Talk:2008 Kashgar attack

This whole page needs a rewrite
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.

August 4th?
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)

Suggested move
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)
 * Went bold and moved. If anyone disagrees, revert the edit. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. It might help if the title was a little more specific such as "Kashgar" attack, or maybe not, also "attack" might be vague as well. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 21:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Was about to say so. All similar articles use the city name for designation. Circeus (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A new attack occurred today in Kuqa County, Xinjiang. So I moved 2008 Xinjiang attack to 2008 Kashgar attack for disambiguation. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note on Police Brutality against Media
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 agree with you. That has nothing to do with the terrorist attack. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How various parties react to the event does belong in the article. I don't see any references to "pre-ordered or political effort" in the current version. F (talk) 11:13, 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)

More sources
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)

a typo needs to be fixed, but the wikipage is semiprotected, so i can't fix it.....
In footnote #4, the "]" at the end should be "}". Please fix. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Someone probably fixed it already. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 17:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a terrorist attack?
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 (TCU) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the attack targetted a police station doesn't mean it's not a terrorist attack. Who would base their argumentations on this? The USS Cole bombing is considered a terrorist attack even its target was a military ship, and Al-Qaida attacks the Iraqi army and police all the time. Besides, all sources refer to it as such. Circeus (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no internationally accepted definition for "terrorism". That this attack is motivated by political aims (separatism, maybe even self determination?) and the targets were officers on duty mean that it falls in the grey areas rather than the widely accepted core definition of terrorism.
 * The surest gauge is simply whether most reliable sources describe it as an "act of terrorism" or a "terror attack". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If this attack takes place on US soil (or any developed country's soil), I bet CNN, BBC, and AP will surely call this as terrorism. Simply because this takes place in China doesn't change the weight of the argument. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:24, 6 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"


 * Look. You're arguing that the guy using improvised explosive device (IED) and this attack does not consider as terrorist attack. But all the causality are caused as a result of the dump truck overrunning them. Does this rings a bell to the recent Jerusalem bulldozer attack? We even classify that bulldozer attack as a massacre! 4 died and 30+ injured is a massacre. And on the other hand, 16 died and 16 injured is an IED bombing? That certainly puts things into wrong perspectives. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The victims in the attack were two women, Bat Sheva Unterman and Elizabeth Goren-Friedman, and a man, Jean Raloy.
 * Mrs. Unterman, a kindergarten teacher, and the wife of Ido Unterman, grandson of former Chief rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman was in her car at the scene of the attack. Her 6-month-old daughter was pulled from the car just before it was hit.
 * Originally of Austria, Elizabeth Goren-Friedman worked as a teacher in a school for the blind.
 * Jean Raloy, an air-conditioner technician who lived in the Gilo neighborhood, was the third person killed.


 * I think I know what is behind Mr Captain Obvious' words: "world against China". If such a attack occurs in India (very often), it is a terrorism incident. If it happens in PRC (Devil Empire?), it is not even a crime. Because Chinese guys are all with "certain sin" ( very weird, why do so many guys confuse gov't with its nation's people? ), so their deaths are disputed, maybe they should die. I was surprised this morning when I logged onto some news websites. Guardian said maybe all this story is faked by PRC gov't. Oh that's right PRC always lies to you and me, but a slaughter which killed 16 guys is very difficult to forge. And our dear Guardian editor just reacted as what I had guessed: no sympathy to those dead guys, but suspicion to the cursed news' credit. Then I found all comments to this attack from our rich developped brothers showed the same stance: no matter how many soldiers died for it (since they are "guilty" soldiers), we just protest PRC's probable crackdown (when there is not a crackdown, ironically). I think unless the two guys playing with bombs were released without punishment, any action towards them will be labeled as a "crackdown", and then you can protest. Meanwhile we know that Indians can take some actions to their own bomb boys. Ok. Bye, our 16 guys. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 10:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If all the brilliant minds of the United Nations's Ad Hoc Committee can't agree on a definition for terrorism, I doubt it's going to be thrashed out in a convincing way in on a wikipedia talk page - especially once people start going into politics and national prejudices.
 * I see the problem as very simple. What do the reliable sources say? Is the Chinese government calling this a terror attack? Are other governments calling it a terror attack? What about the major news sources like the BBC or Reuters? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found an even easier solution. How do we have dealed with the attacks towards Indian border soldiers by those cursed extremists? We can just do the same. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you misunderstanded what I said. I have refered it as "attack on border soldiers", so don't go to find other things. I means examples like this: "On September 20, 2005, 14 Indian soldiers were ambushed and killed by 20 rebels from the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) terrorist organization", or "In Jammu and Kashmir 10 Indian army soldiers are killed in land mine attack claimed by Hizbul Mujahideen (Times of India)". What do you call this type of things as ? --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 12:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then do the same thing to this entry; don't categorized it just as "History of XXX". And I have never refered any ETK involvement in attacks in India, the "cursed extremists" I have refered are Indian separatists. So don't tamper with my words, OK? That is ridiculous, just like the Iraqi fighters ( maybe you think they are "blessed" ? ) won't make blasts in China.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And would you like to answer some questions? (less relationship with the topic, just very interesting) How do you feel about the attack? Do you think it is "good", or "less evil", because its targets are PRC soldiers? Is your viewpoint typical in western world? Since till now all victims are Han Chinese, will you support those Internet users who are busy with paying attention to the nonexist crackdown? (" Five Loop Games " is coming, so maybe there will never be a crackdown.) And another thing really confused me: I found there were a lot of European and American guys who believe there is a "Inner Mongolia Independent movement". That really astound me. I have lived in IMG for many years, and my professor is ethnic MG, let alone colleagues. I have never found any independent inclination. Don't tell me " they do it behind you ", cause that make no sense. So why do so many our western friends believe that all non-Han nations wanna kick out China? Is the logic here " PRC=evil.  Everyone hates evil. Everyone hates PRC "?  Then I have to say, maybe PRC is evil, but the logical relationship here is still flawed.....  The fact that a cat is white has nothing to do with one's wish " the cat is white ".--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT a soapbox. Stop it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Captain, you're getting disruptive and pushing your POV. Of all those that commented in this section, only you believe it's not a terrorist attack. Furthermore, you repeatedly removed Category:Terrorist incidents in 2008 to Category:History of Xinjiang. This is getting ridiculous. You are attempting to reclassify this event as an incident, not a terrorist attack. Then you engage in edit wars and manipulating & temper the words of what other editors said (such as in the case of Douglasfrankfort's comments). The next time you're being disruptive and/or engage in edit war, and you will be blocked for quite a lengthly duration. You have been warned.


 * (P.S. Captain, your track record is against you. Between June and now, you received 8 warnings, a couple of comments concerning your paragraph-blanking edits, a couple incivility notice, being the subject of WP:ANI, and 1 block that lasted 24 hours.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Suspected perpetrators belong to East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and they are classified as terrorist organization by United Nations. Hence, using deductive reasoning, the participants of a terrorist organization are terrorists. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't claim that there is consensus that it is terrorism, if there is no consensus. I agree with the Captain, especially as at the moment not much is known about this attack from independent sources. All we have are claims by the Chinese government and they should be treated with suspicion. Novidmarana (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews jumped on "terrorist" bandwagon
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Sixteen_policemen_killed_in_suspected_terrorist_attack_in_Xinjiang%2C_China


 * Ah ha, your "clampdown" also comes from "unofficial experts", and isn't independent comfirmed. Very good example of bias.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, did you read a different article or what? Novidmarana (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, did you go to Xinjiang and find there is a crackdown? --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Original Research, can't do that.JSoules (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go read RS and then come back. Novidmarana (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been a Wiki editor for more years than you. Rhetoric trick can't be solved by RS, so don't confuse it. We should use these words "not independent confirmed" uniformly, not selectively. Do you catch my words? --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what is your problem? Many independent news report from several different sources that confirmes the security crackdown in Xinjiang. On the other side, the Chinese government and their mouthpiece Xinhua claiming that the incident was a terrorist attack. Well, almost as for the domestic audience the incident has been downgraded to just violent crime. Novidmarana (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you figured it out, go create an account there and change it. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From Bloomberg, quote "Xinhua's English-language report said police suspected the assault was a terrorist attack, although the agency's Chinese-language report, which was released two hours later, described the incident as a violent crime.". One more reason why one should be careful with news reports from China that are not independently confirmed. Novidmarana (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you understand?
This "news". 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)

Map
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)
 * Actually, if you look closely, the region of the attack is shaded orange. Perhaps someone with an SVG editor make that orange color more visible? Anyway, I still agree that a pushpin map would be more useful. --haha169 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I switched it for the map at Kashgar. It's still not ideal, because the city is outlined in a too pale color, but it's an improvement. Circeus (talk) 03:10, 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)

No one cares what you think
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)
 * Press decides what's terrorism is and what's not? See WP:TERRORIST and you'll understand why it's best to not use the term terrorism. As long as fighters don't deliberately attack civilians, it's not terrorism by definition. Call them insurgents at best. This is an encyclopedia where we have to stay neutral, and not go with some conclusion by a majority of journalists world wide. We should maybe note in this article that many journalists and leaders condemned the attack as terrorism, (as well as the opinion of those who believe otherwise), but not present something controversial as fact. - Pieter_v (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pietervhuis, As long as fighters don't deliberately attack civilians, it's not terrorism by definition. That's your opinion, and it is only one point in the spectrum of opinions on what is or isn't terrorism according to the definitions in various legal systems. As far as I know, an attack like this would fall under "terrorism" in US, British and Australian laws. It would also be classified as "terrorism" under the old League of Nations treaty definition - the last broadly accepted international treaty definition. That is not to say it is terrorism - what it says is that there is no definition of terrorism, and whether something is terrorism or not comes down to common usage. Media usage is the best proxy for common usage in the given circumstances, unless you can think up a better source than "I know it when I see it". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether they are terrorists or freedom fighters are both opinions. What falls under terrorism in English countries is absolutely irrelevant. Either implies a moral judgement. If I'm correct the US also consider part of Iran's army a terrorist organisation. Does that make it universal? No. Also there's a guideline for this already as I showed you before, and we have to stick with that. That means, we can mention that many condemned the attack as terrorism, but not present it as fact. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Xinhua labels the attack as violent crime, see the Bloomberg post I mentioned above. As theere is no independent news reporting we should go with what Xinhua says, the authority on anything China-related. Violent crime, according to them. Furthermore, read the [Wikipedia Style Guideline]. Novidmarana (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Novidmarana, a violent crime is not inconsistent with a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack by definition is a violent crime - but with additional motive/method/effect elements. That one report calls it a "violent attack" is consistent with, and does not contradict, it also being a "terrorist attack". Unless any report calls it a "peaceful protest" or something along those lines, it is not inconsistent to classify this as a terrorist attack. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:59, 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)


 * Also, please don't claim that the press widely labels this as terrorist attack. This is simply not true. See for example the New York Times from today, quote " The agency quoted the police as saying they suspected that it was a terrorist attack". It is a difference whether the press labels the incident as a terrorist attack or whether the press is merely quoting the claims of Chinese government agencies that this was a terrorist attack. Novidmarana (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, I just checked a couple of western press articles and most of them simply speak about "an attack" and only use the word terrorism when quoting PRC officials. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice article from the Financial Times. - Pieter_v (talk) 00:37, 7 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)
 * Douglas please don't feel victimised and Assume good faith. It doesn't matter where these types of attacks happen, I have no special grudge towards the PRC, and even when somethig like this happens in my own country I will have the same opinion as I'm presenting here. - Pieter_v (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the definition of terrorism from a dictionary (The Canadian Oxford Dictionary): Terrorism - the systematic employment of violence and intimidation to coerce government or community, especially into acceding to specific political demands. Other dictionaries may not have identical definitions, but should be very similar. I don't care what the definition on Wikipedia is, but we know print dictionaries have much higher authority than online sites that can change the definition every minute. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm yes, that's a broad defenition and can apply to pretty much any type of military activity, including for example attacks from US armed forces. The difference between mentioning an attack and a terrorist attack is that the latter carries a moral judgement. - Pieter_v (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And who says that this dictionary definition is meet? No reliable source says so, only the Chinese government. Also nice to hear that you don't care about Wikipedia guidelines, which are quite clear about the use of the t-word. Novidmarana (talk) 03:16, 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)


