Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this article's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this article's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.
the best thing that has ever happened to this country, with uninferior pottassium, greegz, borat is a legend and should be prim minister of your country. pleas write back
Actually, Borat is the best thing that happened to the good old U S and A. He draws out the silly and sometimes ugly prejudices that many Americans have, by giving them ridiculous stories about his own fictional background. If only the people that he interviewed knew a thing or two about the real Kazakhstan, they would recognize him as a fake and would not embarass themselves on the big screen. But perhaps, we can all learn something from their shame.
Soviet Union
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.
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
Demographics
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.
Dulatka
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".
Cossack and Kazak are very different words in Russian.
--Belfry 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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).
Just because words sound the same does not indicate a joint origin --74.13.124.180 18:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
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
--Aldarkose02 06:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Politics
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
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
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)
I should recheck it at a good map but as far as Iremeber one small portion of Kazakhstan lies at the right (i.e. European) bank of the Ural River. So if Turkey and Cyprus are regarded as European countries, Kazakhstan could be as well?
Just to state that there is an open poll in here regarding the fact of Kazakhstan being or not being in Europe and if it should figure in the template.--Joao Campos 17:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What does it mean, poll? A European country is a country part of which lies in Europe. By this definition Kazakhstan with its 1/8 (I believe) terriotry is a European country. It is a fact and requires no subjective opinions of people. E=mc^2 is a fact independent of whether people believe it is true or not. Of course, Kazakhstan is also an Asian country.
I'm just disgusted that because 1/8, meaning 7/8 is not, lies in Europe, people are so eager to call it European. It is far more Asian than European, and should be called as such. You must be proud of this, not apologetic.
I think you're misunderstanding the debate. The question of whether Kazakhstan is part of Europe is about where the boundaries of Europe actually are, something about which there is a lot of disagreement. Having said that, consensus seems to be moving in that direction (e.g. FIFA's redesignation of Kazakhstan as a UEFA country for the purposes of World Cup qualification, regional championships, etc.). Either way, it's really nothing to get disgruntled about. -- Hux 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Kazak friend just calls himself a "Kazak". He donsn't really care what continent he is from. So with that said Kazakhstan is a "Eurasian" country. Kapy53 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the difficulty exists as to whether people are referring to "Europe" as the geological "continent", as a geo-political region, etc.
In pure "contintent" terms, any country which is in Europe (even a bit), is, well, in Europe. It may also be in Asia.
--74.13.124.180 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess Kazakhstan is more european country, rather than asian one. Russian influence. --194.226.138.34 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Almaty
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.
Natural resources
"Large Desposits of Chemicals?" Correct me if I'm wrong (with my B.Sc in Chemistry), but isn't everything made of chemicals? Possibly remove this or indicate what the author means by 'chemcicals' in specifics.
Infoboxes
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.
That issue aside, why are you removing the {{Asia}} template? El_C 22:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
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_C 23:36, 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_C 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me or the other participants feel like the Borat section is out of proportion here?
IMHO it should be moved tp the Borat or Sacha Baron Cohen articles and be only biefly metioned (in one sentence) in the main Kazakhstan article. abakharev 02:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Tagged. Jackk 22:27, 28 November 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. Jackk 07:20, 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 Boy 05:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to cite a source that proves what you say is true. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:10, 6 December 2005 (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. BoratSagdiyev 14:06, 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 Misplaced Pages 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
Moving the whole thing to separate article. Jsx 07:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
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." – Janibek and Kerey 02:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Because OF COURSE we can believe the honorable government of Khazakstan.
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Way 04:25, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. +mwtoews 02:28, 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. Calbaer 03:42, 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 Misplaced Pages:What is a troll). Certainly, anyone interested in more about the fictional character or the film can go to other articles for more. +mwtoews 06:06, 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.
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 "h"
I have never seen Kazakstan spelled with an "h" in it.
Cameron Nedland 23:44, 27 December 2005 (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 Pohl 00:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Columbia's spells it with the "h", Britannica can't make up its mind , , , and my Philip's and Insight world atlasses both use the "h". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:22, 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. Chris 01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Kyrgyz themselves prefer "Kyrgyz Republic" or "The Kyrgyz Republic". Jsx 04:00, 5 September 2006 (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. Sikandarji 23:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the country itself puts with then it should be so. However, IMHO there shouldn't be . 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 in accordance with it's 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. Sikandarji 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess this image would help the discussion Jsx 03:47, 5 September 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 script) --Jsx 08:44, 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.--Jsx 14:27, 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 Kerey 11:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jsx. Here's another clear evidence of the official usage of "KazaKstan" before very recent change of the name (2002-2003): Gallery of "Air Kazakstan" airline -- Janibek and Kerey 02:24, 21 September 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 Misplaced Pages it is most correct to call the country "Kazakhstan". -- Hux 21:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In English it is spelled with an "h" and that's how it should stay.
Tagged
The section on "The Borat Incident" is completely unsuited to Misplaced Pages. 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? SlimXero 06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Population
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 Way 04:27, 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
Yes, this is Elbrus mountain, the image is not appropriate here. Jsx 05:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
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."
Which government? The president of Khazakstan visits Khazakstan? --Gbleem 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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." Kdammers 02:30, 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). Gdo01 07:23, 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. Gdo01 07:41, 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)
Kazakh & Russian Marriage
Do Kazakhs and Russians marry with each other? Is it common or not common in Kazakhstan? 72.140.235.202 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes.Why not. If you don't know, Kazakhstan is more european country, rather than asian. --194.226.138.34 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
borat vandals
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? Gdo01 09:14, 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 💕, 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 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. TransUtopian 10:25, 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. Calbaer 21:57, 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 Tanilsoo 07:27, 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. Sca 16:27, 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. Gdo01 17:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
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.--Aldarkose02 06:46, 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? --Mgabo 16:25, 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.--KZblog 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Nursultan_Nazarbayev webpage also vandalised - needs freezing
the page on the president of Kazakhstan has also been vandalised and needs to be frozen.
Someone thinks its cute to put a picture of Cohen where the president should be.
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 • contribs) 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
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. Lastochka 15:53, 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 Way 06:07, 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 Way 08:29, 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 Way 00:03, 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. Andjam 13:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
volapük
Could somebody please chage the vo interwiki link from ²²Kasakstän" to "Kasakistän"? Thanx --84.114.144.54 08:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
done, thanks! Kusma(討論) 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding popular culture and the "Borat" issue:
Just a personal opinion here and nothing more.
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.
What does everyone else think? Piercetp 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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. Gdo01 21:59, 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 Way 00:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
