Talk:Architecture of Mongolia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mongolian Architecture

Hi, do you have any reliable sources for your claims there? It seems much more likely that the Mongolian temple architecture was adapted from Chinese and Tibetan styles, which (not surprisingly) look almost the same. Your text seems to be inspired more by wishful thinking than by reality. If you feel the desire to write a disclaimer like "according to Mongolian researchers", then that should alarm you that your sources are most likely insufficient. --Latebird 11:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving me (at least partly) wrong! ;) I don't think I've seen Dashi-Choiling, at least not from up close. I'll have to check that out next time I'm in Mongolia. --Latebird 16:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Latebird,

Currently, in Mongolia, there are Mongolian, Mongolian-Chinese, and Chinese styles of temples. The information that you're claiming to be doubtly is indeed may seem confusing, but, most of the temples in present Mongolia are of Mongolian-Chinese style. It's easy to recognise them by brick walls (Chenese) and roofing (Mongolian style). As Buddhism was widely spreading in Mongolia, traditional ger ran out of it's structural limits in attempts of enlarging it to house large amounts of people. So, mongolian architects' solution was to adopt chinese brick walls!!! But they wanted a Mongolian touch in it and came up with the roof style, which is A MONGOLIAN TENT style taken from travel "tent house" (so to speak) of Mongol khaans and lords. You can find comments about tent cities of Mongol khaans from foreign scholars that accompanied them. So as result of what we see today, a combination of chinese brick walls and mongolian tent-style roofs, which chinese actually liked and adopted for themselves. --user:bmj_mn —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Reference Links

I don't understand why the reference links don't work properly. Gantuya Eng

I cleaned up the page a bit, you can look at the history to see how I did it. pw 11:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I'll decorate this page with photos later. Gantuya Eng, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Research content from article

Moving this content here if you needed it for future reference: //This is just a tip for people, who are interested in this topisc and willing to contribute//:

Pre-Imperial Period (Uighur, Khitan etc.)

Yurts

Tents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gantuya eng (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Imperial Period (ger-tereg, Karakorum, Dadu, Aurug, etc)

Post-Imperial period (maybe evolution of yurt from its ancient to its classic form) Renaissance (Hohhot, Erdenezuu, etc)

Zanabazar and his school

Russo-Asiatic style (Winter Placa of Bogd Khan and residence of Handdorji)

Post-revolutionary period (constructivism, etc)

Post-war period (classics and so-called "Stalinist architecture", etc)

Modern period

All have been written.

Theatres

In my understanding, a drama theatre would be a normal theater, while a theatre for opera and ballet would simply be called opera house. It seems like the Bolshoi theatre is different, though. Yaan 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for editing my article. The stylistics is now much closer to native English. Only I'm gonna add back the word Drama to distinguish it from other theatres such as Children's theatre. Or better I'll type its full official name (which might be too long awkwarding the stylistics). Also I'll change "city's looks" as I meant UB and other cities. Gantuya eng 12:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) . i just hope I didn't add any mistakes or new awkward phrases. Yaan 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ger Tereg.jpg

Image:Ger Tereg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's "Ger", not "Yurt"

