Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 18 February 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:FAOL

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5 Template:Archive box collapsible

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 . 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". , , 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: 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. 68.205.188.68 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Michael

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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/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 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 on 22 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>_Mongol_Empire-2008-05-27T21:01:00.000Z">

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)>_Mongol_Empire"> >_Mongol_Empire">

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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. 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)

Misplaced Pages 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: . Which regime is more democratic is completely POV issue and not what Misplaced Pages 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

                 ]

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 ${\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}}$ = 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 ${\displaystyle [E-1\sigma ,}$ E + 1 σ ] {\displaystyle 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 ${\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}}$, 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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

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.

1. Cite error: The named reference ZZTJ196 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Liu, 81-83
3. Bai, 230
4. Xue, 674-675
5. Bai, 230
6. Xue, 674-675
7. "The Chinese and their History and Culture" by Kenneth Scott Latouretter FOURTH REVISED EDITION 56892 Library of Congress card number- 64-17372 Printed by Macmillan ISBN 0-8160-2693-9
8. Liu, 81-83
9. Bai, 230
10. Xue, 674-675
11. Denis C. Twitchett, John K. Fairbank (Hrsg.): The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3, Sui and T'ang China, 589–906. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1979, ISBN 0-521-21446-7.
12. Ch.4 : T'ai-tsung (626-49) the Consolidator, p. ~160~170. Author: H.J. Wechsler.

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles