This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Central Asia Low‑importance Barin riots is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Military history: Asian / Chinese / Early Muslim / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Post-Cold War task force

This guy has been going around pushing POV and poorly sourced edits on numerous pages relating to Uighurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.23.90.235

Would kindly request administrative action, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.42.29 (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been I've been following this article and everytime I look at it is completely different this is not helpful for the encyclopedia Sassmouth (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were forced abortions that may have caused the unrest they were mentioned in this source this information should be mentioned in this articlechina's spacial disintegration page 44 this source is reliable. Sassmouth (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the forced abortions was removed in 2014 This information is from a reliable source i entend to work on this page when i have some time Any comments? Sassmouth (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

]Though an official account of civilian casualties is absent, exiles and participants in the event claimed that over 5000 civilians had died with thousands more wounded.[7] the reference for this sentence is broken need to find replacement reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sassmouth (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable, and it is a very well established fact that since the one-child policy was introduced in 1978 that the Chinese state has a policy of forced abortions with women who want to have more than one child, so the account here of the riot being sparked by Uighur women being subjected to forced abortions seems very credible. I would put it back in, and if you have more trouble with this issue, ask whoever is deleting to explain why. To offer you some help, this article Circling the wagons about the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps mentions the corps was involved in putting down the riot, which according to this article led to the deaths of about 50 Uighurs.--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to do a partial rewrite on this article unfortunately it is very hard to determine what exactly happened because all the sources that exist regarding the Baren township riot Vary Wildly!!! in their accounting of the incident. Both Chinese and Uyghur viewpoints should be given equal weight please feel free to collaborate Cheers! Will do more work on article soon Sassmouth (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with article new editor here thanksSassmouth (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not WP:own this article however this article should be neutral provide both points of view both uyghur and chinese and when you edit please do an edit summary so we know the rationale for the editing is thanksSassmouth (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this article has 4 paragraphs to demonstrate those Xinjiang indepedence advocates's POV, but only 1 paragraph to show Chinese government's POV. Arguably, this article qualifies WP:UNDUE . Consequently, I added this template hoping someone can fix this. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with with INDICATOR2018 At first glance i think paragraph 3 and 4 of of the uygher pov section should be deleted i would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter??? Thanks Sassmouth (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above as well. -Zanhe (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 900 from the 2011 paper by Justin V. Hastings called “Charting the Course of Uyghur Unrest” in The China Quarterly‎, number 208 relies on a source called Xinjiang Public Security Gazette 新疆通志·公安志 pages 790-795 to give a description of this incident. I plan to incorporate Hastings' understanding of the incident from page 900, but the original source needs to be consulted whenever it can be found. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources that name the rebel group here as the Free Turkistan Movement (Name 1) ^[1], while other sources name the group as Turkistan Islamic Party/ETIM(Name 2) such as this^[2].

Should the article use Name 1, Name 2, or should it include both with an appropriate WP:FOOTNOTE?

ADifferentMan (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC) ADifferentMan (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If both names are used in sources, we should mention both in the article. (The exception would be if one name is overwhelmingly more common and the other is too rare to be worth mentioning.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What Mx. Granger just said. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto per Mx. Granger. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original source cited in the CRS report (Source #1) is archived here on a blacklisted site because the domain is now used by a Hindutva organisation. You can email me for the archive link.

Not 100% certain Bhagat is even talking about the 1990 uprising, but scholarly sources that cite their article acknowledge that it was most likely a typo. The scholarly sources that I could find that mention the name "Free Turkestan Movement" all point back to this article by Bhagat, but this Wikipedia article does not even mention an "Abdul Kasim", nor do the other sources cited. I could not find mentions of the "Free Turkestan Movement" apart from their supposed role in the Barin uprising; I say supposed because every seemingly reliable source that turns up points back to the same news(?) article. "Free Turkestan Movement" may also just be a blanket term used in place of "East Turkestan independence movement", as the Barin uprising is commonly described as a watershed in Xinjiang's history which led to the rise of armed separatism in the region. Yue🌙 06:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only source given in this Wikipedia article and the article Zeydun Yusup that even mentions Yusup or a "Turkistan Islamic Party" is Rongxing Guo's book China's Spatial (Dis)integration: Political Economy of the Interethnic Unrest in Xinjiang. The book says Yusup founded the "East Turkistan Islamic Party" in 1989 in Barin; this is clearly not the same group as the ETIM / TIP, which was founded in Pakistan in 1997. Yue🌙 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barin riots → Baren Township conflict – Article was moved to that name in (April 2021) on the grounds of WP:NPOVTITLE; "uprising" and "riots" are politically-charged terms per the "Names" section.

Since that time, there have been two unilateral name changes to the non-neutral terms:

• "Barin uprising" (April 2023, COMMONNAME) by User:Yue
• "Barin riots" (March 2025, "Removing WP:NPOV title with more neutral title") by User:Thehistorianisaac

At the very least, a new discussion needs to be had since the name remains disputed. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial oppose: I believe Barin riots is arguably, the most neutral name. Barin uprising is definitely, not a common name, and is far more POV. I think using Barin Uprising is like calling 911 the "Manhattan Raid". Several other articles also used "Riots", and I think the fact that this conflict was a riot cannot be disputed, as sources do report the "protestors" were armed and actively using improvised weapons, at least on April 4. for Baren township conflict, I would argue that it is not a common name, and that it is, well a bit of an exaggeration in terms of the scale.(still much better than Barin uprising though).

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to move the name back to "Baren Township conflict", per the April 2021 renaming, not to "Barin uprising". - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; Just pointing out my overall reasoning behind moving it. As for the term "conflict", i believe that riot is better to describe the situation. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cannot be disputed" is a broad claim unto itself. Who is using the term "riot"? Who is using the term "protestors"? Who determined that "improvised weapons" means it's a "riot"? Is this reflected and attributed in the article? Presenting a singular view does not dispel concerns over NPOV; it reinforces them. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riot is mostly used by chinese sources and non-terrorist affiliated sources (in fact, new york times uses "revolt"), "peaceful protestors/martyrs/revolution/uprising/massacre"(which honestly is hilarious how even they contradict themselves) is generally related to pro-turkestan sources(which is basically like calling 911 perpetrators Martyrs because Al-Qaeda claims so). This source also uses "riot" and this source states "Clashes". This source also uses "riot". Chinese embassy in turkey uses terrorist attack. Sources from both sides generally have a consensus that the rioters/terrorists were armed. This source also uses “riot”, and this source also uses riot, adding that the rioters were armed with pistols, submachine guns and grenades, backing this up with video footage, which comes along with released PAP recordings that the terrorists/rioters were armed with Bombs. The video footage and PAP recordings comes from released government footage, which more sources back up were released in 2019. Hell even VOA uses "riot".

Additionally, even pro-riot sources at times admit they were armed.

Article in itself also features huge amounts of source cherrypicking sources and is actively pushing an anti-chinese POV.(i think this can be agreed upon generally) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think riot can be used per WP:COMMONNAME , as the VOA source(along with several american sources) shows it is used by both pro-chinese and anti-chinese sources. the fact the militants(generally agreed upon) were armed means we can potentially even name it "1990 Baren/Barin attacks". We can also agree that the use of "Uprising" is hugely in violation of NPOV. Conflict i believe is not as accurate, as it is part of a wider conflict(Xinjiang conflict, which in itself is part of the War on terror), so I believe "riot" is better. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except "Baren riot" is not the common name in English. Anyone can do a word-sensitive search themselves and arrive at the same conclusion purely based on numbers.

You linked two English-language sources, none of which use a proper noun (i.e. Baren riot, Baren uprising). One is an article by China Daily, a publication of the Communist Party of China, and the other is by CRNTT, a pro-Beijing news outlet.

You linked five Chinese-language sources: three of which are pro-Beijing or Chinese state-run news outlets, one from the Chinese embassy in Ankara, and a Voice of America article quoting a Chinese author writing for the Chinese government. So you cited a few Chinese government sources, another Chinese government source, and another Chinese government source as your proof of "Baren riot(s)" being the common name, and you made the argument in the wrong language. You also alluded to "several American sources", so I hope you provide those at some point.

You cannot seriously be claiming that "uprising" is not the common name and mostly (or only) used by "terrorists" and "terrorist affiliates", and back up your choice of nomenclature with exclusively Chinese state media and Chinese state–adjacent media? You're making an argument against what you believe to be biased wording by using just the biased sources from the other side, all the while claiming the relevance of a policy that is not even remotely relevant to your argument (WP:COMMONNAME).

