This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2008 Kashgar attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2008 Kashgar attack at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving 2008 Kashgar attack was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 August 2008. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Find pictures on NY times just released http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/29/world/20080929_kashgar_audioss/index.html# I dont have it in me to do the rewrite myself, but it is clear from the eye witness accounts that it was unifomed men (soldiers, police, paramilitary ???) and not two "terrorists" Suspicious that the page is locked to edits.
Haven't we been hearing about this attack for 2-3 days now? The death toll has always been 16, but the injuries just weren't ascertained yet. I seem to remember noticing it Saturday, at least. Or am I just going crazy? Or does the time zone difference make it seem that way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.36.192 ( talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no article currently called 2008 Xinjiang attack. Therefore, the article's name should be called "2008 Xinjiang attack", with no "August" in front. I am proposing a move. -- haha169 ( talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
To me, it just looks like police were overreacting, rather than a pre-ordered or political effort since Tokyo Shimbun is a pro-China newspaper. -- Revth ( talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
tokyo shibum? it doesnt say that anywhere in the article, and nothing with a japanese name in it is pro chinese..... and what does this attack have to do with police brutality against media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
i dont see how police brutality against the media is a reaction to an attack on police? ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
okay now i see the edit, but what proof do you have tokyo shimbum is pro china? ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We need more sources for a politically sensitive issue on front-page Wikipedia. I removed two uncited sentences - feel free to add them back with sources and possibly elaboration. 202.40.139.168 ( talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In footnote #4, the "]" at the end should be "}". Please fix. Thanks. --
199.71.174.100 (
talk) 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. A user has removed categories claiming this is just an attack against police and not a terrorist attack. However, I dissagree. This is the deadliest attack ever in Xinjiang Autonomous Reigon, it is listed under list of terrorist incidents, and it is covered under a terrorist attack infobox and its WikiProject, but I'd rather discuss this first, any thoughts? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
" Terrorism (...) include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war." People's Armed Police are not non-combatants and we don't even know yet if it was not a lone attack (and given the China's near-total control over information, we possibly will never know).
Wikipedia sez:
Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are murdered, or injured, and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their often radical religious and political ends.
Someone said: "The USS Cole bombing is considered a terrorist attack even its target was a military ship"
The victims in the attack were two women, Bat Sheva Unterman and Elizabeth Goren-Friedman, and a man, Jean Raloy.
Oh, here it is. Wikipedia's policy about calling people "you terrorist, you":
Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.
In line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, the words extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan. Such terms are not automatically equivalent to terrorist, as they may cover legitimate state organizations and resistance movements, but they may also be applied to groups that have been characterised as terrorist organisations.
So actual terrorists can't even be called "terrorists" - but clearly non-terrorist attacks are to be called "terrorist"? Whenever policemen are targeted anywhere by "insurgents, paramilitary, or partisans" it is "terrorism"? I think I missed this new Wikipedia rule.
This "news". [2] Just read its title? Note: its title is "clampdown", not "crackdown". I have read through it, and I found half of the article is repeating PRC gov't's tiring stuff. -- Douglasfrankfort ( talk to me) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How useful is the map, really? It shows an area almost the size of Alaska. Perhaps a pushpin map could be devised instead. Biruitorul Talk 00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No actually the orange area you're referring to is Aksai Chin, not Kashgar. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.192.179.152 (
talk) 03:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This is directed to the combatants in the "Is this a terrorist attack?" thread. Frankly, whether some attack in India or the Persian Gulf or other random countries like the US is classifed as "terrorist" or not is irrelevant. There is no internationally accepted definition of "terrorism" and whether something is a "terrorist attack" comes down to common usage. Referring to Wikipedia's own definition of "terrorism" is also unsatisfactory, because Wikipedia does not self reference.
A Google search indicates that most news sources are reporting that the authorities call it a "terrorist attack". None of them seem to contradict that statement, though. On the one hand, we have an official designation of this as a "terrorist attack". On the other hand, nobody seems to be jumping out and saying that it wasn't a terrorist attack. That seems to settle the matter in favour of labelling it a terrorist attack as far as Wikipedia is entitled to be concerned. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of the users here who are trying to label this attack as terrorism are somehow affiliated with China. I guess you all consider the Tibetan insurgency from decades ago terrorism too? If not, please tell the difference. - Pieter_v ( talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. When there is a report in U.S., it is "independent confirmed". When there is a report in PRC, it is suspicious. But can you tell me how to fake news about 16 men's deaths? Or ideology here is " all good news ( in this example, not a good one ) from China is faked, all bad news is true; because that is what we would like to hear "? If we should keep suspicion on PRC gov't ( I think we should ), we also should suspect your cossets' words, like Rebiya Kadeer's. When you cite her words, please also note that " not independent confirmed ". Then everything will be OK. -- Douglasfrankfort ( talk to me) 01:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've said this many times, and I'm saying this again - politics, personal opinions, your view of the law have no relevance here. What is relevant is what sources are calling this. As far as I can see, we have a variety of descriptors, one of which is "terrorist attack". That descriptor is not directly contradicted in the sources that have been brought up. I'm fine with describing it as an "armed attack" or "violent assault" or whatever - but there seems to me to be no obstacle in calling it a " terrorist attack".
