Talk:2010 Aksu bombing

ethnic strifer

per [1] that it is "POV" to say "indigenous," it is not really under dispute as to the "indigenous" status here. It is well documented the region is not native to Han chinese in the "Turkestan" region. Per [2] the riots last year have shown there is ethnic strife and not just in the region.Lihaas (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That Uyghurs are uniquely 'indigenous' is under dispute. The earliest Han migration in the region was 60 BCE. The earliest "Uyghurs" migrated to Xinjiang after the collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate at around 840 CE—and the link between those Uyghurs and the people we call Uyghurs today is fuzzy, as is with many other cases of modern people claiming descent from ancient peoples. This is related to your second concern, because adding "indigenous", in lieu of sources' designation of this man or his group as "indigenous", you are creating a colonial paradigm that would color readers' interpretation of this event. Now I'm not denying that there were riots in the region. But to put this in the article as "background" for this man's attack is subtly suggesting that his attack was motivated by ethnic hatred, separatism, or Islamism, when the only evidence that we have (that the victims were Uyghur) indicates the contrary. Juxtaposing facts like that to imply a conclusion is synthesis and not allowed. Quigley (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that most casualties were Uyghur security personnel makes this case more similar to Yang Jia than other Uyghur vs Han violence, so I think the ethnic issue should not be given undue weight until we get some actual evidence. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply calling the Uyghurs "indigenous" without further comment is a no go. We have been over this time and time again at Talk:July 2009 Urumqi riots, and there are numerous published articles arguing about this issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

one can add a fact tag till evidence is forthcoming (because this has been said in many places before), and then after some time if there isnt then it can go. Seems a fair accomodation.

For the background part, the context is relevant to the region for the same reason the template is pasted on this page to show recent Xinjiag unrest. no one had opposition to adding that. one can always improve on it rather than removing info.Lihaas (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not appropriate, you don't just add openly disputed material without a source and give it a {{fact}} tag. And even if you do have a source for "indigenous", there are many sources that would contradict that, so the only ethical way to include that would be to also include a prose discussion of the argument about indigenousness. In a small article like this, though, it's much better just to leave the issue aside, and include a link to an article that discusses the issue in more depth (and there already are links to Uyghur people, which does). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Denials?

For anyone who's interested, here's a blurb from Sound of Hope (a known FLG broadcast service) claiming that the bombing didn't happen:

• "阿克苏公安 vs.新华社　有无爆炸尚未定论". Sound of Hope. 21 August 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2010.

I think most people will agree that Sound of Hope is a bit of a nutty source, and I haven't seen this anywhere else, so it's probably not worth including in the article unless it gets reported in some other places too. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusing wording

It was confusing to me at first glance that five of the seven people who died were police officers, but most of the people who were injured were common folk. It makes sense when I took a moment to think about it, but the formation could be conveyed more naturally. 01:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.247.148 (talk)

Falun Gong media

Can we consider known Falun Gong-supported media to be reliable sources? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not when covering material related to China and Falun Gong, generalizing from the judgment against The Epoch Times by the Reliable sources noticeboard. Quigley (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove it, Epoch times is just silly anti-prc propaganda, just as bad and useless as prc-propaganda. Both shouldn't be on wiki. 77.11.163.211 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I purposely prefaced every Epoch Times source with language making it clear that the claim comes from them, not from us, to avoid this problem. As for "both shouldn't be on wiki[pedia]", are you saying that all the Xinhua and People's Daily articles should be removed as well? (And the articles from NYT, AP, etc., which are just repeating what those reports said?) rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)