Talk:Kazakhstan

Nursultan_Nazarbayev webpage also vandalised - needs freezing

the page on the president of Kazakhstan has also been vandalised and needs to be frozen.

Someone thinks its cute to put a picture of Cohen where the president should be.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.67.188 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

kazakhstan is AWESOME

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),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

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 February 2007 (UTC)

Borat issue revived

There are several reasons to include Borat in at least one concise paragraph:

• According to Dan Mazer, they "chose Kazakhstan because it was sort of the most obscure country that [they] could think of."[1]
• The premise of the character is based on utter ignorance of the Western world. If people were truly aware of the Kazakh people and how they look, Borat's ridiculous portmanteau of Arab-Turk-Romanian-whatever would have never worked on such a large scale.
• Borat made tourism to Kazakhstan skyrocket like never before.
• Thanks to the increase of the world's awareness of Kazakhstan thanks to Borat, president Nazarbayev changed his view of Borat from "public enemy" to "national hero." Notice that he took it all the way to actually bringing it up in a meeting with president Bush!
• I bet Borat had something to do with a significant percentage of editors, not to mention readers, that came to this article. As for me – I happen to know about Kazakhstan since I'm from former USSR and had some relatives there, was in Aktau (which was known as Shevchenko back then) several times and quite enjoyed crayfishing and swimming in the Caspian Sea.

In a nutshell – Borat has exposed Kazakhstan in front of an unprecedentedly large public. Just for that, he deserves recognition in this article. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. No Borat mention here in the article. Even though, there might have been some "approval" as you say, there was no meeting and such between borat and the official representatives of the country. He is a comedian. He is an entertainer. He is not making any benefits for the country, and do not take the side effects of the character as his intentions (like skyrocketing tourism). He wasn't thinking about the country when he picked the name. And he does not have any relationships with Kazakhstan itself. I don't know how you even think that your arguments work... (like saying that you are from former USSR, so what?). Please, refrain from such weak supporting arguments just to make the article "funny to read". as for the later argument that says "in a nutshell" (like he is summing up something that has been proved or whatsoever), Kazakhstan has been exposing itself to a large public by other means too, not only through Borat. Through geography (9th place territory), economy (skyrocketing GDP) and etc. and Borat does not deserve recognition for "exposing". Guys, I will be more polite, if you at least SIGN you comments. Zhaserman (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Several fallacies in your reply:

1. Even though Sacha Baron Cohen never met with government officials, the Borat issue was raised in a meeting between the two presidents. He caused a huge controversy, which was largely covered by all main media outlets.
2. Saying that I am from former USSR is not one of my arguments... it's an incidental fact. My main argument was that prior to the movie, much less people in the US (and other countries) knew the first thing about Kazakhstan, aside from (maybe!) knowing the name. Do you really think if Kazakhstan were so well known, people would buy the crap Baron Cohen was coming up with? As I said (and quoted), they picked Kazakhstan because it was fairly obscure and no one really knew what it's about.
3. The intentions don't matter in this case. We are talking about the outcome and the overall impact this whole production has had on Kazakhstan. As can be backed up by many reliable sources, Kazakhstan is benefiting from this big time.
4. Geography, economy etc. – all these cater to a very limited public of some scholars and trivia lovers. On the other hand, when the Borat movie came out, it instantly started spreading curiosity on an incomparably large scale. For f@^k's sake, president Nazarbayev brought him up as a topic of discussion several times and you still claim lack of importance.

To sum it up – aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I can't possibly think of any reason to be opposed to including Borat in this article. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several valid reasons not to include Borat listed above. But they basically come down to sniffiness. When the argument is revisited (as it will be since this will be the cultural marker for Kazakhstan for the foreseeable future), make note that I am for inclusion of a see also reference. -LlywelynII (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

. WP:IDONTLIKEIT you say? ... Thanks for the link, now you actually gave a good source to actually PROVE YOU WRONG. I will go point by point as you (since it is actually a new argument, and then I will go through the old ones. Because it seems you haven't read the previous writings: WP:INTERESTING you think it's interesting? I will cite from Wiki "However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." I hope you know what it says. WP:ITSFUNNY you probably think it is also funny. Well, let's cite "Wikipedia is not a repository of humor." WP:VALINFO and as the last, but not the least. You seems like you consider this as a valuable information. Pretty much all your arguments aimed to prove that it is valuable information, that if people will not see Borat on Kazakhstan page, then something terrible will happen. Well, that is the very reason not post this. Citing: "Keep - This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our important cause that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin." Nope, don't publish it. (3 against 1.)

And you say that people search for Kazakhstan because they saw Borat. And then they decide to get to know Kazakhstan. MM.. ok. Well, welcome, they can search it, and voi la, they have this page, and read it. I don't understand, why would you want to have Borat on this page... they anyway initially know Borat, and came to the page because they want to know more about Kazakhstan(not borat). if they want to find out more about borat, why don't they search for borat? if people search Kazakhstan, they should find Kazakhstan, and see only Kazakhstan on the page named Kazakhstan. I would agree to have a link FROM borat's page to Kazakhstan.. but not otherwise. it's logical, isn't it? since it is him who refers to Kazakhstan, not the contrary. I would also agree to have SEPARATE PAGE THAT REVEALS ALL the information about connection between Borat and Kazakhstan.... so in the end, why why why would you have borat on the page of Kazakhstan per se?

Come ooon, stop this, many (read again: maaaaaaany) people before you have written a lot of solid arguments and (again) arguments against this. But only few repetitive arguments are sounded by people like you who support the posting of Borat on the page. I am not really in the mood to re-word all the arguments that were written before on this page, and not written too (there too many). But definitely you sound like you didn't read them. I think I'm too polite to you, because I take all this time and explain all the things to you... but you stubbornly don't want to accept it. Zhaserman.

LlywelynII has made some good points here and you have for some reason chosen to ignore them and argue about points he hasn't made. This has nothing to do with whether it is WP:ITSFUNNY. Your argument about WP:VALINFO also seems deliberately provocative and misleading. That guideline is about the invalidity of using that argument to defend promotional material. Don't confuse it with notablility. Bienfuxia (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that the editors are taking Wikipedia so seriously that the fact that Borat is a comedy discounts it from notability. You would be hard pressed to suggest that virtually any attention this nation has received globally is non-Borat related. It therefore follows that, no matter how vulgar the film was, Borat should have a mention in the article. I was astounded to see that a mention of the film was absent from the foreign relations section. I am FOR a mention. 68.7.66.85 (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And you are in the minority. There is a strong consensus not to include it, and that is unlikely to change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include mention of the film. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • To those who think that Borat should be mentioned in the article about Kazakhstan: should every single movie that references or takes place in another country be mentioned in that country's article? Should it be mentioned in the article describing Africa that Mickey Mouse has been there a couple of times? It's just ridiculous. CayenneGaramonde (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be included in the article, it's only reason most people in the west have even heard of the country. Also it's the reason that this article is so large for an English speaking wiki. A sentence would do, but it should be included, it really did get people thinking about this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.173.85 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Borat filmed in Kazakhstan

New wikipedian here, just interested...

I watched the Borat film of course, and I think it was all filmed in Kazakhstan, no offence but what a backward country, please don't take offense by that comment if you are Kazakh though.

Commie99 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

mmm... interesting.. It is pretty well known fact that it was filmed in Romania. Just so you know. But anyway, on the main topic, why did you write this?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.157.4 (talk • contribs)

Most of it was actually filmed in the USA, so that's the backward country you're thinking of, Commie99.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.3.235 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Borat

I can't believe what a rampant violation of NPOV is going on here. It doesn't matter whether you LIKE Borat or think he's a jerk, it's simply an undisputable fact that the existance of this character has significantly affected the perception of this country by the Western world. It's a freaking FACT and it's notable. So just add a few sentences in section called "pop culture references" like every other article on this site has, with a link to the main article, and everyone will be happy. Borat IS notable and has affected, in a small way, the course of history of this country. It doesn't matter whether he has any official relations, and it especially doesn't matter that he's an insensitive jerk. That opinion is not encyclopedic. Everything else is just politics and POVs infecting this article and disucssion. If the golden standard is encyclopedic notability, you people are failing hard. Going through the arguments against:

* there was no meeting and such between borat and the official representatives of the country. 
* He is a comedian. He is an entertainer.
* He is not making any benefits for the country

ALL of these arguments are irrelevant to his notability. They well be true statements but if so they should be mentioned in the article. Your argument boils down to "I don't like him and he wasn't good for the country so let's not allow a mention". By the same logic you should remove all holocaust references from the article on Jews. 96.60.85.247 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Ridiculous. Then every article about a country would need a list of movies referencing or taking place in that country. Why not also add in the article about Africa that Mickey Mouse has been there a couple of times? CayenneGaramonde (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively. There is absolutely no consensus to add anything about Borat to this article. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of vocal idiots is not a "consensus". Please stop vandalizing my edits. Borat is the ONLY significant piece of mass popular western culture about Kazahstan and that is why it is notable. It is the reason why 98% of people come to this page. It has made the existance of the country known to millions of people who previously had never heard of it. My short couple of sentences was completely NPOV, I mention it's signficance, and also that it generated controversy and backed it all up with primary source references. Your deleting and then personally insulting me on my talk page is just idotic censorship. (talk)

Why Borat should not be included in this article

The sudden upsurge of Borat-related edits has caused me to go back and look over all discussions about the inclusion of Borat in the Kazakhstan article. The main argument for inclusion is fairly clear - "a lot of people", usually meaning people in Europe and North America, had never heard of Kazakhstan before the Borat film, and now associate any mention of Kazakhstan with Borat. The thought process seems to be that, since these editors automatically make such a connection, other people must do so as well, and therefore the Wikipedia article on Kazakhstan should make the same association by giving some mention to Borat.

