Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia/Archive 5

Proposal of addition of India to WP Central Asia
Most of the maps of Central Asia that I have seen include Ladakh and sometimes other regions such as the Vale of Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh in Central Asia. This map on Wikipedia, and these, which feature at the top of Google Images  (WP:GOOGLE) as well as the UNESCO definition imply this as well. Thanks. --209.188.6.130 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

-Support: While I am not sure about Himachal Pradesh, Ladakh is referred to as in Central Asia by some books I have seen. --RaviC (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have never specifically heard of India being classified as Central Asia; any reference to Ladakh could simply be written of as "Kashmir" (though I still don't support the inclusion in either case, since the territory crosses way too much out of the threshold of Central Asia) 124.185.162.125 (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (The above IP is me) Mar4d (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lhasa, Tibet is considered part of Central Asia by this WikiProject already. It is much further south than Ladakh, which is also part of the Greater Tibet region.  Please could you cite a source for the idea that "the territory crosses way too much out of the threshold of Central Asia"? --92.12.69.168 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you cite a reliable source (not travel blogs and google images) which indicate that the territories under mention are really included in Central Asia? By the way, Himachal Pradesh has always been in the Greater Punjab region and no where does it say has it ever been in CA. Please elaborate your proposal constructively; Mar4d (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This proposal wasn't about Himachal specifically; leaving aside Google sources, the maps of Central Asia here on Wikipedia show Ladakh in Central Asia. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

-Support: Ladakh is referred to as part of Central Asia by nearly all literature on the region sold in Kashmir. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the same person who made this proposal? Please consider registering an account to vote instead of cluttering up different IP addresses here if you're really keen to discuss this; Mar4d (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know who the above IP user is, but seeing as it looks as if they are in the US (I'm in the UK), I'm confident that I am not the same IP user. In order to get a larger (and more fair) debate, I'm going to list this discussion in relevant articles for more input. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional support: Add People's Republic of China and then for consistency sake, add India and Pakistan too -- I'm guessing the logic here is that Ladakh is in India and therefore India belongs. If that's the case then PRC and Pakistan belong here too. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pakistan and China are already included. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I think India should be. But I don't see Pakistan or PRC in the list above on the project tag. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about China, but Pakistan is already mentioned on Template:WikiProject Central Asia. Mar4d (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On further reflection, this doesn't seem right, neither does adding the PRC because of Tibet. The Central Asia project should include Ladakh/Kashmir but not the rest of India. Really, most of India is as much connected to Central Asia as it is to Europe. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The South-Asia starts after the Hindu Kush range, so there is no point of addition of India/Ladakh/Kashmir in this concern project, if it will, then in that case i think Australia will also be the part of South-East Asia's project. Most importantly United Nations geoscheme for Asia doesn't show any part of Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in central asia. Don't go on the literatures sold in Kashmir, its a dispute region; they can show themselves any where, but Wikipedia only takes standards of International Organizations like U.N.O., i don't think this discussion is worthy any more. Bill william compton (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If anthropological data determines which country lies where than as i said why Australia is not a part of south-east Asia's project, as whole aboriginal population have anthropology in common with south-east Asian people; not only south-east but they basically migrated from India and still have lots of linguistic and ethnic similarities with the people of Jharkhand, Odissa and other indian states; in this way either we should make Jharkhand as a part of Australian project or include Australia in the WikiProject India.

Also, who told Wikipedia don't take UNO's stances - Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir are under the administration of Pakistan (at least, in today's scenario), and UNO also shows them within Pakistan. Similarly state of Jammu and Kashmir is shown in India, with proper indication of LOC and LAC, but as in Wikipedia's articles they also declare the whole region as disputed in between China, India and Pakistan. Bill william compton (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill,1)The aboriginal peoples in Australia do not make up sizable numbers in any region, there was no culture contact between the two groups respectively for thousands of years. In the case with Ladakh, there are people called Arghuns that are mixed race and legacy to the ancient trade between Central Asia and Ladakh, India.  (Please read this book before making more comments.) 2)the UNO refers to either side of Kashmir as Ind/Pak Administered Kashmir, most UNO maps show the region as disputed territory or demarcate a ceasefire line. --19:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.171.168.202 (talk)
 * Comment: At Wikipedia we don't always use UNO stances. For example, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir are referred to as parts of Pakistan, as opposed to Pakistan-Administered and vice versa. --18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)~


 * Support: There is no absolute definition where South Asia starts. More often, the anthropological data determines which country lies where. As the native people of Ladakh have more anthropology in common with Central Asian people, India should be included. The same reason goes with Pakistan. Even Pakistan lies south of the Hindu Kush range and its people have less in common than the Ladakhi people. I will quote some references to this regard soon.
 * The other thing is that Kashmir is an internal dispute of India. So, no need to count here what U.N.O. says. It has been wrong many times before. So, lets not get into this.  Boolyme   Talk!! 14:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Ladakh is pretty much Central Asian by its culture, and until the colonial era, much of the trade was with Kashgar and Bukhara, not mainland India. --Rvd4life (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cultural spheres of influence and geography are two different things and should not be confused. If parts of western Pakistan historically fall into the Greater Iran culture, it would not neccessarily mean that Pakistan is also part of West Asia like Iran. The same thing should apply in reference to this discussion; we shouldn't go by what culture certain people follow or believe unverified claims but look at geography itself; in this regard, Ladakh may have borrowed certain influences from Central Asia but that still is not sufficient to ascertain it into a totally different region. As such, Ladakh is in Kashmir and a much more (notice the emphasis) integral part of South Asia than it is to Central Asia. Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look on Google Earth, you will see that Ladakh is not geographically on the Indian Plate, rather on the Eurasian Plate like the Central Asia, just like Gilgit Baltistan. Please read below as well. --Rvd4life (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO general history of Central Asia, written just before the collapse of the USSR, defines the region based on climate and uses far larger borders. According to it, Central Asia includes Mongolia, Tibet, northeast Iran (Golestan, North Khorasan and Razavi provinces), Afghanistan, Northern Areas and the N.W.F.P. province of Pakistan, Kashmir and Ladakh of India, central-east Russia south of the Taiga, and the former Central Asian Soviet republics (the five "Stans" of the former Soviet Union).
 * I have evidence up until this random revision at least that the statement originally mentioned just "Kashmir and Ladakh" with the accompanying "India" excluded. Hence, the implication that the UNESCO general history of Central Asia meant Kashmir and Ladakh as "India" is unsourced and self-asserted by an individual. How can you also determine whether UNESCO is talking about parts of Kashmir or the whole of Kashmir? Kashmir is not just in India, and closer parts of it to Central Asia in fact lie away from Indian administration. As for Ladakh, I find only 5 mentions to the word in the entire page and going back to very old revisions, the Central Asia article contained no references, so that information may also again be unsourced self-assertion. I personally view that Ladakh and perhaps parts of Kashmir have borrowed influence from Central Asia, but by the end of the day, Kashmir is an integral territory of South Asia, not Central Asia. This is a vain attempt to classify the region into a totally different part of Asia. Mar4d (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your government adamantly maintains that Gilgit-Baltistan isn't part of Kashmir. Doesn't that invalidate your claim that they may be referring to the "closer parts of it to Central Asia in fact lie away from Indian administration"? --98.158.185.50 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Central Asia defines countries in Central Asia as Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan while "territories sometimes included" mention Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mongolia, Xinjiang (China) and Siberia (Russia). If India indeed lies into the outer crux of the region, not a subtle reference is made. The Republic of India article itself also makes no mention to India's relevance to Central Asia and agrees that the country is South Asian. Whereby, we can compare this with the fourth sentence in the first paragraph of Pakistan, which says "Strategically it is located in a position between the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Both examples speak volumes. Mar4d (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has nothing to do with Pakistan.  The link made by the editor in the section below was in bad faith.  This is about whether Ladakh or other parts of India constitute Central Asian culture and geography. I have no doubt that Pakistan has Central Asian culture, but that has irrelevance to this debate.  --Rvd4life (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - India as a whole has has little historical connection to Central Asia. It is about as "South Asian" as you can get. The project scope of Wikiproject India simply lies outside of this region. The Scythian 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The region of Ladakh has culture and geography very different to that of the Indian mainstream. This debate is focused on whether, since that culture and geography have (debatable) parrallels with Central Asia, they should be under the scope of this project.  --Rvd4life (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, from what I understand, the proposal is "Ladakh is part of the Central Asia region, and Ladakh is in India, therefore India (and associated WP India articles) should be under the aegis of WP:Central Asia. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to give a lecture like some already have above, but Ladakhi culture isn't the only Central Asian-type culture in India.   --Rvd4life (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: Ladakh is very similar geographically and culturally to Gilgit Baltistan and Xinjiang which are classified as part of Central Asia already. -SgtPetsounds (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong support: India has many places with central Asian culture, geography and influence--82.132.136.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Oppose Both the United Nations geoscheme and Britannica define Central Asia to be the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan. India is not a part of that region. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, if you have a look at the countries currently covered in WikiProject Central Asia, you will find that many countries covered are not in your list above. Thanks.  --184.171.168.202 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Read my comment above; Central Asia is defined as Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan while "territories sometimes included" are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mongolia, Xinjiang (China) and Siberia (Russia). Mar4d (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure I see the significance of this entire discussion. Shouldn't the relevant question be: "Are members of this WikiProject sufficiently interested in (parts of) India to care about those articles?" If many members of this WikiProject are interested in (parts of) India, they will remain so no matter what the decision; if only a few members are interested, that won't change due to this decision either. So what would adding India to the WikiProject actually mean? Firstly, some additional articles might get tagged with WikiProject Central Asia, and secondly, people might appeal to this WikiProject if they look for help on the tagged articles, leading to entries on this talk page some of the members of this project simply may not be interested in. Of course even if members of this WikiProject universally were interested in India one might argue that this is still the wrong venue, but the way I understand the purpose of WikiProjects, the addition of India to the Project wouldn't hurt Wikipedia even if it were completely off-topic, as long as the people here feel competent about the subject and are interested in improving the relevant articles. Thus, the question is less one of whether the UN geoscheme, the UNESCO or anybody else includes (parts of) India in Central Asia, but whether the addition of India to this project would make this project a good forum for improving articles on India. Huon (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail, and the more accurate response would be, no, it would not make much difference. WikiProject India is already big enough, and quite frankly (as a user mentioned above) most of India is really as much connected with Central Asia as it is with Europe. I don't think WikiProject Central Asia and WikiProject India cover much common ground. 124.187.1.155 (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is not a debate about whether there is interest in this region, if that was the case then we could easily debate why Pakistan is in this WikiProject as well.  For the record, I haven't seen an action by this WikiProject make a difference to any articles on Northern Pakistan.  Also, I'm a bit suspicious that the previous IP was Mar4d, as his IP was in the same ISP block as the previous IP he commented with.  If that's the case, it's a clear indication of bad faith. --184.171.168.202 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC).
