Talk:Mongolia/Archive 1

message: Not to be nitpicky, but Mongolians practice Vajrayana Buddhism, not "Tibetan Buddhism".  Tibetan Buddhism is another name for Vajrayana Buddhism as practiced by Tibetans.  To be correct from a Mongolian point of view it would be better to call it "Mongolian Buddhism" rather than "Tibetan Buddhism" as it is Vajrayana Buddhism as practiced by Mongolians.  Yes, they are nearly identical (but not completely), but the Mongolians are very sensitive about this. Palzang 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: why was this moved to the disambiguated title?  And why is the picture of the singer there?  It seems totally out of place.  Why not move it to culture of Mongolia or something? Tuf-Kat
:Aah, I see why but still disagree.  Outer Mongolia has a natural disambiguator.  The term Mongolia always refers to the country.  Why not use a disambig block?  Tuf-Kat
:: No. Mongolia do not always refer to the north half. Not to let users misunderstand that independent Mongolia is the only Mongolia, this is the best solution, I think. -- Nanshu
:::In my experience, Mongolia refers to the country always.  I've never heard anyone say Mongolia and mean Inner Mongolia or some other region.  In any case, the Inner is a natural disambiguator, which is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. A disambig block will be just as effective in not misleading readers as a parenthetical disambiguator. Tuf-Kat
::::It was during the Qing Dynasty that Mongolia was sectionalized into Inner, Outer and others (like Oyirad in Qinghai). And it was in 1992 that the Mongolian People's Republic was renamed to Mongolia. Look at Huns, Genghis Khan, Manchuria, etc. Mongolia at these articles refers to whole Mongolia. -- Nanshu 07:38 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
:In those articles, Mongolia refers to the region bounded by Ordos Desert from the south, Da Xingan Ling from the east, the ranges of Altai from the west and Lake Baikal from the north --  User:kt2
I agree with Tuf-Kat, Mongolia should really be about the country, with a disambiguation block pointing to the bigger area. Country such as Germany, Greece, Russia, Sweden, China etc. have also been bigger as their current borders, but it's nonsense to consider that to be the main topic of the article. Jeronimo
I am also against this disambiguation. The fact that the country does not occupy what was once Mongolia under the Qing Dynasty can be made apparent int he introductory paragraph of the article. --Jiang 00:15 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Agreed: this is absurd. Mongolia is a country. Like most countries, its borders have fluctuated through history. There are Mongols in countries other than Mongolia, as there are Greeks or Hungarians or almost anyone else in neighbouring countries, in regions that have sometimes been part of the country. But Mongolia has never been a "region" designator, as opposed to a country designator. You could argue this for several like Palestine and Macedonia where it's crucially important to disentangle history from present claims; but not here. Mongolia is the country; all the rest is mere detail for the inside of the article. Gritchka 00:22 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I object. Putting the country article at "Mongolia" is something like calling South Korea as just "Korea". Inner Mongolia and Buryat Republic are certainly subnational entities of the Mongols. We shouldn't ignore them. --Nanshu 01:53 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:No, Your analogy would only be sufficient if China annexed N. Korea and there was only one country with "Korea" in its title. It should be clear enough if we mention that the country of Mongolia does not control all of Mongolia. --Jiang 04:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, there live more Mongols in PRC than in the independent state of Mongolia. --Nanshu 01:15, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: that's besides the point. --Jiang
The People's Daily has no problem: . Why should we? :Alternate meaning: Inner Mongolia can be posted clearly at the top. --Jiang 00:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguated title

message: Popsracer, I don't speak Mongolian, but I think "газар" means earth, land, place or so. --Nanshu
Yep, and it also means simply "ground" and sometimes "floor". --156.56.153.54 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of &#1075;&#1072;&#1079;&#1072;&#1088;

message: Mongolia should be moved to Mongolia (country) and Mongolia (region) to Mongolia.
Like Ireland (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland) and Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia and Greece-controlled area), Mongolia is divided into more than one entity and it is a sensitive problem although lesser-known to Westerners. Unfortunately, the former Mongolian People's Republic doesn't bear any political title in its current official name. So it should follow the case of Georgia (Georgia (country)). --Nanshu 03:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. See above. Inner Mongolia and others are natural disambiguators and any confusion can be made relevant in the into. Ireland is where it is due to its POV claims over the entire island, as is the Republic of Macedonia. No one is claiming that this location is not NPOV. --Jiang 07:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Relocation, again

message: Does the state of Mongolia share a land border with Kazakhstan? — Instantnood 18:28 Feb 2 2005 (UTC)
: No, Mongolia shares border only with Russia and China.--Sjv27 20:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to CIA the "western" border between Russia and PRC is 40 km long. I'd estimate the nearest point between Mongolia and Kazakhstan to be something between 30 and 40km.--Sjv27 12:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Land border

message: "which the debt was settled on $250 dollars considering Mongolian hardship and losses of human lives during the Soviet Era."
It was settled for $250, an amount that many American children spend in a day? I do rather suspect this number is slightly higher...Comrade Tassadar
:You are not from America are you? --24.21.255.0 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was neither $250 nor $300 Mio, but $250 Mio. --Latebird 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolian debt 

message: Nambaryn Enkhbayar is not the president yet because he has not been inaugurated. Zntrip 02:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nambaryn Enkhbayar is president of Mongolia. Elected in May 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dulmandakh (talk • contribs) --Latebird 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President 

message: there is a discrepancy btw the data in the right hand box (GDP per capita $2,046) and the text in the economy section ($420)
don't know which one is correct
:Thanks for pointing that out.   The figure in the box takes account of purchasing power (the relatively low price of goods in Mongolia), while the figure in the text was in absolute terms. Mark1 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP per capita 

message: moved the following paragraph here. This should go into an article with some historical focus instead --Latebird 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penal System 

message: Whoever screwed this article up by duplicating half of it needs to fix it.  — Gulliver ✉ 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That turns out to be me. The screwup happened when I moved the above section to the discussion page. It seems that the software gets confused when you edit just subheader and remove all of its content. Sorry for the mess! --Latebird 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: I have posted a request for opinions about a standard transcription table for mongolian on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Transcription_for_Mongolian. Please join the discussion there. --Latebird 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription for Mongolian 

message: The main article nor the culture section says nothing nothing about sports and recreation in Mongolia. Could someone add to this? Black-Velvet 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports in Mongolia 

message: The history section read "almost all Qing Emperors were born of Mongol mothers".  I changed "all" to "several".  Ya'll can look it up here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Emperors_of_the_Qing_Dynasty   --
Adeptitus 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article doesn't list mothers. Do you know where that information can be found? --Sumple (Talk) 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qing Emperors 

message: The sentence about religion is confusing.  "10% are Christian and Muslim?" Are they christian and muslim at the SAME time? is it 5% Christians and 5% Muslims (or some other division? Is each 10% (total 20%)? Or should it be 10% are Christian or Muslim?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mg.html
Buddhist Lamaist 50%, none 40%, Shamanist and Christian 6%, Muslim 4% (2004) --
Adeptitus 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10% are Christian and Muslim 

message: I read back awhile ago that English was made the 2nd official language of Mongolia, and that 2600 or so English teachers were being recruited to come and teach there. Has anyone heard more on this? --Kranar drogin 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 2005, English is taught as the first foreign language in public schools, replacing Russian. It doesn't have any official status beyond that. --Latebird 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: I have removed several section-stub tags because:
*These sections now have a reasonable coverage of the topics, whereas there was little or no coverage when the sections were tagged in July (thanks to those who added content!)
*These sections are now of an appropriate length for a general article on a country.  I have reviewed around 100 country articles for Version 0.5, and topics like sports, religion, education, science and technology usually only have 1-3 paragraphs in most country articles, if they are mentioned at all. Walkerma 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section stub tags 

