Talk:Potential for Terrorism in Kazakhstan

The article is dealing with reactions to foreign attacks so the article shold be named Terrorism and Kazakhstan --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, please see all of the other terrorism and nation pages. KazakhPol 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent template, that could get more usage than it does now. Maybe if it was changed to "Terrorism in Central Asia", since almost all of the topics in it are broadly applicable across Central Asia --Crocodile Punter 11:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would be more correct --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a terrorist organisation

• The claim that HT is terrorist has not been refernced. The British government, MI5, the terrorist Police, and academics, all have argued that Hizb ut-tahrir is not terrorist. See the Hizb ut-Tahrir entry for more details. Aaliyah Stevens 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As if anyone cares what unsourced nonsense you put in the HuT article... Contrary to your lie in your edit summary that is referenced, as is everything else in this article. Kazakhstan has banned it as a terrorist organization, and so has virtually every other country. Oh, and it now looks like you can add Australia to that list too.[1] You need to stop making legal threats[2] and engaging in WP:POINT violations. KazakhPol 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Explnation of my edits - please discuss not edit war

• Some of your wording catergorically states that X is a terrorist organisation, rather than saying it is banned under anti-terror laws
• You can't say definitively Hizb ut-Tahrir declared jihad against the Kazakh authorities, they have denied such methods, so I put "Kyrgyz officials claimed that HuT had declared "jihad" "
• Added "the security services of Kazakhstan found no evidence to confirm that the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir had any links to the IMU" from your reference the Central-Asia Caucasus Institute, Silk Road Studies Program : Will Kazakh Authorities Avoid Extremist Pitfalls?
• Added Russian human rights group Memorial's comment from your reference
• You cannot say "HT's first "terror cell", the source itself doesn't even say that
• Added quote from Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights, from your reference
• Created new section for Saudi Binladin Group, this does not belong under HT section
• Removed small nonsense section called "Terrorist Literature", the reference you provide does not describe them as that, and does not say these leafelts promoted terrorism.

Please don't revert, discuss Aaliyah Stevens 13:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions and disputes about this article

The title promises to deliver information about Terrorism in Kazakhstan but fails to cite one independently proved, cited and accepted terrorist activity in the country. It provides useful and well-researched data on counter-terrorism policies of Kazakh government, which is extensively detailed elsewhere under appropriate title Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan.
There are many footnotes, but they do not prove the existence of terrorism in Kazakhstan. They cite government arrests, declarations, policies but fail to tell the existence of one single terrorist activity in the country.
Sections extensively list and cite organizations banned as terrorist by the goverment, but there is no reliable source or data on whether these organizations have any activity, terrorist or not, in Kazakhstan.
Who tells Wikipedia what is a terrorist organization, the Kazakh government or Islom Kerimov? Some of the listed "terrorist groups" are recognized by many international organizations, and democratic countries as liberation movements or peaceful organizations. The status of Uyghur Liberation Movement as terrorist organization is disputable, so is Hizb-ut Tahrir. I have no love for the latter, but we can not regard an organization we dont like as terrorist.
Sections start and end citing Kazakh government's allegations voiced by dubious American government subsidiaries, like RFLRL, Eurasia.org, and even some secret services cited in the footnotes.Isn't "Counter-Terrorism in Kazakhstan" page a more appropriate avenue for such sections?
Sections start with citing names of terrorist organizations, but do not give data about their relevance for and activities in Kazakhstan.
Sections cite Kazakh government arresting people on distributing leaflets, if we start accepting distributing leaflets as proof of terrorism, what is going to happen when Kazakh government arrests KIMEP students distributing leaflets of graduation party. International Human Rights Organizations have produced thousands of pages of documented cases where security officers in Central Asia rutinely implant narcotics, weapons, illegal publications etc. in opposition members' houses to convinct them on terrorism charges.
There is no data about the bomb found in the airport; who put it? why? Nobody could deny that it is a criminal act, a serious criminal act, but is it a proof of terrorism? Are we going to collapse the term terrorism into any and every criminal act?
The article relies heavily on government statements to make a non-existent "threat" look like real. Those statements, are indeed useful and could be wonderful citations, but in a completely different subject, like how goverment manipulates "threat" of terrorism to curtail human rights and maintain an authoritarian government in power.
cs 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalizing this page again, as you have now been warned by multiple users. You are wasting other editors time. This is not the place to be pushing an agenda. KazakhPol 03:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputing an article on valid grounds is not vandalism, it is a legitimate procedure, -see Wiki Help pages- and needs a legitimate solution, not reverting. If I had a political agenda as you do, I would call the content of the article as "ridiculous". I don't, so I call it putting a description of "cat" under the title "dog". That is a brilliantly cheap political agenda. You have been warned many more times, even suspended, you go in extremes to delete your talk page, but history of that page convinced me that I was not wrong in suspecting the integrity of this article. Please refrain from reverting a valid template, try to engage in constructive editing. cs 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My agenda? Hahaha. If you go through the history of this page, and the other page you admire, Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, you will see I alone have written these pages. Are you suggesting I am pursuing a pro-government agenda by adding allegations of state terrorism from Kazakh academics and the head of the SCO? I suggest you read through WP:BLP as pretty much all of the content you have added to Wikipedia regarding Islam Karimov has blatantly violated it. Until you actually contest the factual accuracy of the article, you cannot simply post it because you resent the subject. KazakhPol 07:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you wrote counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan. No news, I never said you pursue the political agenda of Kazakh government, you pursue a political agenda when you go in extremes to manipulate footnotes, section titles, article titles to "invent" terrorism in Kazakhstan, where it simply does not exist.You are not in a position to judge my valid questions as "ridiculous" and simply remove a valid template. Simply, you are a party to the dispute. This is not going anyway, I will stop this obviously fruitless war of thugs the moment you permit other users edit the page. Something better than your obviousyly deep and extensive knowledge of Terorism in Kazakhstan may come out of it. This is not your personal property, please don't treat it as one.cs 07:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of civility aside, you are still one of the most amusing vandals I have come across. Your metaphor, "war of thugs," would imply that there are multiple thugs involved... so you are essentially calling yourself a thug. You might have noticed that otehr users have reverted your vandalism on Islam Karimov. I suggest you take a hint. KazakhPol 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

By-the-way, whats my political agenda? I am still confused on that. You said it was political? KazakhPol 07:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know when I am pushed into counter productive process. Name calling, etc wont help you on Wiki in the long run. Third editor is not enough, there are more than three people around here who are interested in Central Asia, so it is good if the dispute stays around for a while, to see what others think. "3rd editor did not like the idea that there is terrorism in Kazakhtan," these kinds of judgements, reductionism, trivializing etc. are uncalled for, we are not in primary school any more are we? Your political agenda is obvious, self-harming and highly dangerous: it is pushing, invoking, inventing a worldwide histeria, phobia of terror to further political adventures of neo-conservatives like George Bush.cs 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Third editor? What are you talking about? I said third reversion, meaning I reverted the version of the page to an earlier one prior to your edit. I am noting the reversion so other editors will know I am not violating WP:3RR. Continuing incivility shall be ignored only as long as the personal attacks and conspiracy theories are amusing... arguably your comments have so far met these requirements so I wont go to WP:AN with my complaints. Stay funny and you can stay offensive. KazakhPol 08:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This page, your talk page's history and my talk page tells a lot about your as well as my propensity for "incivility," 'conspiracy theories," "personal attacks," and "frequency of disputed contributions" for third parties to consider. You deleted my Karimov edit, I thought that is reasonable, there should be another page to document Karimov's human rights record, and left it there. That too tells about who has a tendency to engage in an unproductive edit war. The problem in this page, I repeat, you do not let other editors to engage in a potentially productive edit process. I would very much like to see what other users interested on Central Asia, think about Terrorism in Kazakhstan page, so disputed claim may serve your interests if dispute resolution favors you. What is wrong about all this you keep reverting back?cs 08:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My edits reverted without discussion

KazakhPol, you reverted my edits with comment "rv ridiculous edits. All of this is referenced. Go wikistalk someone else.".

I did not remove anything you added, except the small section on "terrorist literature" names of 3 leaflets. I added more things in, and referenced them to the same references you used to write the articel. Please stop claiming false references that don't say what you claim. Please specify what additions of mine you have a problem with. Aaliyah Stevens 10:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits reverted without discussion

I see KazakPol reverted Aaliyah Stevens' edits again without providing an explanation as to why? Stevens' found citations in the article which do not make the claim Kazakhpol uses them to support his ideas. I proof checked the references, yes, they are definitely used by KazakhPol to manipulate reader. I do not see any reason to engage in another round of revert war at this moment as long as TOTALLY DISPUTED tag stays where it belongs to. cs 08:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've warned you about sockpuppets. KazakhPol 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:cs please add four tildas at the end of your posts, it doesn't seem to show up, and prove that we are not the same person as KazakhPol may think we are Aaliyah Stevens 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do click four tildas as all my posts show a cs and date, I have no idea why it does not appear as a link or valid user sign. I am rather in a learning process here, so problems will appear now and then. I take full responsibility for my comments, I have no association of any kind with User:Aaliyah Stevens. I can reveal my email and true identity if anybody is interested. When I made my first entries around Fall, I even signed articles with my own real name, not knowing what a talk page means and why there is a "sign your name" warning at the bottom of edit template. I am here on good faith, so there is nothing to conceal.User:cs cs 11:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your latest edits [[3]] do not show any sign that you want to address a single point in this dispute section. Also, you continue to give deceptive edit summaries and prevent other users to edit the page! The article, in my humble opinion, squarely violates a non-negotiable Wiki policy WP:NPOV. cs 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No one really cares about your opinion anymore. We stopped caring when you started calling people "thugs." We did not care when you added erroneous fact templates, because it was clearly vandalism. No one cared when you tried to start an RfC on policies you misinterpreted.. Or wait, my mistake, Aaliyah thought it would be a good chance to complain, but no one else cared. KazakhPol 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You do care you know that. cs 07

58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

steps towards dispute resolution

I suggest three options

• Start from scratch and rewrite majority of the sentences and change the title
• Propose the article for speedy deletion
• Redirect the page to Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan article and move some of the sections.

My initial inclination is towards the second and third options. discuss!cs 11:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those are going to happen. None of your proposals have anything to do with dispute resolution. You do not propose speedy deletion on the talkpage, and even if you did, speedy deletion is only used for nonsense pages. You need to read up on WP:AFD. KazakhPol 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing it at the moment. I am suggesting deletion as one of the three solutions. The article is POV from start to end. Speedy deletion can be justified on the ground that the article is a propaganda piece rather than an encyclopedic entry. Anyway you can redirect it to counter-terrorism page and migrate all the content there. I am also thinking to rewrite the whole article from scratch when I have time :)cs 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, speedy deletion cannot be justified on the ground that the article is a propoganda piece - this is what I am trying to tell you. It's not that hard to understand. I highly encourage you to make non-vandal edits to this page. KazakhPol 20:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Another way could be you publishing it at a journal in Kazakhstan. There are many think thanks in Kazakhstan which would love to publish anything on Terrorism and Kazakhstan. I am sure Karin and Satpaev would be interested, and maybe Kontinent too. Whatever it is, it is not an encylopedic entry. cs 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this page

It seems there are some serious problems with dispute as to content on this page. I don't see much hope of resolution informally, so I suggest the folks here involved in this dispute go to either Mediation or Arbitration. You can find information about doing so at: WP:DR. FrozenPurpleCube 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we fix this page

It seems like this page should be moved to Terrorists in Kazakhstan or Allegations of terrorists in Kazakhstan. It seems to be about terrorist who live there, as opposed to doing terrorist acts there. Then, each section should have an opposing viewpoint added. Something like "The such and such organization rejects that it is a terrorist organization. And these governments and organizations don't recognize them as a terrorist organization: government X, organization Y." For NPOV, we need to show two (at least) sides. Either all that, or just redirect to Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, - Peregrine Fisher 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed the attempt at deleting this page failed miserably. Please keep that in mind before you decide to redirect this to Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan. Also keep in mind the explanation on naming conventions presented in Category:Designated terrorist organizations and the numerous other pages that conform to this convention in Category:Terrorism by country. It is important to note that while this page title may not be the best, it was split from Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan per an earlier agreement between three users as that page was getting lengthy. I am open to suggestions on how to improve this article, but I have yet to see any problem presented that has not already been rectified. KazakhPol 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kazakhpol, please try to keep in mind that the very word "terrorism..." carries a heavy baggage which ipso facto makes it a controversial subject. Having hundreds of "Terrorism in this, terrorism in that country" written by a small group of people on Wikipedia is not a convincing argument to resist changes. Having a couple of votes in passe to keep the article, similarly does not help much. One who voted keep, apparently, does not know that Uzbekistan is a different country! All efforts, including yours, I believe, originate from a conviction to make it a better article. So, there should be room to negotiate radical changes including alternative terms to be substituted to "terrorism" or migrating the entire article to some other NPOV pages, like the ones on international relations of Kazakhstan.cs 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted

Per AfD, and seemingly insurmountable problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I hthink I was mistaken. However, this page DOES need moved to an NPOV title, given its content. "Alleged terrorism in Kazakhstan"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

At least five or six editors suggested drastic changes to this article. Please do not make unilateral moves before discussing here first. It wont work anyway!cs 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This artice still has the same probelms as Terrorism in Kazakhstan in terms of content. Also the title seems a little strange. I suggest a title of "Kazakhstan and Terrorism" for discussing purely specific things related to terrorism, cooperation with the US, and "counter-terrorism", plus another article titled Islamic Groups in Kazakhstan. Please note if you look at the reference from the kazakh government here [4]; hizb ut-tahrir was not banned for terrorism, but for being "extremist"..."aimed at changing the constitutional order, violating the country’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity". The statement clearly makes a distinction between groups banned as terrorists under old laws, and Ht banned as extremist under new laws introduced. Aaliyah Stevens 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agreee, terrorism as a title or reference should be eliminated and be replaced with religious extremism, radicalism or violence. I dont care what Kazakh government or American government designates as terrorist, or friendly terrorist, or whatever for that matter. Since when Wiki is a governmental subsidiary? "Terrorism" simply is not neutral term.cs 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Cuerden, users voted 66% in favor of keeping the article as is. Your proposed page move violates WP:WTA, the explanation on Category:Designated terrorist organizations, and the longstanding precedent of article titles in Category:Terrorism by country. 2. Cs, the original page title was “Terrorism in Kazakhstan.” You then moved it without consensus to “Alleged terrorism in Kazakhstan” and then to “Potential for Conflict in Kazakhstan.” Six editors have not expressed a desire to make drastic changes to this article, don’t try to manufacture consensus. 3. Aaliyah Stevens, your proposed merger of Terrorism in Kazakhstan with Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan has already been rejected by the community in the AFD. Your suggested creation of an article on “Islamic groups in Kazakhstan” is gratuitous as there is already an article on Islam in Kazakhstan. Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned for terrorism. Saying otherwise is a lie. HuT is on the government’s designated terror org list as shown by the references in this article.

I am not amused by your attempt at getting around the AFD and deleting this article. I have requested page protection. If you continue I will contact the users who participated in the AFD and I will contact the members of the Counter-terror WikiProject. KazakhPol 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to do whatever you want contact whomever you want. There was no consensus either to keep or delete the article, that is my interpretation. But there are people who say that this article should be substantially revised. That is what I, for one, am going to do. Enjoy and "amuse" yourself in the process!cs 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, you are making claims that you can not uphold. I never moved the page to "Alleged terrorism in Kazakhstan," check the page history! I gave a reason here when I moved the page. check again! Second I never tried to get around AfD. Check the page history and username Adam Cuerden.cs 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on the first move, that was, indeed, by Adam Cuerden. KazakhPol 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir not designated as terrorist by Kazakh Government

KazakhPol, please don't be uncivil, and say that my claim is a lie. The very reference you use, here: http://www.kazakhembus.com/031705.html the official kazakh embassy in the US, says and I quote:

Rashid Tusupbekov, Kazakhstan’s Prosecutor General has filed a request with the city court of Astana asking it to recognize Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a religious political party whose goal is to recreate an Islamic caliphate in all the lands of Islam, as an extremist organization and ban its activity in the country. This is the first request under a new law on fighting extremism......The Supreme Court of Kazakhstan earlier satisfied another request from the Prosecutor General, and recognized 11 international organizations as terrorists....[5],

Nice try.

