Jump to content

Talk:Kazakhstan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Kazakhstan/Archive 3) (bot
Line 24: Line 24:
|leading_zeros=0
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}

== Authoritarian in infobox ==

Should the infobox's government parameter say that the country is "under an authoritarian regime", and why or why not? Pinging editors who have added/removed this recently: {{yo|Lavalizard101|GreatLeader1945|Beshogur|p=.}} [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] I would prefer the wording "under an [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] government". This was all present in most Central Asian countries' infoboxes until @[[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] started removing them all at once. Then remove it from [[Russia]]'s and [[Belarus]]' infobox by that logic?!? [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 17:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::Do you have any sources for this wording? — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 17:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Russian one was added after the war. Belarus is a dictatorship tho. {{tq|under an authoritarian government}} is not appropriate for infobox. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::: <q>"under an authoritarian government</q> is not appropriate for infobox." Why so? What's wrong with that wording? That's the light way to say "a dictatorship". [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes. My sources are the page itself and you could have easily seen that if you checked the respective pages. [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 17:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:Both Kazakh and Uzbek presidents are reformists, not dictators. They may be authoritarian, but more softer compared to their predecessors and they're liberalizing their country. Viktor Orban is authoritarian as well despite being in a democratic country. "authoritarian government" is not appropriate for the infobox. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]]
::>"Both Kazakh and Uzbek presidents are reformists, not dictators." - again, your POV, that's not a neutral and objective POV at all
::>"They may be authoritarian, but more softer compared to their predecessors and they're liberalizing their country." - in a what way, ''especially'' Uzbekistan? - "Uzbekistan is one of just three [[post-Soviet states]] in which male homosexual activity remains criminalised, along with [[LGBT rights in Turkmenistan|Turkmenistan]] and [[LGBT rights in Chechnya|Chechnya]].", the elections are highly likely fake (or atleast the results are a result of fear and repression), the government uses censorship, political persecutions are present too etc. etc. Even the Wikipedia articles on Uzbekistan's political system ([[Politics of Uzbekistan]], [[Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party]] etc.) say that the other parties in the parliament are puppets of the rulling one (i.e. they were created in order to pretend that the country's a democracy, which it isn't in any way: "''Despite self-identifying with different ideologies, the parties are seen as no different from each other, with the Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party being created to give an illusion of a competitive [[multi-party system]]; this is supported by the fact that the People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan remained supportive of Karimov's policies and retained his favor''.") [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 17:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::That page you linked has still update tag from 2016. I advise to look at Mirziyoyev's reforms. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 18:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:I only reverted to pre-whitewash accusation version, I have no opinion on content. I will say though that "source is the page itself" is a weak argument. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] >"I will say though that "source is the page itself" is a weak argument" - It's not. This is a literal fact stated in the page itself, else it wouldn't be there in the first place? [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 17:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that anybody can edit wikipedia and that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source]], something being stated in a wikipedia article is not an argument to include it in an infobox or other areas of the article. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::See [[MOS:INFOBOXCITE]]: {{tq|References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere}} i.e. it's a similar to the lead. Generally, the information in the infobox doesn't need to be cited because it's a summary of sourced material in the article. The issue should be whether it or not it matches sourced material in the article. As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|DeCausa}} this user doesn't understand that "authoritarian government" isn't a parameter for type of government on the infobox.
:::::Russia example is pretty bad. Putin is declared as dictator on wikipedia infobox directly after the invasion. He may be dictator, but "authoritarian dictatorship" is simply ridiculous. A dictatorship is already authoritarian.
:::::Belarus, NK, Tajikistan are examples of long lasting dictatorships, while Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan definitely aren't of these examples. They may be still authoritarian, but both rulers are liberalizing the country. Mirziyoyev even, after a protest, backed down from a law proposal to revoke autonomy of [[Karakalpakstan]]. [[2022 Kazakh constitutional referendum]] is another example how president's powers decreased. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 18:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure what you mean by {{tq|"authoritarian government" isn't a parameter for type of government on the infobox.}} The paramet is "type of government" and I'm not aware that the template documentation restricts what's entered against that parameter in that way. It's a local [[WP:CONSENSUS]] question. I don't see anything in the article - certainly not the recent "slight" liberalisation - precluding the "authoritarian" description. Other countries' Infoboxes is a rather [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]] argument. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 07:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You're giving other stuff arguments. It's just a reply for that. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 10:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Also there is enough mention on articles of Tokayev and Mirziyoyev on their liberalization policy. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 10:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::No, @[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] correctly says a few comments above and agrees with me: "Generally, '''the information in the infobox doesn't need to be cited''' because it's a summary of sourced material in the article. The issue should be whether it or not it matches sourced material in the article. '''As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian'''. '''that's good enough for the infobox'''.". That's the whole problem, for the N-th time, that you're arguing with all these Wiki articles themselves and they firmly state the opposite of your claims and POV. [[User:GreatLeader1945|GreatLeader1945]] ([[User talk:GreatLeader1945|talk]]) 11:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::He's right about not citing on the infobox. {{tq|As far as I can see the article asserts, with citations, that it is authoritarian. that's good enough for the infobox}} I don't think he can decide on that. The infobox template is clear about that. And are we going to list every orange+red country as authoritarian on the infobox? That's not a real parameter. I gave an explanation for dictatorship stuff, that's not the case here. It's not other stuff argument.
::::::::::[[File:Democracy Index 2022.svg|thumb|right|Democracy index]] [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 15:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::The lead has the following cited statement {{tq|It is de jure a democratic, unitary, constitutional republic;[14] however, it is de facto an authoritarian regime[15][16] with no free elections.[17]}} The Infobox should reflect that. Please stop referring to other countries. That's not revant. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 16:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{re|DeCausa}} You know the sentence is an original research right? And this does not mean "Freedom House said so = it's correct". Freedom House has connections with the US government. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
{{outdent}} also Freedom House removed "authoritarian regime" [https://freedomhouse.org/country/kazakhstan/freedom-world/2022 Kazakhstan] in its 2022 report. So the source is outdated as well. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

:I'm pinging {{ping|Firefangledfeathers}}; can you check 2020[https://freedomhouse.org/country/kazakhstan/nations-transit/2020] and 2022[https://freedomhouse.org/country/kazakhstan/freedom-world/2020] report please? The sentence {{tq|however, it is de facto an authoritarian regime}} based on this source is incorrect and outdated. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::Hi Beshogur, I'm not involved in this content dispute. Hopefully you (or others) can either convince the editors present or seek out some [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. I will say that the 2022 link is to a 2020 report. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:It's cited to [[the Economist]] (2022). You're missing the point. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 16:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:And here's the BBC in 2022: {{tq|Kazakhstan is often described as authoritarian, and most elections are won by the ruling party with nearly 100% of the vote. There is no effective political opposition.}}[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59907235] [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:PBS (2022): {{tq|...wider discontent with Kazakhstan’s authoritarian government.}}[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/nearly-8000-detained-in-kazakhstan-during-unrest] [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 16:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::What's this source? I can find sources calling Macron authoritarian[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/05/french-government-should-control-social-media-during-unrest-macron-says]. But the thing is, I'm arguing that "authoritarian government/regime" isn't a parameter for the infobox. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 17:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't know why you have linked to that Guardian article. It's irrelevant. I don't know why you keep saying ""authoritarian government/regime" isn't a parameter for the infobox." That makes no sense. I don't think you are using the right words in English. The parameter is "type of government". There's then a blank against that paramater - it's for editors to then insert the description against that parameter. What are you trying to say? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[Template:Infobox country]] {{tq|The type of government, e.g. federal republic}}; Unitary semi-presidential republic is Kazakhstan government, not "authoritarian government/regime" is this so hard to understand? [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes! Every time you've used the word "parameter" you mean "description" not "parameter". Looking at the headings at the top of the template Ok so what you are trying to say is that "authoritarian government/regime" isn't a description in the template document. That continues to make no sense. There is no list of descriptions that must be used. "federal republic" is just an example. it's left to consensus of editors to fill the blank. Do you understand? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 17:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
[[File:Democracy claims.svg|thumb|upright=1.5| Most countries claim to be some sort of democracy...however we all know this isn't correct let's make sure we inform our readers what is correct well at the same time letting them know what the claimed regime type is.]]
:As per the norm at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries]] the info box should list the claimed regime type and actual regime type...... that should be sourced in the article and sources perhaps regurgitated in the lead if they are contentious... [[Russia]], [[Venezuela]], [[North Korea]], [[Afghanistan]].<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>-[[File:Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg|15px|link=User talk:Moxy]] 20:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

