Talk:Bukhara
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bukhara 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. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating 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. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Uzbekistan may be able to help! |
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Uzbekistan may be able to help! |
I just noticed that the Uzbek spelling has been changed from "Бұхара" to "Бухоро". I don't know Uzbek but I'm pretty sure user 80.71.101.90 has "corrected" it to the Russian spelling. His comment says "fixed Cyrillic name" - but obviously there is more than one Cyrillic name since there are more than one cyrillic languages. Can anybody check this? Hippietrail 09:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Nobody has commented so I'm fixing this now. — Hippietrail 00:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm over a year late on this. The deal on this is that "Бухоро" is the correct Uzbek Cyrillic spelling, whereas "Buxoro" is the correct Uzbek Latin spelling. The Cyrillic alphabet was phased out in Uzbekistan following the breakup of the USSR.--KASchmidt 05:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Might it be worth noting that the spelling Bokhara is used in many English sources? I see there is a redirect set up for that useage, but it might be helpful to note it in the main page, to clarify. - Kd5mdk 20 Feb 2005 0449 UTC-6
- "Bokhara" is essentially an archaism; it reflects the transliteration of the Arabic-alphabet spelling according to the principles usually used to render Persian into English. This is fair enough, as the majority of the city's population are Persian/Tajik-speaking, but as the population there now uses either the Cyrillic or Latin alphabet, the spelling "Bokhara" is more of a fossilization than a contemporary Romanization.--KASchmidt 05:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. As someone who is doing a fair amount of work on Central Asian history using strictly English language sources, many dating from the 19th century, it's particularly hard to keep track of what is varient spellings and transliterations of the same name, and what is a completely different place with a similar name. I suppose I'm just particularly sensitive to this. Kd5mdk 8 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)
[edit] ethnic percentages
The previous wording (not mine) about Bukharas Tajik not Uzbek character was deleted. For the moment I have put in a (I hope neutral) new wording on this and included an official Uzbekistan Govt source which states that the Tajik minority in the country is concentrated in Bukhara and Samarkand. However the actual percentages are in dispute. It may well indeed be that the Tajiks are in the majority in Bukhara as they claim. The total Tajik population in the country as a whole varies wildly according to which figures you use (see this link for various claims one way and another}. If, as here, the accusation is that the Tajik minority are deliberately under-enumerated as a matter of official policy, what do we do wikipedia-rules-wise?. It's difficult to find verifiable sources which are not in some way based on official census figures. Jameswilson 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, good!
- Usually, even things like that leave some kind of paper trail. There's always some scholar at some university interested in the topic. The Armenian Genocide is an example of a topic which doesnt die despite the attempts to quell it.
- There's bound to be some scholar somewhere on this topic right? I checked the 1943 Ency Brit, but it doesnt mention anything of the sort. If there is truly an ethnic rpression, itb bound to be documented by some human rights group or something.
- Ah, I found something; a report by the US govt stating:
- "Government statistics dating from 1992 show that the population of approximately 23 million is about 71 percent Uzbeks, 8 percent Russians, 5 percent Tajiks, 4 percent Tatars, and 3 percent Kazakhs, with many other ethnic groups represented. The statistics may underestimate the actual number of ethnic Tajiks. The figures also do not include many ethnic Tajiks whose mother tongue was Uzbek. Moreover, some Tajiks choose for a variety of reasons to declare themselves to be ethnic Uzbeks."
- This is enough for our purposes, though there might be more somewhere on Bukhara itself. I'll also leave this ref at Tajik. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Found another article which mentions this [[1]] - which suggests a much higher national percentage for Tajiks in Uzbekistan. One could certainly deduce from that that they "must be" a majority in Bukhara if thats one of their strongholds. Jameswilson 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