message: Khalkha Mongolian is not a language... it is merely a dialect of the Mongolian language. There are plenty of other dialects of the Mongolian language, e.g. various dialects spoken in Inner Mongolia, such as Baarin, Khorchin, Kharachin, Chahar, Ordos, etc. I think this needs to be clarified in the entry. It would do just to say that the Khalkha dialect of Mongolian is given official status. --156.56.153.54 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khalkha Mongolian is not a language 

message: In the section "History", it sais that the Xiongnu were brought together to form a confederation by Modu Shanyu in 2000 A.D. This is seven years ago. Unless I missed some important news, I guess the A.D. must be B.C., and besides I think the 2000 should be 200. Strange enough, I wasn't able to change it myself, but maybe somebody here is more technically than I am? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.73.101.14 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date 

message: Inside the table at the left side of Mongolia section, it is written that "Independence from China is July 11, 1921". I think the real Independence day is on November 28 or 26, 1911. Though I am Mongolian, I am not sure. On July 11, 1921, the communist revolution won in Mongolia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilguun.alt (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're not sure, then you may want to find some reliable sources... Btw.: It is quite possible that "communist revolution won" describes a different event than "independence from china". --Latebird 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation 

message: Since when was the anthem called "бүгд найрамдах монгол" or "united mongolia"? I would rather not remember. Previous one: Даяар монгол was much better :) --Dolugen 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying we have the wrong title, or you just don't like it? --Latebird 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthem 

message: I thing most Mongolians would object quite strongly (to the point of turning violent) object to being considered part of Greater China. I guess there is a reason why there are no WP templates for "Russian empire in 1914", "Areas with a German-speaking majority before 1945" or "Parts of Japan's Great East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere" yet. Even if Greater China is a rather geographical term, i would therefore propose to restrict the template to the PRC (incl. SARs), Taiwan and Singapore. 
P.S. above unsigned comment was added by meYaan 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater China 

message: :On another note, calling the events of 1990 a revolution is perharps a bit far-fetched. There were large demonstrations, a hunger strike and even some riots, but in the end it was the MPRP who stayed in power. Plus they won the first two multi-party parliamentary elections in 1990 and 1992 (though they messed up the presidential elcetion in 1993.) Yaan 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revolution is defined as a "significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time". I think the word is quite appropriate here, but I'm open to suggestions about a better term. --Latebird 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about something like democratic movement or transition to democracy? I guess in most other soviet bloc countries it's called revolution as well, but in most of them the ruling party really had tto leave office (or did they?). In Mongolia the MPRP was just being nice and formed a coalition government. Yaan 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MPRP gave up its position as the controlling state party. What else would "leave office" mean? The system was fundamentally changed with the new constitution. From there on, the powers have shifted back and forth several times, as it is normal for a democracy. Programmatically, the MPRP is just another social-democratic party today. Only because they still exist under that name doesn't make it any less of a revolution. --Latebird 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Not "Outer Mongolia" submitted to the Quing in 1691 but the Khalkha. 
Western Mongolia followed after hard-foughts against troops of the Manchu and Khalkha not until the middle of the 18th century (1752). The power of the Oirads in Western Mongolia didn´t end with the defeat of Galdan Khan.
:In my experience, Outer Mongolia is often used more or less synonymous with the four Khalkha aimags, at least post-1757. If I remember correctly, this was also the Qing Dynasty's terminology. But I don't now how the territorial status of the Khalkha aimags changed between Galdan's death and 1757 (except that one aimag was added in 1725), and of course it was the nobles who submitted, not the land. So if you feel like clarifying that part of the article, please do.  141.5.15.8 09:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it better now? Yaan 13:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese domination 

