Talk:2010 Kyrgyzstan Revolution

Revolution

I think we can call this an outright revolution now.--J intela (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If it really successed, please move the article to 2010 Kyrgyzstan Revolution--1j1z2 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever this is, it's still an ongoing process. We don't know if it's "successful" (whatever that may mean) or not. It's not clear if Bakiyev has given up power (if he just left Bishkek but stayed in the country, he might be able to hold on to his position), and it's not clear if the opposition will be able to organize and cooperate to the extent necessary to counter forces still loyal to Bakiyev and to set up a new government. Give it a little more time - even 24 hours from now, I bet we'll have a much better idea of what exactly is the current situation in the country and the government. Otebig (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's way too early to be making conclusions about this. It's not even clear at this point who is in control and there are rumors that thousands of Bakiyev supporters are marching to Bishkek from the south to fight the protesters. Things are changing fast. -- Hux (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really our job to decide if it's a revolution or not – it's not as if we have WP:REVOLUTION, a set of criteria it has to pass first! ;) We can move the title when other people (preferably outside of Kyrgyzstan) start calling it a revolution, but the current title is fine for the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitinely not a 2010 Kyrgyzstan Revolution. Revolutions are the province of historians. Probably in the future this event and the Tulip Revolution (and possibly the 1991 end of European rule) will be lumped into one big Kyrgyzstan Revolutionary Period. After all the French Revolution spanned many years and different leaders went in and out of power. Nutmegger (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think uprising would be a more appropriate name than revolution at this point. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that the article is currently move-protected (unrelated to this thread), so it's not going anywhere with a discussion here first. Physchim62 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"The parliament was overrun by protestors and dissolved, and the entire Kyrgyz government stepped down. Opposition leaders announced on a broadcast that they had formed a new provisional government headed by Roza Otunbayeva.[citation needed]" Where is the proof of this? Sounds more like propaganda than fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.252.143 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. As far as I've know, the actual government just fled south. I doubt they'd give up THAT easily. I say remove it. Teafico (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's officially a revolution “You can call this revolution. You can call this a people’s revolt. Either way, it is our way of saying that we want justice and democracy,” (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/asia/09bishkek.html) 93.182.186.56 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It still seems a bit early to label it a revolution. Revolution seems to be a loosely-defined concept. This event has been limited to a handful of cities in the north and doesn't necessarily represent the will of the majority people nation-wide(as it seems to me happens in most "revolutions"). Coup—the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment, to replace the deposed government with another body—is probably a better term to use at the moment and given that the opposition now has complete control of the national government, I would support moving this article to "2010 Kyrgyzstan coup". By the way, that quote is from the woman who appears to be the leader of the opposition—Ms Otunbayeva—and also appears in this BBC article. IBstupid (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

CBC has released an article[1] of an interview with an American political scientist who specializes in Kyrgyzstan. He refers to the events that have and are transpiring as a revolution, and also believe that although Bakiyev refuses to relinquish his "power", the expert seems to think that he is now powerless in the face of the new interim government which he expresses his belief is now in control of Kyrgyzstan, and also has the support of the people. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "uprising" is a better term...Teafico (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Teafico that this page should be "2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising". "Riots" is not really a suitable term for the deposition of a regime by popular anti-government agents. &dorno rocks. (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, uprising is the better term to use. Defiantly not a coup- which implies military involvement- but I am also still open to using revolution, as it meets all the parameters. Outback the koala (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "uprising." No one seems to object that the events did constitute an uprising, albeit one that included rioting and may some day be viewed as a revolution. Riots is clearly not sufficient, as a specific political goal was the main motivating force behind the protests. Riots can include everything from drunken football matches to struggles for food rations--all of which are better understood in a law enforcement/non-political context. Regarding the term "revolution," to me this word is not merely synonymous with the ousting of a government, but rather suggests that the political structure or ideological foundation of the government is significantly altered (ditto the comment that this is for historians to decide). Of course the opposition will paint the events as a revolution--it is in their best interest to do so, and I don't think their self-description should be the primary criteria for definition here. How many governments erroneously call themselves democracies? If in a year's time Kyrgyzstan ends up with a largely unchanged system with different faces, the revolution term will have been shown to be prematurely applied. One final though, the term "revolt" seems just as applicable as uprising.--Brokev03 (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the ousted government is up to?

I think it'd be good to ad on the page somewhere more specifically, under the 8th of April or something. Especially since Bakiyev appears to have supporters in the south, and the opposition in the north. Could make things.... hairy. Teafico (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

About the article's name

It obviously is not a coup d'etat, it looks more like a revolution, because after the protests, they overthrew the previous government and now they are in power. Even the opposition leaders had declared themselves "the People's Revolution." I think by the events we can speak of a revolution, although it would be advisable to wait until 0:00 h GMT, to change the article (We need to wait if Bakiyev, the "de iure president" forms a "counterrevolution" for restore him in the power or not). In summary, if the opposition succeeds (in the next hours) then it is a revolution. But on the other hand, if it loses it will be just a revolt. --Inhakito (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

temporary I suggest 2010 Kyrgyzstan uprising and wait for new sources for the name.--78.3.223.50 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the 2010 Kyrgyzstan uprising, actually. Teafico (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be for a name change to the article. I'd personally like to wait until Bakiyev formally resigns (or leaves the country, is captured, etc.) before calling it "revolution" to ensure NPOV, but the events have certainly evolved beyond the riots of a couple days ago, so the current title also seems a bit inappropriate now. Otebig (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the red spider is a natural foe to the tulip, the 2010 Kyrgyzstan riots is thus also referred to as the Red Spider Revolution in some accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BnaiBrithChai (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Source that please Bnai. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggested "Revolution" at first, but now I think "Uprising" is much better.--121.33.190.163 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BBC is reporting [2] that Bishkek is calm today, so the "riots" are over, even if the situation itself is not. 203.161.145.1 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that no Swedish news coverage has been made about this, though i expect the riots to either come back in an "escalated" manor, or just be blown over for quite some time, if you guys have any check on SE television, let me know if you see/hear anything more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownfacts (talk • contribs) 08:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think uprising would be appropriate. Are there any objections? Physchim62 (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Otebig (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Uprising seems the most reasonable term at this time. Doc Tropics 01:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Revolution Discussion 2

I think that although the riots are quite probably the most visible part of this event. There is so much more political power play going on behind the scenes in the aftermath of these riots to simply just place all this unrest under the title of "riot" or "uprising". The fact is the government has collapsed, the new interim government is preparing to amend the constitution of the country, and new elections are being planned in about six months. I think to assume that these are just riots now is just silly, it is an obvious political and social upheaval that has taken place in Kyrgyzstan that is bound to have long lasting implications. By the end of Sunday I think most people will be refering to this as a revolution? Considering many experts already are. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

atleast=uprisin+riot=disparagin![3]--i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl[sven70=alias (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a real, successful revolution. By now it's clear that the ancien régime is dead; it's not merely an "uprising." 2010 Kyrgistani revolution it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanHarper (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. Wikipedia isn't an investigative news agency, and we have no rush to beat a deadline. While it seems probable that this will be referred to as a revolution eventually, we should wait until there is general agreement from reliable sources that it is. No hurry though, for now "revolt" seems most appropriate. Doc Tropics 13:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree Doc, however several articles, many of which I have linked on my user page do have a lot of experts using the term revolution. Though there are some media organizations who are still hesitant to use this term, most of the real political analysts of Kyrgyzstan seem to be using revolution quite sparingly. --Kuzwa (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful collection of links, I actually took the time to read them and they generally seem like reliable sources. Most seem to use "uprising" and "revolt". While many do compare current events to the Tulip Revolution, they also highlight that Bakiyev still has followers and a power base in the south which could lead to a civil war. Since civil war is generally differentiated from revolution, it still seems best to me that we wait for events to play out more fully. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 16:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, no problem. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

International Response

This is regrettably growing tediously long on another article, and I am curious if we can't just summarize this and create another page for individual nation's repsonses. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how to make a new page, but I think it'd be a great idea. Most other articles do the same. We can just keep a few statements here, maybe Russia, the US, OSCE or the UN or something. It's getting a bit too long on here. Teafico (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Positions

