User talk:Yaan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yaan. You have new messages at Talk:Xar Moron River#break - Maps of Inner Mongolia in Mongolian.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.



Hello, Yaan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Bart133 (t) (c) 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Leagues of Inner Mongolia[edit]

The largest subdivision of the öbür mongγul-un öbertegen ǰasaqu orun is ayimaγ (and siγud qariy-a qota). The Chinese name for ayimaγ is 盟 today. The largest subdivision of Mongolia during the Manchu Qing Dynasty was čiγulγan and it was čiγulγan that was called 盟 in Chinese. In fact it was derived from čiγul- (to gather people for discussion) and corresponds to the English counterpart "league".

I'm not sure why the current mismatch happened, but I know another discrepancy between Mongolian and Chinese. "Inner Mongolia" is 內蒙古 in Chinese and öbür mongγul in Mongolian today. But it was originally known as dotuγadu mongγul. dotuγadu mongγul literally corresponds to "Inner Mongolia" while the precise translation of öbür mongγul would be "Southern Mongolia." The change took place in 1947 (according to Kökebaγatur) but the Chinese name was left unchanged.

I've never edited the article of Leagues of Inner Mongolia and I'm not sure what Ran intended. --Nanshu 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Population number again[edit]

Dear Yaan! You posted UB 1,000,000 population information.

First, I'm glad it is not your private opinion, but city officials opinion.

Second, I have some comment.

Last two years population increase was 101 per day (2005) and 95 per day (2006). Officially population at 31 Dec. 2006 was 987,192. If at 11 of April it was 1,000,000 and so it was 12,808 increase in 101 days, what means 127 per day (1/3 more speed growth).

But if we will compare last official number (28 Feb. 2007) 989,900 we will have 46 person per day increase rate in January and February, but if 42 days later was 1,000,000 so it was 10,100 increase in 42 days – 240 per day. This day rate was never noted in UB history, and is 5 times faster then at previous two months period.

Such kind of miracle happens if somebody wants to get a historic number at a historic day. Newspapers and Mayor’s office declarations can't change the reality: UB will have 1,000,000 but at the end of this May or later. May be now I can understand why March and April population figures were not published - statistic office stopped publication, it is possible this data were in conflict with Mayor’s declarations.

The best data source are regular statistic publications, not newspapers, I think.

Third, if you change population number, you need change pop. density value. Bogomolov.PL 10:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bogomolov!
What could the significance of April 14th be? You are probably right that a 240% increase in the rate of natural growth of a close-to-one-million population would be close to a miracle, but then there could well be non-natural reasons why the growth rate increased - i.e. more migration to or easier registration in UB. Given that at any given time there are probably a number of people that live in UB but are still registered somewhere else, who is to say that projections based on statistics that were (probably) exclusively based on the number of registrations are more valid than the new 1.000.000 number (which is probably based on the number of registrations as well, but at least no projections)? Yaan 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I thought the density (per sqkm, anyway) was rounded to tenths already. Then a 1% increase in population might still mean no difference in the second digit. And I was to lazy to use the calculator. Sorry. Yaan 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was 11th of April, not 14th. 14th is publication data, not 1,000,000 holiday (a boar day of the year of the Boar). You are wright, the main city population increase source is migration (statistically - registration) Bogomolov.PL 09:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is UN population estimations link, where you check 'city population' and 'Mongolia' [1]. (Direct country data access link does not work) Bogomolov.PL 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I just checked it. If I understood correctly, they say that the data they used are censuses up to the year 2000, plus that they refer only to 'city proper' - i.e. maybe excl. Nalaikh etc (look at 'sources'). I still think local statistics can be more reliable. Cheers, Yaan 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bogomolov and Yaan!

Though your discussion on this topic was already several months ago, I want to tell you few things about the main reason behind this increased growth in the city population. Of course there would be many factors for this increase, I think, however, the main factor is that many Mongolians believe religiously the man or woman born in the year of pig has a fortune and that man or woman is able to make their family reach for three generations afterwards. Particularly, they consider that the person who is born on the autumn of the year pig is the most potential one. But for me, I do not believe in it... Well, practically, I have seen many pregnant women in this year than the previous ones on the street. Many of my friends have had new sons and daughters this year as well. Do you guys believe this? It is strange and somehow funny it seems. But please note that this is my personal opinion and my conclusion does not have to be true. I haven't seen any statistical data. Bilguun.alt (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The statistic data are here

Burth values (month) are (all Mongolia):

  • 3 458 1.2005
  • 3 506
  • 3 632
  • 3 888
  • 3 936
  • 4 013
  • 3 901
  • 3 872
  • 3 888
  • 3 673
  • 3 943
  • 3 461
  • 3 717 1.2006
  • 3 764
  • 3 627
  • 4 227
  • 3 803
  • 4 064
  • 4 367
  • 4 180
  • 3 999
  • 3 822
  • 4 084
  • 3 722
  • 3 877 1.2007
  • 3 881
  • 3 858
  • 4 571
  • 4 489
  • 4 578
  • 4 759 7.2007

You can see, that at national level numbers are growing more or less consequently (approx. 200 pers. more then year before). But really since May 2007 this growth is more notable:686 pers. in May, 514 pers in June, 392 in July. So "pig year effect" was 486, 314 and 192 pers. respectively, or 992 pers. in May-July. You can see, Bilguun.alt, this effect made less than 1 thousand for all nation at this period. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

talk formatting[edit]

Hi, are you familiar with this? It really makes it easier to follow discussions. Thanks! --Latebird 09:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian PM and lama[edit]

Please note categorization thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

bad day?[edit]

You haven't seen half of it... --Latebird 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be enough to find any source (maybe more than one) that lists Mongolian americans as Asian americans. After all, it's not the US government that defines what is Asian American or not, at least not according to the WP entry (or did I get it wrong)? Google might help a bit, another help might be Kalmyk american sites. Of course, there might be some Inner Monglian americans, too, but involving them would weaken the main trust of the argument. Have fun! Yaan 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well no, in the United States, it IS the United States Government that defines who is an Asian-American, and who is not. This is not a personal question as to if you or anyone else "feels" that the said groups are Asian-American, but only a question of how they actually are counted and treated as. Padishah5000 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Then I'm probably too stupid too properly understand the very first sentence in the Asian American entry : An Asian American is generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry and American citizenship. The same might be the problem with Latebird as well, as we both don't speak English as our first language. Would you care to explain the meaning of this sentence?
Thanks a lot, Yaan 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian Americans[edit]

I am going to have to request that you show me a U.S Government link that considers and counts Mongolian-Americans and Kalmyk-Americans under the racial classification of Asian-American. I am also going to request outside mediation in the matter. Padishah5000 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you do. It's just see also links, that Kalmyk and Asian Americans both are somehow related to Mongolian Americans (culturally the former, geographically the latter) should be self-evident. Yaan 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
btw. don't wait for an answer, it's pretty late already in my timezone. Bye, Yaan 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zavkhan Province[edit]

Hi - I noticed your recent edit to this page, and I'm not quite sure what happened but one of the infoboxes is colliding with some text. Might want to give it another look. Aelfthrytha 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added some livestock data, the population table is from Bogomolv.PL. But if you tell me how, I'll fix it.


I'm not sure how you justify your deletion of content in the Sinocentrism article. The fact that China was not able to re-annex Mongolia is highly relevant. The long-standing ROC claim to Mongolia suggests that China would have liked to do so but wasn't able to. By deleting that material, which is highly suggestive of Chinese irredentism, but leaving in the sentence about China's sovereign right to take over such territories, you have made a very significant change to the entire tone of the paragraph. That is not to say that the edit might not have been justified, but when you make such changes it might be useful to add a comment on the discussion page.

Bathrobe 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Yaan 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Bathrobe

Suman gol[edit]

All articles should be verifiable and sourced in the article itself. Wikipedia is not about what is true but what is provable. The best place to find info about this is at WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOTE. If you need any more help, just give me a shout. Owain.davies 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"East Asian cinema" and "--Cinema" templates[edit]

  • Thanks for pointing that out. I did a special:whatlinkshere/ on both templates - the former had about 12 links, and the latter only 2. Easiest thing was to amend the links of the 2, so the capitalised "Template:East Asian Cinema" can now be deleted. I had a quick look at some of the other similar templates, and they're not standardised (either in capitalisation or in the actual format of the templates), which would probably be a worthwhile task. I'll note it at Films WikiProject and see if we can get agreed format. Gram123 12:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian sums[edit]

It would be great if you could expand all the sums like Tömörbulag, Khövsgöl. I dind't think it could be done but I think it is possible ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any sources except for Khövsgöl aimag (besides lifestock stats, that is). Plus it would really be a lot of work. Yaan 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Days of the week[edit]

Please provide the literal translations for the Mongolian days of the week that you just added. — Joe Kress 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

currently working on it. As can easily be seen, they are cognate with the Tibetan names, but I'm not sure at the moment on wther they are primarily understood to be names of planets, or names of deities, or just foreign words. Yaan 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi! If it's not a secret, may I ask what the reason of your profound interest in Mongolia is. Is it your profession? (It's not mandatory to answer this question. Sorry for the curiousity) Gantuya eng
Just a hobby. Yaan 09:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not negated that there are also surnames or clan names Darhan, Darhad, Darhchuud, Darhchuul, Darhchin etc, just like Smith, Schmidt, Kovalenko ot Kuznetsov. Gantuya eng 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I was confused by "darkhad" being translated as "sacred ones", when the usual translation I know is smith or craftsman (kind of). Was I at least correct in being confused? Yaan 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
These are omonyms. 1) darhan - a) smith; b) smithhouse (Industrial city Darhan); 2) darhan - a) priviledged, protected, untouched (people); b) sacred, protected (mountain).
darhan ber -- a daughter-in-law who gave birth to 3 boys and has higher privileges than new daughters-in-law;
darhan caaz -- legal protection of a mountian, area or rare animal under an environmental law;
erhten darhtan -- privileged ones.
Then I'll change it to "privileged ones". If you think it's still incorrect, just change it again. Regards, Yaan 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad it helped you Gantuya eng 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Do you have any intentions to create Khotgoid article? In Web are two opinions (N.L.Zhukovskaya 1998, Народы и религии мира): Khotgoids are "Хойд гойд" ("special Khoits"), they were in Zasagt Khan aimag, since the end of XVIII cent. they inhabit their present areas at Khövsgöl and Zavkhan aimags.

Second opinion (Нямсамбуу Х. Монголын угсаатны зүй. Удиртгал // Сурах бичиг хүүхдийн номын хэвлэлийн газар. Улаанбаатар, 1992.): Khotgoids are khalkhed oirats, their name sens is "хойд хойд" ("northern northern").

Bogomolov.PL 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Geobox 2[edit]


Hello, this message is sent to you because you've shown some interest in the Geobox templates in past. There is now a new version (aka Geobox 2) which supersedes all older Geoboxes (aka Geobox 1). The major difference is there are no feature specific templates (Settlement, River, Mountain range etc.) but just one master template which can handle all type of data. There are a couple of new features and many new fields making the template much more versatile so now it can be used for virtually any geography related feature without the need to create a specific template.

The switch to Geoboxes 2.0 is highly recommended as the new template has a much more effective code, which renders faster than the old one (with much smaller pre-expand size, it can be one third to one fourth of the pre-expand size of Geoboxes 1). To convert aa page from Geobox 1 to Geobox 2, there are two ways:

  • By changing the template header:
    {{Geobox Settlement
    Although some field names have been changed in order to be unified, the old names are accepted too. For any settlement Geobox use {{Geobox|Settlement and set the settlement type (city, borough, town, village) in category field. Calling e.g. {{Geobox|City will work as well but it's not the recommended way (from technical reasons).
  • By a semi-automated tool which reorders the field names in the Geobox 2 style and also renames the few changed field names.

There are several unresolved issues at the Geobox talk page, please add your comments and of course any other ideas you might come with as well as bug reports. – Caroig (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Altan Khan of the Khalkha[edit]

Thank you for your comment. It sounds interesting. Would you cite your sources? Do they use contemporary Mongolian sources like the so-called birch-bark manuscripts which are often utilized by recent research?

My initial entry was based on Miyawaki Junko's article:

Miyawaki Junko 宮脇淳子: The Khalkha-Oyirad Rivalry in the Seventeenth Century, 國際中國邊疆學術會議論文集 (Proceedings of International Conference on China Border Area Studies), pp. 605-628, 1985, Taipei.

According to Miyawaki, diplomatic documents of Russia calls Šoloi Ubasi Qong Tayiǰi, his son Badma Erdeni Qong Tayiǰi and his grandson Erinčin Lobsang Tayiǰi "Altyn Tsar'". "Altyn Tsar'" looks a Russian translation of "Altan Khan". In contrast, Mongolian chronicles like Asaraγči neretü teüke do not call them Altan Khans, but give them only the title of Qong Tayiǰi (Qung Tayiǰi). Miyawaki claims:

Just as Abadai Khan of the Left-Wing Khalkha had earlier made his son Šubuγadai Khan over the Oyirad, Layiqur Qaγan too must have made his cousin Ubasi Qong Tayiǰi to reign as Khan over the Oyirad. The first Altyn Tsar' was a Khan of the Oyirad.

But she does not give a clear answer to the question why Altan Khans are not called so in Mongolian chronicles. --Nanshu 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer. My sources are not really academic: two rather popular books about Khövsgöl aimag, one edited for the 60th and one for the 70th anniversary: Khövsgölchuudiin nom, UB 1991, and M. Nyamaa, Khövsgöl aimgiin lavlakh toli, UB 2001. The third source I looked into was a short glossary of historical terms and a timeline: S. Demberel, BNMAU-yn tüükhiin zarim ner tomyoo, on tsagiin tailbar toli, Ulaanbaatar 1991. They don't give any justification for calling him Altan Khan of the Khotgoid - whether it's because the subjects were Khotgoid, or because the leaders were, or because Chingünjav was somehow related - they just use the term. I just thought you might have an idea why. Yaan 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing out the too-long quote. I think you are right - it potentially represents a copyright violation. I have been using a few long quotes in my edits recently and I will review them all over the next few days rewriting or shortening them or whatever seems appropriate. My only excuse is that I have been in physical pain while writing (I can only do short bursts on the computer at the moment) and the temptation just to quote someone rather than trying to rewrite what is already well-written has been too great. So, I am indebted to you for reminding me of what I have been doing. Many thanks (and thanks for all the good work you have been putting into these articles), John Hill 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm O.K. - just sore thanks[edit]

Dear Yaan: thanks so much for your concern. I am O.K. just very sore. I wrenched my back again and I have a deformed and damaged spine which is usually just a manageable nuisance - but at times like this becomes a real handicap as I can only move around slowly with difficulty and can only sit at the computer for brief periods and on pain killers. Very boring!

I really appreciate all the great editing you have been doing recently. I have been sorry to not be as focussed as usual with mine.

Now I am going for another session of loud swearing and hot showers - which I have found to be one of the most effective treatments for bad backs. Another friend of mine is strongly suggesting I get a bath so I can use his favourite treatment. He says to fill a bath as hot as you can stand it - and keep the hot water dribbling slowly in while playing your favourite music very loudly and eating a whole package of gingernut biscuits (dunking them in the dribbling hot water). He reckons that by the time you reach the end of the packet of biscuits the pain is gone for a while at least. So - I must get a bath set up - I only have a shower now.

Cheers and all best wishes. Thanks for thinking of me. John Hill (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lake Khövsgöl Islands[edit]

You are our Khövsgöl chief expert, and you populated Lake Khövsgöl infobox. So the question is for you: Where are Modot tolgoi, Baga khüi islands (listed in infobox)? These islands are absent on 1:200 000 Soviet maps and 1:200 000 Mongolian maps. They appeared or dissolved? And mb it will be better not khüi but khui, like Modon khui and Khadan khui in Mongolian atlas (Авто Замын Атлас). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know where those islands are, but they are mentioned in the Khovsgol aimgiin lavlakh toli. I think Modot tolgoi might be the island that is very close to Khatgal, and I also think it is this island that is occasionally not counted (that's why some people say there are only three islands). You can see it quite well on Google earth. Modon khui should be the big one in the center-north of the lake, and Khadan khui is qyite small, and close to the eastern shore roughly half-way between Modon khui and Khatgal. Or maybe the other way 'round. I couldn't find a fourth island, though. My current keyboard has no umlauts, but the khui as in the infobox (with the same u as in Sukhbaatar or Unen) is correct, i.e. I really should use umlauts for the romanization. At least it's written this way in the work mentioned, and also in my Avto zamyn atlas (I think 2004, 1:1,100,000, cover blue and red with a picture of a typical german road).
I know where are Modon and Khadan islands, and in Mongolian Авто Замын Атлас (orange-blue with German road, "Газрын зураг"ХХК, 2005 он. Зохиогч, редактор И.Цэрэнням") it is written in Mongolian: Модон хуй арал and Хадан хуй арал. Not хүй. So it it reason of my question.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC) also uses хүй (plus they have another name for Modot tolgoi). But they might be just as wrong as me. I guess we might find an answer in some dictionary. Yaan (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Хүй is navel(Bauchnabel), Хүйс is gender(Geschlecht) or sex. Хуй is sheath, scabbard(Scheide). Арал is island of course. Хадан is rocky(felsig/wackelig), Модон is wooden(hölzern), or arboreal. So Rocky Navel Island and Forest(Wooden) Navel Island...
But native Khövsgölians can translate better, I think.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks a lot. my mongolian-german dictionary is currently not at home, so I couldn't check that myself. My atlas is also by Tserennyam and Gazryn zurag XXK, but from 2004. It's also 1:1M, not 1:1.1M. And they actually call the one island they have "Dalain modon Хүйс". All very strange. But the front picture is nice.
Btw. you need to be careful when using Scheide and sex in two consecutive sentences ;-).
Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, the word хуй (in Russian, Belorussian, Ucrainen) chuj (in Polish with the same sound) is vulgar name for penis. À propos the vocabulary, I'm using [2] where mongolian word is entered with hyphen before it.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is as possible complete islands (unnamed on our maps) list:

You can find them in every system, but Google Earth/Map is better.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Islands #1 and #3 are really islands, but I think the other two do not count. Or at least they should not. #2 is just a series of sand (or gravel) banks that divide (I think that is the name) Toilogt nuur from Khovsgol nuur (I spent some days on the northern end of these sand banks on my first trip to Mongolia). You forgot the big island in the middle of the lake, Modon khüi (?). I am actually not sure at all about which island goes by what name, or where the fourth island is located, but if I ever find a reference, I will let you know as quickly as possible. Sorry about that. Yaan (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: It looks as if on the southern end of that sandbank (#2), there could be some real island - white gravel with a green spot in the middle. But I think I really would have to ask around where the fourth island is and which island goes by which name. Yaan (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Toilogt juulchin baaz is here:50°39′03″N 100°14′15″E / 50.65083°N 100.23750°E / 50.65083; 100.23750 ("Welkome to HOVSGOL. Tourist map 1:200 000), but #2 is dividing Öngölög nuur from the main lake. There vere Khirvesteg, Gants nuur, Kharuul zangi and Sakura j.b.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I have that map too, but not with me. I think where we stayed is now the Kharuul zangi camp. Thanks for mentioning Sakura, we met some really nice people there last year. A pity it seemed so run-down. :-) Have you found the big island? Yaan (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I never lost it. On Soviet maps it is named Далайн-Модон-Хуйс, my Авто замын атлас calls it Модон Хуй арал. My list was for unnamed islands. At Soviet map #1 has name г.Цомо-Хад (г. is mountain in Russian, not island, what is surprizing)Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I see. So #1 might really be Khadan Khui? I don't speak russian, so I don't know what tsomo means. Yaan (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
'#1' is the best candidate, not more. #1 has name Hadan Huys at "Welkome to HOVSGOL" tourist map. Russians are ignoring double vowels in Mongolian words, so Цомо can be Цоомо or Цомоо. And this word is Mongolian, you see.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My map actually goes by the name "Hovsgol Aimag Map" (no umlauts). But it also calls #1 something close to Khadan khüi. Yaan (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we have several versions for #1 island:

  • г.Цомо-Хад ==> Tsomo Khad
  • Hadan Huys ==> Khadan Khuis
  • Хадан Хуй арал ==> Khadan Khui
  • ==> Khadan Khüi.

Is correct name at this list? That is the question.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I say Khadan khüi. It's a name that makes complete sense, is logical, and sourced. The "aral" at the end would only add uncertainty, and since the beginning of the line reads "Islands:" and Khadan khüi is no genitive, we can just let the "aral" slip. Just like we do with Selenge mörön, Tuul gol or Orkhon gol. Yaan (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You tell Khüis is genitive of Khüi? These two words are different mongolian words with no genitive, or I'm in mistake?. And what you think about Ögii Nuur, Oigon nuur etc. We have rename them to Ogii, Oigon etc. as it is with rivers?Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't studied all the translation attempts above in detail, so you may already have figured it out: Among several other things, Хүй/Khüi also means "collection" or "group", as in a group of islands. --Latebird (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


1. something related to navels should be the correct translation, as these names are explained in relation to the Dalai Eej story.
2. khüi/khüis is no genitive, and that is why we could leave it without the aral, even if aral was a common part of the mongolian name. Just like we could just write Orkhon river (or just Orkhon?) when we don't really know whether it's Orkhon gol or Orkhon mörön. This is not possible with names (name forms?) like Khalkhyn gol, because Khalkhyn is a genitive. To me, Oigon nuur is really, really alright, I always look for the Mongolian form first. Plus few people would probably look for Lake Lop, Lake Khökh, Lake Khar Us, Lake Buir etc.
3. The really important news is that I finally asked a native speaker from the (wider) region, who said that the correct name is (...) khüi, not (...) khüis. And the more common name is Modon khüi etc, not Modon khüi aral. Apparently khüis can also be the plural of khüi - or at least if there is a plural, then it should be khüis. To re-introduce some confusion, I also had a look into Vietze's Mongolian-German dictionary, and he gives umbilical cord, family, group as translation of khüi, and navel, center, gender as translation of khüis
4. I'm still for khüi. Yaan (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


I've found the Russian source where 4 islands are listed:

  • "Dalain Modoi Khuis Aral" (the largest one)
  • "Yelisin Khupsun (25-26 km south of the Dalain island)". It is an island #1 at my list.
  • Baga Khui "is at southern tip of the lake", so it is #3 at my list.
  • "the 4-th island is opposite of the Turta river mouth", the river name can be read Turty. As I know Tuertu is an old name of Khankh (you can find this name in Google Earth). Exact location of the 4-th island just now is unknown for me.

Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    • Here is Russian detailed source where is described actual situation. The island #4 "Цахлайн-Ур"(in Russian) "gull's-nest" is in water now, after lake level increased. So actually there are 3 islands only(that is why it was impossible to find the #4 island). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I discovered just for your information. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But they don't even have an article on Baabar :-( Yaan (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps he was shy writing on himself. :) Gantuya eng (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That whole thing looks more like a public relations stunt for than a serious attempt at an encyclopedia. They have around 10% as many articles as mnwiki. Maybe ignoring it would be best... --Latebird (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Armed uprising" vs "Mongolian armed uprising"[edit]

Although a book of Mongolian history wouldn't need to specify that this was something that happened in Mongolia, Wikipedia is not Mongolian-centric. Clarity is important; what happens if someone finds it via the "random article" function? DS (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The place is given in the very first sentence. You can find any given quantity of non-self-explanatory lemma titles on wikipedia, April 12 Incident, Autumn Harvest Uprising, New Army, Blue Shirts Society etc. Yaan (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The Rebellions in Asia categroy does seem a bit inconsistent on this, too. We might move the article to 1932 armed uprising (Mongolia), if you like. Yaan (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There were other armed uprisings going on in 1932: a coup in Chile on 4 June, a revolution in Siam on 24 June, monarchist uprisings in Spain on 13 August and riots in British India throughout the year, particularly in Bombay in June; and an ongoing civil war in Brazil. I do feel the term '1932 armed uprising' is ambiguous and that it should be identified as Mongolian. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this question and decided to comment.
Most uprisings are either "armed" or "unarmed". A large number are "armed". So the title "armed uprising" doesn't say much. Article titles are referenced from other articles as links, so a confusing or ambiguous title can't just be explained in its first paragraph; it must be clear as a link, what it is linking to, by its name alone. The policy governing how we name articles, Wikipedia naming conventions, states:
  • "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity." Most English speakers would not immediately associate an article called "armed uprising (year)" with Mongolia, as much as they would an article titled "Mongolian uprising (year)", for example, and "armed uprising" is exceedingly ambiguous as a title.
  • "Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings". "Armed uprising" has more other meanings than the alternative.
The sub-page of that policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), states:
  • "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. A reader may have found your article with a search, with Recent Changes or accidentally, or in some other way that robs him of the context, so do him a favor and name your articles precisely."
Wikipedia has 2 million articles, including many "armed uprisings". I hope this clarifies why the name "armed uprising" is not being considered sufficiently clear and precise.
Let me know if you need more help!
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
So, what about 1932 armed uprising (Mongolia)? It's neither ambigous nor a neologism, though maybe a bit awkward?Yaan (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tribal locations in Mongolia, East-Hem 1200ad map[edit]

Hi Yaan, you mentioned some possible mistakes in various tribal locations on my East-Hem_1200ad.jpg map. Could you please show me exactly where I should place those tribes if I am to correct the map? If it helps, just copy the map to your computer and draw an arrow with the correct placement, or simply write the name in the correct location (use red text, since it will help distinguish). Thank you for your help! Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian Dictionaries[edit]

Here is posted a set of Mongolian dictionaries. May be it will be useful when you don't have access to the printed dictionaries. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yaan (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Do you know what Dolnuur (Dolnuur Congress of 1691) is? Is it a city, village, or just a site? Where is it located? Gantuya eng (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Duolun is possible. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Dolonnuur is the place where the Khalkha submitted to the Manchu, isn't it? Yaan (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, gentlemen. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Central Asia[edit]

Hi - based on your interests on your userpage, I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Central Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelfthrytha (talkcontribs) 03:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oirats map[edit]


is intersting, you see. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Buryats not people?[edit]

It is difficult for me be expert, but I was in Russian Buryatia at southern part and Baykal part too. I'm not sure buryats are not a people. They are close related to Khalkh, but differences are very notable. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Buryats are people, but not necessarily a people. I think in Mongolia Buryats are usually considered a tribe, not a separate ethnicity, maybe similar to the way Bavarians are considered a tribe and Sorbs & Danes are considered different ethnicities. The respective Mongolian terms are yastan and ündesten. But actually I am not 100% sure if Buryats are no ündesten or what the significance of the terms really is. The sentence just looked odd.
The intro sentence said the majority of the population are of Mongol ethnicity, and to me Buryats are a subset of Mongols. Plus they do not live in the west.
But if you think Buryats should be mentioned as one minority, one could make the sentence refer to Khalkh rather than Mongols, and maybe delete the remark about "mainly in the west".

Anyway, happy new year. Yaan (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If we use khalkh term - buryats have to be separate. But if mongols are interpreted as turkic (linguistic family) - no. Happy new year.Bogomolov.PL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia work group[edit]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to the Mongolia work group of the WikiProject Central Asia. You're welcome to add that page to your watchlist and participate in discussions there. So far, many general discussions about topics related to Mongolia have been discussed on individual user's talk pages, away from the attention of a wider audience. I hope that a centralized talk page will make communication between all of us easier. If a question doesn't primarily concern just one specific user, then the work group is probably the right place to ask it. See you there! --Latebird (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"They controversially signed the treaty"[edit]

"They controversially signed the treaty" is ambiguous. It could mean one of two things:

  1. They signed the treaty, but it was very controversial for them to do so. [This does not necessarily entail that the treaty itself was controversial, although that could also be true. It simply means that it was controversial for them to sign it.]
  2. There is some controversy as to whether or not they signed the treaty.

In fact, to my mind, the former reading seems more likely than the latter. I would never suggest using that wording. I would try instead (for each of the two readings above, respectively):

  1. They signed the treaty, creating controversy about [ state what the controversy is...].
  2. [Here give source name(s)] state(s) that they signed the treaty, but this has been challenged by [other source name(s)], creating a controversy [here put more details].

later! Ling.Nut (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. Yaan (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Does the color-coded legend beneath the map look completely confusing (vertical!) to you, or is that because of my monitor size...? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

just put in a new map of Tibet..[edit]

...better? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a good one... Yaan (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sory, I was unclear. I meant I just altered the map legend for clarity. See if it looks better. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It does. Yaan (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The original legend had a green bar for "claimed by India"... but I don't see any green areas in the map. Do you? Ling.Nut (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's on the northwestern border. But I don't know how reliable the info is. Yaan (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia scope[edit]

Please see most recent comments on the User talk:Latebird page. Also, for the purposes of information, please see the top of my own user page. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tuva workgroup[edit]

As a past contributor to a Tuva-related article, I was wondering if you would be interested in forming a Tuva workgroup of Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia with me? If enough people show interest, I'll go ahead and create the workgroup. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I know too little about Tuva. But thanks for inviting me anyway. If there is something with which I could be of any help, just contact me again. Yaan (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken about User:199[edit]

Those edits regarding Uvs Nuur basin, Ubsunur Hollow, the weirdo disambig page (which seems to have disappeared) do not show up in his edit history. Some one else did it. Mattisse 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian nationalism[edit]

Thanks for the name of the book. I'm very aware of the situation of nationalism in Mongolia vs Inner Mongolia. I work in Mongolia and we have Inner Mongolians in our company. It doesn't take long to pick up all those vibes ("Inner Mongolians aren't Mongolians", etc.). Personally I agree with the pan-Mongolist approach (cultural, not political). Current Khalkh Mongolian nationalism is narrow and suffocating.

Bathrobe (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I just saw your complaint about not being able to find a source for something completely obvious. I just wanted to let you know where to look. Otherwise I completely agree. Yaan (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for renaming the image. It is such a great example of the geological dynamics of these lakes/basins, showing the ravines and riverbeds that feed into it. Could you explain to me how to "rename" an image? Mattisse 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The renaming was done by latebird, not me. Maybe you should ask him. You could also try this. Yaan (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia work group[edit]

If you really want to turn the work group into a "non-argumentative" affair regarding Inner Mongolia, it would very likely be a good idea to try to set it up as a joint subproject of both WikiProjects Central Asia and China, explicitly stating that it would be covering all the territories which go by the name Mongolia in any form. There might be a question as to how to define the banner and assessment issues, but it would be possible to set up the categories to appear in each projects assessment stats, which might be one of the biggest questions which might prevent such taking place. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this would theoretically be possible. The problem is that Outer Mongolians usually (and rather strongly) object to the slightest assertion that Mongolia is somehow part of China, and setting up a Mongolia project as subproject of wikiproject China would certainly create such an impression. Yaan (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And reasonably so. But the page could be made in such a way as it indicate that it covers both territories separately. I'm thinking about an optional parameter like "china=yes" being added, which would indicate that the article is also assessed for China. That optional parameter would not have to be used if the article were exclusively about Outer Mongolia. Such multiple assessments can be a bit of trouble to set up, but I've done it before, and it wouldn't be impossible to do it again. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I think your discussion with this user is a useless thing. Several dutch users have tried to convince him that the translations are crap, but he just deletes all comments he doesn't like. See the history of his talk page. Good luck! (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll see. In any case, I think what should have been done (and it is not too late yet) is what you can read at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves. Yaan (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please could you go through the moves you have requested and make the discussion sections on each relevant talk page, as requested on WP:RM. You'll then need to link to them from the WP:RM page as the discussions are supposed to talk part on the article talk pages, not on the requested move page. From my reading on the topic, I think you are correct at least in the cases of IJsselmeer and Chiemsee. Knepflerle (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Good question ;) I've just left a message at User_talk:Neil; I will be interested to see if he will revert his actions. I understand why he thought what he did, but I really think the longer-standing status quo ante should be the default position, and then users can request these moves and try and demonstrate that they truly are more used in English. And according to WP:UE that's exactly what we should use. Knepflerle (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism in Mongolia[edit]

Dear members of WikiProject Buddhism!

As I can see that Buddhism in Mongolia has got many problems (sources,spelling mistakes, grammar, etc). Please help me to fix it together.

Thank you so much! Best wishes to you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, Yaan! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Danke fuer die Einladung. Ich beobachte die Seiten jetzt. Aber erwarte nicht allzuviel Mitarbeit. Gruesse, Yaan (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Central Europe[edit]

Kaliningrad should indeed be included in the map. I will modify the map. --Olahus (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more helpful to create a map that makes clear that there are no clearly defined borders. Yaan (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet of South Asia[edit]

MainBody has returned from his monthlong disappearance and is arguing about Tibet again. I request that you join the discussion of Talk:South Asia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan of South Asia[edit]

There is also another strange user User_talk:Thecurran who is trying to claim that Bhutan is disputed in its status as South Asian. S/He has no recognition of what is a valid source (much of the citations are news websites), s/he thinks that just because a page says South Asia, but not Bhutan that it is saying Bhutan isn't South Asian, and s/he is trying to say that because UPenn doesn't offer Dzongkha that it doesn't view Bhutan as South Asia. Please help me with this user, thank you Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) BTW see his/her talk page, not the south asia talk page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this is just too tiresome for me. I see you already asked him to provide sources that consider Bhutan to be part of East Asia, and even for a dispute (How come people say there is a dispute just because there are/may be varying definitions? There is no dispute about what an algebra actually is, just different definitions). I am afraid I don't really have the time to go through all this, but I am glad you do :) . Yaan (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
While trolling through here, and because I have your talk page marked, I noticed the above discussion. I'm in the process of updating the WikiProject Directory, and have broken the various countries of Asia up as per the UN's designations of those regions. However, it does seem that there might be some question about the appropriateness of several of the listings. If you want to look at User:John Carter/Directory/Geograhy/Asia and either directly make any changes you think relevant, or ask me to do so later, please feel free to do so. It probably would be possible to list "disputed" placement in each relevant region, but there'd still have to be an single primary listing listing all the data, and the input of a knowledgable party would be useful.

Watch out for User:Historychaser4 on Tibet[edit]

This user has just registered. It is very clear to me that this user may very well be a sockpuppet. I just don't know of who. It is apparent that from his/her contribs that he/she knows what NPOV is and how to put a NPOV template up. I think if we work together we can figure out if s/he is a sockpuppet and which vandal he/she may be. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Hallo Yaan, könntest du sagen, wo du deine hübschen Mongolischfonts her hast? Hab kurzfristig Bedarf bekommen, selber in nem Worddokument was auf Mongolisch zu schreiben. Das mit deiner Abneigung gegen den -s-Plural verwundert mich übrigens nicht weiter, die auf -d antwortenden Stammesnamen sind selber erstarrte Plurale (wodurch natürlich nichts über die Anwendbarkeit des englischen -s-Plurals an und für sich ausgesagt wird, aber der mongolische -s-Plural folgt nur, wo im älteren Mongolisch mal Vokale vorhanden waren, also nicht hier), aber wahrscheinlich sag ich dir da nichts Neues. G Purevdorj 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Die Fonts werden bei Microsoft Windows Vista mitgeliefert und funktionieren meines Wissens derzeit leider auch nur mit Vista (auch dort nur optional, so wie chinesisch etc. auch). Die Eingabe folgt dann der chin. logik, x=sh, q=ch, h=k/q, v=o/u, o/u=ö/ü etc, wenn ein Buchstabe falsch aussieht hilft manchmal Drücken der ß- oder ä-Tasten. Es gibt ein paar Unicode-Fonts, die trad. Mongolisch unterstützen (z.B. GB 18030 o.s.ä.), aber auch die funktionieren nach meiner Erfahrung nicht mit XP (zeigen immer nur initiale Buchstaben an).
Als Alternative fällt mir nur latex ein (siehe die ältere version vom Övör-Mongoliin-örtöö-zasakh-oron-Bildchen, da muss man sich dann aber erstmal reinfinden), oder das Font, das auf (oder so ähnlich) verwendet wird (aber schwierig zu handhaben sein dürfte). Womit schreiben eigentlich Innere Mongolen ihre Texte/webseiten? Grüsse, Yaan (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Latex ist wirklich ein wenig kompliziert, dann werd ich wohl bei dem Font von (CMSUB) bleiben müssen. Die Inneren haben's einfacher: Für chinesisches Windows gibt es einen speziellen Texteditor für Mongolisch, Optionsmenüs dann auch auf Mongolisch. Der ist recht hübsch, aber eher für Texte geeignet, wo die zugrunde liegende Sprache eben Mongolisch ist. G Purevdorj 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G Purevdorj (talkcontribs)


Hi! I just reverted an esit that removed the old spelling, but could you add a source to the Ulaanbaatar article for the ROC still referring to the city as Kulun? I have changed it into perfect tense for now as this whole recognition stuff has become much less clear-cut since 2002(?), but a source (or something official that uses the name, a Chinese site should do) would be nice anyway. The more recent the better, of course. I would try this myself, but my chinese is very rudimentary. Yaan (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As with most things to do with the Rep. of China/Taiwan, "official" can mean many things. At the constitutional level, Mongolia is (vaguely) still a province of "China" with its capital at Kùlún (but not under ROC jurisdiction). At the operative level today, Mongolia is considered an independent country with its capital at Wūlánbātuō. Keep in mind that the current president of ROC/Taiwan considers the entire ROC to be a less-than ideal fiction but with presidential elections in Taiwan this week, things could change again.
I will try to find some recent materials on the subject to clarify things but, in general, its hard to source for various reasons. As succinct as possible: Mongolia was recognized as indpendent by ROC in 1946. The current constitution dates from 1947. The specific territory of China is not defined in the constitution. Chiang Kai-shek rescinded recognition of Mongolia in the 1950s but this was not fully legally reconciled with the constitution (Dictators don't really need to do so). ROC dropped jurisdictional claim over areas outside of the Taiwan Area in 1991. So the topic is largely academic in Taiwan today and is not really dealt with officially.
As a practical matter, school textbooks, maps, &c. all showed Province/Kùlún in 1991. But gradually, and at an accelerated rate under Chen Shui-bian, the school curriculum and textbooks have changed, maps have begun to show PRC divisions, &c. With the end of communism in Mongolia, Taiwan has sought closer relations and therefore, for obvious reasons, uses Wūlánbātuō in those contexts. Therefore, it's hard to say there is one official name.
I've tried to add a bit more context for the Chinese names as they are used by the ROC in note form. Its clumsy but hopefully can placate the nationalists and inform as well. I also added intro info to flesh out the first section. I moved the classical name to the names section to allow the intro to flow better. Please review and comment or change. — AjaxSmack 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. But are there any government sites that continue to display Kulun? What does the Mongolian and Tibetan affairs comission use on their Chinese site? It's just about is used (exclusively or not) vs. has been used, but would be nice to know anyway.
The classical script still does not look perfect. Maybe I'll try and fix this in the next few days. Regards and thanks, Yaan (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
MTAC uses Wūlánbātuō in Chinese and Ulaanbaatar in English in documents and articles but there is declaration of "Wūlánbātuō is the capital of Mongolia" or something to that effect. The Wikipedia article sums it up pretty well: A body that originally oversaw the relationship of China with its outer dependencies now serves to assist in the relationship between ethnic Mongols and Tibetans seeking to defect from the People's Republic of China and to foster de facto state-to-state relations with Mongolia. The DPP has been trying to get rid of the agency for years. See here for more info. I think its too much to still call Kùlún official in Taiwan but there is definitely residual usage. — AjaxSmack 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shireet Tsagaan Nuur[edit]

Where is this lake? I didn't found it in Bürd sum. Shireet Nuur exists in Uyanga sum, but it is close to the 2500 m elevation (so called "8 lakes"). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be somewhere around 47°16'00 N,103°51'00 E (or exactly there?). This is according to a booklet called "Ulaanbaatar" that was printed in Ulaanbaatar in 2001. They have a map of all previous locations of Ulaanbaatar, and Shireet Tsagaan Nuur is north-east of the confluence of these two rivers. The booklet also has a picture of the lake and a text that states it is located in Bürd sum, with a sandy area nearby, that they erected a monument nearby in the 1990s etc. They also have a picture of the lake, it looks sufficiently small to be excluded in most maps. Actually, the location on the map looked to be further (15km or so) to the southeast, but this lake(?) at 47°16'00 N,103°51'00 E looks like the biggest lake in the area, and the picture had a sandy hill in the background that could match with the hill northwest of that lake. Yaan (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found this lake, the rocky hills 750 m from it (NW) are the aimag (and sum) boundary, so it is really in Bürd sum. If it is it. Thank you, Yaan. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
At least these guys agree, and I will add the off-line citation after easter holdiday. Unless we find another source that proves us wrong, I think we should keep the statement as it is now. Yaan (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My message to Beijing 2008![edit]


Here is my gift for you. Please support Tibet and Tibetan people. Please share this image to your friends. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese government claims re: Tibetan unrest[edit]

This is what I posed on Sevilledade's user talk:

Hi, you misunderstand my intentions. The Chinese government claims are significant not because of the contents, but because of the fact of the claims itself. The Chinese government has promised to release "evidence" of what it sees as Dalai's "conspiratorial" role in the matter. This is the official news release of that "evidence". It is significant in and of itself, and given that its relevance stems from its publication by the Chinese government, Xinhua is the most authoritative - perhaps primary - source, and the People's Daily, being the most authoritative carrier of the views of the Communist Party of China, is the most reliable medium of communication of the source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I added the paragraph is that the Chinese government has been claiming - without substantiation - that the Dalai Lama is the mastermind behind the violence. These claims, while still not backed up by forensic evidence, details their claims, and furthermore is at least verifiable, in the sense that it specifies dates, names, and places. I think it is relevant - even important - in illustrating the reasoning behind the Chinese government's claims that the Dalai Lama is behind the violence, and thus relevant to understanding the dynamics between the Chinese government and the Tibetan government-in-exile after the unrest. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


I think those images were canned because they are from such an unreliable source. Alexwoods (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir Yaan, you have been cordially invited...[edit] User:PericlesofAthens to attend a prestigious debunking ceremony at Talk:Ming Dynasty! Congratulations.

After reading the passages I have provided from Wylie's source, please come to the talk page and state in a designated slot your thoughts and opinions on the Mingshi, LaGrandefr's argument, and his dubious map. Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Гоа[edit]

Character Г is in what alphabet? The name looks an admixture of Cyrillic and Latin. Is it possible? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a somewhat usual transliteration of Mongol ga head.jpg, and I picked the greek character Γ. Actually I am not so sure whether a small γ (or a ɣ) wouldn't be more correct. Yaan (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it obligatory using Latin alphabet in articles naming? I think so.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't :) Yaan (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But what with this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) where is noted my position? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters" Yaan (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It is: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated" Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But it is transliterated! or transcribed, anyway. The Original would be in Mongγol bičig. Yaan (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If transliteration can add Greek characters so why native Greek letters have to be transliterated? It is not any transliteration, but transliteration using Latin letters (may be Mongγol bičig can be transliterated in Монгол бичиг, but this transliteration is not acceptable in en:Wiki) Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But Mongγol bičig would be OK? Yaan (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English". I'm not any literate speaker of English and I don't know what is γ. To my opinion Mongol bichig can be acceptable (it will be a transliteration, but not a transcription, isn't it?). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, maybe we should discuss this over here. Yaan (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read only 1 (one) book in English: West of Eden of Harry Harrison Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that. Yaan (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: In English, the term "transliteration" includes "transcription" (other than in German, where the two are mutually exclusive). --Latebird (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Transliteration is the practice of transcribing a word or text written in one writing system into another writing system or system of rules for such practice." But definition is clear: from writing one system to an other. In English Latin characters are in use, that is English writing system. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Tibet[edit]

Hello Yaan. This is the former Alexwoods. Someone has proposed a move back to the original title of this article. It would be great to have your input. Please chime in. Thanks. Yunfeng (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet on South Asia[edit]

User:MainBody is coming up with more shit on Talk:South Asia, your help is needed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your note on Altan Khan and the 3rd Dalai Lama[edit]

Hi Yaan! Thank you for your note on my Talk Page. According to Thomas Laird, this meeting did take place at Altan Khan's new capital, Köke qota, 'Blue Town' or modern Hohhot. Here is what he says: "When Altan Khan and the Third Dalai Lama met, the monk gave a long Buddhist teaching to a large crowd of Mongols. They gathered at Koko Khotan, Altan's capital, which is now Hohhot, capital of the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia. The site of these teachings became blessed ground, and Altan financed the construction of Mongolia's first monastery, Thegchen Chonkhor, there." Laird, Thomas (2006). The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, p. 144. Grove Press, N.Y. ISBN 978-0-8021-827-1.

The other sources I have available here are not so detailed or specific - but do back up Laird's account. For example, Giuseppe Tucci, in his book, The Religions of Tibet (1980), p. 252, says about the 3rd Dalai Lama that, ". . . in 1578 he visits Mongolia, where Altan Khan confers on him the title of Dalai Lama; he dies in Mongolia during a second visit." See also: Tibet by Thubten Jigme Norbu and Colin M. Turnbull (1968), pp. 218-220 and Tibetan Civilization by R.A. Stein (1972), pp. 81-82. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: I have just discovered another reference on this subject and thought I should add it here to hopefully end further speculation on this subject: "Sonam Gyatso was a brilliant scholar and a zealous missionary. He visited Mongolia, and in 1578 converted the leading prince, Altan Khan of the Tumed, together with large numbers of his followers. The Khan gave Sonam Gyatso the title of Talé (Dalai), meaning 'Ocean', and that title was later applied retrospectively to his two predecessors." Tibet & Its History, 2nd Edition (1984) by Hugh E. Richardson, pp. 40-41. John Hill (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will give you some quotes from my sources the next days. But they do locate the meeting at lake Qinghai. The lake could be considered a borderland between Tibet and Mongolia, so the latter quotes do not really rule out that the meeting took place there. Yaan (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Yaan; I have added a note for you on the Talk Page of Sonam Gyatso. I will report to you as soon as I have some further information - unfortunately, this probably won't be before mid-July at the earliest as I am due to leave on a trip in 3 weeks time. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your query about the "First monastery in Mongolia".[edit]

Hi, Yaan! I have just adjusted the article on the History of Tibet and left a discussion on the Talk Page about the confusion. The earlier monastery was, of course, built by Altan Khan at his capital in what is now Hohhot, Inner Mongolia (which has now been absorbed by China). Since the state of modern Mongolia does not include this region it is technically correct to say that Erdene Zuu was the first monastery built in Mongolia - though, of course, the separation of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia is really a modern event. Anyway, if you have any further questions (or are not happy with the adjustments I have made to the History of Tibet article), please let me know. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kherlenbayan-Ulaan / arable farming[edit]

No irrigation, these northern regions (intramountaineous) have enough precipitation for conventional farming. Only vegetables fields have be irrigated. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bayan of the Merkid[edit]

In this article, you have given the identity of the person as "Bayan of the Merkid (d.1340) was a general and official of the Yuan Dynasty". Was he military general? If he was military general, then how he became governor which is a civilian post. 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk)

I don't know the specifics now, as my books are at home and I am not. I can tell you it's not uncommon to have civilian and military posts, even at the same time. See Paul von Hindenburg, Augusto Pinochet, Juan Perón, and some others I am too lazy to type in now. I could also imagine that Civilian control of the military was not a very familiar concept to the Mongols of the 14th century. Yaan (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is very likely the case that it is a mix-up, I will look into it, but for now I am too busy to do so.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As to the question you've posed on my talk page, I don't think Rossabi meant the other Yuan General, Bayan of the Merkid. He specifically explained the General Bayan as a conqueror of the Song Dynasty and one of the top military officers under Kublai, which would obviously be Bayan of the Baarin. Plus, Bayan of the Merkid died in 1340; that's 61 years after Kublai conquered the Song Dynasty. Even if Bayan of Merkid was 80 when he died, that would only make him about 20 years old during the conquest of Song. Therefore, when Rossabi said the Turk commander Bayan, he was no doubt referring to Bayan of the Baarin.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Passage from Rossabi's book[edit]

To avoid any confusion about what the source entails, I will quote Rossabi directly from his book given in the reference section. On page 25 Bayan is introduced as an aide to Kublai in the Dali campaign of 1253, his main task to oversee the construction of inflated sheepskin rafts to cross the Jinsha River. On page 189, Rossabi speaks of the campaign against the Southern Song:

...Khubilai agreed with his loyal and old friend and companion [i.e. Shi Tianze], and in the summer of 1273 chose Bayan, probably the most gifted and successful military man of his generation, to assume command over the expeditionary forces. A Turk descended from a long line of military officers who had served under the Great Khans, Bayan had, as a youth, accompanied Khubilai's younger brother Hulegu on his campaigns in Persia and the Middle East. He returned eastward in the mid-1260s and quickly established a reputation as an outstanding official...Khubilai offered him progressively greater responsibilities until his crowning assignment as commander-in-chief of the troops in China.

So there you have it, Rossabi claims he was an ethnic Turk who was a descendant of those who had long served the Mongol Khans. Also, Morris Rossabi isn't some wishy-washy amateur of history; he is a well-established, leading scholar of East Asian history.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quote. I agree "researcher" does not really cut it. Maybe "scholar" or "leading scholar" would be better? Rossabi doesn't seem give any justification for calling him a turk, though, does he? Yaan (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but this is a book about the life and times of Kublai Khan, not a detailed biography of Bayan or a genealogy for that matter.--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The paper by Mostaert and Cleaves, however, is, and they say he is a Mongol. So...? Yaan (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, bizarre. I wish I had Morris Rossabi on speed-dial so I could be like "Wtf dude?" Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He probaby has his contact details posted somewhere on the web. Seriously though, I think the current version is really OK, although I think this "from a family who had long served the great khans" is already conveyed in the first sentences of the section, and is also no contradiction to what other people have written on him. Yaan (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Walther Heissig[edit]

I am very grateful for you additions to the bibliography. I hope to make full citations with publishers and cities etc. and I hope you will continue to help me. I have also made pages on several other mongolists but hope to do more. Tibetologist (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I just copied the entries form a library catalogue, in this case from . Yaan (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia map[edit]

Mmm its a little difficult to see on the new one. How about the one on the right? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Dear Yaan. First of all, I think that Parenti's confusion of Kublai Khan and Altun Khan and being some 300 years out with his dates are pretty major errors for someone billed as an "historian" and must bring his other claims into doubt, especially as he continues to leave this faulty article freely available on the internet and I can't find any attempt by him to correct his gross errors of fact.
Moreover, his article, "Friendly Feudalism (updated and expanded version, January 2007)" (see [4]) is full of extremely emotive language and is a blatant attack on a religion, culture and social system he clearly knows little about.
He has also reportedly claimed that the First Dalai Lama was installed by "the Chinese army" - seemingly unable to distinguish between the Mongols and the Chinese. Finally, to answer your question about his knowledge of Tibetan, he apparently knows neither Tibetan nor Chinese. (See [5]). So, yes, I believe I am quite justified in considering him a misleading and unreliable "authority" on matters Tibetan. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Ok. I knew that Phagpa had secular authority over Tibet and was given a status of superiority over Kublai in terms of religious authority as his religious mentor (although Kublai trumped him in overall secular authority as proven by their "audience platform" compromise), but I was unaware that Phagpa dominated over the religious institutions of other sects. I never read that in the sources I have found, but I do not doubt it if the German source you have found makes this conclusion.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I am thrilled with the Rashid-ad-Din images that you've been supplying. Keep up the great work!  :) --Elonka 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that :) . Yaan (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanese language as a subset of Chinese language[edit]

Regarding your recent deletion of the wikilink to Taiwanese language on the East Asia page: regardless of your opinion concerning the validity of Taiwanese as a language, the wikilink is valid and takes the user to a page that quite competently discusses the issues, so deleting the link lessens the value of the East Asia page. Furthermore, making a deletion like this is just begging for an edit war with one or more Taiwanese editors...we have enough nonsense going on with people insisting that ROC (Taiwan) is a SAR of the PRC etc. I don't see a reason to ask for trouble in this way. Thus I again undid your deletion.Rikyu (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry--now I see that discussion has begun on this subject on the East Asia page. Never mind; carry on.Rikyu (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


If you want to delete/redirect the article be a man and post an afd +tag. Green Squares (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 :D I would, but I see someone has already done so. Cheers, Yaan (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand[edit]

Hi Yaan! Thank you. I see. I found out that you are member of Mongolia work group of the WikiProject Central Asia. Cheers.--Enerelt (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Enerelt (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Rose Minia.jpg

Dear Yaan,
Please receive these roses.
Wish you a joyful summer.
Gantuya eng (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meet in UB[edit]

I'm in Outer Mongolia from the 27th till the 10th, UB, Hovsgol, UB. Maybe we can meet? G Purevdorj (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an email. Did it work? Yaan (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


MIAT flight 136 coming 21 of July Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Aeroflot is one day later, leaving 21st. Yaan (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Last time I've used Aeroflot flight - but leaving back it was terrible! When I've come early morning to the Airport the aeroflot plane even didn't start from Moscow. So it was 7 hours delay. And it made a midway landing in Novosibirsk - 1 hour more vasted time. That is why I will use MIAT now.
I will spend several days in UB - buying food (for 6 person for over 1.5 months), making registration, preparing the GAZ-66 to the trip (if it will be in time back from the first stage of the exibition), or waiting for its reparation (happens!). And my colegues will arrive to UB 22-d by train. So, everything is possible! Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Want to meet up? I will be there on 22nd to maybe 24th, and probably be able to find some time for a beer or some food. Yaan (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
OK! Send me mobile #!Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, but only tomorrow or on Wednesday (need to confirm whether still correct). Yaan (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Did it work? Yaan (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Сайн!I've got.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello, can you take a look at and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

issues with an IP on South Asia regarding Tibet[edit]

I am having issues with an IP regarding Tibet. They have been citing A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951 by Goldstein and one other book. I feel their citations somewhat ignore the pro-Tibetan information in favor of the anti-Tibetan/pro-PRC information. If you have read these books or have access to these books, please help. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please kindly review what I added (and once partially removed/vandalised by user:Thegreyanomaly):

Tibet at times has governed itself as an independent state and at other times has had various levels of association with China[1], it became under Chinese control in the 18th century in spite of British efforts to seize possession of this Chinese protectorate at the beginning of the 20th century.[2][3][4]

The content above is well-balanced NPOV and well-sourced, UserThegreyanomaly's removal seems more like vandalism or POV pushing.

Secondly, I would like to show you the vandalism-like behaviour by user:Thegreyanomaly: [6] Obviously, with no explanation User:Thegreyanomaly removed the Unreferenced tag that I added here. It's obviously vandalism.

Please let me know if there is any question. (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I will keep out of this. I am not sure how mainstream the "British efforts to seize possession" claim is, though. Yaan (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help. I think user:Thegreyanomaly is kidnapping the article by senselessly revert all my copyediting, which I already elobrated on talk page. (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian election[edit]

The MPs were sworn in, so presumably we've got full results now...? But where? Thanks! —Nightstallion 15:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Altan Khan[edit]

Hi Yaan: Yes, of course you are quite right. The mistake was due to a misreading by myself. Thank you for correcting it and removing the offending passage. I don't know how I missed such an obvious error. Thanks for picking up the problem and fixing it. It is great to have editors sometimes! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Global Soviet topomap coverage[edit]

Choose Atlogis Topomapper, or anything you want! After magnification you will find 1:200 000 topomaps for Africa+Asia and 1:100 000 for West Europe. Enjoy it! Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Xilamulun River[edit]

It's probably best to use "Discussion" at that page, and show sources to show which name is used most often in English to refer to this river (using Google and Google Books). Badagnani (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia at OSM[edit]

Hi Yann, I'm mapping a bit Mongolia at OSM (for example today Суман гол ;-) and I noticed that it's a bit hard to find good info about geographical names of Mongolia. The best source is still and the mapping interface of OSM which uses (I saw that you immediately changed redirect of Ih-Uul and I was writing this when getting your msg ;-) How authoritive is geonames? Ih-Uul at geonames is geographically the same as Ikh-Uul at

I've some questions:

  • Do you have any other web-sources I could use? Especially a map would be good...
  • Wouldn't you like to start mapping Mongolia at OSM?
  • You are from Berlin? Also deutsch? Dann können wir auch deutsch quatschen - es sei denn du bist mehr auf der englischen wiki tätig...

I found some information about rivers of Mongolia (names, coordinates) and added those as source at OSM: --katpatuka (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ich spreche lieber auslaendisch.. nee, in Wirklichkeit ist es mir egal.
Re. sources, IMO most web-based databases are quite unreliable. The most common problems for me are
    • Sum (= district, ~ Landkreis areawise) centers are represented with a name that is different from that of the sum. From the official point of view, this may be correct, but on the ground no-one uses those sum center names, they just use the name of the sum or the word "sum center" (with a few exceptions, like Züünkharaa). Imagine it like no-one using the name Oranienburg, every body using either Oberhavel or "Kreisstadt". This renders most of maps using these names basically useless for road navigation in Mongolia, it can also lead to complete confusion, see Jargalant, Khövsgöl and Tömörbulag, Khövsgöl.
    • The databases contain the names of a number of places that were abandoned/destroyed/renamed decades ago. Basically, if you get search results for "Hüryee" (Hüree means "monastery" in Mongolian), the very large majority of these places will have been destroyed in the late 1930s, usually with few visible traces left behind. Örtöö means horse relay station, probably most of these places have also been not permantently inhabited for decades. In some cases, sum centers have been relocated and the databases still contain the old location, examples are Tariat (relocated in the 1950s, I think), and Bürentogtokh, Khövsgöl (also relocated several decades ago).
For more reliable resources, try the Russian maps at www. (though I suspect they may not always be correct on the mountain names), or maybe the site User:Bogomolov.PL mentioned to sections above. He is also the one and only authority on cartography here, maybe he can point you to some other useful places (I see you already contacted him).
The worldbank map you have listed as source omits the road from Ulaanbaatar to Mörön via Ölziit, Arkhangai and Rashaant, Khövsgöl which is (now?) more common, for small vehicles, than the road via Bulgan and Ikh-Uul. It also gives the idea that going to Uliastai via Mörön is a better idea than going via Tsetserleg and Terkhiin Tsagaan Nuur, which from all that I have heard is not so. But Mongolian roads keep changing all the time, so I guess any map would come with some problems.
There are native Mongolian roadmaps, but I guess they are hard to come by in Berlin (I have one at home, but I live elsewhere now). Maybe you can try the MIAT office in Berlin for a very basic map. Regards, Yaan (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the Poehali link was worth it (the turkish map for the region where I'm living may be older than 20 years...) but the names and massstab are important (auf meine alten Tage lerne ich noch russisch ;-) Concerning OSM: well don't start there - you might forget WP ;-) - hoher suchtfaktor!) Mongolei on could need some more effort: mongolian settlement on en:183; on de:25...
What is used on mongolian streetsigns - the sum or the center of the sum? --katpatuka (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean something like this? There are not many of them in Mongolia, but IIRC (and I am really unsure if I do) those I saw used the name of the sum. In fact, I even saw some town signs on the road from Ulaanbaatar to Darkhan, but I don't really remember the names displayed on them. Maybe one was for Khongor, Darkhan-Uul, though.
Mongolian road maps usually use the name of the sum. Yaan (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Also note that there are some nuances that the Russian maps may get wrong (or not get at all), for example the difference between о and ө.
German WP has just too much work left to be fun :) .
Regards, Yaan (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me which river flows through Ölziit, Arkhangai? found it: Orkhon --katpatuka (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


I could not, you see Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not funny :( Yaan (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Honggor[edit]

Per your inquiry, I found the place Honggor IDed as Hongge'ertu, 红格尔图, by Guo Rugui in 第二部分:从“九一八”事变到西安事变 日本侵绥的战备企图和中日 and a period map (in the article) was modern Hobor and put that in my article on the Suiyuan Campaign (1936).Asiaticus (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hongge’ertu was the Suiyuan town of Taolinxian 陶林县 or T'ao-Lin according to the period topo map: Chi-Ning nk49-9

It is currently called Hobor in Inner Mongolia.

It had a stategic position linking Shangdu to the advance base at Bailingmiao and was in a pass along the route for the Mongolians intended advance south to take Baotou and Jining.Asiaticus (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Selenge River map[edit]

Thanks, I did agonize over what to label those as every atlas I have seems to use something different. I try to purposely leave out the "river" part of "X river" to make my maps more multi-language friendly. With that in mind Egiin should definitely be Eg. Do you still think I should change Delger to Delgermörön? Delger River certainly gets a lot more google hits, but I do want to use the more correct name. Kmusser (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO this is a similar situation as in "Rio Grande". But at the moment this is just my stomach feeling. Yaan (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
For my Rio Grande map I avoided the problem by not using labels at all :-) That does make sense though. Kmusser (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two problems:
- language (or even alphabet) when maps are used in other wikies
- using (or omitting) of routine name parts (lake, river, mount)Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This text seems to use only "Delger" as the proper name of the river, some more local, but offline sources I have at home (Hövsgöl aimgiin atlas, UB 1988 or so and Hövsgöl aimgiin lavlah toli, UB 2001) seem to use Delgermörön as the proper name. The "atlas" uses the labels "Ider", "Shishigd" (=Shishged), "Selenge", and "Delgermörön", the "lavlah toli" has an enumeration of rivers "Ider, Chuluut, Beltes, Delgermörön, Shishged" etc. (though Selenge, the only other "mörön", is missing) on, I think, p.9 (within the general intro on the aimag). If you don't mind some completely unsourced OR, locals usually call the river "Mörön gol", which may further imply that "mörön" is part of the proper name. Yaan (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I went ahead and updated the map. Kmusser (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


File:Silinhot Mongolian Script.png

I used your work in creating this and therefore should like to draw your attention to it.

See Silinhot

Mjb1981 (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should be at Xilinhot. The official website is here, but I think they got the "qota" part wrong (upper left corner). I fact, they are right, you are wrong. The "o" in hot is a "back" o, which means that your "o" in the word on the right side, and your "h", are wrong. In the most common western transcription, this reads Köte, but should read Qota. Regards, Yaan (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

River length[edit]

It was a simple polyline of course, so it was the center line definition problem: where is a river bed, where is a center line, how accurate is its vectorizing. That is why I've used the most accurate orthophoto availiable online (from NASA sources - so no license/copy problems). But river bed changes every day (sorry, not in winter when river is frosen). You see, the method (polyline) makes river (or shore) length estimation a little bit shorter, as real natural feature was approximated with the numerous but stait lines. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Formally you are right if you are talking about a curve approximated with polyline. But in our case this curve does not exist, it is imaginated as virtual center line of the wide strip with varying direction and width, so where I am vectorizing a strait line it is a curve (curve basically is longer) with several meanders.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for correcting that illiterate "map" at :) Gantuya eng (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error[edit]

Hi Yaan! I guess it was small spelling error. Thanks. --Enerelt (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Was Magsarjav Ever Prime Minister of Mongolia[edit]

Even though Magsarjav is listed as a prime minister of Mongolia on the wikipage of pms, I can find no evidence supporting that? The Mongolian page on Magsarjav states he was PM in Feb-March 1921, but provides no supporting evidence. Even the link provided doesn't help. Any idea? Also, Badamdorj was most certainly PM after Namnansüren between 1919 and 1920, but he is not included on the list. What do you think? --Nahcamuk

I think that Feb-March 1921 was pretty chaotic, maybe there is no definitive answer here. This part of the list looks a bit strange anyway: How can Magsarjav have been replaced by Chagdarjav in March? Yaan (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ghazan vs. Arghun[edit]


Hi, the vatican archives claim the document at right to be a letter in Persian language from Arghun to pope Nicholas IV.


Dschingis Khan und seine Erben (according to you) claims the image to the left to be a letter in Mongolian language from Ghazan to pope Boniface VIII.

Unfortunately, both happen to show the same document, even if in different orientation. Any idea how to resolve the confusion? Can't we even believe the holy church anymore? ;) --Latebird (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the vaticanic archives do not claim this letter is in Persian language. I will look this up, but possibly the vaticanic archives are right here. Thanks for bringing it up. Yaan (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Dschingis Khan und seine Erben actually does claim this document to be a letter from Ghazan. The catalogue does not even seem to have an entry for Arghun's letter. However, Mostaert & Cleaves, "Trois documents mongols ..." (rest can be googled, available online via are very clear the depicted document is from Arghun and discusses religion instead of military affairs: not only the relevant image caption matches, but also the number of lines and the few bits of transcription I checked. The seal also seems quite consistent with what Mostaert & Cleaves provide as reading of the (chinese) seal on Arghun's letter. So the description and page name on wp commons need to be changed - but I am a bit busy until the weekend, so it would be very kind if you could take care of this.
So what I think is that the publishers of Dschingis Khan und seine Erben simply chose the wrong image. Maybe coming from a wrong inventory number: Ghazan's letter is, chronolically, the third of the Vatican's Mongol documents, but his inventory number is, according to Mostaert & Cleaves, 1802(2). Arghun's letter has the inventory number 1802(3), although it's the second document chronologically. In any case, the dimensions given in Dschingis Khan und seine Erben also seem more fitting to Arghun's letter than to that of Ghazan. Yaan (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyied over. Now the examples above look strange, but that's hard to avoid once the incorrectly named one is deleted... Fortunately it wasn't actually used anywhere yet. --Latebird (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It reads approximately:
busud ali ba ereme... ...on nor burin yier xal... ahulirgan ilabuhan bor masha i in nom tahu dor taihui ., etc.
18th line:
chinggis han u oyohod obor un
20th line:
monghe tenger mede hemehu anu
User:G_Purevdorj and User:Nanshu can read better.
Mongolian and Arabic scripts do look similar, but Arabic can be easily distinguished even from ancient Mongolian by its "a" drawn as separate vertical line. :) Gantuya eng (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so it's evidently in Mongolian... Can you decipher names somewhere?
There is also a Persian letter from Güyük Khan to pope Innocent IV (to the left). The script doesn't even look arabic to me, and it also seems to be rotated to the left. Can anyone read that one? ;) --Latebird (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
This one is written with Arabic letters. Only the famous stamp is in Mongolian, it mentions the Monghe Tengri. For some reason the stamp has been printed parallel with the Arabic letters, so it will appear in a wrong orientation when the Arabic is read horizontal. Gantuya eng (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
In that case it should probably be turned around, so that the arabic is oriented correctly. --Latebird (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It should. But then the stamp is gonna look wrong. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Done as well. Not my fault that Güyük's scribes stamped it the wrong way... --Latebird (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Retried to read the above letter. Couldn't find or couldn't see any of the 2 names. The 2nd trial proved even more difficult. Gantuya eng (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the letter does not contain any names (makes you wonder how they know it's from Arghun to the pope, huh?). However, the real letter from Ghazan actually does contain the name of Ghazan and is addressed to the pope. Yaan (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have been quite common to send such letters in several versions varying in language and script. One example we have is a letter from Oljeitu to Philip IV of France, which is preserved both in Mongolian and in Latin. Btw.: This discussion here is the result of some cleanup I did on Commons, among other things collecting such stuff in Commons:Category:Documents of the Mongol Empire. --Latebird (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
That might explain it. That Oljeitu letter is also present in more than one version, but in his case it may just be different snippets from one and the same document. At least the seals seem to look somewht similar. Yaan (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The roses[edit]

Dear Yaan,

Rose Minia.jpg

On the occasion of the anniversary of the establishment of the Boghda Khaghanate of Mongolia you are presented these roses. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


If you have time, could you please quickly proofread article Sangiin Kerem? I wrote it late night, thus it was difficult to write properly. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sengiin Erdene[edit]

Hallo Yaan! Keine Ahnung mehr, wo die Diskussion stattgefunden hat, aber ich habe einen guten Anhaltspunkt dafür, dass Sengiin Erdene 2000 gestorben ist: Grüße, G Purevdorj (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Danke. Yaan (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Former eastern territories of Germany[edit]

No worries :-)

On Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany you asked about Memel Territory another one is the Hlučín Area. By defining the article to be about as the German territory east of the current eastern border of Germany the from 1871 onwards we side step all these political issues (with lots and lots of local POV) about what was or was not really truthfully part of Germany in the 1930's and 40's. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You also sidestep these issues when defining Former Eastern Territories := Germany in 1937 - Germany in 2009. Then the only problem could be Danzig. And the issue in post-WWII politics (see Treaty of Warsaw (1970)), in some way even until today (see Prussian Trust) are really those territories that were lost in WWII, not the territories lost after WWI. Also (of course) not those under the administration of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. Regards, Yaan (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why 1937? The think is that most English speaking people look on this stuff as "a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing". The Allies did not have to worry about who had a legitimate claim to what east of the border when they made their 1945 unilateral declaration. A short history from 1871 helps to define the mess. I am at the moment proofreading the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna which includes details of many of the borders which would remain largely unchanged until Treaty of Versailles, so as this is about Germany 1871 is a good date to start this article. --PBS (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
1937 = before the annexation of Austria, before the Munich agreement, before the annexation of the Memel territory and before WWII. And after the reincorporation of the Saar area. 1937 is also a year that appears in Germany's Basic Law one or two times. Though again without mentioning Danzig.
I think the pre-1945 history is quite relevant, I am not even against going back to 1795 or 1740 or whatever. For me, the issue was what exactly is meant by referring to "Former Eastern Territories". And that is not necessarily "territories that were part Germany at some point in history" but quite often "territories that were still part of Germany after WWI". For one english-language source who does this, maybe try this one. You can find some more by searching for "former Eastern territories" in combination with 1937 or with "article 116". As said before, it is those territories that were to remain an issue until the 1970s at least. I think this "remaining an issue" is also the reason why there are no articles about former western (Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy) or northern (north Schleswig) territories - they were simply off the radar in post-WWII politics, very much like Posen or West Prussia.

That rather infamous quote about "faraway country" was about Czechoslovakia, I think? I also don't think there is any notable quarrel now. The only quarrel is on wp. Regards, Yaan (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tuvan People's Republic[edit]

I've competed the Tuvan territory changes investigation.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it, it must have been a lot of work. I was a bit shy to answer because I still have not come around copying and scanning that map. But it's still on my to-do list. About that 1914 annexation, did they also occupy Khovd? Because for some reason they seemed to have been able to arrest Dambijantsan. Yaan (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Legally he was a Russian citizen, so, I guess, Russian consulate guard had legal right to arrest him and imprison in Russia.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A lot of information is in Roerich book По тропам Срединной Азии. He wrote Ja lama had a conflict with a Russian officer - consulate guard commander. Officer was arrested and sent back to Russia. Feb 6 1914 captain Bulatov got an order take 1/2 squadron of Siberian Kossaks and to stop Ja lama. They run into West Mongolia and after several accidents with Ja lama troops got Ja lama as POW. They transported Ja lama to Russia with the main evidence of his brutality - two human skins. One of this skins was Mongolian Altai Kazakhs nobel.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
He attacked Khovd fort in 1912 and got it. Next he exterminated all Chinese in the city.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Arrest details show the 300 Kossaks arrived to Ja lama with the nominal aim to help in Kazakh population resettling by force. But Ja was arrested, 250 000 golden roubles tresury confiscated. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Jalama was arrested by the Russians according Bogd Khaan request to the Russian officials.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban Chao and Gan Ying[edit]

Thanks for your efforts. I don't know where this Caspian Sea business was started, but it's about time someone nipped it in the bud. If you look to citation #266 of my new article History of the Han Dynasty, I cite Crespigny (2007) who says that Gan Ying reached the Persian Gulf, but did not advance further as the Parthians obstructed his intended journey to Rome. He did, however, write a report about what he had learned about Daqin (Roman Empire) through word of mouth while traveling through Parthia.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaan, you are awesome! I knew a little hunting would dredge up the truth of the matter. Keep up the great work.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Erdene Zuu[edit]

Hello there,

in this case the noun has to be capitalised, so "Erdene Zuu monastery" would be "Erdene Zuu Monastery". And why did you move Gandan Monastery, what other monastery with this name exists? Gryffindor (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is I don't see how "monastery" is part of the article subject's name. As for that other monastery with that name, just go to the Gandan dab page. As for "that other" Gandan, just try googling for "gandan monastery -mongolia". Yaan (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Your name still does not solve the problem. "Gandantegchinlen Monastery" has only 2,100 hits on Google, "Gandan Monastery" finds 15,900, in this case most common name rule applies. I don't really find any clues that there are other monasteries that can be confused with the one in Ulan Bator, maybe you can point them out? The one in Lhasa is written "Ganden". The noun in English is normally included in the name, see Dueholm Priory, Køge Friary, St. John's Abbey, Alling or List of abbeys and priories in England. Gryffindor (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should tell the Chinese how to write the names of monasteries in their country (can't link myself, I must admit that I am no expert in the area of transliteration from Tibetan, but Gandan does appear as the name of that monastery near Lhasa in literature (try google books). It's also the pinyin form of the Chinese name of that monastery, so in any case not completely negligible. Your examples of abbeys and the like don't really seem helpful as they usually seem to contain the "Abbey" or a foreign variant thereof as part of their original name. This is not the case in Erdene Zuu. Maybe the solution would be to just get rid of that "monastery", as most other wikipedias seem to do. On the other hand the title would be a bit less descriptive then. Yaan (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A priory or an abbey are other words for monasteries, that doesn't change English grammar. When put into a context of a name, it is capitalised IMO. I am not concerned about Ganden in Lhasa, my question is is Gandan the most common name for the monastery in Ulan Bator? In this case Wiki Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would apply. Gryffindor (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The relevant naming conventions seem to be "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." (WP:UCN, Emph. mine) and "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article)." (WP:PRECISION). In this case, I get 32 google scholar hits for "Gandan"+"Lhasa", 40 for "Gandan"+"Ulan Bator" and 61 for "Gandan"+"Ulaanbaatar". That is ambigous enough if you ask me. At google books the ratio is even considerably more in favor of "Gandan"+"Lhasa", however that last search also turns up a number of results that are really for the Gandan in Ulaanbaatar and not for the one in Lhasa. Yaan (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Then why is the article for the monastery in Lhasa as "Ganden" instead of "Gandan"? Do both the monasteries have the same name? Gryffindor (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess the reason is that writing foreign names is not really su unambigous, especially when they are originally written in a non-latin script. Even in the latin script there are enough different spelling variants for places like Krakow or Gdansk.
I'd say it's definitely possible that the name of Gandantegchinlen is somehow derived from Gandan, but I don't know enough Tibetan to be sure. Yaan (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
About the statue, I think I read that somewhere. Even when looking at the image, the statue must have been from the far end of the square because the old image was taken from quite a distance to the government palace. If you have information like that, you should add them to the articles. About the winter palace, all I know is that it is called the Winter Palace of the Bogd Khan, not the winter palace of the J. K. I am going with what is written in the article Bogd Khan. Again, if you have more information about the building and the person and the office, then you should add it, it would help to avoid confusion. Gryffindor (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You can trust me, I was at the square before 2005, and the statue was already there. Just more grey. The square is quite big, it's not very difficult to be at "quite a distance" to the Government house and make a shot without that statue. In fact, the benches and grass around the monument are visible on the left edge of that old picture. Guess the photographer thought that the statue itself might be a distraction or so and just cut it out. I don't have much information about the statue except that it got a new paint job around 2005, and I don't think that latter part is very important. "I read it somewhere" is often a rather unreliable source. Regards, Yaan (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Further development[edit]

Please see Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Semi-protection needed. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong. I'm sorry for whatever can be construed as my part in the stressful exchanges of the past week. In retrospect, every well-intentioned contribution just made this situation worse because the most relevant factors were not within the ambit of anything written explicitly presented on the screen in front of me.
I regret the extent to which my contributions exacerbated a problem I was trying to mitigate. No one could have been more surprised than me as I continued producing the opposite of intended results. I'm not unsubtle; but all I can say at this point is that I will continue trying to learn from my mistakes. I know this isn't much of an apology; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Mongolian monarchs[edit]

Hi Yaan! Could you look up some suitable reference for the current version of List of Mongolian monarchs? At the time being, we only have the sources that appear to have followed a Sinocentristic style of historiography. But if the anachronistic style of this list is to be changed, they will probably not do. And by the way, do we have a discussion about the current map on Asia during the Tang dynasty somewhere? The discussion in the map section on the talk page is difficult to sort, I sometimes do not know which map is commented on. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty[edit]

If you didn't notice, Yunnan is NOT listed as part of the Tang dynasty; the part shown to be under Tang control is Western Sichuan.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page.--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. These are complicated questions that will require the gathering of resources; yet you've caught me at an awkward time. I don't have spare time to make trips to my university library for this; neither do I think it will be too fruitful (as you mentioned on the talk page for Inner Asia during Tang, you've already utilized Cambridge History of China, which is the first source I would have consulted). Also, I'm trying to focus on several different articles I recently created for Han Dynasty (check them out), as I just passed two of them as Good Articles and am waiting for the other two to pass.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
In any case, I left a message on the talk page for Inner Asia during Tang in the map section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR Mediation Arbitration[edit]

Assuming I could have or should have done something differently, I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Tenmei reported by Teeninvestor. Perhaps this will slow things down a bit. --Tenmei (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I plan to withdraw from WP:3RR because it is ineffective and no uninvolved editor has shown the willingness and temerity in wading into this escalating dispute.
Instead, the dispute resolution processes of formal mediation are necessary. If that fails, the resort to arbitration may prove helpful.
We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes. In my view, the the words and actions of our alleged "tag team" have been consistently informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
As you probably know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality.
As I see it, your participation has reliably focused on aspects of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty which would lead to a stable, credible article.
What seems to be missing is a method by which a determination on whether content policies are being followed can be made authoritatively. Mediation may help resolve the issues which mark this minor article as a battlefield. --Tenmei (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The mediation process is explained at WP:Mediation. I will initiate the process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. As you may know, all participation is voluntary; and in fact, Teeninvestor can thwart the process by refusing to agree to mediation or by withdrawing at any point afterwards. If you prefer, I will not include your name in this reasonable next step; but I construe the likely benefit/risk ratio as mildly encouraging. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This is my best effort to distill a complex tangle of problems into something succinct. Even if nothing else is ultimately achieved, I feel this writing exercise was worth my investment of time. I hope this can -- in some unforeseen manner -- help you avoid the necessity of "re-inventing the wheel" in some other setting in the future. In my view, this summarizing step is an essential part of the alchemy process which turns what we all endured into something of plausibly instructive value. I myself can't understand the full measure of lessons learned the hard way at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty -- not yet. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


I posted the following on Teeninvestor's talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted an ArbCom notice template on Teeninvestor's talk page. He/she did not consent to mediation; and that dispute resolution process could not go forward. Today, a request for arbitration has been entered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; and the complaint is captioned "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article". --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

YOU do not need do participate unless you choose to do so[edit]

I'm sorry. Do I need to apologize? You are not required to be a part of this.
You are welcome to participate, of course; but I wasn't intending to drag you into anything. I used this ArbCom notice template because I thought it would be easily recognizeable; but if misled you by doing this, that's bad. Sorry.
Having asked for your feedback, I was persuaded that I was a little bit obliged to "keep you in the loop" ... but I truly had no intention to burden you unfairly. --Tenmei (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion spree[edit]

Looks like you are on a deletion spree over at wikimedia commons and the bots are picking it up. [7] This must be some kind of new rule. Since I did not login to wikimedia for a few days, can you tell me how a self camera picture violates copyrights? Benjwong (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ops sorry. I thought too quickly that you were the same user. Benjwong (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Song lyrics[edit]

I found 2 sites with song lyrics.

I don't think they have the text for "Yunden Gege". I'll try to find it and e-mail you later. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your input on South_Asia#Definitions_and_usage[edit]

Hello, another user user:Aditiya Kabir is trying to convert this section into a prose section from a list section. I have argued this format is very difficult to read. As a regular editor of South Asia, I am calling on you to give input on which format you feel is better.

Here is his revert diff [8]

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You have new reply[edit]


Here we can see Rocks&snow at Aug 29 2006 51°43′13.08″N 100°36′10.29″E / 51.7203000°N 100.6028583°E / 51.7203000; 100.6028583. Topo map 1:50 000 M-47-010-3 at shows show cup at Munku-Sardyk mount, but this map is 1992 issue of the elder maps (1978-86 years). What we can say - snow was present at summer end 2006. The shape of the snow cup was close to that one depicted at maps. You can use Google Earth - it is more informative for mountaineous regions as it provides 3D picture in any perspective angle.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But that looks almost more like a snow field than like a glacier. On the other hand, this image shows a glacier, too. Maybe it's better to leave it out until I am sure that mös gol really means glacier. Regards, Yaan (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the open-ended process invites anyone to participate, not only those who contributed to the thread which led to a case being opened.
I wonder if this forum might be worth your investment of time and attention -- if only because of the possibility that you glimpse some better way of dealing with those who would dismiss, deride, or devalue your future contribution labeling you "pro-Mongolian" (as if it were a self-evident and obviously perjorative term). This seems rather like those who have sought to diminish my Wikipedia contributions with a label "Japanese" (as if "Japanese" were to be understood an arguably derisive term).
I would guess you probably understand that my primary focus is elsewhere, but I'm still troubled by that "pro-Mongolian" gambit in the AfD thread. It's not so much that the innuendo was introduced, although I'm very clear that it shouldn't have been tolerated by the consensus. What still bothers me particularly is that this derisive tactic proved to be so easy, so effective, so readily accepted by the so-called "uninvolved" or "neutral" others in that discussion thread. I wish there were some way to leverage this ArbCom "event" so that such needless tactics were less easy or that such heedless claims were accorded closer scrutiny? Just a thought ...?
To be frank, I don't quite understand how this will unfold from this point on -- especially in light of what Teeninvestor has posted thus far.
Bottom line: If you can see some way to convert this from a mere academic exercise into something with practical and practicable consequences, please share your thoughts with me or with some member of ArbCom. You aren't obliged to do anything, but, as promised, I'm keeping you informed ....
On an optimistic note, will you join me in hoping that this process can be converted into something which is demonstrably constructive, useful, helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Japanese needle juniper, 1966-2007.
Thank you for deciding to participate in the development of the arbitration thread. I hope that others will construe your words as I do -- as modest, thoughtful, reasonable comments. In a way, its not much of a stretch to think of bonsai in this context.--Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page[edit]

In this slow-moving ArbCom case, I proposed only one remedy -- deleting the Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page; It has engendered one comment.
Teeninvestor invited this editor to comment -- see here.
You were in my thoughts when I typed out this proposal -- see here.
The discussion and decision-making about this singular proposal would benefit from your participation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The ArbCom case is moving inevitably towards conclusion. The only part of it which plausibly concerns you is one of my proposed remedies:
I have added my arguments to what G Purevdorj posted some weeks ago. If you want to add your voice to this one thread, now would be a good time to contribute whatever you think best. --20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tayishi, no taiji[edit]

Hi, I realised they wrote "Esen taiji" and "Toghon taiji" in the German Wikipedia.
It's a common, but a serious mistake. The title "taiji" was given to Genghisids while, "tayishi' is non-Genghisid title. And the original Chinese words are perhaps different. Please explain them. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I just hope it wasn't me who moved it to its present location.. I will look into it, but first I will try to find some good argument for moving. Do you happen to have a good source for tayishi vs. taiji? Yaan (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"Bugd Nairamdah Mongol Ard Ulsyn tuuh" 1st volume (I think 1965 or around that) calls Esen "taiyishi", not "taiji". Those who were really taiji it calls "taiji". Altan Tobchi, Zlatkin also distinguish between them (Togoon taiyishi, Esen taiyishi). Writer J. Purev once complained in a newspaper that many editors are reluctant to understand the difference between "taiyishi" and "taiji" as well as between "khan" and "khaan", thus causing difficulties in his work. Also please see Mongolian_nobility#Nobility_titles_2. See also Talk:Mongolian_nobility#15-17th centuries "Feudal ladder" as listed in some sources Gantuya eng (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty).
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Putting tiny tables in a text line[edit]

24-Apr-2009: I have answered your question (if you still need the answer). For years in HTML, a table has always forced an implicit line-wrap (or line-break), so to keep a table within a line, the work-around is to put the whole line into a table, then imbed a table-within-a-table, using the outer table to force the whole line to stay together. I have created examples as a new sub-section in the "Help:Table" page; see:

For more flexibility, those examples use the standard HTML tags "<table>" & "<tr>" & "<td>". -Wikid77 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian exonyms for places in China[edit]

There are actually some fun ones like Хөх мөрөн or Хар мөрөн (not to be confused with Xar Moron River).


This G.S. Encyclopedia is a relevant source, so we need have a lot of arguments to change this length value. Just now I have evidences of the mistaken area of ru:Тере-Холь (озеро, Убсунурская котловина) in this source, but with the river lengths we will permanently get good intentions edits using the G.S. Encyclopedia. We were discussing the river length measurements - it is possible, as Ider length is from the G.S. Encyclopedia, and river is a natural object and measurements were made manually with pre-computer techiques. But it takes a time to make this measurements and is not in 100% objective as I need to decide where the main river stream is. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we had been running into this problem before. My point re. Selenge was not so much about 992 km vs 1024 km, but rather about "from Ider gol source to lake Baikal" vs. "from Ider gol confluence with Delgermurun to lake Baikal". I.e. the difference is not just 30 km, but rather about 400 km. I can understand there may be slight variations between measuremnet methods, but a difference of 40% suggests that the numbers might simply refer to different real-world objects.
If it makes things simpler, I think 100% accuracy is not really needed, anything below 20% error should do. Regards, Yaan (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Today I had possibility to make photos of Mongolia National Atlas (1990). In annex are the river lengths (on Mongolian territory, it is notation in the table head). Selenge has 593 km. Great Soviet Enc. claims the Russian part length 409 km, so total is 1,002. So the G.Sov. Enc. declaration about 1,024 km from Ider source is wrong. 1002 or 1024 km are definitely from Ider confluence with Delgermurun. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj[edit]

I think you yourself have some problem of simply removing others' work without researching yourself. You have some POV against Elbegdorj. Why don't you write you thought first in Elbegdorj article's discussion page before removing big chunks just to smear Elbegdorj. You need to prove your ideas with sources. You can't remove others' work with sources. It is too rude and unrespectful and unacceptable in wikipedia. Compbok (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Template:MoB?[edit]

I saw you had problems with spacing in vertical images for the mongolian script, without using aboslute positions as used in for instance Template:MoB. I think it is caused by the size of the images. If for instance the image is 200x129 pixels and the required size is 20px wide it will be 20x13. It just depends on the algoitmt of the sizing what the result will be.
Possible solution: you might want to create image sizes that can easily be devided by 10 (for instance 200x130), or create images in the smallest size you need (20x13).
PS: I am not an expert on images but see for instance below 25px (original size) and 20px are OK, 15px shows one pixel in between, but 10px and 5px shows many blank pixels in between:











HenkvD (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer. What you wrote after "P.S." is exactly the problem. I think the reason is wikipedia's css, which seems to add pixels to images below a certain minimum height for users of IE. Right now I don't see any pixels between the squares on the right because I am using another browser, but I am sure I would see pixels if I was using IE.
Therefore, I don't think using images of a set height would solve the problem I have, because some letters will always be quite small. In fact, all this positioning was just an attempt to work around this minimum height problem. Recently, also though about whether negative margins or something similar could provide a more elegant workaround. But right now I don't often use a computer with IE, so this will have to wait a bit. But if you can think of yet some other or easier solution, I would really like to hear about it.
Regards, Yaan (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian script[edit]

Hello, Latebird says I should ask you, do you know of a computer program that will render Mongolian script? I found a badge that has Mongolyn Skautyn Kholboo written in it, so the text is used by Scouting, I need it. Thank you if you can help! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you try ? Gantuya eng (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
There's enough subtlety on some of the variants that I will need help from an expert. Might you? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
What are those subtleties? Gantuya eng (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One-China Policy[edit]

Sorry I reverted too quick. I tried to revert back but you beat me to it. I renamed the discussion section so that the link on the dubious tag will work. Readin (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

no problem. Yaan (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian font[edit]

Hi Yaan,

I don't see how creating an SVG would violate copyright: We're not giving the whole font in SVG, we're giving a phrase, and if we give an SVG tracing of the phrase, it doesn't really allow a person to create other text without using the font. SVG is much better because it scales better. If you give me a reasonably high-resolution PNG, I'll just update my SVG to be correct! --Slashme (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

how to edit archived discussions[edit]

For Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Added_after_archival, when I add a comment to a discussion after it has been archived I always add some note like "(ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL)" at the start of the comment, so anyone stumbling upon the archived discussion has very clear which comments were active on the active talk page and which weren't. This is mainly for the convenience of people who read the discussion, so they can see clearly the state of the discussion when it was archived. Sometimes people go back to discussions and they try to assess consensus by seeing at what point the discussion stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Yaan (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal clarification[edit]

Hi! Yaan, have you ever stayed at my friend's guest house in Mongolia. Her name is Nyamaa.--Enerelt (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New message[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yaan. You have new messages at Talk:Death_of_Marwa_El-Sherbini#qualifying_features_for_a_murder_charge.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help![edit]

The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience shall be awarded to User:Yaan who has shown extraordinary patience in the face of toil. Mootros (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Please sort out the disagreement on the Talk:Tibet page. Please read WP:3RR. If you continue to engage in edit warring you will be blocked, which I don't want to happen. Himalayan 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More examples[edit]

Arslan hot (Singapore), Arslan tiv (Sri Lanka). The ancient Indians thought they lived on continent Jambudvipa (Zambu-tiv) while Sri Lanka was thought to be another continent. After your example, I wondered why Nepal is called Balba. The Tibetan version is བལ་ཡུལ Bal Yul and བལ་པོ Bal Po. I guess "Bal" is "pal" in the word "Nepal". Gantuya eng (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That bit about "bal" also occured to me, but who knows. Cheers, Yaan (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin - Traditional Mongolian - Cyrillic automatic transliteration of Mongolian Wikipedia[edit]

We are about to set Latin - Traditional Mongolian - Cyrillic automatic transliteration of Mongolian Wikipedia on the same principle as it works in Kazakh Wikipedia. (see more info, Kazakh converter)

However we need an Mongolian native speaker to help us write the comparative table with letters and transliteration rules. Then we can create such converter.

If you wish to help us, contact us.

(original message written by Kprwiki 10:55, 26 10-Ay 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Inner Mongolia divisions[edit]

Hi! I wanted to leave a friendly note about the effort you've put in with the Mongolian script of divisions of Inner Mongolia. I was wondering why "Tongliao"'s Mongolian script is missing. Is this just a glitch? Colipon+(Talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mongolische Schrift[edit]

Hallo Yaan! Habe jetzt Zugang zu einem Vista-Rechner und möchte damit eigentlich auch Mongolisch schreiben können. Aber spontan krieg ich schon mal zwei Sachen nicht hin: Ausrichtung der Seite vertikal und von links nach rechts. Schreiben von Suffixen, d.h. z.B. ein anlautendes Dativ-d, was nicht sofort zum t wird. Wenn du wüsstest, wo die Anleitung dazu ist, wäre das auch recht. Grüße G Purevdorj (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eine Anleitung habe ich leider auch nie gefunden. Gleichzeitig vertikal und von links nach rechts muesste bei Word 2007 gehen (da gibt es eine eigene Einstellung fuer), bei anderen Programmen moeglicherweise nicht. Bei dem Programm, bei dem ich die Schriftzuege auf WP erstellt habe, habe ich immer erst die letzte Spalte geschrieben, dann die vorletzte usw. Sind ja zum Glueck nur kurze Schriftzuege.
Meinst du mit Suffixen sowas wie das "-un" in "Monggol-un"? Dafuer war, wenn ich mich recht erinnere, auf einer deutschen Tastatur die ß-taste da. Ä,ö und/oder ü veraendern manchmal das Aussehen der Buchstaben (d -> t oder solche Sachen)
Ausserdem gab es am Anfang noch starke technische Probleme mit der Schriftart, die erst durch ein Update korrigiert werden mussten. Aber moeglicherweise ist das Update bei den neueren Service Packs schon dabei. Yaan (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ein paar Sachen hat mir schon eine japanische Freundin gesagt, aber folgende Wörter krieg ich immer noch nicht hin:
  • baig-a (das g braucht zwei Punkte, während das a gleichzeitig getrennt geschrieben wird)
  • yabun-a (id., vor n)
  • yerüngkei (the programm always writes yerünqkei), genauso jijighen (was als jijighken (mit gh = Gamma) realisiert wird)
Wenn du das wüsstest, wär ich dankbar. Grüße, G Purevdorj (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Muss ich mal zuhause probieren. Notfalls koennte man bei yerungkei vielleicht probieren, das 'ng' aus der Zeichentabelle zu kopieren. Und hast Du das 'k' als 'h' getippt, 'ü' als 'u' oder 'o', nicht als 'v'? jijighen schonmal als als jijihhen probiert (nur so 'ne idee)? Yaan (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ja, das hab ich alles gemacht. Aber probier mal zu Hause, vielleicht bist du ja findiger! G Purevdorj (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Aus aktuellem Anlass (und möglichst ohne damit unhöflich zu wirken) will ich nochmal nachhaken: "Kriegst du auch maTeriyal (mit wortinternem Anfangs-t), Dorji (mit wortinitialem Mittel-d) und eD (mit wortfinalem Mittel-d) hin?" G Purevdorj (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

number sums in Bayan-Ulgii[edit]

Tsagaannuur is a sum level tosgon, but not a sum sensu stricto. So sum level divisions number is 14, but sum number 13. I'd made the photos of the National Atlas of Mongolia, and it is a adm. divisions map fixing the state just before the reforms. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Aba, Ujimqin, etc[edit]

Abag Banner, East Ujimqin Banner, and West Ujimqin Banner were all created by Starzynka. These names are also adopted by French Wikipedia. I don't know where these names are from. You may ask Starzynka for sources. --Pengyanan (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty[edit]

I have engaged a procedure for amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.

I construe the process to require me to notify you; but of course, you are not required to do anything. --Tenmei (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mon Gol[edit]

Does/did the Gol in Mongol mean river? Mon River? [edit: /start ;-)/]Oh, no, I do not intend to rename the country to Monriveria [edit: /end] ;-) [edit: /] Can your answer be put in the article space somewhere, maybe you know a good place for this. I'll watch you talk page. TrueColour (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ehmm...are you trying to be funny? Yaan (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as my two questions are concerned : no. No idea how far Mongolian is a polysynthetic language. The marker for the intended funny part only referred to the preceding sentence, this is now hopefully clarified. Thank you for your reply. If one day you should find out more, about the meaning of "Mongol", I would be happy to hear. I now unwatch your talk page. TrueColour (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The etymology of "Monggol" is unclear. I'm very fond of monggol < monggal < manggal < umai/n gal, proposed by Chono bagsh who tried to "improve" upon one etymology by Perlee, but only the first step is phonetically plausible and umai is Tibetan anyway. Original prankster! But "gol" in the 13th century meant "centre", not "river", and only changed meaning in the course of the centuries, while the original Mongolian word for "river" was "mörin" (for more details, see Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen; it is not completely satisfactory, but as far as I'm aware it is still the state of the art). G Purevdorj (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, now I can better understand -mörön, e.g. Delgermörön/Дэлгэрмөрөн. Similar to -gol, there are -kol (lakes) in Category:Lakes of Kazakhstan, -kul in Category:Lakes of Kyrgyzstan and Category:Lakes of Tajikistan. TrueColour (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere (Weiers? can't check now) Mongol might be related to Mangas (sp?), man-eating monsters from Mongolian folktales. Some Chinese websites seem to think Mongol means "eternal fire" (in cyrillic written as mönh gal) or "silver" (möngö), but I don't know how plausible a shift from front to back vowels is. Yaan (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Correction: seems that Weiers thinks Mongkhol means "white" (Geschichte der Mongolen, 2004, p. 22), so the source for Mangas must be somewhere else. Yaan (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This "eternal fire" (mönh gal) term is described in Wiki as Mangal (barbecue). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tai - Taihu Lake[edit]

Maybe you can add to Talk:Lake_Tai#Requested_move_to_Tai_Lake an explicit statement that you would support a move to "Taihu Lake"? So a completely new WP:RM discussion on that can be avoided. TrueColour (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement at the discussion page, but the admin closed it and I think if I try to convince him now after the thing is closed for some time, he would reject. I started a new WP:RM Talk:Lake_Tai#Requested_move_to_Taihu_Lake. TrueColour (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Dear Yaan,

Receive your flowers here:

Gantuya eng (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious thing[edit]

I've just realised that the positions of the upper triangle and rectangle of the Soyombo on the mountain in this picture are swapped. Unbelievable that those who created it on the mountain could make such mistake. It's 2003. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here a new picture (Aug 10 2009) of this Soyombo. It is ok now, text was changed also. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, it's a good idea to check the satellite image. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This new satellite imagery is excellent now. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What language is it[edit]

It seems he used something called "utitibetan". He found it on the Internet. I guess this is not the best thing, because now the Tibetan characters are displayed very tiny.
Vowelised and combined characters in Tibetan: my office computer has the same problem, but the home computer displays them properly. In the "Regional and Language options" in the "Control Panel", I (or the technician) checked boxes "Install files for complex script and right-to-left languages" and "Install files for East Asian Languages" for any case. Maybe that helps display the writing systems in which composite characters are created by positioning elements vertically as well as horisontally like Tibetan, Korean or Chinese? Gantuya eng (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

EU regulations: Practising_law_in_Germany[edit]


You might be interested and able to help, there is a question here: Talk:Murder_of_Marwa_El-Sherbini#Note_5:_Practising_law_in_Germany

Many thanks, Mootros (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

吉林市 deletion review[edit]

Hi, you voted keep for this article on WP:RfD. I have since moved it to DRV.

Would you mind clarifying whether or not you support restoring the page? (since your vote was made in the context of a deletion, not a restoration)


Frazzydee| 05:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

May 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Invasion_of_Tibet_(1950–1951)#NPOV_again. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In continuation of our discussion on the Genghis Khan page.[edit]

I authored the section

Yaan, are you saying that all of the paintings in the book is authored by someone who painted it 100 years after the invention of the book itself? And by this are you making the claim that those paintings of Genghis Khan did not exist within the original manuscript? The source below mentions the authors of the paintings and even notes the dates of them as shortly after 1300, like 1305 or something.

So are you saying that there are no mongoloid Genghis Khan paintings within the original manuscript? Are there any illustrations of Genghis Khan within the original work and if so do any of them depicted him as a mongoloid?

The section above it says that the book may have even had multiple authors, as there are numerous other people that claim to have wrote it. Do you still consider the quote that is at the center of all of this dispute as being credible? There seems to be multiple parts of it that has been injected with paintings and writing that was not in the original manuscript.

Can you give me a source that supports the claim that those Genghis Khan paintings originated 100 years after the creation of the book? (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned (more than once?) in the discussion on the Genghis Khan page, the National Library of France, which holds those images you referred to, says they are from about 1430. The link is If you can bring up some better source, please do.
I am saying nothing about the original manuscript.
I believe it is entirely possible that Genghis Khan had green eyes. In fact, I know a reasonably pure-blooded Mongolian with green eyes (however, green or "cat" eyes are not very popular in Mongolia). I also believe it is entirely possible that Genghis' hair was more reddish than that of some other Mongolian. In fact, I know a Mongolian whose hair is more brownish than the hair of his sister.
Yaan (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient statistic book[edit]

Hi Yaan!, Where can I find the information about the Mongol Imperial Statistical Yearbook 1292?.--Enerelt (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You could try the State Library ;) Yaan (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Which one? In Mongolia? Thanks.--Enerelt (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Where else? I guess you could also ask at the Imperial Statistical Office (adress and telephone can be found at
In all seriousness though: If I remember correctly, that 1292 statistical yearbook was just supposed to be a joke on the demand for accurate statistical data about a time for which such data simply does not exist. Just because someone can make up a number (say, a birth date for Genghis Khan, or the per capita GDP for Finland in 1000AD) doesn't mean such a number has anything to do with reality.
I don't think there can be a definitive answer on how large the empire was in 1292. For example, I have to admit I am a totally ignorant when it comes to the northern extent of Mongol influence, but has anyone ever researched how far into northern Siberia their rule ended?
If you think you need such a made-up number for some article, IMHO you should just cite some modern author, but with as much caution as possible. Something like "According to a modern estimate by John Doe, the Mongol empire in 1292 spanned 33.123 million" or so.
Yaan (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The office's name is National Statistical Office. Thanks.--Enerelt (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, the Imperial Statistical Office should be at or so. ;) Sorry for the rambling above, I guess my main point was that one should not put too much faith into statistics. Especially those that one cannot verify on one's own. Yaan (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Three hares[edit]

You are quite right. The material in "Further reading" needs work. Do you know any Chinese speaking wikipedians? Any suggestions would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Stan

Have you already tried asking here? Yaan (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. from a layman's position, the other entries look plausible. The first publication is probably also from some bureau. Yaan (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Deserts[edit]

Rail transport in Mongolia[edit]

Thanks for your help with Rail transport in Mongolia. I've looked through a few different news sources and there are conflicting messages on infrastructure &c.
Have fun!
bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)



I saw the photo in the "Women of Mongolia" article this afternoon and was shocked, but didn't know what to do with it. Thank you for replacing it, for understanding what they feel. :) ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Somebody else saw a transgression over similar boundaries for the picture of the young women, but I restored it. On the other hand, old ladies on Talbai are not exactly what I'd have in mind when replacing rural women with something else. I considered restoring the old picture, but seeing from Ganaa's comment that you two did not like it, I didn't do so. Still, I feel that a photo showing Middle-aged rural women in the countryside would be better. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that middle age is comparatively better than old. But the rural women in that picture look very exhausted due to the hard life and savage climate.We can eventually find better pics of rural women. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
My impression is that the image was taken in an especially infavourable moment. IMO even this photograph does the woman on the right more justice. In my experience, Mongolian women tend to be quite touchy about how they appear in photographs or on film. So I don't think the woman on the right did/would consent to having that picture displayed on wp.
Agree a better picture of rural women would be nice to have.
Yaan (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

UB khoroo[edit]

    • Yes, I'm watching this khoroo boundaries problem. Online is a vector map see Нутаг дэвсгэр, but it does not show the remote city parts in the Khentei mts dales and in Nalakh and Bagakhangai and Baganuur (as the source you provided - but I didn't know this source, thank you). That is why I didn't create a khoroo map.
    • Khoroo - is an administrative unit, Khoroolol is a микрорайон (for example built by Moscow in UB), but wery close in sens. But Khoroo has also a sens of "kommittee" and "regiment", but хороолол - no, so хороолол is more informal.
    • About the densities: is possible the author used statistics not related to the graphics (values were calculated for the real edges without mountaineous unbuilt territories, but at the map were filled the formal khoroo areas). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It is an other one digital map here, bus lines are depicted with bus stops. Do you need a municipal transport schema? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Online sources are [9],[10], but if you want this map I can create it using sources I've provided. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this would be too much too ask. It might be a nice addition, of course, but we can do without. But thank you a lot for the offer. Yaan (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Merry Цагаан Сар![edit]

Best wishes in New Year! Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Janjaa / Changkya Khutughtu[edit]

If possible, please comment at Talk:Changkya Khutukhtu about the correct Mongolian equivalent of this title. I'm almost certain that it should be Жанжаа хутагт (Janjaa Hutagt), but I'd like additional input before adding that to the article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mongol text on identity cards[edit]

Hi Yaan. Are you able to read the Mongol script for any of the following:(image1, image2, image2.1, image3 or image4) and type the writing into plain text (preferably Unicode, and not Menksoft), so that it can be included in the table at Resident Identity Card#Identity cards in ethnic minority areas? Thanks. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mongolian writing[edit]

Hi, Yaan. User talk:虞海 suggested I ask you to help me because he doesn't read or write Mongolian

My second son is going to be born next month and I'd like to tattoo his name on my arm. My first son's name is tattooed in traditional Chinese around my wrist, but I'd like my next son's name to be tattooed vertically down my arm to "balance" it with my left arm which has a large pictorial tattoo.

I know that the old-style Mongolian is vertical and I think it's quite pretty, too. If you are familiar with the Mongolian language and script, would you be willing to write/draw my son's name and upload it somewhere like Commons, Flickr or Image Bucket for me? Hand written is fine, as is a computer generated image from a Mongolian font. His name will be "McKenzie Hunter", Hunter being his middle name, not his surname (I'm not sure if Mongolian names do the last-name-first thing like the Chinese, but I don't want it to come out as "Hunter McKenzie" lol!

Hope you can help, regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Yaan, it's nice to see you here again. I always find the discussion regarding Qing at that talk page useful, and I appreciate it.

P.S. Since you showed interest at that time to know what name was used in Manchu text for Qing in 1727 treaty of Kyakhta, FYI according to secondary sources "China" (Dulimbai gurun) did appear in the Manchu text of the treaty. By now I do also have the full Manchu text of the treaty, but unfortunately it's written in Manchu script, which I cannot read, and there also does not seem to have an online Manchu translator. Nevertheless just FYI in both Russian and Latin texts of the treaty "China" was used in the territory term (Article III), for example the Latin version (the most authoritative version) says "et pars meridionalis pertineat ad Dominium Sinense", meaning "To the south belong to Chinese dominion", similar to the text appeared in 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk. Again, that discussion was indeed nice and illuminating. -- (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiries and kind words. I do not have as much free time now as I used to, so I do not really want to engage in discussions too much. Though I always enjoyed your posts, too. Yaan (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You can remove the above message if you want, which was only for your info at that time and not necessary to be very relevant any longer. Thanks. -- (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions[edit]

A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You are knigthed[edit]

Edmund blair leighton accolade.jpg Dear Yaan,

You are knighted for defending the defenceless and from now on nobody shall dare to address you otherwise than Sir Yaan.
ᠡᠷᠬᠡᠮᠰᠡᠭ ᠨᠣᠶᠠᠨ Yaan ᠲᠠᠨ ᠢ ᠬᠦᠯᠦᠭ ᠪᠠᠭᠠᠲᠣᠷ ᠣᠨ ᠵᠡᠷᠡᠭ ᠳᠣᠷ ᠳᠡᠪᠰᠢᠭᠦᠯᠵᠦ ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠨ ᠠ
ᠮᠣᠩ᠋ᠭᠣᠯ ᠣᠯᠣᠰ ᠲᠣᠰᠠᠭᠠᠷ ᠲᠣᠭᠲᠠᠨᠢᠯ ᠢᠠᠨ ᠰᠡᠷᠭᠦᠭᠡᠨ ᠮᠠᠨᠳᠣᠭᠣᠯᠣᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠣ 100 ᠵᠢᠯ ᠣᠨ ᠣᠢ᠃
Gantuya eng (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Moves etc.[edit]

Hi Yaan! If you suggest any moves or have other major undertakings, just post a note to the website of the work group. Else there is no point in having it, and I might also have been interested in whether or not Ordos City ought to be moved. (I suppose I would have opposed it, but I didn't look into your arguments.) Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Khalkhyn Gol[edit]

In 2009, you were involved in a discussion concerning a potential move of Khalkhyn Gol into Khalkhyn gol. The article has been proposed for moving again, see Talk:Halh River#Requested move (again). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was a little bit confused, their attempt to move Halh River → Khalkhyn Gol per MNS 5217:2003 received no objection, while my attempt to move Shishapangma → Xixabangma per SASM/GNC romanization received lots of objection. Why are they that different? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is because you are trying to move the mountain away from its most common name, while the river was moved back to its most common name.
I have not looked into your Xixabangma discussion. I guess one could argue that the other name is just mountaineer lingo and that one should go by what is used in atlases and other geography works?
Cheers, Yaan (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


Hello Yaan! Could you please help to verify if Ürümqi's etymology and Mongolian name is ᠦᠯᠡᠮᠴᠢ ᠬᠣᠲᠠ Үлэмжийн Хот (see Talk:Ürümqi#Mongolian)? Thanks a lot!

BTW, what's the name of Ürümqi in Todo Oirat and Cyrillic Kalmyk? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 09:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your messages. --Chinyin (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. In any case, you are a quite respectful editor and don't ever decrease your interest in WP. --Chinyin (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Rail transport in Mongolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Choibalsan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

please comment -[edit]

Thank You

just FYI[edit]

^ is taken from a Wiki article and used elsewhere but they followed the license and transferred the warning tag above; a quick look ("Mongol feudal lords - ha ha, what??!!?) if you are familiar with the Empire's history shows many errors - it's somewhat comical reading it in English; anyway, Russia was (and is not now) a free society and quite often historians were under much pressure to write a certain way - the histories are often full of incorrect statements and propaganda. On another note, the Russian official scientific statement on the origin of the moon was pushed by their Academy for decades even after it had been pointedly shown by astronomers and astro-physicists in the West that it was just so much hogwash - that was quite the debacle and I witnessed it as it happened. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we have to look at pre-1979 sources with extreme suspicion, and must judge post-communist Russian sources where they disagree with 'the rest of the world' with what other modern scholarship says. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is always good to be suspicious, but it is also true that systematic research about the Mongols was very much invented in Russia. Pallas, I.J.Schmidt, Palladius, Pozdneev, Poppe, Kozin, Vladimirtsov all did most of their work while in Russia (maybe with the exception of Poppe). I think it is also true that much of their work, although groundbreaking, was published in languages other than English. Yaan (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Slowly adding material/correcting the article on The Battle of Samara Bend - have a look from time to time - according to Prof. Jackson, it is possible that the Mongols did experience a reverse here, however, the sources that Ibn al-Athir used are not known, and his entire lone commentary on the matter is pretty short - did he interview some Russians? Bolgars? Mongols? - don't know - he was writing in Mosul some 1200 miles from the center of action. It's also unknown how large a force was involved from the Mongol side, and who commanded the "probe" it that is what it was - it's possible Subedei or Jebe did, or assigned it to a sub-commander, or perhaps even Jochi, the Khan's son - in fact, considering his show of deep humility to Jenghiz upon his return (interrupting a conference to go directly and kneel in front of his father, and placing his father's hand on his forehead) it may be he lead a rather reckless attack on the Bolgars and was responsible for the defeat; his personality was somewhat sullen and independent. If you read through the military timeline of the Jebe/Subedei expedition prior to the assault on the Volga Bulgars, and considering the Bulgars had been "chipped away" over the proceeding years by the Russians little by little, it's a military conundrum that these two masters of war would allow themselves to be ambushed by a vastly inferior army. When I have finished I will note it on the Talk Page of the article and see what happens.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi, haven't talked to you for some time (I took a major break myself). I would like to ask you a question regarding terminology. Are "Mongols" and "Mongolic peoples" the same thing? More specifically, are Mongolic people like Khitans considered as Mongols as well? (I am getting confused because there seems to be pages suggesting different things about this) Thanks a lot for the answer. --Chinyin (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally would only probably only use 'Mongols' for the people that emerged in the 13th century (not even sure whether it fits the modern-day speakers of Mongolian). Calling the rulers of the Liao dynasty Mongols seems anachronistic, but for those remnants of the Kara-Kitai that were absorbed into the Mongol empire the name is probably quite fitting?
Yaan (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks~~I fully agree with you. The first sentence in the Mongols article probably needs modification, as it seems to equate Mongols with Mongolic peoples (it says "Mongols, or more properly, Mongolic peoples, are a Central-North Asian ethno-linguistic group"), which would be misleading. --Chinyin (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to be inconsistent on the use of the term "Mongolic", which reflects either inconsistencies within the source material or a confusion about the source material. In the comparable instance of the term "Tibetic", I have found that the linguists do use the term inconsistently; I have pushed Wikipedia to settle on a particular usage by which "Tibetic" corresponds to "Tibetan", i.e. the Tibetic languages are the languages of the Tibetans. In principle, one could apply "Mongolic" the same way; the other alternative would be to apply "Mongolic" to Classical Mongolian along with its cousins, such as Khitan. In other words, given these two options, the Khitan language would either be described as "a language related to the Mongolic languages" or as "a Mongolic language" (the difference being purely semantic). I'm not sure which usage of "Mongolic" is more common in the literature, but it would be good if Wikipedia would pick one and be consistent about it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
G_Purevdorj seems to be pretty familiar with literature re. the Mongolian language, so he is probably much more qualified for this discussion than I am. Yaan (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Gh[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Gh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Lfdder (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge[edit]

Baltijos kelyje ties Šeškine.jpg

Hello, Yaan! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad attribution for image in Commons[edit]


My apologies for my english (I'm french) These two images that you upload in Commons commons:File:LetterInnocenceToTartarKingAndPeople a.jpg and commons:File:LetterInnocenceToTartarKingAndPeople b.jpg are NOT letter from Innocent IV to Güyük Khan. For the first, it's partially a letter from Innocent IV to Raymond VII, Count of Toulouse, the same is here : [11] ; we can read distincly in both case : "Cum nuper te reconciliatum, ecclesie in plenitudinem" and in red on the image : "Raimundo comiti Tolosano". I don't know for the second letter, but none of them are Cum non solum, Dei patris inmensa or Viam agnoscere veritatis, the three letters from Innocent IV to Mongols.

Thank you to correct in Commons, with your source. Yours faithfully, Tuilindo (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi, there is a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. JimRenge (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

He finally seems to have discovered the talk page, and he actually did have a point re. the smh article. I'd rather wait and see a bit more. Yaan (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page[edit]

Are you willing to archive your talk page? It's getting longer. Somehow, the administrators will try to archive it against your will as they did to User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you say something on this edit war?[edit]

Hi, Could you say something on this edit war? user Rajmaan is claiming Oirats Mongols are not Mongols and the "Mongol" identity was defined by the Qing. No one supported him, but he keeps posting his claims. Thanks. (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Yaan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ MSN Encarta - Tibet
  2. ^ Goldstein, M.C., A History of Modern Tibet: The Demise of the Lamaist State, University of California Press, 1989, p44: "While the ancient relationships between Tibet and China are complex and beyond the scope of this study, there can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following the chaotic era of the 6th and 7th Dalai Lamas in the first decades of the eighteenth century."
  3. ^ Gernet, J., Foster, J.R. & Hartman C., A History of Chinese Civilization, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p481, reads in part: "From 1751 onwards Chinese control over Tibet became permanent and remained so more or less ever after, in spite of British efforts to seize possession of this Chinese protectorate at the beginning of the twentieth century."
  4. ^ Petech L.,China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet, 1972, p260: "In 1751 the organization of the protectorate took its final shape, which it maintained, except for some modifications in 1792, till its end in 1912. The ambans were given rights of control and supervision and since 1792 also a direct participation in the Tibetan government."