Talk:Oirats

Split ethnicity and history?
What about splitting this into two articles? One on the Oirat/Kalmyk History, and then one on the Oirat ethnic group of Mongolia and China? Today they don't really fit into the category of "Kalmyk" of Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.106.234.100 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm not an expert by any means, but I don't see a clear division line yet. Note that any of the following articles (and probably others) may include relevant information:
 * Oirats
 * Kalmyks
 * Esen Tayisi
 * Altay people
 * Dzungar
 * Kalmykia
 * Torgut Mongols
 * Whatever change you propose in detail should make sure that no unnecessary redundancy between those is created. In any case you'll have to find good and reliable sources. This may be somewhat difficult because it is a rather obscure topic. Just as an example, a statement like "Perhaps also Derbet, Khoit, & Darkhat." clearly needs an attribution, or it will be qualified as Original Research. Maybe you have access to related scientific material, which would be great. --Latebird 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be happy with either a change or a big cleanup, but it is a really complicated thing--I'd be happy either way, with a Oirat ethnicity article, and a Oirat History or by putting them together. If we end up making an Oirat history article seperate, that can also be the Kalmyk early history, for the most part, which could be linked from the Kalmyk page. I don't think there is enough for the Torghut article yet, and if we start delving into the Oirat tribes we might as well start an Oolt page, and so on. The Russian Kalmyk page has a nice map of where Oirat is spoken (in Russian). That would be cool to change over here too. I'm happy to do whatever people in general want-as best as I can. --Erkin2008 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anybody know about the Derbet, Khoit, & Darkhat tribes--that is more then just thought? I only knew of the first four that are mentioned, but these were carried on from some older Wikipedia article.--Erkin2008 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Oirat Tribes
In NW Mongolia, the Oirat tribes are as follows:


 * Choros (or Olot)
 * Dorbet
 * Khoit
 * Torghut
 * Khoshut
 * Bayid
 * Mangit
 * Darkhat
 * Urianhai
 * Zakhachin

The first eight tribes listed above also call the Dzungaria region of NW China and the Amdo region of NE Tibet home.

In the early 17th century, the first three Oirat tribes listed above formed the Dzungar Khanate. The Khoshuts, otoh, formed the Khoshut Khanate in the Amdo region of NE Tibet. The Torghut tribe with minor elements of the Dorbet tribe migrated westward to the Caspian steppe to form what would become known as the Kalmyk Khanate. --Buzava 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting information, what's the source? Maybe it is best to add all reliable facts (and references) to the article, and then figure out how to split the result. --08:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm Kalmyk-Oirat and wrote about 98 percent of the Kalmyk article. --Buzava 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which makes it especially important to avoid Original Research. I assume you're familiar with Wikipedia's requirements of Attribution? On the positive side, you might have access to sources that would be very difficult for others to access. Just list them as references and everything is fine. --Latebird 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up...
Total population: 166,000

Regions with significant populations People's Republic of China 	166,000 Mongolia Mongolia 	       205,500

It seems that the total population is only that of China. I could easily add them up but i don't like to assume an article on wikipedia without citations is reliable so i won't just assume these numbers. Just an FYI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Contraditiction
The article contradicts name of Güshi Khan spelled differently in different articles all over the place and more importantly, Lha-bzang Khan is listed as great grandson here, but grandson on his own page of Güshi Khan.Jinnai (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The spelling of historical Mongol (and other) names tends to be somewhat volatile, so I wouldn't really see this as a contradiction (other than grandson vs. great grandson, of course). There are two possibilities to solve this: Ideally, you can demonstrate which spelling is most common en recent English language sources. If that is not possible, then you can search for the historical spelling in the traditional Mongolian script and transcribe from there. There's some discussion sprinkled over Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian) about the best transcription system to use. The experts there are likely to lend a helpful hand. --Latebird (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oirats under Chingisids
In 1207, Jochi subjugated forest tribes including Oirats. His father gave them to his eldest son for his bravery. Most scholars agree that they were under the direct control of Yuan emperors. But some scholars said that Oirats headed by Khaidu were fighting against Khubilai. I read that Naimans were annexed by Khaidu around 1280's. Who was their supreme lord in the late Mongol Empire: Kublai, Khaidu or probably Jochids. Is there anyone know about it?.--Enerelt (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Chinese Name
Is it appopirate to add 瓦刺 this chinese name and redirect it to this article?Mark Mak (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since a significant nuber live in China, that seems perfectly appropriate to me. --Latebird (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kalmyks and Oirats
As is explained in the articles Kalmyk people and Oirats, the two groups have the same origin. Specifically, the Kalmyks are a historical subgroup of the Oirats that have moved to the west. There is no justification for removing this information from the article. --Latebird (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
it seems Rajmaan's edit is too china-centric and the sources are obviously POV-ish. The sources even stated that "There were no longer Mongols. There were only khans and followers." and the identity "Mongol" should be defined by the Ming/Qin dynasty's definition. It is clearly POV-ish and even attempts to say the identity "Mongols" were created by the Qin. It should be noted that the definition of Mongols are different from what the Qin/Ming defined.

Oirats were called as Oirat Mongols or the Western Mongols time to time:

https://books.google.com/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&lpg=PA606&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA606#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZRIt9sZaTREC&lpg=PA20&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&lpg=PA94&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=AzG5llo3YCMC&lpg=PA171&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&lpg=PA94&dq=oirat%20mongols&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=oirat%20mongols&f=false

Oirats and Khalkhas were distinguished, but not the "Mongol" identity.216.185.114.219 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Western Mongols" and "Oirat Mongols" appear to be a modern names applied by modern scholars. The statement I added clearly says what the Oirats self-identified as, not modern classifications applied to them. The sources note that the Oirats did not call themselves Mongols at the time of the Northern Yuan and Ming dynasties. If you want to add that modern scholars or other peoples call them "Western Mongols" or "Oirat Mongols", go ahead, but don't remove sourced information about what the Oirats called themselves. One of the sources says that its in fact the Ming Chinese who lumped Oirats and Mongols together as "Mongols" while Oirats themselves did not and distinguished themselves from Mongols so how is it China-centric, when the edit i added is opposite of the Chinese view? In fact, the modern PRC government of China classifies Oirats as Mongols and forces them to use Chahar Mongol (an Inner Mongolian dialect) instead of the Oirat language in schools, and refuses to classify them as a separate people. They designate Oirat counties in Xinjiang as "Mongol autonomous" counties or prefectures like Bayingolin Mongol Autonomous Prefecture. I discussed sources describing this policy with another user at Talk:Oirat_language. This is why the Oirat language is currently endangered. If anything, the Chinese POV is exactly the POV you are subscribing to. And the other source doesn't say Mongols were created by the Qing. It says the Qing expanded the label of Mongol to the Oirats and Khorchin whereas previously only the six Tumen (ruled by the Northern Yuan) called themselves Mongols.Rajmaan (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are using the identity "Mongols" very narrowly. Oirats were called as Mongols during the Mongol Empire, but you claimed that they were never called as Mongols. The distinction of Oirats and Eastern Mongols appeared much later, after the fall of Yuan. And even Khosuds were eastern Mongols and ruled by Khasar's descendants. So your claim can't be true. Your claim insists that Oirats are not Mongols. But you have to read the definition of Mongols. https://books.google.com/books?id=mwN1BgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA27&ots=EyQxcm_aGJ&dq=oirats%20history&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q=oirats%20history&f=falseTodHirilla (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that they were called as Oirats, not as Mongols during the Min/Qin. But you have to remove the "Never". And replace it with "They called themselves as Oirads to differentiate from the eastern Mongols after the fall of Yuan dynasty".TodHirilla (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are deleting sourced content. It was the Qing who expanded the term "Mongol" to include all Mongolic groups like Oirat and Khorchin when they put them under jurisdiction of the Lifanyuan which led to a unified Mongol identity including all Mongolic peoples. It was under the Qing administration that the ethnonym Mongol was used to override such ethnonyms as Oirad and Horchin, expanding the name that had earlier been monopolized by the Chinggisid six tumens, before that the Chinggisid ruled Six Tumens only called themselves Mongol. And the other source also very clearly states that By the early seventeenth century, the political fracture of Mongolia into Oyirod- and Chakhar-dominated halves was accompanied by cultural distinctions that were mutually noted. Their languages-seen as mutually intelligible dialects by the Chinese and undoubtedly by man other outsiders-were regarded between themselves as distinct. It doesn't matter whether Oirat is in fact just a dialect, what matters is how Oirats viewed their own language because the content is about their own opinion. This is about how Oirats viewed themselves, it doesn't say that the Qing created the Mongolian ethnicity and it doesn't pass judgement on whether Oirat is in fact a language.


 * You are also messing up the population figures. The population estimate for 1755 includes Oirat Kalmyks living near the Volga river in Kalmykia in Russia. They numbered several hundred thousand. Them plus the Oirats living in Dzungaria made up the total population of over a million before the Manchus killed most of the Oirats in Dzungaria.Rajmaan (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * explain your edits here . You are directly deleting information supported by the source and the reason you gave in your edit summaries is not valid per my explanation above. Nowhere does it say in the delete text that the Qing created the Mongolian ethnicity, neither does it actually comment on the truthfulness of the claim that Oirat and Mongolian langauges are distinct, it says that the Qing expanded Mongol identity to include Oirat and Khorchin and that Oirats viewed their language as distinct from Mongol. If you don't adequately explain your objection and provide sources then your deletions are invalid.Rajmaan (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The identity "Mongols" formed in 13th century with the formation of the the Mongol empire, not by the Qin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols. You are suggesting a very different thing. Maybe the chinese definition of Mongols changed by the Qin, but you are trying to expand that to the entire definition. That is what I am saying china-centric view.TodHirilla (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the number of Oirats, you can go to the Dzungar genocide and contest there if you wish. There are few sources.TodHirilla (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Genghis Khan already unified Mongolic-speaking tribes under the name "Mongol". It's widely accepted.


 * Dzungar genocide only provides the number of Oirats who lived in Dzungaria. The Oirats who lived in Kalmykia were not counted and they were several hundred thousand.


 * When it says the Qing "expanded" the definition of "Mongol", it meant that the Qing expanded it from the time of the Six Tumens when Mongols only referred to the Six Tumens, and after the Qing took over the Khorchins and others outside of the Six Tumens, it put them under the label of "Mongol" in the Lifanyuan.Rajmaan (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, you are only talking about the definition "Mongol" in CHINESE, not global nor the definition of Mongols themselves. Stop this kind of behavior and think about it little more. TodHirilla (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the numbers, it's only talking about the Oirats who were living in the Zungaria during 1755 and it also didn't include the Kalmyks in Russia in the current number.TodHirilla (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It clearly says its only the definition during the time of the Six Tumens only now, it does not say that it was the permanent definition of Mongol throughout history.Rajmaan (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The writer by the way is an ethnic Mongol scholar named Uradyn E. Bulag. He is the one writing that the Qing gave the label Mongol to Oirats and Khorchin after the time when only the Six Tumens used that name.Rajmaan (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, you don't get that it is only about a definition in chinese, not in Mongolian nor in Oirat language. You can mention such thing in chinese wiki, but not in other languages. The writer is probably a inner Mongolian, so it is understandable if he/she talked about the chinese definition. So keep the claims in the chinese wiki. TodHirilla (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Kalmyks are called as Kalmyk Mongols. It is clear that they are not named by the Qin. Hope you can see the difference between the definition in chinese and definitions in other languages. You and the source are only talking about what the Ming/Qing called Mongols.TodHirilla (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming this is Chinese: yadayadu mongɣul-un törü-yi jasaqu yabudal-un yamun? The Qing was the one who placed all Mongolic speaking peoples like, Oirats, Khorchin, and others under the jurisdiction of that government department.Rajmaan (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Russians also gave Kalmyks the name "Mongol".Rajmaan (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not russians, kalmyks themselves.
 * That makes it more clear. It's clearly talking about what the Qing called them, not what Mongols/Oirats called themselves. You can talk about difference between Khalkha and Oirats, but it is just an foolish attempt to distinct them from the general Mongol identity. Please read the general definition of Mongols. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols TodHirilla (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to participate in this discussion, so I will try to make some comments here.

Rajmaan: Again, the claim that the term Mongol was defined or expanded by the Qing is an exceptional claim. You need multiple high-quality sources to support your claim. Before doing so, please don't make such POV push in WP articles.

TodHirilla: Please don't make a division between Chinese definitions and definitions in other languages. Focus on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies, please. In fact, I know you are also a sock-puppet, just like Ceithe and a few others. It is not my desire to keep you outside of Wikipedia, but you need to make a fresh start and focus on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies instead. Thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Evecurid, Thanks for responding. Rajmaan is pushing a clearly POV edits.
 * Please, file a sockpuppet investigation if you think I am a sockpuppet. 216.185.114.219 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I have opened a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Ancientsteppe. --Evecurid (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulag and Crossley both assert that the Qing expanded the Mongol name. Crossley's entire work "Making Mongols" is about how the Qing reconstructed and reinvented Mongol identity for their own political usage, and how the Qing definition of Mongol persisted to the present day.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA79&dq=The+unity+that+the+Qing+were+determined+to+force+Dzunghars+included+imposed+diverse&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jC4BVZOVLMG_ggSYsIDwCw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20unity%20that%20the%20Qing%20were%20determined%20to%20force%20Dzunghars%20included%20imposed%20diverse&f=false ''The unity that the Qing were determined to force upon the “Mongols” (though the former Dzunghars would not be included) was in fact indistinguishable from the definition of “Mongol” that Chinggis had imposed upon the diverse groups of what is now the Mongolian steppe. It was not language or religious affiliation or even economic life that defined a Mongol, but the act of affiliating with Chingis's organization and acknowledging him as the only (and later, as the eternal) leader. As noted in the beginning of this essay, many Mongolian-speaking groups did not get "Mongolized" (really, Chinggisized) in this process, and many Turkic speaking groups did. It was this equation between followership and being Mongol that the Qing depended upon to give themselves legitimacy with the Mongol nobility......... But the Qing also changed criteria, opening the way to conpects of affiliation that we would now regard as "ethnic" or "national." They firmly installed linguistic unity and standardization as a criterion of identity, neither of which had any traditional standing..........It is ultimately the Qing legacy of relative autonomy that has left the deepest marks on our notions of Mongol identity.....A durable notion of coherent Mongol identity within a non-Mongol state not only made the Qing empire possible, but has made the People's Republic of China-encompassing "Inner Mongolia" while bordering on an independent Mongol state-possible.'']

It was under the Qing administration that the ethnonym Mongol was used to override such ethnonyms as Oirad and Horchin, expanding the name that had earlier been monopolized by the Chinggisid six tumens.... Almost all the Mongols, except the Buryats in southern Siberia and the Kalmyks who migrated to the Volga region, were administered by the Lifan Yuan (Board of Colonial Affairs, M. yadayadu mongɣul-un törü-yi jasaqu yabudal-un yamun), inculcating a sense of unified Mongolian identity as opposed to the Manchu, Tibetans, Muslims and Han.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA59&dq=comparatively+autonomous+during+the+period+of+the+Mongol+empires,+largely+because+of+their+peripheral+locations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6SgBVYL-FIOlNqzog7gP&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=comparatively%20autonomous%20during%20the%20period%20of%20the%20Mongol%20empires%2C%20largely%20because%20of%20their%20peripheral%20locations&f=false ''The Qing, particularly, both nurtured the esatblishment of criteria of Mongol affiliation and forced the political dismemberment of territories inhabited by a majority of those now considered Mongols.................the Six Tümen faced geographical and political competition from Mongolian-speaking groups with distinct histories from the former Yuan population of Mongols—including the Oyirods10 of the Lake Balkhash region, the Khorchins11 at the perimeter with Ming Liaodong, and the Buryats of the extreme north. They had remained comparatively autonomous during the period of the Mongol empires, larely because of their peripheral locations.'']

[https://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false ''These were spectacular additions to the small cort of mostly Khorchin-originated "Mongols"...... It began in 1636 as the "Mongol Department"......One of its chief duties in these days was to track the titles awarded to Khorchin, Kharachin, and Khalkha nobles who declared allegiance to the Qing.......The "Mongol Department" also began assuming responsibilities-previously vested in the khans themselves of eastern Mongolia-for the adjudication of disputes amogn the Khorchin, Kharachin, Chakhar, and incorporated Khalkha (now, in Qing nomenclature, all "Mongol") populations.'']

[https://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false ''Through the Oyirods had preceded the Dzunghars in the region (and most Dzunghars were of Oyirod descent), it became a distinctive feature of Qianlong rhetoric to neutralize the Oyirod heritage of the Dzunghars. There was no delicacy at the Lifan Yuan regarding whether the Dzunghars were or were not Mongols(and therefore subject to Qing authority)—they were moxi elete menggu, “the Oyirod Mongols west of the Gobi.'']

The Oyirods of the time of Chinggis were residents of the wooded lands west of Lake Balkhash, apparently Mongolian-speaking but not "Mongolized" in the sense of being incorporated into the Chinggisid empire.....Qing records of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries refer to them as moxi Elete Menggu, "the Oyirod Mongols west of the Gobi."

[https://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA64&dq=%E2%80%9CMongols%E2%80%9D+%28monggoli%29+was+their+term+for+the+eastern+alliance+under+the+Chakhar+Khaghans&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XisBVZa5OomlNu_UgfgD&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CMongols%E2%80%9D%20%28monggoli%29%20was%20their%20term%20for%20the%20eastern%20alliance%20under%20the%20Chakhar%20Khaghans&f=false ''By the early seventeenth century, the political fracture of Mongolia into Oyirod- and Chakhar-dominated halves was accompanied by cultural distinctions that were mutually noted. Their languages-seen as mutually intelligible dialects by the Chinese and undoubtedly by man other outsiders-were regarded between themselves as distinct...... The Oyirods did not call themselves “Mongols,” but rather the “Four Oyirods” (dörbön oyirad). “Mongols” (monggoli)was their term for the eastern alliance under the Chakhar khaghans.'']

Pamela Crossley uses scare quotes around "Mongols" when referring to Khorchin, but leaves it out when referring to the Chahar.

by the descendants of these early "Mongol" adherents, including Songyun (1752-1635), descendant of the Marat lineage of the Khorchins.........The Chakhar Mongols, the smallest component of the Mongol banner population.

Rajmaan (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "...Oirats called themselves "Four Oirats" while they only called those under the Khagans in the east as "Mongols".. Isn't it just enough? It is already in the article. Hoshuuts were definitely Eastern Mongols and they were one of the Four. How can you claim they didn't call themselves Mongols? 142.255.6.214 (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article needs to explain the reason why they are called Mongols now. In China today, Oirats and Khorchins are classified as Mongols and not given a separate category, because of Qing policy, it was the Qing who classified them under that label. In Russia, Kalmyks and Buryats are separate and there is no single Mongol ethnicity.Rajmaan (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "There is no single Mongol ethnicity". You are going more and more in wrong direction. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * IN Russia, there is no single Mongol ethnicity. Buryats and Kalmyks aren't grouped together in the same ethnicity.Rajmaan (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Come on. Did you read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols? Why don't you go there and contest your fringe theory?142.255.6.214 (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I said there is no single Mongol ethnicity in Russia. Stop trying to veer the topic off course. The fact is that the reason why Oirats and Khorchin in China are classified as Mongols, is because the Qing expanded the definition of Mongol to refer to them for political reasons. While Buryats and Kalmyks lived outside of Qing territory in Russia so they are classified into two different groups. In China, there is a single Mongol ethnic classification used by the government because of the Qing.Rajmaan (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You still don't realize that there is a distinction between the general "Mongol" ethnicity and its subgroups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buryats. You can talk difference between Khalkhas, Oirats, Khorchins, Chahars, Buryats and Kalmyks. https://books.google.com/books?id=0fwMBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT20&dq=khalkhas%20oirats&pg=PT20#v=onepage&q=khalkhas%20oirats&f=false But not Mongols and Khalkhas, Mongols and Oirats nor Mongols and Khorchins. They are under the general "Mongol" identity. In the 16th century the eastern Mongols (of Mongolia) were called as Khalkhas or Khalkha Mongols, not as Mongols. https://books.google.com/books?id=RVrYAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA89&dq=khalkhas%20oirats&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q=khalkhas%20oirats&f=false This difference exist even today. There were almays differences between subgroups of Mongols and it didn't dissappear under the Qing. So please stop wasting your time on a clearly fringe theory or a misunderstanding. And you are still intentionly ignoring Khosuhds. They were the strongest (probably most populous) among the Oirats. https://books.google.com/books?id=mwN1BgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA28&dq=khalkhas%20oirats&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q=khalkhas%20oirats&f=false 142.255.6.214 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

None of those show any evidence that the Oirats called themselves Mongol before the Qing. The modern people known as "Uyghurs" were not called Uyghurs until 1921, yet scholars, for convenience, use "Uyghur" to refer to their ancestors during the 17th-20th centuries, for convenience.-

Using the terms Kazaks, Kirghiz, and Uyhur for the pre-twenteith century is anachronistic, yet folliwng James Millward....I used them here to refer to the Turkic-speaking peoples of the region in and around the Tarim Basin

The term 'Uyghur' was not used in this sense in the eighteenth century......I used the term Uyghur here for the Turkic Muslims of the Tarim and Turfan Basins as well as for the transplanted Taranchis; I do so for this period of convenience, albeit somewhat anachronistically, as it was a century before the term Uyghur was used in its current sense.

For purposes of simplicity I have used the anachronistic ethnonym Uyghur (in inverted commas) ...

Oirats did not label themselves as Mongols, what modern scholars calling them now doesn't erase the fact that the Qing were the ones who classified them as Mongol.

Khalkhas and Chahars were part of the Six Tumens. Khalkha and Chahar were the names of the specific Tumen and Mongol was the name of all the Six Tumens, but limited to the Six Tumens only. Oirats and Khorchin and Buryats were not part of the Six Tumens.

Khoshuuts were only 1 out of the 4 tribes, and they changed their identity when joining the Oirat confederation. How is that supposed to change the identity of the 3 other tribes? It was Khoshuuts joining the Oirat, not the other way around. Scholars consider the Mongol identity throughout history to be changeable and flexible, first Genghis Khan used it to name his followers, then the Six Tumens used the name for themselves, then the Qing redefined the definition to include Oirat and Khorchin

[https://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA79&dq=The+unity+that+the+Qing+were+determined+to+force+Dzunghars+included+imposed+diverse&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jC4BVZOVLMG_ggSYsIDwCw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20unity%20that%20the%20Qing%20were%20determined%20to%20force%20Dzunghars%20included%20imposed%20diverse&f=false ''The unity that the Qing were determined to force upon the “Mongols” (though the former Dzunghars would not be included) was in fact indistinguishable from the definition of “Mongol” that Chinggis had imposed upon the diverse groups of what is now the Mongolian steppe. It was not language or religious affiliation or even economic life that defined a Mongol, but the act of affiliating with Chingis's organization and acknowledging him as the only (and later, as the eternal) leader. As noted in the beginning of this essay, many Mongolian-speaking groups did not get "Mongolized" (really, Chinggisized) in this process, and many Turkic speaking groups did. It was this equation between followership and being Mongol that the Qing depended upon to give themselves legitimacy with the Mongol nobility......... But the Qing also changed criteria, opening the way to conpects of affiliation that we would now regard as "ethnic" or "national." They firmly installed linguistic unity and standardization as a criterion of identity, neither of which had any traditional standing..........It is ultimately the Qing legacy of relative autonomy that has left the deepest marks on our notions of Mongol identity.....A durable notion of coherent Mongol identity within a non-Mongol state not only made the Qing empire possible, but has made the People's Republic of China-encompassing "Inner Mongolia" while bordering on an independent Mongol state-possible.'']

Rajmaan (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no time for your fringe theory and your unwillingness to understand your problem. So let me be clear, I'll remove if you do the same edits. No one is supporting you here. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rajmaan: I was thinking it was a fringe theory too, but thanks anyway for your hard work to find so many sources.

IP 142.255.6.214 or other editors: could you find any sources saying the opposite? If there are such sources then obviously we cannot add such content as is. By the way, IP user: while not mandatory, it is recommended to register an account for more convenient discussions. Thanks for understanding. --Evecurid (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rajmaan Please, stop pushing your POV. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an interesting suggestion of how "Mongol" identity may have been redeveloped during 18th century by Morris Rossabi. And it is much more plausible than your fringe theory. https://books.google.com/books?id=GXejBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA443&dq=mongol%20identity&pg=PA455#v=onepage&q=mongol%20identity&f=false142.255.6.214 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statements like "Oirats did not use the name "Mongols" for themselves" and "Mongols and Oirats viewed their own languages as separate from each other even though foreigners like Chinese saw them as dialects of the same language and saw all of them as Mongols" are just too much unreliable and exaggerated claims. It is not like you had a poll result of 17th century. Also Khoshuts (at least 1/4 of Oirats) were definitely eastern Mongols and you know it. How can you claim they didn't use the name "Mongol" and how can you claim the Oirats didn't use it if Khoshuts used it? Please stop it your fringe theory. 142.255.6.214 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote that Khoshuuts used to have Mongol identity, you deleted it deliberately because you wanted to make it seem as though all Oirats had Mongol identity so you couldn't have the Khoshuuts singled out from all the other Oirat tribes who they joined when they adopted Oirat identity. The other three Oirat trbies never had Borjigin rulers and did not call themselves Mongol before the Qing. Mongol was a political identity, only the tribes who pledged allegiance to Genghis Khan and his descendants as their rulers were Mongols, while other people who spoke Mongolic languages were not part of this. (Khoshuut originated from the Khorchins whose leaders were descended from Khasar not Genghis Khan. In fact Bulag included Khorchins along with Oirats as peoples who were labelled Mongol first by the Qing and were not considered Mongol before that, but I didn't have any issues with saying Khoshuuts were the only Mongol origin tribe like its described in the sources-.) Khoshuuts left the Borjigin led Mongol order and to live under Oirat rule and adopting Oirat identity. So how does the Khoshuuts giving up leadership under the Chingisid Khans, and adopting the identity of non-chingisid Oirats, make Oirats into Mongols? Mongol was used only by Genghis's original followers and then later by the Six Tumens until the Qing expanded it. Pamela Kyle Crossley and Bulag are historians with degrees in this field and you are in no position to claim they are pushing a "fringe theory". The most important clan among the Oirads was Choros.Rajmaan (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Crossley (2006: 64) makes an interesting claim, but doesn’t provide her own source of evidence. Her claim might or might not be true, and I won’t take her word for it. She, however, is not providing her own source(s), so citing her (as your second source does) is fairly pointless. But so much being said, the Mongols of Cinggis Khan’s time would probably not call the Oirats “monggol”, albeit outsiders might already have done so at that time. (Taupier (2015: 27) seems to claim the opposite, but I couldn’t identify the paragraph of the SH from which this claim is drawn in a quick search through the 56 instances of dörbe in the SH. Maybe somebody can help?) If Bulag supports Crossley’s claim, in turn, I suspect that he has independent evidence, as he is quite familar with at least some of the relevant primary sources. Concluding, I must say that none of the sources cited is presenting solid evidence for their claims, but that it is not at all implausible to assume that the label was only extended at Qing time. G Purevdorj (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We are talking about the period stretching from Genghis Khan all the way through the Mongol Empire and to the Six Tumens. The Qing started conquering the Six Tumens around the 1630's when the conquered the Chahar, and the Qing opened up the Lifanyuan during that period which detailed their Mongol policy- they immediately classified Khorchins as Mongols when they first created that government department.


 * Multiple other scholars also indicate that Oirats in the period before the Qing were not called Mongols, the Khoshuut are specifically singled out as the only Mongol origin tribe among the Oirats in sources- indicating the other original Oirat tribes are of all non-Mongol origin, and that Khoshuut left the Eastern Mongols in 1580 to join with the non-Mongol Oirat confederacy-(and 1580 is a very late date, the Oirats were formed way before that, the source notes that Khoshuut were the only Mongol tribe and they joined the Oirats very late).


 * Sources also described the Oirat Confederacy as "anti-Yuan", anti-Mongol", and "Anti-Qubilaid" (against Kublai Khan's descendants who ruled Mongolia and the Six Tumens during the Ming dynasty period). this source says that the Oirat were against the Mongols, and that later the Khoshuts joined the Oirat.


 * The shared law code adopted in 1640 by Oirats in Mongols is called the "Mongol-Oirat Code" (Monggol-Oirat-un Chaaji-yin Bichig), plus there is the fact that when Erdeni Batur summoned the meeting together in 1640, it was between 40 Mongol Tumens and 4 Oirat Tumens. I remember that it was also called the "Great Code of the Forty and the Four" (Döchin Dörben Hoyar un ike Tsagaza) by the Mongols and Oirats themselves. The 4 Oirat Tumens were clearly distinguished and set apart from the 40 Mongol Tumens. Otherwise it would just be "the 44 Tumens" and people would just call it the "Mongol Code".


 * David Sneath indicates that he believes in a non-Mongol identity for the Oirats- At this time Oirat rulers controlled much of western Mongolia and what is nor northern Xinjiang, and the clashes between them and the Chinggisid Mongol princes continued....the leading Mongol and Oirat lords had decided that is was time to...form a new political union. common to both Mongol- (i.e., Chinggisid) and Oirat-ruled domains


 * I think its safe to say that there is a number of scholars who hold the view that Oirats were not considered Mongols during the period we are talking about (Mongol Empire to the end of the Ming dynasty). They didn't all rely on Crossley.


 * That is all indicating that Oirats were not considered Mongols before the Qing, now about the issue of the Qing themselves giving Oirats the Mongol identity, I phrased it in my latest edits that "Pamela Kyle Crossley wrote" and "Uradyn E. Bulag wrote".Rajmaan (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rajmaan: Besides the issue with sourcing, please also try to consider how your newly added materials fit in with the rest of the text, especially when you are adding large chunks of information. Sometimes you can just link to relevant articles instead of placing the same materials in multiple articles. Thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The part we are discussing about Oirats and the Qing is now only found on this article. Other parts dealing with China's current classification of Oirats were copied from Mongolian language and Tuvans.Rajmaan (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved user
There is a massive amount of text above, and I have not sifted through all of it. I am unsure how widely scholarship accepts the theory that the Oirats are considered Mongol because of Qing dynasty policy. However, I agree that during the time of the Mongol Empire, they were not considered "Mongol." "Mongol" then was not an ethnonym but a political designation. Clearly, at some point, the Oirats became considered Mongolic. So far, only Rajmaan has supplied in depth scholarship as to why the Oirats are now considered Mongol. The Rossabi source above is intriguing, but does not specify the Oirats. Note also that Rossabi is still talking about Qing dynasty, only that Mongol identity developed as a reaction to Qing policy. It seems quite clear that it was during the Qing dynasty that the modern conception of a Mongol ethnicity developed, though the exact reasons for that might vary. There's no reason that it couldn't also have been the result of both Qing policies and reaction to those policies - a sort of feedback loop, if you will.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Its pretty clear that Rossabi was talking about Khalkha Mongols in Mongolia.Rajmaan (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic designations are always and exclusively politically motivated and self assigned. It's not a matter of external labelling, but of a groups' self-identification. The "scientific process" to determine the answer to this question is therefore very simple: Do we have sources that indicate whether the Oirats past and present consider(ed) themselfes to be Mongols? How other people look at them (or have historically looked at them) doesn't really matter, other than that significant dissenting views should be explained in the article. In absence of a documented self-assignment, we'd have to resort to cultural clues: If they have inherited a mongolic language from their ancestors, then they are most likely Mongols. --Latebird (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Language is not necessarily a major factor of self-identification, so the language clue you suggest is not valid. You would be surprised how many divergent cases you could find in Amdo. In the absence of positive evidence for their self-assessment, we should be no means make any positive conclusions based on such abstract reasoning. I don't agree with your second claim either. As a linguist, I happily assign the label "Mongol" to all Mongolic-speaking peoples, whether or not they agree. Janhunen in his ethnography of Manchuria follows a similar approach. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not claimed any causal connection between language and self-assignment. Our only actual disagreement seems to be that I would give a known self-assignment priority over linguistic criteria. But then, does anyone actually dispute that the Oirats are Mongols by language? This whole dispute is kind of hard to understand... I would expect the Oirats/Kalmyks to be rather proud of their Mongol heritage, no matter how the Qing happened to classify them. --Latebird (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason why outsiders call the family the "Mongolic" language family is because Mongols were the historically better known and dominant group (the people who created the Mongol empire), if it were the opposite case- if Oirats had instead built the "Oirat empire", then people would call it "Oiratic" language family, and people would debate on whether to label Eastern Mongols as "Eastern Oirats". This is similar to the Iroquoian languages of North America, where linguists arbitrarily chose the name of the better known Iroquois and then named the entire language family after them, including the Iroquois's enemies, the Huron, and with the Japonic languages, where the better known Japanese language was used to label the entire family instead of the Ryukyuan languages. Linguists chose one language to designate the entire language family without actually consulting all the speakers.Rajmaan (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Past and present designations can also be very different. 120 years ago, an ordinary Uyghur would have gaped at you in extreme confusion if you asked them if they were a "Uyghur". Now, Uyghurs fiercely believe that they are all descendants of the Uyghur Khaganate and its rightful heirs and would balk at anyone suggesting otherwise. For Oirats we have to clearly differentiate between what Oirats in the past thought from what Oirats consider themselves now, especially since the Chinese government enforces the label Mongol on them, classifies them as Mongols and makes them learn Chahar Mongol and Mandarin instead of Oirat in schools.Rajmaan (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tribes or ethnic groups?
The sentence "the Oirats were composed of four major tribes" has been recently changed to "the Oirats were composed of four major ethnic groups". Are they considered as tribes or ethnic groups? Thanks for suggestions. --Cartakes (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Its tribes, and we still haven't resolved the issue in the above sections over Mongol vs Oirat. The ip address is watching the article and will probably edit war if anyone tries to oppose his point of view.Rajmaan (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have changed "ethnic groups" back to "tribes". As for the Mongol vs Oirat, how about summarize your content and show what you are going to add here? IMO there does not need to be too much text for writing the Mongol vs Oirat issue. --Cartakes (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, your content is absolutely useful for improving Wikipedia articles. Just may not be too long for this particular issue. Please don't hesitate to show your text if you find it useful. --Cartakes (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

''The scholar Pamela Kyle Crossley wrote in an essay "Making Mongols" on the process of how Mongol identity was redefined by the Qing dynasty. According to Crossley, the Qing added to the definition of Mongol identity from its earlier meaning under Genghis Khan by adding language as a new factor alongside allegiance to the Chinggisid idea, whereas earlier language was not a factor but allegiance to Genghis Khan as leader rather than language which was the standard for Mongol identity, as several Turkic speaking peoples were incorporated as Mongols under Genghis while several Mongol speaking peoples were not, with the Qing using both as standards to define Mongol identity. During the process of Genghis Khan putting together the Mongol Empire, the Oirats did not get "Mongolized" although they were Mongol speakers. In the era of the Mongol Empire the Oirats maintained a degree of autonomy and later they became rivals to the Six Tumen Mongols. After the fall of the Yuan dynasty, Oirat and Eastern Mongols had developed separate identities and Oirats called themselves "Four Oirats" while they only called the Six Tumens under the Chahar Khagans in the east as "Mongols" but did not use the name "Mongols" for themselves and the Mongols and Oirats viewed their own languages as separate from each other even though foreigners like Chinese saw them as dialects of the same language and saw all of them as "Mongols". Dr Uradyn E. Bulag wrote that the name "Mongol" was then only used to refer to the six tumens ruled by the Chinggisids which excluded the Oirats and Khorchin until the Qing dynasty expanded the name to refer to them. Pamela Kyle Crossley noted that the Qing Lifanyuan, to imply Qing sovereignty over the Oirat Dzungars, deliberately labelled them as Mongols. ''

I made sure that the views were attributed specifically to Crossley and Bulag and not an absolute statement but the ip keeps coming back and abusing the revert button.Rajmaan (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing your text. I find it useful (although I think there should be some wikilinks if you put it in the article). Any opinion from other editors? --Cartakes (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Oirats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613195921/http://www.kalm.ru/en/hist.html to http://www.kalm.ru/en/hist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oirats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oirad.mn/2011/12/%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2-%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD-%D0%BD%D2%AF%D2%AF%D0%B4%D1%8D%D0%BB/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118064901/http://www.minorityrights.org/2497/russian-federation/kalmyks.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/2497/russian-federation/kalmyks.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615053400/http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/ to http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/ldtc/languages/kalmyk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)