Talk:2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this even a sentence?[edit]

What are you trying to say here?

Decision ethnic problems at the level of government is not taking place, as is not recognized by their very existence and, moreover, virtually all administrative positions are held by ethnic Kyrgyz. (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem I think is that this is an exact copy of the Google translation of the Russion Wikipedia page (at least as of now when I checked it). Possibly the person who wrote the English article just took the Google translation. The translated sentence is not very understandable -- maybe "Decisions about ...". The English section "Background" is appears in English translation as "Chronology" which seems a better word. Generally seems a good article for all that, however. DonToto (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to both comments here. I got to the "Background" section and thought it was mangled at best. It seems a translator could have been used, or maybe someone doesn't have a complete grasp of the English language, or someone just plain didn't check their spelling and grammar of their work. In any case, this needs to be fixed or completely removed to an edit zone until it is fixed. This doesn't represent Wikipedia very well. Tom C. 04:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy6860 (talkcontribs)

A common sense translation of that sentence might be:

"The government is unable to effectively address ethnic problems because the existence of distinct ethnic groups is not legally acknowledged and ethnic Kyrgyz hold virtually all the relevant administrative positions."

I don't know if this is true, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


Not that I intend to add this to the article. But is it possible these events can be classed as genocide? CNN is already confirming this is a humanitarian catastrophe. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

lol how can it possibly be called a genocide? By what classification epistemologically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I believe this is the definition of genocide used by the United Nations which seems to have parts met in this circumstance. --Kuzwa (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They're not intending to liquidate an entire ethnic group. The best term would be ethnic cleansing, the "purification" of a national space of another ethnic group. Even that term is a bit extreme for this, especially when far worse events still don't get such recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The learnt anonymous, "ethnic cleansing" is another manifestation of genocide. The acts specifically targeted the ethnical group and prperty belongong to it. Thanks God, we have documented proofs of atrocities. You cannot hide that. I personally don't care for their "recognition" by law now. It's enough that we have a public opinion, the law will follow as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talkcontribs) 13:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


"Uzbekistan is concerned that Russia is using the events to consolidate its power over Central Asia, including Uzbekistan." Really? Stratford apparently does not look like a neutral OR frankly reliable source. Can this information be trusted? --Kuzwa (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, and expand this to include many of the sources listed, and comments cited. There seems to be heavy bias throughout the article. I'm not sure the comments made are backed up by the sources cited, even if they are deemed credible. The deaths section seems especially off the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just an opinion (and wrong opinion), not fact. It would be better to delete this sentance.-- (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is an opinion of a think tank, so it is fully in line with Wiki policies to make references to think tanks. Please keep the references and quotes. Sahib-qiron 13:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talkcontribs)

AND WHo will try to make an article normal by reasonable standards out of this messy shit. Sahib-qiron 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

blanket statement[edit]

"Kyrgyz people support Bakiyev and oppose the new government. Bakiyev himself has been exiled in Belarus, which has close ties to Russia.". If this was true completely, the uprising of April never would have succeeded in removing Bakiyev, as most of the fighting took place in Bishkek, which is heavily ethnic Kyrgyz. The leadership of the opposition that removed Bakiyev is almost completely made up of ethnic Kyrgyz. The situation is far more complicated than the blanket statement made in this entry and is likely completely incorrect. diggerjohn111 07:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you digger. But you have to remember that there is a major difference between north and south Kyrgyz. The northern ones which control Bishkek were the ones that ultimately overthrew Bakiev. The south really had no say, and the north has not been directing violence towards the Uzbeks. This statement needs to be fixed. --Kuzwa (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Very true Kuzwa, the north and south of the country are very different, with much of the northern Kyrgyz and the southern Uzbeks forming the closest things you can call "elite classes" in that impoverished nation. Which is also why the statement, before it was amended, was too generalized and quite inaccurate. The current improvements to this article are much, much better.diggerjohn111 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • To be helpful. might I suggest that the first sentence be amended to begin "A section of the Kyrgyz people (particularly in the southwest) support ....". Is that neutral enough? I doubt if we have evidence to estimate what proportions of the population we are talking about (so any proportioning would be disputable). Rif Winfield (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Death Toll[edit]

How many deaths are there? As far as I'm concerned the Kyrgyz Government is only reporting the number of people who have died in hospital. While other groups are reporting many hundereds to even thousands of deaths. CTV is reporting 171 deaths,[1] while Ria Novosti continues to report 138. There is no consistency here. If anyone would be willing to place links to casualty count articles here so they can be looked over that would be much appreciated. --Kuzwa (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Uzbek government statements[edit]

Has president Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan said anything official on this issue or the refugee crisis yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Official web-site of Uzbek government says that the events in Kyrgyzstan were initiated by criminals. Somebody, please add this information into the article. Abdullais4u (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan Abdullais4u (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Different view[edit]

