This is an archive of past discussions about Kazakhstan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Does anyone else think that the few paragraphs in the 'history' section are a little biased? I mean, Stalin did force the collectivization of the land and did spur industrialization in a bureaucratic, heavy-handed matter, but the fact still remains that some how, under all this 'repression' the literacy rate in the country is 99.5% and have universal suffrage?
It’s not like these things just appeared out of nowhere.
There are many countries in the world which have high literacy rates, universal suffrage, and a strong economy, without having suffered millions of deaths at the hands of their own government. I don't see that the paragraphs are biased - repression is not a prerequisite to progress, and if there were massive crimes committed, it is important that they are brought to light.
We aren't denying that at all, IMO Stalin was a compelte and utter *** who used the communit message to futhure his personal gain! (and this is coming from a communist), but debite his domocide and depotations, he did do some great things for the USSR and her republics, and w/o him, the USSR might have lost World War 2.
I'm sorry, but THAT statement is not too far away form saying Adolf Hitler did some good things for Germany, like building the "Autobahn" and getting the wworkless off the street. A mass murderer is a mass murderer is a mass murderer. Lost Boy07:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The article about the Trail of Tears uses the term REMOVAL for the shameful effort by the US administration to force native Americans off their land (this was DEPORTATION or DEPRIVING NATIVE AMERICANS OF THEIR OWN LAND). In this article however the term deportation used on a regular basis. Because there is no need to 'soften' the language when talking about the Soviets, right? The section about the Soviet period is absolutely biased and I felt it when reading this article before I went to this discussion page.
Lost Boy, you are stretching it a bit by comparing Soviet rule to Nazi Germany. The Soviets repressed and killed many people (Russians, Kazakhs, and other ethnicities) who were openly against them ideologically, the Nazis killed those who were Jews or other inferior ethnicities. Nazis would have exterminated the Jews if not stopped.
And you missed the point that the history section only gives negative information, while being mostly tacit about positive. This is partial and is unacceptable for a good and comprehensive article. Let's leave politics alone and focus on facts.
Denghu (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
And would stating that, in either case, be incorrect? Being a mass murdering scumbag doesn't mean that everything you've ever done is worthless and evil. 65.182.52.9504:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it would. There are atrocities that absolutely render unaccountable for anything else this infividual might ever have done; and that goes for both Stalin and Hitler. BTW, publically announcing that you share the opinion of Hitler having done something valuable at least, would get you in serious legal trouble in Germany. Greetings, Lost Boy05:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The goal is an unbiased account from which a reader might draw their own conclusions. It's an injustice to the subject matter to not include both the good and the bad. Given that there are mulitple articles regarding the history of Kazakhstan, the main page article's discussion of Soviet Kazakhstan should be abbreviated, even more so than it is, so that a complete discussion might be offered, elsewhere, without excessive redundancy John Zim11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Economy
I would add about the Industrial Innovative Strategy Kazakhstan has adopted in 2003. It has acknowledged its' economy's weakness of overdependence on natural resources and is making some initial attempts to industrialize.
Dulatka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.14.249 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Demographics
Your population data has outdated.The Qazaqs now comprise 64% of the population of Kazakhstan.
I dont think its true about international adoption. There is no source for this fact in the article. The same goes for outflows of population.
Someone should mention the large native Korean population in the article. In terms of numbers, they are definitely worth a mention. By "native" I mean Koreans that are descendants of the 1937 deportation.
- comment: I also agree that the Korean minority and their previous deportation in 1937 deserve mention MyraSmith569
I do not think what the changing of the statistical data should be done in this manner, by the oral request of anonymous person without citing any official source. The only reliable source of information in this case is the 1999 census and all references should be done to the census only. Unfortunately, The Statistical Agency of Kazakhstan does not provide correct real-time data and their info releases are not consistent with their own previous publications. I suggest that the new data on the demography (and other important statistical information) to be corrected only after official publication of the next 2009 census. Otherwise the information posted here could be misleading and cannot be trusted.
Sincerely,
Golan.
ADDED TOTAL POPULATION, its silly to have an article on population of kazakhistan and not to mentioN EVEN ONE THE TOTTAL POpulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
cossack and kazah
It is the result of Kazakhs' nomadic horseback culture and is related to the term "cossack"
The name entered the English language from the French Cosaque, in turn, probably via Polish from the Ukrainian Kozak rather than the modern Russian Kazak. It is ultimately derived from a Turkic social term qazaq meaning "adventurer" or "free man".
No, cossack and kazakh in russian sounds almoust the same. Cossack - in russian is kazak (казак); kazakh in russian is kazakh (казах). And k and kh sound fairly similar. Actualy only reason 'kazakh' in russian is writen with kh(х) only to diverge it from russian kazak (cossack).
Word "cossack" is originated from Turkic "wanderer", "free spirit", as well as word Kazak/h. Besides, word Kazakh is much older than "cossack".
The Russian source on origin of the word "...скажем, что название казак, перешедшее в средних веках и ко многим отраслям русского племени, принадлежит киргиз-кайсакским ордам с начала их существования, и что они себя доныне иначе не называют, как казаками (казак). Под сим же именем известны они персиянам, бухарцам, хивинцам и прочим Народам Азии. Китайцы, смягчая начальную букву к говорят хасаки. До XVIII столетия и в России не знали киргиз-кайсаков, но именовали их казаками, Казачьею ордою (В Истории государства Российского" (Т. IX. Прим. 646) сказано Орда киргиз-кайсаков называется в делах ногайских обыкновенно каза-чею . То же видно и из летописей.)"А. И. ЛЕВШИН,
ОПИСАНИЕ КИРГИЗ-КАЗАЧЬИХ ИЛИ КИРГИЗ-КАЙСАЦКИХ ОРД И СТЕПЕЙ, Часть II
--Aldarkose0206:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Politics
"In June 2007, Kazakhstan's parliament passed a law granting President Nursultan Nazarbayev lifetime powers and privileges, including access to future presidents, immunity from criminal prosecution, and influence over domestic and foreign policy. Critics say he has become a de facto "president for life""--Actual reference for this (2) states this took place in 2000, not 2007. Also, I can't find ref (3)- the website referenced doesn't archive back to 2000. And their search function doesn't produce any hits.
I think there is not enough reference to the part on Politics. E.g. it talks about the election results and how different organizations viewed it, and how OECD said the elections were non-transparent, but there is no link to OECD and only links to Bloomberg site. Dulatka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.14.249 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
CIA reference
Reference moved from the article page. olivier 12:45, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Much of this material is originally from the CIA World Factbook 2000 and the U.S. Department of State's 2002 website. Incompletely Wikified.
Education
I would add a bit about the Bolashak programme, from www.bolashak.kz. The Kazakhstani government is sponsoring more than 30000 students annually to attend universities in the West. Dulatka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.14.249 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Population
Notice the disagreement between the population given in the fact box and the population estimate mentioned in the text? No, it's not our problem, it's actually a rather large disagreement between sources. US Census Bureau International Database and the CIA fact book list the figure in the fact box (we got it from CIA of course.) However, UN databases estimate about 2 million less. This is a rather large discrepancy and I'm adding some notes about it here and in the article on demographics of Kazakhstan. I suspect the discrepancy comes from a large nomadic and migrant population. Isomorphic 17:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Almaty is a name of an ancient settlement that existed in the region of the current city before arrival of Russian cossacks. City of Verny was founded on the basis of this settlement by the decree of Russian tzars. Russians, not accustomed to Turkic language, misprounced it as Alma-Ata, which, incidentally can be traslated from Kazakh to Russian as Grandfather of Apples.
The alleged translation of the name of this city as the Grandfather of Apples is not accurate. First of all, there is not established phrasal expression such as this one in Kazakh language. If Kazakhs wanted to refer to a particular place as having the quality of producting (being fertile) for apples, they would say "Almaly," or specifically "Almaly zhery." Kazakhs would not portray the qualitative characteristics of something using the meaning contained in the words "Father of something" (as well as mother, sister or any other blood relative). Secondly, the correction translation of "the Grandfather of Apples" in Kazakhs would be "Alma(nin) Ata(sy)." I've placed correct suffixes in brackets in the preceding sentence. Therefore, "the Grandfather of Apples" appears to be a pure invention, lacking sound gramattical or linguistic basis.
The infobox of Asia says: "1. Usually assigned to Asia geographically, but nonetheless often thought of as European for cultural and historical reasons.", This is not true for Kazakhstan or any CIS countries, these countries share no culture or history with Europe. It should be amended and then placed here.
The {{Asia}} template says the same thing. Who has written these templates?
The original author of the Asia one is Cantus. I find it silly that you remove the {{Europe}} template while the lead continues to read: A portion of its territory west of the Ural River is located in eastern-most Europe. You may have a valid point though, as Transcontinental nation reads: Because of Kazakhstan's Central Asian culture and political orientation, it is very rarely regarded as a European country, despite its sizeable territory in Europe (larger than the whole of Portugal or Greece). Three nations of the South Caucasus, however – Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia – have a stronger sociopolitical claim to be European. Of these three, only Georgia and Azerbaijan have territory in Europe, but Armenia may be regarded as European for cultural and historical reasons. Thanks again for reading. El_C23:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Mind you, that is in reference to the entire country being European, whereas the lead only addresses a portion of which. El_C23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Went ahead and moved it... if anyone objects... well... see if you can find a section in another nation's article about a satirical fictious character that peddles falsehoods about the nation. arguably we could have a one-liner about borat in the kazakhstan article, but it still seems pretty trivial stuff compared with national affairs. Jackk07:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you need to consider that the vast majority of westerners had never heard of Kazakhstan before Borat, who is single-handedly responsible for bringing the country into recognition.
"Vast majority"? Excuse me, but any 7th grader in all over Europe _does_ know what and where Kazakhstan is. Lost Boy05:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
A simple link to 'borat' would do it. His website caused some worldwide controversy, and considering the launghing of his movie in septembere, w should definitely add him to the article.
Somebody might want to change the state motto and national anthem back to what it really is!
Kazakhstan is wonderful country. Now women can ride on inside of bus and homosexual no have to wear blue hat. Sacha Baron-Cohen the Jew he tell many lies. BoratSagdiyev14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool.
It’s length thirty meter and width six meter.
Filtration system a marvel to behold.
It remove 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Norther fence of Jewtown.
Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan.
They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in the world.
We incented toffee and trouser belt.
Kazakhstan’s prostitutes cleanest in the region.
Except of course Turkmenistan’s
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Norther fence of Jewtown.
Come grasp the might phenis of our leader.
From junction with the testes to tip of its face!"
Borat might not have played an important role in the history of Kazakhstan, but that was before he came to existance. Without Borat, many people wouldn't even think about vandalizing this page. And don't you think that the fact that we are having an agrument about Borat is proof enough that he has effected the English speaking World's view of Kazakhstan? In almost a Catch-22 sense, the more we talk about him (with good or bad comments) the more we think about Kazakhstan, and the more we link him too it, even if by orginally talking about him, we meant to say that there is no link between him and Kazakhstan. There is no way to stop it. And besides, he's funny. The idea for "Borat" came from a Russian doctor that he meet, not from that internet guy who claims he is the real idea for Borat, even though Cohen took some lines from him after already making the charachter. The reason he chose to be Kazakhstanini is because it is a long standing Kazakh tradition to self mock. A Kazakh might answer a question to a forigner by saying, "how am is suspossed to know, I'm a Kazakh!" The only people in Kazakhstan who don't find him funny are the top level government officals. He deserves his own section on the Kazakhstan page, because he's interesting and he is Kazakhstan's good (or bad) will ammbassabor to the world. And just as we should incude something about how he tells the world about Kazakshstan and how he has put them in the limelight, there should also be something that talks about how what he says is completely un-true and done for a comic benifit that clearly is not benifiting Kazakhstan. The fact that the Kazakhstan government put an ad in the New York Times (a 4 page ad) is enough to tell you that he matters to them and how the public views them, so shouldn't that be a reason to put him on the public's viewing of Kazakshstan. And let's face it, why are people tying in 'Kazakhstan' into Wikipedia in the first place. If you're a school kid, it might be research, but for most of us, its because of Borat. (btw, I'm a practicing Jew and I find what he does very funny) -Philip Weinberg
I like the idea of not mentioning Borat here at all. It is an article about Kazakhstan and this sick guy has nothing to do with it.
Excuse me, but once the government plans a major propaganda campaign in a foreign nation over the issue, it is no longer a question of 'inconsequence'. 13 September 2006
I included a source. The government of the country is taking this VERY seriously. It *IS* relevant. Shadowmarch. 13 Septemer 2006
These rumors are officially denied. "the story has now been strongly denied by Roman Vassilenko, the Press Secretary at the Kazakhstan Embassy. The late-September meetings "have nothing to do" with Borat or the movie, he told ABC News."[1] – Janibek and Kerey02:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Because OF COURSE we can believe the honorable government of Khazakstan. [2]
How did Borat Sogdiyev and Ivan Drago end up in the official government section of the fact box? Is that a sick joke or something else? Sacha Baron Cohen is a vulgar, pathetic comic and I don't understand what the entire buzz is about.
Regarding the last message, anything can make national headlines in the US, even the least important issues. Let's place Borat in the least important section and forget all about him!!!
A.Murray
Something is terribly wrong with this Wikipedia page. When I first opened it, the factbox showed Borat as the President and Dolf Lundgren's Ivan Drago as the Prime Minister. When I refreshed the page, the actual government came up. Someone is having a vulgar fan alternating the information this way...
A. Murray.
Why is there a link to Borat in the Culture of Kazakhstan section? He is part of American/British culture, not Kazakhstan's.
There is no reason to place Borat in this article at all. Other country's articles do not include sections about comedians that satirize them or who even are from them (Samantha Bee doesn't have a section on Canada's page, for example). Furthermore, and far more importantly, the character of Borad simply is not relevant. Some individuals have made the argument that it should be included because it has made headlines in the United States, but that does not by any means imply it should make it on this page. Kazakhstan rarely makes the news here, and important news headlines from the region almost never appear in US news, only rather inane ones such as this. If one wants to include current events, there are MUCH MORE RELEVANT happenings that could be included. If one goes to a news site pertaining to this region they'll find all sorts of up-to-date information on foreign relations, economic deals and development issues that have NOT been included on this article. These events are much more relevant to the topic of Kazakhstan as a whole than Borat is. Before we add something about a western comedian, I believe this type of information which is far more important should be added. --The Way04:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
When the government spends $40 million of its own money to make a movie to counter this information, its a big deal.
The government did not spend $40 million of its own money to make a movie to counter this information. "Nomad" was filmed in 2003-2004, a couple of years before Borat appeared on the world scene; See section "government and visiting president" below.
Support. Please remove all content of Borat from the main article for Kazakhstan. It is fiction, and far out of place from reality — this is a poor article from Wikipedia because of this. However, it is worthy to mention this content in the Borat article, or perhaps in an article about Western depictions of Kazakhstan. Please not here. +mwtoews02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If the article itself were more comprehensive, I think Borat would have its place, due to the P.R. and image importance. Other things are more important, though, e.g., their nuclear disarmament in the early 90s, official language/script controversies, etc. Until the recent history of Kazakhstan is more thoroughly covered, a section or subsection for Borat will be questionable, especially as it now stands. However, total omission from all Kazakhstan articles might be considered overly cautious. Calbaer03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As many people above have requested, I'll agree that a single paragraph/sentence be mentioned about Borat, and none-more. Currently, I count 2 large paragraphs in 2 subsections. Emphasizing this content distorts reality from fiction, and I would hope that an article about a Nation would emphasize reality. (Also, be careful for bending toward the PR and image for a film — see Wikipedia:What is a troll). Certainly, anyone interested in more about the fictional character or the film can go to other articles for more. +mwtoews06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a big Borat fan and I think his inclusion in the Popular Culture section is more then adequate. I think shortening the entry to
"The controversial character Borat, created by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, often featured on Cohen's Da Ali G Show is from Kazakhstan." is perfect. If users wish to get more information, they click the links. There's no need for an additional 3 paragraphs on information to be here. He deserves one sentence of mention and that's it.
Borat is hilarious but so are other commedians who live in the UK & US. Please this is a country not a sketch lets stick him somewhere near the bottom as a minor link where he definately belongs. The opening line must be offensive to people who havent even seen the TV series or Movie.
As long as people understand that Borat is a fictional character and he has no relation to real Kazakhstan, that's fine. I don't care what Americans think about Kazakhstan. They think that they won World War II and helping Irag in the war for freedom... Well, they should think twice ;-) Amazing thing in this entire Borat situation is the ignorance and arrogance of American people!
Chicago tribune said that the main problem is not in whether Borat is making fun of Kazakhstan, but how Americans react on that, especially to his song "Throw the jew down the well". The whole bar packed with drunken red-necks was cheering on this song... Mel Gibson got drunk and delivered his anti-jew tyrade... White Supremacist is telling an American born Asian journalist to go back to China... Scary, isn't it?!! Borat knows about it, so he has utilized the unawareness of Americans about outside world in order to pick on them in very smart and timely manner. They just don't know about, they are unaware of it just as much as they are unaware of descendants of KKK, Blacks menacing Whites and Asians on every corner of the street, Jews with their oversized egos and Asians, who think they are the smartest people in the World... It is not a real unawareness, but rather blindness or even worse, Bigotry in its pure form!!!
A) this article is about Kazakhstan, NOT about Borat or the baaaaad U.S. of A.
B) this discussion page especially is about the article, not about throwing manure.
C) and if some do, please be at least so courageous and honest to sign your name or you might risk your contributions to be deleted, even on a discussion page.
Whoever removed the excessive mention of Borat from this article deserves an honorable mention. I was very disappointed with this article earlier. Borat is not a big deal in the larger scheme of things, and I hate how current events always seem more important than they really are to so many people. One sentence is well enough. Let's keep it that way. Erik E.01:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a regular wikipedian or anything, so I'm not going to alter the article, i'll leave that the pointy-headed ones who care. But to anyone who says Borat is irrelevant to an article on this country, I offer this link: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/travelog/2006/11/having_the_last_laugh.html#more . I'd say a 300% increase in tourist inquiries is a pretty tangible and significant impact for a comedy film.
One other observation I'd make - this is not the first film to have an impact on the place where it's set. Richard Curtis, who wrote the movie "Notting Hill", lived in Notting Hill, in the flat where Hugh Grant's character was shown to live. After the release of the movie, he sold it - for rather more money than he might have been able to get had it not just featured in a box-office hit movie. Would a wikipedia entry on Notting Hill really not mention the movie? Then again, should the wikipedia entry on Australia mention the massive increase in tourism generated by the movie "Crocodile Dundee"? Maybe not, now, given that that happened 20 years ago - but the Borat phenomenon is real and current. That it is ephemeral is perhaps a defensible reason for minimising it, but not, surely, for omitting it altogether?
It seems to me that the main reason people are offering for not wanting any reference to it is that they personally do not find it funny. This is hardly a rational reason.[Anonymous non-wikipedian]
i agree wholeheartedly, and i think a lot of these people have sticks up their asses and take things waaaay too seriously. and i find it really offensive that someone stuck "anonymous non-wikipedian" at the end of that comment, as if there's no way it could be a wikipedian who didn't log in, and also to discredit the statement. well, if you want a non-anonymous name on the statement, have mine. -Nathew14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Further update - a moment's checking shows that, yes, indeed, the entry for Notting Hill - the REAL PLACE - includes a paragraph referring to the movie of the same name. Is this not a sensible precedent to follow?
The page's current policy of completely ignoring Borat is indefensible. You can posture all you want (the "any gradeschooler could tell you where Kazakhstan is" nonsense above is delusional), but nearly everyone who'd heard of Kazakhstan before the Borat movie had no idea about it. The Kazakh government was concerned enough to throw a fit over the movie. Furthermore, numerous Wikipedia articles about real-world places, people, and events include short sections about fictional references. Borat's version of Kazakhstan, while a caricature, is still the most notable fictional representation of that country in the English-speaking world. I'm weary, however, of changing the page myself without discussion, because I imagine it would simply be reverted. 68.191.39.14913:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? Borat needs to be mentioned! I know it might insult the feelings of people that something as insignificant as some comedy is mentioned in the article about their country, but after all Wikipedia is not meant to be nice or friendly. It serves the masses. You can't argue with the fact that for many people in the world, Borat is one of the things that comes in mind when they think of Kazakhstan. Sorry if it insults anybody, but that's how it is now.
I'm not saying that it should be mentioned in the headline or something. Of course not, but not mentioning Borat AT ALL is just weak. It's just about closing your eyes to things that insult you.
With all due respect, I think we should add SOME info about Borat here. Northern 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There have not been any responses to what I've said and therefore I shall add a little notice about Borat somewhere down in the article if no one will be good enough to respond.
I'm responding right now. We've already reached a consensus that Borat should not be mentioned at all. Please read the discussion below and remember to sign your posts. -- VegitaU06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
First I'm tired of people telling me to sign my posts. Do you not see the name Northern and a date right below the comments?
Second, You reached a consensus? Very nice but We did not. There are still people who disagree with what you've decided. I'm not the only one still pushing to add Borat to this article. The discussion continues, and just because you came to a decision doesn't mean that everyone else did. As you may see, most of the recent posts share my opinion Northern08:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"First I'm tired of people telling me to sign my posts. Do you not see the name Northern and a date right below the comments?"
"Second, You reached a consensus? Very nice but We did not."
No, not just me. Please read all the discussions on this page. Here is where we decided this.
"There are still people who disagree with what you've decided. I'm not the only one still pushing to add Borat to this article."
Yeah, and they've made their argument (below) and I've refuted it without another response from them.
"The discussion continues, and just because you came to a decision doesn't mean that everyone else did."
Like I said, it's not just me.
"As you may see, most of the recent posts share my opinion"
"No, not really. The "recent" posts you cite were made about 9 months ago. The one made in July was from someone who has a spotty record and the rest refute your position.
THIS is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course that Borat shouldn't be mentioned in this article. You don't see Speedy Gonzalez in the article about Mexico, or Homer Simpson as the average American in the article about the USA. User: Francisco Santos, Monterrey, Mexico mail: [email protected]
Random browser here. I was really surprised to not see anything about Borat. Yes, you don't see Speedy Gonzalez in Mexico, but seriously, Borat has made Kazakhstan WAAAY more recognized in the international community. I think a one or two sentence section just acknowledging it should be included. Nothing overkill, but really guys, Borat does matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.41.2 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What "international community" are you talking about? Do you mean that people in the CIS countries only heard of Kazakhstan after seeing the Borat movie? And did people in China, Manchuria, Japan and Korea have to see the movie before learning about Kazakhstan? And what true information does Borat teach about Kazakhstan anyway? Just because a few Americans learn something from a movie does not mean that everyone else wasn't already aware of it. Borat is irrelevant to Kazakhstan.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To back up Mumia , 'Borat' did not make Kazakhstan "waaay more recognized in the international community" but rather, at most, Borat made the country more recognizable to American popular culture. Kazakhstan has and remains a significant player in the international community, given its massive oil, gas, coal, uranium and metal reserves, its geopolitical importance and its role as the most influential and developed country in Central Asia. To pretend that Borat is of any significance to Kazakhstan is to grossly overexaggerate the importance of American popular culture. --The Way (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget that Borat's references to Kazakhstan are in no way positive nor accurate. The only people learning about Kazakhstan from Borat are the ignorant Westerners.--Hamster X (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a peripheral editor chiming in... I see Mumia using the phrase "true information" and Hamster talking about "positive" and "accurate" and I'm not sure those ideas are as important as simply making sure material in the article can be verified to exist. That the Borat movie exists and that it mocks Kazakhstan is easy to verify. This Kazakhstan article is large and mature and references to Kazakhstan in popular English culture are reasonable, as long as those references can be verified. Remember the policy we follow... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Ask yourself if we would be having the same debate over an equally widely viewed BBC documentary instead of a Hollywood mockumentary. --Ds13 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sacha Baron-Cohen's work has nothing to do with Kazakhstan. It was just a name he took from an atlas. Nothing in his movie reflects Kazakhstan, it's cultural or it's people in any way except co-incidence. There is no way you can learn anything about Kazakhstan from it and those that think that it increased the countries profile are confusing misinformation with education. We might has well add references to every single WWII war movie to the article on "Germany". Although even "She-wolf of the SS" is more relevant to modern Germany than Borat was to Kazakhstan. At least it can be proved that something called the "SS" actually existed. Excuse me, I have to go add Fu-Manchu references to the "China" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.254.246.237 (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen it without the "h". Google has 80 million hits for "h" versus 4 million for no "h". The CIA World Factbook spells it with an "h". -- Walt Pohl00:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
In Russian there is no 'h' or anything to differentiate the second 'k' from the first, but in English it is variable. Now, Kyrgyzstan gets really interesting. I used the American spelling, the Brit spelling is Kyrghyzstan or Khy-..., the Russians still often use Kirgizia. Go figure. Chris01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
":In Russian there is no 'h' or anything to differentiate the second 'k' from the first, but in English it is variable." - Yes there is: it is spelled Казахстан in Russian, and Х is always transliterated as 'kh' in English. Sikandarji23:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the country itself puts with [kh] then it should be so. However, IMHO there shouldn't be [h]. Because the country name should be spelled in any different languages in accordance with it's native language.
Kazakhstan is almost always spelt with an 'h', because the Russians use х when spelling 'Казахи' (Kazakhs) in order to maintain the distinction from Казаки (Cossacks), even though both words are essentially the same, and would have been spelled with two Qafs (ق) before the introduction of the Cyrillic Alphabet. The English spelling is taken from Russian, hence 'Kazakhs' and 'Kazakhstan'. If you want to be pedantic it would be 'Qozoqston' or something similar, but nobody ever uses this spelling. It is nonsense to say that "Because the country name should be spelled in any different languages [sic] in accordance with it's [sic] native language." When speaking English we don't call Italy 'Italia', or Germany 'Deutschland'. The principle is exactly the same - use the form which is most familiar. Sikandarji17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I find the spelling with one "H" offensive to native kazak speakers, as it has been created from russian name of the country. This spelling has not so long history (less than ten years indeed, not to compare with "Germany" or "Italy") and still may be corrected to "Kazakstan" or "Qazaqstan" to match more closely its original spelling in Kazak (both in cyrillic, arabic and latin [1] script) --Jsx08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
One more argument to move from spelling with one "h" is the example of Belarus. Few recent years proper belarusan spelling becomes more and more popular versus transliteration from russian "Byelorussia". Both countries are mainly russian speaking.--Jsx14:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, here's the deal. This "h" is absolutely inappropriate and incorrect in ANY language. The original name "ҚАЗАҚ" (QAZAQ) starts and ends with the same letter - K or Q (Kazak or Qazaq). The first Kazak passports stated in English: "Republic of Kazakstan", the "h" was added to the English name later in late 90s, it came from Russian word "KA3AX". Let me tell you about the history of that "h". The current Russian spelling "KA3AX" (Kazakh) was invented only 80 years (!) ago by Bolsheviks in 1936. Right before that (1925 - 1936) the Russian spelling of Kazaks was "KA3AK" (Kazak) - the correct transliteration from Turkic. It substituted the incorrect tsarist names "Kirgiz" and earlier "Kirgiz-Kaisak" that were used by Russians from 18 century to 1925. And before that, from the very emergence of Kazak state (early 16 C) to the early 18 century Russians also called Kazaks with their real Turkic name - "KA3AK". There's a famous record of the Russian ambassador Danil Gubin to Ivan the Terrible in 1534: "Казаки добре сильны, и сказывают Ташкен воевали" ("Kazaks are pretty strong, and rumors go that they fought with Tashkent"). To sum that up, "KA3AK" (KAZAK) is the very original and the most correct Russian name/spelling given to Kazak people, that was changed in 18 century to "Kirgiz", but was re-introduced in 1925 by Kazak intelligentsia. Bolsheviks screw this Russian name up when they absurdly distorted it in 1936 and changed the last "K" to "X" (Kazak to Kazakh). This is absolutely inappropriate, because you may not change a Turkic word that starts and ends with K (Q) like that. There're plenty of Russian words and names of Turkic origin like "kolpak", "kabak", "korsak", "kumyk", "kalmyk", "Konchak", "Kolchak" which are structered the same as "Kazak", but nobody would have thought to change the last "K" to "X" because it is absurdic! And the most absurdic thing is the fact that Kazak government copied this 80-years old Bolsheviks' mistake in Russian spelling (KA3AX) to the current English spelling (Kazakh). -- Janibek and Kerey11:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Janibek and Kerey: Your history lesson is informative, however it misses the point. Firstly, countries are at liberty to pick whatever name they like for other countries (hence, as Sikandarji correctly notes, the country known in Italian as "Italia" is called "Italy" in English). Secondly, (and more importantly), according to the Kazakh government the current, official English name for the country is "Kazakhstan". This can be seen on all official government documents in English. So, for Wikipedia it is most correct to call the country "Kazakhstan". -- Hux21:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In English it is spelled with an "h" and that's how it should stay.
Hopefully re-introduction of latin alphabet for Kazak language will finally kill the colonial "h". Jsx21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The section on "The Borat Incident" is completely unsuited to Wikipedia. It should be thoroughly revised or done away with entirely. Furthermore, the foreign-language text in the section succeeding it should be removed.
I removed it; I do not believe it should be in this article at all, since it is only casually-linked to Kazakhstan, at best, and their is a link to the article under the See Also heading. I also removed the tag because the reason for the complain is gone.--naryathegreat | (talk)21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
LandLocked Status
Kazakhstan has coastline, there for should it really be considered landlocked? or is it because the Caspian Sea is a landlocked water body that it is considered to landlocked anyway? SlimXero06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
How many Jews are living in Kasakhstan? Why are people from Ukraine there are living? Simon MAYER
There are not only several thousands of Jews, but also dozens of other influential and numerous diasporas in Kazakhstan. Why highlighting only them? As I can judge, there hasn't been much done by them for the improvement of the Kazakhstanies' well-being.
To answer the question as to why so many Ukrainians live in Kazakhstan; they were forcibly relocated to the region under Stalin. Stalin forcibly moved millions of individuals from their homelands and many of them were relocated to Central Asia. --The Way04:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Repository of images
Greetings,
I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:
It's my opinion that the image of the wheatfields with a double-peaked mountain behind is not taken in Kazakhstan but in the Russian Caucasus and that the mountain is Elbrus. Patrick Horton
I don't understand the box with the picture in it under foreign relations... says something like "Kazakhstan has good realations with it's neighbors, and then it names to PEOPLE... maybe the leaders of the neighboring countries..I dunno, I don't feel like looking it up right now. I think naming the countries would be better or explaining the picture and who is in it and what they are doing.
government and visiting president
"In September of 2006, the government announced that it is funding of a multi million dollar movie called "Nomads" about the ancient origins of the nation. The government has justified this expense as an effort to combat negative international publicity. The Foreign Secretary has denied that a recent visit by the President of Khazakstan had anything to do with portrays of the country in popular western media."
This information is incorrect. The movie "Koshpendiler" (Nomads) was announced in 2003; was released in Kazakhstan in the fall of 2005; was released in Russia in September 2006; and is currently being held by the Weinstein Co for release to the rest of the world (date of release is still unknown). Also, the storyline of the movie is set in the 1700's, so it's not about "ancient origins".
Like I said, this information is incorrect. Borat's popularity has got a lot of people talking and writing articles about Kazakhstan, who know next to nothing about the subject. The movie "Nomads" was announced in 2003 (not in 2006), and filmed in the summers of 2003 / 2004. Here is an article dated August 29th, 2003, discussing the first season of filming -
http://www.np.kz/2003/34/sob4.html
This is the official website for the movie "Nomads" in Russia. As you can see, the Russian version of the movie was already released on Sept 7th:
http://www.kochevnik-film.ru/
Anyone who claims that the movie Nomads was "announced" in 2006, doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I myself have already watched the Kazakh version of the movie in the fall of 2005.
Also, the movie Nomads is not about the origins of the Kazakh people, ancient or otherwise - because the movie is set quite late in time - in the early 1700's. It portrays Abylai Khan, the last ruler of the unified and independent nomadic Kazakh nation. In history, after Abylai's rule, the Kazakhs lose their will and become slowly absorbed into the growing Russian empire. That is why this movie is sad and inspiring at the same time - it represents the "last stand" of the Kazakhs, their last bid to claim their right to exist.
As for the origins of the Kazakhs; the Kazakh nation originated in 1456, when the Kazakh Khanate was established on the ruins of the Golden Horde. This event is well detailed in the historical text Tarikh-i-Rashidi, by Muhammad Haidar Dughat (written in 1541). You can read a little bit of it online (English translation), or buy the book from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1421249251/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-3779915-4121511
Information about the movie was leaked to the AP circuit in September 2006. The Khazack government IS paying for US distribution. The Khazack government IS very concerned about current western influences in their country. The Khazack government IS very concerned about their image abroad, particularly about whether or not they are a democracy. Just because 'the reaction of western governments was muted to an election monitored by China' doesn't mean that the western governments aren't keeping their mouths shut because Khazakstan is of immense strategic and economic importance. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they don't know what they are talking about. Just because an issue regarding parody is 'popular' doesn't make it any less relevant, especially when a government that uses questionable tactics to maintain its own power feels threatened with regards to control its own image both within and without, and is aided by foreign governments eager for Khazach oil.
Its about a lot more than an idiot comic with a mustache making lame jokes. Its about a government that is DEATHLY AFRAID of an idiot comic with a mustache making lame jokes, overreacting to it in the extreme, and working to fight the perceptions about it on the highest level.
It's not a matter of being "deathly afraid", as you have so eloquently put it. It was a damned if you do, and damned if you don't (but in different ways) situation for Kazakhstan's government. Basically, if no official action were taken, then many of Kazakhstan's citizens would be angry at their government for ignoring the insults. If official action was taken (as it had), it may have evoked some ridicule from individuals abroad such as yourself, but overall, the confidence of the people of Kazakhstan in their government did not decrease due to this situation. So, I believe that the government of Kazakhstan pursued the proper course of action.
History
The earliest stone age long pre-dates K occupation unless the editor has some astounding information s/he has not shown us. Thus, I've deleted "earliest." Kdammers02:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
And where is about role of Kazakhs-Dzungars wars, that was one of the most important for Kazakhstan in 17th and 18th century? _Igor
Should 'Mongolian' in "Mongolian invasion" be changed to 'Mongol'? I have heard both and I'm not sure as to which is grammatically correct. (4th line down).
Names of Kazakhstan
Why are there 5 names for Kazakhstan in the infobox? There should only be Kazakh, Russian, and English. I will try to find what the other languages are and if necessary delete them since the caption of the field is native name not names by languages outside the country (excluding English which is the language of this encyclopedia). Gdo0107:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the five names are the Kazakh, Tatar, Russian, something, and English. It is my belief that whether Tatar should remain depends on how many Tatars there are in Kazakhstan and whether they are numerous enough to warrant a native name for Kazakhstan. The fourth one seems to be the Russian name with Roman letters. If this is the case, I doubt that it should remain as a native name. Gdo0107:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The five names are --
Қазақстан Республикасы (Kazakh, cyrillic alphabet); Qazaqstan Respublïkası (Kazakh, latin alphabet); Республика Казахстан (Russian); Respublika Kazakhstan (Russian, but written using English letters); Republic of Kazakhstan (English)
On a completely unrelated note, this edit, which was reverted as vandalism, was completely valid. The English name, Kazakhstan, is duplicated in the opening sentence.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
How is it relevant - whether Kazakhstan is more a European or Asian country - to the question of whether or not Kazakhs and Russians intermarry?
Actually such marriages are quite popular. Living the whole life in Kazkakhstan, I can say that there're no national borders. I know a lot of Jew/Kazakh, Russian/Kazakh, Kazakh/Korean etc. pairs.
It is not common. Such marriages are but are very rare.
Fans of Brat are vandalizing this page, this is not good, this is so similar to the Elephant page with Stephen Colbert, and the Atlantic Records page with Weird Al with "White & Nerdy".
I recommend a lock up.
I am apparently one of the "Borat vandals" because I attempted to put in a "Kazakhstan in popular culture" section with information about Borat. It wasn't vandalism and I wasn't trying to be funny. Note the lack of 'funny' in my post. User:Josephkuzma
Your edit had nothing to do with Kazakhstan other than the link to the movie. For example all of this: "portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen (the British comedian behind Ali G and Brüno). Borat evolved from previous characters also developed by Baron Cohen: an unnamed Moldovan TV reporter and Kristo, an Albanian TV reporter (the later of which is actually based on Cohen's personal friend James Kristenson)" has nothing to do with Kazakhstan in the media. Why should an article about Kazakhstan have the resume of a comedian in it? Gdo0109:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the comedian's character is from Kazakhstan. It has to do with Kazakhstan. My family is from Astana and I don't feel that this is irrelevant. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, is it not? One edited by everyone. Not just the anal retentive sticklers.
If you're so unhappy with the resume part get rid of (the later of which is actually based on Cohen's personal friend James Kristenson) & the British comedian behind Ali G and Brüno) and it ceases to be a resume.
And no it's not a personal attack. There was no name calling and stickler is not derogatory in the slightest. I'm apparently a stickler too or I wouldn't be neglecting my patients to argue with you now would I?
Thank you for discussing your views on the talk page and being willing to compromise, but I'd like to point out that other countries don't have a [country name] x in popular culture section, despite many satires of their stereotypes. (Feel free to prove me wrong with a country that has such an article with longstanding consensus. While that wouldn't mean this country should or has to, it would be a point supporting your view.)
Borat's greatest popularity in relation to the country is articles on the film Nomad and the country attempting to change its image. This was pointed out and cited previously on this talk page in "Borat?" "I think Borat deserves to be at least mentioned in this article. This is making national headlines..." I agreed and added it to that section, where I believe it has remained since that time, by silent consensus. TransUtopian10:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Mention could also be made of why Borat is "Kazakh." Kazakhstan is only geographically large (e.g., >1.5m square km) country that most Westerners have little to no pre-conceived notions of (largely due to it being a new country). It is both a former Soviet republic and Islamic, both of which enhance its "otherness." It had nuclear weapons which it voluntarily gave up. All this also explains why the premise of the film Air Force One also hinged on the country. Perhaps all these points can be tied together in some relevant but nonBoratcentric fashion. Calbaer21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that's a valid point. I'll drop it.
The Borat vandals are now making headline news apparently!!!
They reached Estonia. I just heard radio station Raadio 3 talking about it. Radio also told about the locked article. That's why I came across this article. --Tarmo Tanilsoo07:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Volga Germans
The article is curiously silent on the deportation of the Volga Germans, most of them to Kazakhstan, after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Sca16:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It has a small mention. "Many minorities such as Tatars, Soviet Germans, Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians and regime-critical Russians, had been deported to Kazakhstan before and at the beginning of WWII, ordered by Stalin." Nothing specifically about the people from the Volga region. Gdo0117:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree, that the deportation of Volga Germans in 1941 and their internement in labor camps deserves mention. comment added by MyraSmith569
I think, there must be alsou mentioned that actualy many jews found refuge in Kazakhstan during soviet antisemitic campaigns and at the start of WW2.
The term Soviet German is wrong. The correct term is either Volga or Russian German. Germans lived in Russia long before Soviet rule.--Aldarkose0206:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomad
Nomad is now out (I bought it on DVD in Moscow). Perhaps someone with access to the page could update this information? --Mgabo16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. I updated the info about Nomads in general, because the original had no info on its release in Kazakhstan or the CIS, just Western countries.--KZblog05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
protected mistakes
yu do realise that in this protected version borat is said to be the president of kazakstan? picture included... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.235.0.157 (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2006
That mischief was reverted by an observant user at 10.22—while you were typing your message. Thanks. Sorry that it was visible even for 120 seconds. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I figured he picked K-stan just to be random, and because he could make fun of a country that 1. people have no idea where and what it is, so he could say whatever he wanted. 2. wouldn't issue a fatwa against him. :) K. Lastochka15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Serious Problem with "Popular" Culture section
The section on 'Popular culture' has no place in this article and I feel it should be removed: indeed, if no one can argue why it's appropriate I'll do so myself in the next day or two. The reasons I disagree with it are as follow:
1. 'Popular culture' in this context essentially seems to mean 'Kazakhstan in American culture' which is unencyclopedic. We don't have sections on Kazakhstan in the popular culture of Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan, do we?
2. What other countries have 'popular culture' sections? I don't see one on Russia or Irans and I'd be shocked if you'd find a "United States in Popular Culture" on the article for the US.
3. These 'pop culture' references have nothing to do with the actual country of Kazakhstan, they have to do with the appearance/mention of the country in American films.
4. The only other thing in the culture section on this page is a list of holidays in Kazakhstan. The only substantive content in the culture section, then, is a few points about Kazakhstan being in American movies. That seems terribly demeaning to, oh.. I don't know, the actual culture of Kazakhstan which isn't even addressed in the culture section on Kazakhstan's article. This is rather ridiculous.
5. Related to point 2, if we keep this popular culture section here then every country article should get one. Have fun trying that for China or Russia, for example. --The Way06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it, everyone feel free to argue against that here. Within the next week or two I'll add a real culture section that actually discusses Kazakh culture rather than American culture, once I finish up my exams. --The Way08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Even though I agree with all the points made here, the early 21 century view of Kazakhstan or any country through American eyes would seem to be noteworthy and I wouldn't know of any naming convention for any such wikipedia entry. If one truly wanted to research the view and place an entry in wikipedia, where would they place it? This lack of a good place would seem to nullify all 5 points. I like standards and naming conventions, but I refuse to allow standards and naming conventions get in the way of storing good, useful info just because I can't pigeonhole the concept into current naming standards.
Personally, I'd love to see a section View of Iran from the American perspective if I was looking at an article on Iran. What's wrong with having a section like that here which instead takes a look at Kazakhstan, especially since with the Borat mockumentary bringing this "no name" country into the American limelight? Otherwise, I do agree, it would probably be better to first have a culture section on Kazakhstan before one takes a look through the occluded viewpoint of another culture. Root4(one)05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all you have to look at issues of precedence. You can't really justify a section on "American Views of Kazakhstan" without having sections on "French Views of Kazakhstan," "English Views of Kazakhstan," "Russian Views of Kazakhstan," etc. otherwise its a clear case of systemic bias. Second, American views of Kazakhstan are not a reflection of the culture of Kazakhstan. While yes, Borat is a rather interesting and notable phenomenon in the US today, the movie really doesn't have much to do with the country beyond the claim that Borat is a Kazakh. Nothing in the film is anywhere near representational of the actual country and has been largely construed as being insulting to the country. This article is good for giving Americans who may be drawn to it because of Borat a realistic picture of the country, it doesn't need to give them more information about Borat which is located in the Borat article. Furthermore, I'm not sure how valuable an article on 'American Views of Kazakh Culture' would actually be as it implies that there is a unified view of Kazakhstan in America. In fact, there really isn't a popular view of Kazakhstan in America, with the possible exception of some mistaken views stemming from Borat. Any information on this is likely to be OR. I'd be much more supportive of articles regarding US Foreign Policy in Kazakhstan, but again this would mean accepting articles regarding the view of every country on every other country; we can't privledge the US. Regardless, US views of Kazakhstan aren't appropriate for this article, though they could perhaps be in other articles. Finally, the actual material I deleted wasn't even really this, it was a mention that Kazakhstan was mentioned in a movie or two which is really inappropriate; it didn't even amount to American views of Kazakhstan but rather mentions of Kazakhstan in US pop culture, namely movies. --The Way00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomad
News reports erroneously suggested the government was sponsoring this movie as an effort to combat negative international publicity, including the satirical character Borat.
The citation given doesn't seem to refer specifically to those claims. I've heard other articles claim that Nomad was intended as an antidote. At least the wikipedia text is looking at real life (the government's attitude towards freedom of the press) rather than fiction, though. Andjam13:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Borat may strike many as being tasteless and inappropriate for this article. But I think it deserves some mention and its because it is indeed a newsworthy issue.
In fact there were numerous articles regarding the reaction of the Kazakh government to the film. The very fact that a motion picture was made depicting this nation (albeit incorrectly), makes it worthy of including in this article.
I would humbly suggest a vote by users here whether to include mention of Borat.
The biggest problem with Borat and anything controversial is that the controversy usually takes up more space than actual content. A quick glimpse at any controversial political figure or anybody that has said anything controversial will quickly show you that controversy quickly consumes the article as it did when half the Sydney article was about the Sydney riots. I'm afraid that once we let more Borat info onto this page, it will grow exponentially. I'm fine with a longer sentence (currently he is only mentioned in reference to Nomad) that explains that he is obviously satirical and the popularity of his movie. More than that and this article becomes bloated with Borat info. Gdo0121:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that a link to the Borat article is sufficient. The real issue here is the difference between the actual importance of Borat to the Kazakh government and the perceived importance of the subject by Americans. We here in the US don't often hear of Kazakhstan, but this has brought the nation to our national attention and it also brought the Kazakh government's reaction to Borat to our attention. The fact remains that, in Kazakhstan, the issue of Borat really is not high on the list of priorities; development issues, the oil industry, environmental degredation, democratic reform and human rights are all far more visibly important issues in the actual Kazakhstan and these issues are nowhere sufficiently addressed in the article. Going in and adding a lot about Borat because Americans perceive it as being important to Kazakhstan ensures that the actual issues of importance get relegated to the side. I recognize that I'm a bit worked up on this subject; its because I'm currently working on my Master's Thesis which has a large focus on this country so I'm rather familiar with it and it has led me to believe that the whole issue of Borat has been largely overblown in the western media. --The Way00:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a link to the Borat (film) article is appropriate. My logic:
The film exists, has been extremely popular, and is well documented here. (Including the misinformation aspect of it.)
Kazakhstan is one of the film's primary satirical topics.
The film has introduced or refreshed the existence of Kazakhstan to, possibly, more Westerners than any other single event in history. I might be going out on a limb there, but my point is that the film is very notable to the nation of Kazakhstan from the perspective of the Western world and, thus, many readers of the the English Wikipedia.
Also, consider that there are likely Wikipedia precedents or analogies supporting Borat's inclusion. For example, The Holocaust article mentions several films, including Schindler's List and Life Is Beautiful. These films, while not satire, have their own very clear biases and points of view (and their share of controversy). --Ds1323:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult for people of my background to understand that Westerners (whomever you mean by that term) need a satirical character to introduce or refresh their knowledge of geography. In my country of Kazakhstan, it is a subject taught in schools. This cultural difference / barrier is the main reason for the debate here. One side cannot imagine Kazakhstan without Borat, since in their mind it did not even exist before him. The other side does not understand the relevance of Borat, since nothing about him is related to Kazakhstan except that he keeps saying that he is from there. To include him, or not to include him?
I think the brief mention in the current revision is sufficient (where it is noted that news reports erroneously suggested that Nomad was made in response to Borat). As far as I'm concerned, it's not relevant to the article that many Westerners were ignorant of Kazakhstan prior to the movie. That's a Western education problem, not Kazakhstan's problem. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am certain that many people are visiting this page to find out more about Kazakhstan because of Borat. How Borat has depicted Kazakhstan, and the Kazahkstani government's response to this depiction, has been a major topic of discussion in the Western press (and I imagine even more so in Kazakhstan). We include references to fictional depictions of places in many entries on Wikipedia. The current state of affairs on this page -- no discussion of Borat or the controversy caused by the film on a LOCKED page -- is bizarre and reeks of censorship. I am puzzled and saddened to see such head-in-the-sand behaviour on Wikipedia. By all means, protect the page from vandalism and keep Borat in perspective as a crude and cruel satire -- but pretending the controversy doesn't exist is shameful! 68.149.168.14501:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I could add some info on Borat, but I'm not going to, as there's no consensus. However, my personal opinion is that the article must cover Borat. Let's be honest: The only thing 95% of the people on Earth know about Kazakhstan is Borat. To many, he's the epitome of a large nation. I don't think we need a huge section on the issue, but we definitely need more than one passing mention. -- Kicking22222:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Funny, how some tend to imagine that 95% of people are at or below their own intelligence level.
The Borat movie mocks Europeans and Americans at the expense of the Kazaks, this is not the first or last time this will happen. Arnold Schwarzenegger who is a massive, everywhere, has made several films where the "baddies" are from Kazakhstan, including "True Lies", a film which also prompted a response from the Kazak government for it's unfair portrayal. Outside the context of the movie, the Borat character is no longer a joke and does not provide insight or background to this article.81.129.12.6601:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it 'reeks of censorship' and needs at least a direct mention of Borat.
I added a link to the movie to only be tagged and threatened as the "editor" says to be banned fropm editing any articles. I did not even know this discussion existed until now. I believe Borat at least needs to be linked to because as stated above, most people only know about the country from this film, hence when they looked up the country they could link directly to the film to learn of it's inaccuracies, and I must agree with what I read above as well some of you editors are so ANAL, what makes you the do all to end all?
Table and Image
Hi
I have added an ethnic composition table and changed the location of an image which was preventing natural text flow. Let me know if you see any problems. I also have good quality photos which might be used to illustrate Kazakh culture and everyday life, if interested, I can give them for Kazakh pages cs21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
culture section
I suggest working on a few introductory sentences to be inserted into culture section here before we move it to the articlecs10:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Kazakhstani culture exhibits rich motifs of time-honored heritage of nomadic past, Soviet modernization and diverse ethnic composition of the country. Rich ethnic demograpy of the country brings together elements from European as well as Islamic and Asian civilizations.
Is "bigger than western europe" really necessary?
I was born in Almaty myself, but fine the "bigger than western europe" comment overreaching. It almost seems like a nationalistic attempt to exaggerate a point. I feel almost embarrassed by the statement. Encyclopedia articles should be as unbiased as possible. I cannot edit this page, so i am asking others if they could do so. Thanks.
I disagree, and do not think that it is overreaching. "Bigger than western europe" is a good and accurate comparison, which gets across the actual size of the country. There is no bias; we are talking strictly about the geographical territory.
I also disagree with the poster's claim that it is overreaching. The comparison of territory is meant to be insightful and illuminating. I think we should also include that Kazakhstan is 9 times larger than UK mainland and 5 times larger than France.Proteinbar1234 (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I find this comparison meaningless. "Western Europe" is not a zone that has any clear contemporary meaning and is rather obsolete after the Cold War. If you ask different people which countries are in the East, North, Center, South and West you'd get as many different answers as people. Germany may be Western, or Central, Italy may be Southern or Western, Hungary may be Eastern or Central, etc..
In fact i'm worried someone from outside Europe may get the wrong impression from the article, that Kazakhstan is bigger then then the EU.
When people talk about Europe now they refer to either the EU member states or the whole European peninsula (usually all states west of Russia). Some even consider Kazakhstan part of Europe although it's a bit far fetched.
I think saying that it's the 9th biggest country in the world is enough.--Helixdq (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There are excessive internal links in the article that make it hard to read and concentrate. Links to Kazakhstan related pages are fine but is a link to sovereignty or mineral really necessary? I mean, do we need to teach the reader what is a province or what does kilometer mean in this article? The article is virtually littered with such unrelated links. regards cs22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. While I agree that the topic of Kazakhstan needs to remain locked to prevent folks from adding "facts" from Borat (I don't think the Kazakhstan article needs a section on The Running Of The Jew), I feel that the Borat movie is significant enough to merit a mention on the page.
However, it doesn't need to be much. Perhaps by appending a Trivia section to the page. "British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen satirized the nation of Kazakhstan in his film Borat." One sentence, that's all it needs. -Smythe 08Mar07
The character Borat should not be mentioned in this article. Hes just a fictional character from Kazakhstan. Every year theres movies with hundreds of fictional characters from the United States. Theres no pop culture section the United States article saying "The fictional character Norbit is from the United States"--Coasttocoast01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, Borat is notable because he is just about the only fictional character from that country and because of it many more people have herd of Kazakstan who may not have before he came on the seen. OTOF there are to many fictional characters from the states to mention and I doubt that if none of them existed many people would not have herd of the states because of it! Smeeee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It should be mentioned in that the Kazahk government has made a pretty big deal about not wanting to be affiliated with the character and went so far as to issue a press release about it and taking away Borat's web domain.Zzz345zzZ02:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
When I go to the page on Saudi Arabia, I see no mention of Osama bin Laden. If the Kazakh government made "a pretty big deal" about not wanting anything to do with Borat, the Saudi government made an even bigger deal about bin Laden. The tidbit on Borat should have a home somewhere, but not on the main page for Kazakhstan. --Bletch14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
^Agree. Borat is not even that relavent to a lot of people out of America or UK, therefore I dont really see the point for him to be include in the article. --MeowKun | Meowi Talk18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. This is the principal page on Kazakhstan and only principal facts should be covered. If some people's knowledge of Kazakhstan comes only from Borat, that does not make Borat significant for Kazakhstan. It makes their opinions on this page insignificant.cs21:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Eddie Murphy movie Norbit isn't mentioned in the United States of America article is an extremely bad argument! The mere fact alone that so many people, without harmful intent and without wishing to vandalize the page, have added Borat to popular culture, provides enough of a reasonable argument to have Borat mentioned in the Kazakhstan entry. Let's not forget, that this is a free encyclopedia, which everyone is allowed to edit and which therefore, for better and worse, has to reflect what people tend to think is important about a particular subject. And the vast majority of everyone who doesn't have ties to Kazakhstan links that country with the Borat movie.
Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to be a contemporary encyclopedia. Perhaps in 10 years no-one will know who or what Borat is, but the fact is, that Sascha Baron Cohen put Kazakhstan on the lips of every ordinary citizen of the world in 2005, and still does today. He should therefore be mentioned. Not just as a simple "Trivia line", but as an actual two-three line entry.
Let me give a similar example. I'm from the Kingdom of Denmark. The Muhammed Cartoons made an otherwise small and not very known country world-famous and on top of the news agenda for several weeks. The fact that only a single Danish newspaper printed the cartoons, and that many Danes didn't agree with the cartoons, doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most important things that have happened to Denmark in several years, in terms of our global image. So is Borat for Kazakhstan. Therefore the Muhammed Cartoons should also be mentioned in the Danish entry, which for some reason it isn't either.
Just because some may use Borat to vandalize Wikipedia, or that others rather forget the film was ever made, doesn't change the fact that it had important and historic consequence for the world perception of Kazakhstan, and hence should have a two-three line entry.
--Pontoppidan16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Borat should not be on the main page.
