Talk:Hüseyincan Celil

==NPOV==

Please do not tell truth selectively. He is a fighter of human rights, but unfortunately he fighted in a terroristic way. Don't try to cover the truth with selected truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.143.145 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: above comment, I have tried to rewrite the article to improve its NPOV'ness. However, my cursory Google search didn't find anything authoritative about his alleged terrorist activities (aside from the charges of the Uzbek government). Appreciate comments from other editors. cab 05:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: 209.250.143.145's comment, could you please let me know what kind of activities he has done during his life in Eastern Turkistan until his arrival in Canada? Since I have been campaigning from the beginning, I would not like to state any inaccurate information. And also, I know him personally. I dont know anything about you though apart from the fact that you posted from TORONTO. regards, Burhan Celik

Re: Your presonal relationship to this guy doesn't mean anything. If you would like to know more about him, read the open letter sent to Amnesty International UK by the Embassy of Uzbekistan: http://www.uzbekembassy.org/index.cfm/act/news/get/press/pr/868 .

That comes up with no such server for me, whether I try it from work or home. They forget to pay their webhosting bills? Anyway here's the letter in the Google cache.[1] Says they did a fingerprint test on Celil and he matches the prints they had on file for Guler Dilaver when they arrested him in 1998. cab 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I just went through and added inline citations to pretty much every statement in the article (except the one about his being an imam in Hamilton, since I can't actually confirm the location of his mosque, just that he's an imam). Can you be more specific about what you think is POV here, or better yet find sources which represent a wider variety of views and use those to expand the article as well? Thanks, cab 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The man has been convicted of terrorism and you call him a "human rights activist." KazakhPol 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the original creator of the page called him a human rights activist, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation states that "Huseyincan Celil was sentenced to death in China for human rights work." Take it up with them. Also below, I point out that he was convicted of terrorism in China. Make any changes you feel are necessary as long as they are sourced, (including Category:Terrorism in China, which I support but am not going to bother edit warring over) cab 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no conviction of terrorism. There are allegations and accusations as such. Please refer to http://www.huseyincelil.com/bishkek_high_court.html and also, http://www.huseyincelil.com/hum_rights_bishkek.html sources have been confirmed as reliable by the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Huseyincan Celil or Guler Dilaver?

Though a great deal of evidence points to the fact that he may actually be Guler Dilaver, we have a very clear convention in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity): Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use. Anyway the redirects now have non-trivial edit history, so you won't just be able to make an out-of-consensus move for the third time. Open up a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves if you'd like; I will register an "oppose" as per the above-quoted policy. cab 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such person as Guler Dilaver. The one referred to by the Amnesty International is Guler Dilawer. Also, Guler Dilaver is not Huseyin Celil. This person, Guler Dilaver, was in Turkey and died for unknown reasons whereas Huseyin Celil is still alive as of today at least in Urumchi and tried last week where he refused all accusations at the Court. It seems that people who do not know Huseyin Celil personally attempt to use libelous staff to insult him or his cause. I have conducted academic researches on this person, know his family members and close friends. I kindly request those of you to be just in your evaluations and request you to substantiate your claims and arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcelik (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources which substantiate this? The burden is not on us to prove or disprove that he is Guler Dilaver; the article simply notes (and cites the fact) that the accusation has been made by both Uzbekistan and China. Note that your own knowledge or personal conversations do not fall under the concept of reliable sources. BTW, "Guler Dilawer" gets 0 GHits. cab 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead section

As per the (rarely-observed) WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Generally, for example, for a living person, that should include where he is and what he's doing now. Now the third edit war on this page ... cab 05:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice Khoikoi is also once again removing categories even though the references clearly state he has been convicted of terrorism in those three countries. I would not consider this the third edit war, as much as the same edit war that has once again been revived. I have yet to see any rationale for removing these categories and the fact that he has been convicted of terrorism. KazakhPol 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism in Uzbekistan doesn't seem appropriate; he isn't actually accused of any crime in Uzbekistan itself, to my understanding (either by an Uzbek court, or on Uzbek soil). cab 06:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the Uzbek government did extradite him, I've changed the categories from T in Uz and T in Kyr to just T in CA. KazakhPol 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've again expanded the lead while avoiding the dreaded T-word. Also, I changed the description of him as a "Canadian human rights activist"; it seemed a bit odd as there was no mention of him actually doing human rights work in Canada. "Uyghur human rights activist", "minority rights activist", etc. might be a more accurate description, but there could be NPOV objections to that. Comments appreciated. cab 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The endless reversions

