Talk:History of Mongolia

message: A fuller series can be made with the public domain text at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/mntoc.html. --Jiang 00:12, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: More linx needed – there are lots of articles relating to the Mongolian history. Piece of cake to make more linx. Rursus 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More linx needed

message: This article is in sore need of attention by an expert. It's hard to divide the article when it doesn't have enough information TO divide. 
It's a big country, and therefore must have an extensive history, with many rulers and political happenings. I think to model the article layout (but it will be a tad shorter just because the country is a bit economically smaller on the global scale) after the History of Japan would be a good idea ('tis a really nice article, in my opinion)... so it needs a very general introduction; pre-history; ancient Mongolia; nomadic Mongolia; unification under the title 'Mongolia'; etc. And then Religions; Politics; current issues. Yay or nay?
Sedonaarizona 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay indeed. --Gimme danger 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs work 

message: 1.Non-Enlish sources are as valid as English sources. It is true that they are difficult to verify for those who don't know that language. But this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used. Not every information is available in English.2. http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en has a capability to translate from 10 languages into English. It allows to tranlsate a whole web page by providing the web address as well as selected sentences by pasting those sentences into the corresponding boxes on the screen. Gantuya eng 00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English references 

message: This image looks like not completed in Photoshop. What is near the watch tower - canon? car? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it look now? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camp of Mongolian tribe 

message: If anyone knows researches on the medieval Mongolian population, please share your knowledge. The calculations in the article are only based on an assumption that every adult man had to serve as a warrior. In times of peace, they continued raising livestock and in times of war they were called to the army. Is it right? Or were there people, who didn't have to serve as warriors? Then the population could have been higher. Based on the pasture capacity, and therefore, number of livestock that provide food for the humans, it is a common perception that the population never exceeded 1 million before the 20th century. However, there are scientists, who state that the climate was different from now and there was much more vegetation. This should mean the pasture capacity was much higher. If that's the case, the country was able to accommodate a higher number of livestock, and the human population could have been much higher too. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medieval population of Mongolia

message: The processes preceding and leading to the Khalha-Oirat war 1688 are very complex and may inflate the article. After completion of the section, if it seems short, we can elaborate that part. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zasagtu Khan crisis to Khalha-Oirat war 

message: It was briefly occupied by a Chinese warlord in 1919, and then by the Russian White movement warlord Ungern von Sternberg in 1920.  The Red Army backed native partisan units led by Damdin Sühbaatar and the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP, the recently-founded local communist party), which defeated the forces of Ungern von Sternberg.
These sentences are being kept here temporarily to be used later. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary storage 

message: I removed some rather unencyclopedic material from that section, and added stuff from a short text by Eleonora Novgorodova. She seems to have done some serious work on the topic, though I have no idea about how accepted her dates for the deer stones are (she says something to the effect that her dates are the result of new (as of 1989) research). Yaan (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prehistory

message: Since this is an article about History (judging from its title), is it really appropriate to include Boxers and Sumo wrestlers? I completely agree they are notable on their own, I just wonder if they really are notable in the context of Mongolian History. Yaan (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How significant is Tsogtu Taiji ? Is he more significant than Gushi Khan Baibagas ? Gantuya eng (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tsogt Taij is pretty notable when talking about Mongol History, as is Güshi Khan. I don't really see how George Foreman would be notable when talking about American history. Yaan (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't you guys have better things to do than entertaining in a pissing contest about such trivial matters? At first I tried to reduce that section to the essentials with ten people of exceptional impact and international relevance. But in reality such a list is entirely inappropriate in a history article, so I've removed it completely. --Latebird (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I wanted to do. Thank you, Latebird. Everybody would want to add their favorites to the list of notable persons, if there is any. I think others would agree with your action. --GenuineMongol (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial idea was to include a couple of representatives of the 1911 movement (Khanddorj and Namnansüren), a couple of representatives of the 1921 revolution (Bodoo and Danzan), a couple of representatives of the 1990 movement (Zorig and Bat-Uul) and a couple of representatives of the "colour revolution" period (Batzandan and Magnai). Once this becomes a competition in which everybody wants to include his favourites, it may be a good idea to remove the list at all. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to mention those people (and what they did) in the respective sections of the text. A seperate list presents the names out of context, which is much less helpful for the reader. --Latebird (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable Mongolians 

message: May I ask what exactly makes Magnai, Battsandan, Lu Bold (and some others) notable in this article? Tsogt Taij at least had a movie produced about him, I guess one can also find his name in a number of books dealing with Mongolian and Tibetan history of the 17th century.  Yaan (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you guys have better things to do than entertaining in a pissing contest about such trivial matters? At first I tried to reduce that section to the essentials with ten people of exceptional impact and international relevance. But in reality such a list is entirely inappropriate in a history article, so I've removed it completely. --Latebird (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I wanted to do. Thank you, Latebird. Everybody would want to add their favorites to the list of notable persons, if there is any. I think others would agree with your action. --GenuineMongol (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial idea was to include a couple of representatives of the 1911 movement (Khanddorj and Namnansüren), a couple of representatives of the 1921 revolution (Bodoo and Danzan), a couple of representatives of the 1990 movement (Zorig and Bat-Uul) and a couple of representatives of the "colour revolution" period (Batzandan and Magnai). Once this becomes a competition in which everybody wants to include his favourites, it may be a good idea to remove the list at all. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to mention those people (and what they did) in the respective sections of the text. A seperate list presents the names out of context, which is much less helpful for the reader. --Latebird (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable politicians

message: I wasn't sure how to handle, this edit. Since it involves Mongolia only indirectly, I decided it would be better to discuss it at the article on the Yuan Dynasty. I have left a comment here: Talk:Yuan Dynasty#Tibet a part of China during the Yuan?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongols conquered North China ruled by Jin Dynasty first (1230s), then Tibet (1240s), and finally South China ruled by Song Dynasty (1270s). There was no unified China at the time of Mongol invasions. Just say "the regions under former Jin and Song dynasties, Tibet ..." will be good enough and can avoid disputes. However, more serious issue is that someone recently claims that Tibet was not at all part of Yuan, as will be mentioned below. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet a part of China during the Yuan Dynasty? 

message: Someone recently added the statement explicitly claiming Tibet was not a part of the Yuan (see here). Obviously this is a biased statement and not at all an undisputed view. Without consensus such claim should be avoided in the article. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if there is no consensus, how can you add the statement explicitly claiming Tibet was not a part of Yuan? You are saying that if it was not a province of Yuan, then it was not part of Yuan? But Mongolia was also not a province of Qing, then is it a part of Qing? Further, your link simply returns a "Page Not Found" error. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Try this link indirectly, it does work.--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.6.246 (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is probably here. Not really sure where he writes that Tibet was not part of Yuan, though. Yaan (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibet within Yuan

message: Since I've read several books on the Mongols, I knew what is meant by (most) of this article,
but it reads like gibberish in many places - probably by editors who have a poor command of English.
Any novice reading it is going to be bamboozled.  Where to begin? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are a native speaker of English, but do you not think you expressed your worry in a way that maybe perceived as a personal attack? "gibberish"???? "bamboozled"???? "poor command of English"???? "pretty poor"???? Please give certain examples of the sentences and phrases with these characteristics and we'll analyse them. How you express yourself offends. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is in need of serious work .... grammar, etc., are pretty poor 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=I9dzQgAACAAJ
Rajmaan (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire By Christopher Pratt Atwood 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.historyofnations.net/asia/mongolia.html
*:Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Bananasoldier (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAFI setup 

message: The pages relating to the early conquests made by Genghis Khan often use misleading, confusing, or otherwise counterintuative names to refer to the political entities of Mongolia. I propose that the references, especially links, be standardized to reflect the page title it links to, and for those name variations to be mentioned in the article of that clan or tribe. This would reduce potential confusion related to those names. --Barbarian of the West (Seiban) (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Planning to Standardize Medieval Period Clan, Tribe, Confederacy Names

message: (I had to censor the word negatively describing Wikipedia because it identified it as "potentially unconstructive"
“The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses and some scholars, including Paul Pelliot and Byambyn Rinchen, insisted on a Mongolic origin.”
Later, in the same subsection…
“The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses and some scholars, including A.Luvsandendev, Bernát Munkácsy, Henry Howorth, Rashpuntsag,[14] Alexey Okladnikov, Peter Pallas, Isaak Schmidt, Nikita Bichurin and Byambyn Rinchen, insisted on a Mongolic origin.”
Really Wikipedia? 
2602:306:CE62:8430:1DE2:D0E3:5AED:F175 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia s*cks at grammar 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Mongolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226092610/http://www.archaeology.mas.ac.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=64 to http://www.archaeology.mas.ac.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=64
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424122009/http://www.beyondtoday.tv/booklets/US/scythians.asp to http://www.beyondtoday.tv/booklets/US/scythians.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20061121.163131/public/02Whole.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I have noticed that the article switches between BCE/CE and BC/AD era styles throughout without particular reason for doing so. This does not follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style and as such, I was wondering whether we could reach a consensus as to what style we should use?
Given that throughout history, Mongolia and its people were not predominantly Christian, I see no reason not to use BCE/CE as the standard for this article.
GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree as well. Anastrophe (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE/CE vs BC/AD in the article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system.  This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India.  If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change dating system to Common Era