Central Asia Mid‑importance

July 2009 Ürümqi riots is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 a terrorist 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suggested to catogerize Chinese goverment and its people into "Terrorist countries" section. Those are war criminals, ultra-nationalist communists. They killed thousands of Tibetians and now they want to kill all the Uyghurs in the country. Chinese supporters should be blocked from this site. --62.248.42.19 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]