Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive 1

Muslim minority?

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

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

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

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

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

Developing story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd adivse you to read some of the blogs that were censored by the Chinese government a few hours after the initial protest happened - but had made it out thru ruthless copy and pasting. It shines some real light into what actually went on during the initial protests. Apparently there was one gathering at People's Square of ethnic Uyghurs shouting various slogans in both Mandarin and Uyghur who were immediately confronted by very sophisticated PAP forces, and another gathering at the Grand Bazaar, which was where some of the more violent rioting occurred. It seems this rumour of bombs is indeed real. Colipon+(T) 14:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism or not terrorism

Yes, definitely, it is Chinese terrorism. The government and mobs of Han Chinese are terrorizing the Uyghurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.89.60 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

terrorism

It is absolutely terrorism. The Muslim Uygurs were attacking innocent Han people. The goal of such brutality as shown in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axP7u_Txk10 is to create terror, to terrify Han Nationalities to leave the region.

No matter they are terrorism or not, I am terrified. A protest supposed to be peaceful happened at Marienpaltz in Munich but only lasted 8 Munite before the interruption of the police. Why? Because one protesters attacked a Chinese tourist, who just passed by. Fortunately, the police quickly stopped his ugly behavior before anything worse happened. www.sueddeutsche.de/.../Brandanschlag-auf-chinesisches-Konsulat.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 斜风细雨 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This incident is terrorism. The Uigur terrorists kills common people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of terrorism on wikipedia: Terrorism is the intentional use or threat to use violence against civilians and non-combatants "in order to achieve political goals". First, this is the violence against civilians and non-combatants. Second, do they have political goals? In Chinese language definition, I think political goals is not necessary for 恐怖主義 (Terrorism ) although 恐怖主義 is often for political intention. --218.22.80.152 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Details, details, details. The "political goals" things doesn't matter, the crux here is intentional. So far, there is no evidence that this happened on purpose or was planned out—most riots just happen by accident and are random chaos. Unless someone brings up real proof that these riots were planned, this debate is meaningless. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is probably more NPOV to characterize this whole situation as "ethnic violence" and not terrorism. This was indiscriminate rioting, and there seems to have been counter-rioting by Han Chinese. It's clearly just an ethnic conflict blown over. Uyghurs are angry about treatment of their kind in Guangdong, and they are also somewhat bitter that they can't get jobs dominated by Han Chinese people on unreasonable grounds such as ability to communicate in Mandarin. They see it as discrimination. Most Chinese bloggers are still discussing that incident in Guangdong (although these are being quickly censored), and not the separatist movement, where a significant amount of attention has been unreasonably drawn. A better example of something that can be called terrorism was the Beslan Crisis in Chechnya, where Chechens held people hostage for what was clearly a political goal. If a Uyghur hijacked a bus and threatened to shoot everyone, that's terrorism. Ethnic violence is not necessarily terrorism. Colipon+(T) 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Most Chinese bloggers are still discussing that incident in Guangdong..., and not the separatist movement" My strong suspicion is that we read in the press is what the Propaganda Department want us to believe. But then, if they don't do more to satisfy the lot of the ethnic Uyghurs, they may have stronger separatism on their hands in a few years. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

From word by various foreign journalists on the ground right now (such as on Twitter), is that the whole area is a boiling pot of ethnic tension. Essentially most netizens in China are invoking very racist remarks in response to the state's propagandistic portrayal of the entire event - but the state quickly censors these remarks. Just as the Chinese gov is getting more sophisticated I think citizen journalists need to be more sophisticated as well. An even like this happens, both sides will try to control information. We need citizen journalists on scene who have a means to get the real news out into the world. Either that, or (as some foreign media are doing), they contract correspondents in the area who are locals so they have a first-hand account from an observer's point of view. Colipon+(T) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Chinese government is playing a very dangerous propaganda game and stirring up nationalism just be cause they can, in order to deflect attention from the deep social problems China is experiencing. We just need to remember the anti-French furore just before the Beijing Olympics. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the government is certainly not helping tensions, it does attempt to avoid extreme Chinese nationalism. For example, anti-Japanese sentiment is regularly censored online, as was the anti-France uproar before the Olympics. According to VOA yesterday, Chinese bloggers have responded to the events in a way very different from the government. Instead of pinpointing the blame on a foreign-based leader most bloggers are actually talking about the economic situation in Xinjiang and the social conditions of rural migrants into Urumqi. Some believe that urban Uyghurs do not support these riots/protests but rural Uyghurs are quite fervently supportive. It's quite interesting to hear all of these theories. Colipon+(T) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Media Wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong's Phoenix TV is doing similar coverage, with reporters in the region. Pretty close to what CCTV says, IMO. 220.255.7.151 (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any word from SCMP? I need a subscription to get in. Phoenix is essentially run to appeal to Beijing anyway. SCMP seems less biased. Colipon+(T) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Update on Internet blackout

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

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

Huh? How can you repress someone to death? You can shoot, stab, bash, but repress? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Even more interesting is the fact that there are people here gloating over people dying, killed by cops or not. It's tragic, either way. 220.255.7.157 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How many Uighur protestors died?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which part of my statement was considered "racist"? You used the word "riots" yourself, then maybe you should have kept it that way at the first place and we wouldn't be having this conversation. You should stop throwing red paint on other people by calling them names like you just did. Finally, stop educating others. If you need education, go take some classes at your local community college and leave Wikipedia alone. TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I somehow disagree with the statement that "police has been shooting live rounds right into the crowds. I cant seem to find a verifiable source about that suggestion Yifanwang99 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you check out the "Talk Page", you will see that this IP User is known for actively conduct IP vandalism, more than once. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay guys, we are way over ourselves here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's funny. If you are so concerned about being neutral, why do you pleasantly accept every accusation from the UAC, while NONE of the above mentioned grounds---when, where, what time and entire context---can be provided to support them? Being neutral is not about leaving equal space in an article for both sides. It is about using the same criteria. Helloterran (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Allow me to retort. If both are propaganda animals, but one side got some supposedly un-trustworthy proof for their story while the other side got nothing but empty slogan-like accusations that are against nearly every photo or video clip available now, does that make a little difference?Helloterran (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag's profile reveals that he is likely connected with the East Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just low...but low I mean lower than the group of "Uyghur Terrorist" just you just dumped into Rjanag into. I have to congratulate you in your efforts to demostrate that Han Chineses can sink lower than the "Uyghur Terrorist".

