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

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 100 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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 think this video suggests that some of the mobs who carried out the revenge attacks on July 7th received support from sections of the military. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNSRyUjKCc Francis1974 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (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]

Nah! What Bart Simpson thinks on these issues is much more important. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:22, 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]

It's similar to the debate about the claims of Native Americans. We don't have to, indeed we should not, go back to the earliest point in time as background to this particular incident. It's not entirely relevant because the fundamental issues are social. Trying to position China's territorial claim against Uighurs' here turns the issue into a nationalistic one. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What vexes Huaxia, and me too, is that a lot of the "Background" (not just history) goes beyond the minimum to read about this event, and reads like a litany of human rights complaints against the government. Things like, "Uyghurs' freedoms of religion and of movement are curtailed": well, Han people don't have freedom of religion or movement either, and are probably accommodated less because of a perception of a lack of essential cultural connection to religion. The picture that it paints is one of the Uyghurs being uniquely oppressed, and of the Han people being totally in lockstep with the government. There are a bunch of compelling reasons cited for Uyghur resentments against Han, but comparatively few and frivolous reasons cited for Han resentments against Uyghurs, and this is not for a lack of good reasons in real life (for example, substantiated Han fears of Uyghur vigilante violence), but reflects a systemic bias against Chinese perspectives. Uyghur voices quoted in Human Rights Watch are acceptable and credible, but Han voices quoted in People's Daily are propaganda. Quigley (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, that is a fundamental structural problem, because the CCP are ultra-sensitive to criticism, and the PD is one of the means for the party to disseminate its views and to ensure harmonious society. Nothing ever published in it is likely ever to criticise the party, so it is understandable how one could come to that conclusion about western perception of the PD as a source. BTW, I'm not suggesting the 'other side' is any better, mind at propagating the Truth™. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of this entire discussion is that nobody bothered to use any proper grade A academic research to back up their claim. Some how newspaper ran by the propaganda ministry has equal or more weight than scholars that has studied this topic for decades. Seriously. if someone actually bothered to dig out an academic paper published by Chinese Academy of Social Science or something similar that backed up their claim it may actually expose some structural bias here. But so far just a bunch people digging out Communist press release and shout "I represent the people". Ultimately WP:NPOV is backed up by WP:RS...no source, no POV. Jim101 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 14: http://www.france24.com/en/20090704-china-protests-muslim-chinese-han-uighur
• ref 82 (substitute) http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/China-says-police-killed-12-in-Urumqi-rioting/491339/
• ref 118 (substitute) http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/07/20/after-riots-china-promote-antiseparatist-laws.html
• ref 141 (substitute) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009499738_apaskazakhstanuighurprotest.html
• ref 144 (substitute) http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1246975322.41
• ref 154 (substitute) http://www.salemnews.com/worldnews/x1048570232/Turkish-PM-compares-violence-in-China-to-genocide

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Most dead links replaced with new ones; in a couple cases I couldn't find a replacement so I just removed the URL but left the ref (the dead link templates are still there but commented out, so they can be found in the wikitext). Checklinks looks clean. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please . Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Why was this page selected specifically for this project? It is a Featured Article, meaning that its quality has probably plateaued, save for occasional updates, and any additions, particularly for inexperienced editors, may well detract from its quality. There are many, many other pages that need attention and could use some help from these types of projects. For example Wang Lequan. Colipon+(Talk) 00:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a video on youtube from a not Chinese run, Anti-Communist media based in U.S :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a289UnWUcZI&feature=related Han people are being beaten up for no good reasons. This article is completely biased! I think we should also show the video clip of a Chinese female got beaten up by rioters and how they(the roiters) had machetes, but we killed by police men— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube isn't considered a reliable source. How exactly would you like to see your concerns addressed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube might not be reliable, but this video it self is not a commentary, but is just showning the "Events exhibition" of the riot in Beijing, which has shown many images taken during the roit. All i'm trying to say here is that i strongly reconmmend to add actural images during the roit, not about some people or parties protest about the crackdown of this bloody roit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 10:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reallywiki, I don't understand why you believe the article is biased. You have provided a source which discusses Chinese people getting attacked during the riots; no one is disputing this, and the article clearly explains that Chinese people were indeed attacked. The article further explains that Uyghur people were also attacked. As for including images taken during the riot, the article includes File:Ürümqi riots video.ogv and links to numerous pictures at the end (under External Links). Nevertheless, it is important for the article to cover all notable aspects of the riot, including its aftermath, which is why there is also discussion about the crackdown and the protests. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend this wiki page to add images of the riot and show it in the information page as a reference for students and researchers, instead of the protests. There are hardly any media links about the actural riot. Seems really suspicious, I would strongly recommend this artcial to add media coverage of the buring of cars in this artical about the riot.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]