Talk:Mongols

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mongols (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and 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. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Asia / Mongols (Rated C-class, High-importance)
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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mongols (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Mongols is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Errors - fixed[edit]

Physical characteristics

In terms of physical characteristics Mongolians exhibit a variety of features, with the typical Asian features being most noticeable. Contrary to preconceptions, flat noses are rather rare among Khalkha or Outer Mongolians. Instead, modestly long noses are far more common because of the colder weather, with the occasional aquiline nose appearing frequently as well. Height and leg length vary from very short to very tall. Hair is typically Asian: straight and coarse, with body hair minimal. Skin color is very light brown, but long exposure to the sun can make it a very dark brown. A certain number of Mongolians mostly on the western parts of the country can exhibit lighter features such as light to dark blond/brown hair, fairer skin, blue or green eyes, hairiness to varying degrees. Some have reddish-light brown hair and pink face particularly due to the cold weather. Epicanthic folds of the eyes exist on almost all Mongolians along with medium height, broader face, dark hair, high and pronounced cheekbones.


ERRORS: 1) Correct term for this article is Mongols, not Mongolians 2) Flat noses are rare? I disagree, who wrote this? 3) Even though the term Mongoloid is offensive and categorisation debunked - it is the correct term to use instead of "Asian features" 4) Contradictory information edited out 5) Even though I support the theory of genetic drift, there are also arguments in favor of 'intermixing'. This a neutral article, and hence 'cold weather' references have been removed.

RESULT:

Physical characteristics[edit]

In terms of physical characteristics, ethnic Mongols exhibit a variety of features, with typical Mongoloid features being most noticeable. Epicanthic folds of the eyes exist on almost all Mongols along with high and pronounced cheekbones. Height and leg length vary from very short to very tall, with nose structures varying from flat to the occassional aquiline nose. Hair is generally straight and coarse, with body hair minimal. Skin color is very light brown, but long exposure to the sun can make it darker. A certain number of ethnic Mongols mostly on the western parts of Mongolia and groups further west can exhibit lighter features such as light to dark blond/brown or red hair, fairer skin, blue or green eyes, hairiness to varying degrees.

East vs North Asian[edit]

Let's try to focus on definitions of East Asia and North Asia. As shown in the map of the article East Asia, Mongolia is an East Asian (in addition to Central Asian) country. However, Mongolia is not shown in the map of the article North Asia. If you want to show North Asian instead of East Asian for Mongols, please edit these articles in order to be consistent as well, thanks! Otherwise I'd prefer to show East Asian instead of North Asian for Mongols. --Cartakes (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cartakes: Yeah but we're not talking about Mongolia, we're talking about the Mongols, who moved from Manchuria and Siberia south. Ogress smash! 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress:: Regarding the Mongols, have you noticed that the current article says that the Mongols are "native to Mongolia and China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region"? Is this a contrary to what you stated above? --Cartakes (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cartakes: Well, Wikipedia is often tendentiously edited. It's better to look for RS than take what a lot of pages, especially ones about ethnic groups, at face value. But tbh I don't have the spoons to argue on Wikipedia today - it's been an ugly week - so you should do what you think is correct. Ogress smash! 02:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The Mongols are a Siberian people. They are for all intents and purposes a North Asian people. Mongolia can be classified as both East and North Asian so I don't see what all the fuss is about. North Asian is more accurate, however, as the Mongols are more concentrated in the northern parts of Asia than its eastern parts. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I would say we should make reference to East Asia in the article as well in addition to North/Central Asia. --Cartakes (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Cartakes, Kutsuit: It would perhaps be accurate to say that they are a North Asian people who have colonised and settled large portions of East Asia. Certainly I'm not trying to say that Yunnan is North Asia, but the Mongols are certainly North Asian. Ogress smash! 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Ogress: Are they Central Asian then? --Cartakes (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there is a low-intensity guerilla war going on in the article. One side wants to write an article about Mongols proper (which are currently the native population of Mongolia and China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; the other side wants an article about Mongolic people which also includes Buryats and Kalmyks, hence strange statements that Mongols are native to the Republic of Kalmykia in Russia (there is not a single Mongol living there for the last 500 years). It should be decided first what the article is about and then to clean it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Khalkha Mongols might not have lived in Kalmykia for 500 years but Kalmyk people live there now, and they are Mongols... This article seems like it should be the umbrella, which it already basically is, for Mongolic-speaking ethnic groups, especially given the shallowness of the Mongolic tree: the Middle Mongol language dates only to the 12th century and is essentially identical to proto-Mongolic (1224 is the first attested inscription, and it's archaic). It does seem like "the Mongols" are a fairly coherent group and could be covered in an article without problem. Ogress smash! 12:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I think most of the users, including me, disagree with you and think that this material should be covered in a separate article Mongolic people.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ogress. The Kalmyks are Mongols. Moreover, the Mongols are a fairly homogeneous group of people. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The Kalmyks are indeed Mongols. However, ethnic groups such as the Khitans are other Mongolic peoples than Mongols. --Cartakes (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the Khitans did not speak a Mongolic language or form part of the Mongols, I'm not sure why that would be an issue. They've been defined as (distantly) related in language, which Janhunen calls "para-Mongolic". The Mongols are a pretty discrete ethnic group speaking a very shallow tree of languages. Even groups like the Mengguer and Yugur are not very distinct. Ogress smash! 21:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the book "Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present" by Christopher I. Beckwith, pg 414, "Twitchett and Tietze (1994: 45-46) expressed uncertainty about the linguistic affiliation of Khitan, but it has long been firmly established that they spoke a Mongolic language. This has been further confirmed by the progress being made in the decipherment of their script. The recent introduction of the non-linguistic term "Para-Mongolic" (Janhunen 2003: 391-402) for Khitan and other early Mongolic languages, and of similar terms for other languages in the vicinity, reveals unclarity about the nature of linguistic relationships, a problem that dominates the linguistics of eastern Eurasia in general. It has been demonstrated once again that there is no such thing as a Mischsprache or 'mixed language' (Beckwith 2007a: 195–213), so either Khitan was Mongolic or it was not Mongolic." Clearly, according to this comment, "para-Mongolic" as called by Janhunen is not a linguistic term. --Cartakes (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Listen, Janhunen has made it a linguistic term, so you can't be like "it's not a term" when Janhunen is using it. He's one of the most prominent linguists of Mongolian. It is isn't new, either, he's in print using it in 2003 in Archaeology and Language: Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypotheses. Ogress smash! 00:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I was just quoting comments from another linguist. As for Khitan, it either belongs to Mongolic languages or belongs to the language family called "Para-Mongolic" or whatever named by Janhunen, as mentioned in Talk:Mongolic_languages#Janhunen. --Cartakes (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You are moving the target and are starting to appear suspiciously like your definition of Mongols means "Halh and close kin". Ogress smash! 01:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "moving the target"? I was linking to that page and waiting for your reply there, but by now I was already starting to agree with Taivo's last statements at that page. As for definition of Mongols, didn't I consider "Kalmyks are indeed Mongols" previously? Didn't you noticed that I made no complain at all for your current definition in the article? I only made a concern with the language, but I already decided to accept that after seeing your comment below. Your comment above however makes no sense at all. --Cartakes (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You changed the link from an inclusive article to one that is Halh+. Either that, or you didn't bother checking what Mongolian language covered. Ogress smash! 02:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but isn't it actually quite natural to think that Japanese people speak Japanese language (instead of Japonic languages, which is an inclusive article too), Mongols speak Mongolian language (instead of Mongolic languages), and Chinese speak Chinese language (instead of Sinitic languages)? That "Mongolian language" means the language of "Halh and close kin" is only your interpretation, different from mine when I wrote Mongols speak Mongolian language. To me, "Mongolian language" simply meant the language of Mongols, just like that "Japanese language" means the language of Japanese. I I think this is a major cause for the misunderstanding. --Cartakes (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I gather that it was an error... but you can't just decide the contents of a wikipedia page are what you think they are. "That 'Mongolian language' means the language of 'Halh and close kin' is only your interpretation". No, it definitely is not. The Mongolian language page clearly states it refers to Halh and so-called "Southern" Mongolian (i.e. the languages spoken in Inner Mongolia, which is technically south of Mongolia.) This is only one of the Mongolic languages spoken by Mongols. You've been firm that you include Kalmyk people in Mongols, and now you insist they speak the language of Halh/Southern Mongolia? What about the Yugur or Mongguer? You can't have it both ways. Ogress smash! 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Mongolian language, doesn't that article also says "There is no disagreement that the Khalkha dialect of the Mongolian state is Mongolian. Beyond this one point, however, agreement ends. For example, the influential classification of Sanžeev (1953) proposed a "Mongolian language" consisting of just the three dialects Khalkha, Chakhar, and Ordos, with Buryat and Oirat judged to be independent languages. On the other hand, Luvsanvandan (1959) proposed a much broader "Mongolian language" consisting of a Central dialect (Khalkha, Chakhar, Ordos), an Eastern dialect (Kharchin, Khorchin), a Western dialect (Oirat, Kalmyk), and a Northern dialect (consisting of two Buryat varieties)." So we are simply interpreting the term "Mongolian language" in different ways, and I was not deciding the contents of a wikipedia page either, wasn't I? --Cartakes (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Those are cold-war definitions produced by scholars who wrote under the firm, deadly hand of the government. Modern analyses lead to this sentence on Mongolic: "The best-known member of this language family, Mongolian, is the primary language of most of the residents of Mongolia and the Mongolian residents of Inner Mongolia, China with an estimated 5.2 million speakers." In any argument, the Yugur, Mongguer/Salar and many other languages are definitely not included. Ogress smash! 21:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
See, now you are trying to interpret the article by yourself, aren't you? The Mongolian language article already says "Beyond this one point, however, agreement ends". Only two scholarly opinions are mentioned after "for example", but that obviously does not mean these two opinions are the only ones. So your last statement won't work here. --Cartakes (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
First sentence of Mongolian language: "The Mongolian language [...] is the official language of Mongolia and best-known member of the Mongolic language family." Immediately after the bit you cite it says, "Besides Mongolian, or "Central Mongolic", other languages in the Mongolic grouping include Dagur, spoken in eastern Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and in the vicinity of Tacheng in Xinjiang; the Shirongolic subgroup Shira Yugur, Bonan, Dongxiang, Monguor, and Kangjia, spoken Qinghai and Gansu regions; and the possibly extinct Moghol of Afghanistan." If Mongolian language is identical to Mongolic languages, then why does the article say differently? With cites? Ogress smash! 21:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
When did I ever say that "Mongolian language is identical to Mongolic languages"? That article also mentions that "Mongolian belongs to the Mongolic languages. The delimitation of the Mongolian language within Mongolic is a much disputed theoretical problem, one whose resolution is impeded by the fact that existing data for the major varieties is not easily arrangeable according to a common set of linguistic criteria." Clearly no, Mongolian language is not identical to Mongolic languages, but the exact definition of Mongolian language *within* the Mongolic languages is up to opinions currently. --Cartakes (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NEUTRAL[edit]

I have removed the edit-war content and simply described where Mongols live based on the article. Let's leave it there while we hash it out here or else this page is gonna get completely locked down again. Ogress smash! 00:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your last change, a language can have many varieties or tongues (or dialects). There are many examples in the world, e.g. the Japanese language and Mandarin Chinese. It's common to say that Japanese people speak the Japanese language (despite having many tongues or dialects), not the Japonic languages. --Cartakes (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah no. This article isn't about the Halh, it's about the Mongols, which includes groups who cannot understand Mongolian as it is being named in that article. Maybe examine the article more closely to see that it does not include, like, Oirat languages or Yugur or Menggur or Salar. "In the discussion of grammar to follow, the variety of Mongolian treated is Standard Khalkha Mongolian (i.e., the standard written language as formalized in the writing conventions and in the school grammar), but much of what is to be said is also valid for vernacular (spoken) Khalkha and other Mongolian dialects, especially Chakhar." NOT = MONGOLS Ogress smash! 01:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually it is problem of definition of "dialect" vs "language". I just checked for example Oirat language, which says "Scholars differ as to whether they regard Oirat as a distinct language or a major dialect of the Mongolian language." I was considering all of these as varieties or dialects of the Mongolian language, but it seems there are other considerations. That's why I decide to accept your current wording. --Cartakes (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mongols. 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.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)