Let's not forget, that this is a free encyclopedia, which everyone is allowed to edit and…has to reflect what people tend to think is important about a particular subject
The argument that this is "free" doesn't mean it's "free to do with what you want". There are clear policies and guidelines that govern the editing of this encyclopedia. The first one being: Wikipedia works by building consensus. See all the mentions above your argument agreeing with the fact that Borat should not be here? That's called consensus.
And the vast majority of everyone who doesn't have ties to Kazakhstan links that country with the Borat movie.
First, Wikipedia doesn't run on exclusive majority. As I explained above, we work on consensus through discussion, not on pure votes and popularity. The dubious argument that people think Kazakhstan is inexorably tied to that movie is poor and bordering on an argumentum ad populum. The fact is that Kazakhstan is a country with people, culture, and history that does not have to do with some movie.
Perhaps in 10 years no-one will know who or what Borat is, but the fact is, that Sascha Baron Cohen put Kazakhstan on the lips of every ordinary citizen of the world in 2005, and still does today.
It's certainly not on my lips or anyone I run across throughout the day. No, no, Borat was a movie, not the Resurrection. Maybe it plays at parties or in some comic discussions, but the universe is not revolving around the "fact", as you call it, of Cohen putting Kazakhstan on my lips.
I'm from the Kingdom of Denmark. The Muhammed Cartoons made an otherwise small and not very known country world-famous and on top of the news agenda for several weeks. The fact that only a single Danish newspaper printed the cartoons, and that many Danes didn't agree with the cartoons, doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most important things that have happened to Denmark in several years, in terms of our global image. So is Borat for Kazakhstan.
Here's one of your most amusing arguments. I don't have much to say about it…particularly, because you kill your own argument in the next phrase:
Therefore the Muhammed Cartoons should also be mentioned in the Danish entry,which for some reason it isn't either.
Hm, I wonder why? Oh, wait…because they hadthat discussion already!
Just because some may use Borat to vandalize Wikipedia, or that others rather forget the film was ever made, doesn't change the fact that it had important and historic consequence for the world perception of Kazakhstan
If "others forget the film was ever made", how can it be on everyone's lips? Eh? I'm confused. And, as much as I respect your love of the movie... no, it didn't have global paradigm shifting implications on the nation of Kazakhstan. It was a comedy that did stir controversy, and this is mentioned (correctly) on the Borat article. -- VegitaU17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've seen some articles here on Wikipedia that state that Kazakhstan is a part of Europe. How can Kazakhstan be part of Europe? The culture the Kazakhs have is obviously not European, and so r their physique: have you ever seen a Chinese-looking person calling him or herself White? I don't think so.
No, it is not about 'physique,' or skin color. It is about how a significant portion of Kazakhstani intellectual elite define their identity. That is, I believe, partly because of long historical exposure to Russian culture, existence of a significant proportion of Russian speakers in the country, and Kazakhs' self-perception that they are descendants of 'Kipchaks' etc. cs08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Geographically Kazakhstan is in Central Asia isn't it? It is not in the European subcontinent. Why is it's location written as eastern europe??
The reason is that a small part of Kazakhstan, the area west of the Ural river, is actually geographically located in Eastern Europe. In this way, Kazakhstan is a transcontinental nation straddling both Europe and Asia.
Dont be so ignorant about Kazakh appearance. I easily distinguish between Kazakhs and the chinese and I am not Kazakh or even Kazakhstani.It is obvious. Kazakhs are Turanoid or Southern Siberian race-A original Turkic people mixed with Iranian peoples. So amongst them are various physical phenotypes. Read more about it and you all cant miss it.
This page has been hit by quite a number of vandals lately. And I mean vandals, not people who think it is important to add information about Borat. The history is one revert after another. I recommend this page be protected until this wave of Borat-inspired vandalism dies down. Soonercary14:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Kazakhstani"
While the information about Kazakhstanets and Kazakh in Russian seems plausible, it seems unlikely that any such distinction exists between Kazakhstani and Kazakh in English. In fact, it seems to me that Kazakhstani in English is just a mistake. Lately, we have seen a profusion of -i words in English in the press: Senegali for "Senegalese", Afghani for "Afghan", Uzbekistani for "Uzbek". People seem to do this whenever a country is unfamiliar and vaguely Muslim-sounding. It is certainly correct (and longstanding practice) for Pakistani and some others, but I do not believe this usage is acceptable in the case of Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, this section of the article might be responsible for people writing such things as Kazakhstani national ice hockey team. If there are no reliable sources such as dictionaries, etc., supporting this word in English, we should not use it, so I've added a citation tag. Joeldl03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I also couldn't find the word "Kazakhstani" in any English dictionary. Kazakh and (alleged) Kazakhstani might be one of those distinctions, which are made in the Russian language but not in English.
I disagree. Type Kazakhstani into google and you will see within the first 20 results, the word being used by official U.S Defence department, United Nations and University of Bedfordshire websites. Matty J 87 21 June 2007
Soviet history whitewash
Kazakhstan experienced population inflows of thousands exiled from other parts of the Soviet Union during the 1930s and later became home for hundreds of thousands evacuated from the Second World War battlefields. Some of these evacuees were deported to Siberia or Kazakhstan merely due to their ethnic heritage or beliefs, and were in many cases interned in some of the biggest Soviet labor camps.
Yes, many of those peoples were moved to Kazakhstan against their wishes. They were packed into cargo trains and transported inhumanely, with many dying on the way. Soviet history is full of such atrocities. What's your point?
Motto
Is their motto actually "We are the best country in the world, all other countries are run by little girls?" Think we can get some sort of citation or something? It's rather unusual to say the least. 69.77.244.17023:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
what is the significance of the hawk? what does it mean?
It is regarded as a symbol of independence. The whole flag of Kazakhstan has two themes: 1) Freedom and independence. The blue color is meant to symbolize the sky. The sun is conveying that Kazakhstan is regarded as the nation under the sun, or favoured by luck. And the eagle shows that Kazakhstan regards itself as an independent nation. The yellow there is to symbolize the cultural and spiritual treasure of the nation.Proteinbar1234 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, another instance of his name, reflecting the gaping chasm between the plethora of references here on the talk page and the 'baron' landscape within the main article. He should at least get a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.148.135 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, VEGITAU it is not overwhelmingly refuted, as I count there are as many people who believe it deserves a mention as doesn't think it deserves one. The Fact that it has been added so many times does not mean it is "vandalism" it means that it is significantly important to other people, It should be added if for nothing more so people can go to the page and see that it was a spoof. But of course I know you don't agree. Because in your mind you are right, and in my mind I am right. I guess the fact that you have edited so many article makes you smarter and gives you the right to tell other people what is important and what isn't. YEAH WELL GOOD LUCK WITH ALL THAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.224.6 (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
as I count there are as many people who believe it deserves a mention as doesn't think it deserves one.
Guess you need to relearn how to count. Almost all the recent advocates of Borat-mentioning have been refuted or have been anonymous editors here to bullhorn their opinions in everyone's ear.
The Fact that it has been added so many times does not mean it is "vandalism" it means that it is significantly important to other people
Let me just take a look-see at the last revision: [[7]. Hmm………vandalism.
It should be added if for nothing more so people can go to the page and see that it was a spoof.
Right. And while I'm add it, I'll put Ivan Drago on the Soviet Union page…just so people will know he wasn't real.
But of course I know you don't agree.
Then why you trying to convince me? You're whittling away the life-span of your keyboard.
Because in your mind you are right, and in my mind I am right.
My and 98% of everyone on this talk page's mind.
I guess the fact that you have edited so many article makes you smarter and gives you the right to tell other people what is important and what isn't.
If you mean experience, I say all it gives me is a broad sense of wiki-knowledge.
Weel it's clear VegitauU that you think you're smarter than them because you're registered. "Wiki-knowledge"-What the hell is that you plank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The H-Man2 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with many of the previous posts that Borat should be mentioned in the pop culture section of this article. As a reader I would expect a link to find out more information on this important event in this country's history. -- Future Actuary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefutureactuary (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-- VegitaU 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