Seriously, if you will not respond to reason, then take benlisquare's advice and study Mao's quotation "不要打人，不要骂人。". Peace out - and for my sake, I pray to the Heavens that your are not a Han Chinese. Jim101 (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) to whoever cleaned up the section about this quote ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=July_2009_%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi_riots&oldid=300832034 here is the version I'm looking at now), thank you. This is a good compromise and hopefully will solve the dispute for now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking into the real cause

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

• Uyghurs are working Guangdong as general labourers (not too different from other Chinese workers that gather in Guangdong).
• They raped several Han Chinese girls. (Rumoured to, anyway, according to Radio Free Asia)

No, there was no rape or sexual harassment. Look at http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/ethnic-clash-06292009102144.html

• The Han Chinese in the area got angry, and killed the Uyghurs that perpetrated this crime. Local officials don't really respond.

• Uyghurs in Xinjiang get angry, riots, mob violence.
• Chinese government decides to send in riot police and crack down on the violence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaoguan Incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urumqi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tendentious image

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

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

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

• • • • You might be right. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
        • BTW, "determined to be POV" by who? 220.255.7.154 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Can this image be added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Travel advisory

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

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

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

Selectively quoting sources

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

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

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

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

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

Do you not recognize your own bias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pogrom is usually majority violence against a minority. This definition is not absolute. Here is an exception. Boxofsushi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

@Douglas: this, though only one person's firsthand account, does testify that some Uyghurs were treated in the hospital, though not many (although there is also the fact that hospital admissions do not necessarily reflect the number or proportion of actual injuries and deaths). This from the WaPo says "It was unclear who suffered the heaviest casualties -- protesters, bystanders or security forces"; it also specifies that state media, on which Jane Macartney (The Times) was basing her statement, has "showed Uighurs attacking Han Chinese bystanders but said nothing about deaths or injuries resulting from police action". Regardless of the truth, it is clear that Macartney's statement is unnecessarily inflammatory and not backed up by any evidence or disclosure of her original sources (she just says "marauding Uyghur mobs" and leaves it at that), which is remarkably irresponsible journalism. I don't claim to know which story is the most accurate, but I do urge that we give all the stories an equal hearing until some sort of truth comes out. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• My sentiments exactly. Having read almost all the pieces written on the subject, I was also surprised at MaCartney's snippet which was very risqué, to say the least, selectively chosen here apparently to indict the Uyghurs - it served this purpose well. Of course, this is not the only selectiveness present in the case. Selective disclosure of the mix of people who have been injured but not those who have died is what stands out the most to me. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By "unnecessarily inflammatory" do you mean it's yellow journalism or do you mean it's a really graphic description but you're not challenging its veracity? 114.243.228.17 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• The former. Cheap shoddy journalism. I suspect the blame lies with Rupert Murdoch. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no bias against Uighurs in the news media. Look at the headlines "Han Chinese groups demand blood in revenge for deadly riots" - LA Times Boxofsushi (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now the causes section leaves out any mention of background; long standing repression and Han migration to an area that was taken by China 50 years ago and subsequent independance movements.Fuzbaby (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang was briefly independent when China got broken up into warlordships following the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. It was re-taken in 1949. Previously Xinjiang had been part of China on and off since the Tang dynasty and was most certainly part of the Chinese empire during the Qing dynasty. As such inclusion of that particular issue would be best left on other pages. Now large scale Han migration in the last 50 years, on the other hand, might be appropriate in the causes section.Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, large scale migration of last 50 years is probably a cause, but we need reliable source stating that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.1.254 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In Han Dynasty there had been many immigrants in today's Xinjiang area from inland China. Also at that time there were many Tun Tian Bing (屯田兵, reelamation troops) in West Region(西域) -60.190.146.35 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(@Boxofsushi) There is bias against both Uyghurs and Chinese. Some news stories are blatantly anti-Chinese (which is not a surprise...much of the Western media has been alternately vilifying and 'exotifying' China for a long time now) and some are blatantly anti-Uyghur. Macartney's irresponsible quote is an extreme example, but general poor journalism is sneaking into most of these articles....take, for example, the near-universal use of the made-up term "Uyghur Muslims" in most of these news stories ("uyghur muslims rioting", "1,000 uyghur muslims protested", etc.). It's random (the ethnic group is called Uyghurs, not Uyghur Muslims), irrelevant (the riots had nothing to do with religious), and gratuitous—it serves only to take advantage of a popular buzz-word in the West and to make Uyghurs seem more dangerous and more closely associated with "terrorists" (not even to get into the ridiculous notion most Americans have that Muslim = Terrorist). Anyway, my point is just this: yes there is anti-Chinese bias in the news, and yes there is anti-Uyghur bias as well. We have known for a long time that most mainstream media is, to be honest, junk. That's why our goal at this article should be to look at things with a critical eye and try to put together the most accurate possible version of what really happened. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true not all Uyghurs are muslims, and it is true that the two should not be constantly lumped together. But I don't know if you can safely argue that this whole incident has nothing to do with muslim extremism whatsoever. That may be WP:OR. But we agree we should examine everything with a critical eye. This is truly a very interesting situation as most mainstream media keeps shifting in their stories. Given though, the situation changes very quickly. I think the article we have now is quite good. Colipon+(T) 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All the victims of Uigur terrorists are Han Chinese? Any Uigur victims?

Are all the victims of Uigur terrorists the Han Chinese? How about the more than 100 dead and 1000 wounded? And did the Uighur terrorists kill or wound any Uigur people? -Jamesonee (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Till now no statistical data. But I think most victims are Han Chinese, small part may be other ethnics. A news says that there are also Uigur victims. -60.190.146.35 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The yougest victim injured recept by a hospital is reported to be a 6 age girl. [7] Another news reported a mother sorrowly complained that her 5 year old daughter was killed. 在路上，当广播中有一个母亲控诉暴徒残杀她五岁女儿，宋军按捺不住哭出声来。 -60.190.146.35 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The statistical data needs to be added to the article when available. -60.190.146.35 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw a Uigur girl wounded from CCTV, and you can find images about a Uigur girl in hospital on some Chinese websites, so we can be sure of the fact that both Han Chinese and Uigurs were harmed. Also a few refs said that there were Kazakhs among injured. And I'm afraid there would be Hui victims (Ürümqi has a huge Hui population ), but can't be confirmed.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources seem to indicate the death are mostly Han Chinese

NPR's Anthony Kuhn said of the 156, 30 were Uyghurs, rest were other (Han and Hui?)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106333891

Also, the Chinese media seems to have been downplaying the ethnic break out of the dead, option to focus on count only. IMHO it is to not inflame an already tense situation.

75.172.48.45 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

International reaction: Do the brains of western states heads get ill? or wrong place?

Who have good english can traslate the chinese version discussion about the International reaction part, as below:

西方国家政府首脑是不是有问题？还是放错了地方？

• 国际社会回应，Italy: President Giorgio Napolitano brought up human rights at a press conference with Hu Jintao. He said both sides agreed that "economic and social progress that is being achieved in China places new demands in terms of human rights." 意大利：7月6日，意大利总统乔治·纳波利塔诺当面向来访的中华人民共和国国家主席胡锦涛提出人权问题，但胡锦涛没有做出任何回应。，这是针对乌鲁木齐暴力事件吗？是不是放错了地方？如果是针对乌鲁木齐暴力事件，那么应该说屠杀平民的维族暴徒不尊重人权，甚至剥夺汉人的生存权才对吧？意大利总统到底站在维族暴徒一边，还是被屠杀的100多平民一边？ -Znzznz (留言) 2009年7月7日 (二) 13:13 (UTC)

• United Kingdom: Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged restraint on both sides.英国：英国首相布朗发言人称关注事件，呼吁双方对话解决问题。，英国首相说的双方指谁？维族和汉族双方？暴徒和政府警察双方？东突分子和中国双方？还是受害者家人和暴徒......双方？感觉英国首相是在挑拨中国国内关系。尽管维族暴徒发起了针对汉人的种族屠杀，但是也不能说是维族和汉族双方的关系，相信对于多数善良的维族人来说，他们也不会去屠杀大街上的普通民众，而且应该会反对这样的暴行。不论是什么暴徒，相信都是绝大多数民众所反对的。 -Znzznz (留言) 2009年7月7日 (二) 13:15 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdxy (talk • contribs)

You really shouldn't be surprised, there is a huge prejudice against almost everything happens in China from the West, especially anything political related, due to the different ideologies each believes. JonovaL (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the response this time from "Western" nations has been more-or-less ambivalent. Notice how they mostly just urged restraint. The only country to really take sides is Turkey, and, rightfully so, because they see their Turkic brothers victimized. Every other counrty pretty much just "urged restraint", which is essentially diplomacy-talk for fence-sitting. Colipon+(T) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

True, atleast no one jumped the gun and called this a "massacre by CPC" or something like that yet. JonovaL (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I have just updated my google news, then I found that now some western media giants have unify their standpoints. Now the subject they focus on is not 156 victims, but the Uyghurs' 'peaceful protest' (see Reuters and Guardian's recent editorials, it almost denies there was a riot but only a crackdown on innocent protestors). No major leaders showed any sympathy to the victims (except for U.S. President Obama), but to urge that the gov not to punish anyone (they denounced the gov's arrest of suspects, but I'm afraid that if the gov arrest no one, Han Chinese will turn to riot; and how they know those arrested are innocent from thousands of miles away?). On Chinese forums the western media's response became troubles again. Some Chinese have pointed out that 'when an American was killed, it is a terrorist atack; when a Chinese was killed, it will be an act of justice'(from baidu). It really looks like what happened last year. Bad news. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 15:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, too bad, although I really can't say I am surprised by that. The media obviously doesn't give a flying sh#t about Uyghur or Han people, dead or alive, all they want is big titles to arract viewers for more profit. If they really wanted to help make changes in China they'd stop pissing the Chinese nationalists off so they support CPC even more. JonovaL (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Antichinese bias

in this article is bad. Wikipedia loses all credibility if it shows this blatant antichinese bias. it should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hea2000 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please believe me that a lot of people working on this article are trying hard to promote a neutral perspective on these events. If you have places you feel the article could be improved in order to promote neutral reporting please bring them up here on the talk page and we will discuss them.Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please state for the record what you believe the issues are, we can see if they can or need to be addressed, or merely explained in Wikipedia terms. Failure to do so would invite removal of the NPOV tag you placed on the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything about what happen at the ningt on 5 July and 6 July in the first paragraph. i wonder if this a page about the "riots" or it only a tag of critism on the policy of Chinese goverment. In fact most of the "truth" is cite from the west media, who know little about Xinjiang, East Turkistan Islamic Movement, and what happen in the dark night. Nobody care about the death here, they are killed unconsciously on the way home. If wiki is credibility just tell the world more about the riot, the genocide and the terrorist organizations. Did the 911 TAG is fulled with hate between USA and Arab, the Afghan war, the Iraq war and with only one sentence says "**** people died on 11 Sep." in the first paragraph? TELL THE WORLD MORE ABOUT THE MASSACRE, SHOW A LITTLE SYMPATHY ON THE INNOCENT PERSONS FIRST, IF ANYONE CARE ABOUT THE LIFE OF POOR CHINESE. Then we can talk about politics, then you can slander Chinese like the media as you wish. Phyman21 (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Okay. Can I just ask for the categorical reasons of how this article's neutrality is disputed (according to tag), so we can work on fixing it? Some parts seem more biased against Uyghurs than against the Chinese government. Colipon+(T) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On 7 July, hundreds of Han Chinese, with some of them carrying weapons, marched through the streets of Urumqi and protested against the Uighurs for the Han people who lost their lives in the riot.

This I just found in the intro... I thought the Han Chinese were actually just out there to counter the Uyghurs, not "protesting for people that lost their lives". I sense POV here? Colipon+(T) 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This statement is an oxymoron...how can you "carry weapon" and "protest"? Let's settle it here, is it a counter riot? Jim101 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a reasonable characterization. Some sources already report that the Han Chinese are out to loot Uyghur businesses and burn Uyghur property etc. It seems like the situation is not calming down yet. Someone needs to give word on the martial law situation. Several foreign journalists have already reported it, but I don't think the government has given the order yet. Also, BBC just released this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8138709.stm please look at it. It attempts to shed some light into differing accounts of what happened. If you piece these accounts with mainstream media stories you get a good picture of what actually went on. Any third opinions on whether or not we can label the Han Chinese response a "counter-riot"? Colipon+(T) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When Uyghurs began their 'peaceful protest', they brought their knives with them too..... There are a lot of victims were chopped by edge tool, you can find the images. How can one find a knife on the street? Then how can you explain that when minorities bring some weapons to demonstrate, it is 'peaceful', when Han Chinese do such, it is an act to 'counter the minorities'? In fact, Chinese laws allow minorities own their weapons, while Han are kept from owning any weapons. Out of 'Assume good faith', we should thought those guys, either Uyghurs or Han Chinese, need weapons to protect themself, since violent incident are common in that area.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, a continuation of the riot. As has been pointed out previously, in situations like this, the rioters may come from multiple backgrounds and have multiple motives for their actions. The actions of armed Han today are a continuation of the actions of armed Uighurs yesterday and we should report them as neutrally as possible; in other words we should not change nomenclature when we are referring to the two ethnic groups involved in this heated conflict. Reports from foreigners in Urumqi seem to suggest that the Uighur protest did not start peacefully and the Chinese police did not fire indiscriminantly into the crowd. Let's see when we have a clearer picture.Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I put word for word exactly on what BBC said about Han counter riot in the intro. Jim101 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim101, if you believe people cannot carry weapons while protesting, please take care of this sentence in Escalation and violence section: "Another witness told Agence France-Presse that the confrontation between protesters and police involved about 3,000 Uyghurs—some of whom were armed with batons and knives."--98.109.182.141 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the sources where I iook the statment before jumping the gun here...you got a problem with this statement, take it to AFP, not to me.

Anyway, the problem is not about whether "we can protest while armed", the problem is that "protest" is a propaganda word in western media that we must use with care. If you use protest in any statement, you are automaticly implies that it is not intended to end in violence. It has been proven from both Chinese government and Western media that the Ugyhur demonstration was peaceful to began with until cops get in the way, thus Uyghurs can use the label "protestor" before the riot starts. I can't use the same "protestor" label on Hans because when they took to the streets, they want Ugyhur blood to began with.

I repeat, it is not about defining whether people can be peaceful while carrying weapons, it is about using words to counter propragandas from both sides. Jim101 (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Currently the intro looks fine. The new lines seems more NPOV. So I will take the NPOV tag off for now until someone could come up with a more coherent reason for it to be on there. Colipon+(T) 16:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

World Uyghur Congress

Can someone shed some more light on what this "World Uyghur Congress" is? If it likens itself to the Dalai Lama shouldn't it have more international legitimacy? What exactly is it? Does it represent the interest of all Uyghurs struggling against Chinese rule or is it just a foreign splinter special interests group? Because a lot of evidence has been given by them and accorded equal weight to many legitimate news sources. Who is giving them the news they are reporting? Do they have a media wing like Falun Gong has the Epoch Times? Is their evidence being given undue weight? Thoughts... please. (Here is their website http://www.uyghurcongress.org/En/home.asp) Colipon+(T) 16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a new article for the World Uyghur Congress, so contributions are welcome. Midway (talk) 17:20, 7 July (UTC)

The Han Chinese response section needs to be spilt between communication and riot section

One part contains the blogger response, while another contains up-to-date information on the riot in Xinjiang, looks like it needs to split and intergrated into apporiate sections. Jim101 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"International reaction" section

I like it (at least, as far as I can tell from the quick & cursory glance I just took), but are the flagicons really necessary? I tend to see them as unnecessary decoration/clutter, and other articles I've been involved with in the past (such as Entropa) did note use flagicons in similar "international" sections. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most current events with international reaction sections I've seen included the flag icons. See Here, or here, or here.Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shaoguan Incident

I will raise this issue again. Refer to following line:

The Guangdong killings were sparked by a rumor, made up by a disgruntled former co-worker, that several Uyghur men had raped Han women in a Shaoguan factory.

A "rumor", "made up" by a "disguntled former co-worker"? This is certainly not the consensus on all media that have reported on the issue. The official version of the story is that the girl sneaked into a dorm of Uyghur men, who began teasing her, and then she yelled for help. State media even goes as far as giving her name. And then this eventually led to a huge brawl divided purely along ethnic lines in the factory. The brawl was an event covered extensively by Chinese media, but apparently foreign media had no interest in covering this story. Although I think some Japanese and HK sources did good, unbiased, reporting on it. In any case the current version as it's stated in this article, presented as a fact, is questionable. Would like to hear others thoughts on this. Colipon+(T) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, then it is a "misunderstanding" between Hans and Uyghurs then...

Anyway, the only real, non-bandaid fix to this problem is to actually start an article on Guangdong killings. We can't go into too much details on the Guangdong incident on this article because it is technically off topic. Jim101 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Xinhua reported on the story earlier, and RFA seems to suggest that Xinhua's earlier reporting about the "disguntled worker" is not in line with Nur Bekri's "official version" delivered by his televised address. What is going on? Colipon+(T) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I have refrained from saying too much (in fact, when I first started Wikipedia's coverage of these riots, I didn't even mention the reason for the Shaoguan killings) because of the fear of going off into a tangent. On the other hand, starting a new article on the incident would be difficult (not the least because there's been very little good coverage of it). Here's the alternative I've been drumming around in my head since early this morning:

• Start a new section of this article, first section after the lede, called "Background" or some such
• The first half (paragraph or subsection) of this would be general historical background—Uyghur-Han tensions for since 1997 or so, at least, and a brief overview of why these tensions exist, what the history behind them is, etc.
• The second half would be the more immediate background: a summary of the Shaoguan killings and the different stories behind them.

Anyone like this proposal? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. Also think in the "background section", should include things like Xinjiang's history, history of ethnic violence in the region, treatment of ethnic minorities in the region, Uyghur independence movements, and the demographics and cityscape of Urumqi. All of this is very important to understanding what went on, to someone who has no idea what is happening. Colipon+(T) 19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Format is okay, but I'm worried about bring in historical debates into the topic...for the fact that histories can be manipulated by both sides for POV pushing.

I would say in the background section just focus on the Guangdong killing with a wiki link references to ethic tensions in some other articles. In sensetive topics like this, the last thing we need is historical POV pushing between Hans and Uyghurs on this article. Jim101 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, but from what I see most people here are all editing in good faith, and just trying to get to the bottom of the story. Just because there may be POV-pushing does not mean we shouldn't give some details on the background of the event. There is no need for POV pushing if you just describe the dates of a few events. Colipon+(T) 19:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As a university student currently studying in history and antropology, I would cation that this is not something to be taken lightly. I suggest at least recruit an expert or digging books in liberaries before start digging in historical backgrounds. Anything short of that is purely unethical. Jim101 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jim101. Exploring the history of ethnic tensions between Uyghurs and Han is outside the scope of this article and just invites POV pushing. However some data on the Shaoguang Killings may be necessary.Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to clarify my "vision" for the background. I think it should be at most two paragraphs. It should not include any opinions from any sides, third-party material included. Something has to be said to give the story context. Or else it just looks like a bunch of people rioting and a terrifying amount of violence. I believe Wikipedia has strict guidelines on giving background to these types of articles. Colipon+(T) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a draft, put it on the talk page and then we'll decide. It is not as simple as it looks, even if people are trying to be NPOV. It's not just about sources, citations, thrid parties and using politically correct terms, its about how to frame the context and ask the right/fair questions. One wrong questions asked in the background section and you can kiss "good faith" assumption good bye in this article. Jim101 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It now says "The Guangdong killings were sparked by an incident that a female worker was sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers" so which was it? Both the state media and the World Uyghur Congress say it was a rumour. 94.194.214.37 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed it. Colipon+(T) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be degrading now it's "The Guangdong killings were alledgedly sparked by an incident that a female worker was sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers [17] and a rumor from a former co-worker, that several Uyghur men had raped Han women in a Shaoguan factory.[9][10][18] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.214.37 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think this is the the best version.

If you have a better idea please edit. This is a very delicate issue. What exactly happened? What was the primary cause? Colipon+(T) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

something like |The World Uyghur Congress and State Media along with Radio Free Asia have classed this rumor as false. 94.194.214.37 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2008 Tibetan unrest article offers some insight into how to do a "background section". It's not the best out there, but I think the Tibetan issue is equally or more controversial than the Uyghur issue. That has not stopped editors there to provide readers with some sort of background. Colipon+(T) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I do respect Jim101's view. The possible POV battles that can ensue over semantics is a serious matter. Again, I do not think this means we should not give background at all. I agree that if something is done perhaps we can forgo the "be bold" principle and put something up for discussion on the talk page first. Colipon+(T) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stopping you from doing anything here, and I do agree in principle that background is needed :)

My buttom line about background sections is on three things:

• Experts
• Serious acadamic research/papers
• Drafts before posting

If we post a background section that falls short of any criterias here, not only we will have a POV war, we may never have a solution to the POV war because the fundation is weak to begin with. Jim101 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's possible to make a background section without POV issues; I may have described it poorly, but it shouldn't be a full recounting of all the "ethnic tensions" in the past. It would be better to focus on just a general explanation of why they don't get along well. We wouldn't even have to go into the different sides' motivations (for example, on one hand people say China wants to control places like Xinjiang because it's important for military defense, they help protect against attack; and of course on the Uyghur side you've heard people say that Uyghurs are repressed within Xinjiang and would prefer to have their own country... we don't even necessarily need to get into those sides of the debate right away, we could just give a broader account of what there is tension over, such as land, governance, etc.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think it is possible to do so without NPOV and without delving into academic papers. I will start this process, but I definitely would need help. But that is what Wikipedia is for, right? Collaboration.Colipon+(T) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Background

Xinjiang is a large region in central Asia that is governed as an autonomous region of the People's Republic of China. The region's ethnic composition is very diverse and composed of numerous minority groups - with 45% of its population being Uyghurs, and 40% Han Chinese, who are the majority population in the PRC. In the capital, Urumqi, which is a largely industrialized city of over 2.3 million people, 75% of people are Han Chinese, while 15% is Uyghur, and 10% belong to other ethnicities. Ethnic tensions between Uyghurs and the Han Chinese population have existed in the area for several decades, and in recent years, there have been instances of violence around Xinjiang. Examples of these include the 2008 Kashgar Attack, (and other events).

[Second paragraph: Move events of Shaoguan up]

We can use this as a rought skeleton. Contributions would be more than welcome. Colipon+(T) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good section, as long as a RS (preferably a book/or government studies) that supports the statement "Ethnic tensions between Uyghurs and the Han Chinese population have existed in the area for several decades." Jim101 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Midway and User:Otebig both have books and journal articles on this stuff, I think, so it might be good to drop them a note.

