Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive 4

Good source

• Cha, Ariana Eunjung (25 July 2009). "China, Uighur Groups Give Conflicting Riot Accounts". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 July 2009.

This article presents a good "meta-analysis" of both the PRC's and WUC's versions of the story behind what caused the riots. As we work on developing this article, it will probably be a very useful source for tempering both accounts. The only thing to be careful about is to make sure we summarize the whole thing and not cherry-pick: it contains criticisms of both sides, so is the kind of article that a POV editor could easily manipulate by citing one or two sentences and ignoring the rest. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Post doesn't seem to say much that haven't already been said. I will summarize:

1. PRC story unreliable because it is unlikely that Rebiya Kadeer has the kind of power to incite this sort of violence. Its accusations against Kadeer are either grossly exaggerated or simply unfounded.
2. WUC story unreliable because it is independently verified that Han Chinese were targeted and attacked - silent protest doesn't just suddenly turn into all-out violence because police decide to move in.

In any case, I am fully behind the view of this professor in Taiwan - whoever he may be, who says that both sides are just trying to search for parts of the story that "fits their agenda". I think that part deserves mention in the article. Colipon+(T) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thrid prespective

• Heyrat Niyaz on the July 5 Riots in Urumchi, English translation here. One reoccuring theme I saw from Chinese netizens is that the rioters are from Southern Xinjiang and most Ürümqi Uyghurs did not take part in the original protest. Jim101 (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's interesting, but I'm not sure how much is worth including in the article. Most of it is the personal opinions and unvetted speculation of one journalist, and a lot of his arguments for why the riot was "premeditated" are pretty circumstantial ("they were wearing athletic shoes, so they must have been planning to riot!"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is quite interesting indeed. That is what I heard from friends in the area as well - that many of the rioters are Uyghurs from "the south" who spoke very little Chinese and who were not living in the same community as Urumqi Uyghurs. I have also been able to hear stories from a friend who is originally from Urumqi. According to him the rioters indeed targeted "Han Chinese people" and attacked them "as they were coming off the bus". He said that although Han Chinese businesses, vehicles, and Han people in general were obstensibly the targets, the rioters cared little about whether or not fellow Uyghurs would be caught up in the carnage. Of course, none of this is sourced and therefore has no place in the article, but interesting to note anyhow.

Also, word from my friend who just returned from Urumqi and who was there for the entirety of the riots. He said the "entirety of Xinjiang is in lock-down" and that Internet will not be back until October. Colipon+(T) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

10.000 missing?

I came across this article in Reuters, I believe this would be a usefull addition to the article. RetlawSnellac (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can mention Kadeer's claim in the After 5 July section; also in that section there needs to be something added (maybe it was there before and has since been deleted) about the round of protests that happened on 7 July, mostly Uyghur women protesting the detentions of their husbands/brothers/fathers/sons/etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing the source is significant for is that Rebiya Kadeer visited Japan and Chinese are not happy, with WUC want UN to conduct independent investigation because the Communist is lying, but the number itself is too vague to have any use. Jim101 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One word. Shock. It's surprising to see the extent of the claims by various parties... In my opinion, wouldn't anyone think that 10,000 is just a bit going over the top? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Went missing" -- meaning what? Does China have that much prison-space? Could they dig a hole large enough? Did Kazakhstan miss a mass-migration over the border? Martians? The Bermuda Triangle?

