Talk:Tulip Revolution

Comments

The Wikipedia article seems to predate the "facts." --Wetman 20:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You didn't see any article here. Please go about your business and forget this conversation.

That really is excellent that we had the beginnings of the article days before the revolution took off. Perhaps Wikipedia is now so powerful that editing it actually causes changes in the real world. Imagine what could be around the corner! "Someone's been vandalising United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights has been blanked. IP traces back to the White House!" — Trilobite (Talk) 23:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"based on slimier lines" ... huh? Kaf 12:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=27 concerning the political environment in Kyrgyzstan. Please let me know if I can post this link. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What to call it?

This is being called the Silk Revolution now on the BBC. Also suggested is Lemon Revolution. It seems that people were marching in silk scarves holding tulips - this is going to be a difficult one! Pictures suggest that the colours of the revolution have been pink and yellow. Also I wonder if this article ought to exist at all. There is much more information in Kyrgyz parliamentary elections, 2005. Perhaps we should just merge this article into that one, for now at least. We don't want to have duplicate information. I would favour merging, personally. A lot of people will be looking up Kyrgyzstan on Wikipedia over the next few days, and there needs to be one central article covering the unfolding events. Since this has all occurred in the wake of the elections, I think that article should be the main one. All this can be changed in the future of course when we are able to take a step back and have more of a historical view of things. I'm interested in other people's opinions on merging. If there are no objections I will do this soon. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why does every revolution have to have a name? Why can't it just be the Kyrgyz revolution of 2005? It seems that since the Ukraine revolution every one of them has to have a cute moniker to make them sound more, well, heartwarming.--Theloniouszen 03:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree - this article should be renamed Kyrgyzstan revolution, 2005, and the material from Kyrgyz parliamentary elections, 2005, much of which is not actually about the elections, copied or moved to here. Adam 04:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well it's already on the front page in the news calling it the Tulip revolution, I don't know if we would be able to do that, I think we would probably need more of a consensus for the admins to change it.--Theloniouszen 05:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because the name is a silly media fabrication. A revolution in Kyrgyzstan should be called the Kyrgyzstan revolution. Adam 07:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article seems to predate the "facts." --Wetman 20:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You didn't see any article here. Please go about your business and forget this conversation.

"based on slimier lines" ... huh? Kaf 12:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revolution name

Google:

• "tulip revolution" kyrgyzstan - 871 hits
• "lemon revolution" kyrgyzstan - 190
• "kyrgyz revolution" - 164
• "pink revolution" kyrgyzstan - 47
• "silk revolution" kyrgyzstan - 23

—Cantus…☎ 07:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

As it's on the main page as "Tulip Revolution", and we already have articles at Rose Revolution, Orange Revolution etc., I see no reason why it shouldn't go back to the original name.--Pharos 17:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rose Revolution and Orange Revolution were widely named that. Tulip revolution not as widespread a name. The name used in the main page is not an argument either for or against change: we can change that as well as the one here. Aris Katsaris 18:36, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You have to wonder who comes up with the names for these revolutions? Certainly was a fast one though. Those Kyrgyz don't pussyfoot around. --Kross 09:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

fast? There's a polish-language article floating around which cites a Russian newspaper which claims that the next revolution will happen... tomorrow (Sat 26 March 2005) in Belarus: http://pl.indymedia.org/pl/2005/03/12886.shtml So far this really only has the status of a rumour (stated in Polish in the text), but any properly sourced info would be interesting. Boud 11:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i found the online source - it's from PAP - the polish equivalent of the dependent press agencies (AFP, AP, Reuters) : http://info.onet.pl/1072129,11,item.html Boud 11:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here you go

I hope all those who scoffed at the neo-con argument that invading Iraq would trigger a wave of democratic revolutions across the Islamic world are enjoying events in Lebanon and Kyrgyzstan. Adam 15:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revolutions planned, backed and financed by the US. —Cantus…☎ 00:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Even if that's true, which I doubt, what is wrong with overthrowing dictatorial regimes? If that is what the US is doing these days, more power to them. Adam 00:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't even want to know the amount of concessions the Kyrgyz opposition had to give the US over their help. Scary stuff. —Cantus…☎ 02:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Only if you suffer from paranoid delusions. Adam 02:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check out actual reality: It's with Russia that the Kyrgyz opposition had meetings. But whatever feeds your paranoia. Aris Katsaris 03:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Really? The United States financed a million or so Lebanese people to protest their government? I wonder how much you think each protester received. Anyway, if the United States actually planned and backed these democratic and anti-imperialist revolutions, it's something for the United States to be justly proud about. Aris Katsaris 03:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the invasion of Iraq probably even caused the Rose Revolution which actually took place *before* the invasion. Bush, in his cunning, has even managed to reverse time and the whole chain of causality.

