Talk:Shaoguan incident

Comment

This statement: "Uyghurs are well-known for raping and sexual harrassing Chinese people as is evidenced by countless incidents every year." needs a citation. I'm sure no citation actually exists for such an offensive, racist statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjonnal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Some timeline in the investigation

1) The former factory worker who started the false rape rumor online against the Uyghur workers was arrested on 6/28:

http://www.xici.net/b1007315/d93539372.htm

"On [June] 28th, police found Mr. Zhu’s posting on “Citizen Voice”. Zhu posted on the website “Xuri Is Trash” article with false information, who was Xuri toy factory worker, but was not rehired after he resigned. Because of this, he posted the article out of contempt. Right now, Police has arrested Zhu according to law."

2) As of 7/1 Guangdong authroity already made announcement regarding the investigation progresss up to 6/30:

http://www.gdemo.gov.cn/yjdt/gdyjdt/200907/t20090701_96716.htm

- The evening of 6/26, relevant departments and magistrates begain analyzing the case - The criminal disorder case was officially introduced on 6/29, after preliminary investigation

3) 13 of the 15 people involved in the Guangdong brawl were arrested before 7/5:

http://news.qianlong.com/28874/2009/07/07/2502@5067701.htm

"As of 7/5, 13 group brawl participants have been arrested by police, including 3 from Xinjiang, 10 from other areas"

75.172.48.45 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pogrom

I see this article is tagged as "Pogrom", but I believe this term, due to its association with antisemitism and its political charged nature, cannot be tagged freely to any article without some citations or expert opinions. May I suggest to change the Pogroms tag to Race riots until more third party opinions to back this up? Jim101 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, thank you. I copied all of the structural elements from... guess where? Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

recent edit

I see the official source, in which the official charge of 'participating in an affray' got changed in favour of a source which used the more layman term 'brawl'. They say more or less the same thing, but the language is just different, and in my view more informal. I'm not sure it was appropriate. As to the Sinograms, as there is huge potential for ambiguity with Chinese names (and the names are not wikilinked to articles), I would prefer if the Sinograms were left in place. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I might have triggered that. I posted the NYT-source (but reverted it a few minutes later) on this talkpage before realizing you already had the information in the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, who exactly is Xiao Jianhua? Is he the "disgruntled worker" that posted rumours online? Colipon+(Talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he was one of the thugs. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shaoguan incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I had to make a large number of copy-edits for grammar, spelling, style and readability[1]. Please consider getting someone to copy-edit articles before submitting them for review at WP:GAN

   A small group of Uyghurs arrived on 2 May, and workers at the factory remarked that relations between them deteriorated as their numbers increased. Is that between Han and Uyghur. If so say so.

   They noted that rights of workers, Han and Uyghur alike, were frequently violated by verbal abuse from factory supervisors, unpaid overtime, poor dormitory conditions and illegal labour contracts. should this be "he" if it is the director of China Labor Watch?

   Official sources state that the rioting began at around 2 a.m.,[16] and various sources said that they lasted until at least 4.30 a.m., when police arrived.[. This is rather clumsy - "Official sources", then "various sources"?

   ''Shaoguan authorities moved the Uyghur workers to temporary accommodation, and the workers were sent to work on 7 July at another facility belonging to Early Light - Clunsy - the workers were sent to work?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #8 requires a log in so is not a reliable source.

   I added subscription required and reinstated the original URL, as the cache has expired. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

   I fixed three and tagged two dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS

   Sources that I could check appeared reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad and focussed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article follows the neutral point of view policy

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   ON hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, all concerns addressed, I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review so far. Re: point 2: there is a link to google cache which would allow you to verify the contents. I would point out that a source is reliable if it fulfils certain criteria, and I believe the FEER does satisfy them. The FEER is available as a paper journal. Notwithstanding, I do not believe that requiring a login to access the document is a WP:RS criterion. I will go through the links, and deal with the other issues after the holidays. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)