) that overlap with China time.
Stating that this is a "Mongolia" article, while denying what it is in reality, which is a China article.
Suggesting that HXL has no right to edit this article.
Stating that HXL has no "interest or passion" or sympathy for Mongolians.
Stating that HXL is pursuing a territorial "jealousy"
Stating that HXL is a nonconstructive editor.
And after all these attacks on him, HXL writes a conciliatory response demonstrating his interest in and sympathy for the Mongolian people, documenting his past efforts to improve Mongolia articles, offering you his watchlist, telling you his timezone [and thereby location]. You reward HXL by calling him rude.
What is extremely rude!? Do you see what words he uses? He said "tard". He threatens to be brutal. Do you think this is polite? What will you feel if he one day calls you "tard" as well? He may. Will you think this is polite? ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I said that I could be brutal, not that I will. There is a difference. The "tard" was because you made an accusation without even bothering to check the page histories of the two most popular pages dealing with (directly or no) Mongolia: the page on the Republic of Mongolia and Ulaanbaatar. It is not wise to make such a bold accusation about something you do not know enough about. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It is good for people to be interested in their own country. People of Mongolic origin live in many countries in the world, including republic of Mongolia, China, Russia, Central Asian states, and so on. Similarly, people of Spanish origin also live in many countries in the world, such as Spain, Mexico, South American and African countries. Each citizen has their country to love, though not necessary the same country, even if they originally belong to the same origin. Mexico is arguably the biggest Spanish-speaking country, though obviously Spanish people living in Peru does not need to love Mexico, but will love and protect Peru. This is very normal, but these people will live peacefully together, even though they are from different countries. --MettALS (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't belong to any of these. You don't have any interest or passion to the history, language or culture of Mongolia, you don't have any sympathy to the fate of the Mongolian people. You simply pursue your jealousy of the territories held by China. In other words, what you are doing here is not constructive in the best interests of Wikipedia
Suggestion- why don't we let the Chechnya article get hijacked by pro independence activists and people with interest in Chechen culture, since User:Gantuya eng is clearly intent on promoting the independence of territories held by China, the Chechnya article should cleary feature massive pictures of Dzhokhar Dudayev, Akhmed Zakayev and Aslan Maskhadov along with a link to www.chechenpress.co.uk to keep wikipedia neutral, while playing the Anthem of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria on the article.
And while we're at it, why not redirect the entire Chechnya article to Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? After all, anyone who does otherwise is pursuing the jealousy of territories held by Russia.18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I'm late to the party (long story, I've been to Sydney, then on a boat, New Caledonia and finally Gold Coast, Queensland, *sigh* *pant* ...offline all this time), but I seriously don't understand why the bickering is over whether this article is on China or Mongolia, and as to whether certain people are prohibited from editing it. Using "love for culture" as an excuse to push undue POV isn't in my list of things to give thumbs up to. Come on now. And do you really expect that you can write edit summaries like "adding image, this man is handsome", and not expect me to laugh? Since when has attractiveness been remotely a factor of WP's WP:IUP? Why don't we fill the Japan article with pictures of sexy Japanese AV actresses, under the same logic? -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail08:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please try to calm down. The original discussion was already stopped for some time, and everyone is obviously intentionally to be quiet and have a more pleasure mood. Let's enjoy a better Wikipedia and happy editting. --173.206.13.159 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't an article like Northern Ireland be listed as both British and Irish topics? Same vis-a-vis Kosovo with Albania and Serbia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a personal bias in this discussion, but I am very surprised that there is no mention of what is referred to as the Jindandao Incident. [1]. Surely a massacre of (some estimate) 500,000 people, and a precursor to 20th century acts of genocide, would be a topic that must be addressed in the history pages. It does look, to an outsider, rather like a strong pro-chinese bias when an event of that magnitude just "goes missing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA16:587F:FF80:B967:9233:C790:21F5 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence of the intro had emphasized that this province was "landlocked." While technically true, this strikes me as rather odd to emphasize in the first sentence of the intro of an article about a sub-national entity. The [Colorado]] article, for example, doesn't mention the state lacking a coastline, and I don't believe any of the articles on US states mention it in their first sentence. Being "landlocked" is more relevant for sovereign independent states than subdivisions thereof. -2003:CA:872F:268C:F4D1:7329:A842:E715 (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
