This is an archive of past discussions about Kazakhstan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kazakhstan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
I'd say that the tag was put there pertaining to human rights issues (above). If that is the case, it would certainly not not justify tagging the entire article, only the existing section. In which case, I'm going to ping Parkwells who responded. Personally, I was stuck in other controversial articles and appear to have missed my watchlist alert.
As is stands, in the context of a broad-based article, current affairs should receive no more than a quick reference in the body of the article per WP:NOTNEWS. At best, this would only entail a clean up of the existing section if it is deemed to be in need of a terse summary not satisfied by the current summary. Other than that, the section carries a hatnote for the main articles dealing with the specific subject matter. The same has been applied to all broad based articles about countries (now nation-states) spanning hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history and culture. Please read WP:TITLE, and note that the title of this article is not "Human rights in Kazakhstan", nor is it "Democracy in jeopardy in contemporary Kazakhstan". The same problem is encountered on a regular basis on broad based articles with the "Ukraine" and "Russia" articles being treated as if they're about WP:RECENTISM. Essentially, editors appear to be veering towards the wrong articles for editorialising and journalism. Please take these concerns to the correct articles... and, please, no WP:COATRACKing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Yes, that's what I observed (ranted about) just above you. I've gone WP:BOLD and removed the tag. Firstly, it doesn't apply to the entire article. If there's room to improve the "Human Rights" section of this article without UNDUE expansion, anyone who is concerned about it is welcome to tag the section and discuss it further here... following through on discussions, not just using the page as a soapbox. Personally, I'm okay with the section as it stands. Interested editors are more than welcome to develop the correct articles addressing this issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a heck of a lot more problems than that. Foreign relations and policies reads as if Kazakhstan is a leader in humanitarian endeavors and the massive Economy section screams in bright, neon lights, "come, invest in us!", except for the last, added-on, paragraph. --NeilNtalk to me04:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
+1. The "government" section says nothing about the country lacking free elections, or its being widely described as a dictatorship. Examples:
Oops, yes, I forgot that it's one of the naggingly POV articles on my watchlist. It boasts everything from Kazakhstan's being a formidable player to be reckoned with in the area of sports to 'experts' (singular and Russian funded) discussing the problems of the war in Ukraine (i.e., WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL in one tiny subsection alone). The entire article needs a thorough scrubbing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
At wikipedia we follow the convention of considering Europe and Asia as two continents: because of that, Italy is in Europe (NOT in Europe or Eurasia) Japan is in Asia (NOT in Asia or Eurasia) and Kazakhstan is in Asia and Europe (NOT in Asia and Europe or Eurasia). At most, one could write in the opening paragraph (not at the end of the lead) that Kazakhstan is a country in Eurasia, with its larger part in Asia and a small part in Europe. Generally speaking, the right places to discuss these issues are the talk pages of the following articles: List of transcontinental countries and Boundaries between continents. Alex2006 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Kazakhstan. 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.
I have just modified 6 external links on Kazakhstan. 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.
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Writing saying "500 thousand" is not a good way of presenting the number, shouldn't it be either 500,000 or five hundred thousand? 82.17.67.156 (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 6 external links on Kazakhstan. 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.
The consensus is that the article should continue to refer to the country as "Kazakhstan" instead of its Latin name "Qazaqstan". The consensus is that this can be revisited if the WP:COMMONNAME changes.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
News sources since the announcement of the change of alphabet seem to suggest that will become the spelling. There's a strong etymological argument for it too. I'm in favour, though it's a moot point until 2025. Sceptre (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Wait - Way too soon. Wikipedia should follow COMMONNAME in English. It might change it might not. We should see what major news orgs do, books, journal articles, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Wait, per WP:COMMONNAME. WP naming isn't based on what the subject does, but what sources about the subject do. When they change, we change, and not otherwise. Note that may mean WP will not change at all, such as with our article on Germany, rather than Deutschland. --A D Monroe III(talk)17:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
As of now the consensus seems to favor waiting for sources. I personally prefer "Kazakhstan" but this originates from the Russian Cyrillic spelling Казахстан ("Kazakhstan") rather than the Kazakh language's translitaration to "Qazaqstan" so I am interested in what other editors think. However, I've noticed that a few news articles (though ones covering specifically the change in alphabet) are already starting to utilize the name "Qazaqstan" so I'll wait for more responses before requesting a closure. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not yet. Hi, all. I've been RFC summoned. To follow WP:COMMONNAME suggests waiting and monitoring the prevailing references. While they very well may develop as has been suggested, a prediction of what will become is not adequate for the change. I encourage to continue interested editors to stay abreast of the matter, and re-visit it in the future. It is a detail like this that adds to the quality of the article. Thanks for the work. Horst59 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Kazakhstan. 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.
