Jump to content

Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch


Excellent prose, very readable with a logical flow. I'm not familiar with the topic, but it looks like you've handled NPOV very well, e.g. giving about equal air time to the government's and Kadeer's statements. A bunch of comments, almost all minor so far (I'm leaving off halfway through to let you catch up). These are mostly suggestions; if you want to address some of these to tell me why you're not going to do them that's fine.

  • I understand the difficulty avoiding weasel phrases like "some Han people" and "Many Uyghurs", but it really is better to avoid them. It's so vague it's kind of meaningless, and can endorse almost anything: "some middle-aged men carry batons and knives." True, but not a useful statement about middle-aged men. If there's an identifiable person or group of people or an even vaguely quantifiable number, that's better to use. e.g. in place of "some Han people are dissatisfied by government policies...", maybe "a movement among Han people called ___ exists that claims..." or "this has widespread support" or "according to x poll y percentage of Han people feel that..." With the "Some people have claimed that" statement, how about naming the person, if they're someone of consequence? If they're not, are you sure it's important what this random person says? This is pretty minor point, as the meaning the article's getting at is pretty clear.
History, demography, and social tensions
  • How about a short definition of Uyghurs in this sentence, the way there is one for Han: 45% of its population being Uyghurs, and 40% Han,[16] the majority ethnicity in China.
    • There is a longer definition of Uyghurs in the last paragraph of the intro: The violence was part of ongoing ethnic tensions between the Han—the largest ethnic group in China—and the Uyghurs—a Turkic, and predominantly Muslim, minority ethnic group in China. In fact, that part 'defines' Han as well, so the best option seems to be to remove the mention from the History section, since now that you point it out it seems redundant. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a sentence in the first para explaining religious differences between the groups and how they are important (if at all)?
    • I think the main place where religion is relevant is that Uyghurs feel they their right to practice Islam is being denied and restricted (which is mentioned in this section, although not very prominently). Most Han are technically Buddhist (i.e., that's what they'd check in a survey if you made them choose) although in general I think it's not as much a part of their lives (so just like Christianity in the US: some people are really intense about it, but many are laid-back), but don't quote me on that, it's just my personal observation :). I don't think Han religion is a major factor in this conflict, though, and have never really heard it mentioned in any discourse about this. Uyghurs' religion is more relevant, particularly to the international media coverage (much international media was making a clear effort to 'exoticize' Uyghurs, and even making them look scary, by playing up their Muslim-ness and insinuating connections to terrorism). It's also likely that Uyghurs' religion has had a major effect on how Han people in Xinjiang perceive them and their behavior, although I don't have any sources on that offhand. For what it's worth, the last paragraph of the intro does say that Uyghurs are predominantly Muslim, although it doesn't say anything about Han people's religion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I had assumed that religion would have been a part of it, e.g. with the mention later of the government closing mosques to prevent further unrest. But if it's really not a big reason for the clash between the two groups, then you've probably covered it sufficiently. Although a sentence about that might be good too, just summarizing what you just said: "they're different religions but it's not that big of a reason for the conflict." delldot ∇. 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate causes
  • this sentence seems out of place and breaks up the flow of the rest of the para, which is about the killings: Police investigations found no evidence that a rape had taken place. I don't know where else you'd put it though. Maybe concatenate it onto rumors that two Han women had been raped,[13][27] but later police investigations...
  • How about a phrase explaining QQ here: posting a violent CNN video on QQ. e.g. on the instant messaging program QQ
    • That sounds good; since this article has been mainly edited by people very familiar with China, it's been easy to forget that not everyone knows what QQ is :) Actually, after re-checking the source, it says the video was posted not on QQ, but on its website qq.com (the difference would be the same as that between MSN messenger and msn.com), so I've changed the sentence accordingly to just say "posted a violent video online." rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A phrase of explanation likewise needed here: according to The Times, secret signs started appearing in taxi windows What is a 'secret sign'?
    • The source doesn't appear to say anything other than that they were "signals". To be honest, though, The Times is a sensationalist publication that was exercising irresponsible journalism throughout this event (at one point I sent a letter to their editor suggesting they give one particular journalist an "unpaid vacation") and I would not be averse to removing this sentence entirely. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad you said that, I was actually wondering about the quote from the times reporter about the "roving mobs stabbing people" or some such: how reliable or notable is she? I hadn't been familiar with the times, but a brief look at their current headlines made me go "whoa", and I noticed in their WP article that they're owned by Rupert Murdoch. *cough* delldot ∇. 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed that secret signs bit. In addition to the stylistic issue of not being able to clarify any further, the early date of that article and the fact that this is not substantiated in any other articles means it's likely to just be a rumor. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit confused about the claim that the protests had been organised beforehand. Is anyone claiming that the protests weren't organized beforehand and were totally spontaneous? Surely someone organized them or how would all those people have known where and when to show up? The thing that's up for debate is whether the riots were planned, right?
    • Yes, you're right, we should probably be clearer. Everyone can accept that the protests were planned to happen, but the issue of contention is whether they were planned to turn violent. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why this part sounds so vague is because it was one of the major contested (sometimes edit-war triggering) parts of the article. Several users and IPs wanted to spin this into proof for blaming Kadeer and the WUC. We should revisit it now that the dust has settled. It shouldn't come to another edit-war at this point (or so one would hope). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added another sentence at the end to sort of sum things up. I also think the Kadeer quote at the end should be trimmed and merged into the first paragraph...otherwise it's not quite fair to give her the "last word" and one paragraph more than the PRC gets. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good thinking. delldot ∇. 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I'm not sure it needs the extra sentence, now that you've taken out the stuff that seemed to indicate that the idea that the protests were planned was a subject for debate. You're right that it's not great as a para of its own, and it's uncited. I think the reader will understand this as long as there's nothing that seems to contradict it, so I'd recommend taking this sentence back out. delldot ∇. 01:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the 'televised by the 4th of July in the US' thing; if demos didn't begin till the evening of July 5, how could they have made it to US TV by July 4th? They're UTC+8, I'm UTC-5, that's only 13 hours...? I guess this is kind of irrelevant though, since it's some person claiming it, not our article.
    • You're right that it's a pretty silly claim (although I guess people could argue that it took longer than they expected to get things started, or to get media attention: the protests themselves started in the early afternoon, I think, and it's possible that what they wanted the US to see was the protests, not necessarily riots). Personally I think it's about as credible as the claim 8 years ago that the September 11 attacks were carried out on that day because it would be like the telephone number 911 (or that spelling "WTC" in Wingdings shows that Microsoft was in on a terrorist conspiracy...), but we're just reporting it, not agreeing with it... although I guess it's debateable whether this is even worth mentioning. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess my criteria are 'who says it and why do we care what they say?' But yeah, it's your call to make because I'm not familiar with the topic. That said, I guess I would lean toward taking it out, since it's not contested that the protests were planned, and even if this speculation were true it doesn't support that the violence was planned. delldot ∇. 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, my main motivation for adding it was to take the ridiculous William Engdahl article out of the external links list and move it into an inline reference, and this was pretty much the first thing I noticed. For what it's worth, he makes a few more speculations about the "suspicious timing of the riots", so the sentence could be turned into something like "Engdahl claims that the riots' timing suggests they were well-organized" or whatever...although, to be honest, is other claims are just as preposterous. (For example, he points out that the protests happened a day after a big meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ZOMG! Never mind that this is a big world and on any given day there's bound to be some tangentially related international meeting...and if they really wanted to make an impact, wouldn't the rioters have done this on the same day?) Anyway, since this article is pretty preposterous and the person who edit-warred over including it is long gone by now, I don't see any harm in just removing it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initial demonstrations
  • A map might be handy for this section, with all the descriptions of places. Most readers aren't gonig to know where those places (e.g. Jiefangnan Road, Erdaoqiao, and Shanxi Alley) are in relation to each other. The image is pretty but doesn't really aid in comprehension.
Escalation and spread
  • I think it would be better if you'd cite the source after each sentence starting with "During a press conference, Mayor Jirla Isamuddin said that..." even if it's the same source again and again. That way, if things get moved, or if new info gets inserted into that para, the citations are not lost or distorted. And the reader can be sure what the citation is, rather than leaving it ambiguous the way it is now.
  • The first time you use an acronym, explain it or at least use the whole word, e.g. "was sealed off by a PLA platoon".
Communications

I'm confused by this sentence, which seems to contradict the preceeding and following ones: Reporting from Ürümqi's Hoi Tak Hotel on 9 July, Al Jazeera' Melissa Chan claimed that the foreign journalists' hotel was the only place in the city and that she could not send text messages or place international phone calls.