message: Mongolia was officially called "country of people's democracy"  (1949),  (1959)  (1960, including peer review). So saying it is transitioning to democracy in 1990s is POV.--Dojarca 12:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another red herring. Some soviet authors (peer reviewed by other soviet authors) used an incorrect translation of the name. So what? What counts is the historical reality, which was based on the inherently undemocratic constitution as we have shown above, and is otherwise well documented. --Latebird 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a mistranslation. You simply incorrect now. Country of people's democracy is a colloquial name for all countries belonging to one particular state system: people's democratic republic. The other system of socialist states is soviet republic, which is detaily explained in these politological works. It also cites Lenin's "About democratism and socialist character of soviet power". The first two works have name "State law in countries of people's democracy". The third is "Questions of state law in countries of people's democracy".--Dojarca 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mongolian word for "democratic" is "ардчилсан", and that was never part of the name of the country. Soviet ideologists using an incorrect translation doesn't make it "colloquial". --Latebird 09:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  dojarca, maybe it would be possible to explain your rationale for considering the MPR a democracy, instead of just placing some links? I mean, a lot of people are more or less officially called Nazi (=National Socialist) all the time, but that doesn't make them socialists, does it? Yaan 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a too serious theory to explain it in two words. But all three works I gave links review the question in details. Unfortunately, they are not in English. Probably, these can be also useful: State law of people's democratic countries and Representative system in countries of people's democracy--Dojarca 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean Russian (Mongolian it's not, in any case). If you are trying to come over as serious, maybe you should try to give some effort to explaining your reasoning. Btw. you are right that people's democracy is, like national socialism, an established term. Still that doesn't mean it's a subset of democracy, just like national socialism is not necessarily a subset of socialism (or would you say it is?). Yaan 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And if were are just discussing labels, calling the post 1990-events a transition to democracy is a very common thing in Mongolia. Yaan 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, I think natinal socialism is not a form of classical socialism in my understanding, but I know people, who thinks opposite. In fact there existed so-called "prussian socialism" which was widely different from marxist school in fact. Some German authors considered socialism to be a regime of strong state power with some limited social guaranties. Regarding the letter question I think people's democracy in fact related to democracy in its classical concept, but differs from what understood as democracy in post-1990 era, especially in mass media and by politics who describe themselves as democrats. In fact recent years arose another meaning of the word.--Dojarca 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, recent Orange revolution in Ukraine was described by media as a victory of democracy while in fact  the constitution and political system remained the same, only people who described themselves as democrats came to power. The winners of the Orange revolution did not experience any more popular support than their opponents, but were oriented towards USA in foreign policy. I think it does not give us right to call Ukraine during Kuchma's presidency undemocratic.--Dojarca 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly media is not always accurate, seconly if elections results are falsified then state is not democracy. From Orange revolution article: On December 3, 2004, Ukraine's Supreme Court finally broke the political deadlock. The court decided that due to the scale of the electoral fraud it became impossible to establish the election results. Therefore, it invalidated the official results that would have given Yanukovych the presidency. As a resolution, the court ordered a revote of the run-off to be held on December 26, 2004.[6]--Staberinde 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that media is not necessary accurate, but in fact the new meaning of the word actually exist and becoming widespread. Regarding Ukraine. There was very small difference between candidates and as heppens often there probably were some inaccuracies (not necessary state-sponsored), which did not allow to exactly determine the winner. But my view is that the court decision was mostly triggered by mass riots. You may consider another case: When Yeltsin dissolved Russian parliament (democratically elected) in 1993 in violation of constitution, and bombarded the building with tanks, it was also described as victory of democracy only because Yeltsin's followers called themselves democrats.--Dojarca 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New meaning of "democracy"? The fact that different political forces try to hijack that term all the time, to push their agenda does not change actual meaning of it.--Staberinde 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe someone should go  and add the NSDAP to Socialist Worker's Party then. Anyway, if we are to accept that the MPR can be referred to as a democracy because some scholars called it one, why can't we refer to the 1990 as a transition to democracy? That's what those events are very frequently called. P.S. I don't care about Ukraine. Yaan 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding NSDAP and the list: I think it should be determined by the list's criteria of inclusion. Regarding your letter question. We can of course present all points of view in an appropriate section. But we also can use neutral wording to avoid detailed explanation. As you can note, I did not call MPR democratic in my edits.--Dojarca 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You called the 1990 events an anti-communist revolution, which is simply nonsense. Yaan 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that in the post-1990 newspeak democrat is a synonym of anti-communist. But I may probably be wrong.--Dojarca 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Peoples Republic of Mongolia democratic? Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me.  (too long to copy it all here).--Staberinde 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy 

