Talk:Mongol Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Goryo(Korea) has never been part of Mongol Empire

As a Korean guy who was taught of Korean history in Korean middle school, I was taught that even though Koryo's royal court had surrendered to Mongol Empire, and became the tributary state to Mongol Empire, Koryo retained its independent governance at the price of being royal son-in-law state of Mongol royal court. So does that make Koryo as a part of Mongol Empire even though it had its own King and government? It sure was much different from what China had gone through at that time. China didn't have their own King or Emperor, Han chinese were colonized by Mongol Empire so Chinese state didn't exist during the period of Mongol rule. However, Koryo retained its own royal court even after the fall of Mongol Empire and had retained its lineage since its foundation until the rise of Chosun dynasty. If Koryo was a part of Mongol Empire, it doesn't make sense, does it? Or is it the same case for the most of other nations at that time? Please enlighten me with the detailed history of Eastern Europe and Arab regions at that time, because I am not sure whether other parts of Mongol empire were allowed to have their own King and retain its own governance at the price of being royal son-in-law state or just being colonized without their own government.

Isn't Chosun much earlier dynasty? Temur (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can say Han Chinese were colonized by Mongol before Kublai Khan's reign. When Kublai Khan founded the Yuan Dynasty, Kublai Khan (and his successors) was officially the emperor of Yuan China, although not ethnic Chinese. But anyway, according to the traditional Chinese ideology, anyone who attains the "Mandate of Heaven" can rule as the emperor. And Kublai did claim that and ruled as Emperor of China, so China at this time had emperors, although not native ones. As for Koryo, the things were very different. Korea became an independent country long time ago, but it was also an tributary state of China for a long time until the end of the 19th century. In this aspect, although Korea was an independent state, it was also a subordinate of the Celestial Empire according to the traditional values, at least nominally. Kublai, like native emperors of China, didn't attempt to annihilate Koryo, but instead just requested the Koryo/Korea to be a subordinate and pay tributes. So Koryo still had its own kings. This was kind of similar to what happened to Korea when Manchu Qing Dynasty was established in northeast China.--207.112.51.98 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is just nationalist view. --Enerelt (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone may have some sort of nationalist view. However, we should do best to minimize it when editing Wikipedia articles.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Korea has never been not part of Mongol empire

Korea was not part of Mongol. Mongol never conquered Korea, never goverened Korea. It was a tributal or vassal state. I fixed the article, but the admin reverted it. Is the admin a Mongol fan who wants to exaggerate Mongol's conquest? History should be based on facts not fantasy. If the admin reverts the article to keep the wrong information of Goryeo and Korea, I will claim to the higher admin of Wiki to dismiss him. The information about Goyreo was already discussed below, but not reflected to the main article.

This is exerpt from "Mongol invasion of Korea" wikipage. You can see the reference [3] there. "The treaty permitted the maintenance of the sovereign power and traditional culture of Goryeo, implying that the Mongols gave up incorporating Goryeo under direct Mongolian control and were content to give Goryeo autonomy under vassaldom to Mongolia.[3]"

More information about Mongol and Goryeo: "The latter and his number two, Amugan, demanded the peaceful submission of the Korean court, but Goryeo king Gonjong refused in 1252. Another forces under Jalayirtai and Yesudar invaded Korea. At last the Korean king and Mongke Khan reached an agreement to exchange a Korean prince and a Mongol pricess as a result of the treaty. Mongol and Korea tied with marriages as Mongol princes married Korean princesses and Korean princes married Mongol princesses. A Korean pricess (Qi Empress) became a Mongol empress of Ukhaantu Khan, her son became a Mongol Khan (Biligtü Khan of Northern Yuan). Goryeo king Chungnyeol married a dauthger of Kubilai Khan, and marriages between Mongol and Korea continued 80 years."

Lie

I understand that the Koreans try to be independent. But please not confuse that I am kidding you. I just wanna let you know historical facts. The Georgians, the Armenians were never directly ruled by the Mongols. But the Mongol Empire could intervene in affairs of those states as they did in Korea. If you read the Yuan-shi, your mind will change.--Enerelt (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your lie

In your logic, Japan is part of US territory. If a country is part of an empire only because it can be intervene by the emipre, lots of current countries are part of US territory. Don't be confused by vassal and part of Mongol empire. Korea was always ruled and governed by Korean kings.

That is just your opinion. Ha ha--Enerelt (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your lie Enerelt. Wherever Mongol invaded, they conquered? Even Korean kings are governing ther country, but Mongol conquered?? In treaty between Mongol and Korea, Mongol gave up direct ruling and Korea got autonomy, but Mongol conquered Korea?? What kind of absurd logic is it? Stop distorting history for your fantasy. Korea has never been part of Mongol empire.

Enerelt, you are incorrect in that Korea was ever an integral part of the Mongol Empire. While you are correct in that the Georgians, Armenians, and Koreans were never directly ruled by the Mongols, the extent to which the Mongols intervened in Armenian and Georgian affairs was far greater than any Mongol intervention in Korean affairs. It is known as a fact that Korea became a vassal state to the Mongol Empire, but neither Georgia nor Armenia were (they were considered integral parts of the Mongol Empire). Korea did build ships for the Mongol invasions of Japan under Mongol direction, and Korean princes were wed to Mongol princesses, but nothing that would indicate that Korea was at one time integrated into the Mongol Empire proper and administered as a home territory. The same could be said for the Vietnamese, as the Mongol imperial track record in tropical climates and over water is miserable. Ecthelion83 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a nationalist view, but rather an objective observation of the facts available. Keep in mind that the Yuan-shi is a politically nuanced text written not from an indigenous (i.e. Mongol) point of view, but from the point of view of some people oppressed by the Mongols, quite some time after most of the events it recorded took place. Details such as whether or not Korea was a vassal of the Yuan or an integrated part of that empire are not important (though the authors of the Yuan-shi never go so far as to strongly suggest that Korea was anything other than a tributary, yet autonomous, state), and thus its accuracy on many details cannot be considered reliable. Ecthelion83 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my fairy tale. I just wrote what scholars did. Everybody knows Korea was under the control of the Mongols. Even your movies and soap operas confirm it. If it was not part of the Borjigin Dynasty why was it called province Zhendong under the Yuan. You may say it was abolished after Mongol invasions of Japan. However, it was restored again. Great Qaghans exiled Chungseon and deposed Chungsuk and others. The Goryeo monarchs received the patent/license from the Yuan. Thanks to the red turban rebellion and the last Mongolian queen in Korea, they were able to remain independent of the Mongols. Goryeo was quda state unlike Georgia, Rum or Rus.--Enerelt (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of making this up; documents/records and perspectives from many past eras, including this one, are in conflict or are frequently contradictory. Therefore, it is generally unwise to render some sort of unilateral verdict on what is not decisively concluded. Just because a territory is called a province by a nation or in its (politically-slanted) records does not necessarily translate to truth on the ground. Many nations, past and present, have made claims that have no basis in truth (for instance, Taiwan or the Republic of China currently claims sovereignty over the entirety of mainland China and some additional territories, and while such claims will remain in its records, but no one actually gives those claims the weight of truth). It is true that the Mongols exerted great political influence on Goryeo during its lengthy vassalage (of at least two full generations) to the Mongol Empire, to include the deposition and installation of Goryeo kings (but the fact that these people, former princes who were at least half Mongol due to the requirements of the vassalage, were titled as kings indicates a political status that is not an integrated part of the Mongol Empire, which had no ruler/king but the Great Khan; rather, this indicates a political autonomic status, despite the Mongol interference in reality). Ecthelion83 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1294

Kublai's death of 1294 was not end of the empire. Kublai's successors had nominal control over all parts of Mongol Empire. Read about relationship between Changshi and Khaisan or Ilkhan Oljeitu and Great khan Oljeitu Temur.--Enerelt (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you claim 1368 was the end of the empire but the first paragraph of the article actually claims 1405?--209.90.142.50 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please read Talk:Kublai Khan. It's actually not very clear about the real nature between Yuan and other khanates. Note that Temur formally recognized Ilkhanate as an independent state by sending Ghazan a Chinese seal reading "王府定國理民之寶" in Chinese characters (here). It may be possible to describe Ilkhanate as a tributary ally of the Yuan, though much slighter than Goryeo, another tributary ally.--209.90.142.50 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That is what I meant. Nominal control over other khanates. --Enerelt (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominal suzerainty over Ilkanate, similiar to the one over Annam. Just like emperors of previous Chinese dynasties, as Mandate of Heaven Emperor (i.e. Emperor of China), the emperors of Yuan were the nominal overlord of all surrounding states.--Wengier (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cf. the relation between the Ming and Esen Tayisi? Yaan (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually the concepts of both post-1260 "Mongol Empire" and traditional Chinese overlordship of all surrounding states are theoretic. Rulers have to do something more in order to make them become real. Saying Mongol Empire still exists after 1260 or 1294 is just like saying Emperor of China is the nominal overlord of all surrounding states.--209.90.146.105 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this be 1294 AD or 1294 BC ? The dates listed in this article don't make this distinction. A distinction which either places this article contemporary to the New Kingdom of Egypt or the commencement of the Crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.131.182 (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article and general mongol invasion conquest articles

Someone or someones made this Mongol Empire article perfect. Very excellent, thank you, keep it coming and congrats to all the nice editors out there. I never thought it would become like this. Thank you.

I wanted to talk about all these articles about mongol/tatar invasions, timeline of mongol empire stuff. If you see the Mongol Empire template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mongol_Empire There are a 4 different timelines.

• Timeline of the Mongol Empire
• Timeline of Mongol conquests
• Mongol invasion
• Tatar invasions

All seem like they can be merged into one or something; however I think the first half of the timeline of the Mongol Empire is not really about invasion/attacks. Some of them invasions are obviously later invasions, but having 4 separate timelines that basically is something same can be little weird. I mean Mongol became more turkic on the western part and became like "tatar" invasions or something. Anyone what do you think about these three different templates, especially the editor(s) that heavily edited the Mongol Empire so nicely? Thanks 97.118.116.250 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this article is already "perfect", but I agree with most of your other points.

Mongol Invasion is not a timeline but a disabmiguation page though, so it shouldn't really be part of this discussion.

Tatar invasions is a completely useless concept. There is no workable general definition of "tatar". Because of that, the term should be strictly avoided, unless a concrete and meaningful definition is given in a limited context (which is not possible here).

Whatever useful(!) extra information is found in Tatar Invasions and Timeline of Mongol conquests should be merged into Timeline of the Mongol Empire.

