text:
Talk:Inner Mongolia/Archive 1

Photo
Could somebody reduce the resolution of the photo and re-upload it? It's a little too much... I'd do it myself, but I don't know how (yet)--141.54.164.174 23:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disputed territory?
In what way is Inner Mongolia a disputed territory? Is it claimed by the state of Mongolia? — Instantnood 18:13, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)

 * There is an independence movement. -- ran (talk) 23:39, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but very few mongolians in Inner Mongolia want to be independent. If there is poll, most of the mongolians (not including the Han Chinese people in that land) will chose to stay in China. In Texas, there is also an independence movement, does that mean Taxas a disputed territory? -- woshiwppaa Feb 24, 2005

Thank you. — Instantnood 08:31, Jan 31 2005 (UTC)

Is this the one you referred to? — Instantnood 20:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yep. And there are others on the net too IIRC -- ran (talk) 15:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Very simple to answer the question about "Inner" Mongolia being a "disputed territory": Inner Mongolia or the southern part of Mongolia is currently a colony just same as Tibet (which includes not only TAR but all of so called "zang qv" in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan). China wasn't China untill 1911, but upon the liberation of themselves from the Manchu foreign rule, the Chinese claimed all the alien territories which for some centuries belonged to the empire of Manchurians but never that of *Chinese*. (And no offence - you guys were treated by the Manchus way much worse than they treated Mongols). There is abosolutely no difference between the case of Mongolia and Germany spllitting into two, Korea getting divided into two, Bengal into two and so on. This argument has much more validity than the Chinese claim over Formosa (Taiwan?).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidugaren (talk • contribs)

 * The above comment is the most asinine I've ever heard. Modern China INHERITS the Qing Empire.  Understand?  There aren't that many Manchurians today. Why? Because they have assimilated into the Han population.  Being Han is like being white in the US, it's the "generic" ethnicity. In other words, Manchurians ARE Chinese. The English term "Chinese" refers to all that were under the Qing Empire, Manchurians included.  Descendents of Manchurians, Tibetans, and Inner Mongolians can just as well be President of China if they want, because they are all Chinese. They are not being oppressed anymore than people in Shanghai are being oppressed, Inner Mongolia has as much right to independence as Shanghai does. End of discussion, territorial dispute of Inner Mongolia should not be in Wikipedia, it is not neutral. Naus 09:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would tend to agree. If Hawaii and Brittany aren't categorized disputed territories, I don't see why Inner Mongolia should. I'd say this is more of a problem with the lack of any "threshold" or "standard" on what qualifies as a member of the "disputed territories" category, but since this standard is lacking, we should try to follow precedents. -- ran (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, Qing Dynasty is a "Manchurian" dynasty in that it is founded by Manchurians. But you fail to note that most of the officials and public servants (plus population) are Chinese (Han race) anyways. The imperial Qing family also adopted Chinese culture, language, thought, and philosophy. And when foreigners (or anyone) made mention of the territories under Qing Dynasty, they refer to "China" not "Manchu-land". In many ways, Qing Dynasty is a continuation of a Chinese dynasty for many reasons. First, it's just a continuation of history. Second, they think they have the so-called "Mandate of Heaven", which mean there's only one emperor on this planet. Their capital is in Beijing, China. And, they act like Chinese. This is similar to the history of England. When the German Saxons, or the French Normans invaded England, today in modern times, they still called them English kingdoms, and not German or French kingdoms.

Heilme 03:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

To Wikidugaren, I am ethnic Manchu related to the Qing Emperor under the yellow flagship, but I consider myself Chinese, Qing is a Chinese empire, Qing was refered by the West as China. It is not a separate identity. It is ridiculous for wikid to say otherwise and that Inner Mongolia is NOT a disputed area. So who said wherever there are Mongolians living in China, they should become parts of Mongolia? Fact 1: There are more Mongolians living in China than in Outer Mongolia. Fact 2: The capital of Inner Mongolia was found by Han Chinese in the 19th Century. Fact 3: Majority of ethnic Mongolians in China lived outside of Inner Mongolia and all over China, should all of these enclaves become independence. Better yet with that logic, should all Chinatowns in the world becomes part of China because there are Chinese in there.

Other man's opinion: I do not think so. Yep, South Mongolia may be considered as the Disputed territory since 1940s. China is the new name of country originally named Cathay. Cathay remains as Cathay for Asians, Mongolians, Russians etc. But Westerners use the name "China"-name of ex empire ran by Manju. When Manju rule gone in 1911, Cathay took the name "China", they made former Manju people as Cathay people(China) so that Manju people are disappear and are remaining few in only 1-2 small cities as minorities or mixed with Cathay people. But the name of the empire remains as kind of source of proud for those Manju. People disappeare but proud of the name of Empire that gone. This kind of situation of manipulation by the name of former empire and confusion serving in favor of Cathay is possible only in Cathay(China) and possibly the result of traditional Cathay philosophy of survival and territorial extension "Confuci". UN must recognize this issue and Westerners should follow example of many countries who better know Cathay and use proper name of the country Cathay but not name "China". Does Cathay trade it's traditional name for territorial extension?. Possibly because of above mentioned extension and surviving tradition today's Cathay is incredable mix country who lost it's name(or traditionally traded with it's name) and surrounded by disputed territories and borders. Cathay was anxious and quick to end territorial and border disputs with State of Mongolia in 1980s becuase they already occupied South Mongolia since 1940s, while the real border by that time was the souther than today's South Mongolia. If qoute the deeper history, one can mention the Great wall as the North border of Cathay (China).

Mongolian name
Does anybody know what the source of the mongolian name is? I cannot find any encoding on my PC that doesn't show the mongolian characters as question marks. I've installed all possible language packs I could find in Windows XP, SP2. Chinese, Japanse and Tibetan all displays correct. CyeZ 07:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You need a font that displays Mongolian letters... they are in Unicode and should display as long as you have a font that supports them. (Try using Firefox too, since IE has trouble finding the right font.) -- ran (talk) 15:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia as a geographical region
This article talks about Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, but Inner Mongolia as an administrative division did not exist until the late 1940s. Before that, the geographical region of Inner Mongolia spanned across several provinces. The limits of the autonomous region have also been changed over the decades. Is there a convention on the limits of Inner Mongolia as a geographical region? Would it be Mongolia (region) minus Outer Mongolia, Hovd, Oyirad and Buriyad? Is there any remarkable difference between the limits of the autonomous region and the actual extent as a geographical region? — Instantnood 06:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Convention? The leagues of the Qing Dynasty, perhaps. Those would be modern Inner Mongolia minus Hulunbuir (Hailar), Xing'an (Ulaanhot), and Alashan, plus Josutu (Chaoyang, Liaoning). In any case, the borders claimed by the Inner Mongolia People's Party are those of modern Inner Mongolia. -- ran (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a problem when writing about Japanese occupation of eastern part of Inner Mongolia (and Manchuria) before 1937.. It's ambiguous whether "Inner Mongolia" is talking about the pre-communist era geographical region, or the present day autonomous region. — Instantnood 08:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the pre-communist era geographical region? If we take it as having included the Jirim, Juu Uda, and Josutu leagues, then those were parts of Manchukuo as well. -- ran (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No idea. Just thinking how to take into account the ever changing limits of what the term "Inner Mongolia" referred to. — Instantnood 08:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's safe to refer to modern Inner Mongolia as just "Inner Mongolia". We haven't run into too much trouble yet... -- ran (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC) You know what... I'll look a bit more into this topic. Thanks for bringing it up. -- ran (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I don't know much about that, except that I know from old maps Inner Mongolia did not exist as an administrative division until the late 1940s, and its border has been changed for several times. :-) — Instantnood 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added some more info. This is all I have at the moment, and to be honest, it is all rather patchy. But I guess it's better than nothing. -- ran (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's much better now. :-) — Instantnood 08:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Arranging of names

 * 1) The Cyrillic represents Khalkha Mongolian, which isn't even the language spoken in Inner Mongolia! It's not a "Cyrillization" in the same way as the Romanization -- it doesn't even represent the same "system"! I would prefer for it to be not included at all, but if you have to be included, it should be kept separate from the official script of Inner Mongolia or its Romanization.
 * 2) Traditional Chinese isn't official anywhere in Inner Mongolia. It should not come before Simplified Chinese.
 * 3) As for whichever one goes first, we should follow the order used in official documents:

 * "各级国家机关、人民团体的公文应当使用 蒙汉两种文字. "
 * "自治区行政区域内的社会市面用文应当并用蒙汉两种文字. "
 * etc.

Or take a look at this picture of the People's Congress of Inner Mongolia:

-- ran (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, Ran. I agree with your point that Traditional Chinese and Cyrillized Mongolian can be actually excluded in this case. So, the only things that have to added are: Simplified Chinese, Pinyin romanization for Chinese, Traditional Mongolian and romanization for Mongolian. The romanizations act as pronunciation guides. But I still think that it is a better idea for Chinese to come before Mongolian, as Chinese is the statewide official language, and "C" comes before "M" in the Latin alphabets. Should we put Mongolian first, just for the sake of the minor fact that the document reads "蒙汉", instead of "汉蒙"? :-)

Disclaimer: I have nothing against minorities and their native languages. -Alanmak 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Not just the document; take a look at the picture of the People's Congress of Inner Mongolia: [. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, and there's this: 包头市社会市面蒙汉两种文字并用管理条例

 * 第五条 社会市面并用的蒙汉两种文字，应当使用规范用字，并按下列规定书写、制作、挂放：
 * (一)横写的，蒙古文在上、汉文在下，或者蒙古文在前、汉文在后；
 * (二)竖写的，蒙古文在左、汉文在右；
 * (三)环形写的，从左向右蒙古文在外环、汉文在内环，或者蒙古文在左半环、汉文在右半环；
 * (四)蒙汉两种文字的字号、规格应当协调，制作的材质必须一致；
 * (五)蒙汉两种文字分别写在两块牌匾上的，蒙文牌匾挂在左边、汉文牌匾挂在右边，或者蒙文牌匾挂在上边、汉文牌匾挂在下边.

 * And this one has the same wording: 呼和浩特市社会市面蒙汉两种文字并用管理办法

 * -- ran (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop warning me and stop carrying out Chinese chauvinistic propaganda here!
What is "vandalism"? Why would you keep deleting the changes I made into the Southern Mongolia article? What happened to the wikipedia principle of everybody can make changes? What is your position or role at wikipedia if there is such a thing? Who you think you are? I'm a native Mongol so I at least know a lot more about my country than you do. Can't I express what I know? Who are you to preventing from doing that? And finally, stop carrying on Chinese government propaganda, biased chauvinistic brainwashing on wikipedia! Tell me if there is someone who sort of looks over you as a supervisor or whatever. I need to talk to them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidugaren (talk • contribs)

(This is not only to Ran, but, including him, those who are doing the things that I'm talking about)

 * You weren't just making changes, you were also removing content; nor were you editing in accordance with the Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV) policy. We welcome all edits and discussion as long as they work towards an NPOV presentation of topics. Unfortunately, your POV-pushing and removal of content fall far short of the standards that we follow. This is not just me saying so -- several other editors have also been reverting your edits.

 * Also, everyone is welcome to edit every single article in Wikipedia, as long as their edits are NPOV and can be backed up with sources. We do not give priority to anyone's edits simply because of their ethnic or cultural background.

 * Finally, no one oversees anyone on Wikipedia, and everything is decided through community discussion and consensus. If there is a disagreement with me or anyone else, you are welcome to ask other editors or on other talk pages for third opinions and mediation. -- ran (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is following Chinese propaganda a "neutral point of view"? stop joking! several other? who? you guys brainwashed Chinese, and nothign else!

test.... 03:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidugaren (talk • contribs)

 * Once again, I would strongly suggest that you review Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and look at how editors deal with other contentious articles like Taiwan and Tibet before continuing to make edits. Note that POV pushing is not a constructive way of editing Wikipedia.

 * One more thing: each of us has reverted 2 times in the last 72 hours. Wikipedia's "three-revert rule" states that any editor who reverts more than 3 times in 24 hours can be blocked temporarily from editing. So I would strongly suggest discussing the article and reaching a consensus rather than continuing the revert war. -- ran (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Wikidugaren,

 * Let me give you an example: calling it "Southern Mongolia" is POV because you make it sound like it's a region that should become part of Mongolia. This is similar to the name "South Azerbaijan", the name that Azeri nationalists use because they want to see a Greater Azerbaijan. Our only choice is to use the neutral term, with the name the reflects the country that it lies in, Iranian Azerbaijan. So, saying Inner Mongolia is neutral because it is more of a geographical term, not a political one. --Khoikhoi 05:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And most importantly, since the ancient times the region of present-day Inner Mongolia has became multi-racial. Sovereignties of Chinese Warring states had reached the region long before Genghis_Khan found the first Mongol state in 1206. In short, historically it has never been a pure-Mongol country.--219.79.28.40 11:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, multi-racial but never you Chinese. Don't keep repeating your government-backed textbook views here. I had enough of it when I had to have it to insult my brain.

128.138.41.190 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly advice you guys to look at the NPOV policies and examine your biases. Calling the region "Inner" Mongolia is not only VOP but is a perfect example to show the Chiense arrogance toward others in terms of big mouthing about others' issues while knowing nothing about their language and culture. "Southern" is the correctly meaning of the Mongol word "Öbör" (some may spell it "Übür" or "Övör" or "Üvür". When we argue about whether it should be "Inner" or "Southern" or 内 or 南, this is all about how it should be in others' languages but not about the only one word of Mongolian language, always the same, ""Öbör". It just means south. As for your claim of calling it "Southern" would imply it is part of "Mongolia" or political, is because it would be so only to those who are poinsoned by the Chinese government chauvinist propaganda and becuase you 心里有鬼. Sorry, forgot to sign again: dugar 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Official is offical. You can't argue with that. --Khoikhoi 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what "official" means but the question is that if "official" the truth? And, you know, you sound like not intending to hide the fact that you're simply copying the government propaganda and are defending it here. Aren't you? Answer me this: Why can't "official" be challenged, especially when it comes to such oppressive, dishonest and impreliast government of your country - "China"?

dugar 19:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not Chinese. Why does it matter if the offical name isn't true? Inner Mongolia is in China, and outer Mongolia is Mongolia. Just because the government uses the term doesn't mean it's propaganda. --Khoikhoi 20:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure it is propaganda. Big states have bigger opportunities to imprint their POV into heads of public. Even you, Khoikhoi, being not Chinese, are perfectly brainwashed. Calmouk 04:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah sure. That's why almost every English source in the United States of America says "Inner Mongolia". I've seen it on my National Geographic atlas since I was 3 years old. --Khoikhoi 04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If your atlas was printed in ROC (Taiwan) you have a chance not to find Mongolia at all :) Calmouk 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Why would it not have Mongolia? It was a National Geographic atlas. --Khoikhoi 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Because Taiwan does not recognize independancy of Mongolia and shows modern Mongolia as Chinese territory on its maps. Calmouk 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Well I'm glad that I have an accurate atlas that let's me know if certain countries don't recognize other countries. --Khoikhoi 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Huh? "multi-racial but never Chinese"?? You can express your disagreement, but please also read carefully what other people replied/said. As common knowledge, the Warring States which I mentioned were of course established by the Chinese.--219.79.26.14 06:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Inner Mongolia → Southern Mongolia – "Southern" is the correctly meaning of the Mongol word "Öbör" (some may spell it "Übür" or "Övör" or "Üvür". When we argue about whether it should be "Inner" or "Southern" or 内 or 南, this is all about how it should be in others' languages but not about the only one word of Mongolian language, always the same, ""Öbör". It just means south. "Southern" is just Geographical POV.

Calmouk 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Support Calmouk 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Mongolian POV name. Khoikhoi 04:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi, Inner means INSIDE China. If it is not Chinese POV then what is that? Where is your ability to think logically? Calmouk 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, so it's not in China? Where is it then? Mexico? --Khoikhoi 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You should learn World history better. For example, do you know that Inner and Outher Mandchuria used to exist also? And why they are not in your atlas now? Calmouk 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It says Manchuria in my atlas. Inner Manchuria's in China, Outer Manchuria's in Russia. So the do still exist as regions. And I know my world history just fine. --Khoikhoi 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL But what is interesting Russians never call their Far East as Outer Manchuria :) Is name "Far East" just Russian POV?

 * From one POV it is "Far East", from another it is "Outer Manchuria". Which one is NPOV? Calmouk 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * IMHO NPOV would be to call those two parts "Northern Manchuria" and "Southern Manchuria". Bu why the same logic cannot be applied to Mongolia? Calmouk 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * FYI, Outer Manchuria occupies only a small portion (south of Stanovoi Range) of the Russian Far East. Therefore both geographic terms are different concepts thus it is not appropriate in doing equal-footing POV comparison. Needless to further say "logic of Northern(?) and Southern(?) Manchuria" while no one, at least formally, uses these terms at all.--219.79.26.14 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Calmouk's statement that "Inner means INSIDE China" is wrong. When both "Inner Mongolia" and "Outer Mongolia" were inside the Chinese Empire, these names were already in use. But if "Inner means INSIDE China", how can "Outer Mongolia" be called thus when it was still inside China? Also, Inner Mongolia is the official name in English, just as Neimenggu is official in Chinese, and Öbür Monggol official in Mongolian. What are we going to do next, rename Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul into "Southern Gaul" and "Northern Gaul" because they reflect a Roman-centric view of the world? Rename Transylvania into "North-sylvania", because the name is also Roman-centric? What about "Near East", "Middle East" and "Far East" -- Eurocentric? They should be renamed too, I suppose? -- ran (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * At least the Mongols would not accept Calmouk's logic/statement:
 * "ARTICLE II - Outer Mongolia recognises China's suzerainty, China and Russia recognise the autonomy of Outer Mongolia forming part of Chinese territory."[Tripartite Agreement between Russia, Mongolia and China, 1915, emphasis added]--219.79.26.14 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Support The premise that "Inner Mongolia" is somehow more neutral and geographic is laughable at best. "Southern", last I heard, is very specifically a geographic, neutral term. Perhaps we should change the names of the American states to Inner and Outer Dakota. And West Virginia, that's right out. Are we planning to reunite North and South Carolina at some point?
 * Southern Mongolia is south the rest of Mongolia. Perhaps, since so many Southerners want to leave the US, we should stop referring to their region as The South. We could call it Lower America.
 * Southern Mongolia is a more neutral, accurate term. Our job is not to support either side, but to state the facts, and that includes even when some "official" authority, like a ruling empire, is on one side. We're not here to advocate China's occupation of Mongolia any more than we are to advocate its reunification with the rest of Mongolia. It's to the south, and that's a pretty neutral and widely accepted way of describing it, so let's go with that. --Kaz 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we have "North Dakota" and "South Dakota" because those are the official names of those states. Similarly, we have New Zealand (instead of Aotearoa) and South Africa (instead of Azania) to refer to those countries because those are the official names of those countries. If "North Dakota" and "South Dakota" decided to rename themselves "Outer Dakota" and "Inner Dakota" tomorrow I have no doubt that Wikipedia will follow suite immediately. -- ran (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * hahahhahahaah. Sorry. I liked how you called something "laughable at best" and then provide such weak arguments that were easily shot down.

 * Oppose Use the official name. Instead, add "footnote" on alternative names. --Vsion (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Strong Oppose. This continual push from vocal Wikipedia minorities to reinvent long-held English language usages is getting very old.  Not only are neologisms (which this is) not allowed on Wikipedia, but the job of this encylopedia is to be informative, not to be a pressure group for pedantry.  I don't give a merry hell what the literal translation of the name is in one language or another, but in our language, the name of the region is invariably "Inner Mongolia."  If such pressure groups can come up with independent, verifiable usages for alternate wordings, then they're worth footnotes, but lacking those not even then.  RGTraynor 21:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more normal to refer to it as Southern Mongolia than "Inner Mongolia", if you're just a regular person, not a member of the State deparment maintaining the policy of actively taking the Chinese side in questions of their empire's dominion. The idea that it's "invariably Inner Mongolia" is utterly ridiculous. --Kaz 22:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "More normal?" In what universe?  "Southern Mongolia" has 122,000 hits on Google.  "Inner Mongolia" has nearly three million hits.  Hell, I'd never heard of the term "Southern Mongolia" before today.  RGTraynor 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. So that's why this separatist group calls itself the "Inner Mongolia People's Party" (IMPP)?
 * According to their constitution:
 * II. The Guiding Principles of the IMPP
 * The IMPP uphold the principles of democracy and peace in fighting to end the Chinese Communist Party's colonial rule in Inner Mongolia.
 * The ultimate goal of the IMPP: Achieving the independence of Inner Mongolia.
 * The intermediary goal of the IMPP: Establishing a confederated union with China in the course of the future social development in China.
 * -- ran (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose.  'Inner' is the usual English term. Markyour words 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As long as the autonomous region is under PRC's jurisdiction, use the official English translation "Inner Mongolia". By the way, isn't Southern Mongolia the southern part of the sovereign state Mongolia? (analogous to Southern California) Google test: Inner 2,160,000 vs. Southern  101,000. -- Felix Wan 23:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose use common names--Jiang 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose I have never heard of "southern Mongolia" before either --1698 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the English Wikipedia, not the Mongolian Wikipedia. If the term is Sino-centric, yet it remains the common name in use in English. Fred Bauder 15:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose use of official names. Abstrakt 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Y'know, this is a part of the debate that's been glossed over. Is "Inner Mongolia" innately Sinocentric?  Stipulating that it is, so what?  The province is part of China. They can call it any damn thing they want to call it.  This argument is like saying that referring to Massachusetts as "Massachusetts" is innately New Englocentric and ignores the "rights" of some hotheads who want to call it something else.  Under the circumstances, I'd even strike the variant paragraph commenting on "Southern Mongolia" as unsupported POV.  RGTraynor 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose The name "Inner Mongolia" and "Outer Mongolia" has been in use even before Republic of China is proclaimed. So that is how it is known. The name "Inner Mongolia" is also an official name that is in use throughout any mention of the territory in documents (both official Chinese and foreign governments). The name "South Mongolia" may be how the direct Mongol language is translated, but its use is remote and unrecognized. It is also clearly a name that is invented (with geographical support) by Inner Mongolian independence activists and thus is not neutral. Inner Mongolia is a Chinese territory for now, and "Nei Menggu" in Chinese means "Inner Mongolia". Unless the Chinese government changed the Chinese translation to "Nan Menggu", then yes it will become "Southern Mongolia". So for those people, who want the name change, please forward all complaints to the Chinese government (we are just Chinese-English translator), and work harder for your independence (chance is remote). Heilme 03:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Southern Mongolian Issue
There should not be any dispute over Southern Mongolian issues. Southern Mongolia has never been part of China until the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) invasion into the region in 1947. As a result of CCP's near century massive propaganda and intensive brainwashing, many Chinese especially those who educated in the People's Republic of China (PRC) have always believed in the CCP version of Mongolian history that are delibrately re-written and distorted for the purpose of legitimizing and maintaining the CCP's colonial regime in Southern Mongolia. The name "Nei Meng Gu" ("Inner Mongolia" is direct English translation of "Nei Meng Gu") is a strong evidence of CCP's propaganda and misinformation that convey a wrong message to the people around the world, claiming that "Southern Mongolia is not the Southern part of Mongolia, but the inner (or inside) part of China". The original Mongolian word of "Uvur" which has ONLY refered to "South" has NO meaning of "Nei" (or "Inner") at all! It has nothing to do with the Manchu words "dorgi/tulergi" etc. "Uvur Mongol" is "Uvur Mongol" or "Southern Mongolia" in English, and it has never been derived from any languages but Mongolian. Similarily, "Ar Mongol" has NO meaning of "Wai Meng Gu" or "Outer Mongolia". It has ONLY meaning of "Northern Mongolia". During the CCP's 58 years colonial regime and assimilation policy in Southern Mongolia, Chinese people not only altered what the Mongols had but also created what Dr. Uradyn E. Bulag called "hybridities". For example, the term "Nei Mongol" which has recently appeared as the English translation of "Nei Meng Gu" on the Chinese passports issued to the Southern Mongols; the city names appeared on Wikipedia are good examples of this type of mistranslation and misleading as well:

Baotou --- very awkward Chinese transliteration of the Mongolian word "Bogt" meaning "Deer Land"; Wuhai --- nonsense Chinese transliteration of two Mongolian words "Udan-tohai" meaning "Willow Meadow" and "Haidaviin-tal" meaning "Land of Haidav, a legendary Mongolian hunter"; Chifeng --- a direct Chinese translation of "Ulaanhad" meaning "Red Rock"; ......

It is a very simple logic. You can call Americans "Mei Guo Ren" and call English people "Ying Guo Ren" in Chinese, but you should not force the people around the world to call Americans as "Mei Guo Ren" and English people as "Ying Guo Ren" in English.

In terms of the sovereignty of Southern Mongolia, it is totally illogic for Chinese people to claim that Mongolia including Southern and Northern has always been part of China until 1911. Very common justifications by the Chinese are: 1), Chinggis Khan is a Chinese hero and Mongol Yuan is a Chinese dynasty; 2), Manchu Qing was also a Chinese dynasty that ruled Mongolia at least partially. How come Chinggis Khan who was born Mongolian, fought Mongolian, lived Mongolian and died Mongolian became a Chinese hero? It is true that Chinggis Khan and his grandson Hubilai Khan ruled China and categorized the northern Chinese people( called "Khitad") as the second lowest level and the Southern Chinese people (called "Man-ji") as the lowest level of human beings across the world. In other words, Chinese people at that time were slaves of the Mongols. It is totally illogical for a people or a nation to use its credential of being slaved to claim the ownership over other poeple or nation who used to slave them. In terms of the national hero, Chinese prominent writer Lu Xun once said that "if a nation can shamelessly use its credential of slavery to claim its ruler as thier hero, then the Russians have more credential to say 'our hero Chinggis Khan' because the Russians were ruled by the Mongols longer than we were." The same is true for the Manchu Qing rule. During Manchu's 300 year rule in China, the Mongols were de facto co-ruler, but the Chinese were real rulees. Even if the Mongols, together with the Chinese, were ruled by the Manchus, it is still illogical for a slave (the Chinese) to claim ownership over another slave (the Mongols) after the death of their ruler (Manchu). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkhbatt (talk • contribs)

 * Frankly, all the rationalization and argument is beside the point. What it comes down to -- and should come down to -- is no more than this:  by what name is the region commonly called in the English language?  The answer is "Inner Mongolia." RGTraynor 14:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You have identified yourself as an American. If that is true, then I really need to give you a simple quiz before you talk about Mongolia: 1), How much is 2+3 ? If you can't get the result in 10 minutes, you are allowed to use your calculator; 2), Where is Mongolia? Is it in Africa? in Europe? in American Continient? or in Asia? If you don't know the answer, please locate it in the world map in no more than 30 minutes;

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkhbatt (talk • contribs)

 * Enkhbatt's statement above is obviously inaccurate, long before the founding of PRC the Chinese Republic/ROC had established three provinces (see this 1928 Japanese map) in present-day Inner Mongolia. And the names Inner Mongolia and Nai Mo Ko(Japanese), had respectively existed on foreign maps published in 1908, 1923, 1933, 1935 and 1942. Can people say these are all propaganda under 'CCP occupation'?

 * Generally, PR C  claims over Inner Mongolia are in comformity with the internationally-admitted principle of Succession of states. Note that the Manchu-Mongol co-regime of Qing referred itself to as "China" in the 1728 Kiachta treaty delimiting their Mongolian-Siberian boundary with Russia.--219.79.26.14 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think the maps drawn by the Imperialist Japan can become an evidence for what you are trying to prove, you should stick to the maps. Study the same maps you mentioned carefully, they consistantly refered China to as "Shina" ("Zhi Na" in Chinese) or "Shina Honbu" ("Zhi Na Ben Bu" in Chinese or "Shina Proper" in English) which have long been considered by both PRC and Chinese common public as a discremitory name made up by the Imperialist Japan during the Second World War. Japanese Right Wing paramount leader Tokyo City current mayor Mr. Yishihara Shintarou is still publicly calling China as "Shina" ("Zhi Na" in Chinese) and Chinese people as "Shina jin" ("Zhi Na Ren" in Chinese). Almost all the Chinese both within and without the borders of PRC strongly resisted the use of this term. If you think the Japanese term "Nai Mou Ko" ("Nei Meng Gu" in Chinese) and "Gai Mou Ko" ("Wai Meng Gu" in Chinese) is accurate and acceptable, you must accept the term "Shina" or "Shina Honbu" appeared in the same maps as the reasonable names of China. In fact, the Japanese terms "Nai Mou Ko" and "Gai Mou Ko" used by the Imperialist Japan were directly derived from the Chinese word "Nei Meng Gu" and "Wai Meng Gu". Note that now more and more Japanese started using "Minami Mongoru" ("Southern Mongolia" or "Nan Meng Gu") instead of "Uchi Mongoru" ("Inner Mongolia" or "Nei Meng Gu"). See this: Also note that European Union's Transnational Radical Party started using "Southern Mongolia":

In terms of the three provinces set up in Southern Mongolia during the ROC period, indeed there were such three so-called "provinces" in Southern Mongolia, namely Chahar, Rehe, and Sui-yuan. It was nothing more than an unsuccessful atempt of ROC's military occupation over Southern Mongolia. Remember that when the Chinese set up these three small "provinces", the vast majority of the Southern Mongols and the large portion of Southern Mongolian territory were still under the Southern Mongolian self-governance, namely the "Mongol Frontier Government" ("Meng Jiang Zheng Fu" in Chinese) in the west and "Eastern Mongolian Autonomous Government" ("Dong Meng Zi Zhi Zheng Fu" in Chinese) in the east until 1947 when the CCP invaded Southern Mongolia. These two governments had thier own military, own foreign affairs, own monetary and postal systems.

