Talk:Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug

"Khantia-Mansia" is an artificial term

It does not exist anywhere outside en.wikipedia.org.

In Khanty-Mansiysk or Surgut, the region is generally referred to as either the "Khanty-Mansi autonomout district" or as "Yugra".

It's nice that Wikipedia is innovative. However, inventing new toponymics, suggesting that they are meaningful in real life while they are not, betrays the purpose of an encyclopedia.

Same with Nenetsia, btw.

Johannes Rohr 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What about these maps:

• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/russiaaddivisions.jpg
• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/russia_auton96.jpg

The name of the region on these maps is Khantia-Mansia. Yes, and Nenetsia too. User:PANONIAN

Word "Yugra" exist only in imagination of it's author, normal people write it as "Ugra". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.17.37.90 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Imagination indeed... You seem to be confusing this region with the Ugra River.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 14:47 (UTC)

Whole 1,510 results. Now see number of results for word "Ugra". At least 10 times more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.128.10.22 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It helps to look at the quality and relevance of the returned results, you know. As of today, not a single result on the first page of this search has anything to do with to the autonomous okrug or the general area. Nor do the results on the second page. Or on the third. I stopped looking after that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 16:30 (UTC)

Have you been there? You think you really know what text people write on ad.banners and how they call their companies/sites? Ugra is universally recognized term and name for the territory. uriit.ru, ugrasu.ru, informugra.ru, ugrainform.ru ugraclassic.ru ugra-tv.ru, ugra.net, ugra-service.ru etc etc. Stop spreading the lie. Noone (except you and people you lied about it) use english word yugra here, in Ugra. Yugra can be redirect to article called "Ugra" but not vice versa. Or you think we're all wrong and still should be called yugra, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.221.28.82 (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether I've been there or not is irrelevant. What matters is the sourceable usage, and if "you all" can't show any, it doesn't matter how heated your rhetoric becomes (in fact, the more heated it is, the better it shows that you are pushing for a personal preference, not for real-life usage) . The choice of spelling for the URLs is hardly a proof of anything—just because it's written in Latin letters does not make it "English usage". Not to mention the fact that "you all" can use whatever spelling you want, but we have to use what is used by the academia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 30, 2011; 13:52 (UTC)

About what academia you talking about? Could you provide a link to the official english toponym reference of Russian Federation. In your logic I could create article about Moscow, call it Mozstkovitza and tell people "it is used by academia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.50.193.159 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Look back six paragraphs?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 31, 2011; 12:01 (UTC)

This maps are ridiculous, why should Wikipedia follow some DIY image and not russian official sourses? Also, I'm PhD in geography, so feel free to ask questions about russian toponyms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.72.153.235 (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

First, these are hardly DIY maps, and second, the "official Russian sources" are in Russian, and this is the English Wikipedia. We are supposed to report all common English-language terms which readers are likely to encounter in other sources, even though we chose to use the full name to actually title the article. Those maps aren't the only source which uses the term, by the way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 14:02 (UTC)

Do you realise, that only 55 results in more then 500 years of European book printing show that this it not a term even in english language? Try to search Afghanistania at google books. Do you want to add this name to Afghanistan page cause it gave 83 positive words? Do you understand my logic? I hope you agree. I've deleted this 3 names, please dont add them back(especially in Template "Subdivisions of Russia") as you harm Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.72.153.235 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And do you realize that you are supposed to discuss after being reverted; not to re-revert? :)

The "Afghanistania" analogy is not really a valid one, by the way. The use of proper spelling ("Afghanistan") is overwhelming to render something like "Afghanistania" to meaningless noise (~2 million vs. ~200), especially considering that the term "afghanistania" itself has uses which are unrelated to naming the country, which further reduces that set of 200. "Khantia-Mansia", on the other hand, is used by the sources to refer predominantly to the autonomous okrug. I agree, it's not a very common variant, but then we aren't using it as the article title either, but merely as a side note. We can further reduce it to a footnote, but removing it altogether just isn't right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 17:16 (UTC)

English is a very strong language nowadays and Wikipedia, unfortunatly, pretty common source of knowledge. So I simply dont want this incorrect term to be here as it have no value other than being same garbage in language as Afghanistania. Not to mention that this word is very uncommon either in russian or ugric or english languages as you showed yourself serching Google Books. That's why I think removing it is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.72.153.235 (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because a term is uncommon (or even very uncommon) does not automatically make it incorrect. "Nenetsia", for example, was used as a title of the article in Encarta, and regardless of what we may think of their editors choice or even competence, it's not something to be ignored. After all, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and something like "Nenetsia" can easily be verified. The conclusions are up to the reader to draw, not to us. Anyhoo, I take it that the footnote solution is acceptable to the both of us? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 17:49 (UTC)

Punctuation

The em dash used in Russian is not used this way in English. We'd punctuate it instead as Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug / Yugra or Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (Yugra) or—if you want to use dashes—Khanty–Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra. But the Yugra part is not common in English, so per WP:COMMONNAME we should probably go with just Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (or Khanty–Mansi Autonomous Okrug if you like dashes). — kwami (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.archive.today/u1YSp Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"The local languages enjoy special status"

In the second paragraph it says that "The local languages, Khanty language and Mansi language, enjoy special status in the autonomous okrug and are related to Uralic languages. Russian remains the only official language." What does this mean? Does anybody have a source on this? McLennonSon (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the Constitution of Russia, only the republics of Russia can have official languages other than Russian. In other types of federal subjects, local languages may be granted a special status. Furthermore, the languages of the minor indigenous peoples are protected by federal law, and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug also has a local law in place clarifying how the federal law provisions are implemented. What this means in practice is that the minor indigenous people have a right to communicate with the government officials in their own language and the government must make the best effort to accommodate that right. This is different from the "official language", in which official government documents must always be available. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 7, 2014; 14:35 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321135949/http://www.admhmao.ru/power/index.htm to http://www.admhmao.ru/power/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)