Talk:Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Jamaot
This reference [1] (albeit appearntly biased) may shed some light on the relationship between Jamaot/JIG & IMU. AndrewRT - Talk 21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to consist mainly of disjointed single sentences. Can sombody either link them or flesh them out into full paragraphs? And also, we need to make up our minds on what the movement is called. The article starts by saying that it is now called the Islamic Movement of Turkestan, and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is an old name, but for the rest of the article it is called IMU.
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move. Andrewa 12:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Islamic Movement of Turkestan → Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan — Originally I moved it to IMT from IMU, now I changed my mind. The name this organization goes by continues to mystify and perplex me. At times they refer to themselves as the Islamic Movement of Central Asia. News outlets almost always call them the IMU. The Uzbek Gov calls them the IMT, and the Russian Gov calls them the "Islamic Party." I'm going with the press. KazakhPol 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
[edit] Survey - Support votes
[edit] Survey - Oppose votes
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] responsible use of tags
Somebody keeps applying the {{NPOV}} tag to this article — but without initiating a discussion here on the talk page, where they offer an explanation of their concern. The {{NPOV}} tag, like many other related tags, tells readers to look to the talk page for a discussion of why the article has been tagged.
We aren't mindreaders. We shouldn't have to guess as to why another wikipedian has tagged an article.
I agree with KazakhPohl here, the repeated application of tags, without fulfilling the obligation to explain their reasoning, is indistinguishable from vandalism.
I have written about this, in more detail, here.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