There are several problems with this logic. First, there is the assumption that "most/many/a lot of people" had not heard of Kazakhstan before this film. This is an unverifiable statement. There is no way to know how many people knew or did not know about Kazakhstan before seeing Borat short of taking a poll. No one has provided evidence of such a poll, and I would be surprised if one existed. Also, there seems to be an underlying assumption in the use of "people" here to mean people in Western, and perhaps specifically American and British, society. As has been mentioned by others, nearly everyone who lives in the former Soviet Union (around 300 million people) would have known of Kazakhstan since childhood. People living in other countries near Kazakhstan (such as India, China, Japan) would most likely have been aware of it beforehand as well, especially considering the generally high standards of primary education in these countries. Wikipedia encompasses a worldwide view in its articles, and the idea that this film somehow effected the knowledge of Kazakhstan for "most/many/a lot of people" throughout the world is not only an unlikely claim, but one that cannot be proven.

Second is the assumption that Borat taught people about Kazakhstan, and therefore should be included in the article. The fact of the matter is, the film is about Kazakhstan in name only. The language they are speaking is not Kazakh, the "Kazakhstan" in the film is actually Romania (besides which the majority of the film takes place in the US), and the descriptions of Kazakhstan and its culture are inaccurate. The Kazakhstan in this film is a fantasy land of Mr. Cohen's imagination, and is not something to be discussed in an encyclopedic article on the actual place.

Finally, there is issue of over-emphasizing Western (specifically English-language) culture. This problem, unsurprisingly, occurs throughout the English-language Wikipedia. There is a tendency by some to assume that a situation in the English-speaking world on a certain topic can be equally applied to the entire world. In this case, a film that was mildly popular in Western culture is portrayed by some as having a world-wide effect in elevating the status and recognition of Kazakhstan in the international community (the fallacy of which was discussed above). Such 'over-emphasis' can be seen in a recent edit to this article, where someone mentioned Borat in the 'Culture of Kazakhstan' section. The film, as mentioned, has nothing to do with the actual culture that originates from within Kazakhstan (or in nearby countries), but is in fact an element of western culture. Including it there is nothing more than the projection of an Amero/Euro-centric worldview onto this article about Kazakhstan. That is not acceptable by encyclopedic standards for an NPOV article on the country itself.

The solution, as has been mentioned before, is to include coverage of the film's impact on Western perceptions of Kazakhstan in the Borat article itself. If some editors honestly feel the issue warrants more coverage, they should start an article along the lines of Perceptions of Kazakhstan in Western culture - a link to which could be included in the "See Also" section at the bottom of the Kazakhstan article. In short, the arguments for including any mention of Borat in this article rest on a series of false assumptions which seem to emanate from an Amero/Euro-centric worldview that over-emphases the effect of western culture on the world. It is not appropriate for the Kazakhstan article on Wikipedia, even as a quick mention, however would be appropriate in articles specifically about Borat or western culture. Otebig (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason the guy above won is because he used the TLDR tactic (too long didn't read). Nobody wants to refute his points even though they can be very easily refuted, because it would take too long. His arguments are extremely poor and if I had more time I'd counter every one of them. He's an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.133.212 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of articles have an 'X in popular culture' paragraph. They do not have a separate article 'Popular perceptions of X'. And yes, in those paragraphs in the case of countries it would make sense to have a list of movies that take place in those countries. In the English-speaking world, especially in America and Great Britain, the first thing many people think about when they see the name of Kazakhstan is Borat. That might be too bad - I thought the movie was execrable, and regret my $12 - but the absence of any mention of Borat from this article seems ideological. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopedia, not a "what the average English-person thinks" encyclopedia. "Borat" doesn't deserve a mention in this article any more than Team America: World Police deserves a mention in the United States article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey idiot, how come the song "What Would Brian Boitano Do?" is included in the Brian Boitano article. According to your logic, this does not deserve a mention in that article either. So why isn't it taken out? Think before you type something.

Cuss yeah, Jamie. Still, I was surprised that Borat-cruft lasted even six days before I took it out. Does the article need more watchers? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

kazakhstan

kazakhstan used to not be free now it is. they were in an conomic downturn. but fortuanantely thiings have gotten better. it is hard for women to find jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.205.76 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)