Eric wrote:
Incidentally, the French page (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_de_Sakha) clearly states that the New Siberian islands are a natural preserve, under direct authority of the Sakha republic, and are not part of any district. This made me ask a person whom I trust a lot with subdivisions of Russia, he could not yet give a law. He says the ru WP page is mixing administrative and municipal divisions and that the map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sakha_Republic_Municipal_Divisions.PN... is wrong.
According to him the New Siberian Islands are not part of any administrative nor municipal divisions. They are also regarded as uninhabited. One sees a border change in Wikipedia at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bulynsky_ulus_location.PNG So, the claim that the New Siberian Islands are part of Bulunsky is maybe only a Wikipedia fairy tale. I change my proposal from NEW Asia/Khandyga containing Bulunsky (only New Siberian Islands), Tomponsky, Ust-Maysky to NEW Asia/Khandyga Tomponsky, Ust-Maysky Still I miss any laws supporting the old zone set up. Only sources I found where claims by one tz contributor and by the CIA factbook, but maybe the former based his claim on the latter. -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi