Talk:Andijan massacre

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Casualties

message: 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)
thread_title: Lack of neutrality and factual accuracy

message: India is known as a peace loving country and this is not possible that India would under any circumstances support this massacre. The citations provided no-where have anything to relate Indian support to this massacre, hence I am editing the doc and removing India from the supporters list in the 3rd Para Bmayuresh (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian support to massacre?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-writing introduction

message: * 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)
replies: text: "Massacre" implies that a party involved was completely unprepared, unarmed, and civilian.  There was a prison revolt, and with the possibility of terrorist ties, we may never know exactly what happened.  Hence a neutral title is better, like, 2005 Andijan Violence.  There is no dispute that violence occured, but the use of the world massacre is disputed.  The Uzbek language article calls it and incident, (voqeasi), as opposed to qirg'in (massacre); when in doubt stick to a neutral title.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undoing the Title Move 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Terrorism in Uzbekistan category 

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

text: I have no problem with the citation, only sentences used within the actual article. Djma12 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: All that time you took and yet... no evidence... no explanation... and a misinterpretation of WP:3RR. KazakhPol 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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." KazakhPol 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clan dispute

message: I suggest:
:::The Andijan massacre occured when Uzbek Interior Ministry troops fired into a crowd of protesters in Andijan, Uzbekistan in May 2005.Andijan massacre linked to local power struggle -- source 9/29/05 EurasiaNet 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.Islam After Communism: Religion And Politics in Central Asia, page 192
:::The Uzbek government at first said the protestors were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organized the unrest.Border situation between Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan returns to normal ReliefWeb  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.Uzbeks say troops shot recklessly at civilians The New York Times"Uzbek troops clash with protesters", CNN 13 May 2005Executive Summary Human Rights Watch"Toe Tags Offer Clues to Uzbeks' Uprising", New York Times, 23 May 2005  The Uzbek government eventually acknowledged that poor economic conditions in the region and popular resentment played a role in the uprising.["Uzbekistan: Karimov Reappraises Andijon" http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/6592de25-d67c-45d3-88de-a61f1b0cddb4.html], Radio Free Europe, 19 Oct 2006 
:::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."Documenting Andijan", Council for Foreign Relations, 26 Jun 2006."US closes air base in Uzbekistan amid uprising dispute", Boston Globe, 22 Nov 2005.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Outside opinion

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced info

message: This section as written is contradictory.  The subsections need to be merged. - TedFrank 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  May 12 and 13 section 

message: #The external links section has been buried with too many links.  The OSCE and Carnegie Endowment links are important; I would add the CFR and HRW links; the Economist link is good; there shouldn't be more than seven or eight links total.  In the alternative, there needs to be categorization: summary reports, contemporaneous press coverage, press coverage of aftermath, etc.
#The quotations section is extraneous and should be removed.
#I'd remove the Obidov section entirely; as best I can tell, it's one crank's conspiracy theory, and no major party or outside observer to the proceedings endorses it.  At a minimum it violates NPOV:undue weight.  -- TedFrank 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other article cleanup 

message: 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"
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)
replies: text: What you just said makes no sense. Please proofread what you write before posting. What does changing dates have to do with my edits, when I removed the part that is written twice in the same section, once with the wrong date, which I removed, and once with the correct date, which is still there. And why did you post my comment here, are you confused by it? Stop stalking me and blindly reverting all my edits. TheColdTruth 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: March 22 edits

message: One user, KazakhPol in particular(who is known for pushing everything-terrorism subjects and views), wants this article to be part of Terrorism Category. However, the only thing related to terrorism is that the Uzbek government, which has been established as being corrupt by the Western World, blamed the massacre on terrorists, at first. The whole article has nothing to do with terrorism, in addition the Uzbek government has acknowledged that the mass killing of protesters was done by them, all though they are saying it was the solely local government's fault. Besides KazakhPol does anyone find this article appropriate being in terrorism category? If not it will be removed from the category. TheColdTruth 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the terrorism category is not appropriate. Djma12 (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, this is not new. In fact everyone who has common sense will tell that this article doesn't have anything to do with terrorism , unless you make it part of terrorism, just like the Uzbek government. You have no grounds to put it in terrorism category and you need to take a look at your own link, to understand what terrorism is, and anyone with common sense will tell you, it clearly does not apply to this case. TheColdTruth 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Category 

