Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive 6

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

Remove 'sweet nothings' international responses?

In the GA review it came up that some of the countries' responses in the International response section were pretty insubstantial and uninteresting, e.g. France 'expressed concern'. This is kind of a long section anyway, what do folks think of taking out some of the countries that aren't really related to the issue and don't have anything particularly original to say about it? It's not an exhaustive list anyway. delldot ∇. 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there WP guidelines on this kind of sections? Because every article about high profile incidents is loaded with "sweet nothing", I just thought there was a rule to load it with "sweet nothing". Jim101 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Haha! I have no idea, but I would doubt it; how could that be anything other than a judgement call? We just need to decide what's relevant enough to the topic to include. delldot ∇. 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'll take out everything except the reactions of Turkey and Al-Qaeda, although how SCO members react could also be noted given the stategic location of Xinjing in the Russia-Chinese alliance. Just my $0.02. Jim101 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The reaction is from AQIM, not "al-Qaeda" (which is, anyway, not a single organization; it's a loose collection of slightly related groups with, probably, no central leadership and little communication between one another). It was called the "al-Qaeda reaction" as a gimmick by sensationalist media like The Times to make Uyghurs seem more "scary" and make the news seem more exciting.
Also, beyond just those more notable responses (I'm only calling the AQIM response "notable" because it got the attention of several international media outlets, not because it really means anything—in reality it's little more than an unsweet nothing), people may find it interesting to see which side a given country seemed to take...even in sweet nothings, some were more pro-PRC (condemning the instigators of violence, saying "Xinjiang is a part of China", etc.), others more anti-PRC (calling on China to be "lenient" or whatnot), and others more neutral (just saying they hope the violence ends—which is the most 'nothing' of all the sweet nothings). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see how even a bland response could be significant. Sort of along the same principle as "damning by faint praise". delldot ∇. 02:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Did we also at some point decide to remove all the flags in the "international response" section? I actually liked the flags. Colipon+(Talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We weren't able to bold them, so we scrapped the flag templates. Then, we de-linked them all because the page was then overlinked. Oh, and welcome back. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there was an alt-text issue with the flags at FAC. It would be possible to bring back the flags if alt-text and links can be disabled for them (that would mean either hard-coding each one, as like [[:File:SomeFlag.jpg|alt=|link=]] instead of using flagicons, or updating the flagicon templates. Updating the templates would be better and more useful, but I looked at it and it looked like a lot of annoying work and I couldn't bring myself to do it yet.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SCMP

I would like to know, is there a method to get the South China Morning Post online without a subscription? They offer some of the most objective analysis on China-related stories and I can never open a single newspiece by them. This paper would contribute significantly to China-related articles on Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 12:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • If you have a specific article in mind, you could try asking User:Benjwong to email it to you. Otherwise, taking out a subscription, costs only HK$400pa. ;-) I'd be half tempted myself, if I ever get time to read it daily... Ohconfucius (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If you have access to lexis-nexis you can find them. (I was in there last night looking for one of the articles cited here, and they have a ton of articles on this; now might be a good time to start going through them and trying to get some more perspective on controversial parts of the article.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you get access to Lexis-Nexis? Also, this is somewhat unrelated, but Willy Lam seems to think that Uyghur-Chinese personality Nur Bekri may have a shot at the PSC in the 6th Generation... Imagine if he became Premier... Colipon+(Talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That, my friend, would be bigger than Barack Obama. :P -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Bekri seems to be reaping the awards of his selling out, and getting some brownie points for his regurgitation of the party line back in July....
  • Or, those corrupt despots may believe it's a price worth paying to keep Xinjiang within the PRC by engineering a reverse takeover by the Uyghurs ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As for Lexis-Nexis... I get it through my university, otherwise it's probably not free. Maybe you can get to it through a public library computer too, I dunno... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The real al qaeda

  • Reuters (7 October 2009). "Prepare to fight China, Qaeda figure tells Uighurs". {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is probably bigger news than the AQIM thing was, but not really sure how it's relevant here, as the Reuters piece mentions no direct connection. Plus, it's hard to separate how much of this is real and how much is just talk and politics. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The first western source I read that mentions the religious violence between Uyghurs during the riot.

The violence has ended in Urumqi but shadows remain in hearts and minds...Jim101 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like good stuff! It also has nice "aftermath" info.
While we're at it, the other thing I was thinking that needs to be worked on is a revamp of the lede. It no longer summarizes the key points of the article that well--I think the article has grown since we last worked on the lede. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede update?

Per my message above, I've thrown together an attempt at a new lede, it's available right now at User:Rjanag/Sandbox (permalink). I've tried to cover more of the important info, remove some of the less important info, and get a more logical flow; length-wise it looks like it should be ok, as far as I can tell. One thing that's missing from it is mention of the September riots; I'm not sure if that's necessary in the lede or not. It also doesn't mention the legislative changes that were enacted; to be honest, none of them seem that significant to me, but that's just my opinion.

The version of the lede I've put together just now includes a ton of references, more than is usual for a lede, but I figured in this case it would be good to IAR and reference whatever statements may be controversial or include numbers. Footnotes can still be added or removed; I just think this is one of those articles that people will come to and mess with controversial info in the lede without necessarily checking for references below.

If anyone has suggestions or criticisms, I'd love to hear them. Also feel free to edit the draft directly. Once/if everyone agrees on it, then we can paste it over the current lede. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

minor thing: "...and the Ürümqi riot coverage was compared favorably to the coverage of the unrest in Tibet in 2008." Could need re-wording (favorably[who?]), but can't think of exactly how right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
True. I didn't want to just say "compared" because it might imply that the coverage was 'bad' like the Tibet coverage was; but it's true that "favorably" has a bit of a peacocky tone to it. My original wording had been something like "some observers commented that the media coverage had shown improvement compared to that of the Tibet unrest", but that has weasel words. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Great work, Rjanag. Two things. 1. I am still a bit hesitant about the usage of the term "the Han". I was thinking instead of saying "Han (or ethnic Chinese)", we say "ethnic Han Chinese" or simply "Han Chinese". I do not mind keeping all references after the first as simply "Han" or "the Han". 2. The communication blackout has now been partially lifted. Towards what extent I am not certain but I hear that some people can now access the internet. Colipon+(Talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. I remember back in the day we decided to avoid using "Han Chinese" too much as it implies that Uyghurs are not Chinese, but I agree it's good to use it at least the first time since that's what most readers understand. I think rewording to "Han Chinese" would be fine.
As for the communication blackout, judging by what I've read so far the internet was never really 100% inaccessible like some sources suggest (except maybe on like July 6-7), but has been limited to a sort of "intranet"--it seems that people can only access local websites (local news, their bank, etc...they can use the equivalent of Ebay but can only buy and sell/ship within Xinjiang, for example). There might be a way to reword that in the lede to make it clearer. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now added the new lede to the article [1]. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage (one more organizational issue)

Looking at the domestic and international reactions sections, they seem to overlap one another in discussion of the media coverage of the riots. The Government section of "Domestic" has a bit on Chinese media coverage and how it has improved since Tibet; the first two paragraphs of the July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Media coverage section of "International" are basically international opinions/evaluations of the domestic coverage. It seems like these should be delineated a bit better. The easiest solution would probably just be to move those two paragraphs up to the "Domestic" section (and perhaps split out a "Media" subsection under Domestic)...the rest would stay in "International" since those other are more about international coverage. (With exception of the paragraph of Rebiya Kadeer's kids; I'm not really sure where that fits.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple sources

Tonight I was reading a bunch of the archives of Far West China, a nice little blog run by a US expat who's been in Xinjiang for about 3 years and seems to have a good grip on what he's talking about. Although it's "just a blog", it also has some nice up-to-date/on-the-ground information that I haven't seen in "reliable" sources yet, so even if much of it is not appropriate for use in the article directly it still may be useful as stuff to keep in mind and be aware of while editing. There's some stuff on:

I also came across this Huffington Post piece, which may have useful stuff for the media coverage stuff:

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting articles. If any RS is picking up his blog as a source then I would be bold in putting its contents onto the article. We just need to worry about WP:A. I would also see no problem listing the blog as an 'external link', despite the fact that this may not be entirely consistent with Wikipedia policies - I think in this case we can ignore all rules and exercise some common sense - i.e. this is one of the most reliable sources out there about what is happening in Xinjiang. It has no political rhetoric and only acts to describe the situation from within. Colipon+(Talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If we go that route, for the EL section we could probably use http://www.farwestchina.com/search/label/riots , the list of posts tagged with "riots" (as opposed to just the whole blog, since I assume a year from now there will be lots of other stuff in the way). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Meng Jianzhu

Shouldn't Meng Jianzhu, Public Security Minister of PRC, be mentioned in the article for his two visits respectively in July and Sep 4. Here is one source by Xinhua News. Ccyber5 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The September visit would go in the other article. If there's a source for his visit in July, it could probably get mentioned (very briefly) next to the bit about Hu Jintao leaving G8. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I found it here.Original text, source at [2]:
URUMQI, July 8 (Xinhua) -- China's top police officer on Wednesday urged no leniency in the punishment of thugs who took part in the Urumqi riot. Meng Jianzhu, state councilor and public security minister, made the remarks when visiting local residents injured by the rioters and family members of those victims in Urumqi, capital of northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Ccyber5 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm. Judging by that article (and the more detailed one here), this doesn't look too important in the grand scheme of things. It just seems to be him going around giving some sound bites. If it had been something more like "the riots were so terrible that this big important guy had to rush there and take care of things" it might be more worthy of inclusion, but that's not the impression I got (that's the impression I got out of Hu leaving G8, or even Wen Jiabao going to Guangzhou during the blizzard a year or two ago). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the importance of his in-time visit was evident. There was a big deal that all you editors may have missed when integrating the article, that is the inaction or the passive measures (dealing with criminals who were "killing, smashing, looting,etc.") of the government, particularly the police, at the onset of the event and the later days. I was there when riots took place, and I can vividly remember that the mobs still "fight and loot" on July 6th, though the government had denounced its control over the situation via such things as televised speeches. The so-called revenge of the Han on July 8th was actually (partially) something like self-defence because "local police cannot be found ,or, they did nothing to prevent the rioting". Here is another news [3] released on July 9th, which may reflect that Meng's visit and instruction to the police organs urged the local government to take effective measures. The later removal of the local police chief, Liu Yaohua, was largely due to his fault when dealing with the said matter. In conclusion, Meng's visit as well as his orders, was an effective act rather than just giving sound bites. That's my point. Ccyber5 (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the impression you have, that the police were criticized for inaction and stuff (after all, that was one of the main reasons for the September protests). The problem, though, is I don't see these sources as really supporting that. They really do look like sound bites to me ("Meng Jianzhu denounced the riots", "Meng Jianzhu said the government should work hard to catch the criminals", etc.). There are other sources around that attest to the issue of insufficient police response, but these sources are not the ones, and I'm not sure if Meng's visit is evidence of that either (as we already know about the police response, without needing the Meng example to prove it). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

minor thingie (>nat'l minority)

Resolved

Section "backgound," paragraph 2:

"China's minority policy treats Uyghurs as a "national minority" rather than an indigenous group."

I don't think it's clear to the general reader what the difference is here (Isn't clear to me at least) -- couldn't find any appropriate article to link to. (national minority only gives me some general rant...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reddies

Current redlinks (don't think they look good in FA's):

  1. Jirla Isamuddin (mayor)
  2. Grand Bazaar (Ürümqi)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rohan Gunaratna

This guy's comments about WUC's connections to ETIM have been stirring things up in the article a bit, and caused some disagreement at the FAC (and I have a feeling that several of the editors here, like me, believe he's a charlatan—my stance has been that he's still a widely-cited charlatan so we have to bite the bullet and mention his view anyway). After doing some more looking into him, I'm beginning to think we're actually misinterpreting his statement. It seems that, while he still does believe his claim that WUC is connected to ETIM and ETIM to al-Qaeda[4] (a claim which he has not really backed up, more on that later), he apparently does not think there's evidence that they actively incited the riots:

  • Demick, Barbara (21 July 2009). "China says it has evidence deadly Uighur uprisings were coordinated". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 24 January 2010. 'It is true that there is significant radicalization of a tiny segment of the Uighur community, but the Chinese government has not as yet presented convincing evidence that this was a coordinated attack,' Gunaratna said.

This quote comes later than any of the others, so I can assume this isn't just a result of changing his mind. It appears that what has happened was he wrote some vitriol about how evil WUC is, Xinhua picked it up (with the titillating introduction "experts have warned that terrorism might be the real driving force behind the violence", suggesting that he believes terrorists planned the attack, although the Gunaratna quote they use never actually says that), and we took the bait as well, for which I deserve as much blame as anyone.

So now I am thinking we might want to remove the Gunaratna stuff altogether. We still need to have some mention of the Chinese view (as David Straub pointed out to me here, it's still a widely held and important view, even if no real evidence has been produced yet and few of us here agree with it), but there's no need to cite Gunaratna when it appears, based on this LAT ref, that we were actually misunderstanding him all along. Don't get me wrong, I still think he's full of crap (if the conversation goes that way, maybe I'll post my explanation why, now that I've read some of his publications), but at least he doesn't think terrorists actively planned and carried out the riots. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So what's an alternate source for "the Chinese view" (if there is such a thing... let's call it the CCparty-line)? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the two China Daily sources there, especially the first one (with the "experts have warned that terrorism might be the real driving force behind the violence" bit), are probably sufficient—they don't cite specific people but it's enough to show the Chinese view. And I know a lot of the more summary-type articles scattered throughout, such as this one from Time, also mention the Chinese view, although of course they're not as primary as the China Daily and Xinhua ones. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Again I offer no concrete sources here, but from my 'primary sources' of people recalling the events, both Han and Uyghur, they seem to suggest that most "Urumqi Uyghurs" were opposed or neutral about the rioting while it was the "Rural Uyghurs" (who didn't really speak Mandarin and felt shut out of the job scene) who were fervently supportive of rioting. Of course, whether this entails a 'coordinated attack' is still anyone's guess. Colipon+(Talk) 02:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember that too. I think that would probably correspond to the various sources (I don't remember which ones off the top of my head) alleging that the actual rioters came from the south, and were not locals. (Of course, there is still a big difference between coming from rural areas outside of Urumqi and coming from cities in the south...who knows.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I was as careful as I could be when citing this stuff. The whole China Daily piece looked like dangerous synthesis, but that I felt with the NYT mentioning what the chap said, it was justified to cite it. He said that separatists may have been in some way linked, without saying they were involved. It's fine to keep it at that. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem then is relevance to the riots. In the NYT piece, he only even mentions the riots in the first two short paragraphs (about 1/3 of an already brief blurb), and nowhere in those does he explicitly say anything about a separatist or terrorist connection to the riots. (He may be hinting, extremely tangentially, in saying "the gov't fails to differentiate between terrorists, supporters, and sympathizers.) Likewise, in the China Daily piece, he doesn't specifically mention the riots at all—that's a connection that Xinhua (the agency that supplied the article) seems to have made on its own.
So, when you boil all the extra stuff down, really all we have is Gunaratna saying WUC might have connections to ETIM. Relevant to the WUC and ETIM articles, certainly, but I don't see how it's relevant here if he's not specifically saying he thinks they planned the riots. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, let's be done with it. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cause of the riots

According to the NYT article: "The clashes on Sunday began when the police confronted a protest march held by Uighurs to demand a full government investigation of a brawl between Uighur and Han workers that erupted in Guangdong Province overnight on June 25 and June 26. The brawl took place in a toy factory and left 2 Uighurs dead and 118 people injured." - this comes down decisively on the side of provocation by the police. Based on what typically happens in violent demonstrations, this view is consistent, therefore I simplified the text in light of that. Maybe I've jumped the gun, but the cause of the demonstration seems to be clear, as is the eruption of violence. Maybe the reference got displaced, but I couldn't find reference to the Uyghur claim in the source (per the text I removed) - but I don't think it's necessary any more, so I just went and replaced it with the corresponding direct assertion in the NYT. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding you, but I certainly don't think one NYT source is enough to allow us to claim that the riots were caused by police use of excessive force. First of all, that articles says the riots started when the protesters and police met, without saying anything about who threw the first plow. Plus, it's NYT, which people on the pro-China side will trust as little as many of us trust Xinhua.
As for refs for the Uyghur claim about excessive force, perhaps NYT wasn't actually one of the refs that had that, but if you search "excessive force" or "deadly force" on the page there are several other refs...I believe one Time and one AP. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a mistake to dwell excessively on this point. It's really not very sinister either; things often happen because they happen; we introduce the long-standing grievances, the pent-up frustrations, the trigger event in Guanfzhou. One can observe previous eruptions of violence and note that not very much is required to tip past the flashpoint when emotions are high, then things escalate out of control. Note the NYT only used the word 'confront', which is pretty neutral in the context of a large civilian crowd meeting a large number of police. So even if Chinese authorities did not use excessive force - note that I also removed that accusation - I don't see it as being all that relevant. It is sufficiently emphasised that the PRC blames Kadeer, the 'separatists' and the WUC in equal measure, and that Kadeer and the WUC blame the police. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd also say I'm not stuck on this point. Feel free to find a suitable formulation, or revert. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

CCTV TV show on the troop deployment in the city

This might be interesting... Jim101 (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting footage of how a SWAT team actually broke into alleys and round up suspects, molotov attack on troop convoy...commander talk about there are four check points leading in and out of the entire city, army helicopter pilot talk about the difficultly of doing leaflet drop mission in the city etc. Jim101 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Because this article's FAC was derailed (mostly, I think, by Gun Powder Ma's unwarranted POV concerns), I've filed a request for a quick peer review. If anyone watching the article knows of other editors who would be good reviewers (and who haven't already done a review of the article—I've pretty much exhausted most of the expert Wikipedians I know in this area!) feel free to invite them to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2009 Ürümqi riots/archive1. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • We can send it back to FAC in a couple of weeks. See my discussion with sandy. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's what I figured, and I don't expect a PR or anything to bring about any substantive changes, but I figured it would at least be nice to say in FAC2 that we did one in the interim. As a side note, Ruhrfisch suggested at my talk page that an RfC might be more effective than a PR here, so if no one starts a review today I might withdraw the PR and put up an RfC notice instead. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: is this article neutral?

There was some disagreement at the recent FAC over whether this article presents all sides of the dispute neutrally. We would welcome some fresh opinions on the matter. Recent discussions about POV include Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive5#Pro-Uyghur/Anti-Uyghur, User talk:Rjanag#July 2009 Ürümqi riots info for Chinese views, and Gun Powder Ma's statement at the FAC. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg pointed out the "lopsided" intro w/ regards to what caused the escalation. I think we had both views in there at some point but it got lost. I tried to put it back in, though I can't seem to remember the exact wording we had. If someone wants to tweak it, go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It was well caught. I had removed it in an act of oversimplification on 27 January. I found you had already put text in when I was about to reinstate it earlier today. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC again?

Hey, Rjanag, if you're interested in getting this back to FAC, let me know and I'll take a thorough look at it. I tried to review it when it was up but I couldn't read all the way through it. I get distracted and interrupted constantly sometimes. I wrote Rosewood massacre, and found that while these riots were occurring a writer at the Huffington Post compared the two, causing hits to Rosewood to spike a couple times. --Moni3 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, any help you can give would be very appreciated! My plan is to re-nominate it once Nothing to My Name is off FAC, but if you start a review I can wait until you're finished. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing notes

I'm starting to work on going through the article updating, copyediting, etc., to prepare for reviews like GAN/PR/FAC (assuming that people can agree it's ready... it might have to be delayed if the September protests cause it to have another massive wave of editing, and FAC probably won't be an option before we hear anything final about the trials, but this is at least a start); I'll try to leave comments here as I go. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've gotten bold and nominated this for GAN. I still have a few sections to get through, and I'm sure you all will have comments below, but it will probably take at least two weeks before a review starts on this so I think it should be fine. If anyone thinks it's not a good time to nominate this yet, feel free to speak up here and we can withdraw it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

Now that we can look back with perspective, I think it's probably not necessary to have such an in-depth breakdown of the casualty numbers as they vary over time. When we were first writing this we were updating every time a new number came out, but usually preserving the earlier numbers too; now we can probably just report the "final"/"official" number, along with the caveat that it's government statistics and people are uncertain about it (with sources, of course; just about all the recent sources I'm adding in my latest update, which have summaries of the July riots, mention that the death toll is fuzzy). In some cases it makes sense to report temporary numbers (for example, we should say that the first news was reporting 3 dead...then by whatever time, the reported death toll was increased to over a hundred). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I also found it terribly tedious to have an "ethnic breakdown" at every given opportunity. I understand that in the heat of the moment, people are wild for counting the exact number of Han, Uyghur, women, children, bakery-shop owners, and lovers of interstellar Nike-boots, but looking back, it should be in there only once if at all. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It is done. I rewrote the section, excising all the "interim" death tolls (but I kept them, commented out, in a bare-bones fashion... a sentence just saying "over t he next few days it rose to X, then to Y, then to Z..." etc.). Among other things, I removed the bit about bullet wounds—this only seems relevant if we are going to have a more in-depth discussion of what weapons are used, and I can no longer find any NPOV sources discussing that (just try searching Google for Urumqi riot bricks or something and see what you get). I'm also not sure if the following is necessary:

