Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots

Muslim minority?

Or mongol minority, when Han are mentioned as counterpart? Thats ethnicity vs religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.44.157 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Uyghur minority.Jim101 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, "Muslim minority" is a misnomer that has been spread by the clueless reporters who wrote the first articles when the riots were starting. The group is the Uyghurs; there are Uyghurs who are not Muslim (although it's rare), and there are many Muslims in China who are not Uyghur. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the vast majority of them are still Muslim, it's just a fact, not a POV. People who do not understand the situation may jump immediately to the wrong conclusions, but that is not an excuse to hide a well-recognized fact. Colipon+(T) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at current revision. Looks fine to me. Colipon+(T) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Developing story

Would like to see someone Twitter the story as a live feed on-location. Usually when something like this happens in China media wars ensue. Colipon+(T) 03:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

@komoroka has been doing a bit of that, but reports are that internet, mobile phones, and SMS services are restricted in Xinjiang, Twitter now blocked in PRC, at least he hasn't tweeted in the last 14 hours FOARP (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture used as a sample for this riot is a fake, this picture was taken at a riot in Shishou about ten days ago and posted by Southern Metropolis Weekly. As you can see here [1] and here [http://www.dwnews.com/gb/MainNews/Forums/BackStage/2009_6_28_3_3_28_918.html ] where the picture is properly quoted. Please find a photograph that is of the actual event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.73.76 (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The riots took place yesterday and have subsided. Now the security forces have the city under control. Since they mainly used tear gas and other non-lethal weapons, I believe this story will probably get buried in the next news cycle. I bet you 100 bucks the western media is desperately trying to unearth evidence that the commies "brutally" cracked down on the rioters, but so far they haven't, given a sizeable community of westerners living in the city. It says something, doesn't it? Even though the western media has tried to sort of "justify" the riots by describing how the Uyghurs have been oppressed, anyone who can read and watch news reports sees the extent of the killings and violence against Han civilians, which effectively counters the claims made by the World Uyghur Congress that it was nothing but "peaceful protests." If there's nothing the western media can use to attack the commies, they will move on to other stories. So I don't think media wars will ensue. --wooddoo ]] [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no good phone and mobile accessibility in Xinjiang,according my friends.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My aunt's working as a doctor in Urumqi right now. Internet and mobile signal are fine. She's on QQ right now, I assure you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is with all this? Quit going on and on about Twitter; China is not Iran, and it is not likely that the CCP will be overthrown by some website 14-year-olds use to gossip, since it is forever blocked within China. Stop thinking that there will be a "cyber-revolution" and all that hype - get it straight - these are violent riots instigated by separatists. You see, if we had a plane run into a skyscraper in New York, you would all consider that an evil act, but since China must be so evil, anything violent that happens here is righteous? Give me a break. It is wrong to kill and pillage, regardless of country. </rant> -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

People have the right to overthrow opressive and ineffective governments. Without the vote, a free press, free speech and other basic rights what options do citizens of china, especially the country's minority population, have in reforming and improving thier government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.120.233 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can counter people's rights by stating governments, both democratic or authoritarian, have the right to impose law and order. What are those democracy BS getting at? Because China is Red that the police should allow people to turn the city upside down in the name of democracy? Police abuse Uyghur is wrong, but Uyghur counters by killing Hans and torching buses is improving the government? What BS is this, how about I say Sunni in Iraq bomb US serviceman to improve the Iraqi government?

Leave the ideaology BS out of this topic. Police abuse the Uyghur, and Uyghur went on a rampage in furstration. Although Chinese government is clearly insensitive towards Uyghur, the bottom line is that both sides are at fault here. Jim101 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the ETIM is hardly a force for secular democracy. China may be an oligarchical autocracy but it's far superior to yet another theocracy.Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim101's summary is right on the money, and mirrors what I've been telling all of my friends who ask me who's the "bad guy" here. It doesn't matter who did something wrong first; once hundreds of people are getting killed, no one is "right". Both sides have done dickish things, and it's our job just to report the facts, not to decide who's right and who's wrong. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends. There are demonstrations every year in Hong Kong which pass peacefully. There are things people want, but they are generally content. It's not the same with the Uyghurs, who appear to have some serious grievances. Their region has been flooded with Han, and the authoritarian machine has no compunction on using deadly force. Even a peaceful protest in Hong Kong could give rise to rioting if, through some political heavy-handedness, leaders decided to have PLA tanks confront the demonstrators. The truth is that we do not know what happened in Urmuqi, and chances are we never will. <sigh> Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism or not terrorism

