Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles C‑class(Level 4)
WikiProject iconKazakhstan has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Nursultan_Nazarbayev webpage also vandalised - needs freezing[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries[edit]

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: 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)

Any reason not to include former spelling "Kazakstan"?[edit]

The article Member states of the United Nations includes the fact that the spelling "Kazakstan" was used at the United Nations until 1997. I was surprised that this spelling doesn't even appear in this article.

The spelling was mentioned on the talk page in 2005, where someone said that they had "never seen Kazakstan spelled with an 'h' in it" and someone responded that they had "never seen it without the 'h.' "

It was mentioned again in 2010, where someone wrote that "right after the name of the article we see the phrase 'also spelled Kazakstan'. I have no idea who spells Kazakhstan without the 'h' (hillbillies?) but including alternate spellings (that are not used OFFICIALLY) doesn't really convey any helpful or accurate information to readers." The same user removed "Kazakstan" from the lead on the same day with the comment "removed misspelling."

Are there any reasons why this spelling should not be included in the article?

Here are some sources that could back up the former spelling:

  • United Nations (1997). "Yearbook of the United Nations 1997". UN-iLibrary. p. 1574. Formerly Kazakstan; spelling changed on 20 June 1997.
  • Akiner, Shirin (2002). "Kazakhstan: An Overview" (PDF). UNHCR Emergency & Security Service. p. 3. The spelling "Kazakhstan" was used until the mid-1990s; for a while thereafter "Kazakstan" was the preferred form, but recently there has been a return to "Kazakhstan".
  • "Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Kazakstan on Economic and Commercial Cooperation, Done at Almaty on 7 May 1997" (PDF). 1997-05-07. p. 7. When the Agreement was signed by the Parties in 1997 the standarised Roman spelling of the country name was "Kazakstan". This spelling is used throughout the treaty text and when referring to the treaty by its proper name. Kazakhstan advised in 1998 that the correct standardised Roman spelling is now "Kazakhstan". This standard is used in all official documentation by the Kazakhstan government and is adopted throughout this National Interest Analysis and supporting documentation.

I'll add it in a few days if there are no objections. Adrio (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference in usage between "Kazakhstan" and "Kazakstan" is so great that the latter would not be considered notable enough to include in the lead. It may be worth a mention in the Etymology section, but most readers familiar with the country will have never seen the spelling "Kazakstan" because it never saw significant usage in the English language (hence the confusion of other editors, perhaps). Yue🌙 06:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article seems to praise Tokayev's government uncritically. The protests of 2022 and their background, as well as the russian intervention are almost abstinent from the article. (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023[edit]

Change this sentence:

In June 2019, on the initiative of the President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev the National Council of Public Trust have been established as a platform in which wider society can discuss different views and strengthen the national conversation regarding government policies and reforms.

To: In June 2019, on the initiative of the President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the National Council of Public Trust have been established as a platform in which wider society can discuss different views and strengthen the national conversation regarding government policies and reforms. Kepler42d (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reworded the sentence. The typo you noticed is no longer relevant to the sentence. Yue🌙 23:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There was a discussion regarding the emblem on Talk:Emblem of Kazakhstan. @Returntoedenblr: suggested we should use the official rendering. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The official rendering goes against MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. I have no idea what they mean when they say the current one is "mythical", that it "does not correspond to the image in life" (images of emblems are not supposed to look real; should we add wrinkles to the flag as well?), or that it's "low quality and does not meet the standard" (it's a high quality SVG that meets Wikipedia's standards, i.e. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY). Yue🌙 22:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can make a svg version of the official rendering as well. That's not really an argument. Beshogur (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also it states literally Pages using seals, flags, banners, logos, or other symbols to represent governments, organizations, and institutions should use the version prescribed by that entity when available. It is avaiable. I don't see any problem here. There is no "wrinkled" version of Kazakh flag, thus it's not an issue here. See Kazakh flag, no different. Beshogur (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Kazakh flag, no different. Beshogur (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Young Pioneers[edit]

As far as I can understand, there is no relevance to the picture of the Young Pioneers Camp. Of the 41 children (I assume the older two females are staff), 8 appear to be ethnically Asian, the rest European. This is just a rough estimate based on the group picture, but it isn't at all likely that the picture is representative of the country's demographics. I think it should be removed - or, if there is some relevance to it, then that should be made explicit. (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]