 * We can debate why Pakistan is in this WikiProject; that's what we actually do in the section below. I also don't understand why Mar4d sometimes editing while not logged in should be considered a sign of bad faith. The above comment is not a !vote, so there can be no accusation of !voting twice in the same discussion. Huon (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I went on a biking trip after university (long ago!) from Leh to Delhi, through Wagah to Lahore, Gilgit, past Khunjerab to Hotan, Kashgar and onto Urumqi. As the only person who has been to all these places mentioned on this debate, I cannot express in words the extremely strong cultural affinity that existed.  --98.158.185.50 (talk)
 * What does any of this have to do with "Wikiproject India?" That is what this discussion is about. I see very little connection between South Asian culture, i.e India, and Central Asian cultural, i.e the "Stans." The two countries with the closet connections are Iran for thousands of years, and Russia, in the last 200 or so. That's it. The Scythian 18:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see this article: Central Asians in Ancient Indian literature. Also, please watch a video on Ladakh on YouTube, I recommend this one as his trip is slightly reminiscent of mine a long time agon.  --98.158.185.50 (talk)
 * No thanks. You just linked to a rather nonsense article on Wikipedia that ought to be deleted for wasting bandwidth. The discussion is about wither India should be added to Wikiproject Central Asia. I do not like the fact that Pakistan is included, let alone any idea of adding India. The sad fact is that this subject is attracting some very biased and agenda driven editors to the discussion, who sadly lack any real knowledge of Central Asia, it peoples and it culture. The Scythian 07:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there, if you believe that Pakistan does not belong in Central Asia, express that in the conversation below. --184.171.168.202 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way is that article "nonsense"? Your abrupt answer hints at bias in your views.  The article you have called "nonsense" simply talks about the Indian Cultural Exchanges, which I have seen first hand on my travels in this region.  Here is an extract of the book added by another author earlier in the conversation. --98.158.185.50 (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The passage of lucrative trade between India and Central Asia through Ladakh and Kashmir left a distinct impression upon the local society and economy. Leh. the capital of Ladakh, acquired a cosmopolitan character during the trading season when merchants of different nationalities coming from Bukhara, Andijan. Kashghar. Yarkand. Kabul. Badakhshan. Tibet. Amritsar. Hoshiarpur. Kullu. Nurpur. Bushahr and Kashmir arrived at Ladakh to sell their goods. The sparsely populated town of Leh suddenly hummed with activity which lasted throughout the summer months. This trade brought economic prosperity to all those who were in one way or the other involved in it.
 * Oppose - Begin sarcastic remark Yeah, and the UK should be added to the South America project because of Falklands. End sarcastic remark Zuggernaut (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Falklands are not administered as an integral part of the UK but as an overseas territory with large sovereignty over internal affairs, it is an entirely different situation. The Falklands owe much of their culture to the UK, with little influence from South America to the present day.  And even if this argument was true, Ladakh, only one of the regions of India that has Central Asian influence, is over several times larger than the Falklands in area. --98.158.185.50 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it has Central Asian influence, prove how its "Central Asian-ness" undermines its strategic location in the heart of Kashmir, in the northernmost part of the Indian subcontinent and its greater geographic links with South Asia. Mar4d (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ladakh isn't in the heart of Kashmir. It is much further east than Kashmir proper and is not on the Indian plate. Please look on a map for once, below you called the area "a small strip".  Ladakh (and other regions) only came to be considered in South Asia since the Sikhs annexed it.  Here's another quote from Wikipedia, this time from the Ladakh article.

In 1949, China closed the border between Nubra and Xinjiang, blocking old trade routes. In 1955 China began to build roads connecting Xinjiang and Tibet through this area. It also built the Karakoram highway jointly with Pakistan. India built the Srinagar-Leh Highway during this period, cutting the journey time between Srinagar and Leh from 16 days to two. As you can see, most trade in Ladakh was with Central Asia, and there wasn't even a substantial road to the other side of Kashmir, never mind Delhi! --98.158.185.50 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a ver weak proposal and with due respect, India doesn't even share a border with any Central Asian country, let alone be a part of it. No proper definitions consider India to properly be a Central Asia country i.e. such a fact is disputed and as a user above said, the country is as South Asian as you can get. Sure, regions like Ladakh had trade with Central Asia, but collectively, Ladakh is in Kashmir/Indian subcontinent geographically and based on that, more likely a part of South Asia. End quote. Rana A.R (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've read all the points raised in the debate so far. If that was the case, you may have realised that Ladakh is not on the Indian plate. --98.158.185.50 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support India is an early trade partner to Central Asia since ancient times as mentioned in ancient Indian texts, many believe North Indians were invaders from Central Asia. Like to make a point that I haven't seen Pakistani who voted on this in support of this resolution - must be a lot of bias - probably none have visited these places in India.  