Talk:Central Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Central Asia is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

To-do list for Central Asia:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Biology (flora and fauna) Geology Natural history Add a map with the central Asian countries shown, in the style of the Asia map.

Central Asia was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on February 27, 2005.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

1 persia
2 Old disputes
3 Reverting without comments
4 Reverts
5 Tibet
6 Maps
7 Subregions of Central Asia
8 Separate articles?
9 Caucasus
10 Pakistan & Instability
11 Central Asia and "Middle Asia"
12 Cities?
13 This Article is as disorderly as Central Asian politics themselves

[edit] persia

There is a noticable absence of the persian empire in this article. Through out the ages, the persians controlled parts of central asia at any given time. Only about 200 years ago is the time when there sphere of influence started to die, as the Qajar kings started to sell parts of central asia to the russians. Especially in parts like uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, aswell as tajikistan were these areas were in complete persian control till 200 years ago.

Turkmenistan was under Iranian control, Uzbekistan and tajikistan have Iranian civilization but were not part of the state called Iran since Islamic era. But I agree with you. there is a large and strong anti-Iranian lobby operating from the USA universities such as Columbia, Indiana and Harvard which pollutes central Asian history and propagates anti-Iranian views or tries to minimize the ties between Iran and Central Asia/Caucasus.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously trying to deny the major influence of Iranian/Persian culture and power throughout all of Central Asia (Indiana even has classes in its Central Eurasian Studies department which require reading ability in Persian, such as this one). Sadly, both this article and History of Central Asia are severely lacking in many aspects of coverage, and need to be heavily improved. With your background and ability to read Persian, you could add a lot of good material inaccessible to others. Otebig (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice words. I am aware of those classes even in Indiana. Nevertheless a lot of efforts is done even in those courses to adapt the course material to political interests. My other experiences are that Iranians and Iranianists (those who study Iranian studeis) are ignored by the funds for Central Eurasian studies. Also it is very hard to get published, because a lot of reviewers and editors in chief also follow, wittingly or not, this agenda. Not surprizingly the literature prior to 1979 Iranian revolution, speaks extensively about the Iranian/Persian influence in the region. Times change and the political agenda changes. Who knows what brings tomorrow. I myself am doing as much as I can to contribute objectively to the study of this region, and I hope more people will do the same.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true before it was persia which it wasnt it was under the afghan empire. Persia did not sell anything24.5.197.224 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old disputes

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)

It's not as easy to understand if the countries are not listed at the beginning and each bulleted. --Cantus 05:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a particularly futile edit war, there are clearly at least two accepted usages of the word, both of which need to be described. I agree that the May 4th edit is as good as any. Mark Richards 22:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting without comments

Hi there - I'm a little piqued that as soon as the protection was removed, this was reverted, without comment. That is the kind of behaviour that prompted the protection in the first place, and evidence that it is still needed. Could you either undo the revert, or justify it on the talk page? Thanks, Mark Richards 21:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did not see any justification for this, so I put it back. A revert to an entirely different version is not a minor edit, btw ;) Mark Richards 20:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Map of Central Asia courtesy of World Book 2002:

Image:CentralAsiaWB.png

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)

We need to show the mulitiple definitions, perhaps a couple of different maps would help? Intrigue 22:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Integrated the other def from old version and structured. Intrigue 23:57, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet

This article currently lists Tibet twice as sometimes included in Central Asia. As far as I know, Tibet has never been lumped in with Central Asia, and had always been associated with the Subcontinent's states (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan).

As far as I can tell, in common usage, Central Asia refers to the five former Soviet republics (Central Asian Republics), and can sometimes include Afghanistan, Xinjiang, and even more rarely parts of Pakistan, Qinghai, and bits of southern Russia like Tyva.