If there are any items that don't actually relate to the Mongol Empire, then those will have to be moved to more appropriate places. --Latebird (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 97.118.116.250! I think this article gives right information about the Mongol Empire if not perfect. There are so many things to do! But I think it is not good idea to merge Tatar invasions with Mongol invasions.--Enerelt (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the merge template has been put in two of the articles. Mongol invasion is fine. It is disambig. 97.118.116.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

Mongol invasions and Timeline of Mongol conquests have now been merged. Timeline of the Mongol Empire should be merged as well. However Tatar invasions is specific to Europe and extends for four centuries beyond the fall of the Mongol Empire. It is a readily separable topic., so I am going to rename it and remove the merger suggestion. Mowsbury (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unclear English

I note the comment at the top of this Talk page, but in general the text is reasonably easily understood and just needs some cleanup. However, that's not always the case. In the "Southeast Asian vassals" section, we read this:

When Kublai Khan demanded full submission of the Dynasty where Mongol darughachis were well received before,[151] the relationship between two states was broken out in 1264.

A relationship cannot be "broken out" in English, so I suspect that the phrase is a literal translation from another language. I can't edit it myself as I'm not very knowledgable of this subject and so am not sure what a suitable English equivalent would be. Loganberry (Talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

article fails to mention the diffuculty mongols had in conquering song dynasty

song dynasty held out for 30 years after mongols started their first attack, not to mention the fact that the mongols had song help taking over jin dynasty, and were forced to used chinese weapons and techonolgy to take over, and the song also killed their leader, Möngke Khan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.221 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Song resisted them bravely but the reason for the Mongols' long conquest was another. It was not only depended on the Song's military skills but unpredictable incidents.--Enerelt (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Coinage

Mongol "Great Khans" coin, minted at Balk, Afghanistan, AH 618, 1221 CE.

Here's a Mongol coin of 1221. Feel free to insert it into the article. PHG (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1221 sounds a bit early. What does the writing say? I see it does not look like Arab numbers, just wanted to know the content. Yaan (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt so too, but here is what the British Museum writes exactly in its notice to the coin: "Mongol, Great Khans, minted at Balkh, Afghanistan, AH [6]18/AD 1221". Could it be that they wrongly emended the AH [6]18, so that it would be AH [7]18 actually?? hence 1321 rather than 1221?? I guess we need a good numismat around to confirm this... PHG (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The British Museum card is correct. This is a type known as a Khānī dirham. The word at the top of the circle is khānī, meaning something like "of the Khan". The rest of the inscription within the circle is strangely the name of the Abbasid Caliph al-Nāsir. These were minted for a short time in Transoxiana to facilitate and regularize tribute. I looked for another example of this particular coin on-line but found only the Khwarezmian coin on which it was based (here). A group of Mongol coins from Transoxiana citing al-Nāsir may be found here; alas, there are none from Balkh. While PHG's coin is interesting, and I certainly appreciate his posting it; I do not think it belongs in the article as it is in no way typical of Mongol coinage. Aramgar (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vassals and Tributary states

If this Empire didn't include Korea, which was its Vassal or Tributary state, why isn't it listed in this part of the article? Gantuya eng (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Succeeding states

In the infobox the successors to the Mongol Empire it seems that the Jalayirids and Northern Yuan are there incorrectly. Shouldn't it rather be the Ilkhanate and Yuan Dynasty? -GabaG (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It is very wrong concept. The Ilkhanate, the Yuan wer just parts of the Mongol Empire. --Enerelt (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Largest empire bar none text

Just let go of this edit warring with someone saying "mongole empire is largest by bar none" and discount the others. Just let it go. It is not that important and looks like a small child is playing with words and trying to make a statement. The largest contigious is fine with me. Just let it go and grow up. This happened 700 years ago. Just let it go. I don't care. On the other hand, "mongol empire was an empire in 13th century" sounds much better and grown up than bar none stuff. 174.16.21.11 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Name" section

The name "Ikh Mongol Uls" doesn't mean "Great Mongol." "Uls" is "Ulus" that means nation/country. It is not "great" like I'm superior/better. It is geographic like "greater," meaning geography and space like Greater Mongolia region, which means Mongolia and the surrounding areas/influence. It is 100% geographic term. It doesn't mean "Better Mongol." It means "Geographically expansive Mongol." Mongolyn Ezent Guren means "Mongol's Imperial Power." Mongolyn Ezent Guren is 3 word and its literal translation is also 3 words, but it basically means "Mongol Empire." "Great Mongol" is technically flawed. It also forgets the third word "Ulus." Just clarification. :) 24.9.17.24 (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Ikh" can mean both "big" and "great", and even "a lot of" or "many". In "Ikh Mongol Uls", both "great" and "big" are technically valid translations, but with empires, "great" is generally the preferred choice. You're correct that "Great Mongol" is an incomplete translation, but the "Uls" (= "country", "empire", "dynasty") also means that the meaning is political, not geographical, hence "Great Mongol Empire". Your translation of "Mongolyn Ezent Güren" sounds about right, just that in this context, "Güren" is probably better translated with "State". --Latebird (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Contributing to the discussion of the animated map

