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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
As reported by the
BBC News, "China says "foreign terrorists" are behind the violence in the region. Hundreds of people have died in attacks over the past three years." but they also report "China strictly controls media access to Xinjiang so reports are difficult to verify."[1]LeadSongDogcome howl!17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Title of article
The title of this article is currently "Xinjiang conflict". I have gone through all the linked sources and none of them use the words "Xinjiang conflict". Rather the words used are, "terrorism", "unrest", "violent clashes", "riots" and "racial/ethnic tensions". Googling for additional sources, I couldn't find reliable sources using the word "conflict". All reliable sources seem to use other wording. Using the word conflict on this article seems to be an exaggeration.
Rincewind42 (
talk)
03:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)reply
There is a world of difference between "as ethnic conflict grows in Xinjiang" (Gaurdian) and "Xinjiang conflict". Similarly for the Australian article. It says "Ethnic Conflict" not "Xinjiang conflict". It is a different meaning of conflict. The East West Center article is just one voice. Read
Wikipedia:Article titles and in particular see
WP:COMMONNAME, "Xinjiang conflict" is not the common name in reputable sources. The number of deaths is not the defining factor of a conflict; rather is is the form of action taken. Xinjiang is sporadic, uncoordinated, loosely connected or even unconnected events that only share a common motive - though even that is debatable. The words "Xinjiang conflict" imply an organised armed revolt or war which is an exaggeration. The Western Sahara and Chiapas are not comparable to the events in Xinjiang and in an case pointing to other low quality Wikipedia articles is a poor argument.
Rincewind42 (
talk)
15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know, when I do a Google search for "Xinjiang conflict," I see plenty of sources, including a few that seem to be direct translations from state media. Given the definition of the word, what has been happening in Xinjiang would seem to be a "conflict." Feel free to suggest another title for the article.
Mvblair (
talk)
18:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:RS and
WP:COMMONNAME. Don't be vague, if you see plenty then post links. What I see are various mirrors of this Wikipedia article, mirrors of the East-West Centre article and a couple of youtube videos of twenty year old news reports. The are not reliable sources and not sufficient to establish "Xinjiang_conflict" as the common name when compared with the alternative names. I have already suggested alternative names in my first comment. For example, put "
Xinjiang unrest" into google and you get
the BBC,
Finacial Times,
aljazeera,
Times of India,
South China Morning Post,
Reuters and more. You get a similar list if you search for "
Xinjiang riots" or "
Xinjiang terrorism". All three of these options are used by reliable sources and sources of this article itself. My personal preference would be "Xinjiang unrest". There may be other better names. I'm open to suggestions but "Xinjiang conflict" is out.
Rincewind42 (
talk)
04:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree with Mvblair. Conflict is the right word, 'unrest' and 'terrorism' are merely parts of this conflict, just like 'oppression' is. --
82.75.32.124 (
talk)
23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
It is no surprise that none of the sources use the words "Xinjiang conflict". However "conflict" is a useful cover term for "terrorism", "unrest", "violent clashes", "riots" and "racial/ethnic tensions". To suggest that "conflict" is an exaggeration is odd. Terrorism, violent clashes, riots etc are all types of conflict. I believe that the Chinese Communist Party would oppose the use of the term conflict, but Wikipedia should be objective. "Conflict" is in fact an understatement. "Rebellion" may be a better term for what is occurring. Of course that will be even less palatable to the CPC and its allies.
Royalcourtier (
talk)
21:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The School for the Culture of Peace defines armed conflict as "an armed conflict is understood as any confrontation between regular or irregular armed groups with objectives that are perceived as incompatible, in which the continuous and organized use of violence: a) causes a minimum of 100 fatalities in a year and/or has a serious impact on the territory (destruction of infrastructure or of natural resources) and on human safety (e.g., injured or displaced people, sexual violence, food insecurity, impact on mental health and on the social fabric or the disruption of basic services); and b) aims to achieve objectives different from those of common crime normally related to demands for self-determination and self-government or identity-related aspirations; opposition to the political, economic, social or ideological system of a state or the internal or international policy of a government, which in both triggers a struggle to seize or undermine power; the control of resources or land." - As far as I can tell, this is a conflict by that definition. it is listed as one of the 35 armed conflicts of 2015 in their yearbook
[1]Brinerustle (
talk)
12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Soviet support of East Turkestan People's Party insurgency against China
KGB Agent
Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule
China and the Soviet Union waged a propaganda war over East Turkestan Independence, with the Soviets trying to incite separatism among the Uyghurs, and China retaliated with jamming and broadcasting of its own. Soviet Muslims (Uzbeks and others) would taunt Russians in the bazaars about the threat of China liberating Soviet central asia from the Russians, and China broadcasted news of Soviet atrocities against Afghan Muslims during the Soviet invasion.
Verifiability policy clearly states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities".
Cut it out. We both know this policy refers to material released by a person or organization on social media. Either you didn't read clearly or are deliberately playing dumb, this policy does NOT refer to twitter talking about twitter- it refers to a famous individual or organization running a social media account such as a twitter account and releasing info about themselves, such as Justin Bieber making a tweet commenting about an issue or Human Rights watch running a twitter account and tweeting information on human rights violations.
WP:SOCIALMEDIAThis policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.. Turkistan Islamic Party released videos of their activities on social media like twitter, liveleak, and archive.org and they call their media arm Islam Awazi.
Long War Journal is a terror analysis website run
which is used as a reliable source by media organizations and is RS. FYI I did not use a single reddit thread as a source.
If you actually read the paragraph, you would notice that most the material is sourced from longwarjournal and that the reddit threads are tagged on after a longwar journal source- The Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party and the Taliban allied Uzbek Imam Bukhari Jamaat and Al-Qaeda allied Uzbek Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad, along with Jund al Aqsa cooperated together in the Al Ghab plain to conquer multiple crucial villages, with the TIP engaging itn suicide bombings in Jisr al Shughur and iits participation in overrunning Abu Dhuhur with Jund al Aqsa and Al Nusrah.Longwarjournal[2]Reddit[3] The reddits can be removed without any content being affected. I just kept the reddit threads as a reminder of where I got the link for the longwarjournal article from.
