Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots

"Hui Muslims" in Intro

Did I miss something about the significance of "Hui Muslims" here? Why is it being placed alongside Uyghurs and Han Chinese as if it is an equal party in the events? Haven't heard much about Huis at all from most media - many of them are pretty much Han anyway. In any event I don't think it's justified sticking "Hui Muslims" between Han and Uyghur in the intro. Colipon+(T) 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Struck me, too. Should be removed until someone can directly footnote it with a source. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, good catch, I've removed it now. Not sure when that got snuck in there, but it doesn't seem relevant. As you point out, many anthropologists and sociologists consider Hui to be basically Han people who happen to be Islamic; I haven't really heard anything about the Hui in any of the coverage. (Although, as a side note, I will point out that the term "Hui Muslim" is grating, although not quite as annoying as the unnecessary "Uyghur Muslim" the media keeps throwing around.)

Another side note... this is OR, but as far as I know a lot of Uyghurs in Xinjiang aren't big fans of the Hui (ie, there may be more Uyghur-Hui tension than Hui-Han tension). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Somehow I think the lines between Hui and Han are not all too divisible. My experiences with the Hui are that they are Chinese people who practice Islam. In fact, when I lived in places like Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Shanxi, etc., "Huimin" is simply another word for "Chinese Muslim". Colipon+(T) 04:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe "Huimin" is another word for "Chinese Muslim". Perhaps, the word of "Huihui" is; "Huimin" definitely not. --Jinhuili (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I have other questions: How do they know that the people that take revenge on Uyghurs are all Hans? If some of them are Huis, can we claim the group is Han group? I was told that the tensions between Uyghur and Hui are also high. --Jinhuili (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but right now, honestly, that is not a significant part of the story. Let us not get caught up with these technicalities. I'm sure some Kazakhs and Evenks and Tatars also disprove of the violence. Colipon+(T) 04:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I have read the discussion above. From my view, if all the people agree with Chinese government that "Han" means only Han, and "Uyghur" is only Uyghur, we will do not need to say anything about Hui. However, the fact is much more complex. Ethnic group recognization project was supported by Chinese government in 1950s and 1960s, and numorous anthropologists and investigators were doing research in villages, tribes, and etc. Then we can see the government issued an official list of ethnic groups in China. But Han, Hui and Uyghur appeared much earlier than that, and these three names have a lot of different meanings. Despide numorous uses in history. From Uyghurs' view, "Han" not only include Han, but may also include Hui (Besides some articles, I also personally heard this from some of my friends who visited Xinjiang in last year). From Huis' view, they are an independent ethnic group, not a part of Han or Uyghur. From Hans' view, "Hui" can have at least two main meanings, one is ethnic group Hui (this is a result of Chinese government's recognization), the other is Muslim(Hui also use Hui to call Muslim and Islam), which means all the people who believe in Islam. This is a proper topic for a thick book, not only an article. In this book we can discuss how "Uyghur" became a name of an ethnic group in 20 centure, why both Hui and Han agree that they are two ethnic groups (we can go back to see the history of Mongol Empire and Yuan Dynasty)(acturally there were also numorous conflicts between Han and Hui during the last 700 years), why Hui is considered as a part of Han in Xinjiang and Tibet (Kuomintang's central government (from 1920s to 1940s) also said that Hui was not an independent ethnic group) (This need us to go back to see how Hui went to Xinjiang and Tibet. Why Huis' Mosque was burned down almost every time when conflicts between Han and Tibetan happened.) We can also see Russia and Britain's influence on the development of indentification (The relationship between CCCP and "Uyghur").

As I said, this is a very complex topic and if anyone interested in it, perhaps he or she will need several years to do research on it. As wiki must keep neutral, we'd better give our readers a chance to see something not only from the angle of government, but also from other people's view.

I advice that in this article we describe it like this: "between Han (maybe include Hui), and Uyghur". As it is impossible for us to know what is everybody's view, no one can make sure that when somebody says "Han" is not good, that means "Hui" is not good or not. It is a chance for our readers who want to know more about it, if we leave Hui here. And "maybe" or some words else can tell our readers the complex background on this topic. --83.83.222.231 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hui is an ethnic group, they may be "han chinese" but practice islam just like the uigyurs. the han nationals involved in the riots don't really practice islam, and possibly view all mosques and muslims as the enemy. just like many nationalistic americans view muslims in the usa as suspect. there, simple answer. Lucky dog (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

wait, how could I be so dumb... colipon, I see where you are going with this, you want to marginize the argument and possibly the wiki article to make it a sound like it's a uyghur-only problem, when in reality the situation in xinjiang is far more complex, and involves many parties, and variables. its not a black and white issue. and nobody even touched on the the background of the riots, especially this guy Wang Lequan, the guy who ruled xijiang and responsible for ethnic policies in all of china.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/asia/11xinjiang.html

Lucky dog (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jane Macartney and irresponsible journalism

Just saw this edit, sourced to "Calm returns to riot city as troops patrol the streets" by The Times' Jane Macartney. This is not the first time this journalist's inflammatory wording has been used in this article; two days ago there was a dispute here about including essentially the same quotation "Han stabbed by marauding gangs of Uyghurs", from her article "Riot police battle protesters as China's Uighur crisis escalates". (The final decision was to keep it, but attribute it specifically to her, so it's presented as her opinion rather than as fact.)

Mrs. Macartney's work strikes me as extremely poor journalism and, seeing this quote repeated in a second article of hers, I am really beginning to consider writing a letter to The Times' editor. This is the second time Macartney has inserted a gratuitious and inflammatory aside, with absolutely no mention of what her source was for this claim. Given the number of people paying attention to this, the delicacy of the situation, and the potential for fanning ethnic hatred, this is extremely poor journalism. I'm just saying this here because I think, regardless of whether I sent The Times a rant or not, we here at this page ought to think carefully about how much weight we should be giving to Macartney's work. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We need her report as one POV...It's a chicken rib situation. (shurg)

We have to find that Xinhua update on July 9 to stop the current edit wars. Using Jane Macartney's report to update the numbers made me feel like commiting hate crimes. Jim101 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, at least as far as we are concerned. But as for the Times, I am beginning to feel that Mrs. Macartney needs to be given an unpaid vacation until this issue has calmed down...and whichever editor let her articles get published in their current form needs at least a slap on the wrist :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In this situation it is safer to keep the quotation but attribute it to herself rather than the Times. Colipon+(T) 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon and Jim101, can you educate me, what's wrong with her report?--Jinhuili (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Certain passage of it has been abused by Pro-Han groups as an excuse to take revenege on Uyghurs, and copying/pasting her report here just add credibilities to their cause. To preserve unity of China, the last thing we want is ethic violence fuel ethic violence. Thus we have to be cautious on which part of her report we can use and how to use it. Jim101 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Certain part of the report is abused doesn't prove that the report has problem. I don't understand what is wrong in the report. It doesn't tell the truth? Or the truth can be abused?--Jinhuili (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to understand that in a word game, anything can be twisted and abused. And any word in published materials gets misrepersented, it is usually the author's fault for poor writing. The beef I have with her report is that it used the term "marauding Uighur mobs" when describing the initial riot. Whether it is her intention, the use of this term basicly pin the entire Uyghur ethic group responsiable, when there are only 3000 rioters in the entire event. And the result is that Pro-Han group get the wrong message started asking for blood. Jim101 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the major (or only) possible fault of the article is the phrase of "marauding Uighur mobs". Well, I am not a native English speaker. I don't understand how strong "marauding" is. However, the word of "mobs" reminder me a number of English articles that describe the Uighurs as "protesters" or "demonstrators", but describe the Han people as "Han mobs". Nobody asked to give the authors unpaid vacations.

I don't want to see any violence in China, no matter it's against Han or Uigurs. However, we are not Chinese Government, we should not harmonize the truth because of the potential risks of revenge. On the other hand, I do not believe her article would fuel the violence in China. How many people in China will read her article? How many people in China can read English wikipedia? --Jinhuili (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not trying to "harmonize the truth". We are trying to be netural, and I don't see using "marauding Uighur mobs" is need to reflect the truth when words like "rioters mostly composed of Uyghur" can also do the job. Jim101 (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As for how strong the "marauding Uighur mobs" is...by first impresson "marauding" is somewhere along the line of "barbrians/animals", while "mob" conveys that "a disorganized crowd of people who intended to be violent." This term is not true because Uyghur are not barbirans, and the protestors did not intend to be violent until cops arrested 70 out of 200 people.