You have mentioned the age-old theory of "Succession of State" which was drafted in 1978 as an unpopular international treaty to which China has not even ratified. Even if you think this theory is absolutely correct, it cannot be applied to the case of ROC which was a regime established under its founding father Sun Yat-sen's famous slogan of "驱逐鞑虏，恢复中华" meaning "to drive out the barbarians (referred to the Manchus and Mongols) and restore the Chinese". The ROC has neither recognized and declared itself as the successor of Manchu Qing nor fulfilled the obligation of the de facto successor. On the other hand, while you tried all possible means to defend the PRC's colonial regime in the so-called "minority regions" including Southern Mongolia, Tibet, and East Turkistan, you have totally ignored the internationally accepted United Nation Human Rights Bills -- International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- to which China has already ratified. The first article of these two bills clearly states：''All people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine thier political status and freely pursue thier economic, social and cultural development.'' Why don't you uphold this principle if you really have a "neutrual" opinion?

Another justification you used to legitimize the China's occupation of Southern Mongolia is that Qing once called itself China in a treaty with Russia. If how to call itself in a treaty can determine a people's political status, it is very good news for the Mongols because during Hyagt Treaty (or "Three Countries Treaty") in 1915, the Mongolian Government and the Mongolian Khan Bogd Zevzendamba consistantly refered Southern Mongolia to as "49 Banners of our southern part of Mongolia". The treaty you mentioned has also reminded me of so many other treaties and declarations made then broken by China in Southern Mongolia. Believe me, Southern Mongolia is the land of broken promises! In 1935, Mao Ze-dong and Zhu De sent a telegraph to Southern Mongolia to recognize the Southern Mongolians' right to self-determination ("zi jue quan" in Chinese) and even the right to independence. This is the so-called "3-5 Declaration". Unfortunately, this promise eventually turned out to be a lie when the Southern Mongols worked to materialize it. In 1947, another round of promise took place in Southern Mongolia. The CCP promised to grant "Nationality Autonomy" to the Southern Mongols. This promise has not only been broken by the CCP but also ended up with a series of massacres, ethnic cleansing, and cultural assimilation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.168.5 (talk • contribs)

 * MAPS - Thanks for being such informative on the history of Shina, but what's the use of telling me this [?] while I am focusing on Enkhbatt's viewpoint on the term 'Inner Mongolia/NMG/NMK' being invented by CCP. So, may I ask once again, would you regard the maps as CCP(or interchangeably PRC) propaganda? Are you saying these Japanese imperialists were all CCP spies? Furthermore I doubt if you've clearly read all the map-links provided above, which also include ones using neutral terms like "Chu Ka Min Koku", Chinese Empire, Republic of China, "Sin Koku". BTW, the "Japanese" weblink you kindly provided is nothing but only a sub-page of the "Southern Mongolian Human Rights Infomation Center" [a wide-known separatist group like " Inner Mongolia  People's Party"] :-), everyone can help this sort of organization set up thousand of webpages with every language so that you can claim the whole world using the term "Southern Mongolia".

 * THREE PROVINCES: The three-province map I show you was published in 1928 and the provinces were effectively administered by ROC central govenment until 1936/37 when the Japanese Kwantung Army entered the region and established the well-known puppet regime with full name Mengjiang United Autonomous Government, which was hardly a soveriegn state. The self-governing ability of Mengjiang was almost nonexistent as in the early 1940s their IJA overlord was even able to place them under the newly-formed National Government of the Republic of China / Zhonghua Minguo Guomin Zhengfu headed by Wang Jingwei, another Japanese puppet. Regarding Eastern Mongolia Autonomous Government, I would like to remind you that since March 1946 the Autonomous Government had proclaimed acceptance of CCP's leadership which predated CCP's "invasion"(i.e., establishment of INAR), in other words, the EMAG itself support CCP leading the Mongols in Inner Mongolia. Anyway, I believe the current CCP leadership would like to thank you for supporting their legitimacy on Inner Mongolia in this case :-)

 * SUCCESSION OF STATES - The 1978 Convention was only a codification, instead of the replacement, of this fait-accompli principle which itself has existed since the 19th century. Even if China never signs this convention, the principle can still apply universally (They only need max. 15 sovereign-state ratifications to make this ex post facto codification enter into force universally, instead of all-nation ratifications). Besides, the Government of the Republic of China held unchallenged status as the succession state of the Qing Empire who continuously (since the Nerchinsk Conference held in 1689) claimed itself as "China/Chinese Empire" on international level (all treaties which the Qing Empire formally signed). The ROC formal constitutional documents has clarified the definition of 'Chinese'(multiracial) as comprising the ethnic groups of Han, Manchu, Mongols, Hui/Moslem, Tibetans. Not a single instance exists when Sun Yatsen's slogan was written into the Constitution. Regarding the principle of self-determination, the PRC has ratified the UN Conventions, it means the Chinese (and of course all of us here!) fully respect the principle of self-determination. But please note that anyone who accept self-determination should also understands that it doesn't neccessarily mean separating any portion of one sovereign state, according to the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action taking the lesson from the Bosnian conflicts:

 * "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development....In accordance with the 'Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations', it shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind."[Article 2].

 * Just like Sat Yatsen's pre-ROC slogan mentioned above, Mao's pre-PRC viewpoint on minority's independence was never written into the Chinese constitution.

 * THREE NATION TREATY - I've read the full text of the Kyachta Treaty of 7 June 1915. Not a single article ever defined the composition of Inner/Southern Mongolia. And most importantly, the Treaty's Preamble rather referred the Great Khan to as "the Bogdo Djembzoun Damba Khoutoukhtou Khan of Outer Mongolia". It means Our Great Khan was responbible only for Outer Mongolian affairs, I doubt if it is accurate to define the treaty as a three-sovereign-states-agreement(even Mongolia was regarded as not part of China Proper) See these acticle:

 * Art. 2 - Outer Mongolia recognizes China's suzerainty. China and Russia recognize the autonomy of Outer Mongolia forming part of Chinese territory .

 * Art. 3 - Autonomous Mongolia has no right to conclude international treaties with foreign powers respecting political and territorial questions.

 * As respects questions of a political and territorial nature in Outer Mongolia, the Chinese Government engages to conform to Article II of the Note exchanged between China and Russia on the fifth day of the eleventh month of the second year of the Republic of China, 23rd October, 1913.

 * Art. 4 - The title: "Bogdo Djembzoun Damba Khoutoukhtou Khan of Outer Mongolia" is conferred by the President of the Republic of China . The calendar of the Republic as well as the Mongol calendar of cyclical signs are to be used in official documents.

 * Kindly note that the terms Outer Mongolia (interchangeably with 'Autonomous Mongolia') and Inner Mongolia were formally adopted in this 1915 agreement.--219.79.123.165 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

お前は何言っても聞かない頭の硬い支那人だ. 本当に馬耳東風だ. 日本語読めるならちゃんと読んでみてよ！俺のリンクしたページはあの二つの組織と何の関係もない. 中国民族問題研究という日本人の民間団体だよ. もし日本語読めないなら読めないといってよ. 読めるぶりするな！

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkhbatt (talk • contribs)

To RGTraynor:
If you simplify the things so easily, I can also simply say a Mongolian word to you: Bugseen Havch! Hope you will try to understand the meaning of the word by taking the Mongolian 101 and remind yourself with the word every time when you talk about Mongolia without knowing the truth.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkhbatt (talk • contribs)

 * And you think that responding to those who disagree with you with obscenities (as it happens, I know very well what the phrase means) is an appropriate way to win converts to your crusade? Hm.  Good luck there, sport.  RGTraynor 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear that you REALLY understood the meaning of the word. Hope what you said is not the type of answers such as "yeah, yeah, I know, Mongolia is in Africa, right?" or "Yeah yeah, I know that Korean War is happened in Vietnam." that you always hear from our fellow Americans who never say "I don't know" when you ask something.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkhbatt (talk • contribs)

 * Hey RGT: you're not just simply disagreeing. You're bigmouthing about issues that you have no knowledge of whatsoever and you're not listening to others explanations amd reasoning because you believe you ought to know it. You have to know that you're at least arrogant. And I'm pretty sure that you didn't really read enkhbatt's writing before you criticised him.

dugar 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

some initial thoughts
1. This article and several other related topics such as the one called "Mongolia (region)" are, in a short, are full of Sinocentric POVs. For one thing, the names are problematic. For instance, there is a place name in Southern Mongolia, called "Bortohoi" in Mongolian. "bor" is the color brown (may not exactly match), and tohoi is river bend. The river refered to is the Yellow River or in Mongolian "Hatun Gol". The common Chinese translation of "Bortohoi" is "hetao" or 河套 and this is actually only the translation of second part, river bend, and not the color part. But, anyway, here in this article, there is a term "Hetao Mongols", meaning "river bend Mongols". This doesn't make sense. There is no such concept in Mongol history, nor in Mongolian habits of calling each other. It may be a Chinese way to name different parts of Mongolia but it's not at all common. If you look deep enough, you'll definitely find the term as "Bortoi" or "Bortohai" or something like that but not some wierd "hetao Mongols". So just like this, because of a lot of authors here are PRC-"educated" native Chinese, they just push the Chinese names without bothering to check or impossible for them to check and find out the Mongol terms.

2. Take the article "Tibet", which is pretty good, as example. Unbiased articles on "Mongolia", "Southern Mongolia", "Mongol History" should be something like some of the articles on Tibet. List all different view points, concepts, conflicts, criticisms, understandings, potential implications. For instance, when mentioning "Mongolia", give the wide meaning as well as the narrow meaning. So in case of "Mongolia", the wide meaning is that: Mongolia, A COUNTRY, but not just a "region", being established in 1206, had in recent history been splitting into pieces, due to outside forces such as Manchuria, China and Russia. This can be shown as at least "one type of understanding" (Of course, very unfortunately for those chauvinist brainwashed Chinese, this is the understanding of all Mongols about their own country). The narrower meaning would be that in today's common terminology, "Mongolia" increasingly stands for only the independent part of MONGOLIA.

We can of course also list the view of imperialist Chinese government and their offsprings' understanding of Mongolia being "always a part of "China" too, as "another type of understanding". And there can be others too.

