Tartışma:Temmuz 2009 Urumçi başkaldırıları

message: This is not true. Most killed people are Han Chinese.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100002368/uighur-unrest-not-another-tiananmen/
--Pushhigh 10:20, 10 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It is written as "Göstericiler ve Çinli polisler arasında çıkan çatışmalarda 156 Uygur protestocunun öldürüldüğü, 1080 kişinin yaralandığı bildirildi." That means "It is reported that 156 Uighurs were killed...." I added some information which informs the opposite claims just after the part you complained of. Now, what you cited is a blog, how do we believe what he says ??? Yes he could be a correspondent, but I couldn't believe him. It's because, China enforces a fist law over Uighurland for decades. That makes us (most of Turks) do not trust Chinese government or some correspondents who proclaim Uighurs are the responsible of what happened. That reminds me what the US does in Iraq and Afghanistan.--Tuleytula 17:04, 10 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
You can say that you do not believe a blog. What kind of source do you believe? How do you know that 156 killed people are all Uygur? What is your source of information?--Pushhigh 19:51, 10 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
*I agree with Tuleytula. You can't say that they are not Uighurs. And you can not believe what a blog says. --♪♫Berkay0652|ileti 22:34, 10 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
So what do you believe? How many Uygurs were killed? How many Han Chinese were killed by Uygur mobs?--Pushhigh 23:49, 10 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Let's go there. At first, If a blogger just says "It now appears - and I base this on reports from the first government-organised tour of Urumqi’s hospitals yesterday - that most of the injured were Han Chinese with stab or head wounds inflicted during the riots.". For God's sake, who cares this? Is there any document except so-called "It now appears"..., "I base this on reports from the first government-organised tour of Urumqi's hospitals yesterday",... How does Mr. Ex-correspondent makes me trust Chinese governments' reports even with any document? Government could order some official as "Mr. X, create some official document to prove that the government is right of what it did, the government also cures even injured Uighur rebels,..." And some ex-correspondent blogger claims that Uighurs are responsible of what happened recording to some so-called reports, tours, ... Is it clear now why I don't trust that Peter who shows no document?--Tuleytula 02:51, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
''

text: :What you wanted to see was added to the article by Oğuzhan: "Çin medyasına göre çıkan çatışmalarda 46'sı Uygur, 137'si Han Çinlisi 184 kişi hayatını kaybetmiş, 1080 kişinin yaralanmıştır." I can translate it as "According to Chinese press, 46 Uighurs and 137 Han Chinese people died during riots, also 1080 people are wounded" --Tuleytula 03:09, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
So why do you trust "156 Uygur protestocunun öldürüldüğü"? Is "156 Uygur protestocunun öldürüldüğü" a truth or not?--Pushhigh 06:48, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: :We don't claim a truth that Uighur's been killed by government certainly. The related article have to include both Chinese claims and Uighurs', and so it does. You know what, when Chinese government doesn't let the international media to take photos and write reports by first hand, our concerns of what is going on there get more and more worrying. I recommend you not to argue against some words while you don't understand what is written in the article. Be calm...--Tuleytula 21:22, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
''
What do you mean about the sentence "We don't claim a truth that Uighur's been killed by government certainly"? Is it a truth or not that Uighur's been killed by government? Who claimed that "156 Uygur protestocunun öldürüldüğü"? Who said "adeta bir soykırım yaşanıyor"? What is the fact? How many Han Chinese were killed by Uygur mobs? You talked about media. Do you know how shameless Turkish media is? Turkish media is lying on the riot. You know what, you are fooled by Turkish media and Turkish government. Do you have any proof that Chinese government doesn't let the international media to take photos and write reports by first hand? If you have, show me the proof.--Pushhigh 07:41, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
*Look. Do you want to say that there are no massacre? If you want to say that, we have datas both from world press and Chinese press. World datas shows this. But if you want to say "there are not much Uighurs, also some dead Han people", it isn't enough to get rid of claims for massacre or something like that. Because in the World War II, German homosexuals also died. But I have to say, maybe you are true. But world press tells this. We can not add the information only written by Chinese media. --♪♫Berkay0652|ileti 07:45, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Look. Do you want to say that there is a massacre? So who were killed? I ask you again: How many Uygurs were killed? How many Han Chinese were killed by Uygur mobs? --Pushhigh 08:41, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
* Look, I am not interested in politics/massacres or anything like that. Also, I'm not a professor. I want to make some contributions in my short free-time. I don't want to say something but I see there is something wrong in the Eastern Turkistan. I can't say who is guilty, and I can't say who is right. I am talking with some world-wide information. Like I have said: "I am not a professor". Please make some contributions or do anything like that if you can. You can do campaigns on what you believe. But Wikipedia is all about world-wide real information. Sorry but I can't go on. Good luck on your work. Thanks. --♪♫Berkay0652|ileti 19:17, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
You are not interested in politics/massacres? Then what did you say at 07:45, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)? You as a Turkish even do not dare to say Uygurs are right? Look at your prime minister. His is brave, isn't he? Look at your Turkish media. They are brave, aren't they? Are you able to face the fact of those Uygur mobs? --Pushhigh 07:28, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
* I agree with Tuleytula, so. Yes, there is a massacre and Uighurs were killed. I don't believe a blog. If you want to write that a lot of Chinese were killed, please find other references.--Gökçє Yörük mesaj 20:05, 11 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
How do you know that there is a massacre and Uighurs were killed? How many Uighurs were killed? How many Han Chinese were killed by Uighur mobs? You don't believe a blog. What do you believe?--Pushhigh 07:44, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: : I've read the blog. The writer says that there were also many injured in the first events and most of these casualities were Han Chinese, based on the first government-organised tour of Urumqi’s hospitals. He is not referring to the number of deaths. I've checked and noticed that this source had been included in the English wiki, but then removed after a few days since it has been outdated. Altaz 12:42, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
A simple question: why are there so many Han injured? If the event is that Chinese police clashed Uygur protest, how can so many Han Chinse be killed and injured? --Pushhigh 12:55, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: A simple answer "excessive power use by Chinese police" Çin polisi Uygur göstericiler üzerine ateş açtı Altaz 13:14, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
That is not true. Chinese police would never kill so many Han Chinese since Han Chinese did not protest on that day. The Turkish report you showed is ridiculous because the photo in the report has nothing with Xinjiang.--Pushhigh 13:23, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Don't assess the article based on photos. It is a fact that police use an excessive power against protesters.  Uygurs were with lots of women and children in the initial protests. Check also Riots engulf Chinese Uighur city saying "On 7 July, hundreds of Han people armed with makeshift weapons clashed with both police and Uyghurs" Also, if you only believe Chinese media and declarations by Chinese officials, this will lead you wrong results. One example, in the videos delivered by PRC, if you remember there were two Han girls confronting each other, one's nose was bleeding, they said it was because of Chinese police. I hink you know why PRC banned internet connection in Urumçi after the incidents and stopped phone communication there, also asked reporters to leave the region.Altaz 13:45, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the riot happened on 5 July, not on 7 July. Who went to protest on 5 July? Han or Uygur? If you say that police used an excessive power against protesters, what kind of people were those protesters on 5 July? About the two Han girls in the video, who said the bleeding was because of Chinese police? Show me the source of information.--Pushhigh 13:52, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :First of all, please read en:July 2009 Ürümqi riots. The protests that preceded the riots were ostensibly a response to the death of two Uighur workers in Guangdong. The workers were accused of rape but this was shown to be fake and no proof of rape incident was found by Chinese police as declared by Chinese media.  Chinese goverment has long been accused of misbehave and assimilation politics over Uygurs ia also afactor. It is also funny that Chinese goverment just delivers those Chinese girls although there are much severe videos of deaths. Altaz 14:59, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
You did not answer my questions. As you said, on 5 July, Uygurs went to protest against Chinese government. But how could 137 Han people be killed on 5 July? Who killed those 137 Han? Uygur or Chinese police did this?--Pushhigh 15:05, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Still you are talking based on Chinese officials. Since PRC stopped internet and phone connection in the region after the incidents and asked reporters to leave the area nobody will know. This does not force us to believe their claims. But this discussion does not mean something for the development of the article. In the article, the numbers given by Chinese officials have already been mentioned. There is also accusations in the article about who are the killers.Altaz 18:32, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: On what are you talking based?--Pushhigh 18:41, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Everything I've witten is given by sources in the article. Personally, I do not beleive the numbers given by Chinese officials since they make all the reporters abandon the region. But, I do not remove any surced statement from the article or want to change it. You should also accept there is an assimilation politics of PRC as expreed by experts. Also, if you check the change in the number of Uygurs and Han people, you will see that Uygurs and Hans are inter-transferred between Sincan and other parts pf China in last few decades. So, PRC claims that all the incidents are due to the Uygurs and Uygurs are terrorists very doubtful. One example, the Uygur Turkish is banned in education in the region although it is officially an autonomous region.Altaz 19:06, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
The reporters are not abandoned in the region. Right now there are many foreign reporters in Xinjiang. You can get the information from BBC and other western media. Which media do you believe? Pleae name one. --Pushhigh 19:10, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: The reporters are asked to leave the most parts of the region. They can go in onlt the parts where offcials allow. Also, most of the news in the western media are based on the declarations given by Chinese officials.

text: What I believe. There is an assimilation politics in Sincan. Uygurs cannot be educated in their own language: Uygur Turkish although Cincan is an autonomous region. I believe the fear I noticed in my Uygur friends I met in Europe. They were even afraid fo talk about China due to the strict enforcements of the PRC. Altaz 22:15, 13 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
What you said is not true. I have said above that foreign reporters can stay in Xinjiang. Otherwise you will not get the report by foreign media from Xinjiang. Reporters should report the facts. If Chinese government shows the facts, there is no reason for the reporters to make a different and faked story. The lives of Uighurs in China are not as bad as you claimed. Uighurs can learn their own language in Chinese school. What you said is simply a rumor.--Pushhigh 16:16, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Why do you discuss the same thing in all sections. I've already answered in the other section. Pls do not make me  double my wrting effort. No rumor, reporters always want to take photos about the last events. You say all the reporters in Turkey (from very different political views) lie abou they had not been allowed to enter the region in the first few days. I am talking about the universities.Altaz 17:47, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :You know what, you are fooled by Turkish media and Turkish government. (Pushhigh, 07:41, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC))
replies: text: ::If I was fooled by Turkish media, then Swiss media was also fooled by Turkish media, right? Why has Swiss press also concerned about freedom of the media and freedom of expression.(Violence in Xinjiang worries foreign ministry) China couldn't let the international press to enter some streets while the police force is busy to suppress what it did. What happened happened. When deeds speak, words are nothing.--Tuleytula 18:39, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
The link to swissinfo.ch does not support your words. If you read that link, you will not find anything about control of foreign media. I think you are fooled by Turkish media. Please read the title of this section: 156 Uygur protestocunun öldürüldüğü. A few days ago, some of you really believed such nonsense. This mistake was corrected after I pointed it out. Some of you still deny the fact that many Han civilian were killed by Uighur mobs. Turkish prime minister even claimed that there was a genocide against Uighur in China. What a joke! Can your Turkish people open the eyes and face the fact?--Pushhigh 19:14, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: :Pushhigh, I read the first section as I did before, but why couldn't I see no source except Chinese media and your Peter to prove they were Han people all? Pushhigh, you are a rhetorician that's right. However, you have nothing except rhetorics. Can you show me some other source to prove those more than 150 people were Han Chinese. I don't want to see a Chinese source as you say foreign correspondents have been roaming freely and take photos, report interviews, etc. I suggest you to add some more reliable links on your Turkish user page, too. I don't approve even in my heart if any innocent people died, I just want to see some indisputable evidence that Uyghurs are unfair for all. You accuse me of believing whatever Turkish media reports. Tell me please, what is your attitude when its about PRC press' reports. By the way, why don't you speak Turkish while you understand us somehow either by your own effort or indirectly?--Tuleytula 20:03, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
If you do not believe Chinese media, which source do you believe then? Do you have any evidence against the fact that many Han were killed?--Pushhigh 17:59, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Pushhigh, this is a link for you. I was talking about Kasghar (a very important city in the Turkish history) Foreign Reporters Ordered Out Of China's Kashgar In Kashgar, reporters and other foreigners were told to leave the city Friday Also, in Urumçi they can enter only where police wants tehm to be One riot policemen, holding a semi-automatic weapon, told an AFP reporter to leave the area. The events was not limited with just Urumci, but was also in many neighboring places, and regions where Uygurs are majority. However, communicaitns was made down even in Urumci, imagine whatr happened in the other places. Turkey's prime minister said the events were as if a genocide. Remember the Hans with knives and batons attacking on Uyghurs in front of PRC police in the name of revenge. Do PRC give the name of dead people? No. Do you know how many people are dead and missing in all Sincan region, not just Urumci? Do you expect PRC goverment accept their assimilation politics and misbehave over Uygurs since China invaded Doğu Türkistan? Think about influx of Han Chinese to region and government restrictions on Uygurs' religion in tha last decades. So, pls do not be deluded by just reports and declarations made by your goverment.Altaz 01:57, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
The riot happened in Ürümqi, not in Kashgar. Have you heard any events happened in Kashgar? Since there was a riot, police need to control the city and it is normal that there are some restricted regions for security. There is no genocide happened, why should Turkish prime minister lie? For Han people, I think the revenge is bad. Han people should ask Chinese police to punish and kill those Uighur mobs. Han people should not be as stupid as those Uighur mobs who revenged as mobs for the death of two Uighurs in Guangdong. All the people should follow the rule of law. The reason for Han to revenge is the death of hundred of Han people who were killed by Uighur mobs. How long is the history of Doğu Türkistan? Do you know the history of Qing Dynasty?--Pushhigh 18:14, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
This photo is a proof:
The fact is that Uighur mobs killed many innocent Han civilians on July 05.--Pushhigh 19:53, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: I added the photo already to the article. You do not know if he is Han or Hui or someone else. Also,if a Han or an UUygur killed him. So, irrelevent talk. Still deluded by PRC geverment. You cannot hear anything if the reporters are banned to enter. And there is no reason to be an advocate and create excuses for PRC police. The events are not taht small, and please read the articles in the lins first. It says the events were spreaded there. Also, check other news about Kaşgar and how many people were arrested there. Please stop defending Hans and adding mobs each time you use Uygur. The first ones to be punished are to the ones who killed two Uygurs before the protests, the guy who spreaded a fake rumor about rape, and the officials who did not interest on the killing of these two Uygurs. You say Uygurs are also Chinese citizens but cannot look and defend them as you do for Hans, even for Han mobs. So, try to be neutral.Altaz 21:32, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I will defend Chinese, Han and Uighur. I condemn the Han mobs who killed two Uighurs in Guangdong. I also condemn those Uighur mobs who killed hundred innocent civilian, mainly Han, in Xinjiang. The death of two Uighurs in Guangzhou is not a justified reason for Uighurs to kill Han people. The police in Guangdong had already arrested many Han mobs after the fighting. But the Uighurs in Xinjiang chose a wrong way to express their anger. Those Uighur mobs must be punished with death.--Pushhigh 16:58, 17 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  156 Uygur protestocunun öldürüldüğü? 

message: Why the word Doğu Türkistan was used? Sincan Uygur Özerk Bölgesi is the correct name of the region. There is no Doğu Türkistan in the world. --Pushhigh 07:57, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They have called there Doğu Türkistan since about 9th century. Sincan Uygur Özerk Bölgesi was established in 1955 at the territory of Doğu Türkistan. We can use the term of Doğu Türkistan as geografical and historical region. But Sincan Uygur Özerk Bölgesi is only an administrative unit. OK ? Takabeg ileti 10:43, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Doğu Türkistan has disappeared for several hundred years. For example, there was no Doğu Türkistan in Qing Dynasty. So Doğu Türkistan is an extinct name. Here we are talking about a recent event in Xinjiang, China in this article instead of a historical thing, so we can simply use Sincan Uygur Özerk Bölgesi. One more reason is that Doğu Türkistan has some hints to the separation of China which is not acceptable.--Pushhigh 12:41, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: But this does not change the fact that that regin is also named, known as "Doğu Türkistan" or "Chinese Turkestan". Check Catholic Encyclopedia. Also check [en:East Turkestan] saying "East Turkestan ..i s concurrent with the present-day Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China". For the Turkish speaking people, Sincan did not mean anything untill a week ago, and many still know the region as "Doğu Türkistan". The inclusion of the pharese was to be imformative as an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Altaz 12:51, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China is the offical name of that region. Since that region is governed by Chinese government now, the region should be called in Chinese name. "Doğu Türkistan" hints that that region belongs to Turkey which is neither true nor acceptable.--Pushhigh 12:58, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: "Hint that that region belongs to Turkey"!!! Turkey and Turkistan is totally unrelated terms and geographical areas. please check en:East Turkestan,en:West Turkestan, known also as Chinese Turkestan and Russian Turkestan, respectively. TBA requires that any imformative edit is OK, and removal of these based on politics of some goverment is not acceptable. This article is not to promote PRC claims,etc.
Turkey and Turkistan is totally unrelated terms? Really? If it is true, that will be very nice. So Turkey and Turkish will keep away from Chinese Xinjiang. This wikipedia is also not to promote Turkish claims.--Pushhigh 13:26, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Turkey and Turkistan is different; Chinese Xinjiang and Doğu Turkistan is not. Also, I have not said Uygur and Turks are totally unrelated, they are kindred. This is not a topic of discussion here (this wiki is not popert of Turkey), but why would Turkey and Turkish will keep away from Chinese Xinjiang. Turkey is also reacting savegery in Palestine, Irak, etc. Altaz 13:59, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
As you said above, Turkey and Turkish involves in Chinese Xinjiang. That is also the reason of this riot because some Uygurs want to seperate China. So the word Doğu Türkistan is dangerous here.--Pushhigh 14:03, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: You are still repeating PRC claims about the reason. The protests that preceded the riots were ostensibly a response to the death of two Uighur workers in Guangdong. The workers were accused of rape but this was shown to be fake and no proof of rape incident was found by Chinese police as declared by Chinese media. Please read en:July 2009 Ürümqi riots first. Chinese goverment has long been accused of misbehave and assimilation politics over Uygurs ia also afactor. Dangeorous in terms of who. Wiki cannot be used to promote poinp of views of a spesific goverment. And nothing dangerous, it is the historical fact.Altaz 14:59, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Is the death of two Uighur workers in Guangdong a justified reason for Uygur to kill 137 Han in Xinjiang on 5 July?--Pushhigh 15:10, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Already answered in the above section. Still you are talking based on Chinese officials. Please don't continue discussion under irrelevant section title.Altaz 18:32, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Already answered? What is the answer?--Pushhigh 18:43, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Come on, check the section starting with "Still you are talking based on Chinese officials..." Also, I understand that you are not from Urumçi, so you have not experienced the preassure over Uygurs, or you do not have Uygur friends living there. I have had. And why do you insist on continuing this discussion. As I said wrong section, and even totally wrong place. Wiki discussion page aims to contribute the development of the article, this discussion make here lool like a 'forum' page. Do I say why does not PRC give their usual rights, why do Uygurs cannot be educated in their own language in an atonomous region, why do not the Uygurs have the equal conditions when they apply a job, etc. This discussion is not about the article (for now) so irrelevant. Altaz 22:40, 13 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't answer my question. I asked you: Is the death of two Uighur workers in Guangdong a justified reason for Uygur to kill 137 Han in Xinjiang on 5 July?. You have never answered this question. And what you said is a rumor. The fact is that Uighurs can learn their language in Chinese school.--Pushhigh 16:19, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: I answered. Killing is not justifiable, assimilation is not, either. You do not know many facts, I think. In universities, it's been forbidden. And Uygur children going to schools which give education in Uygur (I mean elemntary, highschool) are not preferred in qualified jobs. And this discussion is also irrelevant in this section. About your removal of "Doğu Türkistan", it is given in the historical context, and I suppose you do not understand the words coming before it. It says it bwas also known as with that, nothing more. You can also check Sincan articles n wikis in all languages. Neutral point of view requires inclusion of this. Altaz 17:43, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
It is good for you to say "Killing is not justifiable". The mobs should be punished by death under the law. I checked and the education in Uighur language is absent in the universities, but not in other schools. This policy might be wrong. But there is no reason to justify killing of innocent civilians. This article is on a current event, not a historical one. So there is no need to mention Doğu Türkistan. If you want to talk about history, please go to other places. How do you know I don't understand Turkish?--Pushhigh 18:21, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: I hope you say this for the Han mobs and Chinese people make a preassure to the goverment to find the main responsible people, the ones who killed the two Uygur, and for the officials who did not examine the situation. There is no talk about history here. Even Chinese goverment say people who wan to separate the region an to be an independent Doğu Türkistan  as it was before the China invasion. So, for the information purposes it is necessary, and not dangerous (whatever it means)Altaz 21:37, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: If you understand why do you make me write in English :) And do the edits in the article by youself instead of asking for it. Altaz 21:46, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
I condemn Han mobs who killed two Uighurs in Guangdong and Uighur mobs who killed hundred Han in Xinjiang. The police in Guangdong had already arrested many Han people who involved in the fighting, but Uighurs in Xinjiang choose a wrong way to break the law. Xinjiang had been a part of China in Qing Dynasty. There is no need to say anything about historical Doğu Türkistan in this article.--Pushhigh 17:03, 17 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doğu Türkistan vs Sincan Uygur Özerk Bölgesi 

message: I am transferring the discussion, relaterd to this article, here. Altaz 13:14, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Why do you want to add a word Türkleri after the word Uygur? Is the single word Uygur wrong?--Pushhigh 07:47, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: : Do you have an opposition to the fact that Uygurs are Turkic ethnic group and Hans are Chinese. ıf you check en:July 2009 Ürümqi riots it is already mentioned there to be more imformative. Altaz 12:24, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Concerning your question, yes, I opposite to call Uygurs as Uyger Türkleri. Uygurs are also Chinese citizens, as well as Han. Uygurs are not Turkish citizens. If you use the word Uyger Türkleri, people will be confused by the word Türkleri.--Pushhigh 12:50, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: There is nothing to cause confusion. Also there is no implication about Uygurs are not Chise citizens when you add that information. Uygurs are ethnically Turks and the phrase is just saying that. If you check there are many atricles about Türkiye Kürtleri in Turkish wiki. TBA requires that any imformative edit is OK, and removal of these based on politics of some goverment is not acceptable. This article is not to promote PRC claims,etc. Altaz 13:14, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
If single word Uygur is enough to be clear, why do you insist to add the external word Türkleri to emphasize Turkic ethnic?--Pushhigh 13:32, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: As I said, to be informative. Also, there is no emphasis, just an imformative phrase. I think PRC politics would not also deny this, but even it did, it would not matter since wiki does not care about it. For the information, untill a few days ago many Western people did not know the difference between an Uygur and a Han. Turks of course will know the difference but this wiki is not only for Turkish people.Instead of directing people to other wiki pages, a short info is used in many wiki articles.Altaz 13:57, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
You said to be informative. What kind of useful information can people learn from the word Türkleri here? Is the single word Uygur enough or not?--Pushhigh 14:05, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: It is not good enough. What is the help of this additon? 1st. There are many ethnic groups in PRC, these are offically accepted bp PRC. Check Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti'nin 56 resmî etnik grubu or en:List of ethnic groups in China. So you are "Kraldan çok kralcı", I hope you now the term :) 2nd Assimilation politics of PRC has effect on the enlargement of the events as declared by experts. etc.Altaz 14:59, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
The ethnic group in PRC is called Uygur instead of Uygur Turkish. There is no need to add Türkleri to distinguish Uygur from other ethnic groups in China.--Pushhigh 15:18, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: As you will accept this is an ethnic conflict between Uygur Turks and Han Chinese, so there is.Altaz 18:32, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
No. I only accept an ethnic conflict between Uygur Chinese and Han Chinese.--Pushhigh 18:43, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Uygurs are not ethnically Chinese. In all the sources given up to now you will notice that the Turkic origins of Uygurs are mentioned, and there is no point to deny this. Wiki only considers the neutal point of view. Look all wikis in all languages and Uygurs are referred as Turkic nation. Maybe you are confusing about the term Turkic and Turk. Noboday is saying Uygurs are Turkish Turks, but Turkic. "Turkey Turks" are mainly en:Oghuz Turks. But there is no difference in daily Turkish to differentiate 'Turkic' and 'Turk' as in the English. It is used in a common manner as in the English word 'Turk', see en:Turk. So, as well as I understand you do not know Turkish. So, you do not contribure to Turkish wiki in a helpful way. Your assumption that when Uygur Türkleri is used they are referred as if they are from Turkey has no logic. Altaz 22:02, 13 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
