Jump to content

Talk:Turkistan Islamic Party/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Um, why does Uighur Separatist Movement redirect here? Surely this is not the only expression of Uyghur separatism... --MC MasterChef 00:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admitted to training by Al Qaeda?

The article asserts that several Uighurs admitted to being trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I've read the transcripts of the 18 Uighurs, held in Guantanamo, who attended their Combatant Status Review Tribunal. All of those Uighurs denied being trained by Al Qaeda. All of them denied knowing of any ties between their training and Al Qaeda or the Taliban. See Uighur detainees in Guantanamo. -- Geo Swan 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, what else were they supposed to say?! "They had connection with AQ and they spend the rest of their lives behind bars & dropping soaps in showers everyday?!" Plz~ In fact, I have also read the VERY transcripts that you have just linked above, 1 also guarded an AQ Safehouse. I don't recall AQ asks civilian to guard their safehouses, hm. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You assert this as if it were a proven fact. It is merely an allegation -- one the Bush administration finally admitted it could not prove. If you think you can prove this allegation I encourage you to contact the AG. Geo Swan (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't put stuff in my mouth and statements that I did NOT make. As far as I can tell, YOU also made assumptions. If you want to talk about if Gitmo's existence is right or not, you are talking at the wrong place, for I do not know and I do not care. However, as you may already know, there have been many prisoner releases from Gitmo. (One recently being to Palau, as you just added to the main article) So, as far as I am concerned, whoever is still left in Gitmo is in deep suspicion with connections to various TO. There has been convictions came out of Gitmo, so there is no need to pop that bottle of champagne, shouting “innocent men are being held at Gitmo” just yet. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You write: "So, as far as I am concerned, whoever is still left in Gitmo is in deep suspicion with connections to various TO."
  • This is a personal opinion. One you are entitled to hold. You and I are not WP:RS, so our personal opinions don't belong in article space. Now some commentators, who are WP:RS share this view. Those RS can be quoted, summarized , paraphrased -- provided they are properly cited and attributed. What shouldn't happen is for this one position to be represented as an established fact.
You write: "There has been convictions came out of Gitmo, so there is no need to pop that bottle of champagne, shouting “innocent men are being held at Gitmo” just yet."
  • No one here has suggested we call for the popping of champagne corks in article space -- just that we don't describe the ones who haven't been tried and convicted as "guilty".
  • You might find it worthwhile to look into how many convictions there have been Hicks, Hamdan, Bahlul, and one other recent guy, a cook, whose name escapes me at the moment. Hicks, the first conviction is arguably the most questionable. He had a team of lawyers he trusted, including several Australians, and at least one American civilian lawyer. At the last moment, like a day or two before his plea bargain the Presiding Officer stripped away all but his official military lawyer. One of those Australians wrote about what happened. The Presiding Officer told the non-military lawywers they had to sign a contract to abide by the rules and procedures for the Commissions -- including the security rules. The contract laid out serious consequences for lawyers who didn't abide by the rules. However, when Hicks's lawyers asked for a copy of the rules they were being told they would have to comply with -- they were told that the rules hadn't been written yet. Geo Swan (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This section is still very biased

This section is still very biased.

current wording errors
The United States captured 22 Uyghur militants from combat zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2006 on information that they were linked to Al-Qaeda.
  • When the Supreme Court restored access to habeas corpus the DoD and Doj acknowledged they had no proof that any of the Uyghur men and boys were involved in hostilities.
  • The men were taken into custody in 2001, not 2006.
  • The men were turned in as part of the USA's infamous bounty program -- not due to any specific claim that they were associated with al Qaeda.
  • 21 of these men described themselves as refugees, not militants, from Turkestan. The 22nd man was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, to Uyghur guest workers. He became a drug addict who travelled to Afghanistan searching for cheap drugs. Once there he fell under suspicion by the Taliban, for being a spy. When the Taliban fell, the political prison where the Taliban held him was opened, and all the Afghan political prisoners went home. Left behind were a half dozen foreign prisoners, including Turkistani. Western reporters found them first, and these men who had been subjected to a year or more of brutal detention by the Taliban told reporters they were very grateful to the USA for overthrowing the Taliban. They clearly thought the Americans would send them home. So did the Western reporters. The USA accepted the praise for freeing these men, but then sent them all to Guantanamo, as they sent all foreigners to Guantanamo. No, I am not making this up.
They were imprisoned for five to seven years, where they testified that they were trained by ETIM leader Abdul Haq, at an ETIM training camp.
  • Turkistani was sent back to Saudi Arabia in 2005 -- that is four years.
  • Five other men deemed to not be combatants in 2005 were transferred to Albania in 2006 -- that is five years.
  • Most of the rest of the men were transferred in 2009 -- that is eight years, not seven years.
  • Half a dozen Uyghurs remain in Guantanamo -- obviously not seven years.
  • Most of them men testified. Only half the men testified that they received anything that could be described as military training. The other half of the men, did testify that another Uyghur at the camp had taken the camp's sole rifle, and had spent a couple of hours showing them how to use that rifle. Three of the men testified that the Uyghur who showed them how to use the rifle was the camp leader and was named Abdul Haq. Other men either didn't say the name of the man who showed them, or offered a different name.
  • The men who mentioned a camp leader testified he was killed when the USA bombed their camp.
  • There is nothing in the unclassified record to back up the claim the camp was an ETIM camp, that the camp leader was an ETIM leader. On the contrary, unless we are going to allow the USA to cherry pick from their testimony, their testimony that Abdul Haq died in the 2001 bombing suggests he was not the Abdul Haq who was then the number 2 in the ETIM, as he didn't die for years later. And, if the number 2 in the ETIM was leading a construction band, armed with a single AK47, that strongly suggests the group was not a real threat.
After being reclassified as No Longer Enemy Combatant, a panel of judges ordered them released into the United States.
  • This is more or less correct.
Despite the alarm of politicians that the release of terrorist camp-trained Uyghurs into the United States was unsafe and illegal, they could not be released back to China because of its human rights record.
  • This is poorly phrased.
Some of the Uyghurs have been transferred to Palau, and some to Bermuda despite objections by the United Kingdom, but the United States is having difficulties finding governments who will accept the rest.
  • This is correct.
  • Four men were transferred to Bermuda -- however Bermuda is not fully independent, the UK retains control over Bermuda's diplomacy. Thus the Prime Minister of Alberta did not have the authority to negotiate the acceptance of refugees.
  • Palau sent a delegation to interview the remaining 13 men, and offered to accept 12 of them as refugees. The 13th man's case was one of the saddest. He travelled to Afghanistan solely to look for his baby brother. He is one of the many captives whose mind broke in Guantanamo. And Palau, a very small country, with no resources to deal with individuals with serious mental health problems would not accept him. His baby brother did not think he could accept refugee status in Palua, and leave his brother to suffer in Cuba. These two men are the two who were sent to a European country.\
  • Neither Palau or Beruda grant citizenship to anyone who wasn't born on the island. So, accepting refugee status in either of these countries is essentially a life sentence, as they can never get a Palua or Bermuda passport.

Given the above I will rewrite this section to remove the bias.

What were the men doing in Nangarhar? Afghanistan is full of ruined villages, abandoned after a Soviet bombardment killed many of the remaining inhabitants. The men testified that most of their days were spent in construction. My own guess is that the men were reconstructing a ruined Afghan village with the intention of turning it into a refugee camp for other Uyghurs.

Why did the US regard the camp as a training camp? Aerial surviellance, can distinguish between a village with domestic animals and women and children, from a village composed entirely of men. But it can't distinguish between a camp full of militants from a village full of refugees.

There are sources who will repeat the US allegations as if they were established fact. But our policies require us to report those views from a neutral point of view, properly attributed. Geo Swan (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Clip from a video said to be anonymously released by the East Turkestan Islamic Party.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Clip from a video said to be anonymously released by the East Turkestan Islamic Party.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on East Turkestan Islamic Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Western medias

The content of the French article as presented is completely deformed. I suggest to use the relevant source, please source Global Times or People Daily to present their opinion instead of deforming an article in a language someone obviously can't read. A bit of objectivity won't hurt.

