Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/FAQ
 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page July 2009 Ürümqi riots. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
Q1: Why does this article use the spelling "Uyghur" instead of "Uighur"?
A1: Although "Uighur" is the most common spelling in English popular media, "Uyghur" is already the standard spelling used across Wikipedia, and is maintained here for consistency within the project. Furthermore, while "Uighur" is common in news articles, many academics and most Uyghurs themselves tend to use "Uyghur"[1][2]. However, quotations or article titles that use that spelling are kept as such here.
Q2: Why is this event not categorised as "terrorism"?
A2: There are to date no reliable, verifiable sources categorising it in that manner. Specifically, the most common definition of "terrorism" requires that an act be planned intentionally and ahead of time to achieve political ends. There is not yet any definitive proof of this, despite official rhetoric.
Q3: Why is this event not categorised as a "pogrom"?
A3: In English usage, the word "pogrom" evokes specific notions of attacks against Jews; very few sources (only partisan ones) have used this term in the context of the Urumqi riots.
Q4: Why is there no mention of the ethnicity of victims in the lead or in the infobox?
A4: The information is included in the body of the article. Giving such information in the lead or in the infobox is excessively detailed, and its inclusion could be inflammatory. Furthermore, there is consensus not to state any numbers as "fact" until there is more corroboration of the numbers, which originate from Xinhua, and at least one academic publicly stated (in mid-August) that reported ethnic breakdowns were not "yet" reliable.
Q5: There were several erroneous photographs in the media. Why talk about only one?
A5: All media mistakes have to be notable and verifiable in order to be included in the article. "Notable" means that news of the media mistake must be significant enough to change audiences' perception of the riot—most media errors are isolated incidents and are quickly forgotten. "Verifiable" means that it must not be original research, and has to be published by reliable sources not counting partisan sources—Chinese state media or Uyghur activists.
The Shishou riot photograph was re-used by many media sources before they realised it was an error, and that photograph's use by Rebiya Kadeer generated significant attention and discussion, so it merits inclusion. Most other gaffes have not generated that amount of attention.
The Shishou riot photograph was re-used by many media sources before they realised it was an error, and that photograph's use by Rebiya Kadeer generated significant attention and discussion, so it merits inclusion. Most other gaffes have not generated that amount of attention.
Q6: Why does this article avoid the term "Han Chinese"?
A6: Even though "Han Chinese" is the commonly-used English term for the Han ethnicity in China, use of the term here suggests that Uyghurs are not Chinese. Thus, use of the term "Han Chinese" advocates the notion that Uyghurs should be segregated or separated from Chinese society, which is against Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
Q7: Why are Xinjiang and Uyghur history not discussed in the article?
A7: Detailed analysis of Xinjiang history and Uyghur history here only serve to promote grievances from both sides of the riot, which is outside the scope of this article and against Wikipedia's neutrality policy.