Talk:2014 Kunming attack

Actual data?

In 腾迅新闻 we read that "more then ten people wearing the same clothing" armed with knifes effected this act, resulting in 29 dead and 130 injured. It is also said that the police shot 4 "ruffians" (歹徒 dàitú), and captured 1. There is no information about the other more than 5 suspects. The text reads that evidence from the scene (现场证据 xiànchǎng zhèngjù) proves that this incident was plotted and organized (策划组织 cèhuà zǔzhī) by Xinjiang separatists terrorists (新疆分裂势力暴力恐怖事件) without naming of what kind these proofs are. There is also no information about how the authorities want to seize the other more than suspects nor is clear information about the people shot dead by police. ++--84.73.123.149 (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)--++

The incident occurred 18 hours ago. Obviously, details are sketchy at this time. You will just have to be patient. WWGB (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

When major events like this happen there's a risk of inaccurate information coming from confused reports. Just keep your eye on reliable sources and post as events become available. A note on WP:RS in China, local journalists can be quite reliable for these sorts of events although some outlets are better than others. The HK press is generally good. BBC is always considered a reliable source but it often inserts NPOV sentiment the same thing goes for the Beijing outlets, albeit in the opposite direction. Al Jazeera is an amazing source for these sorts of events. Avoid the Epoch Times. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Xinjiang connection

Ok guys, here's the thing. It's pretty likely that the perpetrators were Xinjiang separatists. However it's not entirely certain yet, nor have there been any official announcements regarding the identity or motivations of the attackers. Heck, we're not even sure about the casualty count yet. It may very well turn out to be that this was a terrorist attack. It may very well turn out to be Uighur militants. But until we've got more information Wikipedia shouldn't unambiguously reflect that. I've made some adjustments accordingly. I want people to understand, I'm not trying to white-wash this event and once we've got clear reliable sources on the attackers and their motivations I'll not block that information from going up. But patience is always good with emerging events like this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the perpetrators have been caught, they will go on trial and defend themselves. So at this stage, it is true that "Uighur militants", "separatists", ect. are just one side of the story. These caught persons have been interrogated and were said to confessed everything. But we all got this from the official reports, no direct videos of them describing their motivations are released yet.

However, whether or not the militants are Uighur militants, and whatever their motivations are, have nothing to do with the nature of the incident being an act of terrorism. It being an act of terrorism immediately became self-evident after the massive social-media contents erupted minutes after the event. You don't have to buy the reports by Chinese media to believe that it is an act of terrorism.

BTW, some people would tend to not believe in whatever is reported in Chinese media . This is also highly ridiculous. One should judge on a case-by-case basis, and not in a "tend-to" manner. That is biased by itself.

--147.8.183.93 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bringing in some extra eyes - notification to avoid look of WP:CANVAS

I've sent notifications to all of the editors who got the Urumqi barnstar for the 2009 Urumqi riots as well as the editor who created and issued the barnstar. This was because these are editors who have past experience with recent events likely involving Uyghur / Han conflict. This was not an attempt to canvas for any particular POV on my part so I wanted to make sure I posted my notification here. If anybody can think of any wikiproject noticeboards that should be contacted I'd be happy to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of China in the location

Another editor persists in removing "China" from the lead and the infobox [1]. I maintain that many readers would not be aware of the location of either Kunming or Yunnan. There is no harm in adding "China" to further identify the location and inform readers. I cannot find any argument for removing the country label. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not worth fussing over, but many U.S. topics do not mention "U.S." in some form in neither the lede nor infobox, yet many, perhaps most, readers are not aware of the state in question. If readers are curious, they can navigate to either article, which is why I removed the pushpin map as well. Also, immediately below both mentions (first sentence and infobox) is Beijing time. If the reader cannot deduce the country after that, I don't know where they learned their geography/current events from. GotR ^Talk 02:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Readers should not have to "make deductions"; the introductory sentence should clearly set context. Furthermore, keep in mind that article aggregators, such as search engines in their page previews, may only list the introductory sentence without any infoboxes or additional sentences, so the first sentence alone should set the context clearly. —Lowellian (reply) 05:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If the U.S./Australian state/Canadian province/English county alone is enough, so is Chinese province. It's time to end the double standards. I could care less whether the reader is inconvenienced due to making a rather obvious deduction. GotR ^Talk 05:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But we care less about whether you care less whether the reader is inconvenienced due to making a rather obvious deduction. Limestoneforest (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I support adding the word "China". U.S. is different; if this were Chinese wikipedia then the word "China" can be omitted. Timmyshin (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

>U.S. is different< That is a double standard, you know? GotR ^Talk 03:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. Timmyshin clearly stated that "if this were Chinese wikipedia then the word "China" can be omitted." Showmebeef (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So? You can't deny the word "China" would help many viewers. Timmyshin (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't deny it, but it is superfluous to "Beijing time" or "China Standard Time", which are equally, if not more, helpful, since it kills two birds (country and time zone via its link) with one stone. GotR ^Talk 04:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I support including "China" in the lede, as a helpful piece of information. bd2412 T 04:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"China" needs to be in the lead to provide context. Not every reader is going to know that Yunnan is in China. —Lowellian (reply) 05:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur. It should be included in the lead and info box. Showmebeef (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"China" should not be in lead because majority of the information is referenced to the Chinese articles. If most of the information is was referenced to overseas article then you can put "China" in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.44.207 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Writings on the flag

Can somebody verify if the writings on the black flag is in Uyghur (there is a picture in the source quoted)? And if possible, what does it say (in whatever language it supposed to be)? Showmebeef (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of SCMP's outdated claim

"The South China Morning Post reported that there was no mention of the attack in Beijing News, Beijing Times or Beijing Youth Daily" This is certainly not the case anymore

• Beijing News: http://epaper.bjnews.com.cn
• Beijing Times: http://epaper.jinghua.cn
• Beijing Youth Daily: http://epaper.ynet.com

Timmyshin (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• • if it's wrong, just change it and add supporting cite. But it's not outdated as it refers to the print version. it all seems to point to news management rather that outright censorship of the past. progress... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

About further translation from the Chinese version.

The attack occurred in China, so the Chinese version of this article has most details about it.

In its Reaction section (各方反应), there are not only descriptions about the reactions of Chinese Government, Beijing authorities, People's Daily and CCTV, but of EU, Russia, UK, USA, Korea, Japan, France, Germany, Dominica, Belgium, Qatar, Vietnam, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Spain as well.

Feel free to check out the link even if you can't read Chinese - just pay attention to the little flags.

Actually I'm going to translate the above contents into English but I think it's better to ask everyone here in advance: are they necessary? Give me a bit of advice please, thanks a lot for your help!

Kou Dou (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

9/11 is terrorist attack, and this one is not?

On the 9/11 article, it starts by saying 9/11 ... were a series of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic extremist Group Al Queda...,

Now it this article, it appers the editors are very reluctant the use the word terrorist attack. What do you mean? You think it is not a terrorist attack? Or just because it is targeting a seemingly ideologically different country, it does not deserved to be categorized as terrorist attack, excepted when quoted as saying from Chinese officials and media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.104.88 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

United States says they are terrorists then they are terrorists. United States says no then they are not. This is called political correctness.Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you even read the news? Limestoneforest (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please Tiffany M-F Lee and the person above, you know exactly why they are reluctant to use words terrorist attack. If you didn't know, then let me tell you. It's because many times in the past China has been accusing Uyghur people for terrorism when they weren't actually carrying terrorist attacks. Whenever there is an attack of any sort in Xinjiang, the officials say it was carried out by Uyghur terrorists. They do that to justify their oppression in the region. This time it maybe be a real terrorist attack, but no one is stupid enough to say exactly what the Chinese media said without seeing the hardcore evidence. And I don't understand,why Chinese people always use that sort of senseless argument? Every time when China does something that receives critics from international community the Chinese people are there to tie to U.S, saying things like 'US did this, did that to some other countries', 'if this happens in US it would be blah blah'. 14.203.44.207 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In that sense, the international community don't see any hardcore evidence that 9/11 and Boston Bombing are terrorist attacks either. US has been blaming Islamic Extremists for carrying out attacks, but no convincing evidences so far. --147.8.183.93 (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

that is, of course, utter rubbish 50.111.49.173 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you read my message to the end, but I'm with you on this one. Although US has shown some surveillance videos of the attackers boarding the plane and some other evidence, it was not very convincing. Things didn't add up. I've always kept an open view to that attack. Have a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yswMOB8_IAM . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.44.207 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The two preceeding posts exemplify "fringe conspiracy theorist." 104.169.17.29 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been accused of being pretty pro-China before and even I'd hesitate to call these terrorist attacks until we have some information regarding the motivations of the attackers. So far we know Uyghur separatists were accused - and it seems like it was a group attack on random targets, which does fit pretty closely with the definition of terrorism - but motivation matters for these things and right now, we don't know. That being said, as time goes by, if it becomes uncontroversial that the pictures of black East Turkestan flags and such that have been leaked online are not doctored, we should probably revisit. Just remember, this is an emerging situation and the details are fluid, and will likely remain so for at least a few weeks. We don't need to rush with this. We should instead be building a well-sourced record.

I don't mean to sound dispassionate. I was shocked and horrified by this attack - hell I've got family in China. But we have to recognize what Wikipedia is for, and some dispassion is called for. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Motivations cannot justify act of terrorism against innocent civilians. If they can, then 9/11, Boston Marathon can all be justified, perhaps not in the way you like it. --147.8.183.93 (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Abdurehim Kurban

Why is it necessary to publish this person's name in multiple languages (see Notes section). There are numerous Asian names in the article, but only his name is featured in various fonts. Why such special treatment? WWGB (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not special treatment. Some of the "Asian names", such as Li Keqiang, have articles of their own, and WP:MOS-ZH bars inclusion of language information (outside of tables and lists, of course) in such a situation. However, the ringleader does not have an article, and as I already explained, many readers may be curious for Chinese-/Uyghur-language sources and need this information. Also, the fact that it is included in a footnote to minimise disruption to article flow gives even less reason to be irked by it. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A few people are close to breaking WP:3RR over this. And this would be an exceptionally silly thing to end up being disciplined for editwarring over. I suggest that WWGB, Lieutenant of Melkor and Kxx all take a step back and get some perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Kxx I'm serious. Simonm223 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to Lieutenant of Melkor, who is already well over three reverts on this thing. Kxx (talk | contribs) 02:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw 2 reverts in the last 24 hours from LoM and warned him here as well as you. But moments after I posted that you put up your third revert in the last 24 hours. I couldn't care less whether we include various methods of spelling Kurban's name. But I don't care which side you come down on, if you editwar I'm going to warn you and then I'm going to go to WP:3RR/N if you continue. That's where we are right now. Simonm223 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOS-ZH has the final word on this; it is not a mere "guideline" or "convention", but as a Manual of Style, is POLICY. As the ringleader, this is relevant information and we must include these for the sake of those who want native-language sources. It is not irrelevant, nor do I find it "interesting", @Kxx:. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese transliteration is fine for me. But tell me how Pinyin helps locate any native-language sources on this guy. Just because he is Chinese by nationality it does not mean that his name is Chinese. Do you seriously believe that any professionally written sources meeting the criteria of WP:RS would use Pinyin to refer to him? Why ignore WP:PINYIN, which is found in your beloved WP:MOS-ZH and says exactly the Pinyin rule does not apply here? Kxx (talk | contribs) 03:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't need anyone to tell me the Uyghur ringleader's name is not Chinese, thank you very much. I care less whether pinyin stays, but there is no reason not to include both versions of Hanzi and the whole nine yards with the Uyghur. As for WP:RS, I have hardly ever come across non-linguistic sources that use pinyin even for Han-majority places, so that bit is rather on a tangency. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 03:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not know why you need to justify the Hanzi names to me. I am fine whether they are there or not from the very beginning. But as Ohconfucius explains below, the Pinyin name is nonsense. That is my point. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

When I first started the name template for this person, I did not include pinyin. However, I think pinyin should be included because if this person has a Chinese passport, his name would appear in pinyin in the English fields. Timmyshin (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's by no means clear that this person has a passport – the vast majority of Chinese citizens don't. And even if he did, our convention is not to use a passport as it's a primary source. Pinyin is the internationalisation of Putonghua, and exists for the benefit of non-Chinese speakers to pronounce Chinese characters correctly, and it's excellent for that purpose. But here, we have Abdurëhim Qurban. After transliterating the name twice, we end up with "Ābùdūrèyīmù·Kù'ěrbān" – a completely different rendering with a horrific bunch of diacritics. In addition, I've yet to see any source that indicates this person's pinyin name (contrast this to his romanised name), and in its absence WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOR prevail. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And that is only because the English services of Xinhua arbitrarily translated the name (originally reported in Chinese) to "Abdurehim Kurban". If you search "Abdurëhim Qurban site:xinhuanet.com -kurban" there are also no results. "Kurban" is the romanization in Uyghur New Script which is no longer commonly used nowadays. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't understand why pinyin cannot be included if this would be his official name (without the diacritics). You mentioned pinyin being a romanization system for putonghua, but do you think every Han Chinese person in China knows how to speak putonghua? If this were an ethnic Chinese person, then you have no problem with using pinyin, even if you don't know whether the person can speak a word of putonghua (or worse than Abdurehim Kurban, for example), right? That makes no sense then. Timmyshin (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• We only need the version that is most widely used in the English media. Unlike Hanyu pinyin, which is a nation-wide standard, the transliteration of "[undefined] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help)" is only arbitrary in the sense that there's no standardisation for Romanising such names (see Mu'ammar_Qadafi#Notes).

  The argument that not everyone in China speaks PTH is not all that relevant. This is English Wikipedia, and it's nonsense to play with and insist on providing all the various possible renderings (or indeed more than one) of the non-native names of an individual who is just one name among many in this article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

LoM would appear to be correct regarding WP:MOS-ZH I've reinserted his content and I suggest that before anybody delete it you take it to talk and discuss why you disagree with the applicability of this manual of style entry. Simonm223 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Whist WP:MOS-ZH states that we ought to include the subject's pinyin name, this is not a biography and this person is not the subject of this article. Also, as this person (unusually for a Chinese person) has a Romanised name, so the need for pinyin transliteration of the Chinese character back into Roman form is nonsense. I'd also point out that this person/event took place inside the PRC, and it's quite unnecessary to use traditional characters per MOS-ZH. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Traditional characters need to go; but pinyin should stay, see my rationale above. Timmyshin (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I'm not very happy with how American and British sources are reluctant to call these attacks terrorism, notwithstanding my comments above. However to list the papers that didn't specifically in that way may constitute WP:OR which is a no-no at Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, good call. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We of course do not want to go around listing the papers that called it this or that. But we can definitely discuss how this was debated in Chinese and English-language sources. The question of how it was characterized has itself become an interesting part of the discussion, showing the different understandings and sensitivities of Chinese people and outside observers. There should be a little subsection of this, I guess. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk)

No motivations can justify acts of terrorism

Hey guys, a lot of you seem to be confused with the motivations of the perpetrators with the nature of the incident being an act of terrorism. The key is to understand that no motivations -- no matter how grieved those perpetrators are, or how great their mission is-- can justify act of terrorism against innocent civilians.

Also, no matter what records of the Chinese government's policies on Xinjiang, and no matter how Chinese media tend to report similar events, it is an act of terrorism. There are plenty of first-hand social media contents out there. You may choose not to judge, but if you do, make sure you check those contents first. Don't blindfold yourself and then come up with a judgement wholly based on prior information and self-believes.

If Kunming attack is justifiable, then 9/11, Boston Marathon, London Metro, Oklahoma City, etc. can all be justified as oppression. Imagine if you are a friend or relative of any of these events, would you agree with that?

It is admittedly that a lot has yet to be known about these perpetrators, like who are they, why did they want to do it, etc. But certainly that does not cause any changes to the nature of the incident, that it is an act of terrorism.

If you do want to be more accurate, I would say it is an act of terrorism with motivations yet under investigation.

--147.8.183.93 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this category be added?

Considering the growing amount of evidence about who was behind and carried out this attack, I think the category Category:Islamic terrorism should be added to the page. But since it's a sensitive area, I first would like to see what others have to say about it. -Shalom11111 (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What source would this be based on? I'm not sure there are major sources yet calling it Islamic terrorism. (Clearly CCP state media doesn't count.) Certainly if it becomes recognized by the experts that this is Islamic terrorism, we should move it to that category. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if we get definitive proof it was Uighur terrorism their actions are very likely motivated more by separatist nationalism than specific religious sentiment. The fact that the predominant religion among Uighurs is Islam notwithstanding, the primary basis for Uighur / Han conflict has to do with the annexation of the region during the Qing dynasty - and it's been simmering to varying degrees ever since. As a point, most Hui are pretty strongly integrated into Chinese society and practice Islam within China without much trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that scholars have observed some level of cooperation between Uyghur muslims and what are identified as transnational terrorist groups. Whether that is the case in this particular incident is unclear (it does not seem to be the case, based on recent reports in the New York Times and RFA, and even the official spokesperson), but nevertheless. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. So as the two of you suggested, let's wait with this for a while till (and if) sufficient information by experts becomes known about the incident, before we categorize it as such. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Kurban alive or dead?

Kurban has been identified as the ringleader, but it is not clear (at least to me) whether he was killed or captured by police. I think it is important to include in the article whether he is alive or dead, if it can be reliably sourced. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Types of weapons used

Is there any sources discussing the exact nature of the weapons used? The article describes them as "long-bladed knives". I am not sure exactly what that means. Are they more like combat knives, or small swords? Exact size and description should be included if such sources can be found. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I read one description that said at least one of the weapons was a cocoanut knife. The same police photos that showed the black flag also showed what looked like a low-quality cocoanut knife and a pretty typical Uighur belt knife (not sure what they're officially called but pretty much every Uighur guy I ever met had one). Of course we've not had much validating those photos veracity so take that with a grain of salt. Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

recent changes

@No1lovesu: rather than risking editwarring how about you discuss your proposed changes here and build consensus? Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect but I have no idea what you sir are talking about, what I was doing is simply adding some facts with reference. There may be not WP:NPOV enough in my language but I have already fixed that. --No1lovesu (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the CCP have never announced that the attack was caused by Uighur people; in fact, the CCP would have never criticized a single ethnic in its land (except for Han Chauvinism). I really don't see the problem of adding the original text on this page. (or did they really mention about it was done by Uighur?) (-3-) --No1lovesu (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically with your last revert you appear to be into WP:3RR territory. I'd suggest you ease off on the WP:POINT thing here - your argument seems to be that Xinjiang != Uighur, nevermind that clearly Uighur is what was meant throughout the media exchange. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have said that what I was doing is simply "add some 'facts' (what CCP's/ Chinese government's point of view is) with reference" by posting the original text. I have no idea how did I get myself into this WP:POINT problem (I also have no idea why can Mr.Oh deleted all my "works" without saying a word and charged me one time from this WP:3RR), since I never mentioned my own opinion/point in the article. What I wrote in the article was obviously CCP's/ Chinese government's point of view, not mine. Also there isn't a "=" between Xinjiang and Uighur since Xinjiang is a name of a region and Uighur is obviously a noun of an ethnic, not to mention there are various ethnics living in Xinjiang. No1lovesu (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No farther discussion? I guess I can continue editing then. No1lovesu (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't on wikipedia and wasn't aware of your edits. So, no, that doesn't give you the right to avoid a WP:3RR warning and continue pushing your point. Next time you're seeking a quick response use the ping function. @No1lovesu: Simonm223 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And with response to the WP:POINT issue - it is uncontroversial to say that China suspects Uighurs as the culprits of this one at this point. There's pictures circulating of ETIM flags, the ringleader has a Uighur name, and frankly Xinjiang Separatist means Uighur, because there's nobody in Xinjiang who wants to separate and is not Uighur - I've sent this to WP:3RR/N at this point, however it's still important that I explain why we've been removing your edits. And, again, WP:TIND if I don't get back to you in under 24 hours it doesn't mean I've abandoned the discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that I have been waiting for more than 24 hours (I'm not pushing you that you have to respond "quickly" within the period, nor the rule says you have to), just to avoid WP:3RR. Nevermind that, what I really care is "No matter how many 'evidence to proof that 'Uighur did this' there is, it doesn't change the fact that the original text from the CCP/ Chinese government NEVER mentioned the two words [Uighur] and [Muslim]", simple as that. In other word, they never said that the incident was carried out by Uyghur Muslim . Not to mention some Turkish people (Pan-Turkism) also like the "blue flag" that much (refer to the year 2008), also there are people in other countries share the same ancestors with Uighur which is an ethnic found by several subgroups (just like other large ethnics such as Han and Manchurian). No1lovesu (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite your arguments that it isn't your point, that's exactly what WP:POINT refers to - edits that are inserted to make a point. The fact is that Xinjiang separatists = Uighur separatists. They mean the same thing. And using the less literal translation makes it easier for English readers to understand the situation and the involved parties. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, it doesn't matter if "Xinjiang separatists = Uighur separatists" or not, what really matters here is the Chinese government actually put a "≠" between "Xinjiang separatists" and "Uighur separatists" and they never mentioned the terms [Muslim] and [Uighur] (which is also a fact). Therefore there is no such thing of "China says Uighur Muslim separatists/ terrorists did this":

"(Kadeer) linked the Kunming serious terrorist incidents together with a particular ethnic, which has showed her ulterior political motive." --Foreign Ministry of China No1lovesu (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is manifestly the case that, according to the the sources quoted, the Chinese government blamed Xinjiang separatist terrorists. Not Uighur muslims. Whether they are in effect the same thing is a different question. Please see the two articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/asia/china.html, http://time.com/11687/deadly-terror-attack-in-southwestern-china-blamed-on-separatist-muslim-uighurs/. You will no doubt agree. We can elaborate later if necessary (I should think so.) TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned with the muslim part. However a layperson's understanding of the situation depends on understanding the connection between Xinjiang and the Uighur ethnic group - that interplay of territorial and ethnic interests is at the core of the protracted conflict between Han Chinese and Uighurs throughout the region. Furthermore, without including something about that connection in the lede later instances like when the Kunming police began rounding up Uighurs may seem non-sequitur. I think the clarity of the article depends on that being in the lede in some form. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why deleting all the [International Reactions] from other countries?

I was about to add some cute tiny lil' national flags just like what they did in Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia, but then I found that the part I have edited has been deleted for no reason. I'm not happy. --No1lovesu (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please, please, please don't do that. There may be plenty of this in other articles, but blind rhetoric and quotes from people who are not concerned serves no encyclopaedic purpose. In any event, China just wants to be left to deal with this without foreign interference. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, how do you ever define "blind rhetoric and quotes" and how do you (and who are you to) judge if there is "encyclopedic purpose" or not. There are in fact still several "blind rhetoric and quotes" in the current version (your version) and I wonder why are they still existed. Also if there are plenty of this in other articles in different languages, then why didn't they (other users and mods) delete all of them without saying a word as well, but happily editing them in the articles instead. Besides why do you even put China's feeling into account, where is the point, y u do diz, why doyou even care about China's feeling while writing facts in wikipedia. Now that is not so "encyclopedic". Based on your opinion, the whole [Reaction] part has to be deleted as well, since they are all "unnecessary, blind rhetoric and quotes" and "outsiders' interferences" (^¿^ ◉౪◉) --No1lovesu (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Many WP articles suffer from this problem, but there's a big difference between a notable reaction and reaction from notable people. Many government ministers and heads of state make comment because the media expect. Most of the time they offer the same old, same old formulaic or boilerplate response – for weddings, it's "congratulations"; for major accidents, it's "sympathy and condolences"; for violent assaults it's "condemnation and outrage"; for civil conflicts, its "appeal for restraint and calm". They become like a choir where all the voices sing the same tune and individuality disappears. And because there are no shortages of "mee too" comments, occasionally a reaction that then gets lost in the sound bite and soapboxy responses even though it might be a particularly poignant or meaningful one. Newspapers most often want the sound bites (actually, most don't care so long as they get their quote) whilst I believe Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia needs to emphasise notable exceptions. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the statements from UWC and CCP are also boilerplate responses to me. -3- No1lovesu (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but they are parties central to the article. A boilerplate accusation from a paranoid oppressive state and a defensive one from representatives of the accused ethnic group. There's quite a lot more rhetoric that wasn't quoted. Reliance therefore on the commentaries. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with OhConfucius WP:NOTNEWS this event has lasting relevance and significance, which is why it is a notable event and has an article. However that doesn't mean each piece of news related to it has notable relevance. Boilerplate responses from third parties don't meet that bar. From involved parties... that's a different matter. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Got that, thanks for the explanation. -3- No1lovesu (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Created

Pretty big massacre tons and tons of media coverage. BlitzGreg (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2014 Kunming attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317135119/http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=487805 to http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=487805
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2014-03-04/191529621934.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308192138/http://www.timesofoman.com/News/Article-30536.aspx to http://www.timesofoman.com/News/Article-30536.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)