Li Chunyang, spokesman for the Xinjiang government said that the death toll was dynamic because some victims being treated at the hospitals were in critical situation.[1]

It may have been useful at the time, but in retrospect I think any reader with a head on their shoulders can guess why the death toll was changing so often. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. I never understood that that line either, other than with "well duh! yeah, it's not like everyone dropped dead at once..." Suggest to just cut it. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Uyghurs are the only Liberal and non-communist ethnic group in china. so they were the main target by both Chinese Han people and Chinese police. according to Uyghur sources, the total death is over +1000 and those are mostly Uyghur civilians.--Finn Diesel (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Source? And what gives you the idea that Uyghurs are the "only Liberal and non-communist ethnic group in china"? There are many ethnic groups, and ethnic groups aren't communist or non-communist, governments are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
By associating a group of people's biological quality with "racist", "Communist", "anti-Communist", "liberal" or other non-biological trait is typically a racist remark...translation, troll alert. Jim101 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Immediate causes

Also wondering if this is necessary:

Chinese authorities also accused an unidentified WUC member of inciting ethnic tensions by posting a violent CNN video on QQ; although the video was depicting the April 2007 stoning of a girl in Mosul, Iraq, the poster falsely labelled it "a Uyghur girl beaten to death", alleged that the perpetrators were Hans, and urged Uyghurs to "fight back with violence" and "repay blood with blood".[2]

Isn't this giving undue weight to one of the many things that the gov't tracked down and said started the riots? What about the QQ messages, facebook groups, and stuff, all of which were just as widely reported on? If we include this, we should include them as well. IMO, if we can track down the sources, I think the best thing would be to sort of list all these things but not go into so much detail; ie, something like "the government claimed that Uyghurs abroad used QQ messages,[3] facebook,[4] and telephone calls[5] to organize protesters, and used inflammatory videos[6] and (other stuff)[7] and (other stuff)[8] to stir up ethnic tensions". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Esp. unidentified WUC member is weird. Coulda been anyone from either side. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"unidentified" member is my wording, the best I could think of while I was in the middle of a big copyedit. The original wording was this (relevant part highlighted):

Xinhua subsequently blamed the rioting on a CNN video of a stoning of a young girl in Mosul, Iraq on 7 April 2007, which someone had reposted on QQ on 3 July 2009 falsely entitled "a Uyghur girl beaten to death". The post alleged the perpetrators were Hans, and urged Uyghurs to "fight back with violence" and "repay blood with blood". Chinese authorities alleged the entry was posted by a key member of the WUC in Germany to fan ethnic confrontation.

Not much better, I admit. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

This, I think, is where the most cleanup is going to be needed. I have organized the links into subsections, each of which I will blurb about below. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

News coverage

I'm not sure how necessary these are anymore; they were relevant when this was breaking news, but now developments are rarer. The two Chinese ones have had some recent updates over the trial attention and the "needle" protests, but as time wears on I think these will be updated less and less. On the other hand, with the amount of coverage these riots have had, perhaps having these available as an option (for readers who want to do further research) may be a good idea. The BBC timeline also has some extra links to analyses and articles with background info.
Another issue with this section is that Uyghur coverage is specifically absent. There are two Chinese state-owned media outlets, and BBC (which we can presume to be relatively neutral, compared to Uyghur and Chinese sources), but no Uyghur. The thing that first comes to mind is RFA's Uyghur news (that one is in English, there is also one in Uyghur); RFA is biased to one extreme, but Xinhua and CCTV are biased to the other extreme and they are included. The only problem with including the RFA coverage page (and this is a major problem) is that it's for general "Uyghur" news, it's not a dedicated "Urumchi riots" page like the Xinhua and CCTV ones are; thus, as time goes on, other things will be on the front of this page and the Urumchi riot stuff will be buried more and more. I can't think of any good solution for this, unfortunately, and I believe there is no other widespread Uyghur media source (there are local newspapers for Kashkar, Urumchi, etc., but I doubt they can compare to BBC, Xinhua, CCTV, etc.). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought about WUC press releases? I mean we included Xinhua, we might as well include WUC. Jim101 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I think press releases would be appropriate as refs (in fact, I'm about to add some), not external links—since they're not really new information sources and they're not dynamic. Linking to WUC's main page would have the same problem as linking to RFA: it's not just about the riots, it's about everything, so a year from now everything on the front page will be irrelevant. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Photos

There was only the BBC gallery here; I added two more. I think it makes some sense to have links to photos, since we can't really put many up at all (I'm still trying to think if there's anything we might have a good fair-use claim on; more on that later) but I'm sure a lot of readers want to see them. My main concern is that linking these will also encourage people to link more, especially highly-inflammatory ones like that flickr gallery full of images of bikers with their faces smashed in and people with their backs cut wide open. These sorts of photo galleries, while they certainly have a gruesome allure to many of us, also have been widely used to incite ethnic hatred (the "those Uyghur terrorists killed the innocent Chinese people!" type) and need to be watched out for. I'm thinking the best thing may be to leave a hidden comment in that section saying not to add anything other than official galleries posted by official, national media (such as BBC). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Video

This is the hardest one, I think. Both of these videos would ideally be better as references for particular statements—particularly the Democracy Now one, which is basically like an article. On the other hand, that one at least has pictures and video footage of the riots and the July 7 demonstrations/mobs, which might give it usefulness beyond just the talking. I'm not really sure what to do with these. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like the problem of the Kadeer interview video has been solved without us having to make any decisions: the video is no longer on Youtube, so might as well remove the link. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've now also converted the Democracy Now video into a footnote in several parts of the text; now it might be ok to remove it from EL as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Analysis

I have removed the two links that were here (both of which, I remember, sparked controversy back when they were added). They are both single articles and would be more appropriate as refs, if anything, rather than external links. I converted the Engdahl one into a ref for one statement, so that's taken care of. I read the Raman one and found nothing useful there (again, it might have been a nice information source in early July, but now that we have so much other information it's clear that this one has nothing new, and much of what's in it is bunk anyway) so I removed it entirely. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

As has been stated before throughout the archives, it would probably be nice to have some images in the article. So it might be good to start a list of pictures to maybe think about trying to make a fair-use claim on; most of these probably won't be usable, but right now this is just for brainstorming. There are several pictures that either illustrate the extent of the riots better than text alone can, or are iconic in their own light.

Also, I'm trying to see if I can get an account registered on meshrep.com, a Uyghur forum, to do some asking around. A lot of people post photos there (and right now there are some good ones of Urumqi today, one of my favorites is [http://www.meshrep.com/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=15961 this photo of a "wanted" notice), and while it's not clear which are photos people took by themselves and which are ones they just found somewhere, it wouldn't hurt to ask around and see if we could use any of these. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with all the photos in the list is that they only show what happened before and after the riots, but not during the riots...we desperatly need netural photos that shows what happened during the riot. Jim101 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but unfortunately I don't think such photos are ever going to be forthcoming, if they even exist at all. For the same reasons there aren't photos of things like the Virginia Tech massacre—when the events were going on, I think getting photos was probably the last thing on people's minds. That being said, at least one of those galleries (I think the Time one) does have a photo of a group of people rocking a bus to knock it over, and maybe a couple other things like that. Copyrighted, of course. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe some screen captures of amateur footage would also meet a fair-use claim. In particular, this (and, to a less extent, this one; posted to YouTube by the same person, but obviously not filmed in the same place...the voices in the background are Uyghur but I can't quite make out what they're saying) are pretty harrowing pictures of how big the demonstration was. (It also puts the "peaceful protest" idea in perspective a bit... they may have believed they were protesting peacefully and intended to remain peaceful, but if I were in a police officer's shoes I can easily imagine being intimidated seeing that crowd, making that much noice, coming straight at me.) The main issue with trying to get screen captures of these, though, is that I have no idea who owns the copyright; judging by the watermark, they were posted to Youku before being posted on Youtube, so maybe I can dig them up there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Update: I'm having no luck finding the original videos on Youku; in fact, it looks like Youku has been "harmonized". If you search for the Urumqi riots, under a variety of search terms, you get next to nothing. (Ah, searching 7.5 乌鲁木齐 got more hits, but it looks like it's all just copies of news coverage.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking somewhere alone the line of showing damages without the bloody dead body...I remember a photo from Xinhua about paramedics running in front of hospital, that can be used to show that people do get hurt, and there are other photos about police cars getting torched and destroyed, that can be show to reinforce the point that it is a riot as oppose to protest.
Few words of cautions about using the mainstream photos. Without images showing what happened during the riot, placing images of Han mobs and the Uyghr woman protesters side by side implies that there is a pogrom against Uyghur under way. Also, the images about the fainted Uyghr protester does give people the wrong impression that cops shot her like what happened in Iran...anyway, all I can think of at the moment. Jim101 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This photo about the blood stained car might be a good start point on showing what happened...add this photo with the screen caps about a bunch of people over turning police cars and the Xinhua photo with the paramedics running around I believe it should be a good description about what happened during the riot. Jim101 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm, that last one (from China Daily) might also be easier to claim fair use on, since its caption says it was released by police. I'm not sure what the copyright status is then, since it was released by police but published in China Daily; I'll raise the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the Xinhua one would add... it just shows that someone was in a hospital and beaten up badly. It's a nice action shot, of course, but I don't think it illustrates the scope of the riots very much. I'm most interested in pictures of crowds, such as the youtube video and the couple aerial shots I linked above...I think those, especially the video (oh, if only I could find its original source.....) do a really good job illustrating how large-scale this was, beyond what text can do (at some point, big numbers just become meaningless when you read them). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability of outlandish claims...

Reference to previous disscussions here:

I just saw the "10,000 missing" is added in the article. Although I have no objection on including this piece of information in the article, is it really notable enough to put it in the lead? I remember when that news first broke and we disscuss it here, the consense was that this too vague to be of any use (万把个 just means "many many" in a lot of Asian languages, and she just vaguely said "missing" without highlighting the government), and after only one day of headline, the news was pretty much disappeared in most of the news outlets. Unless the HRW supported the 10,000 number, I just can't see this information was notable enough to be in the lead.

On the other side...is the CNN footage on inciting the riot really notable? It's a claim published by Xinhua without any independent sources to back it up, the claim itself is borderline conspiracy theory, and no other sources has highlighted this video as part of the ethnic tension between Uyghur and Hans. IMO it's just a trivial propaganda stunt pulled by the Communists. Jim101 (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think being from Kadeer makes it more notable than just a random reporter. It shouldn't hurt to include it in the article, albeit with better indication that it's Kadeer's claim (right now it just says "exiled Uyghur leaders"). Whether to put it in the lede or not is another issue of course; personally, I think wherever the 'official' estimate and the HRW estimate is introduced it should be ok to mention this one as well, just to give a flavor for the range of estimates that are out there. But I'm open to other opinions. At the very least it's worth putting in the body of the text. I just wish the text of her original speech in Uyghur were available somewhere so I could take a look and verify the translation.
As for the CNN thing, I think we need at least some example of the stuff the Chinese government used as evidence that the riots were incited from abroad. If this example is removed, another one should be found and put in its place. Personally I think it would be fine just to trim the unnecessary detail, which is available in the reference, and focus on the main point. The sentence currently reads
  • "Chinese authorities also accused an unidentified WUC member of inciting ethnic tensions by circulating CNN footage in Mosul, Iraq in April 2007, which was falsely captioned as "a Uyghur girl beaten to death"; the video alleged that the perpetrators were Hans, urged Uyghurs to "fight back with violence" and "repay blood with blood"."
and it could easily be shortened to something more like
  • "Chinese authorities also accused an unidentified WUC member of inciting ethnic tensions by circulating a violent video and urging Uyghurs to "fight back [against Hans] with violence".
The main issue is to keep an eye on balance and make sure the overarching Chinese claim is still being represented, otherwise people will certainly complain that we're taking sides. (Even if we see it as a simple matter of copyediting, trimming the non-notable stuff, etc., many POV editors will see it as whitewashing the article and removing one side of the story.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Trimming the CNN video thing first...that is really crawlling under my skins. As for whether we should put the 10,000 number in the lead, IMO it's not about using one extreme to counter another, it's a matter of context. My point is that even if Kadeer said "10,000 missing", it still does not mean 10,000 people in forced disappearance/detained/died, thus we cannot included this number in a summary of casualties. Jim101 (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that arrests are already mentioned in the lede, making the HRW and Kadeer figures somewhat redundant there, so I went ahead and removed them pending further discussion. I think the lede needs to be pretty sparse to stay under control; all the details are available further down, and giving the lede 3 sentences about arrests/disappearances would be giving it a lot of weight. (I hesitate to say "undue" weight because for many Uyghurs the disappearances are one of the biggest deals out of this whole series of events...but nevertheless they're not what has attracted the most media attention in reliable sources.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I ought to chime in on my rationale for making those insertions... I was a bit hesitant to put in the Kadeer '10,000 missing' claim, but there is no hesitation in my mind that the disappearances ought to feature in the lead as well as the body because of the country context. I feel that we should mention matters which stick out, and this is clearly one of them. If it is important enough to cite the number of dead and injured, I would argue that it is important enough to cite reports of at least 43 disappearances confirmed by a reputable organisation. It matters little where this event happened, although it just happens to be in a totalitarian state that has shown utter disdain for human rights. If so many people go missing, it's big news -or certainly it ought to be. It isn't widely reported because it is a black op. As to Kadeer, well that's different in that it's easy for her to engage in hyperbole, but it simply isn't credible. I put it in because it is clearly related, but it's still only a propagandistic claim, I would have no problems seeing it disappear from the lead.

The second is the source... I see that the HRW article is cited a number of times already in the article, but I had used another (secondary) source because I felt it could give rise to WP:UNDUE claims if we cited information which had not been reported on (i.e. primary-sourced). Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

43 confirmed forced disappearance in the lead is fine...10,000 "went missing" in the lead is over the top. As for HRW article and WP:UNDUE, HRW did their research (abit with some bias), while Xinhua and WUC bombard each other with propaganda without checking facts, thus IMO HRW's observation should deserve a more weight than WUC and Xinhua. Jim101 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. It would probably be a good idea to add some more mention of forced disappearances in or after the sentence about the official arrest numbers. It could be cited to the original HRW report or to the secondary source; whether or not we report the specific numbers is not as big a deal, but at least the fact that there were disappearances is definitely important. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

comments please

Yep...this kind of connections has been popping up even before the riot. Unless the original editor can explain the significance of the event here... Jim101 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I won't say it was entirely irrelevant, but the weight given and the huge chunk copied from a news article create big issues to my mind. It warrants not much more than 2 sentences in the 'reaction' section under Pakistan - which say China maintains that the Riots were driven by separatist Uyghur terrorists, and has sought the help of its neighbour Pakistan, who it gives aid to, to rid the threat. I cannot, however, see what relevance the reported death of Abdul Haq at American hands has to do with Pakistan's effort. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, not irrelevant as the Pakistan's stance on the Uyghur issue, but it is irrelevant to the riot itself. The US-Pakistan-China alliance on hunting Islamic militants around Xinjiang region has been going on ever since Afghanistan got invaded, but it has nothing to do with the riot. Jim101 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Undue weight and irrelevant. Adbul Haq's connection to the riots is tangential anyway (he called for retaliation after the riots, no one claims he caused them), and the fact that he was maybe killed recently, in an entirely unrelated incident, adds nothing to this article. This is an article about the riots that happened in July, not about Uyghurs in general and not about terrorism in general. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Those were basically my reasons as well. I was hoping for Yewhock to give some sorta comment but... seems like s/he never does. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I, for one, will cut Yewhock some slack to see where his is taking this. However, I don't see this as being much of a rewrite from what he had previously, but more of an attempt to circumvent WP:3RR Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, we'll see what happens. It would still be nice if s/he'd cooperate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If he does it again just report him to WP:AN3. This user clearly doesn't have any interest in talking to people or paying attention to consensus, and apparently doesn't even know what this article is about. If he gets blocked, the encyclopedia won't miss him. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tohti's detention

Tohti's detention is by no means clear from the source articles cited. Of course we all know of mysterious 'disappearances' of troublemakers and dissidents in the PRC, and it was by no means obvious from the sources that detention was official. There may be later articles covering his release, but it none cited. The changes were made in that light. If there are official sources about his arrest and subsequent detention, they should be cited. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Added citations from Ilham Tohti article that confirmed his detention and release. I understand that some of you guys are going 24-7 on editing this page for a FAC nomination and might be suffering from wikipedia fatigue, but just reading the Tohti article could have easily confirmed that he was indeed detained, which was verified by Tohti himself, and released.David Straub (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FA follow up comments

I'm sorry that this article received no other significant responses at FAC apart from mine, and that it has been archived. I am also sorry that I was not able to respond to the edits/comments made at the FAC, which was due to real life constraints. This article describes an important topic and obviously lots of work has gone into it. I have considerable respect for editors who seek to bring controversial topics to FA status. I have worked on similar topics myself, and I note that SandyGeorgia suggested that renominating the article in a week or so would be okay. I would like to see this promoted, but I remain concerned about a few things.

