![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A parallel article could describe the Czarist administration in Buryatia and Kalmykia. Gantuya eng 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the Great Shabi (personal estate of the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu) should at least be mentioned. Or maybe it is, but not in a way that I can understand. As far as I understand, the Khövsgöl khoshuus would, at least partially, be part of that particular entity. Also, a mention of the watch post system (mong. kharuul or so) would be nice. Yaan 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the chinese name of that office? It's not the Lifanyuan, is it? Yaan 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have information on the hoshuus og the Halh 4 aimags. Do anyone have information on Ili, Tannu border aimags? Dagvadorj 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been using Latin Mongolian for Halh Mongolian tongue. But some contributors are changing them to spelling of the classical ones. Let's discuss: Which one would be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is "Alia Sender" a huree song? Isn't is from Inner Mongolia. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please add something about the mathematician and astronomer Mingat. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you olease try to achieve a minimum of quality in what you write? Shabi are not necessarily scholars, there is no need to translate tariachin if you don't explain anything - My guess is they belonged to the military(?) farms at Khovd, but it would be nice to see some kind of explanation. If an article gives the impression that the Lifanyuan are actually two different offices, than there is probably something wrong.
Also it would be nice if you could adhere to some kind consistency in transliteration. I tried to change something until I came to the opinion that it's probably a waste of time, so sorry if I messed it up even more. But then, at least I didn't start it.
Maybe try and have a look at lists like List of Reichstag participants (1792) for a guideline.
Another question: Was Khökh nuur, the Ili area and Alsha really part of Outer Mongolia under Qing, or not? Yaan 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there offline sources to confirm that the four areas of the Khövsöl Khyazgar were really khoshuus and not something else? My sources seem to avoid any (pre-1921) mention of the term khoshuu for this area. Yaan 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I did some rewriting and reformatting, and also added some citations. The number of khoshuus in Inner Mongolia now adds up to 49 (plus ten for Chahar and Guihua Tümed), and the number of khoshuus in Khalkha to 86, which according to my sources is just as it should be. Citations are still needed for the number of khoshuus in the other areas, i.e. Khövsgöl, Tuva, Khovd, Alshaa & Ejin, Khökh nuur, and Ili, and for the status of these areas, i.e. part of Inner Mongolia, part of Outer Mongolia, or something else. Also I would like to see a citation for subdivisions of otog. Yaan 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One exluded Ili, Kök Nuur and some other areas from Outer Mongolia, and it made me very angry. So let's put a point on it. Gantuya eng said that Qinghai was too far. Then think like this. - Take a look at this map. [ [1]] - Now I think southern part of Bayingol in Xinjiang and Northern part of Gansu belonged to Kök Nuur together with the area in Qinghai. Dagvadorj
Are you Dagvadorj? Don't be angry. I still think it's about administration rather than geography. Do you have a source (not an online forum) for Khökh nuur etc. being part of Outer Mongolia during Qing? And, just in case, what about Tibet? It may well be the case, I'd just like to see a source. And maybe a short explanation that Outer Mongolia now is something different than Outer Mongolia back then (wasn't it also called Gadaad, not Ar, Mongol?). Yaan 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::When was Kök Nuur conquered by the Manchu?
Gantuya eng
15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact we should find the Mongolian name of the Dowager, as this is list is of notable Mongols. I don't know what's SOOOO wrong with the Manchu name VS Chinese. After all her husband was a Manchu.
In what way is the Chinese name better than the Manchu?
Gantuya eng
02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Gantuya, I have the greatest sympathy for the fate of Mongolia, but this is not the venue to extol the virtues of any nationality. As Latebird has pointed out, notability is a criterion for inclusion and you can read more about it under WP:NOTABILITY. As I have said before, I think it is great that you are creating Mongolia-related content on Wikipedia, but we are here to write an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, not writing edifying national histories. Please take a look at WP:NOT for more on this. I hope that you will continue to add useful contents to Wikipedia, we need more about Mongolia.-- Amban 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please spare me the sarcasm. I'm actually trying to engage in a discussion here.-- Amban 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Gantuya, it is very difficult to have a constructive discussion with you about very basic policies. In the long, you will get yourself blocked if you go on like this.-- Amban 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I am actually trying to be friendly and I thought I made that clear, but never mind. And again: I did not create the article about Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang and that is not the reason why I felt that she should be included in the list. Actually, I have made very few edits to that article, if you care to check it out.
I still don't see where you argument about inclusion is going. We're not passing judgment on people here on Wikipedia. We stick to a neutral point of view, as much as we can, and try to be factual. And Xiaozhuang is a notable Mongol of the Qing dynasty. That is a fact.
And if we are looking for comparisons, the collaborator Wang Jingwei is actually included on a list of "celebrities" from Panyu. And although Austrian-born Marie Antoinette became the queen of France, and thus "foreign" to her native country, she is included in a list of notable Austrians. Are you proposing any changes to Wikipedia policy or does your argument only hold for Mongols?-- Amban 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever.-- Amban 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Such as "Navaanlubsansanjnyamdanzanvanchigbalsambuu"... is that a real name for Bogd Khan? Because there is no mention of it anywhere else. Also, I think some information should be added about the previous Khans before Bogd. Rcduggan ( talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule suggests several questions and issues which may be relevant here as well.
I wonder if a discussion-thread about re-categorizing this article will be helpful? Are the two current categories the best or only way to construe this article:
How appropriate would be the following -- copied from Greater Mongolia?
G Purevdorj suggested at Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule that the categories from Göktürks might be relevant; and so, in order to consolidate discussion and encourage increased participation, I've re-copied those categories below:
The existence of Category:Geography of Central Asia causes me to wonder if a number of problems might be mitigated if this article and it's corollary Mongolia during Tang rule were re-named as something like
These re-focused article titles emphasize a Chinese military/government/trading presence in a geographic region. As may become apparent, such titles would create consequences in terms more fully amplified at
A quite different article would evolve from a different title -- for example, an article which was interested more in the conquered that the conquerors, more in the invaded than than the invader, etc. I don't want to make any guesses about how such articles might be named or categorized, but I do hope that this thread can contribute to the decision-making of those who are more interested in this subject?
Do these proposed alternatives suggest something more appropriate? something better? I wonder if there might be other relevant category and/or name-change options which have been overlooked? -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should avoid nationalist view since the Mongol proper was subject to the Qing.-- Enerelt ( talk) 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Should this article also cover Mongols in other regions, e.g. Qinghai and Xinjiang, beyond that of Inner and Outer Mongolia? I see that the template in the bottom mentions all of them, but the lead only mentions Inner and Outer Mongolia. Seems a bit confusing. -- Enchyin ( talk) 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=I9dzQgAACAAJ
Rajmaan ( talk) 14:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Mu Zhang (1805-1849)
Page 284
Page 35
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Zhang%2C%20Mu%2C%201805-1849
https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/?q=%22Zhang%2C+Mu%2C+1805-1849%22&search_field=author
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n86089962.html
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009734802
Aleksei Matveevich Pozdneev
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Aleksei+Pozdneev
http://www.smartdefine.org/aleksei_pozdneev
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aaleksei%20pozdneev
http://www.allbookstores.com/Aleksei-Matveevich-Pozdneev-Ego-Vostochnaia/9785898500443
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/aleksei-matveevich-pozdneev
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/aleksei-matveevich-pozdneev
http://www.librarything.com/author/alekseimatveevichpoz
蒙古及蒙古人, Volume 2, Issue 1 By Alekseĭ Matveevich Pozdneev, 刘汉明
06:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
欽定蒙古源流·卷一
https://archive.org/details/06054740.cn
欽定蒙古源流·卷二~卷四
https://archive.org/details/06054741.cn
蒙古游牧記(一)
https://archive.org/details/02086769.cn
蒙古游牧記(二)
https://archive.org/details/02086770.cn
蒙古游牧記(三)
https://archive.org/details/02086771.cn
蒙古游牧記(四)
https://archive.org/details/02086772.cn
蒙古游牧記(五)
https://archive.org/details/02086773.cn
蒙古游牧記(七)
https://archive.org/details/02086775.cn
蒙古游牧記(九)
https://archive.org/details/02086777.cn
欽定蒙古源流·卷五~卷七
https://archive.org/details/06054742.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷四~卷九
https://archive.org/details/06064133.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷十~卷十三
https://archive.org/details/06064134.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷九十二~卷九十八
https://archive.org/details/06064146.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷九十二~卷九十八
https://archive.org/details/06064147.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷五十七~卷六十三
https://archive.org/details/06064141.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷二十七~卷三十五
https://archive.org/details/06064137.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷三十六~卷四十二
https://archive.org/details/06064138.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷七十五~卷八十
https://archive.org/details/06064144.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷十四~卷十九
https://archive.org/details/06064135.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷四十三~卷四十九
https://archive.org/details/06064139.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷五十~卷五十六
https://archive.org/details/06064140.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷六十四~卷六十九
https://archive.org/details/06064142.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷七十~卷七十四
https://archive.org/details/06064143.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷八十一~卷八十五
https://archive.org/details/06064145.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷一百八~卷一百十二
https://archive.org/details/06064149.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷一百十三~卷一百二十
https://archive.org/details/06064150.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷首~卷三
https://archive.org/details/06064132.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(一)
https://archive.org/details/02084224.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(一)
https://archive.org/details/02084218.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(二)
https://archive.org/details/02084225.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(二)
https://archive.org/details/02084219.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(三)
https://archive.org/details/02084226.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(三)
https://archive.org/details/02084220.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(四)
https://archive.org/details/02084227.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(五)
https://archive.org/details/02084222.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(五)
https://archive.org/details/02084228.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(六)
https://archive.org/details/02084223.cn
國朝滿洲蒙古御史題名
https://archive.org/details/02087305.cn
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted irrelevant category ( Category:China–Mongolia relations) and moved to Mongolia during the Manchu Qing rule.
By the way, no reason for move was given from the beginning. Now move back with change from "during" to "under" to be consistent with Taiwan under Qing rule. -- Cartakes ( talk) 22:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Khoshot rebellion
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Die Eroberung von Qinghai unter Berücksichtigung von Tibet und Khams, 1717-1727: anhand der Throneingaben des Grossfeldherrn Nian Gengyao By Shuhui Wu
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)Inner Mongol leagues
References
Hongtaiji and Qianlong patronized Tibetan Buddhism for political reasons. In private, Hongtaiji scorned Mongol's belief in Tibetan Buddhism as detrimental to their culture and Qianlong said he patronized Tibetan Buddhism as one patronizes the weak, and openly said to Han critics that he only patronized them for political reasons.
The belief in the Buddhist faith by the Mongols was viewed with disdain and thought to be destructive to Mongol identity by the Manchu leader Hong Taiji in private, Hong Taiji said "The Mongolian princes are abandoning the Mongolian language; their names are all in imitation of the lamas.", although Hong Taiji patronized Tibetan Buddhism in public. [1]
The Qianlong Emperor's faith in Tibetan Buddhism had been questioned in recent times because Qianlong indicated that he supported the Yellow Church (the Tibetan Buddhist Gelukpa sect) just to "maintain peace among the Mongols" since the Mongols were followers of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama of the Yellow Church, and Qianlong had this explanation placed in the Beijing Tibetan Buddhist Yonge Gong temple on a stele entitled "Lama Shuo" (on Lamas) in 1792, and he also said it was "merely in pursuance of Our policy of extending Our affection to the weak." which led him to patronize the Yellow Church. [2]
This explanation of only supporting the "Yellow Hats" Tibetan Buddhists for practical reasons was used to deflect Han criticism of this policy by Qianlong, who had the "Lama Shuo" stele engraved in Tibetan, Mongol, Manchu and Chinese, which said: By patronizing the Yellow Church we maintain peace among the Mongols. This being an important task we cannot but protect this (religion). (In doing so) we do not show any bias, nor do we wish to adulate the Tibetan priests as (was done during the) Yuan dynasty. [3] [4]
Qianlong turned the Palace of Harmony (Yonghegong) into a Tibetan Buddhist temple for Mongols in 1744 and had an edict inscribed on a stele to commemorate it in Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Manchu, with most likely Qianlong having first wrote the Chinese version before the Manchu. [5]
The Khalkha nobles' power was deliberately undermined by Qianlong when he appointed the Tibetan Ishi-damba-nima of the Lithang royal family of the eastern Tibetans as the 3rd reincarnated Jebtsubdamba instead of the Khalkha Mongol which they wanted to be appointed.
[6] The decision was first protested against by the Outer Mongol Khalkha nobles and then the Khalkhas sought to have him placed at a distance from them at Dolonnor, but Qianlong snubbed both of their requests, sending the message that he was putting an end to Outer Mongolian autonomy.
[7]
http://books.google.com/books?id=J1FGpkuug8IC&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (
talk)
09:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
References
Mongol commoners were equally as forbidden from crossing into China proper as Han were forbidden from settling in Mongol territory. Mongol commoners were not even allowed to cross into another Mongol league. Banners of Inner Mongolia Leagues of China
http://books.google.com/books?id=sZG3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA340#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=FoIE4laY7JcC&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q&f=false
Intermarriage between Manchu and Mongols was restricted to the Nobility. Ordinary Mongol commoners could not marry Manchus and were strictly segregated from them.
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 04:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Page 86
Page 406
http://www.t-house.on-rev.com/KARUN/BACK_NOTES/Crossley_Making_Mongols.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40108222?seq=5
Rajmaan ( talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the label, "Vassal of the Qing Dynasty," is currently in the status section of the infobox?
There isn't any way that Mongolia could have been a vassal state at this time, as it did not have internal autonomy. Rather, it was a region that constituted the larger state then known as the Qing Empire. This in itself violates the requirements of being a vassal state.
If there are any digressions, please state them.
BUjjsp ( talk) 02:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mongolia under Qing rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A parallel article could describe the Czarist administration in Buryatia and Kalmykia. Gantuya eng 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the Great Shabi (personal estate of the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu) should at least be mentioned. Or maybe it is, but not in a way that I can understand. As far as I understand, the Khövsgöl khoshuus would, at least partially, be part of that particular entity. Also, a mention of the watch post system (mong. kharuul or so) would be nice. Yaan 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the chinese name of that office? It's not the Lifanyuan, is it? Yaan 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have information on the hoshuus og the Halh 4 aimags. Do anyone have information on Ili, Tannu border aimags? Dagvadorj 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been using Latin Mongolian for Halh Mongolian tongue. But some contributors are changing them to spelling of the classical ones. Let's discuss: Which one would be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is "Alia Sender" a huree song? Isn't is from Inner Mongolia. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please add something about the mathematician and astronomer Mingat. Gantuya eng 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you olease try to achieve a minimum of quality in what you write? Shabi are not necessarily scholars, there is no need to translate tariachin if you don't explain anything - My guess is they belonged to the military(?) farms at Khovd, but it would be nice to see some kind of explanation. If an article gives the impression that the Lifanyuan are actually two different offices, than there is probably something wrong.
Also it would be nice if you could adhere to some kind consistency in transliteration. I tried to change something until I came to the opinion that it's probably a waste of time, so sorry if I messed it up even more. But then, at least I didn't start it.
Maybe try and have a look at lists like List of Reichstag participants (1792) for a guideline.
Another question: Was Khökh nuur, the Ili area and Alsha really part of Outer Mongolia under Qing, or not? Yaan 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there offline sources to confirm that the four areas of the Khövsöl Khyazgar were really khoshuus and not something else? My sources seem to avoid any (pre-1921) mention of the term khoshuu for this area. Yaan 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I did some rewriting and reformatting, and also added some citations. The number of khoshuus in Inner Mongolia now adds up to 49 (plus ten for Chahar and Guihua Tümed), and the number of khoshuus in Khalkha to 86, which according to my sources is just as it should be. Citations are still needed for the number of khoshuus in the other areas, i.e. Khövsgöl, Tuva, Khovd, Alshaa & Ejin, Khökh nuur, and Ili, and for the status of these areas, i.e. part of Inner Mongolia, part of Outer Mongolia, or something else. Also I would like to see a citation for subdivisions of otog. Yaan 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One exluded Ili, Kök Nuur and some other areas from Outer Mongolia, and it made me very angry. So let's put a point on it. Gantuya eng said that Qinghai was too far. Then think like this. - Take a look at this map. [ [1]] - Now I think southern part of Bayingol in Xinjiang and Northern part of Gansu belonged to Kök Nuur together with the area in Qinghai. Dagvadorj
Are you Dagvadorj? Don't be angry. I still think it's about administration rather than geography. Do you have a source (not an online forum) for Khökh nuur etc. being part of Outer Mongolia during Qing? And, just in case, what about Tibet? It may well be the case, I'd just like to see a source. And maybe a short explanation that Outer Mongolia now is something different than Outer Mongolia back then (wasn't it also called Gadaad, not Ar, Mongol?). Yaan 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::When was Kök Nuur conquered by the Manchu?
Gantuya eng
15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact we should find the Mongolian name of the Dowager, as this is list is of notable Mongols. I don't know what's SOOOO wrong with the Manchu name VS Chinese. After all her husband was a Manchu.
In what way is the Chinese name better than the Manchu?
Gantuya eng
02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Gantuya, I have the greatest sympathy for the fate of Mongolia, but this is not the venue to extol the virtues of any nationality. As Latebird has pointed out, notability is a criterion for inclusion and you can read more about it under WP:NOTABILITY. As I have said before, I think it is great that you are creating Mongolia-related content on Wikipedia, but we are here to write an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, not writing edifying national histories. Please take a look at WP:NOT for more on this. I hope that you will continue to add useful contents to Wikipedia, we need more about Mongolia.-- Amban 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please spare me the sarcasm. I'm actually trying to engage in a discussion here.-- Amban 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Gantuya, it is very difficult to have a constructive discussion with you about very basic policies. In the long, you will get yourself blocked if you go on like this.-- Amban 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I am actually trying to be friendly and I thought I made that clear, but never mind. And again: I did not create the article about Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang and that is not the reason why I felt that she should be included in the list. Actually, I have made very few edits to that article, if you care to check it out.
I still don't see where you argument about inclusion is going. We're not passing judgment on people here on Wikipedia. We stick to a neutral point of view, as much as we can, and try to be factual. And Xiaozhuang is a notable Mongol of the Qing dynasty. That is a fact.
And if we are looking for comparisons, the collaborator Wang Jingwei is actually included on a list of "celebrities" from Panyu. And although Austrian-born Marie Antoinette became the queen of France, and thus "foreign" to her native country, she is included in a list of notable Austrians. Are you proposing any changes to Wikipedia policy or does your argument only hold for Mongols?-- Amban 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever.-- Amban 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Such as "Navaanlubsansanjnyamdanzanvanchigbalsambuu"... is that a real name for Bogd Khan? Because there is no mention of it anywhere else. Also, I think some information should be added about the previous Khans before Bogd. Rcduggan ( talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule suggests several questions and issues which may be relevant here as well.
I wonder if a discussion-thread about re-categorizing this article will be helpful? Are the two current categories the best or only way to construe this article:
How appropriate would be the following -- copied from Greater Mongolia?
G Purevdorj suggested at Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule that the categories from Göktürks might be relevant; and so, in order to consolidate discussion and encourage increased participation, I've re-copied those categories below:
The existence of Category:Geography of Central Asia causes me to wonder if a number of problems might be mitigated if this article and it's corollary Mongolia during Tang rule were re-named as something like
These re-focused article titles emphasize a Chinese military/government/trading presence in a geographic region. As may become apparent, such titles would create consequences in terms more fully amplified at
A quite different article would evolve from a different title -- for example, an article which was interested more in the conquered that the conquerors, more in the invaded than than the invader, etc. I don't want to make any guesses about how such articles might be named or categorized, but I do hope that this thread can contribute to the decision-making of those who are more interested in this subject?
Do these proposed alternatives suggest something more appropriate? something better? I wonder if there might be other relevant category and/or name-change options which have been overlooked? -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should avoid nationalist view since the Mongol proper was subject to the Qing.-- Enerelt ( talk) 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Should this article also cover Mongols in other regions, e.g. Qinghai and Xinjiang, beyond that of Inner and Outer Mongolia? I see that the template in the bottom mentions all of them, but the lead only mentions Inner and Outer Mongolia. Seems a bit confusing. -- Enchyin ( talk) 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=I9dzQgAACAAJ
Rajmaan ( talk) 14:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Mu Zhang (1805-1849)
Page 284
Page 35
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Zhang%2C%20Mu%2C%201805-1849
https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/?q=%22Zhang%2C+Mu%2C+1805-1849%22&search_field=author
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n86089962.html
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009734802
Aleksei Matveevich Pozdneev
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Aleksei+Pozdneev
http://www.smartdefine.org/aleksei_pozdneev
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aaleksei%20pozdneev
http://www.allbookstores.com/Aleksei-Matveevich-Pozdneev-Ego-Vostochnaia/9785898500443
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/aleksei-matveevich-pozdneev
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/aleksei-matveevich-pozdneev
http://www.librarything.com/author/alekseimatveevichpoz
蒙古及蒙古人, Volume 2, Issue 1 By Alekseĭ Matveevich Pozdneev, 刘汉明
06:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
欽定蒙古源流·卷一
https://archive.org/details/06054740.cn
欽定蒙古源流·卷二~卷四
https://archive.org/details/06054741.cn
蒙古游牧記(一)
https://archive.org/details/02086769.cn
蒙古游牧記(二)
https://archive.org/details/02086770.cn
蒙古游牧記(三)
https://archive.org/details/02086771.cn
蒙古游牧記(四)
https://archive.org/details/02086772.cn
蒙古游牧記(五)
https://archive.org/details/02086773.cn
蒙古游牧記(七)
https://archive.org/details/02086775.cn
蒙古游牧記(九)
https://archive.org/details/02086777.cn
欽定蒙古源流·卷五~卷七
https://archive.org/details/06054742.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷四~卷九
https://archive.org/details/06064133.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷十~卷十三
https://archive.org/details/06064134.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷九十二~卷九十八
https://archive.org/details/06064146.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷九十二~卷九十八
https://archive.org/details/06064147.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷五十七~卷六十三
https://archive.org/details/06064141.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷二十七~卷三十五
https://archive.org/details/06064137.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷三十六~卷四十二
https://archive.org/details/06064138.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷七十五~卷八十
https://archive.org/details/06064144.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷十四~卷十九
https://archive.org/details/06064135.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷四十三~卷四十九
https://archive.org/details/06064139.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷五十~卷五十六
https://archive.org/details/06064140.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷六十四~卷六十九
https://archive.org/details/06064142.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷七十~卷七十四
https://archive.org/details/06064143.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷八十一~卷八十五
https://archive.org/details/06064145.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷一百八~卷一百十二
https://archive.org/details/06064149.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷一百十三~卷一百二十
https://archive.org/details/06064150.cn
欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷首~卷三
https://archive.org/details/06064132.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(一)
https://archive.org/details/02084224.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(一)
https://archive.org/details/02084218.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(二)
https://archive.org/details/02084225.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(二)
https://archive.org/details/02084219.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(三)
https://archive.org/details/02084226.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(三)
https://archive.org/details/02084220.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(四)
https://archive.org/details/02084227.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(五)
https://archive.org/details/02084222.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公傳(五)
https://archive.org/details/02084228.cn
欽定續纂外藩蒙古回部王公表(六)
https://archive.org/details/02084223.cn
國朝滿洲蒙古御史題名
https://archive.org/details/02087305.cn
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted irrelevant category ( Category:China–Mongolia relations) and moved to Mongolia during the Manchu Qing rule.
