Talk:Mongolia

Independence from China in 1921, U.E.Bulag

My interpretation of Bulag's statement re. Mongolia's 1921 independence from China is that this is related to the Chinese "sucerainty" after the Khiagt conference, or even to the post-1919 state. In any case I have not really found any statement that implies that Bulag regards "Qing Dynasty" as a synonym for "China".

These 1919-1921 events were all already well-covered in the article, so I have reverted Pyl's recent addition, as it seemed a bit redundant.

I am aware that some people think that "Qing Dynasty" is just the same as "China". But there are also others who hold a very different POV. This is just an overview article and does not need to/can not go into full detail. For anyone who wants to write an article about these defferent POVs, a small discussion with a lot of references can be found in Liu Xiaoyuan, Reins of Liberation, p. 4 ff, with sentences like "These arguments about the difference between Han and Manchus and about the similarities between Qing imperialism and Western colonialism point to the same conclusion: Historically, the Inner Asian territories of the Qing empire were not part of China" (p.9) and "Therefore, if the question of what was a "part of China" is asked with the full connotation that the modern world order of nation-states entails, territories such as Tibet and Mongolia not only were not part of the "Chinese China", but also were not part of the "Manchu China"." (p.11). For the purposes of this article, I propose to just call the Qing Dynasty "Qing Dynasty". Yaan (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly an conflict of interpretation of facts between the source that I found and the POV that GenuineMongol has taken.

First, the independence issue. The source that I cited said independence was not achieved until 1921, although there was a declaration of independence in 1911. I find this POV accurate under the principles of international law. GenuineMongol has taken a POV that independence was reaffirmed in 1921. There is no such thing as reaffirmation in international law: a country either achieves independence or it does not. Then, there is a remaining issue of the referendum in 1945. If a country really is independent, then there is no need for a referenum for independence at all. I think there is another POV that Mongolia didn't achieve full independence until China's recognition, either in 1945 (by the ROC) or in 1949 (by the PRC).

Second, calling China's control of Ulan Bator in 1919 an act of occupation clearly breaks the NPOV rule.

Finally the more difficult issue of whether Qing dynasty is China. Page 13 of Mr Bulag's text has China all over the place. I am not sure how one can miss the connection between Qing dynasty and China. I am not sure whether in this discussion I am dealing with a sentence mentioned in Mr Bulag's text (at top of page 13) that:-

"As far as China is concerned, Mongolia had always been part of China, a claim that often flabbergasted Mongols."

As far as the rules of international law is concerned, I don't think a country can be independent of a dynasty. Independence relates to indepedence from a state. Qing dynasty is recognised internationally then as the representative for the state of China. In Mr Bulag's text it also states that:-

"It is now known that the Soviet Union signed a bilateral agreement with China in 1923 confirming the status of Monolia as part of China........ (see Elleman 1994)"

The POV that Qing dynasty is not China would also create implications in international law that is contrary to the facts at present. The ROC/PRC would not be able to the successor state for Qing China. If that's the case, the ROC and PRC's territory would be whatever they wished to conquer. I don't think this is international law theory they relied on, and certainly, this is not what is considered to be the case by the international community.

Is the POV that Qing dynasty not China a relatively minor POV and can be ignored according to Wikipedia's rules? Or, is this POV a major POV in Mongolia?

PS: to GenuineMongol, please don't remove my reference and replacing it with your POV without stating a reason.--pyl (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Mongolia became a de-facto independent country in 1911.

Second, pyl said "calling China's control of Ulan Bator in 1919 an act of occupation clearly breaks the NPOV rule". Didn't Chinese troops led by Xiu invade Mongolia then?

The POV that Qing dynasty not China is a major POV in Mongolia. Please see the discussion above about this POV issue. --GenuineMongol (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

de facto independence is not fully independence according to legal defintions. You therefore cannot just say it like the way you put it (without any qualification). According to your POV, there should be a sentence in Wikipedia saying "Taiwan is independent of China". That's clearly not the case.

That was an act of "taking over control". You can interpret it as "an act of occupation" or "reasserting Chinese sovereignty". In your Japanese example, yes it was internationally recognised act of military occupation. The US took over control of an internationally recognised sovereign state called Japan. In Mongolia's case, there are disputed POVs whether Mongolia was de jour independent at the time when the Chinese took over control of the capital. Therefore, the NPOV way of describing the event is "taking over control" and leave the interpretation to the readers.

Despite my requests, you again removed my reference without explaining why.--pyl (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The article did not say "Mongolia achieved full independence in 1911", instead it says "Mongolia declared its independence in 1911". Please open your eyes.

Qing dynasty had already been toppled and Mongolia and China had declared on different occasions their independence from Qing dynasty, when Xiu occupied Mongolian capital. So, it was occupation of Mongolia by a warlord of another country which was subject to Qing dynasty.

I explained my reasons in talk page. --GenuineMongol (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it helps to look into a dictionary: according to merriam-webster.com, occupation means, among some other things, "the act or process of taking possession of a place or area." Did Xu's troops take control of Khuree in 1919 or not? Is it

wrong to say the Japanese invaded or occupied Taiwan, as, after all, they got it awarded as the result of a bilateral treaty? Is it POV to talk about a Rhineland invasion instead of a Assertion of German souvereigniy over the Rhineland?

If you had read E. Bulag carefully, he does not say whether the Qing dynasty is China or not. He does say the Chinese think Mongolia always was part of China. What he says about 1911-1921 is that Mongolia declared independence from the Qing Dynasty in 1911, than had to accept Chinese suzereinty in 1915, was taken over by Chinese troops in 1919 and gained independence (this time from China) in 1921. Anything else is just your interpretation.

Liu gives discusses this whole "Qing Dynasty=China or not" stuff over several pages and points to multiple scientists (none of them Mongolian, I think) who have had their say on this issue. It's enough to say that the POV that Qing Dynasty is not synonymous with China is major enough to not simply assert the contrary. I don't know how much you know about international law, or why it should be relavant here. Certainly Austria is a well-defined entity even though it is not the same as Austro-Hungaria.

China got the 1945 referendum because Stalin was being nice. Or maybe he wanted to feel like a good democrat once in his life. For all practical purposes, Mongolia had been independent from 1921 on. They had their own government, own laws, own army, and did not give the slightest semblance of being part of the ROC. Yaan (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue with neutrality here is the word "occupation". It has a legal meaning, not just a plain English language meaning of "the act or process of taking possession of a place or area". I provided an internal link to the Wikipedia article of military occupation. Please have a read, and you will see how there are issues with neutrality when you use this word in this context.

There are clearly two competing POVs:

1. One is that Mongolia was independent in 1911, and the fact tha its capital was taken over by the Chinese troops would constitute an act of military occupation because it was a foreign military taking over control of a sovereign state.

2. There is another POV which says Mongolia was part of China and this declaration was not recognised by China until 1945 (the referendum). Therefore when the Chinese troops took over control of the capital in 1919, it was an reassertion of the Chinese sovereignty.

The main text as it stands now prefers the first POV while ignores the second. This becomes a neutrality issue as the latter POV is not a minor and insignificant POV. The main text therefore has to use the neutral term of "taking over control". You note that Bulag text also uses the same term?

If you read the

tag, it says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". I think the fact that I am discussing here means it's not resolved. Please follow Wikipedia's rules and do not remove it again.

I would at this stage accept your view that it is a major POV in Mongolia that Qing Dynasty does not necessarily equal to China.

And to GenuineMongol, I know the main text currently says "with the fall of the Qing Dynasty, Mongolia declared independence in 1911 from the Qing Dynasty". I read it properly. But the following sentence then says "the new country's......". What does the term "new country" imply? It implies that independence was achieved.

In order to resolve this matter, I propose that we change the wording:-

1. from "The new country's territory was approximately that of the former Outer Mongolia" to "The declared territory was approximately that of the former Outer Mongolia"

2. from "Chinese troops led by Xu Shuzheng occupied Mongolia" to "Chinese troops led by Xu Shuzheng took over control of the Mongolian capital"

Hope that would be acceptable.

I found your summary of Bulag's text quite well, as follows:-

He does say the Chinese think Mongolia always was part of China. What he says about 1911-1921 is that Mongolia declared independence from the Qing Dynasty in 1911, than had to accept Chinese suzereinty in 1915, was taken over by Chinese troops in 1919 and gained independence (this time from China) in 1921.

The current main text as it stands is very confusing in relation to the 2nd declaration of independence. Most readers would wonder why it was done. As I said above, if a country is indeed independent, then there is no need to declare independence again. Your summary gave a good reason why it was done. I think, if you don't mind, it would be most preferrable if you could add some of your summary to the main text to clarify the matter. This may hopefully avoid discussions like the one we are having in the future.--pyl (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you a native speaker of English? I am not, but I don't think wikipedia articles are acceptable sources to prove a certain wording is inappropriate, or to prove that some legalist usage trumps common usage. It is a fact, not a POV, that Xu's troops did not control Khuree or any other part of Mongolia before Nov. 1919, and that they controlled it afterwards. I.e. that they occupied it. This is completely independent from Mongolia's international status at that time, just like talking about the 1936 occupation or even invasion of the Rhineland does not imply a certain POV about whether the Rhineland was part of Germany in 1936 or not.

As I have said before, the "Qing!=China" POV is not just a major POV in Mongolia. Do names like Owen Lattimore or Liu Xiaoyuan sound very Mongolian to you.

Both of your proposed edits are unacceptable. The Mongolian government in 1911/12 actually claimed not just Outer, but also Inner Mongolia. They even sent troops there. Outer Mongolia was what they de facto controlled. And the troops led by Xu did not only take control of the capital, they took control of all of Outer Mongolia. Plus there is no reason to weasel around the fact that they did so by (a show of) military force. Say, rather different from the way Obama took control of the white house.

Why Mongolia declared independence again is quite easy to understand: because they had to accept Chinese suzerainty after 1915 and was even forced to give up autonomy in 1919/1920. I think all of this is explained in detail in the History of Mongolia article. And the bit about Chinese occupation is even mentioned here. If you think this is too complicated for readers, one could as well write that independence was reestablished. But in this article the purpose is to give an overview about Mongolian history, not about Chinese legalisms. It is much more relevant to mention that Mongolia became a Soviet satellite state in 1921, than to explain a legal framework with rather minor consequences. Yaan (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw. you understand that China agreed that it only held suzerainty about Mongolia, not souvereignity, in 1915? And that therefore your points about Xu's action not constituting an occupation are a bit strange on yet another count? Yaan (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that "China agreed that it only held suzertainty about Mongolia, not sovereignty" is a Mongolian POV, I think. I understand that the PRC POV is that China, prior to the Mongolian independence, held Mongolian sovereignty. The ROC still has the POV officially that China (as in the ROC) still holds Mongolian sovereignty.

I don't think this discussion is going to be fruitful. I think the next step is to seek another view at the neuality forum. But I don't have the time to pursue this right now so I would like to continue this in another day.--pyl (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is the ROC has not reverted its official POV since 2002, when the foreign ministry declared they regarded Mongolia as a foreign country. But that is besides the point here: That the signatories of the 1915 Kyakhta treaty agreed that Mongolia was only under Chinese suzerainty seems pretty much the standard interpretation in the west, see for example this US publication. Maybe Chinese POV is different, but I don't think discussing different POVs on this treaty is really a good idea in the "Mongolia" article: if there is some agreement that the treaty is very relevant to the "Mongolia" article, we could just go by what it actually states and leave contested interpretations out. Of course WP always has room for new articles that could cover such questions in more detail.

Actually, I'd be a bit sceptical that the PRC has an official POV at all on Mongolia's pre-1945 status, or on the Kyakhta treaty. Or in case the PRC has a POV on these topics, I'd still be sceptical that it does not have more than one. Sources are of course welcome.

I kind of agree that we will probably not come to an agreement, esp. when the discussion is about the possible interpretations of just one particular word. But certainly RfC etc. sounds like a very good idea. Regards, Yaan (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

cont.

"I am aware that some people think that "Qing Dynasty" is just the same as "China"."

Qing is China, that is not POV, read Qing treaties.

"But there are also others who hold a very different POV."

And???? Treaty is a fact, the Qing refers to itself as "China".93.136.24.14 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact is that the Qing Dynasty didn't treat Mongolia as a part of China, but instead administrated it as an external territory first through a Court of Colonial Affairs and later through a more general Foreign Office (Zongli Yamen). --Latebird (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Qing dynasty is China, if Mongolia was a part of Qing dynasty, than it was also a part of China, read Qing treaties such as this. Do you understand that treaty is a fact. 78.0.213.28 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The US quite frequently refer to themselves as "America", that doesn't mean the Phillipines were ever part of America. Re. your foreign-language map, do you think it was the mapmaker's intention to show Norway as part of Sweden, or the other way 'round? And shouldn't you really present a map in Chinese rather than one in some random foreign language?

I understand a treaty is a treaty. If two countries sign a treaty saying that the earth is flat, it does not yet mean that the earth is also flat in real life. The treaty you presented does neither say "Mongolia is part of China" or "Daiqing is China".

Your map is just one source, I don't think it trumps what Owen Lattimore or Liu Xiaoyuan (see above) have to say on that matter. Yaan (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the point of User:78.0.213.28. Treaties are different from unofficial maps in the way they are official documents and represent the official view or attitude of each government or political entity. The name(s) used in official treaties can reflect the name(s) that the entities wished to be officially called or referred to. In formal international treaties, the US almost always refers to itself by its constitutional full name at the beginning, which is "the United States of America", as seen for example in this 1868 treaty (ratified by both USA and China by 1869). The first sentence of this treaty stated "Whereas since the conclusion of the treaty between the United States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire (China) of the 18th of June, 1858...". Clearly "the United States of America" is used as the name of the polity on the US side, whereas "Ta-Tsing Empire" and "China" are used as the name of the polity on the Chinese side; apparently "Ta Tsing" (i.e. Daiqing or Great Qing) and "China" refer to the same entity, i.e. Qing Dynasty of China. In the body of the treaty, "the United States" is often used as an abbreviated name for the USA, whereas "China" and "Chinese Government" are used to refer to the Chinese side (e.g. Article VII stated "Citizens of the United States shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of China, and reciprocally, Chinese subjects shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of the United States..."). Thus, it should be reasonable to conclude the official or legal names of both sides wished to be referred to, that is, "the United States (of America)" for the US, and "Ta Tsing" or "China" as synonyms for Qing China. So "Daiqing is China" is officially true from Qing itself and it is recognized in international treaties.--173.206.72.255 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if we'd accept one or two two treaties in English language as proof of what the DaiQing wanted to be referred to, there might still be the problem that what you want to be referred to does not necessarily exhaust all of your functions, or that what you want to be referred to might change over time, or that what you want to be referred to depends on who refers to you. Yaan (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

11 July 1921 Mongolia was declared independent again - from what country? Because a country independence can be from an other country. If a foreign dynasty was changed to a native one - can this be an independence? In England the House of Stuart was replaced with the House of Hanover - so England lost its independence? Every time we are with the level of control problem - Mongolia was a part of the Qing Empire, but it was not ruled with the same manner as the native Chinese parts of this empire. British Empire was not the Great Britain, and UK was not the British Empire, but a part of the Empire only, but special - ruling - part. As in XIX Central Asia was russian but was not Russia. Russian laws were for Russians only, native Central Asia population was under native Muslim legal system. In my opinion Mongolia declared independency not as a China part, but as a dependent country (protectorate?). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably know that China (Republic of China) invaded Mongolia in 1919 and held Bogdo Khan in home arrest. Then Baron Ungern came along and defeated the main force of China in Khuree and Chinese troops retreated to Khiagt on the northern border. Then two of the underground Mongolian independence groups (~parties), who wanted to expel Chinese force from the territory of Mongolia, sought assistance from Russians (Soviets) and had a letter (seeking assistance from Soviet Russia) signed by the Bogdo Khan. Though the main Chinese force was defeated, the Russians wanted to send troops to capture Baron Ungern. That's why the Soviets exported revolution to Mongolia through the two Mongolian groups which later merged into the Mongolian People's Party (now MPRP). On July 11, 1921, the People's Party force entered Khuree with the help of Soviets. That day was considered the independence day by the Mongolian communist propaganda. But, actually, the independence was laid in December 1911 and after a brief invasion by Chinese force, was restored in 1921. GenuineMongol (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"11 July 1921 Mongolia was declared independent again - from what country?" - it was a rhetorical question, you see. So you, dear GenuineMongol, and me know that independence was restored again from China. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not your dear. Don't use "dear" when you talk to me, it sounds derogatory/offensive to me. I know Russians like to say the Russian word for "dear" when they argue.GenuineMongol (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry my intentions were misunderstood. I'd used word "dear" in its common usage both in English and Russian. You see Russian word "дорогой" means very positive intention ("Dear Mother" Дорогая Мама), this word is in official use too (Soviet leader Brezhnev was officially called "Dear comrade Brezhnev", in modern Russia its president uses дорогие друзья = dear friends[1][2]). But if you, collegue GenuineMongol, don't like this very frendly word I will try not to use it with conversation with you, collegue GenuineMongol. But my intentions, as usually in Wikipedia (where I have no enemies), were very frendly, for Mongols especially. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia declared independence from the Qing Empire in 1911 and restored its independence from Chinese invaders in 1921. They are two different subjects. First one was an empire established by the Qing Dynasty, while the next one was a fraction of force sent by the Republic of China with capital at Beijing. (There were two states within China then). So, you can't say that Mongolia restored independence from China again. First from the Qing Empire, remember? GenuineMongol (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, as you mentioned above, the second time it was the independence from the state with the capital Peking. First time also from the state with the capital Peking, isn't it? Did French Revolution changed France into different state (monarchy was replaced with republic, next with empire etc)? Or was the political system changed only? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your question ignores the ethnic angle of Qing adminitration. What if the French king had been a basque, had populated his offices with basques, had forced everybody to wear basque hats? What if ethnic French intellectuals had, more or less, called the king un-French? Yaan (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that Hamburg was part of France in 1808? Yaan (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, for some more fun, at what time (before 1938) did Austria stop to be part of Germany? Hint: it's not in the wp article. Yaan (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

About ethnic angle - the last Russian reigning Catherine II of Russia was in 100% German, all Russian emperors had no Russian blood - and what? If English Court did not speak English, but French only and only the English revolution changed this tradition? Bulgarian kingdom dynasty was German and what? The ethnicity of the ruling House wery often had no matter. But with Hamburg it is a good topic: this city was a part of the Empire of French Nation, not France proper. But Hamburg was liberated from France as France was a metropoly of this Empire, capital was Paris. About Austria, I think it stop to be part of Germany after Napoleon dissolved Holy Roman Empire, isn't it? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The ethnicity issue is a matter of domestic policy, but does not alter the inherent nature of the country. It is common in history that a ruling house was not the majority ethnicity and countries having issues with ethnic policies of varying degree. Russia under Catherine II was still Russia and South Africa under apartheid was still South Africa.--Hisacw (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you both missed part of my question: "What if the French king [...] had populated his offices with basques, had forced everybody to wear basque hats? What if ethnic French intellectuals had, more or less, called the king un-French?". Re. the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, would you say that Prussia (the state, not the area) also stopped to be part of Germany, and if not, what's the difference to Austria? Yaan (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did see this part of your question, and responded with the ethnic policy in the South Africa under apartheid. The South Africa during that time had populated its government offices with white people, and had forced division of its subjects based on races. The Blacks, which were the native and the majority ethnic group, were so badly treated and were even deprived of their citizenship at some time. The government had seen significant oppositions both internationally and domestically, but the country was still formally South Africa. If the Corsica-born Napoleon I of France had populated his office with Corsicans and made a policy that forced everyone to adopt the Corsican way of dressing, but continued to call its country "France", then the country was still France and such policy was a matter of domestic issue.--Hisacw (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Yes, but what if Napoleon had named his country just something like "Great Pure Country"? Yaan (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "Great Pure" (Da Qing) really the dynasty name following the traditional pattern like "Da Ming" (for Ming Dynasty)? If France actually had the customs of adopting dynasty names as in China (which was mainly used within China to differ from other dynasties), and still called itself "France" in international communications, then it was still France. If Napoleon established a new country and abandoned the name "France", then that would be a different story. In China, adopting a dynasty name was usually the very first thing when a new dynasty was established. The origin of "Great Pure" dynasty (i.e. Qing Dynasty) was also discussed in details in this 1894 article of The New York Times, but the country itself was still called "China" (or "Chinese Empire"). On the other hand, this and this 1896 article (on Viceroy Li Hongzhang's visit to the United States, during his global visits of 1896), along with formal Qing treaties, shows that "China" was used as the country name in virtually all international communications during (late) Qing period.--Hisacw (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

About Prussia and Austria. The question was about the legal dissolution of the former Reich, next Prussia had become the hart of newborn Reich, so common German capital was Prussian capital Berlin, reigning dynasty was Prussian. Prussia only had not ethnic German territories at East with numerous Poles. Only when new Rech was declared at this moment Lothringen was taken from France. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindented)Actually, my question was not exclusively about legal stuff. Certainly there was a Germany between 1803 and 1871? Yaan (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Legally Germany did not exist in this period, but existed in the cultural, ethnic and historical POV, so this new Reich was a successive one after the partition period. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"What if the French king [...] had populated his offices with basques

Each position in the central government had a Manchu and a Han assigned to it. Qing emperors learned Chinese, addressed their subjects using Confucian rhetoric, reinstated the civil service examination system and the Confucian curriculum, and patronized scholarly projects, as had their predecessors. They also continued the Ming custom of adopting reign names, so that Xuanye, for example, is known to history as the Kangxi emperor...[3]

Voyager01 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) One of the points Liu (cited above, probably inspired by Rawski, The Last Emperors, Berkeley 1998, p.200) makes is that the Qing emperors were Chinese emperors to the Chinese, Mongol khaghans to the Mongols etc. Rawski (p.6) actually states that most Qing emperors studied Mongolian, and of course the Qing patronized Buddhism and scholarly projects in Mongolian (as the 1716 blockprint edition of the Geser epic), just like the Great Khans had (to some point ;) ) done. Did you know that in literature dealing with Mongolia, Xuanye is often known as Enkh Amgalan? Yaan (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

yaan, you should read this and this. I think that the sources and evidence is not the problem. Also you should read Qian Long Letter to George III. Treaty of Kyakhta,which established the northern border of Mongolia, was between Russia and China.

as seen for example in this 1868 treaty (ratified by both USA and China by 1869).

Yes, same in Chinese-language version of the treaty between the United States of America and China 78.0.203.197 (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Treaty is a fact, FACT, signed by both parties, and the name of this empire was China. There should be no discussion about, because treaty is a fact! 78.0.203.197 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure I am the one who needs to read WP:NPOV? Because for them, a "fact" is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." (quotation marks from the original). As pointed out above, I don't think you (or anyone else) is able to show that Lattimore's opinion is just a fringe POV, or that there is no serious debate whether "Manchu=China".

Yaan (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not true that "Manchu=China", since Manchu is an ethnic group while China is a country. Internationally "China" was both the formal and the common name for the Qing, from early Qing (c.f. the formal country name in Treaty of Nerchinsk in the 17th century) to its very last years (c.f. the formal country name in the Anglo-Chinese treaty of 1906 above), including the occasions when dealing with Mongolia (c.f. the Treaty of Kyakhta in 1727 which explicitly stated that the area south of the northern border of Mongolia belonged to China). I'm aware that it had a complex ethnic policy outside China proper, but that does not make it internationally a different country (c.f. South Africa).--Hisacw (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are talking about international law in a time when there was no such thing, certainly not for the Qing. I admit I don't know much about the 1727 treaty of Kyakhta, but I am curious what name the Manchu text used for the Qing empire (acc. to the wp article, there was no Chinese text signed at that time).

In any case, I'd like to state once more that for the article, it doesn't really matter what you or me think, but what the sources (esp. secondary ones, interpreting primary sources is always a bit close to WP:OR) have to say. I definitely believe that there are different POVs on this issue, and I don't think it is necessary to deal with that Qing/China discussion in this very article (we have links for that). Though maybe in the Mongolia during Qing dynasty or in the article on the dynasty itself this discussion should be covered. Yaan (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was no international law for most of the recorded history, but the international law was introduced to China in late Qing period in the 19th century. For now I don't have access to the Manchu text of the 1727 Treaty of Kyakhta, yet there are sources for articles of the Manchu text of the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk, for instance here, in which the Manchu text of the fourth article of the treaty says "The Russians now living in China and the Chinese subjects who are in Russia shall be left there for the rest of their lives" (the counterpart in Russian or Latin text is "Those subjects of the Russian empire who are now in China, and those of the Chinese empire now in Russia, shall remain in that condition"). So there is no doubt that official treaties in either Manchu or Chinese-language used "China" as the formal country name for the Qing. Nevertheless, I agree with what you said about sources and there is better place for such discussion such as the article Mongolia during Qing dynasty.--Hisacw (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A note about POVs on this kind of issues: it does not really matter if people may have different views; it is natural to use the official name or the common name for an object (a country in this case). Based on reliable sources, if the common name is also the official name ("China" in this case), then there is no reason to intentionally avoid using it, or it will be not WP:NPOV.--Hisacw (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am so far not even convinced that there is one common or one official name. You have so far only shown that the name "China" has been used at times in international communications. States sometimes use more than one official name, for example the ROC uses both "Republic of China" and "Chinese Taipei" in English, the PRC uses both "Dundad Uls" and "Khyatad Uls" in Mongolian. Moreover, my personal impression is that in both cases, the name not used domestically is though to be less appropriate by the resp. governments.

Usage in academic literature seems to be actually somewhat divided, which however probably is a consequence of the need to be more precise rather than of a desire to make a point on the status of Qing territories outside China proper. In any case, if there are academic, or otherwise important, sources explicitely saying that Mongolia never was part of China, stating the contrary on wp seems to be more NPOV than just being precise. Yaan (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The name China hasn't been used at times in international communications, it was used ALWAYS in every treaty Qing ever signed since the first treaty with Russians, and it was also used in Chinese language (Qing is ussualy used at the beginning of the treaty, but in the body of the treaty " China"(Central State-中國) is used.See this-[4]Mmddnn (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia is strongely recommended using secondary sources, not primary, so academic literature is a better source than a treaty text. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primary source can be OK, too. But of course showing usage in one treaty is not the same as showing usage "ALWAYS in every treaty". This was the point I was trying to make above. Even then, can we agree that Gaoxiong is not part of Taibei, even if the state-like entity that Gaoxiong is part of regularly refers to itself as "Chinese Taipei" on the international stage? Yaan (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you mention it, in my University libraries (actually I'm currently in one of the libraries), especially in Cheng Yu Tung East Asian Library [5], there are a few books containing collections of the actual Qing treaty texts in Chinese language. There are hundreds of Qing treaties (or agreements, protocols, conventions, etc) in the collections, and indeed in virtually all of them "China" (中國) is used as the country name in the body of the texts (there are very few exceptions, including the Sino-British Convention of Peking, in which "Great Qing" is used throughout the treaty text). --142.150.48.126 (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a few short notes regarding the second part, when ROC sometimes uses to refer to itself as such, "Chinese Taipei" does not have or no longer has the same meaning as the city of "Taipei" (Taibei), but has become a designated name for the political entity. Iceland, although literally has the meaning "land of ice", is not really necessarily a land of ice, but the name itself has become the widely accepted designated name for a European country. If a name has become a/the accepted designated name for an object, then we should interpret the name as a whole for the object that it refers to, not interpret the name literally. --142.150.48.126 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice point, but I guess we can agree that this still doesn't mean "Kaohsiung is part of Taipei" is a better wording than "Kaohsiung is part of the ROC"? Anyway, thanks for going to the library and through the treaties.

There seems to be a book mainly dealing with Mongol identity under the Qing, "Our Great Qing" by Johan Elverskog, so if the main topic of this discussion is interesting for you, you might find some additional material for a section in Mongolia during Qing dynasty or so. Unfortunately my library does not have it. Yaan (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Official alphabet?

Are there any laws or other regulations that say that cyrillic is official and traditional Mongolian is not? The infobox currently gives this impression, without giving a source. Also, is Kazakh not an official language in Bayan-Ölgii? Yaan (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kazakh is not an official language of Mongolia, but it is allowed to teach students in Kazakh at schools, if the majority of the students are the speakers of the minority language. So, it is not allowed to conduct the government affairs in Kazakh. There is a law on the state language of Mongolia issued in 2003. But, I don't know any law stating that the Cyrillic Mongolian is the official script. All government stamps and letterheads and all government office signs contain both the Cyrillic Mongolian and Traditional Mongolian versions of the names of the respective government agencies.--GenuineMongol (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on all of my visas (some aquired at home, some in Mongolia) I have stamps from the issuing authorities that are only in traditional script. Yaan (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I found this one interessting: http://www.china.org.cn/e-groups/shaoshu/shao-2-mongolian.htm

It is written there: "The Mongolian script was created in the early 13th century on the basis of the script of Huihu or ancient Uygur, which was revised and developed a century later into the form used to this day." Can we insert it into the article? --92.74.26.115 (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article on Mongolian script. This article only devotes two sentences to the alphabet in use, I am not sure whethet it is necessary to discuss the origins of the script here. Yaan (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

EU in Geneva?

In foregin relations section, it says that Mongolia has as mission to the EU in Geneva. EU is headquarted in Brussels, Switzerland is not even a member of the EU. Someone want to correct? 146.87.4.53 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is UN, not EU [6]. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely a mission to UN. The Embassy of Mongolia in EU is based in Brussels. --GenuineMongol (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GA?

Has anyone ever considered nominating this for Good Article? I just browsed, but it looked as if it would probably pass a review. I just wanted to see what the "regulars" here thought. (And so you can get credit for it!) PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2008 Statistical Yearbook

It is availiable [www.statis.mn/yearbook/2008/Section01.xls], you need change a section number only (to access nature conditions data, rivers&lakes numbers - section 22). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agriculture yearbook 2008 [www.statis.mn/download_data.php?type=livestock&file=livestock2008.pdf]. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A word

No mention of genocide? mass murders? slaughtering towns and villages?

Iranians have not forgotten what Mongolians did, even if it was 1000 years ago...

Read about Iran's 3000 years of history, there is not a single incidence of genocide..and in the end, even after the invasion, Mongol's ended up adopting Iranian culture...sorry reader I don't mean to offend you if you are of Mongolian descent, but your history is nothing to be proud of.

With respect