Talk:Provinces of Mongolia

Examples vs. references

User TrueColour keeps adding a statement to the article about what the "usual translation" of the term Aimag is in his opinion. He lists the World Factbook and Statoids as examples, purporting them to be "references". But that's not how references work. A valid reference would be a publication making the same statement as the article, specifically "Aimag is usually translated as Province". Taking two examples and claiming them to be references is Original Synthesis of those sources and not acceptable in Wikipedia. It seems as if TrueColor is trying to "create facts" to support his position in the rename request above. I don't think that is quite the correct way to go about it. --Latebird (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At least it is some reference for your completely unreferenced insertions of the term "province" into the article [1] [2]. It was you, who inserted the term in the first place. I am the one helping to reference your insertions. If no one can provide reference for the translation and the Factbook usages is not accepted, we should move the article immediately to back were it was, namely "Provinces of Mongolia" and delete all references to aimags/aymags until we find evidence province=aimag/aymag. TrueColour (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, focusing on the current 21 aimags of Mongolia, both the ISO 3166-2 [3] and FIPS 10-4 [4] standards translate these subdivisions into provinces. I'm still not sure how you can get more official than that. And the statoids page, while not official, is certainly a site which is backed up by a lot of research. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Little note: LLOW as reference for ISO shows only what ISO did in the past. They do not cite the edition they use, but from the entry for Denmark it looks they are outdated. Anyway, the province = aymag translation probably still holds. If these two sources are used the term would be "aymag" not "aimag". TrueColour (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please cite the wp convention that says we should use ISO names, rather than the one most commonly used? Yaan (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe ISO and CIA Factbook are itself a source for commoness? Book count is not. TrueColour (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples are not sources, and two examples don't define "commonness". It is also clearly the purpose of neither ISO 3166-2 nor the CIA Factbook to provide authoritative translations for local terms. If we don't find a source that makes an explicit statement, then counting uses in books is indeed the most reliable method to determine what is common and what isn't. --Latebird (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't ISO 3166-2 and CIA Factbook publications, which means they are sources? While ISO 3166-2 does not provide the authoritative translation, it does provide some sort of commonly-accepted translation for international usage, and most often they take their sources from the local government. And again, we are not looking for a correct translation of the local terms from Mongol to English, as Wikipedia is not prescriptive, but descriptive. We are looking for the most common English term to describe these subdvisions. I'm all for looking for books, references, webpages, official sources from the Monglian government, etc., although we should place a limit on recent sources, as the "provinces" term may be adopted recently, and counting sources from, say the 1930s, will skew the results. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are sources, just not for the claims that you and TrueColour are trying to use them for. ISO 3166-2 is a source for the codes defined therein, and nothing else. the Factbook is a source for all kinds of information, but the spelling and translation of geographic names in there is almost entirely random, so it can't be a reliable source for those. In our context both of them are really nothing more than examples. They have no more relevance in determining what is "most common" than any other random web site. Using them alone means to derive statistically meaningful results from a data set of just two samples, and that is bound to fail. I also don't quite understand why an editor insists on entirely ignoring the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian), trying to override them with random spellings found somewhere on the web.

Btw.: We are not looking for the "most common English term", but for the "term most commonly used in English language sources", where the term itself may or may not actually be English. I agree with the notion to focus on recent sources. I'd set the limit around 1990, when Mongolia became accessible to western researchers again. --Latebird (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my position is simply that, the "term most commonly used in English language sources" for the current 21 "aimags" of Mongolia are "provinces". This is based on the evidence I've encountered, which are credible and reliable English language sources (I don't think ISO 3166-2 is simply "any other random web site"). If a survey based on recent sources turn out to be not the case, I'm glad to accept the results. TrueColour has his many viewpoints and edits, which I do not have the time to look at, and therefore, do not necessarily support. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea and task of the ISO 3166-2 is to provide universal codes for every country, these codes are the object of the international standart, these codes are the same in China or Ethiopia or Armenia where writing systems very differ but using of ISO codes makes possible to identify every country or its division. The ISO idea was not to teach the world the correct English names, but simply identify with codes a country and divisions of a country. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 2: Country subdivision code provides codes for the "names" of country subdivisions and the "names" of the country subdivisions itself. Please read the standard. But it does not matter what the purpose of it is. It is one source and each source using a specific name is an example for the usage of that name. Like in the section above where editors dived into google counting, sources are counted, and sources are examples. That "The ISO idea was not to teach the world the correct English names" is irrelevant. Every text using correct English IS teaching correct English, even without the specific idea of doing so.

@Latebird and the personal attack: ("I also don't quite understand why an editor insists on entirely ignoring the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian)"), please respect WP:NPA. Furthermore WP:MON in the form it is in since September 2008, supports the use of the term "province" more then the use of "aimag". Please calm down with your prose. TrueColour (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

TrueColour asks for the sources

This edit asks for the sources, but what can I do? I have this official administrative divisions map in my hands, the name of this map was added in the reference. What extra information has to be added? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably he/she cannot read Mongolian. Maybe it's better if you cite some Statistical yearbook, since they are usually bilingual. Otherwise, no idea. Yaan (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether I can read Mongolian does not matter. Sources must be English, otherwise they are similar to WP:ORIG TrueColour (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't just invent your own rules. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that sources don't need to be in English. Just because you personally can't read something doesn't make it Original Research. There are enough other editors who are well able to verify such a source. --Latebird (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the WP:NONENG rule in Wikipedia wich states the need of the translation of the information added in Wiki and providing of the original text in a footnote. As the source I used was translated and original Mongolian names were present in the table it is possibly reasonable to translate the name of the source in the respective footnote. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I read correctly, original text in footnote is only needed if you translate a direct quotation (even then it's "should", not "must"). Though yes, giving a translation of the title of the source together with the original title might be more convenient for the general reader. Yaan (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me on WP:NONENG: "However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. " - Did not know that, and honestly seems strange to me. I can bring some source of a language no-one else understands here in WP and then claim, there is no "English equivalent". Seems really strange to me, sorry. But, anyway, that's the policy, and asking whether this is good for EnWP does not belong here. Thanks again for pointing me there! TrueColour (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Restricting us to English language sources would keep the majority of human knowledge out of Wikipedia, in direct violation of the project's core objectives. --Latebird (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If even a source in other language was translated it to English it would be a good idea to provide link to an original source too as everybody in Wikipedia can check a translation. At the Mongolian field of work we are dealing to the Mongolian sources. It is completely natural as these sources were not translated. We have a number of native Mongolians in en:wiki, so wikipedia afraids more these Mongolian sources would be lost for wiki. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

muj

This is not directly related to the current naming dispute, but if we mention that aimag is sometimes translated into English as province, should we also mention that the common translation of province (as in Hebei province) into Mongolian is not aimag, but muj? Yaan (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. You mean in Mongolian Hebei Province is called Hebei muj? Into which article could we put that information? Administrative divisions of Mongolia, as side notes? Maybe mn:Ангилал:ОХУ-ын_засаг_захиргааны_нэгжүүд can be used as further source. TrueColour (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's Хэбэй муж. The term is only used for entities outside of Mongolia and is not synonymous for "Aimag". --Latebird (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. If we mention that aimag can be translated to province, we should probably also mention that the reverse does not hold, i.e. that province can in most cases not be translated to aimag. Yaan (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As matter of interest, aimag in the context of the state of Mongolia is translated as 省 shěng (normally translated as 'province') in Chinese and 県 ken (normally translated as 'prefecture') in Japanese.

The provinces of Canada are called 省 shěng (normally translated as 'province') in Chinese and 州 shū (normally translated as 'state') in Japanese.

The states of India are called 邦 bāng (normally translated as 'state, country') in Chinese and 州 shū (normally translated as 'state') in Japanese.

The states of Germany (Länder), the U.S. and Australia are called 州 zhōu in Chinese and 州 shū in Japanese (both normally translated as 'state') .

The provinces of China and Vietnam are called 省 shěng in Chinese and 省 shō in Japanese (both normally translated as 'province').

None of this is of direct relevance to this article, but it might bring a bit of perspective to the issue. The assignment of names is often a matter of tradition or convention. "Logic" (as seen in arguments like "if Mongolia used to be a province of China, aimags shouldn't be translated as "province") doesn't necessarily have a place. Bathrobe (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting to me. Thank you. I wonder how this information could be brought to article space. Decision on which languages and which subdivisions to include would need to be made. TrueColour (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the administrative subdivision that UB is called khot or niislel

The 2006 statistical yearbook on p.62 says that "Mongol Ulsyn nutag devser zasag zahirgaany huv'd 21 aimag, niislel [...] huvaagdana". So my impression is that this type of subdivision is called "niislel", not "hot". Of course in colloquial speech UB is both (even kind of synonymous with both!), I just think that since this article is about Mongolia's administrative structure, we should either use the most official term (plus translation) or no term at all. Yaan (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be mainly addressed at Subdivisions of Mongolia. The article here is about the provinces/aimags. Can you add the infos there? Add both, official, semi-offical etc, what ever you find. TrueColour (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Being the capital (niislel) doesn't stop UB from being a city (khot). --Latebird (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Being the capital (niislel) doesn't stop UB from being a city (khot). Similarly being part of the administrative division "niislel" doesn't stop Baganuur and Bagakhangai from being cities. Similarly administrative organisation of small aimags around cities Darkhan and Erdenet, doesn't stop them from being cities. There is city Erdenet on the territory of Orkhon aimag. Similarly, administratively organising city Khovd into "Jargalan" soum and city Choibalsan into "Kherlen" soum will not stop them from being cities. Cities and administrative divisions exist in paralell. Gantuya eng (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is very interesting, maybe you can add this info to Subdivisions of Mongolia. This article here, is about the provinces/aimags. TrueColour (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian Constitution states that country subdivisions are: ulsyn niislel and 21 aimags. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This article is not about what Ulaanbaatar is, but about what the first-level subdivisions of Mongolia are. This means that the relevant source is Mongolia's constitution, not some factbook. Yaan (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was called Provinces of Mongolia and after unilateral move is called Aimags of Mongolia. It is not called first-level subdivisions of Mongolia. TrueColour (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(sidenote: this discussion was started after User Truecolour twice inserted (as it seems, erroneous) information about Mongolia being divided into "21 provinces (aymguud, singular - aymag) and 1 municipality (singular - hot)".) Yaan (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this sidenote for? Does it make smaller the error in your claim that "This article is ...about what the first-level subdivisions of Mongolia are." Why are you pointing to User:TrueColour, is this a personal thing. Please respect WP:NPA and restrict discussion to facts that are related to the topic. TrueColour (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was you who reverted the correct designation twice, that's all. Basically, this discussion about whether, as a first-level administrative division of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar is a khot or a niislel has been over for two weeks, I dont know why you are trying to give it a new spin now. That this article's title is not first-level subdivisions of Mongolia does not mean it should contain doubtful information from unreliable sources.

But maybe you just posted in the wrong thread? Yaan (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a good policy to follow. Response to false claims made along with a personal attack, can be left out. Simply ignore the false claim, it will crumble to dust by itself.

It was written in this thread by someone: "This article is not about what Ulaanbaatar is, but about what the first-level subdivisions of Mongolia are.". That is, derived from article title, strange to hear, since there are first-level subdivisions that are not provinces. TrueColour (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting a bit stupid. I'll readily admit that this one sentence from the above discussion may be, especially when taken out of context, not 100% accurate. But it very well captures the essence of the discussion (again, "khot" or "niislel") about what was wrong with the lede section after your edits. In any case, I don't see what this bickering has to do with improving the article.

Btw. I think Mongolia has only one 1st-level subdivision that is not an aimag. May I now call you "someone", too, or accuse you of personal attacks. Yaan (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding telling other people what they may or may not do, it can be shown that the sentence "It was you who reverted the correct designation twice, that's all." is not true and is a misrepresentation of what happend. E.g. this revert did change something, maybe also re-inserting wrong information as a side effect. The insertion of hot was referenced. But the pre-revert material was largely unreferenced and was wrong, since it said, that the 21 aimags are the top-level administrative divisions. This is not true. It is 21 aimags + the capital. Similiar can be shown for this revert: The intro is misleading the reader in the first sentence, the second sentence mentions the sums and the third sentence says Ulanbataar is administrated as a district. What as of now is called the correct designation for the capital status, namely niislel, was not present before the reverts. TrueColour (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So does this mean the point you are trying to make in this discussion is that the lede should read "Mongolia is divided into 21 aimags plus the capital" rather than the current intro? Sorry I didn't get this immediatly, your "The article was called Provinces of Mongolia and after unilateral move is called Aimags of Mongolia. It is not called first-level subdivisions of Mongolia." did not really make clear which part exactly of the article you wanted to have improved.

I am aware "xot" is referenced, that does not stop it from being wrong, and that's why this discussion (or rather, the one concluded 14 days ago) was necessary in the first place. Yaan (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Several things explained, no edits to make a single point. Yaan, sorry, I have no time to repeat/explain in detail. I just got suddenly short of time. Keep up the good work! Only stronger issue I see left is the article naming. Rest can be sorted out easily. best regards. Please, that I drop out here, has just to do with my off Wiki life! TrueColour (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

When Ulan Bator is mentioned in the article to point its unique status of the capital city excluded out of the aimag/province network - this kind of information has an encyclopedic value. It is relevant to say that capital city is not a province/aimag and is not a part of any of them. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. TrueColour (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ayimag / Tribe

Ayimag as tribe is a fundamental misreading of the term. See Christopher P. Atwood's article "The Administrative Origins of Mongolia's "Tribal" Vocabulary" Eurasia: Statun Et Legum 1(4):7-45:

"ayimag is, on its own, never used as a classifier word for tribal names in any Middle Mongolian text. Not a single Middle Mongolian text pairs ayimag alone with any names tribal or ethnic unit. Instead, extant Middle Mongolian texts use ayimags only in the abstract, to describe units or divisions within a single category: all the ayimags of soldiers, and so on. To refer to "such and such" ayimag~aimag - the Tatar aimag, the Khereid aimag and so on - is common usage in modern Mongolian, but has no foundation in Middle Mongolian. This David Sneath's revisionist position is indeed borne out by the philological data: the administrative meaning of aimag~ayimag is indeed prior to its "tribal" meaning, which must have come into use some time after 1368" (16-17).

I'm deleting the reference to tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:28B8:D04E:4D41:84DC:F12 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)