If Korea is excluded, then perhaps Rus' has to be excluded. If Rus' is included, then perhaps Korea has to be included. They were tributaryes. Is it right? Monkh Naran (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Mongols actually invaded and conquered Rus' and made them a vassal. Korea was invaded and they successfully defended against the Mongols and after Mongols left Korea decided to become vassal and stop all these attacks. Russia: invaded, submitted and became vassal. Korea: invaded, stopped, went back, Korea decided to become vassal. Therefore circumstance is little different. Rus was defeated, Korea wasn't really defeated like Rus, but they submitted to stop all these attacks. 97.118.27.91 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they couldn't repell all Mongolian attacks. It's modern dream.--Enerelt (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Novgorod wasn't occupied but it became tributery itself. But it's included in the map. Monkh Naran (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, then Kublai's attacks on Japan were started from Korea, so it obviuously must have been part of the empire at that time. In any case, the map shows the extent of the full empire, and not only the "parts of the empire that were conquered by force". Making an exception for the korean peninsula seems rather weird under those circumstances. (Two people edit warring like children over a small appendage is even weirder). --Latebird (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Korea was just became a tributary state to Mongol, not annexed their territory, and also Korea was always governed by Korean kings.--Historiographer (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rus' was ruled by russian princes too. So lets exclude both rus and korea or include both. Monkh Naran (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you guys should simply do whatever other mapmakers do, rather than discuss your own personal opinions. There must be hundreds of maps of the Mongol empire from school textbooks, encyclopedias, historical atlases, history books etc. Shouldn't be to difficult to create a map based on reliable sources. Yaan (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

predecessor

Don't post countries like Abbasid Caliphate and Song China as predecessors, it seems like the Roman Empire was successor of Dachia which was annexed by them, or the Spanish Empire was the Aztecs. --Enerelt (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

European vassals

• Kingdom of Lithuania. The Mongols under Burundai first invaded Lithuania in 1259, forcing the Lithuanians flee before any decisive battle. Later, the army of the Golden Horde invaded the area several times with requests of western Rus' nobles. P.Jackson says the Kingdom was vassal of the Mongols and part of the Mongol orbit.

When talking about medieval Lithuania it's better to use Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Only in one period (1251-1263) Grand Duchy of Lithuania may be called Kingdom of Lithuania. Grand Duchy and Grand Duke (Duke of Dukes) comes only from disambiguous translation (Kunigaikštis) of the title which was made in XIX age by Polish historians, with notion, that only Mindaugas was crowned (1251-1263) by the pope as King, sometimes with other reasons like different social structure (no serfdom), and federate nature of state, not a centralized monarchy. Other rulers were called Grand Dukes since they were not crowned by pope, or simply were pagan Kings. In records of these times they are called rex in latin. Usage of such terms like Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Lithuania should be revised since they may mean completely different things.

Grand Duchy of Lithuania couldn't have been a vassalic state, and wasn't, since it was formed primarily as the one which would fight against Northern Crusade (against Sword-Brothers and Teutonic) and Mongol invasion. Mindaugas was crowned by the pope so that he would fight against Mongol invasion into Europe and a ceasefire was signed. Ceasefire with crusaders ended at exactly 1259, so it was an opportunity for attack. 1258-59 attack of Golden Horde was unexpected, lead to devastation which is still disputed due to lack of records. Some names of devastated territorries do not exist in maps today. Decisive battle is not mentioned at all in the records or the place of any battle as the outcome. The fact is that after this conflict some castles that formerly belonged to other vassalic states became Lithuanian (it doesnt look like a decisive battle for invaders). Central part (Lithuania, north of Belarus, north of Poland) was much more fortified, so it is thought that main battles were in these areas.

When the Lithuanians occupied Kiev in 1321, they still paid tributes to the khans. However, the Lithuanians began to struggle with the Horde over Rus' territories after 1359. It is confirmed by the fact that Toqtamish demanded the submission of Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania and later King of Poland.

Demands for tribute is not the same as paying tribute. Mindaugas was the first to face these demands and refused with still living "legends", how it happened. There was a period between Battle on the Irpen' River and Battle of Blue Waters that can be the only period when newly occupied territory was still paying tribute to Golden Horde. It wasn't Grand Duchy of Lithuania or Grand Duke. Chronology of battles is also consistent with possibilities of the time to organize, train a new army for battle (5-10 years) 1275, 1279, 1282, 1289, 1315, 1325, 1333, 1338, 1339. It would be better to state that newly occupied territories, ruled by Fiodor of Kiev (1325-1363), were vassalic or part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and still tributary to Golden Horde.

There was period when there were two brothers Grand Dukes Algirdas and Kestutis. Death of Algirdas and Kestutis started a civil war with Jogaila against Vytautas 1377–1384. Actions of Jogaila didn't find many supporters and another civil war 1389–1392 ended with him being expelled by Vytautas from Grand Duchy of Lithuania, he was only a king of Poland. It means, that timing of such events makes completely different asumptions. Jogaila was ally of Mamai and was involved in Battle of Kulikovo. Tokhtamysh was involved in Tokhtamysh-Timur war and was ally of Vytautas. Involvement in affairs of Mongol empire doesn't have to do anything with "vassalic state" or "tributary state". In the end Tokhtamysh was hiding from Khan in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There were treaties with Tokhtamysh, that Golden horde gives control over most territories in Rus' for help in owerthrowing rivals. And it didn't end with Battle of the Vorskla River.

History of Lithuanian - Mongol battles (untill 1363) was reviewed only in 1975 by Romas Batūra in "Lietuva tautų kovoje prieš Aukso Ordą: nuo Batu antplūdžio iki mūšio prie Mėlynųjų Vandenų" and it is still the most extensive analysis of records on this matter. Making assumptions about vassalic state must to be more based on chronicles, not opinion. Since there are no records of Darugachi in Vilnius, Trakai, Kernave, Voruta.

--EMPerror (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Question to Caspian blue

Could you please enlighten us what the difference between been a "vassal" and "autonomous" is. Also I'm wondering isn't being "not under direct rule" mean being "under indirect rule" and therefore being "under the rule" anyway. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer and question to User:Gantuya eng

User:Gantuya eng, I said you should first ask the reason to User:Enerelt since you complained about my 2 restoration over Enerelt's 7 consecutive and disruptive reverts in 2 days. He has been edit-warring over the matter for a long time, so he surely has a clear answer from his POV while mine is different from him and perhaps yours. However, you're deliberately choosing to question about it here again as if you do not know anything about the topic. Those attempts seem disingenuous because you share the same POV with Enerelt per your friendship with him and per your activities at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang_rule. My answer is quiet simple - Mongol did not directly rule Goryeo like colony, but Enerelt tried to twist the fact by engaging in endless edit warring over multiple Mongol-Korean related articles. I also find his edit summaries are insulting. So you'd better state your reasoning for your action here. And why didn't you ask him to give his reasoning? --Caspian blue 05:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert multiple Mongol-Korean related articles. I tried to make changes on Mongol Empire, Mongol invasions of Korea and Goryeo. That's all.--Enerelt (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He is edit warring. He cannot be warring alone. Certainly there is the second party taking an active part in the warring. My reason is the requirement of legal parity. The "war" over the map has been dragging on for a year. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This article needs a dispute resolution solution because there's edit warring between at least three editors (User:Caspian blue, User:Historiographer and User:Enerelt) that has lasted for several months. The topic of the edit warring is the animated map, however, on recent dates it began to cover other topics. Who knows how to deal with this issue, please help. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't act like you're a neutral party because you're obviously not. Moreover, I have not engaged in their edit warring for several months, so please do not distort the history for your taste. False allegations are "personal attacks". I've also asked User:Enerelt to give quotes to confirm his claim as a first step for the dispute resolution, while you did not do anything.--Caspian blue 13:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, nobody is attacking you here. I haven't edited this page in connection with your edit wars and therefore I'm legally neutral. However I have watched this page for months and seeing your becoming aggressive on behalf of one of the warring parties I felt the issue has to be solved collectively. Therefore I am calling other editors to help solving the issue with the animated map.

Secondly, you have been using sarcasms in your talk page against me and removing my warnings from there. You deliberately distorted my name there. Though you corrected it later, you even haven't apologised. Yet you called my complaint "rude intrusion". Does your school teach you to apologise to girls? However, this is personal and doesn't have anything to do with this article.

For this article I'm asking more confident third parties to help solving the problem with the animated map. I don't know whether Korea should be included in that map or not, because the Mongol conquests or invasions are the most boring part of the Mongolian history for myself personally. I like the earlier and later periods. But I feel the edit warring shouldn't go on continuously. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're attacking me with such aggressive attitude. You're involved in this article discussion, so you're no way to label yourself "neutral", never. Nobody invited or expected you to be a mediator and I don't find you are qualified for that job given the situation and past. You're the one who should apologize for making a series of personal attacks including false accusations. Your visiting to my talk page was really "rude". If you do not get interested in resolving "actual content disputes", do not make more drama. Unlike you, I tried to resolve the dispute by requesting sources, which is legitimate way to resolve content disputes.--Caspian blue 15:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't behave like that. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please do not behave more uncivil comment that. Does your school teach you to apologise to girls? - this is nothing but personal attack. You should realize how offensive comments you're making, so should desist such the rudeness from now. You're assuming bad faith and making personal attacks which are true. Your name is not English, so I just simply don't remember it. Except you, people who find me to misspell their name, simply and politely asked me to correct their name. However, you're keeping accusing me that "I deliberately distort your name to attack you". However, you're the one distorting the article history in saying that I have been edit warring for several months with Enerelt over my two edit to the article. That is a clear falsehood. I'm only concerned about the and accuracy and quality of the article.--Caspian blue

Please don't behave like this. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Look who's talking? Please do not behave like that.--Caspian blue 16:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gantuya simply asked for a formal dispute resolution through uninvolved parties. Why does that idea displease you so much? Would you prefer the current edit war to continue? --Latebird (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, her first sentence in the thread contains "untruth" which is unacceptable.--Caspian blue 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, she should have listed me as well, because I have also reverted User:Historiographer once or twice, until I grew tired of the issue. --Latebird (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Asking confident parties to help

An edit war has been continuing for many months over a map in this article between the parties noted above. Feeling that it's time to end it, I would like to ask confident third parties to help solving the problem with that map -- File:Mongol Empire map 2.gif or File:Mongol Empire map.gif. ??? Gantuya eng (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, I think what is really needed is a map that is properly sourced, not something made up by some WP users. Those maps that I have seen offline all look quite similar to this one, at least around the Korean (Corean?) peninsula. But of course there still might be different maps.