We've updated all articles to state that Otunbayeva is "Acting Head of State", but all news reports say that she is "Interim Prime Minister", don't they? That means Bakiyev would still be nominally president...? —Nightstallion 13:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but president no longer appears to be the head of state. As the new opposition appears to be trying to act as a parlimentary government headed by a prime minister. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but parliamentary governments still have a president or monarch. —Nightstallion 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. What is clear is there is consensus for a rename. While this title may not be perfect it is in line with the comments. This may need to be renamed again. However I would wait a while and see how the content develops since that may well influence the naming of the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Kyrgyzstani riots → Kyrgyzstani uprising (2010) —

• Discussion on the name of this article has been going on for several days. There seems to be a clear consensus on the article talk page that the recent events in Kyrgyzstan are more than just "riots". The majority of users seem to agree that "uprising" would be a more appropriate title. Several users have asked to move the page to "revolution", but there are concerns (some voiced by myself) about the problems and potential NPOV issues connecting with doing so before the president has formally given up power and the new leaders have solidified control. The article can of course be moved again in the future as the situation evolves, but for the time being moving this page to "2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising" will give it a name that is more accurate than "riots", that has general consensus, and as far as I can tell is not controversial. As the page is currently protected, an admin will need to move it. Otebig (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Since the article is protected, I listed it on WP:Requested moves as an uncontroversial request from "2010 Kyrgyzstani riots" to "2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising". This of course doesn't mean the article will not ultimately be called "2010 Kyrgyzstani revolution", but per discussions above, "uprising" seems to have clear consensus right now, while there are still some concerns about using the title "revolution" too early. Otebig (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, uprising is more appropriated by now. But some important media use both uprising and revolution.

The Times of Central Asia call it "the Easter Revolution", another media call it Kyrgyz Revolution; Russia Today, Kyrgyz Uprising.

I prefer Kyrgyz Uprising (2010), than 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising, because we are in 2010 and there is not another uprising recorded about Kyrgyzstan, so it's unnecesary the use of the year in the beginning. For example, the Russian Revolution (1917), instead 1917 Russian Revolution. Mexican Revolution, instead 1910 Mexican Revolution or Rwanda Civil War, instead 1994 Rwanda Civil War.

--Inhakito (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well what about the tulip revolution?--J intela (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason for using "Kyrgyzstani" instead of "Kyrgyz" is that "Kyrgyz" is an ethnic adjective ("Kyrgyz people, Kyrgyz culture"). Kyrgyzstani refers to the country and the citizens of the country, regardless of ethnic group. It's a common distinction for the countries in this area (Uzbek vs. Uzbekistani, Kazakh vs. Kazakhstani), though mainstream media often (inaccurately) uses the ethnic adjective for country-related issues. I think we need the year in the title to be certain to differentiate it from the Tulip Revolution events of 2005. I'd be fine with Kyrgyzstani uprising (2010) - anyone with better knowledge of WP naming conventions want to weigh in? All that being said, though, it seems Bakiyev is in negotiations and is ready to resign, so perhaps after another day or two the new government will be fully established as the official, unquestioned leadership of the country, and we can rename the article to "revolution". Otebig (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment a quick run through the other wikipedias show an overwhelming use of 'revolution', while the Norse use demonstration. This being said, 'uprising' is the leading term in the English press right now[4], far more than both 'riots'[5] and 'revolution'[6].--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Move article to 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising as this is the most common phrase currently used by reliable sources. As noted, this can be updated to "revolution" if further developments warrant it. Doc Tropics 15:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Further Note: the variant proposal Kyrgyz Uprising (2010) would also be acceptable. Doc Tropics 15:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose suggested name. This is more than just an uprising, it's been a successful revolution. Support move to Kyrgyzstani Revolution (2010). Easter Revolution is silly because Kyrgyzstan is not a Christian country and Kyrgyzstanis are highly unlikely to call it that. --Tocino 15:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

comment - It would be great if you could provide links to reliable sources which use the term "revolution" conclusively. Otherwise it seems like original research on our part to call it that. Doc Tropics 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see: [7] --Tocino 03:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So as I understand it, no one is opposed to the title "uprising" in and of itself. Instead, some people are against the proposed move because they would like it renamed "revolution" instead. The "jumping the gun" and NPOV issues connected with calling it a revolution at this time have been laid out above. Articles like this recent one from the NY Times about Bakiyev claiming to still have support only seem, to me, to reinforce the problems connecting with titling this article as "revolution" before the process is over. Accordingly, I don't think there will be a consensus about changing this title to "revolution" anytime soon. In the meantime, I think it's safe to say that everyone agrees "riots" is now an inappropriate description, and that "uprisings" is not an wholly inaccurate description and certainly more appropriate than "riots". The discussion over the change to "revolution" can of course continue until the situation in Kyrgyzstan is resolved one way or another, but given Bakiyev's posturing the "revolution" discussion will probably not be decided in the next few days. Again, agreeing to a move now does not mean the article will not ultimately be titled "revolution" (just keep in mind that per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia will be one of the last places to label this a "revolution", after most analysts and news media outlets have done so). In the meantime, I don't think anyone is against the idea, in itself, of having the article at the title of "uprising" (which as has been mentioned above, is currently the most common term), instead of "riots", repeating once again that it can always be changed later as things develop more. So, to completely clarify what this particular move request is about, is there anyone who thinks keeping this article at the current "2010 Kyrgyzstani riots" is actually better and more accurate than moving it to "Kyrgyzstani uprising (2010)"? Otebig (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Every revolution has counter-revolutionaries. There appears to be some minimal support for Bakiyev in his relatively small home region. However, the rest of the country is ruled by a new interim government, which was brought to power by a revolution. --Tocino 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move It makes sense, the current title make us look wayy behind in the news. Outback the koala (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• 2010 Kyrgyzstan Protests is my choice. "Protests" is neutral and defines the situation well. Colipon+(Talk) 00:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just simply labeling them protests, when these protests ousted a sitting President, is downplaying the events. --Tocino 05:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move--DAI (Δ) 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose.. Bakiyev has resigned and fled the country, the article should be moved to Kyrgyzstani Revolution (2010) ASAP. I will be making a move request shortly. Causantin (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. "Uprising" more accurately describes the magnitude and quality of the activities. "Revolution" is a stretch and is not (yet) support by sources. — AjaxSmack 02:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. For now at least. I think this should be hurried up so we can appropriately acess what information should be in this article and not. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Why is it "Kyrgyzstani uprising (2010)"? By wikipedia convention the year doesnt follow in brackets. In all elections or terror/crisis-type articles like this the year either follows (elections) or precedes the article title.Lihaas (talk)

Osh Jalal-Abad

Thier is nothing about the oppositions seizure of power in osh and Jalal-Abad.--J intela (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

some photos, if you think they may be useful

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Burning_truck_bishkek_protests.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bishkek_capitol_looted_2010.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bishkek_capitol_revolution_2010.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Looted_narodnyj_supermarket.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prosecutors_office_burned_bishkek.JPG --Brokev03 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Great photos, thanks! I added some to the article. Otebig (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing?

The interm governments has been in place for a few days now. Should we keep the article listed in the info box as ongoing? really? Outback the koala (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Though the riots are over, the political aftermath is not. The constitution is about to be amended. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the title of this article is 2010 Kyrgyzstani riots. Outback the koala (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Very likely that the title is about to change from "riots" to "uprising" (see sections above), and while the riots are over, the uprising is still ongoing, so it seems appropriate, just temporarily out-of-context. Doc Tropics 14:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

fyi[8]----pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bakiyev has apparently resigned and left the country [9], and both Russia and the US have acknowledged the new government, so the uprising seems to be a genuine revolution now. Jpatokal (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor said the uprising is still ongoing because there is no source for its end. Acually there is no official source that gave a start date either. What is expected as a source for an end? When its done from the news there is no coverage, the source ought to be show if something IS going on. of course is something starts next month this can be edited/moved as per the Thai crisis that spread into 2010 where the article was moved to reflect this.Lihaas (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I do think it's still on-going. As demonstrated by yesterdays events in Jalal-Abad, Osh and Batken when the protestors seized those government offices. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bakiev in Exile

According to reports: [10]... Bakiev has fled the country to Kazakhstan, more specifically to the town of Taraz. Apparently this occured after an incident of gunfire during one of his rallys for support. Also the former defence minister has been arrested for giving the order to open fire on the protesters. Seems as if the uprising/revolution has ultimately achieved it's goal, and it appears as if the threat of civil war is no longer a terribly likely threat. (Not that it ever was.) --Kuzwa (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I correct myself, it appears according to [11] that infact Bakiev did not resign before he fled the country and appears to be making his way to Astana. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Otunbayeva says Kyrgyzstan to become parlimentary republic

According to Rio Novosti ([12]) Ms. Otunbayeva is saying that Kyrgyzstan is to become a parlimentary republic on April 19, this is a shift from the old presidential republic system they had, this will also involve seriously re-writing the country's constitution. I believe that should these events come to pass on Monday, this will now have been a successful revolution. Any other thoughts? --Kuzwa (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is without a doubt a successful revolution. It's time for Wikipedia to acknowledge this fact. --Tocino 22:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is undoubtedly a revolution. Over 80 ordinary people have died to overthrow a government. If this doesn't qualify as a revolution, I don't know what does. Causantin (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Death tolls have absolutely nothing to do with what is or is not a revolution. It is instead based off serious political or social changed within a country/series of countries. Which appears to have happened in Kyrgyzstan. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This info is more suited the constitutional referendum article. if its not already there, it should be.Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Counter riots in Jalal-Abad

[13] According to Ria Novosti supports of the deposed Bakiev have just stormed a TV station in the southern city of Jalal-Abad. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I think it's a bit to early to add an aftermath section to the article if the event dosen't appear to be over. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

April 19 events

It appears there have been riots in Jalal-Abad by counter revolutionaries, and riots in Mayovka of an unknown affiliation (persumably over some sort of land dispute) according to RiaNovosti [14]. The latter of the two incidents has resulted in at least 2 deaths and 13 injuries. I will again contend that we should remove the aftermath section as these events are not yet over. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vugar Khalilov

Hi, this is less of an update as it is a question on whether this is notable enough to be included in the article. On April 12th, Vugar Khalilov a former BBC correspondant living in Kyrgyzstan was arrested by the Kyrygz government and has been held for a week now without right to see his lawyer or practically any representatives for that matter. Apparently he has been charged with money laundering in a Bishkek hotel room, and has been accused of having links to the Bakiev administration. Looks like there are a bunch of people lobbying the British government to put pressure on the interim government to release him. [15][16] --Kuzwa (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the revolution? LokiiT (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because he is accused of having links with the Bakiev administration. (Ie. the old regime) --Kuzwa (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Accused by whom? He's being accused of money laundering by the new admin according to your links. Anything else is speculation. Moreover, I can't find anything in the mainstream news about the incident. I think this is pretty non-notable. LokiiT (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you haven't even looked at my links. I am talking about the Kyrgyz government accusing him of money laundering and then holding him without any access to a lawyer or granted any basic rights whatsoever. Maybe it dosen't belong in this article, but perhaps it should get it's own page if this tit-for-tat continues. Heres another link: [17] --Kuzwa (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at your links (I don't know why you would assume otherwise when I specifically referred to them). You stated that "he is accused of having links with the Bakiev administration" - So I ask again, accused by whom? Not the Kyrgyz government; they only accused him of money laundering, and as far as I know have said nothing about his political affiliations. Therefore it is comlplete speculation as to whether or not this has anything to do with the revolution. Speculation that cannot be attributed to anyone other than yourself, as far as I can see. Moreover, as I mentioned, this incident isn't being covered in the mainstream media, which means it is not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia, in this article or any other. LokiiT (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree 100% with how people are trying to organize this article