:So what regime is Kazakhstan here? [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 04:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::Per the sourced content in the article "[[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[Semi-presidential system|semi-presidential]] [[republic]] under an [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] government". That's reflecting what's already in the article so can't really be anything else without changing what the article already says. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 06:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You never read my comments right? This sentence is from 2020 report of Freedom House, while 2022 report removed this word. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::And still "authoritarian government" is not appropriate for the infobox since there are other countries at same level with Kazakhstan. We should label all of them if it's alright. However, again, Freedom House removed this word in its 2022 report if we're going to look at them (since you quote the particular text in the article that links Freedom House). [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 08:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::*{{cite web | last=Schmidt | first=Lisa | last2=Stang | first2=Venla | title=Kazakhstan in Context: A Repressive State | website=Human Rights Foundation | date=February 18, 2022 | url=https://hrf.org/kazakhstan-in-context-a-repressive-state/ | access-date=October 19, 2023}}
:::::<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>-[[File:Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg|15px|link=User talk:Moxy]] 12:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Beshogur}} you've driven me to shouting: ITS CITED TO THE ECONOMIST!!! The Economist, [[The Economist]]. OK? I've already told you this. THE ECONOMIST. Specifically, it's page 50 of the Economist's '''2022''' Democracy Index where, under "Regime type" it receives the classification "Authoritarian". And, once again, other countries' infoboxes are [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]]. I think there's a serious [[WP:IDHT]] problem emerging. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::You call my every other link "irrelevant" and suddenly come with the economist. You repeatedly told me the particular quote, which cites Freedom House, and when I show you an evidence, you come with the Economist. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 15:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Do you not see that the sentence is supported by citation no.16 which is the Economist? Do you not see that I have never mentioned Freedom House? Do you not see I referenced citation no.16 the Economist at 16:40, 18 October 2023, when I told you you were missing the point? Beshogur, [[WP:CIR|competence is reequired]]. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:We should rather look at the democracy index, not this map. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::You mean The Economist Democracy Index which is citation no 16 that describes Kazakhstan as "authoritarian" regime that I've been trying to get you to pay attention to for the last 2 days? YES! Hallelujah. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if this is a competency problem or not. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>-[[File:Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg|15px|link=User talk:Moxy]] 23:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::As there's no counter-argument, I've made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kazakhstan&diff=1181249718&oldid=1181245082 this edit]. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 21:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
*The whole "under an authoritarian government" part looks like original research. Is there a source that formulates it in the same way? Yes, we can say ''de jure'' democratic and ''de facto'' authoritarian, but democratic is not mentioned in the infobox. A republic can have a democratic or authoritarian government; this implies that the above is false. Otherwise, why would we also not say "under a democratic government" or "under a mixed regime"? Either way, if we are measuring the level of democracy, why not do it for all countries? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 07:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Also {{ping|Moxy}} since you are active in the countries articles, I think it would be better if we got consistency on government type in the infobox. It seems odd to only mention the level of democracy for (some) countries with authoritarian regimes but not for those with democratic/semi-democratic/mixed regimes. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::{{tq|The whole "under an authoritarian government" part looks like original research. Is there a source that formulates it in the same way?}} Yes, it's cited. Not sure why you think it's OR. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::Yes, it is cited, but does it say it is not actually a semi-presidential republic? The EIU democracy index also categorizes countries as full democracies, flawed democracies and mixed regimes to addition to authoritarian regimes, but then would it be appropriate to add "under a democratic government" or "under a mixed regime"? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 08:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::No, the only description Kazakhstan is given in the source is "authoritarian". It doesn't refer to it as a flawed or hybrid democracy at all. Have you looked at the source? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, it uses those terms because it is called the ''democracy'' index. If the United States is categorized as a flawed democracy, should we add "under a flawed democratic government"? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 08:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::::What I mean is it doesn't use those terms for Kazakhstan. As far as the US is concerned, that's a question for the talk page of that article, not this one. There is, of course, wide variance on whether there is this type of descriptor in infoboxes across Wikipedia. The "consistency" argument doesn't work not only because of [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]] but because there is no consistency anyway. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::I am not necessarily saying the level of democracy should not be mentioned, but the current wording ("under") implies it is not actually a republic. The cited source does not mention the republic part, so where does "under" come from? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 08:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::I don't think I understand. The citation is supporting that it is "authoritarian". Are you challenging that it is a republic? Where does "under" come from? The source says "type of regime" "authoritarian". I can't see a problem with that meaning "under authoritarian government". [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::The source only categorizes it as an authoritarian regime, but it does not mention anything about republics, so how can we say it is a "semi-presidential republic '''under''' an authoritarian regime"? The lead says {{tq|however, it is ''de facto'' an [[authoritarian regime]]}} while citing the democracy index, which does not mention the republic part and does not use "de facto", so again, that looks like original research. My point is, we can say that it is both a republic and authoritarian without using terms such as "under" which imply that the other is false. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::I agree the "de jure" and "de facto" wording in the lead should come out. But as far as the Infobox is concerned (which this thread is about) I think you're reading ''far'' too much into the word "under". No matter: what form of words would you suggest? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 09:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::That is possible that I am reading too much into that one word. I think a separate field in the infobox for degree of democracy might work better but of course I do not think that is feasible now. I am not sure now what would be a better way to phrase it but I would be interested in seeing how sources mention both in a concise way. ''The World Almanac'' for example says for Uzbekistan for government type: "Presidential republic; highly authoritarian" (though for Kazakhstan it does not seem to mention authoritarian). [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I don't have a problem with replacing ''under'' with a semicolon. It has the benefit of indicating that the source is applying specifically to the "authoritarian" part. I also think it might be better to replace "government" with "regime" which is the word used in the citation. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 09:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Another option is "Authoritarian regime[6] in a unitary semi-presidential republic" [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 10:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::It seems [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/government-type/ CIA Factbook] does this using a semicolon for "authoritarian", which I think would be preferable to "under". [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 10:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Maybe "with authoritarian rule" is another option, but I do not mind. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 10:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I'm still not understanding DeCausa. Most presidential or semi-presidential rules tend to have authoritarianism. I don't understand how this makes much a difference. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Personally I would have this align with [[List of countries by system of government]] but I suppose degree of democracy can be considered to be part of the form of government. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 10:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