You bring up the point that western media used the word "mob" to describe Han is not fair, but given that mob means "a disorganized crowd of people who intended to be violent" and on July 7 Han did become disorganized crowd of people who intended to kill Uyghur, I don't believe the western media step out of lines here. Jim101 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The killing is indeed barbarian. My point about the "mob" is why in the same article, even in the same sentence, the Uyghurs are called protesters, but the Han people are called mobs? Don't you think it's a twisted word game? Why the Uyghurs are not described as "mobs" after more than one hundred people were killed?

You mentioned that they were not intend to be violent until somebody were arrested. Are you implying that the arrest can be justified for the killings? I guess the answer is no. Do you have problem to describe the people who kills other people brutally as barbarian?

Another question is: are you sure the Uyghur group who protest and the group who kill are the same group? If not, is it ok to call the killing group "marauding Uyghur mobs"? --Jinhuili (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Killing is barbarian equals Uyghur (the ethic group) is barbarian?
• No, you framed my explaination in the wrong context. In English word games, "mob" labels are assigned by intentions, not by results, and that is why I want people to stay away from the word "mob" until intentions are proven. Han groups intentions has already been stated, while Uyghur groups intentions are under dispute. This is why I wrote "Uyghur rioter killed Hans" in the article because "rioter" is a label assigned by results.
• Again, "marauding Uyghur mobs" means "entire population of Uyghur barbarian with intention to kill"...since you made the distinctions between the Uyghurs protesting and the Uyghurs rioting, can the lable "entire population of Uyghur barbarian with intention to kill" seperate the two groups? Jim101 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree it means the entire Uyghur. I also don't agree other stuff. Anyway, I would stop here. Thanks.--Jinhuili (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jim101 on this; not only is the use of "marauding Uyghur mobs" and graphic language about the murders of Han Chinese unnecessarily sensationalistic (and now frequently abused by many Han netizens to fuel anti-Uyghur hatred), but she didn't even give a source for any of her claims for two days. Today she finally said that her claim of "most of the deaths were Han" is from a central government statement...but still nothing on why she chose to use "marauding Uyghur mobs". Honestly, it looks like she just got out of a college creative writing course and wants to spice up her writing, but in an area this delicate there is a real risk that her article has, or will, indirectly contribute to further killings. And leaving such information unsourced for two days (which, in the timeline of this situation, is practically an eternity) just adds insult to the injury. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim101, After I browsed the photos of the victims, I don't think the phrase of "marauding Uyghur mobs" is not proper. However, I don't want to judge it, because I was not there at that time. On the other hand, nobody provided any evidence to prove "marauding Uyghur mobs" is not the truth.

The question I want to ask is whether you guys think "Uyghur mobs" is a proper term. I am asking this question is that I saw so many "Han mobs" in the news. I didn't see any major editors at here challenged it.

I am impressed that some editors insist to delete the graphic language about the murders. That's the "harmonized the truth" I was talking about.

Rjanag claims that her article are frequently abused to fuel the hatred. I don't believe her article is as useful as the graphic photos and videos on the Internet.--Jinhuili (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you use it to describe the entire event, then my opinion "Uyghur mobs" is not the correct term on two grounds:

• Before the riot started the initial protest was peaceful and was against government/police, not Han.
• By bringing up term "Uyghur" means the violence was committed by an entire ethic group, not by a group of people protesting against the government. (Unless you want to say that all Uyghur hated government since it was formed...but that would be WP:OR)

But it is the correct term to use when you describe the events on July 5, when majority of the violence was committed along ethic lines by Uyghur rioters.

Jane's article fuels the riot not by creating graphic language, but by matching her graphic language to confirmed the videos as "universially accepted truth", thus radicalize Pro-Han groups in its anti-Uyghur mission. Jim101 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide one or two Pro-Han groups' name or website or forum? I am really curious. --Jinhuili (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the article, follow the links and all the anti-Uyghur messages left on this disscussion board. Jim101 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• She is aiding and abetting Rupert Murdoch to sell newspapers. Her descent into jingoism and the sort of language that tabloids are well known for are a complete disgrace for a once-respectable journal. It is clear that she was not there at the time the riots started, nor could she have witnessed the unfolding, and to borrow language and commentary from the great Ministry of Propaganda without verification or attribution is sloppy and irresponsible. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an excellent way of putting it; I should have asked you to co-write my angry letter ;). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Weird, I've been reading lots of Han people online going on about how anti-China Macartney is and how she is trying to bend things so as to favour the rioters. I guess extremists on both sides just cannot stand to see someone who reports from a relatively neutral standpoint FOARP (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism redux

User:Qiuzheyun has been adding quotes from some articles that argue in favor of why the incident was premeditated terrorism: [1][2][3][4][5], etc. Some thoughts:

1. Poor writing style: just throwing in direct quotes from articles, without integrating them (into a sentence or some such) is frowned upon. Wikipedia is supposed to have its own article, it's just just an aggregator of quotes.
2. More importantly: quality of sources and weight given to them. We all know that many sources within China are presenting arguments for why they think this incident was premeditated; that is already covered to great extent within the article. So there's no need for us to parrot back the arguments of two random sources (the second one I'm not even sure where it came from, as it's a blog post that appears to be a copy-and-paste of some article). The arguments themselves are questionable ("no one from my town would do this" just sounds like patriotism; it is widely documented that when riots happen normal people lose control and do things no one would ever expect from them) and not from important sources—including them in this article would be giving them undue weight. Better to just say, as we already do, that "lots of sources within China are calling the riots 'terrorism' and saying they were premeditated".

Thoughts? I have removed it for now; Qiuzheyun is already far past the three-revert limit that can get him blocked, but I figured we might as well get a consensus here anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In principle, agreed.

The crux is that, as of now, we do not have the word "terrorism" in the entire article (except for quoting the government of...Micronesia). Even though I am personally very skeptical of the impact and inflammatory repercussions of using such wording in wikipedia (Would we cite flimpsy sources about Jews as "vermin" or Black people as n...?), I will have to accept that if somebody finds a reliable, relevant source, and quotes it ad verbatim involving the word "terrorism,"...then so be it. Just make sure we have a darn good, double-checked translation of the source and every single editor who knows Chinese (count me out) agrees on no other interpretation of the wording. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The content I tried to add is as below. I think it's imporant imformation to understand the event. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Evidences indicate that the terrorism attacks with the coverture of peaceful demonstration were well prepared", Asia Weekly reported. "It's hard to find bricks in Urumqi. The bricks used by the mobs were transported to the places by cars before", an injured woman told reporter.新疆百余漢人被殺西方媒體誤讀悲劇

"Mobs came from places out of Ürümqi. Local Uigurs would not participate in the riots. No Uigur in my residential community participated", a taxi driver told RFI reporter.劫后的乌鲁木齐

@Seb: both the sources do more or less use the word "terrorism" (恐怖 is 'terror'); the first, in particular, uses 恐怖分子 "terrorists" and 恐怖袭击 "terrorist attack". In principle, I agree with you that we sh ould mention somewhere in the article that many sources within China are calling this terrorism...but again, we should not be saying "THIS IS TERRORISM BECAUSE", but "SOME SOURCES CALLED IT TERRORISM". It's their opinion, not Wikipedia's. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am forced to agree then. For the record, I would like to state (in pure self-abdication, perhaps) that we should all keep in mind that the word "terrorist" is on the Top10 of inflammatory epithets in this day and age, and that wikipedia is read worldwide with many people being unaware of its policies. I would rather err on the side of "not being comprehensive" than risking a situation where people will read the article tomorrow and conclude "well, it's on wikipedia, so let's go out and lynch some more of those bastards."

