This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
What are you trying to say here?
24.21.11.36 (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The problem I think is that this is an exact copy of the Google translation of the Russion Wikipedia page (at least as of now when I checked it). Possibly the person who wrote the English article just took the Google translation. The translated sentence is not very understandable -- maybe "Decisions about ...". The English section "Background" is appears in English translation as "Chronology" which seems a better word. Generally seems a good article for all that, however. DonToto (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A common sense translation of that sentence might be:
"The government is unable to effectively address ethnic problems because the existence of distinct ethnic groups is not legally acknowledged and ethnic Kyrgyz hold virtually all the relevant administrative positions."
I don't know if this is true, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.145.229 (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Not that I intend to add this to the article. But is it possible these events can be classed as genocide? CNN is already confirming this is a humanitarian catastrophe. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
lol how can it possibly be called a genocide? By what classification epistemologically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.191 (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe this is the definition of genocide used by the United Nations which seems to have parts met in this circumstance. --Kuzwa (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
They're not intending to liquidate an entire ethnic group. The best term would be ethnic cleansing, the "purification" of a national space of another ethnic group. Even that term is a bit extreme for this, especially when far worse events still don't get such recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.191 (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The learnt anonymous, "ethnic cleansing" is another manifestation of genocide. The acts specifically targeted the ethnical group and prperty belongong to it. Thanks God, we have documented proofs of atrocities. You cannot hide that. I personally don't care for their "recognition" by law now. It's enough that we have a public opinion, the law will follow as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"Uzbekistan is concerned that Russia is using the events to consolidate its power over Central Asia, including Uzbekistan." Really? Stratford apparently does not look like a neutral OR frankly reliable source. Can this information be trusted? --Kuzwa (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I would agree, and expand this to include many of the sources listed, and comments cited. There seems to be heavy bias throughout the article. I'm not sure the comments made are backed up by the sources cited, even if they are deemed credible. The deaths section seems especially off the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It is an opinion of a think tank, so it is fully in line with Wiki policies to make references to think tanks. Please keep the references and quotes. Sahib-qiron 13:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talk • contribs)
AND WHo will try to make an article normal by reasonable standards out of this messy shit. Sahib-qiron 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
"Kyrgyz people support Bakiyev and oppose the new government. Bakiyev himself has been exiled in Belarus, which has close ties to Russia.". If this was true completely, the uprising of April never would have succeeded in removing Bakiyev, as most of the fighting took place in Bishkek, which is heavily ethnic Kyrgyz. The leadership of the opposition that removed Bakiyev is almost completely made up of ethnic Kyrgyz. The situation is far more complicated than the blanket statement made in this entry and is likely completely incorrect. diggerjohn111 07:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Very true Kuzwa, the north and south of the country are very different, with much of the northern Kyrgyz and the southern Uzbeks forming the closest things you can call "elite classes" in that impoverished nation. Which is also why the statement, before it was amended, was too generalized and quite inaccurate. The current improvements to this article are much, much better.diggerjohn111 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How many deaths are there? As far as I'm concerned the Kyrgyz Government is only reporting the number of people who have died in hospital. While other groups are reporting many hundereds to even thousands of deaths. CTV is reporting 171 deaths,[1] while Ria Novosti continues to report 138. There is no consistency here. If anyone would be willing to place links to casualty count articles here so they can be looked over that would be much appreciated. --Kuzwa (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Has president Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan said anything official on this issue or the refugee crisis yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.191 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This article shoudl probably be integrated somehow: http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/balihar-sanghera/why-are-kyrgyzstan%E2%80%99s-slum-dwellers-so-angry . At least try to appreciate the multifaceted nature of this. It is quite normal in contemporary academic works to dicuss, at the level of theory, ultimate and proximate factors in ethnic conflicts. Even the Radio Free Europe article, which conveniently ignores things like endemic poverty, acknowledges economic factors, which aren't stated in the article. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph is obviously written by a Kyrgyz suporter: "The relationship between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbek communities in southern Kyrgyzstan has been historically difficult. Uzbeks living in Kyrgyzstan have more privileges than ethnic Kyrgyzs in Uzbekistan[citation needed]. Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan have hundreds of schools, several universities, newspapers, journals, TV Channels and all support for experiencing and developing their culture and language[citation needed]. Ethnic Uzbeks, also want their language to be recognized as official, which most ethnic Kyrgyz people disagree upon. Also most of the Islamic adical Terrorists were ethnic Uzbeks, due to their poverty. Moreover, all the drug dealers were Uzbeks[citation needed] and they possessed huge number of weapons. Due to these facts many Kyrgyz people feared any conflicts with them and tried to calm even they were insulted. But last event of rape of young student Kyrgyz girls was not the one that Kyrgyz people could swallow." Moreover, it lacks sources and the first sentence contradicts the preceding paragraph. Aaker (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
WHY THE FOLLOWIG WAS REMOVED: The Uzbek minority was singled out and targeted by assailants of the Kyrgyz ethnicity, as evidenced by survivors and field reports of the media. Approximately 100,000 Uzbeks and Tajiks- mainly women, elder people and children fleeing the violence - found refuge in Uzbekistan and some 400,000 became internally displaced.[28] Victims interviewed by media and aid workers testify to mass killing, gang rape and torture.[29] Head of the Interim government Roza Otunbaeva indicated that the death toll is tenfold higher than was previously reported, which brings the number of the dead to 2,000 people.
I GAVE ALL NECESSARY LINKS. TX FOR THE ANSWER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
So the Uzbeks have all the money and privileges AND they became terrorists due to poverty? And they want to use their own language? What a bunch of fiends! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.145.229 (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
CTV is reporting that up to 70,000 people of Uyghur descent have fled Kyrgyzstan for Kazakhstan the majority of the deplaced originating for Bishkek. Apparently many of the Uyghur's in the city have received threats from unknown sources claiming that they will be the next group targeted for violence. Should this be included in the article? And the article renamed to 2010 Kyrgyzstan ethnic cleansing? See [3] for more information. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
i deleted this sentence from introduction section. Chinese nationalist scum, please stay away from this article and spare us from your crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.187.20.88 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that the dust has settled on this, I think it would make sense to rationalise these articles. I propose that we leave just two articles - 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising and 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots and merge 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis into those two articles. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that wasn't my desire. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Kuzwa renamed article "2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots"[4] with a new name "June Pogroms". The motivation was "moved 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots to June pogroms: International analysts now call this event a pogrom. Specifically they call it the June 10 pogrom though this even technically lasted for 4 days so will leave as June pogroms.". What were the reliable sources supporting this renaming? Is the new name more frequent in the English speaking media? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose renaming the article as "Ethnic Violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan (2010)" or "2010 Ethnic Violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan." This is more appropriate and it has been used by many international organizations. (See for example: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2010/08/16/where-justice-0) "Riot" can mean anything. The events that happened in southern Kyrgyzstan were clearly ethnic in nature. Nataev (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As an outsider I have been asked to make a few comments on the renaming. I have considered precedent in articles on 1848 and concluded that the existing title is fine. I concur that the word pogrom is wrong as it is outside the vocabulary of 99.99% of the readers- and even them is associated with a Jewish related incident. is Reading the comments lead me to consider the nature of the debate and this did not help much. I read the excellent balanced article- then asked myself was there a problem with the article that is causing the title problem, in my POV yes.
(Excellent work on a very detailed article, by the way!) User:Aridd, correctly said. But that is also the problem- too detailed, and focussing on the ethnic tensions and the violence. As it is so detailed the title must be detailed- and the principle focus established. The alternative is to write a more generalised introduction which reduces the need for such accuracy. Looking at that we see the article is flawed in that it wont engage the general reader.
A general reader coming to the article is unlikely to have the background knowledge that the article assumes. A mobile phone user will need that in the lead section, and conveniently there is a ==background section== that is empty where very basic information could be written. So what do we need to do. What-where-when-why.- need to be in the lead.
Focus and move extraneous information- here is an attempt:
The ==background== section can then expand on the geography including the neighbouring countrys, language groups, economics and relations with neighbours. The history of the creation of Kyrgyzstan, and relevant preceding incidents. All this should be general; to draw in the new reader. Then keep the ===subheadings=== and revert to the detailed approach.
I write this as a totally outsider displaying a woeful lack of knowledge - I hope this is helpful.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, AndrewRT (Talk)! Let's leave the date at the end. Because there is a dab page with the title Ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan. We can always change the title as more people share with us their thoughts. Nataev (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The title should be a concise noun phrase, with as little prepositions as possible. I think something like "2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes" is better. "clashes" sounds more neutral than "violence". Many news sources I've read refers to the area of clashes as "the south" not "southern".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback guys! Let's just leave the year at the beginning for now. I created four disambiguation pages with the following titles:
This should be helpful.
The Kyrgyz and Uzbeks have clashed in southern Kyrgyzstan twice, in 1990 and in 2010. There are striking similarities between the two cases. There are many differences as well. In 1990, Soviet troops were deployed to stop the violence and 300 to 600 people died. In the 2010 events from 426 to over 2000 people died and hundreds of thousands were displaced.
Wiki entries are not good enough on either of these clashes. I wish more people were interested in improving these articles. Nataev (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Since this article relies heavily on web-based sources, I've archived all I could below using WebCite. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Aftermath >> Kyrgyzstan appoints reformist PM, averting crisis(Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://enews.ferghana.ru/news.php?id=1739&mode=snews((dead link))
tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Situation-in-Kyrgyzstan-beginning-to-stabilise-government/Article1-557633.aspx((dead link))
tag to http://news.rambler.ru/Russia/asia/6725992/((dead link))
tag to http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110503/ap_on_re_as/as_kyrgyzstan_ethnic_violenceWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)