This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Central Asia Mid‑importance July 2009 Ürümqi 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	July 2009 Ürümqi riots is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 5, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 30, 2009 Good article nominee Listed February 6, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 27, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 16, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 6, 2009. Current status: Featured article

Archives

Archive1(July 5 - July 8, 2009) Archive2 (July 8 - July 12, 2009) Archive3 (July 12 - July 26, 2009) Archive4 (July 27 - July 29, 2009) Archive5 (August 17 - current)

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you, Quigley. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The protesters and the rioters were totally different groups of people. The protesters were mostly college students. They were blocked in the People's Square and the riot place was quite far away from them. The rioters were mostly from outside Urumqi and was probably paid and taken to Urumqi a few days before the riot. I have never heard of any Uyghur people that I or my friends or my relatives know, joined this riot or knew any of those rioters. The rioters were totally strangers.

The event happened in Shaoguan is not like what Alim said. One Uyghur worker is said to have raped a Han girl. The government refused to arrest the Uyghur (and even blocked informations) because they didn't want to keep a false impression of ethnic friendship that they always claim. The Han workers had nothing to do but to defend their justice by themselves. The tragedy was not because the Uyghurs were not protected by government. On the contrary, it's because they were over protected by stupid government.

Similarly, the July 7 revenge was because of the government wanted to trivialize the event instead of punishing the criminals. Those Han people who lost their loved ones were waiting for justice but got nothing. That's why they turned into violence. Jawley (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took those pictures: Han people trying to protect themselves because the government was protecting the mobs. Jawley (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. As for the pictures, I see people standing and a man walking. what gives? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two women in the first picture hold between themselves what appears to be a wooden stick, walking and looking together as though they feel threatened. In the second picture, the man looks tense and holds a metal stick. Neither appear to be walking sticks, and the pictures are taken from an elevated and guarded (by metal wires) position. The pictures should not be so readily discarded; the only video on this article is from our own User:Ccyber5. Quigley (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost don't even want to bother as it's quite evident few editors care indeed about either the Uighur or the History of Xinjiang but would rather insert "facts" piecemeal into the equation to serve an agenda, but two blatantly obvious points from reading this article are 1) the "millions" of Han "flooding" into Xinjiang is not so new a phenomenon- as with all of the borderline racist allegations of Han genetic pollution into minority areas, this policy was started under the Qing due to pressure from Russia and Britain. Secondly, the trendy farce of asserting Uighur and Caucasoid precedence and primacy (at the expense of say, the other myriad ethnic groups that have been present in the region) in every single article from the Tocharian, Uighur, History of Xinjiang, Tarim Basin, pages need to stop. It's a joke and one embarrasses himself with such flagrant (anti-Han, anti-PRC, anti-Chinese) POV-pushing. Huaxia (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expressing any opinion on whether Uyghurs have any more or less claim to Xinjiang than any other ethnic groups, but I am reverting this edit for more general content issues. First of all, detailed background information about the founding of Ürümchi belongs in the Ürümchi article, not here; in the sake of summary style, the purpose of the "Background" section of this article is just to give readers an idea of what people disagree over, not to embark on an in-depth discussion of who's right and who's wrong. Secondly, "contrary to genetic, linguistic and cultural evidence" is clear editorializing. Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to decide who's right and who's wrong, merely to report the disagreement without taking sides. "Evidence", especially in controversial cases like this, is often open to many interpretations.