That being said, g'ahead and incorporate it once somewhere, after intensive meditation over the wording and its ethics. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not entirely opposed to the word "terrorism" appearing - in the appropriate context - I would like to point out that any source that suggests it's hard to find bricks ANYWHERE in China is dubious at best.Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you had visited everywhere in China. Thus, your word of "ANYWHERE" is dubious. They are talking about Urumqi. Do you have any inside information about Urumqi?--Jinhuili (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I can provide inside information about Urumqi. | start here, | This source confirms there are at least 17 construction companies operating in Urumqi. Somehow I think some of them use bricks. | Although my written Chinese isn't very good I imagine there is at least some references to construction projects on this site too. | This section mentions some pertinent information and bring us to:Here. Conclusion - there is a lot of government sponsored construction activity in Urumqi. Where there is construction there is inevitably bricks (or are you suggesting the buildings being constructed are made of wood?) Do I need to continue or is this sufficient?Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't convince me. How can they build such a big city without construction companies. Are you sure some of them use bricks? I am not an expert about it. I don't want to argue about this.

My understanding of the quote is: It's not easy to find bricks in the streets of Urumqi. The bricks must be transported to the spots, where the riots happened, from other places in the city or outside the city. --Jinhuili (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I blink and miss something? There seems to be a rather surreal discussion which is attempting to draw a link between 'bricks' and 'terrorism'. We are not playing at six degrees of separation here, as far as I know. The last time I looked, 'bomb', 'gun', 'plane' were infinitely more closely linked. I have learned that for moslems, even 'shoe' is closer to terrorism than 'brick'. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My discussion of bricks with Simonm223 is not about terrorism. It's about the credibility of the source.--Jinhuili (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So forget the bricks, please. Look at "an injured woman told reporter" -- injured (whine), woman (name?), told (when?), reporter (who?) Seb az86556 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

Stay on topic. Who gives a *&%# about the bricks? Seb az86556 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The source Jinhuli is defending claims the supposed scarcity of bricks in Urumqi as a proof of premeditation. They claim that bricks were imported to the city for protestors to throw. The claim is patently absurd, as I demonstrated, Urumqi is basicly the development and construction hub of the far west of China. As such it is very highly unlikely that bricks are scarse in the slightest. Rather it is more likely that they are, as usual, easy to find improvised weapons. Jinhuili disagrees. But it's pretty clear that Jinhuili is arguing from a specific POV.Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The bricks part just made my day...Uyghur imported bricks is a sign of planning riot...of course Uyghurs going to import a lot of bricks, otherwise how are they going to build houses? I'm hitching a ride on roflcopter right about now. Jim101 (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

POV? There are far more than 17 banks in Urumqi. We can still say: it's hard to find money in Urumqi. The money is in the banks not in the streets. There are millions of jobs there. They can still say it's hard to find jobs for Uyghurs. --Jinhuili (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop this silliness? It's getting rather out of hand. And off topic. And silly.Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't talk about bricks anymore. However, the original translation of the source about bricks is not accurate at all. I just read the Chinese article http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm?Channel=ae&Path=2334700162/28ae1a.cfm It shows: 「在烏魯木齊市區，很少找得到磚頭，暴徒當天用來打砸的磚頭是用卡車一車一車拉過來的」，一名受傷的婦女說：「這樣明顯的行動，政府事先居然不知道？」

Here is my translation: "In the city areas (downtown?) of Urumqi, it's not easy to find bricks. The bricks that used in the riots by the rioters were transported to there by trucks on the same day," a injured woman said: "The actions were apparent. Didn't the government know it?" The words in brackets are my comments.--Jinhuili (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor translation. In addition, when you say something in unprepared random interview, your words may not be very precise. I suppose the meaning of injured woman is that in Urumqi (at least aroud the places the riot took place), it's not easy to find bricks (the bricks deposited or scattered on the streets which could be conveniently available for the mobs to use). -Qiuzheyun (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

break

<-No, we shouldn't use such a word just for the sake of it, or because someone likes the sound. OTOH, Nur Bekri did said it when uttering the party line of "separatism, terrorism and extremism"

Nur Bekri said the brawl was used by some overseas opposition forces to instigate Sunday's unrest and undermine the ethnic unity and social stability in the autonomous region, with an aim to split the country.

"We should bear in mind that stability is to the greatest interest of all people in China, including the people in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region," he said. He blamed the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism and extremism for making use of the event to sabotage the country, adding that their attempts are doomed to fail.

Ohconfucius (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See the Nur Bekri quote is an appropriate context - provided we note that it was his opinion and not fact. But that's the way we should be handling this phrase - until an independent third party finds some evidence of actual organized terrorism rather than rioting civilians and authoritarian police tactics.Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I fail to understand why are people still whipping the terrorist horse, if they really want to show how "evil" the "ETIM" terrorist are, go to the 2008 Kashgar attack page, not here. Yifanwang99 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop. Think. All of us fell into a trap: The user who started this string is gone. We're suddenly in disagreement over something we disagreed on two days ago. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist is a buzzword used in the same way as communist used in the 1950s...even if Nur Bekri said it, we have to see whether he use it as a buzzword or he really mean those rioters are terrorist. Given this term is just muddeling the water, I would say it is just not worth the efforts to argue over on adding this term. Jim101 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nekri was very obviously pumping out the rhetoric in his 10 minute speech, as his bosses expected of him. The fact that it was also churned again by the politburo makes it obvious that the Propaganda Ministry wrote it and was endorsed by the top leadership. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the standard party line in the PRC for dissent on the western frontier - be it Uighur, Tibetan or other.Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you say the mobs that attack and kill common civilians on the streets they met are not terrorists? If I go to your city and kill everyone (or everyone of your ethnic group, with 156 dead and 1080 injured, some may be your family members) on your streets I met, don't you think it's terrorism attacks? -Qiuzheyun (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That's a serial-killer. :) Seb az86556 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So you say the Uigur mobs are serial-killers? Is such serial-killer a kind of terrsit? And suppose, I with my mobs go to your city and kill everyone (or everyone of your ethnic group, with 156 dead and 1080 injured, some may be your family members) on your streets we met, is that terrorist attacks? -Qiuzheyun (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, read the definition of "terrorism". Just because people die doesn't make something terrorism.

This discussion is going nowhere anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Qiuzheyun here need to watch his back, since by his definition, everyone could be a terrorist except him. So technically, we are all terrorist except him. Jim101 (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone could be a terrorist dosn't mean Everyone is terrorist. If a peron do terror action, commit terror crime, people feel him or her to be a terror threat, then he or she is a terrorst, This is my personnal opinion. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And it's right that everyone could be a terrorist. It's only decided by what he or she think and do. Everyone can be bad, everyon can be good, it's only decided by his or her thinking. Everyone can choose to stand on the side of anti-terror-action, to fight against terrorists, and everyone can also choose to stand on the side of terror-action, to be a terrorist. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Seb az86556 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The two pieces of news tell some valuable info for reference. So add with avoiding using the term terrorism which left for you to discuss. -Sofoes (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• "I'm sorry, for valuable" it is not. It is just idle speculation from third parties which lies definitely in the realms of WP:NPOV violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of death in the lede

Number of death is removed from the lede by this edit without a discussion. I think it's ridiculous. --Jinhuili (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going strictly NPOV. The edit before that said that what Human rights groups say is unimportant. OK. Accepted. - But if they are unimportant, then an official PRC-statement is also unimportant. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find the edit you referred. Can you give a link?

Even if PRC's statement is unimportant as you mentioned, which I don't agree, you should not remove this number from the lede without discussion, unless you have better source for the number.--Jinhuili (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[[6]] <This was the part that said Human rights groups aren't important.

Again, I have no problems inserting a government statement in the lede; but the source it uses is quoted selectively: the same line of that source also says that Human rights groups have challenged the government assertion. If you include a statement about numbers so early in the article, you must also include its critics. (I didn't start this problem, the lede looks fine to me until a few moments ago. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think you misunderstood my intention in saying human right group's opinion is not important. The reason I remove it because I believe we should use numbers to counter numbers, and in this case WUC's 600 died number is on topic in disputing government numbers, while some groups' opinion on how people died is off topic.

NPOV is not just about balancing opinions, it is also about putting facts/opinions in the correct context. I remove the human right group's opinion because it is out of context and off topic. Jim101 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My bottom line is that we should not remove the number from the lede. As of the human rights group's opinion, I strongly support you to add it in the article, but I don't believe the lede is a good place for it. --Jinhuili (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it in the Victims section, but someone remove it. Jim101 (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was away. Looked at current version. Looks good, is balanced now, but...

The key point is, what methods did the so-called human right groups use to obtain the number of death? Just an arbitrary lie for their hostile intentions? Or can they really get reliable data through a persuasive method? I think those human right groups just told lies. I cannot imagine they have persuasive methods. If anyone can convince me that those human right groups have reasonable and feasible approachs to determine the number of death, I will change my opinion. If not, then those human right groups are still shammers in my mind. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

related

...while we were not watching, someone slipped in an ethnic breakup of deaths into the infobox again.[[7]] I thought we'd agreed not to play around with those numbers of how-many-of-"my"-people-died??? I'll take it out, and we need to talk about this. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Break out the fire hose and do it now! Jim101 (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, still trying to learn my way around. Anyway, concerning the ethnic breakdown, I understand why it would not be a good idea to place it in the article right now, but will it be added in the future when everything cools down? It would be relevant as historical statistics (forgive my callousness, can't think of better wording) would it not?Ddrddrddrddr (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think once we have more sources (ie multiple reliable sources, not just multiple articles all parroting Xinhua) it might be included...also once, as you suggest, things have calmed down enough that people are trying to put it in really just to improve the article, and not to prove a point about how either group is the bad guy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Media gaffes 2

(This is the revision I'm looking at.) Is it necessary to label the section "Western media gaffes"? Sure, the gaffes that have happened so far do seem to be all in Western media...but changing the section title makes it sound terribly POV, like we're trying to go out of our way to show how terrible the West is. "Media gaffes" is just as accurate, and less POV.

Also, I have cleaned up the paragraph of the NYT photo caption mistake, but is is really necessary to go into such depth on this? Unlike the other photo controversy, in this one it doesn't seem like NYT wasn't trying to make a point with their inaccurate photo caption; rather, someone found a photo and just was too lazy to find an accurate caption as they were putting it online. A lot of NYT photos have "captions" that aren't relevant to the photo anyway (scroll through the NYT photo gallery linked in that paragraph, half the captions are describing the photo and half are just talking about background and stuff and not directly commenting on the photo). While this description of the gaffe is accurate, it doesn't seem to add much to the article, and to be honest the impression that the current version gives the reader is that pro-Chinese editors are just nitpicking and trying to grab onto whatever arguments they can to discredit the other side. I think the Chinese position in this would be strengthened by not latching so hard onto every trivial issue that comes their way. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:UNDUE is also a POV violation people. Jim101 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I remove the photo mistake about NYT...I just don't see the point. It is not abused by media like the 2009 Shishou incident photo...unless Feng Wang is a very important person that needs reputation protected, but then it is compeletely off topic unless someon want to start a witch hunt here. Jim101 (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Although the NY Times didn't print a formal retraction they did change the caption to one not mentioning ethnicity. This does not seem notable to me. A slight hint of anti-PRC bias in a US News source is hardly surprising... nor is it a significant gaffe. Let's just leave it off.Simonm223 (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur too per the arguments above. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been restored by Helloterran. Will leave him a message at his talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if error-free reporting exists. This one is a non-event, written about only in some agency blog. I would agree it doesn't warrant a mention. I have removed it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...some people just won't quit, got revert back again. Jim101 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted him, warned him for edit warring, and asked him to discuss here rather than reverting (although I'm a bit miffed that this is the second time I've had to explain edit warring and consensus to this user...apparently he believes he gets a clean slate with every new dispute). If he reverts again, feel free to report him to WP:AN3. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" invalid

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.

---

Pls read the definition of consensus. If many editors who contributed to the article did not even have a chance to participate in your short discussion due to different time zone and you hastenly declare that a "consensus" has be reached, it's only against the wiki rules. I quote WP:CON: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I already left you a message on your talkpage explaining why this snippet is irrelevant. If you want your stuff included, leave a message here explaining why it is relevant and necessary in this article. We care about the article, not about arguing over policy. No one is interested in having a dry debate over the meaning of "consensus". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this "invalid consensus" has more "community exposure" than your ranting. I suggest you to work on that first before edit warring. Jim101 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you think it "dry debate" but obviouly you rely on the consensus being valid to actually "locking" the current edition. And you reasoning on my talk page is not convincing at all. Helloterran (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote from my talk page:

That quote is pretty irrelevant; it refers to overturning community consensus, ie, changing things like project-wide policies and guidelines that have been discussed by hundreds of editors—not about small additions in articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The fate this "small addition" simply is not small enough for a handful of IDs on the talk page to decide. Many more editors have been involved in its editing and your alleged "consensum" is certainly not adequately exposed.

Besides I'm just curious. I have invested much time in the paragraph and many other editors have made contribution. Suddenly someone rmv the entire paragraph "w/o consensus having been reached". When I try to question his reason you show up and call me "edit warring". Show me the logic. Is it a "first move, alway win" strategy? Helloterran (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the consensus invalid? It has to be understood that in journalism, the person who wrote the piece is never (these days, anyway) responsible for choosing the image or the caption. Usually, the caption is chosen first, and a dogsbody goes to the photo library to get the photo decided upon. This is where errors occur. The editor often misses these errors, and thus there is a content mismatch. Therefore, this is a journalistic non-event. To claim it is significant, or perhaps suggest something freudian, would be totally wrong. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you have to find enough evidence to prove that such carelessness is both mainstream and widely accepted, and that errors resulting from such tradition is always "non-event". It's also understood that withdrawal or ractification of a research paper after its publication is HUGE event. So I find it very hard to accept your theory.Helloterran (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have invested much time in the paragraph and many other editors have made contribution. WP:OWN violation right here.

And the fate this "small addition" simply is not small enough for a handful of IDs on the talk page to decide. Since Wikipedia is based on "handful of IDs" in its consenses building process, maybe we should shut Wikipedia down in order to improve its consenses building process.

Anyway, just my two cents...who am I to judge. Jim101 (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're ridiculous off topic Jim. My only point is, if you'd like to reach a valid consensus and lock the current edition, you'll have to wait until sufficient IDs who have been involved in the editing of this paragraph have agreed to support you. The time of the start and end of the discussion here obviouly do not meet the "adquate exposure" rule. Helloterran (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(I checked the history-string: It seems that Helloterran added it, Jim101 (in what seems to be "checking the source") tried to correct it, then decided to remove since NPOVing didn't seem possible and relevance was questionabe... hardly "many editors"... Seb az86556 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 11 July 2009 (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.

I have archived the above discussion because it is useless. There is no point arguing over what consensus is; we are just here to discuss what things go to in the article and what things don't, so please keep the discussion focused on that topic. Anyone is welcome to add arguments about this particular paragraph below—arguments that are not specifically about why that paragraph should stay or why it should go, are not constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OWN
• WP:POINT

Due to the gross violation of the two rules above, I would say just shut the debate down right here. Jim101 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong on the numbers of editors involved. Sorry about improper wording.

Then is it right to say that there is no consensus about the notability of the paragraph? From above discussion the only valid reason against it is that it's only mentioned in an official blog, not in a news article. I agree not to add it back, as long as it remains unmentioned in any credible news source.Helloterran (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't just that it's a blog. The problem is that, as Ohconfucius and others pointed out at the beginning of this section, it's simply not a big deal. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And on those aspects, as I said above, there is no consensus. The entire July 6 NYT photo slide on the riot has some serious POV problem ands that photo happens to be the focus of criticism. No big deal on its own? Real big deal on the whole picture. Again, that's what I believe, which is not NPOV. But the only practical way here towards NPOV is combining various POV, not arbitrarily removing (some of) them. Helloterran (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title of "media gaffes" is enough. I support Helloterran for the adding of NYT paragraph.--Jinhuili (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• NPOV policy only applies to Wikipedia, not NYT.
• We are not creating a soap opera section.
• Wang posted his material in his own personal opinion section of the Reruters website, and stated that Reruter broke no law by letting NYT put wrong caption on it...does that mean he automaticly speaks for Reruter on NYT, or Reruter cares about what Wang says about NYT?
• Wang merely tried to correct a mistake that made him look bad...how does that related to the riot?
• Can anyone show how this particluar wrong caption affected people's opinion about the riot?
• And check your intentions...are you trying to add content on media bias, or add content on the riot? If you are trying to add content on media bias...aren't you at the wrong article here?

Jim101 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about NPOV. It's about whether it tells truth or not.

I am talking about NYT, not Wang. It's ok for me to rewrite that paragraph.

This particular wrong caption is just an example. For more, please see this. An old Chinese story says: if one guy tells you there is a tiger in downtown, you won't believe it. If 2 guys tell you, you may doubt it. When 3 guys tell you it, you will believe it. The answer is, yes they will effect people opinion. --Jinhuili (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, if you want truth, go to a philosophy class. This is Wikipedia and we report fact (yes, there is a huge difference).
• Second, Wikipedia is NPOV. If you believe NPOV is bad in this case, stay away from Wikipedia.
• Thrid, the story is merely an theory...does a theory prove that NYT poisioned people's mind? Last time we checked, we use facts to prove stuff, not theory. Yes, theoritically NYT can poision people's mind with its mistake...but where is the fact on how many people did NYT poision?
• Fourth, it is about Wang, since he is the only source that provided every info for this graffe. IMO it is he said/she said situation and a soap opera in the making.

Jim101 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny logic. Is Wang speaking out his personal opinion, or is he making a formalresponse on behalf of Reuters? You seem to believe that he was using the Reuters blog as a private diary book to record his own feelings.

Yes you want facts, but apparently only some of them.

Any one here explicitly blame NYT for any brainwashing? Or are you being a little bit sensitive? We are, as you are unwilling to admit, merely accumulating facts here. What those facts will build up to reveal is not in our control.Helloterran (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oy...too much weed in the world.

NYT "brainwashing" people is relevant on the the topic of how media is used during riot...if they are not "brainwashing" people, is it even relevant? Jim101 (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The quick summary of the points listed at the beginning of the debate is this: Is it true that NYT mislabeled a photo? Yes. Does it matter? No. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is a mislabeled photo important? probably no. If it's among dozens of similar "unintentional gaffes", then it certainly bears some significance. That's what's happening now. If you insist that every time they are just careless and are repeatedly making the same "mistake", you are being hypocratic.

None of us here has any real authority to say the final words about the "notability" issue of any event. As someone above asserts that it's widely accepted in journalism to rectify basic facts in a report after its publicaion(and make no annoucement of it), NYT can not be even blamed and you can go on to believe it's no big deal. But If any credible media source notices this event, the fact that it's noticed itself will suffice.Helloterran (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be another example of people combing through accounts of events looking for inconsistencies. Not everything which is reported is important. People make mistakes. Some mistakes will cause diplomatic incidents, some may set off a war. In the grand scheme of things, this is nothing - a non-event. This 'event' wasn't even reported. Someone commented on it in their blog. What is a blog? It is a personal diary of sorts – informal, personal. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...a new witch hunt/soap opera just started here. If people cannot learn to use that section more responsibly, then I would suggest elinmate that section entirely. Seriously, which part of "本帖只代表网友个人观点" don't those editors understand? Jim101 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of time and energy Fenqings at Anti-Cnn devote to uncover inconsistencies in the coverage of Western media it is quite remarkable that all the could uncover were a few mislabeld picture (and maybe not even that). It makes me only wonder, if the same amount of energy and fervor would be devoted to uncover gaffes of Chinese media, how large would this section be? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Only mislabeled picture? Give me a break.

Chinese media are rarely used in this article. I never tried to use any Chinese reports as references in this article, otherwise this article will be very different. --Jinhuili (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoever told me the inconsistencies in the coverage of Western media are just a few mislabeled pictures, please read the latest article in CNN Report: Stores reopen in Urumqi, China, after deadly protests. It writes, At least 184 people were killed in the demonstrations and more than 1,600 injured, according to government figures. Please tell me if 184 people were killed in the demonstrations, who killed them.

Further reading: More than 500 Uyghurs killed in China and this discussion --Jinhuili (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reparations

I just found this article. Should we make a new section on this? [8]

Apparently the government is paying 200,000RMB for every victim as well as a one-time "funeral cost coverage" of 10,000RMB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.158.81 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep info under Casualties and Damage sections please...and thanks for the good find. Jim101 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity (no relevance to the article, I'm just wondering), how does this compare to the reparations after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Any offical verison of this news? Like Xinhua, People's Daily, etc? I don't want to post about government policies without some forms of conformation. Jim101 (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, since Ürümqi government website is still under lockdown, I'll have to take this report as the source. Jim101 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

An amazing Chinese essay

This is an amazing Chinese essay, which talks about why should the government treats minority criminals with leniency. The title is "对少数民族中的犯罪分子必须实行“两少一宽” 政策", which means, Must apply "2 less 1 leniency" policy to minority criminals.

"2 less 1 leniency" policy refers to the "must insist to execute less and arrest less minority criminals, and punish them with leniency" (对少数民族的犯罪分子要坚持‘少捕少杀’，在处理上一般要从宽) policy in 《中发[1984]第5号文件》, a document issued by CCP in 1984.

I am not try to use this essay as a reference in wikipedia. Just want to use it to show that Han people is discriminated in terms of law practice, and the minorities are discriminated spiritually by somebody like the authors of this essay --Jinhuili (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're gradually coming to understand this issue better than when we started. What is clear is that, just like in most countries, there is discrimination against minorities in some aspects of life and discrimination against the majority (in this case, Han people) in other aspects. Trying to make the Wikipedia article make a blanket statement that life in general is easier for one group than the other is, of course not possible—people will always disagree over which kind of discrimination is bigger, or worse, or has been going on longer, or whatever. All we can do is cite sources that unambiguously claim what these groups feel about the supposed discrimination. After all, that's what the article is about: when it comes down to the facts, these tensions are not caused directly by discrimination or whatever else, but by how people feel about discrimination. Peoples' feelings are what cause them to protest, to riot, etc. Whether or not those feelings are necessarily justified is not our place to decide. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell you something that is off the topic. The toy factory in Guangdong, where the brawl happened, recruited hundreds of Uyghur workers heeding the government's policies to help the poor regions. Today, a news shows that after the rioters, some factory owners are not willing to hire Uyghur workers any more. Is it ironic?--Jinhuili (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This policy is discrimination. It's not right. There is a Chinese concept for thousands years: 入鄉隨俗 (When enter a region or village, obey custom of the region or village) . It should be in equity. So when a minority go to other region, they should obey the custom of other region including being equally treated by law. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

入鄉隨俗 means if you enter a region where rape is legal, everybody should be able to do it legally, not just the minority.--Jinhuili (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. But in many minority rigions, some of their tradtional custom is ugly, some just be very brutal, some just infringe human rights espcially women rights.... So government should have a plan (especially educational plan) to help them gradually abandon such ugly custom and adopt new better custom. This is called 親民（新民, renovating people） in 《大學》 -Qiuzheyun (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving the article? If you don't like the PRC's policies, you can send them a letter; this page is for talking about improving the article. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that applies to this whole section.Fuzbaby (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is background information, which should be useful to help the editors to better understand the tensions between different ethnic groups in China. When a Han and a Uyghur fight, it's more likely that the Han will be arrested according to the policy. Do you believe the brawl in the Guangdong toy factory is just caused by a sexual harassment and a rumor? I think it's just release of angers that built up in both sides. --Jinhuili (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre civil rights era in the United States, per policy everyone was treated equal, and indeed some minorities were given advantages, at least based on whats written in law. However, actual practice was very different; I don't think one can make an assertion that because a policy says something, that the reality of the situation is the same; especially since the minority groups' very claims contradict the official dogma. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

But if I am not mistaken there are policy and court ruling that encourage discriminate in the US( Jim Crow, Grandfather clause, and Plessy v. Ferguson etc.) . IF you want to argue minorities are not given advantages please provide proof.

Uyghur Name - Uyghur speakers needed!

Does anyone have an idea what this event is called in the Uyghur language? What are WUC and ETIM saying? Are there any neutral or even pro-CCP Uyghur-language sources that might be referred to? The event appears to have a name in Farsi and in Arabic (judging by the sideboard), but no Uyghur name has yet been posted. FOARP (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The initial infobox had a placeholder for it, but apparently nobody could find any "official" name. If you want to go on a mission and find out, please do so and provide it. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent a message to ug:User:Barat, ug-wiki's only admin, asking him to comment here if he can. Unfortunately, I don't know enough Uyghur to read through Uyghur news and find a name; I only know that some other Arabic-script stuff posted here before (now in this talk page's archive) was not actually Uyghur. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

its: 5-iyul weqesi (in current Uyghur script: "بەشىنچى ئىيۇل ۋەقەسى") 78.43.60.2 (talk)Barat —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

köp rehmet!! I recognize ئىيۇل ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Quick Uyghur lesson for anyone who wants it..... weqe (IPA: /wæqæ/) = "incident, accident"; si = genitive marker. So literally, "the incident of 5 July). Will add it in a moment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! FOARP (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkish response

..."and urged the Chinese authorities to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice." What does that even mean? Do they mean punish those who killed the demonstrators, or those who demonstrated? 83.108.208.28 (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless they have previously blamed chinese gvmt for genocide and called them criminals. Otherwise it's pretty obvious who the "suspects" are. Helloterran (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dont find it obvious. Have Turkey said China are conducting genocide? If they have regarding to this event, it should be added to the article. But on the topic of this discussion, I still dont find it obvious what they mean. 83.108.208.28 (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Have Turkey said China are conducting genocide?" I just heard that on the news just three minutes ago. And it's been picked up by the BBC. I've put it in the relevant section of the article, but would say we should avoid slipping this opinion into the lead. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a sweet nothing, every entry in this "international" section has something like "the president said riots are bad" and "the prime minister said let's hope the violence stops"! Who cares what these people say in phony, meaningless speeches? If you see my message in the Turkey section above, there are much more relevant things that ought to be mentioned on Turkey, and this is one of the irrelevant things that ought not be mentioned.

As for "bringing perpetrators to justice"... it's funny how many government officials worldwide are repeating that line, perhaps they missed the memo that there have been thousands of arrests over the past couple days? Or maybe they've also drunk the "this was terrorism planned by people abroad" kool-aid, like Nur Bekri has. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Turkey's statement is more significant than people are giving credit. They veiw themselves as the ethnic cousins of these people, and see the government response to them as personal. Also, they veiw themselves as the spokesperson(country) for the Islamic world, which is rather angry with China right now. Its never insiginifant for a country to accuse another of genocide (which happened yesterday), but Turkey is a uniquely important country in this dialogue.Fuzbaby (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you never know. Could've been planned by NED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.158.81 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

With the CIA's help of course. We all know how competent they are!Fuzbaby (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys are coming around that there may be material of greater relevance and importance in the Turkish section. We certainly need to focus more on what happened than what was said. Most countres don't want to upset China, so are merely offering platitudes. Not only is Turkey worried about its ethnic cousins, the riots will be an ongoing instability in their back door for years to come. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions about Turkey in an above thread seemed to get drowned out in the drama that came later, so I'm reposting it here:

Ok, here is my attempt at a breakdown of what's worth keeping in the article:

• Things that matter
  • Protests in Ankara
  • Issue about Kadeer's visa, maybe, if it can be put in context (is there more than just the one source about this?)
  • Discussion with UN Security Council
• Things that don't matter
  • Quotes like "deep sadness" and "the violence must stop"—every country has said that, who cares
  • Same goes for the quotes about "finding and prosecuting the perpetrators" or whatever, and "a great country like China"—just sweet nothings
  • One guy calling for boycott of Chinese goods—random guy, random info, and reeks of freedom fries. This might have a place at the bilateral relations article, but not here, it's just too trivial

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you've posted, except one thing: "one guy calling for boycotts". Its not one guy, its the Turkish Minister of Trade, which as far as I can tell is the same as if a US secretary called on US business to do this or that. Additionally, I think there should at least be a mention in the article that the military is enforcing the curfew; in most countries that would be very significant. Fuzbaby (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait...are you sure it is the PLA, not the PAP, that is enforcing the curfews? Last time I checked the arm badges and and attires of those patroling troops are PAP paramilitary polices. Jim101 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, since I first posted that list, the boycott seems to have become a bigger deal. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider getting rid of the entries for the individual countries, replacing it with a summary of the platitudes and demonstrations? I think we can then single out those countries, like Turkey, who made substantial statements. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not be averse to that. While I appreciate the excellent work User:Midway has put into maintaining this section, I find these "international responses" list are almost always meaningless, boring, and full of trivial nothings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe we can eject that section to a separate sub-page, but expand Turkish elements in this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be appropriate as a subpage; "International reactions to the July 2009 Urumqi riots" would be a pretty trivial article, I think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No more foreign press in Kashgar

I hope that this important fact does not get lost, for I fear this is a taste of the retribution to come to the Uyghurs from the authorities... with no-one independent capable of saying anything. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The news is getting better and better...AFP just reported a oil tanker got blown up in Urumqi (although officials cannot determine cause)...oy, a story never ends.

Also, from some Chinese blogs I heard that most people involved in the riot come from Kashgar. I smell something big going on. Jim101 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that fact that there are many Kashgars students in Urumqi is already in the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oil tanker explosion

Chemical plant blast in China's Urumqi: official Jim101 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see you put it in, and someone removed it because there was no link. I agree it should be left out for now, although I'm sure the authorities will denounce it soon enough, saying it was 'an act of terrorism from' East Turkestan Independence Movement' Ohconfucius (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume it was a genuine accident, and wait for someone else to jump the gun. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. No reason to jump to conclusions here until there is proof. If we get 10 legit newspapers starting to talk about how people are speculating this, then we can mention it. Until then, no direct connection. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, leave it off the article for now, but do keep an eye out on this people...My impression is that AFP is *hinting* something's up. Anyway, like I said in my edit summary: News update. Jim101 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Standing down. Just heard on the news that the plant owner says it was an accident. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

POV claim of Tshirt girl detail

I added some words concerning the composition of rioting Uyghurs on the first day. The reason I think it's important is 1: it's from a Uyghur witness living in the city, which makes her story a little bit more solid than average witness stories. 2: The exact targets of the rioters and their motivation is not yet clear, and this makes every detail about them quite valuable. Who are these people and why did they chose to do so while other Uyghurs didn't? Is the violence based on mere hostility between ethnic groups, or is it essentially part of a global cultural and religious confrontation? The Uyghur mobs' attitude towards their own people can indeed reflect some truth. BTW I still don't understand someone's standard for marking these words POV. Helloterran (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Now someone calls it "disgraceful propaganda" without valid reasoning. None of the witnesses in the entire article is fully reliable. As I see it, if you can call a deeply involved local uyghur witness a mouthpiece and want her story removed, than nearly every accusation from the UAC has to go away too, cause until now they have hardly provided any evidence to support their claims, or to verify any of their witnesses' stories.Helloterran (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is reliable evidence that some of the rioters came from southern Xinjiang, it may be worth including. But from what I can tell, the problem here is the reliability of the source—as Ohconfucius said, just repeating unsubstantiated claims of one doctor's wife. We should probably wait until this gets some more coverage and corroboration. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Same demand as above. While this paragraph is waiting for verification from some mainstream source, are those UAC claims and accusations also going away? Helloterran (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, what you are posting are facts, not like the UAC opinions we post on this article to counter Communist opinions. Since China Daily is a Communist mouthpiece that tries everything to discredit UAC, did you even bother to verify whether this something used to destory UAC or really facts? Jim101 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop destorying citation...I know you want those facts into the article, but destorying half of the citaitons with you edits is considered vandalism. Jim101 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I rephrase the entire damn thing, but given China Daily's reputation and current agenda, I believe more confirmation is needed. Jim101 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Here comes yet another edit war

I removed a bit on an attack on Chinese tourists in Germany; Helloterran re-added it. I think it's irrelevant for two reasons: first of all, the "international response" section is on other countries' responses to the rioting in Urumqi, not on similar events that happen to happen in other countries. This attack doesn't show what, for example, the German government and people are saying about the riots. Secondly, the source is very short and very vague; it just randomly says the attack was conducted by "East Turkestan separatists" but says nothing else, gives no proof statement that they are Uyghur and no evidence of why the reporters thinks they were E.T. separatists. Given the already large mistrust for things being released by sources within China—especially government sources, which are being widely accused of scapegoating—I see no reason to include this inflammatory bit without more information (and even if it is included, this is probably not the place to put it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while I can't read the source I trust your account; I looked through german news and can't find anything of it. Also agree it has nothing to do with "international response" as its not related to a position by the government of any country. If significant demonstrations, etc. start occuring in other countries then I think they may merit their own section.Fuzbaby (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What the first paragraph says is more or less this:

News posted from the foreign relations website on July 10: A Chinese tourist group in Munich, Germany was violently attacked by "East Turkestan" elements. All Chinese citizens in Munich, plz remember to be careful/safe.
According to the Chinese consulate in Munich, on July 7 a Chinese tourist group there was violently attacked by "East Turkestan" elements, [but there were no casualties? <-- not sure about that part]. The foreign relations people have suggested negotiations with Germany, and suggested that they [do something and] use all available effective measures to ensure the safety of Chinese citizens' persons and property.

