Talk:Hüseyincan Celil/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV tag

I just went through and added inline citations to pretty much every statement in the article (except the one about his being an imam in Hamilton, since I can't actually confirm the location of his mosque, just that he's an imam). Can you be more specific about what you think is POV here, or better yet find sources which represent a wider variety of views and use those to expand the article as well? Thanks, cab 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The man has been convicted of terrorism and you call him a "human rights activist." KazakhPol 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the original creator of the page called him a human rights activist, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation states that "Huseyincan Celil was sentenced to death in China for human rights work." Take it up with them. Also below, I point out that he was convicted of terrorism in China. Make any changes you feel are necessary as long as they are sourced, (including Category:Terrorism in China, which I support but am not going to bother edit warring over) cab 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no conviction of terrorism. There are allegations and accusations as such. Please refer to http://www.huseyincelil.com/bishkek_high_court.html and also, http://www.huseyincelil.com/hum_rights_bishkek.html sources have been confirmed as reliable by the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The endless reversions

As several users have decided to revert this page, removing referenced mention of the fact that he has been convicted of terrorism, I will go ahead and revert until I see a rationale posted, preferably on the talkpage. Keep in mind when I say rationale I dont mean saying "WP:WTA" when that policy has nothing to do with what is being debated. KazakhPol 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the word terrorist being used in the article you provided? Chaldean 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your question, which seems to be stated as a declarative sentence. Please clarify what you are either asking or stating. KazakhPol 05:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Huseyincan Celil or Guler Dilaver?

Though a great deal of evidence points to the fact that he may actually be Guler Dilaver, we have a very clear convention in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity): Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use. Anyway the redirects now have non-trivial edit history, so you won't just be able to make an out-of-consensus move for the third time. Open up a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves if you'd like; I will register an "oppose" as per the above-quoted policy. cab 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such person as Guler Dilaver. The one referred to by the Amnesty International is Guler Dilawer. Also, Guler Dilaver is not Huseyin Celil. This person, Guler Dilaver, was in Turkey and died for unknown reasons whereas Huseyin Celil is still alive as of today at least in Urumchi and tried last week where he refused all accusations at the Court. It seems that people who do not know Huseyin Celil personally attempt to use libelous staff to insult him or his cause. I have conducted academic researches on this person, know his family members and close friends. I kindly request those of you to be just in your evaluations and request you to substantiate your claims and arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcelik (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 February 2007

Can you provide reliable sources which substantiate this? The burden is not on us to prove or disprove that he is Guler Dilaver; the article simply notes (and cites the fact) that the accusation has been made by both Uzbekistan and China. Note that your own knowledge or personal conversations do not fall under the concept of reliable sources. BTW, "Guler Dilawer" gets 0 GHits. cab 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead section

As per the (rarely-observed) WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Generally, for example, for a living person, that should include where he is and what he's doing now. Now the third edit war on this page ... cab 05:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice Khoikoi is also once again removing categories even though the references clearly state he has been convicted of terrorism in those three countries. I would not consider this the third edit war, as much as the same edit war that has once again been revived. I have yet to see any rationale for removing these categories and the fact that he has been convicted of terrorism. KazakhPol 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism in Uzbekistan doesn't seem appropriate; he isn't actually accused of any crime in Uzbekistan itself, to my understanding (either by an Uzbek court, or on Uzbek soil). cab 06:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the Uzbek government did extradite him, I've changed the categories from T in Uz and T in Kyr to just T in CA. KazakhPol 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've again expanded the lead while avoiding the dreaded T-word. Also, I changed the description of him as a "Canadian human rights activist"; it seemed a bit odd as there was no mention of him actually doing human rights work in Canada. "Uyghur human rights activist", "minority rights activist", etc. might be a more accurate description, but there could be NPOV objections to that. Comments appreciated. cab 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to Huseyin Celil

Seems to be more common by a factor of 50.[1] Also the Chinese name 賽利爾 seems to be most popular in the press,[2] though zhwiki is using yet a third rendering (海珊江·賈里力). Anyway, for NPOV and worldwide focus issues, it would be good to use more Chinese sources in writing this article. cab 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I do not oppose changing the Chinese, I do oppose the proposed move because I have only come across 'Huseyincan' in news articles. I do not oppose using more Chinese sources, but that is not more npov. KazakhPol 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the policy regarding which name should be used? Like cab, I seem to be running into Huseyin Celil with much greater frequency than Huseyincan Celil. If news articles are the standard, which seems to be the case in this exchange, even Google News produces far more results for Huseyin vs. Huseyincan. Finally, based on a glance at a Radio Free Asia article [3], it appears that when Celil's name is written in the original Uyghur (ﻫﯜﺳﻪﻳﯩﻦ ﺟﯧﻠﯩﻞ) the "can" is dropped. What I perceive is an odd transliteration convention where what is actually a "j" sound is being represented by a "c" in mainstream media outlets. "Jan" is actually a common diminutive in Uyghur that is frequently tacked on to names as a sign of affection. That being said, I get the feeling that, should we accept the j's as c's convention since it seems to be common place in the reporting, "Huseyin Celil" would be most accurate. Entropy Rising 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit I have no knowledge of Uyghur, but from my knowledge of Arabic, it looks like Western media is taking Jimm, which can sometimes be pronounced as an 's', and transliterating it as a 'c', which is pretty stupid, but in almost all cases I have come across this is how it is being transliterated, so I still oppose the move. KazakhPol 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue: the two references after this sentence: "He and his family use the name Huseyincan Celil, which appears in his Canadian passport." actually use the name "Huseyin Celil." We either need to change the reference to articles showing his family's use of Huseyincan Celil or we need to change the sentence itself to Huseyin Celil. I think the family elects to use "Huseyin Celil." The website about freeing him [4] although defintiely not NPOV, I think can fairly said to be representative of what rendition his family prefers.Entropy Rising 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