== Edit request 19 October 2023 ==

{{Edit fully-protected|Kazakhstan|answered=yes}}

File:GUWSatpayev.jpg has been deleted. Could someone please remove it? <span style="color:Purple">''' - '''</span>[[User:Sumanuil|<span style="color:Purple">'''''Sumanuil'''''</span>]]<span style="color:Purple">'''. '''</span><sub>[[User_talk:Sumanuil|<span style="color:Purple">(talk to me)</span>]]</sub> 20:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:I swapped in different image. Thanks for the prompt! [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


== Emblem ==
== Emblem ==

Revision as of 12:57, 9 April 2024


Emblem

See Talk:Emblem of Kazakhstan#not correct emblem of Kazakhstan for discussion. I'm seeing @Rkt2312: replacing with the wrong one twice. Official sources senate, egov. Beshogur (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded File:Emblem of Kazakhstan 3d.svg and swapped that in. I think part of the prior dispute was a lack of the svg version? Hope this helps, and I'll self-revert if requested. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: hey you forgot the white background, can you fix that? Beshogur (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur The quality of the current file is a traced bitmap, and not a true SVG. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: thanks that's great! Beshogur (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A higher quality vector file is available at [1]. (parameter required, see [2] 71.239.86.150 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4%

A recent edit removed a modifier before the 4% figure for some area. I question this removal since the removal gives a false sense of exactness. What is the consensus? Kdammers (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't described the recents edits correctly. That's not what's happened. The first sentence of the article ends with the statement that Kazakhstan is "...mostly in Central Asia, with a small part in Eastern Europe". There is a longstanding footnote to this sentence which says: "About 4% of Kazakhstan's territory, west of the Ural River, lies in Eastern Europe." A source was given for this percentage. Eight days ago a new editor, with currently 193 edits, decided to ignore that source and without an edit summary add to "about 4%" the following additional unsourced qualification "By some definitions, about 4% ...". that gives the impression that other definitions say it is a different percentage. No source has been given for a different percentage. Today, that was reverted and the longstanding sourced version was restored. 59 minutes later the above message, which makes no sense, was posted. The longstanding and now restored version includes the "about" modifier. The reverted unsourced version includes the "about" modifier. DeCausa (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh famine of 1919–1922

The History section forget to talk about the Kazakh famine of 1919–1922. There are mentions about the Kazakh famine of 1930–1933 but not the first one. It is important in the Kazakh history and the article need to mention it. But I can't do it myself because I don't have an account and this article is semi-protected. Can someone add it please? Thank you. 2A01:E0A:D09:A780:504B:BF09:1A6D:BA22 (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Astana

I think the sentence saying in 2022 the current president names the city after his predecessor is not clear.

When the city changed to Nur Sultan it reflected the first president. When the name was restored to Astana the name of the first president was being removed.

So saying in 2022 it was named after his predecessor is inaccurate. Malemke (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please revert this unexplained edit, as it contradicts the article's body. 212.3.150.115 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The user reverted his own edit. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CanonNi, the IP was referring to the later edit, in which the editor removed Russian from the infobox again. Liu1126 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm very sorry for my mistake, and thank you for fixing it. I didn't see the full edit history and wrongly assumed that the edit in question was the only edit made by the user. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kazakhstan&oldid=1218054716"