Talk:Mongolia during the Manchu Qing rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Asia / Mongols (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mongols (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject China / History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject East Asia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Buryatia and Kalmykia?[edit]

A parallel article could describe the Czarist administration in Buryatia and Kalmykia. Gantuya eng 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, we should extand the name to 'Greater Mongolia during Qing'? Dagvadorj 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ikh Shav'[edit]

I think the Great Shabi (personal estate of the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu) should at least be mentioned. Or maybe it is, but not in a way that I can understand. As far as I understand, the Khövsgöl khoshuus would, at least partially, be part of that particular entity. Also, a mention of the watch post system (mong. kharuul or so) would be nice. Yaan 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There were also estates of "tamgatai hutugtus" with their shabi-"serfs". Don't remember how many "tamgatai hutugtu" there were. They existed parallel to the hoshuus of the noyons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gantuya eng (talkcontribs) 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The Shinzudba Yuan is mentioned. The shabi units will be present as we include the hoshuu-level divisions which I will add later. Dagvadorj 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Outer Mongolian Governance Affairs Yuan[edit]

What's the chinese name of that office? It's not the Lifanyuan, is it? Yaan 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I came to the opinion that what is meant is the Lifanyuan, even though the common translation seems to be Office for the outer territories, not for Outer Mongolia. At least they edited law books for Outer Mongolia and stuff.Yaan 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yuan for Outer Mongolian Affairs (or something similar) seems to be indeed the correct Mongolian name for the office, even though it also dealt with Inner Mongolia. But I think in western literature it is more often called Lifanyuan. Yaan 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoshuu-level divisions[edit]

I have information on the hoshuus og the Halh 4 aimags. Do anyone have information on Ili, Tannu border aimags? Dagvadorj 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Using Latin Mongolian for names of places[edit]

I've been using Latin Mongolian for Halh Mongolian tongue. But some contributors are changing them to spelling of the classical ones. Let's discuss: Which one would be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj (talkcontribs) 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the historical names and places in thehistorical context, it's better to use the classical version. Khalhaism sounds stylistically too "modern" and prosaic. Secondly, it's better to use the spelling which is recognised by most of the international readers. Gantuya eng 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see Dagvadorj doesn't like "kh". I don't like "kh" either. Why use 2 letters if the sound could be written with 1 letter "h". The same with "ts". Chinese uses "c" for "ts". Gantuya eng 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like it either, or at least I don't care for 'kh'. But I think in some cases - like, at the end of a syllabe, as in "ikh" - 'kh' is easier to "get right" for people without a clue of Mongolian language. Or at least for those who have some experience with the cyrillic script. There is a site somewhere that latebird created a while ago with the naming conventions for articles about Mongolia. Maybe you should propose a change of the current policy (what about q?). 'ts' on the other hand seems perfect to me, you can't get the pronounciation wrong (c would be much more ambigous), and it's also not the only cyrillic letter that takes two latin letters to transliterate. Yaan 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian) only cover transcription of modern names from cyrillic. It explicitly says there that historic names must be treated individually depending on context and original writing system. In many cases, we'll just use what the majority of English literature uses, whether it follows a specific system or not. --Latebird 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Huree Soyol[edit]

Is "Alia Sender" a huree song? Isn't is from Inner Mongolia. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Please add something about the mathematician and astronomer Mingat. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Could you olease try to achieve a minimum of quality in what you write? Shabi are not necessarily scholars, there is no need to translate tariachin if you don't explain anything - My guess is they belonged to the military(?) farms at Khovd, but it would be nice to see some kind of explanation. If an article gives the impression that the Lifanyuan are actually two different offices, than there is probably something wrong.

Also it would be nice if you could adhere to some kind consistency in transliteration. I tried to change something until I came to the opinion that it's probably a waste of time, so sorry if I messed it up even more. But then, at least I didn't start it.

Maybe try and have a look at lists like List of Reichstag participants (1792) for a guideline.

Another question: Was Khökh nuur, the Ili area and Alsha really part of Outer Mongolia under Qing, or not? Yaan 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about Alashan. Maybe Ili was within Xinjain? (Where is Ili today? Is it now in Kazakhstan?) It doesn't seem to be logical to include Khökh nuur in Outer Mongolia. Gantuya eng 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's still part of Xinjiang, and according to my source it was also administered by a yet different Lifanyuan sub-office than Outer or Inner Mongolia. Yaan 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Confusing "Shavi" with "Tariachin" would be a big mistake. Shavi are scholar monk community under Jibzundamba, while "Tariachin" of Hovd are Mongolized Uyghurs and Huizu (in Mongolian "Hoton") who were moved (by Galdan) to do agriculture for Mongols of the area. There still is a sum called "Tariachin" in Hovd province of Mongolia with some "Hoton" community. Dagvadorj
Alashan, Ejine, Ili (Not only Ili Kazakh prefecture of Xinjiang, but also Bortala, and Bayingol, thus most of Northern Xinjiang), and Qinghai (Kök Nuur) WERE part of Outer Mongolia. The difference in territory of today's Outer Mongolia and the old one was because of wrong strategies of Halh Mongols making Outer Mongolia, a Halh Mongolia. Dagvadorj —Preceding comment was added at 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Kök Nuur seems too far to be part of Outer Mongolia. That Mongolia was limited to (North) Khalha and Kobdo Khyazgaar was due to the pressure of Russia and China in 1913-1915.
I read that the Hotans were captured by a group of the Derbets who abandoned Jungaria and were moving to Khalha to become subjects of the Qing Dynasty. On their way, they were attacked by a group of Hotans. The Derbets defeated the Hotans and brought them to Khalha. The Manchu Administration told the Derbets to make the Hotans their slaves. This is what I read. So this happened later than the Galdan Boshogtu period.
Nowadays the Hotans are still regarded as inferior in the Uvs society. Also their social level is lower than that of the Derbets and Bayads. But this is not what I read, this is what the "Uvsians" told me. PS: the soum is called Tarialan in Uvs aimag :) Gantuya eng 13:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course tariachin and shabi are completely different. However, I used to think that Shabi (or the people who belonged to a Shabi) were basically serfs of some Khutagt rather than subjects of some secular lord, and that most of them were neither lamas nor scholars. And I'm ready to back that up with two or three citations - one (Bawden) is already given.
What belonged to Outer Mongolia and what not probably boils down to by which sub-office of the Lifanyuan they were governed. Maybe this should be explained in the article (with a citation would be even better), since the modern concept of Outer Mongolia might, evidently, be different. Yaan 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I see what the confusion was about. "Shabi" has more than 1 meaning. It's a disciple, originally of a religious figure, such as the disciples of Buddha, etc. Also this is a disciple of a monk. The wider meaning is that this is a student of somebody. Nowadays a school or university teacher will often refer to her/his students "minii shabi nar". The other, historical, meaning is an administrative unit tenured (or owned, or administered) by a hutuhtu such as Jebzundamba or other tamgatai hutuhtu. The narrower version of this meaning is the population of such a territory. They were regarded as "disciples" of their lord-hutuhtu. Gantuya eng 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there was yet another source of confusion. In one revision, the article mentioned the Court for Outer Mongolian Affairs and the Court for Mongolian Affairs like two separate entities. It's actually two different names for the same thing, and the Chinese name is Lifanyuan. Yaan 09:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat unrelated, Bawden's Modern History gives the impression that the state farms around Khovd were originally staffed by Tümeds, but later they would be staffed by Khalkha families, in a way similar to how the Örtöö and Kharuul were staffed. In theory the families would be rotated, but this didn't work well and in the end some families settled down there permanently while those that should have worked but didn't (or their aimag) payed money. Yaan 09:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it should've been a challenge to have unexperienced (Khalha) herders farm crops. Gantuya eng 13:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Are there offline sources to confirm that the four areas of the Khövsöl Khyazgar were really khoshuus and not something else? My sources seem to avoid any (pre-1921) mention of the term khoshuu for this area. Yaan 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it a separate Khyazgaar? The map (not good print) in the book "Халхын Засагт Хан аймгийн засаг ноёд" (The Zasag Noyans of Zasagtu Khan aimag of Khalha) by Hoid D. Narantuya shows Haruul line going in the middle of modern Khövsgöl aimag, almost touching the lake Khövsgöl. The map is ambigous whether the territory to the north of the line was within Zasagtu Khan aimag or whether it was a separated thing. It shows vertical lines dividing the northern Khövsgöl territory into 3 parts. The westmost small piece is denoted as Ar Shirhten Urianhai. The other two parts have no name on this map, but I guess one of them is the Bogdo Jebzundamba Shabi (remembering from the school map). To the south of the Kharuul line are övör Shirhten, Ahai Beile hoshuu, Dalai Gong Hoshuu, Mergen Gong Hoshuu, Jalhanza Shabi, and Duuregchi Wang hoshuu. The units to the south of the Kharuul line except övör Shirhten are surely parts of Zasagtu Khan aimag now related to Khövsgöl aimag. The northern parts are not named perhaps because they were not part of Zasagtu Khan aimag, subject of the book.
Also it's worth to mention here that the titles of the lords of the Hoshuus were mostly upgraded after Bogdo Khaan was enthroned in 1911. Most of them became wang after 1911. Gantuya eng 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In one of the sources I have used (that by Demberel) they filed the area under Khövsgöl Khyazgaar. I don't know what they were thinking or whether they were thinking anything at all. Your map looks like the one in that Khövsgöl aimgiin tüükh booklet - and - on the map in the booklet the author calls the Ar and Övör Shirhten Uriankhai's area "otog", and the two separate areas of the Khövsgöl nuur Uriankhai "Ariin xoer sum" and "Övriin xoer sum". But in the text it looks as if (if I didn't get anything wrong) that those people were subjects of the Zasagt Khan aimag's (Erdene) Duuregch vangiin khoshuu, or at least of the lord of that khoshuu. But the booklet doesn't offer a bibliography or citations, so I don't know how reliable it is. Yaan 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
We might find the answer if we find a reproduction of one of the Qing era official aimag maps. I have a (very small) reproduction of a map of Sain Noyon Khan aimag in an exhibition catalogue, but unfortunately none of Zasagt Khan. Yaan 19:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Done! A 1907 map is included in Walther Heissig's Mongolische Ortsnamen II. Mongolische Landkarten in Faksimilia and does not include the Khövsöl nuur Uriankhai or the Darkhad Shabi. I'm somewhat less sure about Ar and Övör Shirkhten Uriankhai, though. The Khövsgöl nuur Uriankhai and the Darkhad shabi are, in two separate other maps from the same time, referred to as parts of an "Khobdo-Uriankhai district" (as is Tannu Uriankhai in yet another map from that time). But there is no map of the whole Khobdo-Uriankhai district, so I'm a bit unclear about its role. In any case, these designations may just reflect the situation in 1907.
Again according to the Khövsgöl aimgiin tüükh booklet (contrary to what I claimed above, it actually does have some citations), the Khövsgöl nuurin Uriankhai were part of the Erdene düüregch vangin khoshuu only to 1757. Then they were ruled by lords from Tannu Uriankhai, and in 1805 came under direct control of the Manchu military in Uliastai.Yaan 17:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

I did some rewriting and reformatting, and also added some citations. The number of khoshuus in Inner Mongolia now adds up to 49 (plus ten for Chahar and Guihua Tümed), and the number of khoshuus in Khalkha to 86, which according to my sources is just as it should be. Citations are still needed for the number of khoshuus in the other areas, i.e. Khövsgöl, Tuva, Khovd, Alshaa & Ejin, Khökh nuur, and Ili, and for the status of these areas, i.e. part of Inner Mongolia, part of Outer Mongolia, or something else. Also I would like to see a citation for subdivisions of otog. Yaan 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I can't find the Uliastai, Huree and Kobdo administrators in the article. Gantuya eng 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Uliastai and Khüree are mentioned under Khalkha. Khovd should be mentioned too, but I was unsure if it had one or two ambans. Yaan 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The Uliastai warlord covered both Khalha and Kobdo Khyazgaar. This subject was senior to the Huree and Kobdo ambans. Gantuya eng 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure there was a Mongol amban in Huree besides the Manchu amban? I know there were 2 warlords in Uliastai, but not sure about the Huree amban(s).Gantuya eng 04:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I'll look it up once more. Yaan 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The answer is still yes. Bawden, Modern History, 1968, p. 107. Yaan 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Another question: did the Tögs Hülög Dalai Khan aimag and Ünen Zorigtu Khan aimag have khoshuus inside? I have too scarce information about these aimags.Gantuya eng 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's put a point on whether if Kök Nuur belonged to Outer Mongolia[edit]

One exluded Ili, Kök Nuur and some other areas from Outer Mongolia, and it made me very angry. So let's put a point on it. Gantuya eng said that Qinghai was too far. Then think like this. - Take a look at this map. [[1]] - Now I think southern part of Bayingol in Xinjiang and Northern part of Gansu belonged to Kök Nuur together with the area in Qinghai. Dagvadorj

Are you Dagvadorj? Don't be angry. I still think it's about administration rather than geography. Do you have a source (not an online forum) for Khökh nuur etc. being part of Outer Mongolia during Qing? And, just in case, what about Tibet? It may well be the case, I'd just like to see a source. And maybe a short explanation that Outer Mongolia now is something different than Outer Mongolia back then (wasn't it also called Gadaad, not Ar, Mongol?).Yaan 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dagvadorj. We don't solve things by anger here online. We are all adults and solve things the adult way. You think "southern part of Bayingol in Xinjiang and Northern part of Gansu belonged to Kök Nuur together with the area in Qinghai". We all think about things in many ways. But don't include in WP what we think. We include what is sourced, what is proved this or that way. PS :) We are glad that you're here as our new friend.Gantuya eng 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Gadaad/Dotood Mongol" and "Ar/övör Mongol" are used interchangeably in modern days, just like translations. "Ar/övör Mongol" are native Mongolian terms meaning that one part of Mongolia live on winded side of something (of Gobi?) and the other part live on the warmer side. Usually "Ar/övör" refer to the sides of a mountain. That would be like "Ar Kavkaz/övör Kavkaz" and "Ar Khangai/övör Khangai". While "Gadaad/Dotood Mongol" are translations of foreign terms. Historian Yunshiebu B. Rinchen claimed in his book "Sando Amban" that the Qing called the Mongol territories to the north (outside) of the Great Wall "Gadaad Mongol" and the Mongol populated territories to the south (inside) of the Great Wall "Dotood Mongol". Then the Russian Empire by mistake or deliberately "confused" the terms calling "Ar Mongol"-"Gadaad" and "övör Mongol"-"Dotood" to deprive "Ar Mongol" from Qing Dynasty. And this "confusion" was to stay. If we believe this widely respected scholar, then what were the Mongol territories inside the Great Wall? Qinhai? Gantuya eng 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Michael Weiers' Geschichte der Mongolen (2004) says that Outer and Inner was outside or inside the Manchu state (not inside or outside the Great Wall) and just lingered on when the empire expanded. This seems to make sense, but on the other hand his work - besides a rather sloppy editing - contains a number of small mistakes and inaccuracies when it comes to the M.P.R., so... I take this just as a hint. There seems to be a short work by a Japanese whose name I unfortunately forgot (Miya...) named "When did Outer and Inner Mongolia originate as geographical terms?" . Yaan 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::When was Kök Nuur conquered by the Manchu? Gantuya eng 15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a 1905 map by Europeans. The lake Kok Nuur is located in Tibet amban area. But an area bigger than Ejine-Alashan is located inside Mongol jiang, which would be named as Kok Nuur area, even though it didn't include the Kok Nuur. Thus, no assumption like Qinghai (modern province) seems very far from Outer Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj (talkcontribs) 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't hate[edit]

In fact we should find the Mongolian name of the Dowager, as this is list is of notable Mongols. I don't know what's SOOOO wrong with the Manchu name VS Chinese. After all her husband was a Manchu.
In what way is the Chinese name better than the Manchu? Gantuya eng 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Pasted from Gantuya's talk page.) If you checked my edit history, you would realize that I am by no means "hating" anyone or trying to make a point against Mongol names. I think it is great that more Wikipedians are creating content on Mongolia and Mongolians. The point I'm trying to make is that we usually use the most common name in English in Wikipedia. And for this the most common names for the queen in question, is different variants of Xiaozhuang. For more on this please check, WP:UCN.--Amban 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions mandate to use the most common English name first. If done correctly, then this will already be the title of a linked article. If it makes sense for the text, then native birthnames, ruler titles, etc. can also be mentioned (although it usually doesn't make sense if the link is just an item in a list). --Latebird 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The persons deleted from the list became known to me only by virtue of their betrayal and ccoperation with the invaders. They are no heros. In the beginning I thought, I know them, therefore they are famous. Later I thought, who needs the traitors in the list. Gantuya eng 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't care if they were heroes or traitors (by who's definition, anyway?). The only question that counts is, are they notable? --Latebird 14:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
They should have played a positive role for Mongolia, as long as this article is about Mongolia. Inclusion of these people in the list was my big mistake, I had been too fascinated with the process of listing. The list is big enough even without those people. Gantuya eng 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gantuya, I have the greatest sympathy for the fate of Mongolia, but this is not the venue to extol the virtues of any nationality. As Latebird has pointed out, notability is a criterion for inclusion and you can read more about it under WP:NOTABILITY. As I have said before, I think it is great that you are creating Mongolia-related content on Wikipedia, but we are here to write an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, not writing edifying national histories. Please take a look at WP:NOT for more on this. I hope that you will continue to add useful contents to Wikipedia, we need more about Mongolia.--Amban 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Amban highness, I have reviewed your contributions as you advised. It didn't prove your above statement. Gantuya eng 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spare me the sarcasm. I'm actually trying to engage in a discussion here.--Amban 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I said that was a brainstorm. Brainstorming process allows to include even the most crazy ideas, which are in most cases discarded later. Inclusion of a foreign queen was perhaps the most crazy idea in that brainstorm. Now it's time to remove it. This name isn't as significant for history of Mongolia. Hence this is history of Mongolia, here listed are only those who have worked FOR Mongolia. Gantuya eng 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead I would encourage adding the Wise Princess, mother or Rinchendorj Wang, but I don't know her name. Yet she isn't a Mongol in a full sence. Gantuya eng 12:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Gantuya, you do not own this page and you have to accept that other editors do have the right to edit its contents, even if you made the list in the first place. Thanks for including the article on Sengge Rinchen by the way, I created that article. I created it because he was an important person during the Qing dynasty and he happened to be Mongol.
But did Sengge Rinchen or Xiaozhuang "work for Mongolia." I simply do not understand your criteria that only Mongols who have worked FOR Mongolia should be included in the list. We are building an encyclopedia, not writing national histories. Please review relevant policies, such as WP:NOTABLE.--Amban 13:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, really, he didn't work FOR Mongolia? I didn't realise. I'll correct that mistake immediately. Gantuya eng 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gantuya, it is very difficult to have a constructive discussion with you about very basic policies. In the long, you will get yourself blocked if you go on like this.--Amban 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so aggressive towards me today? I tried to explain you this:
"I said that was a brainstorm. Brainstorming process allows to include even the most crazy ideas, which are in most cases discarded later. Inclusion of a foreign queen was perhaps the most crazy idea in that brainstorm. Now it's time to remove it. This name isn't as significant for history of Mongolia. Hence this is history of Mongolia, here listed are only those who have worked FOR Mongolia."
Why do you ignore this and keep being rude to me?
I understand you created article about the dowager and interested in that person. But this doesn't necessarily mean that she should be listed and linked.
Again I'll try to explain to you--it will be weird to list a foreign queen in the list of Mongols. This particular article mainly concerns the Mongolian history topic.
Also imagine: it will be also weird to try to include people who cooperated with the Japanese invaders in a list of notable Chinese. Please understand and please be serious.
WP:NOTABLE is about topics. It mainly deals with criteria of whether an article is notable and worth to be in the encyclopedia.
Warning of the edit war doesn't yet mean that I'm gonna report on you and get you blocked. I vowed not to do that to anyone. But a third person may do that if thinks it's necessary. That's why warning is important.
I don't think I did anything bad to you. Please don't be aggressive to me. I beg you nicely. Please.
"Be Friendly" is a basic principle of WP. Gantuya eng 16:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am actually trying to be friendly and I thought I made that clear, but never mind. And again: I did not create the article about Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang and that is not the reason why I felt that she should be included in the list. Actually, I have made very few edits to that article, if you care to check it out.

I still don't see where you argument about inclusion is going. We're not passing judgment on people here on Wikipedia. We stick to a neutral point of view, as much as we can, and try to be factual. And Xiaozhuang is a notable Mongol of the Qing dynasty. That is a fact.

And if we are looking for comparisons, the collaborator Wang Jingwei is actually included on a list of "celebrities" from Panyu. And although Austrian-born Marie Antoinette became the queen of France, and thus "foreign" to her native country, she is included in a list of notable Austrians. Are you proposing any changes to Wikipedia policy or does your argument only hold for Mongols?--Amban 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Amban,
I think it's neutral enough to state that those who collaborated with invaders aren't included hoping that noone on this world approves such an action. Nobody thinks that cooperating with invaders is good. She will look odd in this list. Gantuya eng 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever.--Amban 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange names[edit]

Such as "Navaanlubsansanjnyamdanzanvanchigbalsambuu"... is that a real name for Bogd Khan? Because there is no mention of it anywhere else. Also, I think some information should be added about the previous Khans before Bogd. Rcduggan (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-examining the focus of this article[edit]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule suggests several questions and issues which may be relevant here as well.

I wonder if a discussion-thread about re-categorizing this article will be helpful? Are the two current categories the best or only way to construe this article:

How appropriate would be the following -- copied from Greater Mongolia?

G Purevdorj suggested at Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule that the categories from Göktürks might be relevant; and so, in order to consolidate discussion and encourage increased participation, I've re-copied those categories below:

My only personal interest here is in ensuring that the interested decision-makers have sufficient material from which to develop an informed consensus.

Re-naming article[edit]

The existence of Category:Geography of Central Asia causes me to wonder if a number of problems might be mitigated if this article and it's corollary Mongolia during Tang rule were re-named as something like

These re-focused article titles emphasize a Chinese military/government/trading presence in a geographic region. As may become apparent, such titles would create consequences in terms more fully amplified at

A ...? Framing (economics), having to do with the manner in which a rational choice problem is presented ...?
B ...? Framing (social sciences), having to do with terminology used in communication theory, sociology, and other disciplines where it relates to the construction and presentation of a fact or issue "framed" from a particular perspective ...?

A quite different article would evolve from a different title -- for example, an article which was interested more in the conquered that the conquerors, more in the invaded than than the invader, etc. I don't want to make any guesses about how such articles might be named or categorized, but I do hope that this thread can contribute to the decision-making of those who are more interested in this subject?

Do these proposed alternatives suggest something more appropriate? something better? I wonder if there might be other relevant category and/or name-change options which have been overlooked? --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the current name is appropriate enough. Qing-Mongol relations are well-covered in literature and noteworthy, also I guess distinct enough from the relations with other people. In short, it's a valid topic for an article. Though maybe it could be renamed to something less ambigous, i.e. either "Outer Mongolia" or "Mongols".Yaan (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe it should be mentioned explicitly in the intro if this article is about Greater Mongolia, not just Outer Mongolia. -- (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I think we should avoid nationalist view since the Mongol proper was subject to the Qing.--Enerelt (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 :(( Gantuya eng (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Should this article also cover Mongols in other regions, e.g. Qinghai and Xinjiang, beyond that of Inner and Outer Mongolia? I see that the template in the bottom mentions all of them, but the lead only mentions Inner and Outer Mongolia. Seems a bit confusing. --Enchyin (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

encyclopedia of mongol history[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Chinese and russian anthropolgists in mongolia during the qing dynasty[edit]

Mu Zhang (1805-1849)

Page 284

Page 35

Aleksei Matveevich Pozdneev

蒙古及蒙古人, Volume 2, Issue 1 By Alekseĭ Matveevich Pozdneev, 刘汉明

06:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)







































Rajmaan (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted irrelevant category[edit]

Deleted irrelevant category (Category:China–Mongolia relations) and moved to Mongolia during the Manchu Qing rule.

If articles such as Mongolian Revolution of 1911 belongs to Category:China–Mongolia relations, then it is not a problem that this article also belongs to this category. It provided a background to China–Mongolia relations at least, not to mention that Qing itself is commonly know as "China". Also please try to sign your comment, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Qing divide and rule policy between Khoshot and Khalkha Mongols[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Khoshot rebellion


Die Eroberung von Qinghai unter Berücksichtigung von Tibet und Khams, 1717-1727: anhand der Throneingaben des Grossfeldherrn Nian Gengyao By Shuhui Wu

Inner Mongol leagues

Hongtaiji and Qianlong's private opinions on Buddhism among the Mongols[edit]

Hongtaiji and Qianlong patronized Tibetan Buddhism for political reasons. In private, Hongtaiji scorned Mongol's belief in Tibetan Buddhism as detrimental to their culture and Qianlong said he patronized Tibetan Buddhism as one patronizes the weak, and openly said to Han critics that he only patronized them for political reasons.

The belief in the Buddhist faith by the Mongols was viewed with disdain and thought to be destructive to Mongol identity by the Manchu leader Hong Taiji in private, Hong Taiji said "The Mongolian princes are abandoning the Mongolian language; their names are all in imitation of the lamas.", although Hong Taiji patronized Tibetan Buddhism in public.[2]

The Qianlong Emperor's faith in Tibetan Buddhism had been questioned in recent times because Qianlong indicated that he supported the Yellow Church (the Tibetan Buddhist Gelukpa sect) just to "maintain peace among the Mongols" since the Mongols were followers of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama of the Yellow Church, and Qianlong had this explanation placed in the Beijing Tibetan Buddhist Yonge Gong temple on a stele entitled "Lama Shuo" (on Lamas) in 1792, and he also said it was "merely in pursuance of Our policy of extending Our affection to the weak." which led him to patronize the Yellow Church.[3]

This explanation of only supporting the "Yellow Hats" Tibetan Buddhists for practical reasons was used to deflect Han criticism of this policy by Qianlong, who had the "Lama Shuo" stele engraved in Tibetan, Mongol, Manchu and Chinese, which said: By patronizing the Yellow Church we maintain peace among the Mongols. This being an important task we cannot but protect this (religion). (In doing so) we do not show any bias, nor do we wish to adulate the Tibetan priests as (was done during the) Yuan dynasty.[4][5]

Qianlong turned the Palace of Harmony (Yonghegong) into a Tibetan Buddhist temple for Mongols in 1744 and had an edict inscribed on a stele to commemorate it in Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Manchu, with most likely Qianlong having first wrote the Chinese version before the Manchu.[6]

The Khalkha nobles' power was deliberately undermined by Qianlong when he appointed the Tibetan Ishi-damba-nima of the Lithang royal family of the eastern Tibetans as the 3rd reincarnated Jebtsubdamba instead of the Khalkha Mongol which they wanted to be appointed.[7] The decision was first protested against by the Outer Mongol Khalkha nobles and then the Khalkhas sought to have him placed at a distance from them at Dolonnor, but Qianlong snubbed both of their requests, sending the message that he was putting an end to Outer Mongolian autonomy.[8]

Rajmaan (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Segregation policy[edit]

Mongol commoners were equally as forbidden from crossing into China proper as Han were forbidden from settling in Mongol territory. Mongol commoners were not even allowed to cross into another Mongol league. Banners of Inner Mongolia Leagues of China

Intermarriage between Manchu and Mongols was restricted to the Nobility. Ordinary Mongol commoners could not marry Manchus and were strictly segregated from them.

Rajmaan (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

1646 Sünid revolt[edit]ünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sünid%201646&f=false

Page 86ünid+1646&dq=sünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA

Page 406ünid+1646&dq=sünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sünid%201646&f=falseünid+1646&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5-whVP2VDcuTyATG5oGgCw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sünid%201646&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Vassal of the Qing Dynasty?[edit]

Does anyone know why the label, "Vassal of the Qing Dynasty," is currently in the status section of the infobox?

There isn't any way that Mongolia could have been a vassal state at this time, as it did not have internal autonomy. Rather, it was a region that constituted the larger state then known as the Qing Empire. This in itself violates the requirements of being a vassal state.

If there are any digressions, please state them.

BUjjsp (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cosmo 1998, p. 292.
  2. ^ Wakeman Jr. 1986, p. 203.
  3. ^ Dunnell & Elliott & Foret & Millward 2004], pp. 123-4.
  4. ^ Lopez 1999, p. 20.
  5. ^ Berger 2003, p. 35.
  6. ^ Berger 2003, p. 34.
  7. ^ Berger 2003, p. 26.
  8. ^ Berger 2003, p. 17.