Would appreciate if Pakistanis could contribute here with an unbiased outlook on this, instead of blind opposition to everything Indian. --174.138.172.146 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This IP and the above 184.171.168.202 are both from Arizona, U.S. Mar4d (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not implying blind opposition here. In fact, I fully agree that India had trade and contact with Central Asia before. However, that does not change the fact that all of India comes in South Asia and sticking the country up in another region would be ridiculous and pure ignorance of georaphy. Whatever you say, all regions which currently constitute the Republic of India today are considered in South Asia than anything. When it comes to Ladakh, we're not even talking about traditional Central Asia anymore; probably more like "Greater" Central Asia, and before being considered in "Greater Central Asia," Ladakh is a very strategic location in South Asia. These are the facts I want you to digest before lecturing me again of Indian-Central Asian relations. Mar4d (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Arizona is a big place. Having said that, there aren't many of us over here, so I'm interested to know where abouts the other contributor here is from in Arizona.  Also, in reply to your comment, Ladakh can be defined as on the "crossroads" of two continents (i.e. Istanbul for Europe/Asia).  Therefore, we don't have to dispute whether it is in one or the other.  --174.138.172.146 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: Ladakh is considered part of Central Asia by the IHCN of UNESCO (Source: http://www.ihcn.in/leh/leh/242-historical-context.html). No need for this debate any more. --66.36.229.74 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say that - it simply implies that alot of the trade for Central Asia was carried through this point, something that you would expect given its location along the Silk Route. A more important thing I want you to notice is that Ladakh straddles the Indus River and the Himalayas; both, in historical context, occupy a significant position in the geography of the Indian subcontinent and make the region distinct from Central Asia. It is more accurate to say that Ladakh specifically lies in a region which marks the start of South Asia, and that is also the reason why it is such a strategic area from a historic, geographic and cultural point of view. Mar4d (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the above contributor who sent in that source. To Mar4d, it doesn't imply anything.  In the first sentance, it says that "Leh was an important centre for trade in Central Asia", thus (obviously) showing that Leh was part of Central Asia.  You asked the above contributor to understand that "Ladakh straddles the Indus River and the Himalayas; both, in historical context, occupy a significant position in the geography of the Indian subcontinent and make the region distinct from Central Asia. It is more accurate to say that Ladakh specifically lies in a region which marks the start of South Asia".  I would like to add something to this sentance of yours.  Ladakh also spans the Karakoram range of Central Asia.  Therefore, we can say that Ladakh marks the end of Central Asia and the beginning of South Asia, like the "crossroads" idea above. --184.171.168.202 (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I suspect bad faith from the IPs 174.138.172.146 and 184.171.168.202, and while I hope the two are not related, both seem to exhibit similiar behaviours. One is from Tempe, Arizona while the other is from Phoenix, Arizona (I do not live in the US but I suspect both areas fall within very minimal distance to each other). 174.138.172.146 and 184.171.168.202 both also seem to have obsession with the "crossroads" idea and while 174.138.172.146 supposedly showed an interest in the "where abouts" of the "other contributor," 184.171.168.202 went as far as by reciprocating some little social networking. My comment may be dismissed as childish, but I am starting to get wary of all these random IPs, especially when two similiar ones from the same area (which seem familiar with Wikipedia and also know how to sign and date their posts) somehow end up coincidentally on the same page, vote "keep" and write in a very similiar English language. Please guys, can we at least have some sort of agreement where all voters, whether 'keepers' or 'opposers' are at least registered? It would also help verify identity for one. Mar4d (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly buying the argument that these two IPs are the same, but as a genuine problem has been raised I'd ask all future contributors to use their account. --RaviC (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment To this entire debate has contributed but one editor (The Scythian) who is actually listed as a participant in this WikiProject. No one else, including myself, has bothered to go to that lenght or has been active on this talk page at any time in the past two years. I'd say that shows a rather large amount of indifference on the part of the WikiProject, if not outright lack of activity. I doubt we'll ever establish consensus, and given that lack of activity, I wonder whether that even matters. Could anybody please tell me what impediments Wikipedia would suffer if the decision went against him, or what the advantages would be if his point of view prevailed? I'm not talking geographics, history or sociology here, but effect on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the shout-out. Sadly, I'm probably the only person here with a direct connection to the place, and even that has it's limits. I myself am rather perplexed by the sudden interest some "Wikipedians" have garnished towards this geographic and social-cultural region. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the historic trade and cultural ties between Central and South Asia within related articles, where need be. That unfortunately is not the purpose of this discussion. Certain editors wish to include Wikiproject India, a modern nation state mind you, directly into and a part of Wikiproject Central Asia. That makes no sense, and smacks of outright nationalism and irredentism on the hands of certain editors. Why these editors suddenly care so much for someplace like Uzbekistan in regards to to India, is really questionable. The Scythian 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There would be some noticeable effect - More reference to India on pages such as Central Asia could be created. --RaviC (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More references strictly within context. Articles about Central Asian topics are not "about" India, unless they in the rare instance actually are. The Scythian 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would that depend on whether or not India is added to this WikiProject? Huon (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The additions of edits to do with Ladakh would most likely be removed, citing India is not part of this WP. Some additions I would add are the addition of Ladakh to Territories sometimes included, and possibly adding Leh to the Major cultural and economic centres section. --RaviC (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when do mainspace edits depend on whether an article is covered by a certain WikiProject? Edits like adding Ladakh to the territories sometimes included or adding Leh to the major cultural and economic centres should be supported by reliable sources, not by coverage by a WikiProject. Huon (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ladakh is fine to be mentioned, but adding Wikiproject India to that of Central Asia makes no sense. The Scythian 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your sentiment, unless I'm mistaken this lengthy debate is not about whether the WikiProject India should become part of WikiProject Central Asia, but whether the India article itself gets to wear WikiProject Central Asia. Huon (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. I know that this not a proposal for Project Central Asia to become "part of" Project India, but only to wear the logo on top of the article's discussion page. I am aware of that. I just do not understand why it would. The Scythian 01:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As no users here have expressed any dispute over Ladakh's inclusion in Central Asia, I will be adding some more information about the region to the Central Asia article. Thanks. --RaviC (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at the discussion again, many users have expressed dispute over the inclusion of territory/s administered by the Republic of India to be in Central Asia. Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. If you have a look at the voting, nine people had voted for India to be in this WikiProject, and seven against.  However, three of those who had not supported this proposal (SpacemanSpiff, The Scythian, Huon) had no objection to only Ladakh (as opposed to all of India) being classified under Central Asia, if all sources for this were provided.  This therefore makes the voting for whether Ladakh only should be part of Central Asia 12-4. Just to quote Huon above: Edits like adding Ladakh to the territories sometimes included or adding Leh to the major cultural and economic centres should be supported by reliable sources, not by coverage by a WikiProject. Many Thanks. --RaviC (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You took Huon's comment rather directly. You cannot make your own conclusion or add anything until consensus has been reached; regarding SpacemanSpiff, The Scythian, Huon, they oppose the mention of India under Central Asia, something which you ignored when you added "India" right in the "sometimes included territories" section on Central Asia and the Template:Countries and territories of Central Asia. Out of the 12 votes you are quoting, some of the IP votes seem rather shadowy and dubious (with most of their claims inspired by irredentism and nationalism) and I would'nt take them more seriously as compared to the input of registered users. Mar4d (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that many of the anonymous IP addresses, and perhaps more than one of the registered editors, are in fact the same person. In Wikipediaistan, this is known as sock puppetry, and is a form of "gaming the system." A complaint should be registered, and an investigation launched by an Administrator, and the guilty should be punished. The Scythian 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A few additional comments: Firstly, this discussion is about whether the India article should be covered by this WikiProject. It is not about whether Ladakh should be added to the Central Asia article among the "territories sometimes included". If consensus on the latter question is to be established, surely Talk:Central Asia is the place to do so. Secondly, RaviC seems to have forgotten to add the reliable sources that actually say Ladakh is sometimes included in Central Asia, or that Leh is a major cultural and economic centre in Central Asia. In case of a dispute, those who wish to add content need to supply the sources. Huon (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As we don't really know if all votes for and against were legitimate, I will be setting up a seperate conversation about whether Ladakh (only) should be included on the Talk:Central Asia page.  Also, as I had forgotten to add the sources, I will add a list of sources when I create the discussion on that page.  --RaviC (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Pakistan from WikiProject Central Asia