Agreed. I'll add that it is common in French for groups of attackers to be referred to as "commando", without it having noteworthy overtones that the article seems to imply. ie: media reports on the Taliban [1] and Boko Haram [2] use it. Gazkthul (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"L’ETIM, c’est précisément l’organisation jihadiste transfrontalière à laquelle Pékin.... Certains vont même jusqu’à douter de son existence..." = "ETIM is precisely the jihadist organization to which Beijing.... Some go even as far as to doubt its existence..." - I don't see where the author is "writing arguments ETIM is not dangerous" or "suggesting ETIM does not exist"Engilhramn (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

STSC
Stop deleting sourced statements and adding your own OR on censors. Sites like Global Times don't censor their comments.
L’ETIM, c’est précisément l’organisation jihadiste transfrontalière à laquelle Pékin aimerait attribuer tous ses ennuis au Xinjiang. Le hic, c’est que de nombreux experts doutent que l’ETIM soit ce groupe cohérent et dangereux décrit par la Chine. Certains vont même jusqu’à douter de son existence. Après les attentats du 11 septembre, George Bush, désireux par dessus tout de nouer une alliance avec Pékin, avait accepté d’inscrire l’ETIM sur sa liste des organisations terroristes. Aujourd’hui, il ne figure plus sur cette liste. Rajmaan (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
No, your statements are not sourced. Or more precisely: the original source (Nouvel Obs) doesn't reflect your statements. If you would like to present Chinese misreading of the article, please feel free to add it with its correct source, Global Times or People's Daily. But please respect the original source and don't deform it. How funny to consider your statements sourced when you obviously can't read French.

Complete translation of the paragraph: "ETIM is precisely the jihadist organization to which Beijing would like to attribute all its problems in Xinjiang. The issue is that a lot of experts doubt that ETIM would be a group as coherent and dangerous as described by China. Some even go as far as to doubt of its existence. After the 9/11, GWB, willing to make an alliance with Beijing, agreed to add ETIM to his list of terrorist organizations. Today, it has been removed from the list" You see here for example that the author presents a thesis "ETIM doesn't exist" without sharing this opinion "some goes as far". You just can't write the contrary. And it goes identically for the rest of your "sourced statements". Added reference for censorship as requested. Considering Global Times belongs to the official communication organ of CCP, published in China (therefore Chinese's Internet regulations apply), a wiki article should be enough. If however you have some OR showing that of all Chinese internet, the only place not regulated and not submitted to censorship approval and scrutiny can be found specifically in Global Times' comments, please feel free to correct.

Its clear that either you don't understand Wikipedia's rule on original research and synthesis or you do understand and are deliberately violating it. The Washington Post article says nothing about censorship and you are doing original research by adding claims that censors allowed the comments to be posted deliberately. And you complain that the original source doesn't reflect statements when the Washington post does not reflect the claims you inserted. And stop logging out of your account and using your ip like you just did. And this article is about the organization TIP (called ETIM by China). And on your first edit you removed all mention of ETIM from the paragraph and now there is only one mention. Keep removing ETIM from there and the entire section will be deleted since this article is about the organization.Rajmaan (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Please feel free to remove all non-relevant content. In my first edit, I only removed all allegations of what looked more like a witch-hunt than a section on ETIM. So I do agree the paragraph is not so relevant here, the French article barely mentions ETIM actually and only via third party sources.Engilhramn (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Extreme number of references, unbalanced length of paragraphs, et al.

This article, which is rated as "Mid-importance" on WP:Central Asia, currently cites 1,106 sources in a total of 17 main sections. Especially the sections on al-Qaeda support and media are extremely long, and are to a large extent a mere lists of jihadist propaganda videos. However, Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor an indiscriminate collection of information. In my opinion, more emphasis should be put on its activities offline than online. And we cannot possibly list all websites containing pro-TIP, pro-ISIL, pro-Al-Qaeda, etc., propaganda in an article on this group. This article urgently needs significant cleanup.--89.173.227.64 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Split

Propose to split an article on the Syrian branch of the party, which is acting pretty much autonomously and has much information available - the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria (Turkistan Islamic Party in support of the people of al-Sham).GreyShark (dibra) 09:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support: I also think it would be appropriate to split the article, as it would be easier for readers to find specific information regarding the TIP in Syria.
GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 02:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

