Talk:Ghulja incident

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Ghulja incident is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please grow this article[edit]

Yeah, well, this page, although it deals with something that's actually quite an important event, doesn't have much in the way of hard fact to run on. If anyone out there could check the writings of Rebiya Kadeer to see whether she actually had anything factual to say about the indient I would be most grateful. Likewise, I cannot find much in the way of official statements about it - hell, I don't even know if 'Yining Incident' is what it's called - that's a guess. The only thing I was able to find was that HK China Daily article, although I remember reading a few others elsewhere I cannot find them. If anyone can find the transcripts to that Channel 4 News program that'd be good, as I'm not happy with using a Youtube clip as a source. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulja/Ghulja/Khulja/Kulja/Khuldja[edit]

There are many different romanisation systems for the Uighur language, but as far as I can tell 'Gulja' is the official romanisation of the city's Uighur name. Al-Jazeera and Amnesty both list it as such, as does the BBC. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in interational media (I don't know), but in the official romanization for Uyghur (Uyghur Latin Yeziqi) it's Ghulja. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked seems to disagree with your idea that it's supposed to be an official romanization for all purposes. It says that its intended solely for use in some data entry. — LlywelynII 10:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every version should get a redirect and a mention on the Wikidata entry. On the page, you don't want to give WP:UNDUE prominence to the variants even while you want to hit any major ones that appear in major sources. The best solution to WP:LEADSENTENCE gore these variants invite is to have a separate #Name or #Names section that covers the Uyghur and Kazakh names in one paragraph and the Chinese name in the other. On the other hand, the article is at Yining: the name of the city where the Ghulja Incident occurred should just be Yining throughout the running text. — LlywelynII 09:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Globalsecurity.org page[edit]

Not sure how much reliance can be placed on this source as it does not name its sources - bare numbers are given with no idication of where they came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the English and Chinese articles[edit]

The English article is significantly different from the Chinese version, including a lack of Han casualties, the weapons possessed by the "protester"s, a Chinese official's response to VoA's accusations, so on. Someone really needs to check their sources. 68.145.210.83 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure anything pro-PRC will be opposed by some editors unless it's bulletproof. In the meantime, it's clear from a number of editors on this page that people notice the article's bias and problems. WP:BEBOLD. — LlywelynII 09:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

Why isn't there any mention of the Uyghurs' attack on the civilians of Han as well as other ethnicities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD2C:4C00:B096:F1BC:2405:1E86 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume WP:BIAS. Of course, the #Background section needs to include links to Terrorism in China and more sources from there, along with the Second East Turkestan Republic that was headquartered in the city and made it an important symbol on both sides, for protests and uprisings and for a major crackdown. — LlywelynII 09:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because nothing like that happened you liar. 2001:999:60C:6F7E:18A4:7943:C22D:F225 (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]