Talk:Mongolia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Culture

Following sentence:

"Mongolia has its own ethnic group, which comprises 85% of the country's population."

let to assume that only the Khalkha Mongols are Mongols. It didn´t include all other mongolian ethnics in Mongolia. (195.3.113.176)

For "latebird": Find this sentence not only in the thread "Culture of Mongolia" but also in the thread "Mongolia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.166‎ (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't see that. I just noticed that you removed it from the other article. The statement is very unclear. It is also redundant and in the wrong place, so I'm going to remove it here as well. We already have a section about demographics that explains it much better. --Latebird 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Following sentence:

"The main festival is Naadam, which celebrates the anniversary of Mongolian independence from China"

Naadam dates back to 15th century. It is also celebrated in Inner Mongolia (PRC). Thus it can not be true that Naadam is for celebrating the independence. Maybe some Mongolians celebrate the independence in this festival , however I am sure that the forementioned case is rare. Having several Mongolian family members, I know that for them the independence is not worthy of celebration. They rather like to think about the most glorious time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve19820118 (talk • contribs) --Latebird 13:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable published sources about the real origin of the festival, you're welcome to add that information to the article. However, it is correct that it was officially redesignated to celebrate the independence during socialism. I don't know if this designation was officially changed again later, but I'm sure it has lost relevance. --Latebird 13:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

11th of July is called Ulsyn Bayar because it is somehow related to Mongolia's independence in 1921 (surely Gantuya would know more). However, I read somewhere (Pevtsov's travel report?) that there was a similar holiday in mid July before (or, more exatly, in the 1880s), just that it was in honour of Matreya. But yes, 11th of July is about independence - and those Mongolians that I have met so far all found independence from China very important. Maybe even more important than Chinggis Yaan 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aswering the question of Yaan "On another note, what exactly is the significance of July 11th?" at Talk:Gantuya eng:

The 11th of July used to be officially called the anniversary of the Ardiin Hubishal (People's Revolution). Just like the 7th of November in USSR. For the MPRP before 1990, Ardiin Hubishal was first of all a revolution of the exploited class of poor herders overthrowing the rule of the exploiting feudal class in the light of the Lenin's teachings. On the other hand, they also underlined this revolution was not only against Mongolian feudals, but also against "imperialism"--foreign powers which exploited Mongolia. The arrival of the Mongolian Revolutionary troops and Red Army in Urga and establishment of the People's Government landmarked the victory of the revolution. Thus this day for them landmarked not only the revolution of the poor class but also liberation of the country from foreign exploitation, which is perhaps independence. After 1990, the historians claimed there have been 3 revolutions: Undesnii hubishal (National Revolution) of 1911, Undesnii Ardchilsan Hubishal (National Democratic Revolution) of 1921 and the Ardchilsan Huv'sgal (Democratic Revolution) of 1989-1990. However, the process of gaining of independence has been a long process with many landmarks. This makes the Mongolians argue which of the landmarks should be celebrated as the independence day. When they discuss about defining national holidays, each parliamentary party takes its own POV. According to MPRP 26 of November of 1924 is most important as the Constitution was adopted. According to DP 26 of November of 1924 doesn't have any relation to the independence. Currently they are discussing whether they should celebrate 29 December 1911. As for 11th of July, it is now celebrated as an anniversary of Ardiin Hubishal (still using this term) plus an anniversary of the Great Mongol State. Probably it's convenient to choose a summer day for the biggest celebration of the year because Naadam festival has been organised in summer since ancient times regardless any political implication. Gantuya eng 06:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Population

The statement "About one-third of the population lives in Ulaanbaatar" doesn't square with the numbers given here and in Ulaanbaatar. The total population is stated to be about 1.5M people, while the population of Ulaanbaatar is quoted as about 1M. Which number is correct? -Athaler 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to do that comparison again, but this time with the total population figure, and not the surface area... ;) --Latebird 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We currently live in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia and we have found out that Ulannbaatar contains almost half of Mongolia's total population, which is around 1.3 million right now. The previous information of Ulaanbaatar haveing 38% of Mongolia's population is not accurate and outdated. We got our information from the following site: http://www.welcome2mongolia.com/mongolia-facts/cities-and-aimags/ulaanbaatar-capital-city.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isutechnology (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite (www.welcome2mongolia.com) is not completely relevant encyclopedic source. You live in UB, so you remember how in April 2007 was born 1M UB citizen. And relevant official source clames 1.029.900 for January 31 2008. This value includes Baganuur, Bagakhangai and Nalaikh. If Nalaikh is relatively close to the UB, but Baganuur and Bagakhangai no. So the UB city proper even now is less than 1M.

Using rounded figures now UB (with düüregs listed) is 1M or 38% of Mongolia total.

Urban population (mostly aimag centers and several other cities and тосгон's, see largest at List of cities in Mongolia) out of UB is 23% of Mongolia total.

Rural poulation consists of the sum centers population and the rest (nomadic predominantly). Sum centers are about 15%, the rest - about 25%.

We have:

• 38% UB= 1,000,000
• 23% other cities= 600,000
• 15% sum centers= 400,000
• 25% nomadic and seminomadic =650,000.

If we will add 300,000 to the UB we need subtract this value from the rest of Mongolia population - it is 4 average aimags. You can find 4 empty aimags? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Official census figures clearly take precedence over some tourist oriented web site of unclear authorship. --Latebird (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

HDI

Updated information that relates to finding HDI for Mongolia according to site: http://www.asiasource.org/profiles/ap_mp_03.cfm?countryid=19, shows that the HDI of Mongolia currently is 0.683. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isutechnology (talk • contribs) 06:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant source is UN, where HDI is 0.691. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Other relevant source is U.N. Development programme in Mongolia Mongolian Human Development Report 2007 which brings us fugures based on the national statistics (national and aimag level): 0.667 (2002), 0.680 (2003), 0.692 (2004), 0.707 (2005), 0.718 (2006). All data are available on aimag level 1999-2006.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Aimags

We found out that Mongolia now has 20 provinces, or aimags, and 3 cities have been declared. We got our information from the following site: <http://www.postbank.mn/eng/?ac=branches> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isutechnology (talk • contribs) 06:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant source is Constitution of Mongolia, commercial sources (Шуудан Банк) - no. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Photo of the Parliament building ought to be updated because the roof is now completed. If someone has a newer version of the photo of the building, please contribute. 2 pictures on this page (View of UB fomr BG Hotel window and Prl. Building are duplicated at the page for [Ulaanbaatar]. Gantuya Eng 26 July 2007

Aren't you living in Mongolia? Go make a picture! There's nothing wrong with using a picture in several articles, btw. --Latebird 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Temujin

From the point of view of the Classical Mongolian script it is "Temujin" rather than "Temüjin". Gantuya eng

Modern Mongolian sources seem to consistently use the straight u (including yourself on mnwiki), so I think it makes sense to transcribe from that. (This discussion really belongs here, btw.). --Latebird 14:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. What I meant is that if we decide to use just the 26 English characters without accentations, we could rely on the vowel harmony of the Mongolian language as in case of the Classical script. The trouble with the accented characters is that they frequently cause technical problems. For example "ü" looks like a Cyrillic character on my PC. To some extent, the accented Latin alphabet behaves like a non-Latin alphabet. Gantuya eng

Since we're working with Unicode here, incorrectly displayed characters point to a misconfiguration on your PC (possibly an unsuitable font). Other than that, I assume you are familiar with WP:MON? --Latebird 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Land of the blue sky?

I read places on the internet that states that Mongolia is stated as the "Land of the Blue Sky". [2], [3], Mostly from tourist sites. Is this a saying that might be added in, if correct of course. CarpD 04:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct. Gantuya eng 04:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Mongolia?

I added 'Republic of Mongolia' in the article but someone removed it. Why? Do you have any idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj (talk • contribs) --Latebird 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that's not the name of the country. --Latebird 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Daylight Saving Time

I live in Mongolia, and DST has been officially stopped from this year. I want to include this in the article, but I cant find any references on the web? Can anyone help me? --Chinneeb_{My talk} 07:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This question has been on my list for quite some time. It doesn't have to be an online reference, though. If you're living in Mongolia, I'm sure there's some official publication you can cite for us? I have also seen conflicting information whether all of Mongolia uses the same timezone or not. --Latebird 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one. :) --Chinneeb_{My talk} 13:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't trust the usual online sources (weather and timezone sites) very much about this, because they tend to be user contributed like Wikipedia. Is there no official publication by the governement that we can use? --Latebird 06:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kazakstan stopped using SDT also. In Uvs aimag (I was not in Ulaangom, in Eastern sums only) was 1 hour difference. Bogomolov.PL 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC) DST was cancelled in Mongolia - it is true! We spent 1.5 months in July - August and it was no DST, but it is from Mongolian embassy: [4] Bogomolov.PL 07:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthem name

Why is this page called this? I am a Mongolian living in Mongolia, and have personally never heard the Mongolian national anthem called this. It is simply called "Монгол улсын төрийн дуулал", literally "The National Anthem of Mongolia". I rather think that "Bugd Nairamdakh Mongol" is an abbreviation of "Бүгд Найрамдах Монгол Ард Улсын Төрийн Дуулал", meaning "The National Anthem of the Mongolian People's Republic", the former name of the anthem. --Chinneeb_{My talk} 14:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for making this page it's a realy huge help with my project. Though you might want to add some things in like the climate of Mongolia one of the subtitles. Michael 68.205.188.68 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism

How come the reference was removed to it being the only Chinese nation with Vajryana Buddhism as its predominant religion? Surely Singapore, Taiwan, the PRC, Hong Kong, and Macau can't boast so many Tibetan-rite Buddhists. Provide a citation or don't vandalise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 November 2007

Because calling Mongolia a "Chinese country" is a giant can of worms that is better dealt with on the Talk Page before. Also, it is inconsistent with the rest of the article, where "China" is referred to as a separate entity. If you want to keep the statement, you should make the case for the term "Chinese country" here first, and then the entire article would need to be edited accordingly. Kelvinc (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous to say that "China" is referred to as a separate entity. Singapore is a Chinese country, Taiwan is a Chinese country, the PRC didn't invent China. This sounds like racist propaganda where you're trying to accuse all Chinese of some sort of weird ethnic allegiance to communism!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 November 2007

It's not related to communism at all. It's just that Mongolia is about as Chinese as Estonia is Russian. Yaan (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Estonians speak a Finno-Ugric language, which itself is part of the Uralic languages, not related to the Indo-European Slavs at all. They may even be part of the proposed Altaic language family, which would make them closer to Turks or Kazakhs or Uyghurs or Kyrgyz than Russians.

Mongolians however, are clearly Chinese. Look at their eyes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 November 2007

I always found Mongolians look much more like Greenlanders, and therefore Canadians.Yaan (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just try to say some words in Chinese and look at your eyes, you see the difference? Do you, Anonyme, mean Chinese are Mongoloid race? Don't mix race, language and religion. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the mongoloid race? isn't that that old racist theory about the "three races"? that's ridiculous. People are people. And Mongolians are Chinese people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bogomolov and Yaan, if Mognolians aren't Chinese, how do you explain this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_mongolia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Inner Mongolians aren't real Mongolians, they are Chinese. Any real Mongolian could tell you that. Yaan (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

203.147.0.44: replacing the phrase "mongoloid race" with "Chinese" does not change the substance of your claims ("Look at their eyes"). As you say, it's an out-dated way of thinking and using different language to cover it up doesn't change the underlying (erroneous) thinking. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He/she is just a troll. See his/her edits on Greenland and New Zealand.Yaan (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, I've been caught. Good game you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To the attention of the guy on 203.147.0.44.

First off, please do not troll in this way. And tell me what do you mean by "look at their eyes"? You should learn that Mongolia is not Chinese country both in terms of historical and ethical facts. Even you can not tell Singapore is just Chinese country especially in this globalized world. Or are you telling indirect way that globalization is chinalization? You really keep this in your mind! Please do not just conclude looking at the eyes or something. The determination of races in this way is not your facking business. Bilguun.alt (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wasting your time with that drunk person? 203.147.0.44 is clearly drunk. WP isn't a place for drunkards. He should be blocked. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

c'mon, he was just having some fun ;-). He didn't seem to care about Mongolia more than about Greenland. Yaan (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

let's be clear, Mongolia was part of the Chinese Empire. it doesn't make it a Chinese country anymore than the USA is english country... ;) Mongolia is welcome to rejoin China like how some state join USA in it history but it's for them to decide. btw Singapore is NOT a Chinese country, we ain't like some western country that genocide the native till only a small pocket remains, the malay is still the official language and a good size of the population. Akinkhoo (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"we ain't like some western country that genocide the native till only a small pocket remains." good on you. Yaan (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a wrong place for you, Akinkhoo, to propagate Sinocentrism. Mongolia has never been a part of Chinese Empire, but China was a part of Mongolia in the 13th century. Manchu Qing Empire was not a Chinese Empire.--GenuineMongol (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchu or Chinese

Contrary to what I wrote in a recent edit summary, "Chinese domination" may not be nonsense, but it's certainly POV. The Khalkha did in fact submit to the Manchu and not to China, the administration between 1691 and 1911 was in the hands of ethnic Manchu and Mongols, not Han Chinese, and the official reason to declare independence in 1911 was (IIRC) discontent with Manchu, not Chinese, rule. Yaan (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The people who intrude Mongolia related pages with their Chinese POVs never sign in. They are shy of what they are doing. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

the Qing dynasty is the Chinese Empire, Chinese doesn't limit to Han. the thing here is Manchuria was in Mongolia before the Qing dynasty was formed? in which Manchuria was still a different country from China. but after the Manchurian merge to form the Qing dynasty, only at that point, is Mongolia considered part of Chinese Empire and it's adminstration. let's stick to this? Akinkhoo (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the modern Chinese point of view. The Mongolian point of view is different (guess why Qing Dynasty is called Manj Chin Uls, not something like Khyatad Chin Uls or Chin Dundad Uls), as is that of a number of western scholars of the country. You are welcome to create an article on different POVs about whether Qing Dynasty is identical to China, but for this article "Manchu" instead of "Chinese" is appropriate enough. Plus it is more precise. And yes, most english speakers will understand "Chinese" as "Han chinese". Yaan (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the Mongolians "Chinese" is essentially "Han". "Chinese domination" is inaccurate. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call it a "Domination" either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.92.123 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia became a part of the Manchu Qing Dynasty by signing a treaty with the rulers of the Dynasty. When the treaty was breached by the Manchu side when Empress Dowager Cixi launched a reform policy, Mongolia had the legal ground to declare their independence from the Manchu empire and Mongolians did so in 1911 well before Han Chinese declared their Chinese Republic. So, Mongolia has never been a part of China. --GenuineMongol (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mongolia became a part of the Manchu Qing Dynasty" - what does it mean? Were chinese (Qing Empire) troops in Mongolia? Were Qing Empire garrisons in Mongolia? Were the governors from Beijing in the Mongolian cities? Who - Qing Imperial officials or Mongolian - controlled Nothern border? Was monetary system connected to the Qing Imperial one?

And Mongolia was a Dynasty part or an Empire part? To my opinion a dynasty part can be branch of the rooling family... Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Manchu sent ambans and AFAIK troops to Khuree, Uliastai and Khovd. They also sent one official to Kyakhta. The Mongols had to pay taxes to Beijing, and judicial matters could go up to the Qing court. after the 1757 uprising, the Qing even decided that further incarnations of the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu were only to be found in Tibet. The "well before" by GenuineMongol is, IMO, not so correct. The ROC was declared on Jan. 1st, 1912. Not so long after Dec. 1911. Yaan (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong choice of word (Dynasty instead of Empire). But Mongols enjoyed certain privileges over Han Chinese within the Qing Empire. Although they paid some taxes, Mongol noblemen received salaries from Qing. The presence of Manchu troops was also minimal. The northern borders were guarded by Mongols assigned by the Manchu.--GenuineMongol (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, both Hovd and Hüree had a Mongol Amban beside the Manchu one. But I think there can be no question that Outer Mongolia was subject to the Qing Dynasty. But with a status that was rather different from Han China.

Were the people who guarded the Haruul really assigned by the Manchu? I thought this was some kind of corvee labour that was (officially, anyway) rotated among the people of an aimag or hoshuu, i.e. similar to the Örtöö. Yaan (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So Mongolia was a part, but special part of Qing Impire. As it was a different position of Poland and Finland in Russian Empire, in Britain Empire were part with very different status. May be were Empires with homogenios content, but usually metropoly, colony, protectorate and dominion had different position inside every empire. Mongolia in this context looks being protectorate, I guess.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Credit rating

Please note that there is no "Credit rating" field included in {{Infobox country}}. It was added by 202.131.1.12 ^(talk) on 22^nd January 2008 with this edit. I have removed the field for the time being but if the infobox includes such a field in future, I have no objection to its inclusion here. Green Giant (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

split-up of the empire

I think the traditional view is that the final split only occured after Möngke's death, and that before that time the empire was still somewhat coherent. While it is true that Genghis himself already divided the spoils of his expansions among his children (this was before his death), this does not mean that his children immediatly began to refer to themselves as khans. this does not mean it is a split-up rather than just a subdivision. If you claim that the split-up occured right after Genghis' death, please try and provide some sources. Yaan (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Health

"At present, there are 27.7 physicians and 75.7 hospital beds per 10.000 population overall."

27.7 physicians and 75.7 beds per 10.000 population? I don't get it... someone please explain how this makes sense? (Dren (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

The only part that doesn't make sense is "At present". It should really refer to a specific year. What other problems do you have with the statement? --Latebird (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "... per 10.000 inhabitants" would be better English? Just a guess, I don't know either. Yaan (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion probably comes from the incorrect punctuation usage. Some nations use comma for digit grouping (thousands, millions, etc) and period for designating the break between the ones place and the tenths place, while other nations have them switched (period for digit grouping, comma for designation of ones place and tenths place). The statement as written above, only makes sense if the first two numbers were written with the first convention, and the last number with the second convention. The statement should be corrected to whichever is the international standard.--Yoda of Borg (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finally pointing that out. Seems like it is really hard to figure out stuff like this for people who grew up with 10.000 = "ten thousand". Too bad the original poster wasn't more specific in his remarks ("75 beds for 10 people ?" would probably have been enough). Yaan (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huns became Huns

Please fix the following sentence in the Early History section: "...some of the Huns migrated West to become the Huns." --Yoda of Borg (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

History >> Mongol Empire

Just a quick typo:

"In 1206, ... brutality and ferocity till today ... world history."

Change to still

Thanks!!

Agershon (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Formation dates

I think the current formation days in the infobox are somewhat misleading: While both 1924 and 1990 mark important dates in Mongolia's political system, they seem rather meaningless when discussing souvereignity. IMO, the more relevant dates would be 1206, 1911 and 1921. Any opinions? Yaan (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's "Formation" then let's just leave 1206. The other dates will lead to listing of every step of the long process of recognition of the independence. Gantuya eng (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The listing should not be about international recognition, but about the formation of the modern Mongolian state. I think it woulde be hard to argue there was an independent Mongolian state in 1910 or in 1920, while in 1912 or 1922, the situation would be very different. Except maybe from a purely legalistic point of view, but I don't think a purely legalistic point of view would be very relevant here. I also tend to think most Mongolia-specific literature that I have read accepts 1911 or 1921 as dates for Mongolian independence, not 1924 or 1945 or 1960. Yaan (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps 1206 and 1911 are the most significant dates. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably. But I tend to think that 1921 is also quite important officially (as in Ulsyn Bayar). 1924, for example, yields only one day off (and in November), 1921 yields three (and in July). I'll go ahead and change the intro for now, if you don't like it you can change it again. Yaan (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"1921" creates a temptation to add 1990 or 1992. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Gantuya. 1921 is not one of the most important dates. The most important dates are 1206 and 1911. Mongolia was recognized de-juro by the Chinese Government in 1946 when Mongolians voted for their independence officially. So, 1946 was the date when Mongolia was officially recognized and could be more important than 1921.--GenuineMongol (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is like saying 1973 is as important for East Germany as 1949. Even from a legalistic approach: Mongolia completely lost its autonomy (acc. to Hiagt treaty) in 1919. I don't really understand why China's recognition of Mongolian independence should be more important than Russia's, or North Korea's, or the UN's. In any case, Mongolia was a state (with government, laws, working administration, [more or less] defined borders, military etc.) long before 1945. It very obviously was not a state in 1920. Yaan (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right: China's recognition of Mongolian independence isn't more important than Russia's, or North Korea's, or the US's. Even it's less important than 1921. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Genghis Khan vs. Genghis Khaan

In this case, we should follow the established names. I know that "Хаан" is the title given to the rulers of the whole Mongolian Empire while "Хан" is the title given to the rulers of the parts of the Empire.--GenuineMongol (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like "Chinggis Khaan", but in my opinion "Genghis Khan" is too deeply rooted in the English vocabulary, as is Kublai --Chinneeb_{my talk} 09:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Titles "Khaan" (Kagan) and "Khan" are as different as 'Huandi' and 'Wang' or as "King" and "Duke". Do you understand? This difference can't be ignored. They are spelt differently in the traditional Mongolian script (Khaghan and Khan). Gantuya eng (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why don't you raise this issue in the discussion of the Mongolia work group of WikiProject Central Asia? That way we can use the titles consistently throughout all the articles containing Khan title. I am using "Хан" and "Хаан" in the Mongolian Wikipedia in the way you mentioned. But in case of English, they did not differentiate between these titles. Anyway, we may unite our efforts to correct this mistake in all the articles containing the title if we agree on the usage of Khaan and Khan. Please join the Mongolia workgroup and make your suggestions over there. --GenuineMongol (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a constructive suggestion. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the desire to make that distinction (and share it to a degree), I don't think that the Mongolia work group can overturn WP:UE. The mandate is, that we should use the spelling most common in English language literature, and I doubt that "Genghis Khaan" appears there very often (correct me if I'm wrong). However, it would certainly be a good idea to explain the difference in those articles where it is relevant. It also seems, that Khan (title) is currently somewhat vague about the issue and might be improved in that aspect. --Latebird (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, leaving Wikipedia's annoying "most common names" policy aside, we should note that qaɣan was NOT a contemporary title for Činggis qan. This has long been discussed by scholars including Pelliot and de Rachewiltz. Take Yao's paper as a concise digest:

姚大力: "成吉思汗", 还是"成吉思合罕"?--兼论《元朝秘史》的成书年代问题, 蒙元史曁民族史论集, pp. 109-122, 2006.

Chinggis never styled himself qaɣan. Judging from contemporary sources, he always used qan. It was after Qubilai's reign that qaɣan was retrospectively applied to Chinggis. --Nanshu (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC), modified 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Kh. TS. Damdinsuren's edition of the Secret History of the Mongols, it's Chingis Khaan spelt with double "a" (Чингис хаан). Gantuya eng (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Secret History of the Mongols use "činggis qahan" except for section 255[5]. But we can hardly say that the SHTM is a contemporary source about Chinggis because the extant manuscripts were created in the late 14th century. Yao speculates that the original SHTM used "qan" for Chinggis but was later modified to replace "qan" with "qahan."

As for contemporary sources, the famous Yesüngge Inscription (1224?) reads "činggis qan-i ..." Also, Güyüg Khan's stamp (1246) reads "dalai-in qanu..." --Nanshu (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Gantuya eng (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to revive an 6-month old discussion, while the distinction between "khan" and "khaan" may be of strong interest to some and ultimately proper, the wiki policy on using the most common name/spelling is a pretty strong one, and should be followed throughout the article. To that end I've gone through and matched all spellings to their respective articles. I apologize for doing it in sections, but it is much easier to do such on an iPhone.oknazevad (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian lamb

Why is there no mention of Mongolian lamb? This ancient delicacy is very popular in Australia. --202.47.49.35 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that the article on France does not mention French Fries. Or because just like Mongolian Barbecue, Mongolian Lamb has rather little to do with Mongolia. Yaan (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, lamb isnt eaten in Mongolia. Most people regard eating lamb as a waste, since sheep (mutton) has much more meat. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange trend in some foreign languages to call the meat with the name of the young animal. Traditionally, the Mongolians avoid eating the young animals. Only later day economists calculated that it's more profitable to sell young animals for meat than to raise them until adulthood. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the primary reason that lamb is eaten in the western world is because it doesn't taste as strongly like mutton. That may seem strange to a Mongolian, because in Mongolia pretty much everything tastes and smells of mutton, so nobody really notices anymore. Other than that, I agree with the other comments so far: As you'll find implicitly confirmed in Mongolian cuisine, any recipe named "Mongolian something" most likely isn't Mongolian. There would simply be no point in naming an authentic dish like that, because they all have native names already. --Latebird (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:(

Chinese - 2%, Russian - 2%?

This figure seems to be wrong. We should count only the legal residents of Mongolia. 50,000 Russians and 50,000 Chinese are not realistic numbers. Chinese may number 50,000 if illegal Chinese workers are included. With regards to Russians, 50,000 is an overly estimated number. Not more than 5,000 Russians live in Erdenet and even fewer live in Ulaanbaatar and elsewhere. --GenuineMongol (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since those figures were entirely unsourced, I've removed them again. If anyone does have a good source (statistical yearbook?), then the correct figures are of course very welcome. --Latebird (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correction. --GenuineMongol (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

High unemployment?

Let me preface this by saying that I really don't know much about Mongolia or Asia at all. However, the article says "both unemployment and inflation are high, at 3.2% and 6% respectively". While inflation is high by Western standards, isn't 3.2% unemployment very low, especially for a country with a 2006 poverty rate of 32%?

Thanks for any clarification.

65.57.245.11 (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here seem to be flawed statistics. people may be unemployed without actually registering as such (for example if there are no financial benefits), and then the official number is not very meaningful. Yaan (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, presenting these low numbers while calling them high doesn't help the article much. Does anybody know enough about Mongolia to state this in a more meaningful way and spruce up the article? I think Yaan's comments point in the right direction. Udibi (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Democracy

Please do not hide from our readers the reality that Mongolia is a democracy. Just because either of us may not like the most recent election results doesn't change that. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of democracy that "the other side" can also win, if they manage to convince more people. The term "Transition", which was suggested as a "compromise" is not an alternative, because it has no real meaning in that context. There have litterally been hundreds of "transitions" in the history of the country. The last one is different from the others in that it lead to democracy, so we should clearly title the section to reflect that. --Latebird (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The MPRP did not convince more people than the Democratic Party, but rigged the election. Unfortunately, some foreigners, including The Asia Foundation, who have good relations (may be through bribery) with the ruling "ex"-communist party are working to convince the international community that the Mongolian elections were held fair. But that's not true, because they (foreigners) can't detect certain problems in the election process, e.g. they can't know whether the vote reader reads out the vote correctly or not. By saying this, I don't agree with Gantuya on the change of the title, i.e. it should remain "Democracy". --GenuineMongol (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not hide the reality that Mongolia is a corrupt authoritarian regime which detains and tortures hundreds of its citizens and shoots dead its citizens after a state of emergency is installed and no state official is held responsible for the deaths and injuries. Rich companies build entertainment complexes for the rich foreigners at the source of the Tuul river, which feeds half of the nation. The provincial staff of Khaan Bank receive only 50 USD salary per month while Americans receive 70 USD per hour form the same bank. The society with extremely high rate of unemployment and screaming level of poverty. The most fertile areas are poisoned with mercury and then import of vegetables is stopped and mercury-rich vegetables dominate the market. We may or may not like the recent elections. But not only the recent, but every election since 1990 was fraud show in the interests of MPRP. The word "democracy" sounds too ridiculing in the current conditions. Is it democracy, for which the young people struggled in 1990? Is it also like that in USA, in FRG, in UK? If it is called democracy, then why should the Mongolians need it? Gantuya eng (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to vent your general unhappyness about the situation of your country. Please do not disturb our work here to make a mostly unrelated point. As much as I appreciate most of your other contributions, your current behavour amounts to blatant and unjustified POV pushing. Mongolia has a democratic system written in its constitution, hence it is a democracy by definition. No amount of general ranting is going to change that, it will just make you look bad. I'm sure there are more constructive ways to help your country improve from its current situation. --Latebird (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This has beed already discussed here, see the archive: [6]. Which regime is more democratic is completely POV issue and not what Wikipedia should decide.--Dojarca (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disturbing your work. It was only an attempt to match the wording with the reality revealed in the course of the political purge following the July 1st event. Unwatching the page. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the term "political purge" is truly disturbing. I would have expected some more respect for the victims of the historical Stalinist purges in Mongolia. --Latebird (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How is Gantuya's comment disrespecting the victims of the Choibalsan era purges? The truth is that the police fired on citizens with live ammunition. And when the authorities try to arrest the people/police responsible, the idiot police and their families' have been protesting against it (police protesting - come on, this is stupid). Yet nothing has done anything about them, while silent protests from the families of the victims are banned, and their leaders arrested. This is not real democracy --Chinneeb_{my talk} 07:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party offices around the country are acting, party banners you can find in almost every sum center. Incendiary protests leaders have to be arrested in every democratic country, democracy defends society from this kind of acts. We will waiting who will go to the prison if at all. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ans what's your point? --Chinneeb_{my talk} 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing such a minor (on a historical scale) event with a handful of random victims to the systematic murder of more than 10000 people is indeed disrespectful. If you don't understand the difference, then continuing this discussion here is pointless. --Latebird (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody compared it to the historical purges. Plus, the definition of purge is "to force your opponents or people who disagree with you to leave an organization or place, often by using violence", meaning it isnt used exclusively with "the systematic murder of more than 10000 people", it can also mean fewer than 10. Adding to this, that was an era of a totalitarian regime that everyone knew there was, whereas now is a so-called "democratic" society. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 07:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Mongolian history, the term "political purge" has a very specific meaning. And even if we go with your general definition, then the most recent elections still did not result in any kind of "purges". In either case, the comparison is clearly unjustified. --Latebird (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, nobody compared it to the Stalinist purges --Chinneeb_{my talk} 04:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to use the term "political purges" without implying that comparison. Of course, the person using it may have been to too angry at the moment to realize what she was really saying. --Latebird (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

purge?

I kind of agree with chinneeb's definition - what McCarthy instigated were also political purges, even if there was no widespread murder and destruction. Still I don't see how it applies here. Mongolian politicians seem to have an affinity towards giving jobs to friends and supporters, possibly at the cost of supporters of rival parties, but this doesn't really mean it's political. In fact, one wonders what the political differences between DP and MPRP are supposed to be at all.

On whether police in other democratic countries would use live ammunition against violent protestors, try Italy or Sweden. UK has a somewhat darker history of political (or police) violence, I guess one could still call it a democracy. Yaan (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If protestors reduce to ashes YOUR home - is it normal to use live ammunition against them? But State Gallery is possible pillage? In Russia, for example, oppositional political parties were abandoned after the protest with using violence. In Mongolia is much more democracy - opposition leaders were talking what they want in live official tv! Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

add 1 iw link please

                 [[za:Mongolia]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.233.23 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ROC recognition

The article says The Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced the Republic of China to recognize Outer Mongolia's independence, provided that a referendum was held. The referendum took place on October 20, 1945, with (according to official numbers) 100% of the electorate voting for independence. However I understand that the ROC still doesn't recognize Mongolia. Some explanation or clarification is in order.Readin (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The situation seems to be a bit more ambiguous than that. More details can be found in Republic of China–Mongolia relations. --Latebird (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Education

The first class of 12 year students began with the start of this school year on September 1st, 2008. Here is one external link: http://www.olloo.mn/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1134602 Fargarlicknots (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Have added it with some more info.--Chinneeb_{my talk} 03:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Formation"

Shouldnt we include the democratic revolution in 1990~ish? With that, Mongolia finally became independent, and stopped being a satellite state of the USSR.--Chinneeb_{my talk} 03:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In which it was independant, though not as much as say, the warsaw members were,--Jakezing (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

While that transition is of high symbolic value, it didn't technically change the status of the country. As such, it would be misplaced under "Formation". --Latebird (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, Soviet Satellite -->Independent Country. Not symbolic, real. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 11:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some formal signs of the independecy: U.N. and other international organizations membership.

In 1950's South Korea was an U.S. satellite, is it a satellite now? Is it independent? Vietnam was a Soviet satellite, but now it is not. Does it mean it was not independent country but now is?

And was, of course, an other side of being the Soviet (or U.S.) satellite - Soviet and Soviet satellites (or U.S. & NATO) economic assistance receiving.

And about the revolution. This revolution was a drastic change in the interior politics caused by the not interference of the Soviets. In fact this revolution was not possible in the nonindependent country, interior crisis in the USSR provocated dissolving of the socialist camp and (several months later) USSR disapeared. So Mongolian revolution was in the chain of revolutions in East/Central Europe in former socialist countries. Every such kind of revolutions was with a national specific form, but was no Soviet troops intervention (not like in 1956 or 1968). These countries had become independent in 100% and after that decided their political systems. Nonindependent country can not make this decision. So revolution didn't bring the independency, no, the independency caused the revolution. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam never had many Soviet troops in the country, though. But then, those Soviet troops in 1967 came after a Mongolian request when they felt threatened by Maoist China, a situation certainly different from that of Czechoslovakia in 1968 or East Germany and Hungary in 1944/45. Yaan (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreign troops presence is not an independency sign. Only if this country does not want this troops presence or these troops are acting in the interior politics we can say - yes, this country is not in 100% sovereign. U.S. troops are present in a number of countries - Italy, Germany etc. But this troops never decide the political questions in this countries, never support any political party.

East Germany and Hungary were conquered in 1944/45, they were enemy counries for the USSR. West Germany was occupied with U.S., Btitain and French troops and it was not fully independent in this terrible period ("Europa" of Lars von Trier, you see).

Mongolia, as a part of the Soviet block, really had menace of war from Japan side in II war, and from China later. But now - no, Mongolia does not need Russian or any other troops now on its territory. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the movie, but East or West Germany were of course not independent at all in the 1945-49 period (terrible seems a somewhat strong word, though, at least compared to the period before?).

Re. Mongolia I guess it boils down to what you define as independence: formal independence, or something more - but what exactly? And then what you think the options of the Mongolian leaders were. My impression is that Tsedenbal was not doing like the Soviets did out of fear, but mainly out of conviction, i.e. with quite different motives from those that Wojciech Jaruzelski claimed about his imposition of martial law in Poland in 1981? Yaan (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Europa is a good film, resistance theme was banned before. "Terrible" in comparision to the before (independent superpower) and after (prosperity and democracy).

Jaruzelski can not be compared to the Tsedenbal. Jaruzelski was a transition leader, who saved his country from possible Soviet invasion and next, whet it became possible, prepared democratic changes. Lech Walesa highly respects Jaruzelski, he claimes his respect in public form for many times.

Tsedenbal was a Soviet style dictator, his aim was to prevent any changes. Every changes in Soviet block were supressed with military power (Soviet or native like in Poland). If (it is impossible, but if) Tsedenbal wanted more democracy he would be arrested by the Soviets, I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But there were leaders in the Soviet bloc that did, at least verbally, oppose the USSR in certain questions, for example Ceaucescu when he addressed the invasion of Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, the affair around the planned celebrations for 800th birthday of Genghis Khan in 1962 seems pretty hard to understand without a high level of Soviet control. Yaan (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Soviet control in Mongolia often had unacceptable form: special (better) shops for Soviets, cinemas etc. and Soviet soldiers keeping out Mongolians at entrance. And Soviet cars stoned by the Mongolians.

But Romania newer had Soviet troops, its position was very special. But Mongolia was a part of the Soviet Zabaikalsky Military District.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are very clear and objective criteria that are applied internationaly (eg. by the UN) to determine independence. Mongolia satisfied those criteria before and after 1992. Beyond that, all the subjective political interpretations above are just original research. --Latebird (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Latebird. My opinion is the same - formal independence of Mongolia is supported with UN membership Bogomolov.PL (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

additional ciation for health sector "rapidly improving"

The article currently states (under "health") "Health care in Mongolia is rapidly improving". This is supposed to be supported by an UNDP report, http://mirror.undp.org/Mongolia/publications/NHDR-2007-Eng.pdf. Unfortunately, no page number is given, and p. 36-37 gives the impression that there are still serious problems. The statistical yearbooks of 2002 and 2007 also do not really seem to support the claim, or at least not universally: less sum hospitals means that patients may have to travel several hours more to the next hospital, no significant rise in #s of physicians or nurses.

There are of course major achievements in the fields of infant/child mortality and (consequently?) life expectancy, but apparently they are not exclusively due to the status of the health system, but also due to social trends (declining birth rates, urbanization) (acc. to http://www.nso.mn/mdg/eng_goals4.htm). Therefore, the citation currently given (the UNDP report) just does not seem sufficient yet. Yaan (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an other important reason is the imperfection of the national statistics (fertility, mortality, health care and other social indicators): sex ratio at birth in Bulgan aimag is 84.8 (in UB 102.7), mortality in Omnogovi aimag in 2005 was 7.5 (in UB 6.3) but in 2007 4.3 (in UB 6.3).Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I calculated a birth ratio of 93,1 for Bulgan from the numbers given in the 2007 yearbook, p. 353 and 354 (395/424*100, or am I missing something?). Assuming the probability of a newborn to be a boy is exactly 0.5 (in reality it is slightly higher) and that the number of boys born is normally distributed with expected value E = 409.5 (0.5*(395+424)) and variance $\sigma ^{2}$ = 204.25 (0.5*0.5*(395+424)), then a difference of less then 14 boys from the expected number seems to be still in the $[E-1\sigma ,$ $E+1\sigma ]$ interval, i.e. perfectly OK. A difference of more than 30 boys (i.e. 380 boys vs. 440 girls, 0.86 ratio) would be somewhat untypical (less than 5 2.5 % probability), maybe only a difference of more than 45 (365 vs. 455, 0.80 ratio) would be strange (less than 0.3 0.15 % probability).

But I admit that statistics is somewhat of a weak spot for me. You might especially want to check the value for $\sigma ^{2}$, and keep in mind that we started with a lower value for E.

Yaan (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Yaan, when you are analizing these values. That is why Govisumber aimag data are not robust from statistical poin of view - too small absolete values.

In Bulgan aimag sum of the newborn boys and girls 395+424=819, but p.96 of yearbook 2007 claims 1081 babies born. 262 person or 32% more! So values at pp.353-354 are the numbers of the weighted childs (born in a hospital?).Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange. The nationwide statistic also gives some more births than the statistic on p. 353/354 (55774 boys and girls, 56636 births), but the number of births in Ulaanbaatar is actually higher on p. 353/354 than on p. 96 (24411 boys and girls from 22721 births). My guess is that part of the explanation might be that some mothers from the countryside prefer/feel the need to deliver their children in Ulaanbaatar, because of better medical facilities? But then they should also be counted as "born in Ulaanbaatar" by the registry office, not just by the hospital. Assuming there are no special benefits from registering a newborn child in Bulgan rather than Ulaanbaatar, anyway. Or maybe there is yet some completely different reason behind those numbers?

The question about children being born outside hospital is an interesting one, because one might expect some underreporting of infant/children mortality when children are only registered officially some years after birth. But I have no idea how common this is these days. Anybody? Yaan (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially Tov aimag women prefere UB hospitals, so number babies born in Tov is small.

First reason, why UN has alternative estimations for the infant mortality is that child born and next died out of the hospitals are not counted. Second reason is, that hospital officials are not interested in complete registration of infant mortality in their hospital - worse statistics, worse carrer. Third reason is, that figures are "corrected" at aimag and national level to get better Human Development Index.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Qing dynasty is a dynasty of Imperial China

Look, I don't know why GenuineMongol is so eager to remove the reference about Qing Dynasty is a dynasty of China. Whatever your POV is, let's stick to the fact here, Qing is the dynasty's name of China at the time, whereas China is the country's name. If you have problem about Qing Dynasty being a dynasty of China, go and discuss that issue on the Qing dynasty talk page, not here.

If you still don't understand, read the example in Tudor dynasty page, then you will realise Tudor is a dynasty in Kingdom of England not the other way around.

It is funny that in this article references to China was preserved except Qing (the last dynasty of China) , for example "The next centuries were marked by violent power struggles between various factions, notably the Genghisids and the non-Genghisid Oirads and numerous Chinese invasions (like the five expeditions led by the Yongle Emperor)." it use CHINESE invasion but not Ming invasion.

Another example: "In the early 15th century, the Oirads under Esen Tayisi gained the upper hand, and even raided China in 1449 in a conflict over Esen's right to pay tribute, capturing the Chinese emperor in the process." it use CHINA not Ming dynasty, because we all know that China is the name of the country, Ming is just the dynasty.

But suddenly, once it talks about Qing, all reference about China seems disappear. I think, if Ming can be used interchangably with the name China, so can Qing. Don't you deny Qing isn't a Chinese dynasty.

See Imperial China if you still don't understand.

--Da Vynci (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the modern Chinese POV, with its distinction of " 中国" and "汉". Mongolian language does not make this distinction (that is, Inner Mongolians, do, nowadays), my uninformed guess is that Manchu may not do, either? The fact is that Qing was not a Han Chinese dynasty, the officials sent to Mongolia were not Han Chinese, and the status of Outer Mongolia was very different from that of the Qing's Chinese Provinces. AFAIK the Mongols were always (esp. in 1911/12) very clear about being part of the Qing state, and about not being part of anything Chinese. Yaan (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Making up another analogy, all the perceived or real identity of Russia and the Soviet Union does not mean that Estonia ever split from a "Russian Soviet Union", or a "Soviet Union of Russia".Yaan (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Mongolian language does not make this distinction, fine, go and edit the Mogolian wikipedia, but this is the the English wikipedia. In international setting, the distinction between Qing and Han is not applicable. You said "Qing was not a Han Chinese dynasty", that's correct, but Qing are Chinese too.

Equalising Qing to China is not a modern Chinese POV, the Qings themself called themself Chinese as early as 1843 when the Qing Emperor signed the international treaty of Treaty of Nanking with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the original English version of the treaty, the Qing Emperor refered himself as Emperor of China, and the land they refered in the articles of the treaty is China, not "Qing dynasty". No mention to word such as Qing in other treaties written in English too, suhc as the [of Tien-Tsin], this illustrates that in international setting, the word "Chinese" and "China" are more perfered synonyms of "Qing people" and "Qing" during the time of Qing dynasty. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would dare to say that English also does not really make this distinction, or in any case "Chinese language" generally translates to "汉语". I would also dare to say that the Chinese versions of those treaties would probably more relevant, though in any case, given the circumstances of both treaties one might suspect that it was not the Qing emperor who referred to anything there, but the British.

And once again, "Russia" was used as an equivalent to "Soviet Union" in the English-speaking world through much of the last century, but that does not mean that something named "Soviet Union of Russia" ever existed. Mind you, no-one disputes that Russia was part of the Soviet Union, not even that Russia was by far the most important part of the Soviet Union.Yaan (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And, more relevant to your last edit: I think you should bring up some more relevant source about what Mongolians did actually declare independence from in 1911. I respect your interpretation that Qing=China, but I think you need to be aware that your interpretation may not be the only correct one. AFAIK a number of Chinese provinces delcared their independence in 1911. Did any of them declare to be independent from China? Yaan (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I still not sure what are you trying to do, if Qing referred themselve as China and foreign nations such as UK also address Qing this way in formal documents , as evidented by the Treaty of Nanking and Treaty of Tien-Tsin, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.1, published in Chicago in 1892 by Rand, McNally & Co., why you still have problem about it? BTW, Qing China didn't have an official English name like Republic of China do, but doesn't mean you can use any name you prefer in order to fulfil your desire to wipe out history. We need to use verified official translation, such as those used and signed by Emperor of China (Qing dynasty) in Treaty of Nanking or the 1892 version Encyclopaedia Britannica. Note that the Treaty of Nanking is a bilingual document and signed by both parties. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Being a dynasty of China is only one aspect of the Qing, and of course an important one from a Chinese perspective. But if you look at it from the outside (as a Wikipedia editor always should), you'll find that there was more to it. The Qing never considered all the territories they ruled as part of China, and one of their most prominent non-chinese territories was Outer Mongolia. Attempts to bring those areas under the Chinese umbrella as well were only made in the 20th century, after the fall of the Qing. You'll find some more information about those facts, and a few sources, in the article Mongolia during Qing rule. --Latebird (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern Mongolia territory was not a China part in common sense, but it was an Empire part from every point of view. As Qing Empire (like Russian, Ottoman) had its parts creating metropolitan core, where was no local ethnic rulers, and protectorates (in fact) where these rulers were. But in the protectorates imperial troops and bureaucracy were present, so the protectorates were not fully independent. In this discussion we can see two points of view:

• Modern Mongolia territory was not a China part like other China provinces were, but its self-government was limited by the imperial troops and presence of the imperial offices. Nothern boundary (with Russia) had customs with imperial officers.
• Modern Mongolia territory was a part of the China empire, so it was a China part as Tibet or Eastern Turkestan are. Presence of the ethnically nonchinese dynasty on a throne does not change the chinese character of the empire.

For me Mongolian presence as a part of the Qing empire is a referenced POV. Being an ethnic China part is not a referenced POV. So the question is how to call Qing empire - but this question was decided in the respective article naming. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Da Vynci, What I want you to do is not to oversimplify the situation. That pre-1911 Mongolia was or is considered part of China by some people does not mean that Mongolia declared independence from "China". As mentioned before, a number of Chinese provinces declared their independence in 1911, obviously in all these cases independence from the Qing state is something different than independence from China, is it not?

To bring inanother reference for Qing and China being regarded as completely different concepts by the Mongols, not just by the Chinese, in Veronika Veit's "Qalqa 1691 bis 1911", part of Michael Weiers (ed.) Die Mongolen, Beitraege zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur, Darmstadt 1986, on p.444, one reads "For [the Qalqa nobility], the decision of 1691 was, in line with Mongol tradition, a declaration of personal loyalty to the Manchu ruler, who would guarantee their protection and a prospect for success in war and more power. Their behaviour in 1911, after the fall of the dynasty, wpuld show this once again. The Manchu Emperor and the Chinese Empire were regarded completely independent from each other" (own translation of "Fuer [die Qalqa-Fuersten] war die Entscheidung von 1691, mongolischer Tradition entsprechend, eine Erklaerung der persoenlichen Gefolgschaft fuer den mandschurischen Herrscher, der ihnen Schutz und die Aussicht auf Kriegsglueck und Machtzuwachs sichern wuerde. Ihr Verhalten 1911, nach dem Sturz der Dynastie, sollte dies noch einmal deutlich machen. Der mandschurische Kaiser und das Chinesische Reich wurden voellig unabhaengig voneinander betrachtet."). Yaan (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map is very poor, it should be "zoomed" in to a better view like Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.213.231 (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

manai mongol oron mash saihan shuu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.169.51.27 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but how is this related to improving the article? Yaan (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Were you refering to me, or 203.169.51.27..? I don't know what he said. But I thibk a better map will make a better article. 83.108.234.37 (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I was answering 203... . I also like the map at the Iran article more. Yaan (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Relations with Taiwan

I don't think the relations (or lack thereof) between Mongolia and Taiwan are very relevant for this article. There are a number of states (or similar entities) with similar size whose relations with Mongolia were/are far more relevant, for example the other countries of the Soviet bloc. What is important are the relations with that big country in the south, and that country is, since 1949, the PRC. Yaan (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true that the ROC is relevantly unimportant at the moment for Mongolia. The reason why I added the information was because the main text mentions that the ROC recognised Mongolia without talking about the later revocation as well as the current issues in the relations. This would be misleading to readers and they would think that the ROC still recognises Mongolia.--pyl (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed ROC to "China". Does that look better? Yaan (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I changed the wording a bit so it offers better clarity: the countries never recognised each other more than once (which the word "again" implies), they just confirmed their mutual recognition.--pyl (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia was under TAng dynasty chinese domination, ho ho ho Genuinemongol you got owned big time. tibet was also part of it too lol

The han chinese Tang Dynasty conquered a large area of the steppes of Central Asia, Mongolia, and Russia, and forced the Gokturks, and the Khitans and Mongols into submission and acceptance of Chinese rule. The Han Chinese Emperor Tang Taizong was crowned Tian Kehan, or heavenly khagan, after beating the Gokturks and then the Khitan Mongols in Mongolia. It is not certain whether the title also appiled to rest of the Tang emperors, since the term kaghan only refers to males and women had become dominant in the Chinese court after 665 until the year 705. However, we do have two appeal letters from the Turkic hybrid rulers, Ashina Qutluγ Ton Tardu in 727, the Yabgu of Tokharistan, and Yina Tudun Qule in 741, the king of Tashkent, addressing Emperor Xuanzong of Tang as Tian Kehan during the Umayyad expansion. The Chinese were the first sedentary peoples to conquer the steppes of mongolia, central asia, and russia. They were also the first non altaic peoples to do so. Because of this, the Tang Dynasty was the largest Chinese empire in all Chinese history.

Around 650 AD, the chinese Tang Dynasty captured Lhasa.

• It is surprizing for me to find that steppes of Russia were conquered in VII-th century. The name of Russia comes from XVII century, the first Ruthenian state was established in IX century. There were steppes in this state ruled by the viking dynasty (modern Ukraine), but too far from this map extends. May be the author means modern Russia (there are steppes in transbaikal regions neighboring to modern China)? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And Mongolia was founded in its current territory only in the 12th century under Genghis Khan. Even Khamag Mongol did not exist in the 7th century, when Turkic tribes ruled what's now Mongolia. I hope the administrators watch this page and remove these personal (false) remarks intended to offend a fellow contributor. GenuineMongol (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope so! This personal attack is unacceptable in Wiki. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just some spillover from here. Already back then it was pointed out that even today, "Russian steppes" usually is not meant to refer to Transbaikalia. Yaan (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And yes, of course there were no Mongols in 7th century. The text also fails to mention that Tang overlordship was only temporary. Yaan (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw. see also Mongolia during Tang rule. Yaan (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Translate please?

What does this say:

"Iim muuhai novshiin oguuleliig ali hurdanaar ustgah heregtei shuu. Eniig uldeemeer hun hojij bolohgui" Ikip (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Seine Nase in fremde Angelegenheiten stecken". Seriously though, I think the more appropriate place for such requests is Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group. Regards, Yaan (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It means: "A horrible trash article should be deleted as soon as possible. The people who want to save it should never win.". Kinda pathetic that we Mongolians cant even express our disgust by our own writing system (it isnt even supported on windows!) --Chinneeb_{my talk} 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

${\mathfrak {We\,\,Germans\,\,cannot,\,either.\,Or\,\,only\,\,by\,\,using\,\,tricks.}}$

${\mathfrak {Yaan}}$ ${\mathfrak {(talk)}}$, ${\mathfrak {12:52,6\,\,April\,\,2009\,\,(UTC)}}$

Mongol Empire - Vietnam

The paragraph regarding the Mongol reaching as far south as Vietnam is flat out wrong. The Mongols did make several attempts at taking Southeast Asia, but not once were they ever successful. Please correct this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.39.22 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess what is meant is not necessarily that Vietnam was a part of the Mongol Empire, but that they have a common border. Just like the Gulf of Oman was not really part of the empire, it just marks just one end of it. But I am no native speaker of English, I don't know if it is wrong to say something like "Russia stretches from the Pacific to Poland and Finland". Regards, Yaan (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Long Form of Mongolia

I was having a look at the article People's Republic and it had Mongolia listed as one of the countries that moved from being known as a people's republic to a republic. Yet it simply states Mongolia on this article. Assuming post-Communist Mongolia hasn't kept the "people" qualifier, what is (if any) the long form of Mongolia? YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no long form anymore. Just "Mongolia". Yaan (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Inhabited for 800 000 years?

This seems unlikely as, well, there were not humans 800 000 years ago, is this a typo? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding: inhabited by homo but not sapiens (neanderthalensis, heidelbergensis etc.), but used as an evidence of this nation ancestors. We need correct this kind of declarations, but not erase every informations abut Homo genus presence.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Independence in 1911

This edit reflects a permanent problem with Mongolian independece in 1911 (and it's previous dependence) from whom: Imperial China or not? If not - from whom? Usually an endependence is one state (or former territory, province, protectorate, dominion, colony etc.) from an other state. Relevant sources (usually used in Wiki as it is) are talking us about Mongolian independency from China (CIA Factbook, Britannica etc.). It is a controversal question for Mongolian and Chinese wikipedians, I guess, but in this case third-party sources are welcomed. It was impossible for me to find any XIX century map where modern Mongolia territory was not in Chinese or Qing Empire boundaries. Russia was singning Treaty of Kyakhta with Qing Empire (in the treaty original text it is named Chinese Empire[7]), stating in 1727 de facto modern Russian-Mongolian boundary.