"The office of Kazakhstan's prosecutor-general has released an updated list of 12 organizations that it says are banned on the basis of terrorist activities. The list, which was approved by the Supreme Court, includes a number of Central Asian-based separatist, or religious movements. Among them are the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan; Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami; the Jamaat of Central Asian Mujahedins; and the Islamic Party of Eastern Turkestan, an Uyghur separatist group."[6] KazakhPol 00:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The source you have provided is dated March 17, 2005. The source I have provided is October 12, 2006. So one could suppose that at some point HuT's designation was changed from extremist to terrorist. If you had not already raised this issue over a month ago when I pointed to this reference, I would have assumed you simply had not seen the reference, but you have. KazakhPol 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to imply? be civil, it's an easy oversight. The only explanation can be either that the Kazakh embassy takes priority because it is the official source and the RFERL got the facts wrong, OR the designation changed, which also must be mentioned. Aaliyah Stevens 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this version of subtitles is a lot more NPOV and should be used as a template for other similar pages. What is the point of insisting on the term "terrorism" if "illegal" or banned serves the same function? So two editors say this form of subtitle is better, that overrides Kazakhpol's single vote. We will discuss other matters seperately. cs 11:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Hamas, Al Qaeda and IMU to Kazakhstan

• Your discussion and citations miserably fail to establish any relevance to Kazakhstan. So I removed them. cs 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also there is no such thing as terrorist leaflets.
• The airport bomb section also lacks a through discussion of relevance. Your reference cites BBC which has no report on a "possible bomb" on the given date.
• The article needs to move beyond "X said this," "Y said that." They are statements, press conferences and nothing more. I dont understand why the article is filled with them? Should we change the title to "Statements and press releases on Terrorism in Kazakhstan?" cs 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And you wonder why I call your edits vandalism... KazakhPol 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You also believe that I run an underground empire of sockpuppets. All watching you! cs 20:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not watching me, just vandalizing my userpage and any page I happen to edit. For the sake of other users I will explain my opposition to your last 'edit'. The al Qaeda section is relevant because:

• Al Qaeda: A journalist asks Donald Rumsfeld and Mukhtar Altynbayev in a press conference: "I ask about this because the Pakistan government has said that in the raid they conducted and the people they arrested yesterday in the tribal areas they believe they have arrested people both from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. So is Al Qaeda here in Central Asia in some fashion?" They then spend the rest of the news conference discussing Al Qaeda in Kazakhstan and Pakistan.[7]
• Hamas: Members of a widely designated terrorist organization are invited to visit Kazakhstan.[8]
• The IMU is the largest terrorist organization operating in Central Asia. From the source provided: "Tashkent police found a mobile phone used by the terrorists at the site of one of the bombings. The police later found that the terrorists had called associates in Kazakhstan. Police from both nations agreed to work together in investigating the bombing.[9][10] According to Tanya Costello, an analyst for Eurasia Group, the IMU has been nearly destroyed by the counter-terrorism efforts of the U.S., Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.[11]" KazakhPol 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem you putting them on Hamas, Al Qaeda and IMU pages. What makes them relevant to Terrorism in Kazakhstan is still beyond my humble understanding. You are discussing a proposed visit, which probably never realized, an unconfirmed report about one militant being of Kazakh nationality etc. That Rumsfeld answered questions on Al Qaeda, Yeah that makes Kazakhstan an operational ground for Al Qaeda! Put them on Pakistani page, Uzbekistan page where they are a lot more relevant.cs 21:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to materialize. The discussion is notable enough to merit inclusion. This disagreement is the central point in the AFD. 66% of those who weighed in said it was notable enough that it was discussed to have this article. KazakhPol 02:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the article for RfC. Three new editors made suggestions above as a result of AfD, you insist on ignoring everyone. That is enough! I am going to take it to all available dispute resolution mechanisms. cs 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, so when you have exhausted the improper mechanisms, a WP:POINT nomination of this article for AfD and routinely posting erroneous templates, you try whats left? Well, this should certainly be useful. KazakhPol 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to improve that section. There are murders and beatings and turture in that section. Naturally it should precede other trivial details on false arrests etc. If you do live in Kazakhstan, probably you understand what I mean.cs 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed page move

The current article title is unacceptable, for the obvious fact that 'Terrorism' should not be capitalized if it's the second word, among other reasons.