As several users have decided to revert this page, removing referenced mention of the fact that he has been convicted of terrorism, I will go ahead and revert until I see a rationale posted, preferably on the talkpage. Keep in mind when I say rationale I dont mean saying "WP:WTA" when that policy has nothing to do with what is being debated. KazakhPol 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the word terrorist being used in the article you provided? Chaldean 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your question, which seems to be stated as a declarative sentence. Please clarify what you are either asking or stating. KazakhPol 05:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to Huseyin Celil

Seems to be more common by a factor of 50.[2] Also the Chinese name 賽利爾 seems to be most popular in the press,[3] though zhwiki is using yet a third rendering (海珊江·賈里力). Anyway, for NPOV and worldwide focus issues, it would be good to use more Chinese sources in writing this article. cab 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I do not oppose changing the Chinese, I do oppose the proposed move because I have only come across 'Huseyincan' in news articles. I do not oppose using more Chinese sources, but that is not more npov. KazakhPol 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the policy regarding which name should be used? Like cab, I seem to be running into Huseyin Celil with much greater frequency than Huseyincan Celil. If news articles are the standard, which seems to be the case in this exchange, even Google News produces far more results for Huseyin vs. Huseyincan. Finally, based on a glance at a Radio Free Asia article [4], it appears that when Celil's name is written in the original Uyghur (ﻫﯜﺳﻪﻳﯩﻦ ﺟﯧﻠﯩﻞ) the "can" is dropped. What I perceive is an odd transliteration convention where what is actually a "j" sound is being represented by a "c" in mainstream media outlets. "Jan" is actually a common diminutive in Uyghur that is frequently tacked on to names as a sign of affection. That being said, I get the feeling that, should we accept the j's as c's convention since it seems to be common place in the reporting, "Huseyin Celil" would be most accurate. Entropy Rising 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit I have no knowledge of Uyghur, but from my knowledge of Arabic, it looks like Western media is taking Jimm, which can sometimes be pronounced as an 's', and transliterating it as a 'c', which is pretty stupid, but in almost all cases I have come across this is how it is being transliterated, so I still oppose the move. KazakhPol 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue: the two references after this sentence: "He and his family use the name Huseyincan Celil, which appears in his Canadian passport." actually use the name "Huseyin Celil." We either need to change the reference to articles showing his family's use of Huseyincan Celil or we need to change the sentence itself to Huseyin Celil. I think the family elects to use "Huseyin Celil." The website about freeing him [5] although defintiely not NPOV, I think can fairly said to be representative of what rendition his family prefers.Entropy Rising 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

View from China

I added the view of China, since we should hear from both sides. Dongwenliang 16:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. Anyway, per WP:NPOV, it's best that all views be discussed inline in the article, rather than making separate sections to present different views. Also, external links should be enclosed in single brackets ([http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia], which gives: Wikipedia. Or better yet, give a full citation enclosed in <ref></ref>. I'll work on integrating this with the rest of the article. Also, I think 玉山江 is supposed to be a transcription of the name Huseyincan (江 is often used to transcribe "can" or "jon" in Turkic or Persian names), not a Chinese name "Yu Shanjiang". cab 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after merging, here's my further comment: the first source you gave did not mention anything about a 2003 assassination or 2006 kidnapping. The second source you gave didn't even mention his name; that information belongs in the East Turkestan Islamic Movement article, not here. I put the information about Yushanjiang into the Names section. cab 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

