Talk:Xinjiang conflict

Links

>> China media says clash in Xinjiang kills 16 (Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)).

As reported by the BBC News, "China says "foreign terrorists" are behind the violence in the region. Hundreds of people have died in attacks over the past three years." but they also report "China strictly controls media access to Xinjiang so reports are difficult to verify."LeadSongDog come howl! 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Title of article

The title of this article is currently "Xinjiang conflict". I have gone through all the linked sources and none of them use the words "Xinjiang conflict". Rather the words used are, "terrorism", "unrest", "violent clashes", "riots" and "racial/ethnic tensions". Googling for additional sources, I couldn't find reliable sources using the word "conflict". All reliable sources seem to use other wording. Using the word conflict on this article seems to be an exaggeration. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but I found several sources that use the word "conflict." East-West Center in Washington, the Guardian, paper from AU, and a few others. Use of the term would also seem to be in line with some other Wikipedia articles, such as Western Sahara conflict and Chiapas conflict. I'm not sure what other word could be used to describe the series of events that have led to a few several thousand deaths, but I'm not linguist. Mvblair (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between "as ethnic conflict grows in Xinjiang" (Gaurdian) and "Xinjiang conflict". Similarly for the Australian article. It says "Ethnic Conflict" not "Xinjiang conflict". It is a different meaning of conflict. The East West Center article is just one voice. Read Wikipedia:Article titles and in particular see WP:COMMONNAME, "Xinjiang conflict" is not the common name in reputable sources. The number of deaths is not the defining factor of a conflict; rather is is the form of action taken. Xinjiang is sporadic, uncoordinated, loosely connected or even unconnected events that only share a common motive - though even that is debatable. The words "Xinjiang conflict" imply an organised armed revolt or war which is an exaggeration. The Western Sahara and Chiapas are not comparable to the events in Xinjiang and in an case pointing to other low quality Wikipedia articles is a poor argument. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, when I do a Google search for "Xinjiang conflict," I see plenty of sources, including a few that seem to be direct translations from state media. Given the definition of the word, what has been happening in Xinjiang would seem to be a "conflict." Feel free to suggest another title for the article. Mvblair (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. Don't be vague, if you see plenty then post links. What I see are various mirrors of this Wikipedia article, mirrors of the East-West Centre article and a couple of youtube videos of twenty year old news reports. The are not reliable sources and not sufficient to establish "Xinjiang_conflict" as the common name when compared with the alternative names. I have already suggested alternative names in my first comment. For example, put "Xinjiang unrest" into google and you get the BBC, Finacial Times, aljazeera, Times of India, South China Morning Post, Reuters and more. You get a similar list if you search for "Xinjiang riots" or "Xinjiang terrorism". All three of these options are used by reliable sources and sources of this article itself. My personal preference would be "Xinjiang unrest". There may be other better names. I'm open to suggestions but "Xinjiang conflict" is out. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from even though "conflict" seems appropriate to me. Mvblair (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mvblair. Conflict is the right word, 'unrest' and 'terrorism' are merely parts of this conflict, just like 'oppression' is. --82.75.32.124 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is no surprise that none of the sources use the words "Xinjiang conflict". However "conflict" is a useful cover term for "terrorism", "unrest", "violent clashes", "riots" and "racial/ethnic tensions". To suggest that "conflict" is an exaggeration is odd. Terrorism, violent clashes, riots etc are all types of conflict. I believe that the Chinese Communist Party would oppose the use of the term conflict, but Wikipedia should be objective. "Conflict" is in fact an understatement. "Rebellion" may be a better term for what is occurring. Of course that will be even less palatable to the CPC and its allies.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The School for the Culture of Peace defines armed conflict as "an armed conflict is understood as any confrontation between regular or irregular armed groups with objectives that are perceived as incompatible, in which the continuous and organized use of violence: a) causes a minimum of 100 fatalities in a year and/or has a serious impact on the territory (destruction of infrastructure or of natural resources) and on human safety (e.g., injured or displaced people, sexual violence, food insecurity, impact on mental health and on the social fabric or the disruption of basic services); and b) aims to achieve objectives different from those of common crime normally related to demands for self-determination and self-government or identity-related aspirations; opposition to the political, economic, social or ideological system of a state or the internal or international policy of a government, which in both triggers a struggle to seize or undermine power; the control of resources or land." - As far as I can tell, this is a conflict by that definition. it is listed as one of the 35 armed conflicts of 2015 in their yearbook [1] Brinerustle (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Soviet support of East Turkestan People's Party insurgency against China

East Turkestan People's Party

http://books.google.com/books?id=1ia-2lDtGH4C&pg=PA57&dq=soviet+turkestan+people's+party&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dpQcU9iPN-fN0wHUrYCYAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=soviet%20turkestan%20people's%20party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=jRhHphtBg-QC&pg=PA69&dq=soviet+turkestan+people's+party&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dpQcU9iPN-fN0wHUrYCYAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=soviet%20turkestan%20people's%20party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=g25_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA147&dq=soviet+turkestan+people's+party&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dpQcU9iPN-fN0wHUrYCYAQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=soviet%20turkestan%20people's%20party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=etRkjLv8AosC&pg=PT278&dq=soviet+turkestan+people's+party&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dpQcU9iPN-fN0wHUrYCYAQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=soviet%20turkestan%20people's%20party&f=false

United Revolutionary Front of East Turkestan

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I2b_hrJO8sC&pg=PA37&dq=soviet+turkestan+people's+party&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dpQcU9iPN-fN0wHUrYCYAQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=soviet%20turkestan%20people's%20party&f=false

Soviet historiography and propaganda to Uyghurs

The soviet formation of uyghur nationalism and history

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dM9BAAAAYAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&dq=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_VrFULiZE6uz0QHHvoH4Cg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

KGB aid to Uyghur separatists.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mXXnd81uoMoC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

Soviet Union propaganda

China and the Soviet Union waged a propaganda war over East Turkestan Independence, with the Soviets trying to incite separatism among the Uyghurs, and China retaliated with jamming and broadcasting of its own. Soviet Muslims (Uzbeks and others) would taunt Russians in the bazaars about the threat of China liberating Soviet central asia from the Russians, and China broadcasted news of Soviet atrocities against Afghan Muslims during the Soviet invasion.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/may-jun/meehan.html

http://www.oxuscom.com/sovinxj.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/06/world/on-soviet-china-border-the-thaw-is-just-a-trickle.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19810922&id=3oAxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9KQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5348,448513

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1928&dat=19690102&id=ylsgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UGQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4665,144363

http://f3.tiera.ru/1/genesis/580-584/581000/08896bda69d79b32dcf80f11fc793dbf

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2010/gb20100528_168520.htm

http://engnews.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=308213

http://www.irgamag.com/component/k2/item/6735

Rajmaan (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Reddit, twitter, personal blogs are NOT reliable sources

I don't know how else to put it. It's sort of self explanatory. These sources do not satisfy the criteria for WP:RS. Please stop reinserting them along with primary sources. Volunteer Marek  03:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability policy clearly states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities".

This NOT an article about reddit. This is NOT an article about twitter. This is not an article about some blog. Please stop reinserting this crap back in. Volunteer Marek  03:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also please stop removing the relevant tags that I've added to the article. Volunteer Marek  03:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Cut it out. We both know this policy refers to material released by a person or organization on social media. Either you didn't read clearly or are deliberately playing dumb, this policy does NOT refer to twitter talking about twitter- it refers to a famous individual or organization running a social media account such as a twitter account and releasing info about themselves, such as Justin Bieber making a tweet commenting about an issue or Human Rights watch running a twitter account and tweeting information on human rights violations. WP:SOCIALMEDIA This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.. Turkistan Islamic Party released videos of their activities on social media like twitter, liveleak, and archive.org and they call their media arm Islam Awazi. Long War Journal is a terror analysis website run which is used as a reliable source by media organizations and is RS. FYI I did not use a single reddit thread as a source.

If you actually read the paragraph, you would notice that most the material is sourced from longwarjournal and that the reddit threads are tagged on after a longwar journal source- The Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party and the Taliban allied Uzbek Imam Bukhari Jamaat and Al-Qaeda allied Uzbek Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad, along with Jund al Aqsa cooperated together in the Al Ghab plain to conquer multiple crucial villages, with the TIP engaging itn suicide bombings in Jisr al Shughur and iits participation in overrunning Abu Dhuhur with Jund al Aqsa and Al Nusrah. Longwarjournal Reddit The reddits can be removed without any content being affected. I just kept the reddit threads as a reminder of where I got the link for the longwarjournal article from.

You also deleted this paragraph which is entirely sourced by actual news articles. Don't know where you got the idea that this is "Twitter" from. The village of Az-Zanbaqi (الزنبقي) in Jisr al-Shughur's countryside has become a base for a massive amount of Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party militants and their families in Syria, estimated at around 3,500, military camps in the area are training hundreds of children from these families; Hezbollah media, Iranian media and Syrian government media accused Turkish intelligence of being involved in transporting these Uyghurs via Turkey to Syria, with the aim of using them first in Syria to help Jabhat Al-Nusra and gain combat experience fighting against the Syrian Army before sending them back to Xinjiang to fight against China if they manage to survive.Rajmaan (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

STSC Benlisquare can someone explain to Marek what this policy means?

Same thing for some of the tweets. I found a link to an Islam Awazi video or picture on a tweet and posted a reference to both the tweet and video (hosted on youtube and archive.org). The tweet can be deleted without any issue in that case.

I often double source with both a secondary source and a primary source or the website of wherever I got the link to the secondary from, its a habit of mine and the extra stuff tagged on can be deleted without any content being affected.

As for the other material sourced entirely from tweets by journalists and counter terrorist analysis organizations and liveleak, I clearly explained how they are RS in the first paragraph.Rajmaan (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability policy clearly states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". If you think otherwise then you're not understanding the policy as written. Volunteer Marek  03:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FFS, the words "about themselves" is BOLDED in the policy text. Volunteer Marek  03:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Twitter. Wrong again. Read what the policy says and stop telling me to read something you didn't. As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages.

Don't know where you got the idea, that videos and pictures showing TIP members released by TIP's media arm has nothing to do with TIP.Rajmaan (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia as long as they are not interpreted. What is the grounds for deleting them?Rajmaan (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You are using primary sources and unreliable sources to construct a narrative. Primary sources should be only used for most basic and non-controversial statements of fact.

And how are liveleak and that warjournal blog reliable?  Volunteer Marek  03:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The liveleak links are not interpretations of any kind. They simply show videos which were released by TIP, showing TIP fighters which is stamped with their media logo. Just as a video created by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International and put on youtube is a reliable source about HRW or AI, these TIP videos are the same as that. Longwarjournal is a site maintained by former military personnel and academics, and has been used by multiple prominent news organizations as a source. Blogs run by professionals fall under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. And also the tweets by the journalist Joanna Paraszczuk, who is a reputable journalist who works for RFERL and other news organizations. Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is an academic at Oxford University and a reknown counter terrorist analyst and his tweets are RS too.Rajmaan (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The liveleak links are not interpretations of any kind. - so again, self-published primary sources which you are using to conduct primary research (same goes for youtube videos).

I'm skeptical about LongWarJournal so the best course of action is to ask at WP:RSN about it. Volunteer Marek  03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of the liveleak leaks are double sourced to longwarjournal articles and news articles like the Daily Mail. Most can be deleted and the only issue lies with longwarjournal. The stand alone liveleak material is not of really any importance, just a few videos showing TIP members i Afghanistan and I am not concerned about them.Rajmaan (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rajmaan: inquired at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197#Longwarjournal. While there was no formal decision at the time, I would have interpreted that discussion as supportive of LWJ's reliability. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Deleted material (liveleak and all unnecessary links removed)

Sourced by Long War Journal, Caleb Weiss

I have consulted RSN for this issue.

most noticeably in the 2015 Jisr al-Shughur offensive. TIP (ETIM) members in Syria fight alongside the Al-Qaeda branch Al Nusrah Front since TIP is allied to Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted suicide bombings for Nusrah Front. Members of TIP have been killed in battle in Syria. TIP (ETIM) eulogized and applauded members of its organization who participated in suicide bombings and members who were killed in action in Jisr al Shughur. Members of the group helped other Jihadists enforce religious law in Idlib such as wrecking alcohol in stores and this was noted that with “support of Allah and by the strike of the fist of the Mujahideen from the Al Nusrah Front, Ahrar al Sham and Turkistan,” that they undertook these actions by a Syrian Jihadist in Jaysh al Fateh. A Jabhat Al Nusra Jihadist called Abu Mohamed Al-Ansari interviewed by VICE News after the Idlib offensive said that "The battle was good, praise be to God. The brothers from all the groups started working together and coordinating. Each faction is responsible for a side. The majority were immigrant brothers from Turkestan. They are the ones who attacked the important points." The spokesman of Jabhat Al-Nusra Abu Maria al-Qahtani claimed that Muslims were "oppressed" in "Turkestan" and that Nusra needs to "defend" them. TIP (ETIM) joined in on the Jihadist offensive in the Al-Ghab plain along with Al-Qaeda affiliated Jund al Aqsa against the Syrian army, referring to the Syrian army by the disparaging name "Nusayri". In Idlib four villages were seized by the Turkistan Islamic Party around August 2015. and the TIP said they "met with the brothers in Jund al Aqsa". The Turkistan Islamic Party and Jabhat Al-Nusra launched a joint operation which overran the Syrian military's Abu Dhuhur airbase. The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos of their Uyghur fighters at Abu Dhuhur. At Abu Dhuhur, Sheikh Muhaysini (an Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric) took pictures with Turkistan Islamic Party which was released by Islam Awazi. Syrian regime military prisoners from Abu Dhuhur were exhibited in photos released by the Turkistan Islamic Party. The Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi released photos of its fighters in Syria. The Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party and the Taliban allied Uzbek Imam Bukhari Jamaat and Al-Qaeda allied Uzbek Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad, along with Jund al Aqsa cooperated together in the Al Ghab plain to conquer multiple crucial villages, with the TIP engaging itn suicide bombings in Jisr al Shughur and iits participation in overrunning Abu Dhuhur with Jund al Aqsa and Al Nusrah.

Islam Awazi released a video showing Burqa clad women being militarily trained by the Turkistan Islamic Party with guns and RPGs.

Camps training children for Jihad are being run by the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria. Photos of the child military training camps in Syria were released by the Turkistan Islamic Party, who labelled the children as "little mujahideen".

A video of a training camp in Waziristan in Pakistan's tribal areas showing children being trained with weapons was released by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi.

Another photo released by Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children training with AK-47's and with shahada headbands at a camp in the Afpak (Afghanistan-Pakistan) region.

Sourced by journalist twitter accounts

See my section below on journalist tweets.

Islam Awazi released photos of a Turkistan Islamic Party training camp.

Images of Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party fighters in Syria were released by Islam Awazi. The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos showing a Uyghur media team with their camera and laptop in Syria.

Photos of a training camp for Uyghur children run by the Turkistan Islamic Party were released by Islam Awazi. Photos released by Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi media which showed Uyghur militants along with Uyghur children in Syria, including one child holding an AK-47, the Uyghurs cooperated with Jabhat Al-Nusra and had pledged alleigance (bay'ah) to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Sourced by Terror monitor and other twitter accounts

Pictures were released by Islam Awazi of Afghanistan based Turkistan Islamic Party training children for Jihad.

Pictures of Uyghur girls wearing Hijab and posing with guns were posted by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi.

Photos released by TIP's Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children in Idlib, Syria, with AK-47s, reading Qurans, and Burqa clad women praying. The child soldiers were also shown engaging in religious studies.

Use of journalist's twitter accounts

You are using primary sources and unreliable sources to construct a narrative. Primary sources should be only used for most basic and non-controversial statements of fact.

Are simple statements made by journalists like Joanna Paraszczuk on images not basic and non-controversial? What is controversial about a journalist saying that TIP is training kids, next to an image released by TIP of them training children?Rajmaan (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

First, the talk page is not the place to post "alternative" versions of the article. That section above should be removed.

Second, your link above is to an essay, not policy, and this essay is not even about reliable sources but about external link.

Third, again, you are using primary sources - essentially a single comment. If you got a secondary reliable source that says that TIP is training kids then we can talk. Volunteer Marek  04:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, its sourced by Long War Journal. Which has been used as a source on multiple articles- 2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack, Abdullah Said al Libi, Amirli, Yathrib, Iraq, 055 Brigade, First Battle of Tikrit, Raskamboni Movement, Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah, Afghan National Army, List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members, Ahmed Abdi Godane, Afghan National Civil Order Police, 201st Corps (Afghanistan), Nasir al-Wuhayshi, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Qari Hussain, 1st Division (Iraq), Operation Augurs of Prosperity, Sadr City, Iraqi Special Operations Forces, Mullah Mohammad Hasan , Iraqi Navy, Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Tehrik-e-Jafaria, Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle, Mukhtar Army, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Camp Speicher. If you feel so strongly that Long War Journal is unreliable I suggest you delete it from every article on this list.

Long War Journal has also been cited by Academics in books published by Columbia University Press, Georgetown University Press, University of Pennsylvania Press, Naval Institute Press United States Naval Institute, in addition to New York Times (two of which were on the newspaper's front page), Reuters, Associated Press, United Press International, Sunday Times, The Hindu, Cable News Network, the Times of India, The Australian, CTC Sentinel, Time, The Nation, Washington Times [2], and The Atlantic. Marc Thiessen in the the Washington Post. and by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Thomas E. Ricks in The Gamble.

Some news organizations have an entire category devoted to articles where they cited Long War Journal on articles about terrorist groups such as Christian Science Monitor and The Daily StarRajmaan (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Arabic news sources about Az-Zanbaqi village also say TIP is training children.Rajmaan (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move Syrian Civil War related content to Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War > China

I think content relating to the Syrian Civil War and foreign Uyghur fighters in Syria should be moved to this section, and a link should be provided on this article to the moved content.

GeneralAdmiralAladeen (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

SITE

RS source used by multiple news agencies. This will be used to supplement and back up Long War Journal sources, since both often report on the same thing.

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-releases-photos-of-fighters-camp-for-children.html

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-releases-video-on-its-participation-in-jisr-al-shughour.html

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-claims-liberating-four-areas-in-idlib.html

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-releases-video-photo-album-featuring-young-boys-in-training-camp.html

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-releases-12th-issue-of-qislamic-turkistanq-magazine.html

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-releases-video-promoting-cause-inciting-for-jihad.html

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-s-syria-division-releases-video-on-joint-operation-with-nusra-front-to-capture-abu-duhur-air-base.html

https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/tip-division-in-syria-claims-role-in-capturing-abu-duhur-air-base-provides-photos.html

http://news.siteintelgroup.com/blog/index.php/about-us/21-jihad/36-tip

Rajmaan (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a Suggestion

OK so I understand or perhaps assume that many Chinese netizens feel rather strongly about this issue. I agree with a lot of the point they often bring up, here and on every other page even remotely related to this issue. However it is kind of difficult for me, or anyone else to read the walls of text that I see on many of these pages dealing with this issue. Could we at least agree on changing that?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120927092115/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/002/2007/en/dom-ASA170022007en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/002/2007/en/dom-ASA170022007en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120809181531/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/beijing_olympics/story/0,,24124957-5014104,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/beijing_olympics/story/0,,24124957-5014104,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110120013953/http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/world/2011/jan/17/china-prosecuted-hundreds-xinjiang-unrest to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/17/china-prosecuted-hundreds-xinjiang-unrest
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140606082655/http://time.com/2836835/china-sentences-9-persons-to-death-for-xinjiang-attacks/ to http://time.com/2836835/china-sentences-9-persons-to-death-for-xinjiang-attacks
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630051822/http://www.stratfor.com:80/memberships/116428/analysis/china_evolution_etim to http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/116428/analysis/china_evolution_etim
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://kavkazcenter.
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160125022347/http://isurfpaducah.com/2015/09/19/syrian-soldiers-killed-in-massacre/ to http://isurfpaducah.com/2015/09/19/syrian-soldiers-killed-in-massacre/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925111902/http://www.awsatnews.net/?p=145269 to http://www.awsatnews.net/?p=145269
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925090231/http://alegtnews.com/index.php/%D8%B4%D8%A8%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A/88538-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82.html to http://alegtnews.com/index.php/%D8%B4%D8%A8%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A/88538-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://national.bgnnews.com/isil-recruits-chinese-with-fake-turkish-passports-from-istanbul-haberi/4968
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013090733161/world/terrorism/al-qaeda-cleric-praises-tsarnaev-brothers-as-models-for-muslim-children.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013090733161/world/terrorism/al-qaeda-cleric-praises-tsarnaev-brothers-as-models-for-muslim-children.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://national.bgnnews.com/isil-recruits-chinese-with-fake-turkish-passports-from-istanbul-haberi/4968

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018060915/http://alwassat.com/repo_ritem1/r_repo_ritem1.php?id=751 to http://alwassat.com/repo_ritem1/r_repo_ritem1.php?id=751
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018060915/http://alwassat.com/repo_ritem1/r_repo_ritem1.php?id=751 to http://alwassat.com/repo_ritem1/r_repo_ritem1.php?id=751
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925111902/http://www.awsatnews.net/?p=145269 to http://www.awsatnews.net/?p=145269
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925090231/http://alegtnews.com/index.php/%D8%B4%D8%A8%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A/88538-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82.html to http://alegtnews.com/index.php/%D8%B4%D8%A8%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A/88538-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160124142003/https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678516617546997760 to https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678516617546997760
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160124142004/https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678510478734266368 to https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678510478734266368
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160124142004/https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678509199337398272 to https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678509199337398272
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160124142005/https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678508284672909312 to https://twitter.com/turkstanIslamia/status/678508284672909312

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Tweets here for reference and links to sources. Are twitter accounts of interns working at organizations regarded as RS considered on the same level of reliability as journalists twitter accounts? Journalist accounts are allowed and so is LWJ's website itself but I'm not sure about interns of LWJ? There is detailed analysis in the tweets that don't appear in the articles.

https://twitter.com/Weissenberg7/status/773640643381985280

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kyrgyzstan-blast-china-idUSKCN11C1DK

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/770574309739864065

https://twitter.com/gulzana_imaeva/status/773748885726593024

There is also the issue of their stance against Fethullah Gulen. I feel this should be included in the TIP article itself but I'm not sure here.

http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2016/09/02/rabia-kadirden-amerikaya-yalakalik-marsi-amerika-2006/

http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2016/09/03/silahli-teror-orgutu-dunya-uygur-kurultayi-turkistan-islam-dernegi-yoneticilerini-isid-iftirasi-ile-hedef-gosteriyor/

http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2016/09/07/fetocu-silahli-teror-orgutu-hatay-gorantas-karakolunda-uygur-turklerine-zulmediyor/

http://jihadology.net/2016/09/07/new-video-message-from-%e1%b8%a5izb-al-islami-al-turkistani-in-bilad-al-sham-a-call-from-the-front-lines-of-jihad-22/ https://videopress.com/embed/qpwZ3YqZ?hd=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=0&loop=0

Is Terror Monitor's twitter considered RS? Yes or no?

https://twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/773648417964826624

Editor at Long War Journal and Fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. RS?

https://twitter.com/thomasjoscelyn/status/771821957989797889

https://twitter.com/Weissenberg7/status/774720957348999169

The verified Associated Press journalist Gerry Shih reposted Weiss's work on TIP. I think this should be taken as an endorsement that this particular work of his is a reliable source.

https://twitter.com/gerryshih/status/775280178759098368

https://justpaste. it/spka

https://twitter.com/Weissenberg7/status/775337802628202497

Rajmaan (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How do we shrink this article and removing unnecessary info

This article is really really long Does it need to be shorter?? Opions?? Sassmouth (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I intend to remove alot of references and statements such as The Turkistan Islamic Party released a new video titled "Importance of Martyrdom Operations in Our Current Time" (أهمية العمليات الإستشهادية في زمننا الحاضر) (زامانىمىزدىكى پىدائىيلىق ئەمەلىيىتىنىڭ ئەھمىيىتى) by Abdullah al-Muhaysini.[700][701][702][703][704][705]

I don't think jihadi videos are reliable sources neither are twitter accounts they just arent. The reader needs to see facts backed by reliable sources, From all major viewpoints. this article needs to be shrinked disagree with me bring it to the talk page... thanks Sassmouth (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am considering deleting most if not all of sections Western media and Human Rights watchdogs and Pan-Turkish Uyghur media before i do so i want the opinion of other editors this article is unreadable in its current state way to much citation clutter and walls of text What do you think!!! Sassmouth (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Just deleted a statement about Protests against Kazakhstan government unnecessary for this article which is about Xinjiang china Perhaps the editor who put all this stuff on here should consider starting an article called Pan-Turkish Uyghur media across asia Sassmouth (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: hello personally i think that most if not all of the stuff in pan turkish uygher media should be deleted or moved to its own article what do you think??. Sassmouth (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sassmouth: I personally find most of the article to be irrelevant or biased, most of it seems like copy and paste from news articles. The content that cites Twitter are especially not "Wikipedia" level content, and doesn't really meet standards of importance, but I know that even if it is removed by someone, there will be an edit war from others to keep it there. So even thought I agree it should be moved, I doubt it will not cause an edit war as it did before. - GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 05:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: Quite frankly this article is too much for me to clean up on my own i don't know enough about this conflict to decide what to delete and what to keep (its a very long and complex conflict) and there is way too much info on this page! I wish some one that was relatively neutral and more knowledgeable than me about this subject and the wikipedia in general would come and help if you do know someone send them my way as far as edit warring i really do not feel like doing that but ill try it if forced to Otherwise this article is pretty much garbageSassmouth (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

my suggestion is not really on how to delete unnecessary information, since I am not sure, whether someone else will just put it in again and also because I think that it is really a hard work with such a huge article. I suggest, that the first step could be dividing the article, e.g. history of Xinjiang Conflict (take a lot of stuff out of the "Timeline") and put other stuff in articles like ETIM articles (if they exist). Then it is easier to handle everything. Sebbe xy (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

just saw, that there are already dozens of articles on specific topics, so probably most of the information can be handled by pointing to those articles, e.g. 2014 Kunming attack or others. Sebbe xy (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The importance of this article to wiki project China should be upgraded to mid or high

The importance of this article to wiki project China should be upgraded to mid or high this is an ongoing Insurgency and This Very notable73.81.150.5 (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason it is not rated high is because part of this article is a garbage dump for insignificant tweets and announcements by Uyghur and foreign terrorists. Attempts to remove it result in an edit war, and as a result nobody has bothered reviewing this article. - GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

But aren't the importance rating and the quality rating two things? I believe the importance rating should about the *topic*, not the current article. How the article being long somehow impedes importance rating evades me. If anything, currently having a long article should be an indicator that this stuff is important. Ahyangyi (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Action against self-published jihadist sources

A lot of content on this page reads like a newsletter or update log rather than an encyclopedia, and is sourced mainly by jihadist magazines in the form of PDFs or reproductions on other websites, violating WP:SPS (self-published sources) and WP:PRIMARY (use of unreliable primary sources). Jihadists are by no means "experts" on themselves, and the content they produce are nothing but propaganda to lure fighters; by no means reputable or reliable. By doing weekly/monthly updates on the jihadist content they produce, this page is becoming a content dump for jihadist propaganda rather than an informative page about the conflict in Xinjiang.

Having jihadist published content in this article is the equivalent of updating Donald Trump's page every time he makes a controversial tweet or tweets a policy announcement on Twitter, then sourcing it with a link to his tweet. To avoid an unwanted edit war, I am leaving this discussion here; if you do not agree with this please reply to this thread.

– GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is atrocious. The Turkistan Islamic Party page was in a similar state until another editor went through and cleaned it up. Gazkthul (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Xinjiang conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106031937/http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/paper409 to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/paper409
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213707/http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/xinjiang.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/xinjiang.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050950/http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Jamestown_articles_-_Terrorism_in_Central_Asia_February_2013.pdf to http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Jamestown_articles_-_Terrorism_in_Central_Asia_February_2013.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151022162112/http://mouqawamahmusic.net/chinese-salafism-and-the-saudi-connection/ to http://mouqawamahmusic.net/chinese-salafism-and-the-saudi-connection/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151022162108/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/outrage-after-turkish/1970340.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/outrage-after-turkish/1970340.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925083928/http://www.ar.aynnews.com/world/62954.html to http://www.ar.aynnews.com/world/62954.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201063745/http://www.furkanhaber.com/ihbarci-ispiyoncu-cikti/ to http://www.furkanhaber.com/ihbarci-ispiyoncu-cikti/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160119103212/http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2015/11/29/china-entered-into-istanbulturkey-with-her-150-spies/ to http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2015/11/29/china-entered-into-istanbulturkey-with-her-150-spies/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128040543/http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2015/11/20/cin-istihbarati150-ajani-ile-istanbula-giris-yapti/ to http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2015/11/20/cin-istihbarati150-ajani-ile-istanbula-giris-yapti/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141117230142/http://www.wam.ae/ar/news/emirates-arab-international/1395272465559.html to http://www.wam.ae/ar/news/emirates-arab-international/1395272465559.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129034608/https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2408700&Language=en to https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2408700&Language=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160130052552/http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html to https://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161011092056/http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2016/03/16/reuters-cinin-teror-algsinda-uygurlar-potansiyel-terorist-ve-suclu/ to http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2016/03/16/reuters-cinin-teror-algsinda-uygurlar-potansiyel-terorist-ve-suclu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170408211913/http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2016/03/31/turkistan-islam-cemaati-mucahidi-sehit-muhammed-turkistaninin-hayati/ to http://www.doguturkistanbulteni.com/2016/03/31/turkistan-islam-cemaati-mucahidi-sehit-muhammed-turkistaninin-hayati/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004051818/https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/e1b8a5izb-al-islc481mc4ab-al-turkistc481nc4ab_s-turkistan-islamic-party-e2809cturkistc481n-al-islc481mc4abyyah-14e280b3.pdf to https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/e1b8a5izb-al-islc481mc4ab-al-turkistc481nc4ab_s-turkistan-islamic-party-e2809cturkistc481n-al-islc481mc4abyyah-14e280b3.pdf

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) 16:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this page hacked I am having weird issues with this page

On this page when i put my cursor over this page it turns in to a pointer and redirects me here when i click https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYntVKsbvFM is anybody else having this issue?? Sassmouth (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What happened on this page, with a full screen Youtube link.--O1lI0 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sassmouth:Please check all your own mistakes, such as reference errors.--O1lI0 (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@O1lI0: If i make a mistake i try to fix it such as i just did? listen to answer your question about the the weird page errors see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Strange_vandalism someone hacked a template please keep an eye out for anymore issues Sassmouth (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I am changing the infobox from Template:Infobox military conflict to Template:Infobox civil conflict and (in the process) re-removing the belligerents list. This is for a number of reasons, which boil down to the fact that this is a civil, not a military conflict. (Bear in mind that a "civil conflict" doesn't have to be "civil".)

A military conflict means battles, campaigns, wars, as opposed to protests, riots, and clashes with police. This is not a question of scale, but the kind of conflict involved. In the violence covered by the article, about half of deaths are from riots and responses to riots – which fall squarely in the non-military camp – and most of the rest are from police raids and terrorism.^[3] Though there are organised groups which have claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, data on terrorism is tightly controlled by the Chinese government so it remains impossible to say how many of the attacks which are not claimed by any group (though invariably attributed to the "East Turkestan Islamic Movement") are the product of organised groups and how many are individual actors.^[4][5] However, even in cases involving terrorist groups I would argue that separate attacks don't constitute a military campaign or battle in anything other than a metaphorical sense. That one, I admit, is a little ambiguous.

In short, as the conflict appears in different forms, and is usually disorganised, presenting a list of belligerent groups gives a false impression of a straightforward two-sided conflict which always involves the same well-defined organisations over the whole state timescale. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about an insurgency, the original military conflcit infobox is thus appropriate, and removal of the belligerents from the infobox is not appropriate. Terrorism and military raids are facets of insurgency and armed conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I think a few of the problems I'm having with this might be to do with the fact that both the Military and Civil conflict infoboxes are designed for specific conflicts (as it says on their pages), not overviews. In light of this I think it might be best not to have an infobox at all, and just put a map on the page along with the campaignbox and a line giving an idea of the death toll. This also helps to avoid giving a misleadingly definitive start date, when really you could put it at any time from the start of the 20th century to the nineties. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this is better without the war infobox. This is a conflict, not a war. It goes beyond just military, there are also social issues (that may receive more coverage as well). The war infobox is a problem on a number of levels. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Every armed conflict has social issues, and the military conflict infobox is used for all types of armed conflicts, including insurgencies like the Basque conflict which also had riots, civil unrest, and terrorism just like this conflict. Armed conflicts between paramilitarized criminal organizations and governments also use the military conflict infobox like the Mexican Drug War.XavierGreen (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In the article on the Basque conflict, demonstrations are occasionally mentioned as a response to violence, not as a major part of the conflict as is the case here. Both conflicts you mention also have clearly defined organised groups on each side (the ETA and Mexican Drug Cartels) – if this article were just about the TIP then there'd be a case, but it's not. There is nothing lost by removing the infobox while including it risks giving a false impression of simplicity. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no meaningful armed conflict in Xinjiang. Just some sporadic terrorist issues. The infobox creates a WP:WEIGHT problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism is a tactic used in insurgencies, insurgencies are a type of armed conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: don't re-add the infobox without getting consensus here. You have two editors against it and you are the only one that seems to want to add it and you repeatedly re-adding here [6] and here [7], bordering on edit warring. Do an RfC if you want to see if more people side with you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove it in the first place, and there is still no consensus to remove it. If you wish to have it removed, you should open the RFC as you are the one who is advocating for removing the infobox which has been on this page for literally years without anyone arguing for its removal.XavierGreen (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox

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.

---

Should this page have a military conflict infobox, a civil conflict infobox or no infobox at all? 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• No infobox. Both the military and civil conflict infoboxes specify that they are to be used for particular conflicts, while this page covers various kinds of conflict, including both terrorism and civil unrest. Much of the terrorism, though invariably attributed by China to the catch-all "ETIM", has not been claimed by any specific group. The infobox creates a false impression of simplicity, suggesting this article deals with only a straightforward war-like struggle between a well-defined terrorist organisation and the Chinese government. Nothing is gained by keeping it except a rough casualty count which can easily be merged into the lead section. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Civil conflict infobox like so ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• No infobox use civil conflict infobox per ReconditeRodent.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the Military Conflict Infobox - this is an article about an insurgency, a type of armed conflict, thus the miltitary conflict infobox is appropriate.XavierGreen (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep infobox (Summoned by bot) The infobox is where my eye first wanders to on a page like this, which is then able to quickly take in some aspects of location from a map image, and the basic outlines of the confict based on the listing of the two sides, and other material. This infobox serves the same purpose. Further, the fact that the conflict might, in fact, be a series of protracted conflicts over a long period of time, should have no bearing on whether to include the template or not. The Hundred Years' War uses the exact same template, and as it says in the first sentence of that article, it "was a series of conflicts waged from 1337 to 1453 beween... England and France, and includes six campaign boxes spanning the century of war. There's no reason why Xinjiang conflict should not also have an infobox, and plenty of reasons why it should. Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: I definitely agree with keeping the map, and naturally I acknowledge that infoboxes are usually a quick and easy way to summarise information. The problem is that the infobox fails to give an accurate impression of the varied nature of the conflict, which in many cases involves no organised groups, and is in a number of cases ethnic, rather than political in character. This rundown, for example, of "serious confrontations" since the 1980s includes just as many protests, demonstrations, riots, etc (where violence is unorganised and unplanned) as attacks and armed rebellions. At the same time, the infobox contains a list of obscure terrorists and every PRC leader since Mao, none of whom are mentioned in the article. This source makes clear that the conflict "is not simply a dispute between the Chinese Communist Party and 'Islamic fundamentalists' as is often maintained." ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  I understand what you are saying, and it could be that you are right about the inaccurate impression. But in that case, wouldn't the solution be to improve the infobox, rather than remove it? We wouldn't delete an article, simply because it had inaccurate information; either we'd remove the wrong information or we'd correct it, right? Wouldn't that be a better approach here as well? Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I've had a shot at the major things. The main problem is that these infoboxes max out at three sides but I think I may have hit upon a possible solution based on the infobox in Years of Lead (Italy). (It's a work in progress; feedback appreciated.)

• Keep Infobox The infobox is the same for historical armed conflicts and also current ones. My question about whether this conflict is ongoing is irrelevant to the infobox, so I'm fine with it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• I think this could be more like a separatist movement if we have an infobox for that, but note I believe that neither of the proposed infoboxes are even remotely suitable to be separatist related. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a page for Uyghur nationalism, so I'd save something like that for there. Bear in mind not all conflict is explicitly separatism-related – see this section on the causes of the 2009 riots, for example. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Question The references for an armed conflict are all a little bit stale. Are there current reliable sources that suggest the operational definition of an armed conflict (IE: at least 1000 combatants killed) is still operational? If fewer than 25 people have been killed two years running, it'd be considered dormant. as per Project Ploughshares. As the most recent refs in the infobox are from 2016, I am unable to say with certainty whether it's appropriate. A note: in the interest of disclosure, I was invited to participate by ReconditeRodent on the basis of my Urumqi Barnstar. I'm not particularly fond of canvassing in RfCs but this is a topic of legitimate interest to me so I thought it'd be prudent to ask questions first and disclose this rather than just jumping in with an opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing Conflict?

• On second thought I suppose my question is more whether this page describes an ongoing armed conflict or if it should be considered a recently historical armed conflict. Either way I suppose the infobox would apply. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I think you might be right. List of ongoing armed conflicts has citations for 11 deaths in 2017 and none for 2018. I've done some googling and can't find any attacks or clashes in 2018 either, though it's perfectly possible I'm just not looking in the right place. We might as well wait out the year, though that might seem pessimistic. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Housekeeping note:: I'm splitting this off from the discussion of the RfC as it's a different topicThere's certainly no rush on this. Especially considering the way American media picked up on the (somewhat dubious) accusations of ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang, it'd be wise to wait until it was clear that the armed conflict is dormant per the Ploughshares definition before changing the article to treat it as closed. But certainly we don't want to keep a dormant armed conflict listed as ongoing if it really isn't. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so it's the end of 2018 and as far as I can tell this conflict has killed 12 people in 2017 and zero in 2018 which means that it's meeting the ploughshares definition of a recent historical armed conflict rather than an ongoing one. So I'm raising the question now: Can anybody find credible evidence that people are actually dying as a result of this conflict? I mean stuff that doesn't come directly out of the ETIM or NED? Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH in the lede

The paragraph I removed from the lede was a clear example of WP:NPOV violating WP:SYNTH. In addition to the use of synthesis to create a section that attempts to state as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, the opinions of ETIM and NED, both of which were participants in the Xinjiang conflict, key statements depended on Business Insider, which is not a reliable source. Most of the vaguely reliable sources used (which are often highly biased media sources when it comes to China at the best of times) are basing their claims on statements that are ultimately sourced back to ETIM and CIA affiliated agents who presented before the UN. Contrary to more breathless media claims, there was no evidence beyond the say-so of the ETIM and the American intelligence community. This is why I blanked the paragraph. Not, as the editor responsible for this POV nightmare contended, "because it came from the BBC." Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung

Apologies for the blanket revert. The optimal thing to do when multiple editors revert your contributions is to seek consensus on the talk page, not double down and change the article even further in the same way. To me, there are serious POV and WP:WEIGHT problems with nearly all of your changes. Since the “onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”, I was hoping you could explain your thinking for the edits you think are justified. I'm also happy to provide some more detail on my exact issues with any particular edit on request. (I would have done that already were it not for the sheer volume of the changes – Thank you for understanding.) I’ve also called an RfC below for the intro. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your specific feedback. That paragraph has been made more neutral, presenting just the facts and multiple viewpoints on the conflict. However your claim that every edit contains pov is wrong: to the contrary the previous versions of the article were full of pov and many useful edits have been made to make the article more neutral overall that you just recklessly eliminated. The Timeline is quite important for understanding the history of Xinjiang and gaining context on the nature of the conflict. The Timeline only reports the facts. It is advisable that you do not abuse your reversion privileges, lest you want them stripped. Consensus has been reached with others, and from now on only edits to existing content shall be made.

First Alex, please don't forget to sign your posts (using ~~~~) as it will otherwise very quickly become difficult to track the course of discussion here. Second, while of course WP:Edit warring should be avoided in almost all cases, ReconditeRodent is correct when he points to WP:ONUS above; if content is added and its WP:Verifiability is in question, it is the responsibility of the advocate for that additional content to supply the sourcing, and the content should stay out until this has been accomplished. Now, I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "only edits to existing content shall be made", but you need to be aware that no article stays in a static state forever. I'm also not sure of the exact content you two are still in disagreement over, now that you've apparently reached a meeting of the minds on the lead, but if it is the timeline in particular, I don't see where you have achieved consensus on that above (and even if you had consensus can change, especially if it was previously based on the perspectives of a small number of editor and wider feedback is then solicited). Indeed, while I personally think there is an argument to be made for your timeline table as an efficient summary of the historical context here, you should be made aware that Wikipedia's style guidelines have a strong preference for presenting such information in prose format, and that you might consider adjusting it accordingly, because many veteran editors would view it as more of an eyesore inconsistent with our guidelines than I do.

Lastly, when it comes to good faith discussions about content, it's usually best to avoid even quasi-threats of "stripping" another editors privileges. To begin with, no editor can lose the right to revert articles--that's a basic function that all accounts have; WP:Rollback privileges can be lost, but as far as I can tell, they are not involved here. Improper reversions could in extreme cases lead to a block, but we're a far way from the level of WP:disruption where the community or an admin are likely to consider such a move, so I think it's less than helpful to lace discussion with that kind of comment, particularly where consensus building is just getting under way and you yourself are relatively new to the project and understanding of our behavioural policies. In general, there's a bit of a tone of WP:OWN in some of those comments and your apparent belief that the article is in such a state where nothing in it at present should be subject to removal, particularly as the article is on a controversial and complex subject and will always be subject to a degree of change, with removals of even large elements not something we can rule out altogether. In general, it's best to avoid that kind of accusation of abuse and likely sanction until there is clearly an established behavioural issue and not just an editorial disagreement, as making such hyperbolic statements (particularly so soon into a dispute) will often needlessly inflame discussion before it has even really began--and honestly, an editor with a combined experience of about 600 edits over two months issuing warnings about supposed 'abuse' at an editor with much more experience, in an apparent effort to protect their own vision of an article, sends up red flags that will not gain your perspective many points if RR decides to RfC further issues.

All of that cautionary/procedural stuff out of the way, can I ask you to clarify what the current source of disagreement is between the two of you? Is it in fact just the timeline? If so, perhaps ReconditeRodent can also clarify for us whether their objection to the content was just that it was superfluous (I don't think it is, personally--I find the timeline on point and useful), as their edit summary suggests, or whether they thought the format was problematic. Though of course, it may be something else entirely. Let's get into specifics, my wiki colleagues. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I realise now a few things are my fault for leaving unclear notes. When I suggested someone make a table, I was referring to the 2007–present section, which is still an unreadable list of incidents. I was thinking it and other incidents could be compiled into a table with the date, type of incident, location, death toll, confirmation of nature by non-state sources, etc. However, having tried to make one, I would no longer endorse that approach as I do not believe it would provide serious encyclopedic value – trends are more important than events, as I said. Even so, something similar might still be useful for tallying a death count (presumably allowed by WP:CALC).

As Snow suggests, I definitely prefer the prose presentation of the other information, since a clunky table (though maybe usable for History of Xinjiang?) here gives the false impression that Xinjiang, which took on its current form relatively recently in historical terms, has been unified for millennia, and inevitably overlooks the intermittent and varying kinds of rule experienced in different eras. Since the article is already very long we should also make sure not to inadvertently overemphasise pre-20th century history. (There are other problems too; the Han, Tang, and Qing dynasties, for instance, controlled Xinjiang, or parts of it, for just over a century each, and not over the entire courses of their existence as the table implies.) I am genuinely sorry for being unclear with the note, I just thought it was getting too long. As I said though, you should consider salvaging/repurposing the table as a section for History of Xinjiang.

Similarly, the reason the POV tag is on the Restrictions section is because every statement is qualified with a “but the Hui are treated better” which often comes across as a kind of excuse – a line or two about the Hui for comparison wouldn’t be out of place but since Uyhgurs are a different cultural, ethnic, and linguistic group, even if they share the same religion, and most sources on the restrictions on life in Xinjiang do not focus on the Hui, neither should we. Overall I found your changes made this problem worse, rather than better.

Besides that, though, most of Alex’s changes introduce material which seems either POV or WP:Undue to me—presumably based on his pre-existing understanding of the topic—and often leave the article out of sync with the existing sources, since no new ones are provided. A few examples:

• ”In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC.” was changed to “The PRC claims jurisdiction over Xinjiang since around 200 BC due to the Han dynasty, Tang dynasty, Qing dynasty, and other Chinese dynasties controlling the region for the past two millennia.” with no new citations.

Besides excluding one side’s interpretation, which is obviously relevant, it presents the inaccurate claim that Chinese dynasties have “controll[ed] the region for the past two millennia” as a fact (since it follows “due to”), in Wikipedia’s voice.

• ”Human Rights Watch describes a "multi-tiered system of surveillance, control, and suppression of religious activity" perpetrated by state authorities. It is estimated that over 100,000 Uyghurs are currently held in political "re-education camps". China justifies such measures as a response to the terrorist threat posed by extremist separatist groups.” becomes “Human Rights Watch describes a "multi-tiered system of surveillance, control, and suppression of religious activity" perpetrated by state authorities. Radio Free Asia, a US-backed group, has claimed that over 100,000 Uyghurs are currently held in political "re-education camps". The question is why. China justifies such measures as a response to the terrorist threat posed by extremist separatist groups. These measures were taken to increase public security and safeguard national interests such as retaining territory and protecting the Chinese, especially after the 2009 Ürümqi riots and 2014 Kunming attack.” with no new citations.

This shows many of the same issues as the proposed intro, introducing unsourced justifications, presenting those justifications as facts where they should be attributed, and leaving the section unbalanced with a clear POV. (For the record, I am for attributing the RFA’s estimate, though it’s a little out of date.)

• The following line, “These policies, in addition to long-standing cultural differences, have sometimes resulted in resentment between Uyghur and Han citizens.”, is trimmed so that government policy is not implicated as bearing any responsibility, and then inserted into a section which originally read “Although current PRC minority policy, which is based on affirmative actions, has reinforced a Uyghur ethnic identity that is distinct from the Han population, many Uyghurs reportedly feel that they are slowly being eradicated as an ethnic and cultural group." so that the whole thing reads: “Current PRC minority policy, which is based on affirmative action, has reinforced a Uyghur ethnic identity. But due to cultural differences, there have sometimes been ethnic tensions between Uyghur and Han citizens."

This further implies, through WP:Synth, that ethnic tensions are in spite of government policy, and not in any way caused by it while the source cited continues to state that “Recent government policies ... exacerbate ethnic tensions in Xinjiang” and have “increased Uighur resentment and fears of coercive cultural assimilation.”

In one way or another, nearly all of the changes I encountered had problems like these on some level. I found writing a critique for every one impractical as this appears to me to be a systemic problem, so I was thinking we could first make sure, if you don’t take offense, that you (as in Alex) are familiar with Wikipedia’s core content policies and how to implement them, and then discuss any changes you are still confident should be included. Thank you for your cooperation. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC on Intro

The consensus is that version A of the intro is preferable.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (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.

---

Which of the two proposed versions of the intro is preferable? 17:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A (original):

Factors such as [...] have contributed to tension between Uyghurs, state police and Han Chinese. This has taken the form of both frequent terrorist attacks and wider public unrest (such as the July 2009 Ürümqi riots).

In recent years, government policy has been marked by mass surveillance, increased arrests, and a system of "re-education camps", estimated to hold hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups.

B (Alexkyoung’s proposal):

Factors such as [...] have contributed to tension between Uyghurs, state police and Han Chinese. This has taken the form of both frequent terrorist attacks and wider public unrest (such as the July 2009 Ürümqi riots or 2014 Kunming attack). So in recent years, the PRC has taken measures to increase public safety and national security to prevent separatist movements and retain territorial control over Xinjiang, through measures such as mass surveillance, increased arrests, and a system of re-education camps.

• A. To me the structure of B seems to suggest that the actions of the Chinese government are a natural and justified consequence of the situation described, while A merely reports them. B also excludes an entirely relevant sense of scale, and less well reflects the focus of the cited sources, which is largely on the actions, rather than motivations, of the Chinese government. It also assumes (without a clear source) what these motivations are, which is particularly problematic given that the inner workings of China’s government are cryptic at the best of times. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Of the two proposals, A. (Summoned by bot) I agree with the concerns expressed by ReconditeRodent above: version B presents a fundamentally editorial and non-neutral description of this complex situation which virtually parrots the position of the Chinese state, including justifications for state surveillance and mass incarceration which have been largely criticized by many sources (primary and secondary) which are not themselves connected to the Chinese government. There's nothing unacceptable about including the position of the Chinese state in the article (or indeed even the lead), but it must be clearly marked as such and not presented in Wikipedia's own voice as objective fact. To this end, a well-chosen quote or two from an official government statement (fully and clearly attributed) is the only neutral way to include a statement of that perspective without the article becoming an extension of the Chinese state position, especially in the lead where additional context will be lacking to make the span of perspectives in.

The truth of the matter is that with many sources on this topic--at least as regards the kinds of reliable WP:SECONDARY sources (independent of involved parties and entities), that are meant to be the basis of all articles on this project (particularly where controversy is high)--the Chinese government actually comes in for some pretty serious criticism. Now we shouldn't parrot those positions in Wikipedia's voice any more than we should allow the article to be a fount of Chinese propaganda on the subject, but as a matter of WP:WEIGHT of the secondary sources, the criticism from rights groups, NGO's and other outside observers which have suggested that the Chinese government's activities constitute a form of extreme state oppression of an ethnic minority are deserving of at least as much expression in the lead as the official positions of the Chinese government.

So I would actually suggest that the choice between options A and B is actually a bit of a false choice and that maybe the lead needs more substantial reworking, with something along the lines of "The Chinese government maintains [statement of position], saying that '[fully attributed quote on that position]'" and then "However, critics of the government crackdown have claimed that [summary of criticisms of the crackdown], with [select prominent critic] stating that '[full attributed quote from a more critical perspective]'. Or something along those lines. However, if the choice is between A and B, I think that clearly A should prevail, as B is simply non-neutral, non-objective, and would be far too deferential to the position of the Chinese state in a way that endorses it through Wikipedia's voice, in a manner clearly out of sync with our policies on weight and neutrality. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, having now taken a look at the version of the lead live as of now, I would say that it does a reasonable enough job of addressing the concerns I emphasize above as strikes a decent balance of the perspectives. I actually think there is room in the lead to flesh out both of the competing narratives, but there is something to be said for a concise lead as well. As an RfC respondent not previously involved on this article, my impression is that the current version is sufficiently neutral and descriptive, if both parties previously debating the point are happy with it, as they seem to be. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I very much agree with your analysis, although I do have issues with Alex's second proposal as well (let's call it version C). Namely, it inaccurately states that the actions are claimed by the Chinese government (in order to lead with their perspective, as I see it) when they were largely uncovered by journalists and human rights groups first, with some being initially denied by the Chinese government and only acknowledged or explained later. It also writes off criticism from the UN and human rights groups as “some international onlookers and US media outlets” and lastly it continues to assume the motivations of the Chinese government with no references. I am happy to include the Chinese government’s responses to these findings, as was the case in an earlier draft (version D, which starts like version A):

In recent years, [...] and members of other Muslim minority groups. This has led to criticism from the UN, the United States, and human rights groups. China has rejected these criticisms, asserting that the camps are a humane counterterrorism measure intended for vocational training, rather than political re-education.

This was criticised for WP:Recentism so I moved it to the body of the article. However, I would support moving it back if there's a consensus. Admittedly it only covers the camps as they're a particular focus of journalistic coverage, but I very am happy to incorporate the Chinese government's responses to other issues elsewhere, and in the intro as well if they don't overwhelm it. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• A - The current version is much more neutral and relates the events from an "outsider" perspective, while the second one reads more like a justification used by the Chinese authorities for the recent crackdowns. The sense of scale ("hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups") is also missing from the second option and that is an important omission, as the arrest of a handful of individuals would be one thing (and perhaps not even worthy of mention), whereas when we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people, the discussion changes significantly. I agree with the above posters that this doesn't mean the position of the Chinese government shouldn't be included in the article, but it should be included in the main body of the article, rather than in the lead and marked accordingly. Lastly, and this is probably a minor point in comparison, the second option is also lacking in writing quality: "So in recent years, the PRC has taken measures" strikes me as an awkward and inelegant way of starting a sentence. This is probably because the author tried to make it clear that the government's measures were taken as a direct consequence to what it perceives as threats. PraiseVivec (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• A for the very good reasons given above. Jzsj (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• A as suggested by PraiseVivec. Barca (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• A definitely. Much more neutral, also per PraiseVivec. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• AI have more support for the section A. It cannot be said that it is to maintain control over Xinjiang's territory, because Xinjiang is originally part of China.--Zhangpeiyao (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• A Per WP:NPOV. If someone wants to relate the Chinese government policies to the violence as a 'cause and effect' thing, they should do so in a neutral tone.DemPon (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• A Question though, is "and members of other Muslim minority groups." appropriate? It seems we are saying Uyghurs is a Muslim group, and binding ethnicity to religion.

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restrictions

The reason I originally added the tag is because every statement is qualified with a “but the Hui are treated better” which usually seems like a kind of excuse. The Uyhgurs and the Hui are different culturally, ethnically, and linguistically, even if they practice the same religion. Since most sources on the restrictions on life in Xinjiang do not focus on the Hui, neither should we, although a line or two for comparison wouldn’t be out of place.

That said, I now think it would probably be best to distribute the information worth keeping in this section across the timeline, as much of it is historical, and it would help readers better understand the specific historical context of both the measures described, and the developments in the timeline. I'm planning to do this but myself in case I manage not to I thought I'd leave this section here to make my intentions clear. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggest link clicking before controversial deletions

As evident here [8] there are actually reliable sources supporting Grey Wolves activity in Xinjiang. If you're particularly concerned about a ref next to every entry in the infobox, please at least do minimal research to see if the refs already exist at the destination pages rather than just deleting. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently contradictory statements

In Xinjiang conflict § 20th century there are two statements that should be merged:

In 1962, over 60,000 Uyghurs fled China to the USSR as a result of the Great Leap Forward.

After the Sino-Soviet split in 1962, over 60,000 Uyghurs and Kazakhs defected from Xinjiang to the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, in response to Soviet propaganda which promised Xinjiang independence. Uyghur exiles later threatened China with rumors of a Uyghur "liberation army" in the thousands that were supposedly recruited from Sovietized emigres.

They are redundant and apparently contradictory. --MarioGom (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for pointing it out. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 03:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Background summary for Xinjiang re-education camps

The Xinjiang re-education camps lacks a summary of the Xinjiang conflict for its history section. Editors of this article may be able to help there by providing a summarized version. --MarioGom (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Uighurs are not the aboriginals of Xinjiang

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Uighurs are not the aboriginals of the region. Indeed, the present day Uighurs now speak a Turkic language, not a language of their genetic ancestors. Even the people of Turkey now speak a Turkic language, and not the Indo-European Hittite language of their ancestors. The origin of the Turkic language is from Mongoloid peoples. The ancestors of the present day Uighurs were enslaved and ruled by Mongoloid peoples, and simply changed their native language to the language of their Mongoloid masters. The language situation of African-Americans is in exact parallel to this. African-Americans now speak English, an Anglo-Saxon language, and do not speak any African languages. African-Americans cannot claim to be racially Anglo-Saxon or European just because they now only speak English and no African language. Neither could the Uighurs claim that they are central or east Asians because they now only use the language of Mongoloids. If the Uighurs really want to claim a homeland, they should look a bit further west in the Caucasus. 86.137.73.187 (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Further reading

Further reading section is way too large. Please cut it to something more reasonable, I would say 2 or 3 books would be fine. WP:NOTDIR applies to this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

about the article

there is not something like Xinjiang coflict the confilict arise between nations not between a nation and a besieged minority . Further some inclination in this article vindicate the persecution of Ughurs

No longer an active conflict

No major "conflict" activity have been reported since roughly 2018, and the conflict is primarily marked by the concentration camps and labor camps. Frozen conflict seems more appropriate of a status than "active", since the camps don't seem to count as "armed conflict".ADifferentMan (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This perhaps should be stated in the infobox then, with an end date of 2017 or 2018. Any suggestions or counters? 2601:85:C102:1220:514F:FFB:281F:1737 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide has an RFC

Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ten quazillion dead. 2601:85:C100:46C0:D53F:6442:C582:E60E (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

End Date

Is there any "conflict" going on anymore? I haven't seen any news of clashes or operations taking place in Xinjiang since 2018, so roughly 3 years have passed with no fighting (barring of course the arrest campaign of the government). Shouldn't there be an end date of 2018 or something? Any thoughts? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

1931

The lead claims "Though the conflict's origins trace back to 1931". This date is not explained in the article. If this is not done, this claim needs to be removed, although infobox should have some date. I am only guessing that in 1931 China occupied this region? If not, what happened that year? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

1930 is the correct year. "The early Rebellions in 1930 were highly influenced by ‘Uyghur enlightenment’ and drew their legitimacy from religious repression".[9] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Birthrate

The section marked 'Aftermath' gives the impression that the Uighar birthrate has fallen below the Chinese birthrate in general. This is misleading. The Uighar birthrate was previously very high, and simply appears to have moved downwards to match the typical Chinese birthrate. The data is quite clear. See:

https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-weekend-reads-china-health-269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 Aug 2021 (UTC)

Reverted changes

I've reverted some significant changes to this article, including changing the page title. Made by MarvelousPeach, I don't think any of these changes had concensus. They also removed referenced material, including inu-se reference deinitions, and left the article with referencing errors. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It was quite obvious there isn't a war on-going and the usage was pure fiction at best, not sure why you feel it's okay to just revert without any valid logic or argument. MarvelousPeach (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted to the status quo and started a conversation to build consensus. You can see on this page that concuss was previously reached to choose the name of the article before you changed it. I can't find the word "war" in the article, aside from "war on terror". -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict in this template refer to armed conflict. In what way does this look anything other than pure fiction to you? MarvelousPeach (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)