Seriously... if we're excluding ridiculous claims from China, we should exclude those claims as well. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Kempeitai are back from the grave, and are running UFOs from Alpha Centauri. Frightening. Echoing the above; if there are "questionable" Chinese claims being excluded, then obviously "questionable" foreign sources should be treated as such; I mean, regardless of country, some sources are blatantly dispicable in regards to the way they report issues entirely out of proportion. Some journos are clearly too silly and naive when it comes to decision-making. There is a difference between "quoting Kadeer" and "stating that there is a slight possibility that China has done a gargantuan magic trick and made a myriad of people disappear in one solar revolution", as it has been reported in the evening news here. Three different channels reporting the same thing. "There are reports that the communist dictatorship in China has forced 10,000 Uyghur minority muslims into disappearance, according to sources..." -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Too ambiguous to have any significance...if WUC is accusing of Chinese of mass arrests, then please say "mass crackdown/arrest", not "went missing". A person fell in a hole or fleeing a war zone also counts as "went missing". And reliable news sources did say a lot of people flee the city besides government arrest 1,000+ suspects, they could also be counted as "went missing" if they ran fast enough. The news just sound like a propaganda swipe at the Communists (people went missing in China, what do you think?), if a person went missing in China, then it must be political detention. Jim101 (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"The nearly 10,000 (Uighur) people who were at the protest, they disappeared from Urumqi in one night," Kadeer told a news conference in Tokyo through an interpreter. "If they are dead, where are their bodies? If they are detained, where are they?"

To take this passage at face value, it means Rebiya Kadeer is not even sure how the government is involved (not killed or detained, how else can government make 10,000 people dissappear). If 10,000 people missing and Rebiya Kadeer did not link the government to it, it it could be a giant sink hole for all we know. Jim101 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is that the translators involved in these broadcasts seem terribly unreliable. That being said I would imagine that translating Uyghur would not be an easy task. I also think Rebiya Kadeer actually speaks fluent Mandarin. She just chooses not to for obvious reasons. Colipon+(T) 16:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The 14th Dalai Lama also speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. There is a recording of him making a speech at a Party Congress in 1954. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off topic here...I remember one revision of the article between July 5th to 7th has a source from WUC claimed that there are 10,000 protesters to counter the 3,000 figure from NY Times. If we can find that source, then we may intergrate Kadeer's claim to show that WUC is concerned about the discrepancy between their verison of the riot and the one reported by everyone else, thus demanding an UN investigation. Jim101 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolkun Isa, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) in Munich, disputed the official figures, saying the protest was 10,000 strong and that 600 people were killed.

This BBC piece from July 6. It would at least explain why Kadeer is puzzled and claim 10,000 missing into thin air and demanded UN to act. Jim101 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebiya Kadeer's Children Sends Letter

Don't know if this is worthy of inclusion - it's coming out of state media so it should be treated with a degree of skepticism... [1], [2], [3] but apparently Rebiya Kadeer's children and other relatives sent her a letter seemingly condemning her actions... Colipon+(T) 09:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't read Chinese, but those games have been played throughout history. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Getting family members to denounce, and then publicising it... This is very common practise used in the soviet era against dissidents, strange it is being used today because nobody believes the tactic any more. Remember that two of her children have been arrested, so if it is by them, it is clearly under duress. Even if not, there is not much a family can do but cave in when the leviathan orders you to do something you don't believe in: They can slam you in prison until you comply. 'Confessions like these are not worth the paper it's written on. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. Plus, even if this is true (ie, if they denounced Kadeer without being prodded), it's not even really relevant to the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Would not be surprised if there was a degree of authenticity to it... I have definitely read somewhere that there is wide divisions within the Kadeer family... notice how the letter only came from two of her children. She has 11 kids. I actually would say that government prodding may not be as likely as the children trying to save their own lives by appearing to "renounce" Kadeer and then broker a deal with the government so they themselves wouldn't be arrested. Also, during the Cultural Revolution the denunciations came much faster, a day or two after an incident... not more than a week usually. That being said, without third-party verification and without further reports, I will concur with other editors that this is not worthy of inclusion in the article. Colipon+(T) 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if the letters are verified, they still aren't really relevant here. They don't "prove" that Kadeer did or did not do anything; they are no better than all the other random people who have written articles and blog posts about this. The fact that these people are Kadeer's children doesn't make them the fountain of truth; their opinion is still just that, an opinion, and isn't necessary here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My grandpa's comrade-in-arms write letters denounce my grandpa because he is a member of the PVA 180th Division during the Korean War — you know the one that got completely destroyed by UN? Anyway, does that mean he is a coward who run away from the weak American imperialist? Jim101 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

True that. Colipon+(T) 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming around to feeling that the denunciation letters are relevant to the article. Sure, it's anti-Kadeerism ostensibly from the family. But more importantly, it's clearly an attempt of the state to undermine her credibility and to propagandise what should essentially be a family matter. The letters are said to have been boilerplated from state slogans.

Phelim Kine, an Asia researcher with New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the style of the letters was suspiciously close to the way the Chinese authorities had described events in Xinjiang on July 5 and afterwards.

"The wording and the way the letters are dispersed might suggest the government has had a hand in the formulation, but we don't really know," he said.

"If they are real and valid they should be part of an ongoing police investigation and it's highly irregular for them to be placed on the platform of a government mouthpiece such as Xinhua for wide dispersion." (source)

Thus, I have worked it into the article from that angle. Comments welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few mechanical touch-ups. As the version stands, it reads to me as though it implicitly concludes that the letters were fake. While I have little doubt that the reasons behind the letters were suspicious... I must mention that it could be in fact the children trying to distance themselves from the mother to avoid their own arrests, and not merely an act of government prodding. The reason I say this is because the timing is awfully suspicious. If it's purely gov't coercion they would have done it a week or two after the events, not a month later. But that is just my opinion. Otherwise the current material looks fine. Any rejections? Colipon+(T) 05:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebiya's family members also wrote a letter to the families of the victims [4]. There is something interesting in the letter: “7·5”当天，在事件发生前6个小时，我们的母亲热比娅·卡德尔给我们打电话，说会发生大事情。 Let me translate it: On 7/5, 6 hours before the event, our mother, Rebiya Kadeer, called us and told us that a big event will happen. --Jinhuili (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? She could have been talking about the protests. This is not a place for conspiracy theories and POV-pushing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone that public letter writing in China is a political measure used to reinforce people's trust in the system. Public letter writing is used to lower people's morale and make them more suggestive to Party Lines. Jim101 (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim101, I agree with you. However, I don't believe that the letters are 'fake' as somebody claimed. --Jinhuili (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are fake, but they are partisan sources. We can't introduce partisan views without another view to balance/verify it at least. Jim101 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Per above comments. What is important is the FACT that these letters were published, not their content per se. I don't believe they were fake as Jin says. It's a blunt old tool from the Stalinist era. The WUC did themselves no favours for so denouncing, and they will probably regret it. I'd say they just weren't expecting it so did not know how to deal with it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Internet response

This doesn't seem to me to be a response to the riots in particular; it looks more like general anti-Kadeer-ism. Heightened because of the riots, of course, but not specifically about them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you're right. I'm not opposed to removing it per the strict interpretation of the events adopted for this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also an earlier UK report that showed two survivors were attacked by police. When in fact they were attacked by rioters. Many sources are being countered. It is becoming difficult to see which media is correct. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is it fact, or just further spin by the state media, that there were attacked by rioters? The Chinese propaganda onslaught is relentless. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• We'll never know for certain; all images used by each side are used exclusively to make criteria on their own behalf. WUC or PRC, a picture may as well tell ten thousand political rants. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (out) I've seen no strong objections to removing the paragraph that I originally mentioned, so I'm going to remove it for now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

May be of interest:

• Hack attack hits Melbourne Film Festival - News.com.au
• Festival's overtones are cited as films withdrawn - The Australian
• Hackers attack Melbourne Film Festival website - News.com.au
• MIFF website hacked amid Chinese film row - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• Chinese hack Melbourne International Film Festival website - Digital Media AUS
• Chinese hack into film festival site - The Age
• Chinese hack film festival site - BBC