Note that in my initial response / vote to the move, I was careful to stick to pure numbers when claiming my argument to be WP:COMMONNAME. I could care less what the Chinese government officially calls the event, or what East Turkestani separatists prefer, which, by the way, is not "Baren uprising" – separatist organisations generally prefer "Baren massacre" or "Baren revolution". Yue🌙 06:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This separatist affiliated source uses uprising. Uprising is also overall much less neutral than "riots" and overall, is not that commonly used in wikipedia. I propose using the NY times "revolt" as a potential third alternative, though that ain't neutral either. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert recent move back to Barin uprising or move to Baren uprising. Baren uprising is the common name among scholarly sources in the English language, with Baren incident at a close second. Baren uprising, Baren incident, Baren Township incident, Baren riot, Baren riots, Baren conflict, Baren Township uprising, Baren Township riot, Baren Township riots, Baren Township conflict. Using 'Barin' instead of 'Baren' returns insignificant results. The choice of name in my move was because Barin Township was (is) already named as such on Wikipedia.

Both 'uprising' and 'riot(s)' have particular connotations behind them and are the preferred names of opposing sides in the wider political conflict, so neither are neutral. I would argue that 'conflict' and 'incident' are only neutral due to their vagueness, and thus unhelpfulness (the latter attested to in Hastings 2011). With this in mind, my initial move was concerned primarily with what most English-language sources describe the event itself as, and not the various words used afterwards to describe the event, as they would all have equal weight in such an argument. Yue🌙 18:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue I would argue that "uprising" is mostly used by biased sources that support the rioters. I could not find a single source outside of Radio Free Asia(which in itself, is very biased, though I have used it as a last resort source before) online that was not affiliated with East-Turkestan terrorists that uses "Uprising". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have looked at all then because in the first link I provided above, which is a link to a word sensitive search on Google Scholar, it shows that "Baren uprising" is used by 124 English-language articles. To reiterate, "Baren uprising" is the common name in scholarly sources specifically, since the crux of your argument is that "uprising" should be disregarded because it is used solely or primarily by "terrorists" and "terrorist affiliates", which is flat out not true. Yue🌙 05:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, many of the sources using "Uprising" are, in themselves, pretty one sided. just click the first link. Outside of Chinese sources, more neutral sources(or even historically pretty anti-chinese sources) like VOA have used the term "riot". As for biases, I believe riot is much more neutral than "uprising". I think riot is also more accurate from sources of all accounts, in comparison to conflict. As for the name of the location, I won't get too involved in that.

In a nutshell, I would rank the potential names (from best to worst) like this:

1. Barin/Baren riots
2. Barin/Baren incident
3. Barin/Baren attacks
4. Barin/Baren unrest
5. Barin/Baren Conflict
6. Barin/Baren uprising
7. Barin/Baren revolution
8. Barin/Baren protests

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making claims without providing explanations or evidence. Do you expect other editors to just take your word that all 124 scholarly sources are "pretty one-sided", that the first link is definitely biased because you said so? As I noted above, you misrepresented the VOA source you provided as they were quoting a Chinese author writing about "terrorism in Xinjiang". It was not the VOA writers themselves describing the event as "counter-revolutionary riots". You alluded to "several American sources" instead of just providing them. And you cannot seriously acknowledge or allude to the bias of Chinese state media while in the same breath describe VOA as "neutral" when it is funded directly by the US government. Irrelevant anyways, as they were quoting a Chinese author. Yue🌙 06:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N/A means i could not find the quote or the context

1st source and 2nd source: Are overall pushing anti-chinese POV. 3rd sources is just literally promoting the riots.

4th source "so-called baren uprising". similar case as VOA

5th source: also promoting riots

6th source: N/A

7th source: N/A

8th source and 9th source: Is neutral and uses "Baren uprising"

10th source: N/A

11th source: Uses peacock terms and promotes uprising in non-neutral manner Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The term "riot" appears to be used in Chinese related sources and so conveys a Chinese point of view of what happened. However, the term "incident" would seem to minimise what happened and other suggestions seem to support anti-Chinese sources, so "conflict" is a good compromise. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue "riot" is also used in non-Chinese sources like VOA. "Revolt" is used by NY times. This source also uses riot. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevertheless, "riot" conveys a Chinese viewpoint, so is not a neutral term in the context of this particular article, which, I think contradicts your argument that you used to justify using the term. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think riot has also been used in some non-chinese sources. I would also offer Clashes or revolt from NY times, though those are less common. Still better than uprising. Conflict i think can be misleading to the scale of the conflict, so I would prefer clashes or riot. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per Cameron Dewe. Thehistorianisaac's evidence confirms that the existing NPOV concerns driving the April 2021 rename are still valid. At the very least, reverting the name provides a cleaner baseline to work from; Thehistorianisaac is of the position that the articles is "actively pushing an anti-chinese POV", so that seems like something that would need further discussion. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to support - I still would consider Barin Riots a more accurate term, but I believe that Township conflict is the best compromise for now.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]