Anyway, as long as the edit war is between two essentially unsourced maps made up by WP users, Shepherd's map might be the best compromise. Yaan (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to usethis one from the atlas of William R. Shepherd as Yaan suggests. It is sourced in contrary to those two maps suggested by the warring wikipedians. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"under the rule" or "not under direct rule"

There is a continuous edit war around these phrases. Once the difference between these phrases is so painfully important, their meaning should be explained. I meditated on the meaning of "not under direct rule" and found it implies "under indirect rule". This implies there was something or somebody that mediated the rule. I.e. there was something or somebody between the Khaghan and the (Tae-)Wang. If that was really the case it would be constructive to add in the article who or what was between them and what was the mechanism of the "indirect rule". Otherwise it is perceived as a word game. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"not under direct rule" is exactly same was "indirect". "indirect" means "not direct." These should become "indirect rule" because in english language "not under direct rule" ideally should become "indirect." it both means the exact same thing. however "direct rule" or "indirect rule" is little different. direct rule is someone tells someone "directly" plainly to do something. "indirect rule" is little tricky. there is someone between the persons A and B. or something just happened indirectly like the person being told what to do did it himself knowning that the requester is expecting him to do something. direct rule: "do this" indirect rule: "i can do this because he will ask about it, i should do this, you know should do this, tell him to do this, it is nice to do this." I don't see much difference and conflict between these words. It is not a big deal because both of them really means someone is ruling somone in some way. The person being ruled in both cases are in bad situation and the person telling him something is happy. I think most of these things are "directly ruled" because even if someone is being "indirectly rule" in the end he is being "ruled" somehow. 97.124.248.185 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Enerelt's repeated refusal to present direct quotes and his bogus source

I've requested Enerelt (talk · contribs) to present direct quotes from his sources on his talk page[1], but he said he was tired of his edit warring instead of presenting anything.[2] However, one editor with Japanese script reverted to Enerelt's edit without even reading just like his tactic to disrupt Korea-Japan related articles. However, Enerelt worded the sentence with different books without quoting citations. Since Enerelt has been well aware of the credibility of his citations having been questioned, so he should've come to here to present quotes and actual page numbers. Enerelt blatantly disregards my request again. One book source is even bogus.[3] I wonder we should examine his whole contribution given his such behaviors; unwilling to talk with his opponents--11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That editor has "tactic to disrupt Korea-Japan related articles" ??? So you're courageously warring at two fronts !!! This makes even more interesting to watch it. ;) Gantuya eng (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm has been very helpful to the situation. I should learn more from you--Caspian blue 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue in the Discussion page here instead of endlessly reverting each other's edits. Please don't ignore the suggestions of the other editors. Please include us too. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion does not occurs by one-side and please don't lecture any more; this is not helping. You are intentionally ignoring the fact that your friend refused to give "the quotes", and reverted to push his POV without consensus nor discussion. Since his sources and words have been contested, your silence on his edit warring is contradictory. Please persuade him to come over here to discuss the matter.--Caspian blue 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a continuous edit war around these phrases. Once the difference between these phrases is so painfully important, their meaning should be explained. I meditated on the meaning of "not under direct rule" and found it implies "under indirect rule". This implies there was something or somebody that mediated the rule. I.e. there was something or somebody between the Khaghan and the (Tae-)Wang. If that was really the case it would be constructive to add in the article who or what was between them and what was the mechanism of the "indirect rule". Otherwise it is perceived as a word game. Please do not ignore this question. In any case I would like to know the reason for the vital importance of the wording in this case.

Yet, why not "overlordship"? Why not "vassality"? Why "autonomy"? IMHO "overlordship" and "vassality" are terms better suiting the medieval history while "autonomy" suits recent history. Please correct if I'm wrong. I want to understand too. Please discuss the issue in an intellectual manner and please do not discuss who is my friend and who is not. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask to him since he has been edit warring over this about one year according to your opinion here. He is the one you should asked for the question. I'm waiting for him to present "quotes" from the book sources he used. --Caspian blue 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change the course of the question. I didn't ask who is edit warring and who is not. I asked concrete academic questions. Any of the warring editors and any interested editors can answer them. Wikipedia has an educational function and I hope you all will educate me answering my questions. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Caspian Blue, why don't you ask your friends, User: Altaicmania and User: Historiographer instead.--Enerelt (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is User: Altaicmania? (never heard of the name). Since you're the one responsible for your insertion of the books, I've been waiting for you to give the answers and "quotes".--Caspian blue 05:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginning discussion