Also, I've never seen Mongolia or the Caucasus included in any definition of Central Asia. I can understand lumping the Caucasus in on an ethnic basis simply because of the Turkik peoples there, but Mongolia seems entirely separate, both ethnically and geographically. —thames 16:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well both the Tibet and Mongolia articles explicitly place them in Central Asia, and the Caucasus article places it there by some definitions. I can speak best of Mongolia, which I think is firmly part of Central Asia culturally, speaking one of the Altaic languages and historically sharing, even exemplifying, the traditional steppe nomadic way of life. In fact most of Genghis Khan's armies were actually Turkic, and, according to a recent genetic study, an astonishing 8% of Central Asian men are direct male line descendants of the Great Khan. The modern borders are of course not drawn by ethnicity, especially not historical ethnicity. The Mongol ethnic group borders Kazhaks to the west and Uighurs to the south in Sinkiang, roughly. And Tibet is to the south of Sinkiang, and historically Tibetan-style Lamaism was spread from there all the way north to Mongolia. Linguistically, Tibet is closest to East Asia. Of course, all of these definitions are rather arbitrary anyway, but I suggest the article could work best with an inclusive approach.--Pharos 21:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps we should make a distinction between "solidly" Central Asian areas (the former soviet central asian states, afghanistan, xinjiang), and the peripherally central asian states (the caucasus, mongolia, tibet, qinghai, pakistan, tyva). That way we can be inclusive but not misleading. —thames 23:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I found a website with a wealth of historical maps of Central Asia. This will be an invaluable resource in writing up the history section. —thames 18:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that the map I made of Central Asia may not be entirely accurate, especially concerning:

What parts of pakistan are actually considered part of Central Asia. My map divides Pakistan along the Indus river, but since we assert that Central Asia is landlocked, that division is contradictory.
The actual borders of Central Asia within China. Does Inner Mongolia count? And should we draw the boundaries (like I did) to roughyl conform to Chinese adminstrative units, or should we draw them to conform with geographical features (whatever they may be), or should they conform to historical boundaries (Greater Tibet, both inner & Outer Mongolia, East Turkestan)
The parts of Russia that I labeled part of central asia are simply the border republics, but the definition really ought to be ethnically/geographically represented, rather than simply based on Russian administrative divisions. Same more or less goes for the North, South, and Iranian Caucausus.

Meanwhile, there are no good maps of central asia in google image searches, which is disappointing. Most simply focus on the former SSRs, rather than a geographic or ethnic delineation.

—thames 18:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

If the map is going to be updated it should also be noted that the UNESCO history of Central Asia includes the Punjab and other parts of Northern India in the region. - SimonP 18:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

They also include Iran. I'm not sure how far we can stretch Central Asia in this article. If it were up to me, we wouldn't be including Mongolia, Tibet, the Caucasus, Iran, or Pakistan. The five former SSRs, Afghanistan, Xinjiang and bits of southern Russia seem to create the best cohesive area. I think for the purposes of history that Iran, the Subcontinent, and perhaps Tibet could easily be excluded, and probably ought to be. —thames 20:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few (inadequate) physical maps of Central Asia: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. They are important, however, in showing the geographic division of Mongolia/Xinjiang/Tibet from the Former SSRs. Also, the a mountain ranges of Afghanistan and Pakistan are quite visibly separating them from the rest of central asia. —thames 18:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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:

The mountain ranges that constitute Greater Tibet, run through Afghanistan, up around Iran, into Northern Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan), and become the Caucasus mountains.
The steppe that runs from the North Caucasus, over the Caspian, through Kazakhstan, into Mongolia.

This is hands-down the best map (i've found so far) for illustrating what Central Asia actually is. I will try to redo the political map (for the top of the article) to better match this climate map.

I must give kudos on the fine new political map that half-miraculously manages to illustrate Central Asia as something of a coherent region.--Pharos 07:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's tough trying to correctly illustrate it. The way I see it, there are five subdivisions of Central Asia: the Caucasus, former SSRs (including Afghanistan), Xinjiang, Greater Tibet, and Inner+Outer Mongolia. The new map outlines the whole, but doesn't really distinguish any of the subregions. Nor do we have anything illustrating the sub-subregions, like Transoxania or the Ferghana Valley or others that I mention below. The new map is a good overall map though. Better than my previous one, which was just terrible.

[edit] Subregions of Central Asia

I'm not sure where we can insert this information, but it might be useful to divide Central Asia into subregions. We already have articles dealing with:

Turkestan (further subdivided into East and West Turkestan)
Transcaucasia / Caucasus (together they look like candidates for a merge)
Parts of the Indus Valley Civilization

also:

[edit] Separate articles?