*Tartışmayı takip ederseniz bu konuyu Çinli arkadaşla da tartışmakta idik. O yüzen buraya taşıyorum.Altaz 12:11, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Uygur Türkleri olarak yazılması gerekmiyor. Madde başlığı da Uygurlar. Milliyetçi kesimi tarafından daha sıkça kullanılan Uygur Türkleri terimin sorun yaratabiliyorsa kullanılmasın. Filanca Türkleri, Falanca Türkleri demek istereler ya. Uygurların zaten Turkic. Dolayısıyla Türk vurgulaması gereksiz. Takabeg ileti 11:29, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Maddede kullanılan Türk, Turkic anlamında Türk. Kullanılmasında bir artniyet yok bence. --193.140.180.223 11:43, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Üstteki anonim kullanıcıya katılmakla birlikte o kısmı çıkarıyorum. İngilizce wikiden terüme ile ve yeni kaynaklarla olayların gelişimini anlatma yoluna gidiyorum. Wiki madde başlıklarını da kullanıyorum. Olayların etnik çatışma olması ve olaylara katılan grupların etnik kökeni burada biliglendirme açısından önem teşkil etmektedir, İngilizce wikiye, kaynaklarına da bakılırsa bu görülecektir. Ama Uygur Türkleri yanlış anlaşılmaya imkan tanıyorsa bunu kullanmıyorum, gerçi bence uzun anlatmak yerine daha kullanışlydı. Biz Uygurların kökenini bilebiliriz ama Türçe wiki sadece Türkler için yazılmamaktadır. Olarlar etnik çatışma olması dolayısı ile, Batılı toplum 10 gün öncesine kadar Uygur ile Han arasındaki farkı bilmemesi sebebi ile bu kısmı gerekli görüyorum.Altaz 12:11, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying that Uygurs are ethnically Chinese. I am saying that Uighur and Han are both Chinese citizens. If someone wants to add extra word after the word Uygur, that word should be Chinese instead of Türkleri since the single word Uygur is clear enough to distinguish ethnic groups from Han.--Pushhigh 16:29, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Since you do not know Tutkish you are talking based on assumptions. Anyway, we do not use it and just give a simple info amout the ethnicities of the groups in the conflict.Altaz 17:29, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Uygur Türkleri-Uygurlar

message: The following are from en.wikipedia:
On 6 July, Reuters used a picture purporting to show the riots the previous day.The photo, showing large number of People's Armed Police squares, was one taken of the 2009 Shishou riot and originally published on 26 June by Southern Metropolis Weekly. The same picture was used on the website of The Daily Telegraph, but was removed a day later. In an interview with Al Jazeera on 7 July, WUC leader Rebiya Kadeer repeated that mistake by defending the Uyghurs with the Shishou photograph.
We need to add the above into this Turkish article.--Pushhigh 09:31, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addet that and more. The ones in the Turkish media. Altaz 17:30, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Good.--Pushhigh 18:22, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media gaffes 

message: Aslında burası Vikihaber değildir. Ancak siyasi faaliyetin varlığını hissettiğim için birazcık ilgileneyim:) 
Olayları kolayca anlayabilmemiz için video görüntüleri ekledim ama kaldırıldı. Neden? 
Bekiim şimdi sırayla:
25-26 Haziran 2009'da Guangdong yani Kanton'da meydana gelen olay Bu doğru değil mi?
Birde yukarıda bahsdilen Shisho şeysi bu. 
Sonra gelecem. Takabeg ileti 11:02, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
The three videos which you added are biased. Some of them are even wrong. So I removed. Remember, there are much more Han Chinese were killed and injured by Uygur mobs than Uygurs. If you want to add external links to videos, you need to keep balance and take the video with truth.--Pushhigh 12:35, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Balance? OK It's chinese. But 華視 :) It's not yours. I'll continue to search at 央視. Takabeg ileti 13:21, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
A question: Do you understand Chinese language or not?--Pushhigh 13:34, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
9 Haziran 2009
9 Haziran 2009
Do you understand Chinese langurage or not? If not, what is your purpose to post such video in Chinese language here?--Pushhigh 14:08, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: Berkay0652 said: "Anyway, there is a reason for Uyghur people to kill Chinese people. If you live dependent under a country that shows you pressure, you would be a mob too. Its common for all over the world. I think China is more guilty."
I want to ask all of you a question seriously: Is it justified to kill innocent people?
--Pushhigh 14:30, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant question. Takabeg ileti 14:49, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::There is no "to justify" verb in Berkay0652's word. He didn't talk about what is just or unjust. You changed his words. He is talking about a fact, Uighurs rebelled, but why? Pushhigh, why do Uighurs rebel? I mean, why don't Catalans or Basque people don't rebel in Spain? (Majority of Basque people don't support ETA while 5th of July incidents spread between Uighurs, why? There is a reason, you can not explain the event by "the US and Turkey support them", the US also supports rebels in Iran, but most of the Persian or the Azerbaijani don't let the incidents spread, that makes us think that China is a little bit responsible, doesn't it? Don't tell me PRC couldn't handle Washington's intrigues) China treats Uighur people like Spanish government does to Basque people, right? But -as Han people complain about it- Uighurs always want more, right? If PRC doesn't enforce Muslim Uighurs to work and live as modern slaves without fair wage levels, then they wouldn't join "Spartacusa" Rabia's army of rebellion.--Tuleytula 16:03, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Why should rebellion Uyghur kill 137 innocent Han people? What is wrong with those 137 innocent Han people?--Pushhigh 16:41, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't remember that you proved they were Han people. Did you? No demagogy please! Chinese claims they are.--Tuleytula 21:44, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there have been proofs in the article. Did you see those links? What do you mean demagogy? I am talking about truth. Did you proved the died people were Uyghurs?--Pushhigh 20:51, 13 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: I think a ridicilous discussion is going on here, about who suffered much. And this does not lead to the development of the article.Altaz 21:48, 13 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
People need to face the facts. It is ridiculous for someone to have anger based on lies.--Pushhigh 16:31, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Anger does not start with the last events, it has deeper roots from the last decades. And why do you still want to discuss this. You can try many forums to talk with Truks. Pls do not use here to talk unless they are related the article's content. Altaz 17:33, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Anger can not justify the killing of innocent civilians. It is even worse for some people to believe lies and get angry due to the lies.--Pushhigh 18:25, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Nobody says it is. And sorry to say you become stubborn to continue an irrelevant discussion. Altaz 21:39, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
It would be good for you to condemn mobs.--Pushhigh 17:06, 17 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it justified to kill innocent people? 

message: All the sentences in the article are based on sourced references. So, there is no need for the template. Even the death number are given based on Chinese officials. However, if you still believe one side is excessively stressed, try to balance it with new sources instead of steadily changing the article. This will be a better contribution. Altaz 18:32, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
The external link part with videos is very biased. So this article is POV.--Pushhigh 18:39, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I agree. Maybe the content is not biased, but the title of the videos are comments. It's written the source is AFP, Reuters, F2 but all are youtube links. Nobody will know who dubbed or maybe modified them. And also there coul be a licensing issue. I concealed them for know. If somebody can find the 1st hand videos from the original sources and clarify the licence, then be my guest to rewrite them. Altaz 18:52, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
Also, inclusion of videos come after the content of the article is improved. First aim at wiki is based on writing not visuality.Altaz 18:55, 12 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarafsızlık şablonu

message: Kaynak sayısı 40'a yaklaşıyor, daha da artacak. Sayfanın görselliği açısından kayan kaynakça kullandım. Bu neden geri alınmış. Kaynak nosuna basıldığı zaman ilgili kaynak hemen geliyor, bu neden sorun oluştursun? Altaz 11:13, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
I think it is OK.--Pushhigh 16:32, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kayan kaynakça kullanımı

message: There are a few things missed in the article:
1, On the day after July 05, armed Han people demonstrated in the streets of Urumqi to revenge the killing of Han people by Uighur mobs on July 05;
2, Thousands of Uighurs have been arrested by Chinese police force after July 05.
These things are important for the time line of this event.
--Pushhigh 16:43, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some part of them has already been added. Do not misundersand, in a friendly way you may want to take Turkish courses, it is auseful language. Also, many Turks learn Chinese in the Turkish universities. Altaz 17:35, 14 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
I have checked. These points above are still missed. Yes, it is good to learn some Turkish. --Pushhigh 18:55, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)

text: Check again. And No, they are not missing. Altaz 21:40, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  a few things need to be added 

message: This news needs to be added:
The Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb vows to avenge deaths of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region.
--Pushhigh 18:33, 15 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PRC claims, claims, etc... Al-Qaeda relationship of Uygurs are really very funy even for PRC Google for the about that claim, which PRC use every time it faces a protest against its assimilation politics, and read some articles. And even Al-Qaeda does, it is not related to the article, if they do smt., there will sure be a new wiki article for that. Altaz
Here is a link from Times in UK:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6704812.ece
titled "Al-Qaeda vows revenge on China after riots".
--Pushhigh 17:09, 17 Temmuz 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Qaeda