My edits

I removed a whole lot of this article per WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS states "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements[...]", that's why I reverted the article to an earlier state; All these recent editions are day by day updates of every single thing this organisation has said or done. This is what blogs like jihadology and various pundits covering every single thing about these jihadist groups is for, but the excessive detailed updates on these organisations that these sources offer is not fitting for Wikipedia per the above guideline. Furthermore, there were a lot more problems -- There was actual DOXING in the article, and the article contained so incredibly many sources for all of these minor updates. I counted reddit, blogspot, and various (non-primary source) twitter accounts amongst them. Eik Corell (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the article had become unreadable and one of the worst looking pages I have come across on Wikipedia. It was suffering from ridiculous WP:CITECLUTTER with almost 1200 citations, sometimes dozens of them to verify a single statement. Gazkthul (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The latest edits here, while a better version than before I reverted it, are still not sufficient. Minus the doxing, the problems are largely the same -- Lots of unreliable sources covering minor events. Eik Corell (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
First of all most of the social media was used as backup to normal sources. For example, [1][2] The first citation was a link to site intel group's website. The second was a tweet. You can delete the tweet without any consequences. There was nothing sourced to reddit itself. Most of the reddits were redundant like this one about Army of Conquest when there were sixteen other sources supporting the information so the reddit could be deleted without any consequences. Most of the blogspot ones were like that oo.
As for those that were not, those tweets and blogspot links were hosting primary source material. They were being used as image, video, and pdf hosts. They contained pictures and video or links to pictures, videos, and pdf files of documents released by the Turkistan Islamic Party.
All of that was dealt with. Relevant information on this page would include a summary of TIP's activities in Syria, a list of Battles in participated it in Syria with links to the main pages of those battles like Aleppo offensive (May 2016), a summary of TIP's activities in Afghanistan, a summary on Al-Qaeda links and a summary on Turkish support for TIP. Most of the detailed information like serial lists of video releases and minute details of all the battles were purged with a few relevant examples remaining. You deleted the summaries and the list of battles after most of the information was already cleaned out. You deleted everything on TIP's participation in the battles against NATO and Afghan army forces in Afghanistan and a lot of it was sourced to reputable news sites.Rajmaan (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, some of the info rose above the clutter, but the article still has a long way to go -- I'm still seeing the same problems: Wordpress, reddit, jihadology.org, weebly, youtube videos, all used to support this bit by bit coverage of the minutest of details, for example the group releasing a video. The article needs much more pruning down. It's not Wikipedia's job to cover every single video, statement, and action of actors like this per WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You seem to have an overview of all of this information, so my suggestion is that we keep the previous edition of the article, and add the relevant parts into it, instead of starting off trying to prune a bad one. I will nontheless try to fix the current version, though. Eik Corell (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Wordpress, youtube and jihadology are all hosts for primary materials like videos and pdfs and often are all used in conjunction. The youtube and others can be deleted just leaving the jihadology link behind. The reddit links are not used to support material. They can be removed without any content being effected. There was one reddit link in a pile of citations which included links to news websites.Rajmaan (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
If we look away from the source problems, that leads us back to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - All the stuff these sources were used to support was trivial; this person remarked on X, they released a video on Y, that kind of thing. As the latter guideline says: Information merely being true is not good enough to warrant its inclusion in articles. Eik Corell (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Eik Corell

The alluded-to outcome of any Guantánamo Uyghurs being convicted in Guantánamo could have disastrous repercussions in the Xinjiang (East Turkestan), results that would do nothing but help bolster China’s control in the troubled western region. It is along this line of reasoning that the U.S. possibly fear aiding and abetting China in their finding a legitimate reason for strengthening their presence in Xinjiang and quashing, once and for all, the ETIM separatist movement and all others. Adam Wolfe discusses this possible underlying motive entertained by the U.S., that instead of the whole Xinjiang separatist anti-state activities centring solely around certain human-rights issues, that instead the American position might really reflect a very real desire to weaken the Chinese control of its western periphery regions (see article below). Wolfe (2004) writes:

After seeing the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movements, the Tibetan autonomy or independence movements within China, and witnessing the former Soviet Central Asian states gain their independence to the west, the Uighurs in Xinjiang began to speak out against Beijing’s control. […] Militant groups emerged to challenge China’s rule forcefully, while non-violent groups agitated within China and sought backing from Western governments. [ ] Beijing focused on the violent groups, while Washington highlighted the grievances of the non-violent groups. […] Throughout the 1990s, Beijing’s efforts to increase its control over Xinjiang were answered by a series of attacks by militant Uighur groups. Washington’s position on the attacks was that they were being launched by a small minority within the opposition movement, which had legitimate grievances with the Chinese government. [ ] While the US promoted human-rights issues in Xinjiang, Beijing claimed that the attacks were being waged by groups that had ties to terrorist organizations in Central Asia. In many cases these claims were valid, but Washington’s strategic goals were to promote human rights in China and weaken the government’s control of its western periphery regions, in case a conflict should arise between the two states in the long term; it was not in the United States’ interests to provide a justification for China to rein in the Uighur groups seeing greater autonomy or separation. To this end, Washington dismissed Beijing’s claims that Uighur groups fought on the side of the Taliban during the 1996 revolution in Afghanistan as propaganda—and an excuse to persecute political dissidents.

Undoubtedly, as the article reports, in relation to such possibly unfounded accusations made by Beijing in relation to dissident Muslim Uyghurs being linked with the Taliban; in short, this time around Washington could not simply dismiss such claims since it was they themselves—the U.S.-led forces who had caught the Uyghurs ‘red handed’ in enemy territory. Undoubtedly, this bolstered Beijing’s claims that they had been making all along, previous to 9/11, that the Uyghurs had ties to terrorist organizations in Central Asia (idem). After Uyghur militants were captured and killed in Afghanistan while fighting alongside the Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives, this obviously prompted Washington to shift their camp in being forced to bring Xinjiang into the ongoing discussion regarding the ‘war on terror’. To say the least, this put Washington into a very difficult position since as Wolfe (2004) puts it, the new “war on terrorism” made it increasingly more “difficult to reconcile [U.S.] support for Uighur freedoms and the desire to eliminate any group that aligned itself with al-Qaeda.” Thus, Washington was forcibly put into the rather uncomfortable position of cooperating with China on Xinjiang affairs (Wolfe 2004).

The United States is believed to have an ulterior agenda in trying to sabotage China by feigning concern for human rights and deliberately turning a blind eye to Al-Qaeda allied Uyghur members of ETIM in Afghanistan by not initiating legal proceedings against or bringing to trial any Uyghur detainees held in Guantanamo with terrorism and instead seeking to free them.
Removing this section -- You can't use a source to make assertions like that. What you can do is report what the source says.
The material removed says what the source says.
As for this: Removing huge list with very poor and excessive sourcing per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CITECLUTTER
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NEWS
1. Original reporting.- This was not being violated by the material removed.
2. News reports. This was not violated either by the material removed. The removed material is not "routine" reporting on everyday trivial subjects like celebrities and sports.
3. Who's who.- Not being violated by the material covered.
4. A diary.- These articles are not biographies.
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
1. The first point on summary only descriptions actually says that the articles need to be enlarged to have bigger summaries and is not about pruning them down.
2.-4. No lyrics, statistics, or logs of software updates.
Wikipedia:Discriminate_vs_indiscriminate_information#Discriminate_Lists_of_Information
This qualifies as a discriminate list of information. There is a list of battles and the summary for each battle has information released by TIP on what occurred in those battles. It is not indiscriminate. A list of videos and statements released by the organization organized in a coherent manner, as well as a list of prominent members of the organization is discriminate and legitimate encyclopedic material. You deleted all the sections on a wrong premise.
We dealt with WP:RS and Citeclutter. The twitter and blogs are video and pdf hosts and can be deleted with no problem and the material that is left can still stand on its on with the available sources. Mass deletion is not warranted. The burden is on you to explain why the material has to be deleted, sentence by sentence.
User:Shrigley User:STSC We need third party opinions on this mass blanking of reliable information.

