Talk:Peljidiin Genden

Leftist deviation

The article says that Genden was a moderate socialist, but Bawden's History of Mongolia says he was one of the leaders of the leftist deviation in (roughly) 1928-32.Yaan 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And what does "leftist deviation" exactly mean in conceptual terms? "Deviation" sounds like something the MPRP would define to mean just about anything they didn't like... --Latebird 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that the party admits mistakes. Or claims it has been hijacked by bad elements. Anyway, something along these lines. From what I have understood, after 1921, the MPR initially followed relatively (compared to later phases, anyway) non-radical approaches to socialism. private enterprise was often obstructed, but not outright forbidden etc. But after 1928 a program of forced collectivization was instituted, private enterprise forbidden and the lamaist church openly attacked. The result was a desaster, transportation broke down completely, the number of domestic animals fell about 30% (people preferred eating their animals rather than giving them away), and by 1931/32 large uprisings broke out in the northwest (Hövsgöl/Arhangai/Zavhan) and in the south. In 1932, the forced collectivization policies were stopped and most herds remained private until the next (and succesful) drive for collectivization in the 1950s. (I just got me a (photo-)copy of Bawden's The Modern History of Mongolia, so the last paragraph is based on the relevant chapters of said book)

Anyway, Genden was one of the people who were in charge in the late 20s/ early 30s, so I am going to change the article now. Just because he became a victim of stalinist persecution doesn't mean he always was the good guy.Yaan 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean he wasn't bad either. I just think that describing him as a moderate doesn't really fit.Yaan 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Most sources I've seen explicitly state that he opposed excessive collectivization. If Bawden says the opposite, then that should probably be referenced in the text. Btw: "Church" implies a christian context. I'm changing that to "clergy", which is a bit more general than the "monks" of the original version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Latebird (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Hmm. What kind of sources have you seen? In Bawden's work one reference is on page 296: "[...][Gendung] had in fact been one of the most active leftist leaders, and is mentioned as such in Sambuu's autobiography, along with other extremists, such as Shijee and Badrakh. Gendung had been a member of the secretariat of the Central Committee, and had been responsible for running the campaign for the expropriation of the property of the nobles, and the liquidation of the nobles themselves, in North Khangai aimak, soon to be one of the hottest beds of disaffection. Sambuu took his orders from Gendung when carrying out his share of the campaign. [...]". I think Udo B.Barkmanns Geschichte der Mongolei says the same, but it's back in the library and I can't check now. Yaan 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen online sources, which are probably less reliable than your books. Why don't you list those under references, btw? --Latebird 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist clergy

The Buddhist clergy is not well suited, I think. Instead, you can use the Lama(s). In Mongolian, it is spelled Лам. The lama is the general title given to the Buddhist teacher. So the single word Lama refers to both the meanings; Buddhist and clergy. There are instances such as Khamba Lama and Dalai Lama. Bilguun.alt (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the English term Clergy describes exactly what is meant here. It also doesn't require the reader to know what a Lama is, and how exactly that word is used in Mongolian. --Latebird (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)