Talk:Kazakhstan/Archive 2

Russian-biased HOGWASH
This article is VERY biased. Needs much more mention and many more sentences emphasizing the crimes of the Soviet regime

1) millions of Kazakhs who starved to death due to policies of Khrushev, Kolbin and Andropov. Livestock was taken away, irrigation was forced, ancient nomad routes disrupted. 2) thousands of authors, scientists, doctors and teachers killed by the repression on orders from Moscow. I do not deny that Russians and other nationalities too were great victims of repression, but if you count, you will see a disproportional number of Kazakhs who have perished.

Also, needs more mention of Kazakh soldiers who have perished in WWII.

There is a wealth of information on the Web (in Russian) which, unfortunately, won't be "good enough" as a source, then.

Some Putinist boffins sitting in Moscow or SpB editing this page, making it seem as if Russians and Soviets didn't screw Kazakhs the way they did for the past two centuries? That must be the only explanation, since this article is a Soviet whitewash, and nothing more. We, the international community, must stand up to those authoritarians and defend the true history of Kazakhstan, and to do that, we must not keep silent about the extent of the suffering that Kazakhs had to endure under the Soviet regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteinbar1234 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * much more needs to be said about technological novelties Russians introduced in Kazahstan's agriculture,education,medical treatment in tzarist and soviet times which led to a very fast growth of kazakh population,that of one of the fastest birth rates in the world.Those reforms allowed to multiply kazah's numbers in just about 50 years.Without those reforms, kazakhs would stay nomad and couldn't support such a rich and thriving population by meagre grazing.Also,notice the active participation of kazakh's in all apreas of social life during soviet times,including that of KGB,GULAG and communist administration.One has to mention many positive moves undertaken by soviet regime,for example,the transfer of large parts of Russia Proper,such as Pavlodar to Kazakhstan.

Frank Russian (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop with this Borat thing already.
Borat should NOT be mentioned on this page (or any page with significant relation to Kazakhstan, such as Kazakhs or Culture of Kazakhstan). Should we add that Jack Bauer, Tony Soprano, Indiana Jones, Buster Keaton and Clark Kent on the article of United States?

And let's not forget that Borat is a comedic creation, and his nationality is not relevant to the jokes or the purpose of the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteinbar1234 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Geography?
I think that it is worth mentioning the geographical diversity of Kazakhstan: flatlands, prairies/steppes, taigas, rock-canyons, hills, deltas, mountains, snow-capped mountains, and deserts. Simply classifying Kazakhstan as having a half of land covered by desert is more applicable to other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteinbar1234 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also on geography - how did Kazakhstan get to be in Eastern Europe?78.48.236.81 (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with numbers
There are problems with the numbers concerning religion. For example, in the Population section it is said that 44% of the Kazakhs are members of the Russian Orthodox Church, but in the Religion section it states that 7.8% are members of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same with Islam. In a section it is 47%, in the other, 53.7%. --Mocu 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The table "Religious Organizations" seems to be cited wrong (1. It doesn't sum up to 100% 2. It contradicts other sources, like CIA Factbook, BBC, etc). I'm gonna delete the table in a few days if not one objects. BernardTom (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to www.kazakhstanlive.com
I would like to add a weblink to www.kazakhstanlive.com, a new information site on Kazakhstan offering information on economy, politics and culture of Kazakhstan. Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gahwiler (talk • contribs) 09:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Problem?
At 00:13, 5 December 2007, user Proteinbar1234 inserted the sentence... "Despite popular belief, the 'persecution' amounts to nothing more than legal action caused by questionable documentation related to the houses which were built by the groups." ...into the end of the Religion section. The tone of this statement is problematic, being both unencyclopedic and, to my eyes, far from neutral--note the quotes around the word "persecution", or the simple style of assertion, lacking any kind of attribution.

Additionally, while at first blush this statement appears to be sourced, the citations following this sentence are actually the preexisting citations that documented religious persecution in Kazakhstan.

This article has all kinds of accolades and high standards and I'd rather not just slap an NPOV template on it, nor would I like to haphazardly delete the sentence without discussion. Can anyone more familiar with the article's history weigh in on this? Ronaldscott (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the statement on religion is not NPOV. There should be a way of indicating that there is difficulty establishing an appropriate framework for religious expression without either saying that there is no problem or that all complaints are justified. WJR Johnroxborogh (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Kazakh anthems
The Kazakh anthem on You-tube. []

Kazakh S.S.R. anthem omn You-tube-[]!

Some misaccurancies in da general information - Independance declared in 1990(25 of Oct.). NOT 16 of Dec,1991. 16 Dec finalized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHSA (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Title moved back to conventional shortfom
To reiterate my move summary, the conventional longform is not any more official than the shortform (despite confusing, cross-country edits to the contrary). On Wikipedia, we always use the latter, unless there's pressing reasons to the contrary. Thx. El_C 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian emigration
The article mentions the strong emigration (mainly from 1989 to 2005) by Russians, Volga Germans and Pontian Greeks. Additionally, the statistics also show a strong decline in the number of ethnic Ukrainians in Kazakhstan. I suppose, most of them emigrated to the Ukraine or Russia. comment added by MyraSmith569. 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Exporter of Potassium?
Other than the movie Borat I can find no evidence of this. The CIA Fact Book mentions a lot of minerals but potassium isn't one of them. --Poo drop (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All other countries have inferior potassium. 76.10.165.46 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky photo?
Why is there a photo of Dostoyevsky? There's no mention of him in the article --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's in a photo with Valikhanov, an important Kazakh scholar. Also, Dostoevsky lived in Kazakhstan for awhile. Good catch, this should be mentioned in the article.Otebig (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion section
I came to the page to check on the religion demographics, and wanted to comment on the last three paragraphs in this section which I believe are either badly written or written with too much opinion without references.


 * After decades of suppressed culture, the people were feeling a great need for exhibiting their ethnic identity – in part through religion. Quantitative research shows that for the first years after the establishment of the new laws, waiving any restrictions on religious beliefs and proclaiming full freedom of confessions, the country experienced a huge spike in religious activity of its citizens. Hundreds of mosques, synagogues, churches, and other religious structures were built in a matter of years. All represented religions benefited from increased number of members and facilities. Many confessions that were absent before independence made their way into the country, appealing to hundreds of people. The government supported this activity, and has done its best to provide equality among all religious organizations and their followers. In late 1990’s, however, a slight decline in religiosity occurred.[citation needed]

This paragraph needs a complete rewrite, and maybe should be removed until references are found to back statements such as "the people were feeling a great need for exhibiting their ethnic identity", "Quantitative research shows...", "All represented religions benefited" etc...
 * Radical religious organizations, despite a popular belief, are of little danger to the national security. The few organizations that were uncovered are being investigated thoroughly by the proper committee. Therefore, Kazakhstan has a very diverse, stable, and safe religious background – a truly exceptional occurrence.

This section in my opinion should be removed until references are found to back this up to some level. In particular "Radical religious organizations, despite a popular belief, are of little danger to the national security." is very subjective, and should probably be reworded to remove this and a citation found to back the general point up. "Therefore, Kazakhstan has a very diverse, stable, and safe religious background – a truly exceptional occurrence." - the former point may be true - but the later is 100% subjective and should be removed. I have not done so I hope someone else will.


 * However, some reported occurrences of persecution against Hare Krishnas and Jehovah's Witnesses for proselytizing has raised concern in the international community. Despite popular belief, the 'persecution' amounts to nothing more than legal action caused by questionable documentation related to the houses which were built by the groups.[28] [29] [30]

I think the references here need to reordered. There should be references to back up the former statement on the international community's concern. The phrase "the 'persecution' amounts to nothing more than legal action caused by questionable documentation" seems again subjective, needs rewording and needs substantial sources to back this up.

Generally I think these 3 paragraphs are written too subjectively, and badly needs more references, to the point where it may be considered unbalanced. I have not tried to correct what could be potentially a tricky section on a very important article. If you do want my help please leave a message on my talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 23:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I note from above section that problems with this section were identified many months ago. If no comments made here, or an effort made to clean up this section a non-NPOV flag maybe needed. Cheers Lethaniol 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tags
Hello everyone! I put the neutrality disputed tag in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union sections of this article about Kazakhstan for the following reasons: 1. The sections are specifically focused on the negative moments in Kazakhstan's history. 2. The sections present ethnic Kazakhs (referred to as Kazakhs) as a group specifically targeted by the Russian/Soviet rule, and affected by famine, etc, unlike other ethnic groups (see quotations below). 3. Only one reference is provided, the contributors make a heavy use of 'wooly' words like 'many', 'most', and other numerals with no exact meaning, with no references provided. 4. The contributors use emotionally-loaded words without supporting them with references.

Quotations and comments:

''Russian efforts to impose its system aroused the extreme resentment by the Kazakh people, and by the 1860s, most Kazakhs resisted Russia's annexation largely because of the disruption it wrought upon the traditional nomadic lifestyle and livestock-based economy, and the associated hunger which was rapidly wiping out some Kazakh tribes. The Kazakh national movement, which began in the late 1800s, sought to preserve the native language and identity by resisting the attempts of the Russian Empire to assimilate and stifle them.''

No references, no figures, no links. Introducing the Russian language doesn't necessarily mean an evil intent to stifle the Kazakh language. To prove an evil intent, please, provide references to reliable sources with information on edicts and other legal acts that were passed to make the Kazakh language eventually VANISH or define the meaning of STIFLE in this context.

''The Russians' revenge was merciless. A military force drove 300,000 Kazakhs to flee into the mountains or to China. When approximately 80,000 of them returned the next year, many of them were slaughtered by Tsarist forces. During the 1921–22 famine, another million Kazakhs died from starvation.''

Any massacre is merciless. 'Many of them were slaughtered' doesn't sound serious with no refernces provided. How many? All of them or half of them or 10 percent or less?

Although there was a brief period of autonomy (Alash Autonomy) during the tumultuous period following the collapse of the Russian Empire, many uprisings were brutally suppressed, and the Kazakhs eventually succumbed to Soviet rule.

Does it mean that other ethnic groups didn't oppose the Soviet rule? Nothing is said about other ethnic groups.

Between 1926 and 1939, the Kazakh population declined by 22%, due to starvation, violence and mass emigration.

How about other ethnic groups? Were they affected by the famine? No references.

''Today, the estimates suggest that the population of Kazakhstan would be closer to 20 million if there was no starvation or massacre of Kazakhs. During the 1930s, many renowned Kazakh writers, thinkers, poets, politicians and historians were slaughtered on Stalin's orders, both as part of the repression and as a methodical pattern of suppressing Kazakh identity and culture. Soviet rule took hold, and a communist apparatus steadily worked to fully integrate Kazakhstan into the Soviet system.''

No references, no citations. Where did the contributors get those figures from? Is this pure speculation? Again, nothing is said about other ethnic groups affected by unrest and disasters.

''By 1959, Kazakhs made up 30% of the population. Ethnic Russians accounted for 43%.''

No references.

This had a catastrophic ecological and biological effect which was felt generations later, and Kazakh anger toward the Soviet system has escalated.

How about other ethnic groups.

On the whole, these two sections victimize the Kazakh population, while saying practically nothing about the sufferings of other ethnic groups and presents the Russian and Soviet period of Kazakhstans history only as a series of disasters, massacres and other ordeals with very little information about positive developments. A selective and possibly biased interpretation of Kazakhstan's history, unacceptable for a good and comprehensive Wikipedia article.

Also see the second comment in this discussion page (I'm not the original poster, the original comment is not mine, but I replied to a comment by Lost Boy). Denghu (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

great patriotic war vs wwII
hmm.. maybe that holiday section should be adjusted. I think it should be victory in the Great Patriotic War rather than in the WWII —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Their is no freedom of religion in Kazakhstan
The Kazakhstan Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the various religious communities worship largely without government interference. The generally amicable relationship among religions in Kazakh society contributes to religious freedom. Despite all this, the Government has encouraged local officials to limit the practice of religion by some nontraditional groups.

Forum 18, the Oslo-based religious-rights organization, reported in 2005 that Protestant groups and Hare Krishna followers, as well as Islamic groups not controlled by the state, have been targets of state hostility.

In 2005 and 2006 the state had persistently and repeatedly tried to close down the only Hare Krishna farming community in the entire Commonwealth of Independent States.

On November 20, 2006, three buses full of riot police, two ambulances, two empty lorries, and executors of the Karasai district arrived at the community in sub-zero weather and evicted the Hare Krishna followers from thirteen homes, which the police proceeded to demolish.

The Forum 18 News Service reported, "Riot police who took part in the destruction threw personal belongings of the Hare Krishna devotees into the snow, and many devotees were left without clothes. Power for lighting and heating systems had been cut off before the demolition began. Furniture and larger household belongings were loaded onto trucks. Officials said these possessions would be destroyed. Two men who tried to prevent the bailiffs from entering a house to destroy it were seized by 15 police officers who twisted their hands and took them away to the police car."[7]

The Hare Krishna community had been promised that no action would be taken before the report of a state commission – supposedly set up to resolve the dispute – was made public. On the day the demolition began, the commission's chairman, Amanbek Mukhashev, told Forum 18, "I know nothing about the demolition of the Hare Krishna homes – I'm on holiday." He added, "As soon as I return to work at the beginning of December we will officially announce the results of the Commission's investigation." Other officials also refused to comment.

In January 2008, under the new Article 164 'religious organizations' law, Kazakh secret police arrested Unification Church missionary Elizaveta Drenicheva. [8] As reported by Kazakhstan's television news, she was sentenced to two years in prison, simply for lecturing about the Divine Principle, her church's basic theology. Kazakhstan's own government Human Rights office protested her conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.73.160 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious Freedom & Human Rights
In Religion section: "Despite popular belief, the 'persecution' amounts to nothing more than legal action caused by questionable documentation related to the houses which were built by the groups."

This is not true. As I understand it, Hare Krishna buildings have been knocked down, while the homes of non-Hare Krishna neighbours are still intact. A Hare Krishna leade has been deported and a Unification Church missionary imprisoned after a trial in which "expert" evaluation on theology was provided by an academic whose doctorate thesis subject was Marxism, and other academic opinion was excluded.

Chriscross (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No west?
if Kazakhstan is between central Asia and "eastern Europe" (because "it just so happened" that the EU möchtegern empire-builders shifted the border of eastern europe over 3000 miles eastward)...

...where is Western Asia? Is it not that area, the area influenced by other very Turkic peoples?

This is the geography I learned, and believe me, I am young; I never lived in Soviet times.--Npovshark (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Kazakhstani revisted
The -stani form just isn't as common nor is it in most dictionaries I can find. If you type "Kazakh government" versus "Kazakhstani government" in google the first has many more hits. In any event, the CIA Factbook or some other agencies are not an authority on the English language. The only semi-authority English has is some consensus we can find in the various dictionaries. Azalea pomp (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

European country?
I should recheck it at a good map but as far as Iremeber one small portion of Kazakhstan lies at the right (i.e. European) bank of the Ural River. So if Turkey and Cyprus are regarded as European countries, Kazakhstan could be as well?