I propose deletion of Pakistan from WikiProject Central Asia. This is because if India is not here, Pakistan shouldn't be here too. Open for discussion.  Boolyme   Talk!! 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If possible, could you also provide a sound reason for in the event India is not included, why Pakistan should automatically be removed? Mar4d (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - that's no kind of rationale, and in conjunction with the above discussion it looks like WP:POINT. Parts of Pakistan are certainly in Central Asia, and its culture is closely related to the Central Asian culture of Afghanistan. That it is also closely related to Indian culture, whose "Central Asia-ness" is debatable, is irrelevant. Huon (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Afghanistan isn't part of Central Asia proper either as per the article of Central Asia on Wikipedia. --18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Afghanistan is, by the UNESCO definition and by our Afghanistan article as well. That same UNESCO definition also includes major parts of Pakistan, and that's good enough for me. Huon (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, you should have no problem supporting the addition of India in this WikiProject as well, as UNESCO classifies some parts of India as in Central Asia (See File:Central Asia borders4.png. --00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think Afghanistan (which mind you is absolutely a Central Asian country) does not fall within Central Asia, doesn't that make your case for a small strip of land in Indian-administered Kashmir all the more weaker? Mar4d (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've lost your consensus to contribute on this debate or the one above - Ladakh is not "a small strip", but at least 86,904 square kilometres of land. --184.171.168.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Oppose - That is no reason to remove Pakistan from the scope of the project. If India does not fall into the core of Central Asia, it does not mean you remove Pakistan too. Moreover, Pakistan has more in common with the region; it directly borders Afghanistan and lies adjacent to Tajikistan, seperated only by the narrow Wakhan Corridor. Many ethnic groups in the country's north share direct genetics with Central Asian people, not to mention the deep Central Asian cultural influence that exists there (and the historic migration, contact between both regions). Many definitions show parts of northern Pakistan in Central Asia, so that should not even be in the question. Mar4d (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling this proposal was bluntly made in response to the above debate, while directly ignoring what geography defines; Mar4d (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment If we follow the nominator's rationale, we would probably need to start mass editing of the Central Asia page (removing all reckless references to Pakistan wherever neccessary) and also start fixing Central Asia (being sarcastic); Mar4d (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to follow on with what you've said, we would have to start removing all references to Ladakh and India on the Central Asia page in the event that the resolution above does not get passed. --18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't get the point - Pakistan is largely relevant to Central Asia because a sizeable portion of areas in northern and western Pakistan fall into the scope of the region. As you can see, it is included in the "sometimes included" countries list. I don't know if you bothered to read the whole Central Asia article at all, hence why you are proposing the "removal." Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the guy was (sarcastically) indicating that Ladakh was already written about in the article as Central Asian. --Rvd4life (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, great, but isn't this section dedicated to proving that Pakistan does not come in Central Asia? Mar4d (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

NEED PEOPLE OTHER THAN PAKISTANIS TO GIVE THEIR FRANK OPINION  Boolyme   Talk!! 08:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only "Pakistani" I can see here is myself; Mar4d (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's you, and Huon, who while probably not Pakistani, has an interest in Pakistan by his edit log. --184.171.168.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Funny how people interested in Pakistan comment here after Boolyme asked for participation on Talk:Pakistan... Huon (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. If Indians can vote in the debate above, why can't Pakistanis vote in this debate? Also, since when did Wikipedia say everyone had to mention their nationalities to participate in consensus? This is total rubbish and deviating from the main topic. Mar4d (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy has not said that Pakistanis aren't allowed to vote (otherwise he wouldn't have posted a request for their voting in the Talk:Pakistan page). Rather, it seems he wants those other than Pakistanis to take part in voting. --184.171.168.202 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator has given no credible reason and the rationale made me laugh. I hope it is not a case of sour grapes or sarcasm. If it is, this nomination should probably be ignored and regarded as a case of WP:Trolling. Rana A.R (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Our nation is South Asian, certainly no foreigners such as Americans can change that.
