Talk:Mongolia under Qing rule

message: What's the chinese name of that office? It's not the Lifanyuan, is it? Yaan 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the opinion that what is meant is the Lifanyuan, even though the common translation seems to be Office for the outer territories, not for Outer Mongolia. At least they edited law books for Outer Mongolia and stuff.Yaan 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuan for Outer Mongolian Affairs (or something similar) seems to be indeed the correct Mongolian name for the office, even though it also dealt with Inner Mongolia. But I think in western literature it is more often called Lifanyuan. Yaan 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outer Mongolian Governance Affairs Yuan 

message: I've been using Latin Mongolian for Halh Mongolian tongue. But some contributors are changing them to spelling of the classical ones. Let's discuss: Which one would be better?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the historical names and places in thehistorical context, it's better to use the classical version. Khalhaism sounds stylistically too "modern" and prosaic. Secondly, it's better to use the spelling which is recognised by most of the international readers. Gantuya eng 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Dagvadorj doesn't like "kh". I don't like "kh" either. Why use 2 letters if the sound could be written with 1 letter "h". The same with "ts". Chinese uses "c" for "ts". Gantuya eng 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like it either, or at least I don't care for 'kh'. But I think in some cases - like, at the end of a syllabe, as in "ikh" -  'kh' is easier to "get right" for people without a clue of Mongolian language. Or at least for those who have some experience with the cyrillic script. There is a site somewhere that latebird created a while ago with the naming conventions for articles about Mongolia. Maybe you should propose a change of the current policy (what about q?). 'ts' on the other hand seems perfect to me, you can't get the pronounciation wrong (c would be much more ambigous), and it's also not the only cyrillic letter that takes two latin letters to transliterate. Yaan 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian) only cover transcription of modern names from cyrillic. It explicitly says there that historic names must be treated individually depending on context and original writing system. In many cases, we'll just use what the majority of English literature uses, whether it follows a specific system or not. --Latebird 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Latin Mongolian for names of places 

message: Is "Alia Sender" a huree song? Isn't is from Inner Mongolia. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huree Soyol 

message: Please add something about the mathematician and astronomer Mingat. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarship 

message: I did some rewriting and reformatting, and also added some citations. The number of khoshuus in Inner Mongolia now adds up to 49 (plus ten for Chahar and Guihua Tümed), and the number of khoshuus in Khalkha to 86, which according to my sources is just as it should be. Citations are still needed for the number of khoshuus in the other areas, i.e. Khövsgöl, Tuva, Khovd, Alshaa & Ejin, Khökh nuur, and Ili, and for the status of these areas, i.e. part of Inner Mongolia, part of Outer Mongolia, or something else. Also I would like to see a citation for subdivisions of otog. Yaan 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I can't find the Uliastai, Huree and Kobdo administrators in the article. Gantuya eng 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uliastai and Khüree are mentioned under Khalkha. Khovd should be mentioned too, but I was unsure if it had one or two ambans. Yaan 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Uliastai warlord covered both Khalha and Kobdo Khyazgaar. This subject was senior to the Huree and Kobdo ambans. Gantuya eng 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure there was a Mongol amban in Huree besides the Manchu amban? I know there were 2 warlords in Uliastai, but not sure about the Huree amban(s).Gantuya eng 04:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I'll look it up once more. Yaan 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is still yes. Bawden, Modern History, 1968, p. 107. Yaan 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Another question: did the Tögs Hülög Dalai Khan aimag and Ünen Zorigtu Khan aimag have khoshuus inside? I have too scarce information about these aimags.Gantuya eng 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: One exluded Ili, Kök Nuur and some other areas from Outer Mongolia, and it made me very angry. So let's put a point on it. Gantuya eng said that Qinghai was too far. Then think like this.
- Take a look at this map. []
- Now I think southern part of Bayingol in Xinjiang and Northern part of Gansu belonged to Kök Nuur together with the area in Qinghai. Dagvadorj
Are you Dagvadorj? Don't be angry. I still think it's about administration rather than geography. Do you have a source (not an online forum) for Khökh nuur etc. being part of Outer Mongolia during Qing? And, just in case, what about Tibet? It may well be the case, I'd just like to see a source. And maybe a short explanation that Outer Mongolia now is something different than Outer Mongolia back then (wasn't it also called Gadaad, not Ar, Mongol?).Yaan 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dagvadorj. We don't solve things by anger here online. We are all adults and solve things the adult way. You think "southern part of Bayingol in Xinjiang and Northern part of Gansu belonged to Kök Nuur together with the area in Qinghai". We all think about things in many ways. But don't include in WP what we think. We include what is sourced, what is proved this or that way. PS :) We are glad that you're here as our new friend.Gantuya eng 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gadaad/Dotood Mongol" and "Ar/övör Mongol" are used interchangeably in modern days, just like translations.  "Ar/övör Mongol" are native Mongolian terms meaning that one part of Mongolia live on winded side of something (of Gobi?) and the other part live on the warmer side. Usually "Ar/övör" refer to the sides of a mountain. That would be like "Ar Kavkaz/övör Kavkaz" and "Ar Khangai/övör Khangai". While "Gadaad/Dotood Mongol" are translations of foreign terms. Historian Yunshiebu B. Rinchen claimed in his book "Sando Amban" that the Qing called the Mongol territories to the north (outside) of the Great Wall "Gadaad Mongol" and the Mongol populated territories to the south (inside) of the Great Wall "Dotood Mongol". Then the Russian Empire by mistake or deliberately "confused" the terms calling "Ar Mongol"-"Gadaad" and "övör Mongol"-"Dotood" to deprive "Ar Mongol" from Qing Dynasty. And this "confusion" was to stay. If we believe this widely respected scholar, then what were the Mongol territories inside the Great Wall? Qinhai? Gantuya eng 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Weiers' Geschichte der Mongolen (2004) says that Outer and Inner was outside or inside the Manchu state (not inside or outside the Great Wall) and just lingered on when the empire expanded. This seems to make sense, but on the other hand his work - besides a rather sloppy editing - contains a number of small mistakes and inaccuracies when it comes to the M.P.R., so... I take this just as a hint. There seems to be a short work by a Japanese whose name I unfortunately forgot (Miya...) named "When did Outer and Inner Mongolia originate as geographical terms?" . Yaan 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: When was Kök Nuur conquered by the Manchu? Gantuya eng 15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Here is a 1905 map by Europeans. The lake Kok Nuur is located in Tibet amban area. But an area bigger than Ejine-Alashan is located inside Mongol jiang, which would be named as Kok Nuur area, even though it didn't include the Kok Nuur. Thus, no assumption like Qinghai (modern province) seems very far from Outer Mongolia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's put a point on whether if Kök Nuur belonged to Outer Mongolia 

message: Such as "Navaanlubsansanjnyamdanzanvanchigbalsambuu"... is that a real name for Bogd Khan? Because there is no mention of it anywhere else. Also, I think some information should be added about the previous Khans before Bogd. Rcduggan (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange names 

message: The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule suggests several questions and issues which may be relevant here as well.
I wonder if a discussion-thread about re-categorizing this article will be helpful?  Are the two current categories the best or only way to construe this article:
* :Category:Mongolia?
* :Category:Qing Dynasty?
How appropriate would be the following -- copied from Greater Mongolia?
* :Category:Geography of Central Asia?
* :Category:Divided regions?
* :Category:Geography of Mongolia?
G Purevdorj suggested at Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule that the categories from Göktürks might be relevant; and so, in order to consolidate discussion and encourage increased participation, I've re-copied those categories below:
::* :Category:Horse archer civilizations
::* :Category:Horse archer empires
::* :Category:Eurasian nomads
::* *
::* :Category:Historical Turkic states
::* :Category:Turkic dynasties
::* :Category:Uyghurs
::* :Category:Ethnic groups in Asia
::* :Category:History of Mongolia
::My only personal interest here is in ensuring that the interested decision-makers have sufficient material from which to develop an informed consensus. 
===Re-naming article===
The existence of :Category:Geography of Central Asia causes me to wonder if a number of problems might be mitigated if this article and it's corollary Mongolia during Tang rule were re-named as something like
* Mongolia during Tang rule ---> Tang Dynasty in Central Asia 
* Mongolia during Qing rule ---> Qing Dynasty in Central Asia
These re-focused article titles emphasize a Chinese military/government/trading presence in a geographic region.  As may become apparent, such titles would create consequences in terms more fully amplified at 
:A ...? Framing (economics), having to do with the manner in which a rational choice problem is presented ...?
:B ...? Framing (social sciences), having to do with terminology used in communication theory, sociology, and other disciplines where it relates to the construction and presentation of a fact or issue "framed" from a particular perspective ...?
A quite different article would evolve from a different title -- for example, an article which was interested more in the conquered that the conquerors, more in the invaded than than the invader, etc.  I don't want to make any guesses about how such articles might be named or categorized, but I do hope that this thread can contribute to the decision-making of those who are more interested in this subject?  
Do these proposed alternatives suggest something more appropriate? something better?  I wonder if there might be other relevant category and/or name-change options which have been overlooked? --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current name is appropriate enough. Qing-Mongol relations are well-covered in literature and noteworthy, also I guess distinct enough from the relations with other people. In short, it's a valid topic for an article. Though maybe it could be renamed to something less ambigous, i.e. either "Outer Mongolia" or "Mongols".Yaan (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should be mentioned explicitly in the intro if this article is about Greater Mongolia, not just Outer Mongolia. --173.206.46.206 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-examining the focus of this article

message: The existence of :Category:Geography of Central Asia causes me to wonder if a number of problems might be mitigated if this article and it's corollary Mongolia during Tang rule were re-named as something like
* Mongolia during Tang rule ---> Tang Dynasty in Central Asia 
* Mongolia during Qing rule ---> Qing Dynasty in Central Asia
These re-focused article titles emphasize a Chinese military/government/trading presence in a geographic region.  As may become apparent, such titles would create consequences in terms more fully amplified at 
:A ...? Framing (economics), having to do with the manner in which a rational choice problem is presented ...?
:B ...? Framing (social sciences), having to do with terminology used in communication theory, sociology, and other disciplines where it relates to the construction and presentation of a fact or issue "framed" from a particular perspective ...?
A quite different article would evolve from a different title -- for example, an article which was interested more in the conquered that the conquerors, more in the invaded than than the invader, etc.  I don't want to make any guesses about how such articles might be named or categorized, but I do hope that this thread can contribute to the decision-making of those who are more interested in this subject?  
Do these proposed alternatives suggest something more appropriate? something better?  I wonder if there might be other relevant category and/or name-change options which have been overlooked? --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current name is appropriate enough. Qing-Mongol relations are well-covered in literature and noteworthy, also I guess distinct enough from the relations with other people. In short, it's a valid topic for an article. Though maybe it could be renamed to something less ambigous, i.e. either "Outer Mongolia" or "Mongols".Yaan (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should be mentioned explicitly in the intro if this article is about Greater Mongolia, not just Outer Mongolia. --173.206.46.206 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-naming article

message: I think we should avoid nationalist view since the Mongol proper was subject to the Qing.--Enerelt (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (( Gantuya eng (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Should this article also cover Mongols in other regions, e.g. Qinghai and Xinjiang, beyond that of Inner and Outer Mongolia? I see that the template in the bottom mentions all of them, but the lead only mentions Inner and Outer Mongolia. Seems a bit confusing. --Enchyin (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=I9dzQgAACAAJ
Rajmaan (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  encyclopedia of mongol history 

