Jump to content

Talk:Xinjiang conflict/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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.[1][2][a]

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.[1][2][a]

  • A. To me the structure of B seems to suggest that the actions of the Chinese government are a natural and justified consequence of the situation described, while A merely reports them. B also excludes an entirely relevant sense of scale, and less well reflects the focus of the cited sources, which is largely on the actions, rather than motivations, of the Chinese government. It also assumes (without a clear source) what these motivations are, which is particularly problematic given that the inner workings of China’s government are cryptic at the best of times. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 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,[3][4] the United States,[5] and human rights groups.[6][7] China has rejected these criticisms, asserting that the camps are a humane counterterrorism measure intended for vocational training, rather than political re-education.[8][9][10]

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

  1. ^ a b "'Eradicating Ideological Viruses': China's Campaign of Repression Against Xinjiang's Muslims". Human Rights Watch. 9 September 2018. Archived from the original on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 3 January 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b Further independent reports: Cite error: The named reference "OtherReports" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ "U.N. calls on China to free Uighurs from alleged re-education camps". Reuters. 31 August 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2019.
  4. ^ "Concluding observations on the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China (including Hong Kong, China and Macao, China)" (PDF). Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 30 August 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2019.
  5. ^ "Congressional-Executive Commission on China Annual Report 2018" (PDF). Congressional-Executive Commission on China. October 10, 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2019.
  6. ^ "China: Free Xinjiang 'Political Education' Detainees". Human Rights Watch. 10 September 2017. Retrieved 3 January 2019.
  7. ^ "China: Families of up to one million detained in mass "re-education" drive demand answers". Amnesty International. Retrieved 4 January 2019.
  8. ^ Buckley, Chris (16 October 2018). "China Breaks Silence on Muslim Detention Camps, Calling Them 'Humane'". The New York Times.
  9. ^ Kuo, Lily (6 November 2018). "China says UN criticism of human rights record is 'politically driven'". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 January 2019.
  10. ^ Kuo, Lily (10 October 2018). "China 'legalises' internment camps for million Uighurs". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 January 2019.
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.

As evident here [1] 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)

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)

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.[1]

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.[2]

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

  1. ^ Guerif, Valentine. "Making States, Displacing Peoples: A Comparative Perspective of Xinjiang and Tibet in the People's Republic of China" (PDF). Refugee Studies Centre. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2017. Retrieved 12 September 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Bovingdon 2010, pp. 141–142.

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)

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)

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".[2] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:21, 22 May 2021 (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)

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)

VOA

It's patently absurd to treat VOA as a reliable source for China. It's literally a US propaganda broadcaster against China. I think, in light of the recent deprecation of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the United States Government that it's far past time we stop treating these obvious propaganda vehicles as if they were RSes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't try to push your personal POV into the article against consensus. If you want to have a broader discussion RSN is thataways... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is too eager to restart the discussion for VoA, but Voice of America, like all sources, should be analyzed of its own merits, regardless of the U.S. Agency for Global Media's reliability. Believe me, there are some Wiki policies that near boil my blood, but consensus won't change without solid reasoning behind it, and we have to operate under the current consensus in the meantime. AnandaBliss (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xinjiang_conflict/Archive_3&oldid=1259548294"