Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots

Somebody tries to hide the fact of sexual harassment in the toy factory

The riot was sparked by the death of Uyghur works caused by a brawl. The brawl was sparked by a sexual harassment and rumor about rapes. The rapes are rumor, but the sexual harassment is fact. Please check VOA news about this: http://www.voanews.com/chinese/w2009-06-27-voa39.cfm I added this fact in 'Causes' section twice, but removed by somebody. --Jinhuili (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this. Can you find which user(s) have been doing the reverts? This is one area that the Guangdong government, Xinjiang government, and various independent media has verified. It should be presented as fact. Colipon+(T) 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply added it in the 2nd sentense of the 'Cuases' section. Thanks. --Jinhuili (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• A new article about that event has been created. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

possible vandalism

Phyman21 tries to insert something about cutting throats in the introduction. Can we talk about this? I don't thinnk we need these drastic examples right at the start. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ARCHIVE ARCHIVE ARCHIVE!!! My browser is constantly lagging, and I'm not even playing Red Alert 3! ARCHIVE!!! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but as talk pages go this is not so long... more importantly, though, it's only been 3 days since this all started, and a lot of threads are either still 'semi-active' (i.e., some rando might show up now and then to leave a not-so-helpful comment—but who am I to judge what's helpful and what's not, and we don't want potential new editors coming in and thinking we're pushing their contributions under the rug) or could suddenly become active again at any moment. It might be better to keep everything easily accessible for now, especially so that if someone questions an editorial decision within the article we can conveniently point to an earlier section where it was discussed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"martial law"?

The current version of the article says the city is under "de facto martial law". Reports of the police presence certainly do sound that way, but actually calling it "martial law" is just one reporter's opinion (specifically, Quentin Sommerville of BBC News), and I don't know if it should be given such prominence and repeated as if it were fact. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Colipon+(T) 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm more leaning towards "military lockdown", but since there is on confirmed reports that says PLA is in the city, "government lockdown", may be a better term. Jim101 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Users need to stop abusing the use of the word "de facto". I've noticed it more and more rampantly here on Wikipedia. Who is to say what is "de facto". Who is even "de facto" in charge right now? No one knows. Please take the "de facto" off, and change it to a more NPOV descprition. Colipon+(T) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the same information is repeated lower in the article, and attributed properly to its source. So I've removed it from the lede (current version). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim, I believe there are confirmed reports of PLA in the city. But enforcement is still being carried out largely by local police and the People's Armed Police and its related organizations. It would be nice if we could mention at least something about a very strictly enforced curfew. The basic principle here is : the Intro is not a place to update news. It should comprehensively describe the events.. I would say, at most three paragraphs. Colipon+(T) 17:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the BBC report. I don't think the guy understands what "Martial Law" means, it makes me think that he wanna use the word because it sounds "cool". M.L. basicly means the justice system suspension and Court-martial is in place. The city is fully functioning, there is police and armed police present (which are controlled & mobilized by the city). In fact, he said it himself, the "troops" are NOT army, they are People's Armed Police. So how's a police force, which is again fully controlled & mobilized by a city, can impose a Martial Law?! TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese authorities often refer to martial law as "Jieyan", i.e. "we are blocking off the streets to vehicles and pedestrians." This term has been applied to very serious martial law situations (such as 1989 Tiananmen) or applied locally in a county for the its party chief's motorcade to pass thru the county's main street. But anyhow, in this case the term applied by Urumqi municipal government is "Jiaotong guanzhi", something along the lines of "transportation restrictions". Certainly should not be playing around with a loaded phrase like "Martial Law". Colipon+(T) 18:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree & how typical. The word he was looking for was somewhere in the area of curfew, but then, curfew is somewhat too weak. So a lightbulb went on in his head - "Martial Law" sounds much "cooler"! People love to use names, I haven't done any edits on this article and, a Singaporean IP User called me a "racist" already. How nice~ TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed the word "Jie Yan", "Jiao tong guan zhi", "Jie yan" directly translates as "Strict Control", which more or less means "Martial Law". "Jiao tong guan zhi" on the other hand is a much, much weaker term barely meaning the traffics going in and out of that city may be monitored. Yifanwang99 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More POV-oriented edits

Someone please rescue the "history" section on the Urumqi city article. It's getting out of hand. Also, can editors inserting snippets such as "Rebiya gave us a lie" please stop - if it is properly sourced please try to fit it under a few sentences in previous paragraphs. We do not want to make this article another claim-based sections farm. Colipon+(T) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone who's been paying attention to the news today clarify how big a deal the "Rebiya Kadeer photo controversy" is? In the current version it seems like it's being blown out of proportion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem like it is gathering steam on China's blogs today. A lot of steam. Many bloggers are very distrustful of this Kadeer lady, and it's being fanned by media vilification of her. The photo controversy may be genuine, but I don't know if it deserves that much emphasis. Awaiting other editors. Colipon+(T) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I reinsert it because the mistake is verifiable. But I do believe we are stepping on WP:UNDUE here. Jim101 (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Here I've tried to trim it down to the basic facts; the question remains whether it deserves to be in its own section or just to be part of or the other discussion on Kadeer. I think after a little bit we can see if it has been written about a lot in reliable sources (not just in the blogosphere) and decide. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... thought I was actually making less POV when I made reverts. Then went back over material and realized that the only change I made that was actually less POV was changing "mistake" to "error". Put everything else back as I found it. Sorry, my bad.Simonm223 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello my friends. To Rjanag: I agree with you. They two should stop the war as soon as possible. It is not good for wiki. But I think we'd better leave this paragraph here, and not move it into "part of or the other discussion on Kadeer", because if we move it there, it seems that we are doubting Kadeer herself. As wiki must keep neutral, we'd better not give our reader any impression like "bad guy" or "excellent one". Now it is only an issue on Chinese netizens, not on Kadeer's personality. As Kadeer has not respond, we'd better wait for her responce. After she says something on it, we can add her words here. To Colipon: Now the title is perfect, thank you very much! --Sadmovie (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

An editor just attempted to add an image (using incorrect formatting); the image itself is File:Rebiya-use-old-fake-photo.jpg. I can't decide whether to clean up the formatting, or to tag the image for deletion (and open up a discussion on its fair use status). Personally, I think no image is necessary for this since it's only a small part of a much larger issue, and if an image is used we only need to show the image itself, not a screenshot of her on Youtube--which causes us to be having copyright issues with the original image, with Al Jazeera, and with YouTube. Thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And as a side note... this is the image that everyone is up in arms about? The wild and crazy blogosphere may be interested to know that this is old news, and the "lie" wasn't "discovered" by an intrepid Chinese netizen. We've known since at least the wee hours of July 6 that this was not an image of the riots; Ohconfucius uploaded it back then and then, after realizing that it was an image of something else, asked me to delete it. The full history is available here, although it can only be viewed by admins (since the file is deleted). Also, interestingly, the Radio Free Asia article that originally had this image posted has since changed the images, though I don't know when. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One image worth 1000 words, what are you dudes afraid of the image showing Ms. Kadeer holding a false photo on TV accusing PLA of cracking down on Uyghurs??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 July 2009

"Afraid"? I'm not afraid of anything, I'm just trying to uphold Wikipedia's guidelines about non-free images. What does this image illustrate that is not already demonstrated by the text?

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the guidelines and learn what you're talking about before you come here and start trolling. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I added the photo comparison back. Further suppression of that image will be futile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Futile"? Sounds like you're not very interested in discussing things with anyone, and like you think you own this place. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia works by consensus. If you want the image to remain, you need to present a reason here; if you continue re-adding it because you like it, you will be edit waring and risk getting blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, you need to go learn some copyright law before lecturing here about your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. The use of the picture falls under fair-use doctrine, an exception in the copyright. Now tell us your motive of blocking that photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And you need to learn some Wikipedia policy. I have already linked to Wikipedia's fair-use policy, WP:NFCC. I have already explained (my first long paragraph in this section) why I believe this image does not meet those fair-use guidelines. You haven't said anything about why the image does meet them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, to remove your excuse for blocking the image uploaded to Wikipedia, I have linked to the image on an external site. I don't have the time to struggle with you on this. However, next time, if you have an issue about images uploaded to Wikipedia, you should go to the image page and challenge the copyright issue there, instead of repeatedly trying to remove this important piece of information. Now, tell us what is your real purpose in trying to suppress this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I already told you my "real purpose", and you need to stop making your accusations; you are a troll and you are being disruptive. If you look at the article history, you will see that I have been removing both anti-Uyghur and pro-Uyghur content, as well as both pro-Chinese and anti-Chinese. Trying to accuse me of being a Uyghur separatist is not going to get you anywhere.

As for your external link; that is not acceptable either, as you're just trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies. You think that after the image is deleted from Wikipedia you can keep it in the article by linking to some other junk page where you uploaded it? No, that's not how this place works. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, you are not a lawyer and you have no say here on whether the use of the image is fair-use. That's a legal question you have no qualification to answer. However, your insistence in removing this image is rather telling. I don't care if you are a Uyghur terrorist or Ms. Kadeer's cousin, let the truth ring. Okay?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RjanagIn addition, this edit history will be published, and you may be identified as either a sympathizer of East Turk Terror group or supporter of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down, ChinaHistorian. Some users may see this image as "damning evidence" to illustrate the point that Kadeer is not trustworthy - but similar constroversies in Tibetan images last year only really caused a stir on Chinese blogs, inflamed some nationalism, but didn't do much else to strengthen the Chinese gov't's case, except for those who are already supportive of the government. Let's keep the sensationalism to a minimum. Colipon+(T) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, over 100 people were killed. Rebiya Kadeer was believed to be the instigator of the massacre. Now we have some evidence against her, it's not a direct evidence. But it's quite telling that Rjanag is doing all he can to suppress this image. Of course, he cannot hide the truth. I will continue my effort until Rjanag reveals his true colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, reviewing Rjanag's profile reveals that he comes from western China and is likely to be a Uyghur, as he speaks that Turkic language. Thus, his repeated effort in suppressing the Rebiya Kadeer image can be explained by his likely connection with the East Turk group. ChinaHistorian (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you cannot simply make uninformed judgments like that. I have been working with rnajag for several days here on this page and I have found him/her to be a rather good editor. Right now the point here is to present everything from a neutral perspective as per WP:NPOV. You have to avoid personal attacks on Wikipedia. You will notice by browsing through this page that there are editors from all over the world here, and that things here are decided by consensus. If you are really passionate about this you may want to start a blog to detail Kadeer's "crimes". Here is not the place to do it. Colipon+(T) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a certainly a matter of perspective, many in the west even sided with the East Turk terrorist and accused China. Likely being a Uyghur will make rnajag think differently. Everyone has its political stand. My job here is to have the truth told. Any effort to suppress the truth and spread the untruth will be against the founding principle of Wikipedia. This is a place to share information, not to suppress information and impose misinformation. Rjanag's feeble attempt to invoke Wikipedia fair-use guidelines to suppress the image is not particularly subtle. I hope you all can respect the truth and let it be told. This is the age of internet. Hiding the information from Wikipedia will only discredit Wikipedia and making it a place of political war. ChinaHistorian (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it is already a place for political war. Have you looked at the article on Falun Gong, or how about the Chinese invasion of Tibet? This article is one of the best articles wikipedia has on a controversial topic - certainly on ones that I've seen. It's coherent and it presents both sides of the story. And we owe this to the editors that contribute to it. While I appreciate your efforts I hope everything can be resolved through the appropriate guidelines. If you feel like you are being treated unfairly please discuss it on the image deletion page. Colipon+(T) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see how this tug of war plays out. The East Turks are quite afraid of the truth now. They did the massacre and they or their relatives will have to pay. Wikipedia allows everyone to make edits, and it's natural that is being infested with these people. Everything they did here will be exposed and serve as further evidence as their hideous intent. ChinaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ChinaHistorian, some of us may have personal views on the behaviour of various parties involved in the Urumqi riots. We are keeping them off the article page. Regardless of your personal perspective on where to assign blame the issue here is a dispassionate documentation of fact, with a focus on neutrality and respect for copyright laws. Wikipedia always should err on the side of caution vis a vis copyright. Please stop with the edit war. It's inappropriate for this venue.Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts

I just watched this Al-Jazeera video. Someone needs to give a better Uyghur translation of what happened. I don't even understand what she said. The translator did not seem all that competent. It may seem to us now that she blatantly lied, but until we know exactly what she said, it may be hard to write a good section onto the article.Colipon+(T) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, Rjanag's action was not neutral. The image I tried to show was Rebiya Kadeer's own TV interview image, holding that old photo, and accusing China of "deploy[ing] army and military" and "actually beat" Uyghur protesters. That was Rebiya's justification for the massacre occurred in Urumuqi. Thus, the picture was quite significant, it had blood on it. But I did not write anything, I only posted the image without any comment. The image is for all people of conscience to see and judge. People deserve to know the truth of the matter. There is blood spilled. So the question we ought to ask is why these people are trying to hide the truth, why they are so afraid of the truth. ChinaHistorian (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's completely overblown, and definitely violated WP:NPOV in a number of ways which I've now corrected. What's more, Kadeer isn't the only one to have made that mistake with the photo. We know that a number of reputable sources, including Reuters, Radio Free Asia, The Daily Telegraph all used it mistakenly (but corrected it). My guess is that Kadeer took it from one of those sources. I added some material from the SCMP which puts it into perspective. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So when people who are against the Chinese government say something untrue, it is an honest mistake; and when anyone from the Chinese government or with pro-China background says anything that goes against your understanding of the world, maybe even with evidences to back it up, it must be a lie, a cover up, a sinister plot with fake evidences. It is really a wonderful mindset if you can talk yourself into it. JonovaL (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Another image

Now we also have File:CCTV Urumqi Riots.jpg in the article; I am almost certain, however, that it does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The criteria are pretty strict and complicated so I can understand how they may be confusing... but basically, you have to be able to demonstrate that this image is necessary in the article because it demonstrates something that is important (ie, discussed a lot in the article) and cannot be described by words alone. I don't see how this image does any of the above.

First of all, CCTV coverage in particular is not addressed much in the article, so I don't see any need for an image of it. Some sources have mentioned that Chinese media has provided more grisly photos than other media, but this isn't an image of that so it's irrelevant. It's not really showing any special or unique about CCTV coverage, it's just a random screenshot. The only special claim made in the section where it's included is that Chinese TV has a 'lot' of coverage of this event...and, obviously, a single screenshot doesn't illustrate that.

Anyway, I will probably remove this image and put it up for deletion, but I wanted to hear some input first. I have also contacted the uploader and asked him to comment here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

update J Milburn has removed the image, and it is tagged for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The image isn't there to simply illustrate a current event, as J Milburn thinks it is. In terms of television, Chinese media basically is CCTV. The fact that CCTV has so much coverage is significant since in similar situations, such as the 2008 Tibetan unrest, they initially played down the incident (see 2008 Tibetan unrest#Media coverage) and didn't cover it much. The new media strategy is very interesting and notable. I'd be happy to put a collage together to show their extensive coverage, if that would work better (including accusations against Rebiya Kadeer and the World Uyghur Congress, coverage of the overseas embassy attacks in response to the riots, and different government officials visiting/commenting on the riots). Given what I just mentioned, I think an image (or images) from CCTV about the riot adds significantly to the Domestic reaction section of the article and qualifies under fair-use. Otebig (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, one image doesn't illustrate "so much coverage", as it can by definition only illustrate an instant. Even a collage would still not be very useful (where do you draw the line between "a lot" of screenshots and "a little", and how do you determine how much airtime those screenshots add up to?). And, most importantly, what does this demonstrate that isn't already demonstrated by text saying "there was lots of coverage on CCTV"? Especially with the suggested alternative of making a collage, that seems like a lot of work, and a lot of 'fair use' (keeping in mind that one of Wikipedia's fair-use criteria is minimal use), to illustrate something that could be illustrated better and more easily with a single throwaway sentence. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Many fair-use images aren't 100% necessary. For example, many fair-use images are of actors playing roles. You could simply say they played the roles - why have an image? We have them because fair-use images illustrate what is said in the text in a significant way, as this image in question does. As I mentioned, given CCTV's history, the fact that these riots are being covered at all immediately after the initial events took place is quite significant. This image illustrates, among other things, that CCTV's coverage includes actual images of the riot itself, which was not the case immediately following previous disturbances. The imagine meets all the criteria under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy, including point 8 - its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic at hand in this section (China's internal coverage) by visually showing that the main media provider, CCTV, is documenting it, as opposed to staying silent like they usually have before. I'm not going to make a big fuss if folks are in a copyright paranoia mood, but I believe the image both qualifies as fair-use and adds significantly to a relevant section of the article, and should remain (or another image that better illustrates CCTV's coverage should be there, if someone has one). Otebig (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, sources about CCTV's differing coverage would be good, I know. Things like that, though, usually aren't discussed until after the fact (and then only by regional specialists). News articles now mainly discuss the different approach the government has to western/international media. I'll keep looking for a source on the issue of CCTV coverage - maybe someone with a better understanding of Chinese can find something? Otebig (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, here's one! Otebig (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to seek a third opinion at WP:3O, or comment from an editor with more experience dealing with fair-use media (for example, one of the admins active at WP:NFCR. I think we both have good points and probably aren't going to change one another's minds, so outside opinions would be helpful.

(As for the Al Jazeera report you linked... that's an interesting video, and definitely would be useful as a source. I just wish journalists learned how to pronounce things before they talk about them... that "Xinjiæng" is almost as grating as listening to the clueless British Wimbledon commentators butcher Zheng Jie's name last year.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

POV Abuses

I realize that since the Kadeer photo controversy the amount of tension on this talk page has increased. I want to remind everyone again that Wikipedia is not a place to try and prove a point. If there are continued abuse along this vein you may risk the page's semi-protection, which means some users will not be able to edit the page at all. Things such as forcibly inserting images, blanking paragraphs without discussion, and individual assertions must be justified by consensus.

I also raise this again. Who actually understands the Uyghur language here? Is there a proper translation for what Kadeer said to Al-Jazeera? Can someone put up a Uyghur name for the incident as well? Colipon+(T) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know enough Uyghur to translate Kadeer's comments (I only just started studying it three weeks ago, I never expected something this big to happen!). I don't know a Uyghur name for the incident, but if someone finds something that looks like one I can at least read it and help verify whether or not it is the right name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ChinaHistorian

User:ChinaHistorian is trying to blank the section on the Shaoguan incident, without prior discussion, in the "background" section of the article. Please, an administrator needs to deal with this. Colipon+(T) 23:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That section tried to make people's unfounded guesses into facts. There was no proof of the link between the the incident in Guangdong and the massacre in Xinjiang. The PRC government has specifically stated that it had evidence that overseas groups based in the United States were responsible for the attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This user was warned for edit warring hours ago. Has he reverted several times since then? He can easily be blocked through WP:AN3. I have a quick errand to run but I'll take a look at things after I'm done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag has called me "a useless editor, and the worst kind of troll" and making "bullshit accusations", while trying desperately to suppress a highly relevant picture showing Kadeer using a false photo to justify the killings. Keep it up. I will use my utmost patience to make the truth known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a pro-Chinese government editor. Rjanag already reported him to edit warring noticeboard, there is still no response as of now. This editor is repeatedly making biased edits and attempt to add an image for deletion to this article. As I said before, POV pushing of any side is unacceptable. This user should be blocked as soon as possible for POV abuses and edit warring. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Watch out, 98.154.26.247; if you keep disagreeing with ChinaHistorian like this, you might be exposed as a Uyghur terrorist just like I was :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone calm down, it will all be sorted out eventually. There is no point making petty arguments here, this is a place to discuss how to improve the article, and not to bicker. Everyone should maintain their temper and sense of peace, 和平汉子是好汉子。 ChinaHistorian, I am aware that you may have intense feelings for the events in Xinjiang and/or the contents of this article, however Wikipedia maintains strict policy of what can and cannot be placed here. First of all, images must meet either a "free license" (i.e. CC, GFDL or PD) or "fair use" criteria, and must not be an infringement of copyright that cannot be justified under Wikipedia's WP:FAIRUSE policy. Wikipedia also maintains an WP:NPOV policy, meaning that all articles, regardless of nature, must maintain a neutral perspective as much as possible. All articles must have proper WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, must be WP:VERIFIABLE, and not be subject to WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Not following these rules will result in a swift revert; and WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS can result in a user WP:BLOCK. You cannot accuse anyone of being a "terrorist", "racist", "fascist", "communist", "homosexual" or anything else on Wikipedia. Users are not here to "hide the facts", they wish to maintain an article as best as possible, while adhering to Wikipedia policy. As Chairman Mao once said in his collection of quotes, "不要打人，不要骂人。" Rjanag, don't get too personal or stirred about anything, just keep your cool and stay calm. Other people have the judgement to see those who are making wrongdoing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• [ecx4]I would tend to agree that the content of User:ChinaHistorian's edits was problematic, as was his behaviour (as it appears). This is a very emotive issue, and judging by the Uyghurs and Han on the streets, neither side will be content until the other side gets the blame. However, this is not how things work around here, and I would reiterate Ben's advice. cool heads are necessary. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see that ChinaHistorian has just been blocked for 24 hours. I hope that he will take a more cooperative stance when xhe returns. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he might be back, as soon as he was blocked a new single purpose user WhiteTrashFraud started editing. Based on his insult history, I'd say it might be the same person. Semiprot might be in order, unfortunately.Fuzbaby (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Media gaffes

I like this rewrite by Ohconfucius (and it touches on a thing I posted about several hours ago above, the fact that this erroneous photo was floating around before Kadeer misused it and that 'Chinese netizens' weren't necessary the first people to point out it was bad). The only thing is, does it really belong in the "Domestic reaction" section anymore? It seems like it should be moved. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Like that revision as well. Can we put it back? Colipon+(T) 02:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it up to the main 'Events' section Ohconfucius (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Global Times' reporting on Kadeer mis-use of photo

http://china.globaltimes.cn/top-photo/2009-07/444548.html

Global have found photo of kadeer holding up a photo from a different protest, and the original. 75.172.48.45 (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is ancient news by now. No point adding, there is already so much coverage of this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? respectable journals/agencies (Reuters, Voice of America, The Telegraph) all made that mistake. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Spoiled like pandas?

Is this edit necessary? First of all, from what I can tell, it's a quote from just some random guy. More importantly, though, from what I can tell, it's not even relevant to the background of the incident, which the editor is claiming it to be—it's about how the guy thinks Uyghurs are "getting away with" rioting, not about Han resentment of Uyghurs in the past for "getting away with" things back then. (Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't call arrests and death threats "getting away with", but that's not worth arguing over here.) Anyway, it looks to me like it's not relevant, and is just an attempt to "balance out" a section that the user maybe thinks is too pro-Uyghur. Probably should be removed? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wanna, then remove it, because it reeks ethic hatre.

But it is a common knowledge that a lot of Hans feels this way about other minorities. I want to find another less POV pushing statement to fill the gap. Any suggestions? Jim101 (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section could use some proper "balance" with a reliably-sourced statement that, for example, Han people in Xinjiang feel Uyghurs are given too many affirmative-action-like perks. (Again, on the other hand Uyghurs will say that the Han people get all the good jobs and Uyghurs aren't even allowed to gather together or have meshrep and whatnot.... but our job here is not to evaluate the logic of what different ethnic groups feel towards each other, only to report the facts of how they feel.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think we should mention something about Han Chinese feeling that affirmative action and other rights allotted to Uyghurs seems unfair to them. But otherwise remove that quote. Let's bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't always have to have accounts of "his story/her story".Colipon+(T) 04:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going off topic and doing some WP:OR here, but I think I need to use my knowledge in antropology to frame the issue in a NPOV context.

It is a generally accepted theory in sociology that as long as one population vastly outnumbers the other population, the minority will slowly becoming assimulated and/or economically deprived in the society no matter what privilage or protection it has. So in this case it is entirely plausible that the government did tried to "spoil" minorities like "panda", but Hans still get better jobs and lives. Anyway it is just my two cents from my studies. Jim101 (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The main issue is still, though, that the reference given for this quotation is totally irrelevant. It's not about some resentment over preferential treatment for Uyghurs in recent years; it's about the police reaction to these riots. Obviously the police reaction after the riots has no bearing on the background before the riots. And even if this were somehow relevant, the inflammatory quotation from a random baker is certainly not necessary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Han "mobs" is an important part of this article, this edit is necessary. --Jinhuili (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? I don't understand what you're trying to say. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That section is talking about ethnic tension. It spends several lines to show that Uyghurs are discriminated. Actually, Han people are also felt that they are discriminated by the government. It's part of Ethnic tension. --Jinhuili (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source is about discrimination after the riots, not discrimination before. It's irrelevant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the source is not about discrimination "after" the riots. Actually, I was told by different people, that in Xinjiang, lots of Uyghur criminals are not punished because of the policies. Let me quote the words in the report: "Uighurs are spoiled like pandas. When they steal, rob, rape or kill, they can get away with it. If we Han did the same thing, we'd be executed,". "They can get away with it" doesn't just refer to this riot. It's general speaking.--Jinhuili (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(changed "spoiled" to "favoured"--word choice refers to children/brats}Seb az86556 (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war going on apparently. My two cents: Whether these laws indeed favor minorities or not is rather subjective, and in many cases it can be argued that the unintended (or intended) effect is a further marginalization of minority groups. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's very imaginative. But, what ever you believe the "intention"(or "unintention") of these policies are, it won't change the fact that they are literally in favour of minority group including tibetans and uyghurs. Besides, none of us here is authorized to publish our original comprehension of those policies. If anyone s interested in revealing your truth, find enough solid refs and start a new article focusing on "the essence of China's minority policies". I don't see any controversy here to use the word fact. I'm hellterranHelloterran (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As you said, none of us is "authorized to publish our original comprehension", and that is why whether the policies favour minorities or not is subjective. Not to mention they policies that are literally NOT in favor of minorities. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I know the key now. Is those policies literally in favour of minorities? The answer is yes. Uyghur are allowed to carry weapons strictly forbidden on Han chinese. Uyghurs are given a ration in entrance examination significantly higher than their proportion in the entire population. Official and publicly announced policies tells police to be more tolerant to Uyghur criminals. I can continue all day long. You may argue about the intentions but I'm only concerned about literal facts.Helloterran (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this has become IMO the lamest edit war ever...

For those who says the law is "clearly favouring Uyghurs/Hans"...

a) Where is the law?

b) Are you a lawyer/judge/justice certified by any authority to interpert any law?

If the answer is no to any one of the questions, on what grounds can anyone judge definitively on which ethic group the law favors? What is this BS, a kangaroo court? Jim101 (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this revert, which is identical to Helloterran's edits but made by an IP. Helloterran, I very much hope you just did this by accident (had forgotten to log in or something). If you purposely edited from an IP to continue edit warring, you will be temporarily blocked and I will have no way to stop it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim you are being illogical. Gvmt policies are not puzzles and they mean what they say. I think that's common knowledge. If you believe the actual intention is otherwise, the burden of proof is on your shoulder. And if we can't even reach a concensus on such obvious literal fact and need to use weasel words as a weapon, wikipedia will be flooded with "xxx claims that" etc and become completely unreadable.Helloterran (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you just showed me that have no experience in interperting the laws.

You claim laws are "common knowledges"...disregarding Wikipedia, if you tired to pull this term when writing serious reseach papers in the real world, your will offically lose all creditablities.

You claim that laws are "obvious" and "literal". If this is the case, what are courts and lawyers for in this world?

You believe "wikipedia will be flooded with "xxx claims that" etc and become completely unreadable"...I'll use my univeristy's ethics code: "Better have no results than report make-believes".

