This is an archive of past discussions about 2022 Kazakh unrest. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
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)
'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)
"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)
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
In Kazakhstan, there are many ethnic groups, with ethnic Russians and ethnic Kazakhs being the two largest. At times, ethnic conflicts have arisen. Using 'Kazakh' in the title is especially unfortunate. Elsewhere on this talk page, it has been suggested that "Kazakhstan" be used in the title. I think this gets around our differences of opinion with respect to the title. Kdammers (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kdammers: per WP:COMONNAME, Kazakh means nationality as well. Kazakhstan uses both terms, in this case, it's the comonname and most frequently used name in the media. Beshogur (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've mentioned it below but I feel the term unrest is a better depiction of the situations than the term protests, and I feel that the alternatives may be too strong of terms, although crisis seems a reasonable choice in my opinion. Unrest is a term often used in the media as well: BBCCNBCWaPoFlalfTalk16:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
When it started?
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)
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
This edit request to 2022 Kazakh protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
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)
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)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to 2022 Kazakh unrest. There's clear opposition to "uprising", but many posters indicated that "unrest" would be their first or second choice. Now that the event is basically over, it is clear that it was much more than just "protest" but short of "uprising" (which implies a certain level of organization), and many news organizations did use "unrest" as well. No such user (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
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) — Relisting.BD2412T03:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Strong Support': It is clear that it turned into an uprising after the summoning of foreign forces to the country.--Sakiv (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose Protests are a better words and most people would actually use that word, because of citizens protests as an effect. Thingofme (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Support per nominator. Sources do refer to it as uprising, and the term "protests" can no longer reflect the full image of the situation. Unspectrogram (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Strong support as "unrest" for time being. Giving that Unrest and Uprising have very different meanings despite same method of frustation. Uprising is an organized rebellion, especially against an authority or government. They often attempt to overthrow it by force, while Unrest is just an uneasy, agitated, or disturbed condition, but not to overthrowing the legitimate government. If the protest suddenly changed to overthrowing the legitimate government (not seen yet), we can move the article as "Uprising" as Boud proposed. 202.67.42.31 (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose While it's true that a considerable amount of violence has occurred, there's no visible degree of organisation to any of it. Most articles termed 'uprising', like Warsaw Uprising, January Uprising and Wuchang Uprising all have this degree of organisation that the Kazakh protests currently lacks. Furthermore, 'uprising' to me has an emotional and perhaps NPOV connotation, which is dangerous when talking about an ongoing event. We'll see how events develop, but currently this move would be both premature and arbitrary. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose using a heavily loaded term. There is ample reason to believe the unrest was orchestrated by Kazakh security forces. Ghirla-трёп-17:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia needs to follow the sources carefully when it comes to charged topics such as this. Vanilla Wizard's analysis above appears accurate, and the next RM should offer the terms "unrest" and "crisis" as options. In any case, the page's proper title will be much more clear in a few months' time. — Goszei (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think the current title could be better (protests is too mild a word), but "uprising" sounds pretty loaded to me, so it's a no for now. — Czello12:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think "protest" is too restricted, since much of what has been covered in the news is about violence and governmental changes rather than the original protests. "2022 Kazakhstani unrests" or some other inclusive term such as disturbances, situation, violence or a longer (admittedly awkward) phrase like "2022 Kazakhstani protests and subsequent developments." I oppose the use of the word "Kazakh" in the title, since that can easily be understood as referring to ethnic Kazakhs, whereas I have seen nothing to indicate an ethnic aspect to the protests or the conflicts. Kdammers (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think 2022 Civil Unrest in Kazakhstan would avoid both restriction by the word protests, exaggeration of the word uprising, and also clearly refers only to the country not ethnic group.Thitut (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - The sources, both mainstream western media and pro-Tokayev, now more or less