Not terrorism

User:Ksyrie has been trying to add the article to a bunch of categories about terrorism, which I've reverted. This seems to be a misunderstanding about what terrorism is, because there is simply no evidence that this riots are terrorism. Terrorism is a planned action done for a specific reason; riots are usually unplanned things that start spontaneously with a large group of people. Just because things were bombed doesn't automatically make this terrorism. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me the source that indicates that Terrorism must be "planned"? Do you have a clear definition of Terrorism? The first line of Wikipedia's Terrorism entry shows: Terrorism is the intentional use or threat to use violence against civilians and non-combatants "in order to achieve political goals". If this is the definition of Terrorism, then I guess Ürümqi riots can be called Terrorism.--Jinhuili (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition is right there for you: note the words "intentional" and "political goals". Do you have any evidence that these riots were planned out intentionally? Do you have any evidence that people did them on purpose for "political goals", rather than—as almost all riots begin—just went out of control due to a random coming-together of various factors?

Seriously, how dense are you? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the victims were killed 'accidentally'. Thus, the violence must be used 'intentionally'. I have no evidence. Thus I said "I guess". Are you retard? --Jinhuili (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted addition of "terrorism" categories simultaneously to and agree with Rjanag: quoted source for bomb-news is POV (>Chinese bloggers); therefore a) independent, NPOV-source must be found before incident can be categorized as terrorism b) not every bomb-incident, even if confirmed, constitutes terrorism. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Also removed link to East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a group designated as "terrorist" -- no link established to current events. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A car bomb,and dozens of bus set on fire in the same day.....Can someone explain the unplanned possibility to occur.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is going on with this? I did leave my rationale on the talk page, above, long before you did this revert.

There are now at least three users (myself, Seb az86556, and Ohconfucius) who disagree with you, and have removed your additions; you've reverted three times and might be blocked any time for it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically you're saying there is no evidence these riots were a coordinated effort but you think they were, so we should add the article to five POV categories based on your personal speculation? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rjanag. This is a developing story. Wait two or three days until these grave accusations are confirmed. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A disgusting behavior in wikipedia I have seen it that the definition of terrorism differs in China and outside China,One car bomb in Iraq is a planned but same one in China is not.....I dont' see any rationale.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you're not paying attention. The LA riots were spontaneous, setting different groups off that had longstanding grudges, not terrorism. Can you get that? Good. Same idea. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

La riot got a car bomb?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The bomb-accusation is unconfirmed/POV-source. We need to wait and have it confirmed by sources other than some bloggers. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is confirmed?Dont' tell me we have to poll for a kind of car bomb to be a terrorist one,while another car bomb cannt be --Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Who says there was a bomb? Seb az86556 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese bloggers wrote that at least one bomb exploded during the incident and that about 100 public buses were destroyed--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

THAT'S WHY I CATEGORIZE IT AS TERRORISM,IT TARGETS CIVILIAN.DO YOU THINK AN UMPLANNED RIOT SET 100 BUS IN ONEDAY?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Chinese bloggers wrote" --- that's the only source given: "Chinese bloggers". In a developing story, we need to be very careful with bloggers as they rapidly type their POVs onto some website and rant away. Taking sources of hearsay at face-value has no place in wikipedia. Maybe there was a bomb, maybe the story is fabricated. We just don't know (yet). Seb az86556 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So how do you rationalize a 140 death in oneday,except a bomb,I cann't find another reasonble possibility--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That can easily happen. If you pit 1,000 persons against another 1,000, you can get 140 dead in less than 10 seconds. Rwanda had about 8,000 dead per day using only machetes/knives. // By the way, I just checked current news reports: Not even Xinhua, China's official news-source, mentions a bomb. They'd be the first to pounce on it and feed the bomb-story to the press, but they don't (So far). Seb az86556 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read an editorial published by BBC, which tried to depict the riot as a "peaceful protest, at least initially", they also cited "what our witness saw" as the source..... So, why don't you email them to point out this POV "typed rapidly by BBC's friendly witness"?--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with eyewitness-reports as long as they are labeled as such. This discussion is about inferences made from what eyewitnesses claim, grave accusations and categorizations such as "terrorism" in particular. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, an editorial is by definition POV and understood as such. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue semantics, or about if a bomb or two went off. The principle subject is the totality of the unrest, as demonstrated by the thousands of people n the streets, smashed windows broken cars etc. I feel it was predominantly a riot even if a bomb or two exploded, and should be classified as such. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your double standard..... But these "Chinese bloggers" also cited "eyewitness-reporters", at least they are "labeled as such"....--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• (out) Agreeing with Seb and everyone else above: it's very easy for an unplanned riot to result in hundreds of injuries and 100 buses destroyed. Never underestimate the power of a large group of people out of control. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. Well, I'm very disappointed to find that there is no western media to express any grief for those victims (as I know, they could be Uyghurs too). Some big ones, such as BBC, has already began to deprecate CCP's tyranny. Politics stain humanity..... --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And this..... what I found on CNN Website....

We are extremely saddened by the heavy-handed use of force by the Chinese security forces against the peaceful demonstrators," said Alim Seytoff, vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Uyghur American Association. "We ask the international community to condemn China's killing of innocent Uihgurs. This is a very dark day in the history of the Uighur people," he said.

It seemed that they also cited some unconfirmed POV souce..... How can these guys know all these details from a region blocked by heavy military force? To be honest, we will never know what had happened..... --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not about POV-sources, but about inferences made from them about "terrorism." No-one doubts that there are POVs being spread by either side. We simply shouldn't make categorization-inferences from them. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, these are no guys in China hope it is a terrorism attack..... What they care about are their own safety.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As of yet, there are no sources confirming it as "terrorism". Give it some time; as of now, simply "riot" will suffice. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We still have no neutral confirmation on the car bombs or on the bus burnings. Any news involving political conflict in China becomes so immediately politicized by the international community that finding out what 'really' happened may take some time. Let's all be patient folks. Better to measure twice and cut once than to become a source of disinformation.Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Uyghur version of that saying is even more careful: يەتتە ۆلچەپ، بىر كەس. "Measure seven times before cutting once." :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• comment: I agree that at the moment its premature to call this an act of terrorism. It certainly is a riot, and if it turns out that a plan was in place to detonate a bomb by a terrorist group, and it actually happened, then a tag would be in order. Otherwise it seems like protests that are getting out of hand.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This incident is terrorism. The Uigur terrorists kills common people

This incident is surely terrorism. The Uigur terrorists kills common people, and so many common people on streets were killed and wounded. In the 156 men/women killed, 155 are common people and 1 is a policeman, as released by far. Some are even little Children (I saw on a forum a picture of a little girl killed by Uigur terrorists). --60.190.146.38 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is not terrorism, can you accept that you as common people be killed on streets or other places by the Uigur mob that you do not know each other? Or what other term can be called for such kind of activity? --60.190.146.38 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above. Don't yell. You might be blocked. Thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be blocked for what? Thanks. --60.190.146.38 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do this. user Ohconfucius removed your entry twice already. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:60.190.146.38. I explained in the edit summary of my last removal that this discussion page is for discussing improvements to this article, not for making political statements. Your actions have been reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If we want to judge whether a riot is terrorism or not, we need first make clear what's the definition of terrorism, and what's the necessary factors made up of terrorism. And then we need to analyse whether this riots satisfy the definition or the factors. So I suggest you to discuss by this way. -Sofoes (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Media Wars

Certainly, the media wars are alive and well. Who is to say what is true? This is truly one of those cases where you cannot belive either Chinese government sources, which are obviously using the story to justify a crackdown (running the identical "masterminded by separatist" lines that they used for Tibet), or the overseas Uyghur sources, as they will obviously use the story to justify their cause for independence (and they haven't had this type of juicy story for ages). Uyghurs do not have as much international support as Tibetans, so it's hard to say if popular reaction to these protests will be the same as those in Lhasa a year ago. It will also be very interesting to see the "international reaction" section pop up.

If anyone can simply get in contact with someone in Urumqi right now it would be the best source for information. But I doubt Wikipedia allows for this type of independent journalism to be posted on an article. The claim that internet is blocked completely in Urumqi is dubious. Can we confirm this? It's an extremely large city with many lucrative companies who would not be able to survive without their e-mail systems. It would be slightly naive to just believe a claim like this due to China's apparently "Orwellian" nature. Colipon+(T) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have an idea how Hong Kong and Taiwan newspapers are reporting this story? Or even in Japan? They usually offer a better perspective on stories like these than sources like CNN and BBC. Colipon+(T) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I could believe a total internet blackout. I had that happen about twice a month when I lived in Shanxi.Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If my understanding of Chinese censors are correct they generally block the sensitive sites and attempt to disrupt other sites, such as e-mail servers. Chinese government censors are really not as good as they are sometimes made to look. In a case like this, for example, it would be useless to block a site that report only on European football stories. Is the Internet still down on the evening of July 6? Colipon+(T) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia EN no longer blocked in China: see User talk:61.234.30.199 (contribs geolocate). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Update on Internet blackout

Just talked to various friends in China. YouTube has been blocked for a couple of months now, even in Shanghai and Shenzhen. Wikipedia's English version has not been blocked since the Olympics, except for a short interlude for June 4. Internet still disrupted in Urumqi, although I think some traffic is now getting thru. Government websites of both Urumqi's city government and the Autonomous Region's government remains inaccessible worldwide still. People from inside China can visit this article fine. Also, found this thing: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc6tvttf_12gtf854dw. Very useful insights into what actually happened. Don't know if we can use it as a source for Wikipedia. There is a blog that shines a lot of light on what actually went on. Colipon+(T) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, Radio Free Asia reports PAP had used assault rifles during anti-riot action, and the citizen's account from the google says "cops with rifles repress the Uyghurs to death"...worth following up on those claim. Jim101 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How many Uighur protestors died?

According to the reports, "the police started firing indiscriminately"...so how many of the Uighur protestors died or were wounded by gunshots as a result? 220.255.7.156 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No word yet. We just have raw numbers, no breakdown of who the casualties were. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We do have official media reports that suggest that the overwhelming majority of the casualtes were Han. Western media reports suggest that shot were fired "in the air". Uighur activites suggest what you've quoted above 76.65.21.71 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if the Wikipedia "demographics" numbers are right on the Urumqi page, about 75% of the population in Urumqi is Han Chinese. It really is not that much different from any other mid-sized Chinese city. Of course the majority of people who die will be Han Chinese, purely because of a greater number of Han Chinese being about on the streets at any given moment. But generally rioters (and police, for that matter) don't really care who the casualties are when they are shooting or rioting indiscriminately. They're not going to check your ID to see your ethnicity before they decide whether or not to riot. In a case like this it's just impossible to know. Colipon+(T) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We will probably never know quite how many rioters and bystanders were shot dead by police. The PRC, having been through Tiananmen Square and Tibetan riots, are now getting to grips with how to and how not to play the media during crises like these. Of course, the number of vocal Chinese supporters here is a testament as to how the PRC are succeeding in playing the nationalist card in this particular case. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there are any, surely they will stand out? 220.255.7.152 (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Protestors?!?! Which part of the "pushing over cop cars", "beating up Han Chinese Men & Women" do you mean?! Plz, I guess Singaporean see the word "protest" differently. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This according to Wikipedia. "The riots started when a street demonstration over the killings of two Uyghurs by Han co-workers in Shaoguan, Guangdong in a group fight between Uyghur workers and Han workers on 25 June 2009 turned violent" Whether it is true or not is open to debate. Don't throw brickbats at me like the Uighurs. And don't start throwing racist remarks. (Do some research on Singapore if you do.) 220.255.7.158 (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kadeer encouraged "be brave" and "do something big"

Can we have independent verification of this statement please? Given the sensetivity of the issue here, Xinhua making statements like this sounds like quoting things out of context to flame the ethic hatre and to justify sloppy police work. Jim101 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly quoted out of context: according to the ref given, she said that after the riots, so it's certainly not evidence that she orchestrated them. I'm going to remove it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don' know how you got the impression that it's after the riot. It's clearly expressed in the ref page that such words were sent out several days before the incident and circulated on the internet. Helloterran (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you're getting that reading from this reference; are you running it through a machine translator? The second paragraph of the reference says that she said those things today. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And besides, even if people do decide the quotation is worth keeping in the article, it needs to be put somewhere better than where it is now. Putting it in the middle of the sentence like that makes it look as if you're deliberately trying to prove her wrong or "expose the lie". As Wikipedia editors, we cannot use article space to make comments or value judgments about any of the information here; all we can do is report facts. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

lol.Seems you shouldn't be over-confident about your chinese. The word 近日 means several day ago, while 今日 stands for today. Helloterran (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Helloterran, that reference used the word "近日", which translated to "recently" not "today". Plus it makes no sense for her to say something like that atm, what kind of person comes out after a riot with over 100 death and tells people to be "brave" and do something "big"? It would only make the world think she wants more people killed.66.11.73.69 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad there, for the past two years I have spent too much time speaking and not enough reading/writing, and was checking that article in a hurry. But nevertheless, the problem with the placement of this reference is still there (see my post above), and its relevance is still questionable--just because she calls on Uyghurs to do something big doesn't necessarily mean she planned the riots, and there's not even any guarantee that her "something big" was intended to be riots. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would still caution that without the entire statement or transcript of her speech, including the "do big" statement is a bit inflammatory and POV pushing. Jim101 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned on CCTV in text cctv.com and in video cctv.com94.194.214.37 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a government mouthpiece. Without giving any details about their "initial investigation", such sources are more or less useless. It's one thing to say "Kadeer said X", but it's another thing entirely to argue that that is connected to the riots. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the World Uyghur Congress is out there as well, so hard to see any other choice of sources "We are in deep shock by witnessing the Han Chinese barbarism, which never discriminates between men and women." uyghurcongress July 1st

Yeah, and notice that we're not directly quoting the WUC either (we are mentioning their claims and qualifying them, where relevant). We are neither a PRC mouthpiece nor a mouthpiece, we are Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? But you act like a pro-WUC, guy. Since you accepted WUC information without doubts.....--58.60.1.114 (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys, we are way over ourselves here.

Remember that when making important and POV claims like this, we can't just quote 10 characters while censor out the entire speech and not checking the context. If her speech is so important, how come I only see 10 characters of it without the transcripts to back it up?

I challenge this statement's inclusion in the article based on the following grounds:

• Where did she said this?
• At what time?
• On what occasion?
• Where is the entire speech transcript?

Without a reliable source to cover those points, what's to stop people from saying Xinhua and CCTV made up those 10 characters, distributed among Mainland medias, just to cover Communist's ass? Jim101 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for all of the WUC accusations available now, which are widely quoted by "mainstream" media like CNN and BBC and some people here seems to believe that those bare accusations can have the same credibility with the photos and videos and tons of other stuff provided by the state media of China. If you doubt any source, I repeat, feel free to use all the tags and weasel words you know. Only remember: treat confronting stories with equally skeptical attitude. Wikipedia expects editors to be at least neutral (not objective). Helloterran (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We are being neutral. You're the one trying to ridicule Kadeer by sneaking veiled criticism into the sentence. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't trust both sides, and I distaste both Xinhua and WUC for they are both ideaological and propaganda animals, is that NPOV enough for Wikipedia?

Now back to the topic, although it is still disputed that the Kadeer's speech is connected to the riot, given that this POV has been cited enough time in mainland media, it should be noted as a POV of the Chinese netizens with regards to cause of the riot. But unless the above four grounds about her speech is covered, under no circumstances should we use her quote as evidence to implicitly or explicitly imply that she started the whole riot. I reworded the claim to say Chinese medias other than Xinhua accuse her on the basis of this quote. Jim101 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking into the real cause

Okay, having cruised thru about 20 sources on this story, there's been some speculation that the actual path of events went something like this:

• Uyghurs are working Guangdong as general labourers (not too different from other Chinese workers that gather in Guangdong).
• They raped several Han Chinese girls. (Rumoured to, anyway, according to Radio Free Asia)
• The Han Chinese in the area got angry, and killed the Uyghurs that perpetrated this crime. Local officials don't really respond.
• Uyghurs in Xinjiang get angry, riots, mob violence.
• Chinese government decides to send in riot police and crack down on the violence.

I buy this explanation a lot more than the "separatists protesting government" or "pre-meditated attack" explanations. This is mostly just a riot because Uyghurs got angry, which also sparked rage about what they perceived as shortfalls in government policies towards ethnic minorities. Colipon+(T) 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, but in the article we don't really have the luxury of choosing which explanation is better; all we can do is cite both. Basically the two sides of the story are

1. Started as a peaceful protest, then the police started attacking people (claimed by Uyghur groups, especially abroad)
2. Premeditated riot (claimed by Chinese gov't)

As for the role of the Shaoguan murders a few days ago, that fits into both stories. There is no question that the original protests (before the riots started) were ostensibly, at least, about the murders; the Chinese state might claim that that was just a cover for the real riots, but in either case the Shaoguan incident is relevant to the cause. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit about the riot's spread to the neighboring city; if you think it belongs somewhere else in the article feel free to move it around. Fuzbaby (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wow, that source must be more recent than what I looked at. This NPR source mentioned a "small protest" starting in Kashgar, but at the time I chose not to add it because it sounded like not a big deal enough. The BBC source you added sounds more serious. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shaoguan Incident

Apparently the Shaoguan ethnic conflicts in Guangdong were a big event in and of itself (it has its own article on the Chinese Wikipedia). So I think it should be explained a bit further here. According to Duowei at this news story the violence in Shaoguan in June involved hundreds of people. Colipon+(T) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

General history of "violence in Xinjiang" since 1990 needed?

This article[2] from China Daily lists (in the sidebar) a whole series of such incidents since 1990. A few of them (Ghulja Incident, 2008 Uyghur unrest, 2008 Kashgar attack) already have pages, while several others are mentioned under East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Recent events. I think this history needs to be filled out, made more prominent, and linked to at each of these articles, in order to provide context. Mporter (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan; there are a couple things that can be done concurrently here. A template can be made (we just have to watch out for POV-pushing issues, especially with the title...what gets and doesn't get included in an "ethnic violence" template could be controversial), and a new article or a revamp of Xinjiang#Continued tensions can be done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In improving the article, would it hurt to add an image? Refer to Chinese Wiki w:zh:2009年7月乌鲁木齐骚乱; we could use that fair use image here as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Mr. Li, would also appreciate it if you could do a bit of translations on that Nur Bekri speech. It's been the most important speech from an official since the whole thing happened and it has seemed to escape this article so far. But its full text is at the Chinese wikipedia. I would do so myself but my work schedule is catching up to me after I have been following this story for the whole day. Colipon+(T) 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

First section: "Comrades, on the 26th of June in Shaoguan City, Guangdong, employees from Xinjiang working at a toy factory have been instigated into a contention with other staff, resulting in a violent argument involving several hundred people, in which 120 people were injured, including 81 Xinjiang employees, as well as two (Xinjiang) fatalities. After the incident, the central leadership and the governments of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and Guangdong Provincial Government regarded the occurrence with great importance. Within Shaoguan City, public security authorities and the autonomous government of the regions and departments immediately acted in strict accordance regarding the incident." Please check for grammar, quick translation off the top of my head, may be rough. (From ZH Wiki “同志们，6月26日，广东省韶关市一家玩具厂部分新疆籍员工与该厂其他员工发生冲突，数百人参与斗殴，致120人受伤，其中新疆籍员工81人，两名新疆籍员工经抢救无效死亡。事件发生后，中央领导、新疆维吾尔自治区和广东省委省政府高度重视。广东省及韶关市党政公安机关与自治区有关地区和部门立即行动，严格依法对此事件处置，并妥善做好善后处理工作。") -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Video right here: [3] This blogger also analyzed this speech to death here. [4] Colipon+(T) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of images on the main page of link no.4. A few look good, perhaps we could ask for OTRS permission? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Urumqi

According to some western media Urumqi was Uyghur city and now is Han city because of evil CCP. That is not true. Even name Urumqi is from Mongolian language. Also most of Uyghurs live is southwestern Xinjiang, while in eastern Xinjiang majority are East Asians(Han, Mongol, Xibe, Manchu...). So why some western media says this is Uyhur land when Xinjang was always multi ethnic, also Uyghurs moved to Xinjiang only some 1000 years ago.93.136.103.244 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget my prior comment, I copy-pasted in the wrong box. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1,000 years ago seems a little different from hauling in millions of one specific ethnicity in less than 50 years, don't you think? Seb az86556 (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? If people seriously study to be a historian (I am currently), then they should know that history is full of subjective facts that can be used as a political weapon in events like this. You say you lived there for a thousand years, I said I conquered you 500 years...and the chicken/egg question just goes on forever.

Unless people got authoritative history research papers on this topic, bring up the histories about Han/Uyghur land claim is putting up smokes and mirrors in this article. Jim101 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think it does matter. Using the 1,000-years argument as an excuse for invasion and settlement is the cause of frustration and has thus lead to the current events. The initial comment at the beginning of this string was clearly aimed at excusing current PRC-policies. That was my only point here. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, don't use history to justify politics unless it passed rigorous academic peer review. It's professionally unethic no matter what the cause. Just want to nip the "historical debate" right in the bud. Jim101 (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Seb, what about Russia and Siberia, North/South America, Australia? It is OK for white people but not for East Asians. Is it because most Uighurs are caucasian? And East Asians live in Xinjiang over 3000 years. And what if Indians kill 100 innocent white people(including children and woman), is that OK?

Seb, you are just like western media, just blame PRC. But do you understand that Urumchi was built by East Asians????? That is what I want to say. Can Aborigines go around Sydney(witch is built by Europeans)and destroy other people property.93.136.103.244 (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The grievances you utter are understandable, the comparison is not. Destroying property and vandalism is one thing, voicing your opinion another. Recently, a group of Lakota (Republic of Lakotah) declared independence from the United States. No member of that group was incarcerated, no-one was designated a terrorist, and their webpage is active, unharmed and uncensored. Apart from ethnic groups, there are several separatist groups in the Western World. All of them are free to voice their opinions without having to fear for their members' lives.

