Talk:History of Uzbekistan

Central Asia High‑importance

	Asia portal History of Uzbekistan 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, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan 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.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Uzbekistan & Tajikistan

OBviously Tajikistan and UZbekistan share the same history. Somehow, I have never encountered the word "uzbek" in the source until 16th century. Tajiks has even had their official state, Samanids. And most of the population of UZbekistan consits of Tajiks. Moreover, in historical places of the present UZbekistan the writings are in either Persian or Arabic. All the poets of the region were apparently persians, or tajiks, since there have not been any noble writings in turkish or uzbek until the former of the uzbek Literature Alisher Navoi.

HEnce, how come they label Bachtria, Sogdiana etc. under single name UZBEKISTAN, which has been formed in early 20th century.

Crazy world.... :) Maybe it is time to take it seriously and work on building a time machine and travel in time to rewrite the whole thing.

Text from public domain http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2924.htm included. olivier 11:51, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Osbegs

Probably some mention belongs here of the Osbeg (spelling?) people, circa, I guess, the 1300s, and the Kazakhs (um, the betrayers?)Jogback 02:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just checked, and the Kazakhstan article does have some discussion of this, although if it explains the word Kazakh, I missed it. I have read an allegation that it refers to the Kazakh/Osbeg (sp?) split.Jogback 02:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very short artcile about Uzbekistan. There is a lot talk and write about the history of Uzbekistan

Please spell it correctly not 'Osbegs', but 'Uzbeks'

The Evolution of Uzbek nation

There are still many discussions about when Uzbek nation was "formulated". The name 'Uzbekistan' was given to the country in 1924 by Soviet Union. Until, there were 3 kingdoms ('honlik' from Uzbek) and nor of them called its civils as Uzbeks.

One of two points of some scientsits are 1. Uzbek-khan, the name of imperior of 'Oltin-Orda' (Chingizkhan's imperior in Central Asia)

Uzbekistan?

   OBviously Tajikistan and UZbekistan share the same history. Somehow, I have never encountered the word "uzbek" in the source until 16th century. Tajiks has even had their official state, Samanids. And most of the population of UZbekistan consits of Tajiks. Moreover, in historical places of the present UZbekistan the writings are in either Persian or Arabic. All the poets of the region were apparently persians, or tajiks, since there have not been any noble writings in turkish or uzbek until the former of the uzbek Literature Alisher Navoi. 
   HEnce, how come they label Bachtria, Sogdiana etc. under single name UZBEKISTAN, which has been formed in early 20th century.

Crazy world.... :) Maybe it is time to take it seriously and work on building a time machine and travel in time to rewrite the whole thing.

There are some bizarre disagreements over timelines here and in the main article on Uzbekistan. Obviously, pieces had been added at various times, apparently without any regard for normalizing the presentation either to reflect the chronology or to harmonize the spelling (e.g., Khokand, Kokand, Qoqun). Missing links and lax citation appear to prevail. This needs serious revision, along with the History part of the Uzbekistan article that ideally should summarize the same content. Some of the information, as of today, is simply wrong.

One problem is that Uzbekistan is a fairly recent designation. Although Uzbeks became the dominant force in this particular region earlier, the political divisions did not follow linguistic boundaries until the full Russian conquest of Central Asia (Turkestan) in the third quarter of the 19th century. The conquests and divisions of the period cannot be ignored.

As for the common history of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, there is a small problem--the linguistic division. The two are separated not merely by a geographic, but by a linguistic boundary, although representatives of multiple language (and ethnic) groups are present in both regions. Yes, they share common regional history (along with other parts of Central Asia), but the specifics and, particularly, the timelines differ substantially. Certainly, Soviet and Post-Soviet history is significantly different, once the respective republics had been designated. But interactions with China, Russia, Iran/Persia, India and other major current and historical neighbors should not be ignored. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

This does need a re-write and some other sources. The ***BIG*** issue is when did Uzbeks 'appear' from the mor general turcic/sart melange of the peoples of Central Asia. Cosnahang (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough both here and in the History subhead of Uzbekistan, Uzbeks are simply mentioned as some nomadic tribes from the North, without any specificity. Untangling this yarn will take some doing. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this page

The leading section is generally meant to give a brief introduction of the content within the article, here it is far too long. It needs a good trimming to at least half the size. The main body is where most of the information should be placed. Hzh (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, why are non-standard English terms used here? For example Transoxiana is the normally used for that region, not Mawarannahr. Remember that this is an English article, not any other language, so standard English terms should be used per WP:PLACE. Hzh (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, this page copied text extensively from somewhere else in violation of wikipaedia rules, tests in section after section were lifted verbatim from one source. Not only that, the texts are full or errors. The history section appears to be written by someone ignorant of history, the contents are quite unacceptable. Please try to fix it. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added two generic links for non-historians

For the general reader, I think these two links helpful.

Please remove if editor not in agreement that these are helpful as terms of reference in See Also for the general reader with no background other than general education.

I added these as a helpful gesture, rather than try to repair vandalism at the main Uzbekistan article

G. Robert Shiplett 14:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Text cited in article

I am assuming that the cited text Lubin, Nancy. "Early history". In Curtis. refers to: "Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan: Country Studies (Area Handbook Series)" Edited by Glenn E. Curtis, Publication Date: November 12, 1997, ISBN-10: 0844409383, ISBN-13: 978-0844409382, Edition: 1st ed?

Not only has it been used here copiously, but also in Uzbekistan, and Uzbeks. The name of the chapter(?) is unknown and no pages numbers have been provided. In the context, I find it difficult to feel convinced that it is a genuine citation. For the moment, I'm tagging it for page number/s. Hopefully, someone can assist me further with this difficult-to-obtain text. If it isn't properly sourced, I'm sorely tempted to remove it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Uzbekistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604214920/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/24/ap/world/main3644754.shtml?source=search_story to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/24/ap/world/main3644754.shtml?source=search_story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change dating system to Common Era

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system. This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]