 * Sorry for speaking the truth. What's also truth is that you and other PRC-affiliated people have been called up to participate in this discussion just because of your background, judging from your talk pages. I'm sure there's a policy concerning that. - Pieter_v (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pieter, please stop these unmeaningful accusations. The message I left on PalaceGuard's talk page is that I'm telling PalaceGuard I'm exhausted with this magnitude of discussion, which is out of scale. In the entire article, the only times that use the word "terrorist" are all referring to the official state media. (You can use the "Find" function, Ctrl+F, on your browser to check it yourself) What interested me most is that Captain downgraded the event by changing the category first from "terrorist attack" to "improvised explosive device bombings", then later on to merely "History of Xinjiang". 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) <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The wiki policy is Canvassing. And the message you left on other talk pages had the clear intent to influence the outcome of the discussion, as you said that Captain continues to push his POV. Having said that, there is category Crime in China, and this seems to be the most appropriate category for this attack. Novidmarana (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was editing this page before OhanaUnited posted on my talk page. I'm not sure what POV Captain is pushing and frankly, I don't care. I also don't care for Pietervhuis' prejudices. When you make grossly inaccurate assumptions about people, then attack them on the basis of those assumptions, that is called prejudice. As I said, disabuse or leave, please. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:14, 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) was "a campaign of terrorism by the Han Chinese against the government"?


 * LOL, good illustration why there is a guidelines one the use of the contentious t-word. And PalaceGuard, you made already abundantly clear that you don't care for what other editors think, you had even had the gall to title one of your posts "No one cares what you think", so please disabuse or leave please, too. Novidmarana (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In case the subtleties in my post didn't get through to you, Novidmarana, what I don't care about is other editors' personal views of what terrorism is - which has no relevance to the current discussion, since what is or is not a terrorist attack for Wikipedia purposes should purely be based on reliable sources. Do you even know what the word "disabuse" means? Because even accepting the tenor of your post, there appears to be nothing for me to disabuse there.
 * It is a perfectly reasonable request for Pietervhuis to leave his prejudices at the door: to be precise, his prejudice that anyone who supports a "terrorist act" label is a PRC stooge, and any PRC stooge is somehow discredited in the debate. (Therefore anyone who supports a "terrorist act" label is discredited in the debate). These are ad hominim attacks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 wrongs don't make 1 right. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Palaceguard, Captain gave perfectly valid reasons why this should not be labelled as a terrorist attack, that is he cited wikipedia guidelines and precedents on wikipedia. You made clear that you give a shit on that, so dont cry if I am pointing that out. Furhtermore, there is no need for you to misrepresent what the media is saying as you did here over and over again. The media is not, I repeat not saying that this was a terrorist attack - they only quote Chinese officials who label this as a terrorist attack. And by the way, that is not what Pietervhuis said, quote "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." See the difference, or are there to many prejudices on your side to see the difference between your claims and what was said?? Novidmarana (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but I refuse to continue discussions with those who cannot keep their language civil. Enjoy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is It Terrorist? and other nonsense
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)


 * Well said, and I think the above cited WP:TERRORIST Words To Avoid article clearly resolves any dispute here. Now, what needs to be done to get that ugly banner off the top of the article? 211.178.192.62 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the banner. Novidmarana (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)