The situation is markedly different in China, it seems. East Turkestan's flag (essentially a piece of cloth) is banned, using the word "independence" can land you in jail, and as we observe during the current crisis, the government of China seems eager to block internet webpages, ban foreign journalists, and disrupt reporting. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

People, this talk page is not the place to discuss whether Uyghurs or Han have the "right" to Urumqi, or Xinjiang, or anywhere else. It's the place to work on improving the article. Obviously everyone is going to disagree about who belongs in Urumqi, and we're not going to get anywhere by wasting our time ripping each others' throats out over it. Let's please focus on constructive things, like improving the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious image

The image in the entry seems to imply that what has happened in Urumuqi was "Han Chinese cops beated unarmed Uyghur women". Since it is a riot, how can we swept out those killed in violence, either Han or Uyghurs? This image here seems to tell readers that "there was no riot, but a brutal crackdown on Muslim minority". However, the crackdown was factully a response to the riot. So we need more images to counterweigh this image.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 07:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• The image is the only one I could find which was not post facto and did not look like a busy Sunday afternoon in a non-descript location. I just thought any screen grab from CCTV would be potentially in breach of WP:NPOV. You are welcome to find a better caption for it, and/or find a better picture. FYI, the caption is taken from the article itself where the image came from. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please tell me how can we classify this image as NPOV, since CCTV images are determined as POV? If we just cite images from western media, maybe we will find all of them are about crackdown (till now it is true, since what I saw on BBC and CNN website are all Chinese cops with their disgusting batons), is that another form of POV? And a great difficulty we met here is copyright, I think we can't use CCTV images directly.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 08:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Considering the power of images, I doubt whether any picture would be useful in this article. Let the words speak for themselves. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • • You might be right. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The image was removed several hours ago without any fuss. I have since deleted it because it violates the WP:NFCC use policy, and there is no likelihood that it would be re-added to the page anyway; it's irrelevant to the section where it's posted, as it's an image of protests that happened today, not an image of the original protest that sparked the riots. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can this image be added

this image: http://cnpic.chinareviewnews.com/upload/200907/7/101015537.jpg or choose from here: http://cn.chinareviewnews.com/doc/1010/1/5/5/101015529.html?coluid=7&kindid=0&docid=101015529&mdate=0707155614. -60.190.146.38 (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to any image, given the extreme volatility and proneness to propaganda. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about propaganda. This is fact, and the main result of the riots. --60.190.146.38 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, any image is prone to propaganda. That's why I argue for excluding all images. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

<merged section> I see from internet forum (http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/news/1/133115.shtml) that some Han Chinese has organised themself for selfdefending, since they think the CCP government always favors minorities in China and they doubt whether the government can seek juctice for the dead and wounded. But they ared dispeled by police. I hope they can fight againt Uigur amok mobs and terrorists, but do not harm common Uigur people.--60.190.146.38 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's image policy. Unfortunately, we can't just add any image we happen to find on the internet; there are a lot of restrictions with copyright issues and the source of the image. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with that all images should be kept out from this article. Because the situation in Urumuqi is deteriorating (see google news). Any fresh pictures showed on web could be fuse of more hatred and angry. Since Wiki is a influencial media, I think we should reach a consensus here that we will exclude images from the entry, until the incident totally cool down.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I agree with such kind of good-will policies. But I have to say some of the most important facts are kept uncoverd by good-will intention. --60.190.146.38 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the fist main image is not the victims of Uigur mob violence?

Why the fist main image is not about the more than 100 dead and 1000 wounded,　the crime committed by Uigur mob? --60.190.146.38 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• We're already having a discussion about removing it. (see above) Seb az86556 (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Right. Thanks. --60.190.146.38 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Travel advisory

Twice, I have removed a travel advisory for Hong Kong tourists which someone placed as an external link, and it's back again. So it appears someone thinks it's vitally important, while I have my doubts somewhere along the lines of WP:NOT#IINFO. I would not be surprised if each country would issue similar advisories to their citizens, so do we really want these here? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Weird link, no direct bearing on the topic of the article. Support removal. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[5] I was just about to do the same, but then Ohconfucius beat me to it. I support the removal of this link, it doesn't impart any new information. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Selectively quoting sources

This is clearly not helping the situation... quoting just a tiny bit of a source to suggest that all the killing was done by Uyghurs, when the truth is that both sides have committed violence, is just one-sided POV-pushing. Everyone seems to want to point the finger of blame and decide who's the "good guy" and who's the "bad guy"...isn't it clear that when something like this happens it has already reached the point that no one is "right"?

