Jump to content

Talk:Almaty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Almaty is a right name of city, not Alma-Ata!!!

[edit]

Alma-Ata was renamed to Almaty in 1992 by kazakh government, remeber that! 95.56.150.140 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not remove the fact that the city was named 'Alma-Ata' for decades, nor does it necessitate the removal of the Russian characters for Alma-Ata. Such action is WP:Vandalism. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it is on maps, and history books to that effect, it would be difficult not to, wouldn't it? (sigh)
The Russian Wikipedia uses Alma Ata (in Cyrillic), though Russian-speakers in Almaty and public services written in Russian in Almaty exclusively use Almaty (in Cyrillic). Kdammers (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They use Almata in speech. 2.133.231.202 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religions

[edit]

In Alma-Ata are living some Seventh-Day-Adventists:

  • But are they celebrate the worship in the Synagogue or have they an own house?
  • Perhaps many members of them are Germans? Simon MAYER

ancient city of Almaty and church

[edit]

The first lines of text are incorrect and need some additional info Encyclopædia Britannica says: ” The modern city was founded in 1854, when the Russians established a military fortification on the site of the ancient city of Almaty, destroyed by the Mongols in the 13th century.”


I replaced the picture of church, because of almost 70% of Muslims

Temporarity of names?

[edit]

1.

"History A troop of Siberian Cossacks from Omsk founded the fort Zailiysky in 1854 at the foot of the Tian Shan mountain range, and renamed it one year later to Vernyj, a name that remained until 1921."

Hello, I'd like to know/ask, what the origin of the data/info is (or why it should be real), that says, that "Zailiysky" (/"Zailijskij" in new-ISO-9) was renamed one year after (would mean 1855) it was founded (1854)? Does any "big name"-encyclopdia-book-series say it, or what?

I don't have many knowledge in this part, but I found no other info (in the web), that says the same. I always only found the info that the city we're talking about has been founded in 1854 under the name of "Zailiysky", and - the next chronological info - from 1867 till 1921 named "Vernyj".

So how long was the name "Zailiysky", and how long was the name "Vernyj"?:

1854-1855: "Zailiysky" & 1855-1921: "Vernyj"

                      or

1854-1867: "Zailiysky" & 1867-1921: "Vernyj"

                      ?


So the russian wikipedia-article says:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%90%D1%82%D0%B0 :

"Алма-Ата́ (В позднее Средневековье — Алмату, 1854 — заложено на месте казахского поселения Алматы военное укрепление Заилийское, затем Верное, 1867 — Алматинское, 1867—1921 — Верный, с 1921 — Алма-Ата, с 1993 в связи с переименованием в официальном употреблении государственными органами Казахстана на русском и казахском языках — Алматы́) — крупнейший город и бывшая столица Казахстана, расположенный у подножия гор Заилийского Алатау. «Алма-Ата» происходит от казахских слов «алма» (яблоко) и «ата» (дед, но в данном контексте - отец) и в переводе означает «Отец Яблок»."

(In latin letters via new-ISO-9:)

"Alma-Atá (V pozdnee Srednevekov'e — Almatu, 1854 — založeno na meste kazahskogo poseleniâ Almaty voennoe ukreplenie Zailijskoe, zatem Vernoe, 1867 — Almatinskoe, 1867—1921 — Vernyj, s 1921 — Alma-Ata, s 1993 v svâzi s pereimenovaniem v oficial'nom upotreblenii gosudarstvennymi organami Kazahstana na russkom i kazahskom âzykah — Almatý) — krupnejšij gorod i byvšaâ stolica Kazahstana, raspoložennyj u podnožiâ gor Zailijskogo Alatau."


As I must say my russian language skills are even much more less than my english ones (sorry), maybe one of you could evaluate, this says that it was named Vernyj since 1867 (and not since 1855, one year after its founding), right (If it is, what is the origin/basic data for this? From what is it cited?)

I thought about the thing, that probably at the place - we're actually talking about - itself, a kind of historical museum, archive, etc. would , or should, know best about its own history, but as I saw, the kazakhian wikipedia-site is nothing but a stub, which is very sad, because of, I mean - where talking about the history and culture about the city, which was for long time the capital of this country and still is the heart of it till today.


2.

I read on the web (I forgot, where) the information that says, that, before the developing city we're talking about, was founded in the 19th century, there has been at the same place, where today the city temporarely named "Zailiysky"/"Vernyj"/"Alma-Ata"/"Almaty" is located, yet a city existed, and that in the 13th century mongolians/mongolish vandals "destroyed the ancient city of Almaty" (completely).