message: The link to the Mongolian Embassy, provided by Staberinde, tells us all we need to know about this dispute:
 Although in the Constitution and other laws of Mongolia , it was stated that the rights and freedom of citizens should be respected, in reality it turned out that the MPRP's leadership had a tendency to prevail over the law and the party itself fell under the influence of its leader, being at the head of both the party and state.
During the socialist era the population of Mongolia increased and the living standards, and educational and cultural level of the people was considerably raised, but human rights were violated and all the rights of people to vote, to be elected to public organizations, and freedom of speech and publication were restrained within the bounds set out according to the ruling party’s political policy, ideology and direction. 
It seems clear that even the official Mongolian view is that the country was not a democracy until the changes instituted into the 1990s. Arguing otherwise appears to be an exercise in semantics. Snuppy 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, now official view is as you describe. Prevously the view was different. Any government tends to describe themselves democrats by contrst with despots that ruled before them.--Dojarca 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ruling party now is the same as in 1989, and they have everything but broken with their past. Yaan 15:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My view is that there are different points of view. I reject no sources (note that you've presented no academic souces unlike me). But you do. Rejecting ascademic sources and the widespread views at no basis is a blatant POV and vandalism. If you have some arguments, please present them. Note that my version never says Mongolia was democratic pre-1992 using only neutral words.--Dojarca 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No objection. In fact, it is multi-party system. But that one-party system cannot be democratic there are defferent points of view. One-party system was established to secure dictatorship of proletariat which according to Lenin is the highes form of democracy.--Dojarca 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, dictatorship is democratic. Are you ever reading the nonsense you write yourself? --Latebird 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had you ever heared about dialectic? I am not a specialist in Marxist theory, but I can easily say that Marxism considers any society a dictatorship of the ruling class, i.e. liberalism is a dictatorship of bougeoisie.--Dojarca 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Another red herring. This article is about historic reality, not ideological theories. --Latebird 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 1.Proletariat includes rural workers. 2.Note that not only constitution, but the very name of East Germany included words "democratic republic". About Stalin. From Marxist point of view a socialist country is democratic if dictatorship of proletariat is working there. Western (including marxist) sources criticized Stalin's regime for that in their view there was no true dictatorship of proletariat, but rather a personal dictatorship of Stalin and/or CPSU and/or bureaucracy. Anyway, regarding Mongolia the point of view exist, it is notable and it is sourced. Don't you agree?--Dojarca 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet more examples of ideologically motivated false labelling. You should learn to ignore such labels, and look at what really happens in the world instead. --Latebird 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only you know what is false and what is true, yes?--Dojarca 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You only proved that the point of view existed. When times change, point of views often change with them. I don't think you will easily find sources that say that the 1990 events were just a transition from one form of democracy to something else. Btw. I think this argument is much better suited to the Democracy or Single-party state pages. Stating that Mongolia was a USSR-inspired one-party system should be enough for every reader to know what was going on, whatever his own POV might be. Since you seem to care a lot about how something is called, there can practically be no alternative for referring to the events as a democratic revolution, since that is the established term :  Yaan 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I should add that Ardchilsan Khuvisgal can also sand for the 1921 events. However, in the article the context is clear, so there IMO there should be no chance for confusion now. For a little fun, maybe someone could translate this little gem from the MPRP website: "Үүний ачаар Монголчууд, бид 1980 –аад оны дунд үеэс өөрчлөн байгуулалт, дараа нь 1990-ээд оноос ардчилал, хүний эрх, эрх чөлөө шудрага ёс, ил тод байдал, зах зээлийн тухай ярьсаар нийгмийн нэг байгууллаас нөгөө байгуулалд тайван бөгөөд хурдан шилиж чадсан юм." . Or maybe take a glimpse at the MPRP's brief history:  Yaan 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion