Talk:Mongolia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Buddhism

Not to be nitpicky, but Mongolians practice Vajrayana Buddhism, not "Tibetan Buddhism". Tibetan Buddhism is another name for Vajrayana Buddhism as practiced by Tibetans. To be correct from a Mongolian point of view it would be better to call it "Mongolian Buddhism" rather than "Tibetan Buddhism" as it is Vajrayana Buddhism as practiced by Mongolians. Yes, they are nearly identical (but not completely), but the Mongolians are very sensitive about this. Palzang 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article needs some rewriting. Most of the information is correct, but the article as a whole is not well written. For example, I think the history section should start out with Genghis Khan because he is the founder of Mongolia. This article is 100% abosoloutly completely wrong. Mongols' religion is Buddhism, not Christianity or any other thing you want to call it. So try to study more and get it right.

Neighbouring countries

Neighbouring country in the west is Kazakstan, not China.

... Wrong! Mongolia does not have a border with Kazakstan. -Agamemnus

Disambiguated title

why was this moved to the disambiguated title? And why is the picture of the singer there? It seems totally out of place. Why not move it to culture of Mongolia or something? Tuf-Kat

Aah, I see why but still disagree. Outer Mongolia has a natural disambiguator. The term Mongolia always refers to the country. Why not use a disambig block? Tuf-Kat

No. Mongolia do not always refer to the north half. Not to let users misunderstand that independent Mongolia is the only Mongolia, this is the best solution, I think. -- Nanshu

In my experience, Mongolia refers to the country always. I've never heard anyone say Mongolia and mean Inner Mongolia or some other region. In any case, the Inner is a natural disambiguator, which is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. A disambig block will be just as effective in not misleading readers as a parenthetical disambiguator. Tuf-Kat

It was during the Qing Dynasty that Mongolia was sectionalized into Inner, Outer and others (like Oyirad in Qinghai). And it was in 1992 that the Mongolian People's Republic was renamed to Mongolia. Look at Huns, Genghis Khan, Manchuria, etc. Mongolia at these articles refers to whole Mongolia. -- Nanshu 07:38 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

In those articles, Mongolia refers to the region bounded by Ordos Desert from the south, Da Xingan Ling from the east, the ranges of Altai from the west and Lake Baikal from the north -- User:kt2

I agree with Tuf-Kat, Mongolia should really be about the country, with a disambiguation block pointing to the bigger area. Country such as Germany, Greece, Russia, Sweden, China etc. have also been bigger as their current borders, but it's nonsense to consider that to be the main topic of the article. Jeronimo

I am also against this disambiguation. The fact that the country does not occupy what was once Mongolia under the Qing Dynasty can be made apparent int he introductory paragraph of the article. --Jiang 00:15 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Agreed: this is absurd. Mongolia is a country. Like most countries, its borders have fluctuated through history. There are Mongols in countries other than Mongolia, as there are Greeks or Hungarians or almost anyone else in neighbouring countries, in regions that have sometimes been part of the country. But Mongolia has never been a "region" designator, as opposed to a country designator. You could argue this for several like Palestine and Macedonia where it's crucially important to disentangle history from present claims; but not here. Mongolia is the country; all the rest is mere detail for the inside of the article. Gritchka 00:22 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I object. Putting the country article at "Mongolia" is something like calling South Korea as just "Korea". Inner Mongolia and Buryat Republic are certainly subnational entities of the Mongols. We shouldn't ignore them. --Nanshu 01:53 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, Your analogy would only be sufficient if China annexed N. Korea and there was only one country with "Korea" in its title. It should be clear enough if we mention that the country of Mongolia does not control all of Mongolia. --Jiang 04:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, there live more Mongols in PRC than in the independent state of Mongolia. --Nanshu 01:15, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

that's besides the point. --Jiang

The People's Daily has no problem: [1]. Why should we? :''Alternate meaning: [[Inner Mongolia]]'' can be posted clearly at the top. --Jiang 00:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Any further objections? --Jiang 02:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Meaning of газар

Popsracer, I don't speak Mongolian, but I think "газар" means earth, land, place or so. --Nanshu

Yep, and it also means simply "ground" and sometimes "floor". --156.56.153.54 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Central Asia or East Asia

See MediaWiki talk:Central Asia for discussion of a dispute.

Relocation, again

Mongolia should be moved to Mongolia (country) and Mongolia (region) to Mongolia.

Like Ireland (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland) and Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia and Greece-controlled area), Mongolia is divided into more than one entity and it is a sensitive problem although lesser-known to Westerners. Unfortunately, the former Mongolian People's Republic doesn't bear any political title in its current official name. So it should follow the case of Georgia (Georgia (country)). --Nanshu 03:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. See above. Inner Mongolia and others are natural disambiguators and any confusion can be made relevant in the into. Ireland is where it is due to its POV claims over the entire island, as is the Republic of Macedonia. No one is claiming that this location is not NPOV. --Jiang 07:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

confusing intro sentence

in the intro passage it says "After the conquest of China by the Mongol Empire, much of Mongolia was ruled by China until an independent government was formed with Soviet help in 1924.".

Now, is it conquered by China or it conquered China?? If it conquered China as the setence means, than how is it ruled by China? Perhaps the passage needs some rephrasing for clarity. Xah Lee 08:09, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Well, it was an innately unclear situation. China was conquered by the Mongols. China was then a part of the Mongol empire (as of course was Mongolia). After a century or so a native Chinese dynasty was established in China, but it kept control of (much of) Mongolia. For the rest of the time until 1924, most of Mongolia was under Chinese control most of the time. Good luck summarising that in a sentence. ;) Mark¹ 07:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Mongols were driven out of China in 1368, but the subsequent Ming dynasty did not have control of (much of) Mongolia, esp. not of Outer Mongolia. The Mongols continued to be a threat to China's northern borders, and Ming armys could not do much against them. The (Inner Mongolian) Chahar khanate became part of the Manchu Qing dynasty in 1636, and the (Outer Mongolian) Khalkh submitted to the Qing empire in 1691. I think some western parts, e.g. Khovd, of today's Outer Mongolia became part of the Manchu empire only in 1757 (Not perfectly sure about the last one).

So: At least Outer Mongolia was independent from China for more than 300 years, then part of the Manchu empire for 230 years, then independent again. I think that's neither most of Mongolia nor most of the time. The sentence certainly needs rephrasing. yan

Joining China (Reincorporating into China)

Is there any suggestions among Mongolian politicians to join China? — Instantnood 01:42, Jan 31 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Don't think they'd get any vote after suggesting something like that. You're trying to be funny, right?

Was it you who set the 'disputed territories' link? I think Mongolia does not have any territorial disputes with anyone (not even with Taiwan anymore). yan

Some people writes so, but it's not easy to verify. The ROC has not formally renounced the claim on Mongolia and Tuva. — Instantnood 13:47, Jan 31 2005 (UTC)

They have, first in 1946 and apparently again in 2002. Try http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2002/09/10/167505.

No, Taiwan hasn't done it FORMALLY (they haven't formally relinquished claim on Outer Mongolia); the article you posted was merely recognition of the "reality" of the independent Mongolian state. Technically Mongolia is a disputed territory, at least with the Republic of China (because Republic of China is recognized by some countries in the international community). You don't have to be a UN member to be a country. If Taiwan reunites with Mainland China under a new unified state, this new China can still inherit the Mongolia claim. Of course it's rather ridiculous, Mongolia isn't that important for China to have. It's good that there is a buffer state between Russia and China. Naus 05:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute. Just some old papers that they didn't get around yet to adapt to reality. [2] [3] (btw: This discussion is rather old as well, no need to warm it up again and again.) --Latebird 09:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You can also go to www.mofa.gov.tw and check out the Foreign Embassies and Consulates in the ROC (it's filed under West Asia).

Anyway, AFAIK Mongolia is not the only territory the ROC claims souvereignity on. Did you place a 'disputed territory' link on the China page, too? yan

So, you have placed the link, even before I asked :)). I am still not convinced that some irredentist claims from some far-away island, whose souvereignity is itself in serious doubt, make Mongolia a disputed territory. Especially when these claims have been renounced (at least formally enough for any practical purposes) in 2002.

btw that www.mtac.gov.tw site is somewhat strange. They don't seem to to deal with Inner Mongolians at all.

A renounce have to be passed by the national assembly of the ROC, and that's the formal procedure. On official maps showing the entire ROC territories you will probably find that (Outer) Mongolia and Tuva are part of the ROC (tho the DPP government try not to publish such maps). The bilateral relations between Mongolia and Taiwan is sort of pragmatic, without dealing with the boundary issue. Therefore technically Mongolia is still a disputed territory.

Inner Mongolia is considered as several provinces by the ROC, but not "areas" like Tibet and (Outer) Mongolia.

This article says some MPs do consider joining China an option. And according to a magazine published in Hong Kong, such opinion first appeared in 1995. In 2000, members of the legislature of a southern province suggested it again, and the parliament had a debate on it. — Instantnood 09:04 Feb 1 2005 (UTC)

This article (judging from altavista.com) said that some professor claimed he had gone to Outer Mongolia, and that some politicians in private conversations with that professer said they'd hope Mongolia joins China, is that correct ? I wouldn't really call that a 'source'. I understand it is easy to publish such stories in Hongkong, since it is quite a distance from Mongolia, and most people have likely never met (Outer) Mongolians.

I think you'd be much more likely to find Mainland Chinese or South Korean politicians suggesting their countries should become part of Japan, or Vietnamese politicians suggesting their country should become part of France, than Mongolian politicians suggesting their country should become part of China.

"Therefore technically Mongolia is still a disputed territory." - So if Northern Cyprus should decide to (at least formally) claim the Ottoman empire as it was before WWI, would that make Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia Turkey etc. all disputed territories?

The magazine said the parliament had a debate on it. So we'd better ask someone who can read the Mongolian language and check the records of the parliament and that provincial legislature.

The Ottoman Empire had ceased to exist, and the current Turkish government renounced all the claims formally. But the Republic of China is still there, without formally renouncing its claims (arguably tho). — Instantnood 14:23 Feb 1 2005 (UTC)

well, the Qing empire doesn't exist anymore either, and the current chinese government has never officially laid claims on mongolia. the republic of china is little more than a fiction now.

the www.parl.gov.mn website doesn't seem to have anything from before 2002, and I am quite skeptical that the aimag's websites are more helpful. A quick google search for Монгол Улс Хятад нэгдэх их хурал 2000 didn't turn up anything useful either.

Could it be that this Hongkong magazine referred to plans to open casinos in Dsamin-uud around 1997? Some politicians were accused of selling out the country to the chinese, because they had accepted cars etc as gifts from Macao-based casinos.

Around 2000, there seem to have been some chain letters accusing mongolian politicians of wanting to annex Mongolia to China as well. Wasn't more than a conspiracy theory though. yan

The ROC government has maintained a stable existence for more than 50 years since its retreat to the island of Taiwan. Not until the 1980s it still regards itself as the only legitimate government representing the interest of China. It held the seat in the UN until 1971, and diplomatic relations with the United States until 1978.

The article that I mentioned was on the November 2003 issue of this magazine, titled "蒙古由共產專制和平轉型為民主國家". But that article isn't online. It says the proposal may be appealing to the nomadic people in Gobi in southern Mongolia. — Instantnood 08:46 Feb 2 2005 (UTC)

The ROC government stopped being the government of China in 1949. That they chose to deceive themselves until the 80's doesn't change that a bit. The reasons why so the majority of the UN voted for the ROC as legitimate chinese government were purely opportunistic, just as (until) now the international recognition of the "one china" principle is purely opportunistic.

Did the article give any names of the politicians? Really, any Mongolian I have met so far (most of them from the north of the country though) was - to say the least - highly sceptical of china and the chinese, and accusing someone of being too friendly with china is apparantly used as a political weapon. If someone spoke out publicly for unification with china, he would not only severely damage himself, but his political party as well.

I also can't see the logic that it would be advantagous for the herders if Mongolia joined China. They don't need visa to cross the border, and I think there are actually a lot of people that live more or less from the fact that there is a border (just look how Erlian and Dsamin-Uud have grown during the last years), similar to what is going on in the Russian far east.

Could it be that the editors were confused by the usage of oewoer (southern) mongol (for Inner Mongolia)? yan

Btw. Was article 4 of the ROC constitution (The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly.) already the same in 1947?

The ROC wasn't voted to be the legitimate government, but remained to be without successful challenge, until 1971.

No name was mentioned in the article, only the years (1995 and 2000) were mentioned. I don't think the author was confused. What he actually wrote was the people of the southern provinces of Mongolia would get some economical advantage by becoming part of China, or as special administrative region like Hong Kong and Macao.

Perhaps 1948. Gotta double check. Perhaps you may be interested to have a look of an official ROC map at the article Political divisions of the Republic of China. The international and provincial boundaries of 1947/48 are preserved on the map. — Instantnood 16:27 Feb 2 2005 (UTC)

In 1946, i.e. already before the ROC constitution was drafted, the ROC had accepted the independence of Outer Mongolia, see for example to http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/mntoc.html (=>National Defence, 1940-45) (or http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20021004/20021004p2.html). So probably CKS was wrong when revoking the treaty in 1953? Since Mongolia was outside of the ROC's existing national borders of 1947 anyway (no matter if he asked the National assembly for approval or not)?

I wonder how recent this official map is. Did you recognize the quote "While the Republic of China also has claimed sovereignty over outer Mongolia, in 2002 the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other government agencies passed laws and made strong statements recognizing the Republic of Mongolia’s sovereignty over the area. Including removing outer Mongolia from the ROC’s official maps and the establishment of a representative office in Ulan Bator." on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China ? Maybe you could provide a link to a website displaying the ROC's current official map?

OK, the author's opinion was that Mongolians would be better off if they joined China. Still I have found no confirmation that joining China was actually discussed in the state or at least in one aimag's hural. Seems they discussed accusations towards some opposition MPs of being China's fifth column around 2001, though.

The government of ROC recognised the independence of the then Mongolian People's Republic in 1946, but reverted in 1953. It's hard to prove whether the National Assembly had ever endorsed the recognition between 1946 and 1953. Afterall the National Assembly has not modified the extent of ROC territories, which is essential to formally renounce the claim, until today. The ministries of interior, foreign affairs, etc., have taken a pragmatic approach to deal with the issues of Mongolia, regardless of the formal claim the country reserved. In other words practically the independence of Mongolia is not in doubt to ROC politicians, but technically the issue has not be formally and procedurally settled.

Since the DPP was in power, full maps of the entirity of ROC territories were no longer present on the government website (The DPP is pro-Taiwan independence). This map on a university website shows a full map of all ROC territories. A google search will probably give you several full maps.

On rejoin, I have no confirmation either, and that's why I tried asking around on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 10:26 Feb 4 2005 (UTC)

The ROC had already recognized Outer Mongolia's independence when the constitution became valid in 1947 - i.e. there was no need for the National assembly to confirm Mongolia's independence or modify the extent of the ROC's territories, since Mongolia was already outside when the constitution became valid. Don't know what was required for territorial changes before 1947, though.

The arguement resembles that discussion on whether Taiwan actually belongs to the ROC, according to the treaties of Shimonoseki and San Francisco. Though at the moment, I am leaning towards the opoinion that the ROC was wrong all the tome from 1953 on.

Why don't you get someone who can speak mongolian and try asking around whether they want to join China at a mongolian forum :) ?

But Outer Mongolia is part of ROC on the map of the National Assembly, and a change of the boundaries have to be passed by the National Assembly.

The controversy of whether Taiwan is part of ROC would never been settled. ROC did not participate in the Treaty of San Francisco. It concluded the Treaty of Taipei with Japan on its own, which is more or less the same as the Treaty of San Francisco.

I don't know where I can join one. Is there any with people who can read English, and preferably Chinese (to read the materials I mentioned)? :-) — Instantnood 12:48 Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

That Mongolia appears in the maps of the General Assembly doesn't mean the General Assembly has it right. If the ROC has ratified the treaty with the Soviet Union from August 1945, and has recognized Mongolia before the 1947 constitution became valid, there is no need for the National assembly to recognize Mongolia's independence, since China's "existing national borders" of 1947 did not include Outer Mongolia.

What if CKS had denounced the treaties of Aigun (1858) and Beijing (1860) as well? Would that mean that the only way for the ROC to return these territories to Russia would be a decision of the General Assembly? Even if the National assembly didn't play any role in the denounciation of these treaties?

I guess you'd have to find someone who can speak Mongolian. http://forum.asuultserver.com/forum/ has some english captions, maybe they can help you.

I am not sure. The full maps of ROC currently in circulation and considered official have Mongolia as part of it. This map (without the English transcriptions) was on the ROC government website until the pro-Taiwan independence DPP was in power. It might be possible that the national assembly and the people responsible for drafting the consitution did not ratify or endorse the renounce by Chiang and his government in 1946. Another possibility is that the national assembly changed the borders in (or after) 1953 following the revoke of the renounce.

Thanks for the suggestion. By the way, would you mind putting a time stamp after your messages? — Instantnood 19:31, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

Did you have any success in verifying that HK newspaper's report yet? In a world where the majority of webmasters seem to be not even able to figure out what Hoh hot means in mongolian (Green [4] vs. Blue [5] City) I'd be highly sceptical of any information not coming from inside Mongolia.

Was the recognition of Mongolia by the ROC in 1946 unconstitutional at that time, or was it not? And did the National assembly change the ROC's borders or did it not? yan, 10:42,Feb 12 2005

No not yet. Frankly it is not easy.

The Constitution of the ROC went into effect in December 1947. Whether the recognition was constitutional is meaningless, as there wasn't any consitution. I am not sure if the National Assembly has ever ratified Chiang's recognition (and later revoking). The map is said to be the map since 1948. — Instantnood 11:04, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

I have read that the Sino-Soviet friendship treaty (of August 14th, 1945) was ratified by the ROC on December 5th, 1945 (and according to the LOC, the ROC did recognize Mongolia on Jan 5th, 1946). If that is correct, and the ratification extended to the protocols concerning (Outer) Mongolia's formal independence, IMHO that would mean that Mongolia has been outside of the ROC's 'existing borders' in 1947. A confirmation by the National Assembly would be just as unnecessary as a decision about the areas ceded to Russia by the treaty of Aigun.

I am sceptical about the map. The discussion seems to be more about claims re. the PRC, not re. Mongolia. I understand it might be hard to come across ROC maps from the period between 1947 and 1953. yan, 20:11, Feb 15 2005

That's the official map of the ROC until today (although it is now seldom used since the pro-independence DPP has been in power). As I have mentioned, it is hard to know whether the recognition by Chiang's government in 1947 had ever recognised by the guys who drafted the constitution, or by the national assembly. — Instantnood 18:04, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

So you have actually seen an official map from before 1953, or have confirmed that the official map was never changed?

The recognition was already on January 5th, 1946, one could even argue it took effect when the treaty with the Soviet Union was ratified on December 5th 1945.

Is it necessary for foreign countries to be recognized by the guys who drafted the constitution (of the ROC), or the national assembly, if they are not to be claimed by the ROC? yan, 22:20, Feb 16 2005

ROC had to agree to outer Mongolia independence because china was weak at that time and could not afford to make enemies with the soviet union. (The soviets offered aid in exchange of outer Mongolia independence). However, the ROC leadership never gave up on Greater China concept and thus the map of ROC remains to have outer Mongolia included into china. ROC leadership have already given up claims unoffically on mainland china and mongolia since 1990s, but have no incentive to change the offical map or make offical statements due to political reasons.

Land border

Does the state of Mongolia share a land border with Kazakhstan? — Instantnood 18:28 Feb 2 2005 (UTC)

No, Mongolia shares border only with Russia and China.--Sjv27 20:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. How far is the nearest point between Mongolia and Kazakhstan? And how long is the western border between Russia and PRC? — Instantood 10:01 Feb 4 2005 (UTC)

According to CIA the "western" border between Russia and PRC is 40 km long. I'd estimate the nearest point between Mongolia and Kazakhstan to be something between 30 and 40km.--Sjv27 12:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Sjv27. — Instantnood 12:49 Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

Mongolian debt

"which the debt was settled on $250 dollars considering Mongolian hardship and losses of human lives during the Soviet Era."

It was settled for $250, an amount that many American children spend in a day? I do rather suspect this number is slightly higher...Comrade Tassadar

You are not from America are you? --24.21.255.0 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, Mongols are late comers in inner Mongolia. Originally they were inhabitants of outer Mongolia before 13th century. Take a look at the map, the Gobi desert between inner and outer Mongolia serves as a big natural blocker between altai and northern China plain for thousands of years. I think that's why altaic languages are so different from chinese.

It was neither $250 nor $300 Mio, but $250 Mio. --Latebird 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

President

Nambaryn Enkhbayar is not the president yet because he has not been inaugurated. Zntrip 02:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)Zntrip

Nambaryn Enkhbayar is president of Mongolia. Elected in May 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dulmandakh (talk • contribs) --Latebird 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

Supreme Leader?

0k from what i can understand the pres. is the leader of mongolia However I dont believe that was always the case even if the office was active. Horloogiyn Choybalsan is listed as the "leader of mongolia" from the '30s til his death in 1952. But how can that be if Yumjaagiyn Tsedenbal is listed as the "leader of Mongolia" from the '40s until 1984? There is a clear 2 year overlap. Plus sense when was head of Mongolia's commie party or whatever the head of the state? If thats the case like in the U.S.S.R. and People's Republic of China why not list it? Tsendenbal's leadership goes up to 1974.

GDP per capita

there is a discrepancy btw the data in the right hand box (GDP per capita $2,046) and the text in the economy section ($420) don't know which one is correct

Thanks for pointing that out. The figure in the box takes account of purchasing power (the relatively low price of goods in Mongolia), while the figure in the text was in absolute terms. Mark¹ 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

population confusion?

Why does it say over fifty percent of the population resides in the capital when the capital has less then a million people? It doesn't seem to fit in with the ulaanbatar page?

The capital and other big cities, not just the capital. -Agamemnus

Penal System

moved the following paragraph here. This should go into an article with some historical focus instead --Latebird 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia maintained both prison camps and correctional or educational colonies in the 1980s. There also were detention camps for minor offenders, designed to rehabilitate them by "socially useful labor." Such labor included town-improvement projects: cleaning the street, and repairing buildings. Those performing this labor received neither wages nor food; they purchased their food or depended on their families to provide it. Local jails existed for brief detentions (twenty-four hours or less) of intoxicated persons and those awaiting indictment.

Duplication

Whoever screwed this article up by duplicating half of it needs to fix it. — Gulliver ✉ 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That turns out to be me. The screwup happened when I moved the above section to the discussion page. It seems that the software gets confused when you edit just subheader and remove all of its content. Sorry for the mess! --Latebird 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Transcription for Mongolian

I have posted a request for opinions about a standard transcription table for mongolian on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Transcription_for_Mongolian. Please join the discussion there. --Latebird 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sports in Mongolia

The main article nor the culture section says nothing nothing about sports and recreation in Mongolia. Could someone add to this? Black-Velvet 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Qing Emperors

The history section read "almost all Qing Emperors were born of Mongol mothers". I changed "all" to "several". Ya'll can look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Emperors_of_the_Qing_Dynasty -- Adeptitus 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That article doesn't list mothers. Do you know where that information can be found? --Sumple (Talk) 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you check the link that I provided, it'd take you to a list of Qing Emperors. You can click on them one by one and read about their mother's ethnicity. There's a fair mix of Jurchen/Manchu, Mongolian, and Han mothers. I thought the claim "all Qing Emperors had Mongolian mothers" was an exaggeration. -- Adeptitus 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

10% are Christian and Muslim

The sentence about religion is confusing. "10% are Christian and Muslim?" Are they christian and muslim at the SAME time? is it 5% Christians and 5% Muslims (or some other division? Is each 10% (total 20%)? Or should it be 10% are Christian or Muslim?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mg.html Buddhist Lamaist 50%, none 40%, Shamanist and Christian 6%, Muslim 4% (2004) -- Adeptitus 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Further down in the 'Culture' section, this is contradicted: "96% of the Mongolia's population is Vajrayana Buddhist in the Tibetan tradition". Which is it?

_____________________________

I can assure you that at least 20% of Mongolians are now Christians. Especially the teens and poor people. However, Muslim is only widespread within the Kazakh community.

Fallen ______________________________

Having spend tons of time in Mongolia in the past 6-7 years I doubt 20% is Christian. The many different Christian sects (for want of a better word) like to do magic tricks with the number of converts but the average "church" has little more than a handful of followers (let alone actively practising Christians). Christianity is NOT widespread and certainly not as widespread as 20%. - Remy Lang 30/3/07

English

I read back awhile ago that English was made the 2nd official language of Mongolia, and that 2600 or so English teachers were being recruited to come and teach there. Has anyone heard more on this? --Kranar drogin 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Since 2005, English is taught as the first foreign language in public schools, replacing Russian. It doesn't have any official status beyond that. --Latebird 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

discrepancies

In the Begining of this article it states that Mongolia is the 18th Largest country, later in the Geography and climate section it states that it is the 19th largest country. Please clarify

Section stub tags

I have removed several section-stub tags because:

• These sections now have a reasonable coverage of the topics, whereas there was little or no coverage when the sections were tagged in July (thanks to those who added content!)
• These sections are now of an appropriate length for a general article on a country. I have reviewed around 100 country articles for Version 0.5, and topics like sports, religion, education, science and technology usually only have 1-3 paragraphs in most country articles, if they are mentioned at all. Walkerma 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Khalkha Mongolian is not a language

Khalkha Mongolian is not a language... it is merely a dialect of the Mongolian language. There are plenty of other dialects of the Mongolian language, e.g. various dialects spoken in Inner Mongolia, such as Baarin, Khorchin, Kharachin, Chahar, Ordos, etc. I think this needs to be clarified in the entry. It would do just to say that the Khalkha dialect of Mongolian is given official status. --156.56.153.54 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

.......... It is not even a dialect. There are various accents spoken throughout Mongolia, much like the different English accents spoken throughout the US. But Mongolian language is one language. Mongolians don't even distinguish between the different accents. I'm a Mongolian and I don't even know what Baarin, Khorchin, Kharachin, Chahar, and Ordos are. - Achbold

Do Mongolians think Inner Mongolians in China are their countrymen?

There are more Mongolians living in China than in Mongolia. How strong is Pan-Mongolianism in Mongolia? Is there a lot of exchange today? Article doesn't mention this very much. --75.34.186.2 04:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of exchange in form of trade, but from my limitited experience I'd say most (Outer) Mongolians think that Inner Mongolians are too Chinese to be Mongolian. I guess Inner Mongolians may see it differently. 141.30.65.26

Wrong date

In the section "History", it sais that the Xiongnu were brought together to form a confederation by Modu Shanyu in 2000 A.D. This is seven years ago. Unless I missed some important news, I guess the A.D. must be B.C., and besides I think the 2000 should be 200. Strange enough, I wasn't able to change it myself, but maybe somebody here is more technically than I am? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.73.101.14 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Formation

Inside the table at the left side of Mongolia section, it is written that "Independence from China is July 11, 1921". I think the real Independence day is on November 28 or 26, 1911. Though I am Mongolian, I am not sure. On July 11, 1921, the communist revolution won in Mongolia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilguun.alt (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, if you're not sure, then you may want to find some reliable sources... Btw.: It is quite possible that "communist revolution won" describes a different event than "independence from china". --Latebird 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthem

Since when was the anthem called "бүгд найрамдах монгол" or "united mongolia"? I would rather not remember. Previous one: Даяар монгол was much better :) --Dolugen 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we have the wrong title, or you just don't like it? --Latebird 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Greater China

I thing most Mongolians would object quite strongly (to the point of turning violent) object to being considered part of Greater China. I guess there is a reason why there are no WP templates for "Russian empire in 1914", "Areas with a German-speaking majority before 1945" or "Parts of Japan's Great East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere" yet. Even if Greater China is a rather geographical term, i would therefore propose to restrict the template to the PRC (incl. SARs), Taiwan and Singapore. P.S. above unsigned comment was added by meYaan 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The youngest democracy

I removed the following "This officially marked the transition of Mongolia to a democratic country, making it one of the world's youngest democracies." statement because it is both inherently POV and incorrect. First, it implies Mongolia was not democratic before 1991 which is POV. Second I think many contries already transitioned to democraty since 1991. Another POV passage is the fall of communism in Mongolia in 1990, Mongolia adopted a new, democratic constitution which was ratified in 1992 also implies that the earlier constitution was not democratic which is also unreferenced POV.--Dojarca 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of democracy is, but the people of Mongolia will be certain to disagree with you. A single-party socialist republic and its constitution are undemocratic by principle. The protests leading to the changes of 1992 had the explicit goal of establishing democracy in Mongolia. You will find this confirmed in all reports about the time, so it doesn't need any further explicit citation. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't automatically make them POV. --Latebird 14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You refer to poeple of Mongolia without any references to a poll or something same. Probably other people could have another opinion, for example, communists think capitalism is undemocratic in principle.--Dojarca 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really trying to claim that the Mongolian People's Republic was a democracy? And if so, which independent sources can you cite to support such a claim? --Latebird 10:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be possible to find some Sant Maral/Politbarometer polls at forum.mn (and even in english) that ask wether the transition to democracy and market economy was a good thing. Those people that answered positive would probably imply that before the tran´sition, mongolia was not a democracy. of course one could also do a google search for terms like 1990 ardchilsan hödölgöön (sp?, gr?). people who use this term for the events in 1990 would probably also imply that up to these events, mongolia wasn't democratic. I would look myself, but today i have rather little time. Yaan 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

poll results: http://www.openforum.mn/res_mat/SantMaralSMPBE06%2010.pdf (question no.4)Yaan 19:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yaan, I think you're missing the point here. Dojarca used the "people's opinion" diversion only as a strawman argument to distract from the real issue. Democracy is not a matter of opinion. There are objective criteria to tell whether a regime is democratic or not. And none of the former soviet sattelite states satisfied those criteria. --Latebird 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And who does state these criteria?--Dojarca 09:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a working definition somewhere at WP. I agree with Latebird that it's objectively hard to see how rule by the party, the bureaucracy, and Tsedenbal's wife (OK, plus some "outside factors") could be termed democratic. But then also think the argument that democracy is, at least partially, in the eye of the beholder does have some merit. Democracy is a rather often-used word in Mongolia's discourse about the post-1990 era, so I think it is fair to use the term in the same sense here as well. Or at least as long as I don't see any reasonable objections against the usage of this term in reference to postsocialist Mongolia. Yaan 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If to use the word in such specific meaning (i.e. democracy is the rule of democrats), there should be a clarification note. By the way, the article's earlier version said that the new constitution was democratic unlike the earlier one. I read the earlier constitution [6] and found nothing about communism, communist party or one-party system. What's the basis to call it undemocratic?--Dojarca 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That probably means you consider it old democratic custom that the state controls the press and the right to nominate election candidates is reserved for the party and her satellite organisations. Yaan 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, how is it connected with the constitution in question? The constitution does not say a word about the party. What the basis to call the constitution undemocratic? Regarding your question, yes, I think the state control over press is not inherently undemocratic if the state itself is governed democratically. And did you ever heared about democratic centralism doctrine?--Dojarca 15:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's strange, in the version I downloaded the constitution explicitly sais who has the right to nominate candidates. Btw. your third question almost makes me curious about your opinion re. National Socialism. Yaan 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it so important?--Dojarca 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No more important than the label you introduced into the discussion, I guess. Yaan 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank's a lot for the link. That document is very useful for a number of purposes unrelated to this discussion as well. Do you know which year it was issued? It must be before 1941, because the coat of arms still uses the classic mongolian script.

In our context, we have to consider it a masterpiece in the art of deception. It looks all very democratic on the surface, until we examine it a little closer. $95 makes sure that the MPRP "is the leading core of all organisations of the working people, both public and state". This means (and was handled accordingly) that any organisation not approved and controlled by the MPRP is illegal. And $86 gives the exclusive right to nominate election candidates to the MPRP and the other organisations it controls. In other words, every official function, be it legislative, executive, or judicative, is garanteed to be filled with a hardline MPRP member, because no one else will ever get nominated for anything.

A classic textbook example of an undemocratic single-party system, where no dissenting voice will ever be heard. And as we know from history, dissenting voices were actually killed in the literal sense as well. The death toll of those "cleansings" in Mongolia is estimated to about 10% of the population. Is that really your idea of democracy? --Latebird 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To me this constitution looks like a typical soviet-bloc specimen of its kind. Anyway, a constitution is not terribly relevant whithout a concept of rule of law, so IMO this piece of paper doesn't say much about what real life looked like.

If I remember correctly they did introduce a constitution in 1940, i.e. (just) after the greatest purges. But I'd have to look it up to be sure. The first constitution should have been introduced in 1924 (but back then, the Youth League might not have existed yet).

re. numbers of deaths by political persecution, the number I have seen most frequently cited is 30.000, i.e. closer to 5%. And even this number might still contain some thousand victims of the 1930 collectivization campaign and the suppression of the 1932 uprisings. I also tend to think it's a bit misleading to term the 1937-39 purges as a campaign against political dissent. In part they pobably were, but then they probably just as much were about exterminating potential rivals and securing the own power. And then there was still a good deal of arbitrariness involved. Yaan 08:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The constitution is crucial, because it "legitimized" an undemocratic regime. It explicitly gave all the power to a small circle of like-minded people, who would then eliminate everything and everybody standing in their way (either politically, ideologically, or personally). Any "rule of law" was established and executed by the same people, and thus not worth the paper it was written on. We can juggle with percentages and time frames, but that won't change the basic facts.

In short, we now have proof that the "democratic" label that Dojarca was trying to apply to the Mongolian People's Republic is false, and we can undo his changes to the article. If he doesn't like that, he is welcome to complain to jimbo again, because we didn't fall for his red herrings either... --Latebird 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

not worth the paper it was written on = "not terribly relevant" Yaan 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First, do you know what is democratic centralism?--Dojarca 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One of your red herrings. As a process that was only used within some communist parties is has no relevance to this discussion. --Latebird 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but probably the constitution was made up to protect the dictatorship of proletariat.--Dojarca 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ergo: No democracy. Thanks for proving my point. --Latebird 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re. the date of the constitution: There was a new mongolian constitution introduced on June 30th, 1940 (source: Udo B. Barkmann, Geschichte der Mongolei, Bonn 1999, around p.331 IIRC). Characteristically enough, Anandyn Amar was only tried and executed after that date. Demchugdongrub was first welcomed with open arms, but later extradited despite article 101.

Given that article 11 refers to aimags like Bayankhongor that were only founded in 1941, the constitution given here might already be an amended version.

The english translation might be from Russian, otherwise I don't see why they would make Huns out of Guns in article 2. Yaan 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

On another note, calling the events of 1990 a revolution is perharps a bit far-fetched. There were large demonstrations, a hunger strike and even some riots, but in the end it was the MPRP who stayed in power. Plus they won the first two multi-party parliamentary elections in 1990 and 1992 (though they messed up the presidential elcetion in 1993.) Yaan 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Revolution is defined as a "significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time". I think the word is quite appropriate here, but I'm open to suggestions about a better term. --Latebird 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about something like democratic movement or transition to democracy? I guess in most other soviet bloc countries it's called revolution as well, but in most of them the ruling party really had tto leave office (or did they?). In Mongolia the MPRP was just being nice and formed a coalition government. Yaan 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The MPRP gave up its position as the controlling state party. What else would "leave office" mean? The system was fundamentally changed with the new constitution. From there on, the powers have shifted back and forth several times, as it is normal for a democracy. Programmatically, the MPRP is just another social-democratic party today. Only because they still exist under that name doesn't make it any less of a revolution. --Latebird 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese domination

Not "Outer Mongolia" submitted to the Quing in 1691 but the Khalkha. Western Mongolia followed after hard-foughts against troops of the Manchu and Khalkha not until the middle of the 18th century (1752). The power of the Oirads in Western Mongolia didn´t end with the defeat of Galdan Khan.

In my experience, Outer Mongolia is often used more or less synonymous with the four Khalkha aimags, at least post-1757. If I remember correctly, this was also the Qing Dynasty's terminology. But I don't now how the territorial status of the Khalkha aimags changed between Galdan's death and 1757 (except that one aimag was added in 1725), and of course it was the nobles who submitted, not the land. So if you feel like clarifying that part of the article, please do. 141.5.15.8 09:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Western Mongolia never had been part of one of the Khalkha Aimags, but most of the people don´t know that fact. Perhaps it should be clarified in the text. I can not do it self because the pages are "protected"?

Is it better now? Yaan 13:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you!

Democracy

Mongolia was officially called "country of people's democracy" [7] (1949), [8] (1959) [9] (1960, including peer review). So saying it is transitioning to democracy in 1990s is POV.--Dojarca 12:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another red herring. Some soviet authors (peer reviewed by other soviet authors) used an incorrect translation of the name. So what? What counts is the historical reality, which was based on the inherently undemocratic constitution as we have shown above, and is otherwise well documented. --Latebird 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a mistranslation. You simply incorrect now. Country of people's democracy is a colloquial name for all countries belonging to one particular state system: people's democratic republic. The other system of socialist states is soviet republic, which is detaily explained in these politological works. It also cites Lenin's "About democratism and socialist character of soviet power". The first two works have name "State law in countries of people's democracy". The third is "Questions of state law in countries of people's democracy".--Dojarca 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mongolian word for "democratic" is "ардчилсан", and that was never part of the name of the country. Soviet ideologists using an incorrect translation doesn't make it "colloquial". --Latebird 09:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

dojarca, maybe it would be possible to explain your rationale for considering the MPR a democracy, instead of just placing some links? I mean, a lot of people are more or less officially called Nazi (=National Socialist) all the time, but that doesn't make them socialists, does it? Yaan 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a too serious theory to explain it in two words. But all three works I gave links review the question in details. Unfortunately, they are not in English. Probably, these can be also useful: State law of people's democratic countries and Representative system in countries of people's democracy--Dojarca 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Russian (Mongolian it's not, in any case). If you are trying to come over as serious, maybe you should try to give some effort to explaining your reasoning. Btw. you are right that people's democracy is, like national socialism, an established term. Still that doesn't mean it's a subset of democracy, just like national socialism is not necessarily a subset of socialism (or would you say it is?). Yaan 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And if were are just discussing labels, calling the post 1990-events a transition to democracy is a very common thing in Mongolia. Yaan 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

For me, I think natinal socialism is not a form of classical socialism in my understanding, but I know people, who thinks opposite. In fact there existed so-called "prussian socialism" which was widely different from marxist school in fact. Some German authors considered socialism to be a regime of strong state power with some limited social guaranties. Regarding the letter question I think people's democracy in fact related to democracy in its classical concept, but differs from what understood as democracy in post-1990 era, especially in mass media and by politics who describe themselves as democrats. In fact recent years arose another meaning of the word.--Dojarca 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, recent Orange revolution in Ukraine was described by media as a victory of democracy while in fact the constitution and political system remained the same, only people who described themselves as democrats came to power. The winners of the Orange revolution did not experience any more popular support than their opponents, but were oriented towards USA in foreign policy. I think it does not give us right to call Ukraine during Kuchma's presidency undemocratic.--Dojarca 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly media is not always accurate, seconly if elections results are falsified then state is not democracy. From Orange revolution article: On December 3, 2004, Ukraine's Supreme Court finally broke the political deadlock. The court decided that due to the scale of the electoral fraud it became impossible to establish the election results. Therefore, it invalidated the official results that would have given Yanukovych the presidency. As a resolution, the court ordered a revote of the run-off to be held on December 26, 2004.[6]--Staberinde 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that media is not necessary accurate, but in fact the new meaning of the word actually exist and becoming widespread. Regarding Ukraine. There was very small difference between candidates and as heppens often there probably were some inaccuracies (not necessary state-sponsored), which did not allow to exactly determine the winner. But my view is that the court decision was mostly triggered by mass riots. You may consider another case: When Yeltsin dissolved Russian parliament (democratically elected) in 1993 in violation of constitution, and bombarded the building with tanks, it was also described as victory of democracy only because Yeltsin's followers called themselves democrats.--Dojarca 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

New meaning of "democracy"? The fact that different political forces try to hijack that term all the time, to push their agenda does not change actual meaning of it.--Staberinde 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone should go and add the NSDAP to Socialist Worker's Party then. Anyway, if we are to accept that the MPR can be referred to as a democracy because some scholars called it one, why can't we refer to the 1990 as a transition to democracy? That's what those events are very frequently called. P.S. I don't care about Ukraine. Yaan 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding NSDAP and the list: I think it should be determined by the list's criteria of inclusion. Regarding your letter question. We can of course present all points of view in an appropriate section. But we also can use neutral wording to avoid detailed explanation. As you can note, I did not call MPR democratic in my edits.--Dojarca 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You called the 1990 events an anti-communist revolution, which is simply nonsense. Yaan 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that in the post-1990 newspeak democrat is a synonym of anti-communist. But I may probably be wrong.--Dojarca 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Peoples Republic of Mongolia democratic? Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. [10] (too long to copy it all here).--Staberinde 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

The link[11] to the Mongolian Embassy, provided by Staberinde, tells us all we need to know about this dispute:

Although in the Constitution and other laws of Mongolia , it was stated that the rights and freedom of citizens should be respected, in reality it turned out that the MPRP's leadership had a tendency to prevail over the law and the party itself fell under the influence of its leader, being at the head of both the party and state. During the socialist era the population of Mongolia increased and the living standards, and educational and cultural level of the people was considerably raised, but human rights were violated and all the rights of people to vote, to be elected to public organizations, and freedom of speech and publication were restrained within the bounds set out according to the ruling party’s political policy, ideology and direction.

It seems clear that even the official Mongolian view is that the country was not a democracy until the changes instituted into the 1990s. Arguing otherwise appears to be an exercise in semantics. Snuppy 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, now official view is as you describe. Prevously the view was different. Any government tends to describe themselves democrats by contrst with despots that ruled before them.--Dojarca 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The ruling party now is the same as in 1989, and they have everything but broken with their past. Yaan 15:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but you're making that increasingly difficult. You blatantly misrepresented the contents of the old constitution. You repeatedly tried to derail the discussion with topics that had nothing to do with the question at hand. You have yet to give even the most basic explanation of your views. You refer to soviet publications of the 1960s as authoritative, while it is clear that their authors were unable to paint a realistic picture, because they would have faced prosecution otherwise. You reject all modern sources as biased, as if nobody could possibly have learned anything during the last 50 years. And you simply ignore all rational arguments made by other people. What do you hope to acheive by all this?

I think we have a rather solid consensus now (with you as an opposing minority) that there was no democracy in Mongolia before 1992. If you should keep trying to insert your soviet propaganda POV into the article, then that will be considered vandalism from now on. --Latebird 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My view is that there are different points of view. I reject no sources (note that you've presented no academic souces unlike me). But you do. Rejecting ascademic sources and the widespread views at no basis is a blatant POV and vandalism. If you have some arguments, please present them. Note that my version never says Mongolia was democratic pre-1992 using only neutral words.--Dojarca 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Both current president and prime minister are from party that ruled Mongolia during soviet rule so its unlikely that they try to spread negative propaganda about themselves. From Britannica: From the founding of an independent Mongolia on July 11, 1921, the country followed Soviet leadership for nearly seven decades; it was the first Soviet satellite and remained the longest. The Soviet army became Mongolia's main defense force, and party and governmental structures closely followed the Soviet models of a one-party political system. The economy was transformed gradually into a communist command economy with government ownership of the means of production and with an emphasis on mining and industry. During the 1980s the party leadership underwent change. An era of openness permitted criticism of current and past party leadership and of economic, political, and social stagnation and resulted in the elimination of the monopoly of power held by the communist party (Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party [MPRP]) in March 1990; there were multiparty elections in July 1990, and subsequently a coalition government was formed. [12]--Staberinde 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection. In fact, it is multi-party system. But that one-party system cannot be democratic there are defferent points of view. One-party system was established to secure dictatorship of proletariat which according to Lenin is the highes form of democracy.--Dojarca 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, dictatorship is democratic. Are you ever reading the nonsense you write yourself? --Latebird 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Had you ever heared about dialectic? I am not a specialist in Marxist theory, but I can easily say that Marxism considers any society a dictatorship of the ruling class, i.e. liberalism is a dictatorship of bougeoisie.--Dojarca 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? Another red herring. This article is about historic reality, not ideological theories. --Latebird 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Every dictator(including Lenin) tries to prove how he represents people best. If we consider dictatorship of proletariat(btw, was there any proletariat in Mongolia anyway, wasn't it more like agarian country?) democracy then that means all Soviet Block states(USSR, East-Germany, etc.) were democratic. That would make Stalin democratic leader.--Staberinde 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1.Proletariat includes rural workers. 2.Note that not only constitution, but the very name of East Germany included words "democratic republic". About Stalin. From Marxist point of view a socialist country is democratic if dictatorship of proletariat is working there. Western (including marxist) sources criticized Stalin's regime for that in their view there was no true dictatorship of proletariat, but rather a personal dictatorship of Stalin and/or CPSU and/or bureaucracy. Anyway, regarding Mongolia the point of view exist, it is notable and it is sourced. Don't you agree?--Dojarca 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet more examples of ideologically motivated false labelling. You should learn to ignore such labels, and look at what really happens in the world instead. --Latebird 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Only you know what is false and what is true, yes?--Dojarca 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You only proved that the point of view existed. When times change, point of views often change with them. I don't think you will easily find sources that say that the 1990 events were just a transition from one form of democracy to something else. Btw. I think this argument is much better suited to the Democracy or Single-party state pages. Stating that Mongolia was a USSR-inspired one-party system should be enough for every reader to know what was going on, whatever his own POV might be. Since you seem to care a lot about how something is called, there can practically be no alternative for referring to the events as a democratic revolution, since that is the established term : [13] Yaan 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should add that Ardchilsan Khuvisgal can also sand for the 1921 events. However, in the article the context is clear, so there IMO there should be no chance for confusion now. For a little fun, maybe someone could translate this little gem from the MPRP website: "Үүний ачаар Монголчууд, бид 1980 –аад оны дунд үеэс өөрчлөн байгуулалт, дараа нь 1990-ээд оноос ардчилал, хүний эрх, эрх чөлөө шудрага ёс, ил тод байдал, зах зээлийн тухай ярьсаар нийгмийн нэг байгууллаас нөгөө байгуулалд тайван бөгөөд хурдан шилиж чадсан юм." [14]. Or maybe take a glimpse at the MPRP's brief history: [15] Yaan 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)