I'm sorry to sound a little condescending but KazakhPol should stop trying to whitewash his/her edits as if they only corrected the above minor points. This is simply not true, if you look at the history of his edits;  

 #You will see that s/he has consistently tried to malign this group as a terrorist group, and argued that he has references, and even provided links but either the links did not state what was claimed, or were not credible. It gave the reader the impression that such statements were referenced correctly when they were not. 
 # S/He has deleted swathes of the article that had been in place for months without a reason, and when questioned did not provide a satisfactory answer 
 #His/Her command of the English language seems poor, as illustrated in the history and in the above points made 
 #Lacks civility and has been warned many times. Gives me final warnings about vandalism when I didn't vandalise nor did I recieve any preceding warnings from him to receive a final one. He also accused me of being a member of this group!! 

 Now regarding KP's minor issues above: 

 *Refers to the mythical Uzbeki ethnicity  
 :: I've changed that, thank you for spotting it 
 *Incorrectly states that HuT is banned in Turkmenistan 
 :: No it doesn't 
 *Claims HuT "survived" a ban in Australia, implying it is somehow a living being 
 :: The use of the word 'survived' is wholly appropriate here, and is not reserved for living things only see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=survived 
 *In the section on Aims it states that the Caliphate will be ruled by a Caliph which is a truism 
 :: Not for people who don't know the difference between the two, and are not familiar with what term to use for the head of state. 
 *Changes from referring to the Caliph/Caliphate with a capital C and a lowercase C throughout the article 
 :: I've changed that, thank you for spotting it 
 *Refers to Niqab as a right of women 
 :: No it doesn't say that it is a right categorically, it says that this party defends the right of women to choose the wearing of a Niqab, it is referring to the party's opinion 
 *Translates random words into Arabic without justification throughout the article 
 :: Could you provide a list? 
 *The section on Law, under the section on Policies, is merely a series of quotes 
 :: So? the sentences flow, and would do even if the quotation marks were taken out. If they were taken out it would still be a valid paragraph but wouldn't wouldn't illustrate that it is taken directly from HT's books. 
 *Excessive linking throughout the article to "proscription" and "Al-Qaida", which needlessy redirects, in one instance linking to the AQ page twice in one paragraph 
 :: Removed more than one linking to the same issue in the same paragraph 
 *Improperly uses lowercase letters at the beginning of official positions, as in "prime minister Blair"  
 :: I've changed that, thank you for spotting it 
 *Refers to the "Uzbekistan Government", which should either be the Government of Uzbekistan, or the Uzbek government 
 :: I've changed that, thank you for spotting it 
 *"Craig Murray former British ambassador to Uzbekistan has made many claims" could use a few commas 
 :: I've changed that, thank you for spotting it 
 *Refers to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as "General" 
 :: Well he still is a General, despite the protestations of the defunct opposition he is still cheif of army staff, and head of the National Security Council! 
 *Passive voice throughout the article 
 :: please explain 

 Please do not pretend as if the above issues are what has wound you up, this is the first time you have raised them, otherwise most of the friction here has been aboout the above points I made about  your obsession with labelling this group as terrorist, and even claiming they have killed hundreds of people in a year!