Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/July 2009 Ürümqi riots/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:43, 16 May 2010 [1].


July 2009 Ürümqi riots[edit]

July 2009 Ürümqi riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): User:Rjanag, User:Seb az86556, User:Jim101, and User:Ohconfucius

The last FAC had no but was closed because it didn't get enough attention, so I am bringing this back now. During the week in between FACs someone raised some issues at the talk page, and we have since addressed these by substantially beefing up the sources in the Background section of the article. This article has been through months' and months' worth of reviewing, and has more eyes watching it to ensure NPOV than the great majority of FACs; I believe it's far and away the best single account of these riots that exists today. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A solid, impartial and well-written article on a recent event that met with global interest. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The well-chosen photographs, the abundant citations, and the general nature of the article (clearly the product of authors who understand the subject matter) makes this one of Wikipedia’s better articles. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article!--Edward130603 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cool article--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am a bit surprised that it has taken this long to bring this article - one of the best on Wikipedia that deals with a controversial topic - to featured article status. The quality of this article is second to none - it is impartial, balanced, informative, and written in fluid and encyclopedic language. What more do you need? Colipon+(Talk) 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media

  • Support Widely sourced and studied. Meets FA criteria in my view. I can't help wondering though how this article has been developed so much when the Urumqi article is barely beyond start class!! Perhaps you could expand that article next? Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on the 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. The two claims are not inconsistent; the Western Han did rule Xinjiang, but they didn't colonize it. The difference is over the interpretation, as often in nationalist debates. Please clarify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will quote the relevant passage from the source, with the parts most relevant to the sentence above emphasized; feel free to offer suggestions as to what wording might make this clearer for readers:

      ...every Uyghur firmly believes that his or her ancestors were the indigenous people of the Tarim basin.... Nevertheless, the official national minority identity of the present people known as "Uyghur", which have tenuous links to the ancient Uyghur kingdom, is a more recent phenomenon related to "Great Game" rivalries, Sino-Soviet geopolitical maneuverings, and Chinese nation-building. While a collection of nomadic steppe peoples know as "Uyghurs" has existed since before the eighth century, this identity was lost from the fifteen to the twentieth century. The Uyghurs and other officially recognized minority nationalities in the region are directly affected by China's nationality policy, since China does not have a policy of recognizing separate indigenous peoples with certain rights to land. China's policy of ethnic designation specifically avoids the issue of "indigeneity" and attachment to specific places or lands, thanks to the strongly held Chinese beliefs that all the lands of China have been in the hands of Chinese since the Han dynasty. Hence, all Han Chinese are as indigenous as any local ethnic group to the lands of China. Hence, China's minority policy is one of minority nationality recognition and autonomous administration, not one that designates indigenous peoples or rights.

      rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've only read about 1/2 of the article. Amazing work! Here are minor points:
  • "Uyghurs' religious freedom and freedom of movement are curtailed" -> 'freedom and freedom' is a bit awkward.
  • The concluding sentence of "Immediate causes" reads like a line from an essay. See this.
    • "Show, don't tell" applies to fiction writing. In an informative article, particularly one where walking a tightrope between two opposing viewpoints is so crucial, I don't see any problem with spelling the main idea out as clearly as possible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leading sentence of "Initial demonstrations" is a bit awkward, with both a colon and a semi-colon.
  • The acronym "XUAR" (or whatever it is) is used twice without explanation.
    • Added "(XUAR)" after first mention of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a caption, "Locations where" sounds awkward and redundant.
  • "Violence captured on a witness' cell phone" -> Do cell phones really capture violence?
  • Maybe link "taser"?
  • "About 1,000 police officers were dispatched with tasers and weapons" -> Aren't tasers weapons? Maybe be more specific on "weapon".
  • "26 injured, six of whom were police officers" -> Used letters and numbers in the same sentence for same things.
  • "state media only reported that" -> Should it be "state media reported that only"?
    • I don't think so, they did not report "hey, only three people were killed!" They reported three. The reason for "only" here is because a reader who started at the beginning of the article already knows that the death toll would eventually be almost 200, so this is a low number at the beginning. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "46 Uyghur, and one Hui" -> same as above
    • One of those numbers is above ten and one is not. See WP:ORDINAL. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ORDINAL gives some exceptions, and one of those ("32 cats and 5 dogs") is equivalent to this phrase. Ucucha 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, didn't see that. Will change it; thanks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that many Uyghurs were killed as well" -> With "many", isn't "as well" redundant?
    • I don't think so. It serves to stress the intended point. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10 Uyghur, and one Manchu"
  • "The city remained tense" -> Maybe use a softer/more encyclopaedic wording.
    • The wording seems fine to me; it accurately describes the atmosphere that is reported to have prevailed over those past few days. Can you suggest something better? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HRW" is used without explanation
    • Added "(HRW)" after first mention of Human Rights Watch. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.247.32 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2010
  • Support with Comments Great article, a few minor points:
    • "Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on the 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." This seems to portray the argument as a historical debate in which the facts are unproven, rather than a dispute based on historical interpretations that find different sources of legitimacy. I thought it could be reworded something like this: "Uyghurs and the Han-dominated central government each lay claim to the Xinjiang region, which is the Uyghurs ethnic homeland but has been under Chinese political control since around 200 BC." Or something like that.
    • The sentence in the intro: "Many Uyghur men disappeared during wide-scale police sweeps in the days following the riots; Human Rights Watch (HRW) documented 43 cases[7] and said that this was likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.[8]" is mimicked again later in the body: Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented 43 cases of Uyghur men who disappeared after being taken away by Chinese security forces in large-scale sweeps of Uyghur neighbourhoods overnight on 6–7 July,[57] and said that this was likely to be "just the tip of the iceberg";[8] Just seems redundant to use the "tip of the iceberg" metaphor twice.
    • "The New York Times and AFP recognised the lessons learnt by the Chinese from political protests around the world, such as the so-called colour revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and the 2009 Iranian election protests, and concluded that Chinese experts had studied the ways that modern electronic communications "helped protesters organize and reach the outside world, and for ways that governments sought to counter them."[116][182]" The first ways and the second "for ways" in the quote don't mesh.
    • "As late as January 2010, it was reported that police patrols make the rounds five or six times a day, and are increased at night.[17]" Tense clash, either put in quote, rephrase, or both.

Nice job!Neumannk (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, the wording seems a bit POV (essentially saying that the Uyghurs have the rightful claim and they have been under Han occupation) and is not precisely in line with what the source says (I quoted the relevant passage higher up on this page). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which quote was it? Like I said, I don't really think it affects the article being FA, it's solid, I just think the line sounds funny.Neumannk (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Towards the top of the page, the one beginning "every Uyghur firmly believes..." rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other points you raised have been dealt with. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Alt text: "Demonstrators dressed in light blue and wearing blue facepaint, holding blue flags with white crescent" -> I can only see one person with blue facepaint.
  • Alt text: "A vertical, red propaganda banner hanging high on a modern hotel" -> Isn't "propaganda" a bit strong?
    • Removed "propaganda"; not really necessary for alt-text anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terrorism, separatism and extremism" twice in same paragraph
  • link Politburo?
  • What does CPC mean?
  • "Internet response" -> This is partially covered in "Communications black-out". Since both are very small, a merge seems sensible.
    • I don't feel they're related. The communications section is about the government's shutting down of internet and phone service; the "internet response" section is about what netizens had to say about the riots. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Navi Pillay?
  • "Access to websites was only partial, though, as users could, for example, browse" -> comma flood
  • The use of "mobile phone" and "cell phone" is not consistent throughout
    • Does it need to be? As far as I know they refer to the same thing, and it's nice not to use the same term over and over again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the serial comma is not consistent throughout
  • "Aftermath and long-term impact" -> Can we really talk about long-term impact? This was all less than 1 year ago.
    • This is the longest-term impact we can talk about yet, and a lot of the stuff here does not fall under "aftermath" (I would only use that to refer to things immediately following it—not, for example, to legislative changes that happened months later). I don't know what else it could be called. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A red vertical banner saying "Uphold the sanctity of the law, and severely punish the criminals"" -> Needs a source for translation?
    • I don't think so. This is not a contentious or disputed fact and sources are not usually required for basic language information. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after huge civilian demonstrations" -> "huge" is not a very encyclopaedic word
  • "As late as January 2010, it was reported that police make patrols five or six times a day" -> made?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.247.32 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010

Thanks, I addressed most of your comments, and left a few questions for you above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Mostly well-written; I've tweaked here and there. Appears to be a skillful handling of POV, threading opposite angles. It will no doubt still be on the PRC government's banned list, but that's just too bad. Query whether the Chinese-related MoS on en.WP says anything about the use of the double-crossed Y symbol for Chinese currency units; it appears to be exactly the same as that for Japanese yen, which is more familiar to most English-speakers. Can the MoS say something about this? Possibly recommend RMB or whatever the alternative is? (CoI declaration: I am a wikifriend of Ohconfucius.) Tony (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked out several related articles and couldn't find a strong precedent either way. Economy of the People's Republic of China and People's Republic of China use "RMB #" instead of "¥ #", but neither one uses those money terms a whole lot (they mostly use numbers converted to USD). And I can't find an explicit guideline anywhere. So I think this could probably go either way; if someone wants to go through this article and change "¥ #" to "RMB #" or "# RMB" I wouldn't object. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: All sources look OK (most impressive). No outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I believe my opposition last time was kind of responsible for the failed FAC after an unfortunate misunderstanding of how to deal best with some 'expert's' role could not be resolved. Anyway, I am willing to support the revised article now, but I have still one question: Why is it that the article always presents the government view first? There isn't some WP guideline to the effect of giving the official position constant priority over those of dissenting voices, is there? I would welcome a more balanced mix in which the Uyghur position is also sometimes given first. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't always present the government view first. The Immediate causes section discusses the Shaoguan incident first (and saying "the protests happened because of the Shaoguan incident" is essentially the "Uyghur" view, whereas the "government" view is that they were premeditated by separatists). The Initial demonstrations section, talking about how the protests turns violent, also clearly presents the "Uyghur" view first (excessive force by police) and the "government" view second (violence initiated by protesters).
    • And, anyway, even if the government view always were presented first (which is isn't), that wouldn't mean we were giving it "priority". Sometimes the view presented last gets "the last word" and therefore ends up looking like it has priority. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do an WP:NBSP review, all non-English citations need a language icon, and see my inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added non-breaking spaces, but there were not many to add (most of the uses of numbers in this article aren't followed by measures or abbreviations, but are like "# people" or "# Uyghurs", which I don't believe need non-breaking spaces.
  • As for language icons, I was not aware of any guideline that required the use of them instead of |language= within the citation templates (which all the non-English references here other than the census one had). But anyway, I went ahead and replaced them with {{zh icon}}.
  • As for your question about spacing, Chinese text does not use spacing between words, so it's normal for the number to be crunched up against the text like that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots/archive3&oldid=1136458467"