You also deleted this paragraph which is entirely sourced by actual news articles. Don't know where you got the idea that this is "Twitter" from. The village of Az-Zanbaqi (الزنبقي) in
Jisr al-Shughur's countryside has become a base for a massive amount of Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party militants and their families in Syria, estimated at around 3,500, military camps in the area are training hundreds of children from these families; Hezbollah media, Iranian media and Syrian government media accused Turkish intelligence of being involved in transporting these Uyghurs via Turkey to Syria, with the aim of using them first in Syria to help
Jabhat Al-Nusra and gain combat experience fighting against the Syrian Army before sending them back to Xinjiang to fight against China if they manage to survive.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]Rajmaan (
talk)
03:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
STSCBenlisquare can someone explain to Marek what this policy means?
Same thing for some of the tweets. I found a link to an Islam Awazi video or picture on a tweet and posted a reference to both the tweet and video (hosted on youtube and archive.org). The tweet can be deleted without any issue in that case.
I often double source with both a secondary source and a primary source or the website of wherever I got the link to the secondary from, its a habit of mine and the extra stuff tagged on can be deleted without any content being affected.
As for the other material sourced entirely from tweets by journalists and counter terrorist analysis organizations and liveleak, I clearly explained how they are RS in the first paragraph.Rajmaan (
talk)
03:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Verifiability policy clearly states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". If you think otherwise then you're not understanding the policy as written. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Twitter. Wrong again. Read what the policy says and stop telling me to read something you didn't. As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages.
Don't know where you got the idea, that videos and pictures showing TIP members released by TIP's media arm has nothing to do with TIP.
Rajmaan (
talk)
03:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You are using primary sources and unreliable sources to construct a narrative. Primary sources should be only used for most basic and non-controversial statements of fact.
The liveleak links are not interpretations of any kind. They simply show videos which were released by TIP, showing TIP fighters which is stamped with their media logo. Just as a video created by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International and put on youtube is a reliable source about HRW or AI, these TIP videos are the same as that.
Longwarjournal is a site maintained by former military personnel and academics, and has been used
by multiple prominent news organizations as a source. Blogs run by professionals fall under
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. And also the tweets by the journalist Joanna Paraszczuk, who is a reputable journalist who works for RFERL and other news organizations. Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is an academic at Oxford University and a reknown counter terrorist analyst and his tweets are RS too.
Rajmaan (
talk)
03:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The liveleak links are not interpretations of any kind. - so again, self-published primary sources which you are using to conduct primary research (same goes for youtube videos).
Most of the liveleak leaks are double sourced to longwarjournal articles and news articles like the Daily Mail. Most can be deleted and the only issue lies with longwarjournal. The stand alone liveleak material is not of really any importance, just a few videos showing TIP members i Afghanistan and I am not concerned about them.
Rajmaan (
talk)
04:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The Deleted material (liveleak and all unnecessary links removed)
Sourced by Long War Journal, Caleb Weiss
I have consulted RSN for this issue.
most noticeably in the
2015 Jisr al-Shughur offensive.[14][15][16][17] TIP (ETIM) members in Syria fight alongside the Al-Qaeda branch
Al Nusrah Front since TIP is allied to Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted suicide bombings for Nusrah Front.[18] Members of TIP have been killed in battle in Syria.[19] TIP (ETIM) eulogized and applauded members of its organization who participated in suicide bombings and members who were killed in action in Jisr al Shughur.[20] Members of the group helped other Jihadists enforce religious law in Idlib such as wrecking alcohol in stores and this was noted that with “support of Allah and by the strike of the fist of the Mujahideen from the Al Nusrah Front,
Ahrar al Sham and Turkistan,” that they undertook these actions by a Syrian Jihadist in
Jaysh al Fateh.[21] A Jabhat Al Nusra Jihadist called Abu Mohamed Al-Ansari interviewed by VICE News after the Idlib offensive said that "The battle was good, praise be to God. The brothers from all the groups started working together and coordinating. Each faction is responsible for a side. The majority were immigrant brothers from Turkestan. They are the ones who attacked the important points."[22] The spokesman of Jabhat Al-Nusra Abu Maria al-Qahtani claimed that Muslims were "oppressed" in "Turkestan" and that Nusra needs to "defend" them.[23] TIP (ETIM) joined in on the
Jihadist offensive in the Al-Ghab plain along with Al-Qaeda affiliated
Jund al Aqsa against the Syrian army, referring to the Syrian army by the disparaging name "
Nusayri".[24] In Idlib four villages were seized by the Turkistan Islamic Party around August 2015.[25] and the TIP said they "met with the brothers in Jund al Aqsa".[26] The Turkistan Islamic Party and Jabhat Al-Nusra launched a joint operation which overran the Syrian military's Abu Dhuhur airbase.[27][28] The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos of their Uyghur fighters at Abu Dhuhur. At Abu Dhuhur, Sheikh Muhaysini (an Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric) took pictures with Turkistan Islamic Party which was released by Islam Awazi.[29] Syrian regime military prisoners from Abu Dhuhur were exhibited in photos released by the Turkistan Islamic Party.[30] The Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi released photos of its fighters in Syria. The Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party and the Taliban allied Uzbek Imam Bukhari Jamaat and Al-Qaeda allied Uzbek Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad, along with Jund al Aqsa cooperated together in the Al Ghab plain to conquer multiple crucial villages, with the TIP engaging itn suicide bombings in Jisr al Shughur and iits participation in overrunning Abu Dhuhur with Jund al Aqsa and Al Nusrah.[31]
Islam Awazi released a video showing
Burqa clad women being militarily trained by the Turkistan Islamic Party with guns and RPGs.[32][33][34][35]
Camps training children for Jihad are being run by the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria.[36] Photos of the child military training camps in Syria were released by the Turkistan Islamic Party, who labelled the children as "little mujahideen".[37][38]
A video of a training camp in Waziristan in Pakistan's tribal areas showing children being trained with weapons was released by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi.[39]
Another photo released by Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children training with AK-47's and with
shahada headbands at a camp in the Afpak (Afghanistan-Pakistan) region.[40]
Sourced by journalist twitter accounts
See my section below on journalist tweets.
Islam Awazi released photos of a Turkistan Islamic Party training camp.[41]
Images of Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party fighters in Syria were released by Islam Awazi.[42] The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos showing a Uyghur media team with their camera and laptop in Syria.[43]
Photos of a training camp for Uyghur children run by the Turkistan Islamic Party were released by Islam Awazi.[44][45] Photos released by Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi media which showed Uyghur militants along with Uyghur children in Syria, including one child holding an AK-47, the Uyghurs cooperated with Jabhat Al-Nusra and had pledged alleigance (bay'ah) to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.[46]
Sourced by Terror monitor and other twitter accounts
Pictures were released by Islam Awazi of Afghanistan based Turkistan Islamic Party training children for Jihad.[47]
Pictures of Uyghur girls wearing
Hijab and posing with guns were posted by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi.[48][49][50]
Photos released by TIP's Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children in Idlib, Syria, with AK-47s, reading Qurans, and Burqa clad women praying.[51] The child soldiers were also shown engaging in religious studies.[52]
Use of journalist's twitter accounts
You are using primary sources and unreliable sources to construct a narrative. Primary sources should be only used for most basic and non-controversial statements of fact.
Are simple statements made by journalists like Joanna Paraszczuk on images not basic and non-controversial? What is controversial about a journalist saying that TIP is training kids, next to an image released by TIP of them training children?
Rajmaan (
talk)
04:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
First, the talk page is not the place to post "alternative" versions of the article. That section above should be removed.
Second, your link above is to an essay, not policy, and this essay is not even about reliable sources but about external link.
Third, again, you are using primary sources - essentially a single comment. If you got a secondary reliable source that says that TIP is training kids then we can talk. Volunteer Marek 04:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
^United Press International, "Iraq security development slowed in 2008", 16 January 2009, (wire service report).
^Lamb, Christina, "School bombing exposes Obama's secret war inside Pakistan", Sunday Times, 7 February 2010 (correction published on 15 February 2010 noting attribution to the Long War Journal was accidentally omitted), p. 27.
^Joshua, Anita, "Senior Taliban leader killed in drone attack: report", The Hindu, 21 December 2010
Suggestion: Move Syrian Civil War related content to Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War > China
I think content relating to the Syrian Civil War and foreign Uyghur fighters in Syria should be moved to this section, and a link should be provided on this article to the moved content.
RS source used by multiple news agencies. This will be used to supplement and back up Long War Journal sources, since both often report on the same thing.
OK so I understand or perhaps assume that many Chinese netizens feel rather strongly about this issue. I agree with a lot of the point they often bring up, here and on every other page even remotely related to this issue. However it is kind of difficult for me, or anyone else to read the walls of text that I see on many of these pages dealing with this issue. Could we at least agree on changing that?
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on
Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on
Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on
Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Tweets here for reference and links to sources. Are twitter accounts of interns working at organizations regarded as RS considered on the same level of reliability as journalists twitter accounts? Journalist accounts are allowed and so is LWJ's website itself but I'm not sure about interns of LWJ? There is detailed analysis in the tweets that don't appear in the articles.
The verified Associated Press journalist Gerry Shih reposted Weiss's work on TIP. I think this should be taken as an endorsement that this particular work of his is a reliable source.
I intend to remove alot of references and statements such as The Turkistan Islamic Party released a new video titled "Importance of Martyrdom Operations in Our Current Time" (أهمية العمليات الإستشهادية في زمننا الحاضر) (زامانىمىزدىكى پىدائىيلىق ئەمەلىيىتىنىڭ ئەھمىيىتى) by Abdullah al-Muhaysini.[700][701][702][703][704][705]
I don't think jihadi videos are reliable sources neither are twitter accounts they just arent. The reader needs to see facts backed by reliable sources, From all major viewpoints. this article needs to be shrinked disagree with me bring it to the talk page... thanks
Sassmouth (
talk)
07:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I am considering deleting most if not all of sections Western media and Human Rights watchdogs and Pan-Turkish Uyghur media before i do so i want the opinion of other editors this article is unreadable in its current state way to much citation clutter and walls of text What do you think!!!Sassmouth (
talk)
22:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Just deleted a statement about Protests against Kazakhstan government unnecessary for this article which is about Xinjiang china
Perhaps the editor who put all this stuff on here should consider starting an article called Pan-Turkish Uyghur media across asia
Sassmouth (
talk)
22:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Sassmouth: I personally find most of the article to be irrelevant or biased, most of it seems like copy and paste from news articles. The content that cites Twitter are especially not "Wikipedia" level content, and doesn't really meet standards of importance, but I know that even if it is removed by someone, there will be an edit war from others to keep it there. So even thought I agree it should be moved, I doubt it will not cause an edit war as it did before.
- GeneralAdmiralAladeen (
Têkilî min)
05:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
GeneralAdmiralAladeen: Quite frankly this article is too much for me to clean up on my own i don't know enough about this conflict to decide what to delete and what to keep (its a very long and complex conflict) and there is way too much info on this page! I wish some one that was relatively neutral and more knowledgeable than me about this subject and the wikipedia in general would come and help if you do know someone send them my way as far as edit warring i really do not feel like doing that but ill try it if forced to Otherwise this article is pretty much garbage
Sassmouth (
talk)
03:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)reply
my suggestion is not really on how to delete unnecessary information, since I am not sure, whether someone else will just put it in again and also because I think that it is really a hard work with such a huge article. I suggest, that the first step could be dividing the article, e.g. history of Xinjiang Conflict (take a lot of stuff out of the "Timeline") and put other stuff in articles like ETIM articles (if they exist). Then it is easier to handle everything.
Sebbe xy (
talk)
07:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)reply
The reason it is not rated high is because part of this article is a garbage dump for insignificant tweets and announcements by Uyghur and foreign terrorists. Attempts to remove it result in an edit war, and as a result nobody has bothered reviewing this article.
- GeneralAdmiralAladeen (
Têkilî min)
00:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)reply
But aren't the importance rating and the quality rating two things? I believe the importance rating should about the *topic*, not the current article. How the article being long somehow impedes importance rating evades me. If anything, currently having a long article should be an indicator that this stuff is important.