Sure... Kazakhstan is in central asia.. Maybe Borat's version exists in Europe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-Europe.png


 * The 'European border' (at least, as far as the Kazakh authorities are concerned) actually runs through the city Uralsk, in the north west of the country. There is a monument erected to show the border. Stand on one side, and you're 'in Europe' (geographically speaking), stand in the other, and you're in Asia! Hope this information is of use. Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.177.50.5 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Jewish question
Just to state that there is an open poll in here regarding the fact of Kazakhstan being or not being in Europe and if it should figure in the template.--Joao Campos 17:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean, poll? A European country is a country part of which lies in Europe. By this definition Kazakhstan with its 1/8 (I believe) terriotry is a European country. It is a fact and requires no subjective opinions of people. E=mc^2 is a fact independent of whether people believe it is true or not. Of course, Kazakhstan is also an Asian country.

I'm just disgusted that because 1/8, meaning 7/8 is not, lies in Europe, people are so eager to call it European. It is far more Asian than European, and should be called as such. You must be proud of this, not apologetic.
 * I think you're misunderstanding the debate. The question of whether Kazakhstan is part of Europe is about where the boundaries of Europe actually are, something about which there is a lot of disagreement. Having said that, consensus seems to be moving in that direction (e.g. FIFA's redesignation of Kazakhstan as a UEFA country for the purposes of World Cup qualification, regional championships, etc.). Either way, it's really nothing to get disgruntled about. -- Hux 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazak friend just calls himself a "Kazak". He donsn't really care what continent he is from. So with that said Kazakhstan is a "Eurasian" country. Kapy53 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the difficulty exists as to whether people are referring to "Europe" as the geological "continent", as a geo-political region, etc. In pure "contintent" terms, any country which is in Europe (even a bit), is, well, in Europe. It may also be in Asia. --74.13.124.180 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess Kazakhstan is more european country, rather than asian one. Russian influence. --194.226.138.34 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this page, cleared some things up for me regarding why Kazakhstan plays football in European regionals, thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.225.76 (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Europe is as much a CULTURAL question as a geographic question. In the European Union we don´t have any doubt Cyprus and Russia are Europe...but Kazakhstan and Turkey are not Europe, their national culture is clearly Asian. But, of course, we are glad Kazakhs and Turks want to participate, like the Israelis, in European Championships, European economic agreements and Eurovision song contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.111.123 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Same issue with Turkey, which like Kazakhstan has been more commonly referred as part of the Eurasian continent to highlight the fact that location of the countries in both Europe and Asia. After Russia, which actually has enough landmass in Europe to make it both the largest country in both Europe and Asia separately, Ukraine is actually the largest country in Europe b/c it has its entire land mass in Europe as opposed a small piece of land like Turkey and Kazakhstan.--RossF18 (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Kazakhstan never was nor it will ever be a part of Europe. Same goes for Turkey and Cyprus. Cyprus should never be counted as a part of Europe just because it's a conflict area between Turkey and Greece. Might as well count India to be a part of Europe because it used to be a british volony and is part of the British Commonwealth. If you look at this map, it clearly shows where theborder is going and it does not include Kazakhstan. Therefore, Kazakhstan is not an European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationEurope.png

Norum (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys. Borat Sagdiyev clearly states that Kazahkstan is Central Asian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is Eurasian country. Neither European, nor Asian. I do not think that Kazakhstan's culture is like in Japan, or China, or even Indonesia. Completely different... Say, Arabic countries are also considered as Asian countries, then again, Kazakh culture seems to differ a lot from that. What I'm trying to say, please, do not try to classify Kazakhstan as one or another, it is both, and not one of them at the same time. If you read the history of Kazakhstan, part of the population was formed from Nogai Horde, which was situated in Europe (not partly, not a bit, but whole entity). Another part was formed from Altai mountains. Also Mongol invasion plays a big role there too. Take Saks(Skifs) farsi-related-speaking tribes into consideration too, they were direct ancestors to Kazakhs. And what about Huns too? Europe has half countries, that has Huns blood in them. And in the end, having a Russian neighbor, that was given to us by God, what do you do with that? We were a single country for an over hundreds years... And now, you are saying "Russians are Europe, Kazakhs are Asia". It's not even wrong, it just does not apply here. Kazakhstan has too complex history to call it only Asian, or European country. In order to say anything about it's "asian" or "european" culture, I suggest you to read a history book of Kazakhstan first. Only after that, the debate will look more constructive. Oh, I remembered this saying "you see a glass with water, is it half full or half empty?". fits well here. Zhaserman —Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Natural resources
"Large Desposits of Chemicals?" Correct me if I'm wrong (with my B.Sc in Chemistry), but isn't everything made of chemicals? Possibly remove this or indicate what the author means by 'chemcicals' in specifics.

Maybe "large deposits of pure chemicals" would work better. Or pure. Something like that.71.186.103.112 03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey i live in Kazakhstan and if i ask a Kazakh what Alma-Ata means they say Grandfather of apples. Then what the hell are you talking about!!

so are you trying to say that some stranger Kazakh have to know the origins of the name of the city? Wrong. Go and try ask any American about the origins of the name New-York, or French about Paris.. I bet some people won't know or will give wrong answer. So same here. A normal Kazakh does not have to know, but he might just know what might have been a popular idea among people before (like the meaning of "Alimatu", that by the time has changed to "Alma - Ata", thus, sounding like a Grandfather of Apples). But that cannot be stated as a real truth. That is why we have scientists (historians) that research that fact, and then share their results with as many people as possible.Zhaserman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaserman (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Too Long Too Long
The article is too long. Ways of dealing with this:


 * Several sections are subheaded with Main Article links, and these should be respected. Keep only a short summary in this article and allow the reader to go to the specialised subject article if they so choose.


 * Check the article for repetition. Any article which has been edited thousands of times over more than 6 years is bound to lose itself in places.


 * Revise the way the salient content is written. There is no need to use 1000 words if only 700 will get the message across, and it is also well to remember that citations and cross-references are there to be used.

The discussion page is also very very long and a bit of archiving is warranted. Darcyj (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sport section
I've been thinking, Kazakhstan's achievments in footbal are not that great, but why is it standing in the first paragraph in the sport section? I would rather have something like restling or, say, boxing, or, athletics, or, martial arts, anything, but footbal... I will wait for another week or so, and then I will move the footbal paragraph lower, and rephrase some sentences, for example "Football is the most popular sport in Kazakhstan". it's not even supported or anything... Zhaserman (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some sources of information

 * http://e.gov.kz is the official website of the Electronic Government of Kazakhstan
 * http://en.government.kz official website of the government of Kazakhstan
 * http://www.parlam.kz/Information.aspx?lan=en-US official website of the parliament of Kazakhstan
 * http://www.kyzmet.kz/?lang=en The Agency for the Civil Service Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan
 * http://en.government.kz/resources/govsites - here you can find links to all the ministry and agencies of Kazakhstan
 * http://www.akorda.kz/www/www_akorda_kz.nsf/index?OpenForm&lang=en - official website of the president of Kazakhstan
 * http://en.government.kz/resources/docs - strategic projects of kazakhstan
 * http://www.samruk-kazyna.kz/page.php?lang=3 - Joint-Stock company "National Welfare "Samruk-Kazyna"