Rajmaan (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The article can be re-added if it presents this as the view of this Adam Wolfe who is cited in the article. The problem was that it was added to support a false statement: It was being used as a source for an assertion that the United States is believed to have ulterior motives, when what was actually happening was the guy above making the claim. I've added the battles of the Syrian branch of the TIP to the relevant article's infobox, I'm thinking some more stuff like sources can be brought over from the main article. Anyway, about WP:NOTNEWS - 2 is the relevant one here; focus on trivial stuff. What these various sources like jihadology do is indeed news-y reports; These minor things like twitter updates, who said what to whom, various small video releases from these jihadist groups is effectively news, just on a plan less appealing to the general public, and in the case of this article, the average readers. Instead, any mention of media and statements from the group should follow the example of the ISIS article. That's the example we should be aiming for. Eik Corell (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
When we have articles with massive piles of trivial material like this: List of people influenced by Selena List of awards and nominations received by Selena I do not believe that "indiscriminate" refers to having a list in itself. There is no way you can say those article abide by Wikipedia policy if just having a lot of information in a section is considered indiscriminate. There is also Military equipment of ISIL. Rajmaan (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The biggest problem with equipment articles like the one on ISIS is actually lack of sources, or improper ones. Indeed, that article is tagged as having such problems. Very technical information such as that finds its redemption through coverage by acknowledged sources. By itself, it wouldn't be notable that ISIS has weapon X, Y, or Z, but that changes when established media covers it. For example, ISIS has captured a lot of high-tech American hardware, and a lot of media picked up on this and it was notable because of the high-tech nature of equipment such as the M1A1 Abrams tank, or slightly less so, that of the M16 rifle. As it relates here, what we have is a lot of info sourced to mainly primary sources; The TIP's twitter and articles on their own website. That's the crucial difference: The TIP and their statements, whether big or small, rarely get coverage by reliable, third party sources, perhaps justifiably so since their presence is so limited in comparison. The closest it gets is coverage by these organisations/clearinghouses for information on jihadist groups. In lieu of other, more standard news coverage, this is the best we've got here. These secondary sources are not optimal, but they're perhaps adequate for sourcing on major news on these organisations, for example the TIP's role in the battle of Jisr Al-Shugur. Eik Corell (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Iranian media regularly reports on TIP in Syria.[3] Arabic sources like SOHR[4][5] and various Arab news agencies[6] also covered TIP.[7] I included a large amount of Pesian and Arabic language news sites which were deleted along with everything else.[8]Rajmaan (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The article has been substantially improved following Eik Corell's edits, although the Talk page is becoming increasingly difficult to read as for some reason there are dozens of refs being added here. Gazkthul (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rajmaan: Could you stop adding additional references? We don't need any more of them and it's making this talk page ridiculously full. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