I have a lot more ideas and suggestions to contribute in reviewed, unbiased, un-propagandistic articles on these topics. I'd be happy to discussed with those who with good faith. I'm dissapointed that people like Ran ignored my invitation for discussion and instead having been removing whatever changes I make to "Inner" Mongolia article. Well it is OK but are not gonna solve any problem and certainly worn't give up. And again, this place certainly should not be hijacked and being used by chauvinist propagandists any longer.

dugar 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Your entire argument is groundless. The term Hetao is used commonly in China. Last time I checked, Inner Mongolia is a direct provincial-level unit of the PRC. Thus the use by Wikipedia of Hetao is not incorrect. You may add your Mongolian transliteration, but the Chinese language is also co-official in Inner Mongolia.--Naus 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

End the debate
I honestly cannot believe this debate can drag on this long. If the point you're trying to make is against Chinese propoganda and control, you've failed. Changing a name doesn't mean anything. Think about it, what does it do, prove the notion of sinocentrism incorrect? If you want to prove the CPC wrong, you should start looking at the PRC and CPC Constitutions, you'd probably make better arguments then. Please don't start this debate again. Colipon+(T) 07:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Shame on you! You have stated that you are a sociology professor and the author of several books. It is unbelievable that as a sociologist you say that "changing a name doesn't mean anything" and "prove the notion of sinocentrism incorrect?" etc. I agree that the root-cause of this kind of Chinese chauvinism is not only the CCP brain-wash but also the deep-seated highly-biased Chinese ideology of sinocentrism that you as a fairly well-educated zhi na ren (since name doesn't matter, allow me to call you zhi na ren) can't even overcome. You have also asked me "don't start this debate again". Stop thinking that this is your zhi na guo where one's freedom of speech and expression can be arbitrarily deprived of.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkhbatt (talk • contribs)

______

Obviously, Enkhbatt is hostile, uncivilized and quarrelsome. He got all riled up because the truth is getting into his way, now everyone else is brainwashed by the CCP... poor guy. The derogatory terms and name callings DO NOT help his arguments AT ALL.

u have no rite to insult anyone, doing so shows weakness in u and ur arguement. the point is a very large division in monggu was historically and is currently called inner and outer. i cant believe u think the opinion of one person (whoever u r that doesnt sigh ur edits) can brainwash the english speaking world better than we chinese can. --1698 2006 February 25 21:15 Zulu

Yah I agree. From that one comment alone, I don't think I'll put forth any more logical contentions, as he'll probably just dismiss it with more of his idiotic comments. Let you guys be the judge. Colipon+(T) 05:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, we have been, and I don't think anyone rational is impressed with this band of flame warriors who've never before appeared on Wikipedia before this debate. Sockpuppetry in action, most likely.  RGTraynor 19:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You know that the name change is not at all the whole point here. The problems here such as heavily relying on Chinese sources, inaccuracy in historical facts, copying government propaganda, are commonplace not only in this particular article but most all topics on nations colonized under China. And further, if the current situation continues on Wikipedia, you cannot guarentee the so called NPOV. Not only that will be a joke, the whole Wikipedia thing will end up being another hypocratic, "civilization" game. The biggest issue here is the mentality behind the creation of these articles and problems here, hence the debate and this is just the beginning. You have to realize that the overwhelming articles on China-occupied regions on Wikipedia are full of POV but not NPOV. So don't keep fulling yourselves. It's time to wake up now.

Those who're currently in advantageous positions here, are so not because they're intelectually and morally strong but just because their numbers are bigger. They are basically consisted of two types: One types are those Chinese who're either been brainwashed and/or are chauvinistic fanatics. And the other types are Americans who (naturally) have so little knowledge about the world outside of northern America. But then they would have hard time admitting that and therefore, they will end up either pretending as they know or they would simply echo the Chinese POV which is largely circulated and readily available. For them, the famous saying, which goes like if you repeat a lie a thousand times it would become the truth, will make perfect sense. That "truth", or what you guys are shouting here as "the common" names and stuff, is exactly what is blocking not only your eyesights but as well your human consciousness.

One big difference between the two types though are that the Chinese here do know what they are doing because they have their agenda and they're intentional. But the Americans are just naive and are being used.

dugar 09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from a British perspective the above post is extremely insightful and well formed. Chinese propaganda creeping into wikipedia articles does seem to be a worrying trend from people who are too headstrong to admit that all the information they have been taught is lies. Pure and simple. --87.194.84.172 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Which serves to reinforce why your POV -- and it is POV, no less than that of the alleged Chinese POV you decry -- wins no friends for your cause. As long as you categorize everyone who disagrees with you as idiots, dupes and know-nothings, you portray your cause in an extremely unflattering light.  If nothing worse, given that both "Wikidugaren" and "Enkhbatt" have both been created within the last fortnight, with contributions exclusively devoted to this particular debate.  RGTraynor 12:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Read the above and think, please. You know you criticise without listening and thinking. American mouths are way too faster than American brain :) You Americans need to learn to listen if you truly want to get out of the mess you're in. And you have to be able to imagine, while the Chinese would "cooperate" with you in businesses like this, in private how they would shake their heads in amazement at your "cuteness". dugar 21:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

cant u see this section is titled end the debate? doesnt wikipedia have a policy against flame/spam? u have no point, no official body refers to inner mongolia by any other name in english --1698 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia does indeed have policies against them, and the perps been warned a couple times already.

History of Inner Mongolia does not appear to be NPOV
Why do we have the inclusion of nearly 2,000 years of Chinese history (all prior to 1635) included in the History section? This article deals with Inner Mongolia, which was created as a result of the division of the Eastern Mongols around 1635 after the Chahar Mongols submitted (allied) themselves with the Qing.

If we want to get technical, the northern boundary of China has historically been the Great Wall, which the rulers of China continued to strengthen to keep the nomads out until around 1635 for the reasons stated above.

If this section were edited properly, perhaps all other issues would resolve itself.--Buzava 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * As the author of most of that section I'd like to say that:

 * I intended the section to be not just a history of the institution(s) of "Inner Mongolia", which was created by the Qing Dynasty, but a broad history of the land that now constitutes Inner Mongolia. In other words, I've tried to include everything of importance that has taken over what is now Inner Mongolia over the course of history.
 * I have attempted to include all of the peoples that have been through the area, Chinese or not. So you'll find, in that section, not just Chinese dynasties, but also the states and dynasties established by the Di, Xiongnu, Xianbei, Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, Manchus, and of course, Mongols.
 * I've used mostly Chinese-language sources, so yes, you're right, it is slanted towards Chinese regimes over the past 2,000 years. I apologize if the section comes out reading like a laundry list of Chinese dynasties. If you have anything that you can add to balance it out, you're welcome to do so after the page is unprotected.
 * The Ming Great Wall that formed the northern border of the Ming Dynasty is relatively recent. The Great Wall of the Qin and Han Dynasties were further north, while the northern border of the Song Dynasty was further south.

 * -- ran (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Some historians already said all history books written by human beings are biased, maybe we should not quote history in wikipedia at all. Without the Chinese (Ming) version of "the Secret History of the Mongols," there would have been no history for the origin of the modern country of Mongolia at all.

Unprotecting
There doesn't seem to be any ongoing discussion here. Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Map
Could someone take the world map used for most articles and highlight Inner Mongolia? --Metallurgist 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia convention is that administrative entities of countries use locator maps that show the country only. E.g. California, British Columbia, etc. -- ran (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there any maps like it available? --Metallurgist 01:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? As I said, administrative entities of countries use locator maps that show the location of the entity relative to the country only, not the entire world. Other examples: Hawaii, Quebec, Jammu and Kashmir, Corsica, Bavaria, Hokkaido, etc. -- ran (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag on Inner Mongolia
Does this flag have any significance or relevance? I haven't been able to find any sources that refers to this particular design. -- Himasaram 02:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the flag used by the Inner Mongolian People's Party, a Mongol nationalist separatist group. -- ran (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the flag currently used by the Mongolian "separatist" group - Inner Mongolian People's Party, very rightfully advocating for the end of the oppressive Chinese colonialization in the region of Southern Mongolia. ("Separatist" is the term that this guy "ran" so fond of using. He seems to be an agent of the government of his country, the PRC, at least his way of copying the terms of his governement tells that. But, this flag isn't a new creation: its design must have relations to or originated from the official flag of the Independent Mongolian governement from the 1930s. Demchogdongrob was the leader. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on such an important figure. What a joke.

I have to point out that this whole wikipedia thing when it comes to the issues to China's colonies, it is totally controlled by Chinese centrism. The way Jimmy Wales is being used as a tool for Chinese Chaonism is exactly the way America is being used as a tool for the Chinese to extent and guarantee its ruthless oppressions the non-Chinese regions that it colonizes. Shame on America and Jimmy Wales for the petty benefits that the garbage mountains of Wal Mart could seemily bring for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.110.102 (talk • contribs)

 * "Separatism" is used as a neutral term on Wikipedia to describe sovereigntist, independence movements. Please do not make baseless accusations about the political allegiances of others.
 * Also, it's possible that you couldn't find an article on Demchugdongrub because you mis-spelled it.
 * -- ran (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the logic of some Mongolian nationalists. If they support a ruthless murderer like Genghis Khan and boast about the fact that their ancestors conquered/slaughtered/enslaved a huge portion of the world's population during the height of their conquest, I fail to see how they have any moral right to complain about the way the modern PRC treats them. Granted that imperialism is wrong either way, Mongolian nationalists (The ones who praise their ancestor's evil misdeeds) have no moral ground to complain. They are merely hypocrites, simple as that. Think of it this way, theft is wrong but a thief has no right to complain when he is robbed.

from assdaa -im new here, so sorry if im adding post the wrong way. -to chinese readers, the han chinese: i would encourage you to think out of the box, and read a lot, because years of chinese education had made you little bit rigid thinking, as far as ideology and history is concerned. reading part of this discussion made me think that han chinese, and indeed some ethnic minorities have been "brainwashed", i hope that more reading and knowledge will make you more upto to date. -chinggis is mongolian, inner mongolia was annexed by PRC in 1947 and before that never "chinese" as you understand -PRC now conducting policy of forcefull assimilation of ethnic minorities under the guise of "autonomy"

I don't see what the big deal is. It was the Mongols fault that IM is a part of China today. It was the Mongols that conquered China and helped give the PRC legitimacy to their territorial claims.