  • I understand that the references noted who said what in the article. Nevertheless, this is an article in which it is critical to know the quotee's point of view as part of the text. Ohconfucius has made numerous improvements to this, which is great. In the next few days, I commit myself to making whatever further changes to these attributions seem necessary from my perspective.
  • I'm not convinced by the arguments against using "some", and having looked at the references given for the first sentence at least, I am even less convinced per WP:V. None of them say that "some Uyghurs feel economically and politically marginalised".....One of the sources uses "most/many",[8] and the others talk generally about what "Uyhhurs" believe about their treatment.[9][10][11]. None use the word "some" in this context. Neither does the FT article about what the Han Chinese believe about their position. "Some" implies a minority which is just not verifiable for the sentences I have studied. We must reflect our sources, and if our sources say "Many" or "Most" or imply "all" we must do the same. Attributing the opinion, as Ohconfucius did here[12] may be a good way of dealing with the problem.
  • NPOV: This is a critical issue for an article like this, particularly when aiming for FAC. Aiming for 50% of content (as Rjanag suggested at FAC) is a good start but that 50% needs to contain all the relevant information. That Kadeer denies the Chinese govt allegations is very important and needed to be made clear. This is now the case, which is good. As I said, when I put this article up for external review, the other comment made was that the association of the Uyghur rape allegations to possible forced relocations of young Uyghur women was not made clear. If there is a reliable source for this (and I don't know that there is) then all it needed is a sentence or part sentence to make the point. --Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "Many" is fine as a replacement for "some", and I don't care if you change it to that; as I already said, though, it is no less "weaselly" than "some" is, so I don't see why it's a big deal. "Most" is certainly not fine, for the reasons I expressed at the FAC.
    • As for the rape allegations and relocations of Uyghur women, again, it's not relevant to the riots. It's background info about the Shaoguan incident, and can be mentioned there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, rape allegations were central cause of the Shaoguan riots, but two steps remote from the article's principle subject, the Urumqi riots. The Shaoguan riots, or more precisely the governments handling of it, are already clearly cited in the article as the principal cause, and linked to. To bring in the mention of rape here would I feel be confusing matters - the riots were rooted in ethnic matters; no rapes in Urumqi were ever cited as being the cause of the unrest. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) As I have said several times, I would like to help this article achieve FA status. I understand that lots of work has already gone into the article, but rightly or wrongly, I am getting the feeling that that my (good faith) suggestions and concerns are being dismissed here. Hopefully I'm wrong, so here goes once more...
The question and answer for both of these is, what do the sources say?
  • If the reliable sources say "most" or don't use a qualifier at all, then we need to use one or the other. My checking suggests that this is case, and using "some" is just plain wrong. I would hope that the editors involved in this article would be interested in making the required changes for verifiability rather than asking me to do it.
  • If reliable sources say that a reputed cause of the riots were rape allegations of relocated Uyghur women, and my external reviewer suggests that they were, then that needs to be included to be comprehensive and also of course neutral point of view, both FA criteria. --Slp1 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the first point, the reliable sources don't all say "most", many of those that do are short articles oversimplifying the issue for lay readers, and there is simply no excuse for caricaturing a whole population, especially when "many" expresses the same idea without being offensive. Here is a breakdown of what the sources in the paragraph say:
    • [13]: "many Uyghurs"
    • [14]: generalizes to "the local population", but this is a short article published in a mainstream newspaper (ie, not a specialist or particularly reliable source for a nuance like this)
    • [15]: "many Uighurs"
    • [16]: never specifically says most or all; most of the discussion is in passive voice
    • [17]: the most academic and reliable source here, tends to use "many" (see, for instance, top of p. 2)
    • [18]: "many of whom"
    • [19]: overgeneralizes about the Han locals, but like the glove&mail one above this is a short summary by a non-specialist in a layperson's newspaper
  • As you can see, there is little justification for your claims about reliable sources agreeing on the "most" wording. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the rape issue: I have not yet seen a single reliable source claiming the rape issue as a direct cause of the riots, only as a factor in general discontent and part of the trigger for what happened in Shaoguan. Unless you are going to provide such a source, the issue is moot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion here seems to be about different rape allegations from Shaoguan: "If reliable sources say that a reputed cause of the riots were rape allegations of relocated Uyghur women". I have read countless articles about the riots, and have never seen such. I have done numerous searches with different word combinations, and I am sure I would have found it if it existed. I'm not prepared to put any mention in without actually seeing proof; also, bearing in mind the number of articles which do NOT mention such rape, it may well be disqualified by WP:UNDUE. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if someone could locate such, if it exists. In the absence, inclusion would not be appropriate. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As to removing 'some' or 'most', there will always be Uyghurs who do not feel discriminated against, or have done well out of the Chinese presence, but that is not to be brushed over by using words which may understate or overstate the oppression perceived by the vast majority. However, I think this can be solved with attribution to reliable scholarly source article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to try removing some sentences in the background section, to get it all on a 'purely factual' basis. It's already clear that ethnic conflict has existed for centuries, and that there is a history of unrest. I'm not convinced we need all the ancient history or the opinions to give it any more context. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have too much time to go into the exact sourcing, but let me assure you that "most Uyghurs" or just "Uyghurs" would be totally inaccurate. Some Uyghurs I've met after the event are more Chinese-nationalistic than the Han, particularly Urumqi Uyghurs in the professional world, who don't want anything to do with the "rural Uyghurs" who were part of the rioting. Saying "most" or giving it a general characterization is extremely misleading. Colipon+(Talk) 18:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources for the view that rumours of rape of a Uyghur woman/en were a trigger for unrest.[20][21]. Not sure that the coverage I have found justifies much in the way of a mention (if at all), but the sources are out there.
I'm sorry to see that Ohconfucius has deleted the background information about Han and Uyghur sentiment about each other. I personally thought it was important and informative. I obviously shouldn't have used the word "most" alone in my example, since I am not arguing that the term "most" should be used, only that "some" is not verifiable, and implies a minority (of either Han and Uyghurs) which is simply not supported by the sources. And while your comments are interesting, Colipon, but we must stick to what the sources say, and not use of our personal research into the matter. I would be very happy with "many" or attributing the views to the writer as both I and OhConfucious have suggested above. --Slp1 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not inclined to put much weight on those two sources. The Telegraph one cites "one young woman", hardly proof that that particular rumor was a significant factor in the leadup to the riots. The Yale source's account is quite different from the account of almost every source consulted—it boldly says the riot was "set off by X" as if that is a fact (perhaps belying a lack of understanding of how controversial this is), and calls the deaths of the Uyghur workers in Shaoguan a "rumor", which no one else has called it (as far as I know, there is no significant disagreement that the Shaoguan brawl happened, only disagreement over what caused it). It is not unknown for sources to simply get it wrong, which seems to be what this one has done. And particularly an article like this, an event on which hundreds (if not thousands) of one-off news articles have been written, there is not room to air every single one of them. We review them and make informed judgments about which ones are representative of the widely-held views and which are just weird outliers that we don't have space for; that's why we're called "editors" and not "aggregators". rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's even hazier... it says "One young woman told the Telegraph she had heard [...]" - so source says that she said that someone had told her that "they" say... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As stated previously, I was removed the source of contention, the weasely comments about the polarised sentiment between Uyghurs and Han, and distilled it down to what was purely factual. I felt that while what I removed was indeed informative, it was not essential background as far as this article is concerned. I just feel that the benefit of removal - simplicity and factual - outweighed the 'cost' - the risk of 'exploding' the scope of the article with deep analysis as to who feels more aggrieved, what sections of the Uyghur population benefited from the influx of Chinese, yada yada yada. . After all, it is a big subject, and readers wanting to know more about the history of the conflict and the deep-seated resentment or miscomprehension have other sources. You are welcome to reinstate it, provided we can agree how the article is framed, but I have a feeling it's going to take an awful long time to resolve.

As to the rape, thanks for the links. I'm inclined to say the Yale source is simply wrong; as to the Telegraph reports, Seb and Rj said all that needs to be said - it's a very good example of Chinese whispers - rumours gone amok in the heat of the rioting.

Or we could have something like this in the background section: "Beijing has engaged in a systematic, multi-decade program of marginalizing Uighurs in their own homeland, fostering economic growth that favors the Han majority of eastern China and that encourages the exploitation of Xinjiang’s wealth of natural resources for Han areas. Beijing has organized and encouraged an influx of Han into Xinjiang, changing the ethnic ratio since 1949 from about 5 percent Han to more than 40 percent today. Moreover, Uighur culture and the Muslim religion are contained under tight restrictions. Beijing proudly points out that Xinjiang in recent years has been among the fastest growing economies in the country, with per capita income higher than all regions except China’s southeast coast. Most of that growth, however, has accrued to State-owned enterprises, Han entrepreneurs, or the government; not to Uighurs. And income inequalities there have actually expanded significantly in recent years. The region also suffers from some of the worst environmental degradation in China. It is hardly surprising that frustration occasionally boils over into civil unrest – or that such conditions breed terrorist groups intent on taking action against the regime." source: Yale article (Not a serious suggestion, BTW) ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My greatest fear is now realized...even if we are being careful, the fact that we are all amateurs with no complete backgrounds in sociology, anthropology, Central Asian history and Chinese history means that all of our understanding of the background will be skewed and incomplete. What we really need are scholar reference from established experts on Xinjiang. Since one of us has been able to contact Dr. Gardiner Bovingdon, my 2 cents are: maybe it's time for a follow up call? Jim101 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just in Bovingdon's office yesterday talking with him and I doubt whether he has the time (or desire). He's traveling overseas soon.David Straub (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem with lack of expertise here. Many of us know quite a lot about the topic. The issue is that some newspaper articles, written for laypeople and oversimplified to make the story nice and short, clash with common sense. But that need not be a problem, we can exercise judgment when summarizing our sources; as one editor I know once said, part of editing for an encyclopedia is reducing extraordinary claims ["Uyghurs feel like this and Han feel like that"] to ordinary fact [some people feel that way, but no population is homogenous]. As for scholarly references, at the very least we do have that monograph by Arienne Dwyer, who is certainly an established expert on Xinjiang. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested scholar reference instead of media reference...since the background section is dealing with controversial issues here, we have to treat every claims as exceptional claims, and thus the source standards must be set extremely high. The only way that guarantee the standards is upheld is by consulting the peer reviewed opinions of experts. Jim101 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OhConfucius' edit

Regarding this change: I agree with the desire to make the background section more concrete and factually grounded (although I don't think this should be done only to satisfy Slp, whose complaints do not seem to hold much water). But I'm not sure removing the fuzzy parts is the best way to do it. I don't think it's enough to just say there are "tensions"; rather, we need to say at least a bit about the source of the tensions (otherwise it'll go in readers' one ear and out the other). The passage in question is

Some say that their culture and traditions are being suppressed under the influx of Han migrants[9][10] and an education system that emphasises Chinese language and culture,[11] and that they are denied the rights to worship.[12] On the other hand, according to the Financial Times, some Han people see Uyghurs as being disloyal and ungrateful, harbouring separatist aspirations in spite of preferential policies towards them,[13] and believe unequal laws favour Uyghurs over Han people.[12]

Rather than outright removing it, how about softening the language? Something like

These tensions originate from a number of issues. On the one hand, some Uyghurs feel they lack freedom[12] and that their culture is being suppressed under the influx of Han migrants[9][14] and an education system that emphasises Chinese language and culture.[11] Some Han citizens, on the other hand, view Uyghurs as separatists[15] and believe unequal laws and preferential treatment favour them.[12]

(Originally I tried to write something without "X feels this way, Y feels that way", more like "sources of contention include X and Y and Z", but it turned out to be difficult to do that without enshrining one view or the other as 'truth'—it would have looked like "sources of contention include the (perceived) suppression of Uyghur culture and bla bla bla", which wouldn't be POV. But I still feel like the rewording I'm suggesting is somewhat softer than what was there before, and more encyclopedic since it couches this not just as an airing of grievances, but as an explanation for why these tensions exist.) How does this look? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that I never asked for the section to be deleted, and in fact spefically regretted that it was. A word of advice as you go back to FAC: making dismissive comments about FAC reviewers/reviews is not particularly strategic.--Slp1 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I never said you "asked for the section to be deleted". In fact, I think we all regretted that it was deleted, which is why OhC, Jim and I have all been working on restoring and rewriting it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As for being "dismissive", I already left an extensive explanation above of why I don't agree with the particulars of your complaint. I don't see how digging through multiple sources to respond to your comments qualifies as "dismissive". rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I guess I misinterpreted your comments above about satisfying me and my not-holding-water complaints, which is what I view as dismissive. Yes, you did do an extensive source check following my request for an analysis into what sources said about the matter. I clearly made an error, for which I apologize, by not giving both "most" and "many: as examples in my first sentence, ("If the reliable sources say "most" or...), as my intent was simply to point out the need to look at the sources to figure out what the correct wording should be rather than propose any specific wording. Your analysis of the sources was very helpful as it pointed out that the sources generally used "many" or no qualifier. None of them used "some" or in any way implied that only a minority of Uyghurs felt aggrieved, showing "some" was not verifiable, which has always been my main point. --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I see no problems with either version, but outright omitting it seems wrong. If it boils down to a sad choice between "completeness or featured article", I'd say forget about the FA-status. The main goal should be completeness. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, to achieve FA and completeness is a matter of finding high quality sources. I don't see why we should just stop at completeness, but to make a trade off, a little fuzziness for completeness can be tolerated. But by looking at the proposed passage, my impression is that scholar sources to support those points shouldn't be that hard to find. I'll see if I can dig my university library on books written by Gardner Bovingdon during the weekend. I think I'll start with this book. Jim101 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Letting it sit for a week was no bad thing. The article does indeed looks bit bare, and I tend to agree that the removal was not such as good idea after all. WP:WTW is but a style guideline, which tells us to exercise caution when writing in this fashion; it does not say we must not write in this way; and if it did, we would cite WP:IAR. I now believe that 'weasely' expressions are right in this context not because we are attempting to pass something off as a majority view when it is a minority view, but because that is the reality of the situation; we have exercised that caution in our writing, and believe it is necessary in order to present a balanced view. I would make one observation in your rewritten text is that 'harbouring separatist aspirations' is not the same as 'are separatists', and in that sense, the original version is preferred. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Look, WP:NPOV policy only works if the topic context is well established, well the biggest problem is that it is not established in this case. Without establishing context, we are forced by NPOV to present every view as "notable view", which by itself is a breach of NPOV. Instead of concretely presenting that "majority believes this" and "minority believes" that, we are stuck with "somebody says this" and "somebody says that". Seriously, how do we assign weight to "somebody's" opinions without breaching NPOV? Because we all been there? That just goes against WP:OR.
The real point of NPOV is not to make every piece of information available, but to assign proper weights to the contents within an article. NPOV policy did state:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Jim101 (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course that is worth considering. But I don't want to get anyone overly concerned about this one section of the article. Please no one think we're setting out to write a dissertation-like account of tensions in Xinjiang; this is just a brief summary of the background, and it's not the focus of the article. Of course, it's necessary background information to establish, but none of us needs to do months' worth of research for it. As long as we put together something that explains the issue clearly to the reader and is within policy, we will be ok. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That was exactly what I was trying to avoid, by removing that stuff. It's not central to the article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not dissertation, but please at least use a book or two for the background section. So that when some POV pusher trolling by with semi-reliable source, we have at least some standards to weed out the BS. Jim101 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Will the first among us who finds a suitable reference put it in? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do on the weekend, it is summer time after all.Jim101 (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a government source that looks like it will be useful:

I've started a draft of this paragraph in User:Rjanag/Sandbox#Ürümchi draft. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

By going over few scholar works, I think the current form is complete. Jim101 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That looks great. Thanks for identifying these sources—in particular, it's nice to have more reliable sources to back up the Han side of things, since before it was just he-said-she-said in newspaper articles. I've taken a stab at integrating all this into the article [22]; how does this look? rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
A lot better, at least now we won't have to resort to hearsay evidence. God bless Google scholar. Jim101 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Good work! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, these academics are so diplomatic and reserved... "while cracking down on activity that appears to constitute separatism" is such an understatement. ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I forgot a word...it now reads "while cracking down on any activity that appears to constitute separatism." The main point of that entire sentence is that the government policy literately segregates the Uyghurs, while the segregation of makes the government suspicions of "separation". Jim101 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't forget it, I believe I intentionally removed the any when copyediting. I think the version without "any" still gets the same point across, without making it look as if we are taking a position. In other words, it expresses the same fact without putting as much spin on it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the 'segregation' comes across that much. Also, just want to ask why 'resentment' is in double quotes, and why the word is in plural form, when it's hardly ever spelt that way despite being an unquantified noun? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The source uses it that way, discussing a long list of "resentments" that have come about because of various policies. The source is very hesitant to talk about "tensions" (basically he seems to be saying "people resent this and resent that, but there aren't serious tensions there because of whatever"—although that was written in 1997, and I'm not sure I agree anyway), so I figured I should be safe and use what the source being cited uses. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's great to see that you have beefed up the references. However, the problem with the use of "some", implying that these are minority opinions, still remains for Uyghurs section. For the Han section, the Kaufman reference supports the contention that Han complaints come from a minority: "many recognize that some privileges inevitably attach to autonomous status" "Western journalists who broach the subject with ordinary Han in minority areas report that resentment is not noticeable"(p. 29); the Pei article supportst the complaints, but not that it is a minority view. BTW, as an opinion column it is not the best source for such facts. Per reliable sources guideline the information should, strictly speaking, be attributed to Pei in the text.
As far as the Uyghurs go, the current text is not verifiable, as far as I can see, that only some Uyghurs feel aggrieved. Looking at your references
  • Moore states "Uighurs have a legitimate complaint – that they are economically disenfranchised and discriminated against"... "However, the complaints of the Uighurs are far more serious. They are restricted from worshipping freely, from free movement (their passports are often held by the police and visas are difficult to obtain) and they are clearly not benefitting from the economic prosperity of their province." No mention of this being a minority opinion, and in fact Moore appears to accept that they are discriminated against.
  • Bovingdon is an excellent scholarly reference, and he concludes that "the combined record of overt and covert resistance suggests rather that the majority of Uyghurs are unhappy with the system of autonomy and the course of politics."
  • Gladney, another great scholarly reference, says "most Uyghurs argue that governmental policy deliberately uses the schools to downplay their history and traditional culture"(p113);
  • Dwyer doesn't talk about the perceptions of Uyghurs but states as a fact that "multilingualism and cultural pluralism have been progressively curtailed in favor of a monolingual, monocultural model",
  • Coonan (another opinion column, unfortunately), talks generally about what "the Uyghurs" feel.
Not one of these references suggest that only "some" Uyghurs are resentful, and in fact the most scholarly sources clearly suggest that it is a majority.
As Jim rightly pointed out, NPOV and V means accurately reflecting what the sources actually say, and giving appropriate weight to them. It does not mean softening and adjusting them in order to somehow balance the tone of the article overall, as seems to be the approach here.--Slp1 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed "some", I don't get the use of that word anyway since scholar sources did not say "some". Jim101 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times, Sip, you are welcome to change "some" to "many" (which is equally weaselly). Any other wording risks caricaturing a population and can't be added without consensus. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Weasel working is not the major issue here. Verifiability and NPOV, are the crux, and essential if you want the article to get FA status. I don't really need your permission to edit, of course, but in this case, as I said before, I think it better for editors here, who have done the research and know the sources, to decide on the changes to make. That includes looking carefully at the sources and based on them deciding whether to use a word like many/most/the majority of Uyghurs or leave it unqualified as some sources do (even if it might caricature a population). I don't have actually have an opinion on what the best wording would be; it just needs to be faithful to the sources cited, which I think the text is at present. --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I rewrote the entire sentence, and removed the "people believe" part...really no need to soften the language, the academics has already agreed on those points. Jim101 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Thanks. --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

break

  • Well done, all - we've used this week profitably. Shall we take it back to FAC, now that the major issues seem to have been ironed out? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think so; just wanted to wait to hear you guys' opinions. I'll add the template now :) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
We sure are a tenacious bunch to get this article to FAC. Jim101 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hehe. I left messages with several people inviting them to comment (including people who commented on past FACs). If any of you think of someone else who would be good to ask, feel free to invite them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New Development Strategy

This is more for my own reference, but I thought it would be useful to put into the article later on as well: [23] [24] [25]. Colipon+(Talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Coverage

The intro to this article says "Chinese media coverage of the Ürümqi riots was extensive, and was compared favourably to that of the unrest in Tibet in 2008". You fail to mention that the western coverage of the event was very poor and paled in comparison to the coverage of the Tibetan protests. You imply that it was equally well covered. This is false. Please correct this and inform the reader that coverage in western media was far less. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source to verify that? From what I remember, there was a large deal of coverage of this as well, from numerous major newspapers in numerous countries, and with just as much "discussion" as the Tibet unrest. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that the riots in Urumqi were not particularly well documented in my country (UK). It certainly didn't get the widespread news coverage that the 2008 Tibetan protests or indeed the 2007 Burma protests did. In fact I vaguely remember some news reports on it but not the widespread coverage for the other riots. Also the way the article is currently written implies that the writer is aware of this issue. It looks as if this is directly being dismissed and focusing only on coverage in Chnhina being equal of the event. This in my view distorts the actual way in which it was covered. As for a source, I don't know what newspaper would say "Urumqi riots not well documented in west". But it currently misleads the reader, I should have picked up on this at the FAC. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This article includes numerous sources from The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, and BBC—not just from the days of the riots, but from the months following. In fact, the BBC coverage is some of the best.
No offense, but this really looks to me like you're trying to retaliate for an unrelated dispute you're having with another editor by attacking his work here (both in this discussion and at WT:CHINA#Conflict of interest?). The tenuousness of your complaints and your timing in bringing it up just look that way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but what I witnessed over the Tibet Museum article indicated to me that Seb has a strong resentment of the PRC and their propaganda. He identified something which I had not even noticed which indicated he is very politically minded. When I saw that I immediately being suspicious that he has some anti PRC agenda on here. And when I saw he had heavily edited this article and I was curious anyway as to why the article has had so much passion and work go into it I couldn't help but think there was some very good reason for him to do so. I immediately thought, given his apparent views on the Tibet Museum article that he had written it to identify the grievances/violence agianst the Ugyhur people and to make their issues more widely known by consolidating it on wikipedia. Hence I jumped to the conclusion that he is a sympathizer against the PRC. So yes his comments about the Tibet museum article did cause me to reread this article and scutinize it suspiciouslt. But as I say it would seem to be neutral, covering violence on both sides in what is quite a difficult subject to write about which is commendable. The only thing I picked up on was that I think the part about saying it was equally well covered in China but does not mention the rest of the world appears misleading. I would not identify a problem for the sake of it. Its a minor one but all I know is that I can't remember the extent of the coverage being on par with 2007 Burma and 2008 Tibet protests. Obviously it was covered judging by the sourced used in the article but I don't think it was equally well covered in the UK and other places. It is difficult though to gauge under "coverage" and as you say much easier to gauge "overcoverage" like Madeline McCann for instance... Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"He identified something which I had not even noticed which indicated he is very politically minded." Huh? So noticing an error in an article (one that you've already admitted was your own screw-up) suddenly makes someone a POV-pusher? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Guys, seriously stop it, this is not the place for this. Either people provide source or take it elsewhere. Jim101 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