If you can't be serious about this and believe in laws can be "obvious" with "common knowledges", we are done here. Jim101 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim101, I think you didn't get the points. We are talking about policies. You are talking about laws. --Jinhuili (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For those that argue that the affirmative action for the minority here is an article form the nytime http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/31/weekinreview/the-world-affirmative-action-chinese-style-makes-some-progress.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.117.70 (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Here is another source that is more current that reference on the fact that minorities do have preferable treatment and it is related to the riot http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aThKqewIVBTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.117.70 (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. You have revealed your complete ignorance on topics regarding China's minority policies. I'm talking about the entire picture, while you are only playing with some "too correct to be useful" concepts. It doesn't take a lawyer or any kind ofexpert to discover that fact that an ordinary Uyghur individual have got much more chance of getting into universities, find a gvmt job, etc., provided that he had been working equally hard as his Han competitors. The Chinese gvmt is actually make much effort to help them. I don't want to comment on the actual outcome coz I simply don't know if I'm qualified. And I personally believe that they are spoiled. But, the idea that they are "intentionally spoiled" is too far fetched to be serious opinion. Is a black American "intentionally spoiled" because he can get college admission more easily than a white or asian student? You'd better stop there and think twice. You believe you are discussing a relavant topic, but I think you are merely trying to stop people coming to the final, meaningful conclusion.Helloterran (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I was asked to join this talk, let's get back to the gist of it: Anyone who wants to insert a phrase that factually states that "China's policies" favor Uyghurs needs to provide a direct link/reference to said policies on the page. Until such policies are quoted ad verbatim, the claim has no standing. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How many of "such policies"? 1? 5? 101?

I'll start with this one.

Birth control policy in Xinjiang.

第十五条　城镇汉族居民一对夫妻可生育一个子女，少数民族居民一对夫妻可生育两个子女。汉族农牧民一对夫妻可生育两个子女，少数民族农牧民一对夫妻可生育三个子女。

Article 15 Urban: Han families are allowed to have 1 child. Minority families 2. Rural areas: Han familie 2, Minority families 3.

BTW, Rebiya Kadeer had 11 children and was never properly punished for that, which is very impossible for a Han chinese. Therefore this official policy reflects only a fraction of the actual unfairness.

Helloterran (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. It's constructive start. Find more and convince us. Then include those policies as a link -- That's all I was asking for.

Anyone else has an opinion? Can we include a claim of favoritism based on quoted policy? Seb az86556 (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There no way we could access anything from the xinjiang government website almost all xinjiang government website have been down. Here is the link if it was still up http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/10013/10037/10050/10002/2008/44322.htm there is a google cache of the website http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:wwnU1NSF6PwJ:www.xinjiang.gov.cn/10013/10037/10050/10002/2008/44322.htm+%E6%96%B0%E7%96%86%E7%BB%B4%E5%90%BE%E5%B0%94%E8%87%AA%E6%B2%BB%E5%8C%BA%E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%A3%E4%B8%8E%E8%AE%A1%E5%88%92%E7%94%9F%E8%82%B2%E6%9D%A1%E4%BE%8B&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.117.70 (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to make an edit, you will need to provide more than one law, translated into English, and then wait for a consensus with other editors. Simple posting them on the talkpage w/o linking and footnoting does not suffice. Thank you Seb az86556 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

记者：民考汉考生应符合哪些条件？

负责人：规定的少数民族考生在高考时使用汉族考生参加高考同样一套试卷的考生，即参加汉语言统考并报汉语言招生院校及专业的维吾尔、哈萨克、蒙古、柯尔克孜、塔吉克、锡伯、乌孜别克、塔塔尔、达斡尔、藏、俄罗斯等11个民族的考生。

reporter: what is the requirement 民考汉考生(student of minority taking the Chinese exam)?

representative from the autonomous region office of administration: It is require that the student must take the same exam as those their Han's counterpart, take the Chinese exam with the Han student and are trying to enroll in a Chinese university. The eleven minority that are accept are Uyghur, Mongolian, Kirghiz, Tajikistan, Xibe, Uzbek, Tatar, Daur, Tibetan, and Russian.

.....

记者：民考汉考生今年享受怎样的加分政策？

负责人：今年，参加汉语言统考，报考汉语言招生计划或民考汉招生计划的民考汉考生，在录取时父母双方均为上述少数民族者，加50分；父母一方为上述少数民族者，加10分。

reporter: What are the policy for additional point for those minority that take the Chinese exam?

representative from the autonomous region office of administration: This year minority that take the Chinese exam will received addition 50 point if both his/her parent are a minority and if only one of student's parent are minority he/she will recieved 10 point.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mJEFkpo-D48J:www.sooxue.com/gaokao/gkkd/gkxw/200906/116428.html+%E2%80%9D%E6%B1%89%E8%AF%AD%E8%A8%80%E7%BB%9F%E8%80%83%E2%80%9C&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

how many more example do you need—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.117.70 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that 50-point means the difference between community college and the best Universities in China or the difference between the best Universities in a province and to be rejected by any colleges. Correct me if I am wrong. --Jinhuili (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first example (mother-tongue education for minorities) does not support your point. Your second example is questionable and must be discussed in the article on the pro's and con's of affirmative action. If you would like to join the discussion for that article, feel free to do so. The discussion itself is beyond the scope of this article. Please go to affirmative action and discuss it there. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

《中发[1984]第5号文件》规定的，即："对少数民族中的犯罪分子要坚持'少杀少捕'"

can anybody translate this and sometime this is also refer 两少一宽. Interesting find when I was doing my research. Not sure if this is real or if it still in effect. Does any one know where to find the original copy. http://www.legaltheory.com.cn/asp/info.asp?id=482 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%A9%E5%B0%91%E4%B8%80%E5%AF%AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.117.70 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

《中发[1984]第5号文件》 means the 5th document in 1984 of "中发". 中发 means "published by CCP"? I believe this is a document about the policy issued by CCP, not by the government.

"对少数民族中的犯罪分子要坚持'少杀少捕'" means "(We) must insist to execute less and arrest less minority criminals."--Jinhuili (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Those unqual policies lead to corruption. The discrimination against Han Chinese now receives strong criticism. People are demanding for equality. Every Chinese should be equal citizen in China. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I can't believe this argument is still going on. Once again: Wikipedia is not for pushing a point of view, it's for reporting the facts. Whether or not policies are unfair is an opinion; some policies may favor Uyghurs, others may favor Han, but what the overall situation is is, by necessity, an opinion. The fact that people hold this opinion, though, is a clear fact, and is the only thing that is relevant to report—we are not here to discuss whether the laws in Xinjiang are good, but only to discuss how they helped cause the riot, and how they helped cause the riot was that some Han people maybe didn't like them.

As for the repeated argument about the one-child policy...well, that's not really Uyghur-specific, almost all minorities (少数民族) have that exception. And again, one-child policy is not the only thing out there...even if it does favor minorities, what about the right to hold a job, the right to have meetings or gatherings, etc.? Like I said, some policies favor minorities and some don't. Trying to decide how much the law overall favors them is a waste of breath as far as Wikipedia is concerned. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Tried to direct user to the affirmative action article to no avail. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"what about the right to hold a job, the right to have meetings or gatherings", are you serious about this Rjanag? What makes you think the Hans have more rights to have meetings/gatherings? Ever heard of Tiananmeng 1989? As for holdign a job, in the guangdong incident that supposely sparked this, the factory hired 600 Uyghur workers few months prior to the brawl because it was encouraged by the government. JonovaL (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"What about the right to hold a job?" Do you have any evidence to show that the minorities are discriminated on the job market? I don't believe it's discrimination if one cannot find a job because of poor education.

"What about the right to have meetings or gatherings?" Do you believe Hans have more rights than minorities to have gatherings in China? --Jinhuili (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there is a discussion going here on whether minorities are favoured or not by the law strongly suggests that there are different points of view and that the statement "minorities are favoured..." is not a fact, but a view point. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Minorities are favoured..." is a fact at least in terms of practice of criminal laws, if we don't talk about the one-child policy and the application of Universities. One policy about the criminal law practice that is in written is 《中发[1984]第5号文件》. Anyway, we need to find more sources to support the claim.--Jinhuili (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the matter of contention here whether or not it's justified to insert what Han Chinese think of Uyghurs into the article? Please, let us not get into an edit war about what China's policy is on this matter and how this policy is actually carried out. On this matter I agree with Jim101 that you would need a good academic journal. And then you'd have to write a very, very brief blurb about it to avoid further edit warring. Colipon+(T) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Echoing 76.117.1.254 here: I used those examples specifically to show you that what rights or privileges different ethnic groups have is subject to debate, and should not be presented as fact (ie, in the context of this article, the wording with "believe" is better). You guys both reacted so strongly to the suggestion that Uyghurs might have fewer rights than Han people in some areas...but those are the very same arguments many Uyghurs use to explain why they don't want to be part of China. Likewise, non-Han people might find your statement of "Uyghurs are spoiled" just as ridiculous. Like 76.117.1.254 says, that's why we need to be careful with wording: this is not hard fact, it's up to interpretation and always a subject of dispute, so we should not be presenting either side as "fact". This is neither HanPedia nor UyghurPedia, it's Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a better way of handling is leave the word "believe" but add why the Han think that the Uyghurs are treat better

"On the other hand, some Han people are dissatisfied by some government policies(i.e. One Child Policy and Affirmative Action) which they believe favor Uyghurs. "

：Does anyone know where to find a copy of 《中发[1984]第5号文件》Anybody know the current status of this policy.

The closest thing to anything official I find is a news article is from a Singapore newspaper. http://www.zaobao.com/wencui/2009/07/others090703be.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.117.70 (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Call for Ohconfucius

Where is User:Ohconfucius when you need him? He is quite good at weeding out the POV, and did a superb job with the Kadeer photo thing. Please, have him take a look at the current background section! Colipon+(T) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is laws about affirmative actions in the PRC, and I may try to dig some up, they are in Chinese and since I'm no lawyer, I'll have a hard time translating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yifanwang99 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

time format

I just went through the entire article simply proofreading. Are we using am-pm or 24-our time format? right now it's very inconsistent Seb az86556 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese reports always use 24-hour time format, while western reports uses am-pm system. Jim101 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Would prefer AM-PM here, but it should be uniform either way. Colipon+(T) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's do am-pm, since it's an English-language-article. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

24 hour time as used was not actually incorrect, per MOSNUM, but I will leave it as both are acceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Government accused that the riot was masterminded by World Uyghur Congress (WUC) led by Rebiya Kadeer.

" Chinese Government accused that the riot was masterminded by World Uyghur Congress (WUC) led by Rebiya Kadeer. " The above sentence was removed by somebody. Anything is wrong to state Chinese Government's opinion in this article? I don't want to fight an edit war. Anybody can add it back to the article? --Jinhuili (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. It's not needed in the lede. Try finding a better place for it and substitute "claimed" for "accused" Seb az86556 (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give the reason why it's not needed there? Because you removed it, please suggest a better place for it. --Jinhuili (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I re-added it (sorry Seb, I didn't see your comment here before I made my edit). I believe that whether or not the accusations against Kadeer are true, the fact that these accusations happened, and the controversy the accusations have generated, is real. It's a major part of this incident, and worth mentioning in the lede as long as we keep it clear that it's a controversy and not a fact, and the it's the PRC, not us, who are accusing her. I am, of course, saddened at how easily the government can vilify a person and convince millions of people to hate her... but that's beside the point. We're mainly just here to report on the controversies that happen. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Second rjanag. Colipon+(T) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, I wasn't per se against including it. Your wording sounds a lot better, is more NPOV and... well, is correct English. Issue resolved. Thanks! Seb az86556 (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Headings under "background"

Who keeps reverting changes to the headings on the "Background" section? Three equal signs for sub-headings will do. Colipon+(T) 04:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• apologies. It was collateral damage to my placing citations in templates. I did this offline and there were several edit conflicts. Now fixed. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hui Muslims" in Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protests and 1st riot in Ürümqi

Enlighten me here...this header in Backgrounds suggests that there was a riot before the main one on July 5, but when I read the content, it said nothing about a riot. What does the "riot" keyword do in the header? Jim101 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it means the riot, as opposed to the smaller demonstrations/violence breaking out in the days following Jul 5. If it was confusing, though, we should probably brainstorm better ways to word it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then the chronological order is confusing here...Protests and 1st riot in Ürümqi, then Initial demonstrations, then Riot again? Jim101 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to reorganize that entire section. There's a lot of redundant material in there. Colipon+(T) 05:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the content is the problem, its the header's wording.

The content has three points:

• Uyghur are not happy with the government on Guangdong killing.
• WUC says riot is Chinese government's fault.
• Chinese government says the riot is WUC's fault.

When you fit the content with the header, it is clearly not matching here. I do not know who come up with this header and don't know the intention of it, so I refrain from touching this until I can get an answer. Jim101 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tibet?

This is something I don't even want to broach... but should Tibet's reaction be included in the list of "countries and territories" in the International Response section? I recall a similar debate to this coming up over the inclusion of Taiwan in the "international response" to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Personally, I'm maybe inclined to leave it since the list is of "countries and territories", but I'm not an expert on this whole situation and either way I'm sure it's going to be controversial. Does anyone else have thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I say leave it; it does say countries and territories; and after all, Taiwan is already in there. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is a de facto sovereign nation known as the Republic of China. The Dalai Lama's authority (Tibet Government-in-exile) only claims this sovereignty and is not recognized by any other sovereign nations as having any governing power. So it should not be placed on that list. It can be placed under the "other groups" list. Colipon+(T) 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Put it under the NGO section. They do have a voice in the matter due to the similiar 2008 Tibet Riot, But we have to becareful not to say/imply that they are a "Nation/Country." Jim101 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I renamed the section into countries to make it clear that only countries are included here. There werent really any territories in the section anyway, as there does not seem to be a reaction of the HK government for example. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong can't really "officially" respond to these riots anyway as they do not have a foreign affairs department. But independent Hong Kong groups can choose to respond - so in the event that happens we can rename the "countries" section "countries and territories". Colipon+(T) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Would we all consider the line "His holiness" the Dalai Lama NPOV? Do we really need that title here? Can't we just name him "Dalai Lama"? This isn't the proper place for all this, can we just leave non-verbose facts here? The Pope is not holy to everyone, and neither is Claude Raël. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all about conventions...if the opinion courts refers him as "His holiness", unless we can start some sort of "NPOV mass brain-washing campaign" in the West, we are stuck with what we got. Jim101 (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind seeing Dalai Lama's reaction, however I do find the wording 'his holiness' not exactly appropriate. Surely, we dont want to see "may peace be with him" every time the name Mohammed was mentioned in Islam section? Yifanwang99 (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The "His holiness" title is accorded because some people recognize him as the "head of Buddhism", even though there is no such title. But for whatever reason Western media generally addresses him using this title. I don't think the title exists in either the Chinese or Tibetan languages anyhow. I don't know if we consider that NPOV. I would say just "the Dalai Lama" is perfectly fine. Colipon+(T) 14:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur. If it's still in there (been off the page a while) let's remove "the hh designation.Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ChinaHistorian sock

I recently blocked User:WhiteTrashFraud as a sockpuppet of User:ChinaHistorian (who was blocked 24 hours for edit warring, although that block will be extended if he continues abusing multiple accounts). Please keep your eyes out for further edits from new accounts by this user. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is one of his edit "though Ms. Kadeer did admit that she encouarged her "people" to demonstrate and she justified the killings by using a false photo[1]." this. Just put it here to let you guys to discuss whether we should add it. --Jinhuili (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include it. It's misrepresenting everything: sure, Kadeer used the wrong photo, but she never "justified" the killings or said they were ok--she just [mis]used the photo to try to argue that police, not protesters, started things. And, really, this addition of WhiteTrashFraud's is just more of the same, beating the same old dead horse that is already discussed at length in the article; this sentence doesn't add anything new. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

SCMP

Hong Kong Newspaper South China Morning Post seems to be doing good, fairly impartial reporting on this matter. Is there any way we can get SCMP material for free? It seems you always need a subscription for their online content. Colipon+(T) 05:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I may have access through LexisNexis or another database at my university. (Yep, even us Uyghur terrorists in Qinghai province get LexisNexis access!!) I'll try taking a look tomorrow. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because you are spoiled like a Panda. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

晕。。。无聊死 -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

(thanks for the laugh, I needed it after a long day! and if bubble tea is too one-sided for this talkpage, maybe we should also make a پولو template to balance it out...) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for something off topic. In Taiwan, it's called boba tea instead of bubble tea. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit tangential as well: originally I thought "spoiled like a panda" was a good argument when I heard it in Chinese. But in English it just sounds silly. Colipon+(T) 14:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In Shanxi they usually just called it "Nai Ch'a" (milk tea). But it's still tasty.Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Same in BJ, I guess nai cha is the standard in mainland Mandarin. (Or zhu nai cha, pearl milk tea.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to step into this discussion to reflect my own ethnic experiences by saying that "Nai Cha" can also refer to a Mongolian drink. In fact I did not know that Bubble tea could also be called "nai cha" until I moved to North America. Colipon+(T) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Exchange of rhetoric

I really don't think that the section should be split into 'Announcement From China' and 'Announcement From Uyghur Group'. Firstly, there is not much to fill two sections, secondly, I think the flow is unnecessarily broken up. I feel that having two sections here instead of one breaks the flow of the entire article as this is the part where we are talking about the sequence of events in the unfolding of the rioting. Having two separate sections would be detrimental and would, in addition, encourage "both sides" to compete and maximise their column inches. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

agree Seb az86556 (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for an "exchange of rhetoric section" at all. It's a vague section title, and it's just the same old arguments about the causes and initial demonstrations (was it premeditated, or was it a peaceful demonstration?) and would probably be more appropriate in one of those places.

Also, I don't see the need for the tiny Kashgar section in the level-4 header underneath "escalation". It's so small it can just be a separate paragraph, rather than a separate section, and it seems more appropriate to put it in the "events after July 5" section rather than the "escalation" section. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, maybe that's better and would simplify the structure. Is there any redundancy we can eliminate? 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not have an exchange of rhetoric section. This is not a divorce trial. There is no need for the "he said she said" battle. Colipon+(T) 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A good source

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25753176-7583,00.html -- this was published recently. I think parts of it may be useful for this page.--Asdfg12345 12:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this story is an editorial. It's essentially an editor's perception on what happened in China and his take on Australia-China relations. I will point out the following segment (things in bracket are my own notes):

The sequence of events is contested, but goes like this (So it's contested, and then you tell us what it is as a fact?). In Shaoguan City in distant Guangdong province two Uighurs were accused of raping a Han Chinese girl. The Chinese authorities now say this accusation was baseless. However, it led to some kind of anti-Uighur pogrom (it was actually an all-out ethnic brawl, learn your facts) and at least two Uighurs, and possibly a few more, were killed.

This led, the next day, to a demonstration against the general repression of Uighurs, China's biggest Muslim minority (The Hui are clearly China's biggest Muslim minority), in Xinjiang's capital city, Urumqi. The Uighurs have a lot of grievances. The Australian government clearly thinks some of them significant, as Uighur issues always figure in the annual Australia-China human rights dialogue. When the Chinese communists took control of Xinjiang in 1949, ethnic Han made up about 6 per cent of the population, with Uighurs the vast majority.