If this is about the direct/indirect rule. I don't see much difference. If someone told someone to do something, it is direct rule. if it is "indirect rule" someone is basically telling him to do something. not a big deal. most of these invasions, empires, conquests are in the end direct rule. it is not like being ruled "indirectly" is better. both of them are bad for the one being ruled. it is just play of word. if you are not sure that the person directly said something, required something, it is indirect, but in most cases it is just ruled. if there is too much dispute, get rid of the "indirect" "direct" and just say "ruled." anyway mongol empire article is looking great, it keeps getting better. just keep it simple. anyone that hears the indirect direct rule, he/she will understand ruled. 97.124.248.185 (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think our Korean friends considered it from too patriotism view. However, I read articles and essays of Korean scholars (true scholars), which says the Goryeo was under the Yuan suzerainty based on quda relationship. One of the dynasty's kings was exiled to Tibet by the Khagan and died at the court of the Yuan later. If they were allies, any Khagan couldn't have done this to him.--Enerelt (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for joining the discussion. Our Korean colleagues ask for sources and provide sources that are available to them or selected by them. Different sources use different words to denote the same phenomenon. Some sources may say Korea was a vassal state, other sources may say Korea was an autonomous state, some sources may say Korea was under indirect rule of Mongolia. Our Korean friends are trying to choose the word that is, in their perception, least humiliating for their country. But this cannot affect the actual phenomenon behind the terms. I have meditated on the term "autonomous" favoured by the Korean editors. This brought the examples of so-called "autonomous republics" and so-called "autonomous regions" in the two nearest neighbours of Korea. Many of these "autonomous republics" and "autonomous regions" are often governed by an ethnic Russian or ethnic Chinese who even cannot speak the native language of the "autonomous state". In fact even the native population lose their language and culture, become a discriminated and assimilated minority in their own "country". Eventually their territories become absorbed into neighbouring ordinary provinces. Therefore, "autonomy" is in no way better than the medieval "vassality". Gantuya eng (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Enerelt still fails to provide direct quotes, ISBN to verify his insistence, and rather chooses to engages in edit warring as he has done for the past year. Do you think that referring your opponents as "our Korean friends" (sounds like "American comrade" used by Soviet communists, but if you like I would equally call you "our Mongolian friends") and using "IPs" to avoid get caught in 3RR violations are very helpful to resolve the situation? That is called gaming the system and bordering racist attacks (including his manifesto "I will teach Koreans history"), and if this continues, WP:SPI should be conducted. I understand that Enerelt and our "Mongolian friends" are so fond of "patriotism" given his user page and past personal attacks to Korean editors, but writing article should be based on sources with neutral view and accuracy, and his repeated refusals to quote sources and making personal/racist attacks are really disruptive.--Caspian blue14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you perceive the address "Korean friends" so painfully. Also I don't understand why you find this so much offensive. I thought he is adopting a friendly manner to discuss the issue peacefully and in a friendly manner. We are not westernised to the extent to know the hidden meanings of "Korean friends" or "Americal comrades". Please don't make it more and more complicated. People who were arguing harshly can rethink it, calm down and switch to a friendlier manner of discussion. It will be a pity if you reject this attempt. Let's switch to simple English. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be such sarcastic. I don't perceive the "Korean friends" so painfully, but do not appreciate such disdainful tones. Perhaps you dopainfully deny any criticism that you do not help improve the situation. It is a "common courtesy" that when people discuss something from different views, the language should be civil and polite, not attacking one's nationality and ethnicity. Where is a friendly gesture from "Korean patriotrism". I see "none". Please do not make more drama with the wikilaywering. It will be a pity if you do not accept the valid criticism to change your attitude. We're here to build the article, not to be heard of the mockeries.--Caspian blue 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this about the "direct/indirect rule" issue? If there is dispute, leave out the words or the sentence. Comment them out like . Just temporarily remove them for a while. I think Goryo was a vassal and they were building ships for Kublai Khan to invade Japan. 97.124.248.185 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where such hostility comes from in the Korean editors.

My perception of the Korea-Mongolia history pertaining to the 13th is that the Mongols conquered the leading powers of the time such as the Jin and Song dymasties, Khwarezm Empire, Persia, etc. And, to my current level of understanding, it's unbelievable that they would be unable to conquer Korea that time. How I understand the situation is that the Mongols invaded Korea, however the Korean king surrendered very quickly. This gesture saved his realm from complete collapse. Also he gave the Khaghan a princess to be a concubine. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wish Korea freedom, independence and unity, but we cannot change the past. And we all strive not to distort history on Wikipedia. Therefore we need to discuss it here instead of edit-warring. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gantuya eng, if you want to create a new section, that's fine. However, I and the other left their responses within the Enerelt's repeated refusal to present direct quotes and his bogus source section. So do not alter the responses to the Mongolian editors including you for the criticism on the refusal by unilaterally dividing the header as if they are from different topics. I don't know where such hostility and arrogance come from the Mongolian editors. I wish Mongolia has full freedom from communism, and cope with the current economic difficulty since Enerelt mentioned the latter. And we all strive not to distort history on Wikipedia, therefore give us the quote, instead of engaging in edit warring and refusal to quote sources and referring page numbers. How does this comment that exactly same as your argument sounds to you? Please don't bring the insulting ethnicity card over and over, but keep focusing the original topic: why don't you give "quotes, page numbers, ISBN?" You're making the situation worsen. If you want to finish the discussion, please persuade your friend to comply with the requests.--Caspian blue 15:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are terribly quarrelsome. To your information Mongolia and Korea are not ethnicities. These are countries and nation-states which may include several ethnic groups. I don't know to which ethnic group in Korea you belong, and you don't know to which ethnic group in Mongolia I belong. Therefore, there can't be any ethnic insult. In any case both of us are proud citizens of each of our countries regardless of "ethnicity".

Do not insult us being "Communist", this is a very heavy insult. If you again use this nasty word in our address, I will have to report your violations.

You don't wanna be a friend with us. That's fine. I have enough Korean tenants. After all, Wikipedia is part of the so-called "people's diplomacy" and I ask you not to be rude.

Enerelt has provided sources. You intentionally created a heading in which you are attacking Enerelt and hace it displayed every time somebody contributes t the discussion. This is quite a rude gesture.