Also, the (and other events) might want to include the Ghulja Incident of 1997, as I think that is considered to be sort of a major turning point (a 'beginning' of the conflicts that have characterized the past decade or so), although of course you'd have to check sources. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think this is the the best version. "The Guangdong killings were alledgedly sparked by an incident that a female worker was sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers [17] and a rumor from a former co-worker, that several Uyghur men had raped Han women in a Shaoguan factory." The contradicting statement from Guangdong government and Nur Bekri indicates that there're at least some portion of truth in the "rumour". Anyway, the "rumour" was supposedly spreaded online by a former worker. Personally I don't believe a group of under-educated workers can be so easily provoked by an online message.Helloterran (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove "Radio Free Asia" from the sources please

It has no credit and is a lying machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionny09 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to come up with a better explanation for removing sources. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do this professionally like in debates...quantify the claim "lying machine" or your claim is not valid. Jim101 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll!Fuzbaby (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. They have been found using photos of Shishou unrest earlier this year for their report of Xinjiang riot just yesterday.

This is the original photo on Southern Metropolis Weekly, retrieved 6/16/2009.

RFA used exacly the same picture and claims that their "eye witness" have seen Chinese police attacking peaceful Uyghur protestors. If that's not enough to put RFA on the undue credibility list, I don't know what else can. Helloterran (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia is not a big problem. You can easily find conflict between it and the witness of South China Morning Post, because the anonymous "one witness" of Radio Free Asia said "when the demonstrators reached the People's Square, armed police suppressed them using electroshock weapons and so on." That means the demonstrators did not have even a chance to start their protest. But South China Morning Post successfully found a witness (her beautiful name is Gulinisa Maimaiti), a protester who really took part in a silent, sit-down protest in People's Square. Conpared with the anonymous witness without even any personal information, as the later one has a name and South China Morning Post also gave us her personal information, Personally I'd like to believe what Gulinisa Maimaiti said, because I can more or less believe that she really exist. But let us keep it here, and other wiki readers can independently judge by themselves. --Sadmovie (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing is currently undereway by Pro-Chinese editors...

The content seem interesting, but the context and wording is clearly POV pushing. I did not want to revert the edits because I want to see what contents does the recent edits offer, but POV pushing terms such as "Uyghur criminals" and devoting an entire section on a bombs blast base on one blogger post needs to stop. Jim101 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For things like this you generally just wait until they are done all their edits and you can revert it completely afterwards. Avoid engaging in an edit war. Colipon+(T) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better to list the parts that you think that are POV Pushing instead of just saying they are there. I haven't done any editing to the article (nor I am planning to to) and I think it's pretty well written (as of now). TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be out for the evening, but when I come back I'll look at this in more detail. In general, POV on both sides is pretty easy to spot; people have been adding it rampantly because it's not hard to remove.

Any attempt to rename the incident "July 2009 criminal Uyghur riots" or whatever, or to label the rioters as "Uyghur criminals", is clear POV-pushing and unnecessary beating of a dead horse. Everyone knows that rioting and killing is against the law, we don't need to be reminded of it. Trying to harp on it within this article would be like starting the Adolf Hitler article with "Adolf Hitler was a really bad guy and did some really bad things." It's not necessary—just write objectively about facts and what happened, and things will be obvious to the readers anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By all accounts, this was an ethnic pogrom perpetrated by the Uighurs against the Han Chinese and police force. This crime against humanity should be brought to full justice and objectively reported. It is quite saddening to see that no sign of sympathy has been offered to the victims of this tragic violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.23.254 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says there's no sympathy? I think we all agree it's horrible that so many people were killed, no matter what ethnicity they are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I re-translated the Chinese government press releases that were giving me the most POV headachs...please take a look. Jim101 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Chinese government does have a record of releasing propaganda and sometimes biased press documents. It's better than several years ago (when propaganda is everywhere there) but there's still some. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

POV editing on any side of the incident is unacceptable. I can see there are much biased content from pro-Chinese viewpoints and those need to be corrected into neutral, non-biased viewpoints. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese names

I just want to clarify something about the Chinese names of the event. The Simplified Chinese name indeed does say "burning looting smashing etc. criminal incident", but in a footnote it is made clear that this is the convention used by only Chinese state media (and as this becomes the convention that enters daily language in China it is important to make users aware of this). It also highlights the dramatic differences in characterization between independent media and state media, without resorting to having a redundant section to explain the name of the event. This is not an attempt to say that calling the incident "criminal" in this name is at all the POV of wikpiedia, or even justifiable. Colipon+(T) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Noting your WP:NPOV concerns, I think the Chinese names are not necessary at this point. It's not as if it's someone's name, which is usually official. This name is not. Let's remove it. . Let our zh:WP counterparts argue about what the name should be, and we just interwiki it and forget about the local complications which en:WP users are in no place to decide, anyway. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Either that or explain the above difference to English users . Seb az86556 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with Ohconfucius here, and have been concerned with the addition of the chinese names for a while, since they are horribly POV (see my remark in the above section about the unnecessary beating of dead horses). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • It is the official rendering within Mainland China. CCTV, Xinhua, Phoenix, all refer to it as such; outside sources refer to it as the latter provided under "traditional Chinese". Just like for the Second Sino-Japanese War you can have the War of Resistance against Japan or The Great East Asia Holy War depending on weather you are from China or Japan (prior to full conflict in the Pacific, in Japan the war was also called "North China Incident" and "Shina Incident"), or the Eastern Front of World War II can be called either that or the Great Patriotic War (there are even cases such as Battle for Survival against Bolshevism and Nazi-Soviet War), or that the Korean war is also known as the 6·25 War, Fatherland Liberation War, War to Resist America and Aid Korea and the Korean Conflict, one can clearly note that for different places and sources, the same concept can have many different names. -- 李博傑  | —Talk contribs email 01:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That's also true, and is the reason I didn't remove it right away... I wasn't quite sure what the best course of action was. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Look at the Vietnam War article. It has a section "terminology" -- maybe that's the way to go. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
        • • I don't think there's enough different names out yet for us to make much of a section on that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Per Seb az's first comment, one alternative would be to have something like "Simplified Chinese:烏魯木齊七·五打砸搶燒嚴重暴力犯罪事件 (lit: Urumqi serious criminal rioting incident of 5 June)" or whatever, not just in a footnote but right within the {{zh-st}} template. I dunno, I just feel like adding "literally" makes it clearer that this is a name someone else made up for it, not Wikipedia's own choice. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Chinese government always refers to violent incidents as a "hit smash steal burn incident" so it doesn't really mean anything special. F (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