agree that there was a mix of popular protests and an attempted coup by armed groups whose ultimate leadership is unclear; the disagreement is about whether the attempted coup was intra-elite, by the Masimov and other Nazarbayev allies, or by "international terrorists". Either way, we lack a good word for "protests plus attempted coup". The word "unrest" is popular but is a vague euphemism that will mean different things to different people, defeating the point of having it describe concrete knowledge. From the Wikipedia article: Euphemisms are also used to mitigate, soften or downplay the gravity of large-scale injustices, war crimes, or other events that warrant a pattern of avoidance in official statements or documents. We should not downplay the seriousness of the events, which should be described using plain, unambiguous English. Boud (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Since this RfC has been open for more than 7 days, the original nominator now disagrees with the proposal, and a clear consensus in favor of it seems unlikely to develop, should we request that an uninvolved editor looks at this discussion? It seems that there is probably a consensus in favor of moving the page to something, just not "uprising." I think enough !votes (both support and oppose) pointed to "unrest" as a good alternative that there could be a consensus for it in this discussion (the nom may be the only detractor to it), but it'd of course be up to the closer to decide if it'd be appropriate to close with a consensus for something other than what was originally proposed here. If not, I think a second RM discussion after this one could be more fruitful. Cheers, Vanilla Wizard 💙15:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adjectival form
After the "protests" vs. "unrest" vs "uprising" matter was hopefully settled, I have a followup question: What should be the adjective in the title: "Kazakh unrest", "Kazakhstan unrest", "Kazakhstani unrest" and "unrest in Kazakhstan" are all possible choices. Is there a broader consensus which one to use? I feel the "Kazakh" is the least appropriate, since it pertains to ethnic Kazakhs rather than to the country as the whole, but I was reluctant to change it myself. Browsing over Kazakhstan-related articles, I don't see a single prevalent form. No such user (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is the current regime in Afghanistan recognized as the legitimate government? (and thus able to speak for the country) 331dot (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
RfC about the CSTO involvement in 2022 Kazakh protests
I've decided to close this under the guideline of WP:WHENCLOSE. This discussion has seized to obtain any comments for about a week.
This discussion was divided, to say the least. I've counted 7 "Yes" and 7 "No". There are really two main arguments. For the pro-includes, they see the CSTO as hired by the government and whether or not they are violent is not particularly relevant. On the other hand, the opposers of inclusion, say that the CSTO, even though they were brought in by the government, are just peacekeepers and not on one side or the other.
This discussion gained no true consensus, not even much of a rough consensus. Therefore, I'm going to balance each side's views and make a call. The consensus is is The CTSO is to be mentioned in the infobox, but there must be a note saying they are officially peacekeepers. From my understanding, this is what's there right now. The CTSO's full role should be explained in the body with proper RS citation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On the contrary: by definition, an extrajudicial killing is extrajudicial - it is illegal. The war situation - "national self-defence" - is legally allowed under international law, but is covered by the Geneva Conventions, in particular Protocol II, in which only the minimum possible military force can be used against rebel armed forces, with purely military aims such as gaining control of territory or disarming rebels and holding them prisoner. For example, the execution of prisoners or of armed forces who have surrendered or are no longer a threat is illegal. But in this case, Tokayev has called for the extrajudicial killings of protestors, who are civilians, so the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Kazakhstan is bound under international law, is most likely to apply. (As of Jan 2022, the United States has still reserved itself the right to harm civilians in civil wars - it has not (yet?) ratified Protocol II. Kazakhstan ratified Protocol II on 05.05.1992. It's up to US citizens to force their government to ratify the protocol if they wish to join the civilised world.) Boud (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Boud: Article 4, Section 1 of Protocol II says: All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors. The problem here is that the military forces have killed protesters who have taken part in hostilities (e.g. assaults on police officers, raiding of public buildings), implying that the fundamental guarantees prescribed in the protocol are not applicable to these "civilians". Furthermore, Article 255, Section 1 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan says: An act of terrorism, in other words commission of explosion, arson and other actions, endanger the lives of people, infliction of significant property damage or occurrence of other socially dangerous consequences, if these actions are committed in order to violation of public security, terrorizing the population, influence to making decisions by the state bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan by the foreign state or international organization, provocation of war or complications of international relations, as well as the threat of commission of specified actions in the same purposes – shall be punished by imprisonment for the term of four to ten years with confiscation of property or without it. Given that arson, which is clearly considered an act of terrorism according to the Penal Code, is one of the methods used by protesters and that's well documented in the article, protesters can be conveniently described as "terrorists", and it's unnecessary to discuss whether terrorists enjoy the fundamental guarantees from Protocol II.