All websites are official and have English version. Aizhol (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a Hyperlink for the suffix -(i)Stan
Please check if it is ok (in Terminology section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.97.2.35 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Borat issue revived
There are several reasons to include Borat in at least one concise paragraph:


 * According to Dan Mazer, they "chose Kazakhstan because it was sort of the most obscure country that [they] could think of."
 * The premise of the character is based on utter ignorance of the Western world. If people were truly aware of the Kazakh people and how they look, Borat's ridiculous portmanteau of Arab-Turk-Romanian-whatever would have never worked on such a large scale.
 * Borat made tourism to Kazakhstan skyrocket like never before.
 * Thanks to the increase of the world's awareness of Kazakhstan thanks to Borat, president Nazarbayev changed his view of Borat from "public enemy" to "national hero." Notice that he took it all the way to actually bringing it up in a meeting with president Bush!
 * I bet Borat had something to do with a significant percentage of editors, not to mention readers, that came to this article. As for me – I happen to know about Kazakhstan since I'm from former USSR and had some relatives there, was in Aktau (which was known as Shevchenko back then) several times and quite enjoyed crayfishing and swimming in the Caspian Sea.

In a nutshell – Borat has exposed Kazakhstan in front of an unprecedentedly large public. Just for that, he deserves recognition in this article. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Forget it. No Borat mention here in the article. Even though, there might have been some "approval" as you say, there was no meeting and such between borat and the official representatives of the country. He is a comedian. He is an entertainer. He is not making any benefits for the country, and do not take the side effects of the character as his intentions (like skyrocketing tourism). He wasn't thinking about the country when he picked the name. And he does not have any relationships with Kazakhstan itself. I don't know how you even think that your arguments work... (like saying that you are from former USSR, so what?). Please, refrain from such weak supporting arguments just to make the article "funny to read". as for the later argument that says "in a nutshell" (like he is summing up something that has been proved or whatsoever), Kazakhstan has been exposing itself to a large public by other means too, not only through Borat. Through geography (9th place territory), economy (skyrocketing GDP) and etc. and Borat does not deserve recognition for "exposing". Guys, I will be more polite, if you at least SIGN you comments. Zhaserman (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Several fallacies in your reply:
 * Even though Sacha Baron Cohen never met with government officials, the Borat issue was raised in a meeting between the two presidents. He caused a huge controversy, which was largely covered by all main media outlets.
 * Saying that I am from former USSR is not one of my arguments... it's an incidental fact. My main argument was that prior to the movie, much less people in the US (and other countries) knew the first thing about Kazakhstan, aside from (maybe!) knowing the name. Do you really think if Kazakhstan were so well known, people would buy the crap Baron Cohen was coming up with? As I said (and quoted), they picked Kazakhstan because it was fairly obscure and no one really knew what it's about.
 * The intentions don't matter in this case. We are talking about the outcome and the overall impact this whole production has had on Kazakhstan. As can be backed up by many reliable sources, Kazakhstan is benefiting from this big time.
 * Geography, economy etc. – all these cater to a very limited public of some scholars and trivia lovers. On the other hand, when the Borat movie came out, it instantly started spreading curiosity on an incomparably large scale. For f@^k's sake, president Nazarbayev brought him up as a topic of discussion several times and you still claim lack of importance.
 * To sum it up – aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I can't possibly think of any reason to be opposed to including Borat in this article. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several valid reasons not to include Borat listed above. But they basically come down to sniffiness. When the argument is revisited (as it will be since this will be the cultural marker for Kazakhstan for the foreseeable future), make note that I am for inclusion of a see also reference. -LlywelynII (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

. WP:IDONTLIKEIT you say? ... Thanks for the link, now you actually gave a good source to actually PROVE YOU WRONG. I will go point by point as you (since it is actually a new argument, and then I will go through the old ones. Because it seems you haven't read the previous writings: WP:INTERESTING you think it's interesting? I will cite from Wiki "However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." I hope you know what it says. WP:ITSFUNNY you probably think it is also funny. Well, let's cite "Wikipedia is not a repository of humor." WP:VALINFO and as the last, but not the least. You seems like you consider this as a valuable information. Pretty much all your arguments aimed to prove that it is valuable information, that if people will not see Borat on Kazakhstan page, then something terrible will happen. Well, that is the very reason not post this. Citing: "Keep - This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our important cause that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin." Nope, don't publish it. (3 against 1.)

And you say that people search for Kazakhstan because they saw Borat. And then they decide to get to know Kazakhstan. MM.. ok. Well, welcome, they can search it, and voi la, they have this page, and read it. I don't understand, why would you want to have Borat on this page... they anyway initially know Borat, and came to the page because they want to know more about Kazakhstan(not borat). if they want to find out more about borat, why don't they search for borat? if people search Kazakhstan, they should find Kazakhstan, and see only Kazakhstan on the page named Kazakhstan. I would agree to have a link FROM borat's page to Kazakhstan.. but not otherwise. it's logical, isn't it? since it is him who refers to Kazakhstan, not the contrary. I would also agree to have SEPARATE PAGE THAT REVEALS ALL the information about connection between Borat and Kazakhstan.... so in the end, why why why would you have borat on the page of Kazakhstan per se?

Come ooon, stop this, many (read again: maaaaaaany) people before you have written a lot of solid arguments and (again) arguments against this. But only few repetitive arguments are sounded by people like you who support the posting of Borat on the page. I am not really in the mood to re-word all the arguments that were written before on this page, and not written too (there too many). But definitely you sound like you didn't read them. I think I'm too polite to you, because I take all this time and explain all the things to you... but you stubbornly don't want to accept it. Zhaserman.


 * LlywelynII has made some good points here and you have for some reason chosen to ignore them and argue about points he hasn't made. This has nothing to do with whether it is WP:ITSFUNNY. Your argument about WP:VALINFO also seems deliberately provocative and misleading. That guideline is about the invalidity of using that argument to defend promotional material. Don't confuse it with notablility. Bienfuxia (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the editors are taking Wikipedia so seriously that the fact that Borat is a comedy discounts it from notability. You would be hard pressed to suggest that virtually any attention this nation has received globally is non-Borat related. It therefore follows that, no matter how vulgar the film was, Borat should have a mention in the article. I was astounded to see that a mention of the film was absent from the foreign relations section. I am FOR a mention. 68.7.66.85 (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are in the minority. There is a strong consensus not to include it, and that is unlikely to change. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to include mention of the film. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To those who think that Borat should be mentioned in the article about Kazakhstan: should every single movie that references or takes place in another country be mentioned in that country's article? Should it be mentioned in the article describing Africa that Mickey Mouse has been there a couple of times? It's just ridiculous. CayenneGaramonde (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be included in the article, it's only reason most people in the west have even heard of the country. Also it's the reason that this article is so large for an English speaking wiki. A sentence would do, but it should be included, it really did get people thinking about this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.173.85 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Borat filmed in Kazakhstan
New wikipedian here, just interested...

I watched the Borat film of course, and I think it was all filmed in Kazakhstan, no offence but what a backward country, please don't take offense by that comment if you are Kazakh though.

Commie99 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * mmm... interesting.. It is pretty well known fact that it was filmed in Romania. Just so you know. But anyway, on the main topic, why did you write this?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.157.4 (talk • contribs)

Most of it was actually filmed in the USA, so that's the backward country you're thinking of, Commie99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.3.235 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Borat
I can't believe what a rampant violation of NPOV is going on here. It doesn't matter whether you LIKE Borat or think he's a jerk, it's simply an undisputable fact that the existance of this character has significantly affected the perception of this country by the Western world. It's a freaking FACT and it's notable. So just add a few sentences in section called "pop culture references" like every other article on this site has, with a link to the main article, and everyone will be happy. Borat IS notable and has affected, in a small way, the course of history of this country. It doesn't matter whether he has any official relations, and it especially doesn't matter that he's an insensitive jerk. That opinion is not encyclopedic. Everything else is just politics and POVs infecting this article and disucssion. If the golden standard is encyclopedic notability, you people are failing hard. Going through the arguments against:

* there was no meeting and such between borat and the official representatives of the country. * He is a comedian. He is an entertainer. * He is not making any benefits for the country

ALL of these arguments are irrelevant to his notability. They well be true statements but if so they should be mentioned in the article. Your argument boils down to "I don't like him and he wasn't good for the country so let's not allow a mention". By the same logic you should remove all holocaust references from the article on Jews. 96.60.85.247 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. Then every article about a country would need a list of movies referencing or taking place in that country. Why not also add in the article about Africa that Mickey Mouse has been there a couple of times? CayenneGaramonde (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed extensively. There is absolutely no consensus to add anything about Borat to this article.  If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of vocal idiots is not a "consensus". Please stop vandalizing my edits. Borat is the ONLY significant piece of mass popular western culture about Kazahstan and that is why it is notable. It is the reason why 98% of people come to this page. It has made the existance of the country known to millions of people who previously had never heard of it. My short couple of sentences was completely NPOV, I mention it's signficance, and also that it generated controversy and backed it all up with primary source references. Your deleting and then personally insulting me on my talk page is just idotic censorship. (talk)


 * Of course you are correct, but the way Wikipedia works in reality is that anonymous editors are given no standing, their contributions and opinions considered irrelevant, while only the most active editors and admin on a topic have a say about what gets in and what doesn't. And those people have obviously come to the "consensus" that references to Borat should not be in this article, no matter how much sense it makes to include it. You might as well be a Catholic layman arguing against a papal bull. The powers that be have spoken ex cathedra, and any further dissent will result in excommunication from the Church of Wikipedia.--SmashTheGlass (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Borat should not be included in this article
The sudden upsurge of Borat-related edits has caused me to go back and look over all discussions about the inclusion of Borat in the Kazakhstan article. The main argument for inclusion is fairly clear - "a lot of people", usually meaning people in Europe and North America, had never heard of Kazakhstan before the Borat film, and now associate any mention of Kazakhstan with Borat. The thought process seems to be that, since these editors automatically make such a connection, other people must do so as well, and therefore the Wikipedia article on Kazakhstan should make the same association by giving some mention to Borat.

There are several problems with this logic. First, there is the assumption that "most/many/a lot of people" had not heard of Kazakhstan before this film. This is an unverifiable statement. There is no way to know how many people knew or did not know about Kazakhstan before seeing Borat short of taking a poll. No one has provided evidence of such a poll, and I would be surprised if one existed. Also, there seems to be an underlying assumption in the use of "people" here to mean people in Western, and perhaps specifically American and British, society. As has been mentioned by others, nearly everyone who lives in the former Soviet Union (around 300 million people) would have known of Kazakhstan since childhood. People living in other countries near Kazakhstan (such as India, China, Japan) would most likely have been aware of it beforehand as well, especially considering the generally high standards of primary education in these countries. Wikipedia encompasses a worldwide view in its articles, and the idea that this film somehow effected the knowledge of Kazakhstan for "most/many/a lot of people" throughout the world is not only an unlikely claim, but one that cannot be proven.

Second is the assumption that Borat taught people about Kazakhstan, and therefore should be included in the article. The fact of the matter is, the film is about Kazakhstan in name only. The language they are speaking is not Kazakh, the "Kazakhstan" in the film is actually Romania (besides which the majority of the film takes place in the US), and the descriptions of Kazakhstan and its culture are inaccurate. The Kazakhstan in this film is a fantasy land of Mr. Cohen's imagination, and is not something to be discussed in an encyclopedic article on the actual place.

Finally, there is issue of over-emphasizing Western (specifically English-language) culture. This problem, unsurprisingly, occurs throughout the English-language Wikipedia. There is a tendency by some to assume that a situation in the English-speaking world on a certain topic can be equally applied to the entire world. In this case, a film that was mildly popular in Western culture is portrayed by some as having a world-wide effect in elevating the status and recognition of Kazakhstan in the international community (the fallacy of which was discussed above). Such 'over-emphasis' can be seen in a recent edit to this article, where someone mentioned Borat in the 'Culture of Kazakhstan' section. The film, as mentioned, has nothing to do with the actual culture that originates from within Kazakhstan (or in nearby countries), but is in fact an element of western culture. Including it there is nothing more than the projection of an Amero/Euro-centric worldview onto this article about Kazakhstan. That is not acceptable by encyclopedic standards for an NPOV article on the country itself.

The solution, as has been mentioned before, is to include coverage of the film's impact on Western perceptions of Kazakhstan in the Borat article itself. If some editors honestly feel the issue warrants more coverage, they should start an article along the lines of Perceptions of Kazakhstan in Western culture - a link to which could be included in the "See Also" section at the bottom of the Kazakhstan article. In short, the arguments for including any mention of Borat in this article rest on a series of false assumptions which seem to emanate from an Amero/Euro-centric worldview that over-emphases the effect of western culture on the world. It is not appropriate for the Kazakhstan article on Wikipedia, even as a quick mention, however would be appropriate in articles specifically about Borat or western culture. Otebig (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason the guy above won is because he used the TLDR tactic (too long didn't read). Nobody wants to refute his points even though they can be very easily refuted, because it would take too long. His arguments are extremely poor and if I had more time I'd counter every one of them. He's an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.133.212 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of articles have an 'X in popular culture' paragraph. They do not have a separate article 'Popular perceptions of X'. And yes, in those paragraphs in the case of countries it would make sense to have a list of movies that take place in those countries. In the English-speaking world, especially in America and Great Britain, the first thing many people think about when they see the name of Kazakhstan is Borat. That might be too bad - I thought the movie was execrable, and regret my $12 - but the absence of any mention of Borat from this article seems ideological. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an English-language encyclopedia, not a "what the average English-person thinks" encyclopedia. "Borat" doesn't deserve a mention in this article any more than Team America: World Police deserves a mention in the United States article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey idiot, how come the song "What Would Brian Boitano Do?" is included in the Brian Boitano article. According to your logic, this does not deserve a mention in that article either. So why isn't it taken out? Think before you type something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htahpoahf (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cuss yeah, Jamie. Still, I was surprised that Borat-cruft lasted even six days before I took it out. Does the article need more watchers? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, actually I made the same mistake. At first I also expected Borat to be mentioned in this article. I think he did make kazakhstan known to more people in the world than not (as for me), and I think mostly he made benefit its glorious nation (any dissing of kazakhstan or kazakhs in the movie was ironic not serious). But man, as someone suggested below, to keep things fair you should try to get Brüno mentioned in the article about Austria. If you get that one done, I'm sure you'd find it much easier to get Borat here LOL. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

kazakhstan
kazakhstan used to not be free now it is. they were in an conomic downturn. but fortuanantely thiings have gotten better. it is hard for women to find jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.205.76 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of KIMEP
Why do people keep putting picture of KIMEP university in Education section? That is a clear advertisement. KIMEP is one of few Universities which uses English while teaching students, but definitely it is not the leading scientific, research and educational institution. I've tired putting Kazakh National University with it's 20 000 students, various laboratories accross the country etc. Other Universities such as Kazakh National Technical University, or even Kazakh British University might deserve more credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizhol (talk • contribs) 09:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up there because it's the best picture of a university campus in Kazakhstan on Wikipedia or in the Commons. It's not an "ad" and not an attempt to portray KIMEP as one of the top schools in the country or not. If you have a good picture of the КазНУ campus that can be freely used on Wikipedia (personally I'd try for a better photo than the blue-tinted one of the rectory building on the Russian Wikipedia), then by all means replace the KIMEP picture with it, since as you said it is a much larger university with higher enrollment. In fact, if you're in Almaty now, you might want to take photos of all the different universities, since many of them have no photos to go with the articles (and some don't even have articles). Otebig (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)=

Where is the stuff about Borat?
I came here to find out more about Borat but there was nothing. I see from the discussion above that he has been removed. This is like excluding The Queen from an article about Great Britain, just because some people are republicans. I am just a WikiPedia user, not a contributor and it has made me wonder about the trustworthiness of the project.
 * Do you know that Kazakhstan hate Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen), and they prohibited to show this film? Borat is just stupid comedy, that doesn't show any truth about life there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.150.64.92 (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL love the comment about the queen! is borat some sort of king or a political figure in Kazakhstan?? I suggest that you first update United Kingdom article with info on Ali G and Germany article with info on Brüno, before you include Borat here. --ro&#124;3ek (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that Brüno is Austrian, not German. SteveRwanda (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that he is not mentioned in Austria article either. --ro&#124;3ek (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, Sacha Baron Cohen is British, which means that mentioning him and his characters in the article about Great Britain would be, uh, 1000% accurate. And I agree with the first guy: Borat should definitely be mentioned in this article. He made the country famous throughout the world. How's that for an impact? Sure, list all the fallacies he propagates, but mention him. Revan ltrl (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * go on then, mention Ali G in Great Britain, United Kingom (check what the difference is) and don't forget England --ro&#124;3ek (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Landlocked?
How is it that Kazakhstan can be both "landlocked" and also border the Caspian Sea? Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Borat, great film, but, alas, a fictional character. There is a separate article about Borat, perhaps a link to that article in the external links section is as far as one might go, if deemed noteworthy to this article. However, this would then mean, as others have noted, in the interest of fairness, having an external link in the United States article to articles about John Wayne, Daniel Boone, Davey Crocket, Captain America, Kit Carson, ad-nauseum and also need of course to link to, at very least, Bob and Doug Mackenzie and Johnny Canuck in the Canada article. The fact that this topic has seen such intense debate here is quite laughable actually.Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Just read the articles on Caspian Sea and Landlocked and since the Caspian Sea has no outflows, Kazakhstan is technically considered to be "landlocked". So scratch that comment. However, my observations stand on the significance (or lack thereof) for considering the addition of information about the film Borat to this article. Cheers! Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

spelling
Right after the name of the article we see the phrase "also spelled Kazakstan". I have no idea who spells Kazakhstan without the 'h' (hillbillies?) but including alternate spellings (that are not used OFFICIALLY) doesn't really convey any helpful or accurate information to readers. If there is a source that can be found that says Kazakhstan is spelt the other way by any serious organisation as a matter of policy then it might be worth including the information. Otherwise it would be like including the line "also spelt 'Amerika'" on a different page... --I (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to do partly with which language you're transliterating from. Both Russian and Kazakh are official languages in the country, and they have different ways of being transliterated into English. From Russian, the х in Казахстан becomes kh, but from Kazakh, if you transliterate the қ just as a "k", then Қазақстан becomes Kazakstan (the alternative is to transliterate the қ as "q" and write the name as "Qazaqstan", which is done in some academic literature). All three different transliteration systems have been used at different times by different governments, organizations, and authors. So, it's not a "misspelling" as you called it. However, I believe the use of "Kazakstan" was more frequent in material from the Soviet and early post-Soviet period. It seems to have fallen out of major use in the past 10-15 years in favor of "Kazakhstan", which is by far the dominant English-language spelling for the country nowadays. So, though it's a matter of transliteration, as opposed to a spelling mistake, I think Bob made the right move in removing it from the intro. Perhaps this issue of transliteration could be mentioned somewhere in the article (though I'm not sure where it would fit). Otebig (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Kazakistan is a Turkish country. So, Turks use Kazakistan. Qazaqstan is wrong. Kazakstan is wrong. Kazakistan is true. Respects

What's with the Arabic script?
Arabic script is not used in Kazakhstan. It is not on any signs, on any currency, or used in government. Kazakh Cyrillic alphabet, Russian Cyrillic, and Latin alphabet. That's it. Outside of academics and a few mullahs there, nobody knows the script, much less how to read in that script. The other Turkic language countries in Central Asia don't have the Arabic script for their article, so it certainly doesn't belong in articles about Kazakhstan. Will delete from this and the oblast articles. Ufwuct (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I added them because I thought it would complement the Kazakh diaspora. There are Kazakh people living in China and they use the Arabic version of the Kazakh language. The Arabic version of the language is also used in Kazakh diaspora in places such as Afghanistan, Iran, and other strictly using Arabic-text countries. I added those Arabic transliterations (which took me a really long time) to appeal to all Kazakh people worldwide and not just those living inside Kazakhstan's national borders. See the article Kazakh language to know when and where the three different scripts are used. The Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture is the little piece of China between Mongolia and Kazakhstan where the main language is Kazakh, in Arabic script. Kazakhs living in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region use the Arabic script since the Uighur also use the Arabic script. The Chinese are invading Turkish Lands and are now the largest ethnicity in the region. The Uighur and the Kazakhs both being Turkish, have close ties with each other. The Uighur language is written only in Arabic. For the sake of simplicity the Kazakh use the Arabic script as well instead of having 3 alphabets all in one region.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Observations
This is a truly great article. I should say one of the best I read on Wikipedia. However, let me list a few observations.

1. Geography: Is it possible to rearrange the photos so they show horizontally and get rid of the empty space in the middle of the section? I don't know how to do that.

2. Economy: "Kazakhstan forecasts that it will become a leading exporter of uranium by 2010." This should be updated. It's obsolete.

2. Religion: WTH is "5,3 thousand Jews"? Should it be "5300 Jews" instead?

3. Sports: "In 2006 Vinokourov's team became known as Astana after a drug doping scandal forced his team Liberty Seguros from the 2006 Tour de France." Something is missing. Should it be "force out from"? "In July 2007, Vinokourov tested positive for blood doping during the 2007 Tour de France and was disqualified from the race, although he was in the lead at the time." It sounds as if he should not have been disqualified because he was in the lead (as if it were a privilege like political immunity).

ICE77 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The misconception of alphabet change.
HEY! The following discussion had zip/zero/nada to do with the benefit of the article, nor were any references mentioned. Not a forum!!!! HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan _________________________________________________________________________

Turkic languages such as Turkish and Uzbek use the Latin alphabet. However, the imposition of the Latin alphabet in Kazakhstan would involve massive costs of transcription and replacement of the vast Kazakh literature. (unsigned comment, no IP)

Kazakh literature compared to Ottoman Turkish and Turkish literature is like a drop of water in an ocean. Transcription programs can easily be made to automatically translate documents to the new alphabet. Old documents can easily be scanned, read, and transcripted by the program. The term "replacement" here is nonsensical. What is Kazakh literature? Is it anywhere near as rich as Turkish literature? It seems that the opposition to the Latin alphabet is more politically motivated rather than the problems stated. An alphabet change would not be in Russia's best interests. Also, creating a unity among the Turkic peoples in alphabet and inevitably language would not be in any nations interests. So therefore, the stated sentences give a false pretense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.171.127 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Culture section doesn't have a single reference
As a matter of fact, much of this article isn't referenced. Isn't it time some admins started shaking the tree on this one? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * Hi Hammer, I reformatted your problem tag (check WP:TEMPLATES for more information on properly tagging an article). Unfortunately, admins do not have a 'magic trick' for taking care of this: editors are welcome to step in and improve the article. So, if you are interested, do a bit of reading on WP:CITE and you are ready to go. Cheers, Pim Rijkee (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not my area of expertise - I'm a Europe/Japan/Mongolia history kind of person, although this area of the world is fascinating. But although the information looks reliable on the surface, whoever the editors are that put it up should have put the references in at the same time.  Technically, about half of the whole article could be challenged for deletion, as it is.  I wouldn't want that to happen.   Of course, one of Wiki's huge problems, and why colleges, high schools and other learning institutions forbid its use in writing papers, is that many, many articles are like this or worse in citations. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Introduction/Summary needs to be more concise
The section at the top of the article would flow better if it were more condensed, with basic information such as geography, demographics, and history conveyed in only 1-3 sentences. The more detailed information present needs to be removed or moved to the relevant sections further below. As an example, I think the page on Germany does an excellent job of introducing the country without getting bogged down. I have made some changes to this effect, with more probably to come. IronSheep (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange picture
This is NOT Kazakh national dress style, they are uzbeks or tajiks, but NOT Kazakhs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.56.53 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone periodically vandalizing this article by putting this picture. This is not kazakh dress its more looks like tadjik national dress.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.59.102.84 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kamania, 4 August 2011
Please change following text as it does not represent Kazakhs as they are:

"Kazakhstan is one of the active members of the Turkic Council and the TÜRKSOY community which is currently being directed by the former Minister of Culture of Kazakhstan". moreover, Turkish are not Turks (maybe due to that English is not sensible for the difference in Turk=Toork=turkish people that live on Anatolian peninsula and Turk=Tyurk=kazakhs that live in central Asia). Kazakhs are Turks (tyoorks) in this case), but the turkish (toorkish) people try to make us look like one of them just because of grammar things. well, maybe they have some similarities with us but for a very little while. it's the same if you say that french are italian. isn't it weird?! Kamania (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * no reference given for the amendment, WP:RS WP:V.  Chzz  ► 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In English, "Turkish" is an adjective to describe something - the people, the language, the food, etc. We don't say "the Turkish" - we say the Turks.

Now, you are claiming that the Turkish folk who live in Turkey - remnants of the Ottomans and Seljuks that conquered the Anatolian region centuries ago and have to some extent slowly interbred with the native or long-associated people that were originally there, are not "Turks." Well, they may have more caucasoid features and lighter skin than the more east-Asian looking Turks, but in English and according to Western scholarship, all are "Turks" - Uighurs, Khazaks, etc. Generally speaking, if you are a native speaker of a Turkic language, you are considered to be of Turkish nationality. Obviously, Turkey is not a nation-state - Turks, Greeks, Armenians, etc., all live within the borders. Anyone who is a citizen of Turkey is not necessarily a Turk, but the Turks in Turkey are .... well, Turks! P.S. I cleaned up your post as the paragraph tags were not set and the text was running off the side of the screen. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * That's not correct. The Kazakhs are a Turkic people, the Kazakh language is a Turkic language, and furthermore Kazakhs may be referred to as Turks and the area around Kazakhstan may be called Turkestan. However, Turkish is a term specifically for Turkey and cannot be used to refer to either the Kazakh people, the Kazakh language, or Kazakhstan. Selerian (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Borat effect
Is there any effect of Borat's pretending to a person from Kazakhstan in his comedic movies? Is Kazakhstan having public relations problems in the tourism sector because of the Borat comedy angle?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO you are addressing a non-issue. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it is a "non-issue"? My guess is that there are two effects -- a negative perception by tourists worldwide about Kazakhstan, and a reaction among people from Kazakhstan towards the portrayal. We live in a media age where what happens in film and TV has a substantial impact on supposed real life -- it's hard to separate the two. And literally tens of millions of people have seen the Borat movies and TV and the only knowledge they have about this country comes from this source. But I'm wondering why you think like you do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guys, actualy, there is a third option, which I came here to research, has it had a beneficial effect from a tourism perspective? I would have thought it may plant a positive seed which would not have been planted without Borat's cultural learnings. 188.220.186.57 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a place for voicing personal opinions. If this is going to be discussed (yet again) at least present references and discuss their relevance instead of what you personally feel. 96.252.169.227 (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! There's nothing more to add to this statement.Lost Boy (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to this recent article in Swiss newspaper "Tages-Anzeiger" (in German), there is indeed a positive "Borat effect" on tourism in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan's foreign secretary is quoted with the statement that Kazakhstan issued ten times more tourist visa after the "Borat" movie's release than before. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Asia
I strongly believe that it should read that a Kazakhstan is an Asian country. I know Wiki comes up witht he whole transcontinetal garbage, but in real world nobody considers kazakhstan to be a European country. BBC lists it as Asian. Wiki should get in touch with real world for once. Norum 23:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Almaty-kazakhstan_3.jpg i added this cuz obviously christians make up to 30 % of the country, its too nationalistic this article, when ever russians are needed in favor for this article like the pic of the famous tennis player Yaroslava Shvedova its added but the rest of the article does like russians dont exist, its bias and racist --Akin12255 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2012
In the page it mentions that the population is over 70% Muslim with the rest being predominantly Christian. According to the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kz.html) the actual breakdown is Muslim 47%, Russian Orthodox 44%, Protestant 2%, other 7%. Since this is a significant departure from other nearby countries it seems quite relevant.

Judoka735 (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The protection on the page has expired, you are free to make the edit if you see fit. Also, note that it is hard to respond to a request when a specific change has not been requested. Monty  845  05:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
А нельзя фотки покрасивее найти что ли? В сети огромное количество более привлекательных фото и Алматы и Астаны, взять тот же Вокс. И еще лучше бы было вместо КазНУ поставить Назарбаевский университет.. Ведь впечатление первое складывается в основном по фотографиям.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.249.90 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to reset the anthem
Someone seems to have set it to the Borat song again, the real song's soundfile is on the lyrics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.117.36 (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. El0i (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
Kazakhstan has widely been described as a dictatorship, yet this article does not mention it. I also miss international criticism of human rights and press freedom issues. Andreas JN 466 16:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support coverage of those points -- it seems entirely appropriate and indeed necessary per NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already coverage in the "Elections" system of Kazakhstan being denied membership at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly because of its democracy and human rights "record". There's also the Economist's characterization of the government as an "authoritarian regime" on the Democracy Index, and the fact that Nazarbayev got 95.54% votes with 89.9% turnout, and opposition parties' allegations of irregularities. Quoting the shrill voices of opposition activists who call the president "a dictator" would not add to the article's neutrality but would detract from it. Let the facts speak for themselves, which they already are doing. Shrigley (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many images
I see 38, not counting the infobox. About half that number would be better I think. --John (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps create a gallery to the end of the article then? GMRE (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Article needs improvement
It's a well known fact that:
 * Kazakhstan is the worlds number one exporter of Potassium, jet there's not a single link to the potassium article on the page.
 * The Kazakh industry is known for being among the best, even rumered of being the best, tho this fact may be out of date.
 * Toffee was invented in Kazakhstan.

