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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 WUC mouthpiece, we are Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 6 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)

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)