please don't delete my article! You can say it is right or wrong, and the fact on both sides need to be addressed perWP:NPOV. Please pointed out your opinion and don't just delete this section. Since he is a member of that organizaion, it is importtant to mention all the facts. Dongwenliang 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the additional source of killing a Chinese ambassador in 2000, sorry it was a mistake, both of the events happened in 2000, in March and June respectively, not in 2003 and 2006.Dongwenliang 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole article! All of the facts you put there are already mentioned aside from the killing of the Chinese ambassador, so it is redundant to have an additional section. Furthermore, please follow the referencing style used in the rest of the article. And again, the information on the ETIM belongs in the ETIM article, not here. I am once again merging this information into the rest of the article, and I propose this section be deleted from the article. What are the opinions of other editors? cab 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think other editors should at least cite a policy before removing relevant categories. KazakhPol 03:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please get mutual agreement before you delete or change my article. The title of this section is already says it is the view of China, why you need to add the word like assert? Dongwenliang 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is after I posted my section that you changed the other part of the article I am not sure whoever created. So I disagree that even if you changed that part, give you the right to modify or delete my section since I posted it first. If you like, you can remove your changes to other part, but I prefer to have my section since this is a very disputed issue, it is not likely that you can objective express both sides, so it is better to have separate section by each side, to maintain WP:NPOV neutral position. Dongwenliang 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You do not own articles or sections of articles. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Second, per WP:NPOV, we do not put separate views under section "Views of XYZ" and then present them as fact. We discuss an incident, and then next to the discussion of the incident, make it clear who is asserting what about it. Third, your English grammar needed a lot of cleanup before it was suitable to be included; and now you have gone and reverted it, so it is back to the mess it was before. Fourth, you are not following the referencing style in the rest of the article as I have requested you to do twice. I cleaned it up for you and you also reverted that to your current mess. cab 04:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree you can edit my article, but I also have the right to change it back. Please quote the wikipedia policy of ban the way that " put separate views under section....". I did not say they are facts, but they are just the sources available to me. Again, if you think my grammer and reference needs improve, you can help improve if you like, but that does not give you the right not let me post here, or modify my section without mutral agreement. Dongwenliang 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the point I was looking for is buried in a subarticle of WP:NPOV, so it could be hard to find; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view. Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. In this case, the sections like "Early life, "Trial", etc are the "main passage". By separating out China's views into a separate section, you are in effect implying that China's views are false and can't be treated properly in the rest of the article. China's view of Celil is not shared by Canada, for example, but if we only present Canada's view in the "Trial" section, for example, and ignored China's view, that could imply to a reader who doesn't bother to read the "Views of China" section that Canada's POV is the only true one. cab 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I Looked into the policy, it says "editors should attempt to write in a manner...". It used the word "should", and also the word "attempt", that to me is suggestive, not mandate. Again, since you revised the other part of article after I posted my section, and I doubt your position of neutrality since you deleted my section once, and modified once without mutual agreement, I still insist have a separate section. I already modified the reference issue. Dongwenliang 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree strongly (because, taken to the logical extreme, we could make all sorts of sections "Views of Celil's family and lawyer", "Views of Uzbekistan", "Views of Amnesty International" and make the article entirely incoherent and out of order), but I'll wait for other editors to comment before changing this. But if you think anyone else hanging around this page is more neutral ... well, just click on the History tab. cab 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. Many people or organizations could have millions of viewpoints, but in order to maintain neutrality, we need at least two most disputed points from both sides, otherwise, how could we make sure the different voices can be heard? If only one view allowed, wikipedia would be same as Chinese Communist Party. Secondly, I posted the facts first, you merge some of my views into your article and tried to delete entire mine, that was not right. Thirdly, you tried to delete the killings and injures by his extreme Islamic movement, since he has been the key member, what is wrong to mention these activities? Please don't always take logic to the extreme, if you always like to take things to extreme, it is hard for you to keep calm, fair and nuetral. Islam is such a great religion with love and tolerance, it regards rich and poor as equal, that is why Islam spreaded from richest nation in mideast and even to the poorest nations in Africa. But few Islam extremists, they ruined the reputation of a great religion. Dongwenliang 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So now, in return, you keep deleting content from the trial and imprisonment section, whose existence is undisputed (unlike your "Views of the People's Republic of China") section? cab 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I only removed the two sentences you "borrowed" from my section. Dongwenliang 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC);

