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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Ksyrie has been trying to add the article to a bunch of categories about terrorism, which I've reverted. This seems to be a misunderstanding about what terrorism is, because there is simply no evidence that this riots are terrorism. Terrorism is a planned action done for a specific reason; riots are usually unplanned things that start spontaneously with a large group of people. Just because things were bombed doesn't automatically make this terrorism. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Reverted addition of "terrorism" categories simultaneously to and agree with Rjanag: quoted source for bomb-news is POV (>Chinese bloggers); therefore a) independent, NPOV-source must be found before incident can be categorized as terrorism b) not every bomb-incident, even if confirmed, constitutes terrorism. Seb az86556 ( talk) 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Also removed link to East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a group designated as "terrorist" -- no link established to current events. Seb az86556 ( talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
Please don't do this. user Ohconfucius removed your entry twice already. Seb az86556 ( talk) 10:11, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
(out) to whoever cleaned up the section about this quote ([
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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:
No, there was no rape or sexual harassment. Look at http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/ethnic-clash-06292009102144.html
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And are you capable of a discussion without accusing other users? Boxofsushi ( talk) 10:44, 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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It has no credit and is a lying machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionny09 ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] This is the original photo on Southern Metropolis Weekly, retrieved 6/16/2009.
[2] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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:
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)
I'm sure my translation is not perfect. Please fix as you see fit. Colipon+( T) 03:50, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Ksyrie has been trying to add the article to a bunch of categories about terrorism, which I've reverted. This seems to be a misunderstanding about what terrorism is, because there is simply no evidence that this riots are terrorism. Terrorism is a planned action done for a specific reason; riots are usually unplanned things that start spontaneously with a large group of people. Just because things were bombed doesn't automatically make this terrorism. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Reverted addition of "terrorism" categories simultaneously to and agree with Rjanag: quoted source for bomb-news is POV (>Chinese bloggers); therefore a) independent, NPOV-source must be found before incident can be categorized as terrorism b) not every bomb-incident, even if confirmed, constitutes terrorism. Seb az86556 ( talk) 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Also removed link to East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a group designated as "terrorist" -- no link established to current events. Seb az86556 ( talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
Please don't do this. user Ohconfucius removed your entry twice already. Seb az86556 ( talk) 10:11, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
(out) to whoever cleaned up the section about this quote ([
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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:
No, there was no rape or sexual harassment. Look at http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/ethnic-clash-06292009102144.html
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And are you capable of a discussion without accusing other users? Boxofsushi ( talk) 10:44, 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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It has no credit and is a lying machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionny09 ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] This is the original photo on Southern Metropolis Weekly, retrieved 6/16/2009.
[2] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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:
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)
I'm sure my translation is not perfect. Please fix as you see fit. Colipon+( T) 03:50, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)