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Tokayev's order to shoot-to-kill does not (from what the sources say) distinguish between protestors who qualify as civilians and those who constitute armed groups. Assaults against police officers and damage to public buildings has occurred in many street demonstrations in the US and the EU in the XXIst century, in which case the policy was (in principle) the use of force continuum, with security forces and protestors both risking legal cases afterwards, depending on their actions. Article 1, Section 2 of Protocol II is clear that political protests, even with some level of violence, are excluded: This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts. In the case of a mix of armed groups and civilians, participation in a demonstration does not count as participation in actions by armed groups. Have a look at Article 4, Section 1 again: All persons who do not take a direct part .... The word direct means that if some armed groups attack buildings while civilians are protesting, the civilians do not become part of the armed group, and they are protected under Protocol II, Article 4, Section 1. If the Kazakh criminal code were interpreted to include both armed opposition groups and civilians in the same definition of "terrorists", and if security forces were allowed to use shoot-to-kill policies against both civilians and armed groups, then the code would quite likely violate Protocol II. The word "terrorists" does not legally justify imposing collective responsibility on unarmed civilians for what armed groups do - that would violate the international treaties that Kazakhstan has ratified. For the civilian case, see the ICCPR. Boud (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey, I took a look at your article. I simply cannot in good faith accept the RTS article as a source to support your claim as they do not mention the CSTO, until halfway through the article, and simply refer to Russia and "Moscow". This phrasing is misleading to the point where it is wrong considering the current CSTO chair lies in Yerevan and not Moscow[1]. Therefore, unless you propose that Russia alone joins Kazakhstan in the list, I believe that your point is moot. This was a poorly written article and as I wrote below, there are other sources on the same, if not of higher credibility, (WP:RSN), that directly contradict the phrasing in this. Dvtch (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
No The answer for me is quite clear. While many users answering Yes bring up excellent arguments, none quite hold up to scrutiny. The crux of the Yes argument relies on a passing comment in a RTS article that has been repeated multiple times. Russia sent in paratroopers to put down a countrywide uprising in one of Moscow's closest former Soviet allies[2]. The phrasing of this is honestly disappointing given RTS usually has high editorial standards, but this does not reflect the reality on the ground. This was done via a request to the CSTO, an international organization that Kazakhstan and Russia are both members of. RTS obfuscates this fact by referring to the decision as originating in Moscow and Russia, without other sources reporting that this decision originated from there, the article that some of the Yes voters hold on to. Meaning that the Yes voters are largely holding onto the argument that Russia itself should be placed on the list of belligerents as this RTS article completely downplays the role of the CSTO and only mentions it in passing. This presentation of the deployment is contradicted by primary sources and other reputable sources alike that are on the same level of credibility (WP:RSN). [3][4] With this being said, one may still argue that this constitutes CSTO being kept as members on the side of Kazakhstan proper. However, once more, I would want a further debate on this. The Organization of Turkic States and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, both other international orgs put out support for Kazakhstan politically. They did not send in parties to quell protests but did speak against them. There is no evidence at this moment of time that any members of the CSTO directly engaged with any protestor or looter. Therefore, to put them in the same list as the Kazakh government is extremely misleading. Dvtch (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, at least listed under a “supported by” header. An armed military force was sent after accepting a request by one party, in direct response to the protests. (Who are its military and civil commanders?) Even if it just stands there watching, it is now a participant in the event. —MichaelZ.00:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Another comment: the Crisis has largely passed and CSTO is withdrawing, we still don't have any RS that reports any effective real ground participation, all we still have is geopolitical speculation and failed predictions. Also, per RS, Kazakhstan has about 80,000 policemen, which is about 1.5 times the UN recommended number of 300 per 100,000 population, they aren't short on numbers if you want to argue that CSTO were freeing up numbers (we also have no reports of CSTO deployments to make that argument). - Kevo327 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't try to summarise complex events into simplistic infoboxes' These conflict infoboxes are abominable. They try to squidge complex socio-political events into two columns with a bunch of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG violations added for decoration. Wikipedia would be better dumping the format. All the issues discussed above could be better covered in the article using prose text. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