  • It would be great if we could get some images of the riots or the results of them. Did you look on flickr for free ones? Or ask anyone who has a nonfree one to consider releasing under a free license? [edit: I see from the talk page that you've been busy looking, good luck.]
    • Yep, I've been through flickr and there are no free ones, I doubt there ever will be...and most of these images have been reproduced so much it's more or less impossible to tell who holds the copyright on a given one, since many are just reposted from elsewhere. I think the best bet is the youtube video I linked somewhere in the talkpage (showing a bunch of people marching/running/gallavanting down the street, which is a good illustration of the scale of the riots) but that has the same problem: no idea where the video was originally uploaded, all I know is that the Youtube uploader copied it from Youku (basically Chinese youtube)... even if I claim an image or video as fair use, I should probably be able to attribute its real creator. Anyway, long story short, I think it's going to be impossible to get free images here (unless I can get in touch with some of these Getty photographers and whatnot and get them to give us some, which is probably unlikely--I imagine their photos are actually owned by the organizations, not them, and thus they probably don't have the power to release them), so any photos that are added are going to have to be fair-use. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, frustrating situation you're in. As you know, with FU, the image has to be necessary to the understanding of the subject. I'm asking around about whether there's a way around the unknown creator thing for FU, I'll let you know if I hear anything. delldot ∇. 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just found a few flickr photos of Uyghur demonstrations at the Chinese embassies in DC, Germany, etc. Not really what we need the most, but they can at least help break up the text in places. All useful ones I've found are "all rights reserved", but I've sent some flickr messages to their uploaders. (I'm shameless...I have a flickr account and have never uploaded a picture there, I just use it to scrounge for WP photos!) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving off here for now so you can address this half of my review. Let me know when you're ready for the other half! In the mean time, I'm happy to help with whatever. The article looks great and I really don't think it'll be too hard to pass it (of course I'm not done reviewing though). delldot ∇. 23:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; this is long and dense article so I really appreciate the thoroughness with which you're reading it. I've left some responses to your bullet points above; if you prefer not having messages broken up, please feel free to move them all below. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I like the point-by-point responses, that way I don't have to hunt for what you're responding to. I'll get started on another round! delldot ∇. 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second installment of GA review

