Jump to content

Talk:Culture of Mongolia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notscreative.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Re Mongolian food, does anyone have information on Mongolian Barbecue cuisine that is gaining popularity in the US? -- Logotu 18:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Their is a restaraunt where I live, and everyone has been talking about it but Ican't find it. Falphin 02:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Maybe the Mongolian agency are accused of having their pro-Russian suspected members of impaling with it the vaginas of suspected members or informers of Chinese security
  • "Mongolian Barbecue" is a gimmick. Mongolians traditionally almost exclusively boil their meat.--Pharos 2 July 2005 04:50 (UTC) No they do know Tureg or Kazakh or now by Chinese exterminated 2016 Chinese 20 million Turkic people barbecue

b**Well, it's good at any rate. I'd wondered just how accurate the name was, though.  :-) -- Nik42 23:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not accurate at all. It was invented by an American entrepreneur in the 1970s. The technique, the story or "history", everything - invented. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Funerals/ Death practices

Any info on Funerals or practices involving death?

I think concecration is commen, but I'm not too sure! --Alan Алан アラン 20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

Surely it can't be that low!? are there any links to support that position? 82.46.144.194 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit job

I ran through the article, and I think it looks all right now, except for two places. 1. The yak/cow butter paragraph is unclear as to whether it was yak or cow butter that was used in the schools, etc; I took out 'despite its importance' in re the yak butter, but it seems possible it should go back in as 'despite its historical importance.' 2. The original sentence about the vegetables said they are a 'a main new part of the diet', I guessed that it was supposed to be 'mainly a new part' but it may have been intended to be 'a new main part'. I'll have to leave those for people who actually know something about Mongolia. Candle-ends 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion

The article about Mongolia (which links here) states that only half the population is Buddhist, while this one says 90 percent. Any idea how this discrepancy came about, and which is correct?

Television

There is no reference to television in this article. I will research the matter when I'm in Mongolia but, If some one could ad something it would be great. --Alan Алан アラン 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture

Moving the following comment by 195.3.113.176 from Talk:Mongolia here, where it belongs: --Latebird 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.176 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Galsan Tschinag

Is he known to English speaking communities as Tschinag or with English combination "ch" ? Gantuya eng 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Because he writes primarily in German, he has become known under the German transcription "Tsch". Even the English and French translations of his books use that spelling, as does the article Galsan Tschinag. --Latebird 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Writers before XX century

How about the 19th century writers and before? Gantuya eng 09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Culture of Mongolia or Mongolian Culture?

What about renaming the article to Mongolian culture? Many of the facts mentioned are the same for Inner Mongolia and other areas, and esp. the literature section contains a lot of works by Inner Mongolians. Yaan (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Mongolian writers

* Choiji-Odser, 14th century
* Lubsandanzan, 17th century
* Sagan Secen, 17th century
* Borjigin Vanchinbal, 19th century
* Borjigin Vanchinbalyn Gularans, 19th century
* Borjigin Vanchinbalyn Injinash, 19th century
* Gelegbalsan, 19th century
* Khishigbatu, 19th century
* Hutuhtu Danzanravjaa, 19th century
* Ishdanzanvanjil, 19th century
* Dashdorjiin Natsagdorj (1906 - 1937)
* Tsendiin Damdinsüren (1908 - 1986)
* Byambiin Rinchen
* Begziin Yavuukhulan
* Chadraabalyn Lodoidamba (1917 - 1970)
* Ryenchinii Choinom (1936 - 1978)
* Damdinsüren Altangerel (1945 - 1998)
* Ochirbatyn Dashbalbar
* Galsan Tschinag (1944 - )
* Baataryn Galsansükh

What's wrong in having a list of the writers? I have to paste it here so that not to lose. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it. I'm no big fan of lists in articles, that's all. Yaan (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In this article, a list is not really appropriate, even if I started it myself at a time when I only had a small handful of names. We should describe Mongolian literature here instead, which we now seem to do. If we want to keep a list (partly redundant to Category:Mongolian writers), then it should be a seperate article. --Latebird (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

sectionalism, Culture of Mongolia vs. Mongolian culture revisited

Re. a recent edit conflict about the use of the term "Outer Mongolia" in conjunction with Russian influence, this article is, IMHO, one of those whom restricticting to Mongol Uls does not really make sense. Most sections, except cinema, already deal with both Inner and Outer Mongolia, and given that many aspects are very similar, this is also the way it should be.

Russian influence is much stronger in Outer Mongolia, just look at loanwords, the script, the socialism-related stuff like culture houses (Ulaan bulan) and "honoured workers", "heroes of labour" etc., the hair ribbons girls used to wear and so on. This is so apparent that it makes sense to include this in the intro, on the other hand it is also worth mentioning that these influences did not extend to Inner Mongolia, lest someone who thinks socialism (in Russia) = socialism (in China) gets it wrong.

If this is just about the usage of the term "Outer Mongolia", then I would like to know what the alternative is supposed to be. Somehow "Mongolia" just does not sound unambigous enough when mentioning Inner Mongolia in the same sentence, certainly not unambigous enough for non-experts. Yaan (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just about the term Outer Mongolia, which lost its meaning with the demise of the Qing dynasty (and also described a slightly different territory). I don't think that using Inner Mongolia and Mongolia next to each other is ambiguous in any way if used consequently. After all, those names are defined and explained in the respective articles. Using an outdated term will just confuse people who might then think it is actually still in use. --Latebird (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"I don't think that using Inner Mongolia and Mongolia next to each other is ambiguous in any way if used consequently." My impression is that most people automatically assume that "Inner Mongolia" is a subset of "Mongolia". Maybe we should take this to the work group discussion? Yaan (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If you think people are confused, educate them. After all, that's why we use links pointing to the respective artiles where the difference is explained. But that's clearly not a good reason to use an incorrect term, as it will just replace (if at all) one confusion with a different one. --Latebird (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
How is Outer Mongolia incorrect? It is used as a synonym for Mongolia rather often. Just because it had a different meaning before does not mean the current meaning is wrong. Yaan (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is wrong because: a) The Mongolian states of the 20th century simply aren't named that way. b) They don't actually cover the same territories as the "Outer Mongolia" of the Qing Empire did. Just because a term is often used informally as a synonym doesn't mean it is correct or we should use it as well. --Latebird (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article does refer to the Mongolian state and not to Inner Mongolia. Except for mentioning the Cultural revolution, most details are based on the Mongolian state. In the same manner, a linked article as "Cinema of Mongolia" does only refer to the Mongolian state, not mentioning a famous Chinese film such as "Mongolian Ping Pong". It might not make sense to restrict an article with such a subject to the Mongolian state, but it would be easy to indeed restrict this very article to it. If this is not intended, it would be useful to rename it as "Mongolian culture" and enlarge it. G Purevdorj 14:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G Purevdorj (talk • contribs)

I tried to raise that point two sections above :) . Actually, much of the literature section deals with Inner Mongolia (most of what was written before 1900, anyway), OTOH I have no idea how popular chess and checkers are in Inner Mongolia, or about Inner Mongolian theatre. I have no real idea about Outer Mongolian theatre either, but at least I have some sources.
Personally, I would prefer to rename this article to Mongolian culture, but I don't know what others think about this. Yaan (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There already is Category:Mongolian culture, and most of its subcategories are names "Mongolian something or other". Since the Mongolian cultural space really transcends national borders, it certainly would make sense to rename the article as well. --Latebird (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern values

You’ve probably noticed that new section in the article. While I still don’t know what this article is about, the culture of the Mongolian state of today is clearly severely under-represented. Of course, you can’t fix that by an apologetic, not very lexicon-like entry such as that new one. There is a whole generation of young people that doesn’t eat aaruul anymore - some of these wouldn’t even bother to take down their rucksack before entering a ger - and a city culture with very much of a western substratum. Think of the hideous assault of the Christian missionaries, the fact that there has been Mongolian literature AFTER 1930, even with a bunch of nice and interesting genres such as some stylized pornography that Natsagdorj (who happens not to be mentioned in this article) would likely not have written. As would be expected, internet cafes are crowded with boys and zaluus amicably killing each other. And ever on. I would suggest not to delete that apologetic statement until something is done about the many faults of this article, or it is decided to rename it as Culture of the Mongols or something like that. (Would really have liked to invite 71.237.70.49, but so far she’s only a computer.) G Purevdorj 08:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

But what about sources ;) . It's very true that Mongolian culture doesn't end in the 1930s, it's just that I was lacking sources and insight for most of what went beyond when I rewrote much of the article a while ago. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute. Yaan (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, unfortunately. There are few studies on the urban ethnology or even on the sociology of Mongolia. Though, there are some people doing research on some of its aspects, only hard to find them. We will likely not be able to make up for this severe deficit. But some things might be done.

  • I might do a little on religion; I’ve got one publication of Cedendamba, that might do.
  • There must be something on literature, eg I can’t imagine that Bawden stops short of Damdinsuren. I guess it wouldn’t be difficult to find some other publications as well, at least to get us to 1960 or so (but what a bore for the contributor!). There’s certainly stuff on this in Mongolia as well, including new literature. But the classics at least should be easy.
  • Music is actually okay. Daughter article might do with a little cleaning-up, but information on modern music seems balanced. As it is, I fancy it’s original research, but I won’t bother.
  • Customs and Superstitions is problematic, but as I said I don’t know of any studies that might be of use to describe standard average urban Mongolian teens in this respect. By the way, superstitions and religion deserve to be treated in one breath.
  • “Cinema of Mongolia” is not that appropriate. Of more relevance than the movies they produce is the TV program they watch. That might be quite an objective thing; if someone was in Mongolia for four weeks, she could report on the TV program during that period, and we would have it. Any Mongolian contributor might be able to supply such information as well. G Purevdorj 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the new and unencyclopedic "Modern values" section before seeing this discussion here. It contained little of value besides trivial truisms (things that can be said about almost any country of today) and massive POV (among others, implicitly declaring "western cultural influences" as "modern valuies"). The few specific examples are much better explained elsewhere (either further down in this article or in Music of Mongolia. Other than that, I agree with most of the above statements, specifically that more substantial and unbiased information about modern Mongolian culture should be added. --Latebird (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is actually some name-dropping on literature in Dschingis Khan & Erben. I watched a lot of Mongolian TV last year, but mostly Sumo. Yaan (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Let me sleep at your place" or so seems also quite popular on TV. Yaan (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Most likely won't suffice for Mongolian TV :-). Name-dropping on literature is actually all I know as well, for literary classics are less of interest for a linguist like me, and extremely difficult to read. A quick Google search yields "GERASIMOVICH, Ludmilla K. (1970): History of Modern Mongolian Literature (1921-1964). Bloomington, IN: The Mongolia Society. Unfortunately, on its own that won't be sufficient. It's too early to properly include Choinom, for example. Bawden seems to stop before the Mongolian state. But first of all: are you interested in evaluating stuff on Mongolian literature? If not, it isn't worth the effort trying to find something. If yes, I might search and try to provide you with some titles that you could get by Fernleihe. By the way, can you by now use books written in Cyrillic Mongolian? G Purevdorj 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G Purevdorj (talk • contribs)
Thinking of it, I also remember some jungle-camp like show with women in army clothes, South Korean soap operas, video clips, and dubbed movies that can only have hit the international market mere days before they were broadcast on Mörön's regional TV station. At the moment I don't have much time to deal with Mongolian literature, and I my Mongolian also has not gotten much better. I can still read short texts if I have a dictionary nearby, but that won't suffice for reading Üüriin Tuyaa, I guess. Maybe, but only maybe, I'll get me a copy of "Der Durchsichtige Tamir" for the holidays. It seems to be just a re-translaton, though, no surprise a word like tungalag gets turned into durchsichtig. Yaan (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Btw. What about Heissig's Geschichte der mongolischen Literatur? It's available in my Library, and IMO should be good enough for WP? Yaan (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Your TV impressions go in the right direction :-), but both of us don't have the basis to tread them systematically. Heissig's book won't do; he treads literature well into the 40s of the 20th century, but only those kinds of literature the tradition of which began earlier. Unfortunately, (but not unexpectedly) the library of Bonn seems to contain no books that tread literature after the mid 80s. Maybe Göttingen, or I might buy something myself in late summer. Silly, that. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism

The clothing section contains the exact same words as the article at http://www.olloo.mn/en/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6345&catid=19. I am not pointing fingers, but I hope that there is a reasonable excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.195.195 (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The olloo article is from June 2008, the relevant section of this WP article was already there in May 2008. So at the moment it seems more likely olloo copied from wp. Yaan (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Culture of Mongolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture of Mongolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culture_of_Mongolia/Archive_1&oldid=1162238021"