Ahyangyi (
talk)
17:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Action against self-published jihadist sources
A lot of content on this page reads like a newsletter or update log rather than an encyclopedia, and is sourced mainly by jihadist magazines in the form of PDFs or reproductions on other websites, violating
WP:SPS (self-published sources) and
WP:PRIMARY (use of unreliable primary sources). Jihadists are by no means "experts" on themselves, and the content they produce are nothing but propaganda to lure fighters; by no means reputable or reliable. By doing weekly/monthly updates on the jihadist content they produce, this page is becoming a content dump for jihadist propaganda rather than an informative page about the conflict in Xinjiang.
Having jihadist published content in this article is the equivalent of updating
Donald Trump's page every time he makes a controversial tweet or tweets a policy announcement on Twitter, then sourcing it with a link to his tweet. To avoid an unwanted edit war, I am leaving this discussion here; if you do not agree with this please reply to this thread.
I have just modified 15 external links on
Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I am changing the infobox from
Template:Infobox military conflict to
Template:Infobox civil conflict and (in the process) re-removing the belligerents list. This is for a number of reasons, which boil down to the fact that this is a civil, not a military conflict. (Bear in mind that a "civil conflict" doesn't have to be "civil".)
A military conflict means battles, campaigns, wars, as opposed to protests, riots, and clashes with police. This is not a question of scale, but the kind of conflict involved. In the violence covered by the article, about half of deaths are from riots and responses to riots – which fall squarely in the non-military camp – and most of the rest are from police raids and terrorism.[3] Though there are organised groups which have claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, data on terrorism is tightly controlled by the Chinese government so it remains impossible to say how many of the attacks which are not claimed by any group (though invariably attributed to the "East Turkestan Islamic Movement") are the product of organised groups and how many are individual actors.[4][5] However, even in cases involving terrorist groups I would argue that separate attacks don't constitute a military campaign or battle in anything other than a metaphorical sense. That one, I admit, is a little ambiguous.
In short, as the conflict appears in different forms, and is usually disorganised, presenting a list of belligerent groups gives a false impression of a straightforward two-sided conflict which always involves the same well-defined organisations over the whole state timescale. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
18:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
This is an article about an insurgency, the original military conflcit infobox is thus appropriate, and removal of the belligerents from the infobox is not appropriate. Terrorism and military raids are facets of insurgency and armed conflict.
XavierGreen (
talk)
18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I think a few of the problems I'm having with this might be to do with the fact that both the Military and Civil conflict infoboxes are designed for specific conflicts (as it says on their pages), not overviews. In light of this I think it might be best not to have an infobox at all, and just put a map on the page along with the campaignbox and a line giving an idea of the death toll. This also helps to avoid giving a misleadingly definitive start date, when really you could put it at any time from the start of the 20th century to the nineties. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
23:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree, this is better without the war infobox. This is a conflict, not a war. It goes beyond just military, there are also social issues (that may receive more coverage as well). The war infobox is a problem on a number of levels.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
12:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Every armed conflict has social issues, and the military conflict infobox is used for all types of armed conflicts, including insurgencies like the
Basque conflict which also had riots, civil unrest, and terrorism just like this conflict. Armed conflicts between paramilitarized criminal organizations and governments also use the military conflict infobox like the
Mexican Drug War.
XavierGreen (
talk)
15:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
In the article on the Basque conflict, demonstrations are occasionally mentioned as a response to violence, not as a major part of the conflict as is the case here. Both conflicts you mention also have clearly defined organised groups on each side (the ETA and Mexican Drug Cartels) – if this article were just about the TIP then there'd be a case, but it's not. There is nothing lost by removing the infobox while including it risks giving a false impression of simplicity. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
18:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
XavierGreen: don't re-add the infobox without getting consensus here. You have two editors against it and you are the only one that seems to want to add it and you repeatedly re-adding here
[6] and here
[7], bordering on edit warring. Do an RfC if you want to see if more people side with you.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)reply
There was no consensus to remove it in the first place, and there is still no consensus to remove it. If you wish to have it removed, you should open the RFC as you are the one who is advocating for removing the infobox which has been on this page for literally years without anyone arguing for its removal.
XavierGreen (
talk)
16:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
RfC: Infobox
Closing this, I see unanimous agreement to keep an infobox. On the question of which infobox to use, I am looking for why to prefer one option over the other - specifically wrt what info is (or is not) presented and how it is presented. Without this, the "name" of the infobox used is somewhat arbitrary and there is no good case to change from the status quo. There are a couple of comments to keep the infobox but do not advocate change of the infobox. I note that a close is not a vote but even if it were, the result is not sufficiently clear for a change.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No infobox. Both the military and civil conflict infoboxes specify that they are to be used for particular conflicts, while this page covers various kinds of conflict, including both terrorism and civil unrest. Much of the terrorism, though invariably attributed by China to the catch-all "ETIM", has not been claimed by any specific group. The infobox creates a false impression of simplicity, suggesting this article deals with only a straightforward war-like struggle between a well-defined terrorist organisation and the Chinese government. Nothing is gained by keeping it except a rough casualty count which can easily be merged into the lead section. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep the Military Conflict Infobox - this is an article about an insurgency, a type of armed conflict, thus the miltitary conflict infobox is appropriate.
XavierGreen (
talk)
14:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep infobox (
Summoned by bot) The infobox is where my eye first wanders to on a page like this, which is then able to quickly take in some aspects of location from a map image, and the basic outlines of the confict based on the listing of the two sides, and other material. This infobox serves the same purpose. Further, the fact that the conflict might, in fact, be a series of protracted conflicts over a long period of time, should have no bearing on whether to include the template or not. The
Hundred Years' War uses the exact same template, and as it says in the first sentence of that article, it "was a series of conflicts waged from 1337 to 1453 beween... England and France, and includes six campaign boxes spanning the century of war. There's no reason why
Xinjiang conflict should not also have an infobox, and plenty of reasons why it should.
Mathglot (
talk)
11:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Mathglot: I definitely agree with keeping the map, and naturally I acknowledge that infoboxes are usually a quick and easy way to summarise information. The problem is that the infobox fails to give an accurate impression of the varied nature of the conflict, which in many cases involves no organised groups, and is in a number of cases ethnic, rather than political in character.