I have described my understanding of Korean dependence from the Mongol and asked you to correct if I'm wrong. You didn't correct anything. Therefore, my understanding isn't wrong. Therefore, Korea should be included in the map of the Mongol Empire. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Gantuya eng, you're the one who's been behaving terribly quarrelsome and dragging totally irrelevant topics to mock Korean editors to the discussion; why the independence, and freedom of Korea have anything to do with the demand of giving the direct quotes from books that Enerelt has not provided? Both North Korea and South Korea are fully independent states and recognized by UN, but you intentionally brought them up as if they were not. If you insinuate that I'm from North Korea, so you felt to mention "freedom", that is very insulting. You grossly attacked Koreans first, then in response, I said my wish for Mongolian editors. If you do not want to persuade your friend to participate in the discussion, then it's fine. However, please do not derail the discussion by bringing in the insulting race/ ethnicity cards over the citation issue regardless of my repeated requests to you. Why should people here know about your Korean tenants that have nothing to do with the topic? You feel you're okay with your attacks to Korean editors? So please do not use further offensive languages any more and keep focus on the topic. If you continue such behavior with the threats, I will seek appropriate channels to judge your rudeness and offensiveness. Enerelt used a "bogus source" which does not correspond his claim, and he refused to give quotes from books that I can not access to Google books, so the heading is correct. User_talk:Enerelt#Request for quoting your sources on the article talk page My demand is very simple, but why are you being so behaving like that? This issue can be resolved very soon, but you and your friends refuse to amicably compromise, so--Caspian blue 05:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you are bringing strange discoveries to me. Why do you think being a North Korean worse than being a South Korean? Yes I wish freedom to all Koreans and everybody on the planet. I love and cherish the word "FREEDOM" and I wish everybody who has freedom not to lose it and eveyrbody who doesn't have it to win it ASAP. This wish is also part of my religion. I know both Koreas are independent, but wouldn't it be good if they were prosperring together? I don't know, you should know better the wishes of your people.

Yes, I wished independence to Korea, why not. "INDEPENDENCE" is another word that I love and cherish. And I love to pronounce these 2 words together "freedom and independence". I know Korea is fully independent, and I wish she will never lose the independence. I wish the Korean people will never experience the hardships of the WWII again. Does this sentence offend you too? I know these from the countless Korean serials. Another reason for me to underline my wish of independence to Korea is your pain for Korea being dependent on the Mongol Empire long-long ago in the forgotten past. You should take is easy. Every country has gone through zigzaws of history.

And why do you think your race is different from mine? Does this question offend you too? This is you who has used the word "race" first.

I have always sympathised the Korean people, but your behaviour is really badly damaging my perception. It's not really a joy to talk to you. The Korean people I met before are much politer and friendlier than you. And they never talk about "races" and "ethnicities".

Soooooooo, my friend, do whatever you want to the map, use whatever word you want to use on the Mongolia-Korea relations in the article. If your position is right, it will remain that way for long. If your position is wrong, a new editor in the future will see it and will correct. I'll tell Enerelt to stop correcting your contributions to this article. 07:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:TL;DR. Keep your political ideology to yourself, so please do not derail the main topic by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant matters. I really wish you carefully say before throwing words, but I can not even expect from you. Independence and freedom are not freely thrown words in discussions like that. We're not talking about the current situation of Korea, but about the 13th century's history and the sources. I'm not interested in you, nor anyone here at personal level, but care about how the article illustrates the past history. If you do not want to contribute to improving the article, please just remain calm.--Caspian blue 07:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired of your rudeness. Please don't try to respond again because I'm unwatching this boring article. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really relieved not to see your rudeness and off-topics any more, but accept your gesture to disengage from this tedious dispute could be a good sign to resolving it. I really want to reserve a good perspective on people all around the world. Thank you.--Caspian blue 08:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of the Talk page and WP:TROLLing by Monkh Naran

I removed the offensive rant[4] by seemingly two Mongolian editors, Pertook15 (talk · contribs) and Monkh Naran (talk · contribs) who violate WP:TALK, WP:No personal attack and WP:SOAPBOX. Talk page exists to assist discussion on improving the article, and is not a place to lash out some rant based on nationalism or propaganda. "Korean History Revisionism and Nationalism that Distort History", this offensive header and content rather gives this impression "Mongolian History Revisionism that Distort History". Perfect. We've been discussing on "verifiability of sources" that one party has refused to comply with. It is regretful to see that the party refuses to talk rationally and calm manner. --Caspian blue 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You cant delete history. Monkh Naran (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't delete or change history, Monkh Naran. If you want to resolve to this article soon, please discuss in a calm manner and abide by the Wikipedia rule. Resorting to rant and to personal attack are only escalating the drama. Your knowledge is only your knowledge unless you prove with reliable sources. The map has many incorrect information, but none are willing to persuade your opponents with reliable sources. --Caspian blue 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You cant delete history of Korea. :)) Monkh Naran (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC) :))

Interesting, you altered other editor's comment without permission[5] as if you're Gantuya eng unlike your feigned rage over the deletion of your rants. If you continue such behavior, you're responsible for your action. --Caspian blue 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ho ho, i change grammatic, not the content like you. Monkh Naran (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RECIDIVE VANDALISM by User:Caspian blue

Korean user User:Caspian blue has deleted the contribution of Pertook and of me more then one time. One more deletion and he will be bloked. :)) Monkh Naran (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)  :)))

Pax Mongolica

Pax Mongolica is a current Good Article Candidate. Please feel free to suggest what needs to be improved in that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)