Aside from the special cities, how does local government work below the district level of administration? I see on district pages how they talk about certain cities, which seem to be independent of/on the same level as districts, but this isn't made clear. Is it similar to the set-up in presdent-day Russia? So, are towns, settlements and selos within districts statistical divisions instead of local government themselves, or are they local governments below the district level? --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
After much research, I think I was able to find the basic answers for my question, though, I'd like someone from the country or more familiar with the country to add things like more correct translations/transliteration for the English-language terms of the sub-district entities, as I've seen "rural county" used for rural district, and then I've seen "towns" and "townships" mentioned not knowing what terms they associate with. I assume town might be a city of district significance, and maybe that township is another name for a rural settlement or maybe rural district. I only used the official English-language translations I found at Kazakh government sites. In any regard, what I was able to find is that cities as municipalities exist at all three levels of administration (Republican, regional/oblast, and district/auld level), and that at the top two levels (cities of republican and regional/oblast significance) they can be further divided into city districts. Below the district level it appears that outside of urban and rural inhabited localities with their own local government (cities of district significance, villages, and rural settlements), that this territory is organized into "rural districts", and that inhabited localities that have an associated local government are classified as either cities (of district significance), villages and rural settlements. Again, what I'm unsure of is if "towns" and "townships" are other official designations, or just alternative names for the three existing designations. Answers? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to input an external link to input my tour blog on the page
Since 19th of June, 2018, there is one more city with republican status in Kazakhstan (in addition to Almaty and Astana). It is Shymkent city that has status equal to that of a region (it is the 17th region of Kazakhstan). But in the article ("Urban centers"), Shymkent, being an independent region, is mistakenly attributed to Turkistan region. Moreover, the population estimates in the table of the "Urban centers" are given for different periods. The most recent ones are for Almaty and Astana, but old ones for other cities. Shymkent, for example, has population nearly of one million what was reflected in the official sources. In order to not to be unfounded, I put below links from the official websites. Since I have no permission to apply these corrections to the article, I ask someone, having such a permission, to do so. Thank you.
Shymkent population by the 1st May of 2018 (988 994 inhabitants) according to the Republic of Kazakhstan Committee on Statistics (in Russian): http://stat.gov.kz/getImg?id=ESTAT265415
Mobile application "Kazakhstan - Land of the Great Steppe"
Unique digital product – “Kazakhstan - Land of the Great Steppe" mobile application.
It is a one-of-a-kind high quality interactive application that serves as a digital encyclopedia on Kazakhstan's geography, politics, tourism, history and economy. It contains hundreds of high quality unique photographs, videos, 3D objects, panoramic tours, infographics and interactive maps. It should be of interest to anyone who is eager to learn about the world's ninth largest country, including tourists, students, and business people. The app is available in English, Kazakh, Russian and Chinese.
In total, the application contains:
• 68 chapters, each of which has its own photo gallery. A total of more than 370 photos.
• 24 videos;
• 12 objects in 3D;
• 20 panoramic photos (photos with a review of 360˚);
• 12 interactive 3D graphics;
• 4 interactive 3D maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniyar Imashev (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
When I read through this page I noticed that the politics section had an inaccurate year (2018) and I was hoping for it to change to stating President Nazarvayev has been president through 2019. Atyrau'sHome (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The root qaz- means not to wander (kez-), but to scratch, to scrape, to dig. For example, a horse that "digs" with its hoof can be named qazaq. This later was transferred to humans.
188.247.220.14 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article on Kazakhstan, specifically the history section, would benefit from a mention of when the region converted to Islam and how that played out in the different events described in the section
Jonathanlynn (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2019
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
this section, imo, uses very biased language, and relies much on copy/paste of third-party report - and always from the same third party. It is alot like PR. And the first several sentences have no citation. I recommend these sentences, and most of this section, to be removed. I post this here for consensus so not to have an edit war. But the section as is currently is not encyclopedic. Thanks
Ohmsland99 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Dominant party system
Changed the government in the infobox to include "dominant party". Reflective of the current political situation since having nothing implies a multi party system which is most certainly not the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs) 03:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Я хочу изменить раздел "этнохроним" . Тоесть добавить "Kazakh". У всех других стран есть. Программа "Gradient" которая стала популярной, когда определял национальность то всем показывало "kazakhstani" , это из википедии. У других стран, например Кыргызстан и Узбекистан показывало "kyrgyz" и "uzbek". Тот кто запретил редактировать, отзовитесь, нечестно по отшению к казахом Trustman90000 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
name change of capital
The lede, without source, referring to the president Nursultan Nazarbayev, says "He had the capital's name changed to his first name." The article on Nur-Sultan says it was changed by a unanimous vote of Parliament. Nothing about Nazarbayev doing it. I understand that the lede doesn't need references, but I presume any claims in it will be supported later in the text. In the absence of that, the sentence should simply state "the capital's name was changed to his first name" --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:7925:EC51:3815:4830 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion on adding a Popular Culture section, primarily to add references to the Borat movies? Many other Wikipedia pages do this, and I thought it would be appropriate here. I do relatively few changes to Wikipedia, so I would like at least one thumbs up before I add something. Thanks for the consideration. Fred Fredster3nphx (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The official spelling in Cossack is Qazaqstan. Not Kazakhstan. You should take the title from the original, not from the Russian spelling. Your English spelling is taken from the Russians, who have nothing to do with the Cossack nation, the Russians are only occupiers in these lands. The Russians stole the original name of the Cossack (казак), in order not to get confused, they write the original name of the nation through the letter "x" (казах). And you echo them and write the same way. This is wrong, learn to respect all nations around the Russians, and not watch everything from the Russian invaders. 94.50.106.175 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, it’s irrelevant how either the Russians or the Cossacks (or the Kazakh authorities) spell it. We use the spelling that is most common in English-language reliable sources. See WP:UE. In English it is almost universally “Kazakh”, which is why it is used for this article. This follows the general principle in WP:COMMONNAME that we don’t use “official” names but commonly used names in English. DeCausa (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This is fine, but I have already described that in English you took the Russian pronunciation (through the Cyrillic letter "x" - "kh"). This is wrong, get out of this habit. Cossacks (казак, qazaq) are real Turkic warriors. And Russian Cossacks is a stolen term that was stolen by their outlying bandits-drunks. 94.50.106.175 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Kazakhstan is the world's largest landlocked country, and the eighth-largest country in the world." to "Kazakhstan is the world's largest landlocked country, and the [1] country in the world."
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Kazakhstan is the world's largest landlocked country, and the eighth-largest country in the world." to "Kazakhstan is the world's largest landlocked country, and the ′ninth-largest' country in the world."
The name "Kazakh" comes from the ancient Turkic word qaz, "to wander", reflecting the Kazakhs' nomadic culture.[17] The term "Cossack" is of the same origin.[17] The Persian suffix -stan means "land" or "place of", so Kazakhstan can be literally translated as "land of the wanderers".
Though the term traditionally referred to only ethnic Kazakhs, including those living in China, Russia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and other neighbouring countries, the term Kazakh is increasingly being used to refer to any inhabitant of Kazakhstan, including non-Kazakhs
Correct information
The name "Kazakh" comes from the ancient Turkic word kaz, "independent" or "free", which reflects the nomadic culture of the Kazakhs. [17] The term "Cossack" has the same origin. [17] And the Persian suffix -stan means “land” or “place”, which is tied, therefore literally Kazakhstan can be translated as “land of free or independent”. Initially, this term "Kazakh" had a social meaning, but in the 15th century it began to acquire political significance when the descendants of the Golden Horde Khan Urus, the sultans Kerey and Janibek, began to restore legal power in the Steppe from the usurper.
You need to add the famous worldwide Kazak singer, Dimash Kudaibergen. Dimash, when he holds concerts in his home country, drastically increases tourism. Even when he is not there, tourism has increased. People want to know more about this singer's home country. Dimash is proud of his country and always includes Kazakh songs in his concerts. He acts as the Ambassador for his country and is involved in Project Cure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:378A:2500:65F8:C4AE:C2B:D28C (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In section Economy. Remove sentence: "Kazakhstan's increased role in global trade and central positioning on the new Silk Road has given the country the potential to open its markets to billions of people"
Not only is this claim unsourced, it is speculative and thus unverifiable—it's not a factual claim. If the claim can be sourced, it should be replaced with something of the form: "Economic analyses (source) suggest that K's central position on on the New Silk road potentially opens its markets..." JoshuaBeckerPhD (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am a professor of 20th century Russsian and Soviet history at the Imperial College of London. I would like to make an edit regarding the protests and demonstrations which took place in Kazakhstan under Soviet rule. I have read the 'unsealed' communist archives following the fall of the U.S.S.R which have made me cognizant of the facts which are even now misunderstood by my fellow editors of Wikipedia. 223.190.42.62 (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We also need reliable sources, not your personal knowledge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Kazakhstan"
The illustration on exports includes "muslin flour." What is muslin? There is no entry for the word in Wikipedia.Kdammers (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The Latin alphabet has official status now, so I believe Qazaqstan and Qazaqstan Respublikasy[2] or Qazaqstan Respublikasï[3] should also appear in bold now, no? —MichaelZ.04:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could someone please remove the full size "this is protected" banner template? There's no need to have both the top icon and banner templates, it just adds unnecessary clutter. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The line about the Russians "liberating the slaves" is not found in the article body and is unsourced. Also it wasn’t “Kazakh raids” that caused Russian advance to the steppe, it were Russian colonial imperialism. Whoever wrote this clearly wanted to make negative portrayal of Kazakhs or Kazakhstan. It is also not relevant for the introduction, either delete it or move to the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzraK1999 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The article states that Kazahstan is "2,700,000 square kilometres (1,000,000 sq mi) – equivalent in size to Western Europe" however it is very misleading. What exactly is "Western Europe"? If you mean the western European union (the WEU internation organization) that is 2,250,000 kilometers. If you include Scandinavia in the "Western definition" then its 3,130,600 km making it larger than Kazahstan. If you exclude Italy and the Iberia penninsula it is less than 2 million km. If you want to include the EU+Switzerland+UK+Norway as a whole in the western definition, the count is 5 million km (Europe as a whole is 10 million km). So I suggest changing "western Europe" in the article for something better like "Argentina" which is about the same size as Kazahstan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC) But ScottishFinnishRadish how I can provide reliable sources? The page is semi-protected, and also is key that in that section of the article Kazakhstan have that, other Wikipedias say that such as the Kazakh Wikipedia and the Russian Wikipedia.
Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2022
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
under: 'Infrastructure' > 4th paragraph
"According to Kazakhstan Railways (KTZ), the 120,000m2 station"
I would like the topic of Ukrainian immigration to reference the Holodomor famine is part of the context, especially that the famine was caused and promoted by action of the Soviet state. For the Wikipedia page on Holodomor see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor . It should also be noted that in the 1930s the Kazakh population of Kazakhstan was subjected to famine caused by Soviet policies, reducing that population by over 1,000,000 people due to starvation and other causes, even as it’s ethnically Russian population grew also by over 1,000,000. C. Coles (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
On Kazakh famine, see Wiki article on Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union, notes 18 and 19 C. Coles (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Misclicked before I could explain myself fully in regard to this edit. The universal use of the Latin alphabet (not the Latin language!) is a future goal set by the Kazakhstani government, not the present case. Cyrillic is still widely used for both Kazakh and Russian. Regardless, its inclusion does not render properly ("Other languages" instead of "Writing system" or "Official script"). Yue🌙06:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
" ... and northernmost .... " is trifle trivia info
" .... and northernmost .... Moslem majority country" Is useless trivia information and should not be included in the main description - and probably not at all in the article. A large portion of the users of this article are students, and they will simply parrot this silly information in their reports. Even some teachers will make this fact one of the items that they expect their students to learn about Kazakistan. I strongly suggest this trivia point ["and northernmost"] be removed. 2001:448A:2020:F925:48D3:4530:19B8:A721 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Request fulfilled, but not exactly as it was requested. Check my recent edits in the article's edit history for details. Yue🌙02:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:
whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 00:52 19 February2007 (UTC)
Any reason not to include former spelling "Kazakstan"?
The article Member states of the United Nations includes the fact that the spelling "Kazakstan" was used at the United Nations until 1997. I was surprised that this spelling doesn't even appear in this article.
The spelling was mentioned on the talk page in 2005, where someone said that they had "never seen Kazakstan spelled with an 'h' in it" and someone responded that they had "never seen it without the 'h.' "
It was mentioned again in 2010, where someone wrote that "right after the name of the article we see the phrase 'also spelled Kazakstan'. I have no idea who spells Kazakhstan without the 'h' (hillbillies?) but including alternate spellings (that are not used OFFICIALLY) doesn't really convey any helpful or accurate information to readers." The same user removed "Kazakstan" from the lead on the same day with the comment "removed misspelling."
