Jump to content

Talk:Mongolian People's Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename to Mongolian People's Republic?

[edit]

Why is it P.R.M. and not M.P.R.? Obviously it's not mandated from the mongolian form of the name, since for they use the same grammatic forms for, say, the german democratic republic (bugd nairamdakh german ardchilsan uls) as for the federal republic of germany (holbooni bugd nairamdakh german uls). However, M.P.R. is vastly more common than P.R.M. I therefore suggest moving the article to Mongolian People's Republic. Yaan 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

correction: Mongolian for German Democratic Republic is Bugd Nairamdakh Ardchilsan German Uls.Yaan 18:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have been a random decision when the page was created (as a redirect to Mongolia at first). I have no objection to a rename, as your suggestion is indeed around 100 times more popular in Google. --Latebird 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some more rename candidates for consistency:
--Latebird 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, still a lot to do.Yaan 18:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is People´s Republic of Mongolia

Independence

[edit]

Why was Mongolia not incorporated into the Soviet Union like other territories were as they were won back from the Whites (e.g. Ukraine)? The article doesn't mention this issue. Perhaps because it hadn't been part of Tsarist Russia, but the USSR never proclaimed itself as a nationally based entity, nor claim the Russian Empire's borders as its own (e.g. Poland).--Jack Upland 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was that he Soviet Union also wanted relations with China, and annexing - even formally recognizing - Mongolia would have made that impossible. China after 1911 claimed Mongolia as her territory, and Russia recognized the Chinese claims (formally, of course). Mongolia simply wasn't worth it. It was only in 1945/46 that China would accept Mongolia's independence, a result of the Yalta agreement. However, these Chinese claims are probably more relevant to the history of Mongolia as a whole than to an article about the M.P.R. - the claims form part of the background, but had no immediate influence. At least not post-1921.
As for how the Soviets could annex Tuva, I don't really know. Probably they were confident enoughthat it would slip under the radar. Yaan (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand right, after the WWII, Stalin started pushing Choibalsan to follow the example of Salchak Toka, Tuvan leader who agreed to join Tuva to USSR. Choibalsan wouldn't agree. All his tyranny against the Mongolian nation are excused as price for the independence and he wouldn't trade the independence. It is said Choibalsan smacked Toka when he tried to pursuade Choibalsan to join Mongolia to USSR. Shortly Choibalsan died in the USSR. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there documentary evidence for this, or is this just some legend like Sukhbaatar travelling to Moscow?Yaan (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which? Gantuya eng (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in 1920 or 1921. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) 11:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have heard this story before, too. I just feel that M.P.R. history is so full with often apocryphical stories that I've become a bit sceptical. Yaan (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Mongolia opposed this bravely. Right now a Mongolian Communist was facing genocide in the Santarem region of Portugal east of the Assacaias

It seems the USSR had Mongolia recognise Tuva's independence before it could annex it. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shenen Saicvonml@ 112.205.49.91 (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Soviet Union?

[edit]

Did the Soviet Union and Japan square off, or was it still Russia. It was 1911, after all. enjoymoreradio (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Russian Empire in 1911. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gantuya please normalize unless you can prove otherwise with whom you should not normalize are with the genocide perpetrators but always use your dear head, and do not let them murder you, Mongolia was part of the Celestial Empire 1911 and then in the Mongolian Old Red Revolution of 2011 a theocracy claimed it had won against the vastly outnumbering Celestial Army for the first time since the Middle Ages, and instated a Buddhist Khanate or Kingdom, it then was recognized by the Czar with whom it enacted a rather restrictive treaty, or do you mean some frontier region was ruled or ceded to the Czarist Empire? Western greed and exploitation have extended to the adoption of ruinous and irreparable genocide by current Mongolia

But of course The editing of sir Celestial Empire is not normalizing its own contents of speech as they have claimed the Mongolians (Mongols) were subject to Genocide am I correct?, If so there isn't any Genocide regarding the Russian Empire and therefore you should be referring to your sources. And the only occasion where the Mongolians (Mongols) were subject to Genocide was when the Celestial Empire you claim is yours, have enacted a massacre during the Integration of Dzungaria (Land of The Dzungars (Mongols))(Literally)[1]. The Czarist Empire On the other hand supported the Recently Established Bogd Khanate of Mongolia (Outer and Inner(claimed)) through Cavalry training officers and Economic provisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.46.21 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.mn/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA285&dq=Zunghar+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZutWU-yoLOi_sQTcn4CgBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Zunghar%20genocide&f=false

related article need attenstion

[edit]

The article 1932 armed uprising (Mongolia) needs to be looked over. The article was made on November 25, 2007 has has barely been touched since and could use more eyes to look at it. There are also few wikilinks to it. The article cites only two sources, neither of which are online. Jon513 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, printed sources are usually considered more reliable than online ones. So what exactly is your problem? (Apart from the fact that, like most articles, it could be expanded, of course). --Latebird (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problematic

[edit]

This article needs a lot of work. Cleaned up the section on Mongolia and the Cold War a bit. Radchenk (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

satellite state?

[edit]

The designation "satellite state" at the top of the article is a bit ridiculous. Mongolia was a state recognized by the United Nations as a sovereign and independent country. Its close connection to the Soviet Union can be outlined in the article; it should not be in the heading of the article, and certainly should not categorize Mongolia for fear of oversimplifying an exceptionally complex phenomenon. Radchenk (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As the documentation for Template:Infobox former country makes clear, the field is intended for a formally-defined legal status, not for subjective opinions based around terms used in cold-war propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make sense considering in the article it explicitly calls the Mongolian People's Republic a satellite state. Also, what about the Byelorussian and Ukrainian SSRs? Weren't they puppet states of the USSR with their own seats at the UN? Kiko4564 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use article content as a source to justify infobox fields, for the same reason we don't use infobox fields as a source to justify article content. As for the lede, it shouldn't be there anyway - the lede is supposed to summarise material covered in more detail in the article body (see MOS:LEDE: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".) - and there is no further mention of the term 'satellite state' whatsoever. On that basis, I am going to rewrite the relevant sentence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Andy. TFD (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing well sourced information you should have either moved it to the body or expanded the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been 'well sourced' this might have been the case. It isn't. The source cited appears not even to be about Mongolia: instead it is about Owen Lattimore, one of Joseph McCarthy's victims, who apparently accused Lattimore of being "the top Russian espionage agent in the United States" - rather proving my point about cold-war propaganda. Furthermore, even more tellingly, the source doesn't say that Mongolia was a satellite state, it says that Lattimore described it as such. [1] It isn't a 'source' for the assertion at all. Given that Darkness Shines is quibbling about WP:3RR (see User_talk:AndyTheGrump#3RR), I'll leave fixing this obvious misuse of a source to someone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never accuse me of source misrepresentation again, "In scholarship as much as in politics Mongolia has behaved as the most loyal and consistent of all the satellites" That is not about Lattimore, nor does it say he described it as such. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Under the heading "Feudalism and the State in the Marxist View of the Nomads", we read "Given Lattimore's interest in Soviet and Mongol scholarship, and his criticism of some of the assumptions thereof, it is necessary to offer a brief account of the context of that scholarship. As has long been shown Lattimore was long of the view that the Mongolian People's Republic was ther first satellite state of the Soviet Union. In scholarship as much as in politics Mongolia has behaved as the most loyal and consistent of all the satellites, and thus the Marxist premises (and their transmutations as a result of political exigencies) that provide the foundation for scholarly enquiry in the Soviet Union fulfil the same function in Mongolia". However you read it, this can be about nothing other than Lattimore. (And incidentally, your quote dropped the bit about 'Marxist premises' - you are supposed to indicate an incomplete sentence with ellipsis '...' I assume this was an accidental omission on your part). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They must have denounced him.

Republic of China

[edit]

This particular paragraph is very problematic:

"With Soviet encouragement, Mongolia increased its participation in communist-sponsored conferences and international organizations. This was not done without some difficulty as Mongolia was widely seen in the international community as a Soviet appendage rather than an independent country. In 1955, Mongolia attempted to join the United Nations, but the request was vetoed by the Republic of China, which maintained their renewed claim over Mongolia. Mongolia became a member of the UN in 1961 after the Soviet Union threatened to veto the admission of all of the newly decolonized states of Africa if the Republic of China again used its veto. Diplomatic relations with the United States were not established until the end of the Cold War. Mongolia became a bone of contention between the Soviet Union and China following the Sino-Soviet split because of the presence of Soviet nuclear arms."

It uses the term "Republic of China" while at the time it was stationed at Taiwan, thus it should state that Taiwan (as a member of the United Nations) vetoed Mongolia from entering the United Nations as per Wikipedia policy we should not say "China" after 1949 but "Taiwan" for this government's territory thus Mongolia was claimed to be a Taiwanese province and not a Chinese province. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China is the official name, and also the name used in the United Nations (until it left the UN in the 1970s), not Taiwan, although ROC is based on Taiwan since 1949. Both names can be used in Wikipedia, and there is certainly no WP policy stating that only "Taiwan" can be used to refer to post-1949 ROC, although the text should mention it was then based on Taiwan. -Cartakes (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That means National China, Taiwan!

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mongolian People's Republic. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name in the Mongolian Latin alphabet

[edit]

There seems to be some confusion as to the name of the country from 1931 to 1941. According to this paper, the Mongolian Latin alphabet was used only sparingly in a non-official context from 1932, followed by a full return to the traditional script in the mid-1930s, then by a second officially-sanctioned (though not officially adopted) push for Latinisation under a different alphabet in 1940, until the country officially adopted Cyrillic in 1941. In that page's talk page, however, Danzan Bagsh references a "Latin character law" from 1931 (though with no source), implying official use.

I'm inclined towards the former, as this constitution uses both the 1940 state emblem and the traditional script alone, implying that the Latin script was only used in non-official contexts, though both scripts would have been used simultaneously, as had occurred with Mongolian Cyrillic in its early years. I would still expect some Latin though, indicating that the two were coequal.

Regardless, I cannot find any source that uses a pre-Cyrillic Latinised name for the Mongolian PR; the two Latin-script names that have been used on this page (Bygede Nairamdaka Mongol Arad Ulas, added by Heepman1997 on 6 April 2019, and Bügede Nairamdaqa Mongol Arad Ulus, added by 202.9.40.24 on 16 July 2021) are only attested on websites that have copied from Wikipedia. Following the rules laid out on the Latin alphabet page (presuming that those unsourced rules are correct and that the script was official from 1931–1941) the correct Latin-script form for ᠪᠦᠭᠦᠳᠡ ᠨᠠᠶᠢᠷᠠᠮᠳᠠᠬᠤ ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠠᠷᠠᠳ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ would have been Bygyde Najiramdaku Monggol Arad Ulus from 1931–1939 and Bügüde Nayiramdaxu Monggol Arad Ulus from 1939–1941, notwithstanding possible deletion of silent letters (e.g., aji/ayi to ai; ngg to ng) or changes to reflect modern Khalkha pronunciation.

Does anyone have any insight into whether the Latin alphabet was officially adopted, and if so, what its rules were and what the official Latin-script name of the Mongolian PR was? If anyone has access to them, the archives of the newspaper Mongoliin Ünen should be able to answer all three questions.

Stars&Stuff553 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongolian_People%27s_Republic&oldid=1209138175"