[edit]
Internet response
  • It's unclear reading this sentence (and the whole para really): Many messages were ethnically charged, and posts were swiftly deleted. Are we talking about a particular forum or forums? Or the Chinese blogosphere? If the latter, I think this is a weird sentence, since wouldn't that be a really broad thing to be having this specific of an event? If the former, which one?
  • I'm not familiar with Chinese history, so I don't get this sentence at all: Common themes were calls for punishment for those responsible; some posts evoked the name of Wang Zhen, the general who led the communist takeover of Xinjiang in 1949. Why did they bring him up? What were they saying by invoking his name? What does that have to do with calls for punishment?
International reactions
  • I think it's a little awkward the way it is so repetitive, e.g. "United Nations: The United Nations said this. European Union: The European Union expressed this." I'm not sure how you'd fix that though. Maybe just have the flag and then make sure to start every sentence with the name of the place? So like "[flag] The European Union expressed this."
    • Good point. This whole section was thrown together as news came in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, now that you bring it up, I've never sat down and read this section... while the news was ongoing and the article was under development I was not interested in this section at all, and when I did my pre-GAN copyedit I unintentionally neglected to copyedit this section (I put it off till last, then forgot about it entirely). On the plus side, though, I doubt anyone will ever read this section from start to finish; it's more likely that someone will just want to look up what their country said, and ignore the rest. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some switching from past to present to future tense in this section, e.g. noted, believes, will ensure. How about past tense for everything?
  • There are some pretty bland ones in this list. e.g. France expressed concern. Wow. Since this isn't an exhaustive list of countries anyway, should we maybe take out some of the more unremarkable ones? (althought it's understandable if you want to hit as many of the G20 as you can). Your call.
    • I had the same complaint back in July, and basically said that most of these are just political "sweet nothings" that are meaningless; I also suggested removing all the ones that weren't all that special. I think the objection to that, though, was that even if they're meaningless sweet nothings, people might still want to look up what their country says. Anyway, for what it's worth, I won't be upset if half or more of this list is deleted, but I think it would need to be discussed with more of the editors involved before that is done. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about this sentence: Kazakh officials suspended visas for its citizens to Xinjiang, in agreement with Chinese authorities. So Chinese officials asked them to do that? Why, so more people wouldn't flock to join the riots?
    • Hm...according to the actual source, it was China, not Kazakhstan, that suspended the visas, so I've reworded it accordingly. As for why, we can only speculate--I assume the reasons include the one you said, and to minimize the number of people to deal with, and to keep journalists/etc. out, and to 'protect' Kazakh citizens. That being said, I don't see why this is special at all—the PRC would have suspended Xinjiang visas for just about everyone, not just Kazakhs. Therefore, I've removed it... but I'll stick my rewritten version here in a comment, in case someone thinks it should be kept.
  • Clarify: Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan said the incident was "like genocide": better explain which side they were accusing of genocide. (Although you can kind of guess from the context!)
    • This was one of the big controversies...the flack from Erdogan's statement got a lot of media attention, but not many articles talked about what he actually meant by it. In retrospect, with popular wisdom being that "most" of the deaths were Han (although no specific ethnic breakdowns should be trusted, as there are no reliable data on this), his statement doesn't really make any sense—it might have made sense if he described the later crackdown on Uyghurs as "genocide", but it seems he was talking about the riots themselves (the very same riots that Chinese people are decrying as anti-Han terrorism, he called anti-Uyghur genocide). It's quite possible that he just had bad information and didn't really know what he was talking about, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. The other possibility is that he was referring to the July 7 incident—after the main riots, Han gangs wandered around looking for Uyghurs to attack. It's hard to tell what he actually meant (in the words of Gardiner Bovingdon somewhere in the article's footnotes: "不清楚，而且我觉得可以说很不清楚。 （it's not clear, in fact I think you can say it's unclear). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage
Legislative changes
  • The link in this sentence probably wants to point to #Later unrest" In early September, after another large-scale protest, But I'd take it out, since this section immediately follows the one referenced, and since easter egg links like that are discouraged. I'd just reference the particular riots this sentence is referring to, e.g. "after the 3 September protests,"
See also
External links
  • I'm not sure the YouTube link is ok per WP:EL; are you sure the copyright is known and it's permissible? Because we can't link to copyright-violating material. Also, it's just a really far away video of people marching down a street, from the part of it that I watched anyway.
    • I included it because I thought it was a good indicator of the scale of the protests/riots, the number of people running around, etc.; if you get closer to the end (the last 30 seconds or so) the people are much closer and they do some running around and stuff, which is pretty scary. As for copyright... this is the video I mentioned above that I have no idea where it originally came from. So if you don't hear anything back about the copyright stuff you were asking, I guess we might have to remove it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think it'll have to be taken out, because we can't assume something on YouTube doesn't violate copyright. I haven't heard much about the FU for unknown copyright images thing, the problem that got brought up with that was folks were questioning whether these images would really be necessary to the understanding of the article. I'm not sure they would either, they'd just be really interesting. delldot ∇. 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reading the rest of the article, it seems like the separatism thing is a big deal, at least in the response and also probably in the leadup. Maybe there should be some discussion of the separatism and the movement for an independent state in the background section. That might help explain the Chinese government's reaction, e.g. saying it was instigated from abroad.
I want to chime in on this issue. Separatism is a big deal in the overall ethic tension, but its exact role in the riot is unclear. By examing the events and the cause of the riot, it's nature is extremely similar to a string of other anti-cop/anti-corruption riots happening else where in China without the Uyghurs, such as the 2009 Shishou incident or the 2008 Weng'an riot. Thus we cannot overplay the separatism factor when the police burtaility and government corruption played a bigger role in the riot.
Second, separatism has been blown out of proportion by Chinese propaganda after the riot in order to cover its own role on causing the riot. Judging by reports from both within and without China, most Uyghur wants justice and respect from the government, while only some fringe segment of the population actually want outright separation. Thus we need to be careful on invoking the separatism within the context of the riot, lest we protray the Uyghurs as Muslim Jihadists like the Chinese propaganda or the US right wing media. Jim101 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say the facts revolving around this incident make it fairly clear this was primarily an ethnic disturbance.
Firstly, in relation to the immediate cause of the riot, the rumor of Uyghurs raping Han girls is racially charged. Likewise is the subsequent beating death of the Uyghur workers at the hands of Han workers.
Secondly, police had not even made any conclusions over the deaths at the time of the riot. The protesters were demonstrating against the killings rather than a police cover-up as in the case of Shishou and Weng'an.
Thirdly and most tellingly, while in past anti-cop/anti-corruption rioters angry at the government have primarily targeted police and government personnel and property in their attacks, protesters in this case directed most of their violence towards civilians based on their ethnic appearance. It is necessary to recognize that common factors such as police brutality, government corruption in the past are also made on ethnic lines in this event and attribute to ethnic tension, mistrust and division.
While the Chinese government is certainly propagandizing the involvement of separatists, it is also important to note this overemphasis is not aimed to portray all Uyghurs as blah, but rather an attempt to put the blame on a small number of extremists, so it can maintain at least an outward appearance of ethnic and social harmony.
Perhaps expanding Ethnic tension discussion with inclusion of Separatism would be more appropriate. You could lump info on East Turkestan movement, past extremist attacks, and general discontent and inequalities together. Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with Jim101; it has been established since the first hours or two of the riot (since before this article was even an article, and was just a subsection somewhere else) that, while the separatism issue clearly plays a role in why the Uyghurs are upset, there's no convincing evidence that it plays a role in the riot itself. i.e., it was a precondition for the riot, but not necessarily a trigger. Therefore, the only place to talk more about separatism would be in the "History, demography, and social tensions" section...and even there, all it needs is a single sentence (basically saying that some Uyghur groups have, or are supposed to have, separatist inclinations and that the PRC doesn't like that). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, even if it's not a cause it's historical background and thus deserves a mention in that section. Even if you're just clarifying that there's no evidence that it played a role as a cause. That way you have it explicit, rather than dawning on the reader halfway through the article, 'so what role did separatism that keeps getting tangentially mentioned play in this?' One sentence would be fine. delldot ∇. 00:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's all I got! Great work overall, this is all very minor stuff. The refs were impeccable, the whole thing's very well referenced, clear, logical, and easy to read. delldot ∇. 04:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New 3rd para in Background