So, if this question is controversal (it looks so), we need add this problem presence into the article or create a special one where can be expressed the topic of the controversy and relevant sources for every position. We have no right to decide about this question - the relevant sources can decide (or possibly decide), our selfmade decisions are not relevant without strong references support. It is no this kind of job done yet. Or almost every Wikipedia reader will be surprized with lack of notations from what country Mongolia was independent in 1911. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is some discussion about whether the Qing Dynasty was "China" or not, a summary can for example be found at the beginning of Liu Xiaoyuan's "Reins of Liberation". Therefore, stating Mongolia was part of China before 1911 is just as POV as stating it was not. We can probably find a lot of Mongolian sources for the latter interpretation. I don't really have the desire to write an article about it, especially since it is easy enough just click the link to "Qing Dynasty". Yaan (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Miat still doing domestic flights?

They don't seem to have any domestic timetable on their website anymore. Does anyone know if they still offer domestic flights? Yaan (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Greenland will not become independent

"(this will change in June 2009 when Greenland becomes officially independent)"

Greenland will still be part of the kingdom of Denmark in June 2009, the referendum was only for increased autonomy. If someone could fix this line it will be greatly appreciated. a Line from the Greenland article "in 2008 Greenland voted to become a separate country within the Kingdom of Denmark, effective June 2009." That is not Independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine flue

[[8]] Mongolia quarantines some swine flu suspects.

Chinese border casese [[9]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.246.103 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a current news item (possibly for Wikinews), not encyclopedic information. How is it supposed to improve the understanding of the country and its inhabitants? --Latebird (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

Since Mongolia has very close economic and political ties with Russophone countries, can Russian be considered a vehicular language of this country ?Mitch1981 (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Russian is not considered a vehicular language of Mongolia. May be, only 5-10% of the adult population are fluent in Russian, while English is the primary foreign language taught at high schools now (there are 50K Mongolians living in the US today, according to some estimates). Interestingly, German speakers comprise 2-3% of the adult population, because thousands of Mongolians studied in Germany before 1990 and hundreds of Mongolians are studying in Germany today.GenuineMongol (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since WP:MON doesn't specify any exceptions to established policies and guidelines, this storm in a tea pot won't affect us here either way. --Latebird (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Official alphabet?

Are there any laws or other regulations that say that cyrillic is official and traditional Mongolian is not? The infobox currently gives this impression, without giving a source. Also, is Kazakh not an official language in Bayan-Ölgii? Yaan (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kazakh is not an official language of Mongolia, but it is allowed to teach students in Kazakh at schools, if the majority of the students are the speakers of the minority language. So, it is not allowed to conduct the government affairs in Kazakh. There is a law on the state language of Mongolia issued in 2003. But, I don't know any law stating that the Cyrillic Mongolian is the official script. All government stamps and letterheads and all government office signs contain both the Cyrillic Mongolian and Traditional Mongolian versions of the names of the respective government agencies.--GenuineMongol (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on all of my visas (some aquired at home, some in Mongolia) I have stamps from the issuing authorities that are only in traditional script. Yaan (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I found this one interessting: http://www.china.org.cn/e-groups/shaoshu/shao-2-mongolian.htm

It is written there: "The Mongolian script was created in the early 13th century on the basis of the script of Huihu or ancient Uygur, which was revised and developed a century later into the form used to this day." Can we insert it into the article? --92.74.26.115 (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article on Mongolian script. This article only devotes two sentences to the alphabet in use, I am not sure whethet it is necessary to discuss the origins of the script here. Yaan (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Independence from China in 1921, U.E.Bulag

My interpretation of Bulag's statement re. Mongolia's 1921 independence from China is that this is related to the Chinese "sucerainty" after the Khiagt conference, or even to the post-1919 state. In any case I have not really found any statement that implies that Bulag regards "Qing Dynasty" as a synonym for "China".

These 1919-1921 events were all already well-covered in the article, so I have reverted Pyl's recent addition, as it seemed a bit redundant.

I am aware that some people think that "Qing Dynasty" is just the same as "China". But there are also others who hold a very different POV. This is just an overview article and does not need to/can not go into full detail. For anyone who wants to write an article about these defferent POVs, a small discussion with a lot of references can be found in Liu Xiaoyuan, Reins of Liberation, p. 4 ff, with sentences like "These arguments about the difference between Han and Manchus and about the similarities between Qing imperialism and Western colonialism point to the same conclusion: Historically, the Inner Asian territories of the Qing empire were not part of China" (p.9) and "Therefore, if the question of what was a "part of China" is asked with the full connotation that the modern world order of nation-states entails, territories such as Tibet and Mongolia not only were not part of the "Chinese China", but also were not part of the "Manchu China"." (p.11). For the purposes of this article, I propose to just call the Qing Dynasty "Qing Dynasty". Yaan (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly an conflict of interpretation of facts between the source that I found and the POV that GenuineMongol has taken.

First, the independence issue. The source that I cited said independence was not achieved until 1921, although there was a declaration of independence in 1911. I find this POV accurate under the principles of international law. GenuineMongol has taken a POV that independence was reaffirmed in 1921. There is no such thing as reaffirmation in international law: a country either achieves independence or it does not. Then, there is a remaining issue of the referendum in 1945. If a country really is independent, then there is no need for a referenum for independence at all. I think there is another POV that Mongolia didn't achieve full independence until China's recognition, either in 1945 (by the ROC) or in 1949 (by the PRC).

Second, calling China's control of Ulan Bator in 1919 an act of occupation clearly breaks the NPOV rule.

Finally the more difficult issue of whether Qing dynasty is China. Page 13 of Mr Bulag's text has China all over the place. I am not sure how one can miss the connection between Qing dynasty and China. I am not sure whether in this discussion I am dealing with a sentence mentioned in Mr Bulag's text (at top of page 13) that:-

"As far as China is concerned, Mongolia had always been part of China, a claim that often flabbergasted Mongols."

As far as the rules of international law is concerned, I don't think a country can be independent of a dynasty. Independence relates to indepedence from a state. Qing dynasty is recognised internationally then as the representative for the state of China. In Mr Bulag's text it also states that:-

"It is now known that the Soviet Union signed a bilateral agreement with China in 1923 confirming the status of Monolia as part of China........ (see Elleman 1994)"

The POV that Qing dynasty is not China would also create implications in international law that is contrary to the facts at present. The ROC/PRC would not be able to the successor state for Qing China. If that's the case, the ROC and PRC's territory would be whatever they wished to conquer. I don't think this is international law theory they relied on, and certainly, this is not what is considered to be the case by the international community.

Is the POV that Qing dynasty not China a relatively minor POV and can be ignored according to Wikipedia's rules? Or, is this POV a major POV in Mongolia?

PS: to GenuineMongol, please don't remove my reference and replacing it with your POV without stating a reason.--pyl (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Mongolia became a de-facto independent country in 1911.

Second, pyl said "calling China's control of Ulan Bator in 1919 an act of occupation clearly breaks the NPOV rule". Didn't Chinese troops led by Xiu invade Mongolia then?

The POV that Qing dynasty not China is a major POV in Mongolia. Please see the discussion above about this POV issue. --GenuineMongol (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

de facto independence is not fully independence according to legal defintions. You therefore cannot just say it like the way you put it (without any qualification). According to your POV, there should be a sentence in Wikipedia saying "Taiwan is independent of China". That's clearly not the case.

That was an act of "taking over control". You can interpret it as "an act of occupation" or "reasserting Chinese sovereignty". In your Japanese example, yes it was internationally recognised act of military occupation. The US took over control of an internationally recognised sovereign state called Japan. In Mongolia's case, there are disputed POVs whether Mongolia was de jour independent at the time when the Chinese took over control of the capital. Therefore, the NPOV way of describing the event is "taking over control" and leave the interpretation to the readers.

Despite my requests, you again removed my reference without explaining why.--pyl (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The article did not say "Mongolia achieved full independence in 1911", instead it says "Mongolia declared its independence in 1911". Please open your eyes.

Qing dynasty had already been toppled and Mongolia and China had declared on different occasions their independence from Qing dynasty, when Xiu occupied Mongolian capital. So, it was occupation of Mongolia by a warlord of another country which was subject to Qing dynasty.

I explained my reasons in talk page. --GenuineMongol (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it helps to look into a dictionary: according to merriam-webster.com, occupation means, among some other things, "the act or process of taking possession of a place or area." Did Xu's troops take control of Khuree in 1919 or not? Is it

wrong to say the Japanese invaded or occupied Taiwan, as, after all, they got it awarded as the result of a bilateral treaty? Is it POV to talk about a Rhineland invasion instead of a Assertion of German souvereigniy over the Rhineland?

If you had read E. Bulag carefully, he does not say whether the Qing dynasty is China or not. He does say the Chinese think Mongolia always was part of China. What he says about 1911-1921 is that Mongolia declared independence from the Qing Dynasty in 1911, than had to accept Chinese suzereinty in 1915, was taken over by Chinese troops in 1919 and gained independence (this time from China) in 1921. Anything else is just your interpretation.

Liu gives discusses this whole "Qing Dynasty=China or not" stuff over several pages and points to multiple scientists (none of them Mongolian, I think) who have had their say on this issue. It's enough to say that the POV that Qing Dynasty is not synonymous with China is major enough to not simply assert the contrary. I don't know how much you know about international law, or why it should be relavant here. Certainly Austria is a well-defined entity even though it is not the same as Austro-Hungaria.

China got the 1945 referendum because Stalin was being nice. Or maybe he wanted to feel like a good democrat once in his life. For all practical purposes, Mongolia had been independent from 1921 on. They had their own government, own laws, own army, and did not give the slightest semblance of being part of the ROC. Yaan (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue with neutrality here is the word "occupation". It has a legal meaning, not just a plain English language meaning of "the act or process of taking possession of a place or area". I provided an internal link to the Wikipedia article of military occupation. Please have a read, and you will see how there are issues with neutrality when you use this word in this context.

There are clearly two competing POVs:

1. One is that Mongolia was independent in 1911, and the fact tha its capital was taken over by the Chinese troops would constitute an act of military occupation because it was a foreign military taking over control of a sovereign state.

2. There is another POV which says Mongolia was part of China and this declaration was not recognised by China until 1945 (the referendum). Therefore when the Chinese troops took over control of the capital in 1919, it was an reassertion of the Chinese sovereignty.

