This is an archive of past discussions about Central Asia. 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.
Cantus, can you explain to me what you think is wrong with the 22:44, May 4, 2004 version instead of just reverting it? It includes all the regions you seem to want included; the major difference is that it makes a mention of Central Asian Republics, which is an official term used during the Soviet period and since retained for their usefulness in grouping those five countries. --Lowellian 04:29, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
It's not as easy to understand if the countries are not listed at the beginning and each bulleted. --Cantus05:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
This is a particularly futile edit war, there are clearly at least two accepted usages of the word, both of which need to be described. I agree that the May 4th edit is as good as any. Mark Richards22:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a specific, substantive, original criticism of the version that I have restored? If so, I will answer it. But you're just complicating things if you're merely acting as a mediator in an edit war between Cantus and Wik. 172 20:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
You probably won't hear anything different from me. This is not a 'geographical' issue. The issue is encyclopedic organizational principles, particularly (heirarchy, precision). The term 'Central Asia' typically refers to the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. That's why other encyclopedias place the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia under this category, but not Mongolia. 172 20:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, opinion is clearly divided on this, even from other mainstream sources. There is no 'precision', since this is essentially a political, not a geographic issue. We simply have to document the fact that the term has several different meanings, and live with that - there is no 'right answer'. Mark Richards20:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
For crying out loud. No, this just means that Wikipedia should stay consistent. Let's stick with the mostly widely used use of the term in reference to the former Soviet republics, alright. 17221:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Tell me more! Be bold and add it, except of course you can't because the page is protected to do a stupid edit war!
Please leave more information here, and someone will add it to the page.
Also, can we move forward on getting this unprotected? Thanks, Mark Richards16:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear friends of Central Asia,
Thank you for the short article.
Remarks:
1. history:
"part of the Communist-led Soviet Union." Sorry, but that is not encyclopaedic writing. To much cold war rhethoric, serious! I don't know, where do you come from, but it is not the inter-subjective level I expect from such a source.
"ranging from democratic to highly authoritarian" Sorry again, but could you tell me which of the five CA gouvernments is based on democratic values and regulations. Honestly, none, even so beloved Kyrgyzstan is moving strictly to a highly authoritarian system. Of course, in compare with Turkmenistan, they are "democratic". But again, not on an objective (inter-subjective) level.
"Most Central Asian nations are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization." And how about CIS, EEC, OSCE, UN, Intergouvernmental Commission TRACECA etc... Did you get my point. Why do you explicitly determine one particular organisation without explaining it. Or you leave it out or you mention the others as well.
2. geography:
"A majority of the people earn a living by herding livestock." Any figures? Sounds pretty much...
3. Demographics
"More than 80 million people live in Central Asia," In the five CA states? Hardly. Following some profound sources (e.g. World Bank) you have a population of around 55 million. If you ment more than the 5 states, please say so. Otherwise it is confusing, especially with regard to the discussion forum.
Thank you, Gerald Huebner (Berlin)
Central Asia and "Middle Asia"
In Russian language, there are two different notions: "Middle Asia" (Средняя Азия) and "Central Asia" (Центральная Азия). "Middle Asia" is the part of Central Asia that was within the borders of USSR. Other languages lack this distinction, so it often causes misunderstandings and mistranslations. Be careful when you talk about "the most limited definition". — Monedula18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Central Asia = Middle East = Middle Asia. The Information should also put as a fact that Central Asia is also considered to be Middle East since its in the Middle/Central of the East/Asia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.201.18 (talk) 09:24, 2010 August 7 (UTC)
Pakistan & Instability
Describing Pakistan as unstable is currently quite an apt and understated way of putting it. You could say, in place of unstable, that it is a country faced with a decades old violent border dispute (kashmir), ethnic separatism (balochistan), transnational terrorist presence (south waziristan), a leader who assumed power in a military coup and who refuses to relinquish his military post, and who enjoys so little public support that he is forced to travel with U.S. army guards to protect against the multiple and recurring assassination attempts, an unenforceable northern border with Afghanistan that allows for the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons through the country, and a security force that is only partly in allegiance with the government and responsible for setting up and supporting one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in Afghansitan. That certainly qualifies as unstable, and is not an NPOV assertion. —thames 14:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is your POV. Pakistan has semi-autonomus region along the Afghanistan border. Pakistan cannot infringe upon local autonomy and self-rule of Pashtun tribes. Pakistan has done more than enough to control the Afghan border. While the Afghanistan regions are still controlled by warlords. The opium and other drugs are harvested in Afghanistan then smuggled to Pakistan. Musharraf's popularity in Pakistan is similar to Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan's economy is growing over 7% per year and that have increased stability and support of Musharraf. I do not support the military government but it has performed better than previous democratic governments.
Does anyone have a good source that places the Caucasus in Central Asia? I've encoutered a wide array of definitions for Central Asia, but none that include the Caucasus. - SimonP 02:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
If you mean the mtn. range, they are typically considered as the southeastern limit of Europe. In that case, unless we're doing South Central (or Eurasia), that might not work for you. Sorry.
I think the place of Caucasia in this article is debateable. Politically, ethnically and geographically, it is a different place. I for one, feel that the addition of Caucasian languages and Armenian language into the section on languages would unballance the article and make it loose cohesion. Gareth Hughes 12:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, "South Central" in error(?), since it's north of southwest Asia... (not really the center...) :Bwefler 17:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I think the map should be changed to exclude the Caucasus from Central Asia. Nowhere in the article do we discuss Caucasia. - SimonP 17:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Geographically, Caucasus is part of Southeastern Europe and in some cases scholars have assigned it to Western Asia (though that is disputable too), but NEVER to Central Asia. Based on these grounds, I'm removing all references to Caucasus in this article that imply that Caucasus might be or ever was part of Central Asia, whether culturally or linguistically, let alone ethnically and geographically. Not to would be contrary to logic and a violation of the standards set up by the Wikipedia policy regarding objectiveness of claims. Subjective claims such as found in this article should belong only to the minds of those who believe them, NOT to an article in an encyclopedia. References to Caucasus in contexts other than the aforementioned four will be left untouched.--24.188.136.21918:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This Article is as disorderly as Central Asian politics themselves
Whoever keeps including the region of Caucasus into Central Asia has some pathetic agenda and needs to stop. There is no single work that implies that Caucasus ever was and/or is part of Central Asia. The traditional border between Asia and Europe was and still is overwhelmingly considered the Caspian Sea and the Ural Mountains.--24.188.136.21922:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
persia
There is a noticable absence of the persian empire in this article. Through out the ages, the persians controlled parts of central asia at any given time. Only about 200 years ago is the time when there sphere of influence started to die, as the Qajar kings started to sell parts of central asia to the russians. Especially in parts like uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, aswell as tajikistan were these areas were in complete persian control till 200 years ago.
Turkmenistan was under Iranian control, Uzbekistan and tajikistan have Iranian civilization but were not part of the state called Iran since Islamic era. But I agree with you. there is a large and strong anti-Iranian lobby operating from the USA universities such as Columbia, Indiana and Harvard which pollutes central Asian history and propagates anti-Iranian views or tries to minimize the ties between Iran and Central Asia/Caucasus.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is seriously trying to deny the major influence of Iranian/Persian culture and power throughout all of Central Asia (Indiana even has classes in its Central Eurasian Studies department which require reading ability in Persian, such as this one). Sadly, both this article and History of Central Asia are severely lacking in many aspects of coverage, and need to be heavily improved. With your background and ability to read Persian, you could add a lot of good material inaccessible to others. Otebig (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice words. I am aware of those classes even in Indiana. Nevertheless a lot of efforts is done even in those courses to adapt the course material to political interests. My other experiences are that Iranians and Iranianists (those who study Iranian studeis) are ignored by the funds for Central Eurasian studies. Also it is very hard to get published, because a lot of reviewers and editors in chief also follow, wittingly or not, this agenda. Not surprizingly the literature prior to 1979 Iranian revolution, speaks extensively about the Iranian/Persian influence in the region. Times change and the political agenda changes. Who knows what brings tomorrow. I myself am doing as much as I can to contribute objectively to the study of this region, and I hope more people will do the same.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Not true before it was persia which it wasnt it was under the afghan empire. Persia did not sell anything24.5.197.22400:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Political map
I think that the article should have a political map showing all the nation states of the region. This should be the first map of the article. __meco (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tibet
This article currently lists Tibet twice as sometimes included in Central Asia. As far as I know, Tibet has never been lumped in with Central Asia, and had always been associated with the Subcontinent's states (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan).
As far as I can tell, in common usage, Central Asia refers to the five former Soviet republics (Central Asian Republics), and can sometimes include Afghanistan, Xinjiang, and even more rarely parts of Pakistan, Qinghai, and bits of southern Russia like Tyva.
Also, I've never seen Mongolia or the Caucasus included in any definition of Central Asia. I can understand lumping the Caucasus in on an ethnic basis simply because of the Turkik peoples there, but Mongolia seems entirely separate, both ethnically and geographically.
—thames 16:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well both the Tibet and Mongolia articles explicitly place them in Central Asia, and the Caucasus article places it there by some definitions. I can speak best of Mongolia, which I think is firmly part of Central Asia culturally, speaking one of the Altaic languages and historically sharing, even exemplifying, the traditional steppe nomadic way of life. In fact most of Genghis Khan's armies were actually Turkic, and, according to a recent genetic study, an astonishing 8% of Central Asian men are direct male line descendants of the Great Khan. The modern borders are of course not drawn by ethnicity, especially not historical ethnicity. The Mongol ethnic group borders Kazhaks to the west and Uighurs to the south in Sinkiang, roughly. And Tibet is to the south of Sinkiang, and historically Tibetan-style Lamaism was spread from there all the way north to Mongolia. Linguistically, Tibet is closest to East Asia. Of course, all of these definitions are rather arbitrary anyway, but I suggest the article could work best with an inclusive approach.--Pharos 21:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps we should make a distinction between "solidly" Central Asian areas (the former soviet central asian states, afghanistan, xinjiang), and the peripherally central asian states (the caucasus, mongolia, tibet, qinghai, pakistan, tyva). That way we can be inclusive but not misleading. —thames 23:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If Tibet is included, adjacent parts of Nepal are still mainly populated by ethnic Tibetans at least as far south as the high Himalaya. Nevertheless, Tibet is culturally problematic because religion, and writing draw heavily from Indian sources, and the language is neither Turkic nor or Indo-European. LADave (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Climate map
I removed a nonsensical link to joe from the climate map legend. Just want to make sure that it wasn't a mangled form of a valid reference.
My edits to make the 2nd paragraph list were to make it better match the UNESCO definition provided, yet my edits were reverted. My edits are factual, look at the UNESCO map provided on the page
This paragraph makes sense to me. It's better to have "northern" or "northwestern" (for Pakistan and India, respectively) not wikified, since the UNESCO definition includes more than one province in both countries. And thanks for adding southern Siberia - I'm surprised we all missed putting in there before. Also, I think the "Major cultural and economic centres" section is worthwhile, since it can let people unfamiliar with the region know what the important cities are. It would be better, though, if there was a short description to go along with each picture (and maybe not have it in a gallery format). Otebig (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Caucasus again
Don't know how strongly to weight this, but Diversity Amid Globalization (third edition; a world regional geographic text by Rowntree, Lewis, Price and Wyckoff; published by Pearson/Prentice Hall; ISBN-13: 978-0-13-133046-7) includes Azerbaijan in its definition of Central Asia based on linguistic, religious, and economic ties. Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Geostrategy
"The region itself never held a dominant stationary population, nor was able to make use of natural resources." - As far as I'm aware, geographical regions generally don't make use of natural resources.
"Central Asia has been divided, redivided, conquered out of existence, and fragmented time and time again." - Really, it was conquered out of existence? Can anyone provide a map of this world sans Central Asia?
Hello, there is currently a debate underway to see whether India should be included in WikiProject Central Asia. Not many people have contributed so far, and as Kashmir/Ladakh are supposedly one of the areas with Central Asian influence in question, I would like to ask all editors with a background knowledge of this region to participate in the debate here. Mar4d (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed addition of Ladakh to Central Asia
I propose the addition of Ladakh to the Central Asia article. Below are some of the sources for this:
I'm rather unimpressed by this collection of sources. In order:
The two images are not reliable sources (and the second includes Georgia, which certainly is not part of Central Asia).
The Suburban Energy Management Project and IHCN rely on the UNESCO's definition which indeed includes northern India (without mentioning Ladakh). These are the best we have.
Routledge Contemporary South Asia mentions trade routes from India to Central Asia passing through Ladakh; that does not imply Ladakh is a part of Central Asia.
The Himalayan Battleground book is similarly ambiguous, while the Ladakh Profile added to the article itself seems to count Ladakh as outside Central Asia.
In summary, the UNESCO definition is Ladakh's sole claim to "Central Asia-ness". IMO that does justify listing India among the "Nations with territories sometimes included", but we should remove the bad sources and leave those pointing to the UNESCO definition - say, IHCN. I have changed the article to this effect. Huon (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Haram 4.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Haram 4.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 March 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Haram 4.jpg)
74.61.166.146 changed the geographic description and substituted "India in the south" for "Afghanistan in the south". While the UNESCO definition does include parts of northwestern India, most others do not, and the "smaller" definitions don't even include countries bordering India. Nepal, which is north of much of India, isn't included in any definition I'm aware of. On the other hand, all definitions include either Afghanistan itself or Afghanistan's immediate northern neighbours. Given these varying definitions, Afghanistan seems a much better southern boundary than India, and I have reverted 74.61's edits. Huon (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Begging the question: How did what is obviously western Asia come to be known as central?
This article needs a paragraph on how this name was arrived at, since it won't make sense to a lot readers after they see a map, especially Image:Location-Asia-UNsubregions.png, from which "West Asia" or "Western Asia" is conspicuously absent. There's nothing central about "Central Asia" at all, a term that would more accurately describe the western half of China. I certainly have no dispute with the fact that this term is used, but it's downright weird, given the geographic facts. People are certainly going to wonder, just as they do with the American Midwest, which is actually rather northeastern given the US's present extent. That article adequately explains the terminology's history, this one doesn't. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒〈°⌊°〉Contribs.22:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Middle Asia was recently redirected to this article by User:Quigley. The reason given was "Somebody obviously copied the article Central Asia at an earlier stage, and just replaced some instances with 'Middle Asia', even when it doesn't make sense and misrepresents sources." I have undo the wp:redirect and started a merger proposal between the two articles. The article Soviet Central Asia may also have significant overlap, as discussed in the thread above. Please discuss the proposal here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not really controversial. In English, the terms are most often used interchangeably, although some academics will argue for the observation of distinctions that only really still exist in the source languages of Russian or German. We have space to explain the terminology and etymology issues in the article. Also, as I mentioned in the edit summary, we have two articles that are almost 100% word-for-word duplicates of each other, so keeping them separate doesn't make sense, especially with redirect technology. (In fact, I am merely restoring a redirect that was turned into a fork some time ago, rather than decimating an original article). Shrigley (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Central Asia is a separate region and it is different from Middle Asia. "Central Asia is a region comprising the countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan" (Microsoft Encarta 2009). We must have a separate article on Central Asia. Nataev (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is there to merge? The Middle Asia article seems to be either directly based on this one, or it's unsourced. I haven't looked through all of it, but while it emphasizes that one shouldn't confuse Middle Asia and Central Asia (in bold!), I couldn't find where it explains the difference. It seems pretty useless to me. We might write a proper article on Middle Asia, but this fork isn't it. A redirect seems more appropriate for now. Huon (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Nataev, how is that distinct from Middle Asia? English doesn't make this division between Central Asia and Middle Asia that you are arguing for. I know that the two are used differently in some other languages (particularly Russian), but that is already covered on this page. Redirect the Middle Asia article to here. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it has been a month and it looks like there is a consensus to "merge", so I've boldly recreated the redirect. Shrigley (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
India
99.235.25.103 minimized any mention of India in this article, removing Ladakh and Leh and significantly shortening the Indian part of the "geostrategy" section. Ladakh and Leh are clearly within the UNESCO definition of Central Asia; as we should, we list them among the territories sometimes included. I have reverted that part of his edits. On the other hand, I agree that our coverage of Indian empires extending influence into Central Asia was both unsourced and dubious. When, precisely, did a Hindu empire find its power-projection capabilities diminished by Islam in Central Asia? The Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire were Muslim empires themselves, and before the era of the Sultanate, Central Asia wasn't that Islamic either. I have thus kept a few unsourced sentences out of that section while reverting the rest of 99.235.'s edits. Huon (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the so-called UNESCO definition (is there any evidence that UNESCO uses this definition as a matter of policy, or continues to use it after 1992) widely used by other sources? One of your restorations lists Leh as one of the "Major cultural and economic centres" of Central Asia (along with other dubious candidates like Yinchuan and Hohhot) But this looks like a synthesis based on the fact that Leh is central to Ladakh, and Ladakh is possibly included under Central Asia. Where are the sources that say explicitly that Leh is a "cultural and economic center" of Central Asia? Shrigley (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Even if it is assumed that there is some sort of Central Asian influence in Leh, I really don't understand why India is included in the table of countries "sometimes" included in Central Asia. Leh, after all, is a very remote and small part of India. India is always viewed as a South Asian country - you will rarely see American or any international foreign policy sources quote India when discussing geostrategic or political affairs involving Central Asia. In my opinion, the current inclusion of India in the table is highly questionable and is merited more due to the nationalist interests of some people here (unfortunately) than for any factual reason. I don't have any major issue with the mention of Leh in the "Major cultural and economic centres" section though. Mar4d (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
India is listed among the "countries with territories sometimes included", just like Russia and China. Unlike those other examples, for India we give not just figures for the entire country but also for the part that's actually sometimes included in Central Asia, so our readers can tell that most of India isn't considered part of Central Asia. To me it seems one of the better entries in the "territories sometimes included" list.
I tend to agree that there seems to be some nationalism going on, but I have no idea why. Is it that desirable to be listed as part of Central Asia? Anyway, if we want to disregard the UNESCO definition we'd have to come up with alternative sources for all the countries on the "territories sometimes included" list or remove that list outright. Huon (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Turkification of Central Asia till the 6th century and 13th century
In their westward migration, the Turkic tribes of Inner Asia entered Central Asia, icluding Kazakhstan and Turkified the Kazakh land over the next few hundred years, ending by the 6th century(Menges 1989, 84; Abolhassan Shirazi, 1991, 90).
By that time, the steppe (nomadic) part of Central Asia (what is now Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and parts of Turkmenistan was completely Turkified.(Bregel 1991, 54)
The Mongols' conquest of Central Asia in the 13th century completed the Turkification of its settled part- that is, the rest of Central Asia, excluding today's Tajik-dominated areas, since most of the nomads brought to the region by the Mongols were Turkic peoples.(ibid., 83)
Indeed. At the time of Herodotus the Scythians north of the Black Sea spoke an Iranian language and this language family is thought to have extended far to the east - I don't know on what evidence. We have Turkic migration and Iranian peoples that I can find. As far as I know, no one knows why one language family replaced the other. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Mongolia & Xinjiang in Central Asia
Just to let everybody know, I decided to put Mongolia & Xinjiang into Central Asia because (a) they're both culturally part of Central Asia]], and (b) in the case of Xinjiang, it's smack at the eastern edge of Central Asia, & Mongolia is a transition between (mostly) Central & East Asian cultures. Although, I got to say Mongolia is not that influenced by China.--75.118.113.248 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
To reduce confusion, I now removed all those regions in the introduction who are virtually never associated with Central Asia, and put them in the article. The only nation outside the traditional definition of Central Asia (Afghanistan) is kept in the intro. (as it should be)
This should increase overall comprehension capabilities of the article and make it more pleasant to read without constant huh moments.
Brittanica defines Afghanistan as a Central Asian country so it should be included as a part of it. The majority of the sources state Afghanistan to be Central, not South Asian hence it makes more sense to add Afghanistan onto the Central Asia map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.48.175 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Mongolia
The defintion of Central Asia is wrong, the Central Asia includes not 5 but 6 republics.Before Soviet collapse Mongolia was only one Central Asian country.Central Asians are nomadic and Eastern Asians are sedentary people.We Mongolians consider ourselves a Central Asians, people's opinion must be more important than politicians.The Mongolia doesn't belong to the Eastern Asia both geographically and hictorically, it's just fake political propaganda.
Ancient (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Xiongnu, Xianbei,Göktürk, Uyghur and Khitan were all Central Asian states but these states weren't "sometimes included in Central Asia"...This geoscheme is wrong. Ancient (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Afghanistan is no doubt a central asian country, i don't why the hell Mongolia or even the Caucasus have to do with central asia. They are not anywhere near there yet Afghanistan is, infact its noted to be in the "heart of asia" by many historians and past intellects. I'm pretty sure that's a textbook definition of central asia right there so i don't know why Afghanistan is "sometimes included" as part of central asia, when IT IS part of Central Asia. Akmal94 (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I propose that Inner Asia be merged into Central Asia. Although I'm sure some scholars have proposed exact definitions of both terms, there is no clear consensus and there is inevitably huge overlap. The Inner Asia article does not include a clear definition of the term's scope, but instead just a couple of different ways that it has been used. This kind of material could be easily incorporated into the "Definitions" section of the Central Asia page (which could perhaps be renamed "Terminology" to address the terms "Central Asia", "Middle Asia" and "Inner Asia"). As is clear to anyone who's read Central Asia's article (and talk page), the definitions of these terms vary quite considerably. As mentioned on the Inner Asia page, the Library of Congress treats "Central Asia" and "Inner Asia" as synonymous. Svat Souček's History of Inner Asia covers Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Xinjiang and Mongolia, all of which are included in the UNESCO definition of Central Asia. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the terms "Inner Asia" and "Central Asia" don't need separate pages. --Static Sleepstorm (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Because some parts of Inner Asia are not in Central Asia. I agree there are some similarities, but they're not same. I think they're similar to definition of Middle East, Near East and Western Asia. Despite their similarities, they have different usages. So each one of those geographical term needs a separate article. --Zyma (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Reverting without comments
Hi there - I'm a little piqued that as soon as the protection was removed, this was reverted, without comment. That is the kind of behaviour that prompted the protection in the first place, and evidence that it is still needed. Could you either undo the revert, or justify it on the talk page? Thanks, Mark Richards 21:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I did not see any justification for this, so I put it back. A revert to an entirely different version is not a minor edit, btw ;) Mark Richards 20:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mark Richards, could you please explain here why are you reverting to another version? I read your messages above and they do not explain your revertions. Thanks.
Thanks - it seems clear that there are many competing definitions of the term - this version does not express that - can you explain why this one definition should be the only one presented? Mark Richards 22:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We need to show the mulitiple definitions, perhaps a couple of different maps would help? Intrigue 22:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Integrated the other def from old version and structured. Intrigue 23:57, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Maps
I found a website with a wealth of historical maps of Central Asia. This will be an invaluable resource in writing up the history section. —thames 18:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am concerned that the map I made of Central Asia may not be entirely accurate, especially concerning:
What parts of pakistan are actually considered part of Central Asia. My map divides Pakistan along the Indus river, but since we assert that Central Asia is landlocked, that division is contradictory.
The actual borders of Central Asia within China. Does Inner Mongolia count? And should we draw the boundaries (like I did) to roughyl conform to Chinese adminstrative units, or should we draw them to conform with geographical features (whatever they may be), or should they conform to historical boundaries (Greater Tibet, both inner & Outer Mongolia, East Turkestan)
The parts of Russia that I labeled part of central asia are simply the border republics, but the definition really ought to be ethnically/geographically represented, rather than simply based on Russian administrative divisions. Same more or less goes for the North, South, and Iranian Caucausus.
Meanwhile, there are no good maps of central asia in google image searches, which is disappointing. Most simply focus on the former SSRs, rather than a geographic or ethnic delineation.
If the map is going to be updated it should also be noted that the UNESCO history of Central Asia includes the Punjab and other parts of Northern India in the region. - SimonP 18:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
They also include Iran. I'm not sure how far we can stretch Central Asia in this article. If it were up to me, we wouldn't be including Mongolia, Tibet, the Caucasus, Iran, or Pakistan. The five former SSRs, Afghanistan, Xinjiang and bits of southern Russia seem to create the best cohesive area. I think for the purposes of history that Iran, the Subcontinent, and perhaps Tibet could easily be excluded, and probably ought to be. —thames 20:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here are a few (inadequate) physical maps of Central Asia: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. They are important, however, in showing the geographic division of Mongolia/Xinjiang/Tibet from the Former SSRs. Also, the a mountain ranges of Afghanistan and Pakistan are quite visibly separating them from the rest of central asia. —thames 18:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I found this (totally sweet) map of the world's climates. We could reproduce the Central Asia section on our own and put the map in the Geography#Climate section. Moreover it very accurately depicts the (sort of) geographic lines that define Central Asia:
The mountain ranges that constitute Greater Tibet, run through Afghanistan, up around Iran, into Northern Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan), and become the Caucasus mountains.
The steppe that runs from the North Caucasus, over the Caspian, through Kazakhstan, into Mongolia.
This is hands-down the best map (i've found so far) for illustrating what Central Asia actually is. I will try to redo the political map (for the top of the article) to better match this climate map.
I must give kudos on the fine new political map that half-miraculously manages to illustrate Central Asia as something of a coherent region.--Pharos 07:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. It's tough trying to correctly illustrate it. The way I see it, there are five subdivisions of Central Asia: the Caucasus, former SSRs (including Afghanistan), Xinjiang, Greater Tibet, and Inner+Outer Mongolia. The new map outlines the whole, but doesn't really distinguish any of the subregions. Nor do we have anything illustrating the sub-subregions, like Transoxania or the Ferghana Valley or others that I mention below. The new map is a good overall map though. Better than my previous one, which was just terrible.
Subregions of Central Asia
I'm not sure where we can insert this information, but it might be useful to divide Central Asia into subregions. We already have articles dealing with:
Turkestan (further subdivided into East and West Turkestan)
I agree, and will probably end up doing just that for the Geostrategy section, perhaps today, perhaps Sunday night after I get back from a trip. —thames 16:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Its a good sign that we've reached a stage where this has become necessary, but one can say, for instance, that the history section is still very far from anything like complete. Still, it's getting rather long. :)--Pharos 18:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Some other 'regions', from Uzbekistan that may possibly be added include the Koresm, Sogdiana, Fergana Valley, perhaps the Tocharian sub-regions? I'm not exactly sure what the current significance of these names are currently. anyone?
Agfanistan
Afganistan is a central asian country because:
1. It falls under the geografical defenition
2. It acts like it is (having ties with both Turkmenistan and Tadjikistan)
3. It does not belong to any other region Lottery winner (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on Central Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
UNESCO definitions - Middle Asia (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan) the part of Central Asia. But in the Central Asia are not only these 5 countries. In Central Asia include also - Southern Siberia, Mongolia, Tuva, Xinjiang, Afghanistan. The regional center of Central Asia (UNESCO definitions) is a Tuva.
We use common definition which defines Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan as Central Asian countries. Read the lead and definitions sections. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
History section: History vs historiography
The history section begins with the historiography of Central Asia (how the view of Central Asia's history has changed over the years). This is against common practice of such sections. This section shall begin with a description of the history of Central Asia as neutrally as possible. The historiography could be described at the end of the section, and be elaborated in the history of Central Asia article. /Yvwv (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Central Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Don't add Afghanistan and other similar countries to infobox without consensus
The common definition of Central Asia is clear: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Other countries like Afghanistan are not always considered as Central Asian countries. Plus by adding Afghanistan, then you should add India, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, and Russia too. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Afghanistan should def be added because its actually part of the CARC and has close economical ties with Turkemnistan and Tajikistan. I don't see how those other countries are part of Central Asia.Akmal94 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
"I wouldn't see why it couldn't be included in both areas." By various definitions, it is located in the borders between the two regions. Dimadick (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Afghanistan historically share ties with its neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan neighbors, but they are culturally, religiously and economically far removed from them, being closer tied to Iran and Pakistan in that sense, which are usually defined as in the Middle East and South Asia, respectively. Granted, Afghanistan, like Mongolia, is considered to be part of Central Asia historically and geographically, its case is marginal at best, as the Turkic Steppe countries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan share much more in common with Mongolia than with Afghanistan. So Mongolia should actually be considered a full part of Central Asia before Afghanistan does, but both countries are currently not included in the official definition because they both lack full recognition as such. comment added by Jirgen666 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Nobody added Afghanistan to its core definition so what are you talking about exactly? Afghanistan considers itself as a Central Asian nation and Mongolia is not considering itself Central Asian. What you are doing @Jirgen666:: Is just keeping deleting Afghanistan from everything you see and just ignoring the academic sources already given there. Which were there for many years and not recently placed. You were right about Humboldt's definition though and the travel website. Anyways, why do you think that one of the maps in the "definition" section should be removed? Wikipedia is not a place of "I am right and I know it and I want it" WP:NPOV is forbidden.
The most common country that is added to the Central Asian list besides the core post-soviet states is
Why because Afghanistan shares it's cultural and ethnical links with the Central asian countries (Except with Kazachstan not much) and geographically Afghanistan is more suitable for inclusion.
Afghanistan doesn't share much with any Central Asian state except with Tajikistan due to the crossover of the Tajik Ethnicity. It is certainly very different from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan based on language, culture, history, mentality, and development levels. Central Asia is based most importantly on the heritage of the Eurasian nomads, the soviet legacy, and secularism as compared to the Islamic and persian traditions of Afghanistan. I myself have roots in Kazakhstan. In terms of Economics, Central Asia is tied more to Russia than anything else, and Afghanistan, to Pakistan and Iran. -Jirgen666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirgen666 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This is more a personal opinion then facts, I do not want to add Afghanistan as a core nation because the core nations are the post-soviet states. I am just protecting what already was there including the map in the definition section. So how do you want to solve this? By edit warring is just wrongCasperti (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The previous information written on the page contradict scholarly sources as cited, and are hence removed. See the report page for any other concerns. -Jirgen666
Agreed with User:Casperti, Afghanistan only sharing "anything" with Tajikistan out of all Central Asian states is random personal opinion. Also who says the premise for being Central Asian is to have affinity with Kazakhstan? Out of all Central Asian countries Kazakhstan is the most russified, which is a fact, how should they be the reference for what is Central Asian? Afghanistan obviously has the biggest link towards the Tajiks of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, but besides that literally every ethnicity from Kyrgyz to Turkmen to Uzbek exists in Afghanistan too. There are also cultural similarities in clothings between non-turkic populations of Afghanistan and Turkmens, like the Persian speakers and even Pashtuns in Herat wearing a Telpek[1][2]Xerxes931 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Request for someone to look over these edits and post them on the Definition of Central Asia Page
Update: Edits already made. Please see my edit summary on where I corrected citation summaries which is in contrary to the actual cited of Humboldt. (A Note on the meaning of the term 'Central Asia as used in this book By L.I. Miroshnikov, in, History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization p.477-478 Retrieved: 1 April, 2020)
Dear All, I hope someone can look over these edits based on the reputed Central Asian scholars of Alexander von Humboldt, Nikolay Khanikoff and Richthofen , instead of the current non-academic sources, and post them on my behalf as I am currently involved in a dispute and one of the administrators sided with the other side. I don't actually care about credit, just if someone can post the correctly cited information, that would be great, thank you in advance!
Here is the copy-pasted text for the Definitions part of the article:
Three sets of possible boundaries for the region
+
Political Map of Post-Soviet Central Asia, 2010
+
Historically, the concept of Central Asia was essentially synomymous with Inner Asia: the lands in between the settled civilizations of China, Persia, Russia, and India and thus at the crossroad of cultures, sharing an overarching culture in the roots of the Nomads on the Eurasian Steppe, in contrast to the settled civilizations of China or Persia [3][4] While Inner Asia focuses on its contrast with China, and includes the regions of Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang as part of its core regions, "Central Asia" as a broader conceptualization was introduced in 1843 by the geographer Alexander von Humboldt, who proposed to include in Central Asia "a broad area 5 degrees above and below the latitude of the 44.5 degree parallel, explicitly defined it to be extending from the Greater Khingan Mountains of Inner Mongolia to the Ustyurt Plateau of Kazakhstan, and thus covers the Eurasian plateau from Western Kazakhstan to Eastern Inner Mongolia, while not covering any other geographical references and certainly no reference to any modern countries, as well as definitively leaving out Afghanistan and Iran, which are much south of this geographical reference.[5]. However, the later Nikolay Khanikoff [ru] also included more of the Central Asian Inland into this definition, to all "Inland Regions" of Asia which are hydraulically landlocked and does not have water flowing into the Oceans. This definition thus included the areas of present day Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, the Tibetan Plateau of Qinghai, and Tibet Autonomous Region, Xinjiang, the five post-Soviet Stans, Kashmir and the Pamirs, as well as Eastern parts of Iran and Afghanistan[6]. Meanwhile, Richthofen prefers to call the Eastern parts of this region as Central Asia, and the whole as Inner Asia. Nevertheless, these definitive origins were since overshadowed by the Russian definition, who colonized the dominant part of the region since the 19th Century and its definitions shaped the modern English understanding. The Russian definition has two distinct terms: Средняя Азия (Srednyaya Aziya or "Middle Asia", the narrower definition, which includes only those traditionally non-Slavic, Central Asian lands that were incorporated within those borders of the Russian Empire since the nineteenth century) and Центральная Азия (Tsentralnaya Aziya or "Central Asia", the wider definition, which includes Central Asian lands that have never been part of historical Russia).
Stop the edit war misinterpreting scholarly sources in order to omit Mongolia's key inclusion in Central Asia while simultaneously overstating Afghanistan's inclusion
To the editor Casparti: Stop deleting my work which are cited with scholarly sources. As a layman, you are consciously misinterpreting the author Humboldt and others on the definition of Central Asia. Humboldt explicitly explicitly included Mongolia, since he explicitly stated that the Eastern end of Central Asia stops at the Greater Khingan mountains of Eastern Inner Mongolia, thereby covering all of modern day Inner Mongolia as well as (Outer) Mongolia, while explicitly did NOT include present day Afghanistan. Nikolay Khanikoff's definition is more broad and difficult to precisely assess in terms of the borders of modern countries today. What he did say was to include all the landlocked 'inland' Asia into his definition, which most of Afghanistan and Eastern Iran is indeed part of, but this definition therefore also includes other areas like Mongolia, the Tibetan Plateau, the Kashmir and Pamir mountains, Ladakh, etc. which you omitted, so I have added them now. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO REINTERPRET THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE TO SUIT YOUR OWN VIEWS. Read my citations carefully on the page.
Nobody added Afghanistan as core core definition (yet) so I do not know what you want to achieve here. Your suggestion or push for "If Mongolia is not included then Afghanistan too should not be included" seems more to be a personal opinion view. Afghanistan itself considers itself a Central Asian nation and is the most common addition to the Central Asian countries. It is hard to find a "Central asia" map with Mongolia on it. And Yes, you are right Eastern Iran shares a lot with Central asia too but that is not a country but a region that's why you cannot add them in a world map if you can understand ofcourse. About your definitions of Humboldt: Yes, you were right I have to admit so I added his information. And you can check his book (in french) I added it in the sources "Asia Centrale" so we have the direct source/reference now. Thanks Casperti (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Edits already made. Afghanistan is recognized mostly in international bodies as a South Asian Nation, not Central Asian. What individual Afghans consider themselves to be is not the point here (Mongolians think of themselves as Central Asian too) that doesn't change the fact that recognition comes the international community, not the country itself in question. Also, your citation of Humboldt's book in french also contradict your claims about the borders of his definition of Central Asia. The East and Western borders are hinted while no southern or northern border is mentioned. (Hindu Kush is NOT mentioned as such.)
Note: please cite the PAGE NUMBER of your source if you are going to still argue against this.
