Talk:Inner Mongolia/Archive 1

message: Could somebody reduce the resolution of the photo and re-upload it? It's a little too much... I'd do it myself, but I don't know how (yet)--141.54.164.174 23:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: In what way is Inner Mongolia a disputed territory? Is it claimed by the state of Mongolia? — Instantnood 18:13, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)
:There is an independence movement. -- ran (talk) 23:39, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, but very few mongolians in Inner Mongolia want to be independent. If there is poll, most of the mongolians (not including the Han Chinese people in that land) will chose to stay in China. In Texas, there is also an independence movement, does that mean Taxas a disputed territory? -- woshiwppaa Feb 24, 2005
Thank you. — Instantnood 08:31, Jan 31 2005 (UTC)
Is this the one you referred to? — Instantnood 20:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Yep. And there are others on the net too IIRC -- ran (talk) 15:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Very simple to answer the question about "Inner" Mongolia being a "disputed territory": Inner Mongolia or the southern part of Mongolia is currently a colony just same as Tibet (which includes not only TAR but all of so called "zang qv" in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan). China wasn't China untill 1911, but upon the liberation of themselves from the Manchu foreign rule, the Chinese claimed all the alien territories which for some centuries belonged to the empire of Manchurians but never that of *Chinese*. (And no offence - you guys were treated by the Manchus way much worse than they treated Mongols). There is abosolutely no difference between the case of Mongolia and Germany spllitting into two, Korea getting divided into two, Bengal into two and so on. This argument has much more validity than the Chinese claim over Formosa (Taiwan?).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidugaren (talk • contribs) 
:The above comment is the most asinine I've ever heard.  Modern China INHERITS the Qing Empire.  Understand?  There aren't that many Manchurians today. Why? Because they have assimilated into the Han population.  Being Han is like being white in the US, it's the "generic" ethnicity. In other words, Manchurians ARE Chinese. The English term "Chinese" refers to all that were under the Qing Empire, Manchurians included.  Descendents of Manchurians, Tibetans, and Inner Mongolians can just as well be President of China if they want, because they are all Chinese. They are not being oppressed anymore than people in Shanghai are being oppressed, Inner Mongolia has as much right to independence as Shanghai does. End of discussion, territorial dispute of Inner Mongolia should not be in Wikipedia, it is not neutral. Naus 09:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. If Hawaii and Brittany aren't categorized disputed territories, I don't see why Inner Mongolia should. I'd say this is more of a problem with the lack of any "threshold" or "standard" on what qualifies as a member of the "disputed territories" category, but since this standard is lacking, we should try to follow precedents. -- ran (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Qing Dynasty is a "Manchurian" dynasty in that it is founded by Manchurians. But you fail to note that most of the officials and public servants (plus population) are Chinese (Han race) anyways. The imperial Qing family also adopted Chinese culture, language, thought, and philosophy. And when foreigners (or anyone) made mention of the territories under Qing Dynasty , they refer to "China" not "Manchu-land". In many ways, Qing Dynasty is a continuation of a Chinese dynasty for many reasons. First, it's just a continuation of history. Second, they think they have the so-called "Mandate of Heaven", which mean there's only one emperor on this planet. Their capital is in Beijing, China. And, they act like Chinese. This is similar to the history of England. When the German Saxons, or the French Normans invaded England, today in modern times, they still called them English kingdoms, and not German or French kingdoms.
Heilme 03:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed territory? 

message: Does anybody know what the source of the mongolian name is?
I cannot find any encoding on my PC that doesn't show the mongolian characters as question marks.
I've installed all possible language packs I could find in Windows XP, SP2. Chinese, Japanse and Tibetan all displays correct.
CyeZ 07:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolian name 

message: This article talks about Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, but Inner Mongolia as an administrative division did not exist until the late 1940s. Before that, the geographical region of Inner Mongolia spanned across several provinces. The limits of the autonomous region have also been changed over the decades. Is there a convention on the limits of Inner Mongolia as a geographical region? Would it be Mongolia (region) minus Outer Mongolia, Hovd, Oyirad and Buriyad? Is there any remarkable difference between the limits of the autonomous region and the actual extent as a geographical region? — Instantnood 06:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Convention? The leagues of the Qing Dynasty, perhaps. Those would be modern Inner Mongolia minus Hulunbuir (Hailar), Xing'an (Ulaanhot), and Alashan, plus Josutu (Chaoyang, Liaoning). In any case, the borders claimed by the Inner Mongolia People's Party are those of modern Inner Mongolia. -- ran (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a problem when writing about Japanese occupation of eastern part of Inner Mongolia (and Manchuria) before 1937.. It's ambiguous whether "Inner Mongolia" is talking about the pre-communist era geographical region, or the present day autonomous region. — Instantnood 08:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No idea. Just thinking how to take into account the ever changing limits of what the term "Inner Mongolia" referred to. — Instantnood 08:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much. I don't know much about that, except that I know from old maps Inner Mongolia did not exist as an administrative division until the late 1940s, and its border has been changed for several times. :-) — Instantnood 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. It's much better now. :-) — Instantnood 08:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inner Mongolia as a geographical region

