Rebiya Kadeer's Justification for Uighur Violence with False Photo and White Fraud On Wikipedia

On July 7, 2009, in an interview with Al Jazeera, Kadeer used a photo[2] to justify the violence in Urumuqi. She that "the Chinese deployed army and military into the scene, they actually beat the" protesters. ^[8] The photo, however, actually turned out to be of the 2009 Shishou riot.^[9] The error became a focus of Chinese netizens on July 8, as people find it difficult to believe Kadeer, who lived in Ürümqi for about 20 years, could mistake Shishou as Ürümqi.^[10] Kadeer has not yet issued a response.

Repeated effort to state the above truth in related Wikipedia articles have been thwarted by suspected white terrorist sympathizers, who made tireless effort to have the truth hidden from the American public which may rely on the Wikipedia for their information.

The following was the discussion between ChinaHistorian and the ID named "Rjanag". In the end, the white gang blocked ChinaHistorian's wikipedia account so that their untruth can stand on wikipedia. What a disgrace and fraud!

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

An editor just attempted to add an image (using incorrect formatting); the image itself is File:Rebiya-use-old-fake-photo.jpg. I can't decide whether to clean up the formatting, or to tag the image for deletion (and open up a discussion on its fair use status). Personally, I think no image is necessary for this since it's only a small part of a much larger issue, and if an image is used we only need to show the image itself, not a screenshot of her on Youtube--which causes us to be having copyright issues with the original image, with Al Jazeera, and with YouTube. Thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And as a side note... this is the image that everyone is up in arms about? The wild and crazy blogosphere may be interested to know that this is old news, and the "lie" wasn't "discovered" by an intrepid Chinese netizen. We've known since at least the wee hours of July 6 that this was not an image of the riots; Ohconfucius uploaded it back then and then, after realizing that it was an image of something else, asked me to delete it. The full history is available here, although it can only be viewed by admins (since the file is deleted). Also, interestingly, the Radio Free Asia article that originally had this image posted has since changed the images, though I don't know when. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One image worth 1000 words, what are you dudes afraid of the image showing Ms. Kadeer holding a false photo on TV accusing PLA of cracking down on Uyghurs??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 July 2009

"Afraid"? I'm not afraid of anything, I'm just trying to uphold Wikipedia's guidelines about non-free images. What does this image illustrate that is not already demonstrated by the text?

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the guidelines and learn what you're talking about before you come here and start trolling. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I added the photo comparison back. Further suppression of that image will be futile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Futile"? Sounds like you're not very interested in discussing things with anyone, and like you think you own this place. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia works by consensus. If you want the image to remain, you need to present a reason here; if you continue re-adding it because you like it, you will be edit waring and risk getting blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, you need to go learn some copyright law before lecturing here about your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. The use of the picture falls under fair-use doctrine, an exception in the copyright. Now tell us your motive of blocking that photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And you need to learn some Wikipedia policy. I have already linked to Wikipedia's fair-use policy, WP:NFCC. I have already explained (my first long paragraph in this section) why I believe this image does not meet those fair-use guidelines. You haven't said anything about why the image does meet them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, to remove your excuse for blocking the image uploaded to Wikipedia, I have linked to the image on an external site. I don't have the time to struggle with you on this. However, next time, if you have an issue about images uploaded to Wikipedia, you should go to the image page and challenge the copyright issue there, instead of repeatedly trying to remove this important piece of information. Now, tell us what is your real purpose in trying to suppress this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I already told you my "real purpose", and you need to stop making your accusations; you are a troll and you are being disruptive. If you look at the article history, you will see that I have been removing both anti-Uyghur and pro-Uyghur content, as well as both pro-Chinese and anti-Chinese. Trying to accuse me of being a Uyghur separatist is not going to get you anywhere.

