Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive 5

Bovingdon notes
A few days ago I was able to see a talk by Gardiner Bovingdon, one of the big Central-Asia-ologists at the University of Indiana (in Chinese media he's known as something like 抱文得, I think), who has been interviewed a lot about the riots. I tried to take some notes on main points he mentioned that would be good to keep in mind for this article. Anyway, just some stuff to think about and/or work on. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This BBC timeline seems like one of the most accurate and neutral resources available. It is what he used as sort of the outline for his talk, and both the timeline and his talk also corresponded pretty closely to the history of our own article.
 * According to Bovingdon, any reported ethnic breakdowns of death tolls are not "yet" reliable.
 * It's important to make it clear that the intervention after the riots was police intervention, not military. I think our article already does this well.
 * One of the things Bovingdon made a big deal about (I think rightly so) is the lack of attention paid to Uyghur media coverage of the riots. (Part of this is because the language is not widely spoken; for Wikipedia purposes, another big problem is that there are few so-called "reliable sources", by WP standards, in Uyghur; there is Radio Free Asia and there are forums such as meshrep.com, but for WP it would be better to stick to news articles. Local news outlets in various XUAR cities exist, although I'm not familiar with all of them.)
 * Things that seem like they may be important to mention and aren't (as far as I can tell) in the article right now:
 * Apparently on July 7(ish) some of the Han vigilantes had a confrontation with police, to complain about arrests of Hans. This is the opposite of what we are mostly hearing about (Uyghurs complaining about the arrests of Uyghurs) so might help balance the article.
 * The mosque closings on July 10: a big deal, and currently only seem to be mentioned in passing. (Interestingly, in the current version, the prose mentions that the government "conceded" to demands and "re-opened" some mosques, but doesn't appear to mention their being closed in the first place.)


 * Thanks. It's useful as a reality check - if for nothing else. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was really interesting to read. Well-done. :) Colipon+ (Talk) 06:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

New law
According to this article, the riots and subsequent criticisms may have been part of what prompted the PRC to pass this law. Not sure if it's worthy of mention yet, since the connection is basically speculative, but I just wanted to at least bring it to attention here. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again
New protests going on in Urumqi: And that's not all; apparently 5 people have been killed:

This comes just as I was about to go through and update the article on long-term impact/aftermath/etc. Now it looks like we might have another quickly-developing mess on our hands, though. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rumours are flying fast on this one. It is confirmed that a small number opf Uyghurs have been stabbing people with hypodermic needles.  What is still in rumour-land is reports of HIV infection and cyanide contamination on the hypos.Simonm223 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More sources:


 * Woman recounts Xinjiang syringe stabbing (AFP)
 * Xinjiang needle attacks continuing: victims (AFP)
 * Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Later riots"
I realize that this probably will get better organized once the dust settles, but there are some serious issues with the "Later riots" section. For one, the 'HK journalist incident' is given undue weight. That section occupies more space than the "later riots" themselves, which is supposed to be the subject of the section... I would say it is better to condense the HK journalist incident to about half its length and fit that under the "media" section, in conjunction to the paragraph about foreign journalists etc. How does that sound? Colipon+ (Talk) 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Better yet, move it into "Media Coverage" section. Jim101 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think the whole thing is too much; it reads like updates on rapidly-developing news. I'm hoping this weekend I can go through and trim it.
 * As for 'media coverage', I'm not sure it belongs there because it seems to be about treatment of journalists rather than actual media coverage itself, and plus it's about these "aftershock" riots rather than the main ones that are actually the subject of this article. Ohconfucius and I had a brief chat about this at User talk:Ohconfucius. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, after reading the para. again more closely, I think it may be better to remove the whole thing per NOT#NEWS. If these riots ever have their own article, this minor incident might fit in; here, though, it seems too trivial a detail. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally do think HK journalists deserve at least some mention. It sheds some light on the notorious practices against journalists by the Chinese authorities, which is a significant issue. But not to the extent of the weight it is being given now. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. I'm glad this is being brought up. I understand the concerns, and would say that it does warrant a paragraph, although it would appear to mess up the structure of the article a little. But we have time to fix it because the riots appear to be ongoing. I think the HK journalist thing is HUGE because it seems to be a stark contrast to a new-found policy of reporting freedom and transparency. I know HK journalists are a spoilt bunch who do not generally believe in privacy, and their tactics in their search for a scoop are at times reprehensible. However, the fact that the PRC, which has superficial claims to media freedom not only suppresses the news, but actually beats up accredited journalists and lies about certain key elements opens up a whole new can of worms. It isn't just about free speech any more. If the PRC doesn't deal with this decisively, it will start raising questions as to how the riots actually started. ie how much provocation did the peaceful protesters receive... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that the PRC frequently lies to get its way or get recognition globally is not a myth to anyone, and this part is actually examined by several academics and China experts in the "media" section already, especially Willy Lam. I would second Rjanag in that the current section just reads like a newspiece and therefore somewhat unencyclopedic at least in terms of style. To have it as a standalone paragraph without the proper context may be confusing to readers, not to mention it looks like very sloppy recentist organization. Colipon+ (Talk) 09:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your point. We can always put it back when there are new developments which are relevant. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Colipon and Rjanag.Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (out) So is the consensus to take the whole HK journalists paragraph out for now?
 * And if that is the case, how about sticking it here to be worked on, and then in the future when there's more information and context we might be able to reinstate a trimmed, less newsy version? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Let's keep it here on the talk page for future reference. If we decide to put it into the article, I would suggest it come right after Willy Lam's comments about transparency and journalists' restrictions. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it is. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Three Hong Kong journalists were tackled and detained by paramilitary police whist filming a disturbance on 4 September. They were punched and kicked by the police, then detained face-down on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs for up to 20 minutes. The armed police did not check their central government-issued press identification cards, the Foreign Correspondent's Club of China said. The reporters complained of being handcuffed and detained for three hours. The Xinjiang authorities blamed the journalists for inciting the disturbance, saying they were 'gesturing to the crowd'; they however, regretted the 'alleged beating'. The Xinjiang spokesman said: 'Of the three journalists, only one had a temporary press card... but the other two didn't.' Now TV and HKTVB, the three reporters' employers reacted angrily, saying their employees had valid press credentials issued by the central government. The same two organizations and the Hong Kong Journalists Association later rejected the findings of a Xinjiang police investigation into the incident, calling them a 'fabrication'. Seven local National People's Congress deputies wrote to NPC chairman Wu Bangguo to express their concern."

Could it be time to return to this issue? Colipon+ (Talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we're spinning a web that keeps getting further and further from the original article subject, the July riots. Personally, I think whenever it's time to reinsert coverage of the HK journalists, it will also be time to spin the September riots out into their very own article (and link it from here with ). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we could adopt two approaches - first would be to widen the scope of this articles to 2009 Ürümqi riots, or to put meat on the bones of 2009 Uyghur unrest (like its brethren). The second would be to create a second article 2009 Ürümqi syringe attacks or September 2009 Uyghur unrest. On the whole, the syringe attacks would seem a notable enough collection of incidents to warrant a new article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I think separating into the July riots and September attaacks/riots/unrest would create a situation that's easier for us to control and to write about well. Trying to digest a large amount of happenings into a general narrative of "unrest", pulling everything together, would be difficult (especially when the events are still so recent and we don't have much long-term perspective yet); likewise, it would become more of an invitation for people to add other stuff that might not be so great. On the other hand, having a clearly delineated separation between the various articles gives us greater control over what goes into each. To tie things together we could always create a 2009 Uyghur unrest navbox or something like that to put at the bottom of the article (it could contain this, Ürümqi syringe attacks, June 2009 Shaoguan incident, articles with background information, &c). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely support re-adding this material, in some shape or form. It's more notable now seeing as even pro-China legislators and media in Hong Kong are criticising the treatment of the journalists (see here: BBC). Personally I don't think the situation is over yet. I'm leaning more towards a 'widening the scope' approach – possibly to 2009 Uyghur unrest (which currently redirects here). Midway (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read part of Rjanag's post. The addition of a nav-box might help giving the timeline of events and link to relevant articles where appropriate, so in that sense I think it's also acceptable to create separate articles, and maybe "summarise" it all in an article like 2009 Uyghur unrest or something. Midway (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have become fond of building boxes :) (hint) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Judging from the comments above, I would like to offer the following proposal. We are doing a hell of a job compared to the organizational chaos at the 2008 Tibetan unrest... Colipon+ (Talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Rename this article to "2009 Uyghur unrest" or "2009 Xinjiang unrest", as the article in its current state is basically a skeleton for all of these events in succession.
 * 2) Create spin-off article in September 2009 Xinjiang syringe attacks
 * 3) Improve article for the Shaoguan Incident.
 * 4) Bring all of these together in a navbox, along with names of the major figures involved (Kadeer, Nur Bekri etc.).


 * If this is to be renamed, "2009 Xinjiang unrest" is certainly the better title, as "Uyghur unrests" suggests that all the responsibility/blame falls on Uyghurs and they're the only ones who have gotten restive. (That does raise the question, though, of how Shaoguan will fit in&mdash;while it's not in Xinjiang, it at least is a predecessor, although I'm sure someone would show up at the talk page and question the naming or whatever.)
 * Personally, though, for now I think it's still ok to keep this as an article about the July riots only, and let the navbox do all the "Xinjiang unrest" synthesis. A year or two from now things might change, but right now I feel there's not much to be said about the 'unrest in general'&mdash;at least, not much that has reliable sources&mdash;as almost all the coverage is about specific incidents. In other words, if this article were moved to "2009 Xinjiang unrest", it would require some major rewriting to make it be about anything other than the July riots, which are the focus of the vast majority of attention in this article so far (and will be even more so once the syringe incident is spun into its own article). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said and argued. Spinning out the small part about the latest "unrests" (that's not even a word, say hello to U. Phemism and B. Ware?) and building it into a proper article while leaving this one "as is" for now (while patrolling it) seems like the better option. If the current situation gets as bad as the last time, a separate article will be another full month of keeping anons at bay. That alone will be enough to take care of. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It just seems that most of the recent unrest need to be explained in a greater context and therefore it will be rather difficult to spin out as a separate article without the back-up of a "mother-article". Although that said, I would not mind to wait until the dust settles on this one. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For now it would probably be enough to give it a background section (similar to the one here) describing the underlying issues and then briefly summarizing these riots and linking to it with (not unlike the summary and link for Shaoguan in this article). But you're right that in time that might get bulky (imagine if more riots keep happening and we have a chain of like 10 articles connected in this way! Once things start getting like that, of course there will be a lot of value in creating a 'mother' article.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The hk journalist part will be its own article hopefully in a few days when I have more time. I was hoping someone else would have time to put up an early version.  Zh.wiki has an article up already about it. Benjwong (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be an article just about the journalist incident; it should probably be about the whole early September episode (syringe attacks, protests/deaths, and HK journalist incident), since those are all causally interconnected. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also disagree it should be its own topic. We need to keep it all in perspective. The journalists were accused of 'incitement', so it needs to be tightly linked to the act which they allegedly incited. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It can have a background link intro to this article. It will not be some topic with no perspective. Expanding hk journalist rights and other law-related contents does not fit here. Benjwong (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This incident in of itself is not really something that makes sense as an article subject; it's part of the September riots and protests, and should be covered within that article. Judging from the discussion above, I would say the current consensus is to have a set of articles looking something like this:
 * June 2009 Shaoguan incident
 * July 2009 Ürümqi riots
 * September 2009 Xinjiang attacks/September 2009 Ürümqi protests or some such
 * 2009 Xinjiang unrest (possibly, in the future; currently redirects to here)
 * 2009 Xinjiang unrest navbox
 * <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire hk journalist article need to cover:
 * the 3 journalists beating
 * xinjiang gov arguing with hk tv stations
 * sept 13 protest in hk (which could have been what the article is called)
 * journalist rights and other info


 * The above is a separate article enough by itself with a background intro link to the syringe case. Benjwong (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But it's all part of the same narrative. Splitting up one narrative across so many articles is poor structure, not to mention a hassle for readers. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because there's plenty of material to put in doesn't mean the creation of a specific article on the subject is justified. This one clearly fits into the bigger picture of the unrest following the September syringe attacks, and is not a separate case. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll just fill in the hk side into that september attacks article then. Benjwong (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You may like to start with the text in the section immediately above, in small type. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I read that Chinese article. It's basically just a "breaking news" piece. Let us not run into that same problem here, please. That said, I do believe the event is very significant, especially seeing how it's caused significant uproar in Hong Kong. Colipon+ (Talk) 08:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to create the new article and possibly expand the section on press freedom. I anticipate that all will be resolved, so that there will be "harmony" in time for the 60th anniversary celebration. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created the September 2009 Xinjiang attacks article. The syringe part of the event is a copy paste of the contents from this article.  It is short. The HK part of the journalist beatings is pretty much in the article.  I am hoping you guys can balance out the syringe attack info if you intend to keep it that way.  As I was saying I am open to splitting them out still. Benjwong (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article in its current state, in addition to needing a copyedit, is a total coatrack. While supposed to be a more general narrative, it's almost exclusively about the HK journalists (and, like the zh-wiki article, it's a point-by-point newsreel of it, instead of an encyclopedia article). And it says almost nothing about the protests, arguably the most important part of that whole thing. At some point it's going to need a lot of work put into it. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've given it a good cleanup. It now needs more details about the syringe attacks and the other unrest. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I could have put an under-construction tag up. It was meant to be a starting point, not coatrack. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Navbox
I have finally created a navbox:

Please help me make it better. Colipon+ (Talk) 11:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add China–Turkey relations to the navbox under "related"; it is of strong relevance. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I linked the entire article, not just the section. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * btw... how important is Alim Seytoff? Seen him aon American PBS-news several times, but doesn't seem to have an article here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese script/names?
I asked this before in July, but t apparently got lost in the heat of more important events:

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does Li Zhi (栗智) need the name transcribed in Chinese, while others don't?
 * If we do include Chinese characters for names, shouldn't they be given for all names?
 * If we give names in Chinese, shouldn't we also give Uyghur names/script?


 * I remember this coming up and I thought we agreed not to include Chinese, but I don't remember where the conversation was. Anyway, Li Zhi is in there now because some editor just added it (for him and for Liu Yaohua) and I wasn't sure if I should roll it back yet. As for your other questions....yes, if we include them it should be standard through the article, the main thing is I just didn't feel like scanning the whole article to track down where the chinese names are (since there's no easy way to search for them). As for Uyghur names, I can easily add them for Bekri, Isamuddin, and Tohti (I think those are the only Uyghur names in the article), but they raise more questions&mdash;particularly, should their names be given in both Uyghur and Chinese, since many of these people (such as Nur Bekri) are known more widely by their Chinese names (mainly because they're CCP members and written about in Chinese media...I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not it's also because Bekri sold out his people :P ).
 * Generally, an easy solution is to say don't provide native spellings (especially if it's complicated and would involve multiple ones, like giving Bekri's name in English/Chinese/Uyghur) if there is a main article for that person and the native names are all there. But here this raises problems since some of the people, such as Isamuddin and Li, don't have articles. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You covered all the point I had in mind. We should take it out. (In addition (and no offense to lovers of other scripts, I am one of them), following through on the everybody-and-both-scripts approach would render the text difficult to read.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming from someone who has surpassed even me in the field of having a signature that is impossible for anyone on Wikipedia to spell, pronounce, or remember...I have to agree ;) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NC-ZH, Chinese names/characters should be avoided in articles unless it is the topic of the article. Jim101 (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the chinese characters because for 'Li Zih', I can do an internet search and find results like:李智,李治,李贄,李仔,莉姿 or even 梨仔, and there's no way to find out the one referred to in the article is 栗智.Now wiki (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the guy is important enough for a lot of people to do internet-searches, you should start a stub-article on him. How about it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea to start an article on these people, because after all, they are quite notable. There is generally no need to provide Chinese script in parenthesis unless the context demands it. Li Zhi's Chinese name and official biography is found here. Colipon+ (Talk) 09:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to add the Chinese name if the subject's name is relevant and the person doesn't have a WP article. I agree the person in question is probably notable, and the chinese name can be removed once the article is created. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can start on the article. It'll be a stub, that's for sure. Colipon+ (Talk) 10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * good. infobox person, anyone? Li Zhi has a dab-page. I picked the last name on the list (redlink in text is piped to that potential article) -- is that the one?... or are there more? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There. Haven't created an article for a while now... and I've forgotten how long it would take. Colipon+ (Talk) 10:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seb, that infobox on his page needs some real re-organization... I would say one position (party chief of Urumqi) is good enough. Colipon+ (Talk) 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't put it there... ask Ohconfucius... I'm not an expert on Chinese titles/politics... :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies... Colipon+ (Talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, while doing work on Li Zhi, I found that all websites with their servers located in Xinjiang is still down, including the Urumqi municipal website. Colipon+ (Talk) 11:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, things there are still a lot worse than what Xinhua would have you believe (they like putting up pictures of happy people and the Turpan Grape Festival and stuff to show you that Xinjiang is "back to normal", but it's not). There were two new Uyghur students all set to come to my university this semester (and, as my boss is a Central Asia-ologist, she was quite excited), and only one ever showed up&mdash;the other one hasn't been seen or heard from since the riots, and is probably in detention somewhere. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's getting near the big day of the 60th anniversary. They are trying their best to dampen down everything and will probably reimpose martial law and start a reporting curfew in 10 days' time. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also "collateral" damage of the internet restrictions... Numerous large Chinese companies and multi-nationals have their regional headquarters in Urumqi, I can imagine how a four-month long internet blackout will frustrate those white-collars and their superiors... and how many dollars of GDP are lost. It'd be interesting to read a news analysis on this once the dust settles. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