This line needs to be either removed from the article, or the reference needs to be quoted properly, with some context, rather than misrepresented to suggest that the Uyghurs were the only ones killing people. I would object just as much to any reference trying to say the Han police were the only ones killing people. Both sides have done bad things; our job is only to report both sides of the story. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are just want to hide something.Dont' be so hypocritical.Someone just list the truth,and you want to be a human content filter--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There will not be a declaration of who was the "good guy" or "bad guy" but the general outline has emerged.

This was an ethnic pogrom carried out by young Uyghur men against Han Chinese. The so called neutral position people can't even acknowledge this is the basic fact underlying everything in this article.

Do you not recognize your own bias?

Boxofsushi (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hide something. If you check the history, I was the first person on this Wikipedia to add an entry (originally at the article East Turkestan independence movement) mentioning that Uyghurs were rioting and had killed at least three people. I find it funny that I only get accused of POV-pushing by extremists on either side.

Now will someone please respond to my post above instead of just repeating the same old tired lines that have been going around all day ("this was terrorism", "you are biased", bla bla bla). I would appreciate seeing some actual arguments, not just repeating your own position as if it were fact. That's the point of having a discussion page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag. I removed that very selective and thus very biased snippet twice already for the same reason cited. There's plenty in the article which can and should be used, but an isolated statement appearing like it does/did makes it look as if only Uyghurs were violent. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I have to say, yes, only Uyghurs were violent, at least initially. But now, it is obviously that Han Chinese turned to be violent, see here: [6]. That is why I suggested that we should be very cautious to add any images. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence showed that Uyghurs had been atacked by Han Chinese before police intervened. The earliest messages about the incident came before the police troops' crackdown, when the communication in Xinjiang hadn't been cut off, and they told us what Han Chinese had done is just to flee. If Han Chinese had striken back, those who we called "Fen qing" will boast it everywhere as a "pride". But there was no. Check the Baidu Tieba, I think there should be some 5 July's posts survive.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's just focus on what the sources say, rather than trying to guess; there is sure to be lots of speculation anyway. The first sources to come out did say that the Han people were mostly fleeing (go back in the article history to its earliest versions, when there were only about 5 refs, and check them; most of them say something like that); some of the refs coming out today are suggesting that large groups of Han Chinese have gotten organized (and I think the Telegraph one suggests that Uyghur groups have gotten together, too).

The problem here is that it's not really a simple black-and-white "who killed and who didn't". Riots are, by definition, chaos; even if one group started it, there's no guarantee that they were the only ones who were violent as the riots went on. Just look at the riots taht have happened in New Orleans, Iraq, etc., in past years; things just go wildly out of control. Even if it was the Uyghurs who started it, some of them were surely killed too, either by riot police or by people they tried to fight with. It may be accurate that the majority of killings on Sunday were carried out by Uyghur rioters, but the way the ref is quoted in the article is really not the best way to express that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate my point from above: I don't mind anyone citing a source to verify that Uyghurs killed Han people. Just make sure you treat the whole source, too, rather than just a part of it--it is clear that both groups have committed violence, and both should be mentioned. If the source is specifically claiming that the violence on the first day was committed mostly by one group, then say that. And, importantly, if a ref uses inflammatory or controversial language, as this one does, then it should be attributed to the original author so it doesn't look as if it's our opinion. I think this cleanup should be a more or less acceptable compromise. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/ Rjanag and Ohconfucius. In addition, a small snippet randomly thrown into the article made for bad prose style. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an extremist and I haven't labeled the events terrorism. What I am frustrated by is 1. the subject of this article is about a pogrom 2. reporting of this fact is challenged even though there is nothing out there credibly asserting this wasn't a pogrom. Boxofsushi (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And are you capable of a discussion without accusing other users? Boxofsushi (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A "pogrom" is usually defined as majority against minority. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why pogrom must be majority against minority? Where is the source? Then what's the term for the minority against majority? --60.190.146.38 (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, you misunderstood it. The problem you met here is that now we can find no references said that Han Chinese had killed Uyghurs in the riot, since the gov give no details about the victims (I'm afraid that they will not do it for ever). So what you should do is not to complain 'selectively quoting sources', but to search for a ref that could support that Han also killed Uyghurs. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 10:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)