By the way, no reason for move was given from the beginning. Now move back with change from "during" to "under" to be consistent with Taiwan under Qing rule. -- Cartakes ( talk) 22:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Khoshot rebellion
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Die Eroberung von Qinghai unter Berücksichtigung von Tibet und Khams, 1717-1727: anhand der Throneingaben des Grossfeldherrn Nian Gengyao By Shuhui Wu
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)Inner Mongol leagues
References
Hongtaiji and Qianlong patronized Tibetan Buddhism for political reasons. In private, Hongtaiji scorned Mongol's belief in Tibetan Buddhism as detrimental to their culture and Qianlong said he patronized Tibetan Buddhism as one patronizes the weak, and openly said to Han critics that he only patronized them for political reasons.
The belief in the Buddhist faith by the Mongols was viewed with disdain and thought to be destructive to Mongol identity by the Manchu leader Hong Taiji in private, Hong Taiji said "The Mongolian princes are abandoning the Mongolian language; their names are all in imitation of the lamas.", although Hong Taiji patronized Tibetan Buddhism in public. [1]
The Qianlong Emperor's faith in Tibetan Buddhism had been questioned in recent times because Qianlong indicated that he supported the Yellow Church (the Tibetan Buddhist Gelukpa sect) just to "maintain peace among the Mongols" since the Mongols were followers of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama of the Yellow Church, and Qianlong had this explanation placed in the Beijing Tibetan Buddhist Yonge Gong temple on a stele entitled "Lama Shuo" (on Lamas) in 1792, and he also said it was "merely in pursuance of Our policy of extending Our affection to the weak." which led him to patronize the Yellow Church. [2]
This explanation of only supporting the "Yellow Hats" Tibetan Buddhists for practical reasons was used to deflect Han criticism of this policy by Qianlong, who had the "Lama Shuo" stele engraved in Tibetan, Mongol, Manchu and Chinese, which said: By patronizing the Yellow Church we maintain peace among the Mongols. This being an important task we cannot but protect this (religion). (In doing so) we do not show any bias, nor do we wish to adulate the Tibetan priests as (was done during the) Yuan dynasty. [3] [4]
Qianlong turned the Palace of Harmony (Yonghegong) into a Tibetan Buddhist temple for Mongols in 1744 and had an edict inscribed on a stele to commemorate it in Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Manchu, with most likely Qianlong having first wrote the Chinese version before the Manchu. [5]
The Khalkha nobles' power was deliberately undermined by Qianlong when he appointed the Tibetan Ishi-damba-nima of the Lithang royal family of the eastern Tibetans as the 3rd reincarnated Jebtsubdamba instead of the Khalkha Mongol which they wanted to be appointed.
[6] The decision was first protested against by the Outer Mongol Khalkha nobles and then the Khalkhas sought to have him placed at a distance from them at Dolonnor, but Qianlong snubbed both of their requests, sending the message that he was putting an end to Outer Mongolian autonomy.
[7]
http://books.google.com/books?id=J1FGpkuug8IC&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (
talk)
09:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
References
Mongol commoners were equally as forbidden from crossing into China proper as Han were forbidden from settling in Mongol territory. Mongol commoners were not even allowed to cross into another Mongol league. Banners of Inner Mongolia Leagues of China
http://books.google.com/books?id=sZG3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA340#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=FoIE4laY7JcC&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q&f=false
Intermarriage between Manchu and Mongols was restricted to the Nobility. Ordinary Mongol commoners could not marry Manchus and were strictly segregated from them.
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 04:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Page 86
Page 406
http://www.t-house.on-rev.com/KARUN/BACK_NOTES/Crossley_Making_Mongols.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40108222?seq=5
Rajmaan ( talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the label, "Vassal of the Qing Dynasty," is currently in the status section of the infobox?
There isn't any way that Mongolia could have been a vassal state at this time, as it did not have internal autonomy. Rather, it was a region that constituted the larger state then known as the Qing Empire. This in itself violates the requirements of being a vassal state.
If there are any digressions, please state them.
BUjjsp ( talk) 02:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mongolia under Qing rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)