message: If you simplify the things so easily, I can also simply say a Mongolian word to you: Bugseen Havch! Hope you will try to understand the meaning of the word by taking the Mongolian 101 and remind yourself with the word every time when you talk about Mongolia without knowing the truth.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkhbatt (talk • contribs) 
: And you think that responding to those who disagree with you with obscenities (as it happens, I know very well what the phrase means) is an appropriate way to win converts to your crusade?  Hm.  Good luck there, sport.  RGTraynor 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey RGT: you're not just simply disagreeing. You're bigmouthing about issues that you have no knowledge of whatsoever and you're not listening to others explanations amd reasoning because you believe you ought to know it. You have to know that you're at least arrogant. And I'm pretty sure that you didn't really read enkhbatt's writing before you criticised him.
dugar 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To RGTraynor: 

message: 1. This article and several other related topics such as the one called "Mongolia (region)" are, in a short, are full of Sinocentric POVs. For one thing, the names are problematic. For instance, there is a place name in Southern Mongolia, called "Bortohoi" in Mongolian. "bor" is the color brown (may not exactly match), and tohoi is river bend. The river refered to is the Yellow River or in Mongolian "Hatun Gol". The common Chinese translation of "Bortohoi" is "hetao" or 河套 and this is actually only the translation of second part, river bend, and not the color part. But, anyway, here in this article, there is a term "Hetao Mongols", meaning "river bend Mongols". This doesn't make sense. There is no such concept in Mongol history, nor in Mongolian habits of calling each other. It may be a Chinese way to name different parts of Mongolia but it's not at all common. If you look deep enough, you'll definitely find the term as "Bortoi" or "Bortohai" or something like that but not some wierd "hetao Mongols". So just like this, because of a lot of authors here are PRC-"educated" native Chinese, they just push the Chinese names without bothering to check or impossible for them to check and find out the Mongol terms.
2. Take the article "Tibet", which is pretty good, as example. Unbiased articles on "Mongolia", "Southern Mongolia", "Mongol History" should be something like some of the articles on Tibet. List all different view points, concepts, conflicts, criticisms, understandings, potential implications. For instance, when mentioning "Mongolia", give the wide meaning as well as the narrow meaning. So in case of "Mongolia", the wide meaning is that: Mongolia, A COUNTRY, but not just a "region", being established in 1206, had in recent history been splitting into pieces, due to outside forces such as Manchuria, China and Russia. This can be shown as at least "one type of understanding" (Of course, very unfortunately for those chauvinist brainwashed Chinese, this is the understanding of all Mongols about their own country). The narrower meaning would be that in today's common terminology, "Mongolia" increasingly stands for only the independent part of MONGOLIA.
We can of course also list the view of imperialist Chinese government and their offsprings' understanding of Mongolia being "always a part of "China" too, as "another type of understanding". And there can be others too. 
I have a lot more ideas and suggestions to contribute in reviewed, unbiased, un-propagandistic articles on these topics. I'd be happy to discussed with those who with good faith. I'm dissapointed that people like Ran ignored my invitation for discussion and instead having been removing whatever changes I make to "Inner" Mongolia article. Well it is OK but are not gonna solve any problem and certainly worn't give up. And again, this place certainly should not be hijacked and being used by chauvinist propagandists any longer. 
dugar 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your entire argument is groundless. The term Hetao is used commonly in China. Last time I checked, Inner Mongolia is a direct provincial-level unit of the PRC. Thus the use by Wikipedia of Hetao is not incorrect.  You may add your Mongolian transliteration, but the Chinese language is also co-official in Inner Mongolia.--Naus 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some initial thoughts 

message: There doesn't seem to be any ongoing discussion here.  Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Could someone take the world map used for most articles and highlight Inner Mongolia?
--Metallurgist 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia convention is that administrative entities of countries use locator maps that show the country only. E.g. California, British Columbia, etc. -- ran (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any maps like it available? --Metallurgist 01:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean? As I said, administrative entities of countries use locator maps that show the location of the entity relative to the country only, not the entire world. Other examples: Hawaii, Quebec, Jammu and Kashmir, Corsica, Bavaria, Hokkaido, etc. -- ran (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The above Mongolian nationalist misses the point, which is that the vast majority of Mongols prefer to live in China rather than in Mongolia (Mongols in China outnumber Mongols in Mongolia by 2:1). Every region has separatists and nutjobs (even the great USA has nutjob separatists in like Vermont, Texas, Alabama, Hawaii, etc). The reality on the ground is that there has been steady migration of Mongols from Mongolia into China in the last decade due to China's economic boom.  The opportunity is in China.  There is no controversy, but one fabricated by a handful of Mongolian nationalists living in the United States (who probably can't even speak a word of Mongolian). --Naus 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does all this conjecture contribute to improving the article here? --Latebird 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (who probably can't even speak a word of Mongolian) I think this is a problem that affects a lot of those "6 million" Mongols in China. My impression was that those Inner Mongolian separartists speak Mongolian quite well, though. But assdaa is probably from (outer) Mongolia anyway. The migration cross-border migration between China and Mongolia seems to be a mutual thing (i.e. it's very easy to find Chinese and Inner Mongolians in Mongolia), much more than Mongolian migration to Korea. Anyway, I agree with Latebird. You seem to have overlooked the Transscription of the Mongolian name. As it looks now, it's the transscription from Cyrillic and not from the classical script. And the Mongolian full name still looks awful (or is that only because I'm using an apple at the moment?). Yaan 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vast majority of Mongols prefer living in China than Mongolia