Are there any reasons why this spelling should not be included in the article?
Here are some sources that could back up the former spelling:
Akiner, Shirin (2002). "Kazakhstan: An Overview"(PDF). UNHCR Emergency & Security Service. p. 3. The spelling "Kazakhstan" was used until the mid-1990s; for a while thereafter "Kazakstan" was the preferred form, but recently there has been a return to "Kazakhstan".
"Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Kazakstan on Economic and Commercial Cooperation, Done at Almaty on 7 May 1997"(PDF). 1997-05-07. p. 7. When the Agreement was signed by the Parties in 1997 the standarised Roman spelling of the country name was "Kazakstan". This spelling is used throughout the treaty text and when referring to the treaty by its proper name. Kazakhstan advised in 1998 that the correct standardised Roman spelling is now "Kazakhstan". This standard is used in all official documentation by the Kazakhstan government and is adopted throughout this National Interest Analysis and supporting documentation.
The difference in usage between "Kazakhstan" and "Kazakstan" is so great that the latter would not be considered notable enough to include in the lead. It may be worth a mention in the Etymology section, but most readers familiar with the country will have never seen the spelling "Kazakstan" because it never saw significant usage in the English language (hence the confusion of other editors, perhaps). Yue🌙06:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Bias
The article seems to praise Tokayev's government uncritically. The protests of 2022 and their background, as well as the russian intervention are almost abstinent from the article. 178.89.9.47 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023
This edit request to Kazakhstan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change this sentence:
In June 2019, on the initiative of the President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev the National Council of Public Trust have been established as a platform in which wider society can discuss different views and strengthen the national conversation regarding government policies and reforms.
To:
In June 2019, on the initiative of the President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the National Council of Public Trust have been established as a platform in which wider society can discuss different views and strengthen the national conversation regarding government policies and reforms. Kepler42d (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can understand, there is no relevance to the picture of the Young Pioneers Camp. Of the 41 children (I assume the older two females are staff), 8 appear to be ethnically Asian, the rest European. This is just a rough estimate based on the group picture, but it isn't at all likely that the picture is representative of the country's demographics. I think it should be removed - or, if there is some relevance to it, then that should be made explicit.98.17.44.45 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The official rendering goes against MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. I have no idea what they mean when they say the current one is "mythical", that it "does not correspond to the image in life" (images of emblems are not supposed to look real; should we add wrinkles to the flag as well?), or that it's "low quality and does not meet the standard" (it's a high quality SVG that meets Wikipedia's standards, i.e. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY). Yue🌙22:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Also it states literally Pages using seals, flags, banners, logos, or other symbols to represent governments, organizations, and institutions should use the version prescribed by that entity when available. It is avaiable. I don't see any problem here. There is no "wrinkled" version of Kazakh flag, thus it's not an issue here. See Kazakh flag, no different. Beshogur (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Russian one was added after the war. Belarus is a dictatorship tho. under an authoritarian government is not appropriate for infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
"under an authoritarian government is not appropriate for infobox." Why so? What's wrong with that wording? That's the light way to say "a dictatorship". GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Both Kazakh and Uzbek presidents are reformists, not dictators. They may be authoritarian, but more softer compared to their predecessors and they're liberalizing their country. Viktor Orban is authoritarian as well despite being in a democratic country. "authoritarian government" is not appropriate for the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
>"Both Kazakh and Uzbek presidents are reformists, not dictators." - again, your POV, that's not a neutral and objective POV at all
>"They may be authoritarian, but more softer compared to their predecessors and they're liberalizing their country." - in a what way, especially Uzbekistan? - "Uzbekistan is one of just three post-Soviet states in which male homosexual activity remains criminalised, along with Turkmenistan and Chechnya.", the elections are highly likely fake (or atleast the results are a result of fear and repression), the government uses censorship, political persecutions are present too etc. etc. Even the Wikipedia articles on Uzbekistan's political system (Politics of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party etc.) say that the other parties in the parliament are puppets of the rulling one (i.e. they were created in order to pretend that the country's a democracy, which it isn't in any way: "Despite self-identifying with different ideologies, the parties are seen as no different from each other, with the Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party being created to give an illusion of a competitive multi-party system; this is supported by the fact that the People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan remained supportive of Karimov's policies and retained his favor.") GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I only reverted to pre-whitewash accusation version, I have no opinion on content. I will say though that "source is the page itself" is a weak argument. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Lavalizard101 >"I will say though that "source is the page itself" is a weak argument" - It's not. This is a literal fact stated in the page itself, else it wouldn't be there in the first place? GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
See MOS:INFOBOXCITE: References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere i.e. it's a similar to the lead. Generally, the information in the infobox doesn't need to be cited because it's a summary of sourced material in the article. The issue should be whether it or not it matches sourced material in the article. As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@DeCausa: this user doesn't understand that "authoritarian government" isn't a parameter for type of government on the infobox.
Russia example is pretty bad. Putin is declared as dictator on wikipedia infobox directly after the invasion. He may be dictator, but "authoritarian dictatorship" is simply ridiculous. A dictatorship is already authoritarian.
Belarus, NK, Tajikistan are examples of long lasting dictatorships, while Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan definitely aren't of these examples. They may be still authoritarian, but both rulers are liberalizing the country. Mirziyoyev even, after a protest, backed down from a law proposal to revoke autonomy of Karakalpakstan. 2022 Kazakh constitutional referendum is another example how president's powers decreased. Beshogur (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "authoritarian government" isn't a parameter for type of government on the infobox. The paramet is "type of government" and I'm not aware that the template documentation restricts what's entered against that parameter in that way. It's a local WP:CONSENSUS question. I don't see anything in the article - certainly not the recent "slight" liberalisation - precluding the "authoritarian" description. Other countries' Infoboxes is a rather WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
No, @DeCausa correctly says a few comments above and agrees with me: "Generally, the information in the infobox doesn't need to be cited because it's a summary of sourced material in the article. The issue should be whether it or not it matches sourced material in the article. As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox.". That's the whole problem, for the N-th time, that you're arguing with all these Wiki articles themselves and they firmly state the opposite of your claims and POV. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
He's right about not citing on the infobox. As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox I don't think he can decide on that. The infobox template is clear about that. And are we going to list every orange+red country as authoritarian on the infobox? That's not a real parameter. I gave an explanation for dictatorship stuff, that's not the case here. It's not other stuff argument.
The lead has the following cited statement It is de jure a democratic, unitary, constitutional republic;[14] however, it is de facto an authoritarian regime[15][16] with no free elections.[17] The Infobox should reflect that. Please stop referring to other countries. That's not revant. DeCausa (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@DeCausa: You know the sentence is an original research right? And this does not mean "Freedom House said so = it's correct". Freedom House has connections with the US government. Beshogur (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
And here's the BBC in 2022: Kazakhstan is often described as authoritarian, and most elections are won by the ruling party with nearly 100% of the vote. There is no effective political opposition.[6]DeCausa (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
What's this source? I can find sources calling Macron authoritarian[8]. But the thing is, I'm arguing that "authoritarian government/regime" isn't a parameter for the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why you have linked to that Guardian article. It's irrelevant. I don't know why you keep saying ""authoritarian government/regime" isn't a parameter for the infobox." That makes no sense. I don't think you are using the right words in English. The parameter is "type of government". There's then a blank against that paramater - it's for editors to then insert the description against that parameter. What are you trying to say? DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes! Every time you've used the word "parameter" you mean "description" not "parameter". Looking at the headings at the top of the template Ok so what you are trying to say is that "authoritarian government/regime" isn't a description in the template document. That continues to make no sense. There is no list of descriptions that must be used. "federal republic" is just an example. it's left to consensus of editors to fill the blank. Do you understand? DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Most countries claim to be some sort of democracy...however we all know this isn't correct let's make sure we inform our readers what is correct well at the same time letting them know what the claimed regime type is.
You never read my comments right? This sentence is from 2020 report of Freedom House, while 2022 report removed this word. Beshogur (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
And still "authoritarian government" is not appropriate for the infobox since there are other countries at same level with Kazakhstan. We should label all of them if it's alright. However, again, Freedom House removed this word in its 2022 report if we're going to look at them (since you quote the particular text in the article that links Freedom House). Beshogur (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Beshogur: you've driven me to shouting: ITS CITED TO THE ECONOMIST!!! The Economist, The Economist. OK? I've already told you this. THE ECONOMIST. Specifically, it's page 50 of the Economist's 2022 Democracy Index where, under "Regime type" it receives the classification "Authoritarian". And, once again, other countries' infoboxes are WP:OTHERCONTENT. I think there's a serious WP:IDHT problem emerging. DeCausa (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
You call my every other link "irrelevant" and suddenly come with the economist. You repeatedly told me the particular quote, which cites Freedom House, and when I show you an evidence, you come with the Economist. Beshogur (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you not see that the sentence is supported by citation no.16 which is the Economist? Do you not see that I have never mentioned Freedom House? Do you not see I referenced citation no.16 the Economist at 16:40, 18 October 2023, when I told you you were missing the point? Beshogur, competence is reequired. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
You mean The Economist Democracy Index which is citation no 16 that describes Kazakhstan as "authoritarian" regime that I've been trying to get you to pay attention to for the last 2 days? YES! Hallelujah. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The whole "under an authoritarian government" part looks like original research. Is there a source that formulates it in the same way? Yes, we can say de jure democratic and de facto authoritarian, but democratic is not mentioned in the infobox. A republic can have a democratic or authoritarian government; this implies that the above is false. Otherwise, why would we also not say "under a democratic government" or "under a mixed regime"? Either way, if we are measuring the level of democracy, why not do it for all countries? Mellk (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Also @Moxy: since you are active in the countries articles, I think it would be better if we got consistency on government type in the infobox. It seems odd to only mention the level of democracy for (some) countries with authoritarian regimes but not for those with democratic/semi-democratic/mixed regimes. Mellk (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The whole "under an authoritarian government" part looks like original research. Is there a source that formulates it in the same way? Yes, it's cited. Not sure why you think it's OR. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is cited, but does it say it is not actually a semi-presidential republic? The EIU democracy index also categorizes countries as full democracies, flawed democracies and mixed regimes to addition to authoritarian regimes, but then would it be appropriate to add "under a democratic government" or "under a mixed regime"? Mellk (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
No, the only description Kazakhstan is given in the source is "authoritarian". It doesn't refer to it as a flawed or hybrid democracy at all. Have you looked at the source? DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it uses those terms because it is called the democracy index. If the United States is categorized as a flawed democracy, should we add "under a flawed democratic government"? Mellk (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
What I mean is it doesn't use those terms for Kazakhstan. As far as the US is concerned, that's a question for the talk page of that article, not this one. There is, of course, wide variance on whether there is this type of descriptor in infoboxes across Wikipedia. The "consistency" argument doesn't work not only because of WP:OTHERCONTENT but because there is no consistency anyway. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not necessarily saying the level of democracy should not be mentioned, but the current wording ("under") implies it is not actually a republic. The cited source does not mention the republic part, so where does "under" come from? Mellk (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I understand. The citation is supporting that it is "authoritarian". Are you challenging that it is a republic? Where does "under" come from? The source says "type of regime" "authoritarian". I can't see a problem with that meaning "under authoritarian government". DeCausa (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The source only categorizes it as an authoritarian regime, but it does not mention anything about republics, so how can we say it is a "semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian regime"? The lead says however, it is de facto an authoritarian regime while citing the democracy index, which does not mention the republic part and does not use "de facto", so again, that looks like original research. My point is, we can say that it is both a republic and authoritarian without using terms such as "under" which imply that the other is false. Mellk (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree the "de jure" and "de facto" wording in the lead should come out. But as far as the Infobox is concerned (which this thread is about) I think you're reading far too much into the word "under". No matter: what form of words would you suggest? DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
That is possible that I am reading too much into that one word. I think a separate field in the infobox for degree of democracy might work better but of course I do not think that is feasible now. I am not sure now what would be a better way to phrase it but I would be interested in seeing how sources mention both in a concise way. The World Almanac for example says for Uzbekistan for government type: "Presidential republic; highly authoritarian" (though for Kazakhstan it does not seem to mention authoritarian). Mellk (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with replacing under with a semicolon. It has the benefit of indicating that the source is applying specifically to the "authoritarian" part. I also think it might be better to replace "government" with "regime" which is the word used in the citation. DeCausa (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not understanding DeCausa. Most presidential or semi-presidential rules tend to have authoritarianism. I don't understand how this makes much a difference. Beshogur (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done On very quick reading, Meniñ Qazaqstanım looks to be the anthem. The old Russian one was relinquished in 2006. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 07:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 10:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Largest cities of Kazakhstan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
20:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}