Talk:Emblem of Mongolia

CoA with Dharmacakra

The other CoAs with Dharmacakra are those of India, Sri Lanka and Tibet. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms vs. emblem

I've just reverted the rename to "Emblem of Mongolia", which is too unspecific a translation. http://www.bolor-toli.com/ translates "сүлд" in many different ways, including "Coat of arms". Since that is the obvious function, it should also be the title of this article. --Latebird (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The constitution of Mongolia specifically speaks of an "emblem", not a coat of arms, see the references given in the article [1][2]. Also see National Emblem of the People's Republic of China for example. Gryffindor (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The English language translation of of the Mongolian constitution is not normative, but only informational. The word used in the Mongolian original has "coat of arms" as one valid and significant meaning, which you will find confirmed in any decent dictionary. As far as I can tell, this is also the term used in pretty much all English language secondary sources. The symbol differs in no way (function/tradition/design/etc) from the coats of arms of other countries. Using a different term is therefore nothing more than orignial research based on your own interpretation of a primary source. The comparison with China is irrelevant, as there is no connection between the two (assuming for the moment that the title is even justified there, which I don't know). --Latebird (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more research reveals that in English language sources, "Mongolian national emblem" or "National emblem of Mongolia" almost exclusively refers to the Soyombo symbol, which is part of most insignia, but clearly something different from the coat of arms. --Latebird (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that the Mongolian constitution has got it wrong and you have it right? Gryffindor (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The inofficial English translation of the constitution uses terminology that hardly anyone else uses for the same subject. That has nothing at all to do with me, but rather with the requirements of the Wikipedia naming conventions to use the most commonly used term. --Latebird (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's best to stick to what the constitution in Article 12(2) and official documents and sources say. Also, the emblem does not fulfill any of the criteria of a coat of arms (missing escutcheon, field, supporter, etc. etc.) to be called as such. Therefore calling it a coat of arms is factually wrong on at least two counts already. Gryffindor (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is best to stick with our naming conventions, requiring use of the most common term, and to refrain from original research in judging what might be "right" or "wrong" in terms of heraldry. And to repeat it once more: The English translation of the Mongolian constitution is NOT an official/legal document, only the Mongolian version can be that. --Latebird (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling the wording of the constitution "original research" is a bit of a far fetch. And again, the emblem of Mongolia does not qualify under the heraldic rules to be called a coat of arms. That's why the constitution understandably calls it "emblem". Gryffindor (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep twisting the facts. It is your interpretation of a non-official translation of a primary source that is original research, not the source itself. And can you please show me where our naming conventions say that we should ignore the most commonly used name, and instead follow one editor's interpretation of some heraldic "rules"? So far, none of your arguments have anything to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but only with your private opinions. Of course, if you want to add some explanations (with sources) to the article about the lack of certain heraldic elements in this specific coat of arms (and possibly most others listed in Wikipedia), you're free to do so, but that will have no relevance to the naming of those articles. --Latebird (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am basing my arguments on what the constitution says and what qualifies under heraldic rules as a coat of arms. If it doesn't look like a coat of arms, it probably is not a coat of arms. See again National Emblem of the People's Republic of China and Imperial Seal of Japan as examples. Following your logic, they should probably be called "Coat of arms of the People's Republic of China" and "Coats of arms of Japan"? Gryffindor (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(dedent)You keep ignoring that the text that you just inserted into the article as "reference" (in several identical copies from different web sites) is not the Mongolian constitution, but only an non-normative translation thereof. You also haven't explained how your reliance on this translation in contradiction with common English language use, and on your own heralidic interpretation, are supported by the Wikipedia naming conventions. Whether the two other articles you mentioned are correctly named or not is an independent question and irrelevant to this discussion here. The appropriate name for each article must be determined by its own merits. --Latebird (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Regarding your request for a third opinion, I agree with Gryffindor on this issue. In the sources listed on the article page, the English translation of the constitution comes directly from the Mongolian Embassy to the USA here as well as an official Mongolian government website here. It can therefore be considered an official translation and under Chapter One, Article 12, the item in question is clearly described as 'The State Emblem'. I would however recommend editing the title of the article to 'State Emblem of Mongolia' to give added clarity. Many thanks.—ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 11:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't explain how that opinion relates to the requirements of the naming conventions either. Any pointers? --Latebird (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I somewhat missed the point or didn't elaborate enough. From what I gathered the argument essentially boiled down to you wishing to refer to the emblem as a 'Coat of Arms' and argued that the English translation of the constitution was not an official document. I pointed out that two seperate Mongolian Government webpages (USA Embassy and the MFAT website) have the English translation and it can therefore be considered official. The text calls it 'The State Emblem', not a Coat of Arms. Regardless of any particular naming conventions you may be calling upon, the overriding principle is we call the thing what it is officially referred to in these instances. Is there a part of this I'm missing? If so, please highlight it and I'll try and address it :). ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)