This rundown, for example, of "serious confrontations" since the 1980s includes just as many protests, demonstrations, riots, etc (where violence is unorganised and unplanned) as attacks and armed rebellions. At the same time, the infobox contains a list of obscure terrorists and every PRC leader since Mao, none of whom are mentioned in the article.
This source makes clear that the conflict "is not simply a dispute between the Chinese Communist Party and 'Islamic fundamentalists' as is often maintained." ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I understand what you are saying, and it could be that you are right about the inaccurate impression. But in that case, wouldn't the solution be to improve the infobox, rather than remove it? We wouldn't delete an article, simply because it had inaccurate information; either we'd remove the wrong information or we'd correct it, right? Wouldn't that be a better approach here as well?
Mathglot (
talk)
19:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Mathglot: I've had a shot at the major things. The main problem is that these infoboxes max out at three sides but I think I may have hit upon a
possible solution based on the infobox in
Years of Lead (Italy). (It's a work in progress; feedback appreciated.)
Keep Infobox The infobox is the same for historical armed conflicts and also current ones. My question about whether this conflict is ongoing is irrelevant to the infobox, so I'm fine with it.
Simonm223 (
talk)
13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments
I think this could be more like a separatist movement if we have an infobox for that, but note I believe that neither of the proposed infoboxes are even remotely suitable to be separatist related.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
05:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Question The references for an armed conflict are all a little bit stale. Are there current reliable sources that suggest the operational definition of an armed conflict (IE: at least 1000 combatants killed) is still operational? If fewer than 25 people have been killed two years running, it'd be considered dormant.
as per Project Ploughshares. As the most recent refs in the infobox are from 2016, I am unable to say with certainty whether it's appropriate. A note: in the interest of disclosure, I was invited to participate by
ReconditeRodent on the basis of my Urumqi Barnstar. I'm not particularly fond of canvassing in RfCs but this is a topic of legitimate interest to me so I thought it'd be prudent to ask questions first and disclose this rather than just jumping in with an opinion.
Simonm223 (
talk)
11:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ongoing Conflict?
On second thought I suppose my question is more whether this page describes an ongoing armed conflict or if it should be considered a recently historical armed conflict. Either way I suppose the infobox would apply. Thoughts?
Simonm223 (
talk)
11:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Simonm223: I think you might be right.
List of ongoing armed conflicts has citations for 11 deaths in 2017 and none for 2018. I've done some googling and can't find any attacks or clashes in 2018 either, though it's perfectly possible I'm just not looking in the right place. We might as well wait out the year, though that might seem pessimistic. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
13:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Housekeeping note:: I'm splitting this off from the discussion of the RfC as it's a different topicThere's certainly no rush on this. Especially considering the way American media picked up on the (somewhat dubious) accusations of ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang, it'd be wise to wait until it was clear that the armed conflict is dormant per the Ploughshares definition before changing the article to treat it as closed. But certainly we don't want to keep a dormant armed conflict listed as ongoing if it really isn't.
Simonm223 (
talk)
13:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Ok, so it's the end of 2018 and as far as I can tell this conflict has killed 12 people in 2017 and zero in 2018 which means that it's meeting the ploughshares definition of a recent historical armed conflict rather than an ongoing one. So I'm raising the question now: Can anybody find credible evidence that people are actually dying as a result of this conflict? I mean stuff that doesn't come directly out of the ETIM or NED?
Simonm223 (
talk)
18:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
SYNTH in the lede
The paragraph I removed from the lede was a clear example of
WP:NPOV violating
WP:SYNTH. In addition to the use of synthesis to create a section that attempts to state as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, the opinions of ETIM and NED, both of which were participants in the Xinjiang conflict, key statements depended on Business Insider, which is not a reliable source. Most of the vaguely reliable sources used (which are often highly biased media sources when it comes to China at the best of times) are basing their claims on statements that are ultimately sourced back to ETIM and CIA affiliated agents who presented before the UN. Contrary to more breathless media claims, there was no evidence beyond the say-so of the ETIM and the American intelligence community. This is why I blanked the paragraph. Not, as the editor responsible for this POV nightmare contended, "because it came from the BBC."
Simonm223 (
talk)
17:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Alexkyoung
Apologies for the blanket revert. The optimal thing to do when
multipleeditors revert your contributions is to seek consensus on the talk page, not double down and change the article
even further in the same way. To me, there are serious POV and
WP:WEIGHT problems with nearly all of your changes. Since the “
onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”, I was hoping you could explain your thinking for the edits you think are justified. I'm also happy to provide some more detail on my exact issues with any particular edit on request. (I would have done that already were it not for the sheer volume of the changes – Thank you for understanding.) I’ve also called an RfC below for the intro. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your specific feedback. That paragraph has been made more neutral, presenting just the facts and multiple viewpoints on the conflict. However your claim that every edit contains pov is wrong: to the contrary the previous versions of the article were full of pov and many useful edits have been made to make the article more neutral overall that you just recklessly eliminated. The Timeline is quite important for understanding the history of Xinjiang and gaining context on the nature of the conflict. The Timeline only reports the facts. It is advisable that you do not abuse your reversion privileges, lest you want them stripped. Consensus has been reached with others, and from now on only edits to existing content shall be made.
First Alex, please don't forget to sign your posts (using ~~~~) as it will otherwise very quickly become difficult to track the course of discussion here. Second, while of course
WP:Edit warring should be avoided in almost all cases, ReconditeRodent is correct when he points to
WP:ONUS above; if content is added and its
WP:Verifiability is in question, it is the responsibility of the advocate for that additional content to supply the sourcing, and the content should stay out until this has been accomplished. Now, I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "only edits to existing content shall be made", but you need to be aware that no article stays in a static state forever. I'm also not sure of the exact content you two are still in disagreement over, now that you've apparently reached a meeting of the minds on the lead, but if it is the timeline in particular, I don't see where you have achieved consensus on that above (and even if you had consensus can change, especially if it was previously based on the perspectives of a small number of editor and wider feedback is then solicited). Indeed, while I personally think there is an argument to be made for your timeline table as an efficient summary of the historical context here, you should be made aware that Wikipedia's style guidelines have a strong preference for presenting such information in prose format, and that you might consider adjusting it accordingly, because many veteran editors would view it as more of an eyesore inconsistent with our guidelines than I do.
