:In some places, [https://archive.today/HtRiq yes]. Please add sources... [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk:Boud|talk]]) 23:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
:In some places, [https://archive.today/HtRiq yes]. Please add sources... [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk:Boud|talk]]) 23:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
: They seem to be pretty much over. The Internet has been restored in Almaty and no news of continued widescale protests or looting. <ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59927267</ref>
: They seem to be pretty much over. The Internet has been restored in Almaty and no news of continued widescale protests or looting. <ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59927267</ref> [[User:Dvtch|Dvtch]] ([[User talk:Dvtch|talk]]) 05:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
In a president's address today, Tokayev said that he is now going to be the Chairman of Security Council of Kazakhstan. The relevant articles should be updated once trusted sources publish this info. There are also other comments that he has made, but this may be the most important and objective one.
TXephy (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In another presidential address on January 7th, 14:30 (GMT+6) on the Khabar 24 TV Channel Tokayev has ordered the law enforcement and the military to use deadly force without warning. This should be mentioned in the article. Here's the source.192.5.98.28 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Unrest' is vague, and 'riots' is difficult to justify from the sources - whether protestors or police/security forces are responsible for starting violence is usually highly contested in terms of the sources - official sources and media say that protestors started first and authorities responded; protestors say that the violence was provoked by the authorities. Also, 'riots' tends to suggest that there's no political aim to protest.It's much too early to call this a "revolution" - and this doesn't seem to be a mainstream media term (yet?), although it looks like it might turn into either that or a massacre. Boud (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Kazakh" is a poor designation, since this can easily be thought to refer to ethnicity, whereas what is happening is a national (Kazakhstan / Kazakhstani) situation with no reported ethnic component. Kdammers (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:Kazakh says A person from Kazakhstan or of Kazakh descent - both meanings appear to be common
wikt:Kazakhstani says Of or pertaining to Kazakhstan, its people and culture - both meanings appear to be common, plus the meaning of the associated culture
I think Kazakh is the more common term (e.g. repeatedly in this report from the BBC). Most adjectival forms of country names could be viewed as referring to ethnicity, so I don't really think this argument stands up to scrutiny. Cheers, Number5717:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of internal military forces, armed protesters, foreign military intervention, heavy casualties on both sides. I think it is more Kazakh conflict\ crisis\ insurgency rather than just a protest movement. Nuriel Katsuhiro (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - there are several words in between 'protests' and 'revolution' that have a fair chance at consensus in this situation. A quick run through a few mainstream media gives:
If we try for a structured name change, then the situation will probably need a new name anyway by the end of seven days, unless it's WP:SNOW. And if it's SNOW, then an informal consensus on title change should work anyway. So far I found three sources with revolt; and it does seem to be a fair description for events that including burning down government buildings and raiding police armories. Is someone willing to predict the likely consensus? Boud (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came acrossthis link, which talks about demonstrations in the west of Kazakhstan, but already on January 1. shouldn't that be seen as the beginning of the protests? --Agentakt (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
adding the socialist movement of kazakhstan to the list of protesters
the party has released a set of demands[1], I figure they have just as much a claim to be added as any of the other groups added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RipRosaLuxa (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a communist movement. That's why it's not mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.150.4 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC) that cant possibly be reason enough, seems arbitrary and politically motivated[reply]
adding the socialist movement of kazakhstan to the list of protesters in the information box
the party has released a set of demands[1], I figure they have just as much a claim to be added as any of the other groups previously added to the list. RipRosaLuxa (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that in the past hours parts of the article mentioning the opposition movement were slowly deleted. If someone can explain me why ? 92.184.104.203 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the political parties that were listed under "protestors" in the infobox, it's because of a lack of reliable sources confirming their involvement in the protests. Given that this is a rapidly developing and heavily politicised event, it's best not to associate organizations with the protestors without any proof. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
2022 Kazakh protests → 2022 Kazakh uprising – The sources refer to not only protests, but to the resulting mass resignation of the Cabinet, the removal from positions of power of the behind-the-scenes former leader Nazarbayev, and the destruction and occupation of government buildings and international security forces' responses. Uprising is used by several major mainstream media sources: Reuters 6 Jan; CNN 6 Jan and the connotation is a bit more neutral than revolt. Boud (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any move for the time being. In a week, I could support a move proposal based on a careful analysis of reliable sources and a substantiated conclusion of what is the WP:COMMONNAME.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per what Ymblanter said. While what Boud said is true, the term Uprising seems to have only started January 6, and the article documents events from January 2. My !vote will switch to a Support once it is absolutely clear that the media is now calling it an Uprising. If it was up to me, I would suggest a WP:SNOW closure (Based on 'Too Soon') until we have more evidence across more time. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The term "Uprising" is also used by the New York Times. [1] Also, the protesters have clashed with and have killed police officers (beheading two) which isn't something I would relate to a protest. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now due to concern about the NPOV in term "Uprising". It seems more like "unrest" for me in order to make the article so neutral, so why not moved the article provisionally to 2022 Kazakh unrest or at least create the redirect of it (2022 Kazakh unrest) and 2022 Kazakh uprising to the current name (They are still redlinked) until the evidence is more common. (EDIT CONFLICT) To date, some sources like BBC, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian refer the situation as "unrest" rather than "uprising". 36.77.64.79 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that unrest is rather euphemistic journalist jargon for "we're not really sure what it should be called" or "we don't want to offend the current government there until/unless it's actually overthrown". Better that we stick to words with clear meanings. Boud (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaint about "journalist jargon" is inconsistent with the fact that your main supporting rationale for renaming this article, contravening all Wikipedia precedents that I know of, are two journalistic articles. 65.96.167.108 (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We primarily use the information in mainstream news media, and avoid jargon (such as "vows" instead of "promises", to make a short headline) when those sources use jargon. But for titles, when the media use terms that have well defined meanings, that does generally help in deciding on a title. Precedent: ongoing events articles generally have their core information based on mainstream online news media. Boud (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd suggest 2022 Kazak riots instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.26 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2022
Strong Support Many news providers now listing it as an uprising - CNN, NY Times, Reuters, etc. Police officers are not beheaded and peacekeeping forces from foreign countries are generally not deployed during protests either. The situation seems to have escalated extraordinarily fast. Knightoften (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I do not see any sort of consensus among reliable sources as to what this should be called. Multiple sources seem to alternate between protests, uprising, and unrest. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?05:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppose for now" changed to: "Strong Support": in my sense, the term "Uprising" is suitable for the current event, since it looked more like it as described. but take note about the actual "cause" of the event, on what caused it, and what they demand in the first place. Plus the media inconsistency of the event naming proves to be quite diffrent from each other. i.e NY times called it a "Protest", but they also called it an Uprising at some point, while Reuters called it an "Uprising" and "Unrest" as for Al jazeera. so for now i think it is better to see the situation furthermore untill there are consistency on the name as per mentioned by the media. Now:It seems "Uprising" is a better term for it now as it was already termed by many reliable media sources.東霄長熊 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I know of no precedent in comparable articles in which a civil conflict is renamed "uprising" after some arbitrary metric of violence or scale is reached. For reference, the longer, larger and (as of now) more violent 2020-2021 Belarusian protests continue to use the term "protests". (It seems "civil war" is the more frequent candidate for clear civil conflicts with opposing armed groups, but we haven't reached that yet). That several news sources (that generally source their foreign reporting from Reuters) have used the term "uprising" doesn't supersede Wikipedia's naming conventions; there's a reason we have WP:MOS. 65.96.167.108 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. It's still too early to call and the situation is rapidly developing. I certainly think there is some reason for supporting a change in article title, given the escalation into armed conflict, but reliable sources are still by-and-large referring to it as "protests". Let's wait for further developments then reopen discussion on a move. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that the president has given a shoot to kill order, and the fact of mass casualties on both sides, its safe to say now that this is far more than just a protest ~ Twiznii (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For now. While some aspects of this could be described as an uprising, it is not clear that any media sources are referring to it as such. I would wait until things either 1) escalate further, in which case the change would be warranted or 2) die down, in which case keeping it as "protests" would suffice. Ultimograph5 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Looks like it took a typical civil conflict path from protest to foreign military intervention on high speed. *Comment : I support everything but protests. Nuriel Katsuhiro (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAt this moment it is unclear how big the protests will remain. Also there is little information about by whom such a proposed uprising is managed or simply wanted. Protest is clearly not the best term for the whole situation. A president ordering to kill is a much bigger event. I believe in the next 2 or 3 days it will be clearer where to go — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klopfer86 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Peaceful protest because of gas prices in one town became political demonstrations in few regions and cities that caused unrests and emergency state in whole country. Many deaths, building burnings and anarchy on streets can not be called "uprising". First, it looks more like try of a coup d'etat or try of a civil war. Second, most of sources (especially on English) are not reliable for commenting this situation in Kazakhstan because of its political background. Third, if page needs to be renamed, than better rename it to 2022 Kazakhstani unrests or even link it as mass terrorist attacks. Situation in Kazakhstan is not collective will, but will of a minority. Most of citizens are afraid of things done in last few days. Вазовик110 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mass amounts of Arson and "Terrorists" as well as the videos and pictures that are happening make it look that it is an uprising. Foreign soldiers entering the country is clear signs that it is an uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclonicpot (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uprising sounds promotional, romanticizing the current events. On the other hand, what's happening is beyond just protest, now with the violent government crackdown. Support "Unrest".
Oppose I don't think that "uprising" has become the common name, and I agree that it romanticises the events. If we really need to change the article's name in order to reflect the clashes, then "unrest" would be my first choice over anything else (see BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times etc.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – As someone stated above, "unrest" could be appropriate given the level of involvement of armed forces, but "uprising" would be jumping the gun in my opinion. DaßWölf23:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — There has yet to be a mass organised rebellion, nor a serious attempt at overthrowing the government by force. "Unrest" is more appropriate given that it seems to be mostly angry citizens demonstrating in the cities. CentreLeftRight✉03:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "uprising" as of right now. That's from just looking around at sources as of today, "uprising" was the word I saw most often. Second choice is "unrest", which I did see quite a bit. Request to closer: if the sources have moved to a stronger word such as "revolt" by the time this is closed, please disregard my !vote. I do see one strong "revolt" source already[2], but one is not enough. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "unrest" for now. I've searched for sources on Google News and DuckDuckGo news. I'm seeing it referred to as "unrest(2)(3)(4)", "chaos", "violent protests/upheaval", a "crisis" (2), with many sources alleging Tokayev is taking power from Nazarbayev in a "Cold-War-style power-grab" or "power struggle" or "battle for power", even one article using the term "revolution" but I've yet to find anything using the term "uprising." At this point, it's very clear that the term "protest" isn't sufficient considering just how much this event has escalated and how sources are beginning to use other terms to describe it. I'll need to see some more articles with the term "uprising" before I strike this !vote, though. Vanilla Wizard 💙20:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request to add a new "belligerent": Kazakhstan Liberation Front
Hi,
A statement was made and retransmitted by Kyle Glen's twitter account where we see a kind of claim to new armed group fighting the loyalist forces. Perhaps it would be relevant to add it to the side of the protesters.
"Big development in Kazakhstan. A group calling themselves the "Kazakhstan Liberation Front" have released a video promising to fight against the CSTO deployment as well as the security forces of Kazakhstan."
Although exceptions allowing the use of Twitter exist in some rare cases, Kyle Glen is not currently a WP-notable person, no WP:RS taking the tweet seriously is known, and there's no evidence that the video is genuine rather than being made by Russian secret services in a rush job (without having found a volunteer with a Kazakh accent)... There's no chance of consensus allowing a twitter exception for this case. Boud (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, which is why I proposed adding it as an unverified/unconfirmed claim since there's a chance that the video is staged. I won't oppose leaving it out of the article for now though. Karl Krafft (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the video is the only thing we know about the group. I can also record a video, post a link on Twitter, and, if I do it repeatedly, one of the news outlets may even notice it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as very controversial. As noted above the source is very poor. I don't think that encyclopedias should spread misinformation like that easily. It should be scrutinized by independent media before it can be mentioned. I would do this as later as possible. AXONOV(talk)⚑22:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is not a reliable source as per (WP:RS/P) even if any interesting information are in it. see; (WP:RSPTWITTER) it's the same as (WP:RSPFB) though exception if the information was mentioned by many trustworthy news site that were Generally reliable. anyhow, for now it's not proven yet whether this claimed to be "belligerent" are an actual or not. and Unverified claim can be placed if atleast the group did something. their existance isnt notable enough to be unverified if they did not have any impact to the situation atleast to a micro-extent. 東霄長熊 (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSTO Numbers do not add up
Just wanted to note that the lump sum CSTO number given is smaller than the number given for Russia alone; it seems sources are in conflict over the exact number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlippitySlop (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not by the UN and not by the vast majority of the states (possibly by noone), but they have a de-facto control over the country, so I would not be opposed to listing their opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unconstructive POV-pushing. Wikipedia is not a place to air grievances.
You do not neeed the UN or any other gloablist organisation to decide, what is a "legitimate government". The Taliban won in a landslide the civilwar because they are suppported by the vast majority of afghans. So they are legitimate.
Countries /CSTO as Parties to the civil conflict
I think mentioning separate countries as party to the civil conflict is undue. CSTO is involved as organisation, and it’s wiki linked hence the reader will know what countries are members of it, but listing them in infobox separately is undue I think. The other question is whether peacekeeping forces are “party” to the conflict. In my understanding it’s Kazakh protesters vs Kazakh government, I think listing CSTO as party to the conflict is also undue. What do others think, shall we RfC this? --Armatura (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As no reply here and the infobox is all over the place without talk page discussion, I opened an RfC. This important bit cannot be based on inferences and synthesis or advocacy, we need hard facts to put a peacekeeping mission as a part to civil conflict, and I don’t see how they are part of it, unless they clash with either the protesters or with government forces. --Armatura (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peacekeeping has a real-world meaning, it is not just jargon
Comment: For people who have pasted in the word peacekeeping without quotes, please read peacekeeping (and improve the article if you can do so, based on sources). There are no sources (so far) that support the CSTO intervention as being peacekeeping in a similar sense to the the United Nations Chapter VI sense: Chapter VI missions are consent-based; therefore they require the consent of the belligerent factions involved in order to operate. Unless the protestors state that they agree with the presence of CSTO soldiers in Kazakhstan as a result of negotiations between the protestors and the Kazakh president (since there's currently no government), there is no consent. Chapter VII missions are generally called peace enforcement, not peacekeeping. There are no sources stating that the CSTO soldiers and tanks and drones for jamming communications are a lightly armed buffer zone between Kazakh security forces and Kazakh citizens, or that the CSTO forces are involved in monitoring compliance with a peace deal. (These same warnings apply to events that NATO may call peacekeeping, of course. There has to be evidence of a peace process and sources arguing that the operations actually are peacekeeping.) Boud (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think "peacekeeping" is the right term to use. Frankly speaking, the methods that protesters use, including civil disobedience, assaults on police forces and public buildings, are clearly a threat to the peace in the country, so it's very logical to call the deployment of forces aimed at re-establishing the peace "peacekeeping". It'd have been a different story had the protests been peaceful and the deployment had been done to prevent potential unrest, but that's not the case and it seems like the CSTO forces were deployed to respond to the unrest.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be put under the same list as the Kazakh Government, but as a separate group. My idea shown here:
@Kiril Simeonovski: I recommend that you read peacekeeping to see the accepted, sourced meaning of the word. It is not just an ordinary English word of which you can guess the meaning by putting together "peace" and "keeping", although it's related to those two words. It does not apply to policing of demonstrations that include violence against police and buildings; and it does not apply to the use of extrajudicial killings of demonstrators by police or other security forces. Peace deals normally include investigations and right to truth commissions to investigate the killings by all sides; there's no peacekeeping without a peace deal - a formal agreement in writing on the specific methods of solving the conflict. The protestors and the president have not negotiated a peace deal, so there's no peacekeeping possible (yet). Boud (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Also, what you describe assumes that the authorities used force against participants in peaceful demonstrations, which is clearly not the case because the protesters were those who started raging (police forces never clamp down on obedient protesters). And please note that even UN peacekeeping missions involve military activities and the use of force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the NYT source in the RfC below. They use the word "peacekeeping" twice, both times with scare quotes. The source shows extreme skepticism about the idea that this is really "peacekeeping". Adoring nanny (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfC about the CSTO involvement in 2022 Kazakh protests
No, as CSTO forces are sent as peacekeeping mission, and to this date had no clashes either with protesters or with Kazakh government forces. --Armatura (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No per above. CSTO forces were sent with the goal to re-establish peace in the country after the protesters started raging. Their goal is not to fight against anyone else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maybe I am missing something, but the CTSO(mostly Russian) forces were called in by the government in order to free up government forces to deal with the protestors. They aren't there as a neutral party. "Peacekeeping" seems to be a euphemism used by Putin/the Russians. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not true. Authoritarianism and peace are two different things. If a country is authoritarian, it doesn’t mean there’s no peace. Moreover, protesters against the authoritarian government are not entitled to do whatever they want. Kazakhstan used to be a peaceful authoritarian country before protesters started raiding public buildings and threatened the peace in the country. CTSO forces were deployed in order to aid country’s police forces to bring things in order, i.e. re-establish peace, so they’re clearly “peacekeeping” in that context.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the mission is called isn't really my point so much as, as you put it, "CTSO forces were deployed in order to aid country’s police forces", the CTSO is not a neutral party, they are there at the invitation of the government to aid the government. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were called by the government on a peacekeeping mission, so it's completely irrelevant where did they come from. In a perfect scenario, UN should launch such missions but, given the bureaucracy and the time lag as a result, this was probably a much faster and more efficient alternative. Compare this with a cottage which caught fire in a remote area. You know that the best option is to call firefighters but, if they're far away and you risk the cottage to burn down, you're probably going to ask your neighbours for help.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The government did not request UN help or seek a neutral party, it requested (largely)Russian help to aid it, not serve as a neutral buffer force. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally. Russia is a neighbouring country with which Kazakhstan shares the longest border and has good relations but that’s completely irrelevant. The peacekeeping mission aims to contain the unrest and re-establish peace, which is exactly why it is “peacekeeping” (if the unrest continues, who knows how many more people will be killed, so the peacekeeping mission is practically aimed at saving lives). Some hang on to the notion of extrajudicial killings in order to contest its peacekeeping nature, but they forget that those killings are not counted as such when the government acts in “national self-defence”.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per the sources below. "to put down a countrywide uprising", "support in suppressing protesters", and "help 'stabilise' the country" all seem pretty clear. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are plenty of sources that state that the role of the CSTO intervention is "to help the Kazakh authorities quell the unrest". Secondly, there are plenty of sources saying that Tokayev has ordered the local security services to carry out extrajudicial executions of protestors – a "shoot to kill" policy; providing foreign security forces that free up the local security forces to carry out extrajudicial executions is an active intervention in the conflict; legally speaking, the CSTO is aiding and abetting criminal activities, violating international law, that president Tokayev has explicitly ordered.To clarify why extrajudicial executions are a criminal activity in Kazakhstan: Kazakhstan ratified the ICCPR on 24 Jan 2006 and the treaty became effective for Kazakhstan on 24 April 2006. So extrajudicial executions are a violation of the ICCPR that Kazakhstan is legally bound by. Boud (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: It is obvious from the reliable sources provided that the CSTO leaders and troops were directly involved in the conflict on behalf of the Kazakh government, especially when the CSTO's justification of intervention was to defend the Kazakh government through Article 4.--WMrapids (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment : I think we shouldn't base votes on speculation given by RSs, as most of the sources above are speculating about the peacekeeping force's goals and none of them actually are reporting anything about on-ground involvement, the fact that most of the yes votes are based on opinion and OR is worrying. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that’s an important point. Essentially we should treat the participating people and organisations per the guidelines for living people, where any speculation has no place and where we base infobox and body sentences on hard facts only. No need to demonise CSTO unless they do demonic things. The rest is WP:SCANDAL and WP:SYNTHESIS --Armatura (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my opinion that the forces are there to aid the government and were asked for by the government. That is what RS say. Whether it is right or wrong is certainly an opinion, but they are not there as a neutral party. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They should have actual conflict with protesters or government forces, to be listed as "party to the conflict". Announced intentions, inferences, deductions, opinions, speculations do not matter as far Wikipedia's neutrality is concerned. WP:Recentism, mentioned by one of the users above, explains it very well. --Armatura (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia/CTSO doesn't have to be firing bullets or arresting protestors to be helping the government. Every RS out there says Russia/CTSO is there to "help contain the unrest", not act as a neutral party to separate them. Russia/CTSO is clearly on the side of the government, through its actions and its rhetoric. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an inference, deduction, or opinion. It's what RS say. If the RS are not being neutral, you need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not preventing anyone from giving their views or stating the facts as reported. If you don't wish to discuss it with me any more, fair enough. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps add a line in between and add a note about the official peacekeeping status? I know that the term "peacekeeping" is currently disputed, and can be removed if needed. --Firestar464 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This piece from Reuters might be useful. There is also a detailed draft report, by the OECD, on the background to fuel prices on Kazakhstan here. But it is from 2014. I assume it has since been published in final form. I'm not claiming to have ready all 92 pages. I guess it might belong at Energy policy of Kazakhstan. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be pretty much over. The Internet has been restored in Almaty and no news of continued widescale protests or looting. [1]Dvtch (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concessions given
Should the dismissal of ministers be listed among the concessions when the article itself states the the ministers are the ones who orchestrated the uprising, ergo their dismissal is a move against the rioters, not a concession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.69.176.127 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Kazakh Government
CSTO[nb 1]