Jirgen666
Definitions: Maps
@Casperti and Wikaviani: I have already removed that map. The other one already includes all definitions of Central Asia. I don't see any valid point in having a redundant map just because it has an additional country named Afghanistan. If you guys think the current is not interesting enough, then create your own maps. e.g. use the infobox map. Dark green = common definition, green = Afghanistan, light green = parts of China, Iran, Mongolia, and XYZ. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: Agreed for the map removal. On my end, i just wanted to add some other regions in the different definitions of the lede. The current sentence of the lead : "Depending on different interpretations, Afghanistan and Mongolia are sometimes also considered part of the region." does not fit with WP:NPOV since other regions are ignored (Khurasan, Western China). That was the purpose of this edit of mines, but before i add Western China too, another user did it.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)21:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wikaviani:"Depending on different interpretations, Afghanistan and Mongolia are sometimes also considered part of the region." does not fit with WP:NPOV since other regions are ignored (Khurasan, Western China). Yes, but the UNESCO definition (e.g. parts of Russia) is ignored in the current version. In think, tidying the LEAD sentence (e.g. "Depending on the different interpretations, the neighbouring areas are sometimes also considered part of the region.") and mentioning all these detailed info under the "Defintions" section would be an improvement. LEDE does not need details. Puduḫepa18:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: I see your point but that map that is now there is the UNESCO definition of historical archaeology. They even have half of Pakistan and parts of North India (Probably because of some historical archaeology findings in that region that are connected to the Central Asians?) which is assumedly for Archaeological purposes so we should definitely change that one. About the common addition Afghanistan and Mongolia, That should stay in the lead because we are talking about countries: Eastern Iran is not a country neither is Western China. That should be detailed in the definition section as it is now. Casperti (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The definition of Central Asia for history or archaeology need not overlap nicely with 21st century countries, and need not be consistent. The definition of central-anything is loose, let alone a big entity such as Asia. Squire Zo (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with user (talk). That map should not be used for the "definition" section. @Wario-Man: please answer to this. You have not reached any consensus yet. But still, you just deleted the map from the definition section while you had 2 years a strong consensus against you of not deleting that map from that section. You are the one that wants to challenge that map so make another one (At least of two other definitons is the best option, like we had before?). Casperti (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
A 2-year consensus against me?! Where?! When?! Seriously what do you mean?! No offense, but your above comment is some kind of made-up stuff, accusation, and nonsense. It seems you didn't get the point of that section. It was about infobox map (where was the consensus?!), and this new section is about that map in Definitions. Plus always give enough time (3-7 days) to editors when you participate in a discussion. I'm not a 24/7 WP user and when I start a discussion, I wait for other editors' opinions. Just because I pinged you here, it does not mean that this is personal conversation between me and you. Back to the topic: I don't see any valid reason in keeping that map. What is so special about a "Central Asia + Afghanistan" map? Does it provide something different than the other one? In my opinion: NO. Why that map is helpful/useful for our readers? Can you give me one strong rationale why we should keep that map? And about the region: No. A region can include both countries and parts of some countries. e.g. Turkey is a good case. So: This section is about the used maps in Central Asia#Definitions. It has nothing to do with the lead. I just replied to Wikaviani's comment. You guys better start a new discussion about your concerns. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Casperti: Agreed with Wario-Man, i don't get how a region should exclusively comprise countries. With such a reasonning, Caucasus would not comprise parts of Russia ?! The UNESCO map is summarizing quite well the different definitions of Central Asia, we don't need a map with Central Asia + Afghanistan. Also, please link the so-called consensus you're talking about, since i was not able to find it out ...---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)21:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
No stress needed @Wikaviani:@Wario-Man:, I didn't say I do not agree with the deletion either. I just said then we need another map instead of an Archaeological map of Unesco in the definition section. That map is based on Archaeological findings and therefore, for some reason, is also including half of Pakistan and North India (That you can find some Central Asiatic Archaeological findings there too?). About the consensus I was talking about: [9]. You were against Afghanistan's inclusion 2 years ago and had a clear consensus against you. Anyways, this Belgian proxy IP address here above is just Jirgen666 over again like that other account "GoNomadLife", that argues that Mongolia has the same right as Afghanistan. Maybe you should read Humboldt's book, given that you life in Belgium you should be able to read a bit French and yes Humboldt did mention regions/cities/geographic features of Central Asia and today's countries: in his own writings and book: [10] page 9-20 it mentions a lot for you, including the latitudes. Casperti (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, that was not a consensus. It was all about infobox and the lead. You didn't get the point of that whole section. To understand it and why I opened it, you better take a look at revision history and edits/reverts/changes done in 2017. It's irrelevant to this discussion , it has its own story/reason (very different from this one), and it has nothing to do with this discussion. You just saw "Afghanistan" there and the rest is your very own personal interpretation of a completely different 2017 discussion. Just drop it. OK? Back to this discussion: Why removing UNESCO map? A region could be a cultural zone too. For geographical definition; I repeat my suggestion. A modified version of the current map in infobox: Dark green = common definition, green = Afghanistan (and maybe Mongolia too) , light green = parts of China, Iran, Mongolia, and XYZ. I opened this section for the used maps in a specific section. The discussion about the lead and other stuff (e.g. recent content dispute) does not belong here. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes but it should be more accurate and sourced/verifiable. It's OK for the first revision. Wait for other editors' opinions because there may be some errors in your map. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, but i think it's redundant, since there is already a map on the "Definitions" section and it includes everything: the commmon definition, the Soviet definition, and the UNESCO definition. Puduḫepa04:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
A,map. Is there some way to stripe/dot/fade southwest Persia and southeast Xinjiang to indicate that this a 'transition', not a hard boundary? If Mongolia is included probably stripe in Inner Mongolia since the political distinction only dates from 1911. B.text. Main thing is to redo the lead to say that C.A. has two definitions. 1. Modern political= the 5 stans and all statistics, etc apply to this, unless otherwise indicated. 2. Historical, a vague term with some social/ geographic meaning. Benjamin Trovato (talk)
Well according to Nicolay Khanykoffs definition Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Khorasan and East Turkestan (Xinjiang) are making up Central Asia. Mongolia looked pretty off from the beginning but I just quickly made the map and added Mongolia because it was suggested above in the talk, I would rather tend to remove it. We may already have the "yellow" map which is a very broad definition. However if we will exclude Mongolia I would suggest to have a map similar to the one I posted before for the Infobox, having the geographer Nicolay Khanykoff and some others as the source for the map and of course fixing some stuff which might be inaccurate --Xerxes931 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: Afghanistan and Mongolia at least deserve a mention in the lead paragraphs. While they are not always seen as being Central Asia, ommitting them entirely is also wrong. The compromise is to mention both in the form of my edit (their respective populations shown). --Weaveravel (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Wario-Man:, the people who make orthographic maps for WP were unfortunately not so responsive to anyone who had made a request. So, I decided to make it by myself for the definitions. Here it is:Definitions of Central Asia. I can still make a lot of changes to it (colours?) so go ahead if you have some feedback on it. Casperti (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Afghanistan
Afghanistan must be mentioned in the lead section with a map. A lot of sources consider afghanistan central asian country( though it is considered south asian too)
so justice should be done on topic. Secondly majaor historical central asian regions like bactria is in afghanistan.( how can that be south asia?).Hope something is done with disregard for regionalism. thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:c8ec:0:548e:e3b1:126b:d067 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Needs fixing
Hi, can someone look into fixing the error at the top of the page? I think that data is supposed to be in the side info box. I'd do it, but I'm not great at formatting Wikipedia pages, so not really sure how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportzak (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
You mean the new map with shades of green? The author is topic banned for 6 months.[11] That may be the reason why he can't add sources to his map. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This article on Central Asia says its annual GDP per capita is $22,000 nominal (or $64,000 adjusted for PPP).
But if you look at the articles for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, their per-capita GDPs are $9,700, $5,500, $800, $7,400, and $1,800. How the heck do these average to $22,000? The sources used in these articles are wildly incongruous and I think the figure quoted in the Central Asia article is really misleading. RobiRahman94 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems to have been changed from $4000 per capita to $21000 per capita in this edit about a month ago. The numbers don't seem to add up as it stands 300billion across a population of 72 million is a little over $4100 per person. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Central Asia"
If Afghanistan is excluded from this map doesn't that make the 'Soviet Central Asia' page redundant? I mean the SCA page is just excluding central asian countries not part of the former Soviet Union (Afghanistan). But this page does the same? I think Afghanistan should be included in this map or the Soviet Central Asia page be deleted. Additionally the exclusion of Afghanistan causes multiple inconsistencies for example, Afghanistans wiki page says "a country in central and south Asia". The Tajik wikipedia page says "an ethnic group in central Asia" and the largest Tajik population is in Afghanistan. There are also Large Uzbek and Turkmen populations in Afghanistan and their wiki pages also only say central Asia. I think for consistency it should be included in both wiki pages. Though I imagine there will be an edit war if I add it in myself so I'd like to discuss this first. 174.16.52.128 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
All I did is changing a largely Iranian population to primary of East Asian descent to Turkic descent.
If you read the Turkic people page it clearly says this " The genetic and historical evidence suggests that the early Turkic peoples were of predominantly West-Eurasian origin but also harbored significant Northeast Asian ancestry, being described by Chinese sources as "mixed barbarians" with blue/green eyes. "
I was threatened to stop reverting or get reported by you. I explained everything to you with good reasons, evidences and sources provided.77.103.186.178 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I will like to change the incorrect text that was edited. According to the study 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes it says "These nomads were further admixed with East Asian groups during several short-term khanates in the Medieval period. These historical events transformed the Eurasian steppes from being inhabited by Indo-European speakers of largely West Eurasian ancestry to the mostly Turkic-speaking groups of the present day, who are primarily of East Asian ancestry."
Source:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2 It says modern day Turkic speaking are primary East Asian ancestry but that could be due to the Mongol invasion. It does not say that a largely Iranian population became primary East Asian because of Turkic invasion/migration from 5th to 10th century, and it does not mean modern Turkic speaking people it did not become mostly East Asian because of Mongols.77.103.186.178 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@77.103.186.178: No it could not. You don't shift to the language of the people you wipe out, do you? Also, most linguists agree that Mongolic and Turkic languages are of a common source. What you could actually argue is for a Turkic invasion over some Mongols, like during the Kok-Turks and during the Kazakh victories over the Kalmyks/Dzhungars/Oirats. However, keep in mind there were no Mongols in Central Asia before the 13th century AD, but we do see East Asian Y-haplogroups C, N and Q arriving earlier than that, and autosomes as well https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4414 . Also, Anatolian Turks have something like 15% East Asian Y-haplogroups. Don't think that could be from the Mongols. --95.24.67.49 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Map is incorrect
Afghanistan should be included on the map as well as the northeastern region of Iran since Iran is in Central Asia and West Asia simultaneously as in encompasses the western and eastern sides of the Caspian Sea. Ricemaster12 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As discussed above, the term has two meanings. When used exactly (with statistics) it usually means the five countries of former Soviet Central Asia. When used loosely it means the middle of Asia and does not have definitely boundaries. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The term has more than 2 meanings. Soviet Central Asia and Central Asia are not the same. Soviet Central Asia includes all the “stan” countries except Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, there are plenty of scholarly sources that include Afghanistan, northern Iran, and part of Pakistan to the definition of Central Asia. Take a look for yourself from this article published by a well-known university - Harvard.
The "Harvard" link from 2010 is talking about a definition of "Central Eurasia" as part of a studies program. Its not meant to present a definition of the geography of "Central Asia". The program defintion also supposedly includes (which you conveniently omitted): the Caucasus and Caspian Basin lands of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia; Daghestan, Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus, and even places such as Chuvashia. Those have never been part of Central Asia under any definition. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, CIA Factbook unveiled an old map of Central Asia that includes the entire northern portion of Iran under Soviet Central Asia. Would you like me to link that for you? Ricemaster12 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
"CIA Factbook unveiled an old map of Central Asia that includes the entire northern portion of Iran under Soviet Central Asia"
Iran is only PARTLY in Central Asia according to some definitions. Some definitions may include Iran in South Asia as well, but the majority of sources place Iran in West Asia.
I agree. Afghanistan should definitely be included in Central Asia. It is historically and culturally linked to Central Asia and therefore should be included in both the map and page. Compsagnathus3 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that Afghanistan should be included in Central Asia. Pakistan, however, should still be considered in South Asia OR Pakistan can be changed to “a country located in South Asia that borders Central Asia”. Ricemaster12 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Afghanistan
According to ChatGPT, Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia. That should end all discussions about Afghanistan's status.
This classification reflects the real situation of Asian political history and human culture. Forcefully combining historically and culturally unrelated Afghanistan with the Indian subcontinent to form Greater South Asia doesn't make sense. I reckon Wikipedia should adopt the above classification too. N. Mortimer (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Look under the definitions tab. There are plenty of sources, even outside of Wikipedia, that place Afghanistan in Central Asia.
However, there are also plenty of sources that place it under South Asia, and even some sources that place it in West Asia since Afghanistan doesn’t lie on the Indian subcontinent, nor part of Soviet Central Asia. It all depends how you look at it.
Sorry, but ChatGPT is not a reliable source. However, it may have used reliable sources to come up with that answer.
The best thing you can do is to look for reliable sources that include Afghanistan in Central Asia (THERE ARE PLENTY). Please note that some sources will include the country in Central Asia, some sources will include it in West Asia, and some will include it in South Asia. Afghanistan is an amazing country, also known as the Heart of Asia, where it lies between West, Central, East, and South Asia.
On the Afghanistan page, you can see that it’s both Central and South Asia. On the Central Asia page, you can scroll down to where Afghanistan is actually included in the definition. If this is a matter of just seeing Afghanistan on the map, then there are still plenty of reliable sources that include it there. :)
People need to stop insisting it has to be exclusively in one or the other. There are high quality sources for both, so it should be mentioned in both. The stipulation on this page that it is "sometimes included" in Central Asia should not have been removed. I added that back. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no fine line, especially in this general region where west, central, and south Asia meet. Periphery countries like Afghanistan will always be under heavy debate and many sources will back-up different claims. Wikipedia is just a website that states sources in a neutral way. WikiAmerican1 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.png)
_MAP.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/historic_interaction_buddhist_islamic/map01.gif){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.silkroadadventures.net/images/map.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-4/singh.7.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.jpl.se/~dalen/aralsea/geography1.gif){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.atlapedia.com/online/resources/World_phy_grat.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Template:Largest cities of Central Asia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