Lastly, when it comes to good faith discussions about content, it's usually best to avoid even quasi-threats of "stripping" another editors privileges. To begin with, no editor can lose the right to revert articles--that's a basic function that all accounts have;
WP:Rollback privileges can be lost, but as far as I can tell, they are not involved here. Improper reversions could in extreme cases lead to a block, but we're a far way from the level of
WP:disruption where the community or an admin are likely to consider such a move, so I think it's less than helpful to lace discussion with that kind of comment, particularly where consensus building is just getting under way and you yourself are relatively new to the project and understanding of our behavioural policies. In general, there's a bit of a tone of
WP:OWN in some of those comments and your apparent belief that the article is in such a state where nothing in it at present should be subject to removal, particularly as the article is on a controversial and complex subject and will always be subject to a degree of change, with removals of even large elements not something we can rule out altogether. In general, it's best to avoid that kind of accusation of abuse and likely sanction until there is clearly an established behavioural issue and not just an editorial disagreement, as making such hyperbolic statements (particularly so soon into a dispute) will often needlessly inflame discussion before it has even really began--and honestly, an editor with a combined experience of about 600 edits over two months issuing warnings about supposed 'abuse' at an editor with much more experience, in an apparent effort to protect their own vision of an article, sends up red flags that will not gain your perspective many points if RR decides to RfC further issues.
All of that cautionary/procedural stuff out of the way, can I ask you to clarify what the current source of disagreement is between the two of you? Is it in fact just the timeline? If so, perhaps
ReconditeRodent can also clarify for us whether their objection to the content was just that it was superfluous (I don't think it is, personally--I find the timeline on point and useful), as their edit summary suggests, or whether they thought the format was problematic. Though of course, it may be something else entirely. Let's get into specifics, my wiki colleagues. Snowlet's rap09:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Ah, I realise now a few things are my fault for leaving unclear notes. When I suggested someone make a table, I was referring to
the
2007–present section, which is still an unreadable list of incidents. I was thinking it and other incidents could be compiled into a table with the date, type of incident, location, death toll, confirmation of nature by non-state sources, etc. However, having tried to make one, I would no longer endorse that approach as I do not believe it would provide serious encyclopedic value – trends are more important than events, as I said. Even so, something similar might still be useful for tallying a death count (presumably allowed by
WP:CALC).
As Snow suggests, I definitely prefer the prose presentation of the other information, since a clunky table (though maybe usable for
History of Xinjiang?) here gives the false impression that Xinjiang, which took on its current form relatively recently in historical terms, has been unified for millennia, and inevitably overlooks the intermittent and varying kinds of rule experienced in different eras. Since the article is already very long we should also make sure not to inadvertently overemphasise pre-20th century history. (There are other problems too; the Han, Tang, and Qing dynasties, for instance, controlled Xinjiang, or parts of it, for just over a century each, and not over the entire courses of their existence as the table implies.[1]) I am genuinely sorry for being unclear with the note, I just thought it was getting too long. As I said though, you should consider salvaging/repurposing the table as a section for
History of Xinjiang.
Similarly, the reason the POV tag is on the
Restrictions section is because every statement is qualified with a “but the Hui are treated better” which often comes across as a kind of excuse – a line or two about the Hui for comparison wouldn’t be out of place but since Uyhgurs are a different cultural, ethnic, and linguistic group, even if they share the same religion, and most sources on the restrictions on life in Xinjiang do not focus on the Hui, neither should we. Overall I found your changes made this problem worse, rather than better.
Besides that, though, most of
Alex’s changes introduce material which seems either POV or
WP:Undue to me—presumably based on his pre-existing understanding of the topic—and often leave the article out of sync with the existing sources, since no new ones are provided. A few examples:
”In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC.[2]” was changed to “The PRC claims jurisdiction over Xinjiang since around 200 BC due to the
Han dynasty,
Tang dynasty,
Qing dynasty, and other Chinese dynasties controlling the region for the past two millennia.[2]” with no new citations.
Besides excluding one side’s interpretation, which is obviously relevant, it presents the inaccurate claim that Chinese dynasties have “controll[ed] the region for the past two millennia” as a fact (since it follows “due to”), in Wikipedia’s voice.
”
Human Rights Watch describes a "multi-tiered system of surveillance, control, and suppression of religious activity" perpetrated by state authorities.[3] It is estimated that over 100,000 Uyghurs are currently held in political "
re-education camps".[4] China justifies such measures as a response to the
terrorist threat posed by extremist separatist groups.[5]” becomes “
Human Rights Watch describes a "multi-tiered system of surveillance, control, and suppression of religious activity" perpetrated by state authorities.[3]Radio Free Asia, a US-backed group, has claimed that over 100,000 Uyghurs are currently held in political "
re-education camps".[4] The question is why. China justifies such measures as a response to the
terrorist threat posed by extremist separatist groups. These measures were taken to increase public security and safeguard national interests such as retaining territory and protecting the Chinese, especially after the
2009 Ürümqi riots and
2014 Kunming attack.[5]” with no new citations.
This shows many of the same issues as the proposed intro, introducing unsourced justifications, presenting those justifications as facts where they should be attributed, and leaving the section unbalanced with a clear POV. (For the record, I am for attributing the RFA’s estimate, though it’s a little out of date.)
The following line, “These policies, in addition to long-standing cultural differences,[6] have sometimes resulted in resentment between Uyghur and Han citizens.[7]”, is trimmed so that government policy is not implicated as bearing any responsibility, and then inserted into a section which originally read “Although current PRC minority policy, which is based on
affirmative actions, has reinforced a Uyghur ethnic identity that is distinct from the Han population,[8][9][10] many Uyghurs reportedly feel that they are slowly being eradicated as an ethnic and cultural group.[11]" so that the whole thing reads: “Current PRC minority policy, which is based on
affirmative action, has reinforced a Uyghur ethnic identity.[8][9][10] But due to cultural differences,[6] there have sometimes been ethnic tensions between Uyghur and Han citizens.[7]"[12]
This further implies, through
WP:Synth, that ethnic tensions are in spite of government policy, and not in any way caused by it while
the source cited continues to state that “Recent government policies ... exacerbate ethnic tensions in Xinjiang” and have “increased Uighur resentment and fears of coercive cultural assimilation.”