Titles so far proposed for this page name:

• Terrorism in Kazakhstan
• Alleged terrorism in Kazakhstan
• Potential for Conflict in Kazakhstan

The article title as it currently stands ignores the well-established precedent of Terrorism in Country article naming. Of the 43 subcategories in Category:Terrorism by country, only Category:Armenian terrorism and this article deviate from the "Terrorism in X country" naming style. "Alleged terrorism in Kazakhstan" is incorrect because 1. None of the content presented in the article is disputable as no actual terrorist attacks are mentioned, and 2. articles are not supposed to use "allege" in their titles. The "Potential for Conflict in Kazakhstan" simply makes no sense. This article specifically addresses the activities of designated terrorist organizations in Kazakhstan. KazakhPol 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose to Terrorism in Kazakhstan title. Simply because the article fails to address the title issue. Secondly, terrorism is a term to be avoided. I suggest redirecting this this page to Counter-terrorism page as the best solution. Other alternatives
• Illegal Organizations in Kazakhstan
• Conflict in Kazakhstan-still the existence of conflict?
• Radicalism in Kazakhstan
• State repression in Kazakhstan
• Human rights violations in Kazakhstan
• Terrorphobia in Kazakhstan
• Foreign policy of Kazakhstan
• Authoritarianism in Kazakhstan

I cant tell, are you joking? KazakhPol 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky. "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" should be an article, but I don't think this article is ever going to be it. This article is about "Potential for T..." or "Alegations of T...". It basically lists a bunch of groups that are considered by some to be terrorist, I guess, but there isn't enough in the references to list them under "Terrorism in Kazakhstan." I originally voted keep in the AfD because the title sounded so encyclopedic, and it had so many refs. Upon closer examination, the refs were being misused (POV), at least with the original title, and now I kinda wish this article would go away. I guess I would say redirect to the counter-terrorism article. If someone besides the two editors who are in conflict wants to revive it, hopefully they'll start from scratch. Basically, the edit conflict doesn't look like it will ever get resolved, so do wikipedia a favor and stay away from this article. The only right and wrong left is that this isn't helping the project. - Peregrine Fisher 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How exactly have the references been misused... ? KazakhPol 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support Terrorism in Kazakhstan as the other names are, while possibly appropriate for sections in the article itself, either not neutral enough for a broad coverage of the subject, or in some cases about another subject entirely, that while possibly related to terrorism, also concerns other things. It's consistent with the practice of the other pages in the category, and any assumption or inference from the title is, I think, a bit reaching. FrozenPurpleCube 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support either Terrorism in Kazakhstan or Counterterrorism in Kazakhstan. A title should reflect what people will be looking for and the introduction can then provide more details about what is actually in an article. In regards to the other proposed titles:

1. Alleged terrorism in Kazakhstan. What exactly is "alleged terrorism"? "Allegations of ..." might be better, but it seems clumsy.
2. Potential for Conflict in Kazakhstan. Too broad.
3. Illegal Organizations in Kazakhstan. Different topic.
4. Conflict in Kazakhstan. What kind of conflict? Is the existence of any violent conflict actually claimed?
5. Radicalism in Kazakhstan. "Radicalism" is POV unless the application of the term is attributed.
6. State repression in Kazakhstan. Different topic.
7. Human rights violations in Kazakhstan. Different topic.
8. Terrorphobia in Kazakhstan. Different topic (goes into mass attitudes).
9. Foreign policy of Kazakhstan. Different topic, although the articles should link to each other.
10. Authoritarianism in Kazakhstan. Different topic. -- Black Falcon 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan is already an article. I think this one was split off from it. - Peregrine Fisher 06:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the article is on illegal organizations in Kazakhstan. It has nothing to do with terrorism in Kazakhstan. That makes terrorism in Kazakhstan as irrelevant as foreign policy of Kazakhstan. The article says nothing, absolutely nothing about terrorism in Kazakhstan. Why should I think that it is any more relevant than other suggested titles. cs 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that this and Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan would be best as a merged article called Terrorism and counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, but if they can't be merged, then I don't see that any of the suggested article title changes are better than Terrorism in Kazakhstan. If there's going to be a change, we should strive for a change that is an improvement, and I have yet to see a new suggested title that I consider to be better. All these POV disputes seem kind of pointless to me, because whether an organization is terrorist or not is not a decision that editors at Wikipedia should be making; we can only cite labels of "terrorist" than have been applied by governments, the media, human rights organizations or other parties who meet WP:N. This is true of all articles about terrorism, not just this one. If WP:N sources dispute the accuracy of such labels, we can cite those disputes. But we can't, according to Wikipedia rules, go around making such judgements ourselves. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mermaid from the Baltic Sea (although, did you mean WP:RS instead of WP:N?). It does seem that much of this article is better suited for Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan (that that article focuses on external efforts and this is geared more towards internal issues). I would support a merge if it can be properly performed. I have no problem with the title "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" in general, but it does seem that the content, as currently written, is more about counter-terrorism activities by the government. I do not see how POV issues are relevant here, but rather view this as an editorial matter regarding the optimal organisation of content. -- Black Falcon 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone noted above, the article on Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan (and also the article on Kazakhstan-United States relations) was split off from this because this was getting too long. The problem with merging the two pages is that the new article will be incredibly long. I am not strongly against the proposed merge into Terrorism and counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, but I would prefer the merger be done by some of the less... hysterical editors. KazakhPol 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any problem removing substantial parts from this article to make the merger feasible. Certainly, it should be done by someone with at least a pretention of WP:NPOV and non-hysterical history.cs 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cs, do you really think that's news to anyone? You listed this page for AFD. It failed. Accept that. KazakhPol 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see much to accept until all the questions I and other editors raised above get addressed. *You misuse references, claim false references to assert things that your own references do not claim. That is a major issue. You give irrelevant details under section titles..You fill the article with irrelevant trivial statements, details and you refuse to acknowledge them. You need to accept that this article will be better half the size under the title counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan. That was my opening sentence two months ago. You go check your MIPT Terror Knowledge Base reference, it leads nowhere. Why should I accept the =bomb found in the airport= section if there is no "possible bomb" report by BBC. That is plain and simple. You are violating WP:Accuracy by false reports.cs 20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it almost has to be Alleged Terrorism or Potential for conflict. NPOV demands it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist and Terrorism are legal terms. NPOV has nothing to do with it. KazakhPol 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda section

Reading this article is like swimming through mollasses, so I guess I'll talk about the Al-Qaeda section, since it's short. 1) Some reporters asked Rumsfeld if there are terrorists in K; I guess the answer was no, becuase it doesn't say. 2) It then goes on to say a suspected terrorist was arrested in Pakistan, and his ethnicity is K. 3) It concludes with the defense minister saying that Al-Qaeda is not in K.

1) Saying Rumsfeld was asked doesn't point to any terrorism. 2) A terrorist in another country doesn't point to terrorism in the country where he was born, if he even was born in K. 3) Someone saying that Al-Qaeda is not in the country definitely doesn't support the theory that there is T in K. It's like everything else in this backwards article. If the name of this page was "T in K," with a section "Al-Qaeda," that section should present evidence that AQ is in K. "Lack of AQ in K" would be a more appropriate section header for the current text.

The way the references are being misused is that the original article name, and the section headers make it seem like you're about to read about terrorism, then the text and references don't back it up. I guess you could say the references (at least in the section I just mentioned) are OK, and the original article title and section headers are being misused. Whatever. - Peregrine Fisher 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pakistani government still maintains that the man is a Kazakh citizen and that he is a terrorist. Should the article on Terrorism in Saudi Arabia not mention the 9/11 hijackers who were Saudis simply because 9/11 took place in the U.S.? KazakhPol 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The notability of 15 hijackers from saudi arabia taking out the WTC is on a different scale, I think. What about the other two sentences? You take them out, and the heading "Al-Qaeda" will consist of Pakistan saying a terrorist they caught is a K citizen. Maybe this is pointing to how to fix this article. That single sentence would be appropriate in an article entitled "T in K," although it wouldn't warrant making an AQ section. Now, if you get rid of the stuff that doesn't support the title "T in K," and add appropriate headers that don't go beyond what the text supports, you might have a good article. I guess what I'm saying is that the article's title, and its headers, tell a story, and the text should suppport that story. It's kind of like:

"Terrorism in Kazakhstan" Boom, "Al-Qaeda" Bam, the pakistanis caught some guy fizzle.

If you had some other known terrorists who were definitely terrorists, or least definitlely called terrorists by someone notable, and they were all K citizens, that could be a section, maybe. You could also make a good AQ section if it was about how they don't operate in K, then mention that one of their members is a citizen as the opposing viewpoint. - Peregrine Fisher 03:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)