When facing a choice between the right word and the wrong word, I find it better to use the right one Vidor (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The English language word is "Yurt". Why would we want to ignore that and use a foreign language word instead? If you like to write "Ger", you're welcome to contribute to the Mongolian language Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reach a compromise. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is very uncompromising on this point: If a common English term exists, we must use that. Anyone who doesn't like that is free to propose a change of policy, of course. --Latebird (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The English language word is "Yurt".--No, the word is "ger". A Mongolian round tent used by nomads is called a "ger". You know this, I know this, and everyone knows this. Why would we want to ignore that and use a foreign language word instead?--Because "ger" is correct and "yurt" is wrong. Maybe we should go into the article for Nicholas II of Russia and change all the uses of "tsar" to "king"? Vidor (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may add as further evidence: an English-language Google search for "mongolia yurt" yields 247,000 hits while a search for "mongolia ger" yields 567,000 hits, well over twice as many. It is simply incorrect to state that "ger" is not used in English or that "yurt" is more common when describing Mongolian dwellings. Vidor (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vidor, I'm still waiting for an actual (and rational) argument for your opinion. Can you show me an English language dictionary where "ger" is given as the English word for "yurt"? Let me answer that for you: You can't, because "ger" is not an English word. And as is very clearly spelled out in the Wikipedia naming conventions, simply counting Google search results without actually looking at the individual results is entirely meaningless. Just because the authors of blogs and travel agency sites think it's cool to use a foreign word doesn't change the English language. --Latebird (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vidor, I'm still waiting for an actual (and rational) argument for your opinion. I have the most rational argument. Mainly, that I am correct: the proper word is "ger". Your determination to use incorrect terms is unfortunate. Your contention that "ger" is not used in English is false. Shall we go to the [[1]] and change "Fuhrer" to "leader"? Vidor (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when does "I am right and you are wrong" count as an argument? All you have given us so far are some very bold claims without any reliable sources to back them up. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that you completely ignored my request to provide dictionary entries confirming your opinion. Instead, you introduced an entirely irrelevant comparison (needless to say that you will find "Fuehrer" in every English dictionary less than 50 years old, but none of them will list "ger"). --Latebird (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: Hey. I think I'd be okay with putting something like "known as the yurt (ger in Mongolian)." WP:UE says that we should use English words, so the word "yurt" trumps "ger." I guess I'm not sure why it's such a problem to have both on there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another third opinion: Please check some reliable English language dictionaries (OED, Websters, ...). Many of them are online. I checked [[2]], and it only knows yurt, not ger. Wikipedia is clear: If in doubt, use the more common English word. It is certainly ok to add the second term with an explanation, and I see no problem with a adding a redirect from one to the other as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Vidor does not know that Russian word Tsar is not equivalent King. Tsar term origin is Caesar and is traditional name for Russian emperors (since 1700 only officially renamed to Emperors, even anthem called Emperor the Tsar). So it is wrong example, because Russia never was a kingdom. Yurt (as dwelling) is common for number of nomadic nations and tribes, differences in design of yurt are very small - usually size larger or smaller. The most distant nation (for Europe) using yurt is Mongolia. The closest nations using yurt are Turkic and so Turkic name preceded. The "Ger" term is used at Mongolian territory not of ger/yurt difference, but for better communication with locals not understanding yurt term. So I was using term "bulag" not spring, "zam" istead of road. So we say in Turkic countries "Salam" istead of "Hello", or "Rakhmet" instead of "Thanks". We will not replace "Hello" with "Salam", I hope. "Ger" is Mongolian (not English) name of yurt, not less, not more. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since everybody (except one) seems to agree here, I'm going to revert to the policy conforming version again. --Latebird (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. I see what's going on. Okay. I'm fine with what you did, except for removing "ger" from the opening line. I'm going to add it back in there, but that'll be it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If in doubt, use the more common English word.--That would be super, but unfortunately there is no doubt. "Yurt" is incorrect. The portable, circular dwelling used by Mongolian nomads is called a "ger". Vidor does not know that Russian word Tsar is not equivalent King.--I did know that; I was making a comparison for effect. It is too bad that folks are so determined to use the wrong words and make articles on Mongolia less informative and less correct. I've tried in my turn to use proper, correct words and make articles more accurate, but, unfortunately, run into resistance. As it is, this article will improperly refer to such Mongolian dwellings as "yurts" despite the fact that every single user knows for a fact that this usage is incorrect and those dwellings are NOT referred to by that name. I hope nobody goes to my Buuz article and forces it to be redirected to "Mongolian dumpling" or some such. (By the way, when are we going to go to all the articles on the Nazis and change "sieg heil" to "hail victory"?) Vidor 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was making a comparison for effect - using of deliberately false arguments for the effect is not correct. You, dear Vidor, are interpreting this discussion too emotionally. You are wright, GER is known in Mongolia as native name of YURT(unchallenged fact). Is that word known out of Mongolia? Is yurt present out of Mongolia? Yes, even at nominally European Kalmykia of Russia and West Kazakhstan Province and Atyrau Province of Kazakhstan. Did you know GER term out of Mongolia?

WP is for global use, not Mongolian only.

Buuz is known in Buryatia as POZ (different spelling of the same word, these nations are relative), Manti is turkic name of buuz, and special article is present in WP. Also Mandu (dumpling) is present in Korean cuisine. So almost all Asia (from Tukey to Korea) knows buuz as manti-mandu. You need add link to your buuz in the related manti-mandu articles. Bogomolov.PL 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