On August 1, 2009, the Melbourne International Film Festival was forced to shut down its website after DDoS attacks by Chinese vigilantes, in response to Rebiya Kadeer's planned guest appearance, the screening of a film about her which is deemed "anti-China" by Chinese state media, and strong sentiments following the July 2009 Ürümqi riots. The hackers booked out all film sessions on its website, and festival information with the Chinese flag and anti-Kadeer slogans.
Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Melbourne-thing has a paragraph in the Rebiya Kadeer-article (not the hacking, though). Seb az86556 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a way to work this directly into the article without starting another section then I think it should be inserted. Last year the Tibet events led to a complete ban of YouTube and even iTunes. I don't know if that article covers it. Colipon+(T) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how these are relevant to the riots themselves. They might be relevant in the Kadeer article, since they are about her, but these attacks are not specifically about the riots, as I said two or three sections above here. Yes, the riots were probably what made these hackers so worked up about Kadeer in the first place, but that does not mean this stuff belongs in this article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess one could make the argument that Kadeer wouldn't be in the international spotlight anyhow if it wasn't for the riots, and that this hacking thing wouldn't have happened at all if it weren't for the riots. Colipon+(T) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Victims

The 2nd paragraph of this article shows that "The violence was part of ongoing ethnic tensions between the Han and the Uyghurs". I always suspect it, but never raised this issue. I agree the ethnic tensions exist, but don't believe it's simply between Hans and Uyghurs.

On August 5, Xinjiang government announced [5] 到目前为止，乌鲁木齐“７·５”事件已经造成１７００多人受伤、１９７人死亡。其中，无辜死亡的１５６人（汉族１３４人、回族１１人、维吾尔族１０人、满族１人）；在其他死亡人员中，有的是因为实施暴力犯罪活动被当场击毙的暴徒，有的身份还有待辨认。 More than 1,700 injured, 197 dead. There are 156 innocent people dead: 124 Hans, 11 Huis, 10 Uyghurs, 1 Manchu. Some of the rest are rioters shot (by police); some need to be identified. --Jinhuili (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Collateral damage." has nothing to do with the root-cause. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My question is, why do you say the root-cause is ethnic tensions between Han and Uyghurs? Why it's not the tensinos between Uyghurs and non-Uyghurs, etc? --Jinhuili (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we say the sky is blue? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why do you say the sky is blue even wen it's rainy in the night. Have you heard "杀汉灭回" -- Kill the Hans and eliminate the Huis? --Jinhuili (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Immediate causes

The riots took place several days after the deaths of two Uyghurs at the Xuri Toy Factory in Shaoguan, Guangdong, where many migrant workers are employed. In late June, a Han female worker was reportedly sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers in their residence quarters. Rumours over rape at the factory were subsequently initiated by a disgruntled former co-worker. Overnight, on 25–26 June, tensions at the factory led to a full-blown ethnic brawl between Uyghurs and Hans

I can't see anything in the source that reports a Han female worker was reportedly sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers prio to the rumour of rape from Hao Xiang, Washington 94.194.214.37 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in there. It's also in this source one line later. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)]

I think what he meant was the statement In late June, a Han female worker was reportedly sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers in their residence quarters. I can't find confirmation anywhere except here, maybe my Chinese is getting rusty...important facts, such as late June, a han female and Uyghur residence quarters are not present. Jim101 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember if there are dates, but the VOA source in Chinese definitely mentioned Han female and residence quarters. This Xinhua source mentions all of the above (it doesn't say "late June", but "late June" is easily inferrable from the fact that it says it directly sparked the June 26 brawl...thus, it couldn't have happened anytime other than late June). There probably would be no harm in adding this second Xinhua source (as well as the BBC source already listed) so that we have some English references to that statement. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jim101 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see it in this source , unless I'm missing it. Also the english link says [6]

"I was lost and entered the wrong dormitory and screamed when I saw those Uygur young men in the room," said Huang Cuilian, originally from rural Guangdong.

Huang said she had no idea why exactly she was scared. "I just felt they were unfriendly so I turned and ran."

She remembered one of them stood up and stamped his feet as if he would chase her. "I later realized that he was just making fun of me."

94.194.214.37 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us exactly which part is not verified? It's hard to fix problems that we don't know. Jim101 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC link says nothing about it as far as I can see, no mention at all " one line later.", the rumour is clear in all sources, the report which then leads to a rumour isn't. If that makes sense.

"In late June, a Han female worker was reportedly sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers in their residence quarters.[27][28]" where is this report that contradicts the other sources or doesn't appear on the bbc link? 94.194.214.37 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The brawl in Shaoguan City was said to have flared up over allegations of a "sexual assault on a Han girl by a Uygur worker" that left two people dead and more than 100 injured.

Here in the Xinhua report I believe.

"In late June, a Han female worker was reportedly sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers in their residence quarters.[27][28] " " BEIJING/GUANGZHOU/URUMQI, July 8 (Xinhua) -- The teenager at the center of allegations of sexual assault that sparked the deadly violence in western China's Xinjiang region Wednesday said the incident was nothing more than an "unintentional scream." " unless i'm being incredibly stupid the wikipedia page and the source don't agree? We all understand the rumor part, but not the sexual assault which has no source ?

Let me summerize, you object to the word "reportedly" in the statement In late June, a Han female worker was reportedly sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers in their residence quarters.? Jim101 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to find a source for the reported sexual assualt prior to the rumour, should have made that clearer. Anyone find it on the BBC link given? 94.194.214.37 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

About the BBC source, the rape rumor in the very first sentence: the man had posted a message on a local website claiming six Xinjiang boys has "raped two innocent girls".. I don't know how much clearer it can be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, we need to back track here. My recollection of the event was a girl screamed, and people thought it was a sexual harrassment, per Xinhua source here, then one lay-off workers posted a message about rapes, and that made the workers fight. Jim101 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So was there a report about her sexual harassment?, because it says a Han female worker was reportedly sexually harassed by Uyghur co-workers in their residence quarter. This is prior to the rumours because it says Rumours over rape at the factory were subsequently initiated. I can't make it much clearer and am about to give up. 94.194.214.37 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is the Washington Post's recollection of the events:

In May, 818 Uighurs from Xinjiang joined the 18,000-person workforce. Although the newcomers had limited Mandarin skills, the Uighurs and Han Chinese workers bonded over nightly dances that seemed to transcend lingual, cultural and religious barriers.

the atmosphere started to become tense last month when a rumor spread about a rape at the toy factory. An anonymous message, posted on the Internet in June, stated that six Uighurs assaulted two Han female co-workers. No one seemed to know exactly who the alleged victims were, employees said, and police later said the story was made up by a disgruntled former worker. But suspicions festered.

When Huang Cuilian, a 19-year-old trainee who is Han, walked into the wrong dormitory and ran into two Uighur men on the night of June 25, she screamed, and a melee ensued. When other workers heard the commotion, a brawl broke out between the Han and Uighur workers. In the end, 120 were injured, and two Uighurs later died.

Information about the fight spread via the Internet and cellphones to the Uighurs' home towns in Xinjiang, and there were calls for other Uighurs to take action.

In the aftermath of the fighting, both Han Chinese and Uighur workers at the factory say they are afraid of each other.

Source here. Looks like we need a recheck plus a rewrite here. Jim101 (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The best critique of China's minority policy ever

How China Wins and Loses Xinjiang

If anyone find this piece to be useful, use it in this article — or any Xinjiang related articles for that matter. Jim101 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

This is probably never going to be worthy of mention in the article...but it's cute, and also ridiculous:

• MacLeod, Calum (9 August 2009). "China using stickers to quell tension". USA Today. Retrieved 9 August 2009.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO... cute Seb az86556 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This was an interesting read... however... The slogan on the yellow stickers is printed in both the Mandarin Chinese and Arabic languages — for the ethnic Chinese and Muslim, or Uighur (WEE-gur),. Typical USA publication, no checking of facts beforehand. Mandarin Chinese is not a written language - it is a spoken form only, and therefore cannot be "printed". "Arabic language"? It's actually "Uyghur language". "Ethnic muslim"?? Everyone whose been at this article knows how inappropriate that is. *sigh* Colipon+(Talk) 15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I made the same rant to my mother (who sent me this article)... It's frustrating to understand so much in a world where the people writing the newspapers understand so little ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)