break

Furthermore, I'm not even sure what you're asking to have added, or how it would be encyclopedic. The reason there is information about the coverage in China is because the Chinese media's handling of unrest has been a big issue, and the comparison between this and the domestic coverage (or lack thereof) of Tibet in 2008 is quite notable. I don't see anything particularly relevant, notable, or encyclopedic to say about international coverage of the events—we could say "there was a lot of coverage", but that is already implicit by the fact that this event was deemed worthy of an encyclopedia article and, I dunno, the over 200 references at the bottom of the article. Or, if all there is to say is "it attracted less coverage than the Tibetan unrest", well, that is something you apparently cannot prove, and even if you could, that observation alone is meaningless unless some significant conclusion were being drawn from it (i.e., if some international sources were accused of covering up the issue, playing favorites to Tibetans, or anything like that). Now, I can tell you, one thing that did happen was that some international sources were accused of representing Tibetans as the "good guys" in 2008 but as representing the Uyghurs as "scary" in 2009 (see, in particular, a lot of the Times coverage). But that is not a claim that there was less coverage, it's a claim that there was different coverage. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, just a heads up, Micheal Jackson died around the same time this riot happened...so it was not under reported, it just got buried. And use a source like from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting before engage in disputes like this (all I managed to find are media bias on Copenhagen Climate Summit). Jim101 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
FAIR appears to have one article from 2008 criticizing the overabundance of reporting on Olympic torch protests (not on Tibetan unrest specifically), nothing criticizing any lack of reporting on the Urumchi riots. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, it might be useful to poke around for media watchdogs reports like FAIR (maybe not RS) or Accuracy in Media, etc. Saying "I remember my local media did not report adequately" is hardly useful to a discussion like this. Jim101 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
"You fail to mention that the western coverage of the event was very poor and paled in comparison to the coverage of the Tibetan protests. You imply that it was equally well covered. This is false." You're making an assertion about an alleged implicit comparison, and I just don't see it. I don't see how one could draw that conclusion. An article mentions, for example, that Deng Xiaoping was short compared with most Chinamen, yet there is no direct mention that Europeans are taller than Chinese. It is impossible to make an inference or otherwise to the height of Deng compared to Europeans. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been promoted! Thanks very much to everyone who helped out with editing, reviewing, and/or commenting in discussions throughout the sometimes arduous process of writing this article...everyones' hard work has paid off! Now to work on getting the TFA nomination ready ;) ... rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF? BOOM! What's the next gig? :P it's summer again... btw... will this be on the front page in July (e.g. more nationalist onslaught coming up)? nevermind... yeah, let's put June 5 on our schedule Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Great work! Colipon+(Talk) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I set up User:Rjanag/Ürümqi TFA to prepare the TFA nom. All that's left is to write up the blurb (will probably just be a shortened version of the article lede) and decide on an image to use (we can use the video--which will need to be compressed to a smaller size--or a screengrab from the video, or one of the other images in the article). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work on the blurb, although it should definitely only be one paragraph. Also, not a fan of the video for the image... too bad File:Armed_Police_armored_vehicles_in_Urumqi_(3).jpg was taken in September because it could almost work. Regardless, excited to see this nominated as TFA soon. --Caleb (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

TFA info

Hey everyone, just FYI, I am in China for the summer and my ability to access Wikipedia is unpredictable, so I may or may not be around to help out with the TFA nomination. If no one hears from me don't worry, just go ahead without me; if there are any issues or anyone needs input you can contact me by e-mail. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WHY WAS THIS DELETED?

This is from The New York Times: According to the transcript, Mr. Xia explained how Xinhua concealed the true horror of the unrest, during which the victims were mostly Han Chinese, for fear that it would set off violence beyond Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang region. Uighur rioters burned bus passengers alive, he told the class, and they raped women and decapitated children.[26]

According to Chinese policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law

Xinjiang doesn't belong only to Han Chinese or Uyghurs, over 50% of Xinjiang has autonomous areas for other ethnic groups. see this, this, this, this and this.

It should be something like this:

they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han and other ethnic groups that have their own autonomous areas in Xinjiang(Kazakh, Hui, Kirghiz, Mongol, Xibe and Tajik)[16] and have no special rights to the land under the law.Obklg (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what the hell are you trying to accomplish by plastering a million way people died in the riot, which is only reported by the government? And what in the hell are you trying to pull by manipulating ethnic composition data and migration history? Unless you can find at least 2 sources that explicitly state that "Ugyhur does not deserve the title of indigenous population in Xinjiang," you are committing WP:OR offense. Jim101 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, stop hiding behind the New York Time to cover the fact you take things out of context and abusing hearsay evidence, especially the article is just about how Mr. Xia explain how Xinhua manipulate news, not the riot. The only thing that is worth mentioning is the sentence "Mr. Xia explained how Xinhua concealed the true horror of the unrest," not pillaging by Uyghurs. Jim101 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:3RR. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

Dealing with trolls aside, there are two important facts within the New York Times report:

According to the transcript, Mr. Xia explained how Xinhua concealed the true horror of the unrest, during which the victims were mostly Han Chinese, for fear that it would set off violence beyond Urumqi...leaving a government-organized media tour to sneak into a hospital to photograph the bodies of those slain during a wave of bloodletting by Han Chinese after the initial burst of unrest. Those deaths, he told the class, were reported to Beijing but did not make it into official news reports.

I think we have to add them in the appropriate sections. Jim101 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I added them in the "Media Coverage" section. Jim101 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this is new or important. It just says stuff the the article already says: that some Uyghurs committed violence against Han victims on July 5. All it adds is unnecessary senstionalist detail (words like "beheading" and "rape"). Furthermore, User:Obklg is adding at as if it is fact ("it was revealed that...") when the source actually only presents it as hearsay ("so-and-so said that..."). Clear POV-pushing, no need to bend over backwards to pander to the useless editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I just added "Xia Lin, a top official at Xinhua, later revealed that Xinhua concealed the horror of the initial rioting for the fear that the violence would spread beyond Ürümqi. Xia also reported that the deaths caused by Han demonstrators in the aftermath of the riot were not reported by official news channels.[187]". It is important on how Chinese media functions during the riot. Jim101 (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International report

Source

A big news right now, but I just can't see what is different from Amnesty International report and this article...how to incorporate? Jim101 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind...stupid media is hyping again...AI just said that it received conflicting information on whether or not police used excessive force and started the riot per page 13-14, no surprise there. AI also said police shot rioters on page 15, but Xinhua had already admitted that they shot 12 people during the riot. The only thing I can think of is whether to add "firearm" in the passage "they used tasers, tear gas, water hoses, and batons to disperse the rioters"...
BTW, did anyone notice that AI report's footnotes are almost identical to ours? :P Jim101 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(Caveat: I haven't read the full report before making this comment, and I probably won't be able to for a long time, so this is just speculation based on your description.) At the very least, it would be good to have this report around as a more reliable source than news articles (both in terms of "academicness" and age), and use it to beef up any claims that people think currently aren't cited enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Preempted some controversial claims that the BBC is hyping over. The AI claim that only Ugyhur witness is available for detailed interview (page 15) is complete bullock. Jim101 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, we ARE talking about Amnesty International's modus operandi... Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Added one question in FAQ due to recent POV abuse...

Just a heads up. Jim101 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Um

what the hell happened to all of the e's and what is with the template stuff????? 69.142.173.78 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok nevermind, it's fixed. 69.142.173.78 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I don't want to do anything to this page in a presumptive fashion, given how much excellent work has been done already- but I just published an article about a meeting I had with some of the organisers of the July 5th riot, and so if anyone's interested, and thinks it might be worth referencing somewhere on the page, it's at http://nplusonemag.com/a-perfect-bomb. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.14.184 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Nick. I just read that the other night actually (a friend passed it on) and it is indeed a fascinating read. When did you meet with Alim? (I don't think that was clear in the essay.)
As for use here, to be honest I'm not sure if we will be able to reference it directly because of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing and self-published sources, and I'm not sure what the status of N+1 is. Someone who knows more might be able to clarify. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, the interview reads like Mao's manifesto..."powers grew out of the barrel of a gun" anyone? Jim101 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This Alim is a liar. See Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots#I_was_there_when_the_riot_happened. Jawley (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Minute edits

Here I repeat what I said in the edit summary for the edit that User:Seb az86556 reverted and told me to "take it to talk", without an indication as to what angles any objections (if any at all) are coming from. Thus I repeat and extend my explanations for my minute edits:

  • "Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region" → "Local Uyghurs and the central government...". Describing the government as "mostly Han" is technically true, but not a surprising fact worth mention, because as the population of China is overwhelmingly Han (and not a case of a dominant minority like whites in South Africa); it is to be expected. But, the government of China does not claim to be a government just for Han people, but a government that represents (and indeed has in its ranks) many ethnic minorities of China. So describing the government as "mostly Han" inappropriately racializes the government in the same way as if we preceded the government response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots by saying "the mostly white government..." The government's claimed historical connection, anyway, is not based on the Han ethnicity's ties to the region, but on government of China control there; over which it claims continuity. So the better contrast is "local Uyghurs" and the "central government". The former can be changed to simply "Uyghurs" if you like.
  • "According to Chinese policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law." → "According to Chinese policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang...". Chinese policy makes no distinction between "national minority" and "indigenous group"; indeed the latter term is not even used in Chinese policy. The clause after the en-dash explains this. The clause before it is at best redundant, at least confusing and implying that there is some indigenous status in Chinese law to be withheld, and at worst saturating the readers' eyes with "indigenous" over and over in close proximation to "Uyghur" to imply some point of view. Removing the clause makes the sentence more succinct, neutral, and readable.
  • "as a result of Han immigration and government policies, Uyghurs' freedoms of religion and of movement are curtailed," → "as a result of government policies, Uyghurs' freedoms of religion and of movement are curtailed,". The only source of the two cited that mentions "Han immigration" in this context, the East West Center Washington paper, says [and this may be from where the Wikipedia sentence derives] "Han immigration and state policies have dramatically increased the pressure on Uyghurs to assimilate linguistically and culturally". This does not say that the immigration or the policies have curtailed freedom of religion or freedom of movement. This was taken from another article, Malcolm Moore's Telegraph blog: "However, the complaints of the Uighurs are far more serious. They are restricted from worshipping freely, from free movement (their passports are often held by the police and visas are difficult to obtain)". This is not even a statement of fact, just a Uyghur "complaint", which we can infer comes from government policy (with the police and passports), but which we cannot see comes from Han immigration, so this inappropriately synthesizes the sources. The removal of "Han immigration" but keeping the "government policy", which is still not properly attributed but more reasonable, is a good solution that doesn't rewrite things.

