Talk:Oirats

Split ethnicity and history?

What about splitting this into two articles? One on the Oirat/Kalmyk History, and then one on the Oirat ethnic group of Mongolia and China? Today they don't really fit into the category of "Kalmyk" of Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.106.234.100 (talk • contribs) --Latebird 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not an expert by any means, but I don't see a clear division line yet. Note that any of the following articles (and probably others) may include relevant information:

• Oirats
• Kalmyks#History
• Esen Tayisi
• Altay people
• Dzungar
• Kalmykia
• Torgut Mongols

Whatever change you propose in detail should make sure that no unnecessary redundancy between those is created. In any case you'll have to find good and reliable sources. This may be somewhat difficult because it is a rather obscure topic. Just as an example, a statement like "Perhaps also Derbet, Khoit, & Darkhat." clearly needs an attribution, or it will be qualified as Original Research. Maybe you have access to related scientific material, which would be great. --Latebird 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with either a change or a big cleanup, but it is a really complicated thing--I'd be happy either way, with a Oirat ethnicity article, and a Oirat History or by putting them together. If we end up making an Oirat history article seperate, that can also be the Kalmyk early history, for the most part, which could be linked from the Kalmyk page. I don't think there is enough for the Torghut article yet, and if we start delving into the Oirat tribes we might as well start an Oolt page, and so on. The Russian Kalmyk page has a nice map of where Oirat is spoken (in Russian). That would be cool to change over here too. I'm happy to do whatever people in general want-as best as I can. --Erkin2008 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know about the Derbet, Khoit, & Darkhat tribes--that is more then just thought? I only knew of the first four that are mentioned, but these were carried on from some older Wikipedia article.--Erkin2008 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Oirat Tribes

In NW Mongolia, the Oirat tribes are as follows:

• Choros (or Olot)
• Dorbet
• Khoit
• Torghut
• Khoshut
• Bayid
• Mangit
• Darkhat
• Urianhai
• Zakhachin

The first eight tribes listed above also call the Dzungaria region of NW China and the Amdo region of NE Tibet home.

In the early 17th century, the first three Oirat tribes listed above formed the Dzungar Khanate. The Khoshuts, otoh, formed the Khoshut Khanate in the Amdo region of NE Tibet. The Torghut tribe with minor elements of the Dorbet tribe migrated westward to the Caspian steppe to form what would become known as the Kalmyk Khanate. --Buzava 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting information, what's the source? Maybe it is best to add all reliable facts (and references) to the article, and then figure out how to split the result. --08:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Kalmyk-Oirat and wrote about 98 percent of the Kalmyk article. --Buzava 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Which makes it especially important to avoid Original Research. I assume you're familiar with Wikipedia's requirements of Attribution? On the positive side, you might have access to sources that would be very difficult for others to access. Just list them as references and everything is fine. --Latebird 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up...

Total population: 166,000

Regions with significant populations People's Republic of China 166,000 Mongolia Mongolia 205,500

It seems that the total population is only that of China. I could easily add them up but i don't like to assume an article on wikipedia without citations is reliable so i won't just assume these numbers. Just an FYI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Contraditiction

The article contradicts name of Güshi Khan spelled differently in different articles all over the place and more importantly, Lha-bzang Khan is listed as great grandson here, but grandson on his own page of Güshi Khan.Jinnai (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The spelling of historical Mongol (and other) names tends to be somewhat volatile, so I wouldn't really see this as a contradiction (other than grandson vs. great grandson, of course). There are two possibilities to solve this: Ideally, you can demonstrate which spelling is most common en recent English language sources. If that is not possible, then you can search for the historical spelling in the traditional Mongolian script and transcribe from there. There's some discussion sprinkled over Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian) about the best transcription system to use. The experts there are likely to lend a helpful hand. --Latebird (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oirats under Chingisids

In 1207, Jochi subjugated forest tribes including Oirats. His father gave them to his eldest son for his bravery. Most scholars agree that they were under the direct control of Yuan emperors. But some scholars said that Oirats headed by Khaidu were fighting against Khubilai. I read that Naimans were annexed by Khaidu around 1280's. Who was their supreme lord in the late Mongol Empire: Kublai, Khaidu or probably Jochids. Is there anyone know about it?.--Enerelt (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Chinese Name

