This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
On the main page, the first point on the news claims Uzbek troops kill over 300 but on the article it is perhaps 300, this means the actual number is unknown, just estimated. It disturbs me because lies and false claims to fix impact on a title, are for the news media not for WikipediaThe Free EncyclopediaMexaguil07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that re-enforces my point, my point is: wikipedia should not fall into the trap that news media does and have vague claims Mexaguil10:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why claims are vague is because it's very difficult to get factual information on this: reporters were forced out of places where confrontations occured, the government does not release true counts, hospitals release no numbers at all, and so on. In any case Wikipedia has to relly on "news media" simply because wiki doesn't have a reporter in every place on Earth to bring factual info. --Berkut11:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are both right, which is why "X is true" in a case like this should be "x is true" says (reference) preferably as an exact quote preferably linking to an internet source. 4.250.201.17314:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several media outlets in Norway who've started operating with (estimated) figures up in the 1000 to 2000 dead civillians. Nothing confirmed, naturally, but I'm upping the maximum estimated bit in the article intro to 1000 based on this. Also, I've seen a quote where the Uzbek government admits to having killed 160-something "militant extremists" several days after the massacre, despite sources in the army saying "at least 500". I can't find sources for any of these, though, as I mean to have picked them up from the text-TV of Norwegian NRK and TV2... so I'll just leave it in here, for now.--TVPR07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you mean is "an over whelming anti-Uzbek" GOVERNMENT bias. I think we should be biased against corrupt governments which kill their own people and offer ridiculous and hate-filled propaganda, such as that of Islam Karimov.
What do you mean "anti-Uzbek"? Don't you realize that it is because of a few very brave Uzbeks (many of whom are wanted by their government now) that we have any of this information at all?
When you say "anti-Uzbek" pov, you mean "anti-Karimov Regime".
India is known as a peace loving country and this is not possible that India would under any circumstances support this massacre. The citations provided no-where have anything to relate Indian support to this massacre, hence I am editing the doc and removing India from the supporters list in the 3rd Para Bmayuresh (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous introduction was confusing in chronology and also introduced ancillary issues that occured after the events of May 13th. The "Islamic state" portion, for example, was an isolated incident that occured afterwards and had marginal connection to the intent of the original protestors. Hope this clarifies the topic. Djma1214:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unfamiliar with this event then please refrain from making controversial changes to this article, much less editing it at all. KazakhPol18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know KazakhPol, just b/c someone disagrees with your viewpoints doesn't automatically make them "unfamiliar with the events." This is the 3rd/4th time I've seen this issue raised on this page and the discussion has always been summarily slapped down by this brusque statement. I think enough people have voiced concern that this requires serious debate. After all, the page was unilaterally renamed without any real consensus or discussion. Djma1201:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus among Central Asian experts is that this was an inter-clan conflict between the Interior Ministry and the clan running the police department of Andijan. This is not the third or fourth time this issue has been raised, this is the only time it has been raised. Dont manufacture discussion that never took place. KazakhPol02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these "Central Asian experts" to whom you refer? The only citation you provide (above) does not mention the Samarqand Inoyatov clan, the Almatov Interior Ministry clan, or back up any of the claims you make. Until real citations are provided, these statements violate WP:CITE and WP:NOR.
Check the article's edit history. You've used the phrase If you are unfamiliar with this event then please refrain from making controversial changes to this article, much less editing it at all to justify unilateral edits. Acceptable rationales involve citation and discussion, not ad hominem attacks.
And yes, you unilaterally moved the article without even a peep of discussion. This is grossly inappropriate.
The article I provided clearly states that it was an inter-clan conflict. The role of the clans in the conflict is irrelevant to the page title. If you opposed the page move it is odd that you did not note this move until now. Can you provide recent citation indicating this was not a clan conflict? KazakhPol03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Your citation refers to a "local power struggle" in the opening sentence, but in no way mentions inter-clan conflict, much less the Samarqant Inoyatov clan or any other of your claims.
Yes, this page fell off my radar, then my life got busy. This does not justify an unilateral move without discussion.
First of all, the burden of proof is one YOU, since you're the only one bringing up the inter-clan conflict. Secondly, the Human Rights Watcharticle clearly implicates the government in the affair.
Yes, the HRW watch implicates the government. This is part of my point. The clans are based on government positions.
"Thus, for example, the Samarqand regional elite compete with the Tashkent and Ferghana groupings, or devotees of Rustam Inoyatov, head of Uzbekistan's National Security Service, unite against supporters of Zakir Almatov, Uzbekistan's former Interior Minister, so as to win the center’s attention and material largesse."[2]
If you do Crtl+F on the first source I provided searching under "clan" you will see: Karimov personally attended the legislative session on May 25, 2004, during which Obidov was sacked. "The whole city was cordoned off by the militia and there were [security officers] in masks in jeeps, along with army soldiers," the source said. "Karimov was obviously worried. ... Obidov had ruled [in the region] for a long time: he was part of the Ferghana clan and he had lots of supporters." The new hokim, Begaliyev, had close political ties to the central government. Prior to coming to Andijan, Begaliyev had served as minister of agriculture and water. In late 2004, Karimov appointed Begaliyev’s successor as agriculture and water minister, Ikromkhon Nazhmiddinov, as the governor of Ferghana Province. The moves suggest that Karimov was intent during the last half of 2004 on boosting his political influence over the restive Ferghana Valley. Once installed in Andijan, Begaliyev wasted little time in launching a purge of all Obidov allies.『Criminal proceedings were started against many of his [Obidov’s] administration members,』the source said. "The new hokim also decided to re-divide the businesses in the province; he cracked down on the entrepreneurs who had been supported by Obidov. They were told to sell their businesses for a pittance either to him [Begaliyev] or his people, or face legal proceedings." When the 23 businessmen tried to resist, the hokim ordered their arrest, the source said. They were officially charged with being members of Akromiya, and engaging in extremist activities." So you see, while the national government put down the businessmen and their allies, it was not based on a desire to repress the people but one clan's desire to take power from another. KazakhPol03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the conversation is getting a bit muddled at this point. Regardless of the motivation or the local government's tribal affiliations, the point remains that government forces cordoned off protesters and killed hundreds, if not thousands of civilians. There was definitely "civil unrest" preceding and following the event, but the event itself definitely qualifies as a massacre. Djma1203:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether we believe the unrest was by terrorists or innocent civilians, multiple governments have alleged that it was terrorists who were responsible for the violence. Mosnews labelled it a terrorist attack[3], the Uzbek government convicted 15 individuals who took part in the unrest on charges of terrorism,[4] one of the leaders involved even threatened to start a "campaign of terror" against the government.[5] The writer in the last article is Igor Rotar, the leader of Forum 18, an organization that has faced a ruthless campaign of harassment from the Uzbek government. He's one of the most respected writers in Central Asia. KazakhPol04:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, KazakhPolice you have altered the title of this article, now you want to change it entirely by saying that the entire event was a clash between two terrorists clans?! Please see numerous pages some already listed on the article, about the event. The human rights organizations are far more credible than few Russian newspapers. Note that the governments of Russia and Uzbekistan have very close ties. Now the human rights organizations say that the civilians were protesting when government officials surrounded and killed them. The government says that it was terrorists, that is what you expect them to say, they won't confess, and Russian government will support them since they are allies. US used to be allies with Uzbekistan, but when US officials started criticizing Karimov's actions, and requesting foreign investigations, Uzbekistan ended all its relations with US. This is all already listed in the reference links, or you can google Andijan Massacre, and you'll find vast amount of more of these links. All western countries say it was a massacre done by government, Russia, China, and Central Asian Countries(all of them have close ties, and this is all referenced ) say that it was terrorists, and that it was you are saying too. That's all I want to say for now. If you need further references of what I said, I'll force myself, to google for you. Thank you. TheColdTruth04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute nothing you just said, but you are missing the point. It has been labelled as terrorism. People involved in the unrest were convicted of terrorism. Therefore it belongs in Category:Terrorism in Uzbekistan in the same way that those who write about terrorism, such as Zeyno Baran, are put into Terrorism X country categories. KazakhPol04:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but understand that only the Uzbek government(including few of its allies) are saying that. Here are only a few links to credible sources, that state that it was government who shot civilian, innocent protesters, including children and women, and not terrorists. Note that they point out that, the government tried to cover up the truth, by blocking all the media to the outside world and by trying to convince the world that it was terrorists. For your convenience I quote some of the articles stating this, but please take your time to look through them. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (Remember that is is only a few, but it is still enough)
...The Uzbek government is engaged in an expansive effort to convince domestic and international opinion that Islamic militants were responsible for the violence that engulfed Andijan on May 13. - Eurasianet.Org
..."On May 13, 2005, Uzbek government forces killed hundreds of unarmed people who participated in a massive public protest in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan. The scale of this killing was so extensive, and its nature was so indiscriminate and disproportionate, that it can best be described as a massacre." - HRW
Also it's not about this article being in Terrorism in Uzbekistan category, it's just the whole article is focused on, and in a way sides with, the official Uzbek version of the story. That is what needs to be changed.
TheColdTruth05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is awful right now, but the appropriateness of the category is separate from the issue of whether it was actually terrorism. It is relevant to the topic so it belongs in the category. KazakhPol05:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeyno Baran is not an independent authority on anything relevant to Central Asia. She is not an authority on anything remotely related with Central Asia. She happens to be the wife of a lobbyist, that is all. There is a central asian studies community in the world, and especially in the USA. None of them would recognize Baran as a Central Asianist in any stretch of imagination. She is a lobbyist working in partisan organizations to pursue certain objectives. cs11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this conversation is muddled at the moment b/c we are addressing three seperate topics concurrently. As such, I have created three new headings.Djma1213:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of WHO or WHY the shootings took place, the fact that several hundred to several thousand people died secondary to gunfire classifies it as a massacre. I mean, even the 1929 gangwar in Chicago was labelled the St. Valentine's Day massacre. Having the government fire into protestors, whether you think of them as terrorists or not, definitely qualifies. I vote that the article resumes its prior name. Djma1213:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Massacre" implies that a party involved was completely unprepared, unarmed, and civilian. There was a prison revolt, and with the possibility of terrorist ties, we may never know exactly what happened. Hence a neutral title is better, like, 2005 Andijan Violence. There is no dispute that violence occured, but the use of the world massacre is disputed. The Uzbek language article calls it and incident, (voqeasi), as opposed to qirg'in (massacre); when in doubt stick to a neutral title.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:CITE, we need 3rd party verification of terrorist status before this label goes up. The Uzbek government and Russia are NOT 3rd party status. Saying that this article requires a label of terrorism "b/c the Uzbek government says so" is hardly impartial. Djma1213:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose adding the terrrorism category based not only on government allegations, regional newsreports, but also on similar policy making, lobbying, watching organizations. If there should be citations on a subject where more than 700 hundred civilians were killed, they should be strictly academic, peer reviewed and or well-known international news organizations.cs14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose adding the "terrorism" category, and support moving the article to "Andijan Massacre", the title by which this event is generally known, and an accurate description of what happened, whether you believe it was the Government or the insurgents who did most of the killing. For those who think this is simply a case of a "terrorist attack" being suppressed by the Uzbek Government, I suggest you look at this video of Babur Square before the massacre took place, taken by one of the participants (I posted the link on the main page a while back). There is also a comment piece from the New York Times:
Video of the prelude to the Massacre An edited video of the prelude to the massacre on Babur Square released by the Uzbek Government in June 2006, together with analysis by Martha Brill Olcott on the Carnegie Foundation's website.
I've watched the whole thing a couple of times and broadly speaking I agree with the NYT’s assessment. Like the shorter version the Uzbek Government released six months before, this shows that the protests in Andijan began with a violent uprising, possibly (though not necessarily) religiously inspired. This longer video actually helps to undermine the weaker portions of the Uzbek Government’s case though. It clearly shows a crowd of hundreds, many women and children, almost all unarmed. There is no evidence to show that they were rounded up by force and used as a human shield: the only hostages shown are militsiya being herded into the Hukumat building. That said, the militants must have had some idea that these people would be in danger - but it doesn’t sound as if they were given any chance to disperse by the troops before they opened fire. I just don’t understand why the Uzbek Government released this video, in this form (It was handed over by the distinguished Uzbek scholar Bakhtiyar Babajanov to Martha Olcott at a Carnegie Foundation meeting, and he seems to have been authorised to do this). Had the Uzbek regime published the footage in full, without editing or subtitles, but with a full transcript, in the immediate aftermath of the massacre, they might have received some plaudits for openness and taken the heat out of demands for an enquiry. Had they suppressed it altogether they could have kept us guessing, or at least reliant on the statements of eyewitnesses which they could deny, however unconvincingly. They could even have cut it a lot more drastically than they did. Instead they’ve sat on it for a year, in which time they could have doctored the footage in any manner they chose. They’ve edited it crudely, removed any footage of people actually being killed by Government troops, and provided subtitles for those bits of dialogue they want highlighted (every single cry of “Allahu Akbar”, in other words). But they’ve left the rest of the soundtrack in, without subtitles, but perfectly comprehensible to anyone who knows Uzbek (I can only pick up the odd word). Thus, as Chivers and Wilensky-Langford observe, you can hear the crowd quite clearly yelling “Azadlik” (freedom) as well as “Allahu Akbar”. People make speeches denouncing economic hardship and unjust imprisonment. For all their attempts to suggest that these are dangerous militants of the kind we see marching in Quetta burning US flags, the atmosphere, with its cheers, clapping and whistles, sounds more like a pop concert half the time, made all the more poignant because we know what follows. What is shocking in some ways is the normality of it all, people smiling, chatting, waving, lying on the grass, talking on their mobile phones, smoking a fag, looking excited or bewildered, amongst the burning buildings, the slightly hysterical speeches and the appeals for calm. I suppose the intention of the film is to make foreigners feel scared of this crowd of people, hundreds of whom are about to die. In this it singularly fails. Sikandarji15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People, understand that you do not need to look for further "sources" that state that the event involved terrorists, since we already know (I'm am assuming that everyone knows) that there are two sides of the story: One is, of all human rights organizations(Including but not limited to HRW, UN), governments of Western countries (inc. US, UK, EU), and others, that say the Uzbek government killed civilian protesters, and is trying to cover it up by accusing terrorists, and not letting any foreign officials, or journalists, or anyone else to be involved. The second version is of Uzbek government and some of its close allies (Russia, China), that states that terrorists were behind all of it. So, if everyone, besides the Uzbek government and its allies, blame Uzbek government for the events, and clearly points out the fact that the terrorists weren't involved at all, why say in the article that terrorists were behind this? I think that people should stop debating a topic that is already clear, and move on to improve the article. TheColdTruth22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People have noted that this article has a strong bias. Please enumerate which statements are contested and we can discuss from there. Djma1213:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that the whole article needs to be rewritten, or at least restructured and cleaned, and put in a such way, that is neutral, and accurate, and states what governments of US, UK, and European Union, the human rights organizations, and others describe the event as. Then the article will point out that Uzbek government, however, denies that it massacred innocent civilians, and blamed the event on terrorists. The article, will still be focused on the West's description of the event. Then the article will state all the details of the event. Some of the other facts that should be in article are that, after being heavily criticized by the West, for its actions, the Uzbek government, ended its close ties with US, closing the US base in 2K, kicked out all the human rights organizations and independent media, refused to have third party investigations, and virtually locked out Uzbekistan to the West, and to the outside world. In turn the West, stopped it's fundings to, and other relation with Uzbekistan, and continues criticizing Uzbek government for poor human rights, and such. Everything, ofcourse will be cited with credible sources, some of them are already listed. TheColdTruth22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TheColdtruth: I think the overall structure and language of the article is good. There is some room for expansion, so "aftermath" section can be expanded to include EU embargo, and other international issues as long as they revolve around the main subject. But the main trust of the article is the massacre itself, so it should not get lost in murky details. Clarity is a virtue.cs23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to agree, there are parts that are good, but overall the article at least needs cleaning of biased parts, and expanding is a good idea too. I will keep providing some reliable sources, that will have a lot of facts needed for the article. Here are some, with quotations, but please take your time to read through all of it.
"...eyewitnesses, journalists, and independent groups told a darker, much different, story. They estimated the dead at somewhere between 500 and 1000, and said that the vast majority were unarmed men, women, and children protesting the government's corruption, lack of opportunity, and continued oppression. In addition to those killed, many others were wounded, and at least five hundred fled across the border into Kyrgyzstan..."
"Often in the name of battling Islamist terrorism, the government frequently rounded up those opposed to its rule, sometimes subjecting prisoners to torture..."
"Now, one year later, things have gotten even worse. Tashkent has categorically rejected calls by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and the OSCE to allow an independent, international investigation of the events at Andijan. Instead, it launched a brutal crackdown on peaceful dissent, arresting and torturing opposition and human rights activists, and staging show trials reminiscent of the Stalin era. The government has expelled from the country the Peace Corps, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the USAID-funded International Research and Exchanges Board, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and numerous non-governmental organizations, including Freedom House and the Eurasia Foundation. And it has applied intense economic and political pressure on Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian neighbors to return refugees fleeing political persecution."
"The HRW report says 4,500 massacre survivors have been arrested. It adds that the crackdown is aimed not only at preventing further uprisings but also "rewriting the history" of the events on May 13..."
- "Activists and journalists who tried to tell the truth about the massacre have, the report says, "been arrested on spurious charges, detained, beaten, threatened, put under surveillance or under de facto house arrest, and have been set upon by mobs and humiliated through Soviet-style public denunciations..."
BBC News [13] - The Report of BBC reporters of the event, and how they were forced to leave Uzbekistan
"There was the weeping 15-year-old who told us how troops had ambushed him and his mother..."
"There was the mother who risked her life to show us the clothes of her dead son... He was shot more than 20 times. We counted the holes..."
"There was the gravedigger who told us how he and all the gravediggers in Andijan had been forced to the hills outside the city to make nameless pits for the uncountable corpses wrapped in plastic and buried in secret..."
"The government denounced the BBC and blocked it..."
There will be more to come, but keep in mind that these are only quotations, and make sure to go through the links.
I've found it easy to just look through achieves of BBC, UN, HRW and others, relating Andijan Massacre, so here are links to them:
BBC: [14]
HRW: [15]
UN: [16]
If you are willing to help out with improving this article, please go through these links, you'll find everything you need. Thank you TheColdTruth23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TheColdTruth, thank you for the suggestions. Here are my thoughts:
Wiki coverage on international atrocities is especially difficult. One wishes to express the extent of outrage, but must keep in mind WP:NPOV at the same time. As such, I think quotations who's entire purpose is inflammatory should be omitted. However, it IS appropriate to include estimates on casualties, government actions, and methods of death / burial. Just keep in mind that these statements should be expressed in NPOV language.
Controversial articles have a much higher standard for citation. As such, I think only respected academic sources, international organizations, and reputable news agencies should be cited. (Keeping in mind point one as well.) John McCain is a notable individual, but he is not an academic, nor would he claim to be so.
Yes, I think the Uzbek government's presentation of events is specious, at best. However, for an article to remain NPOV, their arguments need to be presented. However, if you wish to provide counter-arguments to their claims, no one would be happier than I.
I disagree. McCain's comments were taken as the U.S.'s official response on the unrest. It also shows how the U.S.'s initial response, which was mild, changed after a few days. KazakhPol02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:V's policy on personal websites, campaign websites, or speeches.
A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
John McCain may be a Senator, but he was NOT speaking on behalf of the U.S. government during his speech to the Carnegie Endowment. Djma1203:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
? Your citation of WP:V is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with my point. I am arguing that McCain's statements merit inclusion. The fact that he was speaking on behalf of the U.S. government is my opinion and contributes to my argument that the quotes merit inclusion. KazakhPol03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. However, that does not necessarily merit inclusion. Claiming that a minor McCain speech to the Carnigie Endowement was a statement of official state policy is a thesis and thus requires citation per WP:V. Otherwise, it violates Wiki: No original Research. Djma1203:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way McCain could represent American government. He is a senator and not a cabinet member. In fact, he represents the Republican side of the opposition to official American foreign policy in the senate. American official policy was ambarrassingly accomodating until it became certain that Khanabad would be closed no matter what. The quotation merits inclusion as the views of Senator McCain on the events.cs10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thecoldtruth: please keep in mind that a dispassionate and distanced voice and a "facts only" approach is a must in this article. Otherwise, it has the potential to turn into a battleground. That would be a great disservice. Just think about how many angered editors from Uzbekistan would want to push their own POVs into it. They would be looking for a hint of partizanship to turn it upside down.cs12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I just put those quotes so that people will actually go through the links, they are very useful, and include many facts. I didn't want the quotes to be on the article, like I said just so people will look through, and use the right information from those links. TheColdTruth20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is getting better, although the May 11-12, and Government Looses Control sections need to be rewritten.
Before we go back and forth accusing each other of vandalism, let's review what WP:VANDAL defines as vandalism:
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
Though you may disagree with an edit, please refrain from characterizing edits as "vandalism" without evidence of such. Djma1221:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? WP:NPOV? You removed a reference per WP:NPOV? I was not aware that WP:NPOV instructs users to do so. Could you explain how that passage violated WP:NPOV? KazakhPol22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the last two attempts two get me blocked per that policy crashed and burned. I am quite familiar with its finer points. KazakhPol22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, the problem with that comment is that it in no way explains your edit to this page. I will ask you again - how exactly is that passage pov? Why did you remove the reference? Why did you replace the passage with a dating style that violates Wikipedia's MoS? KazakhPol22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for interpreting time that I took to take care of patients as evidence of not immediately responding to your requests. My issue is NOT the citation, which is appropriate for both versions of the introduction. The issue is that the statement only presents the official government POV while a balanced introduction should present both. Djma1202:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5 reverts within several hours a misinterpretation? A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. Note it doesn't have to be on the same issue. Djma1202:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. I suggest you go back and look at my edits. Three reverts, not five. The other two edits were not reverts. KazakhPol02:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is a weak theory at best. More of a rumour. There are thousand tales told in the region. I dont understand how it goes to the top. cs23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am sure you will provide some excellent sources to support that position. KazakhPol23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, you cant just assert that something is unreliable when a reliable source says it is key to understanding an event. KazakhPol23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you really want another source... "Ikbol Mirsaitov, a Kyrgyz expert on Islam, said that the 23 businessmen in Andijan whose trial sparked the protest were linked to a local governor. He said that Rakhimov, a wealthy farmer, had links to the group, dubbed Akramis for their alleged allegiance to an imprisoned Islamic dissident, Akram Yuldashev. "It was all about clan struggle," Mirsaitov told the AP on Thursday, adding that Rakhimov was apparently driven by business interests and only used Islamic slogans to generate support."[17]KazakhPol23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kazakpol, you know better. It is only a "theory." Central Asian "experts" talk about all kinds of things all the time. When they utter the magic word "clan" they think they explain everything. That is a legacy coming from the Soviet times. It is only a theory and a plausible explanation among others. To assert it as a "fact beyond dispute" is impossible at best, waste of time at worst. In my opinion, you can include it as an alternative explanation of what had happened. That is all to it. They also claimed that Khamidov Jurabekov organized the Tashkent bombings to eliminate Kerimov... They also claimed that Kerimov himself did the Tashkent bombings... These things will never end. We have to stick to what we can prove.cs00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a hopeless case. Go do something better with your sorry life. How is that as a correct spelling? cs09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eurasia org is not a reputable news organization. It is a partisan, government subsidiary. So is RFERL. They dont have journalistic standards. They are not accountable for their usually quite low quality reporting. So, I propose removing Eurasia, RFERL reporting from this article to keep consistency and possible future muddying. cs10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I thought the article was moving towards improvement, this gets added? What is the purpose of this rumor? KazakhPol I thought you always pushed the "Ooh the Terrorists, they are terrorists!" stuff, now what is the point of this, clans don't have anything do to with the article. If you want to include the information you have, use it by saying - government officials (since that's what they are) or former government officials, not clans and other nonsense. Thank you. :By the way if there isn't any reliable sources, I'd like that to be removed from the article, what do you people think? TheColdTruth23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If either of you want to try and argue that either RadioFreeEurope or EurasiaNet are unreliable I suggest you post on the talkpages of those articles and conduct a poll. Until then I suggest you add to the article rather than acomplaining about nothing. The idea that either source is unreliable is interesting to say the least. KazakhPol03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that we need to deal with their own entries, or question the organizations. Eurasia org and RFLRL are extensions of the American government. Are they independent as BBC? No. The citations here could be easily confirmed with independent reliable sources. The potential problem is, if we start citing them in this article, that will establish a precedent. They tend to report quite questionable material without following strict journalistic procedures. I am not saying that everything they report is questionable. cs11:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You assert that they fail to follow strict journalistic procedures but do not provide any evidence of this. How strange that you raised the issue of their reliability only after I added the section on the clan dispute when I had already used them as references on this page. If you wish to question the reliability of a source you need to poll consensus. KazakhPol16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think it is appropriate to have KazakPol's statement on the Uzbek government position within the article, I do not think it should be in the intro. The intro is suppose to be a summary of events, not simply an illustration of one side's opinion. Djma1217:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Been mulling about this a bit more. How do you guys feel about presenting both versions within the intro? That way, no POV is given more leverage initially. Djma1217:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To some users it might seem pointless to re-post four paragraphs w/o sources when they are already included in the article with references. Others might think it's silly to ask whether all sides should be presented in the introduction. Still others might question why I post on this talkpage at all. There are a wide array of views on this. KazakhPol17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the intro is the most important section of most articles, as it is where people gain their initial viewpoint of an event. As to "why you post on this talkpage at all", it's because you do not have ownership of this article. Given that all the other major editors of this article disagree with you, the least you can do is discuss major reversions. Djma1217:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'major editors'? Could you show how these major editors have improved this article? So far these 'major editors' have not added citations, have not added content, have not even edited this article at all except to occasionally revert me when I mention the 'magical clans'. KazakhPol18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the so-called clan dispute should be either kept out of the article or stay at the bottom, with a clear indication that it is an alternative explanation.
Nobody until now questioned the causality of businessmen issue. That is the primary reason cited by the participants of the protests. Clan dispute is different. Was there any recorded slogan about the fired governor? Were the protestors shouting slogans in support of the fired governor showing signs that indeed was a part of the protests? Is there any reference to it in the countless interviews with the protestors, published so far? Is there really a compelling causal link forcing us to rethink that in fact the protestors were there for a reason other than what they express? cs18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping your POV out of this article is the single most important contribution of the three editors involved.cs18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope you have better things to do than to follow me around on Wikipedia, but then again I know better as you have lobbied other editors on their talkpages, urging them to harass me. As to your many questions about the clan dispute, none of these matter. The references speak for themselves. Until you can make a convincing argument that the sources are unreliable, they stay. KazakhPol22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V -"Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Not that it matters for you, of course. Your standards allow Pravda when it comes to smearing 700 murdered people.cs23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a constant back-and-forth between 3-4 editors, why don't we ask for some third-party evaluation of what a neutral introduction should be? We would appreciate evaluation on:
What would be a neutral presentation of a synopsis of events, and
What classifies as an objective citation when referencing this event.
The Andijan massacre occured when Uzbek Interior Ministry troops fired into a crowd of protesters in Andijan, UzbekistaninMay 2005.[1] Estimates of those killed on May 13 range from between 187, the estimation of the government, and 700 people, with one estimate as high as ten thousand.[2]
The Uzbek government at first said the protestors were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organized the unrest.[3] Critics argue that the Islamic radical label is "a pretext for maintaining a repressive state"; there is also a dispute whether troops fired indiscriminately at peaceful protestors chanting "freedom" or acted legitimately to quell a prison break.[4][5][6][7] The Uzbek government eventually acknowledged that poor economic conditions in the region and popular resentment played a role in the uprising.[8]
In response to Western criticism and calls for an investigation, the Uzbek government ordered the closing of a United States air base in Karshi-Khanabad, and allied itself closer with China and Russia, who supported the regime's response in Andjian.[9][10]
A short introduction should merely introduce the issues and the major POV dispute. The KazakhPol version fails NPOV by endorsing the government version only (and not even the current government version at that). Both versions go into too much detail for an introduction. Both fail to identify the permanent damage done to US-Uzbek relations because of Andijan.
I'd support most of that (and am very glad to see Adeeb Khalid's book cited - it's excellent). One thing I would say is that even before the massacre the Uzbek Government had been gradually distancing itself from its western allies, and I suspect the airbase at Khanabad would have been closed that year anyway. Sikandarji11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... I like your introduction, but fail to see how the "KazakhPol version" was any worse. The mention of the casualty number being as high as ten thousand is unsourced, but it should not be hard to find. It was from an Uzbek soldier... or official.. or someone along those lines. KazakhPol22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried and failed to find a source for: "There is some information that on May 14 nearly 200 people (possibly armed people, who tried to flee to Kyrgyzstan) were killed in Pahtaabad, 30 km north-west of Andijan." Can anyone find a source for this? This is an opportunity to help improve the article... KazakhPol00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Government Looses Control section is the most contradictory part, and since it is not cited, and it also has been established that the whole "terrorist" idea was Karimov's denial story (which he finally acknowledged as being false). Therefore I am editing parts of it, if you have any thoughts, feel free to discuss them here. TheColdTruth17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The external links section has been buried with too many links. The OSCE and Carnegie Endowment links are important; I would add the CFR and HRW links; the Economist link is good; there shouldn't be more than seven or eight links total. In the alternative, there needs to be categorization: summary reports, contemporaneous press coverage, press coverage of aftermath, etc.
The quotations section is extraneous and should be removed.
I'd remove the Obidov section entirely; as best I can tell, it's one crank's conspiracy theory, and no major party or outside observer to the proceedings endorses it. At a minimum it violates NPOV:undue weight. -- TedFrank09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outside-world consensus now seems to be that there was an armed and violent uprising on behalf of the arrested businessmen, that the jailbreak encouraged peaceful demonstrators, and that the army was indiscriminate in its response, but the armed protestors weren't particularly nice either and used hostages as human shields. This nuanced view (as available in the CEIP and CFR articles) is rather absent from the article, and next week I'll do a rewrite of the May 12-13 section to reflect it if someone else doesn't get to it first. -- TedFrank20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"armed men attacked the prison where the businessmen were held and freed them, along with hundreds of other prisoners, many of which were charged with similar charges.[1] They then took over the local government building, and held several law enforcement and government officials hostage. Protesters"[18]
In the same edits he removed to citation missing templates for an uncited paragraph, but did not add citations. When I reverted his edits, he posted the following message on my talkpage:
"Why are you reverting my removals of contradictions? Did you happen to take your time to see what had I edited before reverting? Before reverting anything, take a look at the section itself. It lists the prison take over happened on May 13th and then goes on saying it had happened on May 12th. The take over of the prison occured on May 12th not 13th, that event encouraged people to finally to stand up against the poor conditions and corrupt government on May 13th. It even says so in the Government Looses Control section. I'd advise you to refrain from making any reverts or edits without discussing it on the talk page first. TheColdTruth19:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)"[19][reply]
What you just said makes no sense. Please proofread what you write before posting. What does changing dates have to do with my edits, when I removed the part that is written twice in the same section, once with the wrong date, which I removed, and once with the correct date, which is still there. And why did you post my comment here, are you confused by it? Stop stalking me and blindly reverting all my edits. TheColdTruth17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One user, KazakhPol in particular(who is known for pushing everything-terrorism subjects and views), wants this article to be part of Terrorism Category. However, the only thing related to terrorism is that the Uzbek government, which has been established as being corrupt by the Western World, blamed the massacre on terrorists, at first. The whole article has nothing to do with terrorism, in addition the Uzbek government has acknowledged that the mass killing of protesters was done by them, all though they are saying it was the solely local government's fault. Besides KazakhPol does anyone find this article appropriate being in terrorism category? If not it will be removed from the category. TheColdTruth17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both have already stated your desire to have this category removed. This is nothing new. You have no grounds to remove the category, the statement that the government acknowledged a mass killing is false, and you apparently have not read the guideline on Category:Designated terrorist organizations which clearly applies in this case. KazakhPol20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this is not new. In fact everyone who has common sense will tell that this article doesn't have anything to do with terrorism , unless you make it part of terrorism, just like the Uzbek government. You have no grounds to put it in terrorism category and you need to take a look at your own link, to understand what terrorism is, and anyone with common sense will tell you, it clearly does not apply to this case. TheColdTruth23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TCT, do you have a cite for the Uzbek government blaming it on the local government? I recall seeing that, too, but can't find it quickly. It is definitely the case that the government no longer claims that this was a terrorist attack. -- THF14:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I promised March 11, I've done an extensive rewrite of the article (before and after), reflecting the OSCE report, which is the most comprehensive report on the massacre, yet was not cited once in the main article. Main changes:
Added many facts from OSCE report, which is currently footnote 1;
Consolidation of May 13 subparts to reduce redundancy;
Better timeline of events;
Resolve contradictions in text through NPOV;
Eliminate listcruft; there were far too many extraneous external links. With 50+ footnotes, if it's not important enough to be referenced in the main text, there doesn't need to be an external link. I made an exception for the video documentation.
I moved the "clan struggle" theory to the end of the article; only one source out of several dozen support this theory, and it's undue weight to put it up top before the general consensus of events.
Commented out a couple of sections that seemed unencyclopedic or were of unclear relevance;
Cleaned up the "aftermath" section, which still needs further work;
I find your rewrite to be overall unacceptable and counter-productive. You state as fact that the incident led to a change in Uzbek Foreign Policy despite the fact that several sources dispute this. You removed the fact that the forces responsible for the incident worked for the Interior Ministry which corroborates the fact that this was a clan dispute. I have yet to see a contradiction in the article resolved by your edits. KazakhPol14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a cite disputing the sourced claims that the incident led to a change in Uzbek foreign policy, and I'll apply NPOV accordingly. I'm honestly unaware of any.
I fail to see the relevance of "Interior Ministry" to the claim that the issue was a clan dispute. The Interior Ministry is just as capable of acting against protestors as clan members. -- THF14:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I've taken a closer look and I have a serious problem with the neutrality of your last edits. You refer to the "uprising" of the people and attribute newspapers' reporting about initial terrorist attacks to the government. KazakhPol14:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully intend to comply with NPOV. But your claims aren't sourced.
I haven't seen any reliable sources attribute the shooting to the Interior Ministry. Does the Interior Ministry have helicopters?
Several sources refer to an uprising;[20] there is no longer any dispute that civilians participated in the protest. Again, please identify which point of view contradicts it.
Which newspaper independently reports the attack as terrorist? Again, I haven't seen any. Point me to the reliable sources you wish included. -- THF14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My claims are pretty well sourced in the current version of the article. By the implication of your second and fourth points there are sources you dont consider reliable. Which sources dont you consider reliable. In regard to your third point, the fact that this has been labeled an uprising by newspapers is irrelevant. "Uprising" is not NPOV. KazakhPol14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a newspaper repeat a government assertion that the attacks were terrorist. I saw no independent reporting indicating this. Please indicate which noun should replace "uprising", and I will do it. -- THF15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting two hours of work that fixed an incoherent article is not productive. I've added an NPOV tag to reflect your concerns. Let's talk on the talk page. You haven't sourced any of your disputes. -- THF14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept that... I have... Turkish Weekly, as already shown in Svitrigaila's last version of the page, says it was done by the Interior Ministry[21]. You removed mention of this. Why? KazakhPol15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this section is appropriate or adds anything encyclopedic. What basis is there for including it? -- THF14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation section needs to be split and incorporated into the rest of the text. It has been though for several months. KazakhPol14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only cite for "interior ministry" in the old version was this article quoting a single anonymous soldier[22]; the words "Interior Ministry" are entirely absent. -- THF15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... Ministry of Internal Affairs. And, no, it doesnt source it to a single, anonymous soldier, it states it as fact. KazakhPol15:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've added it back. I don't see why the distinction is important, but it's in. Meanwhile, please stop deleting thirty footnotes just to get one piece of information in the article. -- THF15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the old version of the article, and there are no sources disputing that the base was yanked because of American reaction to the Andijan massacre. If KazakhPol is going to dispute this, he needs a verifiable reliable source. -- THF15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article supports my version: "the catalyst occurred when Karimov suppressed a rebellion in the city of Andijan on 13 May 2005." -- THF15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your proposed language? Every source acknowledges that it had an effect, which is all the main text does. -- THF15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"International calls for further investigation led to changes in Uzbek foreign policy." - Calls were not international, they were largely from the Western world and this portrays it as singlehandedly altering Uzbek foreign policy. Martha Brill Olcott, Zeyno Baran, and others have all said it was only the 'catalyst'.
POV moving of the power struggle to the bottom of the page. Chronologically it should be near the top.
Removal of why the protesters were protesting.
Referring to the charges against the businessmen as "extremism, fundamentalism and separatism" - just say the three evils.
Addition of "alleged" ties to Akramiya. Who questions their ties?
Removal of the names of the businessmen. Why?
BBC needs to be italicized.
Change "During the trial, protests in Andijan in front of the courthouse were common" to "During the trial protests in front of the courthouse were common."
The section currently titled "May 13 uprising" contains many grammatical errors. It also changes tense randomly.
why the protesters were protesting--complaint makes no sense. The article says why.
"extremism, fundamentalism and separatism"--this is sourced, stays in.
Your own "Eurasianet" source says the businessmen question their ties: "The entrepreneurs, who were arrested in during the summer of 2004, adamantly denied any affiliation with a radical Islamic group."[24]
I commented out the names of the businessmen. Why include them? None of them are independently notable. I'll reinsert if it's really an issue, but it appears to be cruft to me. What do others think?
So italicize BBC. Don't remove thirty footnotes because you think BBC was improperly unitalicized.
The May 13 section needs work but is unambiguously an improvement over the previous version.
OK, you have next crack at it. NB that I fixed up the grammar problems in the May 13 section, which resulted from my earlier merger efforts. -- THF15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best to merge the two pages but I think I may have undone the changes you did between my posting the inuse template and my merger. I changed "extremism, fundamentalism, and separatism" to the Three Evils because this is the term C.A. governments use to refer to these offenses. I think I kept that the ties to Akramiya are disputed - if not then someone should re-add that they deny the tie. I actually decided "prompt" was better than my previously suggested "catalyst." KazakhPol16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last few changes are good, but I would still prefer that the clan dispute be mentioned early on. I have found another source that discusses this in greater depth, but I am not sure how to best incorporate it. See[25] Could we get an outside opinion here? Perhaps post on the Central Asia wikiproject talkpage? KazakhPol20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the clan theory is that it takes away from the central focus of the article: what happened in Andijan? Not a single Western source acknowledges it as a possibility, and the Uzbek government doesn't claim that that's what happened, either. It's a third theory held by a handful of Central Asian scholars, and they don't do a particularly convincing job of communicating it. NPOV requires that it be in the article, so I'm not arguing that it get cut out. But what should be first is the central issue, the events of May 13, and all three theories acknowledge the 23 businessmen were a part of that. I'm happy to get outside opinions, though. -- THF20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here via RFC. I have little bit of familiarity with the politics of this region - just enough to be familiar with the major issues, pretty much. After reviewing the discussion here and (briefly) reviewing some of the sources, I'm going to say that the structure of the article as it currently exists is fine. The clan struggle theory seems to be given weight commensurate with its level acceptance by analysts and academics. Also, and this is an unrelated observation, but I think it would be detrimental to article readability if the elements of the "clan theory" were sprinkled throughout the text. Right now the article reads as two consecutive narratives, which is a structure that is easy to follow. The alternative would be two parallel-running narratives which to some extent contradict each other, a less logical structure that would be more difficult for the reader to follow. Simply something to consider; I don't want to suggest that mere aesthetics should exclusively determine how you structure the article - as I said, the current structure seems to be appropriate NPOV wise as well. Orphic10:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CA-Institute concluded the clan theory was accurate. Show changes does not work because he moved the paragraph so you cant see how it was altered. KazakhPol20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cite? Central Asia Institute doesn't seem to have much notability in this area. It's still one of three competing theories, and absent from any of the Western accounts.
Why are you asking for a cite? It's the reference that's already there.[26] Read the conclusion: "The Andijan events entailed cadre reshuffling in the security structures and heated confrontation between various powerful regional clans. The existing balance between clans was disturbed especially with the dismissal of Almatov and Gulyamov, both from the Tashkent clan." Why do you keep on saying Western accounts have not documented this? The Central Asia-Caucasus Institue is based in Washington[27], RadioFreeEurope is based in Washington D.C.[28] and is funded by the U.S. Congress. EurasiaNet is based in New York[29]. Are these somehow not Western-enough? KazakhPol20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading your sources.
The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute paper is written by two professors, but they're not Western professors. That a Western thinktank printed it doesn't mean it's a Western source. Thinktanks don't take official positions.
Even the CA-CI/SRS paper you cite acknowledges that its theory is just one of three theories. NPOV requires that all theories be treated with appropriate weight, without endorsing one or the other. The current version of the article does that: the mainstream views are prominent, the lead paragraph mentions all three theories. Even if CA-CI/SRS was the only theory, it doesn't belong up front, because the article is about the controversy whether troops fired on civilians (as most independent sources agreed happened).
The CA-CI/SRS paper is poorly written, but it appears to be saying something different than what you claim it says: it says that as a result of Andijan, there was a shuffling of power, because Tashkent clan leaders tried to take advantage of the events, and Karimov rebuffed those efforts.
EurasiaNet gets its information from "a source." But even if it's true, it's a different theory than the CA-CI/SRS theory, and one not inconsistent with the mainstream Western theory that it started over the businessmen trial, and snowballed from there.
The RFE links don't support the CA-CI/SRS theory either. They just note inter-clan tensions, but don't attribute the Andijan uprising to them.
What do you want the article to say that it's not saying? This is an article about the Andijan massacre. Thus, material about the Andijan massacre should be front and center. Repercussions and theories about political machinations should be behind that.