Petervhuis, when you try to bring politics into this debate and accuse other editors on the basis of their, quote, "affiliation" with China, you are only showing your own narrow-minded prejudices. For the sake of the neutrality of this discussion, I suggest you either disabuse yourself of your prejudices, or get out of the discussion.
As to the guidelines - they seem slightly ambiguous. From what I can see, the guidelines are talking about labelling of peoples and groups. If I understand the issue correctly, nobody is labelling anyone here a "terrorist"/"freedom fighter"/"insurgent". The case here is different. We are talking about an act here. An attack, if it falls within the general understanding of a "terrorist attack", is a terrorist attack. There is no such term as "freedom fighting attack". Saying that certain actions are terrorist attacks is not labelling the person or group - only the act. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"And FYI, Pieter, I witnessed Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and I am against the communist party (check out my last userbox on my userpage)" So, do you think that the firebombings and lynchings of the People's Liberation troops in Beijing in 1989 (yes, a number were killed - hard to say how many, because, guess what, the communist gvt lies - but anyway, the government said 100+ soldiers died [4]) was "a campaign of terrorism by the Han Chinese against the government"?
Yeah, I read through the train wreck above. Silly me.
The only relevant point here is that it is not Wikipedia's job to decide whether this is terrorist or not. It is not Wiki's job to evaluate what biases exist in the media, pro- or con-PRC, pro- or con-Uighur separatism, etc. It is Wikipedia's job to report events neutrally. Claiming that this is a terrorist attack, without attributing that claim to anyone, is mistaken (in the sense of, outside the scope of what Wikipedia is supposed to do in order to maintain a neutral point of view).
I understand that part of the issue here is that Wikipedia's listmania has led to the existence of a "Terrorist Events" list. Personally, I don't think that such a list is an intelligent thing to maintain, because it requires our NPOV editorial voice to start making POV claims that are outside the scope of Wikipedia's job (reporting X says Y). I will concede that there might be some pragmatic use to the list, and besides I'm not going to go around trying to dismantle it at this moment. But I would submit that edge cases are possible, and that if there is even a substantial minority that thinks this categorization is making inappropriate claims about an event, then we're better off making the less demanding assertion. Let's not categorize greedily, particularly when in our present political climate the word is almost invariably used to spark an emotional reaction, rather than on the basis of its strict definition.
JSoules ( talk) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2008 Kashgar attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2008 Kashgar attack at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving 2008 Kashgar attack was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 August 2008. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Find pictures on NY times just released http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/29/world/20080929_kashgar_audioss/index.html# I dont have it in me to do the rewrite myself, but it is clear from the eye witness accounts that it was unifomed men (soldiers, police, paramilitary ???) and not two "terrorists" Suspicious that the page is locked to edits.
Haven't we been hearing about this attack for 2-3 days now? The death toll has always been 16, but the injuries just weren't ascertained yet. I seem to remember noticing it Saturday, at least. Or am I just going crazy? Or does the time zone difference make it seem that way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.36.192 ( talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no article currently called 2008 Xinjiang attack. Therefore, the article's name should be called "2008 Xinjiang attack", with no "August" in front. I am proposing a move. -- haha169 ( talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
To me, it just looks like police were overreacting, rather than a pre-ordered or political effort since Tokyo Shimbun is a pro-China newspaper. -- Revth ( talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
tokyo shibum? it doesnt say that anywhere in the article, and nothing with a japanese name in it is pro chinese..... and what does this attack have to do with police brutality against media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
i dont see how police brutality against the media is a reaction to an attack on police? ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
okay now i see the edit, but what proof do you have tokyo shimbum is pro china? ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We need more sources for a politically sensitive issue on front-page Wikipedia. I removed two uncited sentences - feel free to add them back with sources and possibly elaboration. 202.40.139.168 ( talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In footnote #4, the "]" at the end should be "}". Please fix. Thanks. --
199.71.174.100 (
talk) 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. A user has removed categories claiming this is just an attack against police and not a terrorist attack. However, I dissagree. This is the deadliest attack ever in Xinjiang Autonomous Reigon, it is listed under list of terrorist incidents, and it is covered under a terrorist attack infobox and its WikiProject, but I'd rather discuss this first, any thoughts? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
" Terrorism (...) include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war." People's Armed Police are not non-combatants and we don't even know yet if it was not a lone attack (and given the China's near-total control over information, we possibly will never know).
Wikipedia sez:
Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are murdered, or injured, and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their often radical religious and political ends.
Someone said: "The USS Cole bombing is considered a terrorist attack even its target was a military ship"
The victims in the attack were two women, Bat Sheva Unterman and Elizabeth Goren-Friedman, and a man, Jean Raloy.
Oh, here it is. Wikipedia's policy about calling people "you terrorist, you":
Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.
In line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, the words extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan. Such terms are not automatically equivalent to terrorist, as they may cover legitimate state organizations and resistance movements, but they may also be applied to groups that have been characterised as terrorist organisations.
So actual terrorists can't even be called "terrorists" - but clearly non-terrorist attacks are to be called "terrorist"? Whenever policemen are targeted anywhere by "insurgents, paramilitary, or partisans" it is "terrorism"? I think I missed this new Wikipedia rule.
This "news". [2] Just read its title? Note: its title is "clampdown", not "crackdown". I have read through it, and I found half of the article is repeating PRC gov't's tiring stuff. -- Douglasfrankfort ( talk to me) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How useful is the map, really? It shows an area almost the size of Alaska. Perhaps a pushpin map could be devised instead. Biruitorul Talk 00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No actually the orange area you're referring to is Aksai Chin, not Kashgar. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.192.179.152 (
talk) 03:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This is directed to the combatants in the "Is this a terrorist attack?" thread. Frankly, whether some attack in India or the Persian Gulf or other random countries like the US is classifed as "terrorist" or not is irrelevant. There is no internationally accepted definition of "terrorism" and whether something is a "terrorist attack" comes down to common usage. Referring to Wikipedia's own definition of "terrorism" is also unsatisfactory, because Wikipedia does not self reference.
A Google search indicates that most news sources are reporting that the authorities call it a "terrorist attack". None of them seem to contradict that statement, though. On the one hand, we have an official designation of this as a "terrorist attack". On the other hand, nobody seems to be jumping out and saying that it wasn't a terrorist attack. That seems to settle the matter in favour of labelling it a terrorist attack as far as Wikipedia is entitled to be concerned. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of the users here who are trying to label this attack as terrorism are somehow affiliated with China. I guess you all consider the Tibetan insurgency from decades ago terrorism too? If not, please tell the difference. - Pieter_v ( talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. When there is a report in U.S., it is "independent confirmed". When there is a report in PRC, it is suspicious. But can you tell me how to fake news about 16 men's deaths? Or ideology here is " all good news ( in this example, not a good one ) from China is faked, all bad news is true; because that is what we would like to hear "? If we should keep suspicion on PRC gov't ( I think we should ), we also should suspect your cossets' words, like Rebiya Kadeer's. When you cite her words, please also note that " not independent confirmed ". Then everything will be OK. -- Douglasfrankfort ( talk to me) 01:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've said this many times, and I'm saying this again - politics, personal opinions, your view of the law have no relevance here. What is relevant is what sources are calling this. As far as I can see, we have a variety of descriptors, one of which is "terrorist attack". That descriptor is not directly contradicted in the sources that have been brought up. I'm fine with describing it as an "armed attack" or "violent assault" or whatever - but there seems to me to be no obstacle in calling it a " terrorist attack".
Petervhuis, when you try to bring politics into this debate and accuse other editors on the basis of their, quote, "affiliation" with China, you are only showing your own narrow-minded prejudices. For the sake of the neutrality of this discussion, I suggest you either disabuse yourself of your prejudices, or get out of the discussion.
As to the guidelines - they seem slightly ambiguous. From what I can see, the guidelines are talking about labelling of peoples and groups. If I understand the issue correctly, nobody is labelling anyone here a "terrorist"/"freedom fighter"/"insurgent". The case here is different. We are talking about an act here. An attack, if it falls within the general understanding of a "terrorist attack", is a terrorist attack. There is no such term as "freedom fighting attack". Saying that certain actions are terrorist attacks is not labelling the person or group - only the act. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"And FYI, Pieter, I witnessed Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and I am against the communist party (check out my last userbox on my userpage)" So, do you think that the firebombings and lynchings of the People's Liberation troops in Beijing in 1989 (yes, a number were killed - hard to say how many, because, guess what, the communist gvt lies - but anyway, the government said 100+ soldiers died [4]) was "a campaign of terrorism by the Han Chinese against the government"?
Yeah, I read through the train wreck above. Silly me.
The only relevant point here is that it is not Wikipedia's job to decide whether this is terrorist or not. It is not Wiki's job to evaluate what biases exist in the media, pro- or con-PRC, pro- or con-Uighur separatism, etc. It is Wikipedia's job to report events neutrally. Claiming that this is a terrorist attack, without attributing that claim to anyone, is mistaken (in the sense of, outside the scope of what Wikipedia is supposed to do in order to maintain a neutral point of view).
I understand that part of the issue here is that Wikipedia's listmania has led to the existence of a "Terrorist Events" list. Personally, I don't think that such a list is an intelligent thing to maintain, because it requires our NPOV editorial voice to start making POV claims that are outside the scope of Wikipedia's job (reporting X says Y). I will concede that there might be some pragmatic use to the list, and besides I'm not going to go around trying to dismantle it at this moment. But I would submit that edge cases are possible, and that if there is even a substantial minority that thinks this categorization is making inappropriate claims about an event, then we're better off making the less demanding assertion. Let's not categorize greedily, particularly when in our present political climate the word is almost invariably used to spark an emotional reaction, rather than on the basis of its strict definition.
JSoules ( talk) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)