In one way or another, nearly all of the changes I encountered had problems like these on some level. I found writing a critique for every one impractical as this appears to me to be a systemic problem, so I was thinking we could first make sure, if you don’t take offense, that you (as in Alex) are familiar with Wikipedia’s
core content policies and how to implement them, and then discuss any changes you are still confident should be included. Thank you for your cooperation. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
01:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)reply
^
abGladney, Dru C. (2004). "The Chinese Program of Development and Control, 1978–2001". In S. Frederick Starr (ed.). Xinjiang: China's Muslim borderland. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 112–114.
ISBN978-0-7656-1318-9.
^
abCite error: The named reference HRW was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^
abCite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^
abCite error: The named reference QZPassport was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^
ab"China's Minorities and Government Implementation of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law". Congressional-Executive Commission on China. 1 October 2005. Archived from
the original on 7 April 2010. Retrieved 6 May 2010. [Uyghurs] live in cohesive communities largely separated from Han Chinese, practice major world religions, have their own written scripts, and have supporters outside of China. Relations between these minorities and Han Chinese have been strained for centuries.{{
cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
^The other bit shows up later as "Proponents for the
East turkestan independence movement reportedly feel that they are slowly being eradicated as an ethnic and cultural group."
RfC on Intro
The consensus is that version A of the intro is preferable.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the two proposed versions of the intro is preferable? 17:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Factors such as [...] have contributed to tension between Uyghurs, state police and Han Chinese. This has taken the form of both frequent terrorist attacks and wider public unrest (such as the
July 2009 Ürümqi riots).
In recent years, government policy has been marked by
mass surveillance, increased arrests, and a system of "
re-education camps", estimated to hold hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups.[1][2][a]
Factors such as [...] have contributed to tension between Uyghurs, state police and Han Chinese.
This has taken the form of both frequent
terrorist attacks and wider public unrest (such as the
July 2009 Ürümqi riots or
2014 Kunming attack). So in recent years, the PRC has taken measures to increase public safety and national security to prevent separatist movements and retain territorial control over Xinjiang, through measures such as
mass surveillance, increased arrests, and a system of
re-education camps.[1][2][a]
A. To me the structure of B seems to suggest that the actions of the Chinese government are a natural and justified consequence of the situation described, while A merely reports them. B also excludes an entirely relevant sense of scale, and less well reflects the focus of the cited sources, which is largely on the actions, rather than motivations, of the Chinese government. It also assumes (without a clear source) what these motivations are, which is particularly problematic given that the inner workings of China’s government are cryptic at the best of times. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Of the two proposals, A. (
Summoned by bot) I agree with the concerns expressed by ReconditeRodent above: version B presents a fundamentally editorial and non-neutral description of this complex situation which virtually parrots the position of the Chinese state, including justifications for state surveillance and mass incarceration which have been largely criticized by many sources (primary and secondary) which are not themselves connected to the Chinese government. There's nothing unacceptable about including the position of the Chinese state in the article (or indeed even the lead), but it must be clearly marked as such and not presented in Wikipedia's own voice as objective fact. To this end, a well-chosen quote or two from an official government statement (fully and clearly attributed) is the only neutral way to include a statement of that perspective without the article becoming an extension of the Chinese state position, especially in the lead where additional context will be lacking to make the span of perspectives in.
The truth of the matter is that with many sources on this topic--at least as regards the kinds of reliable WP:SECONDARY sources (independent of involved parties and entities), that are meant to be the basis of all articles on this project (particularly where controversy is high)--the Chinese government actually comes in for some pretty serious criticism. Now we shouldn't parrot those positions in Wikipedia's voice any more than we should allow the article to be a fount of Chinese propaganda on the subject, but as a matter of
WP:WEIGHT of the secondary sources, the criticism from rights groups, NGO's and other outside observers which have suggested that the Chinese government's activities constitute a form of extreme state oppression of an ethnic minority are deserving of at least as much expression in the lead as the official positions of the Chinese government.
So I would actually suggest that the choice between options A and B is actually a bit of a
false choice and that maybe the lead needs more substantial reworking, with something along the lines of "The Chinese government maintains [statement of position], saying that '[fully attributed quote on that position]'" and then "However, critics of the government crackdown have claimed that [summary of criticisms of the crackdown], with [select prominent critic] stating that '[full attributed quote from a more critical perspective]'. Or something along those lines. However, if the choice is between A and B, I think that clearly A should prevail, as B is simply non-neutral, non-objective, and would be far too deferential to the position of the Chinese state in a way that endorses it through Wikipedia's voice, in a manner clearly out of sync with our policies on weight and neutrality. Snowlet's rap08:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Actually, having now taken a look at the version of the lead live as of now, I would say that it does a reasonable enough job of addressing the concerns I emphasize above as strikes a decent balance of the perspectives. I actually think there is room in the lead to flesh out both of the competing narratives, but there is something to be said for a concise lead as well. As an RfC respondent not previously involved on this article, my impression is that the current version is sufficiently neutral and descriptive, if both parties previously debating the point are happy with it, as they seem to be. Snowlet's rap08:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I very much agree with your analysis, although I do have issues with Alex's
second proposal as well (let's call it version C). Namely, it inaccurately states that the actions are claimed by the Chinese government (in order to lead with their perspective, as I see it) when they were largely uncovered by journalists and human rights groups first, with some being initially denied by the Chinese government and only acknowledged or explained later. It also writes off criticism from the UN and human rights groups as “some international onlookers and US media outlets” and lastly it continues to assume the motivations of the Chinese government with no references. I am happy to include the Chinese government’s responses to these findings, as was the case in an earlier draft (version D, which starts like version A):
In recent years, [...] and members of other Muslim minority groups. This has led to criticism from the
UN,[3][4] the
United States,[5] and
human rights groups.[6][7] China has rejected these criticisms, asserting that the camps are a humane
counterterrorism measure intended for vocational training, rather than political re-education.[8][9][10]
This was criticised for
WP:Recentism so I moved it to the body of the article. However, I would support moving it back if there's a consensus. Admittedly it only covers the camps as they're a particular focus of journalistic coverage, but I very am happy to incorporate the Chinese government's responses to other issues elsewhere, and in the intro as well if they don't overwhelm it. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
13:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
A - The current version is much more neutral and relates the events from an "outsider" perspective, while the second one reads more like a justification used by the Chinese authorities for the recent crackdowns. The sense of scale ("hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups") is also missing from the second option and that is an important omission, as the arrest of a handful of individuals would be one thing (and perhaps not even worthy of mention), whereas when we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people, the discussion changes significantly. I agree with the above posters that this doesn't mean the position of the Chinese government shouldn't be included in the article, but it should be included in the main body of the article, rather than in the lead and marked accordingly. Lastly, and this is probably a minor point in comparison, the second option is also lacking in writing quality: "So in recent years, the PRC has taken measures" strikes me as an awkward and inelegant way of starting a sentence. This is probably because the author tried to make it clear that the government's measures were taken as a direct consequence to what it perceives as threats.
PraiseVivec (
talk)
22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)reply
AI have more support for the section A. It cannot be said that it is to maintain control over Xinjiang's territory, because Xinjiang is originally part of China.--
Zhangpeiyao (
talk)
08:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)reply
A Per
WP:NPOV. If someone wants to relate the Chinese government policies to the violence as a 'cause and effect' thing, they should do so in a neutral tone.
DemPon (
talk)
21:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)reply
A Question though, is "and members of other Muslim minority groups." appropriate? It seems we are saying Uyghurs is a Muslim group, and binding ethnicity to religion.
John, Sudworth (24 October 2018).
"China's hidden camps". BBC News. Archived from
the original on 5 January 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2019. {{
cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Restrictions
The reason I originally added the tag is because every statement is qualified with a “but the Hui are treated better” which usually seems like a kind of excuse. The Uyhgurs and the Hui are different culturally, ethnically, and linguistically, even if they practice the same religion. Since most sources on the restrictions on life in Xinjiang do not focus on the Hui, neither should we, although a line or two for comparison wouldn’t be out of place.
That said, I now think it would probably be best to distribute the information worth keeping in this section across the timeline, as much of it is historical, and it would help readers better understand the specific historical context of both the measures described, and the developments in the timeline. I'm planning to do this but myself in case I manage not to I thought I'd leave this section here to make my intentions clear. ─
ReconditeRodent «
talk ·
contribs »
01:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Suggest link clicking before controversial deletions
As evident here
[8] there are actually reliable sources supporting Grey Wolves activity in Xinjiang. If you're particularly concerned about a ref next to every entry in the infobox, please at least do minimal research to see if the refs already exist at the destination pages rather than just deleting.
Simonm223 (
talk)
12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Uighurs are not the aboriginals of the region. Indeed, the present day Uighurs now speak a Turkic language, not a language of their genetic ancestors. Even the people of Turkey now speak a Turkic language, and not the Indo-European Hittite language of their ancestors. The origin of the Turkic language is from Mongoloid peoples. The ancestors of the present day Uighurs were enslaved and ruled by Mongoloid peoples, and simply changed their native language to the language of their Mongoloid masters. The language situation of African-Americans is in exact parallel to this. African-Americans now speak English, an Anglo-Saxon language, and do not speak any African languages. African-Americans cannot claim to be racially Anglo-Saxon or European just because they now only speak English and no African language. Neither could the Uighurs claim that they are central or east Asians because they now only use the language of Mongoloids. If the Uighurs really want to claim a homeland, they should look a bit further west in the Caucasus.
86.137.73.187 (
talk)
15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
there is not something like Xinjiang coflict the confilict arise between nations not between a nation and a besieged minority . Further some inclination in this article vindicate the persecution of Ughurs
No longer an active conflict
No major "conflict" activity have been reported since roughly 2018, and the conflict is primarily marked by the concentration camps and labor camps.
Frozen conflict seems more appropriate of a status than "active", since the camps don't seem to count as "armed conflict".
ADifferentMan (
talk)
22:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Is there any "conflict" going on anymore? I haven't seen any news of clashes or operations taking place in Xinjiang since 2018, so roughly 3 years have passed with no fighting (barring of course the arrest campaign of the government). Shouldn't there be an end date of 2018 or something? Any thoughts?
2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (
talk)
03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
1931
The lead claims "Though the conflict's origins trace back to 1931". This date is not explained in the article. If this is not done, this claim needs to be removed, although infobox should have some date. I am only guessing that in 1931 China occupied this region? If not, what happened that year? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)reply
1930 is the correct year. "The early Rebellions in 1930 were highly influenced by ‘Uyghur enlightenment’ and drew their legitimacy from religious repression".
[9]Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)04:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Birthrate
The section marked 'Aftermath' gives the impression that the Uighar birthrate has fallen below the Chinese birthrate in general. This is misleading. The Uighar birthrate was previously very high, and simply appears to have moved downwards to match the typical Chinese birthrate. The data is quite clear. See:
I've reverted some significant changes to this article, including changing the page title. Made by
MarvelousPeach, I don't think any of these changes had concensus. They also removed referenced material, including inu-se reference deinitions, and left the article with referencing errors. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It was quite obvious there isn't a war on-going and the usage was pure fiction at best, not sure why you feel it's okay to just revert without any valid logic or argument.
MarvelousPeach (
talk)
21:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've reverted to the status quo and started a conversation to build consensus. You can see on this page that concuss was previously reached to choose the name of the article before you changed it. I can't find the word "war" in the article, aside from "war on terror". --
Mikeblas (
talk)
00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Please don't try to push your personal POV into the article against consensus. If you want to have a broader discussion RSN is thataways...
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It doesn't seem like the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is too eager to
restart the discussion for VoA, but Voice of America, like all sources, should be analyzed of its own merits, regardless of the
U.S. Agency for Global Media's reliability. Believe me, there are some Wiki policies that near boil my blood, but consensus won't change without solid reasoning behind it, and we have to operate under the current consensus in the meantime.
AnandaBliss (
talk)
20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the
help page).