message: I don't think this section is appropriate or adds anything encyclopedic.  What basis is there for including it? -- THF 14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation section needs to be split and incorporated into the rest of the text. It has been though for several months. KazakhPol 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation section

message: The only cite for "interior ministry" in the old version was this article quoting a single anonymous soldier; the words "Interior Ministry" are entirely absent.  -- THF 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... Ministry of Internal Affairs. And, no, it doesnt source it to a single, anonymous soldier, it states it as fact. KazakhPol 15:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I've added it back.  I don't see why the distinction is important, but it's in. Meanwhile, please stop deleting thirty footnotes just to get one piece of information in the article. -- THF 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior Ministry 

message: I've looked at the old version of the article, and there are no sources disputing that the base was yanked because of American reaction to the Andijan massacre.  If KazakhPol is going to dispute this, he needs a verifiable reliable source. -- THF 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KazakhPol 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article supports my version: "the catalyst occurred when Karimov suppressed a rebellion in the city of Andijan on 13 May 2005." -- THF 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesnt. Your version portrays it as singlehandedly altering Uzbek foreign policy. KazakhPol 15:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NB also "rebellion", which is a synonym for "uprising." -- THF 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, other sites do not have the aim of neutrality. KazakhPol 15:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For now keep the date-section organization. Title the section "May 13." KazakhPol 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uzbek foreign policy 

message: *"International calls for further investigation led to changes in Uzbek foreign policy." - Calls were not international, they were largely from the Western world and this portrays it as singlehandedly altering Uzbek foreign policy. Martha Brill Olcott, Zeyno Baran, and others have all said it was only the 'catalyst'.
*POV moving of the power struggle to the bottom of the page. Chronologically it should be near the top.
*Removal of why the protesters were protesting.
*Referring to the charges against the businessmen as "extremism, fundamentalism and separatism" - just say the three evils.
*Addition of "alleged" ties to Akramiya. Who questions their ties?
*Removal of the names of the businessmen. Why?
*BBC needs to be italicized.
*Change "During the trial, protests in Andijan in front of the courthouse were common" to "During the trial protests in front of the courthouse were common."
*The section currently titled "May 13 uprising" contains many grammatical errors. It also changes tense randomly.
*KazakhPol 15:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dont make any other major changes for a short while. I am trying to merge the two versions. KazakhPol 15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you have next crack at it.  NB that I fixed up the grammar problems in the May 13 section, which resulted from my earlier merger efforts.  -- THF 15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done my best to merge the two pages but I think I may have undone the changes you did between my posting the inuse template and my merger. I changed "extremism, fundamentalism, and separatism" to the Three Evils because this is the term C.A. governments use to refer to these offenses. I think I kept that the ties to Akramiya are disputed - if not then someone should re-add that they deny the tie. I actually decided "prompt" was better than my previously suggested "catalyst." KazakhPol 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed up the May 13 section. -- THF 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. KazakhPol 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with last few edits

message: The "17th air-assault brigade and a battalion of specialized operations from the Eastern military district is part of the MVD-Interior Ministry. Could we change the intro to say "Interior Ministry and National Security Service" troops? KazakhPol 20:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK THF 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Andijan

message: B-class seems awfully low given that it's a controversial topic without any real NPOV disputes, heavily cited, and fairly informative. THF 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the article still does not discuss the refugees who went to Romania, the U.S., and... I think Sweden or Turkey. Some, such as Akram Yuldeshev's wife, are especially worth noting. I believe there were 438 of them. Zeyno Baran and S. Frederick Starr's conference on the event should also be mentioned. KazakhPol 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two names are not even remotely relevant.  Andijan massacre has one Shirin Akiner story which is interesting but still very marginal the subject. There are significant international reactions that could be incorporated waaaay before it comes to starr and co. cs 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we get this up to featured-article status? 

