This question (Why is the USA so much concerned about the human rights violations in Xinjiang, but less so about Kashmir?) got closed for the reason opinion based. The description of opinion based questions in the help center is

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than on facts, references, or specific expertise.

However, it is quite possible to answer this question without basing any of it on opinions, as shown by the answer by @Fizz.


I don't think the problem is that it's opinion-based; it's that it lacks focus. Kashmir and Xinjiang are the center of two different geopolitical disputes. In Kashmir, the focus is on disputed territory which is claimed by two nuclear powers. In Xinjiang, the focus is on a region where China places heavy restrictions which has lead to credible claims of genocide.

That's the difference in a nutshell, but the detailed distinction is much more complex. It's like asking about the different types of government between the US and Germany. They're both representative democracies, but you could have a Wikipedia article devoted to all the subtleties that set those two countries apart.

That's why I voted to close it as 'unclear'. The question should (in my opinion) be more focused to lead to more narrowly focused answers. An added difficulty with the question is involving how the US views the situation. That could lead to a more narrowly scoped question: how does US foreign policy view one conflict compared to the other? The question doesn't really do that. The question body purports that the two situations are similar and then asks for confirmation.

  • “The question body purports that the two situations are similar and then asks for confirmation.” I disagree, the question asks why US policy is different. – Ekadh Singh Apr 15 at 16:22
  • 3
    @Yay it does, but it's conditioned on the two cases being similar through the "if they are" phrasing. I think there's a general lack of specificity in the question. Another way of addressing that might be to focus on a concrete US response (to one of the two cases) and ask why it didn't apply that action in the other case. It's that narrow scope where the Q&A format works well. As it's phrased now, I think any answer that doesn't misrepresent the situation and draws a reasonable conclusion can be an answer. To avoid that, we require that questions be more focused. – JJJ Apr 15 at 16:37
  • Yeah, although I've answered that one, the OP (not Yay, user366...) has posted some "righteous indignation", low-effort questions, some of which have been deleted without answers. There was a meta-Q here about whether it's worth improving such questions... can't find it right now. – Fizz Apr 16 at 4:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .