Talk:Mongols/Archive 2

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There was much more information in previous version
Why they have disappeared? Georgezh2007 08:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends on which "previous version" you mean. At one time, the text duplicated a lot of material from History of Mongolia, which didn't really belong here. This article focuses on ethnicity. --Latebird 09:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What a pity. The old texts should be moved to somewhere but not simply took away.Georgezh2007 10:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No information should have been lost, as those parts were entirely redundant. That topic is covered in History of Mongolia and related articles. If you find anything important that was mentioned here but is missing there, then you are welcome to add it (with sources!) in the appropriate place. --Latebird 10:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mongol" derives from a Tungusic language?
Does anyone have a reference for this claim? I cannot think of a cognate in Manchu that would mean "the invincible ones." There is a Manchu word, mangga, which means "difficult; tough, strong; somewhat greater (than), somewhat more (than)," but that is neither a perfect phonetic match for "Mongol," nor a perfect semantic match for "the invincible ones." Ebizur 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That paragraph was translated from the german language version without extra checking. I now went back and saw that it was originally added there by an editor who became "famous" for writing without decent sources... I remember seeing a derivation from "mongguor" in other places, but don't currently have the time to do an exhaustive search. Feel free to correct/replace/remove. --Latebird 07:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to do with that note, but to my knowledge, there was a Chinese ancient document "Xin Tang Shu"（New History Book of Tang Dynasty）written more than two hundred year ago which support this theory. In that book, they record a clan/state called "Monghol" which is located in the ::Jurchen area where people speak Tungusic language. According to other sources from Song dynasty and Jin dynasty, the Tungusic "Monghol" clan/state had trade with Jin (which is a Jurchen group who were ruling Northern Chinese), sometimes raid and plunder Jin area.


 * After the Mongol Empire invading Jin, there was a document from Song Dynasyt called "建炎以來朝野雜記卷" . in which the author said he did not know why the two states, the "Mongol empire" and the Tunguisc "Mongol state" are thousands miles away, but they use exactly the same name. However, this might be answered in the book written by the Mongols, "secret history of Mongol". In that book, the author claims the ancestor of Gengiskhan family, whoese names are Gray Wolf and White Deer, immigrated from far away under command of their Tenger god. Among the childrens of the couple, there was a girl whose name is "Mongol girl". I think this might suggest the at least some part of ancestors of Gengiskhan family was from Tungusic speaking clans.


 * This theory was agreed with a famous French expert René Grousse. In his book "L'Empire des Steppes", he suggested the original Mongol clan were from a Forest living clan, with a few evidence, altough he did not direct state the forest-living clans are Tungusic speaking, but it was in general that at that time, that Tungusic speaking people live in forests, the the "Mongol" speaking people were living in stepp.


 * So it is not baseless to say the Mongol originally were Tungusic speaking or the Mongols have Tungusic blood. However, this might only limited inside the nobels, Families related to Gengiskhan. But probabaly have nothing to do with the majority of the Mongols, especially those slaves. At that time, the Stepp calans capture tens of thousands of slaves, from agricultural area mainly from China and Korea, but sometimes also Persia. The population of captured slaves constitute a great deal in the Mongol empire. So I hesitate to say the major origin of Mongol blood was from Tungusic speaking.Georgezh2007 10:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see why even families related to Gengiskhan should be related to Grey Wolf and White Deer, because the blood line was interrupted between Dobu Mergen and Bodanchar Munkhag, as Bodanshar was born long after Dobu Mergen's death. Temur 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While this is all interesting information, it doesn't really prove the theory. You're jumping to conclusions which aren't directly supported by the given sources. This type of interpretation is something we try to avoid at Wikipedia (it is called "Original Research", and strongly discouraged). While I agree with you that a tungusic origin may be likely, to write that into the encyclopedia we need an explicit reference in a reliable published source, preferrably a secondary source. --Latebird 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

atheism not religion
atheism not religion.please your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.53.191 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC) How were they atheistic?---Shadowcry1000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowcry1000 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

External link
I added external link. If you know mongolian, the site will give u more info about mongol clans. Please don not remove it! Enerelt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerelt (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That link offers general information on the cultural history of Mongolia, and is not specific enough for this article. Besides that, we already have good English language links, so that a foreign language link doesn't add any value for our target audience (English language readers). Because of that, I've removed the link as required by WP:EL. Please do not add it again. --Latebird (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am interested in a linkup between a Halachah spelling of the name of Abraham the Patriarch of the Israelites, and the name of the Mongols, and wonder why the name of the

Mengwu does not appear, history is joy in truth and justice on earth.

Latebird
He doesn't know what he is talking about. He is not accepting any edits to Mongols article now. He wants to keep this article like this and he doesn't want to experiment and try different improvements. He wants Mongols article not changed until he is dead. Accept some improvements. You are not providing anything useful to this article. Discuss your unconstructive edit. 71.237.70.49 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to "experiment". Specifically, your additions were reverted, and will be reverted again in this form, because (among others):
 * Most of it was off-topic. This article is about the Mongols as an ethnic group, and NOT about the History of Mongolia.
 * The cyrillic spelling is irrelevant here, because the article is specificly NOT about the nation of Mongolia (the only place where the Mongolian language is written that way).
 * The Hazara were never an "admixture" to the Mongols.
 * What you call "Mongol physical characteristics" is common to all original inhabitants of Central Asia, and not just the Mongols.
 * Your image gallery contributed nothing that would help a reader understand the ethnic background of the Mongols. It was only a random collection of examples, with no value over the ones already present in the infobox.
 * And finally, you didn't provide any verifiable, reliable sources to back up anything of what you wrote.
 * Before you accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about, you might want to learn about the purpose and the goals of Wikipedia first. Not everything you think you know must go into this one single article. If your additions are contested, you can't just add them again, but it is you who needs to explain their value and search for consensus. You might also want to consult WP:NPA. --Latebird (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

pics
What's wrong with having a perfectly-scaled pic of wrestlers in the infobox? I am pretty sure most Mongols (males, anyway) edit May 19th: most Mongols that I know can easily relate to these two guys, even if there are some differences in and maybe rules between the wrestling styles of different tribes. Some of the most well-known Mongols today are actually wrestlers. Yaan (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I might weigh in on the discussion, infoboxes generally illustrate contemporary and historical portraits of the people; for example there are no Turkish oil wrestlers in Turkish people. It's also an untrue stereotype that Mongolian males are hypermasculine and uncultured, and it portrayed Mongols in a negative light (when placed in an infobox). It is an interesting photo that is more appropriate for a section on Mongolian culture or sport. 58.172.35.115 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The stereotyping is entirely on your side. The pictures show examples of Mongols, either in historical context or during traditional activities. How any of that can "portray Mongols in a negative light" is beyond me. The moriin khuur player is a nice picture, but could easily be dismissed with the same arguments (better suited elsewhere). Btw: can you provide a source for the percentage of the Kalmyks? --Latebird (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't directed at the photo, but at Yaan's comment that most Mongolian males would relate to the two wrestlers, which is stereotyping. Do most Spanish males relate to matadors? I'd disagree if it was Turkish oil wrestlers in the Turkish infobox. 58.172.35.115 (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, it is . 58.172.35.115 (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Turkey often have life coverage of the same wrestling matches on all important TV stations at the same time? Yaan (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe important tournaments like Kirkpinbar are covered by multiple TV teams, but I think it's mostly for the Turkish outside of Turkey such as to Azerbaijan. I know it is in the Netherlands, but I'm not sure about Germany. Is there a Turkish-language channel that broadcasts in Germany? 58.172.35.115 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a channel (or several?), but I never watched it. Sumo is all over Mongolian TV whenever there is a basho (i.e. about 12 weeks a year), and I think Naadam is covered in full, too (not sure of the latter, though). Yaan (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, interest must be high if they're importing it from foreign countries. 58.172.35.115 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they are interested because the two top sumo wrestlers are Mongols. But still... Yaan (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw. where is the sattelite dish supposed to be in this picture? Yaan (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the caption too. I think it's the silver at the bottom of the photo, but it looks small for a satellite dish. 58.172.35.115 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a part of a bigger dish, you can see it at the original photo (linked to at the description site). But I really think the picture is somewhat unfavorable for the woman on the right. I wonder if she agreed to have it published. Yaan (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true. It'd be good to include a woman in the box, though, if possible. 58.172.35.115 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian and Muslim Mongols
I don't really think there is much doubt on Christian missionaries making an impact in Mongolia (what about the Orthodox church in Buryatia, though?), whether one likes it or not.

There are Mongols claiming to be Muslims in Alshaa, unfortunately this seems not very interesting to English-language authors. But there seems to be some stuff in Chinese. Yaan (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where exactly to draw the line here. Do the missionary converts reach the percent range relative to the cross-national Mongol population? While there's no doubt that such a minority exists, the question is still how relevant it is to the ethnicity. I didn't think about the possibility of traditional muslim Mongol groups in China, though. It would be interesting to find more information about those. --Latebird (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Orthodox Buryats are common for Russia. But for Russian Siberia and Far East is typical wery notable presence of the protestant denominations (Baptists, Mormons etc.). Official number of registrated protestant religious communities in Siberia &Far East is larger then Orthodox. So Russian Buryats are possibly protestants in some per cent.
 * Protestants are relatively active in Mongolia too - you can see Mormons missionaries talking with locals. It is new Mormon chirch building in Sukhbaatar city.
 * Mongols muslem grops in Hui (may be Uyghur too?) dominated territories is an interesting theme.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alshaa is actually Mongol-dominated, or at least when one does not count Han. But the vast majority of Mongols there are probably Buddhist - if I understand the machine translation correctly, that article summary seems to say only 2000 Mongol Muslims in Alshaa Left Banner. So those Mongol Muslims may be less than the Hui population of Alshaa. I also thought about Muslim Oirads (outside Alshaa), but a quick Google search revealed nothing.
 * Not sure if Christians and Mormons combined in Mongolia reach the 1% (would be 10,000 in UB, 200 in Tsetserleg, or maybe more if Christianity is less common in the countryside) I guess it would be also hard to find reliable numbers. Maybe it's better to explain this in the text, and leave the infobox at "predominantly Buddhist and/or Shamanist"? Yaan (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ningxia and Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang are Han dominated - I don't think this domination was present several decades ago. And I don't think Alshaa Mongols had become moslems after the percentage was shifted by Han migration. As I remember before 1949 were several moslem generals Ma in this region taking part in a number of civil wars. But official data about Protestant (and Catholic also) activity in Mongolia is possible to find at respective denominations sites.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ma clique Ma generals were Hui, if I understand correctly. There unfortunately seem to be a number of different denominations active in Mongolia, some of them mainly Korean, so maybe this is not so easy. Mormons have some numbers here, this powerpoint presentation gives 21588 (or so) believers in 2004 (but including Mormons or not?), this newspaper article says roughly 60,000. But this is all according to the Christians themselves. Yaan (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've mrntioned Ma as acting moslem political/military power in Alshaa region.
 * Here is annual Religion Freedom Reports set from U.S. Ambassy. This information can be useful as based on the relevant sources.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We could really simplify this a lot by only listing the dominant religions, or those that are specifically relevant to the ethnicity. The dominant ones are obvious. Christianity might be relevant in a historical context, but not today (the missionaries don't care about ethnicity, they just convert whoever listens to them). Islam may be relevant, if there are whole groups/tribes/whatever adhering to it, but that still needs to be shown. --Latebird (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Islam in China lists the Dongxiang people and the Bonan as muslim of at least partly Mongol descent, both speaking a mongolic language. The exact heritage of the Donxiang seems to be a matter of debate, but with half a million people they would clearly be relevant. --Latebird (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Total Mongols of Mongolia
more than 90 percent of the population of Mongolia is the Mongols. --Enerelt (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As we can see, the official censuses data in Demographics of Mongolia, not Mongol are Kazakh (4.35%) Russians (0.01%), Chinese (0.01%) and other nations (some smaller turkish and mongolian groups including 0.34%). With Uriankhai is not so clear, large groups of them are mongol speaking, but in Uvs aimag are groups speaking Tuvan language. Sum of the listed positions in the official 2000 census makes 5.97%, what means that Mongols are more than 94% (in 2000). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

???
is this article about the ancient mongol civilisation or present-day mongolia ,huh if it is about the civilisation the succesors should also be listed.Supersaiyan474 (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just read the article to find out? As a hint: It's neither of the two. --Latebird (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed Bogd Khan Jibzandumba's photo. He was a tibetian. Instead his picture should be included in Notable tibetians. --Enerelt (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a photo, it's a painting by Marzan Sharav. I replaced the picture of Altan Khan because it did not seem particularly well-sourced. And Ulanhu is quite notable, too. I also replaced the image of the woman because I really doubt she would want to have it published. Some Mongolian women do care quite a lot about what they look like on photos, so I guess it is better to wait for a different picture. I am aware this is not a legal issue, it is just a matter of respect IMHO. I added the wrestler image again because I kind of like it, and the stereotype issue raised above ("pics") is, I believe, irrelevant: wrestling is part of Mongol life just like football is part of German or British life. Yaan (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Nice pictures. You are right, wrestlers are always important. --Enerelt (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) BTW, I know Sharav. Thanks --Enerelt (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mongols in Nepal?
It seems someone here is confusing Mongol ethnicity and Mongol race (=anyone with slit eyes and yellow skin?). This article is about the ethnic group. I think this ethnic group can be sufficiently reliably defined along group identity lines. I have yet to come across a source that states the Mongols in Mongolia or Inner Mongolia (or Buryatia or Kalmykia, for that matter) think that Nepalis are Mongols. Yaan (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mongols and Tibetans
Are Mongols and Tibetans racially related? If so, then shouldnt Tibetans be mentioned here? And also the Nepalese and Bhutanese of Mongoloid stock?


 * I don'T know what you mean by racially related. If you mean both Mongols and have black hair and yellowish skin, or a blue spot on their back at birth, then no, I don't think that needs to be mentioned here. This article is about an ethnic group, not about biology. Yaan (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

buryats not mongols
I guess this is so already since july 7th, 1958, when the buryat-mongolian assr was renamed to buryat assr? Yaan (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For me creation of Buryat-Mongolian ASSR was the clear sign of the planned Mongolia annexation as Karelo-Finnish SSR was created before the Winter War, when "reunification of the common Finnish and Karel lands" was this war task. Later this name was back Karelian (not -Finnish) ASSR. The same with Mongolia - Tuva was annexed, Mongolia was the next ("reunification of the common Mongolian and Butyat lands", I guess). I guess Mao was srongely opposed, so Mongolia was not annexed by the USSR or China (Stalin opposed).
 * Decisions of post-stalinist USSR leadership had no relation to the ethnic or linguistic definition of buryats. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting proposition. Though according to wp, the Buryat-Mongolian ASSR already got that name in 1923, long before the annexation of Tuva by the USSR, and I think also long before Mao got an important position in the CCP. Plus maybe Chinese objections were not the only reason for not annexing Mongolia - say, Mongolia is also much larger than Tuva, and much less obscure for the rest of the world. Of course none of this directly contradicts your original point.
 * In any case, the point I wanted to make is that it is not so uncommon to think of Buryats as Mongols. I think it is also safe to say that Buryats and even Kalmyks are quite often treated as a subgroup of the Mongols by western authors (one example: Robert A. Rupen, "The Buriat Intelligentsia", The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3 (May, 1956), pp. 383-398 (jstor article), footnote 2 on p. 383: Mongols are found principally: [...] in the Buriat Mongolian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR - less than 300,000 Buriats[...] The less than 150,000 Kalmyk Mongols of European Russia have been dispersed [...]".) I think this should be reflected in the article. Of course contrarian viewpoints, if notable, should also be mentioned. But just because an anonymous editor thinks buryats are not mongols does not yet mean this really is so. Yaan (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Buryat-Mongolian ASSR was created just when it was first possible time to annex Mongolia just after Soviet troops entered to the Mongolian territory to support 1921 revolution. This time the revolution export was the official politics of the Soviet Russia, several months later the Soviet Union was created as future Global Soviet Union (as it was declared in the Comintern Program). This intention was not forgotten, but in 1940-s (you are right) Mao position was important.
 * Are the Buriats a Mongols? If Mongols is a definition of language family - yes. But now in Russia it is a lot of differences in culture (rusification) btw Russian Buryats and Mongolian Buryats. In Buryat Republic the are no nomads, even no yurts - to organize a Tsagaan Sar or Naadam fest they need import yurts from Mongolia.
 * If Mongols are the Mongolia citizens - yes, a large portion of Buryats are Mongols (as Tuvans etc).
 * Why Kalmyks were dispersed? They live in the Kalmyk Republic, dispersion was a period 1943-56 (purges times). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * re Kalmyks, the article is from 1956. So maybe my last post should have been in past tense. I guess Buryats or Kalmyks vs. Mongols could be like Germans vs. Austrians - same (similar) language different people, or at least the Austrians say so since wwii ;) - but without any source, I'd still treat "Buryats are not Mongols" as not more than a personal opinion of one wp editor. Yaan (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ethnically, culturally, and by descent, the Buryats are very clearly Mongols. Politics are entirely irrelevant to the topic of this article. Please also don't confuse Mongols with Mongolians. --Latebird (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question was why Buryat-Mongolian ASSR was renamed to Buryat ASSR (a propos in Buryat-Mongolian ASSR period Aginsky and Ust-Ordynsky okrugs were the ASSR parts). It was an interesting question - why ASSR was renamed.
 * Yes, everybody knows the Buryats are the Mongols, spelling is different, but after some short time of adaptation Buryats are clearly understanding Khalkha. Native culture is very close, but forest (taiga) Buryats culture is more original.
 * You are right, Latebird, very often Mongols and Mongolians are confused.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

3 added pictures are of prominent figures who contributed their life and work to Mongolian politics and culture.--Enerelt (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Karakalpaks
Why this people was included in a template as a Mongols? This people is close related to the Kazakhs, not Mongols. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says they are "of Mongol origin". --Latebird (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With this edit (2009-08-20) user:KherlenBorjigin declares Mongol origins. But the source of this declaration (the author added the link - wikipedia spam filter blocks it - www.karakalpak.com/tribalstructure.html) does not support this declaration.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case you seem to be correct in removing it there as well. I've also removed the Mongol Yastan navbox (and the entry in the navbox). The first (and duplicate) "Origin" section was a copyvio from that source and is now gone too. --Latebird (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Images
Please keep the images simple and not controversial especially inserting Choibalsan who killed bunch of people for suspicion of being Imperial Japan spies and Demchugdongrub (Teh Wang) who is alleged to being working with Imperial Japan and other recent controversial figures. Choibalsan legacy is definitely being reworked in Mongolia because of his stalinist purges that killed at least 20,000 people. 174.16.163.180 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To mention Choibalsan does not mean to support him. Especially as he was so terrible figure in Mongolian history. He was not any small regional politician, but the epoche of Mongolian history - we must remember both terrible repressions and repressions organizers. We must remember Hitler, Stalin and Mongolian Stalin - Choibalsan. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think not all of the images should be of people from Outer Mongolia. I don't really see the problem with De Wang (see the image of an [sort of] ally of Hitler on the article about Finns). Maybe we can add a picture of Ulanhu for balance. Yaan (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mongols and Tatars
What are the differences between the Mongols and the Tatars? Some writers will use the names synonymously, especially when referring to the Genghis Khan period. Are the Mongols are sub-group of the Tatars? Or were the Tatars Turkic tribes who happen to reside in Mongolia? 24630 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "Tatars" has been used for several different peoples, often quite indiscriminately, similar to how the ancient Romans used "Barbars". Tatar (disambiguation) gives a short overview, the main article Tatars goes into much more detail. --Latebird (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tatars and Mongols are basically different. Russians used Tatar for everyone basically foreign to them mostly Turkic people, and Mongols are referenced as Tatars by Russians and some other people. But Tatars are Turkic people and not Mongol. Turkic and Mongol are very similar physically and culturally. We all originated in Africa, so there is no such Turkic and Mongol ethnicity distinctively. They are all intermixed. These are mostly cultural terms, but Turkic people are not Mongols and no Mongols ever consider themselves "Turks" or "Turkic people" in any fashion, at any level and at any time. And no Turks or Turkic people will ever consider themselves "Mongols" at any level, any time, any where and at any level. I hope this helps. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not only Russians and Europeans who used "Tatar" or "Tartar" as designation for the Mongols, but also the Chinese. The Mongols used "Tatar" to refer to a specific group that was always their archenemy and dwelled east of them (this group does not even seem to be mentioned in the Tatar article, and I doubt they were Turcic). Tatar originally may just have been a generic term for nomads, rater then a designation for one specific ethnic group. Just because Native Americans have been called "Indians" in the past does not mean the population of India is a subset of Native Americans, or vice versa. Yaan (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Tatars were a Mongolic speaking peoples, and were as Mongol as the "Western Mongols" or "Oirat". The Kalmyk ARE Oirat.  It is not know exactly why the term Tatar became used to refer to many of the Turkic tribes in Central Eurasia, but the original Tatars were enemies of the Mongols and were more or less decimated by Chinggis Qan in his rise to power.  The ethnonym may have travelled with the remains of the Tatars which were co-opted into the Mongol forces when the Mongols expanded their empire into the west, eventually becoming the Golden Horde.  The Turkic people who call themselves Tatar are using a Mongolic ethnonym for them selves, whether they be Mongols or not.  The Turkic peoples and the Mongol people are NOT genetically very intermixed, except for the Kazakhs, which carry an inordinate number of Mongol Y-Chromosomes that seem to be related to Chinggis Qaghan.  Also, many so called "Turks" or "Turkic people" DID in fact consider themselves Mongol to some extent.  One of the Turks favorite warlords, Temurlane, considered himself a Mongol, came from the Mongol tribe called Barulas, and was unconfortable with taking the title of Qaan, since he knew that he was not, in fact, a Chinggisid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.183.219 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The russians used the term to describe the Mongol rulers of Golden horde, Tatars are of mixed backgrounds and turkified under the golden horde rule and adopt the kipchak language. The Tatar was ruled by the russians since fall of Kazan khanate and since then, mostly russified. The tatars in modern day central asia are those "russified" tatars come from russia such as tatarstan or bashkortostan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.49.9.186 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality, Toofewopinions, and Weasels discussion : the play on words between the loanword " Mongol " and the term " Mongolian "
POV-title

Here are the underlying issues that pertain to the disputes towards the article

- '''There isn't a single contribution within this article that actually draws from information sourced directly from statements by the Mongolian peoples - yes, the ones that reside within Mongolia ... that is , how an actual Mongolian that resides within Mongolia defines the term Mongol. Why isn't this article about the actual people of Mongolia?''' An article about the Chinese people would be based on people that reside in the region of China, so why is it that this article about the Mongol people completely ignores this mannerism and seeks to rather coin the term as a loanword? Since when did the term Mongol people comprise of everyone that has Mongoloid features? Since when did people that are outsiders of Mongolia find the privilege to make up what exactly constitutes a Mongol purely from scratch? Is this something that's happening in the mainstream?... Even if the designated people, such as the Kyrg perhaps , don't consider themselves to be of the " Mongols " (note again , not Mongolian)? Again, is it because they all appear Mongoloid , is that it? This entire article seems to be based on a play on the words Mongol and Mongolian. That is with the term Mongol as a loanword. - there's too much of a play on who exactly constitutes a " mongolian ", in the case of this article " mongolian "  has been substituted with the term " mongol ". . There are Mongolians that are the root ethnic group of Mongolia and then there are the Mongols who joined or got forcibly integrated during the campaigns. Do the Kyrg people refer to themselves as Mongolian or Mongols? Then how has the trend come about so that we are now referring to them as Mongols?

This article gives undue emphasis on the point of view of the Mongols as more of an organized gang (in a similar fashion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols_(motorcycle_club) ) and does not investigate the more significant point of Mongolians simply being those that originate and reside within Mongolia.

Again, why isn't this article about the people that reside within Mongolia and why is it , instead , more subtly shifted in focus towards the role of Turkic peoples and others that currently reside outside of Mongolia? Perhaps, a Turkic individual contributed largely to this article - from my experiences , they vehemently advocate for the dubious portrayal of Atilla and Genghis Khan as Turkic. Wernergerman (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get too political, racial and "us versus them" in this article. Mongols are diverse people. Buryats, Khalkha, etc. are considered Mongols. It is not really about core distinct Mongols. Uyghurs, Merkits, Tatars were factually in Mongolia and got integrated by Genghis Khan and they all became Mongolians because they were essentially same people but were fighting each other. Mongols, Kazakhs, Uyghurs, and others are not really different, they are all intermixed with each other. There are no "Mongolic people" because you can't tell when Mongols begin and when Uyghurs start for instance if you travel from Mongolia to Xinjiang. These are cultural terms. This is not same thing as "Germanics" and "Slavs." It is not racial. It is cultural terms. There are a lot of various people in Mongolia right now in the west. This is cultural article. The last thing we want is a racial topic in this article. Take it easy. A difference between "Mongol" or "Mongolian" basically is the difference between middle ages ("Mongol") and present day ("Mongolian"). When someone says "Mongol" it sound middle age, Mongolian is little more modern term. I wouldn't get too focused on identifying anything as Mongol. My main point is "Mongol" term should not be racial. You have to understand that Mongols originate factually from Merkits, Uyghurs, Naimans, Kereits, and Mongols. They are all equal people. Uyghurs are Turkic, but see Uyghur Khanate (Gokturks]] that were in Mongolia. There is no racial political "Mongol" dynasty. People move and people change. We all originated in Africa.67.177.203.207 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are Mongol editors that have contributed to this article quite heavily. That only one Mongol author is sourced has probably to do with English Wikipedia being English and Mongol authors speaking Mongolian mostly. I don't know who the Kyrg people are, but since this article defines Mongols as 1. either those people that call themself Mongol or 2. people that speak a Mongolic language (and in this case the distinction is just the same as between Germans and Slavs), my guess is they do not belong here.
 * Again, for the purpose of this article, "the Mongols proper, which can be roughly divided into eastern and western Mongols" or, "in a wider sense", "all people who speak a Mongolic language, such as the Kalmyks of eastern Europe". And for anyone to whom this is not yet clear enough, there is even a map of where they live!
 * I would agree that anyone that speaks "Mongolic language" is Mongolian. There is definitely "eastern" and "western Mongols." After disintegration of Mongol Empire, a lot of Mongols dispersed around the countries as soldiers. They speak the Mongolian language. After their dispersal they started fighting between each other, but basically they are the same people. If they speak Mongolian, they are Mongolian even if they are from Mars or moon. This is not racial. Mongols are diverse, intermarriage is high. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wernergerman here, except for the divisive tone. How is it that some of you say that Turkic tribes are Mongols when the Turkic peoples themselves don't want to be labeled as Mongols, and how do some of you justify superficializing the Mongolian ancestry when the majority of the Mongolians within Mongolia (the oriental ones) themselves believe in a deeply rooted ancestry such as the Chinese do? I also sense that the voice of actual Mongolians are being ignored here.

98.252.128.244 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The last thing we want is a stupid battle and disagreement over race between Turkics and Mongols, the same thing that caused the racial distinction between "Germanics" and "Slavs." If there is a white looking person and is Mongolian, he is Mongolian. There is no Mongol ethnicity, Uyghurs were in Mongolia, Tatars were/are in Mongolia, etc. This shouldn't be a nationalistic article. Turks and Mongols shouldn't be divided. The last thing we want is ethnic nonsense between "Turks" and "Mongols" just like there is huge racial conflict between "Germanics" and "Slavs" but they all look the same. No one is superior to no one. Genghis Khan couldn've been successful without diverse people. Unity and inclusiveness make people powerful. People need to read Gokturks, Xiongnu, Huns, Tatars, Naimans, Uyghurs, Kereits, Merkits, Tungisics that were all in Mongolia before Genghis Khan. Mongol is a small part of these people. I would say one of the better legacy of Genghis Khan was he wasn't racial. I think a lot of people admire that somewhat. If you go from Mongolia to Kazakhstan to Turkey to Germany, Norway, you can't tell when Mongols end, Kazakhs begin, Kazakhs end and Turks begin, Germans begin, Norwegians begin. There is no such distinct race. Appearance changes gradually without people noticing. For instance there is a story of a person going from Europe to Asia by ground and didn't mention race a single time, because he didn't know it changed. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tatars who were in Mongolia is not related to the Tatars you know today. There are scholars who believe that they were part of the Mongols rather than Mongoloid Turkic or unknown origin.--Enerelt (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are people named "Tatars", "Uyghurs" in Mongolia before Genghis Khan. There are Tatar people today. There are basically no difference. Present day Tatars married with many people, but their origin was in Mongolia. There were main tribes in Mongolia before Genghis Khan: Tatars, Uyghurs, Naimans, Kereits, Merkits and Mongols. That is a fact and at least two of those (Uyghurs and Tatars) are Turkic people, so Turks have atleast a reason to say that Turks played a role in Genghis Khan. That is a fact. All of these people united and became "Mongols" today (intermarriage). That is just the truth. Therefore I see Turks claim that Mongol Empire was a Mongol and Turkic empire. People need to read Gokturks that existed in Mongolia before Genghis Khan. Turks are integral part of history of Mongolia and Mongols. 67.41.201.101 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

67.41.201.101, you said that "There is no Mongol ethnicity". I personally find this statement of yours to be disrespectful, I visited Mongolia a couple of years ago and most of them are just like the Chinese, they take pride in their ancestral lineage which they believe to be of a homogenous origin, take for example the Dayars who advocate against integration with the Chinese http://www.mongolia-attractions.com/mongolia-graffiti-genghis-khan-mongolia-nazis.html. You seem to believe that the term Mongol is similar with the term "white" as if both of them are associated with societal privileges. This is certainly not the case. A lot of the Scottish, who once weren't white but rather slaves in America, seek to become "white", some English wish to promote "whiteness", with also a small percentage of Irish wanting to become "white" also. This isn't the case for such groups as the Uyghurs that you mentioned, they haven't displayed any inclinations to be affiliated with the Mongol identity, they have maintained a distinct identity of their own and have never expressed desire to become Mongols. So the question to you is why is it that you label them as Mongols when they themselves have never even remotely sought to be identified as such? There's no discrimination going on here, it's only people like you that want them to be labeled as Mongols. And this is why I agree that  this article is biased, because it's based on erroneously perceived and superficial notions of outsiders such as the Uyghurs seemingly wanting to be affiliated with the ye old glory of the Mongol Empire rather than emphasizing the fact that each of these groups actually seek a distinct identity of their own. 98.252.128.244 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not technically labeling other people as Mongols. Not all people can be Mongols. I agree with that, but there is a quote that Genghis Khan said, "I consider you now a Mongol" after the person did a good thing. I'm saying the following:

1. Uyghurs, Merkits, Tatars, Kereits, Mongols were all in Mongolia 2. All of these people existed and fought with each other in history 3. All of these tribes were subdued and/or united under Genghis Khan to become "Mongols." 4. Tatars and Uyghurs are Turkic people. I agree with that 5. There isn't a whole a lot of clear distinction between Uyghurs, Kereits, Tatars and Mongols. 6. Present day Uyghurs and Tatars left Mongolia in 13th century and now they have their own language and customs, but Tatars and Uyghurs of 12th century before Genghis Khan was basically similar to Mongols. 7. I agree that Mongol ethnic group exists, but is not exclutionary. Mongols shouldn't exclude Tatars, Uyghurs, etc. if they want themselves to be considered Mongols, they should be considered Mongols. 8. Present-day Tatars diverged from Mongols a lot in comparison with the Tatars, Uyghurs, etc. of 12th century. 9. Mongolia isn't 100% populated by "Mongols" today or in history. 10. Therefore Mongols is a fluid term. Genghis Khan wanted all people to become a "Mongol" and become powerful. Race and others wasn't all that important, but there was a Gokturk khanate in Mongolia. Mongol is symbolic.

Basically Mongol wasn't homogenous in the past. Maybe they are more homogenous now, but in history it was combination of peoples. Mongols was originally small people in Orkhon Herlen rivers, but after Genghis Khan they became big because a lot of people became a "Mongol." Read History of Mongolia. 174.16.123.177 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wernergerman, you seem to be confusing Mongols with Mongolians. Those are two clearly distinct concepts, even if some languages use the same word for both (eg. "Mongolen" in German). A clearer translation of Mongols to German would be "Mongolischstämmige" (note: that's not a good word to use in German today, but it helps here to clarify the concept). They are an ethnographically unique and distinct group of people with their own history, cultural heritage, and family of languages, all of which have nothing to do with (modern) national boundaries. This is unambiguously explained in the article, and once you understand the difference, your criticism becomes baseless. Because your tags are obviously based on a misunderstanding of the topic, I'm going to remove them. Please do not add them again without better arguments than you have presented so far. --Latebird (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Latebird, so are you agreeing with Wernergerman here in that the terms Mongols and Mongolians are different concepts as you indicated with the following statement "They are an ethnographically unique and distinct group of people with their own history, cultural heritage, and family of languages, all of which have nothing to do with (modern) national boundaries."? Then why did you remove the tag? If you agree with this then you should indicate somewhere in this article that the two are different concepts. However, I'm not able to find an article on Mongolians anywhere.

174.16.123.177 you said, "There isn't a whole a lot of clear distinction between Uyghurs, Kereits, Tatars and Mongols." What in the world are you talking about? There are people that call themselves the Mongols and those that identify with the Turkic ethnicy and have not expressed a single desire to be called Mongols. Again, you have no right to label them as Mongols when they themselves do not.

Mongolia is ruled by Mongoloids, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-l6Xpqlcp4&NR=1, all of the politicians, military administration, life in Mongolia as it exists is centered on Mongoloids because they are the ones that have the power, so what is it with this article and the fact that it's completely shifted away from the state of reality within Mongolia? You guys are making things up, I advise any of you to visit the main capitals within Mongolia and observe the people there, you'll then realize that the delusional mess of a state that this article is in. Again, I'm going to point out that none of you have the right to label a group with the term Mongol if that particular group has never expressed a desire to be associated with the term. Should an article on the United States be focused completely on the minorities within it? It should at least include the fact that 70 % of the people within the US are cacausian. Should an article on the US be about Mexicans, African-Americans, Jews and ignore the 70 % of the caucasian population? Then why is this article ignoring the fact that 90 % of the population within Mongolia are Mongoloid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWI6IyZ96SU

Go to Mongolia and once within Mongolia observe the appearances of the people that control Mongolia, none of them are remotely Turkic. None of them are Slavic. With all due respect- what are you people smokin'? It's infinitely obvious to me that a country in which ~ 90 % are Mongoloids should have some mention of them within any article devised about Mongolians. The forecast for the US is that all of us will be brown sometime in the future, so does any article out there about the US pay tribute to us in the manner as if we were utterly in a mixed state? I mean observe the following video, the majority of Mongolians are barely able to recognize themselves from other Asians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdV-wJyE3xE

I believe that I've made my point abundantly clear.

1) No group should be labeled as Mongols when that particular group itself doesn't want to be labeled as Mongols.  Mongols are those that identify themselves a Mongols.  There is simply no way around this.

2) This article doesn't mention the significant factoid that ~ 90 % of the Mongols within Mongolia are utterly asiatic.  In fact there are no other races within the Mongolian administrative system except for these orientals.  None.   This article should make some mention of this significant aspect of the Mongolian population instead of claiming that all Mongols are mixed.  Not all Mongols are mixed, this article is misleading.  This non-mixed population should not be ignored.  Ignoring this aspect is delusional and it is not the right manner of the way in which this article should be devised.  I shall reiterate this over and over again if I need get my point clear.   98.252.128.244 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok let me help you understand it. Tatars, Kereits, Mongols, Naimans, Uyghurs that existed in 12th century Mongolia was Asiatic/Mongoloid. Now because the left west of Mongolia they look mixed now, but in 12th century they all basically looked the same. If people don't want to label themselves Mongols, then fine. I have no problem with that. But Tatars, Uyghurs I think are Turco-Mongol. Read: - Uyghur Khanate, Gokturk Khanate, Avars, Xiongnu, Huns, Rouran, and most importantly Turco-Mongol, Turco-Iranian. That will open up things for you. Mongolia isn't full of Mongoloids. There are a lot of diverse people that travel there and live there today. Also all of your claims need a credible source. You can't just say I don't want to be this or that. It needs source, historical context and facts above all so that it doesn't become POV (point of view). You can claim these people whatever you want, but there is a long rich history that cannot be ignored. Please read a little more about 12-13th century Central Asian history. This is also not about who is mongoloid or not. We are talking about historical things. Read Tajiks for instance. That article has sources and other things that is useful. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reality check: The criteria by which this article defines Mongols is given in the second section, and it is a very easy-to-understand criterion (namely "they call themselves Mongols" or "they speak a Mongolic language"). All your racist stuff is mentioned under physical appearance, I don't even see that much words about mixing there. Anyway, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov* certainly does not look much more Asian than Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Nor does S. Oyun look less European than Sara Nazarbayeva.

As for Mongolians and Mongols being two different concepts, I think what Latebird meant is as simple as this: Mongolians are from Mongolia, Mongols are an ethnic group. I.e. Kazakhs in Bayan-Ulgii may be Mongolians, but not Mongols. Kalmyks may be Mongols, but not Mongolians. A quick search at Merriam-Webster gives the impression that this is not really so clear-cut, but anyway this article mentions the word "Mongolian" only 10 times, of which


 * twice it is used as the name of a language (clearly a different concept),


 * once the word is used for inhabitants of Inner Mongolia (somewhat borderline case, but I think no-one uses the word "Inner Mongols"),


 * once it is used to give the location of a yurt, or at least one could make the case that said yurt is not part of a certain ethnic group,


 * twice it is used for people from Mongolia, both of whom, however, are probably ethnic Mongols,


 * the other usages are links and/or titles of external sources.

Frankly, this makes me wonder what exactly this long discussion is all about: How many wikipedians are needed to exchange one word in an image caption?

*acknowledges being "of Mongolian stock" here

Yaan (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Definition Section of the Main page appears to be spurious.
The Definition Section of the Main "Mongols" page appears to be spurious. Jstampfl (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

the Golden Horde khans were not "tsars of Russia"
I removed this line; if a RS states this it is countered by many, many historians as not being actually true - for some 200 years the Golden Horde was the overlord of the Russian tsars, but never the tsar themselves. They resided south and east of old Russia proper and demanded tribute, but were not part of the day-to-day gov't of the Russian principalities. The statements about the GH later in the paragraph are correct. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Include equal amount of women pictures
Mongols are not all males. There should be abundant picture of female in here. When all males are included it looks little wrong and warlike. 24.9.97.169 (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Mongol with semi caucasoid features are minority
It doesn't make any sense to edit most mongols have some caucasoid features? how's that even possible when genetic study shows mongolian mtdna being at 14.3% european and Y-dna is 9% so at best it's 23% with caucasian admixture but even the mix types look more mongoloid than caucasoid. The physical appearance section is completely misleading, that ain't backed up by any genetic evidence apart from an racist blogger with anti-bias opinion. If you've been to mongolia, 90%+ of the people look completely mongoloid, even the kazakhs who have heavy european maternal ancestry are predominately mongoloid looking as do the kyrgyz with heavy european paternal ancestry. And one of the source was even cited from robert lindsay blog, an amateur historian who is racist against indians, and blocks people who doesn't agree with him, he's extremely unreliable and has anti-bias views. It's obvious that whoever edited that part completely exaggerated the caucasoid admixture in mongols. I've been to mongolia and physically they are barely indistinguishable from other east asian mongoloids, although you could notice that some have lighter hair and eyes, but still their face are heavily mongoloid. Just look at the picture of modern mongolians pictures on google or in youtube, how could you even claim that majority have some caucasoid features today? The intention of that edit was to minimize mongoloid ancestry. If it's in kazakhstan or kyrgyzstan I completely agree that most have some caucasoid features even though there still predominately mongoloid but for mongolian it has to be 90% mongoloid, and 10% who mixed but still with more mongoloid features.

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 5:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to produce sources. Do you have any? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ussually I provide sources...but what the heck, do you really need to provide source for something that only needs basic commonsense to realize. Commonsense should come to anyone's senses immediately just by typing pictures of mongolian people in google or watch an youtube video of mongolian protestors, why would you even need a source for it. Just by looking pictures of mongolian people you can tell that almost all of them look pure mongoloid. If you type uyghurs, you can easily tell that an large population of them look more caucasoid, obviously you can tell they all look mixed because there caucasoid features sticks out in most of them. Besides even sources can be manipulated, many articles are edited by commoners who think they can get away with manipulating history by adding some extra things. Anyone here on the internet can make an article for themselves if they want. What made me laugh the most is that one of the source came from a blog from robert lindsay, the guy who made countless racist remarks against indians(south asian) and even blocked the people who didn't agree with his theories.

Here check out the mongols with 100% asiatic/mongoloid face with red hair,blue eyes, green eyes,blonde hair...whatever you want. Even they look like pure mongoloids, and without any noticeable caucasoid feature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCN8lVJSNY

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 9:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * do you really need to provide source for something that only needs basic commonsense to realize? Yes, according to WP:V, you do, especially if the assertions are challenged, and consider this a challenge. See also WP:NOTBLUE. I have no idea what is really the situation and I am not saying you are wrong, as I'm unfamiliar with the topic, but I know enough about genetics to know that one cannot make sweeping statements about DNA and ancestry based solely on phenotype, and when making statements about ethnicity and ancestry, which are generally sensitive topics, sourcing all statement is critical. Now, if you do not think that a source used in the article is not reliable, my suggestion would be to take it to WP:RSN for discussion. But sourcing is very important--for example, you recently remove a citation needed template at Afro-Asian, but did not provide a reference. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Mongols and Tatars
The history textbook "The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures: A Concise History: Volume 1: To 1740" and its accompanying sourcebook say that the Mongols and the Tatars are of one ethnicity, or at least that the people of medieval Europe referred to the Mongols as Tatars and vice versa. Should this be mentioned somewhere? 207.216.193.21 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Gog and Magog
This contribution, now graced with a new image, may need clarification. Although in the "history" section, it seems more of a fable—medieval scholars inventing an association between this mysterious race and the quotation from Josephus: "horse-riding barbarians of the far north behind the Caucasus mountains", a tradition reinforced at the time of the thirteenth-century expansion of the Mongol Empire. I'd have a go at a fix but, as the supposed association is all new to me, I'd rather leave it to someone who knows what they are talking about! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Images
Should we edit/modify the persons depicted in the infobox? They seem to be rather randomly placed there. Surely people like Sanjaasurengiin Zorig should be represented there instead of Ondor Gongor? -- chinneeb - talk 13:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have made a good illustration. Sanjaasurengiin Zorig is probably not a bad idea to be represented, but as I'm also interested in history, I'd like to see a little more historic figures too. Kublai Khan of the Yuan Dynasty and Ghazan of the Ikhanate may be for example depicted in the infobox. Thanks again. --Chinyin (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm a little concerned with having too many people from the same era. Another problem is that many people dont have decent portraits (like Ghazan). -- chinneeb - talk 11:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concern. I'm satisfied with your modified version below. Thanks for that. --Chinyin (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've modified the infobox image gallery here. Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. -- chinneeb - talk 19:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Too many males
There are too many male images in the infobox. Mongols are not 95% males and 5% females. They are 50% males and 50% females. At least there should be 3-4 more females in the ethnicity infobox. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The old infobox has many people of non importance in Mongol history, including Ondor Gongor and (arguably) Dondogdulam. Suggest some alternatives. -- chinneeb - talk 10:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they are very important or not. It is about diversity of the mongol people. Not all mongols are military people, politicians and 99% males like it was shown on the image. There is too much macho images in the infoboxes. Mongols are not all machos. Also who who is important and non important are subjective to each people. Mongols are not 95% males and 5% females. It is about diversity. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ""Machos" - what are you talking about? The infobox is meant to show notable figures of Mongol ethnicity. Who is notable is not subjective. Scientists, politicital activists/leaders, modern athletes etc. Also, its not about misogyny, its just that historically, men dominated. I would like to add Sorgagtani, Anu khatun etc, but no decent portraits exist. The fact is, there arent many decent female portraits. As for modern people, please suggest some notable women? Gundegmaa perhaps? I also fail to see why you are reverting it back to the former gallery instead of adding to the new one. -- chinneeb - talk  01:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not really about a decent portrait of women being present. Any Mongolian women can be inserted. When you changed the image, there was an image of Mandukhai in a stamp. Rest of the portraits were almost all politicians and military leaders. The images of Yanjmaa and Tsendiin Dondogdulam were gone and bunch of other males were inserted like there were no female Mongols. The pictures should show universal society, culture and arts of Mongolians, not just all popular military and political Mongol people. It is showing very narrow male dominated view of Mongolians. As long as there is a balance between male and female, any images can be inserted, once all the female images are removed and bunch of male images are inserted, the infobox is biased. Not all images doesn't have to be very popular people, they can be any relatively notable people. I know most influential people are male, but it has to have a balance and gender equality. It is about gender, societal diversity of the infoboxes. Not a lot of people want to see images of Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Ogedei Khan and other macho(military/political) images of male Mongols. Back in history, there can be a lot of male Mongol images, but in the present time, women and men are equal and women's images should be present in the infobox. Ideally there should be 50% male and 50% female images of Mongolian dancers, singers, writers, military, political leaders, athletes, etc. not just male political leaders. The infobox is looking too macho and political when there are too many male political figures in the infobox. In other words, it is looking much more nationalistic and very masculine. 64.134.24.11 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your concerns. Genghis, Ogodei, and Kublai are probably the most famous Mongols in history. Not including them would be ridiculous. Compare other ethnic group infoboxes: the first one I picked at random was "Greek" and "French", both with just two or three females. Where are from, by the way (if you don't object)? I just want to understand he rationing behind your argument? -- chinneeb - talk 11:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier I'm glad to see an infobox with a little more historical figures (even with the inclusion of one more historical figure such as Kublai Khan). But the IP user probably has a point too. It may be a good idea to think about regarding whether to keep current female figures and/or which other female figures may be worth inclusion as well. In any case, try to keep the discussion more wiki-like and also thanks for everyone's suggestion on the images in the infobox. --Chinyin (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave the images of Yanjmaa, Dondogdulam and Mandukhai. That's what I want. You removed Yanjmaa and Dongogdulam. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what you want is not relevant, what everyone deems a good selection of images is. I propose adding Yanjmaa and Gundegmaa. Dondogdulam is really obscure. -- chinneeb - talk 01:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what you want is not relevant. I think only you want to change the images to your own liking, which is what you want. I don't see a lot of people agreeing with your change. I'm in opposition to your change. You are adding too many males to the images and removing all the females. That is not acceptable. Leave all the 3 female images that exist. Mongols are not 100% males. You are also adding too many political and military *male* figures, which is POV. I want diversity in the images, you don't want diversity in the images. You want males only. If this is the case, I will leave only 3 male images and 3 female images and remove rest of the male images. That is what I want. 3 males and 3 females. I will not support adding 5 more males and removing 2 females in the infobox, otherwise there will be no images in the infobox at all because there is a dispute happening. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No what everyone wants is important. If some people hadn't utterly destroyed WP:MONGOLS and alienated the members, we might have had a productive discussion about the images, unfortunately it seems its just you and I. You fail to explain the examples I put about other ethnic groups infoboxes, which are male dominated. Your accusations of my (perceived) misogyny are also ridiculous, do you not want to acknowledge that men dominated most affairs in past times? These infoboxes are (to me, at least, there seems to be no consensus on the issue) meant to show notable figures, if you really want 3 males and 3 females for poltical correctness, you might as well photograph 3 random people on the street in UB and be done with it. -- chinneeb - talk 10:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave the 3 female images and you can add all the males you want. Leave the images of Dongogdulam, Yanjmaa and Mandukhai. You can do whatever you want as long as those 3 images are there. 64.134.145.207 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictute of different kinds of mongols
A free, public domain picture comparing the different kinds of mongolic peoples is available here. Please upload it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ow9Gbvd1dpQC&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for semi-protect
It is need to protect this page, vandals are trying to add russians to related people. Ancientsteppe (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessary for such minor vandalism or POV-pushing. Page watchers should be able revert any edits that introduce incorrect information. BabelStone (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013
"Mongolic peoples" should be changed to "Mongolic people"

Potzzo (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing
Hi Khereid. The editors are supposed to adopt a “neutral point of view” (WP:NPOV). I'm having problem with the following additions:, , , ,. You should also read WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Tobby72 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your question is meaningless, don't waste time. There is no much english info about human rights, but it doesn't mean that other sources (separatists' sites) are useless. [2] is not your deal, Mongolia was a colony of the Manchu (read the article). [3]: 1.Bashkir and western Kazakh were Russian colonies, however, i changed it. 2.Thousands of Buryats died in the 1900-1950s, see the population change. 3.Russia invaded others land List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe. 4.Catherine the Great ordered to exterminate the migrants if they didn't return 5.The Kalmyks revolted due to Russian opression. [5]: It's true. [6]: The Buryats revolted in 1927, Ubashi's goal was to migrate all his people. Are you Russian or Chinese? Khereid (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether they are useful, they are partisan organizations with a clear political agenda, and the way you present their POVs as fact renders the article POV. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources, especially the section about Non-Independent Sources, for why using the IMPP and other politically involved parties as reliable sources introduces POV into the article. Every editor, no matter their creed, is allowed to tag your edits when you blatantly violate NPOV. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why this was removed?--Tobby72 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Page protection 24 january
From the page edit history, it looks like User:Khereid attempts to introduce major changing in the article but is not really interested in discussing these changes with somebody else. When multiple editors reverted their edits, they just reverted them back, never using the talk page. For this reason, I reverted their changes to the original state of the article and fully protected it from editing. If Khereid is interested in editing the article, they should come here and reach consensus that their proposed edits are desirable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a small section on the Mongol empire?
I think that adding a small section on the Monogol Empire could assist the understanding of some of the information in this article. Perhaps mentioning how the Mongol takeover of Eurasia resulted in a significant ethnic dispersion? (especially considering that a significant portion of the article discusses geographic distributions) For example, the Golden Horde in Russia is the reason most of the Mongols in Russia are there. Something along these lines. RAWINPUT (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That might potentially be very interesting, but quite difficult to do right. At one point in the past, this article simply repeated most of the information from Mongol Empire, which was obviously pointless. Extracting just the information necessary to explain their geographic distribution will require a lot of careful consideration and attention to detail. There is also a risk of duplicating material that may be more appropriately covered in the articles on individual Mongol peoples. --Latebird (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actual Mongol presence in Russia seems to have no relation to the former Golden Horde. Single Mongol descent yastan (kalmyk) migrated to Russia several centuries later, in XVII. So Dzungaria Khanate, Kalmyk Khanate history are significant for the actual Mongols presence.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So it's really not a very simple situation to describe. Some of the current Mongol peoples go back to the original Mongol territories, some were left behind by the Mongol Empire, and yet others relocated through migration later on. Considering that, it's probaly better to explain their origins in the individual articles, and not here. --Latebird (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How is that better - with respect that doesn't make much sense - the greater part of people will never go to those 'individual articles' and will thus miss out on very important and fundamental informatiom - information required to understand the Mongols as a people - why have the information dispersed ina mish-mash and unorganised type of way - that is, above all, not user friendly. I might try to do something about that section - to explain it all. It will be better to have such important information placed in the main article of the Mongol people (to have it all in one place) rather than dispersed. It's logical after all, really Smart Nomad (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Halh Mongol xenophobia against other Mongols (Buryats and Oirats and Chahars)[edit]
Halh Mongols, the dominant Mongol group in Mongolia, hold xenophobic views against other Mongols like Buryats, Oirats, and Chahars. Buryats and Oirats suspected to be loyal to Russia and to dominate the country like Jews in anti-semitic conspiracy theories, Chahar Mongols are suspected of being loyal to China.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K3JZIdw8YDkC&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=K3JZIdw8YDkC&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ApTfycfcJ1EC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mongols and Tuvans
Why article contradicts himself? Tuvans are turkic speaking people. With big influence of mongol culture, but it doen't make them mongol. And article says that The Mongols, or Mongolic peoples, are a Central and Northern Asian (Inner Asia) ethno-LINGUISTIC group. And since when ethnicity determined only genetically? I'm talking about article of Derenko, which shows that part of Tuvan have common haplogroup with mongols, but thi is not reason to conclude that tuvans are also mongols. Mkungaa (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tuvans are clearly not Mongols. Feel free to correct the article if it contains the statement they are the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll delete information about Tuvans and Altai people. I agree that some part of tuvan people have genetically mongol origin, but linguistically it's hard to say that tuvan is similar to mongolian. Tuvan language has more common features with Turkish, for example, or Altai and Khakas, from mongolian it has only loanwords. So origin of language is more turkic, not mongolian. It contradicts to first statement in article mongols are ethno-linguistic group. Altai people more far from mongol people even that tuvan people, so I'll delete information also about them.Mkungaa (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted information about tuvans and also about altay people from article. Tuvan language has turkic origin and have a lot of mongolian loanwords. But mongolian loanwords doesn't make Tuvan as mongolic language. So Tuvans are not part of ethno-linguistic group of Mongols. Better when article doesn't contradicts itself. If you have any objections - please, justify depending on logic of article, not only by showing links to Derenko's article. And also - Altay people? Seriously? If in case of Tuvan people there was article of Derenko(who was involved in genetic research, not ethno-linguistic), there is no reason to put Altay people in same category. Where researches or proofs? Mkungaa (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

hair color
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.23.54 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Text at Category:Mongolian people
I have recently added the following to the text at Category:Mongolian people


 * While Mongols refers to the largest Mongolian group of inhabitants of Mongolia, people of this ethnic group also live as minorities across Northern Asia, including in Russia, China, and many of the former Soviet Union states.

I wanted to run this by people who may know what they are talking about  GregKaye 06:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Regarding your last change, a language can have many varieties or tongues (or dialects). There are many examples in the world, e.g. the Japanese language and Mandarin Chinese. It's common to say that Japanese people speak the Japanese language (despite having many tongues or dialects), not the Japonic languages. --Cartakes (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah no. This article isn't about the Halh, it's about the Mongols, which includes groups who cannot understand Mongolian as it is being named in that article. Maybe examine the article more closely to see that it does not include, like, Oirat languages or Yugur or Menggur or Salar. "In the discussion of grammar to follow, the variety of Mongolian treated is Standard Khalkha Mongolian (i.e., the standard written language as formalized in the writing conventions and in the school grammar), but much of what is to be said is also valid for vernacular (spoken) Khalkha and other Mongolian dialects, especially Chakhar." NOT = MONGOLS Ogress smash! 01:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually it is problem of definition of "dialect" vs "language". I just checked for example Oirat language, which says "Scholars differ as to whether they regard Oirat as a distinct language or a major dialect of the Mongolian language." I was considering all of these as varieties or dialects of the Mongolian language, but it seems there are other considerations. That's why I decide to accept your current wording. --Cartakes (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

East vs North Asian
Let's try to focus on definitions of East Asia and North Asia. As shown in the map of the article East Asia, Mongolia is an East Asian (in addition to Central Asian) country. However, Mongolia is not shown in the map of the article North Asia. If you want to show North Asian instead of East Asian for Mongols, please edit these articles in order to be consistent as well, thanks! Otherwise I'd prefer to show East Asian instead of North Asian for Mongols. --Cartakes (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah but we're not talking about Mongolia, we're talking about the Mongols, who moved from Manchuria and Siberia south. Ogress smash! 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Mongols, have you noticed that the current article says that the Mongols are "native to Mongolia and China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region"? Is this a contrary to what you stated above? --Cartakes (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is often tendentiously edited. It's better to look for RS than take what a lot of pages, especially ones about ethnic groups, at face value. But tbh I don't have the spoons to argue on Wikipedia today - it's been an ugly week - so you should do what you think is correct. Ogress smash! 02:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mongols are a Siberian people. They are for all intents and purposes a North Asian people. Mongolia can be classified as both East and North Asian so I don't see what all the fuss is about. North Asian is more accurate, however, as the Mongols are more concentrated in the northern parts of Asia than its eastern parts. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I would say we should make reference to East Asia in the article as well in addition to North/Central Asia. --Cartakes (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , : It would perhaps be accurate to say that they are a North Asian people who have colonised and settled large portions of East Asia. Certainly I'm not trying to say that Yunnan is North Asia, but the Mongols are certainly North Asian. Ogress smash! 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are they Central Asian then? --Cartakes (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a low-intensity guerilla war going on in the article. One side wants to write an article about Mongols proper (which are currently the native population of Mongolia and China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; the other side wants an article about Mongolic people which also includes Buryats and Kalmyks, hence strange statements that Mongols are native to the Republic of Kalmykia in Russia (there is not a single Mongol living there for the last 500 years). It should be decided first what the article is about and then to clean it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Khalkha Mongols might not have lived in Kalmykia for 500 years but Kalmyk people live there now, and they are Mongols... This article seems like it should be the umbrella, which it already basically is, for Mongolic-speaking ethnic groups, especially given the shallowness of the Mongolic tree: the Middle Mongol language dates only to the 12th century and is essentially identical to proto-Mongolic (1224 is the first attested inscription, and it's archaic). It does seem like "the Mongols" are a fairly coherent group and could be covered in an article without problem. Ogress smash! 12:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most of the users, including me, disagree with you and think that this material should be covered in a separate article Mongolic people.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ogress. The Kalmyks are Mongols. Moreover, the Mongols are a fairly homogeneous group of people. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Kalmyks are indeed Mongols. However, ethnic groups such as the Khitans are other Mongolic peoples than Mongols. --Cartakes (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the Khitans did not speak a Mongolic language or form part of the Mongols, I'm not sure why that would be an issue. They've been defined as (distantly) related in language, which Janhunen calls "para-Mongolic". The Mongols are a pretty discrete ethnic group speaking a very shallow tree of languages. Even groups like the Mengguer and Yugur are not very distinct. Ogress smash! 21:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the book "Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present" by Christopher I. Beckwith, pg 414, "Twitchett and Tietze (1994: 45-46) expressed uncertainty about the linguistic affiliation of Khitan, but it has long been firmly established that they spoke a Mongolic language. This has been further confirmed by the progress being made in the decipherment of their script. The recent introduction of the non-linguistic term "Para-Mongolic" (Janhunen 2003: 391-402) for Khitan and other early Mongolic languages, and of similar terms for other languages in the vicinity, reveals unclarity about the nature of linguistic relationships, a problem that dominates the linguistics of eastern Eurasia in general. It has been demonstrated once again that there is no such thing as a Mischsprache or 'mixed language' (Beckwith 2007a: 195–213), so either Khitan was Mongolic or it was not Mongolic." Clearly, according to this comment, "para-Mongolic" as called by Janhunen is not a linguistic term. --Cartakes (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Listen, Janhunen has made it a linguistic term, so you can't be like "it's not a term" when Janhunen is using it. He's one of the most prominent linguists of Mongolian. It is isn't new, either, he's in print using it in 2003 in Archaeology and Language: Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypotheses. Ogress smash! 00:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just quoting comments from another linguist. As for Khitan, it either belongs to Mongolic languages or belongs to the language family called "Para-Mongolic" or whatever named by Janhunen, as mentioned in Talk:Mongolic_languages. --Cartakes (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are moving the target and are starting to appear suspiciously like your definition of Mongols means "Halh and close kin". Ogress smash! 01:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "moving the target"? I was linking to that page and waiting for your reply there, but by now I was already starting to agree with Taivo's last statements at that page. As for definition of Mongols, didn't I consider "Kalmyks are indeed Mongols" previously? Didn't you noticed that I made no complain at all for your current definition in the article? I only made a concern with the language, but I already decided to accept that after seeing your comment below. Your comment above however makes no sense at all. --Cartakes (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You changed the link from an inclusive article to one that is Halh+. Either that, or you didn't bother checking what Mongolian language covered. Ogress smash! 02:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but isn't it actually quite natural to think that Japanese people speak Japanese language (instead of Japonic languages, which is an inclusive article too), Mongols speak Mongolian language (instead of Mongolic languages), and Chinese speak Chinese language (instead of Sinitic languages)? That "Mongolian language" means the language of "Halh and close kin" is only your interpretation, different from mine when I wrote Mongols speak Mongolian language. To me, "Mongolian language" simply meant the language of Mongols, just like that "Japanese language" means the language of Japanese. I I think this is a major cause for the misunderstanding. --Cartakes (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I gather that it was an error... but you can't just decide the contents of a wikipedia page are what you think they are. "That 'Mongolian language' means the language of 'Halh and close kin' is only your interpretation". No, it definitely is not. The Mongolian language page clearly states it refers to Halh and so-called "Southern" Mongolian (i.e. the languages spoken in Inner Mongolia, which is technically south of Mongolia.) This is only one of the Mongolic languages spoken by Mongols. You've been firm that you include Kalmyk people in Mongols, and now you insist they speak the language of Halh/Southern Mongolia? What about the Yugur or Mongguer? You can't have it both ways. Ogress smash! 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Mongolian language, doesn't that article also says "There is no disagreement that the Khalkha dialect of the Mongolian state is Mongolian. Beyond this one point, however, agreement ends. For example, the influential classification of Sanžeev (1953) proposed a "Mongolian language" consisting of just the three dialects Khalkha, Chakhar, and Ordos, with Buryat and Oirat judged to be independent languages. On the other hand, Luvsanvandan (1959) proposed a much broader "Mongolian language" consisting of a Central dialect (Khalkha, Chakhar, Ordos), an Eastern dialect (Kharchin, Khorchin), a Western dialect (Oirat, Kalmyk), and a Northern dialect (consisting of two Buryat varieties)." So we are simply interpreting the term "Mongolian language" in different ways, and I was not deciding the contents of a wikipedia page either, wasn't I? --Cartakes (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are cold-war definitions produced by scholars who wrote under the firm, deadly hand of the government. Modern analyses lead to this sentence on Mongolic: "The best-known member of this language family, Mongolian, is the primary language of most of the residents of Mongolia and the Mongolian residents of Inner Mongolia, China with an estimated 5.2 million speakers." In any argument, the Yugur, Mongguer/Salar and many other languages are definitely not included. Ogress smash! 21:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See, now you are trying to interpret the article by yourself, aren't you? The Mongolian language article already says "Beyond this one point, however, agreement ends". Only two scholarly opinions are mentioned after "for example", but that obviously does not mean these two opinions are the only ones. So your last statement won't work here. --Cartakes (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First sentence of Mongolian language: "The Mongolian language [...] is the official language of Mongolia and best-known member of the Mongolic language family." Immediately after the bit you cite it says, "Besides Mongolian, or "Central Mongolic", other languages in the Mongolic grouping include Dagur, spoken in eastern Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and in the vicinity of Tacheng in Xinjiang; the Shirongolic subgroup Shira Yugur, Bonan, Dongxiang, Monguor, and Kangjia, spoken Qinghai and Gansu regions; and the possibly extinct Moghol of Afghanistan." If Mongolian language is identical to Mongolic languages, then why does the article say differently? With cites? Ogress smash! 21:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When did I ever say that "Mongolian language is identical to Mongolic languages"? That article also mentions that "Mongolian belongs to the Mongolic languages. The delimitation of the Mongolian language within Mongolic is a much disputed theoretical problem, one whose resolution is impeded by the fact that existing data for the major varieties is not easily arrangeable according to a common set of linguistic criteria." Clearly no, Mongolian language is not identical to Mongolic languages, but the exact definition of Mongolian language *within* the Mongolic languages is up to opinions currently. --Cartakes (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mongols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923234831/http://english.chosun.com:80/w21data/html/news/200804/200804240009.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200804/200804240009.html

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016
Enkhjargal MNG (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)