This article shoudl probably be integrated somehow: . At least try to appreciate the multifaceted nature of this. It is quite normal in contemporary academic works to dicuss, at the level of theory, ultimate and proximate factors in ethnic conflicts. Even the Radio Free Europe article, which conveniently ignores things like endemic poverty, acknowledges economic factors, which aren't stated in the article. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • While opendemocracy is intriquing I hesitate to use this as a reliable source, at present just because no one is clearly sure what is going as it is too new an event. The causes will be able to be explored in more detail after this event has subsided. When it does. Also I agree, economic factors, ethnic preference, and the new government all seems to be reasons for why this event has broken out. Though the actual causus belli: appears to be the death of a local Kyrgyz leader on June 7th according to new Russian reports. More to come on this. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The article is too humanitarian (or socialist) one and although finds the right causes of events in the country, it tends to avoid or not sharpen some undesirable aspects like mass criminalization of society in general and especially "slum dwellers" both in north and south of Kirgizia. The "mob of revolution" with high level of tolerance to violence in all cases is mobilized by criminal leaders struggling for political and economical control of the country and, above all, drug-traffic - the main source of easy money for masses of marginals who have no desire or basic skills (esp. knowledge of Russian) to work abroad. Speaking about the matter, this social layer is especially thick in the south where many young rural or "slum-urban" Kyrgyz and Uzbeks are eager for any easy money offered by criminal leaders of the same kinship or origin and are ready for violence to each other.-- (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Suggesting that Social factors has something to do with it may ignore the last time this happened which was in 1990 soviet troops had to be called in to smash it. This is simply hateful ethnic rioting, I have heard that there were rumors that Kyrgyz woman were raped by Uzbek men and this is what started it which spilled in to raping of Uzbek Woman. I also heard that before this an Uzbek leader in Kyrgyzstan supported the overthrow of Bakiev. Later on I heard that there was pro-Bakiev supporters attacking Uzbeks. We might want to wait a while for more facts to roll in before we do anything--Zaharous (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The leader of Uzbek community firstly supported the new government, but a month later was charged for outlaw activity[2]. The Uzbek community vastly increased its influence during Bakiev rule so it looks natural that Kyrgyz forces were trying to use the change of power to push it off. Although this conflict has clear signs of ethnic hatred it is also clear that it was orchestrated by organized criminal groups from both sides who supplied "militia men" with firearms, contractors, buses and so on. Locals report that attacking gangs of Kyrgyz were composed not of residents of Osh or Jalal-Abad but of rural folk.-- (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


This paragraph is obviously written by a Kyrgyz suporter: "The relationship between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbek communities in southern Kyrgyzstan has been historically difficult. Uzbeks living in Kyrgyzstan have more privileges than ethnic Kyrgyzs in Uzbekistan[citation needed]. Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan have hundreds of schools, several universities, newspapers, journals, TV Channels and all support for experiencing and developing their culture and language[citation needed]. Ethnic Uzbeks, also want their language to be recognized as official, which most ethnic Kyrgyz people disagree upon. Also most of the Islamic adical Terrorists were ethnic Uzbeks, due to their poverty. Moreover, all the drug dealers were Uzbeks[citation needed] and they possessed huge number of weapons. Due to these facts many Kyrgyz people feared any conflicts with them and tried to calm even they were insulted. But last event of rape of young student Kyrgyz girls was not the one that Kyrgyz people could swallow." Moreover, it lacks sources and the first sentence contradicts the preceding paragraph. Aaker (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it POV but also has an abudant use of Wikipedia:Weasel words.I know i am a ip and all but that sentence has to go.i say move it here until someone can find proper references and give it a proper rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been removed. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WHY THE FOLLOWIG WAS REMOVED: The Uzbek minority was singled out and targeted by assailants of the Kyrgyz ethnicity, as evidenced by survivors and field reports of the media. Approximately 100,000 Uzbeks and Tajiks- mainly women, elder people and children fleeing the violence - found refuge in Uzbekistan and some 400,000 became internally displaced.[28] Victims interviewed by media and aid workers testify to mass killing, gang rape and torture.[29] Head of the Interim government Roza Otunbaeva indicated that the death toll is tenfold higher than was previously reported, which brings the number of the dead to 2,000 people.

I GAVE ALL NECESSARY LINKS. TX FOR THE ANSWER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talkcontribs) 15:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So the Uzbeks have all the money and privileges AND they became terrorists due to poverty? And they want to use their own language? What a bunch of fiends! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Uyghur refugees in Bishkek[edit]

CTV is reporting that up to 70,000 people of Uyghur descent have fled Kyrgyzstan for Kazakhstan the majority of the deplaced originating for Bishkek. Apparently many of the Uyghur's in the city have received threats from unknown sources claiming that they will be the next group targeted for violence. Should this be included in the article? And the article renamed to 2010 Kyrgyzstan ethnic cleansing? See [3] for more information. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is way too early to rename the article until it is known how these events began, and what was the provocation. Let's get better information about role of outsiders, of Bakiyev, and others, before making too strong an "interpretation" of the events.~Mack2~ (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire region was ceded to the Russian Empire by China in late 19th century.[edit]

i deleted this sentence from introduction section. Chinese nationalist scum, please stay away from this article and spare us from your crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Now that the dust has settled on this, I think it would make sense to rationalise these articles. I propose that we leave just two articles - 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising and 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots and merge 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis into those two articles. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to diminish the mass killing of Uzbeks and sell it as just another side effect of the chronic revolutions? No way.-- (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my desire. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Article renaming: "June Pogroms" vs "2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots"[edit]

User:Kuzwa renamed article "2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots"[4] with a new name "June Pogroms". The motivation was "moved 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots to June pogroms: International analysts now call this event a pogrom. Specifically they call it the June 10 pogrom though this even technically lasted for 4 days so will leave as June pogroms.". What were the reliable sources supporting this renaming? Is the new name more frequent in the English speaking media? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • "June Pogroms" Google News search: 0.
  • Pogroms Osh returns: 4
  • Riots Osh returns: 140
So it is unclear for me why this article was renamed. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, the BBC News appears to have first referred to these as "June Pogroms" in an article yesterday, and then later edited it to say "June unrest" [5]. I agree that pogroms isn't the appropriate word here, though, unless it's overwhelmingly being used. (The BBC ultimately backed off of it, after all). Suggest returning to the original title. Khazar (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The debate that pogroms isn't being used is silly, typing in Osh Pogroms gives perhaps less results in the news. However when looking at what is referred to by international organizations such as Amnesty, International Crisis Group, etc... you see pogroms is a term that is more common. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a dues-paying member of Amnesty International, so I sympathize, but I feel like it's better to follow the news organizations on this point to make sure our title is as NPOV as possible. As terrific as they are, Amnesty International are an advocacy group, not a neutral reporting group. I'd suggest retitling the article "riots" as before and adding an "often known as the June Pogroms" to the article's first line. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not against reverting the title. :] --Kuzwa (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic violence[edit]

I propose renaming the article as "Ethnic Violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan (2010)" or "2010 Ethnic Violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan." This is more appropriate and it has been used by many international organizations. (See for example: "Riot" can mean anything. The events that happened in southern Kyrgyzstan were clearly ethnic in nature. Nataev (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Ethnic violence" is clearly accurate, and does provide that information to readers right from the start. We can then leave "riots" in the first line of the article, to indicate early on what type of violence it was. (Excellent work on a very detailed article, by the way!) Aridd (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
A quick Google News search of each term suggests that either "riots" or "ethnic violence" is a reasonable option here. The latter is probably more descriptive. Khazar2 (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
A title that includes "ethnic violence" seems reasonable to me as well--"riots" lacks focus on the issue. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As an outsider I have been asked to make a few comments on the renaming. I have considered precedent in articles on 1848 and concluded that the existing title is fine. I concur that the word pogrom is wrong as it is outside the vocabulary of 99.99% of the readers- and even them is associated with a Jewish related incident. is Reading the comments lead me to consider the nature of the debate and this did not help much. I read the excellent balanced article- then asked myself was there a problem with the article that is causing the title problem, in my POV yes.

(Excellent work on a very detailed article, by the way!) User:Aridd, correctly said. But that is also the problem- too detailed, and focussing on the ethnic tensions and the violence. As it is so detailed the title must be detailed- and the principle focus established. The alternative is to write a more generalised introduction which reduces the need for such accuracy. Looking at that we see the article is flawed in that it wont engage the general reader.

A general reader coming to the article is unlikely to have the background knowledge that the article assumes. A mobile phone user will need that in the lead section, and conveniently there is a ==background section== that is empty where very basic information could be written. So what do we need to do. What-where-when-why.- need to be in the lead.

Focus and move extraneous information- here is an attempt:

The 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots were clashes taking place bin May and June 2010 between ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in the cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad in southern Kyrgyzstan, a republic in central Asia. There were part of the larger Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010. President Kurmanbek Bakiyev was ousted on April 7. Violence erupted between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks on 19 May in Jalal-Abad continued on 10 June in Osh. The Russian-endorsed interim government declared a state of emergency on June 12. The clashes killed up to 2,000 people, mostly Uzbeks, and further 100,000 were displaced,and became refugees in Uzbekistan. (what and when)
Kyrgyzstan is a land locked country in -------, its principal rivers drain into the Aral Sea, it became an administrative entity in ----, when ---. On the collapse of the Soviet Union it became a republic using Usbek and Kyrgyz as its official languages reflecting the uneasy tension between the Kyrgyz( XX%) and Uzbeks (XX%) ethnic groups.The principal cities are XXXX and XXX and they are XX hours apart on the XXXX road. (giving the where and why)
The 2010 riots became trigger for banning the use of the Usbek language in schools and the expulsion of 100,000 citizens (Consequences)

The ==background== section can then expand on the geography including the neighbouring countrys, language groups, economics and relations with neighbours. The history of the creation of Kyrgyzstan, and relevant preceding incidents. All this should be general; to draw in the new reader. Then keep the ===subheadings=== and revert to the detailed approach.