Is it appopirate to add 瓦刺 this chinese name and redirect it to this article?Mark Mak (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since a significant nuber live in China, that seems perfectly appropriate to me. --Latebird (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kalmyks and Oirats

As is explained in the articles Kalmyk people and Oirats, the two groups have the same origin. Specifically, the Kalmyks are a historical subgroup of the Oirats that have moved to the west. There is no justification for removing this information from the article. --Latebird (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/history1.html

http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/oirats.html

http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/languageuse.html

http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/

Rajmaan (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=2-P1Zq5a_BYC&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2-P1Zq5a_BYC&pg=PA431#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H3QRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H3QRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA260#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H3QRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA264#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JTQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JTQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA260#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JTQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA264#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sv1PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sv1PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=v-01AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=v-01AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=DDj6LRKRH9IC&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=DDj6LRKRH9IC&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=xMY9AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=xMY9AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=n5M9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=n5M9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lJA9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lJA9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=GVWI8l5QbcoC&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=GVWI8l5QbcoC&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=G3YTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=G3YTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iF_zAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iF_zAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=008LAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=008LAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=sdwKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=sdwKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hvBWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA594#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=DDwLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA284#v=onepage&q&f=false

page 304

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35845/35845-h/35845-h.htm

Edit warring

it seems Rajmaan's edit is too china-centric and the sources are obviously POV-ish. The sources even stated that "There were no longer Mongols. There were only khans and followers." and the identity "Mongol" should be defined by the Ming/Qin dynasty's definition. It is clearly POV-ish and even attempts to say the identity "Mongols" were created by the Qin. It should be noted that the definition of Mongols are different from what the Qin/Ming defined.

Oirats were called as Oirat Mongols or the Western Mongols time to time:

https://books.google.com/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&lpg=PA606&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA606#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZRIt9sZaTREC&lpg=PA20&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&lpg=PA94&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=AzG5llo3YCMC&lpg=PA171&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&lpg=PA94&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

Oirats and Khalkhas were distinguished, but not the "Mongol" identity.216.185.114.219 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Western Mongols" and "Oirat Mongols" appear to be a modern names applied by modern scholars. The statement I added clearly says what the Oirats self-identified as, not modern classifications applied to them. The sources note that the Oirats did not call themselves Mongols at the time of the Northern Yuan and Ming dynasties. If you want to add that modern scholars or other peoples call them "Western Mongols" or "Oirat Mongols", go ahead, but don't remove sourced information about what the Oirats called themselves. One of the sources says that its in fact the Ming Chinese who lumped Oirats and Mongols together as "Mongols" while Oirats themselves did not and distinguished themselves from Mongols so how is it China-centric, when the edit i added is opposite of the Chinese view? In fact, the modern PRC government of China classifies Oirats as Mongols and forces them to use Chahar Mongol (an Inner Mongolian dialect) instead of the Oirat language in schools, and refuses to classify them as a separate people. They designate Oirat counties in Xinjiang as "Mongol autonomous" counties or prefectures like Bayingolin Mongol Autonomous Prefecture. I discussed sources describing this policy with another user at Talk:Oirat_language. This is why the Oirat language is currently endangered. If anything, the Chinese POV is exactly the POV you are subscribing to. And the other source doesn't say Mongols were created by the Qing. It says the Qing expanded the label of Mongol to the Oirats and Khorchin whereas previously only the six Tumen (ruled by the Northern Yuan) called themselves Mongols.Rajmaan (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are using the identity "Mongols" very narrowly. Oirats were called as Mongols during the Mongol Empire, but you claimed that they were never called as Mongols. The distinction of Oirats and Eastern Mongols appeared much later, after the fall of Yuan. And even Khosuds were eastern Mongols and ruled by Khasar's descendants. So your claim can't be true. Your claim insists that Oirats are not Mongols. But you have to read the definition of Mongols. https://books.google.com/books?id=mwN1BgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA27&ots=EyQxcm_aGJ&dq=oirats%20history&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q=oirats%20history&f=falseTodHirilla (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they were called as Oirats, not as Mongols during the Min/Qin. But you have to remove the "Never". And replace it with "They called themselves as Oirads to differentiate from the eastern Mongols after the fall of Yuan dynasty".TodHirilla (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You are deleting sourced content. It was the Qing who expanded the term "Mongol" to include all Mongolic groups like Oirat and Khorchin when they put them under jurisdiction of the Lifanyuan which led to a unified Mongol identity including all Mongolic peoples. It was under the Qing administration that the ethnonym Mongol was used to override such ethnonyms as Oirad and Horchin, expanding the name that had earlier been monopolized by the Chinggisid six tumens, before that the Chinggisid ruled Six Tumens only called themselves Mongol. And the other source also very clearly states that By the early seventeenth century, the political fracture of Mongolia into Oyirod- and Chakhar-dominated halves was accompanied by cultural distinctions that were mutually noted. Their languages-seen as mutually intelligible dialects by the Chinese and undoubtedly by man other outsiders-were regarded between themselves as distinct. It doesn't matter whether Oirat is in fact just a dialect, what matters is how Oirats viewed their own language because the content is about their own opinion. This is about how Oirats viewed themselves, it doesn't say that the Qing created the Mongolian ethnicity and it doesn't pass judgement on whether Oirat is in fact a language.

You are also messing up the population figures. The population estimate for 1755 includes Oirat Kalmyks living near the Volga river in Kalmykia in Russia. They numbered several hundred thousand. Them plus the Oirats living in Dzungaria made up the total population of over a million before the Manchus killed most of the Oirats in Dzungaria.Rajmaan (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

TodHirilla explain your edits here [1] [2]. You are directly deleting information supported by the source and the reason you gave in your edit summaries is not valid per my explanation above. Nowhere does it say in the delete text that the Qing created the Mongolian ethnicity, neither does it actually comment on the truthfulness of the claim that Oirat and Mongolian langauges are distinct, it says that the Qing expanded Mongol identity to include Oirat and Khorchin and that Oirats viewed their language as distinct from Mongol. If you don't adequately explain your objection and provide sources then your deletions are invalid.Rajmaan (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The identity "Mongols" formed in 13th century with the formation of the the Mongol empire, not by the Qin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols. You are suggesting a very different thing. Maybe the chinese definition of Mongols changed by the Qin, but you are trying to expand that to the entire definition. That is what I am saying china-centric view.TodHirilla (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the number of Oirats, you can go to the Dzungar genocide and contest there if you wish. There are few sources.TodHirilla (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Genghis Khan already unified Mongolic-speaking tribes under the name "Mongol". It's widely accepted.

Dzungar genocide only provides the number of Oirats who lived in Dzungaria. The Oirats who lived in Kalmykia were not counted and they were several hundred thousand.

When it says the Qing "expanded" the definition of "Mongol", it meant that the Qing expanded it from the time of the Six Tumens when Mongols only referred to the Six Tumens, and after the Qing took over the Khorchins and others outside of the Six Tumens, it put them under the label of "Mongol" in the Lifanyuan.Rajmaan (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are only talking about the definition "Mongol" in CHINESE, not global nor the definition of Mongols themselves. Stop this kind of behavior and think about it little more. TodHirilla (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the numbers, it's only talking about the Oirats who were living in the Zungaria during 1755 and it also didn't include the Kalmyks in Russia in the current number.TodHirilla (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It clearly says its only the definition during the time of the Six Tumens only now, it does not say that it was the permanent definition of Mongol throughout history.Rajmaan (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The writer by the way is an ethnic Mongol scholar named Uradyn E. Bulag. He is the one writing that the Qing gave the label Mongol to Oirats and Khorchin after the time when only the Six Tumens used that name.Rajmaan (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you don't get that it is only about a definition in chinese, not in Mongolian nor in Oirat language. You can mention such thing in chinese wiki, but not in other languages. The writer is probably a inner Mongolian, so it is understandable if he/she talked about the chinese definition. So keep the claims in the chinese wiki. TodHirilla (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Kalmyks are called as Kalmyk Mongols. It is clear that they are not named by the Qin. Hope you can see the difference between the definition in chinese and definitions in other languages. You and the source are only talking about what the Ming/Qing called Mongols.TodHirilla (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you claiming this is Chinese: yadayadu mongɣul-un törü-yi jasaqu yabudal-un yamun? The Qing was the one who placed all Mongolic speaking peoples like, Oirats, Khorchin, and others under the jurisdiction of that government department.Rajmaan (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Russians also gave Kalmyks the name "Mongol".Rajmaan (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not russians, kalmyks themselves.

That makes it more clear. It's clearly talking about what the Qing called them, not what Mongols/Oirats called themselves. You can talk about difference between Khalkha and Oirats, but it is just an foolish attempt to distinct them from the general Mongol identity. Please read the general definition of Mongols. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols TodHirilla (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to participate in this discussion, so I will try to make some comments here.

Rajmaan: Again, the claim that the term Mongol was defined or expanded by the Qing is an exceptional claim. You need multiple high-quality sources to support your claim. Before doing so, please don't make such POV push in WP articles.

TodHirilla: Please don't make a division between Chinese definitions and definitions in other languages. Focus on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies, please. In fact, I know you are also a sock-puppet, just like Ceithe and a few others. It is not my desire to keep you outside of Wikipedia, but you need to make a fresh start and focus on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies instead. Thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Evecurid, Thanks for responding. Rajmaan is pushing a clearly POV edits.

Please, file a sockpuppet investigation if you think I am a sockpuppet. 216.185.114.219 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ancientsteppe. --Evecurid (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulag and Crossley both assert that the Qing expanded the Mongol name. Crossley's entire work "Making Mongols" is about how the Qing reconstructed and reinvented Mongol identity for their own political usage, and how the Qing definition of Mongol persisted to the present day.

The unity that the Qing were determined to force upon the “Mongols” (though the former Dzunghars would not be included) was in fact indistinguishable from the definition of “Mongol” that Chinggis had imposed upon the diverse groups of what is now the Mongolian steppe. It was not language or religious affiliation or even economic life that defined a Mongol, but the act of affiliating with Chingis's organization and acknowledging him as the only (and later, as the eternal) leader. As noted in the beginning of this essay, many Mongolian-speaking groups did not get "Mongolized" (really, Chinggisized) in this process, and many Turkic speaking groups did. It was this equation between followership and being Mongol that the Qing depended upon to give themselves legitimacy with the Mongol nobility......... But the Qing also changed criteria, opening the way to conpects of affiliation that we would now regard as "ethnic" or "national." They firmly installed linguistic unity and standardization as a criterion of identity, neither of which had any traditional standing..........It is ultimately the Qing legacy of relative autonomy that has left the deepest marks on our notions of Mongol identity.....A durable notion of coherent Mongol identity within a non-Mongol state not only made the Qing empire possible, but has made the People's Republic of China-encompassing "Inner Mongolia" while bordering on an independent Mongol state-possible.

It was under the Qing administration that the ethnonym Mongol was used to override such ethnonyms as Oirad and Horchin, expanding the name that had earlier been monopolized by the Chinggisid six tumens.... Almost all the Mongols, except the Buryats in southern Siberia and the Kalmyks who migrated to the Volga region, were administered by the Lifan Yuan (Board of Colonial Affairs, M. yadayadu mongɣul-un törü-yi jasaqu yabudal-un yamun), inculcating a sense of unified Mongolian identity as opposed to the Manchu, Tibetans, Muslims and Han.

The Qing, particularly, both nurtured the esatblishment of criteria of Mongol affiliation and forced the political dismemberment of territories inhabited by a majority of those now considered Mongols.................the Six Tümen faced geographical and political competition from Mongolian-speaking groups with distinct histories from the former Yuan population of Mongols—including the Oyirods10 of the Lake Balkhash region, the Khorchins11 at the perimeter with Ming Liaodong, and the Buryats of the extreme north. They had remained comparatively autonomous during the period of the Mongol empires, larely because of their peripheral locations.

These were spectacular additions to the small cort of mostly Khorchin-originated "Mongols"...... It began in 1636 as the "Mongol Department"......One of its chief duties in these days was to track the titles awarded to Khorchin, Kharachin, and Khalkha nobles who declared allegiance to the Qing.......The "Mongol Department" also began assuming responsibilities-previously vested in the khans themselves of eastern Mongolia-for the adjudication of disputes amogn the Khorchin, Kharachin, Chakhar, and incorporated Khalkha (now, in Qing nomenclature, all "Mongol") populations.

Through the Oyirods had preceded the Dzunghars in the region (and most Dzunghars were of Oyirod descent), it became a distinctive feature of Qianlong rhetoric to neutralize the Oyirod heritage of the Dzunghars. There was no delicacy at the Lifan Yuan regarding whether the Dzunghars were or were not Mongols(and therefore subject to Qing authority)—they were moxi elete menggu, “the Oyirod Mongols west of the Gobi.

The Oyirods of the time of Chinggis were residents of the wooded lands west of Lake Balkhash, apparently Mongolian-speaking but not "Mongolized" in the sense of being incorporated into the Chinggisid empire.....Qing records of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries refer to them as moxi Elete Menggu, "the Oyirod Mongols west of the Gobi."

By the early seventeenth century, the political fracture of Mongolia into Oyirod- and Chakhar-dominated halves was accompanied by cultural distinctions that were mutually noted. Their languages-seen as mutually intelligible dialects by the Chinese and undoubtedly by man other outsiders-were regarded between themselves as distinct...... The Oyirods did not call themselves “Mongols,” but rather the “Four Oyirods” (dörbön oyirad). “Mongols” (monggoli)was their term for the eastern alliance under the Chakhar khaghans.

Pamela Crossley uses scare quotes around "Mongols" when referring to Khorchin, but leaves it out when referring to the Chahar.

by the descendants of these early "Mongol" adherents, including Songyun (1752-1635), descendant of the Marat lineage of the Khorchins.........The Chakhar Mongols, the smallest component of the Mongol banner population.

Rajmaan (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"...Oirats called themselves "Four Oirats" while they only called those under the Khagans in the east as "Mongols".. Isn't it just enough? It is already in the article. Hoshuuts were definitely Eastern Mongols and they were one of the Four. How can you claim they didn't call themselves Mongols? 142.255.6.214 (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to explain the reason why they are called Mongols now. In China today, Oirats and Khorchins are classified as Mongols and not given a separate category, because of Qing policy, it was the Qing who classified them under that label. In Russia, Kalmyks and Buryats are separate and there is no single Mongol ethnicity.Rajmaan (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"There is no single Mongol ethnicity". You are going more and more in wrong direction. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

IN Russia, there is no single Mongol ethnicity. Buryats and Kalmyks aren't grouped together in the same ethnicity.Rajmaan (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Come on. Did you read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols? Why don't you go there and contest your fringe theory?142.255.6.214 (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I said there is no single Mongol ethnicity in Russia. Stop trying to veer the topic off course. The fact is that the reason why Oirats and Khorchin in China are classified as Mongols, is because the Qing expanded the definition of Mongol to refer to them for political reasons. While Buryats and Kalmyks lived outside of Qing territory in Russia so they are classified into two different groups. In China, there is a single Mongol ethnic classification used by the government because of the Qing.Rajmaan (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You still don't realize that there is a distinction between the general "Mongol" ethnicity and its subgroups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buryats. You can talk difference between Khalkhas, Oirats, Khorchins, Chahars, Buryats and Kalmyks. https://books.google.com/books?id=0fwMBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT20&dq=khalkhas%20oirats&pg=PT20#v=onepage&q=khalkhas%20oirats&f=false But not Mongols and Khalkhas, Mongols and Oirats nor Mongols and Khorchins. They are under the general "Mongol" identity. In the 16th century the eastern Mongols (of Mongolia) were called as Khalkhas or Khalkha Mongols, not as Mongols. https://books.google.com/books?id=RVrYAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA89&dq=khalkhas%20oirats&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q=khalkhas%20oirats&f=false This difference exist even today. There were almays differences between subgroups of Mongols and it didn't dissappear under the Qing. So please stop wasting your time on a clearly fringe theory or a misunderstanding. And you are still intentionly ignoring Khosuhds. They were the strongest (probably most populous) among the Oirats. https://books.google.com/books?id=mwN1BgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA28&dq=khalkhas%20oirats&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q=khalkhas%20oirats&f=false 142.255.6.214 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

