Talk:Andijan massacre

Casualties

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 Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia Mexaguil 07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Many other news sources (just check Google news) are reporting at least 500 dead. --Berkut 08:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

that re-enforces my point, my point is: wikipedia should not fall into the trap that news media does and have vague claims Mexaguil 10:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

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. --Berkut 11:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

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. 4.250.201.173 14:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

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.--TVPR 07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Uzbek bias

This article shows an over whelming anti-Uzbek bias and goes against the basic tenets of Wikipedia. [unsigned]

You'll have to be specific. It seems pretty well reflective of documented sources. - Reaverdrop 01:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

Lack of neutrality and factual accuracy

This article is highly inaccurate and has a pervasive anti-Uzbek pov. I will try to correct this as best I can. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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".

Removing neutrality warning

Other than complaints from anonymous users and Sock puppets, do we have any other complaints of NPOV?
Djma12 13:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-writing introduction

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.
Djma12 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Title - Andijan Massacre

Who changed the title? I think it should be changed back to Andijan Massacre, since thats what you call an event like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingFace (talk • contribs) 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

If you are unfamiliar with this event then please refrain from making controversial changes to this article, much less editing it at all. KazakhPol 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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. Djma12 01:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See the meaning of the word "massacre," here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre. Thank you. 74.116.92.202 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See [1]. It was between the Samarqand Inoyatov clan and the Almatov Interior Ministry clan. KazakhPol 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

* Even the citation you provide refers to the incident as the Andijan Massacre, not "civil unrest." Djma12 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. And yes, you unilaterally moved the article without even a peep of discussion. This is grossly inappropriate.

Djma12 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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? KazakhPol 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. Yes, this page fell off my radar, then my life got busy. This does not justify an unilateral move without discussion.
3. 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.

Djma12 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. KazakhPol 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Djma12 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 04:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. TheColdTruth 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 04:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. TheColdTruth 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 05:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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. cs 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Djma12 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Undoing the Title Move

• 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. Djma12 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support moving back to previous title.cs 14:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism in Uzbekistan category

• 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. Djma12 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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.cs 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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.
• Video of Ill-Fated Uzbek Rising Offers Haunting, Complex View Chivers and Wilensky-Lanford on the Andijan Video in the New York Times, 22nd June 2006

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. Sikandarji 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. TheColdTruth 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Improvements in Article

• People have noted that this article has a strong bias. Please enumerate which statements are contested and we can discuss from there. Djma12 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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. TheColdTruth 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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.cs 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

The United States Senate (AZ Senator McCain) [11]

• "...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 British Guardian Unlimited[12]:

• "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.

TheColdTruth 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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 TheColdTruth 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

TheColdTruth, thank you for the suggestions. Here are my thoughts:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Djma12 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Djma12 03:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

? 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. KazakhPol 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Djma12 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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.cs 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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.cs 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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. TheColdTruth 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article is getting better, although the May 11-12, and Government Looses Control sections need to be rewritten.

Definition of Vandalism

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. Djma12 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed a reference and a substantial amount of sourced content with no explanation. That's called vandalism. KazakhPol 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a section of undiscussed edit that violated WP:NPOV. See WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not. Of note, I'm not the one that's been multiply warned and blocked for WP:3RR violations. Djma12 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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? KazakhPol 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the last two attempts two get me blocked per that policy crashed and burned. I am quite familiar with its finer points. KazakhPol 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, then you should know how closely you are skirting right now. Djma12 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the citation, only sentences used within the actual article. Djma12 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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? KazakhPol 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Djma12 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All that time you took and yet... no evidence... no explanation... and a misinterpretation of WP:3RR. KazakhPol 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Djma12 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. I suggest you go back and look at my edits. Three reverts, not five. The other two edits were not reverts. KazakhPol 02:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask Cs if he considers those edits reversions. Djma12 02:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would I ever care about Cs's opinion about anything? I cannot imagine such a situation. If such a situation ever arises, I will be shock and awed. KazakhPol 02:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clan dispute

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. cs 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am sure you will provide some excellent sources to support that position. KazakhPol 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont have to. You have to prove that it is a "fact beyond dispute." See "burden of proof."cs 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, you cant just assert that something is unreliable when a reliable source says it is key to understanding an event. KazakhPol 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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] KazakhPol 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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.cs 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Clans are "magical"? A truly astonishing comment. I might take your comment a little more seriously if you spelled Karimov or Kazakh correctly. KazakhPol 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a hopeless case. Go do something better with your sorry life. How is that as a correct spelling? cs 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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. cs 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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? TheColdTruth 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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. cs 11:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

KazakPol's Intro Version

• 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. Djma12 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Djma12 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Djma12 17:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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'. KazakhPol 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

cs and TheColdTruth have both contributed substantially to the article and the discussion. Though you may disagree with them, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. Djma12 18:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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? cs 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keeping your POV out of this article is the single most important contribution of the three editors involved.cs 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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.cs 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You betcha. KazakhPol 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

1. What would be a neutral presentation of a synopsis of events, and
2. What classifies as an objective citation when referencing this event.
3. As an example, here are two possible intros.

Regards, Djma12 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. KazakhPol 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

I suggest:

The Andijan massacre occured when Uzbek Interior Ministry troops fired into a crowd of protesters in Andijan, Uzbekistan in May 2005. 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.

The Uzbek government at first said the protestors were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organized the unrest. 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. The Uzbek government eventually acknowledged that poor economic conditions in the region and popular resentment played a role in the uprising.

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.

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.

Note that I've added some additional sources above. TedFrank 08:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Sikandarji 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it is perfect, and is written exactly the way I was suggesting. Thank you for you involvement. TheColdTruth 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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. KazakhPol 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced info

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... KazakhPol 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please follow this citation. I will add it to the article. Regards, Djma12 00:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

May 12 and 13 section

This section as written is contradictory. The subsections need to be merged. - TedFrank 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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. TheColdTruth 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Other article cleanup

1. 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.
2. The quotations section is extraneous and should be removed.
3. 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. -- TedFrank 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Much thanks for the third party edits on this page. The article is now substantially improved. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I already provided a third party source for the clan dispute. There is no reason to remove it. KazakhPol 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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. -- TedFrank 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 22 edits

TheColdTruth removed the following content today:

"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. 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. TheColdTruth 19:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)"[19]

Note that nowhere in his edits to this page on March 22 did he change the date. Perhaps he/she is confused. KazakhPol 05:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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, and once with the wrong date and once with the correct one. Stop stalking me and reverting all my edits blindly. TheColdTruth 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)