References

View from China

I added the view of China, since we should hear from both sides. Dongwenliang 16:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. Anyway, per WP:NPOV, it's best that all views be discussed inline in the article, rather than making separate sections to present different views. Also, external links should be enclosed in single brackets ([http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia], which gives: Wikipedia. Or better yet, give a full citation enclosed in <ref></ref>. I'll work on integrating this with the rest of the article. Also, I think 玉山江 is supposed to be a transcription of the name Huseyincan (江 is often used to transcribe "can" or "jon" in Turkic or Persian names), not a Chinese name "Yu Shanjiang". cab 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after merging, here's my further comment: the first source you gave did not mention anything about a 2003 assassination or 2006 kidnapping. The second source you gave didn't even mention his name; that information belongs in the East Turkestan Islamic Movement article, not here. I put the information about Yushanjiang into the Names section. cab 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

please don't delete my article! You can say it is right or wrong, and the fact on both sides need to be addressed perWP:NPOV. Please pointed out your opinion and don't just delete this section. Since he is a member of that organizaion, it is importtant to mention all the facts. Dongwenliang 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the additional source of killing a Chinese ambassador in 2000, sorry it was a mistake, both of the events happened in 2000, in March and June respectively, not in 2003 and 2006.Dongwenliang 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole article! All of the facts you put there are already mentioned aside from the killing of the Chinese ambassador, so it is redundant to have an additional section. Furthermore, please follow the referencing style used in the rest of the article. And again, the information on the ETIM belongs in the ETIM article, not here. I am once again merging this information into the rest of the article, and I propose this section be deleted from the article. What are the opinions of other editors? cab 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think other editors should at least cite a policy before removing relevant categories. KazakhPol 03:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please get mutual agreement before you delete or change my article. The title of this section is already says it is the view of China, why you need to add the word like assert? Dongwenliang 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is after I posted my section that you changed the other part of the article I am not sure whoever created. So I disagree that even if you changed that part, give you the right to modify or delete my section since I posted it first. If you like, you can remove your changes to other part, but I prefer to have my section since this is a very disputed issue, it is not likely that you can objective express both sides, so it is better to have separate section by each side, to maintain WP:NPOV neutral position. Dongwenliang 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You do not own articles or sections of articles. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Second, per WP:NPOV, we do not put separate views under section "Views of XYZ" and then present them as fact. We discuss an incident, and then next to the discussion of the incident, make it clear who is asserting what about it. Third, your English grammar needed a lot of cleanup before it was suitable to be included; and now you have gone and reverted it, so it is back to the mess it was before. Fourth, you are not following the referencing style in the rest of the article as I have requested you to do twice. I cleaned it up for you and you also reverted that to your current mess. cab 04:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree you can edit my article, but I also have the right to change it back. Please quote the wikipedia policy of ban the way that " put separate views under section....". I did not say they are facts, but they are just the sources available to me. Again, if you think my grammer and reference needs improve, you can help improve if you like, but that does not give you the right not let me post here, or modify my section without mutral agreement. Dongwenliang 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the point I was looking for is buried in a subarticle of WP:NPOV, so it could be hard to find; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view. Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. In this case, the sections like "Early life, "Trial", etc are the "main passage". By separating out China's views into a separate section, you are in effect implying that China's views are false and can't be treated properly in the rest of the article. China's view of Celil is not shared by Canada, for example, but if we only present Canada's view in the "Trial" section, for example, and ignored China's view, that could imply to a reader who doesn't bother to read the "Views of China" section that Canada's POV is the only true one. cab 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I Looked into the policy, it says "editors should attempt to write in a manner...". It used the word "should", and also the word "attempt", that to me is suggestive, not mandate. Again, since you revised the other part of article after I posted my section, and I doubt your position of neutrality since you deleted my section once, and modified once without mutual agreement, I still insist have a separate section. I already modified the reference issue. Dongwenliang 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree strongly (because, taken to the logical extreme, we could make all sorts of sections "Views of Celil's family and lawyer", "Views of Uzbekistan", "Views of Amnesty International" and make the article entirely incoherent and out of order), but I'll wait for other editors to comment before changing this. But if you think anyone else hanging around this page is more neutral ... well, just click on the History tab. cab 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. Many people or organizations could have millions of viewpoints, but in order to maintain neutrality, we need at least two most disputed points from both sides, otherwise, how could we make sure the different voices can be heard? If only one view allowed, wikipedia would be same as Chinese Communist Party. Secondly, I posted the facts first, you merge some of my views into your article and tried to delete entire mine, that was not right. Thirdly, you tried to delete the killings and injures by his extreme Islamic movement, since he has been the key member, what is wrong to mention these activities? Please don't always take logic to the extreme, if you always like to take things to extreme, it is hard for you to keep calm, fair and nuetral. Islam is such a great religion with love and tolerance, it regards rich and poor as equal, that is why Islam spreaded from richest nation in mideast and even to the poorest nations in Africa. But few Islam extremists, they ruined the reputation of a great religion. Dongwenliang 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So now, in return, you keep deleting content from the trial and imprisonment section, whose existence is undisputed (unlike your "Views of the People's Republic of China") section? cab 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I only removed the two sentences you "borrowed" from my section. Dongwenliang 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC);

