{{todo}} {{past cotw|February 27|2005}} == 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) : See also User_talk:Wik#Central_Asia ---- Copied from Mark Richards' Talk: Do you have a specific, substantive, original criticism of the version that I have restored? If so, I will answer it. But you're just complicating things if you're merely acting as a mediator in an edit war between Cantus and Wik. 172 20:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC) You probably won't hear anything different from me. This is not a 'geographical' issue. The issue is encyclopedic organizational principles, particularly (heirarchy, precision). The term 'Central Asia' typically refers to the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. That's why other encyclopedias place the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia under this category, but not Mongolia. 172 20:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC) :Well, opinion is clearly divided on this, even from other mainstream sources. There is no 'precision', since this is essentially a political, not a geographic issue. We simply have to document the fact that the term has several different meanings, and live with that - there is no 'right answer'. Mark Richards 20:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC) ::For crying out loud. No, this just means that Wikipedia should stay consistent. Let's stick with the mostly widely used use of the term in reference to the former Soviet republics, alright. 172 21:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC) Well, it seems like reflecting varied usuage would be more appropriate. Mark Richards 21:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC) ---- This Article needs to mention Tuva in the second paragraph. sunja 11:06, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :Tell me more! Be bold and add it, except of course you can't because the page is protected to do a stupid edit war! Please leave more information here, and someone will add it to the page. Also, can we move forward on getting this unprotected? Thanks, Mark Richards 16:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Dear friends of Central Asia, Thank you for the short article. Remarks: 1. history: "part of the Communist-led Soviet Union." Sorry, but that is not encyclopaedic writing. To much cold war rhethoric, serious! I don't know, where do you come from, but it is not the inter-subjective level I expect from such a source. "ranging from democratic to highly authoritarian" Sorry again, but could you tell me which of the five CA gouvernments is based on democratic values and regulations. Honestly, none, even so beloved Kyrgyzstan is moving strictly to a highly authoritarian system. Of course, in compare with Turkmenistan, they are "democratic". But again, not on an objective (inter-subjective) level. "Most Central Asian nations are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization." And how about CIS, EEC, OSCE, UN, Intergouvernmental Commission TRACECA etc... Did you get my point. Why do you explicitly determine one particular organisation without explaining it. Or you leave it out or you mention the others as well. 2. geography: "A majority of the people earn a living by herding livestock." Any figures? Sounds pretty much... 3. Demographics "More than 80 million people live in Central Asia," In the five CA states? Hardly. Following some profound sources (e.g. World Bank) you have a population of around 55 million. If you ment more than the 5 states, please say so. Otherwise it is confusing, especially with regard to the discussion forum. Thank you, Gerald Huebner (Berlin) ==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) ==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) == 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) == 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: http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/historic_interaction_buddhist_islamic/map01.gif http://www.silkroadadventures.net/images/map.jpg http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-4/singh.7.jpg http://www.jpl.se/~dalen/aralsea/geography1.gif http://www.atlapedia.com/online/resources/World_phy_grat.jpg http://www.geo-klett.com/physical/3169.html http://www.geo-klett.com/physical/3110.php. 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. == 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: *Fergana_Valley *Transoxania == 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) ==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) == 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) == 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) == This Has Been Bothering Me for a a Year Now... == I want to know if anyone knows of a show that aired (or perhapse replayed) On December, the Fifth, two-thousand and four. I remember a show on one of the public stations (NOVA?) about geneticists who where tracing the origen of Europeans, and found it in a Central Asian. I think the results of the study was that both Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples seem to derive from a common stock that split in Central_Asia and became seperated by Geography and Climate. Does anybody know of anything like this, what it was called, or does anybody have any information of on the story itself, and where can I find additional information? (I even forget what country this person was found, he was a Muslim and had definite Asiatic influences, though they where somewhat soft). Eventually, I would like to add this information to this artical and the one about Eurasian Peoples -- 69.248.43.27 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)