Thus was my thinking laid bare. Comments, questions, concerns? Quigley (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You do make a convincing case, but User:Seb az86556 still have to respond to your reasoning before we can make subtle POV changes such as this. In the main time, those are non-critical minor points, it can wait for few days. Jim101 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to look through this carefully right now but I will try to have a look later tonight or tomorrow and see if I can offer any comments or suggestions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my understanding of the above three points:
1) This one is a tricky minefield, since all source cited on this article made a specific point that key positions in Xinjiang government, such as party bosses, are always Han controlled, while Uyghurs are only allowed in figure head positions. "Mostly Han government" may be an irrelevant point, but a Han controlled government is not a irrelevant point.
2) My understanding is that this statement criticized the PRC law for confusing the social/anthropological concept of minority group with indigenous group. So IMO the "indigenous group" part is still needed for comparison.
3) This change I feel okay either way, due to the fact that Han immigration was a key government policy, so there could be some redundancy. However, if this change is made, don't be surprised that the term "mostly Han government" will be swapped with "Han controlled government" to highlight a key effect of immigration and to even out the POV. Jim101 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Jim sums it up pretty well; at least one of these has to stay, otherwise it's sweeping one of the clear points of the conflict under the rug. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
1) In context, this sentence refers not to the Xinjiang government, but the China government, which is expected to be Han. And this sentence is about "historical claims to the region", which is a contrast between the central government and the Uyghurs, and not the Xinjiang government and the Uyghurs. Furthermore, "Han controlled government" implies that there is some sort of law or policy that mandates Han control over the government, which is not a safe thing to infer. So in context, "Central government and local Uyghurs" is best. If you want to make a point about the Xinjiang government having more Hans than you think proper (there are no mandated quotas that the government has failed to fulfill, AFAIK), then that is better done somewhere else in the section.
2) The statement actually does not criticize the policy for any confusion between the concept of the minority group and the indigenous group. It just says that Chinese law, in keeping with longstanding Chinese beliefs, recognizes no concept of indigeneity. Thus, indigeneity is a foreign concept which we already explain that the minority group is not. No need to imply that there is some indigenous status in China to be withheld.
3) I'm glad that we agree to the change, even if we don't as to why. It is not clear at all to me how the immigration (or more precisely the presence) of Han people automagically reduces the religious and movement freedoms of Uyghurs. And I think we have to be careful about implying that all movement of Han is government-sanctioned, just because we may think it convenient to the regime. Since the Chinese economic reforms, there have been many internal migrations based on economic reasons. There have been non-government-sponsored migrations before that too, such as migrations to escape war or famine, that might have landed people in Xinjiang. A source really needs to say that the policy was to settle Han in Xinjiang (and that this policy was actually implemented substantially, creating most of the Han population there); not that just the government did not abridge the freedom of movement of its Han citizens who decided to move there, or that it ended up with Hans in Xinjiang as a result of some other policy of settling soldiers, etc. Quigley (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
1) It has been a key point for Central Asian scholars that all level of Chinese government, including central government, purposely excludes other ethnicity from key government posts. Scholars also argued that even if the central government did not purposely encourage this practice, the fact that it is willing to turn a blind eye on this issue for decades also permitted Hans to take over local governments in minority region. So the opinion that Han controls the government because they outnumbers others is more of a fringe theory at this point (unless of course, you provide sources directly supports your point).
2) I'll let Rjanag to explain the wording (since he wrote it), but that is our original intent. If you can come up with better wording, then let us know. As for indigenous status as a foreign concept, it is a foreign concept that caused the grievance of Ugyhurs, so it is still relevant to the discussion.
3) I agree with your "economic migration" analysis on this point, which is why I suggested to remove it from "restricting freedom" part. However, the damage from forced migration of the past had already been done, and the lingering impact of past mistake is that Ugyhurs are now being squeezed out of the government and the Xinjiang society, and this key impact of immigration still need to be shown somewhere in the background. Jim101 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
1) That Hans should hold top posts simply because of numbers is not a "fringe theory", it is simple intuition. If you have strong sources, and apparently you do from your confident use of "Central Asian scholars", then you should cite some of them next to the phrase "Han-controlled" if you put it before a government, because that characterization is definitely contentious. But you should also establish the direct relevance of saying "Han-controlled" in this context, because remember, in this sentence about historical claims to the region, the issue for the government is not about the Han ethnicity's connection to the region, but the central government's connection to it.
2) I did not propose to remove the contrast to "indigenous". It just happens twice consecutively, and I want to remove the first phrase; the more useful second one is still there.
3) Talking about past migrations might be going too deep into history where the article says it does not want to go. If the problem is the Han presence in Xinjiang, then the problem should be said to be the current Han population. Implying that the Han are not rightfully in Xinjiang, by selective mention of past migrations, is gratuitous. Quigley (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
1) As for my point, I direct you to Bovingdon, Gardner (2005), Autonomy in Xinjiang: Han nationalist imperatives and Uyghur discontent (PDF), Political Studies 15, Washington: East-West Center, ISBN 1932728201 and Dillon, Michael (2004), Xinjiang – China's Muslim Far Northwest, RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-32051-8. Both authors are renowned experts on the Xinjiang issue, and both texts are required reading in Central Asia studies. If Wikipedia runs on intuition, then China should lost the Korean War while suffering 1 million dead by conducting human wave attacks...it is a popular idea due to the fact that China always have 2 to 1 superiority in numbers, but it is accurate? No, intuition does not work on complex topics such as this. If your point is obvious, then multiple reliable academic sources, from both China and the West, should be readily available to support your claim. It only took me few minutes to find high quality academic sources on how Chinese government treat Ugyhur better than Han, if you want your points heard, I suggest you do some research rather than do logic.
3) Not talking history means we do not talk about how problems came to be, but that does not mean we stop talk about the problem altogether. Within this article, we took pain to avoid discussions about Second East Turkestan Republic, Wang Zhen, or the Cultural Revolution, but does this mean that we should stop talking about Ugyhur Nationalism, security crackdowns and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which are running alive even today? We can agree on not discussing the history of Han migration between 1949-1980, but that does not mean the modern day effects of past migration should be ignored altogether. Jim101 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Before I dive in, let me give you some quick background. Just about every word in this article is the result of some sort of consensus that got twisted around to resolve some lengthy argument somewhere in the archives; in this case, that whole paragraph is mostly the result of this, particularly this subsection, which you should skim through to get an idea what issues were raised and why the paragraph was rewritten to look the way it is now. Awkward wordings are a somewhat inevitable outcome when articles are edited through a microscope by many different editors as this one often has been, and I'm not saying the present wording is perfect, I just want you to be aware what can of worms you are opening when you suggest changing anything in this section.
Now, on to specific comments.
  1. "Uyghurs and the mostly Han government" should stay the way it is, or be reworded as an appositive like "Uyghurs and the central government (which is mostly Han)". Keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia that's in the business of explaining things in a clear fashion to laypeople, and don't need to be trimming down every word we can to stay underneath some kind of quota. A little redundancy or pointing out of something that we experts find "unsurprising" is not necessarily a bad thing, if it serves to focus the important information for a reader who is totally new to this topic. In this case, there is certainly a strong racial undercurrent to this whole issue, which is widely documented in our sources, so the racial thing here is certainly something our readers should be able to take away from this sentence.
  2. As for "National Minority rather than indigenous group", both of you guys are right. On the one hand, it is important to make the distinction between minority and ingeneity clear (for the same reasons I just mentioned in the previous point). On the other hand, Quigley is right that it reads a bit redundantly now. How about this: "Uyghurs are classified as a [[National Minority]], and the policy does not recognize [[indigeneity]]: Uyghurs are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law." I think this is clear to readers and less redundant than the previous version.
  3. Migration stuff: again, everyone is right. Jim is right that the migration issue definitely needs to be mentioned, as it's simply a big deal, but Quigley is right that Han migration itself doesn't personally "curtail" freedom or anything. The current wording is the result of that long discussion I linked above, which is why this particular bit is difficult to deal with, but I think we can fix it by simply removing the passive voice. Something along the lines of "Han immigration since the founding of the PRC has brought both economic and cultural pressure to Uyghurs,(sources) while government policies have curtailed Uyghurs' freedom of movement and religion;[37][38] furthermore, many Uyghurs feel that the government deliberately downplays their history and traditional culture.[24]" I'm open to suggestions on how to best word that first clause. A good source for it is page 60 of the Congressional Executive Commission on China's 2009 annual report (FYI: that would be a good source in general, as it synthesizes a lot of information about the riots and cited a lot of sources itself...although it, of course, has its own pretty obvious POV on the whole thing).
rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Those seem a fair hearing of the ideas, and I will think about the specific wording that will come out of this. I did read the archives of this talk page, and do admire the work that went into the writing of this article. I note though that there were many patches made to the article to accommodate its being being edited during or immediately after the riots; you all decided not to breakdown the victims by ethnicity, for example, because you didn't want people to come here and grieve about how many of "their people" died. A sufficient span of time has passed such that these things can begin to be re-evaluated, I think. Quigley (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Quigley. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Death toll in 5 July accident rise to 184". Xinhua News Agency. 11 July 2009.
  2. ^ "Violence Video about Urumqi Riot is Fake". China Radio International. 29 July 2009.
  3. ^ pass
  4. ^ pass
  5. ^ pass
  6. ^ pass
  7. ^ pass
  8. ^ pass
  9. ^ a b Dwyer, Arienne (2005). The Xinjiang Conflict: Uyghur Identity, Language Policy, and Political Discourse (PDF). Political Studies 15. Washington: East-West Center. ISBN 1-932728-29-5.
  10. ^ Coonan, Clifford (7 July 2009). "Tension over Chinese migrants mirrors Tibet riots". The Independent. London. Retrieved 18 January 2010.
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Gladney was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference mooreblog was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Pei, Minxin (9 July 2009). "Uighur riots show need for rethink by Beijing". Financial Times. Retrieved 18 January 2010. Han Chinese view the Uighurs as harbouring separatist aspirations and being disloyal and ungrateful, in spite of preferential policies for ethnic minority groups.
  14. ^ Coonan, Clifford (7 July 2009). "Tension over Chinese migrants mirrors Tibet riots". The Independent. London. Retrieved 18 January 2010.
  15. ^ Pei, Minxin (9 July 2009). "Uighur riots show need for rethink by Beijing". Financial Times. Retrieved 18 January 2010. Han Chinese view the Uighurs as harbouring separatist aspirations and being disloyal and ungrateful, in spite of preferential policies for ethnic minority groups.
  16. ^ See:Autonomous prefectures of China and Autonomous counties of China
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots/Archive_6&oldid=1087965977"