As for your external link; that is not acceptable either, as you're just trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies. You think that after the image is deleted from Wikipedia you can keep it in the article by linking to some other junk page where you uploaded it? No, that's not how this place works. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, you are not a lawyer and you have no say here on whether the use of the image is fair-use. That's a legal question you have no qualification to answer. However, your insistence in removing this image is rather telling. I don't care if you are a Uyghur terrorist or Ms. Kadeer's cousin, let the truth ring. Okay?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RjanagIn addition, this edit history will be published, and you may be identified as either a sympathizer of East Turk Terror group or supporter of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down, ChinaHistorian. Some users may see this image as "damning evidence" to illustrate the point that Kadeer is not trustworthy - but similar constroversies in Tibetan images last year only really caused a stir on Chinese blogs, inflamed some nationalism, but didn't do much else to strengthen the Chinese gov't's case, except for those who are already supportive of the government. Let's keep the sensationalism to a minimum. Colipon+(T) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, over 100 people were killed. Rebiya Kadeer was believed to be the instigator of the massacre. Now we have some evidence against her, it's not a direct evidence. But it's quite telling that Rjanag is doing all he can to suppress this image. Of course, he cannot hide the truth. I will continue my effort until Rjanag reveals his true colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaHistorian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, reviewing Rjanag's profile reveals that he comes from western China and is likely to be a Uyghur, as he speaks that Turkic language. Thus, his repeated effort in suppressing the Rebiya Kadeer image can be explained by his likely connection with the East Turk group. ChinaHistorian (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you cannot simply make uninformed judgments like that. I have been working with rnajag for several days here on this page and I have found him/her to be a rather good editor. Right now the point here is to present everything from a neutral perspective as per WP:NPOV. You have to avoid personal attacks on Wikipedia. You will notice by browsing through this page that there are editors from all over the world here, and that things here are decided by consensus. If you are really passionate about this you may want to start a blog to detail Kadeer's "crimes". Here is not the place to do it. Colipon+(T) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a certainly a matter of perspective, many in the west even sided with the East Turk terrorist and accused China. Likely being a Uyghur will make rnajag think differently. Everyone has its political stand. My job here is to have the truth told. Any effort to suppress the truth and spread the untruth will be against the founding principle of Wikipedia. This is a place to share information, not to suppress information and impose misinformation. Rjanag's feeble attempt to invoke Wikipedia fair-use guidelines to suppress the image is not particularly subtle. I hope you all can respect the truth and let it be told. This is the age of internet. Hiding the information from Wikipedia will only discredit Wikipedia and making it a place of political war. ChinaHistorian (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it is already a place for political war. Have you looked at the article on Falun Gong, or how about the Chinese invasion of Tibet? This article is one of the best articles wikipedia has on a controversial topic - certainly on ones that I've seen. It's coherent and it presents both sides of the story. And we owe this to the editors that contribute to it. While I appreciate your efforts I hope everything can be resolved through the appropriate guidelines. If you feel like you are being treated unfairly please discuss it on the image deletion page. Colipon+(T) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see how this tug of war plays out. The East Turks are quite afraid of the truth now. They did the massacre and they or their relatives will have to pay. Wikipedia allows everyone to make edits, and it's natural that is being infested with these people. Everything they did here will be exposed and serve as further evidence as their hideous intent. ChinaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts

I just watched this Al-Jazeera video. Someone needs to give a better Uyghur translation of what happened. I don't even understand what she said. The translator did not seem all that competent. It may seem to us now that she blatantly lied, but until we know exactly what she said, it may be hard to write a good section onto the article.Colipon+(T) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, Rjanag's action was not neutral. The image I tried to show was Rebiya Kadeer's own TV interview image, holding that old photo, and accusing China of "deploy[ing] army and military" and "actually beat" Uyghur protesters. That was Rebiya's justification for the massacre occurred in Urumuqi. Thus, the picture was quite significant, it had blood on it. But I did not write anything, I only posted the image without any comment. The image is for all people of conscience to see and judge. People deserve to know the truth of the matter. There is blood spilled. So the question we ought to ask is why these people are trying to hide the truth, why they are so afraid of the truth. ChinaHistorian (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)