Talk:Terrorism in China

message: I would rather edit than tag {Cleanup|date=September 2007}} but I really do not have the background knowledge to do the article justice Aatomic1 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: knowledge needed

message: This blog post could serve as a starting point for an expansion of this article: "Major terrorist attacks in China, 1997-2007" Amygdala (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: pacificempire.org.nz

message: I just ordered the chronology of events as a table.  This section was badly lacking in sources before, so I went and read articles on almost all the events listed, adding references and clarifying details. I think it's important to note when allegations originated with Chinese state-run media. Very, very few events are ever independently corroborated, and when journalists do attempt to travel to Xinjiang, they are generally thwarted.  I also removed a couple things that appeared to be non-events (eg. video messages warning Uyghur not to hang out with Han Chinese during the Olympics), and incidents that were clearly not terrorist incidents (eg. a bus burning in Hubei. No one called this a terrorist event). Additional scrutiny is still needed.  Also, several events that much more readily meet the criteria for terrorist attacks are not currently included on the page. I will do some more research and add more.Homunculus (duihua) 19:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of events  

message: I just updated the page with the following changes:
* Added an expanded discussion on etymology and the Chinese cultural context.  I think this is particularly valuable in illuminating why usage of the term "terrorism" by the government of the PRC diverges quite significantly from international legal or scholarly definitions; namely, the PRC government (like imperial governments) views groups with the potential to upset the existing social order as terrorists (whether violent or not). 
* Restored a discussion of state terrorism, with more sources, more example, more inline citations, as well as a disclaimer paragraph to reflect scholarly understandings of terrorism by state actors, and how this diverges from most contemporary uses of the term 
* Added a preliminary discussion of ethnic separatism, focusing on the Uyghur population. At this stage it's mainly background, so more could be added on specific Uyghur groups that advocate terrorism or engage in violence, etc. There is also a section, which needs to be built out, on terrorism as a tactic of Tibetan secessionists. 
There are a several things that are still missing, as I see it: 
* As stated above, a section is needed on Tibetan terrorism
* A discussion on the "three evils," and how the PRC government views the relationship between these forces
* Need more information on the legal structure governing prosecution of terrorism in China, the volume of cases, etc. 
* I would like to see a section on Han Chinese terrorism.  It is very rare,  so part of the section could include an explanation of why it is so rare (some of the literature I'm reading credits this fact to the Confucian value system, fear of chaos, and to the threat of retribution, among other things).  
* As noted previously, the chronology of events needs work.  Some notable events are missing from the list, and others need to be examined with greater scrutiny. 
* A section is needed on domestic counter-terrorism efforts. 
* Section on international cooperation should be shortened and summarized, and at the same time its scope should be expanded to represent China's role in multilateral fora, etc. 
Maybe there are things I've overlooked. (Constructive) feedback is welcome.Homunculus (duihua) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes, further proposals  

message: I was invited to review this article by Homunculus. 
The article Definitions of terrorism explains why there is no universally agreed meaning to the term terrorism, and the section Terrorism#Pejorative use explains why the use of terrorism carries non neutral connotations. So given that there are several things that are problematic about this article. 
The first is the title of the article.  "Terrorism in the People's Republic of China" it implies that in the opinion of Wikipedia editors there is terrorism in the China.
The next problem is the lead. It is in clear violation of WP:TERRORISM. The best way to handle accusation of terrorism is to state what the action are and then who describes those actions as terrorism.  To see a good example of this look at the lead in the al Quada article. Until recently it included the line:
*"global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist organization founded by Osama bin Laden" 
It now says:
*"global broad-based militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden" 
and this change was accepted after a long debate because in the same lead the article says
:"It has been designated a "terrorist organization" by the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations Security Council, ..."
So it was agreed that there was no need for Wikipedia to express the opinion that al Quada in the passive narrative voice of the article.
I suggest that the article is rewritten to completely remove the passive narrative use of the term terrorism and terrorist and always attribute it to the article. Once that is done rewrite the lead in a similar way to remove the current POV.
For example the article currently says:
Consider rewriting it along these lines:
The above is not meant to be perfect and I have not checked [11] to see if it is an attack discussed by Suzanne Ogden but it is an attempt to give an example of how this article can be rewritten so that it contains the same information but does not editorialise about what is or is not terrorism.
-- PBS (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to give feedback.  I'll go through the article again with this in mind. In a little while, I may solicit your opinion again to reevaluate for compliance with WP:TERRORISM. Homunculus (duihua) 22:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: Information about actual incidents should be classified as most political and social science information in China is. We would only have information if an external organization has it or it is released by China in answer to external coverage or to make a point. In other words, we have no access to neutral Chinese information, only to biased information they chose to release, or distort. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think the implications are for us in the presentation of information?  Anything we might be mindful of? Homunculus (duihua) 15:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The modesty of our efforts needs to mirror the paucity of our information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Classified

message: I added a request for citation for the statement "The group [ETIM] has a close relation with al-Qaeda and Taliban," but was reverted.  I see now that one of the sources cited earlier in that paragraph, MSNBC, does say this.  However, I'm wondering if we could get more clarity on this point, as most of the sources I've read don't make such categorical affirmative statements.  My understanding is that the Chinese government asserts this connection, but that there is little definitive proof. Here is what I've found in reports: 
*"Occasional reports have surfaced of Uighur separatists operating with the Al-Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Chechens, and other groups in Central Asia that use violence to pursue their aims, and even an IMU cell established in Xinjiang, but there has so far been no concrete proof."Chung Chien-peng. "Confronting Terrorism and Other Evils in China: All Quiet on the Western Front?. In China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Volume 4 Issue 2, pp 75–87. Accessed 2 January 2010.
*"in January 2002 the State Council published an ambiguous report laying stress on the supposed links between al-Qaeda and the Uyghur opposition grouped under the falsely unifying label of Dongtu. In fact, there is no structure that controls all the Uyghur movements in Xinjiang and abroad; and the vast majority of them have no connection, either ideological or organisational, with radical Islam. Yet, by stressing the supposed links of the Party of Allah and the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) with al-Qaeda, this report tends to lump together disparate elements of this kind. According to the thesis proposed by the State Council, members of these groups received training in Afghanistan. The leaders of the ETIM (a group that until then was almost unknown) are alleged to have met bin Laden at the start of 1999 and in February 2001; and he is alleged to have agreed to provide them with “fabulous sums”. It is possible that these movements, and particularly the ETIM, might have had contacts with the bin Laden network and more probably with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. But the Chinese declarations that attempt to show particularly close relationships fly in the face of bin Laden’s silence on East Turkistan. For his part, the leader of the ETIM, Hasan Mahsum, assured Radio Free Asia on January 22nd 2002 that his ultimate aim was the liberation of Xinjiang; and he denied any organic link with al-Qaeda. Even so, the Chinese lobbying did bear fruit. It enabled China to persuade the US government, at the end of August 2002, and then the UN Security Council to include on the list of groupings linked to al-Qaeda the East Turkistan Islamic Movement""The Chinese regime and the Uyghur dilemma" Summary of 
*""Two groups added to China's list of enemy groups are the World Uyghur Youth Congress (WUYC) and the East Turkistan Information Center (ETIC). China's Public Security Ministry claims that these groups have ties to al Qaeda, including funding and contacts. The former is an exile-political-action group, the latter issues press releases from Munich and has a spokesman who frequently appears in media reporting (the ETIC's website is www.uyghur.org.) The veracity of China's claimed al Qaeda links are not possible for the present study to authenticate, though it seems at least equally plausible that blanket accusations are meant to smother embarrassing dissent."Martin I. Wayne, “China’s war on terrorism: counter-insurgency, politics, and internal security,” (New York, NY: Routeledge, 2008).
I think we need a more even-handed approach when describing the alleged links to al Qaeda. Homunculus (duihua) 18:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese government is not a reliable source with respect to this issue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Qaeda links  

message: I also have an issue with heading above Xinjiang. It implies that terrorism in Xinjiang is strictly related to ethnic separatism, when the reality, as explained by the sources, is that Xinjiang incidents are motivated by a variety of ideologies, including Uyghur nationalism, pan-Turkism, and Islam. There is no unified Uyghur ideology in Xinjiang, and different segments of Uyghur society are motivated by different ideologies. Some Uyghurs only demand autonomy, others demand government respect for their religious and political rights, to say that all of this is "ethnic separatism" is to blindly accept the PRC's line.--JeremyMiller (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of those 'separate' causes do you think don't fall under a desire for greater ethnic separatism? You can view the separatism as a good thing and disagree with how much the PRC disagrees with you, but none of those 'separate' causes are seeking greater integration into Han Chinese culture or MarxistLeninistMaoistXiist politics. — LlywelynII 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes in Xinjiang treatment