Someone should add these facts. GMRE (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Political system
In the Political System section the article says: "Although there are two houses, Kazakhstan is officially a unicameral federal republic." How can this be? Unicameral means one house by definition. Is there a source/explanation for this claim? Thanks Cosainsé (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection
Please, protect this page because it is attacked by vandals ( 75.161.224.10) --MMalczyk (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tallest flag pole
The tallest flag pole in Kazakhstan, is it considered a monument? Has it ever had the tallest flag pole in the world? --Normash (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kazakhstan biggest swimming pool in world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.23.122 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Economy section: promotional?
My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Economy section in this article is as long as the main article/entry itself, and is given to being a little heavy on details on companies exploiting natural resources, etc. My instincts tell me that the over-representation of details pertaining to companies and resources available reads more like promotional material than an encyclopaedic entry. Given that comparable articles on other nation-states analyse the history, taxation systems and appear to be informative in and encyclopaedic matter, I would suggest that there is a need to prune this section right back. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Jews?
"There is also a small but active Jewish community" - what does this mean. If it can't be defined, then "but active" should be removed. Perhaps it means that these people are free to speak out or able and willing to do so?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it meant as being the opposite to inert. I can't really see the point in it other than padding the sentence. I'll remove it. If there is any rationale we've overlooked, it can always be reinstated with a logical context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Politicians
Many country pages (e.g. Uruguay, Egypt, Poland, Bulgaria, Mexico, North Korea) have images of the same foreign politicians e.g. Obama, Bush, Medvedev, Hillary Clinton, Putin, John Kerry etc present. I'm proposing such images should be moved to relevant US- or Russia- relations pages. For example it is more suitable to have two images of John Kerry on a page about US-Egypt relations than on the Egypt page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in Kazakhstan
Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Kazakhstan!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil and Tourism in Germany. :) Use proper sources! Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Independence
An agreement with NATO and Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia – the Individual Partnership Action Plan – was signed on 31 January 2006. Subsequent signees have been Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. This sentence has been removed. It has nothing to do with Kazakhstan! --Stonepillar (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of country
How can changing from Kazakhstan to "Kazakh Yeli", better reflect the diverse population of the country or attract greater foreign investment? I would be interested in some explanation for what seems a highly improbable story.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Imbricating"
The Turkic people began imbricating on the Iranians starting at least in the 5th century AD.

"Imbricating?" I believe a more appropriate and more widely understood verb would be encroaching. Sca (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably, but imbricate is a real word (it was added here), and not really synonymous with encroach.
 * However, the passage has removed by now – seems excessive to me, it provides relevant information without which the passage from Iranian to Turkic is overly unmediated, and even if the use of the rare word that was subsequently replaced adds to the copyvio suspicion, the part in question should be easy to rephrase and is quite short and trivial anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Contiguous country
I see what you mean, but the term "contiguous country" is simply not commonly used, and in fact, "contiguous country" does not support such use. The term has certain circulation, but in an entirely different context, meaning "bordering" (Canada is a contiguous/bordering country with USA). (Yahoo Answers do not count as a RS). Even if we accept such definition as valid, I don't think it has a place in the first sentence of the lead -- it simply is not an important, pending property of the country. Spain is not defined as "discontiguous" as far as I can see, nor is United States, although, I concede, Contiguous United States is a term of art. Turkey is defined as rather ridiculous contiguous transcontinental parliamentary republic (but that's an issue for that article). How does it help reader's understanding at all? Why is it important? No such user (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hallo, I agree with you, this is a typical example of wikipedia pedantism. :-) I just reverted your edit to answer your question on the history's comment line, but feel free to remove the adjective if you feel that is superfluous. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I came here for an argument and all of a sudden you agree with me :). Anyway, I removed it from the lead both here and in Turkey: being a transcontinental country is an interesting but rather trivial factoid, and it's linked in #Geography sections of both articles anyway. No such user (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done, ! Besides, I cannot have arguments with someone who likes Monthy Piton. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
I would like to ask the opinion of the community about the edits of User:Jens2015 here, which suffer almost invariably of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. This is an encyclopedia article about a country, not a local newspaper. We don`t write on the USA article about the inauguration of an hospital, and the same common sense rule should also be valid here. Alex2006 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Jens2015 might like to reveal whether they work for a PR firm, maybe one mentioned in http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/20150120_spindoctors_mr.pdf Jzlcdh (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

i'm sorry if you don't like my edits. i am not a company. i just want to add good information about my country. I'm tired of so many people not knowing the real kazakhstan and the good things the country is doing. i am sorry for the UNDUE and i will do better in future. If you don't like how i write my edit, then please edit it but do not remove the whole thing. i don't think that is right to do. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens2015 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Observation on content
Does anyone else feel this article is getting constantly stuffed with news items when taken as a whole, serve to highlight how Kazakhstan is becoming a more attractive place for business investment? Like a PR campaign is taking place? --Neil N  talk to me 18:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that since several months there is someone, using several user names or as ip, who constantly insert promotional content, not understanding that this is a general article about the country, and as such all this stuff is simply undue. Alex2006 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This might explain it., . If it continues, I'll probably post to WP:COIN to get other opinions. --Neil N  talk to me 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This guy usually does not react when he is reverted. He disappears for sometime, and then shows up again with other Kazakh agency news. Alex2006 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Andreas JN 466 13:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's ridiculous that the Borat movie is not even mentioned in this article. This has had a tremendous impact on Kazakhstan for 2 reasons: first, most Americans had never paid attention to this country before that movie came out. Compare traffic to this page before and after the movie. Second, the debacle of the wrong national anthem was a huge embarrassment that received international news coverage. The movie has created both problems and opportunities for the country (e.g., tourism). The movie should be mentioned. Other movies have created a surge in tourism in places like Tibet (Seven Years in Tibet), New Zealand (Lord Of The Rings), and Belgium (In Bruges). The impact of Borat cannot be ignored.

Potassium
The Natural Resources section refers to potassium as major export, however this is not included in the references for this paragraph. Hack (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently there are reserves, but it is not much of an investment target. The text might perhaps be a mistake for phosphorus. In any case, I've removed it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of human rights violations
An article in the 7 October 2015 Wikipedia Signpost suggests that the coverage of human rights in this article is incomplete, and may not conform to WP:NPOV due to WP:COI editing. --Djembayz (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly suggests. Much to deal with in terms of overall sense of this nation and government. Not only the coverage of human rights is lacking, but conveying the nature of this government in more than election results, which most residents of truly democratic countries know are unlikely.Parkwells (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Kazakhstan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.eng.stat.kz/news/Pages/n1_12_11_10.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150929031425/http://www.stat.gov.kz/getImg?id=ESTAT091498 to http://www.stat.gov.kz/getImg?id=ESTAT091498

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Both correct. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Kazakhstan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140308092531/http://www.ey.com/KZ/en/Issues/Business-environment/Kazakhstan-attractiveness-survey-2013 to http://www.ey.com/KZ/en/Issues/Business-environment/Kazakhstan-attractiveness-survey-2013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150306214758/http://info.worldbank.org:80/governance/wgi/index.aspx to http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#countryReports
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723084232/http://www.stat.kz/p_perepis/Documents/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2.rar to http://www.stat.kz/p_perepis/Documents/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2.rar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)