60th Anniversary
This is a bit off topic. Are we going to have a new article for this event? It would seem rather notable - the last time something of a similar magnitude happened only in 1999. The event also has political, economic, and military implications... Colipon+ (Talk) 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's going to be bigger than the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, and we have an article on that... Ohconfucius (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I will start it now over at 60th Anniversary of the People's Republic of China; would appreciate all kinds of help. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaoguan
I would like to suggest that June 2009 Shaoguan incident be simply renamed Shaoguan incident, as there are no other "incidents" in Shaoguan of similar notability. What do other editors think? Colipon+ (Talk) 13:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * no objection here. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * makes sense Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional information on Escalation to violence ?
Recent AP articles as of Sept 25 on this unrest have consistently put the instigation of violence on the side of the police, using descriptions such as "The violence started when police cracked down on a group of Uighurs...", "The violence broke out on July 5 after police attacked Uighurs...", "Uighur youths protested ... leading to a police assault ...". I was wondering if anyone knows of additional revelations that have changed the way this has been reported in the mainstream, and if it should reflect changes in this page. Thanks Bedbug1122 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of these are unreliable (just parroting one source or another for background information, not directly discussing the cause of the riots). But may I ask where these articles you're seeing are, and can provide some links? I haven't been following the articles recently and I'd be surprised to see many new articles coming out right now (since it's been several weeks since the last set of riots)...has something else happened recently to bring attention to this issue again? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be the newest news from Sept 25th about the official indictment of 21 arrested for the riots. . I was surprised that it described the beginning of the riots as "The violence broke out on July 5 after police attacked Uighurs..." so I looked at some older related news which also seemed to blame the Police for starting the violence. That these are AP (generally more objective) articles made me wonder if new evidence had shown up actually showing Police starting the fight. Bedbug1122 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have seen supports that yet. Even Gardiner Bovingdon (cited above, a vocal critic of the PRC's policy towards Uyghurs, has told me that, while he thinks the police probably were more forceful than necessary (both during the July 5 protests and the next several days), there is no clear evidence that they 'started' the violence. My stance is still that, until new information comes out, it is not clear how the violence started; it is quite possible that it never will be clear. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I emailed AP to report the error, and request a fact check. I'm sure that will end up in someone's trashbin fairly quickly. Thats what's good about Wikipedia, publication is always evolving and not just the 40 min work of one reporter Bedbug1122 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wang Zhen Redux
After talking to a lot of Chinese on the topic of Xinjiang and this riot, I'm suprised on how liberal the Chinese invoke his name in the governance (or mass slaughter) of Uyghurs during the early days of PR China. I'm really puzzled on why he is not noted in many Xinjiang/Uyghur related topics. I'm no expert on Central Asia's history, but surely he contributed a lot to the Uyghurs' bitterness and the current mistrust between the Uyghurs and Hans? Jim101 (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Terminology of protesters
Regarding the line used in the image caption: "Pro-Uyghur demonstration in Washington, D.C." - I'm confused with how all this terminology is supposed to be used, as with the term Pro-Tibetan. How on earth can you be "Pro-Uyghur"? You can be "Pro-independence", "Pro-human rights" or "Pro-XJ AR"... it appears that technically all sides are "Pro-Uyghur", given that such a definition means that a particular side is friendly to the ethnicity. Both activists and the PRC actively embrace the Uyghur ethnicity, so therefore I am confused as to why this term is used. Hu Jintao is literally "Pro-Uyghur" in this sense; Kadeer is literally "Pro-Uyghur" in this sense; even User:ChinaHistorian is... do you get what I mean? There are dozens of Xinjiang-style resturants in Beijing; all Beijing residents can be considered "Pro-Uyghur"; we should make the distinction between activist and authorities, not by referring to the ethnicity, as it means nothing in standard English. Regardless of what is being coined in the media, such usage makes little sense. Similarly, "Pro-Tibetan" is meaningless, as Wen Jiabao is literally "Pro-Tibetan" in the sense that his party's policies embrace the ethnicity, yet he does not advocate independence or Dalai Lama rule. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. We might need to meditate over a different word-choice. It's tricky, however. (It somewhat sounds like the "Pro-Life"-campaign (>abortion) in the U.S. -- implying that everybody else is "Pro-death"...). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pro-Life" is an example of a loaded word. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right that the terminology could use some improvement. But nonetheless, there still clearly have been "Uyghur" and "Chinese" sides in this debate&mdash;i.e., there are people who think the Uyghurs are the ones who have been wronged here, and people who think the Chinese are. (And people in the middle, like [hopefully] us, who think that everyone f'ed up.) These demonstrations pictured in the article are both from the "Uyghur" side...I'd like to get a photo or two of the "Chinese" side as well, but so far I haven't found any. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Found this in NYT
I'll just throw this at the audience: "China Sets Sentences in Brawl Tied to Riot", New York Times, Oct 11. Might be something. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This one is potentially more relevant to the article:
 * Ohconfucius (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohconfucius (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think the details of Shaoguan are more relevant in that article; probably all that needs to be mentioned here (in the Immediate Causes section) is something like "(no one was sentenced for the brawl until early October)". <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To call a spade a spade
User:Huaxia makes a huge fuss about the difference between pro-Uyghur and ETIM...can anyone actually see the difference between those two in this incident? Jim101 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There clearly is a difference, but don't nail me on precisely what it is. What I do know is that when protesters hold signs and the signs don't say "independence," you cannot put that or similar words into their mouths, esp. not in this volatile context.


 * And just so we're on the same page, here's what the signs say:
 * (Front) "Death penalty for 15,000 Uyghurs? STOP"
 * (Second row banner) "[German] Society for endangered peoples. Uyghurs: Culture, architecture, language, religion, surpressed or destroyed by China. For human rights. Worldwide."
 * (Back, left) "Religious freedom for Uyghurs."
 * (Back, right) "Human rights (for) Uyghurs."


 * Not a word about "independence." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, it depends on what the flag represents. If it's the ETIM flag, the word 'independence' can be used without being in breach of WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The flag is the flag of East Turkestan, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a pro-independence rally&mdash;I'm pretty sure it can also be used as just a Uyghur thing. And I see no reason to mention independence in the caption; remember, this whole article was first created to avoid suggesting that the riots were connected to independence stuff. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree; that flag was used by three different republics in the early 20th century. Too vague to represent ETIM specifically. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Uyghur/Anti-Uyghur
Do you really think you can get away with such blatant POV? I will not change it to East Turkestan Independence (check the page or google it if you want to see what the flag looks like) since you just will not accept it, but insinuating that China is inherently anti-Uyghur is nonsense. Huaxia (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to add a counter-POV, it's another matter to disrupt Wikipedia for a crusade. Learn to behave like an adult and then we will consider what you are trying to say. Jim101 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying just "Protest" or "Uyghur protest" or "demonstration" or whatever should be fine. The problem was suggesting that it was an "independence protest", which there is no evidence for. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I want to side with the Chinese government over the interpretation of the protests, but the flags carried by the marchers in that photo are those that have been used by groups that advocate an independent Uyghur state. The marchers may have simply been protesting the violence that occurred in Urumqi, but the flags conveyed another meaning. There are about 15 flags in that photo, not a single one is that of the People's Republic of China. David Straub (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting from your own message, The marchers may have simply been protesting the violence that occurred in Urumqi. There is no reason for us to jump to conclusions about what the people intended to be demonstrating over. As I said in the thread above (which Huaxia never bothered to respond to before edit-warring), some people, particularly foreigners, use the flag just as a "Uyghur flag" without being so cognizant of the independence connotation (although Uyghur-ness and East Turkestan independence have already gotten hopelessly intertwined&mdash;logically, it is possible to be "pro-Uyghur" without being pro-independence, and many Uyghurs in Xinjiang are, but in the rest of the world people often mistake those two things as being one and the same). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Slight logical fallacy:
 * 1) "All apples are fruits. All apples are roughly spherical. Therefore, all fruits must be roughly spherical."
 * 2) "All independence advocates use said flag. All independence advocates want independence. Therefore, all those who use the flag must be pro-independence."
 * (Example one is a harmless and cute mistake because bananas don't happen to "disappear" in China.)
 * Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rjajang writes that there is "no reason for us to jump to conclusions about what the people intended to be demonstrating over." I don't think that we need to jump to any conclusions. Just take a look at the signs the people are holding! The guy in front has a sign in German that says "Death penalty 15000 Uyghurs" and then has a "Stop" sign underneath. Behind the man is a group of people holding a sign that says in German "Uygur: Culture, Architecture, Language, Religion is oppressed or destroyed in China." Behind his is a person that says "Freedom of Faith of Uyghurs." Forgive me for my ignorance, but this is what lead me to believe that they were protesting the violence that occurred in Xinjiang, specially, that they believed the Chinese government had carried out the violence against Uyghurs. I think this is pretty sound logic. And yes, I do think the symbols we hold in our hands speak as loudly as our words. The demonstrators are holding flags that are banned in China and are associated with pro-independence. That flag is not just a cultural symbol, it has a strong political connection with the independence movement in Xinjiang. I don't deny that there are serious human rights problems in Xinjiang and I don't disagree with the protester basic beliefs, but the two responses to my original comment are frankly ridiculous.David Straub (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done translations of the posters before (see above). The reasoning here is that since "independence" is a word that can easily get you arrested in China, it is not feasible to "put that word into people's mouth," so to speak, when it isn't explicitly and directly given on the banners and signs. This might seem like "splitting hairs," but as discussed before, it is very important in a volatile situation, even it it seems to have traces of being ridiculous. Since we cannot directly look into the minds of the individuals on the photograph, we should not draw conclusions.
 * A parrallel example would be this: if you are part of a demonstartion where some people are anarchists, but no sign or banner reads "Long live anarchism" -- do I have the right to label you as an anarchist? I think not -- especially when it could have you end up in labor camp or with a noose around your neck. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, David, demanding independence and demanding greater rights/freedom/treatment/etc. for Uyghurs in XUAR is not the same. There are many people in Xinjiang who want the government to treat them better and do not want independence. Assuming that they are one and the same is incorrect. I suggest you check out the early discussions that were had here to establish one of the fundamentals of this article as "we don't know if there is an independence connection"&mdash;see, for example, User talk:Rjanag/Archive6, and related threads, where it was first decided to move this incident to its own page because there was no explicit connection to independence. You can also look at statements by Gardiner Bovingdon (an internationally recognized Central Asia scholar whose focus is XUAR and Uyghur issues), who has said more or less the same thing&mdash;I think something of his is linked in the reference section. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Rjanag, I am quite familiar with Gardner Bovingdon. I work for the Srifias center at Indiana University that hosted his speech in the IMU and I was at the same speech you were. I've taken a class with him and he is on my M.A. committee. After reading what you wrote about his speech at the top, I think to a certain extent you misrepresented what he said at the speech. He did not endorse the BBC timeline you gave for the events of July 5th. In fact, he did not come up with any timeline for events that day because in his opinion there are no reliable sources yet. He also did not make a "big deal" out of the lack of attention to "Uyghur media coverage." He is as sceptible of RFA and Uyghur web based sources as anyone. You missed the one thing he did make a "big deal" of in his speech: pointy things (you will only get the meaning of this if you were at his speech). To be honest, it's okay if you look up to Bovingdon, but it's probably best if you stop indirectly quoting his speech so much. It would be better if you quote from work that he has published or interviews he gave. That way you are less likely to misquote him.
 * As for the question of the "independence movement", I agree, the Chinese government has not produced any evidence that the events of July 5th had any ties what so over to any groups within or outside of China that seek independence. And I personally don’t believe there were any ties. But to not even mention that the government of China accuses groups that it labels advocates of East Turkestan Independence is a form of censorship in and of itself. It is as if the editors of this page are afraid to even mention the word "East Turkestan" for fear that it might somehow endorse the point of view of the Chinese government. What about the timeline of events the government provided for the supposed connection of the violence to terrorist groups outside of China? To include this information in the article would not be a form of pro-government propaganda, especially if you placed counter sources in the article that refuted these claims. But to leave them out has resulted in an unbalanced article that looks like something the World Uyghur Congress would put out, rather than a balanced NPOV wikipedia article.David Straub (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the Bovingdon misunderstanding, I did not realize you were already so familiar with him. But I do think it's certainly possible for two people to go to the same talk, read the same paper, etc., and come away with different impressions. As for me, I distinctly remember him recommending the BBC timeline as one of the better ones (not that that makes a huge difference for the article, as this article doesn't use it; I was just mentioning that he said it), and I remember him pointing out at least twice that most of the sources for news reports, etc., have been Chinese-language rather than Uyghur-language. That does not mean that he thinks RFA, uighurbiz, etc., are the best accounts (and I don't believe I ever said that); it just means he was pointing out that one side of the story has been less represented, as people who can communicate only in Uyghur have not really been heard. Anyway, if interpretations of Bovingdon's talk are that important, we can always invite User:Otebig to comment, as he was also there. But I don't see how it's that big of a deal, as the talk is not cited anywhere in the article, it's just something I jotted down above as a few things to consider.
 * As for the PRC's timeline of terrorist connections... if someone can provide a reliable account of this, I'm all for including it. But in prior revisions of the article, the sources for this sort of stuff were bad and all added by nationalist/POV-pushers (for example, all the blog stuff about how there were bricks, or how people were wearing sneakers, and all sorts of speculative junk, often added by the same editors who were inserting stuff like "teh uighur terrorists kills the innnocent chinese"). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, we do mention the ETIM somewhere in the text. If that needs clarification/expansion, I am all for that. The trouble with image-captions is that they have the tendency to be read in isolation by people just "skimming" the article, similar to headlines in a newspaper. (I'm guessing that's the case with the user who triggered this thread and now disappeared somehow... I have left an invitation to join us here on User_talk:Huaxia, but his/her silence re-affirms my notion of a "my way or the highway"-minicrusade) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would give Huaxia a pass on this one. Not everyone has so much time to edit wikipedia. In fact, I've gone over my wiki time limit quota for the week just by this discussion alone. Huaxia's original edit that triggered this discussion was the use of "Pro-Uighur" in the caption. What does that word even mean? Does it mean support for independence? Does it means support for human rights? Is it an apolitical term that carries no greater meaning what so ever? Another way of interpreting Pro-Uyghur is that it means anti-Chinese. In China, if you were to say that something is pro-Tibetan or Pro-Uyghur, which I have made the mistake of doing on more than one occasion, then people often misinterpret that as by default meaning anti-Chinese and thus pro-separatist, or as is said in China, "splittist". And in China, whether it is imagined or not, "splittism" in Xinjiang is led by "East Turkestan terrorists". I think wikipedia editors need to be a bit more careful how they use the terms Pro-Uyghur or Pro-Tibetan because many will not see them as simply neutral terms.
 * By the way, Otebig is at IU (I've taken a course with him) and works closely with Bovingdon, so I'm sure he would be able to say something on Bovingdon's views.David Straub (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what Seb is saying is that Huaxia seems to have time to make several reverts a day but not to look at a discussion, which does seem like edit warring behavior. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (out) About the "pro-Uyghur" bit: I agree that it may be problematic, which is why I didn't complain when Huaxia removed "pro" without mentioning independence (in fact, that was the compromise I was just about to propose, Huaxia just beat me to it). The reason I added it in the first place was because I worried that readers who aren't familiar with this topic (ie, who don't recognize the flag) might not be able to tell which 'side' the demonstrations were on, and thus the caption should help clarify that. What I took issue with was Huaxia's suggestion that they are demonstrating "for independence", which he can't know unless he was there or has a reliable source saying so&mdash;because, like I've said, Uyghur solidarity and supporting Uyghur rights doesn't necessarily mean secession. (Just like people demanding civil rights in the US in the 1960s weren't necessarily saying they want their own country.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * and I would agree with this comment. David Straub (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like this is resolved as far as we are concerned. Too bad Huaxia never participated in this discussion... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning
@Huaxia : Look at your own edit summary for your revert at International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest:


 * My question was
 * "Before you go and change every "pro-Tibet" to "Free Tibet", try to come up with a similar change to "pro-China"... what would that be?"


 * Your answer:
 * "Reverted POV bias. Pro-PRC would not work because Taiwanese and Overseas Chinese also protested. Pro-China is the only thing besides "pro-Chinese" I can think of; as opposed to "pro-Han" etc"

Now, if not all ethnic Chinese that protest are "pro-PRC", then how is that that every person on earth who protests for the rights of Tibetans or Uyghurs must be for a "Free Tibet" or "pro-Uyghur Independence"? You're willing to make a clear distinction between those who love the PRC on the one hand and those who don't but happen to be ethnic Chinese, but then go ahead and lump all Uyghurs, Tibetans, and the rest of the world into one pot. That doesn't fly.

Furthermore, this edit summary clearly shows your agenda in which you seem to even conflate the words "rebel" and "terrorist". Wtf, man... ? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

New stuff
Several recent articles have come to my attention; haven't had a chance to read most yet, but all look like they have a bit to say about the more long-term aftermath of the riots (and particularly the continued lack of phone and internet in XUAR, something I've known about anyway through hearsay but didn't have any reliable sources for yet). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (forgive the yucky title; the article itself looks more promising)
 * Just skimmed this article more&mdash;I don't see anything new here, but it has a lot on the social background and stuff, so I might be able to beef up that section a little with this. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (comments from the same guy who wrote the NatGeo piece above)
 * (this article looks to be entirely about the Internet shutdown)