Vast majority of Mongols prefer living in China than Mongolia
The above Mongolian nationalist misses the point, which is that the vast majority of Mongols prefer to live in China rather than in Mongolia (Mongols in China outnumber Mongols in Mongolia by 2:1). Every region has separatists and nutjobs (even the great USA has nutjob separatists in like Vermont, Texas, Alabama, Hawaii, etc). The reality on the ground is that there has been steady migration of Mongols from Mongolia into China in the last decade due to China's economic boom. The opportunity is in China. There is no controversy, but one fabricated by a handful of Mongolian nationalists living in the United States (who probably can't even speak a word of Mongolian). --Naus 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 * How does all this conjecture contribute to improving the article here? --Latebird 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 * (who probably can't even speak a word of Mongolian) I think this is a problem that affects a lot of those "6 million" Mongols in China. My impression was that those Inner Mongolian separartists speak Mongolian quite well, though. But assdaa is probably from (outer) Mongolia anyway. The migration cross-border migration between China and Mongolia seems to be a mutual thing (i.e. it's very easy to find Chinese and Inner Mongolians in Mongolia), much more than Mongolian migration to Korea. Anyway, I agree with Latebird. You seem to have overlooked the Transscription of the Mongolian name. As it looks now, it's the transscription from Cyrillic and not from the classical script. And the Mongolian full name still looks awful (or is that only because I'm using an apple at the moment?). Yaan 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Inner Mongolia/Archive 1


text:
E and F-class destroyer

The E and F-class destroyers were a group of 18 destroyers built for the Royal Navy during the 1930s. The ships were initially assigned to the Home Fleet, although they reinforced the Mediterranean Fleet during the Italian invasion of Abyssinia of 1935–36 and enforced the Non-Intervention Agreement during the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939. After the beginning of the Second World War in August 1939, the E-class ships were mostly assigned to escort duties under the Western Approaches Command, while the Fs were assigned to escort the ships of the Home Fleet. Between them they sank four German submarines through March 1940 while losing only one ship to a submarine.

Most of the sisters were committed to the Norwegian Campaign in April–June where they helped to sink one German destroyer and a submarine. The two E-class minelayer-destroyers helped to evacuate Allied troops from Dunkirk in May–June. Most of the Fs were sent to Gibraltar around the end of June and formed part of Force H where they participated in the attack on Mers-el-Kébir. Two months later they participated in the Battle of Dakar where they sank three Vichy French submarines. During the rest of 1940, they sank one Italian submarine while losing two ships to mines and torpedoes. Force H covered a number of convoys to Malta in 1941, during which they sank one German submarine and lost one destroyer to bombs. Three E-class ships began escorting convoys to Russia in late 1941 and three others were transferred to the Eastern Fleet.

Two of these latter were sunk by Japanese forces in early 1942 and two Fs were transferred to replace them. Many of the Fs reinforced the Arctic convoy escorts during which they fought several engagements with German destroyers and sank one German submarine. Several were detached to escort Malta convoys, during which one ship was lost. Several ships were converted to escort destroyers in late 1942–early 1943 for duty in the North Atlantic and many others were assigned there for extended periods of time where they sank two German submarines. Three of these ships were later transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy. Four of the Es and Fs were sent to the Mediterranean Fleet in mid-1943 to support the invasion of Sicily and remained there into 1944. One of these was transferred to the Royal Hellenic Navy that same year and remained in Greek service until 1956. The ships that remained in the Atlantic sank two German submarines in 1944 before they were recalled to the UK in May to prepare for the invasion of Normandy. There they sank two submarines, although another F-class ship was lost to a mine. The ships mostly returned to the North Atlantic after Overlord or began long refits in Canada.

The three Canadian ships were used to transport troops back to Canada after the end of the war before being broken up in 1947. Most of the British ships were broken up around the same time, although one ship was sold to the Dominican Navy in 1949 and served until 1968.

Design and description
The E class were ordered as part of the 1931 Naval Construction Programme, the F class following in 1932. These ships were based on the preceding D class with minor changes to the hull and armament. Two of the ships were modified to accommodate 60 mines. The F class were repeats of the E's with some minor differences. All of the destroyers were fitted with ASDIC (sonar) and the ability to use the Two-Speed Destroyer Sweep (TSDS) minesweeping gear.

The E- and F-class destroyers displaced 1405 LT at standard load and 1940 LT at deep load. They had an overall length of 329 ft, a beam of 33 ft and a draught of 12 ft. The ships' complement was 145 officers and ratings. They were powered by two Parsons geared steam turbines, each driving one propeller shaft, using steam provided by three Admiralty 3-drum boilers that operated at a pressure of 300 psi and a temperature of 620 °F. The turbines developed a total of 36000 shp and gave a maximum speed of 35.5 kn. The destroyers carried a maximum of 470 - 480 LT of fuel oil that gave them a range of 6350 nmi at 15 kn.

All of the ships had the same main armament, four quick-firing (QF) 4.7 in Mark IX guns in single mounts, designated 'A', 'B', 'X', and 'Y' from front to rear. The guns had a maximum elevation of 40° which was achieved by using a lowered section of the deck around the mount, the "well", that allowed the breech of the gun to be lowered below deck height. They fired a 50 lb shell at a muzzle velocity of 2650 ft/s to a range of 16970 yd. For anti-aircraft (AA) defence, they had two quadruple mounts for the QF 0.5-inch Vickers Mk III machine gun on platforms between the funnels. The E- and F-class ships were fitted with two quadruple mounts for 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes. The ships, except for the minelayers, were also equipped with two throwers and one rack for 20 depth charges. The stern of the minelayers was fitted with a pair of sponsons that housed part of the mechanical chain-conveyor system and to ensure smooth delivery of her mines. To compensate for the weight of her Mark XIV mines, their rails, two 4.7-inch guns, their ammunition, both sets of torpedo tubes, their whalers and their davits had to be removed.

The main guns were controlled by an Admiralty Fire Control Clock Mk I that used data derived from the manually-operated director-control tower and the separate 9 ft rangefinder situated above the bridge. They had no capability for anti-aircraft fire and the anti-aircraft guns were aimed solely by eye.

Wartime modifications
Beginning in May 1940, the after bank of torpedo tubes was removed and replaced with a QF 12-pounder 20-cwt anti-aircraft gun, the after mast and funnel being cut down to improve the gun's field of fire. Four to eight QF 20 mm Oerlikon cannons were added to the surviving ships, usually replacing the .50-calibre machine gun mounts between the funnels. One pair of these was added to the bridge wings and the other pair was mounted abreast the searchlight platform. Early in the war, depth charge stowage increased to 38. By 1943, all the surviving ships, except HMS Fury (H76) had the 'Y' gun on the quarterdeck removed to allow for additional depth charge stowage and two additional depth charge throwers. The 12-pounder was removed to allow for the installation of a Huff-Duff radio direction finder on a short mainmast and for more depth charges. All of the survivors, except perhaps for HMS Echo (H23), had 'A' or 'B' gun replaced by a Hedgehog anti-submarine spigot mortar, and their director-control tower and rangefinder above the bridge removed in exchange for a Type 271 target-indication radar, HMS Fame (H78) had her 'A' gun reinstalled by 1944. A Type 286 short-range, surface-search radar, adapted from the Royal Air Force's ASV radar, was also added. The early models, however, could only scan directly forward and had to be aimed by turning the entire ship. HMS Express (H61)'s modifications differed somewhat in that 'B' gun was replaced by a twin-gun QF 6-pounder Hotchkiss mount and a split Hedgehog installation. In addition, she retained her 12-pounder gun, but her remaining torpedo tubes were removed.

Flotilla leaders
For the first time since the A class of the 1927 programme, the flotilla leaders were built to an enlarged design, being lengthened to incorporate an additional QF 4.7-inch gun between the funnels. The lengthened design resulted in a three boiler room layout to enhance water-tight integrity. The leaders were not fitted for minesweeping or minelaying. They displaced 1475 - 1495 LT at standard load and 2010 - 2050 LT at deep load. The ships had an overall length of 343 ft, a beam of 33 ft and a draught of 12 ft. The ships carried a total of 175 personnel which included the staff of the Captain (D), commanding officer of the flotilla. Their turbines were 2000 shp more powerful than the private ships, which made them 0.5 kn faster; their propulsion machinery was otherwise identical. HMS Exmouth (H02) was an early wartime loss and consequently received no modifications, but HMS Faulknor (H62) survived the war. Her modifications differed somewhat from those of the private ships. She received a 4 in AA gun in lieu of her aft torpedo tubes, although they were later reinstalled and the 4-inch gun replaced 'X' 4.7-inch gun. Two Oerlikons were later added on the forward part of her aft superstructure and a quadruple QF two-pounder "pom-pom" mount replaced 'Q' gun between the funnels. Finally her rangefinder was replaced by a high-angle director fitted with a Type 285 gunnery radar.

Service
All of the E class were assigned to the 5th Destroyer Flotilla (DF) of the Home Fleet upon commissioning during 1934. Following the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the entire flotilla was sent to the Red Sea in August 1935 to monitor Italian warship movements until April 1936. Refitted upon their return, many were deployed to Spanish waters during the Spanish Civil War in 1936–39 to intercept shipping carrying contraband goods to Spain and to protect British-flagged ships. While the F-class ships were assigned to the 6th Destroyer Flotilla of the Home Fleet, they followed much the same pattern as their E-class sisters. In April 1939 the 5th and 6th DFs were renumbered the 7th and 8th Destroyer Flotillas, respectively. In mid-1939, newly commissioned J-class destroyers began to replace the E-class ships and they were reduced to reserve for lack of manpower. Increasing tensions with Nazi Germany in August, caused the British to mobilize the Navy's reserves, which allowed the ships to be manned again and assigned to the 12th Destroyer Flotilla of the Home Fleet.

When the war began on 3 September, the E-class ships, except for the two minelayers, Esk and Express, were assigned to the Western Approaches Command (WAC) for convoy escort and patrolling duties, while the Fs remained with the Home Fleet, performing the same sorts of tasks. On 14 September, Faulknor, Firedrake, and Foxhound, escorting the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal (91), sank GS U-39 (1938), the first German submarine to be lost during the war, after she had unsuccessfully attacked the carrier. Six days later, Fearless, Faulknor, Forester, and Fortune sank GS U-27 (1936). Most of the E class remained with the WAC until April 1940, but several were transferred to Rosyth Command at the end of 1939. Exmouth was one of these and was sunk by GS U-22 (1936) on 21 January 1940 in the Moray Firth. On the other hand, Escapade forced GS U-63 (1939) to the surface on 25 February, which was then scuttled by her crew, and Fortune sank GS U-44 (1939) on 20 March. Esk and Express were assigned to the specialist 20th Destroyer Flotilla shortly after the war began, together with the four I-class destroyer-minelayers, and were busy laying mines in the North Sea and off the English coast through April–May 1940.

The beginning of the Norwegian Campaign in April saw almost all of the E and F class transferred to the Home Fleet for operations in Norwegian waters. For the most part they escorted the ships of the Home Fleet and the various convoys to and from Norway, but Forester and Foxhound were part of the escort for the battleship HMS Warspite (03) during the Second Battle of Narvik on 13 April and the latter helped to sink one German destroyer. While escorting one convoy, Fearless and the destroyer HMS Brazen (H80) sank GS U-49 (1939) two days later. Esk and Express were the only two ships committed to the evacuation of Dunkirk in May–June, each rescuing thousands of Allied troops.

Fearless, Escapade, Faulknor, and Foxhound of the 8th DF escorted Ark Royal and the battlecruiser HMS Hood (51) to Gibraltar in late June, where they formed Force H. Eight days later, they participated in the attack on Mers-el-Kébir against the Vichy French ships stationed there, together with Forester, Foresight and Escort. The latter ship was sunk by an Italian submarine on 11 July while covering a Malta convoy. Most of Force H returned to the UK for a brief refit in early August, but upon their return at the end of the month, the 8th DF now consisted of Faulknor, Forester, Foresight, Firedrake, Fortune, Fury, and HMS Greyhound (H05). On the night of 31 August/1 September, Esk, Express and three other minelaying destroyers laid a minefield off the Dutch island of Texel. While doing so, the latter ship struck a mine that blew her bow off. While closing to render aid, Esk struck two mines that broke her in half with heavy casualties. Express was towed back to England for repairs that lasted until October 1941. On 13 September, Force H met a convoy that was carrying troops intended to capture Dakar from the Vichy French that was escorted by HMS Inglefield (D02), Eclipse, Echo, Encounter, and Escapade. Ten days later they attacked Dakar where Foresight and Inglefield sank the FRENCH SUBMARINE Persée, Fortune sank the submarine FRENCH SUBMARINE Ajax a day later and Foresight sank the submarine FRENCH SUBMARINE Bévéziers on the 25th. After the battle, Escapade and Echo returned to the Home Fleet and resumed their regular duties of fleet escort. On 17 October, Fame ran aground and could not be refloated for several months. The following day, Firedrake together with the destroyer HMS Wrestler (1918) and two Royal Air Force flying boats sank the ITALIAN SUBMARINE Durbo. Fury, Encounter, Faulknor, Firedrake, and Forester participated in the inconclusive Battle of Cape Spartivento on 27 November.

In 1941, the 8th DF escorted Force H as it covered multiple convoys and aircraft carriers flying off aircraft to Malta. While returning from one of the latter missions, Forester, Foresight, Faulknor, Fearless and Foxhound sank GS U-138 (1940) on 18 June. A month later, Fearless was crippled by Italian bombs on 23 July while escorting a convoy to Malta and had to be scuttled by her sister Foresight while Firedrake was badly damaged by near misses and had to return to Gibraltar for repairs. The ships of the 8th DF mostly returned home between August and October for repairs and refits. Encounter was transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet in April and spent several months under repair as she was badly damaged by bombs at Malta. The ship was then transferred to the Eastern Fleet in November and arrived at Singapore the following month. Eclipse, Echo, and Electra were assigned to the 3rd Destroyer Flotilla of the Home Fleet at the beginning of 1941 where they escorted the larger ships of the fleet while they were searching for German commerce raiders and on other missions. Escapade began escorting convoys to Russia in August and continued to do so for most of the following year. Electra did the same for several months until she was detailed to escort the battleship HMS Prince of Wales (53) and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse (1916) to Singapore in October, together with Express.

Express and Electra were half of the escorts for Prince of Wales and Repulse as they sailed north on 9 December, but could do little as the Japanese bombers sank the two capital ships other than help to rescue the 3,000-odd survivors. Upon their return to Singapore, they joined Encounter and the other destroyers there escorting ships between Singapore and the Sunda Strait. Electra and Encounter escorted the heavy cruiser HMS Exeter (68) during the Battle of the Java Sea on 27 February 1942. The former ship was sunk by a Japanese destroyer as she covered Exeter's withdrawal. Several days later, Encounter and the American destroyer USS Pope (DD-225) were escorting the damaged Exeter en route to Ceylon when they encountered four Japanese heavy cruisers and their escorts. Encounter and Exeter were sunk in the subsequent battle on 1 March. Express did not participate in any of these battles because she'd been damaged by a boiler room fire in early February and her repairs did not begin until April. Fortune joined her sister with the Eastern Fleet in February, with Foxhound following two months later.

On 27 March, Fury, Eclipse and the light cruiser HMS Trinidad (46) were escorting Convoy PQ 13 in the Arctic when they were intercepted by three German destroyers. In the ensuing action, the cruiser was damaged by one of her own torpedoes and Eclipse was hit twice, although the cruiser sank the GERMAN DESTROYER Z26. Foresight, Forester and the light cruiser HMS Edinburgh (16) were the close escort for Convoy QP 11, returning from Murmansk to Iceland, when Edinburgh was torpedoed on 29 April. The two hits disabled her steering and she had to be towed by the two destroyers. Two days later, they were attacked by three German destroyers which badly damaged Foresight and Forester and put another torpedo into Edinburgh, crippling her. The two destroyers took off the survivors and scuttled the cruiser. Temporarily repaired at Murmansk, the sisters were part of Trinidad's escort home when she was set on fire by a German bomber and had to be scuttled on 15 May. Faulknor, Fury, Escapade, Echo, and Eclipse escorted more Arctic convoys in May–September, Faulknor sinking GS U-88 (1941) on 12 September while escorting Convoy PQ 18. Foresight and Fury were briefly detached to escort the fleet during Operation Pedestal in August, during which the former was torpedoed and had to be scuttled. While being repaired, Fame was converted into an escort destroyer and was assigned to the WAC, joining her sister, Fearless, upon its completion in September. A month later, she sank GS U-353 while protecting Convoy SC 104. Fearless was torpedoed and sunk by GS U-211 on 16 December.

When convoys to Russia resumed in December 1942, Fury, Forester, Faulknor, Eclipse, and Echo were assigned as escorts. Fury, and Eclipse were detached to augment the escorts of the WAC in March–May 1943, joining their sisters, Fame and Escapade, when German submarine attacks reached their peak. The former had already sunk GS U-69 (1940) on 17 February while escorting Convoy ONS 165. Express, Fortune and Foxhound was assigned to the Eastern Fleet at the beginning of 1943, but the first two returned to Britain in February to begin refits, during which they were transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy and renamed Gatineau and Saskatchewan in June and May, respectively. Foxhound followed in August and was converted into an escort destroyer before being given to the Canadians in February 1944 and renamed Qu'Appelle. Forester was assigned to Escort Group C1 of the WAC in June. Escapade was badly damaged by a premature detonation of her Hedgehog projectiles in September and was under repair until the end of 1944. Faulknor, Fury, Echo, and Eclipse were transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet to escort the covering force during the invasion of Sicily in July and the subsequent landings in mainland Italy. Faulknor, Fury, and Eclipse participated in the Dodecanese Campaign after the surrender of Italy in September and the latter ship sank after hitting a mine on 24 October.

Echo began a long refit at Malta in December and was loaned to the Royal Hellenic Navy upon its completion in April 1944. Renamed Navarinon, she supported government forces during the Greek Civil War and was retained after the end of the war. Faulknor and Fury later supported operations in Italy before returning to the UK for Operation Overlord in June. While escorting Convoy HX 280, Gatineau helped to sink GS U-744 on 6 March, four days later Forester participated in the sinking of GS U-845. Fame, Forester, Gatineau, Saskatchewan, and Qu'Appelle joined their sisters covering the preparations for the invasion of Normandy and the invasion itself. Fame and two others destroyers sank GS U-767 on 18 June. Fury struck a mine on 21 June and was forced to beach herself to prevent her from sinking. She was written off after she was salvaged and was broken up for scrap beginning in September. Saskatchewan and Gatineau returned to Canada in August for lengthy refits that lasted into 1945 after which they returned to the UK. Qu'Appelle returned to the North Atlantic in October and Forester helped to sink GS U-413 on 20 August and then was sent back to the North Atlantic. Escapade was fitted with the new Squid anti-submarine mortar when her repairs were finished.

Postwar
Gatineau, Saskatchewan, and Qu'Appelle were used to ferry Canadian troops back home before they were placed in reserve in 1946 and subsequently sold for scrap, although Gatineau was scuttled in 1948 in British Columbia to serve as a breakwater. Faulknor and Forester were reduced to reserve in 1945 and broken up the following year; Escapade lasted on active duty a year longer as she served in the Anti-Submarine Training Flotilla until 1946, but the ship was scrapped the next year. Unlike most of her sisters, Fame remained on active duty until 1947 when she was placed in reserve. She was sold to the Dominican Republic in 1949 and renamed Generalissimo. The ship was renamed Sanchez in 1962 and finally discarded in 1968. Navarinon later became a training ship before she was returned to the Royal Navy in 1956 and broken up the following year.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: E and F-class destroyer


text:
Vernon Holloway

Vernon Caryle Holloway Sr. (September 15, 1919 – January 15, 2000) was a Florida businessman and politician.

Biography
He was born in Richmond, Virginia. He founded Interstate Electric Company, Inc. (1949) in Dade County, Florida. He served eight years in the Florida House of Representatives and six years in the Florida Senate representing the 39th District in Miami. Senator Holloway died on January 15, 2000, at the age of 80.

title: Vernon Holloway


text:
Richard Murphy (architect)

Richard Murphy OBE (born 24 April 1955) is a British architect and businessman. He is the founder and principal architect of Richard Murphy Architects, an architectural firm operating in Edinburgh. He is a winner of the 2016 RIBA House of the year.