>I think the point of concern here is the use of "criminal" Seb az86556 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for "hit smash steal burn", I don't think the translation needs to be that literal; "hit smash steal burn", AFAIK, roughly means 'rioting'. We should translate every word, not necessarily every character. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Double that. In Chinese, "hit run steal smash" essentially means "riot". The 2008 Tibetan unrest was named as such as well. The terms are synonymous with each other when they are from official PRC media. -- 李博傑  | —Talk contribs email 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If they wanted to say ""riot", they could've used the term "騷亂". Instead, they used the 12 character string "打砸搶燒嚴重暴力犯罪事件". I think we should reflect that by making a more literal translation. F (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Our sister wiki article is now called '烏魯木齊七·五暴力事件', while I believe it started life as '2009年7月烏魯木齊騷亂'. Either name would be fine for us here. Nothing wrong with '烏魯木齊「7·5」打砸搶燒嚴重暴力犯罪事件' either per WP:NPOV, but the '嚴重暴力犯罪' is redundant - everyone knows rioting is a 'seriously violent crime'. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just like the English name, it was given because of our internal conventions but is meaningful to the outside world. The incidents do not have birth certificates, and there is no monopoly of names - each journal may choose to call it something different in every by-line in each edition. I don't think we should be choosing between them, or even just explaining all the Chinese variants. I will remove them now. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • While I personally wouldn't mind if the name were removed, I'm not sure there's clear consensus for removal yet, and it might be safer to wait a bit just to avoid possible edit warring. (That's your perogative, though, and if you want to remove it now you can...although if someone else reverts it when we should definitely get back to discussing.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to engage in edit-warring, so I will see if it is possible to build consensus. Here is what the Chinese Wikipedia says about the name:

烏魯木齊七·五暴力事件，又稱為烏魯木齊「7·5」打砸搶燒嚴重暴力犯罪事件、烏魯木齊7·5騷亂

Unlike events in the West, events in East Asian countries generally accord very heavy scrutiny on its name. (For example, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, or the distinction between 中國台北 and 中華台北 - there is an entire article written on the distinction of that one character). This is the original reason I wanted to draw attention to the Chinese name. From the name it is sometimes possible to infer some very interesting things. In addition, there is almost an unspoken convention on Wikipedia's China-related events to include a Chinese name (see 2007 Chinese slave scandal).

I am personally not sure whether the best approach now is to have a separate section for names, or to have the original approach, or to leave out the names until more established conventions emerge. However, I am against not having a Chinese name of the event at all. If there are concerns about the redundancy of the vocabulary we can try to reach a consensus on what to call the event, how to treat it, how to describe the name etc. Right now I suggest the lead as: the July 2009 Urumqi Riots (Known in Chinese as Name 1 and Name 2 by Chinese state media... etc. etc. Thoughts? Colipon+(T) 03:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed to the above. There is heavy scrutiny on names (e.g. Nanking Massacre and Nanking Incident, Tiananmen Massacre and Tiananmen Incident), so this may pose a problem if there is only one side represented and not the other. -- 李博傑  | —Talk contribs email 03:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat like rnajag's (sorry if I'm misspelling it) suggestion of having a "literally" accorded to the name. It makes things clearer for people who cannot read Chinese. Colipon+(T) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think it's pretty much Wikipedia standard to include a literal translation of something whenever the native name differs in meaning from the English one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Being one of the many who cannot read Chinese, I'd be very interested in a literal translation/explanation as Rjanag suggested. Otherwise, it'd just be useless to most of us. Thanks.Seb az86556 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but if there hasn't been a major opposition by the time I wake up (assuming I do wake up...damn has this article taken a lot out of me :P ) then I'll add it. (Or if someone else has added it in the interim...all the better.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, your dedication to this article is quite superb, I have no doubt. I will add this in by what I judge as the most recent consensus. But then I must depart as well to complete other work and also sleep.

The 2009 Urumqi Riots (known in Chinese as 烏魯木齊七·五暴力事件 lit. Urumqi July 5th Violent Incident, or 烏魯木齊「7·5」打砸搶燒嚴重暴力犯罪事件 lit. Urumqi July 5th Serious Violent Criminal Rioting Incident) began[...]

I'm sure my translation is not perfect. Please fix as you see fit. Colipon+(T) 03:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have no issue with either, except for capitalisation; dates should read 5 July per the date convention adopted here. I don't think we need to have them in the exact word order, do you?