The information is related to his trial and should be mentioned in that section. You just want to remove it so you have an excuse to keep "your" section in the article. cab 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You borrowed my two viewpoints so that you have an excuse to delete my entire section. I am the one who first created these viewpoints, and both your section and my section belongs to the same article, I believe readers can find them in my section, so please don't merge them.Dongwenliang 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, after you objected to deletion, I didn't delete the information again, but just mentioned it in another relevant section. Then you deleted it twice from the "Trial" section. It's not "your" information and you obviously did not "create" those viewpoints, you got the information from a newspaper (someone else's viewpoints), and submitted it under the GFDL. Third, the article already discussed the Chinese and Uzbek view (that he is Guler Dilaver, a terrorist; and if you look at my comments in the rest of this talk page, I agree with this view, so your accusation that I am trying to suppress the Chinese POV is clearly wrong) before you came in and added your section; "different voices" were already being heard. cab 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (portion of above comment retracted per WP:CIVIL cab 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

I am not sure if I can convince you if you lack of basic respect to others, and so tenacious. PLEASE BE IN MIND THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE IF YOU TRY TO HIDE SOMETHING. And there should be someone speaks something for those who were innocently killed. I Think I expressed all my concerns here, I have no control if these make sense to you or not, but I will not waste time on you again. Dongwenliang 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I personally consider ETIM a terrorist organization, and it is universally regarded as one, technically the article should not make a reference to "terrorist attacks" by ETIM as this violates WP:WTA. While they can be referred to as attacks and ETIM can be referred to as a militant organization or a designated terrorist organization, specific use of "terrorist" in referring to anything should be discontinued. KazakhPol 03:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you so I have changed the section. Per WP:WTA, quoted here: "1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.) ". So per this definition, of X says Y, as here is the situation: I quoted the source, which is from one of largest ICP in China, and the source says, that ETIM was identified by UN in september 2002 as terroirst group. So in this case, I believe it is ok. Dongwenliang 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interpol Terrorism Watch List

From Huseyincan Celil#Trial and imprisonment in China:

Throughout his imprisonment, the Chinese government has treated Celil as a Chinese national, and did not recognize his Canadian citizenship. Li Wei, director of the Center of Counter-Terrorism, Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Relations, emphasized that because Celil was on Interpol's Red List before being admitted into Canada, the Consulate Agreement signed by the two states doesn't apply to this case.

As you can see, this information is already mentioned in the article. There's no need to include it in the first sentence. Khoikhoi 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You really need to come up with a better rationale for trying to push the 'Evil Chinese government' POV. KazakhPol 03:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reason why some irrelevant trivia should be included in the first sentence. BTW, what you are adding is a WP:BLP violation, which trumps content disputes. What we have is a third-hand reference—a partisan paper which quotes a partisan group claiming he was on Interpol's "Red List." From the policy page:

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."

Khoikhoi 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? A BLP violation? Funny how it's a BLP violation when its mentioned in the introduction but it's adequately sourced when its mentioned in the body of the article. I have now added two references that say he was on Interpol's watchlist. If you actually want to question the reliability of Human Rights Watch I suggest you post on Talk:Human Rights Watch. Otherwise, stop wasting my time. It's evident this article is no longer reliable or neutral. KazakhPol 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's still inappropriate intro material. You might also consider changing the info that's futher down below to reflect your source, which says that it was China and Kygyzstan who put him on the list. Khoikhoi 04:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what's been said so far:

1. The person who in fact was on the watchlist was "Dilaver", not "Celil". Is that correct? If so, then stating that Celil was on the watchlist presupposes that Celil is in fact Dilaver. This is a claim made by some governments, possibly true, but apparently disputed by Celil. Therefore unsuitable to be stated as a simple undisputable fact, even if as a claim it is sourced.
2. The whole question of whether or not he was on that watchlist is relevant only in the context of the question of whether or not the extradition was legal. Hence, it ought to be discussed in that context, in the relevant section. There's no need to duplicate all these details in the lead. The lead should simply say who he is and that he is the subject of disputed extradition and conviction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further question, after trying to update the intro: I'm still not clear about the relevance of that Dilaver thing. Were the charges brought against him actually charges that attached to the "Dilaver" name, or charges about actions imputed to himself as "Celil"? What about the previous deatch sentence in absentia, was that for "Dilaver"? If not, how important is that identification in the overall context of the charges brought against him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty important. KazakhPol 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? and perhaps answer the first question too? (I obviously don't agree with your revert, but about that later.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Infobox

On an entirely different note: Do people mind if I remove the "infobox"? This is one of those cases where an infobox adds absolutely nothing of any value to the article. Everything in that box is either trivial (name of spouse), or stated in the very first lead sentence anyway (imam), or contentious and therefore not suitable for a tabulated factsheet format. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed to translate the followed detailed facts about Yu Shanjiang

---

Let me have a Try--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.phoenixtv.com/mainland/200704/0419_17_105675.shtml

1997年4、5月间，被告人玉山江－吉力力在河北省柳石镇通过阿布都卡德尔－玉素音（另案处理）与阿里木－玉努斯（另案处理）认识后，明知阿里木－玉努斯以民族分裂为目的，组织人员从事恐怖活动，仍给阿里木－玉努斯人民币8万元进行资助。1997年5月，阿里木－玉努斯等人在广州成立了恐怖组织“真主党”后，将被告人玉山江－吉力力资助的钱用于购买枪支和训练组织成员。 Its about Apr or May1997, the defendant Yu Shan Jiang(Husyincan Celil)met YU Suyin(阿布都卡德尔－玉素音)and Yu Nusi(阿里木－玉努斯（另案处理)in Liushi Town, Hebei Province. After knowing that Yu Nus is organizing people to launch terrorism attack under the name of "Seperate", Huseyincan Celil still provided him 80,000 rmb (about 10000 USD that at that time)to support Yu Nus's activity. Yu Nusi organized his group with the name of "Hezbollah" in Guangzhou, in May 1997 and use the money provided by Huseyincan Celil for the purchase of firearms and training members.

1997年6月，被告人玉山江－吉力力到吉尔吉斯斯坦比什凯克市，与“东突厥斯坦解放组织”骨干成员吾布力－卡斯木（另案处理）见面，并在该市吐尔巴扎清真寺担任依麻木，期间多次进行民族分裂内容的讲经活动、宣传、怂恿他人为“圣战”作准备，募捐、筹集资金资助“圣战”活动。1997年8月底，玉山江－吉力力在比什凯克市与“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”头目艾山－买合苏木、阿布都卡德尔－亚甫泉等人见面，接受了艾山－买合苏木交待的任务。之后玉山江－吉力力将从国内来比什凯克市参加分裂组织的吾斯曼－买海提、赛米－阿不都克里木、买提卡斯木－亚库甫等人派往“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”驻巴基斯坦负责人阿布都卡德尔－亚甫泉处参加恐怖训练。 In June 1997, the defendant Yushan - Kyrgyzstan went to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan to meet Wubuli, the critic member of the "East Turkistan Liberation Organization". Then he become spit in the city Er Bazha as the 依麻木 whose main duty is to explain the Quran to the believers. During this period, he made propaganda of the jihad and encourage the believers to provide the financial support of the Jihad. By the end of August 1997, Celil met with the leader of the "East Turkistan Islamic Movement" Hasan - Mahsum, Kader Abudall - Yapuquan, and accepted several assignments from them. After then Celili helped to send those people who wants to particpate the ETLO to the "East Turkistan Islamic Movement" in Pakistan to accept the terrorist training under the command of 阿布都卡德尔－亚甫泉

1997年11月，被告人玉山江－吉力力经吾布力－卡斯木劝导加入“东突厥斯坦解放组织”，并在比什凯克市参加该组织的会议，与20多个组织成员观摩了“东突厥斯坦解放组织”的“组织纲领、国旗、国徽”。1998年初，经买买提依明－艾孜热提安排，玉山江－吉力力在阿拉木图市举行的“东突厥斯坦解放组织”第二次会议上，被任命为该组织驻吉尔吉斯斯坦劝导、讲经组的负责人。期间，玉山江－吉力力通过讲经，为该组织筹集了资金，发展了一大批成员，并将发展的成员派往该组织设在巴基斯坦克什米尔的训练基地进行恐怖训练。

November 1997, the defendant formally joined ETLO and joined the meeting of ETLO in Bishkek during which he watch the "Programme of the Organization, the national flag, national emblem." of the "East Turkistan Liberation Organization" together with about other 20 members of the organization. In early 1998, in the second conference of ETLO in Almaty, according to the arrangement of Mamat - Yizire, Yushan Jiang was appointed as the dean of group of propganda and communication in Kyrgyzstan Persuasion. His main duty is to get financial support and recruit new members. He did a quite good job: raise funds for the organization, the development of a large number of members, and sent to the members of the organization based in Pakistan Kashmir's training base for terrorist training.

1998年初，被告人玉山江－吉力力以“东突厥斯坦解放组织”代表身份在比什凯克市与司马义－赛买提（“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”骨干，另案处理）见面，积极促成“东突厥斯坦解放组织”与“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”两组织的联合，并在1998年3月在比什凯克市参加了两组织联合会议。被告人玉山江－吉力力对其犯罪事实供认不讳。 In early 1998, the defendant's Yushan, with the title of "the representars of ETLO" met with Si Mayi Aimaiti, the represents from the "East Turkistan Islamic Movement" in Bishkek, and he worked actively to promote the combinition of these two groups and he participate the joint conference of these two groups in March 1998 in Bishkek. Yu Shangjiang accept this accuse in the court.

乌鲁木齐市中级人民法院认为：被告人玉山江－吉力力以推翻人民民主政权和社会主义制度为目的，资助以阿里－玉努斯为首的“真主党”组织，资金被该组织用于购买枪支和训练组织成员；其参与恐怖组织“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”的犯罪活动，为该组织筹集资金、发展成员，组织成员参加恐怖训练；参加恐怖组织“东突厥斯坦解放组织”并任该组织在吉尔吉斯斯坦的劝导、讲经事务负责人及组建中的中亚劝导、讲经组的负责人，组织成员参加恐怖训练，后积极活动促成“东突厥斯坦解放组织”和“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”的联合，其行为构成分裂国家罪和组织、领导、参加恐怖活动组织罪。根据刑法第一百零三条第一款、第一百二十条第一款、第五十七条第一款的规定，一审法院依法做出上述判决。 Urumqi City Intermediate People's Court that: the defendant's Yushan - Kyrgyzstan provide the financial support to the "Hezbollah" led by Yu-Magnus whose main traget is to launch the terrorist attack to the central grovernment; participate the crimial activities of ETIM to raise funds for the organization and recruit the new members and organized them to accept terrorist training; participation in a terrorist organization "East Turkistan Liberation Organization", duty for the propaganda and communication activity in Kyrgyzstan and other counties in central asia; to promote the combination of "East Turkistan Liberation Organization" and "East Turkistan Islamic Movement", their acts have constituted the crime of splitting the country and the organization, leadership, participation in terrorist activities organized crime. According to the Penal Code article 103, paragraph 1, Article 120, paragraph 1, Article 57, paragraph 1, according to the Court of First Instance judgement.

===============草稿完成，主要是自己理解外带google翻译，请方家指正======================

Dongwenliang 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

English please. Khoikhoi 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an Urumqi court document about the activities Celil did, the criminal law rules he breached (PRC Criminal Law No. 103.1, 120.1 and 57.1), and why he is sentenced to life in prison, I am not sure if I can translate the names, orgnazitions, places and law terms very well. Dongwenliang 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Views of the PRC

I have removed this section (reproduced below). We should not be writing articles which are merely a disorganized concatenation of opposing viewpoints. The Chinese opinion of Celil is important, but it should be mentioned throughout the article.

Thissection reproduces much of the information already reproduced earlier in the article, e.g. the crimes which "Yu Shanjiang" is accused of. It also includes information which is really directly relevant to this article, such as the context for the East Turkestan Islamic Movement: this properly belongs in the East Turkestan Islamic Movement article.

I'm reproducing the text below because it may contain content and references which can be usefully added to the article.

Yu Shanjiang(玉山江), born in 1955, and he has been the critical organizer and one of the leaders of the group called East Turkestan Islamic Movement, one of the groups designated by the United Nations as a terrorist organization in September 2002. He is accused of killing China's Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan in March 2000 and abducting another Chinese officer in June 2000. After he came to Canada from Turkey in 2001 as refugee, he used the alias Huseyincan Celil, in addition to Guler Dilaver.

The Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement, responsible for more than 260 violent acts in and out of China, and more than 160 citizens were killed, 440 people injured in last 10 years. On March 27th, 2003, a Chinese civilian bus from Kashgar, Xinjiang was kidnapped in Kyrgyzstan by two member of the Movement, all 20 passengers and the driver were killed.

--Saforrest 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed quite a bit, did you read the previous section of the Talk page before deleting? --Idurey 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I had very long discussion with other users just above, I can not understand why it is deleted. Again, we should hear from both sides, and I have restored my article. Dongwenliang 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this section need to be deleted. We should give a neutral article and integrate all PRC's view into the whole article, not list it as a separate section. Also, it is not just view of PRC but also several other asian countries. Canada is alone comparatively.Zhangwl 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above long discussion. I answered this question so many times. The Wikipedia does not mandate a whole article only in one section, especially for such a hot issue. It is hard for this site to decide who is right or wrong, which source should be trusted. The most important thing is the voice of both side should be heard.Dongwenliang 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This section looks HORRIBLE! The grammar is terrible, all of the information in its first paragraph is 100% redundant because it is all mentioned earlier in the article, and the second paragraph does not specifically mention the actions of Huseyin Celil, but of the organization to which he belongs. This indicates to me that this second paragraph may belong on a page discussing the ETIM, not Celil. This section detracts from the entire article and should be completely revised to be relevant, or removed entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.135.214 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

• • No, did you read the whole article? NOT all the information is provided. For example, the identification by UN is not mentioned. Also, it is important to keep the second paragraph. Did you see the article Boris Yeltsin? Lots of statements about his country, Russian. We can not and it is unfair to totally separate the people and the society he is belonging to. Dongwenliang 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well that is not a good example of a person and an organization, but point well taken anyways as I see where you are coming from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.135.214 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

• • Is it important where I am from? not what I am talking about? Should people be judged by where they came from or by the content of their character? Anyway, if Canadian Immigration knows where Mr. Yu Shanjiang from, what he did and what is his real name, do you think he could still get Canadian Citizenship? Dongwenliang 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Dongwenliang, I think you may have misunderstood the prior comment. In Western culture when one says "I see where you are coming from..." it means that he understands how you came to your opinion or more literally means "I see where your thought came from". Also I'm not an expert but I think it's best to veer away from such hypothetical situations as they just bear more inconclusive discussion. The individual (whatever his name is) of this article *is* a Canadian citizen and that is clear.--Artificialard 06:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Citizenship

According to the Canadian government and Amnesty International, (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/30/china-mackay.html), Celil had only Canadian citizenship when he was arrested, because Chinese nationals lose their Chinese citizenship when they become citizens of another country. So a section should be made on that, or the part about him being both a Canadian and Chinese citizen should be taken out.

• Technically, PRC does not recognize dual nationality. In this case, one Chinese citizen had committed criminal in China then fleed to another country and acquired that nationality. It does not means that PRC recognizes that nationality. PRC has right to prosecute him and Canada has no right to critize. Because Huseyincan Celil got Canadian nationality after he has committed criminal (East Turkistan Movement) in China. 219.77.64.8 (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"All the claims in this change . . . can be unquestionably verified"

Responding to IP user 128.100.78.137's edit with a summary stating that "All the claims made in this change are all up to material evidences and can be unquestionably verified, particularly if one understands Chinese resources." — and I'm assuming here that you are the same person who made this identical edit yesterday as 99.254.28.169 (everyone please see the note I left on that IP address's talk page):

This edit was not acceptable yesterday, and it is still not acceptable today, and it's going to get reverted again now.

The first thing you need to do is to cite reliable sources as references within the text of the article. Simply saying that your claims "can be unquestionably verified" is not good enough — you need to supply the references to support these claims, or else your edits are going to continue to be rejected as inappropriate.

Further, you need to respect Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) principle. In this situation, you need to recognize (even if you consider it outrageous or insane) that reasonable, mainstream views on this subject do not agree (at least, not at the present time) as to whether or not Huseyincan Celil is in fact a terrorist whose true name is Guler Dilaver. You can report that the governments of China, Uzbekistan, and/or Kyrgyzstan believe this (as long as you supply sources showing that this is what they believe) — but you must also allow the article to report that there are others (including, apparently, the government of Canada and various human rights groups) who do not believe this.

And since this is a biography of a living person, you must also respect Wikipedia's strict policy that controversial material about a living person — especially material that could be libelous or defamatory — is not permitted unless it is well substantiated via references of the highest possible quality. The burden of evidence regarding such material rests on the editor who is trying to add it, to show that it belongs — not on those who are removing it, to prove that it doesn't belong. The BLP policy is taken very seriously, and editors who insistently defy it are not tolerated.

So, I'm going to revert your edit again (assuming someone else hasn't already beaten me to it). If you reinstate this material again without citing reliable sources, seeking a neutral viewpoint giving a fair presentation of the different mainstream positions, and giving particular consideration to the requirements for a biography of a living person, you risk being blocked from editing once your actions are brought to the attention of Wikipedia admins. Richwales (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Response from IP user 128.100.78.137. First of all, it helps a lot if you can clarify your definition of "reliable main stream" resources. If you restrict it to those of English news media, you are bound to get a single-sided view on this one. I can hardly see how such a person can possibly maintain the neutrality of this article. If you are cable of reading Chinese or Russian, you will surely find that the "main stream" in fact agrees that Celil is who he really is. The draft translated from some Chinese resources given right above this discussion contains all the details and some references for example.

Let's be realistic here. He wasn't arrested in China. He was arrested in Uzbek first and transported to Russia later. Both countries identified him as the person listed on the Interpol's Red List. Canadian government has never explicitly denied that either, but only rather chosen to remain silent on this issue. I can find no reason why Uzbek and Russia would want to imprison an irrelevant guy and deliver him to China. And why would China want to insist imprisoning a wrong guy with the real one still on the run, risking spoiling the relation with Canada at all?

Having that said, I will not argue against you further until I get chances to come back with more references and materials later. But at this point, I believe it's only fair to add the two sentences regarding the actions of the Chinese government and police back into the context. One of the two explains under what charges did the Chinese police arrest him in the first place. The second simply stated how the Chinese government explained themselves about their denying Celil's Canadian citizenship. Both are factual reports only. It's only fair to include them in the right places because, to maintain the neutrality of this webpage, it's vitally important to have the story told in its completeness. Statements from both sides must be heard in balance. In the previous edition, both explanations are omitted disregarding that they had been stated by the Chinese government repeatedly in public. Such selective way of telling the story gave the readers the wrong impression that the Chinese government/police simply did what they did without any reasons and gave no explanations to the public. The readers are entitled to choose to disbelieve those statements, but it's no reason for the reporters to ignore them, particularly when it doesn't sound very "convenient".

Argue between yourselves all you want, but I'm not going to let "...is a murderer and terrorist" be the reader's introduction to Celil's case. Find better language to couch your arguments. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no longer the sentence "is a murderer and terrorist" in the reader's introduction. As I said, I would avoid making judgement for wiki but only cite the reasons given by the Chinese authorities in the necessary places. Read more carefully before reverting.

Your new edits look much better. Please try to keep doing it this way — reporting the "other side" of the story, but without actually causing the article to take either side. English-language sources would be preferable if possible (are there any official English translations of your sources available on Russian, Uzbek, or Chinese government or media web sites?), but if all you have is a non-English source, include it as a reference (with an English translation of the title).

I understand your concern that Chinese- or Russian-language sources give a very different perspective on the story from what people will read in the English-language media. We can (and should) explain both sides, but without attempting to convince the reader that one side is right and the other side is wrong. I also understand that you believe the Russian / Uzbek / Chinese version is more credible than what people are hearing in the Canadian and US media, but this can not influence the way the two sides are presented in the article. Note that what I'm saying also means that people who favour the English-language version of the story should not be writing in such a way as to imply that the Canadians "clearly" have it 100% right and the Russians, Uzbeks, and Chinese are "obviously" hiding a deep, dark agenda while lying through their teeth.

Are you aware of any Canadian government statements specifically responding to this claim that Celil entered Canada under false pretenses, using an assumed name, and supposedly hid the sordid details of his past from Canadian officials, thereby making him subject (under Canadian law) to revocation of his grant of Canadian citizenship? If the Canadians have considered and rejected these allegations — or if they are studying the allegations with a view to responding to them in due time — or if it so happens that a court case is brewing in Canada over China's claims — there should presumably be something about it somewhere in the media (probably the Canadian media), and this should definitely be cited.