They seem to have ended on January 10. And on January 11 the president announced that the CSTO had completed its peacekeeping mission.[2]YantarCoast (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Oppose We may come to that point, when the article becomes too long to read after expansion with recent events, but we are not there yet. --Armatura (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see any great value in retaining the long list of reactions. Most of them just say exactly what diplomats always say. Deb (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel it contributes anything to the article, and as a separate article it would be even less useful. Later, depending how things develop, we may need to create a new article with somewhat different content. Deb (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No sources describing him as leading the protestors or siding the protestors, as RS describes there was no centralized leadership or particular organization/party. What sources do describe is that he was one of the closest allies to Nazerbayev, and Tokayev kind of made a self-coup, purging Nazerbayev and his allies, including Massimov. Him being a key figure of Nazerbayev’s government, yes, a key figure of the protests, no, a key figure of Tokayev’s government, no. BastianMAT (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@ShadZ01:, Are there any more WP:RS and WP:RSP backing your claims up? I see a few sources which are considered okay. However, I do think that you should add in the analysis section that some media/academic have called it by those names, we need something about it in the article, and if you do that, move the sources too as its a WP:CITEOVERKILL for the lede. BastianMAT (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 2 July 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus confirming that using Kazakh to relate to the country is incorrect is likely to arise, especially given the many sources cited. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
2022 Kazakh unrest → 2022 Kazakhstani unrest – "Kazakh" is a misnomer in the context of this article. "Kazakhstani" refers to all citizens of Kazakhstan, regardless of ethnicity, while "Kazakh" refers only to ethnic Kazakhs.[1] These protests were not ethnic-based, as many non-Kazakhs participated in the protests. Many equivalent articles in other languages use "in Kazakhstan", but "2022 unrest in Kazakhstan" is not a common title format on the English Wikipedia.
This is also the source that is used to cite a distinction between "Kazakh" and "Kazakhistani" on the Kazakhistan page. I am not going to oppose this request, but I do not think the source makes the point well and should be replaced by another one if possible. The cite on page 164 actually reads, "It is necessary to distinguish the terms 'Kazakh' and 'Kazakhstani': Kazakh's [sic] indicate exclusively the members of the Kazakh ethnic group (including those living in China, Afghanistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and the [sic] other countries). The term of Kazakhstani [sic] indicates all citizens of Kazakhstan, whatever is [sic] their ethnic membership." Then on page 173 it says, "the words 'Kazakh' and 'Kazakhstani' are synonymous." On page 173 it probably means that there is no distinction drawn between citizenship and ethnicity by ethnic Kazakhs inside Kazakhstan, but that's not what it actually says. Since the ref is not consistent and not written in idiomatic English, I find it difficult to see this as a reliable source. Hopefully there is a better one out there. In addition, the text of lots of Wikipedia pages use "Kazakh" as an adjective for things related to Kazakhstan: Economy of Kazakhstan, Foreign relations of Kazakhstan, Elections in Kazakhstan, Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Agriculture in Kazakhstan were the first five I checked, and they all use it as an adjective to refer to the country. Dekimasuよ!04:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kazakh is much more commonly used as a demonym for a resident of Kazakhstan, regardless of ethnicity. For example, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Radio Free Europe, Bloomberg, The Astana Times, and China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I would dispute the claim that Kazakh refers exclusively to ethnic Kazakhs, as "Kazakh" has been referred to generically refer to residents of Kazakhstan on several occasions.
I mean, that's also a possibility, but I think it's for the best that we follow the same standard as other articles on Wikipedia and commonly-used terms. For example, on Wikipedia, 2019 Kazakh presidential election and so on all use the term Kazakh. Furthermore, Google Trends displays a vast gap between the two, in favour of "Kazakh" over "Kazakhstani". In my view, it's best to show the demonym for Kazakhstan as "Kazakh" on the page for Kazakhstan, rather than change this page and every other page which uses "Kazakh".
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kazakh Government
CSTO[nb 1]