This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 |
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_rowntree_dag_2demo/0%2C5159%2C340264-%2C00.html a site with map of Central Asia
see MediaWiki Talk:Central Asia. -- Lowellian 03:40, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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 Richards 22:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Copied from Mark Richards' Talk:
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, it seems like reflecting varied usuage would be more appropriate. Mark Richards 21:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
This Article needs to mention Tuva in the second paragraph. sunja 11:06, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Please leave more information here, and someone will add it to the page. Also, can we move forward on getting this unprotected? Thanks, Mark Richards 16:14, 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)
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". — Monedula 18:58, 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)
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)
Under demographics, would it be possible to list the largest cities by population? Kevlar67 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.-- 24.188.136.219 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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.-- 24.188.136.219 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
Not true before it was persia which it wasnt it was under the afghan empire. Persia did not sell anything 24.5.197.224 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Khajidha ( talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
“ | Central Asia is largely coextensive with Turkestan. In modern context, Central Asia consists of the five former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as Afghanistan. Mongolia, northeastern Iran, northern Pakistan, northwestern India, western parts of the People's Republic of China such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Qinghai, Gansu and Inner Mongolia, and southern parts of Siberia may also be included in Central Asia. | ” |
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
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC) (fixed on 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC))
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)
"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?
Honestly, that section is just horribly written. 130.226.217.201 ( talk) 11:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
I propose the addition of Ladakh to the Central Asia article. Below are some of the sources for this:
-- RaviC ( talk) 20:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
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
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Haram 4.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 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)
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)
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)
Source = Conflict and Security in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Hooman Peimani, page 122, 2009. Online DragonTiger23 ( talk) 15:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
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.
LouisAragon ( talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Actually Mongolia is in North Asia, nothing to do with Central Asia. Akmal94 ( talk) 07:05, 31 March 2015 (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)
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)
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)
Map of Central Asia courtesy of World Book 2002:
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.
-- Cantus 22:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)
Integrated the other def from old version and structured. Intrigue 23:57, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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:
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.
I found three maps of ethnic divisions in Central Asia which may be helpful:
pakistan,
central asia 1,
central asia 2. —
thames 18:35, 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)
Best map of central asian oil & gas pipelines — thames 20:22, 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:
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'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:
also:
It seems fitting to condense and link the history and geopolitics sections into History of Central Asia and Geopolitics of Central Asia. Circéus 199.202.104.10i0
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?
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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.
Thats why it is the most common addition Casperti ( talk) 22:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
These are comments and opened sections by User:Jirgen666. I moved them to fix the recent mess [8]. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 03:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
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:
+
+ 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 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).
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.
References
Note: please cite the PAGE NUMBER of your source if you are going to still argue against this. Jirgen666
@ 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)
"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. Puduḫepa 18:12, 25 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)
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)
@ Wikaviani, Wario-Man, and Casperti: something like this? https://imgur.com/Bh0Dq9F Xerxes931 ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why do we need two overlapping maps for the expanded definition? One of them has serious WP:OR issues. Puduḫepa 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
That globe image is partially incorrect; Kazakhstan is a transcontinental country. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 12:26, 27 January 2021 (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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
Is Afghanistan to be included in Central Asia, in South Asia or somewhere else entirely? I've compiled a list of previous discussions on the topic, as well as some conclusions that can be drawn from them. It is available at Talk:Afghanistan#South Asia or Central Asia? – Uanfala ( talk) 19:32, 17 December 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. "
Source: According to changes recently made by wikipedian account: BaiulyQz https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=1121706093&oldid=1120474874 I am no expert in this but he changed the edit for several days already and nobody had reverted him. I am correct in removing primary East Asian descent. How can you primary East Asian, when they were already predominant West Eurasian? 77.103.186.178 ( talk) 20:35, 17 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)
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)
Ricemaster12 ( talk) 08:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)