The rest is more of the same, pretty much repeating "violently attacked by East Turkestan elements" and reminding Chinese people to be careful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think this attack is happening now, not any randoms moment within past 10 years? 1: These attackers live in Germany, have all acquired permanent residence identity and are possibly German citizens. 2: Their attack can hardly be discussed without taking the riot itself into concern. Of course if your "international reaction" definition is limited to official responses made by official spokespersons, I suggest you rmv every none official portion in the "international reaction" part. I have no problem with that. Also should be noticed is that this is not the place to analyse reports. If you let your analysis result of that news article affect your editing here, I got a feeling that it's a little bit against the no original research rule.

BTW, you are free to express your distrust of any chinese source, but having realized such preference(or any other proper word I dont know), you are not supposed to let it affect your editing here. Personally I would like every bit of UAC lies disappear in the article, but I can refrain myself from doing that. Helloterran (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)，

First of all, your claiming that this attack must have been made by ET separatists because of X is OR. Secondly, as for the "international reaction" section, you can see above that I have already said I'm in favor of removing the whole thing, to be honest.

As for the reliability of sources, there are a lot of sources I don't trust, including Western ones, which is why most of my edits attribute claims to their original source (ie, "so-and-so said..."). I've been doing this both for Western and Chinese ones.

You keep referring to "UAC", and I don't know what you're talking about. Can you specify what UAC is so I can address that issue better? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I suggested before...if the incident is off topic but significant enough, then put it on People's_Republic_of_China–Germany_relations article.

UAC: Uyghur American Congress. Jim101 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, Germany's population is over 5% of Turkish ancestry, and hundreds of tourists get attacked every day. Do the math. Man...

(Next thing you know, the British Ambassador in Beijing will questioned by the PRC-government on why some Chinese citizen's tea was served cold in London...) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For the real identity of those attackers, you can use any negative weasel words on that. I only insist it be kept in the article.Helloterran (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To Seb: every week in China dozens of tibetan criminals get arrested. That's math, probability if you want to be specific. And it's nothing big in ordinary times. But around tibet unrest last year such arrest would probably result in some breaking/headline news. Same thing here. Helloterran (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What about those Chinese that were arrested after they stormed the World Uyghur Congress in Munich? I mean, if you are so eager to mention an alleged attack on Chinese tourists, why not mention the attack by Fenqings? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is irrelevant for that section. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's his point; both are equally irrelevant.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable source about the storm and the arrest in Munich, I support you to add it. However, we also need to add "China issues travel warning for Munich" [9]. I believe we need to find a better place for them, not in that section. --Jinhuili (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing new in this source. Look at the quotes; it's all just parroting what was in the original news release from the Chinese consulate. I see no reason to include any of these claims until some independent source corroborates the claim (rather than just repeating the consulate's line). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The original edit war is about the attack. The link I showed you is about the travel warning issued by Chinese government. They are different.--Jinhuili (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As WP is not a guidebook, travel advisories have no place here. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A Job Well Done

After looking over this article, its history and discussion, I must confess that the editors here have done an exceptional job in balancing the article, tending to NPOV issues, including/citing information from all relevant sources, and above all, keeping a neutral stance themselves. I was quite also surprised that there were no real outbreaks of edit warring, especially considering the scope and emotions behind this event. This is a fine example of Wikipedians countering systemic bias on Wikipedia, and I must congratulate the team of level-headed editors above who have kept watch over this page. Great work guys! AMorozov (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It ain't over 'til it's over... but thanks. From all of us I guess :) Seb az86556 (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Off topic here, we have to give credit to Chinese Communists for opening up Urumqi for independent reports after the riot, otherwise this topic would be impossible to balance. Jim101 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• With the relatively open reporting, at least there is much more which could be labelled as 'fact' and less down to opinion and speculation. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jim: Well, credit for opening up Urumqi, at least...not sure we can say the same about Kashgar :)

@Amorozov: Thanks for the message. With the amount of information and interest this has generated, I think this article can easily make GA, and even have a serious chance at FA, once tensions have calmed down and the article stabilizes. Maybe a month from now, maybe 2, maybe 6.... For now, though, the focus is just to keep it a good and neutral information resource for the several thousand people who are viewing it every day. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said before this was one of the best collaborations I have worked on since I joined Wikipedia. I completely agree with rjanag that this article has a fine shot of FA once this whole mess is over. Colipon+(T) 06:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

International Reaction > Definition

Let's just put this here for the record, before more people start digging up sources that have no merit:

By "International Reaction" we mean a statement or statements given by the government/administration or a member of the government/administration of an internationally recognized country, organization, or federation of countries, where said statement has been declared "the official position" of said entity or its officiality can clearly be infered from the context at the particular moment.

Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We may also be able to include major things, such as widely-covered protests with large numbers of people, or whatnot. My main problem is with stuff like the Germany attack, which only involved a couple people and has not been reliably connected to anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and well written. I have included this as an html notice withing the section, only visible in edit mode. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Page view stats

On 6 July, this article scored a staggering 47k hits. It has tapered off dramatically, and was at 3.4k yesterday. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been looking at that slope and loving it. Of course, from a principles standpoint I should be glad when more people see it, since it brings more attention to these important issues. But damn, 47k pageviews was wreaking havoc on my physical and mental health... it's nice to have some breathing room now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also extremely interesting seeing how the links on this article gets dramatic increases in hits - like the articles for Uyghur people and Urumqi (or even the article on List of ethnic groups in China). Really speaks to the fact that people only learn about these things when something newsworthy happens. Colipon+(T) 06:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

People's Daily op-ed about western media bias

Is it even worth including? Ohconfucius has done some excellent work cleaning up the version of it that was originally added by the POV-pusher Ksyrie, but I still don't see a reason to give it t his much weight. It's just one guy's op-ed piece, no indication of who this guy is or how important he is, and gives a not-quite-fair representation of the issue (ie, it ignores the fact that much Western media coverage has been fairly anti-Uyghur, not to mention vilifying the Uyghurs as scary Muslim terrorists; likewise, it forgets the fact that if Western media coverage is biased, Chinese coverage is just as biased in the opposite direction). I don't see any need for including an editorial like this unless better sources can be found to verify how big of a deal this is, and unless sources can be found for the opposite claim to keep this balanced. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it does matter given that it is published by People's Daily. By my impression, anything published on that paper can be considered the Communist's viewpoint, not just one guys. Thus this is an important viewpoint that needs to be included for NPOV. Jim101 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Editorials in the People's Daily are also regarded both by foreign observers and Chinese readers as authoritative statements of government policy.

Jim101 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's largely true (but why did you put it in blockquotes? From whence does it come?). The paranoid state has strict controls over the media. The People's Daily is the official organ of the CCP, and the chances of this op-ed having been vetted and endorsed by the PropMin is extremely high. I would take it as the official position, the party line, if you will. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I love block quotes :)...seriously, I just took a passage out of the article People's Daily. Jim101 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

More Fun from the BBC

According to the BBC two Uighurs have been shot dead and a third injured. BBC reports on this issue are not first hand and appear to come from Xinhua or directly from the police. The claim is that three armed Uighurs were chasing a fourth and failed to respond to warning shots from poice, leading to them being shot. Details here. I mention it because police shooting Uighurs could enflame the tensions regardless of motivation, this may quickly become notable, but I wanted to discuss it here before including anything.Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already included. Jim101 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OkiesSimonm223 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting hairy

Al-Qaeda has joined in with a declaration of war against China - see here. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do man...Communists kicked themselves in the balls, with its poorly planned policies and corrupt officials. IMO its time to hug budda's feet and start reflecting what they did wrong in the first place.

