Mongolic or Turkic?[edit]

There are some Turkic (and Tungusic) tribes listed here as Mongol tribes. This is misleading. Are you sure they belong in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.148.156 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are they yastan?[edit]

The subdivisions of Hazara, Aimek and Mughal: Are those subdivisions yastan or clans or tribes? Is their a difference between the terms "yastan" and "tribe"? Gantuya eng (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Moghul, it is clan and for the other 2 it is tribe. I nonincluded them in display, since I got no sufficient information. There's no difference between "yastan" and "tribe". But according to classification by B.Renchin on Mongolia's yastan, he, i guess, didn't rely on the Northern Yuan tribes or tümen, by including Kazakh and Tsaatan. Dagvadorj (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Khalha is also a yastan, but it would be too far pitched to call it a "tribe". There's lots of confusion between the terms "ugsaatan", "undesten", "yastan", "aimag", "omog", "obog", "yas", "elken"... Gantuya eng (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are the Barlas Mughal related to Tamerlane? Gantuya eng (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not tribes[edit]

I really can't agree with the term "tribes" at least in this template. Such groups like Khalha, Buryat, Kazakh can't be called "tribes" although they are yastan. So let's use the term "ethnic group" instead. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karakalpaks[edit]

Why this people was included as a Mongols? This people is close related to the Kazakhs, not Mongols. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really Mongols[edit]

There are several more groups on this template that aren't really Mongols. Some of them are not a Mongol people and others don't even speak a Mongol language. Rather than put dispute or dubious or citation needed tags on them, which would appear in every page, I'll just delete them and post them here. These are:

Some of these groups can be found in Mongolia, but that wouldn't make their ethnic group a Mongol ethnic group any more than, say, 100 French people living in Mongolia would mean French people are a Mongol people. If you intended this template to mean something else, please rename it. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the French, they would not be included because they are not indigenous to Mongolia proper, duh! Dagvadorj (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tuvans[edit]

Tuvans are Turkic people. --193.140.180.223 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. So what? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to some ethnic groups are removed[edit]

Seems like links to the articles about the Daurs and Bonans and maybe some other stuff has been removed. Would the user who removed it, please provide us about the causes? Otherwise, the links will be re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope of the template[edit]

I think we need to decide the actual scope of this template, i.e. whether it is a representation of the Mongolic ethnic groups or the Mongolian ethnic groups. If it is a representation of the former, then other non-Mongol ethnic groups should be removed from this template; if it is a representation of the latter, then we need to list the Mongols as an ethnic group just like the other Mongolic groups such as the Khitans, not in so many categories such as "Eastern Mongols" and "Northern Mongols" etc. --Evecurid (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since almost all later major changes were made by blocked Ancientsteppe or one of his sock-puppets, I have reverted to the stable version before his edits. --Evecurid (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, terms such as the "Northern Mongols" are very ambiguous. For example, the book "Nationalism and Revolution in Mongolia" (p7), "March of Central Asia" (p52) and "Imperial Rule" (p194) all consider the "Northern Mongols" to mean the Khalkha Mongols rather than the Buryats. Now it uses the the classification in the earlier versions of the template instead. --Cartakes (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One question: Is it better to order Mongolian tribes according to tribal affiliation, linguistic affiliation of geographic position? I do understand that geography is somewhat impeccable and easy to handle, but it destroys groups such as the Western Mongols who usually identify as Oirat. The template suggested here is quite interesting and does not deserve to be abandoned without discussion. Linguistically, "Eastern" and "Southern" here is still extremely problematic, and I would suggest a linguistic distinction between Eastern (Khorchin etc.) and Central (Khalkha, Chakhar etc.) groups following Janhunen 2003 on Mongol dialects in his most abstracted reading. Furthermore, I don't currently understand your motivation for not listing Inner Mongolian groups such as the Abaga at all. And I don't see a point in writing "people" or "Mongols" in some list items, but not in others. A list needs to be consistent as far as convention is concerned (and even more so than the somewhat inconsistent article naming for which - in some cases - one may have motivations). G Purevdorj (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem however is that the version mentioned [1] is in fact itself a version made without any discussion, not the opposite. It was first made by blocked User:Ancientsteppe or one of his sock-puppets, who changed the classification from "In Mongolia/China/Russia etc" to "Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western Mongols etc" (see the version right before Ancientsteppe'edits ([2]) without discussion. I agree that terms such as "Western Mongols" would work, but not "Northern Mongols" etc, which are ambiguous. As for Inner Mongolian groups etc you mentioned, I was in fact simply using the version right before IP 91.200.122.230's edits (see [3]) with the section "Overview" added on the top with absolutely nothing changed, so I believe there must be some misunderstandings here, since it was basically a revert rather than changing to a version completely made by myself. The group listings edited by IP 91.200.122.230 obviously would not work, since even peoples such as Xiongnu are listed as Mongolic peoples in the template, but this is clearly never confirmed. If IP user wants to change to a version under different classifications from the current one, he/she needs to discuss first, since the current classification is the one that existed before Ancientsteppe's undiscussed changes, *as well as* the classification made by the original creator of this template (i.e. User:Dagvadorj, see [4] and [5]), not the opposite. --Cartakes (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the glorious Proto-Mongolic history is of course a problem. "Unidentified groups possibly relatable to Mongols" might be a good label, though this might not merit inclusion into the template. Khitan and Tabghach ARE proven to be Proto-Mongolic (not beyond any doubt in the latter case, but to the extent that it's the best explanation of facts that we have, and a fairly good one at that), so including them might be appropriate, right? On the next point: Western AND Northern are fairly unproblematic. (Thinking of it, I do remember a use of “Northern Mongol(ian)s” that pertains to the Khalkhas in linguistic literature from the first decade of the 20th century. In contemporary linguistic literature, this use seems to be outdated, and I would suggest ignoring it. If, of course, we speak in a dichotomy of Inner and Outer Mongolia, then a North/South distinction that renders the Khalkhas North is OK, e.g. ar vs. övör mongolchuud, but this only derives from context. You wouldn’t talk like that in a classification of all Mongolic tribes or peoples.) Southern and Eastern are not, but I would like to go for a revision along the lines Central Mongolian, Eastern Mongolian and Southern Mongolic (~Shirongolic). I could execute that and provide sources, if needed. Khamnigan, Darkhat and Ordos will be a problem in any linguistic approach, and a cultural approach would require groups to be overlapping: Khamnigan dialect, for instance, has strong Khalkha and Buryat features.) The Afghan and Pakistan tribes can perhaps form a unit. Dagur requires a branch of its own, too. The Mongols in Southern China that don't speak any Mongolic anymore would perhaps have to be sui generis as well. What about such an approach? G Purevdorj (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do admit that a merely geographical approach is less problematic in some details, but I think it is less informative, too. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you may be correct. I in fact have no strong personal preference that the geographical approach must be used in this template, as long as there is in fact a discussion that leads to consensus before such major changes. The changes made by blocked User:Ancientsteppe and IP 91.200.122.230 obviously never discussed before the changes took place. --Cartakes (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for a classification itself, I think it will be great to find a reliable source that provides such classifications. It will be easier to get to a good classification and consensus with sources. But if such a source cannot be found, then we'd try to clean them up by ourselves. --Cartakes (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories