Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was there when the riot happened.

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

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

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

File:Urumuqi Han 1.jpg
Urumuqi Han 1
Urumuqi Han 2

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

WP:OR. As for the pictures, I see people standing and a man walking. what gives? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The two women in the first picture hold between themselves what appears to be a wooden stick, walking and looking together as though they feel threatened. In the second picture, the man looks tense and holds a metal stick. Neither appear to be walking sticks, and the pictures are taken from an elevated and guarded (by metal wires) position. The pictures should not be so readily discarded; the only video on this article is from our own User:Ccyber5. Quigley (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

POV

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

I am not expressing any opinion on whether Uyghurs have any more or less claim to Xinjiang than any other ethnic groups, but I am reverting this edit for more general content issues. First of all, detailed background information about the founding of Ürümchi belongs in the Ürümchi article, not here; in the sake of summary style, the purpose of the "Background" section of this article is just to give readers an idea of what people disagree over, not to embark on an in-depth discussion of who's right and who's wrong. Secondly, "contrary to genetic, linguistic and cultural evidence" is clear editorializing. Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to decide who's right and who's wrong, merely to report the disagreement without taking sides. "Evidence", especially in controversial cases like this, is often open to many interpretations.
I have to ask that you please stop edit warring, and restrict your contributions to the talk page until this dispute is resolved. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, one line about the History of Urumqi is irrelevant when the demographics of Xinjiang are broadly used for the introduction, and the "mostly Han" slur against the CCP is what should be considered NPOV? That's ignoring the real problem which asserts that the conflict is essentially between a monolithic group of Uighur with borderline insane and revisionist claims against a monolithic "mostly Han" Chinese government. Out the window goes established historical fact, Western and other third-party groups, the "other China" (ROC), Uighur moderates, non-Han CCP members, Sinologists, so on and so forth. Please spare me politics and formalities and we can focus on the issue at hand- that the section is flagrantly un-encyclopedic and patently offensive in its assertions (by omission). Huaxia (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
How is "mostly Han" a slur? Could you tone it down? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Because it implies that the disagreements between the CCP and "the Uighur" (as if fringe elements speak for all of them) is an ethnic (or because it's Xinjiang, a racial one) matter. You don't see "mostly white congress" or "mostly white Senate" being inserted into every single line concerning US lawmakers, because there is no widespread attempt on wikipedia to link "whites" to "undesirable" or "politically incorrect" policies. Huaxia (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I raised the same point in a discussion above; you should read that if you already haven't, Huaxia. Quigley (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's misleading to present in this article a narrative of Han flooding into Uyghur areas when Urumqi was never a Uyghur area, being in Dzungaria. A more precise background section would mention (briefly) Uyghur movement into the cities, and social issues like unemployment and self-segregation, rather than try to intimate that the riots had to do with ancient claims to ownership of the land. And while evidence is open to many interpretations, it is also fair to say that the informed consensus is that what is really "outrageous" are modern Uyghurs' claiming the Xinjiang mummies as their own, or claiming direct descent from the peoples of the ancient Mongolian kingdoms. The source at the end of the sentence that Huaxia amended in his or her first edit (Gladney) does dispel the assumption that Western readers might have about Uyghurs being in all of Xinjiang from time immemorial, by false analogy to the Tibetans or the American Indians. It would only take one more sentence to clarify that while Uyghur nationalists believe that Uyghurs have such ancient links, that most specialists do not agree. By just presenting the Uyghurs-as-not-indigenous narrative as only a PRC government position, by association with the PRC's lies, Wikipedia is subtly editorializing that the Uyghurs are indigenous. So in some cases, by saying nothing, we are making a statement, and that can be simply corrected. Quigley (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Another thing I want to add is that many Uighur are descendants of Central Asians or "Turks" that entered Qing borders under Yakub Beg. Ironically, the most explosive "demographic change" were Islamic revolts that involved the slaughter of unknown millions of Chinese citizens (of all ethnic groups) including millions of Hui loyalists. It is for this reason why there are so many "Uighur" in Xinjiang (and it's debatable that they're Uighur, as they were simply granted this name by Soviet thinkers relatively recently). With this in consideration, one can understand why the editorializing, racializing and oversimplification of Xinjiang-related articles is utterly offensive on every level. Huaxia (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It already says "believe" and not "they are." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The article gives the reader two "sides" to pick from (as in the equally POV Tibet articles)- the "Uighur" or "the mostly Han government". I suppose it's impossible for Uighur or Han to agree on anything like say, historical fact Huaxia (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably so; hence, we have riots with subsequent police intervention. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Even before the "East Turkestan" revisionist nonsense, the Uighur have been killing civilians in Xinjiang for a few hundred years (including the much vaunted Tocharians), so I doubt the murders have so much to do with politics as you'd like to imply. Huaxia (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but we are presenting a he-said-she-said between two entities with vastly differing levels of credibility for the nonspecialist reader. On the one hand, the oppressed native minority fighting for their human rights and freedoms, and on the other hand an evil communist government who is known to tell lies and kill people and invade and decimate lands like Tibet. Who does Wikipedia intend the reader to believe? Political issues like whether the Uyghurs should have a state are "controversial" and don't need to be argued, but the historical dates of the Uyghur migrations can be mentioned, just as we (selectively) mention the Han migrations. Quigley (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if everyone who reads this automatically sides with the Uyghurs, why don't you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Because I'm not "everyone". Surprisingly, there are shades other than black and whiteHuaxia (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I never said that "everyone who reads this automatically sides with the Uyghurs". I said that while the presentation is superficially neutral ("a" says "b", while "c" says "d"), the presentation may not be neutral if we are presenting the position of "d" with a "c" that is discredited for the vast majority of the readers of this article (for whom this article would be an introduction to the whole Uyghur issue). There are more credible (in Western eyes) challengers of "b" that we can cite if we want to present both sides effectively. Quigley (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Quigley, I agree with most of the issues you point out. It's true that the history of Xinjiang is much more complicated than just Uyghurs and Han. This article, however, is not about the entire history of Xinjiang, it's just about the riots that happened from 5 to 7 July 2009, and as far as I can remember the sources cited so far in the article do generally describe the riots as, for the most part, a specifically Uyghur-Han issue. Most of the rioters on the first day (as far as we can tell, although there will probably never be reliable information on this) were apparently Uyghur, and most of the people in the mobs two days later apparently Han. The riots were supposedly triggered by a Uyghur-specific issue (while the broader background is not specifically a Uyghur issue, as several other minority groups in the region face similar issues, the event that is assumed to have marked the beginning of the riots--the demonstration--seems to have been a Uyghur thing).
Like I said above, I am not expressing any opinion on who got to Xinjiang earlier and I don't think it is this article's place to do so. Merely stating that there is a disagreement should be sufficient; if anyone has suggestions on how to state that more neutrally then those suggestions are welcome, but what we don't need is a long back-and-forth comparing evidence for and against both sides. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It is an Uighur-Han thing if you ignore the Kazakh and Huis that the Uighur also killed that day. Likewise, the 2008 Lhasa Riots were a Tibetan-Han thing if you ignore the burning Mosques and the fact that the vast majority of Lhasa Tibetans did not join in on the festivities. Huaxia (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say no one from other ethnic groups got caught in the crossfire. But no reliable sources I have seen refer to anyone from these groups as "major players" in the events that transpired. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
And as I said, "Uyghurs believe" is as neutral as it can get. There is no need to add "yeah, but they're wrong." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"some Uyghurs believe" or "Uyghur nationalists believe" would be significantly more neutral.Huaxia (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
And that's me resigning to the fact that English wikipedia will never be neutral with regards to China or any other politically vexing entities for the Anglosphere. I've ignored that "yeah, but they're wrong" is basically the whole point of factual and objective writing. Huaxia (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't do "objective," we do neutral. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If by "neutral" we mean to say wikipedia is a platform for selectively chosen personal opinions, "sourced" by tabloids like the guardian, then I suppose I have not checked the "neutrality" wiki article which must have recently undergone a facelift. Perhaps for the sake of flavor we should include what some fictional Martians think, or what George Bush thinks, or maybe what Chuck Norris thinks. Huaxia (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Nah! What Bart Simpson thinks on these issues is much more important. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Since we agree that this article is not about the history of Xinjiang, do we also agree that the article should focus less on broad Xinjiang history and more on local Urumqi history? Quigley (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I still think that any history, beyond the bare minimum needed to read about this event, should be relegated to the relevant articles (Urumchi, Xinjiang). Readers looking for a deeper understanding of the background can go to those articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That is fair but that still leads readers to pick one of two sides, and given how much the PRC is maligned in the Anglosphere there's not much of a question which of the two most English speakers would choose- not so much a problem in and of itself, but rather that it misses the whole point of the riots (and the article) entirely. Ignoring the tabloid sourcing as an issue, of course, as that would be a problem affecting every wiki page. Huaxia (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In general, you shouldn't write with assumptions about readers' predispositions in mind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
To be blunt, the article presents a false dichotomy on top of missing the point. Huaxia (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's similar to the debate about the claims of Native Americans. We don't have to, indeed we should not, go back to the earliest point in time as background to this particular incident. It's not entirely relevant because the fundamental issues are social. Trying to position China's territorial claim against Uighurs' here turns the issue into a nationalistic one. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
meta-discussion; anyone interested go to User talk:Quigley
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remember, Seb, when you reverted my edit to the Kalmyk deportations article because I pointed out that the official reason for the deportations were for alleged Kalmyk collaboration with the Nazis? If you didn't have any assumptions about readers' predispositions in mind, then that edit would be perfectly fine without modifications, but it wasn't, because you know that most readers have a strong anti-Nazi bias and anything associated with that also has a bad reputation. The CCP aren't quite Nazis for most people, but they're pretty close, thanks to the work of our Tibetan, Uyghur, and Falun Gong friends. We can't escape the fact that Wikipedia exists in the real world. Quigley (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I do remember, and as far as I remember, I only reverted it once as it was unsourced; when you added a source I left it in place -- no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you did. Another example, Geo Swan's creation of the redirect "Uyghur house" to the "Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy" article. You argued against that because you know that Islamist militancy leaves a bad taste in most readers' mouths, and that that might create a bad association in peoples' minds. So does the CCP with whatever it is associated with. Quigley (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
(continuing this meta discussion at personal talk page Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC))
What vexes Huaxia, and me too, is that a lot of the "Background" (not just history) goes beyond the minimum to read about this event, and reads like a litany of human rights complaints against the government. Things like, "Uyghurs' freedoms of religion and of movement are curtailed": well, Han people don't have freedom of religion or movement either, and are probably accommodated less because of a perception of a lack of essential cultural connection to religion. The picture that it paints is one of the Uyghurs being uniquely oppressed, and of the Han people being totally in lockstep with the government. There are a bunch of compelling reasons cited for Uyghur resentments against Han, but comparatively few and frivolous reasons cited for Han resentments against Uyghurs, and this is not for a lack of good reasons in real life (for example, substantiated Han fears of Uyghur vigilante violence), but reflects a systemic bias against Chinese perspectives. Uyghur voices quoted in Human Rights Watch are acceptable and credible, but Han voices quoted in People's Daily are propaganda. Quigley (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"Yes, that is a fundamental structural problem, because the CCP are ultra-sensitive to criticism, and the PD is one of the means for the party to disseminate its views and to ensure harmonious society. Nothing ever published in it is likely ever to criticise the party, so it is understandable how one could come to that conclusion about western perception of the PD as a source. BTW, I'm not suggesting the 'other side' is any better, mind at propagating the Truth™. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Work needed

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

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Impact of recent student edits

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

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

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

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

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

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

POV July 2012

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.

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

Youtube isn't considered a reliable source. How exactly would you like to see your concerns addressed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Youtube might not be reliable, but this video it self is not a commentary, but is just showning the "Events exhibition" of the riot in Beijing, which has shown many images taken during the roit. All i'm trying to say here is that i strongly reconmmend to add actural images during the roit, not about some people or parties protest about the crackdown of this bloody roit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 10:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Reallywiki, I don't understand why you believe the article is biased. You have provided a source which discusses Chinese people getting attacked during the riots; no one is disputing this, and the article clearly explains that Chinese people were indeed attacked. The article further explains that Uyghur people were also attacked. As for including images taken during the riot, the article includes File:Ürümqi riots video.ogv and links to numerous pictures at the end (under External Links). Nevertheless, it is important for the article to cover all notable aspects of the riot, including its aftermath, which is why there is also discussion about the crackdown and the protests. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

History of urumqi

Yes, understood. Rejected. Come back when you have something new to say. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

Urumchi in xinjiang originated as a chinese style city with mostly han and hui residents. The source explicitly notes that many westerners have the misconception that the city was oiriginally uyghur and was sinicized by migration, i think noting this misconception is important since it was mentiones in an authoratative source,

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&q=Relatively+recent+feature#v=snippet&q=Relatively%20recent%20feature&f=false

Purblio (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this view. --Elnon (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of this fact with regards to the riot? That the protest against power abuse is wrong? Furthermore, the grievance in the background section is about ethic issues in Xinjiang, not Urumqi, and a Han created city served as regional capital is at the heart of the migrant problem. Take it up to the Urumqi or Xinjiang article if you want, but discuss history here serves no purpose other than mud sling. Jim101 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Since the page begins with a section entitled "Background", I see nothing amiss in adding a couple of sentences about Urumqui's origins. And you should refrain from calling other contributors "mud slingers". --Elnon (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
By your logic, then I would also see nothing amiss to write a complete history of how human beings evolved from Africa and their difficult journey of migration into Central Asia (look ma, it's the Amazing Race without wheels), or the fact that Wang Zhen murdered a couple thousands of Uyghurs as Xinjiang's governor in the 1950s (I kill you as revenge for you kill me as revenge for I kill you, blah, blah, blah), despite the fact that no commentators noted those things as directly related to the riot...before putting words in people's mouth and making incredible leap of logic, please consider what is the definition of off topic. Jim101 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
We've had that discussion before. This article is about the riots, and the "Background" explains the roots of the conflict. It clearly says one side believes this, the other believes that, and that is the background. This isn't the place to make any sort of argument as to who is "right". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Both Uyghurs and Han are immigrants to Dzungharia in northern Xinjiang (or Ili). The natives of the region were the Mongol Dzungar people who ruled the Zunghar Khanate. The Qing dynasty defeated the Dzunghars in the Ten Great Campaigns, and settled Han, Hui, Manchus, Xibe, and Taranchis (Uyghurs) into Dzungharia.Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 By James A. Millward page 77Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang By James A. Millward page 93Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang By James A. Millward page 118China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia By Peter C Perdue page 352State Capitalism, Contentious Politics and Large-Scale Social Change page 188 Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History at Georgetown University, James A. Millward wrote that foreigners often mistakenly think that Urumqi was originally a Uyghur city and that the Chinese destroyed its Uyghur character and culture, however, Urumqi was founded as a Chinese city by Han and Hui (Tungans), and it is the Uyghurs who are new to the city.Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 By James A. Millward page 133 Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 By James A. Millward page 134


Problem? I see no credibility issues regarding the authors or publishers.

Rajmaan (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. How does this address the point made above? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Again and again...The problem isn't creditability, the problem is how does this related to the riot? The riot started because there is no 8 feet tall physical barrier between Han and Uyghur? Why is it people keeps on digging histories back to the dawn of human kind for no apparent reasons? And who the hell freaking care whose land is it anyway? Jim101 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I do make one small change to the background hyperlink from Xinjiang to History of Xinjiang, so that people don't mistake this article as a THE article for History of Xinjiang. Jim101 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
These riots happen in an area with alot of han and uyghur living together, in addition that area happens to be Dzhungharia, not a uyghur center like Kashgar. The information provides background on how the uyghurs and han ended up there. I can understand if an article on a riot in Khotan and Kashgar doesn't mention that uyghurs are immigrants to Dzungharia, since it has nothing to do with that. Real issues, like the demolishment of uyghur buildings in kashgar and grievances on development in southern Xinjiang can be written about in their respective articles. Urumqi is in Dzhungaria, and they came to both the city and the region as immigrants. This is why the information is relevant.
The article as it reads right now sounds like the evil Chinese invaded xinjiang, that the entire xinjiang province is uyghur native land and that millions of chinese and swamping them in their own homeland:
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.[24] According to PRC policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]
the sources I provided indicate the history of uyghurs in the region, that they are immigrants along with the Han and it is the Dzhunghar mongols who are indigenous, not uyghurs.
and Jim101, you want to talk about Wang Zhen murdering Uyghurs in the 1950s? What about the uyghurs murdering several thousand han with soviet support in the 1940s? what about Isa Yusuf Alptekin supporting the murder of children for "revenge"? and speaking of that, the Soviet Stalin backed Second East Turkestan Republic should be mentioned in the background as well. It was a major event that happened in the area and is very relevant. Rajmaan (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
No. None of that is relevant to the immediate background of the article's topic. We've been over this many times. Refer to the archives. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I could not find anyone bringing up the topic of how uyghurs came to live in Dzhungharia in the archives. Show me the relevant thread.

Xinjiang is a large central-Asian region within the People's Republic of China comprising numerous minority groups: 45% of its population are Uyghurs, and 40% are Han.[23][b] Its heavily industrialised capital, Ürümqi, has a population of more than 2.3 million, about 75% of whom are Han, 12.8% are Uyghur, and 10% are from other ethnic groups.[23][/b]

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.[24] According to PRC policy, [b]Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han,[/b] and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]

None of the highlighted is any more relevant to the background than what I added to the article. After all, this article is about the riots, not whether the PRC considers uyghurs indigenous or the percentage of han to uyghur.
The article as it reads right now sounds like the evil Chinese invaded Xinjiang. That is your assumption, not my assumption. It seems to me your are want to right great wrongs on any article related to Xinjiang history about how Xinjiang is Han land, even through this article is NOT, I repeat, NOT a discussion about Xinjiang history, or international border dispute, or how human beings crawled out of cave in Africa and dragged their butt into Asia.
As for Wang Zhang, the counter question for you is why did you decide to highlight the fact the Urumuqi is a Han city, while trying to discredit Wang Zhang's role in Xinjiang's history (even through I have no interest in such history talk)? A little something called selection bias maybe? Jim101 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thus the black pot calls the white kettle black. Who is advocating or trying to right wrongs? Who said, [b]"That the protest against power abuse is wrong? Furthermore, the grievance in the background section is about ethic issues in Xinjiang, not Urumqi, and a Han created city served as regional capital is at the heart of the migrant problem."[/b]. Where did I say Xinjiang is han land? Did i not say that the Dzhunghar mongols were the natives to Dzhungharia? Rajmaan (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Did Ugyhur migration into Dzhungharia ever cited as cause for the riot? Show me a source specifically said "that the ethnic tension under PRC rule of Xinjiang is caused by Uyghurs migrated into Dzhungharia few hundrend years ago". Did "the protest against power abuse" ever cited as a caused for the riot? Citation 46. Is "Han migration" into Xinjiang a serious ethic problem after 1949? Citation 36. What does that tell us? At best WP:IINFO and at worse WP:SYN. Furthermore, since you are so sure you are right, you still didn't answer my question, why do you want to publicize the history of Han settlement of Urumqi, but not the history of PRC administration of Xinjiang? Aren't both part of History of Xinjiang? Jim101 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
  • Endorse this close. I seem to recall that we've been through all this before. In theory we could go back ad infinitum with a catalogue of who started it (methinks chicken-and-egg). The article already deals with the immediate causes well enough not to need to go back to the POV minefield from the 3rd century. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Note for future reference that this closure was an act of abuse and contrary to wikipedia rules because User:Seb az86556 was a participant in the discussion and took a side, as an editor informed me today with this -note the top of archivetop templateRajmaan (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand this thing about closing a discussion. If people want to keep talking about, they can still make comments, right? Not that anybody seems very interested in doing so for the last year or so. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Some of the earlier mudslinging over "who was there first" revolved around the Han dynasty rule over Tarim basin (southern Xinjiang) over 2,000 years ago. My edits are all related to the history of Xinjiang's demographics during the Qing dynasty- how is that more relevant? - because the PRC's rule, administration, and justification for being in Xinjiang is that it was legally inherited from the Qing via the Republic of China, when the Qing signed over all its territories to the ROC, and subsequently the PRC derives its administration and claims to its territories from the ROC, which inherited them from the Qing. The PRC is their legal succesor.
PRC history books may note that China ruled the area during the Han dynasty, but that has nothing to do with its legal framework and administration over the area (Indian history books talk about the Mauryan Empire, but its entire existence as a state today legally and administratively is due to the British Raj). Thats why the article on Kashmiri independence don't mention any nonsense about how the Mauryan empire ruled the region over 2,000 years ago so India should rule it today, instead, they mention how in the 19th century how the British Raj and the Hindu Maharajahs obtained majority Muslim Kashmir and how the Maharaja legally signed over the region to India (no comment on whether that was justified of him to do that against the will of the Kashmiri people) so that was where India got its version of the legal justification and claim to Kashmir, while Pakistan's justification is grounded in the fact that Muslim majority regions were suppossed to join Pakistan.
Plenty of sources say that the Qing set most of the boundaries and territorial basis for the present PRC. I've said nothing about Xinjiang being Han land and said nothing of whether the PRC's rule is 'justified". What happened during the Han dynasty is irrelevant and had little impact on Xinjiang today, but what happened during the Qing dynasty and the demographic shifts during that time set the stage for what happened in Xinjiang under the PRC. The issue over Tibet is also related to Qing rule, see Tibetan independence movement. That's why we don't mention things like the war between the Tang dynasty and Tibet on that article and the treaty setting the boundary between Tibet and the Tang. The PRC using Qing era treaties and agreements to claim Tibet.
And for the record, this article already includes this sentence - "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" (actually PRC textbooks will say that after the Han dynasty and Tang dynasty collapsed, that China lost control of the region and that present day control was established by the Qing- they just mention that the Han dynasty was the first time China ruled the region, but adminstratively and legally their rule derives from the Qing)
And I have no objection to mentioning Wang Zhen doing anything if we include the history from the Qing conquest to the present day, including the Qing's destruction of the Zunghar Khanate and depopulation of the Dzunghar Mongols, the subsequent Uyghur(Taranchi), Han, Hui, Manchu, and Xibe migration into Dzungharia, the Second East Turkestan Republic, and the PRC's policies in the region. And we already are including Xinjiang and Uyghur "history" by mentioning the PRC's policies over the last 60 years, the Qing history of the region is very relevant to the present situation- before the Qing, it would be irrelevant.Rajmaan (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Just how is Qing dynasty's definition of PRC boundary over Xinjiang is 100% equivalent to Uyghur's current complain about PRC government? That is the point you still don't (and I shall say, refuse) to get.
If you point of is that Uyghur hate Han/PRC government only because they happen to move next door to each other over Qing policy couple hundred years ago, then my counter point is we don't write the article 1992 Los Angeles riots by summarizing the article Atlantic slave trade.
And finally learn the difference between concisely outlining sources of Uyghur complains against PRC government vs. blanket dumping history from Han/Qing/1950 to current day into this article. Jim101 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
the article specifically mentions claims of being indigenous to the entire region (Xinjiang)

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.[24] According to PRC policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]

in light of this, Qing era migration and who was in Urumqi and Dzungaria first is very much relevant.
A difference in opinion and economic apartheid is the cause of the riot. Acknowledging the existence of difference in opinion and economic apartheid is relevant. Passing judgement on which side has the correct opinion and whether Uyghur is justified to suffer economic apartheid under PRC government due Qing government policy is irrelevant. Jim101 (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Although current PRC minority policy, which is based on affirmative actions, has reinforced a Uyghur ethnic identity that is distinct from the Han population,[29][30] some scholars argue that Beijing unofficially favours a monolingual, monocultural model that is based on the majority.[24][31] The authorities also crack down on any activity that appears to constitute separatism.[30][32] These policies, in addition to long-standing cultural differences,[33] have sometimes resulted in "resentments" between Uyghur and Han citizens.[34] On one hand, as a result of Han immigration and government policies, Uyghurs' freedoms of religion and of movement are curtailed,[35][36] while most Uyghurs argue that the government deliberately downplays their history and traditional culture.[24] On the other hand, some Han citizens view Uyghurs as benefiting from special treatment, such as preferential admission to universities and exemption from the one-child policy,[37] and as "harbouring separatist aspirations".[38]

And lets take a look at the sources. Citation number 24 dates back to 2004, and citation number 25 dates back to 2000... Now what do they have to do with the 2009 riots? And whats more, citation numbers 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 all date back to before the 2009 riots.. And there are more.. And they all detal policies which are implied in the article to somehow have caused the riots in 2009. Times machines don't exist... Or you can drop the double standards. These sources don't pertain to the 2009 riots in Urumqi, since they were written way before that, don't even talk about Urumqi specifically (rather they talk about the entire Xinjiang), and don't even mention the riots..Rajmaan (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
So you believe you are smarter than those established Central Asian scholars because time machine don't exist, Uyghur did not publicly attack PRC interest since 1989, Urumqi is not confirmed to be in Xinjiang until 2009 and Uyghur is not the primary participant in the riot? Chewbacca defense at its finest. Jim101 (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Urumqi has indeed been part of Xinjiang, in fact it has been since the Qing dynasty combined the then seperately administrated Dzungaria and Tarim Basin regions into a single province, way before 2009. The Tarim Basin was home to sedentary oases farming Turkic Muslims under the Chagatai Khans and Sufi Khojas, and Dzungaria was under the steppe Dzungar Oirat Mongol nomads. When the Qing in fact nearly singlehandedly constructed Xinjiang province and shaped the demographic situation and handed it over in this manner to the ROC and PRC. Xinjiang was never an administrative unit before the Qing, it was divided into Dzungaria and Tarim. Even in the early Qing, they were administered seperately (Dzungaria was Tianshan Beilu, Tarim was Tianshan nanlu), not combined until 1884. The Qing shattered the Dzungar power, wiped them out, and transplanted Uyghur, Han, Hui, Xibe, and Manchu farmers to settle the former nomad land.
You mean Central Asian scholars like Millward and Perdue? Uyghurs have actually been attacking PRC interests way before that, the Soviet Union sponsored Uyghur separatists like Rais Abdulkhakovich Tuzmukhamedov to propagandize against China and constantly broadcast messages into Xinjiang calling for the Uyghurs to revolt.
By the way, I have even more sources by western Central asian scholars saying that the Soviets were involved in a major part of constructing Uyghur identity, constructing Uyghur nationalism and writing Uyghur nationalist histories, and behindnthe claims of Uyghurs being indigenous to the region, and Soviet support to Uyghur nationalist movements as part of their propaganda war against China in the Sino-Soviet split. Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_involvement [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Uyghur_people#Origin_of_modern_nationality East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_Union_support_for_East_Turkestan_Independence_vs_China
And who is passing judgement? Detailing factual Qing era migration documenting by "Central Asian scholars" and inserting a factual statement by a Central Asian scholar who specifically wrote a factual response to those who believe that Uyghur culture in Urumqi was wiped out by Han migration is passing judgement? Urumqi always had a mostly Han and Hui population since Qing times down to the present day. That is a fact. Who is passing judgement in what?Rajmaan (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:Coatrack...'nough said. You can claim that you are not passing judgement by pretending that the historical sovereignty of Xinjiang or the validity of Uyghur ethnicity/nationalism is the same thing as Uyghur grievance against PRC government, and I'm going to claim that I'm your best friend in the entire world. Jim101 (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The "grievance" is related to migration in Xinjiang and Urumqi, and claims of being indigenous, and I posted several facts about Urumqi's and Dzungharia's demographic history, the coatracking started with you mentioning Wang Zhen and human evolution in Africa. You were the one who then started talking about Central Asian scholars, and I showed you some of what they wrote. Let me tell you what I did not write. I wrote nothing about how the PRC government's polices were justified, in fact I wrote nothing contradicting the Uyghur's economic situation or anything about how the PRC is doing an awesome job towards the Uyghurs. Can you show me where I wrote that? You are the one making up straw men and ad hominem attacks against me, insinuating that I said PRC policies are justified.Rajmaan (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:Coatrack: This page in a nutshell: Articles about one thing (a concise summary of Uyghur grievances against PRC government and vise versa) shouldn't mostly focus on another thing (Han migration pattern into Xinjiang/Demographic History of Xinjiang/Qing History of Xinjiang/Legal ownership of Xinjiang)...Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject...Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. In either case the article should be corrected. Let me count, this is the 4th time I have tried to get the point across. Jim101 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the sources relates the demographic situation as being relevant to today, clearly linking current perceptions of Urumqi to its demographic history.

Foreign tourists in Urumchi today sometimes complain that the city is "too Chinese" in comparison with the Central Asian atmosphere of southern Xinjiang; many believe Urumchi's East Turkestani culture has been erased by Han immigration and architecture. In fact, the Uyghur population and culture in the city today is a relatively recent feature, for Urumchi in its first decades in most respects resembled a north Chinese town, populated primarily by Tungans from Gansu and Shaanxi and Han from many Chinese provinces, in addition to the bannermen.

I have another source which explicitly says that the Han migration under the PRC was directed at the underpopulated Junggar Basin (Dzungharia), while the Tarim Basin contained most of the "Uyghur" population of Xinjiang" These sources are all relevant to today's situation (not only is Han migration still continuing, but Uyghur migration from the Tarim Basin to Dzungaria is still ongoing to this day. Uyghur migrants from the Tarim Basin are still moving to Dzungaria to find work right now.)

The Han migration altered the pattern of population distribution and ethnic composition of Xinjiang. In 1953 about three-fourths of the population lived south of the mountains in the Tarim Basin. The Han influx was directed mainly to the Junggar Basin because of its resource potential.

page 12 - "The Moslem Turki (or officially Uighur since 1921) population considers Kashgaria as their homeland, but a migration has been in progress to Dzungaria since the 18th century . Kazakhs are to be found in Dzungaria ,while the Kirgiz occupy "...

green valleys and low mountains of Dzungaria reached into the steppes of Siberia and beyond the Altai ranges. Much of the migration outward from China was still concentrated into this northern region.

page 2- "In Dzungaria, the main part of the urban population consists of Chinese and Dungana, in Kashgar la, of Uighurs".

page 7 "The Chinese and the Dungans make up a substantial percentage of the population of most of the Sinkiang cities, but most of them are in Eastern and Central Dzungaria. About half of the Chinese of Sinkiang are concentrated in

Rajmaan (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you point of is that only reason Uyghur hates Han/PRC government is because they happen to move next door to each other over Qing policy couple hundred years ago, then my counter point is we don't write the article 1992 Los Angeles riots by summarizing the article Atlantic slave trade. Otherwise WP:Coatrack. Jim101 (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese government had a policy of settling Han immigrants in new lands not occupied by Uyghurs or in new towns adjacent to older Uyghur communities.

- note that this source alao mentions that the PRC gave priority to agriculture in the northern region - where the Han settled

Since the early 1980s there have been further huge increases in Han immigration into Northern Xinjiang. These are no longer forced but economic migrants encouraged by relaxed controls on population movement and improved communications linking Hi and Chuguchak with Urumchi and beyond. Many Uyghur economic refugees have also moved into Northern Xinjiang from the impoverished south.

The Qing era stuff is still relevant. In fact, Dzungaria was one of the places where the Qing encouraged Han and Hui migration and notable in that regard. The Qing did not allow Han and Hui to permanently settled down in outer Mongolia, for example.

There were few Uyghurs in Urumqi during the Qing dynasty, Urumqi was mostly Han and Hui, and Han and Hui settlers were concentraded in Northern (Beilu) Xinjiang (Dzungaria).

"the military colonies became the site for extensive civilian migration made up mostly by Chinese peasants who came to clear lands and create an agricultural basis for more densely populated provinces out of the sparsely inhabited, semi-nomadic regions....for by the early nineteenth century, 155,000 Chinese peasants had settled in northern Xinjiang, comprising a significant portion of the local population."

"This measure sufficed to create a population of around 155,000 Han and Tungan homesteaders in northern Xinjiang by the turn of the nineteenth century".

I think that there is a way to fit this into the article without disrupting the current narrative. Many sources emphasize both that it was precisely the fact that because PRC emphasized Han migration to northern Xinjiang, in sparsely populated areas where there were few Uyghurs and where Uyghurs were not the native population, that the PRC focused most of its efforts on developing northern Xinjiang and Han benefited with the Northern Xinjiang economy booming, while the Uyghur majority inhabited southern Xinjiang in the Tarim Basin was neglected and suffers from poverty and economic underdevelopment, so tensions and resentment increased, leading some Uyghur economic migrants to migrate to Dzungaria and Urumqi in search of work..........the source below detail the economic differences between north and south. We really don't disagree on the issue here- PRC policies led to them ignoring the economic development of Uyghur regions, leading to unrest- the question is if you would led the facts about the history of the regions were subjected to development and migration be included- I have plenty of sources above and below.

[8][9] "Over 90% of the Han Chinese live in cities in Northern Xinjiang while the majority of Uighurs live in Southern"

Rajmaan (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Did Uyghur stopped/adjusted their complains about Han immigration given the above fact? No and they decided to riot in 2009 about it anyway? Did PRC government officially used the above fact to defend their positions on the Xinjiang issue? No since they are stupid enough to declare Xinjiang as "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" in the 1950s and promised Uyghur CCP cadres full control of the region as pre-condition to incorporate Xinjiang into PRC? Does Han population in Xinjiang have civil societies that use the above facts to defend Han land rights in Xinjiang? No since organization without CCP guidance is illegal in China? WP:Coatrack since this is not the article Uyghur people, China Western Development or Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. Jim101 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
the sources explicitly mention that migration was directed at the north in Dzungaria, and specifically to lands which were sparsely populated by Uyghurs, and that was therefore where most development took place. It may not have mentioned that this was because these were Dzungar and not Uyghur lands, but they do mention that the CCP focused immigration there to avoid dumping Han in the heavily population Uyghur areas (Tarim Basin). we should mention those facts. Some of the sources connected those facts to underdevelopment of Uyghur dominated lands in the Tarim and to their discontent. We aren't here to discuss how stupid the CCP's public relations department is or historians are for not using obvious facts to defend their positions or whether they are right or not. In fact the CCP copied the Soviet created designation of "Uyghur" and the accompanying history which is why they redesignated the entire province as Uyghur autonomous region.Rajmaan (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The topic and the point of discussion is a summary of why Uyghur is currently pissed off at PRC government, not a game of whose land is it anyway. The fact that CCP focused immigration somewhere to avoid dumping Han in the heavily population Uyghur areas has no tangible impact in this topic since Ugyhur are still angry at CCP regardless of where Hans had settled in Xinjiang, and PRC government agreed in principle with Ugyhur on the land ownership of entire Xinjiang as per-condition for Xinjiang joining PRC. The only possible purpose that fact would serve in a summary of why Uyghur is discontent at PRC government is to ridicule the reasons of Uyghur discontent and distracting people from the real point of discussion (you can pretend your intention is pure over all you want, but anyone with half a brain would reasonably foresee this outcome). If that is not the point you are trying to present (or you really do have no points to present) then it is just plain case of WP:TOPIC and WP:Coatrack. Seriously, I have been repeating the same point over the course of a year and with you covering your ear and yell "but it's true!" as your only basis for including obviously off topic material. Other editors who foresaw the same problem and agreed with the no off topic discussion consensus may be gone, but I'm not going get wore down by such nonsensical attrition tactic. Jim101 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
incorrect, both on historical fact and on wikipedia policy. Firstly, the PRC did not "agree" in principle to land ownership as per-condition for Xinjiang joining the PRC, because Uyghurs did not control Xinjiang. Most of Xinjiang was under the control of Kuomintang troops who surrendered and defected to the PRC. The Second East Turkestan Republic, which controlled the three districts, were under Soviet control and the Soviets ordered them to dissolve their republic since the Communists won the civil war in China. The PRC directly took control of Xinjiang in 1949.Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China It was in 1955, that the PRC, out of its volition and will, with itself fully in charge, redesignated the entire Xinjiang province as "Uyghur Autonomous Region". I'm not coatracking, because it is wikipedia policy to provide POV of both sides as long as its from a reliable source. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view You know what the sources say? They say that the PRC gave their reason for sending Han people to migrate into northern Xinjiang in order to put them in sparsely populated areas and keep them from troubling the Uyghurs. That is the reason the PRC gave for directing Han migration to northern Xinjiang, its what it says in the source- the background already mentions "government policy considers", there is absolutely no reason for blocking the addition of where the PRC directed Han migration to and the reason they gave- that's the other POV which you are so eager to shut out. The background is supposed to give both POVs about Uyghur discontent. This is the "Han POV"- The Chinese government had a policy of settling Han immigrants in new lands not occupied by Uyghurs or in new towns adjacent to older Uyghur communities. Hans claim this settlement pattern allowed the Uyghurs to continue their way of life without Han interference.

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.[24] According to PRC policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]

by the way, your first and second comments (actually all of your comments) on this topic here were not so thinly veiled, bad faith, political attacks and extremely confrontational in nature, so I don't know about "pure" intentions on your part. [10] [11] What can I say about the POV of a user who immediately starts attacking one side (PRC) about "power abuse" and murder. You are not neutral, you support a certain POV. Pot calls kettle black?

Rajmaan (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"PRC did not "agree" in principle to land ownership as per-condition for Xinjiang joining the PRC". Did you even read the PRC constitution or the 1984 law on regional autonomy? Did you even bother to read the scholarly interpretation on the law? Did you even bother the understand what legal rights does autonomy region have under PRC law? Did you even consider that migration of Han into an ethnic autonomy region with ethnic minority protesting is technically breaking the law? Did you even consider that Ugyhur are just not happy about the Han migration into Xinjiang period and that is one of the main root cause of the riot? Keep on expressing your view on how not making a huge deal in arguing the difference between mugging people with a bat and mugging people with a gun is a POV offence.
BTW if you get a problem with me, then sue me 'cuz I'm not going away. Jim101 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Wrong again. Xinjiang was already part of the PRC in 1949, and stayed as a province of the PRC to 1955 when it was changed from a province into "Uyghur autonomous region". Xinjiang was not given any "conditions" for joining the PRC, which it was already part of. You have not given me any sources which shows me its against the PRC consitution or law for Han people to move into an autonomous region. You just threw a bunch of links at me, with no quotes or explanation at all, because I can't see where they mention migration is against the law. Did you know that the Inner Mongolia autonomous region was formed when it already had a Han majority, since most Han settled there during the Qing and KMT rule?. Speaking of which,Wang Zhen came to power in Xinjiang in 1951 and his reign ended in 1953. that means, he somehow miraculously was in power in Xiniiang before it entered the PRC according to your argument. FYI, it was the KMT, not PRC, which started moving large amounts of Han settlers to Dzungaria in the 1940s, and the Soviet backed Uyghurs claimed this as justification for their revolt in the Ili Rebellion and subsequent massacre of Han civilians in 1944-1946.
There is no reason for the "Han POV", as expressed in reliable sources, not to be put into this article when the "Uyghur POV", especially from sources from before 2009 and which don't even mention the riots are used to back this "POV" .Rajmaan (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You want Han POV? I'll give you Han POV (and I'm Han Chinese by the way so you can't really accuses me of not putting the effort here):

I'm waiting for you to say Mao is a Ugyhur (or Mao was drunk, or some other lame excuse why those declaration are invalid, and etc...)

Location of where the Han settlement is in Xinjiang not even remotely the main issue here. And contrast with the latest PRC law on ethnic minority:

PRC government is definitely following the law to the letter by sending Han migrants to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and using them to drown out Uyghur interest in a frigging Mao designated and never legally repealed Uyghur Autonomous Region...

Geez, none of your link mentioned 2009 riot either, maybe Uyghur didn't know that PRC decided not to mix Han and Ugyhur until 2009, or they don't have any complains against PRC government until 2009. Also none of your link ever stated PRC Han does not mix with Uyghur policy had any impact on Ugyhur discontent, or maybe the those "Han POV" (which the concept itself is puzzling given none of your link states that those POV are general Han POV, or even those facts are related to Ugyhur discontent against PRC in general) is really about Ugyhur should shut up, and Han moving into Mao designated Ugyhur Autonomous Region and drown them out is doing them a favor, like the following quote (Uttering a sentiment widely shared among Hans but seldom articulated in public, one scholar recently wrote bluntly that “Hans are the most reliable force for stability in Xinjiang.”)? Finally:

You know what, I changed my mind...It is really important to mention that PRC really don't want Han mixed with Uyghur as a benefit to Uyghurs. Jim101 (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Saifuddin Azizi(Säypidin) was a pro Soviet Communist agent during the Ili Rebellion and served in the apparatus of the Soviet backed Second East Turkestan Republic. East–West Center is not a neutral source. it is funded by the US Congress. It says "Before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took full control of China in 1949, many Uyghurs expected that they would soon enjoy full political independence in Xinjiang.". Why would Uyghurs have expected to "enjoy full political rights" before 1949 when the KMT (which absolutely refused to grant Uyghur independence and encouraged Han migration) controlled nearly all of Xinjiang and the Uyghurs didn't know if the CCP would win the war? The KMT surrendered Xinjiang to the CCP. Uyghurs were absolutely not in control, and had no power or say in the transfer. Mao did not granted "autonomous status" in exchange for Uyghurs joining Xnjiang to China, pretty much all major minorities (Tibetans, Mongols, and Zhuang) were granted autonomous status because of their size. Tibet was most certainly not granted this autonomous status in "exchange" for joining Tibet to the PRC. I don't know where you got the idea that the PRC asked fully independent minoriites to join China in exchange for autonomous status. China decided to give this status out on its own will. And you know full well that I am talking about the POV of Han people in Xinjiang, not Han people elsewhere who hate the PRC government. (And many Han across China resent the PRC's affirmative action policy to minorities, which is mentioned in this article)
"in concentrated communities and set up autonomous agencies for the exercise of the power of autonomy." - Uyghurs do live in concentrafed communities, in the Tarim Basin. And? Btw, according to census data, Uyghurs are the majority in both Aksu and Kashgar (both Tarim Basin cities)Rajmaan (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah...all sources disagree with me is funded by CIA, all sources agrees with me are neutral...enemy of China are everywhere. Jim101 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have never used a PRC source. I only use independent western sources, by western historians who have credentials in their field of work, and who publish from a reliable press (a western university or academic press). Never used sources by historians from Chinese or other non western universities, or sources connected to any government. And Saifuddin Azizi was a Soviet agent so what did I say about CIA?Rajmaan (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Too bad that Saifuddin Azizi view was important enough that Chinese government and academia sources didn't even bother to censor him (1955年初，赛福鼎和包尔汉在北京开会，习仲勋约见他们，对他们说：“毛主席要我征求你们两位的意见，将来新疆叫新疆自治区如何？”赛福鼎对毛主席如此重视他们的意见非常高兴，于是开诚布公地说出了自己的看法。他说：“自治不是给山川、河流的，而是给某个民族的。所以，它叫‘民族区域自治’，因此，‘新疆自治区’这个名称不太合适。”习仲勋当场表示说：“好，我向毛主席报告你的意见。”过了两天，习仲勋又约见赛福鼎和包尔汉，告诉他们说：“毛主席同意赛福鼎的意见，应该叫作‘新疆维吾尔自治区’，毛主席要我告诉你们。”几天后，李维汉在遇到赛福鼎时说：“习仲勋向毛主席报告了你的意见后，毛主席作了认真的考虑说：‘赛福鼎的意见是对的’。)...and I actually provided a source on what pro government Han people thinks (Uttering a sentiment widely shared among Hans but seldom articulated in public, one scholar recently wrote bluntly that “Hans are the most reliable force for stability in Xinjiang.”)...You were saying you represent pro-government Han POV? Jim101 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The voice of the Soviet Union's agents was of course important to the PRC, since the Soviets controllled most developmental aid going to China.(and assistance during the Korean War), and the Soviets were the ones who actually controlled Ili before they let the ETR dissolve back into China. Saifuddin Azizi was part of the Second East Turkestan Republic and Ili Rebellion, so would you mind posting the explanation the ETR gave for massacring Han civilians?. The idea for "autonomous regions" came from the Soviet Union, and by the way, none of the other indigenous minorities in Xinjiang, like the remnant of the Dzungar people themselves, nor the Tajiks of Xinjiang gave their approval for the establishment of the entire region as Uyghur autonomous region. The Dzungars don't even have an autonomous prefecture or county in their own native land in Dzungaria, unlike the Uyghur settlers there, nor is their language given any rights like the Uyghurs.Rajmaan (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
So Chinese government are now Soviet puppets. Too bad they never repeal the XUAR idea after Sino-Soviet Split and the end of Soviet Union...So what is your POV now since Chinese government actively ignored citizens views? Anti-government Han POV? Jim101 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The native Dzungar Oirat Mongols and Tuvan people in Dzungaria are both forced to take classes in the Chakhar Mongol dialect instead of their own Oirat dialect and Tuvan language since they are both classified together with Chakhar Inner Mongolians as just "Mongol", and the PRC recognizes no distinctions between them. And the Tajik Pamiri languages in Xinjiang aren't even written down, they have to use Uyghur to write. The reason is because the PRC adopted the Soviet written history and ethnic classification for the Uyghur. The name for Uyghurs in the Tarim was "Turki" and the descendants of Uyghur migrants in Dzungaria were called "Taranchi", the PRC obliterated all of these classifications and adopted the Soviet history which said that all of Xinjiang was Uyghur land. Uyghur_people#Origin_of_modern_nationality Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_involvement so the Dzungars has no say in this. And guess ahat, the Tajiks also have the wrong ethnic name assigned to them by the PRC in 1949. The Tajiks of Xinjiang are not actually "real" Tajiks, they are Pamiri people. Rajmaan (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Like you said, PRC government don't care when they agreed to form XUAR. Shouldn't you be defending pro-PRC POV in this article here like you say were going to do? Jim101 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Forming autonomous regions for ethnic minorities was standard procedure for Communist governments in the Cold War, copied from the Soviet model. Even Romania did it for Hungarians. It was part of the doctrine of Stalinist Communism which many other countries than copied, Stalin proposed a set of criterea for what makes up an ethnic minority, and one of those criterea included having their own defined land aka "common area" (hence why the Dzungar Oirat Monols don't have their own autonomous region in Dzungaria- since they are shoved in the same category with inner Mongolian Chakhar Mongols, the CCP will just point to Inner Mongolia as their autonomous region). The PRC didn't "agree" with a bunch of Uyghurs that they would let them have autonomy in return for controlling Xinjiang- the PRC controlled Xinjiang from the start, and created it as an autonomous region as part of their official communist policy for ethnic minorities.Rajmaan (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I also have a source which says the PRC nationality policy has led to major anachoristic and erroneous rebranding of history in favor of Uyghur nationalists, like all of Turkic Muslim history in Xinjiang being labeled as "Uyghur". That was a result of the PRC copying the Soviet history and label for Uyghurs.Rajmaan (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What's actually going on over here? I'm getting the feeling that this discussion is straying quite far away from the actual 2009 riots. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly...just what does Northern Xinjiang belong to Han (a extremely charged opinion, not a fact, given PRC's legal position on Xinjiang) has anything to do with 2009 riot. Jim101 (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been watching this page the last few days with some bemusement. If you review the article talk history, we settled on the concise version knowing full well we would otherwise be going down the slippery slope of the blame game and war and peace. That's why the discussion was curtailed. The result may not please everybody, which I guess why this has been reopened. It was a necessary simplification, and I still believe it should stay that way. The alternative is to excise the background section, but that would be too draconian, as some context is necessary.

    I've been in this type of discussion before, and the article talk gets more and more inflamed about dialectics; the article gets more and more bloated with who has the strongest historical claim or who has natural justice on their side. There are no absolutes here, and it's not in the readers' interest to provide the pre-history of Xinjiang in an article describing a 21st century event. All we can say for sure is that mutual dislike and distrust exists between both races/ethnic groups. The riots got sparked off by a pogrom a few thousand miles due south. How we got to that dislike and distrust are all by-the-by. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think these "who was here first" concerns should be brought to, say, the Urumqi, Xinjiang, History of Xinjiang or Uyghur people articles; this article really should have primary focus on the events of 2009, and not dwelve too deeply in the political and ethnic history of the region. --benlisquareT•C•E 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
this is not about "who was here first", this is about demographic patterns and migration as mentioned in reliable soirces. I saw the nonsense people wrote about saying that since the Han dynasty ruled Xinjiang 2,000 years ago, that Han people were there first. The sources say that the PRC directed Han migration over to Dzungaria (Northern Xinjiang) because - 1. It was sparsely populated by Uyghurs, most Uyghurs lived in the Tarim and still do today. The fact that Han moved to Dzungaria has only made Dzungaria more densely populated than the Tarim. 2. They wanted to keep the Han population seperate from Uyghurs to not "disturb" them. 3. It also happens to have big natural resources 4. The PRC focused most of its development in northern Xinjiang so the Tarim Basin in general is poorer and less developed than the north. 5. uyghurs are disconent because of poverty linked to underdevelopment. These are important facts about PRC era migration. Rajmaan (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
1. Fair enough.
2. Too bad other sources disputing this are not neutral enough to prevent this opinion from becoming facts.
3. So resource grab by Hans is a good thing, even though Article 28 of 1984 law on regional autonomy states autonomous Uyghur government of XUAR should be the proper owner of these resource.
4. Fair enough.
5. Too bad other sources disputing this are not neutral enough to prevent this opinion from becoming facts.
And finally, any scholars that actually linked point 1 to 5 in a single thesis in the context of Xinjiang Conflict? 'Cuz it seem you forgot a link. Jim101 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
do the references in the article link their points to the riot? yes, they link it ethnic tensions between Han and Uyghur. FYI, Han and Hui were always a majority in Urumqi, since it was founded in Qing times to today. It was never a Uyghur majority city. I also have sources linking the Soviet Union to Uyghur separatism from the 1960s-1980s Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_Union_support_for_East_Turkestan_Independence_vs_China Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_involvement if you want something linked to the Xinjiang Conflict. If we go by the logic that this article only includes things during PRC rule.Rajmaan (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, too bad the source did not state point 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as a single thesis and it actually supported East-West Center by stating Han migration without mixing with Uyghur can be interpreted as an attempt to drown out Uyghur interest in XUAR ("Too many Ugyhurs, however, view this as encirclement" vs. "Redeployment of demobilized Nationalist, INA, and Red Army soldiers into the PCC at strategic points throughout the region enacted a subtler parcelization of the territory. PCC units that were set up along the margins of "troubled" regions, along key transport arteries, and around hubs provided the potential to control travel and isolate Xinjiang’s subregions with very modest man manpower...Further deployments, he said, should "draw a circle" around southern Xinjiang by filling in "blank spaces"—one between Aksu and Korla, and another between Hotan and Ruoqiang. The expansion of PCC organizations in the latter region, scholar remarked brightly, "will prove an excellent conduit for changing the minzu population ratio in Hotan, which has gotten out of balance"")... So you are agreeing with me now? Jim101 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, because EastWest center has an agenda- it totally ignores the context in which this took place. Are you aware that China directly clashed with Soviet troops along the Xinjiang and Manchurian borders? the Soviets broadcasts messages inciting Uyghurs to revolt and Chinese and Soviet troops engaged in direct combat against each otherthis clash in Xinjiang almost led to nuclear war Wang Zhen himself noted that the Han migrants were sent there to protect the region from the Soviet Union. (the Soviets were inciting Uyghur separatism and threatened to invade) China and the Soviet Union both threatened to "subvert each other's Muslim populations" (page 20) Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_Union_support_for_East_Turkestan_Independence_vs_China The PCC units in the "troubled regions" (the tarim basin) were still vastly outnumbered by the Uyghurs. The current census says that Uyghurs are the majority, over 90% of the Tarim Basin cities you mention like Aksu, Korla, Hotan, etc. Still most Han were in Dzungaria. China also supported the Afghan Mujahideen from Xinjiang during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. China viewed Xinjiang as an important asset against the Soviet Union's "encirclement" of China after the Soviet sinvsded Afghanistan.Rajmaan (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Right...and Soviet Union has been such a threat through history that the passage I cited is about PRC policy makers arguing for the encirclement of Southern Xinjiang in 2003...I get your context. Jim101 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
No where does it say his suggestions were implemented by the government. It says "He argued" and "he said" that the government should do what he proposed. Uyghurs still make up 90% of the Tarim Basin counties in Hotan, Aksu, Kashgar..Rajmaan (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: It has been removed from the list of requests because there are now more than two editors involved in this discussion and Third Opinions are only available for disputes involving two editors (when the third editor joined in here that was, in effect, your third opinion). If content dispute resolution is still desired, consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Mediation, or Request for Comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • SHUTDOWN NOTICE: I'm going to shut down this thread shortly. I fail to see how all this discussion about ancient history is contributing to the improvement of this particular article. Any further discussion should take place at Talk:History of Xinjiang. Thanks for participating! -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox parameter does not work

The "arrested" parameter for the Infobox does not work. The 2010 FA also does not have this parameter. Either it can be removed or we can use other templates like Template:Infobox civil conflict. HYH.124 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. HYH.124 (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

POV in 'Background' section

Hello, everyone! I noticed that the paragraph in the 'Background' section that begins with "Uyghur nationalists often claim that 5% of Xinjiang's population..." seems to be slightly misplaced. Its tone has been changed by recent editors to appear more objective, but the entire paragraph's message seems like a Han Chinese person's rebuttal to claims that some Uyghur people in the town make about its history. I do not know the full history of the conflict so I am unaware of whether or those counterarguments are true, but why are they included in the first place? Is it to provide a counterbalance to the claims of persecution by Uyghurs? If so, why is it not labeled as such? In its present case, it comes off as justification for the Chinese government's actions and ends up being portraying Uyghurs as misguided. And this all may be true, but I'd like someone with more knowledge on the subject to look into it. Thanks. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think a lot of it simply off topic here. We can briefly note the ethnic tensions, but the section does read like a polemic. Much of this information should probably be taken to Ürümqi#History.VR talk 05:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit reversions

@Jb007bsa: Hello, I'd like to attempt to explain why I think the most recent edits to this page describing this event as a "terrorist attack" is inappropriate. Every article that reported on this clearly labelled the events as "riots" whether it was from the New York Times or the BBC. In fact, the only other label that was used to describe this incident was "protests" as seen in this other BBC article. Wikipedia runs on sourced content and the sources clearly labeled the incident as such. Changing the title of this article would be WP:OR and a clear violation of WP:VERIFY. Thanks for your understanding. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on July 2009 Ürümqi riots. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on July 2009 Ürümqi riots. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots/Archive_7&oldid=1136859741"