 * We are not implying that all of Pakistan comes under Central Asia; the regions under debate are those in northern and western Pakistan. As mentioned in the Pakistan article itself, the country comes as a crossroad between three major regions; South Asia, Central Asia and the greater Middle East. Keeping this in mind, that is the sole reason of why I think Central Asia maintains a connection with Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Would this also imply No Pakistan = No Ladakh/India? :)

Uzbek women's football league
As Uzbekistan was awarded the 2012 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup, i thought it would be time to create an article about the Uzbek women's football championship. Now as a don't speak Uzbek and google translate struggles too, maybe someone could help changing the 2008 teams to 2011, maybe link a site with current standings, add the 2009 and 2010 champions, or just correct some spellings or so. Links: http://the-uff.com/ the federation, http://championat.uz/ soccer site (only men?), http://www.uzfootball.uz/ football site. thanks. -Koppapa (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan's portal has been nominated for deletion. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarkhan Mughals
Could editors with expertise in Central Asian history please have a look at Tarkhan Mughals? I've copyedited a bit, removed the references to mirrored WP articles, formatted some existing references, etc. But I notice that some of the remaining references are quite dubious indeed (including the novel I, Barbarian by John Jakes!), and twice the article asserts "From this we can deduce the fact...". There seems to be a great deal of WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis, but since my knowledge of Central Asian history is minimal, I wouldn't know what to keep and what to chuck out. All help welcome. Thanks, 08:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move Lop Lake -> Lop Nur
See related discussion here. Yaan (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Central Asia
Hi, I started out the Central Asia portal myself. Please feel free to look around. Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. I think it might be a good idea to add a link to the portal in the Template:WikiProject Central Asia. Mar4d (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

✅ Actually, I just did that myself since the template page doesn't seem to be protected. Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Central Asia will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Central Asian history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dunhuang Project editing event
Hi all,

This is to let you know that I've been working with the International Dunhuang Project group at the British Library to plan a multi-day editing event in late October focused on Central Asian archaeology (details). As well as contributions from IDP staff, we're hoping to get involvement from academics and students at UCL, and planning a session for interested Wikipedians.

If you're interested in taking part (online or offline), or you'd like further information when we've more details organized, please let me know or sign up here. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a quick followup, this is happening next week - anyone in London is very welcome to come by! Drop me a message if you're interested.
 * I'm currently organising some of the preparation for next week, and one of the things we're looking at is images. The IDP has a very large collection of manuscript and artefact images, as well as a lot of site photographs, historic material from expeditions, etc. We're hoping to upload a lot of this during the week, but if there's anything specific you'd like to request, please let me know and we'll bump it up the list. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mongolian/Buryat shamanism articles
We're having a little bit of a drive this week at User talk:Drmies. So far we have: Some of the sources are written in Cyrillic, and we also need help with all of the Mongolian, Buryat, Russian, and other names for these things. (A couple of sources we've located are encyclopaedias, and, ironically, they contain many of these names at the heads of their entries.) See Drmies' talk page for more. Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sagaan Ubgen
 * Yellow shamanism · Yellow shaman
 * Dayan Deerh
 * ongon
 * You need a principled approach to "Sagaan ubgen" and how to handle conflicts between Khalkha / Buryat / Kalymk as respective standard languages of their territory. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Araly, Kazakhstan?
Can someone please review the page Araly, I cannot find any reference to such a place in Kazakhstan.--Traveler100 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a hoax. That article claims Araly District has an area of 35 million hectares - 350,000 square kilometers. Firstly, our article on Karagandy Province and its source for districts, which should include Araly District, don't mention Araly District at all. Secondly, all of Karagandy Province only has an area of 428,000 km2 - This unfindable district is supposed to be more than 80% of the province. I doubt that. I'll propose it for deletion. Huon (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is what I though but wanted to check.--Traveler100 (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples
FYI Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples has been proposed to be split, see talk:Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)