[edit]

I think the new 3rd para could be merged into the second and condensed. I found myself going "and therefore...?" when reading it--I assume this is to support the claim that some Han people feel Uyghurs are getting special treatment? I would change the wording to explain that; leaving it like this makes it sound like the article's stating these facts to back up a viewpoint. delldot ∇. 02:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hadn't noticed that in there... I've trimmed it down to one sentence (essentially just saying why Uyghurs were in Guangdong, which is something I remember a lot of people scratching their heads over in July-August) and moved it down to the Immediate causes section, where it's more relevant. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, plus that explains why the incidents were so far apart. delldot ∇. 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

[edit]
I'm going to go ahead and pass this. There are still a couple points that haven't been addressed, namely my concerns with wording throughout the article like "some Han people are dissatisfied..." and "Uyghurs, some of whom were armed...". And I still think a sentence is merited about how separatism did or did not contribute in background section. But these concerns are not deal-breakers, and I'm sure you'll keep improving the article. Don't forget if you decide to go for FA someone's going to give you trouble for the images not having alt text. You've really done an impressive job here, thanks for making me aware of this interesting topic. delldot ∇. 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough review! I'll keep the unaddressed bits above in mind to keep working on them. This was probably the fastest, easiest, and most painless GA review I've ever been through—no doubt because the editors collaborating here over the past couple months have put in a huge amount of work bringing the article to a high standard. Everybody who's watching this deserves a pat on the back! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the reviewer, and thanks all round! Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Map is still in the making. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, everyone. All that work of yours finally paid off. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots/GA1&oldid=1087965983"