First of all I don't think the only notable thing here occured on April 7th, and that nearly the entire article should be focused on just the rioting in Bishkek that day. There is so much more happening here: the flight of Bakiev, the arrest of numerous ex-government figures, continuing unrest that has claimed more lives, the constitutional crisis in the country, the upcoming elections. Frankly I don't see how anyone sees this turmoil in Kyrgyzstan as over. There is looting in rioting continuing in the country as we speak. I think it's best we lump all this turmoil into one article than making dozens of small stubs over every little thing that occurs in the country. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. but what do you propose? Several section on different aspects are here, so it partly answers that. with the name change of the article this was further [partially] answered.Lihaas (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to split this article again into two parts, one dealing directly with the riots in Bishkek on the 7th and 8th, while the other deals with the entire overview of the crisis. Similar ro the French Revolution and the Storming of the Bastille. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Try with 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising about April 7/8 and 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis for the whole thing --DAI (Δ) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Some info has been moved to the new article--DAI (Δ) 11:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help organize this more later this weekend sometime. Thanks for starting this noble cause! --Kuzwa (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

no problem :)--DAI (Δ) 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Manas air base sections

Regarding [18] the info added concerns the details of the base not its consequences and ties to this particular uprising. therefore the article about the Manas base (which does exist) is more appopriate for such details as us taxpayer money tosponsor it, etc, etc. Furthermore it starts "There is a base..." Well, the article already mentions this, doesnt seem like the addition came in relation to the article at all. [User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Osh Riots

According to Ria Novosti and BBC riots in Osh have killed four people and injured dozens.[19] Does anyone have any sources that states the cause of the riots and/or if this is violence related to one of the factions? Thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Regrettably for us, we're clearly talking about a stand-off between two ethnicities. We need (to muster) forces and means to stop and calm these people down, and this is what we are doing right now," Otunbayeva told reporters in the capital Bishkek. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6592KX.htm --DAI (Δ) 11:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AP mentions ethnicity also. A ctrl+f doesn't even show "ethnic" mentioned in this article.[[20]] Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: closed, no consensus for move billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising → Overthrow of Kurmanbek Bakiyev — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Relisting for more comments  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is to help with identifying the scope of this article, as well as preventing name confusion for readers. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title seems far from neutral, given the negative connotations of "otherthrow", and places far too much importance on the figure of Kurmanbek Bakiyev. As I understand it, the uprising which occurred was about removing the incumbent government headed by Bakiyev because of its perceived corruption and installing a more democratic system. The current title summarises these events more clearly and more accurately than what is proposed. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Unorganized Information?

There are many separate articles on this topic, 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots, 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising, 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots. How about organizing all of them in one article and then make sub-article/branches from the main article? Lexi lover (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That is what we are doing. 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis is the main article. The 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising and, 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots are two sub-articles to this main one. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that the dust has settled on this, I agree that 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) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

support your reccomendation, although the uprising should be moved to 2010 Kygyzstan coup d'etat because it was a coup d'etat by definition. (especially with hindsight)(Lihaas (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)).

I say we merge 2010 Kyrgyzstan riots and 2010 Kyrgyzstan uprising into 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis. B-Machine (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not a coup d'état. The military did not oust Bakiev the people did. It was a popular revolution that resulted in the establishment of the first parliamentary democracy in Central Asia. It should be moved to 2010 Kyrgyzstan Revolution now... --Kuzwa (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Revolution 3

After a year, this has been truly a revolution--78.2.46.222 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to "2010 Kyrgyzstani revolution"

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

The result of the move request was: Moved Suggested title appears to be the primary topic. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising → 2010 Kyrgyzstani revolution – This event displaced a president from power and installed a new government and political system in his place. "2010 Kyrgyzstani revolution" gets 6.4 million hits on Google; "2010 Kyrgyzstan uprising" gets 826k (and 590k with "Wikipedia" omitted). Multiple sources from then and more recently refer to the event as a revolution, including the government of Kyrgyzstan: [21]. Other sources: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. I think it's high time this is done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support Google search results are totally unreliable. Google books is better but as this is a recent event, few books have been written yet. Marcus Qwertyus 18:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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

MERGE FOR GOD'S SAKE!

We must merge 2010 Kyrgyzstani revolution with Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010, 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots and Reactions to the 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising. At least the first two if not the latter two, they're two different articles about the exact same series of events! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Essie (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)