You might also want to seek some help with proper English usage. You surely meant "before he obtained his Canadian citizenship" (not "abstained", which means something totally different and cannot in fact be used in this fashion anyway). But if necessary, write what you can, and others will polish it up. Richwales (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I surely can agree with you on this one and thanks for polishing it up this time. In fact my initial concern was precisely that the view of the Chinese sources were not presented in a balanced way, because of many reasons, Language barrier being one of them, but massive media bias (for all sorts of reasons) playing a major role as well. In an attempt to counter balance it, it may leads to the consequence that it was overdone, especially while in a rush. As long as people are being alarmed and taking a more critical view on this issue, the truth isn't too difficult to realize. Thanks for the response above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.28.169 (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict) I've tagged "The Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China does not recognise dual citizenship, citing that "Yushanjiang" was convicted and escaped from China in the first place before obtaining Canadian citizenship using a false name." with {{fact}}. That needs a supporting source, I think, to support the assertion that this is the position of the Chinese government. Also, as I understand it (without being able to cite chapter and verse), one sovereign state is not free to choose what citizenships bestown by other sovereign States it will recognize and which it will not. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, countries can and do make decisions regarding what citizenships they will acknowledge or ignore. Read about the Master Nationality Rule: if Country X considers you to be one of their citizens, they can (and will) disregard any effort by Country Y to say that you are one of their citizens. Conversely, the experience of Maher Arar illustrates that if Country X decides they want to disregard your possession of Country Y's citizenship, and instead treat you as a citizen of Country Z, there's no practical way to stop them. Richwales (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I had read about that but I had not thought about it in this light. Reading it again, I don't think it applies here. The WP article summarizes the rule as "when a dual citizen is in the country of one of his two nationalities, that country has the right to treat that person as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of that country". In this case (from the info in the article), we have a sovereign country, China, saying that they refuse to recognize the citizenship bestowed by another sovereign country, Canada—the point being that if the second citizenship were recognized, the laws of China would require that China acknowledge that the person in question is not a Chinese citizen. If China took the position that they treated persons with citizenship of another country as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of China, that would moot their policy that if a Chinese citizen acquired citizenship of another country, that Chinese citizen lost their Chinese citizenship. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Master Nationality Rule might not apply here. But following the similar logic, Chinese government does have the right to recognize or deny its national's foreign citizenship. You misinterpreted the Chinese law. The law doesn't "require" the government to acknowledge the person in question is not a Chinese citizen immediately as he obtains a foreign passport. Instead it says a Chinese citizen loses his citizenship if he obtains a foreign citizenship "LEGALLY". The keyword is "legally". Of course whether it's legal or not have nothing to do with what Canadian or any other government says. It has to be decided according to the Chinese law. Keep in mind that judicial powers of sovereign countries can overlap. When they do, it can only be regulated by common practice or treaties signed by both parties. If A is a Chinese and he obtains a Canadian passport, this is all between A and the Canadian government. Chinese government has no legal obligation to immediately respond toward such an action, unless agreement between China and Canada that obligates an immediate citizenship recognition is signed. As far as I can tell, there's no such an agreement. In this case, whether A has obtained the Canadian citizenship "legally" or not according to the Chinese law remains undecided on the Chinese side. In fact, special guidance is provided by the Chinese consulates explaining how one can report to the Chinese consulate and surrender his Chinese passport if he wants his new citizenship recognized by China and therefore his Chinese citizenship lost according to the Chinese nationality law, provided that the Chinese government raises no questions during this procedure, and it certainly will not be the case if the person in question is actually a criminal who fled the Chinese prison. Of course, in practice, people rarely do that. It's more common that one simply enters China using a foreign passport. If at the port of entry, China has no objection and recognizes him as a foreign citizen, it would suffice as a practical procedure that the person's new citizenship being recognized by the Chinese authority and his Chinese citizenship lost at the same moment. This again doesn't apply to the case of Yu Shanjiang. In summary, it simply is not legal that a criminal can break out of the prison, obtain an foreign citizenship and get himself additional shield from the prosecutions by the original authorities. Such a "work around" is not respected by the Chinese laws.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.78.137 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made further edits to the article attempting to clarify those points. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Please do not tell truth selectively. He is a fighter of human rights, but unfortunately he fighted in a terroristic way. Don't try to cover the truth with selected truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.143.145 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 June 2006

Re: above comment, I have tried to rewrite the article to improve its NPOV'ness. However, my cursory Google search didn't find anything authoritative about his alleged terrorist activities (aside from the charges of the Uzbek government). Appreciate comments from other editors. cab 05:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: 209.250.143.145's comment, could you please let me know what kind of activities he has done during his life in Eastern Turkistan until his arrival in Canada? Since I have been campaigning from the beginning, I would not like to state any inaccurate information. And also, I know him personally. I dont know anything about you though apart from the fact that you posted from TORONTO. regards, Burhan Celik

Re: Your presonal relationship to this guy doesn't mean anything. If you would like to know more about him, read the open letter sent to Amnesty International UK by the Embassy of Uzbekistan: http://www.uzbekembassy.org/index.cfm/act/news/get/press/pr/868 .

That comes up with no such server for me, whether I try it from work or home. They forget to pay their webhosting bills? Anyway here's the letter in the Google cache.[5] Says they did a fingerprint test on Celil and he matches the prints they had on file for Guler Dilaver when they arrested him in 1998. cab 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am so sick of all these bullcrap about "Freedom Fighters" in China and "Terrorists" in Iraq. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. God I hope the Chinese government grow some backbone this time. 24.89.245.62 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The entire article talks about how he was persecuted by the Chinese government. Then there's this one little section at the end stating that he has kidnapped and murdered people. This article is definitely biased and desperately needs an NPOV tag. Anyone agree? (Blootix (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Huseyincan Celil. 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/20070215180605/http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170372006?open&of=ENG-CHN to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170372006?open&of=ENG-CHN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230203753/http://www.uzbekembassy.org/index.cfm/act/news/get/press/pr/868 to http://www.uzbekembassy.org/index.cfm/act/news/get/press/pr/868
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194240/http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/national/n111563A.html to http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/national/n111563A.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717182851/http://www.uyghurnews.com/canadian/Read.asp?UighurNews=china-says-agreement-with-canada-doesn039t-apply-to-celil-case&ItemID=VQ-3420081378181471565 to http://www.uyghurnews.com/canadian/Read.asp?UighurNews=china-says-agreement-with-canada-doesn039t-apply-to-celil-case&ItemID=VQ-3420081378181471565
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/chnnationality_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Huseyincan Celil. 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/20080407105318/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070208/celil_070208/20070208?hub=TopStories&s_name= to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070208/celil_070208/20070208?hub=TopStories&s_name=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080407105324/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070209/china_rights_070209/20070209?hub=TopStories&s_name= to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070209/china_rights_070209/20070209?hub=TopStories&s_name=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)