using of deliberately false arguments for the effect is not correct.--Please do not accuse me of making deliberately false statements. Nor does your use of the red herring about tsar go to the main point, which is that we all know what the Mongolian nomadic dwelling is called, and, for reasons which escape me, Wikipedians are electing to use a term that is known to be wrong. It's not called a "yurt", not yesterday, not today, and not tomorrow, all sophistry aside. Vidor 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tsar is not equivalent King. --I did know that; I was making a comparison for effect - it is your declaration. How can I interprete this? You used argument which was not true and you know it was not true. That is the problem with your argument, not with my. Nobody has no doubt, ger is Mongolian word for Mongolian (Turkic nomads also) dwelling. WP is not for creating reality, but for reflecting it. Only phenomenons unique for the Mongolian culture, geography which has no equivalent terms in English should be added to the English vocabulary as new loan words. For me of course GER is more usual, but WP is an encyclopedia, not blog for Mongolian natives and visitors. Khailaas (elm), tooroi (poplar), tarvaga (marmot), bulag (spring), delgüür (store) - everybody who travelled around Mongolia knows these words. And should we name in English every document bichig? Bogomolov.PL 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very much off-topic. Please, both of you read WP:TPG and try to stop quarreling. Remember, this started about a 2.5 letter difference in 5,517,279,000 characters in Wikipedia. It's not that important. --Stephan Schulz 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm ready to stop, I've explaned all arguments to show that emotionally I'm on Vidor side, but rationally - on Latebird and rest of Wikipedians side.Bogomolov.PL 08:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Por-Bajin

What is the rationale behind displaying a picture of Por-Bajin in Tuva on a page about architecture in Mongolia? It seems quite misleading to do. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It represents the Uigur culture that dominated nowadays Mongolia in those centuries. The territories of those ancient empires didn't perfectly match with the territory of nowadays Republic of Mongolia. Yet it still reflects the Uigur culture. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This just reminds me if the article should maybe be named "Mongolian architecture" instead of "Architecture in Mongolia"? Not completely sure about it, but there have been similar cases. --Latebird (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the caption and article is expanded to explain what Gantuya eng said? As written now, it just seems misleading (without necessarily the intent to mislead). --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Powerful statehoods were built by Turkic and Uigur tribes,"

wow who can claim Uigurs were not Turkic ,... this sentence leads a misunderstanding, if the writer wanted to stress on Uygurs instead of "and" using "especially" would be more accurate and would not let any confusion about who Uygurs are( in fact Uygurs were the only cofederation using the adjective Turk to desribe themselves until 18th century, the rest were using their confederation names or dynasty names instead (Oguz, Seljuk, Cuman, Bulgar, Kipcak, Tatar, Ottoman etc etc) and today, Uygurs use name Turk for themselves more often than Northern Azeribaijanis, At least while talking to Turkish citizens, while if a Turkish citizen tells Öztürk he/she probably mentions an Uygur, due to the fact that ottomans brought tranlators for Turkish (Chaitay) to Oguz (Western) from Turkestan in ortder to communicate asian states. Although there was no language barrier( still written language contains no barrier and i know two ethnical uygurs from china learned turkish in less than a month without any education).

So please correct the sentence, it is rather funny, or worse reminds fasist soviet politics....what china is also trying to do nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I got confused by your comment. If I say Mongol and Kalmyk, will it mean that Kalmyk isn't Mongolic? If I say German and English, will it mean that English isn't Germanic? If I say sweet and chocolate, will it mean that chocolate isn't sweet? Gantuya eng (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is a problem with the wording here, though only a small one (and not related to fascist or soviet politics): In this case, "Turk" and "Uighur" seems to really refer to two different empires (like German and English really refers to two different languages, while English and Germanic refers to one language and a larger set of languages that contains English). I think the more common english term for the Turk empire would be "Göktürk". Yaan (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

images

The way the images are arranged right now is a disaster. Images are way too big and should be reduced to thumbsize, because at the moment everything is cramped. Gryffindor (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

a correct Mongolian name?

I don't know how Cyrillic-based "Amarbayasgalant" is more correct than Traditional script-based "Amurbayaskhulangtu". "Amarbayasgalant" is in the same system which favours "Manzshir" instead of "Manjusri". I reverted Amarbayasgalant last time, but not gonna do that again. Gantuya eng (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia has a Cyrillic script in the official use. In modern Mongolian the monastery name is Амарбаясгалант. This name is used by the Mongolians in Mongolia, this name is used by the monastery itself at its official site. Yes, this monastery has ancient (traditional) name version and it has to be mentioned in the respective article, but in the articles naming we use more common (in this case - modern) name version. Is "Amarbayasgalant" an incorrect Mongolian name? Is it less common? I don't favour any name, but my basic knowledge about Mongolia tells me that Cyrillic script is in use and modern Mongolian spelling is in use in Mongolia, so more correct is modern name, but only if an ancient (traditional) name is more common in English speaking world we use traditional one in an article name. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Architecture of Mongolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indiana.edu/~mongsoc/mong/heritage.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814214823/http://www.meridianmagazine.com:80/articles/030519zanabazar.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/030519zanabazar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ger Tereg Blue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ger Tereg Blue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)