message: Mu Zhang (1805-1849)
http://books.google.com/books?id=h3dPAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wn4iv_RJv8oC&pg=PA206&dq=mu+zhang+1849&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V2W8UI2JFMrj0QGB9YHoAQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=mu%20zhang%201849&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=uAktDoGM_iMC&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=mu+zhang+1849&source=bl&ots=5UsPXq5DZW&sig=ECjQp3RGxyLbq-0QIiZyLkLEvN0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cWa8UN_4JrCO0QHwuIGwBg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=mu%20zhang%201849&f=false
Page 284
http://books.google.com/books?id=VgvrAAAAMAAJ&q=mu+zhang+1849&dq=mu+zhang+1849&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V2W8UI2JFMrj0QGB9YHoAQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ
http://books.google.com/books?ei=V2W8UI2JFMrj0QGB9YHoAQ&id=VgvrAAAAMAAJ&dq=mu+zhang+1849&q=mu+zhang+wash#search_anchor
Page 35
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y0AxAQAAIAAJ&q=mu+zhang+1849&dq=mu+zhang+1849&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V2W8UI2JFMrj0QGB9YHoAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Zhang%2C%20Mu%2C%201805-1849
http://search.library.wisc.edu/languages/Chinese?f%5Bcontent_types_facet%5D%5B%5D=Chronology&f%5Blanguages_facet%5D%5B%5D=Chinese&f%5Bnames_facet%5D%5B%5D=Zhang%2C+Mu%2C+1805-1849&f%5Bschools_facet%5D%5B%5D=UW+Madison&per_page=10&sort=score+desc%2C+year_sort+desc%2C+title_sort+asc&view=list
https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/?q=%22Zhang%2C+Mu%2C+1805-1849%22&search_field=author
https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/?commit=search&f%5Bauthor_facet%5D%5B%5D=Zhang%2C+Mu%2C+1805-1849&f%5Bdiscipline_facet%5D%5B%5D=World+History&f%5Blanguage_facet%5D%5B%5D=Chinese&f%5Blocation_facet%5D%5B%5D=MSEL+Special+Collections&q=&search_field=all_fields
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n86089962.html
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Search/Home?type%5B%5D=subject&lookfor%5B%5D=%22%20Mongolia%20History%22&filter%5B%5D=authorStr%3AZhang%2C%20Mu%2C%201805-1849&use_dismax=1
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009734802
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/?f%5Bauthor_person_facet%5D%5B%5D=Zhang%2C+Mu%2C+1805-1849&f%5Bbuilding_facet%5D%5B%5D=Art+%26+Architecture&f%5Bcallnum_top_facet%5D%5B%5D=P+-+Language+%26+Literature&f%5Bera_facet%5D%5B%5D=Qing+dynasty%2C+1644-1912
Aleksei Matveevich Pozdneev
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Aleksei+Pozdneev
http://www.smartdefine.org/aleksei_pozdneev
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXkLAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aaleksei%20pozdneev
http://www.allbookstores.com/Aleksei-Matveevich-Pozdneev-Ego-Vostochnaia/9785898500443
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/aleksei-matveevich-pozdneev
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/aleksei-matveevich-pozdneev
http://www.librarything.com/author/alekseimatveevichpoz
蒙古及蒙古人, Volume 2, Issue 1 By Alekseĭ Matveevich Pozdneev, 刘汉明
http://books.google.com/books?id=iXkLAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
06:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese and russian anthropolgists in mongolia during the qing dynasty 

message: Deleted irrelevant category (:Category:China–Mongolia relations) and moved to Mongolia during the Manchu Qing rule.
:If articles such as Mongolian Revolution of 1911 belongs to :Category:China–Mongolia relations, then it is not a problem that this article also belongs to this category. It provided a background to China–Mongolia relations at least, not to mention that Qing itself is commonly know as "China". Also please try to sign your comment, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted irrelevant category 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=DYHfVVAAf_kC&pg=PA95&dq=yongzheng+mongols+tibetans+qinghai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mk4FVM60IsyxggSD3oEg&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yongzheng%20mongols%20tibetans%20qinghai&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=REweJ02Xel8C&pg=PT607&dq=yongzheng+mongols+tibetans+qinghai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mk4FVM60IsyxggSD3oEg&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ
http://books.google.com/books?id=REweJ02Xel8C&pg=PT22&dq=kangxi+mongol+rebels&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PU8FVIKQA8yxggSD3oEg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg
http://books.google.com/books?id=tAfF7d-7ysEC&pg=PA33&dq=yongzheng+mongols+tibetans+qinghai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mk4FVM60IsyxggSD3oEg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA310&dq=yongzheng+mongols+tibetans+qinghai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mk4FVM60IsyxggSD3oEg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCA
http://books.google.com/books?id=5RVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=yongzheng+mongols+tibetans+qinghai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mk4FVM60IsyxggSD3oEg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBg
http://books.google.com/books?id=T_CiNlV7OtIC&pg=PA23&dq=yongzheng+mongols+tibetans+qinghai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mk4FVM60IsyxggSD3oEg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw
Rajmaan (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qing divide and rule policy between Khoshot and Khalkha Mongols 

message: Hongtaiji and Qianlong patronized Tibetan Buddhism for political reasons. In private, Hongtaiji scorned Mongol's belief in Tibetan Buddhism as detrimental to their culture and Qianlong said he patronized Tibetan Buddhism as one patronizes the weak, and openly said to Han critics that he only patronized them for political reasons.
The belief in the Buddhist faith by the Mongols was viewed with disdain and thought to be destructive to Mongol identity by the Manchu leader Hong Taiji in private, Hong Taiji said "The Mongolian princes are abandoning the Mongolian language; their names are all in imitation of the lamas.", although Hong Taiji patronized Tibetan Buddhism in public.Wakeman Jr. 1986, p. 203.
The Qianlong Emperor's faith in Tibetan Buddhism had been questioned in recent times because Qianlong indicated that he supported the Yellow Church (the Tibetan Buddhist Gelukpa sect) just to "maintain peace among the Mongols" since the Mongols were followers of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama of the Yellow Church, and Qianlong had this explanation placed in the Beijing Tibetan Buddhist Yonge Gong temple on a stele entitled "Lama Shuo" (on Lamas) in 1792, and he also said it was "merely in pursuance of Our policy of extending Our affection to the weak." which led him to patronize the Yellow Church.http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA123#v=onepage&q&f=false Dunnell & Elliott & Foret & Millward 2004], pp. 123-4.
This explanation of only supporting the "Yellow Hats" Tibetan Buddhists for practical reasons was used to deflect Han criticism of this policy by Qianlong, who had the "Lama Shuo" stele engraved in Tibetan, Mongol, Manchu and Chinese, which said: By patronizing the Yellow Church we maintain peace among the Mongols. This being an important task we cannot but protect this (religion). (In doing so) we do not show any bias, nor do we wish to adulate the Tibetan priests as (was done during the) Yuan dynasty.Lopez 1999, p. 20.Berger 2003, p. 35.
Qianlong turned the Palace of Harmony (Yonghegong) into a Tibetan Buddhist temple for Mongols in 1744 and had an edict inscribed on a stele to commemorate it in Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Manchu, with most likely Qianlong having first wrote the Chinese version before the Manchu.Berger 2003, p. 34.
The Khalkha nobles' power was deliberately undermined by Qianlong when he appointed the Tibetan Ishi-damba-nima of the Lithang royal family of the eastern Tibetans as the 3rd reincarnated Jebtsubdamba instead of the Khalkha Mongol which they wanted to be appointed.Berger 2003, p. 26. The decision was first protested against by the Outer Mongol Khalkha nobles and then the Khalkhas sought to have him placed at a distance from them at Dolonnor, but Qianlong snubbed both of their requests, sending the message that he was putting an end to Outer Mongolian autonomy.Berger 2003, p. 17.
*
*
*
*
http://books.google.com/books?id=J1FGpkuug8IC&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hongtaiji and Qianlong's private opinions on Buddhism among the Mongols 

message: Mongol commoners were equally as forbidden from crossing into China proper as Han were forbidden from settling in Mongol territory. Mongol commoners were not even allowed to cross into another Mongol league. Banners of Inner Mongolia Leagues of China
http://books.google.com/books?id=fA7ADxUa6vUC&pg=PA41&dq=Cross+league+borders+mongols&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yqgfVMatINiiyATElYKAAQ&ved=0CCcQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Cross%20league%20borders%20mongols&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VbHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=Cross+banner+borders+mongols&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jKsfVJ3AA9ieyASLtoKoDg&ved=0CC4Q6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Cross%20banner%20borders%20mongols&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=5RVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&dq=1749+mongol+law&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HHkwVJmoF5WwyATosICYDQ&ved=0CCkQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=1749%20mongol%20law&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=sZG3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA339&dq=1761+mongol+law&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LngwVLnxHs2xyQTj2IKoDQ&ved=0CCUQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=1761%20mongol%20law&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=sZG3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA340#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=FoIE4laY7JcC&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q&f=false
Intermarriage between Manchu and Mongols was restricted to the Nobility. Ordinary Mongol commoners could not marry Manchus and were strictly segregated from them.
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregation policy 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA68&dq=sünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sünid%201646&f=false
Page 86
http://books.google.com/books?id=N-tVAAAAYAAJ&q=sünid+1646&dq=sünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA
Page 406
http://books.google.com/books?id=2qWfAAAAMAAJ&q=sünid+1646&dq=sünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ
http://www.t-house.on-rev.com/KARUN/BACK_NOTES/Crossley_Making_Mongols.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40108222?seq=5
http://books.google.com/books?id=yHG8AaevBDsC&pg=PA104&dq=sünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sünid%201646&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=trYMgl6YR58C&pg=PA33&dq=sünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sünid%201646&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1646 Sünid revolt 

message: Does anyone know why the label, "Vassal of the Qing Dynasty," is currently in the status section of the infobox?
There isn't any way that Mongolia could have been a vassal state at this time, as it did not have internal autonomy. Rather, it was a region that constituted the larger state then known as the Qing Empire. This in itself violates the requirements of being a vassal state.
If there are any digressions, please state them.
BUjjsp (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vassal of the Qing Dynasty? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mongolia under Qing rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mcx.sagepub.com/content/32/1/3.abstract
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified