Talk:Mausoleum of Genghis Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Ordus and Darkhad

I thought I asked this a few weeks ago, but well, here it goes: Is the Ordus the ancestors of the Darkhad? If not, what happened to the Ordus? I think some readers may notice this break in lineage of the protectors. --Menchi 05:45 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My explanation "Those who served to the mausolem was called the Ordus (lit. palaces) and the title of their leader was Jinong." may be misleading. The Ordus Mongols contain normal pastoral people who belong to the league while the Darkhad professionaly served to the eight white palaces. For more information, see: http://www.mongols.com/cerem-fn.htm --Nanshu 01:49 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ran, please explain what you disagree with. --Nanshu 02:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll be back in a day or so. -- ran 03:59, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
First of all, like you has said about yourself so many times, I disagree with the removal of information. That last revert you did removed the cenotaph link, the explanation of what a cenotaph is, what it contains, and what it doesn't. It also removed the links to the precise events that caused difficulties to the Mongols (and replaced it with the highly vague and POV-suspect "tyrannies of Chinese warlords and bandits.") If I remember right you also removed information about the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards.
Your edit is too detailed for the introduction, and can be found at explanation below.
Remember that difficulties started during the declining Qing Dynasty. To treat a long-lasting event in short, statements become abstract. --Nanshu 03:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If it's too detailed for the introduction, then move it somewhere, instead of deleting it outright like you did.
Done. --Nanshu 06:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In any case, why is clarifying that the mausoleum is a cenotaph, and explaining its contents, too "detailed"? That would be the key of this article, wouldn't it, to explain what the Mausoleum is? -- ran 09:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Too detailed for the introduction, not the article. --Nanshu 06:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Second of all, the places with POV. The entire article seems to be written with the underlying view that the Mausoleum is a tool for the oppression of the Mongol people. First, the definition paragraph uses the construction "it is neither _(A)_ nor _(B)_ but _(C)_ constructed by the PRC." Immediately it seems that A and B are what the reader might normally expect under "unoppressive" or "free" situations, and C is some sort of jarring, invasive, foreign intrusion. This "neither _ nor _ but _" structure would be great in an editorial or essay where you're trying to bring across a point in an elegant way, but it's highly unusual for a definition paragraph on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be NPOV.
That's a malicious distortion. A and B are what uncertain readers would guess when they hear the name "Mausoleum of Genghis Khan," and C is the actual condition. Naturally they would assume that the great khan was buried there or that the mausoleum is a traditional mausoleum of the Mongols. I just clarify what it is in the first paragraph. I don't give any value judgment and I leave it for readers. --Nanshu 03:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
At least the current version is an improvement. -- ran 09:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Another thing: "The new mausoleum, the topic of this article, was constructed by the PRC from 1954 to 1956 in defiance of Mongolian opinions." Mongolian opinions? The mausoleum was constructed by the Inner Mongolian government, no matter how "collaborationist" you might think it to be. Are they "Mongol" in opinion, and if they are indeed also a part of "Mongolian opinion", how were they "defied"? And again, the underlying impression that the old mausoleums are right (because they are "traditionally Mongol"), and the new one is wrong (because it is "evil, evil Chinese"). You may think that way and I respect that; but that does not belong on Wikipedia.
If they were not the whole Mongols, they were Ordos Mongols, or those who directly commited to the traditional mausoleums. Whatever you think (evil or right, I don't care!), we should note that it was a top-down order and not a desire of the Mongols. And the Ordos did not welcome the intervention by the communist regime. --Nanshu 03:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Then explain those things! (Actually the current version already does, so I guess this point is solved.) -- ran 09:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
One more thing: "The mausoleum submits to the Chinese ideology of Zhonghua minzu. " I've changed "submits" to something along the lines of "according to". But frankly the entire sentence strikes me as odd. How does a building "submit to", or "be built according to", an ideology? Is it something in the architecture? Or the rituals? Do the rituals now begin with a declaration that "Genghis Khan was Chinese Chinese Chinese, so there!"? Perhaps there's something behind this I don't know about, if so please explain exactly how "zhonghua minzu" is reflected in the mausoleum.
The mausoleums of Chinggis Khan has the potential to be a symbol of Mongol nationalism, and actually Jamtsarano tried to make it so. It was undesiable for the Chinese. So they deprived the Mongols of the mausoleums and put the new mausoleum under their control. That's all. --Nanshu 03:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So why wouldn't moveable mausoleums be "under their control"? How would a building serve any "ideology"? You haven't answered my question. -- ran 09:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. It would not be easy for the settled people to keep movable mausoleums under control. And what you mean by a building's serving a n ideology? For example does a Buddhist temple serve Buddhism in your view?--Nanshu 06:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also: the use of the word "submits" in the above sentence. It makes it seem that the entire concept of "zhonghua minzu" is inherently sinocentric and/or Han chauvinistic, and all that Mongols or Uyghurs or Tibetans or Manchus can do is to "submit to it". Admittedly, the PRC government is autocratic and hence all of its policies are autocratic in implementation; but the inherent concept of zhonghua minzu is no more "oppressive" or demanding of "submission" than, say, the concept of a common "American people" transcending ethnic boundaries, or even Taiwan's "New Taiwanese" concept that encompasses aborigines, Minnan, Hakka, and Mainlanders. Now if a Mainlander wrote that the DPP's "New Taiwanese" ideology is in reality "Minnan chauvinism" demanding "submission" from Mainlanders, I might cheer him on in his views, but such a view would not belong on NPOV Wikipedia! So why would a Mongol structure that adheres to zhonghua minzu necessarily submit to it? That's why I've changed that word. -- ran 09:31, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
What? Leaving irrelevant stuffs, I don't see what you want to say. Did you "find" something negative on "submit"? --Nanshu 03:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Submission is, by definition, an act where someone or something acknowledges inferiority or some lack of powerlessness. That's why we don't usually say "submitting to democracy" (though we CAN say "submitting to a tyranny of the majority). Similarly, "submitting to the zhonghua minzu ideology" is an inherently POV statement — it asserts that the zhonghua minzu ideology requires submission. -- ran 09:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
No. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another. Obviously, that ideology did not come from the Mongols but from outside. The natural condition of being the symbol of the Mongols were altered by the will of another. "submit" fits this situation. I don't give any value judgment and I leave it for readers. --Nanshu 06:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"build" isn't appropriate. I don't mean an one-time action but the constant situation. --Nanshu 06:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems that you fight an illusion, or imaginative production. You are gifted with reading ability that let you "know" what the speaker doesn't intend. It's not my business. --Nanshu 03:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then your problem is even more serious than I thought. You have proven yourself capable of inserting POV into your writing without even "intending" it. Congratulations. -- ran 09:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
If your impression is neutral. --Nanshu 06:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BTW, would you cite your sources? It's not easy to access to Chinese books in Japan, but maybe you have something interesting. --Nanshu 03:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sources? That's a weak attempt to try and poison my well. Unfortunately I'm here to take slant out, not insert new "information". Sorry. -- ran 09:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
That's bad. --Nanshu 06:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nanshu, please see wikipedia:lead section. "The Mausoleum is not the burial place of the khan. It was not the traditional Mongol mausoleum" does not explain enough. Readers will immediately ask what 'does the Mausoleum contain.

"but since the Chinese seized power at the end of the dynasty, the Ordus had suffered from massive Chinese immigrants that destroyed their economic base, and Chinese warlords and bandits that thrown them into chaos. " You make the POV claim that Manchurians are not Chinese. "Chinese immigrants" (again implying that only Han are Chinese) cannot be "massive". Saying immigration destroys the "economic base" of the Ordus begs the question - how? The rest is just plain ungrammatical.

The claim that Manchus are not Chinese is POV? Really? Now I use "Han Chinese".
Quite simple. Chinese peasants turned the steppe into farmland (and then desert). That destroys pastoral economy. --Nanshu 02:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"It moved historic relics to the new mausoleum, and forcibly abolished the traditional portable mausoleums." This sentence is not clear on what "it" refers to. Do not restore it.

Clarified. --Nanshu 02:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A Mausoleum cannot be "under" an ideology; it was constructed according to one. Again, the wording is inferior and should not be used. There's no need to specify "in this ideology" a second time - it's already implied. Cheers, Jiang 08:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This looks better. --Nanshu 02:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References

I referred to:

--Nanshu 02:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mausoleum Found

To those who are working on this article, there is news that the actual burial site of Ghengis Khan (dubbed his mausoleum) has now been found by archeologists. Perhaps someone would like to add any new information? I've added it to the current events for October 6, 2004 TimothyPilgrim 16:57, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Darkhad

I've changed the meaning of Darkhad. Darkhan has little to do with being sacred. In the modern understanding it means something like craftsman. Yaan 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)