User talk:Jojokintel

Welcome!

Hello, Jojokintel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Latebird 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongols[edit]

Hi, please do not add off-topic material to articles. We already have articles on History of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. Information on those topics does NOT belong into the article Mongols. That article is about the ethnic group, and nothing else. Thank you for your understanding. --Latebird 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied here to keep the discussion in one piece:

I think the history that I added to the entry is relevant. On the pages of other ethnic groups in Wikipedia the entries discuss the history of the people in addition to modern day conditions. What would the Jews be without a history? What is any ethnic group without its history? The Mongols have an especially illustrious one that is worth including. Jojokintel 19:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Seth[reply]

The Jews and their history are an exceedingly unfitting comparison. First, they are more than just an ethnic group, and then they are one of the few cases where the history of the ethnic group is entirely seperate from the history of a nation and/or an empire.

Neither is the case with the Mongols. Their history is identical with the History of Mongolia, and is covered in depth there and in a number of related articles (see the sidebar there). Repeating such material elsewhere is redundant and pointless, not to mention a maintenance nightmare (changes will always be made to only one version, leading to inconsistency). Please remember that articles don't exist in a vacuum, they always relate to other articles. If you want to make such massive changes, please first check all related articles and particularly the talk page (including archives) of the article in question. In this case, material similar to yours has previously been present, but was removed as redundant some time ago.

Of course, if you have relevant material that is missing from History of Mongolia and Mongol Empire etc., please don't hesitate to include it there. Well sourced new material is always welcome, as long as you put it in the right place. --Latebird 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. You can undo my changes but I still think the information is pertinent. A few points though: How are the Jews more than just an ethnic group and the Mongols aren't? They are world famous for having conquered most of Asia, etc, not just for being Mongolians. And I would say that most Jews would disagree with your statement about empire/nation. They are just as tied to the land as any people, even if they did wander around for a thousand years.

The information can be found in other sections, but I don't see that as a substantive problem. Gross inconsistencies can be ironed out Furthermore, many people, especially casual users, will type "mongols," find the sparse entry, and will not link up with the other material, so in that sense is a practical matter.

And my last but most important point. When people talk of the mongols, they don't say "Mongol empire, Mongol people," they use the epithet "Mongols" just as people say the "Jews" or the "Spanish". Naturally, people will use that word when they search for information about their exceedingly engaging history. The point of Wikipedia is to disseminate information, and I think you would agree that it would be better for people to find the information they are looking for in favor of other considerations. You've made a lot of contributions and I think your other entries would be served as well through greater traffic via links embedded in a history section. Again, I leave it to you. Jojokintel 04:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added is of course "pertinent", but already covered elsewhere. I don't object to its existence, just to its location. It is Wikipedia policy not to duplicate content unnecessarily if a link does the same job, and the two "See also" links in the article didn't get there by accident.

To your last point: If readers are confused by the distinction between "Mongols" and "Mongolians" (or similar pairs of concepts), then a clear seperation between the topics is the best way to educate them. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to clarify information, mixing different topics would just perpetrate the confusion. --Latebird 07:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]