Talk:Kazakhstan: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Signing comment by 90.150.64.92 - "Where is the stuff about Borat?: ")
(Replaced content with 'im vandalizes this unitlu include borat in this article')
(Tag: talk page blanking)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}}
 
  +
im vandalizes this unitlu include borat in this article
{{talkheader}}
 
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=B}}
 
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Kazakhstan}}
 
{{WPCD}}
 
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography}}
 
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=B|importance=Top|Kazakhstan=yes|Kazakhstan-importance=Top}}
 
{{onlinesource|year=2006
 
|section=December 2006
 
|title=Fans make Borat President of Kazakhstan
 
|org=Ananova.com
 
|date=date unknown
 
|url=http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2067414.html?menu=
 
}}
 
{{OnThisDay |date1=2004-12-16|oldid1=8512479|date2=2005-10-25|oldid2=26456328|date3=2005-12-16|oldid3=31623101|date4=2006-12-16|oldid4=94758187|date5=2007-12-16|oldid5=177826599|date6=2008-12-16|oldid6=258293496|date7=2009-12-16|oldid7=331744007}}
 
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
 
|maxarchivesize = 100K
 
|counter = 2
 
|minthreadsleft = 5
 
|algo = old(90d)
 
|archive = Talk:Kazakhstan/Archive %(counter)d
 
}}
 
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}}
 
 
== 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.
 
 
<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:72.181.67.188|72.181.67.188]] ([[User talk:72.181.67.188|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/72.181.67.188|contribs]]) 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>
 
 
== Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries ==
 
 
kazakhstan is AWESOME
 
<div style="background-color:#e8f0ff;">On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries|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.<br/>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 ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Creator's comment on the whole long lasting discussion/New maps with and without EU-marking available|with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade]]) should be applied for which countries.
 
Please read the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries|discussion]] (also in other sections [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New maps for Middle East|α]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location maps (again)|β]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Middle East Maps|γ]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#A final solution for the entire maps issue?|δ]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Stop forcing map change|ε]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Gallery of different map formats|ζ]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Greece|η]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Comments from a dazzled Greek|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 '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Final survey|presentation of the currently open survey]]. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.<br/>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. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;"> 00:52&nbsp;[[19 February]] [[2007]] (UTC)</span></div>
 
 
 
== 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.
 
[[Special:Contributions/96.60.85.247|96.60.85.247]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:CayenneGaramonde|CayenneGaramonde]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 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.
 
([[User talk:96.60.85.247|talk]])
 
 
::Of course you are correct, but the way Wikipedia works in reality is that anonymous editors are given no standing, their contributions and opinions considered irrelevant, while only the most active editors and admin on a topic have a say about what gets in and what doesn't. And those people have obviously come to the "consensus" that references to Borat should not be in this article, no matter how much sense it makes to include it. You might as well be a Catholic layman arguing against a papal bull. The powers that be have spoken ''ex cathedra'', and any further dissent will result in excommunication from the Church of Wikipedia.--[[User:SmashTheGlass|SmashTheGlass]] ([[User talk:SmashTheGlass|talk]]) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 
 
=====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. [[User:Otebig|Otebig]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.227.133.212|99.227.133.212]] ([[User talk:99.227.133.212|talk]]) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
 
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. --[[User:Richardson mcphillips|Richardson mcphillips]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Htahpoahf|Htahpoahf]] ([[User talk:Htahpoahf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Htahpoahf|contribs]]) 21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
 
:: [[America, Fuck Yeah|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? --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::: yeah, actually I made the same mistake. At first I also expected Borat to be mentioned in this article. I think he did make kazakhstan known to more people in the world than not (as for me), and I think mostly he made benefit its glorious nation (any dissing of kazakhstan or kazakhs in the movie was ironic not serious). But man, as someone suggested below, to keep things fair you should try to get [[Brüno]] mentioned in the article about [[Austria]]. If you get that one done, I'm sure you'd find it much easier to get Borat here LOL. --[[User:Itaj Sherman|Itaj Sherman]] ([[User talk:Itaj Sherman|talk]]) 14:50, 21 June 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.17.205.76|75.17.205.76]] ([[User talk:75.17.205.76|talk]]) 01:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
 
== Picture of KIMEP ==
 
 
Why do people keep putting picture of KIMEP university in Education section? That is a clear advertisement. KIMEP is one of few Universities which uses English while teaching students, but definitely it is not the leading scientific, research and educational institution. I've tired putting Kazakh National University with it's 20 000 students, various laboratories accross the country etc. Other Universities such as Kazakh National Technical University, or even Kazakh British University might deserve more credit. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aizhol|Aizhol]] ([[User talk:Aizhol|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aizhol|contribs]]) 09:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
:It's up there because it's the best picture of a university campus in Kazakhstan on Wikipedia or in the Commons. It's not an "ad" and not an attempt to portray KIMEP as one of the top schools in the country or not. If you have a good picture of the КазНУ campus that can be freely used on Wikipedia (personally I'd try for a better photo than the blue-tinted one of the rectory building on the Russian Wikipedia), then by all means replace the KIMEP picture with it, since as you said it is a much larger university with higher enrollment. In fact, if you're in Almaty now, you might want to take photos of all the different universities, since many of them have no photos to go with the articles (and some don't even have articles). [[User:Otebig|Otebig]] ([[User talk:Otebig|talk]]) 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)=
 
 
== Where is the stuff about Borat?==
 
 
I came here to find out more about Borat but there was nothing. I see from the discussion above that he has been removed. This is like excluding The Queen from an article about Great Britain, just because some people are republicans. I am just a WikiPedia user, not a contributor and it has made me wonder about the trustworthiness of the project.
 
:Do you know that Kazakhstan hate Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen), and they prohibited to show this film? Borat is just stupid comedy, that doesn't show any truth about life there. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.150.64.92|90.150.64.92]] ([[User talk:90.150.64.92|talk]]) 06:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
:[[LOL]] love the comment about the queen! is borat some sort of king or a political figure in Kazakhstan?? I suggest that you first update [[United Kingdom]] article with info on [[Ali G]] and [[Germany]] article with info on [[Brüno (character)|Brüno]], before you include [[Borat Sagdiyev|Borat]] here. --[[User:Robek|ro&#124;3ek]] ([[User talk:Robek|talk]]) 18:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 
::I think you'll find that [[Brüno (character)|Brüno]] is Austrian, not German. [[User:SteveRwanda|SteveRwanda]] ([[User talk:SteveRwanda|talk]]) 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::: I think you'll find that he is not mentioned in [[Austria]] article either. --[[User:Robek|ro&#124;3ek]] ([[User talk:Robek|talk]]) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::::First of all, [[Sacha Baron Cohen]] is British, which means that mentioning him and his characters in the article about Great Britain would be, uh, 1000% accurate. And I agree with the first guy: Borat should definitely be mentioned in this article. He made the country famous throughout the world. How's that for an impact? Sure, list all the fallacies he propagates, but mention him. [[User:Revan ltrl|Revan ltrl]] ([[User talk:Revan ltrl|talk]]) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::::: go on then, mention Ali G in [[Great Britain]], [[United Kingom]] (check what the difference is) and don't forget [[England]] --[[User:Robek|ro&#124;3ek]] ([[User talk:Robek|talk]]) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 17:18, 24 September 2010

im vandalizes this unitlu include borat in this article