The main text as it stands now prefers the first POV while ignores the second. This becomes a neutrality issue as the latter POV is not a minor and insignificant POV. The main text therefore has to use the neutral term of "taking over control". You note that Bulag text also uses the same term?

If you read the

tag, it says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". I think the fact that I am discussing here means it's not resolved. Please follow Wikipedia's rules and do not remove it again.

I would at this stage accept your view that it is a major POV in Mongolia that Qing Dynasty does not necessarily equal to China.

And to GenuineMongol, I know the main text currently says "with the fall of the Qing Dynasty, Mongolia declared independence in 1911 from the Qing Dynasty". I read it properly. But the following sentence then says "the new country's......". What does the term "new country" imply? It implies that independence was achieved.

In order to resolve this matter, I propose that we change the wording:-

1. from "The new country's territory was approximately that of the former Outer Mongolia" to "The declared territory was approximately that of the former Outer Mongolia"

2. from "Chinese troops led by Xu Shuzheng occupied Mongolia" to "Chinese troops led by Xu Shuzheng took over control of the Mongolian capital"

Hope that would be acceptable.

I found your summary of Bulag's text quite well, as follows:-

He does say the Chinese think Mongolia always was part of China. What he says about 1911-1921 is that Mongolia declared independence from the Qing Dynasty in 1911, than had to accept Chinese suzereinty in 1915, was taken over by Chinese troops in 1919 and gained independence (this time from China) in 1921.

The current main text as it stands is very confusing in relation to the 2nd declaration of independence. Most readers would wonder why it was done. As I said above, if a country is indeed independent, then there is no need to declare independence again. Your summary gave a good reason why it was done. I think, if you don't mind, it would be most preferrable if you could add some of your summary to the main text to clarify the matter. This may hopefully avoid discussions like the one we are having in the future.--pyl (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you a native speaker of English? I am not, but I don't think wikipedia articles are acceptable sources to prove a certain wording is inappropriate, or to prove that some legalist usage trumps common usage. It is a fact, not a POV, that Xu's troops did not control Khuree or any other part of Mongolia before Nov. 1919, and that they controlled it afterwards. I.e. that they occupied it. This is completely independent from Mongolia's international status at that time, just like talking about the 1936 occupation or even invasion of the Rhineland does not imply a certain POV about whether the Rhineland was part of Germany in 1936 or not.

As I have said before, the "Qing!=China" POV is not just a major POV in Mongolia. Do names like Owen Lattimore or Liu Xiaoyuan sound very Mongolian to you.

Both of your proposed edits are unacceptable. The Mongolian government in 1911/12 actually claimed not just Outer, but also Inner Mongolia. They even sent troops there. Outer Mongolia was what they de facto controlled. And the troops led by Xu did not only take control of the capital, they took control of all of Outer Mongolia. Plus there is no reason to weasel around the fact that they did so by (a show of) military force. Say, rather different from the way Obama took control of the white house.

Why Mongolia declared independence again is quite easy to understand: because they had to accept Chinese suzerainty after 1915 and was even forced to give up autonomy in 1919/1920. I think all of this is explained in detail in the History of Mongolia article. And the bit about Chinese occupation is even mentioned here. If you think this is too complicated for readers, one could as well write that independence was reestablished. But in this article the purpose is to give an overview about Mongolian history, not about Chinese legalisms. It is much more relevant to mention that Mongolia became a Soviet satellite state in 1921, than to explain a legal framework with rather minor consequences. Yaan (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw. you understand that China agreed that it only held suzerainty about Mongolia, not souvereignity, in 1915? And that therefore your points about Xu's action not constituting an occupation are a bit strange on yet another count? Yaan (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that "China agreed that it only held suzertainty about Mongolia, not sovereignty" is a Mongolian POV, I think. I understand that the PRC POV is that China, prior to the Mongolian independence, held Mongolian sovereignty. The ROC still has the POV officially that China (as in the ROC) still holds Mongolian sovereignty.

I don't think this discussion is going to be fruitful. I think the next step is to seek another view at the neuality forum. But I don't have the time to pursue this right now so I would like to continue this in another day.--pyl (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is the ROC has not reverted its official POV since 2002, when the foreign ministry declared they regarded Mongolia as a foreign country. But that is besides the point here: That the signatories of the 1915 Kyakhta treaty agreed that Mongolia was only under Chinese suzerainty seems pretty much the standard interpretation in the west, see for example this US publication. Maybe Chinese POV is different, but I don't think discussing different POVs on this treaty is really a good idea in the "Mongolia" article: if there is some agreement that the treaty is very relevant to the "Mongolia" article, we could just go by what it actually states and leave contested interpretations out. Of course WP always has room for new articles that could cover such questions in more detail.

Actually, I'd be a bit sceptical that the PRC has an official POV at all on Mongolia's pre-1945 status, or on the Kyakhta treaty. Or in case the PRC has a POV on these topics, I'd still be sceptical that it does not have more than one. Sources are of course welcome.

I kind of agree that we will probably not come to an agreement, esp. when the discussion is about the possible interpretations of just one particular word. But certainly RfC etc. sounds like a very good idea. Regards, Yaan (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

cont.

"I am aware that some people think that "Qing Dynasty" is just the same as "China"."

Qing is China, that is not POV, read Qing treaties.

"But there are also others who hold a very different POV."

And???? Treaty is a fact, the Qing refers to itself as "China".93.136.24.14 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact is that the Qing Dynasty didn't treat Mongolia as a part of China, but instead administrated it as an external territory first through a Court of Colonial Affairs and later through a more general Foreign Office (Zongli Yamen). --Latebird (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Qing dynasty is China, if Mongolia was a part of Qing dynasty, than it was also a part of China, read Qing treaties such as this. Do you understand that treaty is a fact. 78.0.213.28 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The US quite frequently refer to themselves as "America", that doesn't mean the Phillipines were ever part of America. Re. your foreign-language map, do you think it was the mapmaker's intention to show Norway as part of Sweden, or the other way 'round? And shouldn't you really present a map in Chinese rather than one in some random foreign language?

I understand a treaty is a treaty. If two countries sign a treaty saying that the earth is flat, it does not yet mean that the earth is also flat in real life. The treaty you presented does neither say "Mongolia is part of China" or "Daiqing is China".

Your map is just one source, I don't think it trumps what Owen Lattimore or Liu Xiaoyuan (see above) have to say on that matter. Yaan (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the point of User:78.0.213.28. Treaties are different from unofficial maps in the way they are official documents and represent the official view or attitude of each government or political entity. The name(s) used in official treaties can reflect the name(s) that the entities wished to be officially called or referred to. In formal international treaties, the US almost always refers to itself by its constitutional full name at the beginning, which is "the United States of America", as seen for example in this 1868 treaty (ratified by both USA and China by 1869). The first sentence of this treaty stated "Whereas since the conclusion of the treaty between the United States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire (China) of the 18th of June, 1858...". Clearly "the United States of America" is used as the name of the polity on the US side, whereas "Ta-Tsing Empire" and "China" are used as the name of the polity on the Chinese side; apparently "Ta Tsing" (i.e. Daiqing or Great Qing) and "China" refer to the same entity, i.e. Qing Dynasty of China. In the body of the treaty, "the United States" is often used as an abbreviated name for the USA, whereas "China" and "Chinese Government" are used to refer to the Chinese side (e.g. Article VII stated "Citizens of the United States shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of China, and reciprocally, Chinese subjects shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of the United States..."). Thus, it should be reasonable to conclude the official or legal names of both sides wished to be referred to, that is, "the United States (of America)" for the US, and "Ta Tsing" or "China" as synonyms for Qing China. So "Daiqing is China" is officially true from Qing itself and it is recognized in international treaties.--173.206.72.255 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if we'd accept one or two two treaties in English language as proof of what the DaiQing wanted to be referred to, there might still be the problem that what you want to be referred to does not necessarily exhaust all of your functions, or that what you want to be referred to might change over time, or that what you want to be referred to depends on who refers to you. Yaan (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

11 July 1921 Mongolia was declared independent again - from what country? Because a country independence can be from an other country. If a foreign dynasty was changed to a native one - can this be an independence? In England the House of Stuart was replaced with the House of Hanover - so England lost its independence? Every time we are with the level of control problem - Mongolia was a part of the Qing Empire, but it was not ruled with the same manner as the native Chinese parts of this empire. British Empire was not the Great Britain, and UK was not the British Empire, but a part of the Empire only, but special - ruling - part. As in XIX Central Asia was russian but was not Russia. Russian laws were for Russians only, native Central Asia population was under native Muslim legal system. In my opinion Mongolia declared independency not as a China part, but as a dependent country (protectorate?). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably know that China (Republic of China) invaded Mongolia in 1919 and held Bogdo Khan in home arrest. Then Baron Ungern came along and defeated the main force of China in Khuree and Chinese troops retreated to Khiagt on the northern border. Then two of the underground Mongolian independence groups (~parties), who wanted to expel Chinese force from the territory of Mongolia, sought assistance from Russians (Soviets) and had a letter (seeking assistance from Soviet Russia) signed by the Bogdo Khan. Though the main Chinese force was defeated, the Russians wanted to send troops to capture Baron Ungern. That's why the Soviets exported revolution to Mongolia through the two Mongolian groups which later merged into the Mongolian People's Party (now MPRP). On July 11, 1921, the People's Party force entered Khuree with the help of Soviets. That day was considered the independence day by the Mongolian communist propaganda. But, actually, the independence was laid in December 1911 and after a brief invasion by Chinese force, was restored in 1921. GenuineMongol (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"11 July 1921 Mongolia was declared independent again - from what country?" - it was a rhetorical question, you see. So you, dear GenuineMongol, and me know that independence was restored again from China. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not your dear. Don't use "dear" when you talk to me, it sounds derogatory/offensive to me. I know Russians like to say the Russian word for "dear" when they argue.GenuineMongol (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry my intentions were misunderstood. I'd used word "dear" in its common usage both in English and Russian. You see Russian word "дорогой" means very positive intention ("Dear Mother" Дорогая Мама), this word is in official use too (Soviet leader Brezhnev was officially called "Dear comrade Brezhnev", in modern Russia its president uses дорогие друзья = dear friends[10][11]). But if you, collegue GenuineMongol, don't like this very frendly word I will try not to use it with conversation with you, collegue GenuineMongol. But my intentions, as usually in Wikipedia (where I have no enemies), were very frendly, for Mongols especially. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia declared independence from the Qing Empire in 1911 and restored its independence from Chinese invaders in 1921. They are two different subjects. First one was an empire established by the Qing Dynasty, while the next one was a fraction of force sent by the Republic of China with capital at Beijing. (There were two states within China then). So, you can't say that Mongolia restored independence from China again. First from the Qing Empire, remember? GenuineMongol (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, as you mentioned above, the second time it was the independence from the state with the capital Peking. First time also from the state with the capital Peking, isn't it? Did French Revolution changed France into different state (monarchy was replaced with republic, next with empire etc)? Or was the political system changed only? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your question ignores the ethnic angle of Qing adminitration. What if the French king had been a basque, had populated his offices with basques, had forced everybody to wear basque hats? What if ethnic French intellectuals had, more or less, called the king un-French? Yaan (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that Hamburg was part of France in 1808? Yaan (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, for some more fun, at what time (before 1938) did Austria stop to be part of Germany? Hint: it's not in the wp article. Yaan (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

About ethnic angle - the last Russian reigning Catherine II of Russia was in 100% German, all Russian emperors had no Russian blood - and what? If English Court did not speak English, but French only and only the English revolution changed this tradition? Bulgarian kingdom dynasty was German and what? The ethnicity of the ruling House wery often had no matter. But with Hamburg it is a good topic: this city was a part of the Empire of French Nation, not France proper. But Hamburg was liberated from France as France was a metropoly of this Empire, capital was Paris. About Austria, I think it stop to be part of Germany after Napoleon dissolved Holy Roman Empire, isn't it? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The ethnicity issue is a matter of domestic policy, but does not alter the inherent nature of the country. It is common in history that a ruling house was not the majority ethnicity and countries having issues with ethnic policies of varying degree. Russia under Catherine II was still Russia and South Africa under apartheid was still South Africa.--Hisacw (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you both missed part of my question: "What if the French king [...] had populated his offices with basques, had forced everybody to wear basque hats? What if ethnic French intellectuals had, more or less, called the king un-French?". Re. the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, would you say that Prussia (the state, not the area) also stopped to be part of Germany, and if not, what's the difference to Austria? Yaan (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did see this part of your question, and responded with the ethnic policy in the South Africa under apartheid. The South Africa during that time had populated its government offices with white people, and had forced division of its subjects based on races. The Blacks, which were the native and the majority ethnic group, were so badly treated and were even deprived of their citizenship at some time. The government had seen significant oppositions both internationally and domestically, but the country was still formally South Africa. If the Corsica-born Napoleon I of France had populated his office with Corsicans and made a policy that forced everyone to adopt the Corsican way of dressing, but continued to call its country "France", then the country was still France and such policy was a matter of domestic issue.--Hisacw (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Yes, but what if Napoleon had named his country just something like "Great Pure Country"? Yaan (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "Great Pure" (Da Qing) really the dynasty name following the traditional pattern like "Da Ming" (for Ming Dynasty)? If France actually had the customs of adopting dynasty names as in China (which was mainly used within China to differ from other dynasties), and still called itself "France" in international communications, then it was still France. If Napoleon established a new country and abandoned the name "France", then that would be a different story. In China, adopting a dynasty name was usually the very first thing when a new dynasty was established. The origin of "Great Pure" dynasty (i.e. Qing Dynasty) was also discussed in details in this 1894 article of The New York Times, but the country itself was still called "China" (or "Chinese Empire"). On the other hand, this and this 1896 article (on Viceroy Li Hongzhang's visit to the United States, during his global visits of 1896), along with formal Qing treaties, shows that "China" was used as the country name in virtually all international communications during (late) Qing period.--Hisacw (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

About Prussia and Austria. The question was about the legal dissolution of the former Reich, next Prussia had become the hart of newborn Reich, so common German capital was Prussian capital Berlin, reigning dynasty was Prussian. Prussia only had not ethnic German territories at East with numerous Poles. Only when new Rech was declared at this moment Lothringen was taken from France. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindented)Actually, my question was not exclusively about legal stuff. Certainly there was a Germany between 1803 and 1871? Yaan (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Legally Germany did not exist in this period, but existed in the cultural, ethnic and historical POV, so this new Reich was a successive one after the partition period. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"What if the French king [...] had populated his offices with basques

Each position in the central government had a Manchu and a Han assigned to it. Qing emperors learned Chinese, addressed their subjects using Confucian rhetoric, reinstated the civil service examination system and the Confucian curriculum, and patronized scholarly projects, as had their predecessors. They also continued the Ming custom of adopting reign names, so that Xuanye, for example, is known to history as the Kangxi emperor...[12]

Voyager01 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) One of the points Liu (cited above, probably inspired by Rawski, The Last Emperors, Berkeley 1998, p.200) makes is that the Qing emperors were Chinese emperors to the Chinese, Mongol khaghans to the Mongols etc. Rawski (p.6) actually states that most Qing emperors studied Mongolian, and of course the Qing patronized Buddhism and scholarly projects in Mongolian (as the 1716 blockprint edition of the Geser epic), just like the Great Khans had (to some point ;) ) done. Did you know that in literature dealing with Mongolia, Xuanye is often known as Enkh Amgalan? Yaan (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

yaan, you should read this and this. I think that the sources and evidence is not the problem. Also you should read Qian Long Letter to George III. Treaty of Kyakhta,which established the northern border of Mongolia, was between Russia and China.

as seen for example in this 1868 treaty (ratified by both USA and China by 1869).

Yes, same in Chinese-language version of the treaty between the United States of America and China 78.0.203.197 (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Treaty is a fact, FACT, signed by both parties, and the name of this empire was China. There should be no discussion about, because treaty is a fact! 78.0.203.197 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure I am the one who needs to read WP:NPOV? Because for them, a "fact" is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." (quotation marks from the original). As pointed out above, I don't think you (or anyone else) is able to show that Lattimore's opinion is just a fringe POV, or that there is no serious debate whether "Manchu=China".

Yaan (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not true that "Manchu=China", since Manchu is an ethnic group while China is a country. Internationally "China" was both the formal and the common name for the Qing, from early Qing (c.f. the formal country name in Treaty of Nerchinsk in the 17th century) to its very last years (c.f. the formal country name in the Anglo-Chinese treaty of 1906 above), including the occasions when dealing with Mongolia (c.f. the Treaty of Kyakhta in 1727 which explicitly stated that the area south of the northern border of Mongolia belonged to China). I'm aware that it had a complex ethnic policy outside China proper, but that does not make it internationally a different country (c.f. South Africa).--Hisacw (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are talking about international law in a time when there was no such thing, certainly not for the Qing. I admit I don't know much about the 1727 treaty of Kyakhta, but I am curious what name the Manchu text used for the Qing empire (acc. to the wp article, there was no Chinese text signed at that time).

In any case, I'd like to state once more that for the article, it doesn't really matter what you or me think, but what the sources (esp. secondary ones, interpreting primary sources is always a bit close to WP:OR) have to say. I definitely believe that there are different POVs on this issue, and I don't think it is necessary to deal with that Qing/China discussion in this very article (we have links for that). Though maybe in the Mongolia during Qing dynasty or in the article on the dynasty itself this discussion should be covered. Yaan (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was no international law for most of the recorded history, but the international law was introduced to China in late Qing period in the 19th century. For now I don't have access to the Manchu text of the 1727 Treaty of Kyakhta, yet there are sources for articles of the Manchu text of the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk, for instance here, in which the Manchu text of the fourth article of the treaty says "The Russians now living in China and the Chinese subjects who are in Russia shall be left there for the rest of their lives" (the counterpart in Russian or Latin text is "Those subjects of the Russian empire who are now in China, and those of the Chinese empire now in Russia, shall remain in that condition"). So there is no doubt that official treaties in either Manchu or Chinese-language used "China" as the formal country name for the Qing. Nevertheless, I agree with what you said about sources and there is better place for such discussion such as the article Mongolia during Qing dynasty.--Hisacw (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A note about POVs on this kind of issues: it does not really matter if people may have different views; it is natural to use the official name or the common name for an object (a country in this case). Based on reliable sources, if the common name is also the official name ("China" in this case), then there is no reason to intentionally avoid using it, or it will be not WP:NPOV.--Hisacw (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am so far not even convinced that there is one common or one official name. You have so far only shown that the name "China" has been used at times in international communications. States sometimes use more than one official name, for example the ROC uses both "Republic of China" and "Chinese Taipei" in English, the PRC uses both "Dundad Uls" and "Khyatad Uls" in Mongolian. Moreover, my personal impression is that in both cases, the name not used domestically is though to be less appropriate by the resp. governments.

Usage in academic literature seems to be actually somewhat divided, which however probably is a consequence of the need to be more precise rather than of a desire to make a point on the status of Qing territories outside China proper. In any case, if there are academic, or otherwise important, sources explicitely saying that Mongolia never was part of China, stating the contrary on wp seems to be more NPOV than just being precise. Yaan (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The name China hasn't been used at times in international communications, it was used ALWAYS in every treaty Qing ever signed since the first treaty with Russians, and it was also used in Chinese language (Qing is ussualy used at the beginning of the treaty, but in the body of the treaty " China"(Central State-中國) is used.See this-[13]Mmddnn (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia is strongely recommended using secondary sources, not primary, so academic literature is a better source than a treaty text. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primary source can be OK, too. But of course showing usage in one treaty is not the same as showing usage "ALWAYS in every treaty". This was the point I was trying to make above. Even then, can we agree that Gaoxiong is not part of Taibei, even if the state-like entity that Gaoxiong is part of regularly refers to itself as "Chinese Taipei" on the international stage? Yaan (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you mention it, in my University libraries (actually I'm currently in one of the libraries), especially in Cheng Yu Tung East Asian Library [14], there are a few books containing collections of the actual Qing treaty texts in Chinese language. There are hundreds of Qing treaties (or agreements, protocols, conventions, etc) in the collections, and indeed in virtually all of them "China" (中國) is used as the country name in the body of the texts (there are very few exceptions, including the Sino-British Convention of Peking, in which "Great Qing" is used throughout the treaty text). --142.150.48.126 (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a few short notes regarding the second part, when ROC sometimes uses to refer to itself as such, "Chinese Taipei" does not have or no longer has the same meaning as the city of "Taipei" (Taibei), but has become a designated name for the political entity. Iceland, although literally has the meaning "land of ice", is not really necessarily a land of ice, but the name itself has become the widely accepted designated name for a European country. If a name has become a/the accepted designated name for an object, then we should interpret the name as a whole for the object that it refers to, not interpret the name literally. --142.150.48.126 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice point, but I guess we can agree that this still doesn't mean "Kaohsiung is part of Taipei" is a better wording than "Kaohsiung is part of the ROC"? Anyway, thanks for going to the library and through the treaties.

There seems to be a book mainly dealing with Mongol identity under the Qing, "Our Great Qing" by Johan Elverskog, so if the main topic of this discussion is interesting for you, you might find some additional material for a section in Mongolia during Qing dynasty or so. Unfortunately my library does not have it. Yaan (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)