FAC?
Does anyone think it might be time to try a FAC for this (or a PR, if anyone's feeling conservative)? I think all the nitpicky things like alt-text and stuff are taken care of, the outstanding GAN comments have been addressed as well as is possible yet, and the only real remaining issue is images (although I don't think it's serious, it's just something that would be nice). The article might not pass a FAC yet since there's not a ton of long-term impact stuff available yet, but at the very least we would get a good idea what needs to be working on&mdash;and I think there's a good chance it might pass on the first try anyway. In any case, we still have a lot of time left to accomplish the main goal, which is to get it through FAC on time to be on the main page on July 5, 2010. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support that. Note that most schools/universities in North America end their semesters in two weeks, no idea about the rest of the planet. Maybe then we'll all have more time to address any issues that come up? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point&mdash;I, for one, will be done about a week from now. But in my experience, most FACs don't get any comments until a week or two after they were posted, so if we start it now then we might not have any issues to address until after the semester's over anyway. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Another source
This lengthy report from Human Rights Watch looks informative. Of course, being HRW, it's going to have a bit of a POV...but there is probably still some useful stuff here. Also, @Seb...there is a map of Urumchi there, with some stuff on where the riots happened, so it might be interesting to check this against our map and see if things match up. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Map checks out OK, has the same 4 locations marked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit without confirmation from an expert seems lopsided...
This edit...I said before and I say again, history can be interperted subjectively for different political/ethnic purposes. It really raise some red flags without an expert to sign this edit. And by expert I mean an established scholar who is still alive and read somewhere around few hundred books. Jim101 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from that, there is no reason for giving the history of Xinjinag all the way back to the 17th century in an article that deals with specific 21st century events. The main article is History of Xinjiang; at best it belongs there. If the IP disagrees and would like to tell us why this snippet is essential, s/he can do so here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The section of the article in question is titled "History, demography, and social tensions", so I added some historical information regarding the region, which it had none.69.165.157.79 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In case this wasn't clear: yes, it says "history", but it should be clear that this refers to history with respect to the article's top. Therefore, it does not mean "history of Xinjiang", "history of China", or "History of the entire planet". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, this history is important in explaining the ethnic composition of the region. This article seem to imply that all Han are "recent influx" and Uyghur are natives, which isn't the case.  This piece of history shows that the region surrounding Urumqi had a majority Han population since the 18th century and both Han and Uyghur were recent settlers.  69.165.157.79 (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I suspected that sort of agenda. At least you come to the point. Nonetheless, it is quite irrelevant to this article. This piece is not a place to prove who is "right", who was there "first", and whose turf somebody else pisses on. We've had exactly these agenda-driven fights in July and we kept them at bay quite well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This just brings back my point about experts and history...you chose the history in 17th century, but not the 20th century history, nor the Han Dynasty history, and with no acadmeic justification for just selecting that piece history. Further more, you chose the study of a guy that died in the 1950s, and in the field of antropology, that 50 years difference means the information is already outdated. This is a big case of cherry picking. Jim101 (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article contains many sentences that discusses "whose turf somebody else pisses on", so if you don't think this kind of information belongs to the article, then those should be deleted. 69.165.157.79 (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh...Uyghur and Han blame each other for "their turf that somebody else pissed on" is the reason people are killing each other, unless you want to add that Han and Uyghur were killing each other because the Manchus locked them in a cage for too long. Jim101 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Further more, you chose the study of a guy that died in the 1950s, and in the field of antropology, that 50 years difference means the information is already outdated. This is a big case of cherry picking. Jim101 (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply choose the most recent history. The people living in the region thousands of years ago no longer exist so their history is irrelevant to Han-Uyghur conflicts.  The 20th century history was already in the article, so why do I need to add those?  Also, the ethnic composition of the region has not changed dramatically in the 20th century, so I don't see how 1950s information would be outdated. 69.165.157.79 (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sign again, you are saying this to a guy who studied antropology. Antropology is not accounting, and ethnic composition is just one of many many factors we monitor. Jim101 (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)We could indeed say that the tension between Han and Uyghurs have existed for centuries, which may or may not be true. However, in terms of this article, I suggest we should only go into as much history as we absolutely need. By citing the natural resources, influx driven by the CCP, and the Shaoguan incident, I believe it is sufficient background. I'd tend to agree that ancient history belongs in the Xinjiang article, if anywhere. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply choose the most recent history. Apperantly you did not read my point, 17th century history is recent to what? Please provide context. If you meant the 17th century history is recent to how the Han and Uyghurs managed to get mixed togather, then what about the history of Uyghur/Chinese Nationalism and Pan-Turkishism in the 19th century history? And What about the Han Dynasty claim on Xinjiang, those are irrelevant? Cherry picking. Jim101 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, you claim that "the ethnic composition of the region has not changed dramatically in the 20th century", thereby disregarding almost all of the history of CCP-ruled China. Dito: small red fruits, neatly selected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That ancient history is simply not relevant to the article. This is an article about the recent event, not about Urumqi history, so there is no reason to give such detailed historical information that is not directly related to the incident. Insofar as the old history is tangentially relevant to understanding the underlying conflict, the reader can find that through the linked articles; it's not our job here to recount the entire history of Urumqi. From glancing at the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be anyone else who agrees with the inclusion of this material, so the IP editor ought to give up the ghost. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)