Talk:Turkistan (city)

Untitled

I have merged two articles and have used the modern form Türkistan for the city. The articles on other Kazakh cities tend to use the modern names. English-language tourism websites, etc, seem to have settled on Türkistan too (whilst sometimes using Turkestan as a synonym for Central Asia). Hope no objections. Jameswilson 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No objections - if you want to move the page go ahead, although I suspect that most people will search for it as 'Turkestan' or 'Turkestan (City)' as that is the spelling most commonly used in English. Of course, it is also used for the region, so I gave the page the title Hazrat-e Turkestan as a way of getting around this difficulty, and also to give the city its full name (in the 19th century it was often known simply as Hazrat). It also explains how and why the name changed from Yasi as a mark of respect to the saint, or perhaps simply as a nickname once the shrine became synonymous with the city. If you do move the page to Türkistan please put in a little passage explaining these name changes over time, as I think they're rather interesting. Sikandarji 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Move

I originally wrote much of this page and gave it the title "Hazrat-e Turkestan", but on reflection I think it's really a historic name that is rarely used nowadays and always contracted to "Turkestan". It could be seen as rather obscurantist, and whilst it helps to explain why the city is often known simply as "Hazrat" in 19th century sources, we can put that in the opening paragraph. I would suggest moving it either to Turkestan (City) or Türkistan, although the latter might require a disambiguation page. Sikandarji 11:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to me at all as to why Turkistan city in Kazakhstan was given title "Hazrate-e_Turkestan". I would strongly suggest and encourage this title to me completely removed and not be associated with Hazrat-e since it has no connection to the modern city (may be throughout the history it had but not more). And this city is in Kazakhstan. I suspect that some Turkish biased (motivated by the idea of Turan) or Pan-Turkist individuals (mostly from Turkey) are the reason for this to be titled as such (they make very attempt to modify modern day Kazakh, Kazakhstani names to make sound them more Turkish like (i.e. Turkistan city getting the prefix Hazrat-e) so that they can claim later on that Kazakhs are Turks. It is really obscure and unfortunate fact). Nobody who lives in Turkistan even anybody in Kazakhstan recognises Turkistan as "hazrat-e", but simply - Turkistan. Please, correct it - take out the prefix hazrat-e. Disambiguation might simply be resolved just like any other name conflicts in Wikipedia gets handled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.161.55 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrimage

Regarding Hazrat-e Turkestan city, and the paragraph about "For Muslims, three pilgrimages to Türkistan are equivalent to one Hajj to Mecca. The city was even known as the Second Mecca of the East. ". It's the FIRST time to know about it!, it's not mentioned in noble Quran, or Hadith,, we -moslems- never heard or read about prophets companions who went there for piligrimage. I don't know how this information evoloved?

Did you get my message?. Anyway here is what I wrote (for other people who are interested in this topic).

Hi:} It was me who put the original mention of "three pilgrimages to the mausoleum equal one Hajj to Mecca". Somebody deleted it from the Mausoleum page and now you have disagreed with it here too. I am not a Muslim so its not up to me to say whats true or not.

I got it from a travel website. A lot of Kazakh tourism websites make the same claim see examples. However one non-Kazakh site says it is a "local belief" {in Kazakstan only?) here.

Can I suggest an alternative wording? "In Kazakhstan it is traditionally believed that three pilgrimages to the mausoleum equal one Hajj to Mecca but other Muslims dispute this, believing that only pilgrimage sites mentioned in the Quran itself are valid". Or can you suggest something better?

One of the websites suggests that maybe it was so difficult for people at that time to travel from Central Asia to Mecca that the Kazakhs decided to create their own place of pilgrimage. They dont seem to claim there is any connection with Muhammed or his companions, only with their own saint (dont kow the right word?) Khoja Ahmad Yasavi five hundred years later.

But I have no idea about this really so please delete it/change it as you wish. Jameswilson 03:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether or not you accept that Islam has many local variants, and that like most religions it consists of an aggregation of holy texts and local traditions and cults, or whether you accept the homogenised Wahhabi view that anything outside the Quran and certain selected hadith is heresy. Personally I incline towards the former view, and think that local traditions are of equal significance and interest with purist 'orthodoxy' dictated from Saudi Arabia (money talks here, as everywhere else). Khoja Ahmad Yasavi had no connection with Muhammad (he lived 500 years after the prophet), although it is conceivable that his family claimed to be Sayyids. That doesn't really matter: if people believe in his virtues and those of his lineage, and consequently in the merit attending a pilgrimage to his shrine, then it really deserves to be in the article. Sikandarji 12:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Kangju and Hazrat-e Turkestan

I think the redirect of the article Kangju to this article Hazrat-e Turkestan should be removed. Kangju was the ancient name of a confederation of nomadic tribes who, according to Chinese historical sources, lived in Central-Asia between 2nd century BC and 3rd century AD. It has a history completely of its own, there is no direct historical relation with Hazrat-e Turkestan except a geographical one just by coincidence. You can see this in the article Hazrat-e Turkestan: its history starts in the 11 century AD, 800 years after the Kangju disapeared. (see as examples de:Kang-kü or nl:Kangju). Guss2 14:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazakh SSR

I believe that Turkestan was not united to the Kazakh SSR in 1924 because: 1) the Kazakh SSR was created in 1936; 2) The antecessor repúblic was named Kirguiz ASSR until 1925 and then Kazakh ASSR. In fact I belive that was united to ASSR Kazakh in 1925--88.16.143.111 (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Turkestan (city) → Turkistan (city) – Other Kazakh cities are at titles transliterated from their current names, not former Soviet names. —  AjaxSmack  03:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. The first recommendation of WP:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name is to follow the usage of Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta. Britannica says "Turkestan, Kazak Türkistan". Minor geography is usually called whatever the locals call it. Neither Columbia nor Encarta mention this city.[1][2][3] NCGN's second recommendation is to search Google Books and Google Scholar. But there are various things named Turkestan/Turkistan, and this city not even close to being the primary topic. GeoNames lists all the possibilities without comment. Lonely Planet gives "Turkistan". Kauffner (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.