Eik Corell As I said above, the rules at WP:INDISCRIMINATE ,Wikipedia:Discriminate_vs_indiscriminate_information#Discriminate_Lists_of_Information WP:NEWS clearly apply only to 'indiscriminate and trivial garbage and not notable lists of discriminate information.
Table type lists of information are permitted on Wikipedia like List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2010 which has massive description boxes for each listed item, List of 21st-century earthquakes, Selena albums discography and List of people influenced by Selena. The information there is not indiscriminate or trivial.
You deleted a table type list of notable TIP members who were wanted by authorities and if I organize all the releases by their media arm Islam Awazi into a discriminate, coherent table, it would be allowed by Wikipedia rules.Rajmaan (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think a list of members wanted by the authorities is notable; Members of terrorist organisations and other separatist organisations are very, very often wanted by various government authorities. Here I have to fall back on WP:V or specifically WP:RS -- Have reliable, third-party sources covered this, showing how and why it is notable? If not, it's not a good idea to start a list like this. Eik Corell (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There are lists of filmographies and discographies by actresses and singers, including third rate unimportant ones. Islam Awazi qualifies as both.Rajmaan (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:OTHER is relevant here; Wikipedia is full of stuff that should not be listed, or is listed in a poor way. The problem here is that the sources you're bringing in are primary and secondary ones; sources either run or very closely related to the subject. The secondary sources like Jihadology and other clearing-houses for jihadi media are sufficient to establish the individual mention of every one of their media releases here. That is what those sites for for, not Wikipedia. Here is the kind of category that would be appropriate; A summary describing the overall subject of media within the group, without delving into listing every release and statement made. While it too uses secondary sources, it also has a third-party one (foreignpolicy.com) dealing exactly with the role of media within the group. This is the format that a media section should follow. Eik Corell (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-claims-liberating-four-areas-in-idlib.html
  2. ^ "MENASTREAM". Twitter. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  3. ^ http://www.jc313.ir/47057-%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B4%25D8%25BA%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584-%25D8%25AE%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586-%25D8%25B7%25D9%2588%25D9%2585%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586-%25D8%25A8%25D9%2587-%25D8%25B1%25D9%2588%25D8%25A7%25DB%258C%25D8%25AA-%25D8%25AA%25D8%25B1%25D9%2588%25D8%25B1%25DB%258C%25D8%25B3%25D8%25AA-%25D9%2587%25D8%25A7%25DB%258C-%25DA%2586%25DB%258C%25D9%2586%25DB%258C-%25D8%25B9%25DA%25A9%25D8%25B3.html http://www.ilna.ir/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%B3%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7-10/369534-%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%BA%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%DA%86%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1 http://www.shahidnews.com/view/90569/-اعدام-یکی-از-اسرای-خان-طومان-توسط-القاعده http://khabarezendeh.com/اخبار-تصویری/اعدام-یکی-از-اسرای-خان-طومان-توسط-القاعده-عکس-1096335.html http://www.emruzonline.com/1395/02/اعدام-یکی-از-اسرای-خان-طومان-توسط-القاع http://otaghkhabar24.ir/news/47458 http://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/5600511/اعدام-یکی-از-اسرای-خان-طومان-توسط-القاعدهعکس http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/573255/%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF-%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3 http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/print/573255 http://www.parsnews.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%84-8/365351-%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1 http://choghadaknews.ir/?news_id=31584 http://khabarfarsi.com/n/16599069 http://www.hemayatonline.ir/detail/News/12324 http://gallery-bsky.data2.ir/ http://www.farsipu.com/world/%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF-91481.html http://vista.ir/news/28453194/%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF-%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3 http://www.hodhodnews.ir/news/193356/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%AA-15-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%84%D8%A8+%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3
  4. ^ http://www.syriahr.com/?p=137045
  5. ^ http://aawsat.com/home/article/458056/«الحزب-الإسلامي-التركستاني»-فصيل-جديد-يقود-عمليات-رئيسية-في-شمال-سوريا
  6. ^ بلوط, محمد (02-06-2015 <!- – 01:45 AM -->). "تأهب ميداني لإعادة فتح معركة إدلب". As-Safir. p. 1. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "هكذا فاجئ جعجع عون.. لبنان: مسودة بيان حول عرسال وقرار سوري بالتواجد الإيراني العسكري؟!". الوسط اللبنانية. 02-06-2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "بعد تداخل جبهتي العراق وسوريا ..تأهب ميداني لإعادة فتح معركة إدلب". نبض سوريا. 03 حزيران/يونيو 2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2016/5/11/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%AB-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86 http://www.7adramout.net/syriahr/549680/%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%8815-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%88%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%82%D9%84-%D9%82%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%A7-%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B6%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B8%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A.html
  8. ^ http://www.aliwaa.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=285371http://www.alraimedia.com/ar/article/foreigns/2016/05/14/679514/nr/syria http://www.alalam.ir/news/1817688 http://www.alaean.com/news/world/38177 http://www.gulfeyes.net/world/255935.html http://elmihwar.com/ar/index.php/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A/58824.html http://www.lebanon24.com/articles/1463143504267688600/ https://3robanews.com/arab/722704/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%88-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-16-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7.html http://www.alaan.tv/news/world-news/154299/syria-al-nusra-front-members-16-killed< http://www.ennaharonline.com/ar/arabic_news/274692-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-16-%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A5%D8%AF%D9%84%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7.html http://www.tunisien.tn/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A9/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-16-%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%AF http://www.nabdhadhramout.com/syria-news/97874.html http://www.fielkhabr.com/arabic/76642.html http://www.aksalser.com/news/2016/05/13/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B2%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF/ http://radar2.net/External-113583.html http://www.almanar.com.lb/237400 http://arabi21.com/story/908291/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-16-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D8%A8%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9 http://www.dw.com/ar/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B5%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7/a-19255498 http://syria.press/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-16-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D8%A7/ http://www.sahafah24.net/show514837.html https://www.annahar.com/article/378866-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-16-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%84-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 18:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent, this was introduced into the article. First problem is that it parrots what the article says as fact. Likewise, the article itself only cites one reliable source: "B. Raman: US and Terrorism in Xinjiang; South Asia Analysis Group, Paper No. 499, 24.07.2002" The edit also adds info in places, making it seem like it's supported by the proceeding source when in fact it's not, for example in the Al-Qaeda Support section. Lastly, a lot of the additions are copy-pasted from the article, which is a copyright violation. Lastly, some stuff such as "It seeks to break up China.", is not supported by the source, either, along with changes to existing source names, for example changing "Exile Group Denies Terror Link" to "Exile Group Denies Terror Link and only Wishes for Autonomy", when that's not the title of the source.

Lots of problems with these recent additions, to the point that it should only be used to support a single statement or two, and not in the way that it's being used now. Potentially as a source on potential U.S or German involvement. I also removed some proceeding edits to the ideology section here - Also, this kind of exposition belongs in the ideology section, not the infobox. Eik Corell (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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) 06:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Turkistan Islamic Party. 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:

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) 07:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

ETIM stands for ... ?

So it seems that East Turkestan Islamic Movement and East Turkestan Independence Movement are different things? But both ETIM. That distinction needs to be made clearer. Cossaxx (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkistan_Islamic_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1196728410"