![]() | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
>> China media says clash in Xinjiang kills 16 ( Lihaas ( talk) 10:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)).
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)
East Turkestan People's Party
United Revolutionary Front of East Turkestan
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
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
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://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)
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)
I have consulted RSN for this issue.
most noticeably in the 2015 Jisr al-Shughur offensive. [14] [15] [16] [17] TIP (ETIM) members in Syria fight alongside the Al-Qaeda branch Al Nusrah Front since TIP is allied to Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted suicide bombings for Nusrah Front. [18] Members of TIP have been killed in battle in Syria. [19] TIP (ETIM) eulogized and applauded members of its organization who participated in suicide bombings and members who were killed in action in Jisr al Shughur. [20] Members of the group helped other Jihadists enforce religious law in Idlib such as wrecking alcohol in stores and this was noted that with “support of Allah and by the strike of the fist of the Mujahideen from the Al Nusrah Front, Ahrar al Sham and Turkistan,” that they undertook these actions by a Syrian Jihadist in Jaysh al Fateh. [21] A Jabhat Al Nusra Jihadist called Abu Mohamed Al-Ansari interviewed by VICE News after the Idlib offensive said that "The battle was good, praise be to God. The brothers from all the groups started working together and coordinating. Each faction is responsible for a side. The majority were immigrant brothers from Turkestan. They are the ones who attacked the important points." [22] The spokesman of Jabhat Al-Nusra Abu Maria al-Qahtani claimed that Muslims were "oppressed" in "Turkestan" and that Nusra needs to "defend" them. [23] TIP (ETIM) joined in on the Jihadist offensive in the Al-Ghab plain along with Al-Qaeda affiliated Jund al Aqsa against the Syrian army, referring to the Syrian army by the disparaging name " Nusayri". [24] In Idlib four villages were seized by the Turkistan Islamic Party around August 2015. [25] and the TIP said they "met with the brothers in Jund al Aqsa". [26] The Turkistan Islamic Party and Jabhat Al-Nusra launched a joint operation which overran the Syrian military's Abu Dhuhur airbase. [27] [28] The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos of their Uyghur fighters at Abu Dhuhur. At Abu Dhuhur, Sheikh Muhaysini (an Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric) took pictures with Turkistan Islamic Party which was released by Islam Awazi. [29] Syrian regime military prisoners from Abu Dhuhur were exhibited in photos released by the Turkistan Islamic Party. [30] The Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi released photos of its fighters in Syria. The Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party and the Taliban allied Uzbek Imam Bukhari Jamaat and Al-Qaeda allied Uzbek Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad, along with Jund al Aqsa cooperated together in the Al Ghab plain to conquer multiple crucial villages, with the TIP engaging itn suicide bombings in Jisr al Shughur and iits participation in overrunning Abu Dhuhur with Jund al Aqsa and Al Nusrah. [31]
Islam Awazi released a video showing Burqa clad women being militarily trained by the Turkistan Islamic Party with guns and RPGs. [32] [33] [34] [35]
Camps training children for Jihad are being run by the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria. [36] Photos of the child military training camps in Syria were released by the Turkistan Islamic Party, who labelled the children as "little mujahideen". [37] [38]
A video of a training camp in Waziristan in Pakistan's tribal areas showing children being trained with weapons was released by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi. [39]
Another photo released by Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children training with AK-47's and with shahada headbands at a camp in the Afpak (Afghanistan-Pakistan) region. [40]
See my section below on journalist tweets.
Islam Awazi released photos of a Turkistan Islamic Party training camp. [41]
Images of Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party fighters in Syria were released by Islam Awazi. [42] The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos showing a Uyghur media team with their camera and laptop in Syria. [43]
Photos of a training camp for Uyghur children run by the Turkistan Islamic Party were released by Islam Awazi. [44] [45] Photos released by Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi media which showed Uyghur militants along with Uyghur children in Syria, including one child holding an AK-47, the Uyghurs cooperated with Jabhat Al-Nusra and had pledged alleigance (bay'ah) to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. [46]
Pictures were released by Islam Awazi of Afghanistan based Turkistan Islamic Party training children for Jihad. [47]
Pictures of Uyghur girls wearing Hijab and posing with guns were posted by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi. [48] [49] [50]
Photos released by TIP's Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children in Idlib, Syria, with AK-47s, reading Qurans, and Burqa clad women praying. [51] The child soldiers were also shown engaging in religious studies. [52]
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
The 'Hero' of the War on Terror
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
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)
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.
http://news.siteintelgroup.com/blog/index.php/about-us/21-jihad/36-tip
Rajmaan ( talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
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?
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
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://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)
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 garbage Sassmouth ( talk) 03:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The importance of this article to wiki project China should be upgraded to mid or high this is an ongoing Insurgency and This Very notable 73.81.150.5 ( talk) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ah, I realise now a few things are my fault for leaving unclear notes. When I suggested someone make a table, I was referring to the 2007–present section, which is still an unreadable list of incidents. I was thinking it and other incidents could be compiled into a table with the date, type of incident, location, death toll, confirmation of nature by non-state sources, etc. However, having tried to make one, I would no longer endorse that approach as I do not believe it would provide serious encyclopedic value – trends are more important than events, as I said. Even so, something similar might still be useful for tallying a death count (presumably allowed by WP:CALC).
As Snow suggests, I definitely prefer the prose presentation of the other information, since a clunky table (though maybe usable for History of Xinjiang?) here gives the false impression that Xinjiang, which took on its current form relatively recently in historical terms, has been unified for millennia, and inevitably overlooks the intermittent and varying kinds of rule experienced in different eras. Since the article is already very long we should also make sure not to inadvertently overemphasise pre-20th century history. (There are other problems too; the Han, Tang, and Qing dynasties, for instance, controlled Xinjiang, or parts of it, for just over a century each, and not over the entire courses of their existence as the table implies. [1]) I am genuinely sorry for being unclear with the note, I just thought it was getting too long. As I said though, you should consider salvaging/repurposing the table as a section for History of Xinjiang.
Similarly, the reason the POV tag is on the Restrictions section is because every statement is qualified with a “but the Hui are treated better” which often comes across as a kind of excuse – a line or two about the Hui for comparison wouldn’t be out of place but since Uyhgurs are a different cultural, ethnic, and linguistic group, even if they share the same religion, and most sources on the restrictions on life in Xinjiang do not focus on the Hui, neither should we. Overall I found your changes made this problem worse, rather than better.
Besides that, though, most of Alex’s changes introduce material which seems either POV or WP:Undue to me—presumably based on his pre-existing understanding of the topic—and often leave the article out of sync with the existing sources, since no new ones are provided. A few examples:
In 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
HRW
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).auto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).QZPassport
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[Uyghurs] live in cohesive communities largely separated from Han Chinese, practice major world religions, have their own written scripts, and have supporters outside of China. Relations between these minorities and Han Chinese have been strained for centuries.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The consensus is that version A of the intro is preferable.
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]
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]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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).
![]() | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
>> China media says clash in Xinjiang kills 16 ( Lihaas ( talk) 10:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)).
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)
East Turkestan People's Party
United Revolutionary Front of East Turkestan
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
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
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://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)
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)
I have consulted RSN for this issue.
most noticeably in the 2015 Jisr al-Shughur offensive. [14] [15] [16] [17] TIP (ETIM) members in Syria fight alongside the Al-Qaeda branch Al Nusrah Front since TIP is allied to Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted suicide bombings for Nusrah Front. [18] Members of TIP have been killed in battle in Syria. [19] TIP (ETIM) eulogized and applauded members of its organization who participated in suicide bombings and members who were killed in action in Jisr al Shughur. [20] Members of the group helped other Jihadists enforce religious law in Idlib such as wrecking alcohol in stores and this was noted that with “support of Allah and by the strike of the fist of the Mujahideen from the Al Nusrah Front, Ahrar al Sham and Turkistan,” that they undertook these actions by a Syrian Jihadist in Jaysh al Fateh. [21] A Jabhat Al Nusra Jihadist called Abu Mohamed Al-Ansari interviewed by VICE News after the Idlib offensive said that "The battle was good, praise be to God. The brothers from all the groups started working together and coordinating. Each faction is responsible for a side. The majority were immigrant brothers from Turkestan. They are the ones who attacked the important points." [22] The spokesman of Jabhat Al-Nusra Abu Maria al-Qahtani claimed that Muslims were "oppressed" in "Turkestan" and that Nusra needs to "defend" them. [23] TIP (ETIM) joined in on the Jihadist offensive in the Al-Ghab plain along with Al-Qaeda affiliated Jund al Aqsa against the Syrian army, referring to the Syrian army by the disparaging name " Nusayri". [24] In Idlib four villages were seized by the Turkistan Islamic Party around August 2015. [25] and the TIP said they "met with the brothers in Jund al Aqsa". [26] The Turkistan Islamic Party and Jabhat Al-Nusra launched a joint operation which overran the Syrian military's Abu Dhuhur airbase. [27] [28] The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos of their Uyghur fighters at Abu Dhuhur. At Abu Dhuhur, Sheikh Muhaysini (an Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric) took pictures with Turkistan Islamic Party which was released by Islam Awazi. [29] Syrian regime military prisoners from Abu Dhuhur were exhibited in photos released by the Turkistan Islamic Party. [30] The Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi released photos of its fighters in Syria. The Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party and the Taliban allied Uzbek Imam Bukhari Jamaat and Al-Qaeda allied Uzbek Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad, along with Jund al Aqsa cooperated together in the Al Ghab plain to conquer multiple crucial villages, with the TIP engaging itn suicide bombings in Jisr al Shughur and iits participation in overrunning Abu Dhuhur with Jund al Aqsa and Al Nusrah. [31]
Islam Awazi released a video showing Burqa clad women being militarily trained by the Turkistan Islamic Party with guns and RPGs. [32] [33] [34] [35]
Camps training children for Jihad are being run by the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria. [36] Photos of the child military training camps in Syria were released by the Turkistan Islamic Party, who labelled the children as "little mujahideen". [37] [38]
A video of a training camp in Waziristan in Pakistan's tribal areas showing children being trained with weapons was released by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi. [39]
Another photo released by Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children training with AK-47's and with shahada headbands at a camp in the Afpak (Afghanistan-Pakistan) region. [40]
See my section below on journalist tweets.
Islam Awazi released photos of a Turkistan Islamic Party training camp. [41]
Images of Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party fighters in Syria were released by Islam Awazi. [42] The Turkistan Islamic Party released photos showing a Uyghur media team with their camera and laptop in Syria. [43]
Photos of a training camp for Uyghur children run by the Turkistan Islamic Party were released by Islam Awazi. [44] [45] Photos released by Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi media which showed Uyghur militants along with Uyghur children in Syria, including one child holding an AK-47, the Uyghurs cooperated with Jabhat Al-Nusra and had pledged alleigance (bay'ah) to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. [46]
Pictures were released by Islam Awazi of Afghanistan based Turkistan Islamic Party training children for Jihad. [47]
Pictures of Uyghur girls wearing Hijab and posing with guns were posted by the Turkistan Islamic Party's Islam Awazi. [48] [49] [50]
Photos released by TIP's Islam Awazi showed Uyghur children in Idlib, Syria, with AK-47s, reading Qurans, and Burqa clad women praying. [51] The child soldiers were also shown engaging in religious studies. [52]
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
The 'Hero' of the War on Terror
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
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)
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.
http://news.siteintelgroup.com/blog/index.php/about-us/21-jihad/36-tip
Rajmaan ( talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
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?
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
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://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)
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 garbage Sassmouth ( talk) 03:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The importance of this article to wiki project China should be upgraded to mid or high this is an ongoing Insurgency and This Very notable 73.81.150.5 ( talk) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ah, I realise now a few things are my fault for leaving unclear notes. When I suggested someone make a table, I was referring to the 2007–present section, which is still an unreadable list of incidents. I was thinking it and other incidents could be compiled into a table with the date, type of incident, location, death toll, confirmation of nature by non-state sources, etc. However, having tried to make one, I would no longer endorse that approach as I do not believe it would provide serious encyclopedic value – trends are more important than events, as I said. Even so, something similar might still be useful for tallying a death count (presumably allowed by WP:CALC).
As Snow suggests, I definitely prefer the prose presentation of the other information, since a clunky table (though maybe usable for History of Xinjiang?) here gives the false impression that Xinjiang, which took on its current form relatively recently in historical terms, has been unified for millennia, and inevitably overlooks the intermittent and varying kinds of rule experienced in different eras. Since the article is already very long we should also make sure not to inadvertently overemphasise pre-20th century history. (There are other problems too; the Han, Tang, and Qing dynasties, for instance, controlled Xinjiang, or parts of it, for just over a century each, and not over the entire courses of their existence as the table implies. [1]) I am genuinely sorry for being unclear with the note, I just thought it was getting too long. As I said though, you should consider salvaging/repurposing the table as a section for History of Xinjiang.
Similarly, the reason the POV tag is on the Restrictions section is because every statement is qualified with a “but the Hui are treated better” which often comes across as a kind of excuse – a line or two about the Hui for comparison wouldn’t be out of place but since Uyhgurs are a different cultural, ethnic, and linguistic group, even if they share the same religion, and most sources on the restrictions on life in Xinjiang do not focus on the Hui, neither should we. Overall I found your changes made this problem worse, rather than better.
Besides that, though, most of Alex’s changes introduce material which seems either POV or WP:Undue to me—presumably based on his pre-existing understanding of the topic—and often leave the article out of sync with the existing sources, since no new ones are provided. A few examples:
In 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
HRW
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).auto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).QZPassport
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[Uyghurs] live in cohesive communities largely separated from Han Chinese, practice major world religions, have their own written scripts, and have supporters outside of China. Relations between these minorities and Han Chinese have been strained for centuries.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The consensus is that version A of the intro is preferable.
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]
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]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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).