Jump to content

Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High) (Rater)
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPCHINA|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject China|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Human Rights|class=FA|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
}}
}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1=GAN
|action1date=03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
|action1date=03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Line 30: Line 30:


| topic = history
| topic = history
| itndate = 6 July 2009
| itnlink = Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/July
|currentstatus=FA
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=July 5, 2010
|maindate=July 5, 2010
|itn1date=6 July 2009|itn1link=Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/July
|otd1date=2011-07-05|otd1oldid=437940182
|otd2date=2013-07-05|otd2oldid=562794580
|otd3date=2015-07-05|otd3oldid=670062073
|otd4date=2019-07-05|otd4oldid=904945626
|otd5date=2023-07-05|otd5oldid=1163070468
}}
}}
{{/FAQ}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{British English}}
{{British English}}

{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-07-05|oldid1=437940182|date2=2013-07-05|oldid2=562794580}}
{{archive box|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|auto=yes}}
{{archive box|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=100|auto=yes}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 49: Line 53:
}}
}}


== History of urumqi ==
== External links modified ==
{{archivetop|Yes, understood. Rejected. Come back when you have something new to say. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 02:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)}}
Urumchi in xinjiang originated as a chinese style city with mostly han and hui residents. The source explicitly notes that many westerners have the misconception that the city was oiriginally uyghur and was sinicized by migration, i think noting this misconception is important since it was mentiones in an authoratative source,

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

[[User:Purblio|Purblio]] ([[User talk:Purblio|talk]]) 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:I concur with this view. --[[User:Christian Lassure|Christian Lassure]] ([[User talk:Christian Lassure|talk]]) 16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
::What is the point of this fact with regards to the riot? That the protest against power abuse is wrong? Furthermore, the grievance in the background section is about ethic issues in Xinjiang, not Urumqi, and a Han created city served as regional capital is at the heart of the migrant problem. Take it up to the [[Urumqi]] or [[Xinjiang]] article if you want, but discuss history here serves no purpose other than mud sling. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Since the page begins with a section entitled "Background", I see no nothing amiss in adding a couple of sentences about Urumqui's origins. And you should refrain from calling other contributors "mud slingers". --[[User:Christian Lassure|Christian Lassure]] ([[User talk:Christian Lassure|talk]]) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
::::By your logic, then I would also see nothing amiss to write a complete history of how human beings evolved from Africa and their difficult journey of migration into Central Asia (look ma, it's the [[Amazing Race]] without wheels), or the fact that [[Wang Zhen]] murdered a couple thousands of [[Uyghur]]s as Xinjiang's governor in the 1950s (I kill you as revenge for you kill me as revenge for I kill you, blah, blah, blah), despite the fact that no commentators noted those things as directly related to the riot...before putting words in people's mouth and making incredible leap of logic, please consider what is the definition of off topic. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 15:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
::::We've had that discussion before. This article is about the riots, and the "Background" explains the roots of the conflict. It clearly says one side believes this, the other believes that, and that is the background. This isn't the place to make any sort of argument as to who is "right". [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Both Uyghurs and Han are immigrants to [[Dzungharia]] in northern Xinjiang (or [[Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture|Ili]]). The natives of the region were the Mongol [[Dzungar people]] who ruled the [[Zunghar Khanate]]. The Qing dynasty defeated the Dzunghars in the [[Ten Great Campaigns]], and settled Han, Hui, Manchus, Xibe, and Taranchis (Uyghurs) into Dzungharia.[http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 By James A. Millward page 77][http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q&f=false Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang By James A. Millward page 93][http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang By James A. Millward page 118][http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA352#v=onepage&q&f=false China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia By Peter C Perdue page 352][http://books.google.com/books?id=5p_rjMLgj_8C&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false State Capitalism, Contentious Politics and Large-Scale Social Change page 188] Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History at Georgetown University, James A. Millward wrote that foreigners often mistakenly think that Urumqi was originally a Uyghur city and that the Chinese destroyed its Uyghur character and culture, however, Urumqi was founded as a Chinese city by Han and [[Hui people|Hui]] (Tungans), and it is the Uyghurs who are new to the city.[http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 By James A. Millward page 133] [http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 By James A. Millward page 134]


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

[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
:Wonderful. How does this address the point made above? [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 23:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Again and again...The problem isn't creditability, the '''problem is how does this related to the riot'''? The riot started because there is no 8 feet tall physical barrier between Han and Uyghur? Why is it people keeps on digging histories back to the dawn of human kind for no apparent reasons? And who the hell freaking care whose land is it anyway? [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 23:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
::: I do make one small change to the background hyperlink from [[Xinjiang]] to [[History of Xinjiang]], so that people don't mistake this article as a THE article for [[History of Xinjiang]]. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 23:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

::::These riots happen in an area with alot of han and uyghur living together, in addition that area happens to be Dzhungharia, not a uyghur center like Kashgar. The information provides background on how the uyghurs and han ended up there. I can understand if an article on a riot in Khotan and Kashgar doesn't mention that uyghurs are immigrants to Dzungharia, since it has nothing to do with that. Real issues, like the demolishment of uyghur buildings in kashgar and grievances on development in southern Xinjiang can be written about in their respective articles. Urumqi is in Dzhungaria, and they came to both the city and the region as immigrants. This is why the information is relevant.

::::The article as it reads right now sounds like the evil Chinese invaded xinjiang, that the entire xinjiang province is uyghur native land and that millions of chinese and swamping them in their own homeland:

::::In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC.[24] According to PRC policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]

::::the sources I provided indicate the history of uyghurs in the region, that they are immigrants along with the Han and it is the Dzhunghar mongols who are indigenous, not uyghurs.

::::and Jim101, you want to talk about Wang Zhen murdering Uyghurs in the 1950s? [http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false What about the uyghurs murdering several thousand han with soviet support in the 1940s?] what about [[Isa Yusuf Alptekin]] supporting [http://books.google.com/books?id=SK7Jdfnf9RIC&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q&f=false the murder of children for "revenge"?] and speaking of that, the Soviet Stalin backed [[Second East Turkestan Republic]] should be mentioned in the background as well. It was a major event that happened in the area and is very relevant. [[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::No. None of that is relevant to the immediate background of the article's topic. We've been over this many times. Refer to the archives. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::I could not find anyone bringing up the topic of how uyghurs came to live in Dzhungharia in the archives. Show me the relevant thread.

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

In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC.[24] According to PRC policy, [b]Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han,[/b] and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]
</blockquote>

:::::::None of the highlighted is any more relevant to the background than what I added to the article. After all, this article is about the riots, not whether the PRC considers uyghurs indigenous or the percentage of han to uyghur.

:::::''The article as it reads right now '''sounds''' like the evil Chinese invaded Xinjiang.'' That is your assumption, not my assumption. It seems to me your are want to [[Wikipedia:Advocacy|right great wrongs]] on any article related to Xinjiang history about how Xinjiang is Han land, even through this article is '''NOT''', I repeat, '''NOT''' a discussion about Xinjiang history, or international border dispute, or how human beings crawled out of cave in Africa and dragged their butt into Asia.
:::::As for Wang Zhang, the counter question for you is why did you decide to highlight the fact the Urumuqi is a Han city, while trying to discredit Wang Zhang's role in Xinjiang's history (even through I have no interest in such history talk)? A little something called selection bias maybe? [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::Thus the black pot calls the white kettle black. Who is advocating or trying to right wrongs? Who said, [b]"That the protest against power abuse is wrong? Furthermore, the grievance in the background section is about ethic issues in Xinjiang, not Urumqi, and a Han created city served as regional capital is at the heart of the migrant problem."[/b]. Where did I say Xinjiang is han land? Did i not say that the Dzhunghar mongols were the natives to Dzhungharia? [[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Did Ugyhur migration into Dzhungharia ever cited as cause for the riot? Show me a source specifically said "that the ethnic tension under PRC rule of Xinjiang is caused by Uyghurs migrated into Dzhungharia few hundrend years ago". Did "the protest against power abuse" ever cited as a caused for the riot? Citation 46. Is "Han migration" into Xinjiang a serious ethic problem after 1949? Citation 36. What does that tell us? At best [[WP:IINFO]] and at worse [[WP:SYN]]. Furthermore, since you are so sure you are right, you still didn't answer my question, why do you want to publicize the history of Han settlement of Urumqi, but not the history of PRC administration of Xinjiang? Aren't both part of History of Xinjiang? [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
*Endorse this close. I seem to recall that we've been through all this before. In theory we could go back ''ad infinitum'' with a catalogue of who started it (methinks chicken-and-egg). The article already deals with the immediate causes well enough not to need to go back to the [[WP:NPOV|POV minefield]] from the 3rd century. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff">&nbsp;Ohconfucius&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

::Note for future reference that this closure was an act of abuse and contrary to wikipedia rules because [[User:Seb az86556]] was a participant in the discussion and took a side, as an editor informed me today with this -note the top of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Archivetop archivetop template][[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

:::I don't really understand this thing about closing a discussion. If people want to keep talking about, they can still make comments, right? Not that anybody seems very interested in doing so for the last year or so. &ndash; [[User:Greg Pandatshang|Greg Pandatshang]] ([[User talk:Greg Pandatshang|talk]]) 20:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::Some of the earlier mudslinging over "who was there first" revolved around the Han dynasty rule over Tarim basin (southern Xinjiang) over 2,000 years ago. My edits are all related to the history of Xinjiang's demographics during the Qing dynasty- how is that more relevant? - because the PRC's rule, administration, and justification for being in Xinjiang is that it was legally inherited from the Qing via the Republic of China, when the Qing signed over all its territories to the ROC, and subsequently the PRC derives its administration and claims to its territories from the ROC, which inherited them from the Qing. The PRC is their legal succesor.

::::PRC history books may note that China ruled the area during the Han dynasty, but that has nothing to do with its legal framework and administration over the area (Indian history books talk about the Mauryan Empire, but its entire existence as a state today legally and administratively is due to the [[British Raj]]). Thats why the [[Kashmir conflict|article on Kashmiri independence]] don't mention any nonsense about how the [[Mauryan empire]] ruled the region over 2,000 years ago so India should rule it today, instead, they mention how in the 19th century how the British Raj and the Hindu Maharajahs obtained majority Muslim Kashmir and how the Maharaja legally signed over the region to India (no comment on whether that was justified of him to do that against the will of the Kashmiri people) so that was where India got its version of the legal justification and claim to Kashmir, while Pakistan's justification is grounded in the fact that Muslim majority regions were suppossed to join Pakistan.

::::Plenty of sources say that the Qing set most of the boundaries and territorial basis for the present PRC. I've said nothing about Xinjiang being Han land and said nothing of whether the PRC's rule is 'justified". What happened during the Han dynasty is irrelevant and had little impact on Xinjiang today, but what happened during the Qing dynasty and the demographic shifts during that time set the stage for what happened in Xinjiang under the PRC. The issue over Tibet is also related to Qing rule, see [[Tibetan independence movement]]. That's why we don't mention things like the war between the Tang dynasty and Tibet on that article and the treaty setting the boundary between Tibet and the Tang. The PRC using Qing era treaties and agreements to claim Tibet.

::::And for the record, this article already includes this sentence - "In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC" (actually PRC textbooks will say that after the Han dynasty and Tang dynasty collapsed, that China lost control of the region and that present day control was established by the Qing- they just mention that the Han dynasty was the first time China ruled the region, but adminstratively and legally their rule derives from the Qing)

::::And I have no objection to mentioning Wang Zhen doing anything if we include the history from the Qing conquest to the present day, including the Qing's destruction of the Zunghar Khanate and depopulation of the Dzunghar Mongols, the subsequent Uyghur(Taranchi), Han, Hui, Manchu, and Xibe migration into Dzungharia, the [[Second East Turkestan Republic]], and the PRC's policies in the region. And we already are including Xinjiang and Uyghur "history" by mentioning the PRC's policies over the last 60 years, the Qing history of the region is very relevant to the present situation- before the Qing, it would be irrelevant.[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::Just how is Qing dynasty's definition of PRC boundary over Xinjiang is [[Wikipedia:Coatrack|100% equivalent]] to Uyghur's current complain about PRC government? That is the point you still don't (and I shall say, refuse) to get.
:::::If you point of is that Uyghur hate Han/PRC government only because they happen to move next door to each other over Qing policy couple hundred years ago, then my counter point is we don't write the article [[1992 Los Angeles riots]] by summarizing the article [[Atlantic slave trade]].
:::::And finally learn the difference between concisely outlining sources of Uyghur complains against PRC government vs. blanket dumping history from Han/Qing/1950 to current day into this article. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 05:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::the article specifically mentions claims of being '''indigenous''' to the entire region (Xinjiang)

<Blockquote>In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC.[24] According to PRC policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]</blockquote>

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

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

:::::::And lets take a look at the sources. Citation number 24 dates back to 2004, and citation number 25 dates back to 2000... Now what do they have to do with the '''2009 riots'''? And whats more, citation numbers 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 all date back to before the 2009 riots.. And there are more.. And they all detal policies which are implied in the article to somehow have caused the riots in 2009. Times machines don't exist... Or you can drop the double standards. These sources don't pertain to the 2009 riots in Urumqi, since they were written way before that, don't even talk about Urumqi specifically (rather they talk about the entire Xinjiang), and don't even mention the riots..[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 06:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::So you believe you are smarter than those established Central Asian scholars because time machine don't exist, Uyghur did not publicly attack PRC interest since 1989, Urumqi is not confirmed to be in Xinjiang until 2009 and Uyghur is not the primary participant in the riot? [[Chewbacca defense]] at its finest. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 06:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Urumqi has indeed been part of Xinjiang, in fact it has been since the Qing dynasty combined the then seperately administrated Dzungaria and Tarim Basin regions into a single province, way before 2009. The Tarim Basin was home to sedentary oases farming Turkic Muslims under the Chagatai Khans and Sufi Khojas, and Dzungaria was under the steppe Dzungar Oirat Mongol nomads. When the Qing in fact nearly singlehandedly constructed Xinjiang province and shaped the demographic situation and handed it over in this manner to the ROC and PRC. [http://books.google.com/books?id=reBFF3fWjPAC&pg=RA1-PA2&dq=Dzungaria+migrants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jhfuUpn3MZXMsQTWu4DIAg&ved=0CC8Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dzungaria%20migrants&f=false Xinjiang was never an administrative unit before the Qing, it was divided into Dzungaria and Tarim.] Even in the early Qing, they were administered seperately (Dzungaria was Tianshan Beilu, Tarim was Tianshan nanlu), not combined until 1884. The Qing shattered the Dzungar power, wiped them out, and transplanted Uyghur, Han, Hui, Xibe, and Manchu farmers to settle the former nomad land.

:::::::::You mean Central Asian scholars like Millward and Perdue? Uyghurs have actually been attacking PRC interests way before that, the Soviet Union sponsored Uyghur separatists like Rais Abdulkhakovich Tuzmukhamedov to propagandize against China and constantly broadcast messages into Xinjiang calling for the Uyghurs to revolt.

:::::::::By the way, I have even more sources by western Central asian scholars saying that the Soviets were involved in a major part of constructing Uyghur identity, constructing Uyghur nationalism and writing Uyghur nationalist histories, and behindnthe claims of Uyghurs being indigenous to the region, and Soviet support to Uyghur nationalist movements as part of their propaganda war against China in the [[Sino-Soviet split]]. [[Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_involvement]] [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=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false] [[Uyghur_people#Origin_of_modern_nationality]] [[East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_Union_support_for_East_Turkestan_Independence_vs_China]]

:::::::::And who is passing judgement? Detailing factual Qing era migration documenting by "Central Asian scholars" and inserting a factual statement by a Central Asian scholar '''who specifically wrote [http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&q=Relatively+recent+feature#v=snippet&q=Relatively%20recent%20feature&f=false a factual response to those who believe that Uyghur culture in Urumqi was wiped out by Han migration] is passing judgement? Urumqi always had a mostly Han and Hui population since Qing times down to the present day. That is a fact. Who is passing judgement in what?[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 06:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::[[WP:Coatrack]]...'nough said. You can claim that you are not passing judgement by [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|pretending]] that the historical sovereignty of Xinjiang or the validity of Uyghur ethnicity/nationalism is the same thing as Uyghur grievance against PRC government, and I'm going to claim that I'm your best friend in the entire world. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 07:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::The "grievance" is related to migration in Xinjiang and Urumqi, and claims of being indigenous, and I posted several '''facts''' about Urumqi's and Dzungharia's demographic history, the coatracking started with you mentioning Wang Zhen and human evolution in Africa. You were the one who then started talking about Central Asian scholars, and I showed you some of what they wrote. Let me tell you what I '''did not write'''. I wrote nothing about how the PRC government's polices were justified, in fact I wrote nothing contradicting the Uyghur's economic situation or anything about how the PRC is doing an awesome job towards the Uyghurs. Can you show me where I wrote that? You are the one making up straw men and ad hominem attacks against me, insinuating that I said PRC policies are justified.[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 07:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[[WP:Coatrack]]: This page in a nutshell: Articles about one thing ''(a concise summary of Uyghur grievances against PRC government and vise versa)'' shouldn't '''mostly focus''' on another thing ''(Han migration pattern into Xinjiang/Demographic History of Xinjiang/Qing History of Xinjiang/Legal ownership of Xinjiang)''...Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article ''fails'' to give a truthful impression of the subject...Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can '''accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject'''. In either case the article should be corrected. Let me count, this is the 4th time I have tried to get the point across. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 07:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::::One of the '''sources''' relates the demographic situation as being relevant to '''today''', clearly linking current perceptions of Urumqi to its demographic history.

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA134&dq=In+most+respects+Tungans+bannermen+ji+yun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7xbuUqXdGOmwsASdsICQDA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20most%20respects%20Tungans%20bannermen%20ji%20yun&f=false Foreign tourists in Urumchi '''today''' sometimes complain that the city is "too Chinese" in comparison with the Central Asian atmosphere of southern Xinjiang; '''many believe Urumchi's East Turkestani culture has been erased by Han immigration and architecture'''. In fact, the Uyghur population and culture in the city '''today is a relatively recent feature''', for Urumchi in its first decades in most respects resembled a north Chinese town, populated primarily by Tungans from Gansu and Shaanxi and Han from many Chinese provinces, in addition to the bannermen.] </blockquote>

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

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?id=YcybAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT334&dq=Dzungaria+han+migrants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3xfuUrDTIYyzsASty4DoDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dzungaria%20han%20migrants&f=false The Han migration altered the pattern of population distribution and ethnic composition of Xinjiang. In 1953 about three-fourths of the population lived south of the mountains in the Tarim Basin. The Han influx was directed mainly to the Junggar Basin because of its resource potential.]</blockquote>

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?id=JNlwAAAAMAAJ&q=Turki+(or+officially+Uighur+since+1921)+population+considers+Kashgaria+as+their+homeland,+but+a+migration+has+been+in+progress+to+Dzungaria+since+the+18th+century&dq=Turki+(or+officially+Uighur+since+1921)+population+considers+Kashgaria+as+their+homeland,+but+a+migration+has+been+in+progress+to+Dzungaria+since+the+18th+century&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4hjuUszvOeKpsASXpYHADg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA page 12 - "The Moslem Turki (or officially Uighur since 1921) population considers Kashgaria as their homeland, '''but a migration has been in progress to Dzungaria since the 18th century''' . Kazakhs are to be found in Dzungaria ,while the Kirgiz occupy "...]</blockquote>

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?id=hD3yAAAAMAAJ&q=Dzungaria+chinese+migrants&dq=Dzungaria+chinese+migrants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HRruUsPmDImzsQTC_YH4BQ&ved=0CEQQ6wEwBDgU green valleys and low mountains of Dzungaria reached into the steppes of Siberia and beyond the Altai ranges. Much of the migration outward from China was still concentrated into this northern region].</blockquote>

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?id=2RA5AAAAIAAJ&q=In+Dzungaria,+the+main+part+of+the+urban+population+consists+of+Chinese+and+Dungana,+in+Kashgar+la,+of+Uighurs.&dq=In+Dzungaria,+the+main+part+of+the+urban+population+consists+of+Chinese+and+Dungana,+in+Kashgar+la,+of+Uighurs.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dhvuUvOuFdLjsATon4HYDw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA page 2- "In Dzungaria, the main part of the urban population consists of Chinese and Dungana, in Kashgar la, of Uighurs".]</blockquote>

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?ei=dhvuUvOuFdLjsATon4HYDw&id=2RA5AAAAIAAJ&dq=In+Dzungaria%2C+the+main+part+of+the+urban+population+consists+of+Chinese+and+Dungana%2C+in+Kashgar+la%2C+of+Uighurs.&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Dungana page 7 "The Chinese and the Dungans make up a substantial percentage of the population of most of the Sinkiang cities, but most of them are in Eastern and Central Dzungaria. About half of the Chinese of Sinkiang are concentrated in]</blockquote>

[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 10:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
::If you point of is that only reason Uyghur hates Han/PRC government is because they happen to move next door to each other over Qing policy couple hundred years ago, then my counter point is we don't write the article [[1992 Los Angeles riots]] by summarizing the article [[Atlantic slave trade]]. Otherwise [[WP:Coatrack]]. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 13:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?id=DMU8Ue0HECcC&pg=PA38&dq=The+Chinese+government+had+a+policy+of+settling+Han+immigrants+in+new+lands+not+occupied+by+Uyghurs+or+in+new+towns+adjacent+to+older+Uyghur+communities.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KCLuUuP6Dde2sATO4oD4Bw&ved=0CDMQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Chinese%20government%20had%20a%20policy%20of%20settling%20Han%20immigrants%20in%20new%20lands%20not%20occupied%20by%20Uyghurs%20or%20in%20new%20towns%20adjacent%20to%20older%20Uyghur%20communities.&f=false '''The Chinese government had a policy of settling Han immigrants in new lands not occupied by Uyghurs or in new towns adjacent to older Uyghur communities'''.]</blockquote> - note that this source alao mentions that the PRC gave priority to agriculture in the northern region - where the Han settled

<blockquote>[http://books.google.com/books?id=sQlxJdK6wGUC&pg=PA42&dq=northern+xinjiang+chinese+migrants+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sSDuUrqlGvK_sQTv-oLIDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=northern%20xinjiang%20chinese%20migrants%20uyghur&f=false Since the early 1980s there have been further huge increases in Han immigration into Northern Xinjiang. These are no longer forced but economic migrants encouraged by relaxed controls on population movement and improved communications linking Hi and Chuguchak with Urumchi and beyond. '''Many Uyghur economic refugees have also moved into Northern Xinjiang from the impoverished south'''. ]</blockquote>

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

[http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA306&dq=northern+xinjiang+chinese+migrants+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4iLuUuDUB5LUsATs6ICYBA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=northern%20xinjiang%20chinese%20migrants%20uyghur&f=false There were few Uyghurs in Urumqi during the Qing dynasty, Urumqi was mostly Han and Hui, and Han and Hui settlers were concentraded in Northern (Beilu) Xinjiang (Dzungaria).]

[http://books.google.com/books?id=SKgs8-pj4_YC&pg=PA140&dq=northern+xinjiang+chinese+migrants+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pCPuUq57hsqxBK3fgeAK&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=northern%20xinjiang%20chinese%20migrants%20uyghur&f=false "the military colonies became the site for extensive civilian migration made up mostly by Chinese peasants who came to clear lands and create an agricultural basis for more densely populated provinces out of the sparsely inhabited, semi-nomadic regions....for by the early nineteenth century, 155,000 Chinese peasants had settled in northern Xinjiang, comprising a significant portion of the local population."]

[http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=Northern+xinjiang+++economic++han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ijuUvKyE8q0sQT_loGgBQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Northern%20xinjiang%20%20%20economic%20%20han&f=false "This measure sufficed to create a population of around 155,000 Han and Tungan homesteaders in northern Xinjiang by the turn of the nineteenth century".]

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

[http://books.google.com/books?id=mjD8NM4AyT8C&pg=PA164&dq=Northern+xinjiang+++economic++han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ijuUvKyE8q0sQT_loGgBQ&ved=0CD8Q6wEwAg#v=onepage&q=Northern%20xinjiang%20%20%20economic%20%20han&f=false][http://books.google.com/books?id=cSRw2dithoIC&pg=PA37&dq=northern+xinjiang++migrants+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bCDuUtiMLLHnsATY44CYDg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=northern%20xinjiang%20%20migrants%20uyghur&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=srUkAQAAIAAJ&q=Over+90%25+of+the+Han+Chinese+live+in+cities+in+Northern+Xinjiang+while+the+majority+of+Uighurs+live+in+Southern&dq=Over+90%25+of+the+Han+Chinese+live+in+cities+in+Northern+Xinjiang+while+the+majority+of+Uighurs+live+in+Southern&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CSjuUo-uJ-eisQTY9oC4BQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA "Over 90% of the Han Chinese live in cities in Northern Xinjiang while the majority of Uighurs live in Southern"]

[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 11:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
:Did Uyghur stopped/adjusted their complains about Han immigration given the above fact? No and they decided to riot in 2009 about it anyway? Did PRC government '''officially''' used the above fact to defend their positions on the Xinjiang issue? No since they are stupid enough to declare Xinjiang as "Xinjiang '''Uyghur Autonomous Region'''" in the 1950s and promised Uyghur CCP cadres full control of the region as pre-condition to incorporate Xinjiang into PRC? Does Han population in Xinjiang have civil societies that use the above facts to defend Han land rights in Xinjiang? No since organization without CCP guidance is illegal in China? [[WP:Coatrack]] since this is not the article [[Uyghur people]], [[China Western Development]] or [[Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps]]. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 13:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

::the sources '''explicitly mention''' that migration was directed at the north in Dzungaria, and specifically to lands which were sparsely populated by Uyghurs, and that was therefore where most development took place. It may not have mentioned that this was because these were Dzungar and not Uyghur lands, but they do mention that the CCP focused immigration there to avoid dumping Han in the heavily population Uyghur areas (Tarim Basin). we should mention those facts. Some of the sources connected those facts to underdevelopment of Uyghur dominated lands in the Tarim and to their discontent. We aren't here to discuss how stupid the CCP's public relations department is or historians are for not using obvious facts to defend their positions or whether they are right or not. In fact the CCP copied the Soviet created designation of "Uyghur" and the accompanying history which is why they redesignated the entire province as Uyghur autonomous region.[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 04:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:::The topic and the point of discussion is a summary of why Uyghur is currently pissed off at PRC government, not a game of whose land is it anyway. The fact that CCP focused immigration somewhere to avoid dumping Han in the heavily population Uyghur areas has no tangible impact in this topic since Ugyhur are still angry at CCP regardless of where Hans had settled in Xinjiang, and PRC government agreed in principle with Ugyhur on the land ownership of entire Xinjiang as per-condition for Xinjiang joining PRC. The only possible purpose that fact would serve in a summary of why Uyghur is discontent at PRC government is to ridicule the reasons of Uyghur discontent and distracting people from the real point of discussion (you can pretend your intention is pure over all you want, but anyone with half a brain would reasonably foresee this outcome). If that is not the point you are trying to present (or you really do have no points to present) then it is just plain case of [[WP:TOPIC]] and [[WP:Coatrack]]. Seriously, I have been repeating the same point over the course of a year and with you [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|covering your ear]] and yell "[[Wikipedia:But it's true!|but it's true!]]" as your only basis for including obviously off topic material. Other editors who foresaw the same problem and agreed with the no off topic discussion consensus may be gone, but I'm not going get wore down by such nonsensical attrition tactic. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 05:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

::::incorrect, both on historical fact and on wikipedia policy. Firstly, the PRC did not "agree" in principle to land ownership as per-condition for Xinjiang joining the PRC, because Uyghurs did not control Xinjiang. Most of Xinjiang was under the control of [[Kuomintang]] troops who surrendered and defected to the PRC. The Second East Turkestan Republic, which controlled the three districts, were under Soviet control and the Soviets ordered them to dissolve their republic since the Communists won the civil war in China. The PRC directly took control of Xinjiang in 1949.[[Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China]] It was in 1955, that the PRC, out of its volition and will, with itself fully in charge, redesignated the entire Xinjiang province as "Uyghur Autonomous Region". I'm not coatracking, because it is wikipedia policy to provide POV of both sides as long as its from a reliable source. [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] You know what the sources say? They say that the PRC gave their reason for sending Han people to migrate into northern Xinjiang in order to put them in sparsely populated areas and keep them from troubling the Uyghurs. That is the reason the PRC gave for directing Han migration to northern Xinjiang, its what it says in the source- the background already mentions "government policy considers", there is absolutely no reason for blocking the addition of where the PRC directed Han migration to and the reason they gave- that's the other POV which you are so eager to shut out. The background is supposed to give both POVs about Uyghur discontent. This is the "Han POV"- [http://books.google.com/books?id=DMU8Ue0HECcC&pg=PA38&dq=The+Chinese+government+had+a+policy+of+settling+Han+immigrants+in+new+lands+not+occupied+by+Uyghurs+or+in+new+towns+adjacent+to+older+Uyghur+communities.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KCLuUuP6Dde2sATO4oD4Bw&ved=0CDMQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Chinese%20government%20had%20a%20policy%20of%20settling%20Han%20immigrants%20in%20new%20lands%20not%20occupied%20by%20Uyghurs%20or%20in%20new%20towns%20adjacent%20to%20older%20Uyghur%20communities.&f=false The Chinese government had a policy of settling Han immigrants in new lands not occupied by Uyghurs or in new towns adjacent to older Uyghur communities. Hans claim this settlement pattern allowed the Uyghurs to continue their way of life without Han interference.]

<blockquote>In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC.[24] According to PRC policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority rather than an indigenous group—in other words, they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] The People's Republic has presided over the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]</blockquote>

::::by the way, your first and second comments (actually '''all of your comments''') on this topic here were not so thinly veiled, bad faith, political attacks and extremely confrontational in nature, so I don't know about "pure" intentions on your part. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots&diff=536414549&oldid=536373296] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots&diff=536534075&oldid=536532465] What can I say about the POV of a user who immediately starts attacking one side (PRC) about "power abuse" and murder. You are not neutral, you support a certain POV. Pot calls kettle black?

[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::: "PRC did not "agree" in principle to land ownership as per-condition for Xinjiang joining the PRC". Did you even read the [http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/05/content_20813.htm PRC constitution] or the [http://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/regional-ethnic-autonomy-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-amended 1984 law on regional autonomy]? [http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS011.pdf Did you even bother to read the scholarly interpretation on the law]? Did you even bother the understand what legal rights does autonomy region have under PRC law? Did you even consider that migration of Han into an ethnic autonomy region with ethnic minority protesting is technically breaking the law? Did you even consider that Ugyhur are just not happy about the Han migration into Xinjiang '''period''' and that is one of the main root cause of the riot? Keep on expressing your view on how not making a huge deal in arguing the difference between mugging people with a bat and mugging people with a gun is a POV offence.
::::::BTW if you get a problem with me, then sue me 'cuz I'm not going away. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 00:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Wrong again. Xinjiang was '''already part of the PRC in 1949, and stayed as a province of the PRC to 1955''' when it was changed from a province into "Uyghur autonomous region". Xinjiang was not given any "conditions" for joining the PRC, which it was already part of. You have not given me any sources which shows me its against the PRC consitution or law for Han people to move into an autonomous region. You just threw a bunch of links at me, with no quotes or explanation at all, because I can't see where they mention migration is against the law. Did you know that the Inner Mongolia autonomous region was formed when it '''already had a Han majority''', since most Han settled there during the Qing and KMT rule?. Speaking of which,[http://books.google.com/books?id=GXj4a3gss8wC&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q&f=false '''Wang Zhen came to power in Xinjiang in 1951] and his reign ended in 1953. '''that means, he somehow miraculously was in power in Xiniiang before it entered the PRC according to your argument. FYI, [http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA168#v=onepage&q&f=false it was the KMT, not PRC, which started moving large amounts of Han settlers to Dzungaria in the 1940s], and the [http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false Soviet backed Uyghurs claimed this as justification for their revolt in the Ili Rebellion and subsequent massacre of Han civilians in 1944-1946].

:::::::There is no reason for the "Han POV", as expressed [http://books.google.com/books?id=DMU8Ue0HECcC&pg=PA38&dq=The+Chinese+government+had+a+policy+of+settling+Han+immigrants+in+new+lands+not+occupied+by+Uyghurs+or+in+new+towns+adjacent+to+older+Uyghur+communities.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KCLuUuP6Dde2sATO4oD4Bw&ved=0CDMQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Chinese%20government%20had%20a%20policy%20of%20settling%20Han%20immigrants%20in%20new%20lands%20not%20occupied%20by%20Uyghurs%20or%20in%20new%20towns%20adjacent%20to%20older%20Uyghur%20communities.&f=false in reliable sources], not to be put into this article when the "Uyghur POV", especially from sources '''from before 2009 and which don't even mention the riots''' are used to back this "POV" .[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 03:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

*[http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS011.pdf Before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took full control of China in 1949, many Uyghurs expected that they would soon enjoy full political independence in Xinjiang. Indeed, they had been told as much by Mao over a decade earlier...In principle Uyghurs thereby received title to the property...Former XUAR governor Säypidin recalls that, in 1955, leaders in Beijing had initially proposed calling the region simply the “Xinjiang Autonomous Region.” Säypidin objected that “autonomy is not given to mountains and rivers. It is given to particular nationalities. I do not think the name...is really appropriate.” He was gratified to learn, several days later, that Mao had agreed with him, insisting it be the “Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”.]

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

*[http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS011.pdf One of the party’s most effective tactics for counteracting political pressure from Uyghurs has been, in effect, to import a loyal Han constituency. Government-sponsored immigration of Hans into the region has been a central component of CCP policy in Xinjiang.]

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

*[http://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/regional-ethnic-autonomy-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-amended Regional ethnic autonomy means that the ethnic minorities, under unified state leadership, practice regional autonomy in areas where they live in concentrated communities and set up autonomous agencies for the exercise of the power of autonomy.]

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

*...especially from sources '''[[Chewbacca Defense|from before 2009 and which don't even mention the riots]]'''...

Geez, none of your link mentioned 2009 riot either, maybe Uyghur didn't know that PRC decided not to mix Han and Ugyhur until 2009, or they don't have any complains against PRC government until 2009. Also none of your link ever stated PRC Han does not mix with Uyghur policy had any impact on Ugyhur discontent, or maybe the those "Han POV" (which the concept itself is puzzling given none of your link states that those POV are general Han POV, or even those facts are related to Ugyhur discontent against PRC in general) is really about Ugyhur should shut up, and Han moving into Mao designated Ugyhur Autonomous Region and drown them out is doing them a favor, like the following quote ([http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS011.pdf Uttering a sentiment widely shared among Hans but seldom articulated in public, one scholar recently wrote bluntly that “Hans are the most reliable force for stability in Xinjiang.”])? Finally:


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
*[http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS011.pdf The Production and Construction Corps:...Heavy concentrations of PCC farms in Kashgar, Aksu, and Qumul districts were also intended to counterbalance the overwhelmingly Uyghur population in those areas...The organization’s demographic significance in Xinjiang is unmistakable. In 1974 bingtuan members reached 2.26 million in number, or one-fifth of the total population and two-fifths of the Han population in Xinjiang. The organization was disbanded in 1975 but reconstituted six years later on the strong advice of former head Wang Zhen following several episodes of interethnic violence. Twenty years later, it had almost returned to its former size, claiming 2.22 million members, of which 88.3 percent (1.96 million) were Han—35 percent of Xinjiang’s total Han population in 1994.]


I have just modified 6 external links on [[July 2009 Ürümqi riots]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=806276322 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
You know what, I changed my mind...It is really important to mention that PRC really don't want Han mixed with Uyghur as a benefit to Uyghurs. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 04:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608155032/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/09/how_china_wins_and_loses_xinjiang?page=0,0&obref=obinsite to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/09/how_china_wins_and_loses_xinjiang?page=0,0&obref=obinsite
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622095008/http://www.cfr.org/china/uighurs-chinas-social-justice-problem/p19760 to http://www.cfr.org/china/uighurs-chinas-social-justice-problem/p19760
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713190636/http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/world/MI125641/ to http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/world/MI125641/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220121949/http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/38906--turkey-and-iran-concerned-over-developments-in-xinjiang- to http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/38906--turkey-and-iran-concerned-over-developments-in-xinjiang-
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716034324/http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/china-legislature-outlines-police-powers-curbs-local-security-powers-006110 to http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/china-legislature-outlines-police-powers-curbs-local-security-powers-006110
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809143839/http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/11/25/4376537-could-the-uighur-unrest-spread to http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/11/25/4376537-could-the-uighur-unrest-spread


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::[[Saifuddin Azizi]](Säypidin) was a pro Soviet Communist agent during the [[Ili Rebellion]] and served in the apparatus of the Soviet backed [[Second East Turkestan Republic]]. [[East–West Center]] is '''not a neutral source'''. it is funded by the US Congress. It says "Before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took full control of China in 1949, many Uyghurs expected that they would soon enjoy full political independence in Xinjiang.". Why would Uyghurs have expected to "enjoy full political rights" ''' before 1949 when the KMT (which absolutely refused to grant Uyghur independence and encouraged Han migration) controlled nearly all of Xinjiang and the Uyghurs didn't know if the CCP would win the war?''' The KMT surrendered Xinjiang to the CCP. Uyghurs were absolutely not in control, and had no power or say in the transfer. Mao did not granted "autonomous status" in exchange for Uyghurs joining Xnjiang to China, pretty much all major minorities ([[Tibet Autonomous Region|Tibetans]], [[Inner Mongolia|Mongols]], and [[Guangxi|Zhuang]]) were granted autonomous status because of their size. [[Battle of Chamdo|Tibet was most certainly not granted this autonomous status in "exchange" for joining Tibet to the PRC]]. I don't know where you got the idea that the PRC asked fully independent minoriites to join China in exchange for autonomous status. China decided to give this status out on its own will. And you know full well that I am talking about the POV of Han people '''in Xinjiang''', not Han people elsewhere who hate the PRC government. (And many Han across China resent the PRC's affirmative action policy to minorities, which is mentioned in this article)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::: "in concentrated communities and set up autonomous agencies for the exercise of the power of autonomy." - Uyghurs do live in concentrafed communities, in the Tarim Basin. And? Btw, according to census data, Uyghurs are the majority in both Aksu and Kashgar (both Tarim Basin cities)[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 21:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::Blah, blah, blah...all sources disagree with me is funded by CIA, all sources agrees with me are neutral...enemy of China are everywhere. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I have never used a PRC source. I only use independent western sources, by western historians who have credentials in their field of work, and who publish from a reliable press (a western university or academic press). Never used sources by historians from Chinese or other non western universities, or sources connected to any government. And Saifuddin Azizi was a Soviet agent so what did I say about CIA?[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 22:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Too bad that Saifuddin Azizi view was important enough that [http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64093/67507/6750624.html Chinese government] and [http://www.worldcat.org/title/20-shi-ji-xinjiang-shi-yan-jiu/oclc/47048822&referer=brief_results academia sources] didn't even bother to censor him (1955年初，赛福鼎和包尔汉在北京开会，习仲勋约见他们，对他们说：“毛主席要我征求你们两位的意见，将来新疆叫新疆自治区如何？”赛福鼎对毛主席如此重视他们的意见非常高兴，于是开诚布公地说出了自己的看法。他说：“自治不是给山川、河流的，而是给某个民族的。所以，它叫‘民族区域自治’，因此，‘新疆自治区’这个名称不太合适。”习仲勋当场表示说：“好，我向毛主席报告你的意见。”过了两天，习仲勋又约见赛福鼎和包尔汉，告诉他们说：“毛主席同意赛福鼎的意见，应该叫作‘新疆维吾尔自治区’，毛主席要我告诉你们。”几天后，李维汉在遇到赛福鼎时说：“习仲勋向毛主席报告了你的意见后，毛主席作了认真的考虑说：‘赛福鼎的意见是对的’。)...and I actually provided a source on what pro government Han people thinks ([http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS011.pdf Uttering a sentiment widely shared among Hans but seldom articulated in public, one scholar recently wrote bluntly that “Hans are the most reliable force for stability in Xinjiang.”])...You were saying you represent pro-government Han POV? [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::::::::The voice of the Soviet Union's agents was of course important to the PRC, since the Soviets controllled most developmental aid going to China.(and assistance during the Korean War), and the Soviets were the ones who actually controlled Ili before they let the ETR dissolve back into China. Saifuddin Azizi was part of the [[Second East Turkestan Republic]] and [[Ili Rebellion]], so would you mind posting [http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false the explanation the ETR gave for massacring Han civilians?]. The idea for "autonomous regions" [[Autonomous republics of the Soviet Union|came from the Soviet Union]], and by the way, none of the other indigenous minorities in Xinjiang, like the remnant of the [[Dzungar people]] themselves, nor the [[Tajiks of Xinjiang]] gave their approval for the establishment of the entire region as '''Uyghur autonomous region'''. The Dzungars don't even have an autonomous prefecture or county in their own native land in Dzungaria, unlike the Uyghur settlers there, nor is their language given any rights like the Uyghurs.[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::So Chinese government are now Soviet puppets. Too bad they never repeal the XUAR idea after Sino-Soviet Split and the end of Soviet Union...So what is your POV now since Chinese government actively ignored citizens views? Anti-government Han POV? [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::The native Dzungar Oirat Mongols and Tuvan people in Dzungaria are both forced to take classes in the Chakhar Mongol dialect instead of their own Oirat dialect and Tuvan language since they are both classified together with Chakhar Inner Mongolians as just "Mongol", and the PRC recognizes no distinctions between them. And the Tajik Pamiri languages in Xinjiang aren't even written down, they have to use Uyghur to write. The reason is because the PRC adopted the Soviet written history and ethnic classification for the Uyghur. The name for Uyghurs in the Tarim was "Turki" and the descendants of Uyghur '''migrants''' in Dzungaria were called "[[Taranchi]]", the PRC obliterated all of these classifications and adopted the Soviet history which said that all of Xinjiang was Uyghur land. [[Uyghur_people#Origin_of_modern_nationality]] [[Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_involvement]] so the Dzungars has no say in this. And guess ahat, the Tajiks also have the wrong ethnic name assigned to them by the PRC in 1949. The Tajiks of Xinjiang are not actually "real" [[Tajik people|Tajiks]], they are [[Pamiri people]]. [[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 01:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Like you said, PRC government don't care when they agreed to form XUAR. Shouldn't you be defending pro-PRC POV in this article here like you say were going to do? [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::::::::::Forming autonomous regions for ethnic minorities was standard procedure for Communist governments in the Cold War, copied from the Soviet model. Even Romania did it [[Magyar Autonomous Region|for Hungarians]]. [http://books.google.com/books?id=W6pC7rvtNJ4C&pg=PA170&dq=stalin+ethnic+group+policy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VU70UvSyBpStsQTplYC4Bg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stalin%20ethnic%20group%20policy&f=false It was part of the doctrine of Stalinist Communism which many other countries than copied, Stalin proposed a set of criterea for what makes up an ethnic minority, and one of those criterea included having their own defined land aka "common area" ] (hence why the Dzungar Oirat Monols don't have their own autonomous region in Dzungaria- since they are shoved in the same category with inner Mongolian Chakhar Mongols, the CCP will just point to Inner Mongolia as their autonomous region). The PRC didn't "agree" with a bunch of Uyghurs that they would let them have autonomy in return for controlling Xinjiang- the PRC controlled Xinjiang from the start, and created it as an autonomous region as part of their official communist policy for ethnic minorities.[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 03:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on [[July 2009 Ürümqi riots]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/809932526|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::::::::::::[http://books.google.com/books?id=5I2b_hrJO8sC&pg=PA7&dq=anachronistic+uyghur&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K-v1UvrOFsrQyAHnxoCwDw&ved=0CC4Q6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=anachronistic%20uyghur&f=false I also have a source which says the PRC nationality policy has led to major anachoristic and erroneous rebranding of history in favor of Uyghur nationalists, like all of Turkic Muslim history in Xinjiang being labeled as "Uyghur"]. That was a result of the PRC copying the Soviet history and label for Uyghurs.[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 08:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713175919/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/10-Jul-2009/Some-elements-out-to-harm-SinoPak-ties to http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/10-Jul-2009/Some-elements-out-to-harm-SinoPak-ties


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
What's actually going on over here? I'm getting the feeling that this discussion is straying quite far away from the actual 2009 riots. --[[User:benlisquare|<span style="font-family:Monospace;padding:1px;color:orange">'''benlisquare'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:benlisquare|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benlisquare|C]]•[[Special:EmailUser/User:Benlisquare|E]]</sub> 13:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
: My point exactly...just what does Northern Xinjiang belong to Han (a extremely charged opinion, not a fact, given PRC's legal position on Xinjiang) has anything to do with 2009 riot. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 13:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:*I've been watching this page the last few days with some bemusement. If you review the article talk history, we settled on the [[WP:SUMMARY|concise]] version knowing full well we would otherwise be going down the slippery slope of the blame game and war and peace. That's why the discussion was curtailed. The result may not please everybody, which I guess why this has been reopened. It was a necessary simplification, and I still believe it should stay that way. The alternative is to excise the background section, but that would be too draconian, as some context is necessary. <p>I've been in this type of discussion before, and the article talk gets more and more inflamed about dialectics; the article gets more and more bloated with who has the strongest historical claim or who has natural justice on their side. There are no absolutes here, and it's not in the readers' interest to provide the [[pre-history of Xinjiang]] in an article describing a 21st century event. All we can say for sure is that mutual dislike and distrust exists between both races/ethnic groups. The riots got sparked off by a pogrom a few thousand miles due south. How we got to that dislike and distrust are all by-the-by. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
::I think these "who was here first" concerns should be brought to, say, the [[Urumqi]], [[Xinjiang]], [[History of Xinjiang]] or [[Uyghur people]] articles; this article really should have primary focus on the events of 2009, and not dwelve too deeply in the political and ethnic history of the region. --[[User:benlisquare|<span style="font-family:Monospace;padding:1px;color:orange">'''benlisquare'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:benlisquare|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benlisquare|C]]•[[Special:EmailUser/User:Benlisquare|E]]</sub> 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
::this is not about "who was here first", this is about demographic patterns and migration as mentioned in reliable soirces. I saw the nonsense people wrote about saying that since the [[Han dynasty]] ruled Xinjiang 2,000 years ago, that Han people were there first. The sources say that the PRC directed Han migration over to Dzungaria (Northern Xinjiang) because - 1. It was sparsely populated by Uyghurs, most Uyghurs lived in the Tarim and still do today. The fact that Han moved to Dzungaria has only made Dzungaria more densely populated than the Tarim. 2. They wanted to keep the Han population seperate from Uyghurs to not "disturb" them. 3. It also happens to have big natural resources 4. The PRC focused most of its development in northern Xinjiang so the Tarim Basin in general is poorer and less developed than the north. 5. uyghurs are disconent because of poverty linked to underdevelopment. These are important facts about '''PRC era migration'''. [[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:::1. Fair enough.
:::2. Too bad other sources disputing this are not neutral enough to prevent this opinion from becoming facts.
:::3. So resource grab by Hans is a good thing, even though Article 28 of 1984 law on regional autonomy states autonomous Uyghur government of XUAR should be the proper owner of these resource.
:::4. Fair enough.
:::5. Too bad other sources disputing this are not neutral enough to prevent this opinion from becoming facts.
:::And finally, any scholars that actually linked point 1 to 5 in a single thesis in the context of [[Xinjiang Conflict]]? 'Cuz it seem you forgot a link. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


== Infobox image ==
:::::do the references in the article link their points to the riot? [http://books.google.com/books?id=DMU8Ue0HECcC&pg=PA38&dq=The+Chinese+government+had+a+policy+of+settling+Han+immigrants+in+new+lands+not+occupied+by+Uyghurs+or+in+new+towns+adjacent+to+older+Uyghur+communities.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KCLuUuP6Dde2sATO4oD4Bw&ved=0CDMQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Chinese%20government%20had%20a%20policy%20of%20settling%20Han%20immigrants%20in%20new%20lands%20not%20occupied%20by%20Uyghurs%20or%20in%20new%20towns%20adjacent%20to%20older%20Uyghur%20communities.&f=false yes, they link it ethnic tensions between Han and Uyghur]. FYI, Han and Hui were always a majority in Urumqi, since it was founded in Qing times to today. It was never a Uyghur majority city. I also have sources linking the Soviet Union to Uyghur separatism from the 1960s-1980s [[Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_Union_support_for_East_Turkestan_Independence_vs_China]] [[Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_involvement]] if you want something linked to the [[Xinjiang Conflict]]. If we go by the logic that this article only includes things during PRC rule.[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Well, too bad the source did not state point 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as a single thesis and it actually supported East-West Center by stating Han migration without mixing with Uyghur can be interpreted as an attempt to drown out Uyghur interest in XUAR ("Too many Ugyhurs, however, view this as encirclement" vs. "Redeployment of demobilized Nationalist, INA, and Red Army soldiers into the PCC at strategic points throughout the region enacted a subtler parcelization of the territory. PCC units that were set up along the margins of "troubled" regions, along key transport arteries, and around hubs provided the potential to control travel and isolate Xinjiang’s subregions with very modest man manpower...Further deployments, he said, should "draw a circle" around southern Xinjiang by filling in "blank spaces"—one between Aksu and Korla, and another between Hotan and Ruoqiang. The expansion of PCC organizations in the latter region, scholar remarked brightly, "will prove an excellent conduit for changing the minzu population ratio in Hotan, which has gotten out of balance"")... So you are agreeing with me now? [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Is there an image we could use for the infobox? <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::No, because EastWest center has an agenda- it totally ignores the context in which this took place. Are you aware that China directly clashed with Soviet troops along the Xinjiang and Manchurian borders? [http://books.google.com/books?id=GXj4a3gss8wC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=china+clash+soviet+xinjiang&source=bl&ots=Up2TmrkbQt&sig=Nyk-mJdjaRzVxjXST53vCaC42N4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wiz0UvepGrPKsQT984LYAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=china%20clash%20soviet%20xinjiang&f=false the Soviets broadcasts messages inciting Uyghurs to revolt and Chinese and Soviet troops engaged in direct combat against each other][http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/sino.sov.12.pdf this clash in Xinjiang almost led to nuclear war] [http://books.google.com/books?id=jRhHphtBg-QC&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false Wang Zhen himself noted that the Han migrants were sent there to protect the region from the Soviet Union.] (the Soviets were inciting Uyghur separatism and threatened to invade) [http://f3.tiera.ru/1/genesis/580-584/581000/08896bda69d79b32dcf80f11fc793dbf China and the Soviet Union both threatened to "subvert each other's Muslim populations" (page 20)] [[Talk:East_Turkestan_independence_movement#Soviet_Union_support_for_East_Turkestan_Independence_vs_China]] The PCC units in the "troubled regions" (the tarim basin) were still vastly outnumbered by the Uyghurs. The current census says that Uyghurs are the majority, over 90% of the Tarim Basin cities you mention like Aksu, Korla, Hotan, etc. Still most Han were in Dzungaria. [http://books.google.com/books?id=GXj4a3gss8wC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false China also supported the Afghan Mujahideen from Xinjiang] during the [[Soviet War in Afghanistan]]. [http://books.google.com/books?id=jRhHphtBg-QC&pg=PA76&dq=China+afghan+mujahideen+xinjiang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hSv0UqybHomosQTh2oCQAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=China%20afghan%20mujahideen%20xinjiang&f=false China viewed Xinjiang as an important asset against the Soviet Union's "encirclement" of China after the Soviet sinvsded Afghanistan].[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 01:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: Right...and Soviet Union has been such a threat through history that the passage I cited is about PRC policy makers arguing for the encirclement of Southern Xinjiang in 2003...I get your context. [[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101|talk]]) 01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


== Issues with FA status ==
::::::::::No where does it say his suggestions were implemented by the government. It says "He argued" and "he said" that the government '''should''' do what he proposed. Uyghurs still make up 90% of the Tarim Basin counties in Hotan, Aksu, Kashgar..[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Following a conversation with @[[User:Z1720|Z1720]] at [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/July 2009 Ürümqi riots]], I'd like to raise some issues with this article. On a quick look I'd be concerned to see this on the front page in its present state for two reasons: 1/ Despite [[MOS:CITELEDE]], there does seem to be a lot of citations in the lead 2/ the aftermath section doesn't really go beyond 2010. Hope that makes sense and that the article could be improved since it's a really interesting topic. [[User:Mujinga|Mujinga]] ([[User talk:Mujinga|talk]]) 13:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
'''About your [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] request:''' It has been removed from the list of requests because there are now more than two editors involved in this discussion and Third Opinions are only available for disputes involving two editors (when the third editor joined in here that was, in effect, your third opinion). If content [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] is still desired, consider [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]], [[WP:MEDCOM|Mediation]], or [[WP:RFC|Request for Comments]]. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''SHUTDOWN NOTICE:''' I'm going to shut down this thread shortly. I fail to see how all this discussion about ancient history is contributing to the improvement of this particular article. Any further discussion should take place at [[Talk:History of Xinjiang]]. Thanks for participating! --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#00FF00">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 01:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:47, 11 December 2024

Featured articleJuly 2009 Ürümqi riots is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 5, 2010.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 6, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 27, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 16, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 6, 2009.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 5, 2011, July 5, 2013, July 5, 2015, July 5, 2019, and July 5, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

Is there an image we could use for the infobox? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with FA status

[edit]

Following a conversation with @Z1720 at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/July 2009 Ürümqi riots, I'd like to raise some issues with this article. On a quick look I'd be concerned to see this on the front page in its present state for two reasons: 1/ Despite MOS:CITELEDE, there does seem to be a lot of citations in the lead 2/ the aftermath section doesn't really go beyond 2010. Hope that makes sense and that the article could be improved since it's a really interesting topic. Mujinga (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots&oldid=1262505257"