message: I just happened to notice this, what does it have to do anything with the article, other than that Uzbek government () initially blamed the massacre on terrorists, in reality it is just a excuse the govt. uses against similar events in Uzbekistan(even the article has this quoted), anyways why does terrorism have to do anything with Andijan massacre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.173.33 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Category 

message: I have removed this section which read:
'Soldiers took protesters and witnesses hostage, tied them up, and beat them. According to Central Asia expert Shirin Akiner whose views are considered by many Western experts as pro-Uzbek government, others were "mutilated and shot; one man had both his ears sliced off and another had his eye poked out." Violence in Andijan, 13 May 2005: An Independent Assessment Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program'
This is a blatant twisting of the original (cut and pasted from Akiner's report) :
"By about 8.00 am people were beginning to gather in the square. No one had
any idea of what had happened and some people entered the building to go to
work. They were taken hostage. Soldiers and others were also taken hostage.
They were tied up and some were badly beaten. Others were mutilated and
shot; one man had both his ears sliced off and another had his eye poked out
(account given by hostage – Hos1)."
(Akiner, op cit p 17)
Camel droppings (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture

message: Hello, Your "A" class article is a good example for us and I have been looking it over closely.
I am one of the editors working hard on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. It has come a very long way in a very short period of time and now that it has fallen off the main page and pedestrian edits have subsided, we would like to prepare it for reassessment. The article is currently rated as "C" class across the board but much has been done since then.
I think one section, or series of sections our is missing is coverage of the international contributions to the effort. Another section that we may need to add is a professional critique of the government's handling of the entire search and rescue operation. The latter section may be difficult to do since most of the coverage appears to be laudatory in nature. Any advice on how to best present that or locating more professional, critical sources would be appreciated. Not looking to add anti-gov propaganda and hatred to it, just balanced critique.
I would like to invite the editors who have helped build this great article to visit our article and offer any gut level advice on what more we need to work on.
Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2010 Copiapó mining accident]] article improvements 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andijan massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825164023/http://islamicsydney.com/story.php?id=2177 to http://islamicsydney.com/story.php?id=2177
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408045301/http://www.eurasianet.org:80/departments/civilsociety/articles/eav051305.shtml to http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/civilsociety/articles/eav051305.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117032830/http://www.gov.uz:80/en/content.scm?contentId=12614 to http://www.gov.uz/en/content.scm?contentId=12614
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070414174526/http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11112/printer to http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11112/printer
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://extras.hrw.org/pdfs/andijan_photo_essay.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121052647/http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370300 to http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370300
*Added  tag to http://www.globalengage.org/media/article.aspx?id=2046
*Added  tag to http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=resignation+Karimov+andijan&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt&u=www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/February_2007/Burnashev_Chernykh.pdf&w=resignation+karimov+andijan&d=MPllo_mdOfRN&icp=1&.intl=us
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andijan massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524161224/http://www.csce.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=ContentRecords.ViewWitness&ContentRecord_id=663&ContentType=D&ParentType=H&CFID=151654&CFTOKEN=87861846 to http://www.csce.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=ContentRecords.ViewWitness&ContentRecord_id=663&ContentType=D&ParentType=H&CFID=151654&CFTOKEN=87861846
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323111839/http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.media.press.view&news_id=1043 to http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.media.press.view&news_id=1043
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The title should be a bit more neutral.  "Massacre" implies an attack on masses of unarmed civilians; in Andijan, like the massacres on unarmed Hindus in East Pakistan and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.  The article itself notes that it began with violent revolts and a prison break, the introduction section reads "The Uzbek government at first said the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organized the unrest and the protesters were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Critics argue that the Islamist radical label is just a pretext for maintaining a repressive regime in the country. Whether troops fired indiscriminately to prevent a color revolution or acted legitimately to quell a prison break is also disputed." While the exact motivations of troops are disputed, the title implies that there is no dispute at hand and the incident was purely a massacre.  The prison revolt was led by armed gunmen, hence this is not a clear-cut massacre on unarmed individuals.  More appropriate titles would be 2005 Andijan Unrest, 2005 Andijan Violence, 2005 Andijan Uprisings, 2005 Andijan Skirmishes...--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been named the Andijan massacre more frequently then an unrest. So, I would propose naming it Andijan massacre. --Lingveno (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But if there is any dispute as the nature of the event, the title should not support one judgement or another.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: How is it that a massacre of this scale and article depth has no images documenting the event, mass graves, etc? Silenceisgod (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of images