It seems fitting to condense and link the history and geopolitics sections into History of Central Asia and Geopolitics of Central Asia. Circéus199.202.104.10i0

I agree, and will probably end up doing just that for the Geostrategy section, perhaps today, perhaps Sunday night after I get back from a trip. —thames 16:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its a good sign that we've reached a stage where this has become necessary, but one can say, for instance, that the history section is still very far from anything like complete. Still, it's getting rather long. :)--Pharos 18:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We also very much need a History of Central Asia article. We already have History of the Middle East, History of East Asia, History of South Asia, and History of Southeast Asia so Central Asia should complete the set. - SimonP 18:47, Mar 4, 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?

[edit] Caucasus

Does anyone have a good source that places the Caucasus in Central Asia? I've encoutered a wide array of definitions for Central Asia, but none that include the Caucasus. - SimonP 02:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the mtn. range, they are typically considered as the southeastern limit of Europe. In that case, unless we're doing South Central (or Eurasia), that might not work for you. Sorry.

Ref. the Brit (uh oh screaming Wik's... ;')

Bwefler 06:45 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the place of Caucasia in this article is debateable. Politically, ethnically and geographically, it is a different place. I for one, feel that the addition of Caucasian languages and Armenian language into the section on languages would unballance the article and make it loose cohesion. Gareth Hughes 12:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, "South Central" in error(?), since it's north of southwest Asia... (not really the center...) :Bwefler 17:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the map should be changed to exclude the Caucasus from Central Asia. Nowhere in the article do we discuss Caucasia. - SimonP 17:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Geographically, Caucasus is part of Southeastern Europe and in some cases scholars have assigned it to Western Asia (though that is disputable too), but NEVER to Central Asia. Based on these grounds, I'm removing all references to Caucasus in this article that imply that Caucasus might be or ever was part of Central Asia, whether culturally or linguistically, let alone ethnically and geographically. Not to would be contrary to logic and a violation of the standards set up by the Wikipedia policy regarding objectiveness of claims. Subjective claims such as found in this article should belong only to the minds of those who believe them, NOT to an article in an encyclopedia. References to Caucasus in contexts other than the aforementioned four will be left untouched.--24.188.136.219 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan & Instability

Describing Pakistan as unstable is currently quite an apt and understated way of putting it. You could say, in place of unstable, that it is a country faced with a decades old violent border dispute (kashmir), ethnic separatism (balochistan), transnational terrorist presence (south waziristan), a leader who assumed power in a military coup and who refuses to relinquish his military post, and who enjoys so little public support that he is forced to travel with U.S. army guards to protect against the multiple and recurring assassination attempts, an unenforceable northern border with Afghanistan that allows for the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons through the country, and a security force that is only partly in allegiance with the government and responsible for setting up and supporting one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in Afghansitan. That certainly qualifies as unstable, and is not an NPOV assertion. —thames 14:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is your POV. Pakistan has semi-autonomus region along the Afghanistan border. Pakistan cannot infringe upon local autonomy and self-rule of Pashtun tribes. Pakistan has done more than enough to control the Afghan border. While the Afghanistan regions are still controlled by warlords. The opium and other drugs are harvested in Afghanistan then smuggled to Pakistan. Musharraf's popularity in Pakistan is similar to Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan's economy is growing over 7% per year and that have increased stability and support of Musharraf. I do not support the military government but it has performed better than previous democratic governments.

Siddiqui 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Asia and "Middle Asia"

In Russian language, there are two different notions: "Middle Asia" (Средняя Азия) and "Central Asia" (Центральная Азия). "Middle Asia" is the part of Central Asia that was within the borders of USSR. Other languages lack this distinction, so it often causes misunderstandings and mistranslations. Be careful when you talk about "the most limited definition". — Monedula 18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cities?

Under demographics, would it be possible to list the largest cities by population? Kevlar67 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Article is as disorderly as Central Asian politics themselves

Whoever keeps including the region of Caucasus into Central Asia has some pathetic agenda and needs to stop. There is no single work that implies that Caucasus ever was and/or is part of Central Asia. The traditional border between Asia and Europe was and still is overwhelmingly considered the Caspian Sea and the Ural Mountains.--24.188.136.219 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories: B-Class Central Asia articles | Top-importance Central Asia articles | To do | Past Wikipedia collaborations of the week