Talk:Shaoguan incident

Comment
This statement: "Uyghurs are well-known for raping and sexual harrassing Chinese people as is evidenced by countless incidents every year." needs a citation. I'm sure no citation actually exists for such an offensive, racist statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjonnal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Some timeline in the investigation
1) The former factory worker who started the false rape rumor online against the Uyghur workers was arrested on 6/28:

http://www.xici.net/b1007315/d93539372.htm

"On [June] 28th, police found Mr. Zhu’s posting on “Citizen Voice”. Zhu posted on the website “Xuri Is Trash” article with false information, who was Xuri toy factory worker, but was not rehired after he resigned. Because of this, he posted the article out of contempt. Right now, Police has arrested Zhu according to law."

2) As of 7/1 Guangdong authroity already made announcement regarding the investigation progresss up to 6/30:

http://www.gdemo.gov.cn/yjdt/gdyjdt/200907/t20090701_96716.htm

- The evening of 6/26, relevant departments and magistrates begain analyzing the case - The criminal disorder case was officially introduced on 6/29, after preliminary investigation

3) 13 of the 15 people involved in the Guangdong brawl were arrested before 7/5:

http://news.qianlong.com/28874/2009/07/07/2502@5067701.htm

"As of 7/5, 13 group brawl participants have been arrested by police, including 3 from Xinjiang, 10 from other areas"

75.172.48.45 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pogrom
I see this article is tagged as "Pogrom", but I believe this term, due to its association with antisemitism and its political charged nature, cannot be tagged freely to any article without some citations or expert opinions. May I suggest to change the Pogroms tag to Race riots until more third party opinions to back this up? Jim101 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, thank you. I copied all of the structural elements from... guess where? Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

recent edit
I see the official source, in which the official charge of 'participating in an affray' got changed in favour of a source which used the more layman term 'brawl'. They say more or less the same thing, but the language is just different, and in my view more informal. I'm not sure it was appropriate. As to the Sinograms, as there is huge potential for ambiguity with Chinese names (and the names are not wikilinked to articles), I would prefer if the Sinograms were left in place. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I might have triggered that. I posted the NYT-source (but reverted it a few minutes later) on this talkpage before realizing you already had the information in the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who exactly is Xiao Jianhua? Is he the "disgruntled worker" that posted rumours online? Colipon+ (Talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he was one of the thugs. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)