The 2009 Urumqi Riots (known in Chinese as 烏魯木齊七·五暴力事件 lit. 5 July Urumqi violent incident, or 烏魯木齊「7·5」打砸搶燒嚴重暴力犯罪事件 lit. 5 July Urumqi serious violent criminal rioting incident) began[...] Ohconfucius (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a quite controversial article. I don't want to engage in an edit war so I'll state my opinions in here. Although much efforts have been discussed here to resolve the controversial Chinese name, I'm still unsatisfied about the name. In my view the name used right now is still slightly biased. The phrase "烏魯木齊「7·5」打砸搶燒嚴重暴力犯罪事件" is the name of this incident released by the Chinese government, which uses 打砸搶燒 (translates as break, burn, destroy) to emphasize the incident. The best translation for riot is 騷亂(騷亂) in my view. Before immediately tagging the incident as a "crime," note that not all riots or demonstrations are wrong or in some people as bad. Historically there are much riots (like Boston Tea Party incident or French Revolution) that are protesting about their rights or conditions. I'm definitely not justifying this incident as righteous or justice but I think the wording of Chinese name should be corrected to fit most reader's stance until a clear and factual truth about this incident is confirmed. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your concern is noted. The names have been moved to a footnote position for now to avoid cluttering up the content of the intro unecessarily. Now I see that there may actually be a need to explain the name - and perhaps add in Uyghur names for the event as well. So that may be enough to justify having its own section. What do other editors think? Colipon+(T) 13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. I always dislike the language salad at the beginning of the article, and I have put the two alternatives in a language box. The CCP official name remains as a footnote. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• @ 98.154.26.247: That's true...I have seen "騷亂" used in Chinese non-Xinhua articles. In fact, other than Xinhua and things that are parroting Xinhua, I think it's probably the more common term. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Any word on an Uyghur name? I can't speak the language, but a look at the WUC, ETIM etc. websites by someone who does might reveal something. Here's the title on Uyghur Wiki: توجد لديك رسائل جديدة (آخر تغيير), but I have no idea what it says. FOARP (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that's Uyghur Wikipedia (ug-wiki)? No such page (or even similar-titled page) came up in my search, and that text does not look like Uyghur--it would be more or less unpronounceable. Letter for letter, if this were Uyghur, it would be (tojd adyng rsaʔl jdyd[?] [?]xr tfyyr. The parentheses make me think there's been a copy-paste error, but the unpronounceable string (Uyghur is similar to Chinese in that it doesn't have consonant clusters within syllables) complete with two letters that don't exist in Uyghur leads me to believe that what you found is actually just some other language that also happens to use Arabic script. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tangential remark

Going off on a tangent here. Having been involved in editing various controversial China-related articles in the past, including Tibet, Falun Gong, Tiananmen, etc, this is the most productive and least disruptive group of editors I have worked with so far. I am very encouraged by what we have done - the discussions, calm reasoning, coordination, editing, everything. Kudos to everyone here. If we could create a barnstar for "good team effort in China-related controversial articles" I really would. Colipon+(T) 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bring out the HTML squad ;P Yes, I have noticed that as well. Pretty solid effort. I suppose this page is getting a bit long. Archive? -- 李博傑  | —Talk contribs email 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, ever since this morning I've had a shortlist of editors who are getting barnstars once the craziness here calms down :P. (Who's on it? That's a secret!) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Should archive some of the discussions that has already been resolved. Colipon+(T) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe wait a day so they don't get repeated by new editors who see the news and come here.Fuzbaby (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More sources - Duowei/Mayor of Urumqi

Seems like more edit warring has ensued in the past half an hour. This article], written in Chinese by a Hong Kong newspaper and republished by Duowei, and independent news agency, offers very descriptive eyewitness accounts of what went on. I have no more time today to spend on Wikipedia and must urgently return to my work, so I urge anyone looking to edit the section on "escalation and violence" to look at this and make any appropriate edits.

In addition, I also have the video of Urumqi's mayor giving his account of what happened, including his suggestion that there was "coordinated planning in QQ groups" before the event - which is something entirely new. See it here Also, the Mayor looks pretty much European. What ethnicity is he, exactly? Colipon+(T) 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A Uyghur, of course. And no, it's not exactly European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.17.202 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

...I hope you were just kidding when you said "European". TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Caucasian" would apply. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be "Caucasoid", really. Caucasian typically refers to people of European descent aka white people. Uyghurs are as "Caucasian" as Arabs and Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.17.202 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ainus look "European" too, but no, they're not, they're Caucasoid. All Uyghurs look like that, yet they have nothing to do with Europe; most of their DNA haplogroups come from Central Asia and Siberia. -- 李博傑  | —Talk contribs email 07:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just initially thought he was a mix between Kazakh, Uzbek, and Uyghur, or something like that. And he very much could be. He looks more "European" than Nur Bekri to me. By the way, his name should be Jirla Isamudin, not the pinyin name that people are using. Chinese ethnic minorities (with very few exceptions like Wu'er Kaixi) use the romanization of their native language, not of Chinese. Colipon+(T) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That Hong Kong newspaper is Wen Wei Po, a Beijing mouthpiece. It can be safely ignored. F (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you should consider using the same criteria against Pro-China and Pro Turkstan materials. Based on the overwhelming number of the "pro china" photos and videos available now I should say you are the one trying to hind from wikipedia readers the neutral depiction of what really went on.119.47.82.69 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I looked at the "credibility score" they had from a 1996 report and they are indeed very pro-Beijing, so it is unquestionably biased. However, I don't know if we can ignore its eye-witness reports more so than say, the BBC. Colipon+(T) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper introduction to Urumqi 7·5 Terrorist Attacks

Besides objective and true, I hope and urge the wikipedia article about Urumqi 7·5 Terrorist Attacks to have clear judge of the rights and wrongs thus leading readers in good directions. Mobs are mobs. People are people. We should not truss crimes with ethnic groups. The criminal of the 156 died and 1080 injured civilians is not an ethnic group, but mobs. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic: LOL at how slow the information moves here in Australia. Only from this morning has the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) found out about the riots (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/5710573). What has this world come to? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• you mean this is the first you have heard about it on Aussie news bulletins? Ohconfucius (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Same on television news too. First reports in today. Strange, eh? After all, Australia is a first world country. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here in North America, coverage has been generally dwarfed by Michael Jackson. Kind of sad, I know. Colipon+(T) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, funny you should mention this. One of the stations that has really gotten in and covered the story is Al-Jazeera - they are really emerging as formidable competitors to more mainstream sources. Colipon+(T) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

@Qiuzheyun: Sorry, we're not here to tell anyone who's right and who's wrong. We're just here to report what happened, not to judge. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)