I have to ask that you please stop edit warring, and restrict your contributions to the talk page until this dispute is resolved. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, one line about the History of Urumqi is irrelevant when the demographics of Xinjiang are broadly used for the introduction, and the "mostly Han" slur against the CCP is what should be considered NPOV? That's ignoring the real problem which asserts that the conflict is essentially between a monolithic group of Uighur with borderline insane and revisionist claims against a monolithic "mostly Han" Chinese government. Out the window goes established historical fact, Western and other third-party groups, the "other China" (ROC), Uighur moderates, non-Han CCP members, Sinologists, so on and so forth. Please spare me politics and formalities and we can focus on the issue at hand- that the section is flagrantly un-encyclopedic and patently offensive in its assertions (by omission). Huaxia (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is "mostly Han" a slur? Could you tone it down? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it implies that the disagreements between the CCP and "the Uighur" (as if fringe elements speak for all of them) is an ethnic (or because it's Xinjiang, a racial one) matter. You don't see "mostly white congress" or "mostly white Senate" being inserted into every single line concerning US lawmakers, because there is no widespread attempt on wikipedia to link "whites" to "undesirable" or "politically incorrect" policies. Huaxia (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the same point in a discussion above; you should read that if you already haven't, Huaxia. Quigley (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's misleading to present in this article a narrative of Han flooding into Uyghur areas when Urumqi was never a Uyghur area, being in Dzungaria. A more precise background section would mention (briefly) Uyghur movement into the cities, and social issues like unemployment and self-segregation, rather than try to intimate that the riots had to do with ancient claims to ownership of the land. And while evidence is open to many interpretations, it is also fair to say that the informed consensus is that what is really "outrageous" are modern Uyghurs' claiming the Xinjiang mummies as their own, or claiming direct descent from the peoples of the ancient Mongolian kingdoms. The source at the end of the sentence that Huaxia amended in his or her first edit (Gladney) does dispel the assumption that Western readers might have about Uyghurs being in all of Xinjiang from time immemorial, by false analogy to the Tibetans or the American Indians. It would only take one more sentence to clarify that while Uyghur nationalists believe that Uyghurs have such ancient links, that most specialists do not agree. By just presenting the Uyghurs-as-not-indigenous narrative as only a PRC government position, by association with the PRC's lies, Wikipedia is subtly editorializing that the Uyghurs are indigenous. So in some cases, by saying nothing, we are making a statement, and that can be simply corrected. Quigley (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Another thing I want to add is that many Uighur are descendants of Central Asians or "Turks" that entered Qing borders under Yakub Beg. Ironically, the most explosive "demographic change" were Islamic revolts that involved the slaughter of unknown millions of Chinese citizens (of all ethnic groups) including millions of Hui loyalists. It is for this reason why there are so many "Uighur" in Xinjiang (and it's debatable that they're Uighur, as they were simply granted this name by Soviet thinkers relatively recently). With this in consideration, one can understand why the editorializing, racializing and oversimplification of Xinjiang-related articles is utterly offensive on every level. Huaxia (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It already says "believe" and not "they are." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives the reader two "sides" to pick from (as in the equally POV Tibet articles)- the "Uighur" or "the mostly Han government". I suppose it's impossible for Uighur or Han to agree on anything like say, historical fact Huaxia (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so; hence, we have riots with subsequent police intervention. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the "East Turkestan" revisionist nonsense, the Uighur have been killing civilians in Xinjiang for a few hundred years (including the much vaunted Tocharians), so I doubt the murders have so much to do with politics as you'd like to imply. Huaxia (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we are presenting a he-said-she-said between two entities with vastly differing levels of credibility for the nonspecialist reader. On the one hand, the oppressed native minority fighting for their human rights and freedoms, and on the other hand an evil communist government who is known to tell lies and kill people and invade and decimate lands like Tibet. Who does Wikipedia intend the reader to believe? Political issues like whether the Uyghurs should have a state are "controversial" and don't need to be argued, but the historical dates of the Uyghur migrations can be mentioned, just as we (selectively) mention the Han migrations. Quigley (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if everyone who reads this automatically sides with the Uyghurs, why don't you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not "everyone". Surprisingly, there are shades other than black and whiteHuaxia (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that "everyone who reads this automatically sides with the Uyghurs". I said that while the presentation is superficially neutral ("a" says "b", while "c" says "d"), the presentation may not be neutral if we are presenting the position of "d" with a "c" that is discredited for the vast majority of the readers of this article (for whom this article would be an introduction to the whole Uyghur issue). There are more credible (in Western eyes) challengers of "b" that we can cite if we want to present both sides effectively. Quigley (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Quigley, I agree with most of the issues you point out. It's true that the history of Xinjiang is much more complicated than just Uyghurs and Han. This article, however, is not about the entire history of Xinjiang, it's just about the riots that happened from 5 to 7 July 2009, and as far as I can remember the sources cited so far in the article do generally describe the riots as, for the most part, a specifically Uyghur-Han issue. Most of the rioters on the first day (as far as we can tell, although there will probably never be reliable information on this) were apparently Uyghur, and most of the people in the mobs two days later apparently Han. The riots were supposedly triggered by a Uyghur-specific issue (while the broader background is not specifically a Uyghur issue, as several other minority groups in the region face similar issues, the event that is assumed to have marked the beginning of the riots--the demonstration--seems to have been a Uyghur thing).

Like I said above, I am not expressing any opinion on who got to Xinjiang earlier and I don't think it is this article's place to do so. Merely stating that there is a disagreement should be sufficient; if anyone has suggestions on how to state that more neutrally then those suggestions are welcome, but what we don't need is a long back-and-forth comparing evidence for and against both sides. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an Uighur-Han thing if you ignore the Kazakh and Huis that the Uighur also killed that day. Likewise, the 2008 Lhasa Riots were a Tibetan-Han thing if you ignore the burning Mosques and the fact that the vast majority of Lhasa Tibetans did not join in on the festivities. Huaxia (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say no one from other ethnic groups got caught in the crossfire. But no reliable sources I have seen refer to anyone from these groups as "major players" in the events that transpired. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, "Uyghurs believe" is as neutral as it can get. There is no need to add "yeah, but they're wrong." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"some Uyghurs believe" or "Uyghur nationalists believe" would be significantly more neutral.Huaxia (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's me resigning to the fact that English wikipedia will never be neutral with regards to China or any other politically vexing entities for the Anglosphere. I've ignored that "yeah, but they're wrong" is basically the whole point of factual and objective writing. Huaxia (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do "objective," we do neutral. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by "neutral" we mean to say wikipedia is a platform for selectively chosen personal opinions, "sourced" by tabloids like the guardian, then I suppose I have not checked the "neutrality" wiki article which must have recently undergone a facelift. Perhaps for the sake of flavor we should include what some fictional Martians think, or what George Bush thinks, or maybe what Chuck Norris thinks. Huaxia (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we agree that this article is not about the history of Xinjiang, do we also agree that the article should focus less on broad Xinjiang history and more on local Urumqi history? Quigley (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I still think that any history, beyond the bare minimum needed to read about this event, should be relegated to the relevant articles (Urumchi, Xinjiang). Readers looking for a deeper understanding of the background can go to those articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair but that still leads readers to pick one of two sides, and given how much the PRC is maligned in the Anglosphere there's not much of a question which of the two most English speakers would choose- not so much a problem in and of itself, but rather that it misses the whole point of the riots (and the article) entirely. Ignoring the tabloid sourcing as an issue, of course, as that would be a problem affecting every wiki page. Huaxia (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you shouldn't write with assumptions about readers' predispositions in mind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, the article presents a false dichotomy on top of missing the point. Huaxia (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]