On the other equally twisted side of the story, neo-con just found an unlikely ally...and so did WUC found a nasty friend. Jim101 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, I am shocked they haven't fired this woman yet. Continuing to do everything she can to associate "Uyghur" and "terrorist" in readers' minds... dropping "Osama bin Laden" as a cheap buzzword when describing a tangentially related Algerian organization... they call this reporting? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd look into this lady's history and see if she's covered earlier Islam-related conflicts which may have left some sort of unresolved bitterness in her mind. Colipon+(T) 06:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I think it's more likely she's just a sensationalist reporter. As my father put it when I sent my latest angry e-mail around, "reading The Times is like listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio—probably not good for your blood pressure." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Han" vs. "Han Chinese"

I've noticed that all of the references to "Han Chinese" has been modified to say only "Han", omitting the "Chinese". Is a single editor responsible for all these changes? Is there a specific reason for this? Han Chinese is the term that is generally used, right? Do we really have to remove the "Chinese"? Colipon+(T) 07:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's stated in full several times, and is linked a couple of instances. The context supplies the rest. Seems redundant and repetitive to me. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would check back. A search for the phrase reveals that it's only found in the "references" section, while the entire body is now devoid of any mention of the string "Han Chinese". Colipon+(T) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It was all done by one editor, although I don't have a diff handy. He felt that "Han Chinese" was derogatory or something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If we can use "Han", I prefer to use "Han" or "Han people" instead of "Han Chinese". If we use "Han Chinese" and "Uyghur" in the same sentence, it gives the reader impression that the Uyghurs are not Chinese.--Jinhuili (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

About 10 years ago, I read a report on a major US newspaper about a reporter's trip to Xinjiang, China. The reporter doesn't believe the minorities in Xinjiang are Chinese, because they don't look like Chinese. Therefore, he asked them whether they are Chinese. He was shocked to get the answer of 'Yes'. --Jinhuili (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not derogatory as such. I agree with the above that it is more neutral, because we don't use "Uyghur Chinese" anywhere in the article. As an example of how the SCMP used 'Han' instead of 'Han Chinese', check out the article entitled "Trust seems elusive as families mourn victims of violence" published today. It is a copy of this AP article, but with 'Chinese' removed. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I feel like not using "Chinese" after "Han" in every reference in the article seems a tad awkward. It certainly does not seem derogatory. Although the translation of any term as "Chinese" is a debate of much greater proportions. "Han" in the Chinese language is arguably simply another word for "Chinese", as "Han-yu" means "the Chinese spoken language". But because of the inflexibility of the English language on this issue, things like "Zhongguo", "Zhonghua", "Hua-ren", "Hua-yi", "Zhongguo-ren", and "Han" are all invariably translated as "Chinese" despite their different connotations, making NPOV on this issue very difficult, although it has made some translations avoid disputes on semantics in the term "Chinese Taipei", but has also led to ridiculous debates on Wikipedia about whether or not it's okay to say Jackie Chan is "Chinese" because he was born in Hong Kong. Undoubtedly, though, the most common English usage of the ethnic group is "Han Chinese", not "Han", and if we go by the common usage policy it may be best to insert the "Chinese" back in some, but not all places. Colipon+(T) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The only argument in favor of using "Han Chinese", really, has been readability for the English-speaking masses. The word "Chinese" has always been in common use, and I think it's only been in recent decades that people in most of the world first started a) being aware that there are so many other ethnicities in China; and b) realizing that the so-called "Chinese" ethnicity has a name, Han. Personally I don't have a preference for either name; just thought I'd attempt to shed some light on why "Han Chinese" is in such common currency. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand the Han Chinese as common usage argument I'd prefer it shortened to Han. Chinese references a nationality, Han an ethnicity. As the conflict is between two ethnic groups within a nation identifying one of the ethnic groups with the nation may inadvertently mislead some people into believing the other ethnicity is not part of the nation.Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; it makes more sense, and we don't need to cater too much to common readers (all that's necessary is a quick note or appositive in the lede, and after that we can use Han all we want). Furthermore, saying "Han Chinese" perhaps puts us into the slightly POV position of suggesting that Uyghurs are not Chinese. And regardless of what any one of us might think on that issue, the article itself shouldn't have any thoughts on the matter :P rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed per arguments above. Jim101 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I concede to majority opinion. So do we append a note? Or remain status quo? Colipon+(T) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest remain status quo. Explain it as footnote would solve nothing, since it will sound like we are telling readers to think netural. Just add a html note in the article to warn other editors to follow this convention. Jim101 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Superlatives

Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a place to spread sensationalistic reporting, I think it is now appropriate to mention that this has been the most serious case of ethnic unrest in Xinjiang in its history under the PRC (either under the intro or in the "background section"). It is also being reported by various media outlets as the "worst case of civil unrest in China since Tiananmen", although what can be defined as "worst" is questionable. Colipon+(T) 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Many incidents are never reported, and even for the major ones like Tiananmen and Tibet, no reliable casualty figures exist. China is too opaque to make any statement about such, except to cite what certain journals have said. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but generally the CCP uses these such events to drum up support and to crack down on dissent. From what we can judge there has never been an incident in Xinjiang that has garnered this much attention from Beijing (enough for Hu to return from G8) nor required such extensive response measures. As a result it is reasonable to say that this is the most serious case of unrest in Xinjiang under PRC rule. Colipon+(T) 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

al-Qaeda

A bit skeptical about the inclusion of al-Qaeda in the "Organizations" part of International Response, although I agree it should probably be included somewhere. Whether AQ is an "organization" is somewhat controversial (personally, I subscribe to the view—which I first heard from Fareed Zakaria in the early 2000s but I'm not sure if he was the first to point it out—that it's more of an idea than an official organization, and the idea of it as a 'well-oiled machine' with Osama bin Laden driving it is something of a United States fantasy). Or, at best, others characterize it as a loose conglomeration of only somewhat related groups, most of whom don't talk to one another all that often. If we do include this response in the "Organizations" section, it would probably be better to attribute it to al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, rather than all al-Qaeda. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, after all, Al-Qaeda is an organisation - definition being an organised establishment of a group of people, for profit (e.g. Microsoft), for motive (e.g. Kariyushi Club), or not. Al-Qaeda is a "terrorist organisation", which would essentially mean that it is an established group of people who are classified as terrorists; a "terrorist organisation" is an "organisation", just like how "corporate organisations" like Sony and "non-for-profit aid organisations" such as the Red Cross are "organisations", under the common view. (Although I do find it quite ironic that we have Al-Qaeda sitting right next to the Central Tibetan Administration, Amnesty, and Human Rights Watch :P) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

N.B. I apologise for my use of Australian English, but I'll end up with ugly red dotted lines in Mozilla Firefox if I don't use "s" instead of "z", and I am rather compulsive-obsessive in that manner. :P -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree al-Qaeda in the Maghreb is superior to al-Qaeda in this case.Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Now some more sources are coming out, and unlike the sensationalist tabloid The Times these ones list AQIM as an "al-Qaeda affiliate" or "al-Qaeda offshot", rather than being al-Qaeda itself:

• "China demands Turkish retraction". BBC News. 14 July 2009. Retrieved 14 July 2009.
• McCabe, Eileen (14 July 2009). "Al-Qaeda threatens China". National Post. Retrieved 14 July 2009.

The first is from BBC, which I think is considered more reliable and neutral than The Times. The second is a bit of a toss-up; it has a misleading title, and the latter half of the article parrots some of the tripe that the Times article used, but the first couple paragraphs attempt to make it clear that AQIM is not the same as Osama bin Laden. I've cited Eileen McCabe's articles before and I think she is not an irresponsible journalist like Jane Macartney; I would venture to guess that the inflammatory title and other tidbits in this article were added in by a gung-ho editor. In any case, I think the BBC one is enough to demonstrate that this stuff needs reworded. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)