I said Islamic countries. Georgia is not an Islamic country. Adam 01:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, Lebanon is conceivable and we don't know which of many factors actually contributed to this. A big US army and democracy nextdoors may have indeed helped. But Kyrgyzstan? Where's the connection with Iraq here? Aris Katsaris 01:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Even in Bishkek they have televisions. They know what's happening in Iraq, as well as in Lebanon, Ukraine and Georgia. All these events are feeding off each other, but the spectacle of the Iraqis defying the Islamo-fascists (and their western apologists) and voting in free elections is playing a major role. If I was running Syria or Uzbekistan I'd very nervous at the moment. Adam 01:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, I was really trying to resist getting into this argument, but here I am. Look, the average Bishkek television-watcher doesn't sit there and think, "Iraq has been invaded: that's my cue to overthrow the government!" The Rose and Orange Revolutions were surely far more important factors in this latest event. The parallel with Ukraine just weeks ago is striking: Russian sphere of influence, president facing defeat fixes election, people take to the streets, police and army don't start shooting into crowds, and eventually the government caves in. I'm convinced that what was foremost in the minds of the Kyrgyz revolutionaries was the example set by the Ukrainians, not the very different situation in Iraq. I agree that the Uzbek regime should be feeling nervous, as should Lukashenko in Belarus, and with a bit of luck Turkmenbashi. But I can't see that Iraq would have much to do with it. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course I agree that Ukraine is the most important influence on what is happening in Kyrgyzia and the other CIS countries. I was responding to the stupid anti-Americanism of certain other contributors. Adam 03:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talking about the possible revolutions, the "banana revolution" of Belarus has tried to uprise but has been quashed. One country that has been talked about a possible colour revolution is Armenia. See this article [1] 159753 20:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably because there are no bananas in Belarus. If they had called it the "cabbage revolution" it would have swept the country. Adam 00:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The reason I said "banana revolution" is because Lukashenko said that he didn't want a revolution whether it was rose, orange or banana.159753 20:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The name "Silk Revolution" apparently refers to the breaking of Kyrg. with the USSR in the early 1990s. —Cantus…☎ 00:45, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is a repeated mistake stating that Akayev fled the country in a helicopter. This report is not confirmed and in fact no one know if Akayev fled; some sources say he is in hiding on a nearby US military base. I suggest to maitain integrity of the article we hold changes until a few days later when Akayev will finally resurface. -- YA

Some photos

One girl from Bishkek published photos about this "tulip revolution" or "apricot revolution". Apricots are blossoming in Kyrgyzstan right now. Photos are here Photos part 1 and here

here Photos part 2.

Also she writes about this revolution every day. Probably we could ask her allow to use some photos to illustrate this article.

Definite name

Now I think it can now be officially called the Tulip Revolution, CNN and the BBC are now refering it as such as of late. The google hits also suggest that the majority of the world's media call it the tulip. I guess that's the consensus. May we transfer the article now? Kyrgyz revo of 2005 is not really the name used in the media.

I agree. Ambi 10:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. KeithV 11:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. —thames 14:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the person who started this article, I say make it Tulip Revolution.159753 16:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty and all...

But is a picture of a tulip all we can come up with here? Marskell 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Present tense?

Should we consider revisiting the Tulip Revolution to parse the pages of research (or current events)? I always find these past discussions quite interesting. The passion is quite evident. The result is quite muddy. In the Kyrgyz Republic's case, the results of the Tulip Revolution were replacement of one corrupt, nepotistic regime with another. Svyatoslav (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Some now argue, possibly through revisionism that the Tulip Revolution was really no revolution at all, as it failed to bring about any significant change to the government or society of the country. Possibly we may have to change the name of this article in the near future to something like uprising etc... because it's results were certainly not revolutionary by any standards. As for the present tense? Most of what the Tulip "Revolution" resulted in as now been over-turned due to the 2010 Events, so yes past tense would probably be most appropriate now. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tulip Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090217230637/http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=256 to http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=256

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tulip Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627003906/http://www.kyrgyzstan.org/Law/constitution.htm to http://www.kyrgyzstan.org/Law/constitution.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130111235327/http://www.commonlanguageproject.net/photos/Kyrgyzstan.htm to http://www.commonlanguageproject.net/photos/Kyrgyzstan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)