Let me see if I understand this... you are saying that because the professors are ethnic Uzbeks if they write for a Western think tank they are not really Western? Do you have any proof (links) that they are not Western professors? The CA-CI/SRS source clearly states in the conclusion, as noted above, that the incident was prompted by the firing of high-ranking clan members. The fact that EurasiaNet's source is anonymous hardly justifies questioning its reliability. It is discussing the same thing as the other sources: rivalry between the Tashkent and Samarqand clans and how that factored into the incident. I dont want the article to arbitrarily separate the initial events into a separate theory. The information should be presented chronologically. KazakhPol21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that (1) there doesn't appear to be any dispute that there is inter-clan rivalry between Tashkent and Samarqand that affects Uzbek politics; (2) there is some support for the theory that that rivalry was behind the arrests and trial of the businessmen; (3) there is exactly one and only one source for the position that that clan rivalry was behind the Andijan massacre; (4) there are no sources that acknowledge that one source's claims; (5) that one source's claims acknowledge that their claims are just one of three theories. As such, WP:NPOV#Undue weight requires that the minority theory get minority weight: if anything, it already has too much weight in the article, and it is only in the effort to reach consensus that other editors have tolerated the disproprotionate weight that it currently has. (It arguably doesn't even belong in the lead.) OSCE, BBC, NYT, HRW, The Economist -- none of these independent Western sources reporting on the incident blame the incident on clan rivalry. Two Kazakh professors don't get to trump all of the other reliable sources; their viewpoint gets acknowledged, but that's it.
The incident is presented chronologically. It began May 12, mostly occurred on May 13, and continued for a few days afterwards, and then we talk about aftermath and repercussions. This is not the article for the history of Uzbekistan. I'll add a sentence to the trial of the businessmen that acknowledges the clan theory in their arrest. THF21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have read your favorite article closer than you have. ;) Rustam Burnashev is Professor at the Kazakh-German University in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Irina Chernykh is Professor at Al-Farbi University in AlmatyTHF21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "17th air-assault brigade and a battalion of specialized operations from the Eastern military district is part of the MVD-Interior Ministry. Could we change the intro to say "Interior Ministry and National Security Service" troops? KazakhPol20:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can we get this up to featured-article status?[edit]
B-class seems awfully low given that it's a controversial topic without any real NPOV disputes, heavily cited, and fairly informative. THF22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the article still does not discuss the refugees who went to Romania, the U.S., and... I think Sweden or Turkey. Some, such as Akram Yuldeshev's wife, are especially worth noting. I believe there were 438 of them. Zeyno Baran and S. Frederick Starr's conference on the event should also be mentioned. KazakhPol02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two names are not even remotely relevant. Andijan massacre has one Shirin Akiner story which is interesting but still very marginal the subject. There are significant international reactions that could be incorporated waaaay before it comes to starr and co. cs18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened to notice this, what does it have to do anything with the article, other than that Uzbek government () initially blamed the massacre on terrorists, in reality it is just a excuse the govt. uses against similar events in Uzbekistan(even the article has this quoted), anyways why does terrorism have to do anything with Andijan massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.173.33 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Soldiers took protesters and witnesses hostage, tied them up, and beat them. According to Central Asia expert Shirin Akiner whose views are considered by many Western experts as pro-Uzbek government, others were "mutilated and shot; one man had both his ears sliced off and another had his eye poked out." [2]'
This is a blatant twisting of the original (cut and pasted from Akiner's report) :
"By about 8.00 am people were beginning to gather in the square. No one had
any idea of what had happened and some people entered the building to go to
work. They were taken hostage. Soldiers and others were also taken hostage.
They were tied up and some were badly beaten. Others were mutilated and
shot; one man had both his ears sliced off and another had his eye poked out
(account given by hostage – Hos1)."
(Akiner, op cit p 17)
Camel droppings (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Cite error: The named reference DOCUMENTING was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Hello, Your "A" class article is a good example for us and I have been looking it over closely.
I am one of the editors working hard on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. It has come a very long way in a very short period of time and now that it has fallen off the main page and pedestrian edits have subsided, we would like to prepare it for reassessment. The article is currently rated as "C" class across the board but much has been done since then.
I think one section, or series of sections our is missing is coverage of the international contributions to the effort. Another section that we may need to add is a professional critique of the government's handling of the entire search and rescue operation. The latter section may be difficult to do since most of the coverage appears to be laudatory in nature. Any advice on how to best present that or locating more professional, critical sources would be appreciated. Not looking to add anti-gov propaganda and hatred to it, just balanced critique.
I would like to invite the editors who have helped build this great article to visit our article and offer any gut level advice on what more we need to work on.
I have just modified 6 external links on Andijan massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Andijan massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
The title should be a bit more neutral. "Massacre" implies an attack on masses of unarmed civilians; in Andijan, like the massacres on unarmed Hindus in East Pakistan and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. The article itself notes that it began with violent revolts and a prison break, the introduction section reads "The Uzbek government at first said the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organized the unrest and the protesters were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Critics argue that the Islamist radical label is just a pretext for maintaining a repressive regime in the country. Whether troops fired indiscriminately to prevent a color revolution or acted legitimately to quell a prison break is also disputed." While the exact motivations of troops are disputed, the title implies that there is no dispute at hand and the incident was purely a massacre. The prison revolt was led by armed gunmen, hence this is not a clear-cut massacre on unarmed individuals. More appropriate titles would be 2005 Andijan Unrest, 2005 Andijan Violence, 2005 Andijan Uprisings, 2005 Andijan Skirmishes...--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lingveno is right. And contra PlanespotterA320, the title has made a judgment. 'Unrest' is without question making a judgment! I support the change of the title, and I ask for this discussion to be taken up by others. This was a massacre. There is no supposed technical or academic definition of the word 'massacre' that will be relevant: when events are named by the public, through a process involving many, they don't follow some sort of textbook definition of what someone might want the word 'massacre' to mean in some technical context. I'll appeal to any readers who came to this article and are now reading this talk page. Did you come here prompted by reading something about this event, or hearing or watching something about this event, and the something you read or heard or saw involved the word 'massacre'? I suspect for some of you the answer is, like me, yes. I was listening to a podcast, heard a reference to an Uzbekistan massacre, wanted to learn more about it, fired up Wikipedia, met the word 'unrest' and thought 'oh, here we go. someone cleaning this up.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.135.63 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