Works
Murphy studied at Newcastle University and University of Edinburgh. In 1991, he established Richard Murphy Architects in Edinburgh, which expanded to employ over twenty architects. Initially focused on residential extensions and mews conversions, the firm later branched into education, healthcare, arts, and commercial projects, with some buildings funded by the National Lottery.

In 1995, Murphy designed the inaugural Maggie's Centre in Edinburgh, now the administrative headquarters for Maggie's. The structure, intended to support cancer treatment, was uniquely designed without corridors to prevent an institutional feel.

In 1996, Murphy published a book on Venetian architect Carlo Scarpa and presented a Channel 4 documentary on him. He also co-authored a book on Charles Rennie Mackintosh.

In 2004, Murphy showcased his work at the Venice Biennale.

In January 2007, he was recognized with an OBE for his contributions to architecture.

Murphy has designed homes for his personal use, with his 2015 Hart Street residence winning the Saltire Society Award for Best Single Dwelling New Build.

Teaching
Murphy has taught at University of Edinburgh, The Scott Sutherland School of Architecture, University of Strathclyde, and abroad at Technical University of Braunschweig, University of Virginia, and Syracuse University, New York.

Proposed work

 * Candleriggs Quarter in Glasgow's Merchant City
 * Perth Theatre, Fife

Notable completed work
Projects by year of design

 * Fruitmarket Gallery, Edinburgh, 1991
 * Maggie's Edinburgh, Edinburgh, 1994 + 1999 extension
 * Nominated for 1997 Stirling Prize
 * Dundee Contemporary Arts, Dundee, 1996
 * Eastgate Theatre & Arts Centre, Peebles, 1998
 * Nominated for 2004 RIAS Best Building in Scotland
 * Caernarfon Arts Centre, Wales, 2000
 * Olorosso Restaurant, Edinburgh, 2001
 * John Muir's Birthplace, Dunbar, East Lothian, 2001
 * Computer Centre, Merchiston Campus, Napier University, Edinburgh, 2001
 * Tolbooth Arts Centre, Stirling, 2002
 * British High Commission, Sri Lanka, 2008
 * Housing Moore Street, Glasgow, 2008
 * University of East London - Computer and Conference Centre, London, 2009
 * Stratheden Dementia and Mental Health Unit, Fife, 2009
 * Justice Mill Lane Park Inn Hotel and Office Development, Aberdeen, 2011
 * Queen's University Belfast Postgraduate Accommodation, Belfast, 2012
 * Old See House Mental Health Facility (in association with RPP Architects), Belfast, 2014
 * Postgraduate Housing for The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, 2014
 * Dunfermline Museum and Art Gallery, Fife, 2017

title: Richard Murphy (architect)


text:
Harold Sandford Mugford

Lance Corporal Harold Sandford Mugford VC (31 August 1894 – 16 June 1958) was a British Army soldier and an English recipient of the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

He was 22 years old, and a Lance-Corporal in the 8th Cavalry Machine Gun Squadron MGC, 8th Cavalry Brigade, 3rd Cavalry Division, British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.

On 11 April 1917 at Monchy-le-Preux, France, under intense fire, Lance-Corporal Mugford got his machine-gun into a forward, very exposed position from which he dealt very effectively with the enemy. Almost immediately his No. 2 was killed and he was severely wounded. He was ordered to go to a new position and then have his wounds dressed but this he refused to do, staying to inflict severe damage on the enemy with his gun. Soon afterwards a shell broke both his legs, but he still remained with his gun and when he was at last removed to the dressing station he was again wounded.

His VC is displayed at the Imperial War Museum (London, England) and there is a memorial to him in Chelmsford Cathedral.

title: Harold Sandford Mugford


text: User talk:68.63.100.159

title: User talk:68.63.100.159


text: Category:Elections in Palau

title: Category:Elections in Palau


text:
Districts of Ghana

The Districts of Ghana are second-level administrative subdivisions of Ghana, below the level of region. There are currently 261 local metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies (or MMDA's).

History
The districts of Ghana were re-organized in 1988/1989 in an attempt to decentralize the government and to assist in development. The reform of the late 1980s subdivided the regions of Ghana into 110 districts, where local district assemblies should deal with the local administration. By 2006, an additional 28 districts were created by splitting some of the original 110, bringing their number up to 138. In February 2008, there were more districts created and some were upgraded to municipal status. This brought the final number to 170 districts in Ghana. Since then, a further 46 districts have been added since 28 June 2012 bringing the total to 216 districts.

Types of Districts
Districts are classified into three types: Ordinary Districts with a minimum population of seventy-five thousand (75,000) people, Municipal Districts with a minimum population of ninety-five thousand (95,000) people, and Metropolitan Districts with a minimum population of two hundred and fifty thousand(250,000) people.

District Assemblies
Districts are governed by District Assemblies, which are established by the Minister of Local Government, and serve as the highest political authority in each district. They consist of:
 * the District Chief Executive, appointed by the President of the Republic
 * one person from each electoral area within the district elected by universal adult suffrage
 * the member or members of Parliament from the constituencies that fall within the area of authority of the District Assembly
 * other members that shall not exceed thirty per cent of the total membership of the District Assembly appointed by the President in consultation with the traditional authorities and other interest groups in the district

District Chief Executive
The District Chief Executive is appointed by the President of the Republic and serves as the representative of the Central Government in the district. The incumbent presides at meetings of the Executive Committee of the District Assembly, and is responsible for:
 * the day-to-day performance of the executive and administrative functions of the District Assembly
 * the supervision of the departments of the District Assembly

Executive committee
The Executive Committee exercises the executive and coordinating functions of the District Assembly, and has the following members:
 * the District Chief Executive, who serves as chairperson
 * the chairpersons of the following Sub-Committees of the Executive Committee:
 * Development Planning,
 * Social Services
 * Works
 * Justice and Security
 * Finance and Administration
 * the chairperson of one ad hoc Sub-Committee of the Executive Committee elected by the District Assembly
 * any two other members elected by members of the District Assembly, at least one of whom is a woman

Presiding Member
Each District Assembly elects a Presiding Member from among their number, who convenes and presides at meetings of the District Assembly.

Functions of District Assemblies
As the political and administrative authorities over the districts, the primary function of District Assemblies is to promote local economic development.

The Local Government Act of 2016 also tasks District Assemblies to:
 * formulate and execute plans, programs and strategies for the effective mobilization of the resources necessary for the overall development of the district
 * promote and support productive activity and social development in the district and remove any obstacles to initiative and development
 * sponsor the education of students from the district to fill particular manpower needs of the district especially in the social sectors of education and health, making sure that the sponsorship is fairly and equitably balanced between male and female students
 * initiate programs for the development of basic infrastructure and provide municipal works and services in the district
 * be responsible for the development, improvement and management of human settlements and the environment in the district
 * in co-operation with the appropriate national and local security agencies, be responsible for the maintenance of security and public safety in the district
 * ensure ready access to courts in the district for the promotion of justice
 * act to preserve and promote the cultural heritage within the district
 * initiate, sponsor or carry out studies that may be necessary for the discharge of any of their duties

The Act also grants the District Assemblies with the following authorities:
 * Auction sales, as provided by the Auction Sales Act, 1989 (P.N.D.C.L. 230)
 * Liquor licensing, as provided by the Liquor Licensing Act, 1970 (Act 331)
 * Control bushfires, as provided by the Control and Prevention of Bushfires Act, 1990 (P.N.D.C.L. 229)*
 * Execute the following provisions of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) within its district: section 296 in respect of throwing rubbish in the street; and section 300 in respect of stray cattle

Ahafo Region
The Ahafo Region of Ghana was created by a referendum in December 2018. The regional capital is Goaso. It was part of the then Brong-Ahafo Region and contains 6 districts, 3 municipal and 3 ordinary districts. These are:

Ashanti Region
The Ashanti Region of Ghana is made up of 43 districts. This was increased from 30 districts. This is made up of 1 Metropolitan, 19 Municipal and 23 Ordinary districts. These are:

Bono Region
The Bono Region of Ghana was created by a referendum in December 2018. It was part of the then Brong-Ahafo Region and contains 12 districts, 5 municipal and 7 ordinary districts. These are:

Bono East Region
The Bono East Region of Ghana was created by a referendum in December 2018. It was part of the then Brong-Ahafo Region of Ghana and contains 11 districts, 4 municipal and 7 ordinary districts. These are:

Central Region
The Central Region of Ghana contains 22 districts. These are made up of 1 metropolitan, 7 municipal and 14 ordinary districts. There were formally 20 districts in this region.

Eastern Region
The Eastern Region of Ghana contains 33 districts made up of 13 municipal and 20 ordinary districts. These are:

Greater Accra Region
The Greater Accra Region of Ghana contains 29 districts made up of 2 metropolitan, 23 municipal and 4 ordinary districts. These are:

Northern Region
The Northern Region of Ghana contains 16 districts; 1 metropolitan, 5 municipal and 10 ordinary districts. These are:

North East Region
The North East Region of Ghana was created by a referendum in December 2018. It was part of the then Northern Region of Ghana. It contains 6 districts, 2 municipal and 4 ordinary districts. These are:

Oti Region
The Oti Region of Ghana was created by a referendum in December 2018. It was part of the then Volta Region of Ghana. It contains 8 districts, 2 municipal and 6 ordinary districts. These are:

Savannah Region
The Savannah Region of Ghana was created by a referendum in December 2018. It was part of then Northern Region of Ghana. It contains 7 districts, 1 municipal and 6 ordinary districts. These are:

Upper East Region
The Upper East Region of Ghana contains 15 districts, 4 municipal and 11 ordinary districts. There were 13 districts previously.

Upper West Region
The Upper West Region of Ghana contains 11 districts, 5 municipal and 6 ordinary districts. These are:

Volta Region
The Volta Region of Ghana used to contain 17 districts, 5 municipal and 20 ordinary districts. It now has a total of 18 districts made up of 6 municipal and 12 ordinary districts since the regional demarcation in December 2018

Western Region
The Western Region of Ghana contains 14 districts, 1 metropolitan, 8 municipal and 5 ordinary districts. These are:

Western North Region
The Western North Region of Ghana was created by a referendum in December 2018. It was part of the then Western Region of Ghana. It contains 9 districts, 3 municipal and 6 ordinary districts. These are:

title: Districts of Ghana