I write this as a totally outsider displaying a woeful lack of knowledge - I hope this is helpful.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, ClemRutter (talk). We will try to make the article more reader-friendly. Nataev (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm yes, but I disagree--it sounds like half the history of the country and its neighbors will be explained in the article--that's too much. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
We all seem to agree that "Ethnic Violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan (2010)" is more descriptive than the current title. I'm moving the article. The reason we need to indicate the year is because there were clashes between the two groups in 1990 too. Nataev (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Nataev has also asked me, an outside and disinterested editor, to comment on this. I'd also like to echo the previous points about the excellent quality of the article - well done and thank you! Regarding the description as "ethnic violence" vs. "riots", this could be taken to under-play the political (i.e. pro- and anti-Bakyev) rather than the ethnic Uzbek vs. Kyrgyz angle. Given the facts stated in the article and the google counts referenced above I think the "ethnic violence" description can be justified although it's a close call I think. Personally I would prefer the year to come at the start of the article name - i.e. 2010 ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan rather than be in brackets at the end, which is normally used for disambiguation. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, AndrewRT (Talk)! Let's leave the date at the end. Because there is a dab page with the title Ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan. We can always change the title as more people share with us their thoughts. Nataev (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think "Ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan" ("southern" doesn't look like it should be capitalized, since it's a descriptive title rather than a formal name) is a subset of the "south Kyrgyzstan riots", which had a political, as well as an ethnic component. But the content of this article only really covers the former topic, so Nataev's new title is fine. Shrigley (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


The title should be a concise noun phrase, with as little prepositions as possible. I think something like "2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes" is better. "clashes" sounds more neutral than "violence". Many news sources I've read refers to the area of clashes as "the south" not "southern".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what you're proposing is a bit better. The most important thing is that we have replaced "riots" with "ethnic clashes." Nataev (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. South Kyrgyzstan is a well defined region and according to this the word "south" should be capitalized just like you did. Nataev (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Kyrgyzstani? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I surely like the word "Kyrgyzstani", but from my personal experience not many people know or use the word. It's certainly more appropriate though. Nataev (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to comment. I would agree that the term "ethnic clashes" is more appropriate here, as more is involved than the actual riot incidents, or even than the violence itself. The background to the events needs to be referenced, and the word "clashes" enables this to be referenced more than just the violent actions themselves. Can I also add that the date 2010 should be removed to the end of the title, in accordance with normal Wikipedia indexing practice; if someone is looking for information, it is the fact of ethnic unrest that they will be looking for, not a specific date (the non-specialist reader might not even remember which precise year the events took place in). Finally I would add that the word "southern" is more appropriate than "South". While most readers will understand that we are referring to the southern provinces of the Kyrgyz Republic (specifically Osh City, Osh Oblast and Batken Oblast), there is no formal unit of government at any level that is called "South Kyrgyzstan", and in any case the disputes are not absolutely confined within the administrative boundaries of these two oblasts. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be an article for "South Kyrgyzstan", so I think you might be right. "southern" is probably better. However, a lot of events with no solid name use the year at the front of the title, such as 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, 2011 Norway attacks, and there's many more. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
However, "South Kyrgyzstan" just sounds better.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback guys! Let's just leave the year at the beginning for now. I created four disambiguation pages with the following titles:

  • Ethnic violence in south Kyrgyzstan
  • Ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan
  • Ethnic clashes in south Kyrgyzstan
  • Ethnic clashes in southern Kyrgyzstan

This should be helpful.

The Kyrgyz and Uzbeks have clashed in southern Kyrgyzstan twice, in 1990 and in 2010. There are striking similarities between the two cases. There are many differences as well. In 1990, Soviet troops were deployed to stop the violence and 300 to 600 people died. In the 2010 events from 426 to over 2000 people died and hundreds of thousands were displaced.

Wiki entries are not good enough on either of these clashes. I wish more people were interested in improving these articles. Nataev (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving citations using WebCite[edit]

Since this article relies heavily on web-based sources, I've archived all I could below using WebCite. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


Aftermath >> Kyrgyzstan appoints reformist PM, averting crisis(Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)).