So - as I know, that this city wouldn't be identical with the city we're talking about - , but what was the name of this "ancient city of Almaty"? (Or does this sentence-construction in english mean, too, that the city - which was at the same place, where later the today called Almaty was founded - was named "Almaty", too??? (I do not believe; or would there be an regional-background-link being the ethymological basic for the same name of two in the end different things at the same place?))


3.

As I said, I don't have many knowledge in this field, but let me say at the end maybe a "moderate" explaining-try to the controversial between papa7 and the others here: I can underdstand both points of view; for me it seems a little bit the central argumentations-base is about quantity (for me it seems like that):

- papa7 says, that, only, because (a few) people say/said (now) "B" to a thing, which is/was called by many people (still) "A" - the "A" doesn't become a "B". - the others say, that, only, because (a few) people say/said (in the past) "A" to a thing, which is called today more or less more rather or is known as "B" - that's no reason not to hold on to the "old" name.

So, there is argumented with quantity about the question asking "when is a thing 'old'/'past'/'gone' - when is a thing 'new'/'up-to-date'/'actual'?"

Other problem: Who decides - meaning: who has the legality, or, more important: the legitimacy - which name does a thing have/get? The "official" people (whether they could be the minority) - or the "inofficial" people (which could be the majority)? If a judge pledge a human being for "guilty" - when, in fact, he/she is not - is he/she then "guilty"? Officially yes, inofficially no. What is "officially", what is "inofficially"? For exmaple, Christoph Columbus thought about he has reached India when he has reached in fact America - so he called the native Americans like the people living in India; this is wrong, but still until today in many languanges the term for the native Americans has the ethymological basic in the term for the people living in India. Other example: if I would invent/create a new thing, which has never existed before, and maybe I think it is a "ABC" - but when all the other people in the world see my "ABC"-thing - they call it "XYZ" - what IS it? (/What is, when there are only two people in the world, and they sey a new thing at the same time, and both say at the same time: "Oh, a ABC!"/"Oh, a XYZ!" - what IS it?)

That leads to the finishing problem: that would turn into a philosophical discussion, as it is a philosophical problem, and wikipedia is not the platform to do that, that's for sure, and I think that's common sense.

BUT, what makes me being thinking, too, that this article here should named "Almaty" (are not the wikipedia-rules) - but is the special fact, that it could be clearly pointed out (if it would be necessary, but probably is not, because common sense), that this article (or generally at all articles about cities, etc.) is named "Almaty", because the city officially is given the name of "Almaty" (or in case of other cities generally the official name) (an indice for official name would be the nameplate-signs at the motorways). The question, what the "inofficial"/"real"/"cultural"/etc. name of city/place is, is another theme, because, if I'm one in the milliards of the people of the world, and for me the thing - which has somebody constructed originally having "ABC" in mind - only is known as "XYZ" - I couldn't find it in for example the book-form of the best lexica in the world - because the thing I look for in fact exists, but there exists in fact no thing with the name I am looking for. So it would be principially right, that a wrong search would not lead to a correct end - but principially it would not be correct or OK, because it could be, that the one, who is doing the wrong search isn't guilty/responsible for doing the search wrong, because maybe any onther people had told him wrong.

In this case there is another thing, which is evident: cities, states, territories, names, etc. are - in fact - not real; they are a virtual construct of our brain: for example, if at the same time all or many people of a state think (and say and act like that), that the state is not right, not "real" for them in their opinion - the state begins to exists not anymore longer (but nearly always is replaced by a new state or - if not - : civil war) - whole thing often known as "revolution".

So why should an "official" thing like a city not be listed under its "official" name - which is "given by its own nature"?

So, finally I think, it really doesn't care, if the city we're talking about here, here is named (officially) as "Alma-Ata" or "Almaty" - as said, if I would (have the legimacy to) decide, I would name this article "Almaty", too - but if it would be the case, that I hold for this city I doesn't know just another name in my own heart, the whole world, universe, and wikipedia with its galactic renomee could say that it is called "Almaty" - it would really really really doesn't matter for me - because: just what is quantity? - No real thing;: Because of quantity is maybe important for virtual, but not really for real,: quantity isn't important. Thats's why good art is (called) "timeless", and/but not "countable".

So if the city's name we're talking about for papa7 is "Alma-Ata", and for wikipedia(-rules) is "Almaty" - where's the problem? - There's no one, if no one will get to do be on the missionary-thing-trip - which isn't correct, for sure.

I can't believe that a multiple-title-honored, cosmopolitan doctor speaking 15 languages wouldn't have the self-confidence and trust in his own mind for not doing care about it, if wikipedia (which is for real virtual, and really consisting of (other) people's opinions) not says so, like he thinks (I think wikipedia is wrong in many, many ways, but, whatever, it really doesn't matter for me, I don't care, there are infinite more important things).