Today, the Han make up about 50 per cent, with Uighurs a minority in their own homeland (citation needed?). There are several other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. It is now a very segregated province (citation needed? says who? has this guy even been there?). Urumqi has clear Han and Uighur districts (Are you sure? The "Uyghur" districts that people often talk about are where the rural Uyghurs from peripheral areas congregate because they don't speak Chinese. Many Uyghurs and Han are very much integrated in urban areas. I would argue the situation is a lot better than say, in Alabama), and throughout Xinjiang there are separate Uighur, Khazak and Han villages (okay?).

The practice of the Muslim religion (it's called Islam, actually. Such a typical mistake.) is very circumscribed (that is true, probably the first non-contestable fact of this essay). Individual visits to Mecca for the haj are illegal (this is not true, find me the law that says this). Religion is discouraged in schools, religious festivals not fully celebrated (this is true, but last time I checked, things like Ramadan are observed quite strictly in Muslim communities in China; many universities provide halal food for Muslim students.).

The vast natural resource development has resulted in jobs for Han, not for Uighurs (very generalized statement, although would like to see a demographic study on this issue). Although Xinjiang is formally designated a Uighur Autonomous Region, all political power, most political positions, most jobs and most economic development has gone to the Han (More-or-less true. But unspoken party rules dictate, for example, that the regional Chairman and Urumqi mayor has to be Uyghur). Some Han are recent migrants, others were forcibly relocated to Xinjiang during either the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution.(yes, and others were there since the Han Dynasty. Ever looked at a map of China from 200AD? If not, you should.) Colipon+(T) 15:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good source? I'll leave it to the other editors to judge. I would say no.

I do think this BBC article, though, is very well-written: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8141867.stm. Colipon+(T) 15:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's a good source to show the unfairness of the (western) media. --Jinhuili (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify: do you mean that the BBC is typically unfair western medium? Ohconfucius (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I mean the theaustralian.com article. --Jinhuili (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary, Colipon, I got something out of it. I don't know enough about this topic to give a response to the holes you poked. In future I will be more careful about what I recommend, now that I realise I don't actually have a good grasp of the nuances of the topic and its history, etc.. Jinhuili, maybe it's an example of the general attitude of western media, but "unfairness"? I don't think this is part of an anti-China agenda, as tempting as it would be to chalk it up to that.--Asdfg12345 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• [ec]It was an interesting article, but a poor source. When I first read the article, I took it at face value. In that context, it seems like a good source, and something I would have happily cited. However, a more knowledgeable person (Colipon) has revealed this to be an essay, in actual fact. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan's response

Okay. One second. Can someone clarify this:

Taiwan's Reaction: The government condemned all those who instigated the violence, and those events "deserve the strongest condemnation".

Does this mean Taiwan actually suppports the way PRC dealing with the issue? Or does it mean Taiwan just condemns violence in general?

Colipon+(T) 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

checked the source > it's quoted correctly. Interpretation of those words seems in the realm of diplomacy here... Seb az86556 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the keyword is "instigated" Seb az86556 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont forget that the current Taiwan president generally take a pro-PRC stance, and of course, Xijiang is also an area claimed by ROC so expect no sympathy towards the ethnic minorities. Yifanwang99 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove sources Letters to editors #1 and Letters to editors #2

First, I must apologize in advance on starting this whole mess.

I first inserted this source to counter "Uyghur fought only police" view point in most of the western media, but the uses of this source as "facts" is clearly out of line here.

BBC intended this piece as a public opinion gauge on the riot, not as facts. In fact it said so itself that any of the stories posted here here is not valid.

Remove this source, it just fans ethic hatre without basis in facts. Jim101 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I had a problem with some of these, and I stripped references to these accounts in the article of the obvious opinions. The really questionable premise is that these are valid and verifiable witness accounts. Because they are not verified, they could be works of complete fiction by CCP agents or Islamic fundamentalists, for all we know. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with this concern; don't get me wrong, I love China, but it is well-known that one of the PRC's tactics is to hire government people to pose as bloggers, netizens, etc., and post "comments" here and there looking like everyday citizens. (I seem to recall that Shanghaiist was often getting trolled by them, back when I was a regular reader there.) These 'testimonials' could have similar problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I am equally concerned about the validity of these statements, I would have to say that dismissing everything as having the possibility of Chinese government meddling is counter-productive to this page. BBC's stance towards China is already far from impartial, so if anything ends up on its newswires it should be fairly safe to assume that some kind of verification took place. Right now the impression I'm getting is that Jane MacCartney's portrayal of the event, although very poorly written by journalistic standards, has been consistently reflected by Hong Kong, Japanese, Chinese and Western media, while the WUC's accounts of "police indiscriminately shooting protesters" have not received nearly as much verification (nor have they received the international support and sympathy that the Dalai Lama had in 2008). But that is just my judgments of the events.Colipon+(T) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutural is not about taking sides, neutural is about framing issues in the correct context. I'm not implying that it is government using netizens to spread propaganda, it is that if BBC said that this piece is about opinions, not facts, using this piece to represent facts is just clearly out of context.

And you notice that we do include Chinese government sources when it is used in the correct context, like timeline of the riot, casualty numbers, etc in topics where government is directly involved. On the other hand, it is non-neutural to use government sources to say WUC is planning the riot because the government is not involved in the "planning process", thus clearly out of context. Jim101 (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Protests in Urumqi

Some sources claim that there were protests immediately after the Shaoguan incident in Urumqi, in late June. Can someone verify this? It would change up the story somewhat. Colipon+(T) 15:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jane Macartney and irresponsible journalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

number of victims

The most updated information had given the numbers of Uyghur and Han Chinese victims as well as the numbers of civilians vs police. Can someone please explain clearly that why these numbers were put in before but then repeatedly deleted by some of us? I do not see a reason why these numbers with clear references should be hiden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by First time again (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

hi, first of all, if I'm not mistaken, the sentence you've added is "it is reported that 33 Han chinese were hacked, burned ......." Unfortunately, I believe it contains a strong flavour of POV pushing which makes the Uyghurs looks like the "bad guys". As it has already been discussed, we are not interested in who is the "bad" guys or the "good" guys nor are we interested in who have a "historical right" to live in Xinjiang. and, please sign your comment in the talk page so we know who you are by using four "~"s. Yifanwang99 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasons were given to you by Rjanag on your user talkpage Seb az86556 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I must apologize again for starting this edit war, but since the situation is extremely tense here, I have to stop balantblatant POV pushing such as this.

The problem is not the number, it is people trying to sneaking this passage "Hans who were stabbed, hacked and burnt to death by marauding Uighur mobs".

We already mentioned in this article that this is a riot against Hans, what is the purpose of adding this passage, besides implying Ugyhur (in some people's opinion) are animals? Are your trying to spread hate/racism here?

Any words we put on Wikipedia can be used against peoples around the world. Learn to be responbile with words and DO NO HARMS before reposting this passage again. Jim101 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've edited your spelling mistake in this talk page, and relax :-) Yifanwang99 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jim101 here. We should not be adding things that will gratuitously fan the flames of hatred (and if anyone is editing this article with the specific intention of making either the Uyghurs or the Han more hated...then your motivations for editing are very improper). I just sent a letter to The Times condemning journalist Jane Macartney's use of improper inflammatory language that has been used to stir up hatred, and most of that letter focused on how quotations such as hers have been misused on this page to portray one group as the "good guys" and one as the "bad guys". I have said this on this page numerous times: when tensions reach the point that they did on July 5, no one is the good guy. What happened was a tragedy, and both sides had a role in making it happen; the appropriate action now is for us to document the facts properly and for the governments and citizens to work on finding out how they will recover from this. The appropriate action is not finger-pointing and trying to determine who screwed up; both the Uyghurs and the government screwed up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all your replies. Yes, I am new so I kind of feel sorry. Regarding the numbers issue. I do not think just by putting the numbers out would spread any more hate if it indeed exists. On the contrary, I feel hiding the numbers tends to let people make judgements purely on their imaginations. I do want to bring up that there are 33 Uyghur bodies found. No matter how it started, who was behind, who is lying, these bodies of either eithnic backgound are victims of the violence. Maybe we should just give the numbers with references but leave the discriptive part out. How do you guys feel?--First time again (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Including the numbers without the quote is fine with me (as long as we also specify that the numbers are according to Xinhua, or the central government, or whatever it was that the source said). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone find the Xinhua report The Times is refering to? It is a better source in this situation, since it is not like Western media actually going into the morgues and count all the corpses. Jim101 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know what your experiences are, but I have never succeeded in finding anything using Xinhua's search engine. I don't know if it is because it is poorly conceived, or keywords not assigned, or whatever. OK, I usually search for hot topics which they tend to frown on, so their own censorship could be knobbling it ;-) G-search is better. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived

See /Archive1. I tried to only take off the sections of things that are no longer contentious. Colipon+(T) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I had considered doing that last night (my plan was to go through and tag all the sections I thought could be considered "resolved", and then let a second editor go through and archive them--just for some double-checking), but actually Ohconfucius already set up the page to be archived by MiszaBot every 72 hours. Granted, on this page 72 hours is an eternity, so archiving may have been a good idea; but we should try to make sure we're not messing up the auto-archiving, either. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I was going to add that we at least need an archive navbox, but Seb just beat me to that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

People, I made an archivebox!!! Please hug me, never done this before :P Seb az86556 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

some western media

They said that Xinjiang was 90% Uyghur in 1950. Well, if we remove Han and Hui ethnic groups completely, then we have 8,345,622(Uyghur)+1,245,023(Kazakh)+158,775(Kirghiz)+149,857(Mongol)+55,841(Dongxiang)+39,493(Pamiris)+34,566(Xibe)+19,493(Manchu)+15,787 (Tujia)+12,096(Uzbek)+8935(Russian)+7006(Miao)+6153(Tibetan)+5642(Zhuang)+5541(Daur)+4501(Tatar)+3762 (Salar). So there would be 10,118,093 people, so today if we completely remove Han and Hui, there would be 82.5% of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. If we remove all ethnic groups except Uyghur and Kazakh, we would have 8,345,622(Uyghur) + 1,245,023(Kazakh)=9,590,645 people living in Xinjiang today, so there would be 87% Uyghur. 93.136.7.152 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers... are you calculating this based on Uyghur population in 1950 as a percentage of total population today? That certainly wouldn't make much sense...