The information is related to his trial and should be mentioned in that section. You just want to remove it so you have an excuse to keep "your" section in the article. cab 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You borrowed my two viewpoints so that you have an excuse to delete my entire section. I am the one who first created these viewpoints, and both your section and my section belongs to the same article, I believe readers can find them in my section, so please don't merge them.Dongwenliang 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, after you objected to deletion, I didn't delete the information again, but just mentioned it in another relevant section. Then you deleted it twice from the "Trial" section. It's not "your" information and you obviously did not "create" those viewpoints, you got the information from a newspaper (someone else's viewpoints), and submitted it under the GFDL. Third, the article already discussed the Chinese and Uzbek view (that he is Guler Dilaver, a terrorist; and if you look at my comments in the rest of this talk page, I agree with this view, so your accusation that I am trying to suppress the Chinese POV is clearly wrong) before you came in and added your section; "different voices" were already being heard. cab 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (portion of above comment retracted per WP:CIVIL cab 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

I am not sure if I can convince you if you lack of basic respect to others, and so tenacious. PLEASE BE IN MIND THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE IF YOU TRY TO HIDE SOMETHING. And there should be someone speaks something for those who were innocently killed. I Think I expressed all my concerns here, I have no control if these make sense to you or not, but I will not waste time on you again. Dongwenliang 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I personally consider ETIM a terrorist organization, and it is universally regarded as one, technically the article should not make a reference to "terrorist attacks" by ETIM as this violates WP:WTA. While they can be referred to as attacks and ETIM can be referred to as a militant organization or a designated terrorist organization, specific use of "terrorist" in referring to anything should be discontinued. KazakhPol 03:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you so I have changed the section. Per WP:WTA, quoted here: "1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.) ". So per this definition, of X says Y, as here is the situation: I quoted the source, which is from one of largest ICP in China, and the source says, that ETIM was identified by UN in september 2002 as terroirst group. So in this case, I believe it is ok. Dongwenliang 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Views of the PRC

I have removed this section (reproduced below). We should not be writing articles which are merely a disorganized concatenation of opposing viewpoints. The Chinese opinion of Celil is important, but it should be mentioned throughout the article.

Thissection reproduces much of the information already reproduced earlier in the article, e.g. the crimes which "Yu Shanjiang" is accused of. It also includes information which is really directly relevant to this article, such as the context for the East Turkestan Islamic Movement: this properly belongs in the East Turkestan Islamic Movement article.

I'm reproducing the text below because it may contain content and references which can be usefully added to the article.

Yu Shanjiang(玉山江), born in 1955, and he has been the critical organizer and one of the leaders of the group called East Turkestan Islamic Movement, one of the groups designated by the United Nations as a terrorist organization in September 2002. He is accused of killing China's Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan in March 2000 and abducting another Chinese officer in June 2000. After he came to Canada from Turkey in 2001 as refugee, he used the alias Huseyincan Celil, in addition to Guler Dilaver.

The Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement, responsible for more than 260 violent acts in and out of China, and more than 160 citizens were killed, 440 people injured in last 10 years. On March 27th, 2003, a Chinese civilian bus from Kashgar, Xinjiang was kidnapped in Kyrgyzstan by two member of the Movement, all 20 passengers and the driver were killed.

--Saforrest 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed quite a bit, did you read the previous section of the Talk page before deleting? --Idurey 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I had very long discussion with other users just above, I can not understand why it is deleted. Again, we should hear from both sides, and I have restored my article. Dongwenliang 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this section need to be deleted. We should give a neutral article and integrate all PRC's view into the whole article, not list it as a separate section. Also, it is not just view of PRC but also several other asian countries. Canada is alone comparatively.Zhangwl 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)