None of those show any evidence that the Oirats called themselves Mongol before the Qing. The modern people known as "Uyghurs" were not called Uyghurs until 1921, yet scholars, for convenience, use "Uyghur" to refer to their ancestors during the 17th-20th centuries, for convenience.-

Using the terms Kazaks, Kirghiz, and Uyhur for the pre-twenteith century is anachronistic, yet folliwng James Millward....I used them here to refer to the Turkic-speaking peoples of the region in and around the Tarim Basin

The term 'Uyghur' was not used in this sense in the eighteenth century......I used the term Uyghur here for the Turkic Muslims of the Tarim and Turfan Basins as well as for the transplanted Taranchis; I do so for this period of convenience, albeit somewhat anachronistically, as it was a century before the term Uyghur was used in its current sense.

For purposes of simplicity I have used the anachronistic ethnonym Uyghur (in inverted commas) ...

Oirats did not label themselves as Mongols, what modern scholars calling them now doesn't erase the fact that the Qing were the ones who classified them as Mongol.

Khalkhas and Chahars were part of the Six Tumens. Khalkha and Chahar were the names of the specific Tumen and Mongol was the name of all the Six Tumens, but limited to the Six Tumens only. Oirats and Khorchin and Buryats were not part of the Six Tumens.

Khoshuuts were only 1 out of the 4 tribes, and they changed their identity when joining the Oirat confederation. How is that supposed to change the identity of the 3 other tribes? It was Khoshuuts joining the Oirat, not the other way around. Scholars consider the Mongol identity throughout history to be changeable and flexible, first Genghis Khan used it to name his followers, then the Six Tumens used the name for themselves, then the Qing redefined the definition to include Oirat and Khorchin

The unity that the Qing were determined to force upon the “Mongols” (though the former Dzunghars would not be included) was in fact indistinguishable from the definition of “Mongol” that Chinggis had imposed upon the diverse groups of what is now the Mongolian steppe. It was not language or religious affiliation or even economic life that defined a Mongol, but the act of affiliating with Chingis's organization and acknowledging him as the only (and later, as the eternal) leader. As noted in the beginning of this essay, many Mongolian-speaking groups did not get "Mongolized" (really, Chinggisized) in this process, and many Turkic speaking groups did. It was this equation between followership and being Mongol that the Qing depended upon to give themselves legitimacy with the Mongol nobility......... But the Qing also changed criteria, opening the way to conpects of affiliation that we would now regard as "ethnic" or "national." They firmly installed linguistic unity and standardization as a criterion of identity, neither of which had any traditional standing..........It is ultimately the Qing legacy of relative autonomy that has left the deepest marks on our notions of Mongol identity.....A durable notion of coherent Mongol identity within a non-Mongol state not only made the Qing empire possible, but has made the People's Republic of China-encompassing "Inner Mongolia" while bordering on an independent Mongol state-possible.

Rajmaan (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no time for your fringe theory and your unwillingness to understand your problem. So let me be clear, I'll remove if you do the same edits. No one is supporting you here. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rajmaan: I was thinking it was a fringe theory too, but thanks anyway for your hard work to find so many sources.

IP 142.255.6.214 or other editors: could you find any sources saying the opposite? If there are such sources then obviously we cannot add such content as is. By the way, IP user: while not mandatory, it is recommended to register an account for more convenient discussions. Thanks for understanding. --Evecurid (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rajmaan Please, stop pushing your POV. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an interesting suggestion of how "Mongol" identity may have been redeveloped during 18th century by Morris Rossabi. And it is much more plausible than your fringe theory. https://books.google.com/books?id=GXejBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA443&dq=mongol%20identity&pg=PA455#v=onepage&q=mongol%20identity&f=false142.255.6.214 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statements like "Oirats did not use the name "Mongols" for themselves" and "Mongols and Oirats viewed their own languages as separate from each other even though foreigners like Chinese saw them as dialects of the same language and saw all of them as Mongols" are just too much unreliable and exaggerated claims. It is not like you had a poll result of 17th century. Also Khoshuts (at least 1/4 of Oirats) were definitely eastern Mongols and you know it. How can you claim they didn't use the name "Mongol" and how can you claim the Oirats didn't use it if Khoshuts used it? Please stop it your fringe theory. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)