Secondly, why does this matter? Popular media is widely known to fudge numbers, round numbers up or down, and in general just not have much respect for science. This should come as no surprise. And besides, what's the difference between 90% and 82%, the underlying point (that the proportion of Uyghurs in Xinjiang has dropped significantly) remains the same. If your only purpose in posting here is to discredit the western media...well, thanks, but this is not news for us anyway; like I said, popular media is known to be bad with numbers. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that the migration of non-Uighurs into Xinjiang in the last 50 years is a point of contention for many Uighurs. What precisely is your point?Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're tring to say. If you cannot coherently express what your point is, it's useless having a bunch of statistics. It at least does not bode well with WP:OR. Colipon+(T) 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but WTF has this thread to do with improving the article?? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to say that Xinjiang is not only Uyghur homeland, because some western media wants people think that. So even without Han and Hui, 18% of people in Xinjiang would not be Uyghur.

"Nobody is denying that the migration of non-Uighurs into Xinjiang in the last 50 years is a point of contention for many Uighurs. "

"Excuse me, but WTF has this thread to do with improving the article?? "

This is from Britannica:In 1953 about three-fourths of the population lived south of the mountains in the Tarim Basin and the Han influx was directed mainly to the Dzungaria (north of the mountains in the Tarim Basin ) because of its resource potential.

You see, this is very important, because this means that Uyghur homeland is southwestern Xinjiang, we should mention in the article that north of the mountains in the Tarim Basin majority were Kazakhs and that Dzungaria had a lot of space for Han influx. So western media should not say that Han Chinese are migrating to Uyghur homeland because that is misleading, because they are migrating to Dzungaria. Well I would write that but my English is not perfect. 93.136.51.212 (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A group doesn't need to make up 100% of an area's population to call it their "homeland". What do you consider the "Han homeland"? I can guarantee you there have been some non-Han peoples living there since centuries ago.

This article and this talk page are not a place for you to push your theories about whether or not the Uyghurs are "right" in what they believe. We are just here to report what happened in the riot, not argue about who is right and who is wrong. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

2 new sources

This edit added 2 new articles to the external links list. Generally I like to try keeping the ELs to extra resources and stuff, and use articles like this as references for sourced commentary in the article; especially in an article like this where there are bound to be tons of news articles pouring out every day, we don't want the EL list to grow out of control. If anyone has time, it would be great to read/watch those and convert them to references within the article (if they have anything new to say). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas on a guideline on what to include in the section? I see User:Ksyrie may be heading into another edit war.

By my understanding, EL is not a place for each side to advertise their materials. I normally would just leave out the entire section, but in this case some major new channel is needed. Jim101 (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one: Willy Lam (9 July 2009). "Hu Gets a Black Eye in Urumqi". Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Verify wordings on SCMP

there were also no verified witness reports of shots having been fired.

We stated in this article that there are "shots fired"...I'm guessing this statement means there is no verified reports that shots fired into the crowds like the WUC claims (which is true since RFA cannot verify it). Since I don't have SCMP, can anyone verify the wording/translation? Jim101 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The actual paragraph reads: "The picture showed a four-year-old Uyghur girl in Urumqi receiving treatment in a hospital. The caption [of the Guardian photo] said her pregnant mother had been shot. Many netizens have questioned the caption, as so far there have been no witness reports that shots had been fired." I presume it was the netizens who actually said this, and is consistent with the text I put in, although someone seems to have changes it slightly. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I can access all the SCMP articles through LexisNexis. If you give me a list of all the ones you need (or I could just look at the reflist, I guess), I can temporarily copy-and-paste them (with the author and stuff) into User:Rjanag/SMCP articles for a couple days, just to facilitate editing and make sure everyone working here can see what's in the sources (I would then delete that page once things have calmed down). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've got the print version for the last few days, but it would be an idea, to make copies of the print articles I have referenced, so that other editors may verify and incorporate other stuff I may have missed. It does seem to have some exclusive coverage and occasionally a different angle to the international press we cite so often. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I want to bring this up is because of this passage from RFA

Another youth said the protest began peacefully but became violent after police fired on the crowd, and protesters then attacked cars and shops. His account couldn't be independently confirmed.

If the SCMP is talking about this incident, then it is implied that WUC's claim is discredited. Jim101 (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• well, shots were fired. It's officially confirmed. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The WUC claim is that "shots fired into the crowd...

Anyway, if it is some opinions from netizens, remove the passage entirely. It is insignificant opinions and it adds confusion. Jim101 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this AP report:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/661194

shots were fired in the air

According to Peter Foster:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100002643/urumqi-criticism-and-credit-for-the-chinese-police/

the police behaved professionally, and protected Ugyhurs from Han protesters

75.172.48.45 (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kadeer's Statement RE Guangdong Is Inaccurage

Kadeer and WUC stated the Chinese authority did not hold anyone responsible for the 6/26 Guangdong factory worker brawl. This is inaccurate:

1) The former factory worker who started the false rape rumor online against the Uyghur workers was arrested on 6/28:

http://www.xici.net/b1007315/d93539372.htm

"On [June] 28th, police found Mr. Zhu’s posting on “Citizen Voice”. Zhu posted on the website “Xuri Is Trash” article with false information, who was Xuri toy factory worker, but was not rehired after he resigned. Because of this, he posted the article out of contempt. Right now, Police has arrested Zhu according to law."

2) As of 7/1 Guangdong authroity already made announcement regarding the investigation progresss up to 6/30:

http://www.gdemo.gov.cn/yjdt/gdyjdt/200907/t20090701_96716.htm

- The evening of 6/26, relevant departments and magistrates begain analyzing the case - The criminal disorder case was officially introduced on 6/29, after preliminary investigation

3) 13 of the 15 people involved in the Guangdong brawl were arrested before 7/5:

http://news.qianlong.com/28874/2009/07/07/2502@5067701.htm

"As of 7/5, 13 group brawl participants have been arrested by police, including 3 from Xinjiang, 10 from other areas"

75.172.48.45 (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do about what she says/claims/lies, etc....Since she is the spokesperson for the Uyghur, she can say "moon is made of cheese thus caused the riot" and we still under WP:NPOV include it as valid opinion. Jim101 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim101 illustrates a valid point. The idea here is that we present the facts and we leave the readers to judge on what to believe. However, this IP user does bring up a fact that is genuinely not dealt with on this page. We have to decide whether or not we want to insert how the Chinese gov't dealt with the 6/26 brawl. Could put something like "Xinjiang Chairman Nur Bekri asserted that the 6/26 brawl had been dealt with adequately, but the WUC claims etc. etc." Colipon+(T) 06:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-governmental organizations

The 'World Uyghur Congress' reaction from within 'Non-governmental organizations' is probably inappropriate. China has already cited it/Kadeer as a party, and so probably doesn't belong there. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point; it's probably not necessary anywhere in this section. Given that WUC's reaction is discussed so much throughout the article, I don't think we really need it in this little throwaway table. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Although we may also open a can of worms on whether or not the Tibet Central Administration is a "non-governmental organization". This is so complicated. Colipon+(T) 06:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

and I'm surprised that none of the editors has challenge "Republic of China" placement among 'countries'. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationalists can be cool with that, because that it acknowledges that Taiwan is "China", simply because it has the word "China" in it, and not Republic of Taiwan. There are some sticks nationalists can swallow, to be able to see the carrot later on past the hill. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

At 2008 Sichuan earthquake there was a lengthy argument last year on whether to include Taiwan, maybe that's part of the reason—it was written as "Taiwan" rather than ROC.

This all reminds me of a friend of mine from Guangzhou said not long after I met her (in the U.S.). I was asking if she had been to any other countries other than the U.S., and she said no, and I said, "but you must have at least been to Hong Kong, that's really close to you!" She gasped and said, "That is not a country!!!" heh rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. Hong Kong is clearly not a country though (although admittedly operates like one in various affairs). Taiwan is basically a country in every way, people just can't come to admit it. :) Colipon+(T) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pogrom"

User:Ksyrie has the honorable distinction of being the first editor ever to edit war at this article, and now he is starting it again with edits like these [2][3], adding this article to Category:Pogroms (his edits back on teh first day of this article were adding it to a bunch of terrorism-related categories), as well as repeatedly adding it to the Pogrom article [4][5]. He has ignored requests to engage in discussion, but anyway, can we nip this in the bud now and make a decision whether or not to include this in these categories? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In the short term, no. Pogrom is just too politically charged, and it made the events sounded like some form of antisemitism. Nip it in the bud before some other poor souls make this connection.

Unless some acadamics cite this event as Pogrom, Race riot is a more NPOV term. Jim101 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Too politically charged. Please leave it out. Colipon+(T) 06:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Off topic here, June 2009 Shaoguan incident was also tagged Pogrom, opinions? Jim101 (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably same conclusion as here, I'd think; I'm gonna remove it now (although I'm open to other opinions...in this case it was added by Ohconfucius, not Ksyrie, although it could have been by accident, I don't know). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the current category from Race Riot to Ethnic Riot, since we are using the term "ethnic conflict" a lot in this article. Jim101 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• yes, probably better to remove it, per comments above. Its not very necessary, and it does pose WP:NPOV issues. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Just woke up again) We had this discussion two days ago, yet same user persists, might be back soon. A pogrom, as I said two days ago, is defined as majority against minority. User has since tried to add the category to Xinjiang, Rebiya Kadeer, Uyghur people, this article, and possibly more. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not familiar with the word. Maybe he also just learned a new word and wanted to play with it like a kid because he likes to sound of it. Perhaps he should be told to play with 'pogo' instead. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a word mostly applied to, for example, German pogroms against Jews before the Second World War. I'm not sure if it's in common usage now or if it's often extended to cover new events. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism redux

User:Qiuzheyun has been adding quotes from some articles that argue in favor of why the incident was premeditated terrorism: [6][7][8][9][10], etc. Some thoughts:

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

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

In principle, agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 July BBC World News Footage

Quentin Summerville, with the BBC, has shown footage of Chinese police punching and kicking protestors who were restrained and unarmed. Before the inevitable propaghanda barrage begins I thought I'd mention what was actually shown. Three Uighur men were struck. No individual was shown being struck more than three times. One police officer appears to strike somebody once with a baton but the view is obstructed and you can not see anything to provide context - you can not see the person struck. Nobody was shot. Nobody was beat to death. The involved parties were uighur protestors who appear to have been unarmed and Chinese Police - not the army. BBC was not able to provide context nor is there any audio of the event. If this goes up on the main article let's please stick to the facts and not engage in speculation.Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive Request

Again, 220,214 bytes is getting pretty big for a talk page, by any means. And since Australia's a first world country with the best internet (呸呸呸), I get plenty of 404s. Archive all text up to July 8 - that should suffice. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gave you your own header. I actually have never created an archive and am not sure how but I'm not opposed to archiving inactive conversation topics. Could somebody who knows how help?Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• There are a few threads which are close to 3 days old. If you just wait for a few hours, the bot archiving should kick in. Please be patient. If it doesn't kick in for whatever reason, I'll do it in the morning. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cause of the riots

The last paragraph of the lede in the current version shows: The cause of the riots became a source of controversy. While the protests that preceded the riots were ostensibly a response to the death of two Uighur workers in Guangdong, the Chinese central government claimed that the riots themselves had been planned from abroad by Rebiya Kadeer and the World Uyghur Congress (WUC),[20] whereas Kadeer, president of the WUC, has denied the charges.[13]

I want to ask how do you guys understand the 2nd sentence: While the ... riots were *ostensibly* a response to ..., the Chinese central government claimed...

My understanding of this sentence is: Chinese government is lying, because obviously the riots were caused by ... Therefore, the riots are impossible to be planned.

It sounds like original research, with logical faults. --Jinhuili (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually words like ostensibly, purportedly, reportedly, supposedly, etc. are the precise opposite. What they mean is we don't really know for sure but the best evidence available suggests this cause. That is the current case. Unfortunately the government of China is no better a source of information on the cause of the riots than the World Uighur Congress, both groups have obvious axes to grind and little impartiality. Therefore information from third parties, suggesting the ostensible cause of the riots is the best we have to go by for now. And so we qualify it with statements like "ostensibly". Seriously we don't have an anti-China bias here. We are trying to keep bias out of this article.Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I put the "ostensibly" in that first sentence because we actually don't know what the exact cause of the riots are. It's likely that the Shaoguan incident had a lot to do with it, but we cannot conclude that its the be-all and end-all cause for everything. Therefore "ostensibly" is placed there. There is no Anti-China bias. This article is actually quite good and balanced. Colipon+(T) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223/Colipon, you are right. Thanks--Jinhuili (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of death in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

related

...while we were not watching, someone slipped in an ethnic breakup of deaths into the infobox again.[[12]] I thought we'd agreed not to play around with those numbers of how-many-of-"my"-people-died??? I'll take it out, and we need to talk about this. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Turkey Response, Undue Weight?

The response of Turkey is getting to be about 4 times longer than the space alloted to the response of any other country. I think it is reaching undue weight length but before I go ahead and start pruning I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is more interested in that region, thus more active, it seems. Everybody else just gives a statement and then forgets about it. The article reflects that. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is the consensus view I'll leave as-is. However I would ask that we don't expand it further. Turkey is just one country and is not even one that borders China. The fact that Uighurs are Turkic means that Turkey has acted with interest in the matter but it is, at the end of the day, only one of several countries so, barring any major events which would warrant a separate section on the Turkey response let's not let it grow further, OK?Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, can we link Chinese–Turkish relations to Turkey's response section and move extra/developing news to that article, while just do a brief summary here? Jim101 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it warrants being a bit longer because of strong ethnic ties with Uyghurs and its strongest support/concern amongst islamic states, but it was too weighty. There was a fair amount of redundancy, so I have cleaned it up somewhat. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks OhConfucius. And Jim101, I like your suggestion. Do you want to set up the link or should I? Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead...I'm editing over a lunch break right now. Jim101 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging by what I see in the current revision, this is still far too long. Most of it is just parroting quotations (just like in all the countries: 'the _____ minister of _____ country said "the riots are bad!" what a no-brainer) and seems to be repeating every little thing mentioned in every little news story that's out there. We don't need this point-by-point of everything that's happened, especially all the trivial details. It would be better to read that section and digest the two or three substantive things that have happened, and summarize them (with footnotes but no quotes; who needs the quotes). Right now there's just far too much Turkey, and it isn't even Thanksgiving! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit has made the section shorter, which is nice, but content-wise it's not really an improvement (IMHO). All that survived the trimming was the meaningless stock quotation, and none of the actual content; now the Turkey entry looks no different than the massive list of already boring and meaningless quotes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I snipped out everything except for the lead, official, statement from Turkey but I did not delete it. I moved it to the Chinese–Turkish relations page and formatted it accordingly. Furthermore I included a link to the relevant information on the Turkey response section. Relevant is technically the appropriate word but I am afraid the wording may seem loaded with unintended meanings so if somebody can think of a better way to express that I'd be most obliged.Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I had some issues with simultaneous edits that wiped some of the changes I intended - notably the link to where I put all the other information. Is this OK with everybody now?Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Turkey actually called for "boycotting Chinese goods"? I've saw that sentence on the wiki "current events" page. Yifanwang99 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just some people here and there, not an official thing. I've now edited Portal:Current events/2009 July 9 to reflect that; thanks for pointing it out. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Erdogan's comments came a day after Turkish Trade and Industry Minister Nihat Ergun urged Turks to boycott Chinese goods. [[13]] Fuzbaby (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald

Anybody knows "The Sydney Morning Herald"? Is it a serious newspaper?

I ask this question because I was told that in one article it states that "The rally was in response to the deaths of 156 Uighurs in a Chinese military crackdown in Xianjing in western China at the weekend during what was intended to be a peaceful protest." I followed the link I was gave, and found it shows that "The rally was in response to a Chinese military crackdown in Xianjing in western China at the weekend during what was intended to be a peaceful protest; 156 people were reported to have died.", which is not a plain lie, but very misleading.

I guess the article was modified. Searching the web, I found this in yahoo website. The articles are almost identical, except the yahoo article shows "The rally was in response to the deaths of 156 Uighurs in a Chinese military crackdown in Xianjing in western China at the weekend during what was intended to be a peaceful protest."

If the newspaper is a serious one, then we need to add this in "Western media gaffes" section.

Thanks--Jinhuili (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not notable enough...unless there are protests outside of AAP for this or AAP issues apology or someone else that is notable busted AAP, it is not notable. Jim101 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Western media always report any riot in China as military crackdown and the fault of PRC. --59.149.32.76 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, this doesn't sound like a major issue, just typical media stupidity and laziness. Keep in mind that most Western reporters don't know the difference between a Han and a Uyghur, and had never even heard of Uyghurs before Sunday...and likewise, most don't bother to fact-check. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What confused is me is that why you were so angry with the Times reporter for a few words, but don't think this is a major issue even though it distorted the truth? --Jinhuili (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm angry at these reports too. Any misinformation is upsetting. I don't see how I'm treating the two situations any differently; I didn't insert a rant against Jane Macartney in the article, and likewise I'm saying that no rant is needed about this either. Stupid reporting is stupid reporting is stupid reporting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My two cents...if people choose to be stupid, then let them be stupid. Our job is to prevent stupidity from touching this article. We are Wikipedia, not thought police. Jim101 (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on since-expunged stupidity just brings it back into the net. Best to let this one lie if it's gone now.Simonm223 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Media gaffes 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Consensus" invalid

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote from my talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• WP:OWN
• WP:POINT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reparations

I just found this article. Should we make a new section on this? [14]

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

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

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

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

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

An amazing Chinese essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uyghur Name - Uyghur speakers needed!

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

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

Turkish response

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